820169_Compliance Inspection Routine_20201117

Type of Visit: Qtompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: algttine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: I // /7 — Arrival Time:
Departure Time:
Farm Name: arafr t 7Zcai_ C nib
rott4v5 1-6
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: ea -ear SSW et
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Owner Email:
Phone:
County: Region:
Title:
vai •• 229tC
,, /
Latitude:
Integrator:
Phone:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
/'9 31/ 3
@ I I ;��3si{I�ii
.
W 3� Ski {I�ft fl II 1Ij f'
N(�'p{
IAi��i
'�i
ggg�
Wean to Finish
Layer
--
DairyCow
can to Feeder c'3t00 L,
� Non -La er
`
' DaCalf
Feeder to Finish 672 0
�
1j, Dairy Heifer
arrow to Wean �r�
a
I ®
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
6
;i
' F t
Non -Dairy
I'
Farrow to Finish
ayers
Beef Stocker
Gilts
on -Layers
Beef Feeder
Boars
' ullets
Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
�
Turkey Poults )
�i�
'I
Gther
t 0 Other HMI kV rq do 01 II v . , M II III
�r
1:
BI
I
� i
(O�ii��. �I
II�
ii .G
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
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)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes LJ 1 o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes IJ'i<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes Io ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3
2/4/2015 Continued

Facility Number: 0— -
'Date of Inspection: /%—) '7—, l9 O
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
aaq /&13 31
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
xI C7u` e.nII a 4
4W K FI N 0.19111
�11
j `} A- , C 3
34 023 a2:5 3/
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?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environment. i reat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?Yes l,�' No ❑ NA 0 NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? 0 Yes lEt Io ❑ NA 0 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 [!]" 1 es No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes ago ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes
o ❑NA ❑NE
❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 6
❑ Yes
lag° ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes LJ to ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ 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 JApproved Area
12. Crop Type(s): . . tz hp r-'eien! f 579- vt %nr//I-/�i ovn Ai-e/'a` .611 =<S/
13. Soil Type(s): y / ll
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
LThE ❑ NA ❑ NE
alto ❑ NA ❑ NE
[i]No ❑NA ❑NE
2 140 ❑ NA ❑ NE
[ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ago ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP 0 Checklists ❑Design ❑Maps 9 Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes r o ❑ NA ❑ NE
O Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard El 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 EIo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes �o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 2/4/2015 Continued

Facility Number: 82.2.- - //v t
Date of Inspection: .4 /
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑Yes ErICIO ❑NA ❑NE
Eties ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ['Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon a a A
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance: CRF�%/^15ifi�' (� O/ktiCr —1-S
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
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:
El Yes Ergo ❑NA El NE
❑ Yes Ergo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ <o
❑ Yes ago
❑ Yes 0 No
❑ Yes [/] No
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?
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
12410
aTo
❑ NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
,/l 17-an
2/4/2015