310234_Compliance Evaluation Inspection_20201026

W Division of Water Resources .
'facility Number = ot3 O°Division of Soil and Wa°ter Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: (3(Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: ll Arrival Time: Departure Time: County:Pu P—); h
Farm Name: NLOC,k fAMI U FAMMt I-$ Owner Email:
Owner Name: VZ04 Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:y A �coclr
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Title:
Latitude:
Phone:
Region: w I ft
Integrator:
Certification Number: 0 n 3
Certification Number:
" 'Design Current', . ' , Design Current
Swine 'Capacity. Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity. ° ° Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Oilier
Other
Layer
Non -Layer
'Design Current'
Dry Poultry. Canacity Pon..
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Longitude:
Cattle
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
Design Current °
Capacity, Pow
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 24 ❑ NA ❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
❑ Yes UNo
❑ 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 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes j�N-
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes I(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: -�,I - Date of Inspection: D-a,6.a3-,2.Q
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Identifier:
Spillway?: _
Designed Freeboard (in):�-t
Observed Freeboard (in): 21 _
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
Structure 5
®'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Ulo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
❑ Yes RZ�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
FI&o
❑ 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 environmental
threat,
notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
E�Xo
❑ 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
PNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
Q o
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 24 ❑ 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
ED-No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
[],No
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
ED/No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
ER"N'o
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
®'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
E2fNo
❑ 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 Ft], o ❑ 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? ,,_,'—EE-'yes ENo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: jDate of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes- 'PyNo
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes [QlNo
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 EJ-No
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No
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?
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
FD4A ❑ NE
❑ Yes VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes E],'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ED/No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA 5V]
❑ Yes dNo
[—]Yes [:�/No
❑ Yes �No
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawinLs of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
Ir,441 twv, 6ceo�,%f r, Sian w001'r
Week W cfe .Sfxf-Lrad C � (egve5f,4 )h toil %h$PcCTlov`
(QP-ry','j dc-- CAVX be Sl' � eel vn t; 10/3 )
Reviewer/Inspector Name: _ rLeL4 Phone: CQ'0 ) 7Z" %jR
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 1 Q- a6 --o Oz).y
Page 3 of 3 21412015.