310717_Compliance Evaluation Inspection_20201026

(kbivision of Water Resouirces
Facility Number ° °®_ �%/ O. Division ofSoil and Water Conservation ;
O Other Agency
Type of Visit: Coppliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: ('`3 Routine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: (b- - Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: 2 11 V Region: W 1 RO
Farm Name: -RLUE -r1 W fl m Owner Email:
Owner Name: L-p-, l B, hamu i, Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: uorj 5 A41,,l
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Design 'Current
S'wirie Capacity ` Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish O
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Other
F-TO-ther
Title:
Latitude:
Phone:
Integrator: &F2i C�
Certification Number: t % f 5 7
Certification Number:
, Design . Current ;
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
Non -Layer
Design' Current
Dry Paultry " Cabacity "` Pon.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Longitude:
" "Design Current
-Cattle . , Capacity "fop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
L
Discharges and Stream Impacts -
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
[:]Yes
✓dNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
E2"No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
❑ Yes
FDXo
❑ 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
2'<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
[�] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: `b�A - '+ Fj I I Date of Inspection: 10 ?6-20?v
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
Identifier: - 1
Spillway?:
Structure 2 Structure 3
2
Structure 4 Structure 5
Et No ❑ NA ❑ NE
YNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): a�
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes E! f No ❑ 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 E!�No ❑ 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 1/[ <o ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes VNo ❑ 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 EQ,* o ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes 2/No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 9d'o ❑ 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): 1 14 , 5�
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[!]"No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
P No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
[v*No
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
[ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
Mo
❑ 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 FEL-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 No ❑ 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? ❑ Yes �No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑AKO ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: 3 1 - i Date of Inspection: j �--Z
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? 0 Yes E6 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes [✓"No ❑ 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 1VjNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No ff 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 VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [1/ f No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
MNE
❑ Yeso
❑ NA
❑ Yes ZNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question ft 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).
— 1.5�04� I�VE.I ieakinS t,Je�C a ova, � 0<��11` 2• S' cR,,— '_-(ge0 io
1 �" +1,, s w�I� I e Let, �, •lam
Glaser, ,,,y, �Ern6 S [ A►r► B. l 1 i S `t i 5 +ke tv, Mym 1 c,,-,\ P 1 ic�v��' ( e\2 I .
s�
0
P
p_s,6
LNor-4< 0" 6ce SM5 , P_Sr_dk1l7 ` o'
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
.P t9
Phone:
Date:
21412015