310119_Compliance Evaluation Inspection_20201116

0 Divisiomof Water Resources
ODivision of Soil and -Water Conservation ` `$
°Facility Number, `
• 'b I - � °
O Other Agency
Type of Visit: aCompliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: outine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: 1- _ a Arrival Time: ® Departure Time: aw. County: DUPLIJV Region:
Farm Name: L JJ ie 61 M Owner Email:
Owner Name: '�a,,,�� Edj;e Rficre Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility'Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:,
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Title:
Latitude:
Phone:
Integrator:
Certification Number: aD0 t D--
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design, Current Design Design° Current. ° . ° • 'Design Current
Swine.` Capacity Pop: Wet Poultry :. , Capacity Pop., ° °Cattle Capacity o .
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other .
Other
Layer
Non -Layer
Design Current
° 6rvPaultry C'anaeity Pon.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
r]
Turkey Poults
Other
i
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
EErNo
❑ 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
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
0 Yes
&N(o
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
[ Io
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: 31 - 1101 jDate of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? dyes
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? 0 Yes
Structure 1
Identifier: 1 a3
Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
4 s (- -M
Spillway?: _
Designed Freeboard (in): 1 q, S `i • S j `�, S
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?
❑No ❑NA ❑NE
ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
❑ Yes ER/No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [g,'<'o ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental hreat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes ELPto ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes EQ"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 [2No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes 12o ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improve mentI
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ['Yes ❑ 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): (314 s irk rrb.2 e't
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes [TNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes [ZNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes 2No ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes 2/No ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes ®No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes eNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes �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 Inspectio;/Nfo'l[]
Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes I�lo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: 31 - Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ENo
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes �No
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 K No
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
Ege A ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes [2"'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
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?
❑ Yes E? o ❑ NA ❑ NE
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
❑ Yes Q4 ❑ NA ❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes �o ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes To ❑ 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).
I del ra-� O►. Csal� br��� -�r S ;
r �cL4i WP_''kzr c c4e� a h(;
.Az_ a24 �
- C) r- a�_p J;Qd caul CP �10& __ � j /aaq . � ,y�.-E- o��
10 / 00W 4PpI" =-Alamo,
— Ue r, Cor~rQ c.A W A o� (2�� . Cam_ C0 r M<-+-- A_ 0041
('e - C0J CU La:K-_ -A )
a+ �q" C,�c.t_ 1�we wL.er. lgsja�►�t
J-,d v d vJe 2 i�t s+ter` l ►�^ �r'�q I ;-F
7 'Z>_ j =-3.�,'�
Sv bin.; _- 1PaA �o r c�re�� fs ' S o � f q„
Reviewer/Inspector Name: '-Sa 4 � � 2� , '( �� Phone: �q � o � L 1 � ' � �'�-
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: r Date: I I- 16 — P—
Page 3 of 3 21412015