190020_Compliance Evaluation Inspection_20211117

-AEMvision of Water Resources
Facility Numbee - ® 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: 41~rrival Time: Departure Time: ount�`-4U� Region:� �o
ry � Farm Name: C}�Il.� Owner Email:
Owner Name: ��y cra.�w +� Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Latitude: 35 t T2 b D Longitude: r 1 �3� ! 39
Ll 0$ S— c' a'_� 4-' 1 -1>*, I r y R a j Gto--� rw. L `k 1
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
Non -La er
Non-L;
Pullets
Other
Poults
Design Current
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)
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non-Dai
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes E �No❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes _❑No_J:2,IQA ❑NE
❑ Yes ❑ No .E 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 0"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 I of 3 511212020 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of Ins ection: l L + La Z!
Waste Collection & Treatment ,_ f
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes y� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes /❑ No i iA ❑ NE
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?: ✓
Designed Freeboard (in): 1� G
Observed Freeboard (in): 14-Z_
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes EfNo
❑ 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,, 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 2<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
P'Yes ❑ 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 )210'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? yl
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, a c.)
[] 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
421
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
[] Yes
7No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
[] Yes
;ZNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
[] Yes
ZrNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents 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
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 l" Rainfall Inspections
❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
N
❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
WNo
[] NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3
21412015 Continued

40
Facility Number: - Date of Inspection: l-h'Z b
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes . ]No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check [] Yes ❑ No �A ❑ 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 to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes)fjoNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes �ErNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours andior document ❑ Yes�o ❑ 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 /J'No ❑ 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 PNo ❑ 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 ETNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes ZNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ YesN ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes No ❑ 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).
4 -o
Reviewer:`Inspector Name:
Reviewer..7nspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
el — S r.- \
0
3 y
S ^. I.J5 -e
Phone: Yl ` 4 + 1— r Zs—f'
Date:
511212020