310711_Compliance Evaluation Inspection_20200731

Division,ofWaterKesources.
Facility Namber• ° I 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation °
"..
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: dD Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: ®Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: C Departure Time: O tJ County: Region:
Farm Name: ��� �/�-�'�H Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative: r n (n 1 P b V
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Phone:
Phone: `� fl Z I 3
COLA 1 I
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Design Current Design, Current
Swine Capacity , Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity.-, Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder ( O
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Other.
Discharges and Stream Impacts
Layer
Non -Layer
Design Current
nry Pnnitry ° Canneity ° Pon.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Longitude:
° Design Current .`
Cattle r � � � CapaciPop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
[j No
0 NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑'NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
❑ Yes
❑ No
A
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
❑ Yes
❑ No
� 3
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
Fj"No,
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
EKNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: jDate of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes E2, o ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No [� NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: D—
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes �oD ❑ NE
11
❑ Yes E3-'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes b4or
❑ NA ❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes E &o ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes E_ ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes EZ /No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
EZNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
[a/No.
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
®Np
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
[ZNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
%
Z No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
E3-No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑ Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below/ �Yes [ o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Applica 'on E�4e y Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis [Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall StockingCrop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections .,[:]Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA E�fNE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: 1 - Date of Inspection: 3
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes
o ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes
�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes
❑ No [aNA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
i
❑ Yes [,�'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [],Ko ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes El No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA E31NE
❑ Yes Ld l� c ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [/] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes E�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
1 7 1
Ilse drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
o'sL
`
.J
sa "-e I f
as 55
as Q
0_7 Sl
Y-e c,o 1-b .5 ,
S ISr
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
W�
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: /� /\
Page 3 of 3
c' I I , A -5-,) 1, �
C�_o�9
Phone: �� Ld 3 ) 10
Date: 3 `
21412015