310254_Compliance Evaluation Inspection_20210223

° f0 Division of Wafer Resources
Facility Number ©- 254 0 Division of Soil and Water, Conservation
O Other Agency
Type of Visit: (DfCompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance C.1 Reason for Visit: 44utine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: �v PL! Region: X) ) PLO
Farm Name: j®bb+j IJ'R4"Jrj TA sOwner Email:
Owner Name: f rovo' Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: OTIS 6 "'I"J
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Design Current
Swine ° Capacity ° ,Pop.,
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish AT90 p
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Title:
Latitude:
Phone:
Integrator:
Certification Number: a $o2-1
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design `Current
Wet,Poulhy Capacity`, Po . ° Cattle
Laye_]r
Non -Layer
Design °Current
Dry Pnnitry Canacity Pon:
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
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?
° Design„ Curireiit-,- .
:°Capacity . Pop -
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes [7f No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [fNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes E2 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
[�j No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
E� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[2fNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: jDate of Ins ection:,;)-a %-aid
� d-a3-al
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? J 1Vo ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? dYes �-lo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: \
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): ) 5
SL��a-K-at
Observed Freeboard (in): ��—
,'5r. CvrraC*6at MCIl w -'r0Irr--
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integriC of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes [a"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 F)/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 EffNo ❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes [�J/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 [fNo ❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes [ZINo ❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [2/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):
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
[]"No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
2/No
❑ NA
❑ NE
- acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
[;3"No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
[RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
[allo
❑ 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
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes fNo
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes Uo
❑NA ❑NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

�? a-ora.1
Facility Number: -5 Date of Ins ection: - a.3 - D, l
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes [-KNo
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes �o
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
❑�<A
NA ❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ Yes Q No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [/]'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ YesfNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes MNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
121"Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes [-No
❑ Yes [�No
DNA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑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).
�1 s ��L,�;�Inc �e~...C���I � VA err Mwtf;'pi@ PdA'S d�L.,��� a0-00 . OTIS H,3
been very bra rS P G,re n� �'a t�S �L f or+TA v, it l_si to < i w Q T�vY�C l � �'Mle r' a n
(t o►-� aerwa �P@So.l'eS jO M, 1vz Wn.'r ris o,, nek6Gi�K� I4Y�t� rc+VeSe�( UNdCG�
t'en c�ocur►1jer� av��l �tleoQ,
UPcj,.
�IS (Ws soil av�j lly�i�g- j�-ten NkiS1�N� �rq:Jl
dee--PUla�,keek S'�,ce Vec.em6Q,r,
cQ4---4 Q �� cog-"'
PAS
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signatur
Page 3 of 3
4 le s fio nn,ke ►�'�P-r vemvniS,
Phone: (9 L& I T -- Q
v)
Date: P -3"1, `a 1
21412015