310425_Compliance Evaluation Inspection_20200722

• . , •U Division, of Water. Resources n n •
facility NumheP'. j j -j O Division of Soil andWater Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: OF C�o Hance 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: -;r -,?01 Arrival Time: /,' Departure Time: ,', �f�� County: Region:
Farm Name: lale bfRKry-)
Owner Name: ��[ p� ah �� , Riumd)aTA
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Title:
Owner Email:
Phone:
Onsite Representative: G "V-R Mcae-1-: Integrator:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
.. Opsign . Current
Swine. Capacity ` Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Other
Latitude:
Phone:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Design -.Current
WO -Poultry ° ;Capacity., Pop.
Layer . a
Non -Layer
.Des gn• .Current,
Dry Pouliry Capacity • Poo.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Longitude:
P►iesignCurrent
Cattle "` o pr• ' Capacity, •` Pop..
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? [:]Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ 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
02(1 ❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
rNo, ❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
To ❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: 'aj l - 4a 5 1 Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
g No
❑ NA
0 NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
IiNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: I
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):_
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
�ZNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
04
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environment 1 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 02/No ❑ 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 2 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 0 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): SA
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
52"No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
[ "1"o
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
— /
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
0 Yes6-N-10,
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
f*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 VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ YesVNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: - AS jDate of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
❑ Yes
YNo
❑ 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
t� No
❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
❑ No
&3"NA ❑ 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?
❑ Yes EdNo
❑ Yes [0No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [gf/No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 'GtNo ❑ NA Eo"NE
❑ Yes EdNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes G2�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
C4'1,'6ro. 10V'* 46 ao�.a
w 11 ° 5 0,,6 `¢'
Soil i qh-.dys''s d,-.Q 7-/6-otoao
Reviewer/Inspector Name: —Saw
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: r1 95 71
Date:
21412015