510063_Compliance Evaluation Inspection_20190523

1�:
0 Division of Water Resources
Facility Number - L�� 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
dry O Other Agency
Type of Visit: eFCompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: OrRoutine Q Complaint 0 Follow-up O Referral 0 Emergency Q Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: rg Arrival Time: wf 00 am I Departure Time: rb.5��'7 County: ;J1)Ln5fz5.1 Region: P R d
Farm Name: DQVl CqAef(r6 Skvke filLr1
Owner Name: Dat, l Rerri n
Mailing Address:
Owner Email:
Phone:
Physical Address: 6q q � Ifor ler of a keiv ft)
Facility Contact: l�rls _r►� Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: CU Iv1 dt Integrator: P to P_
Certified Operator: LA Hpert
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Boars
Other
Other
Latitude:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Laver
Non -La er
Pullets
Other
Pou
Design Current
Discharees and Stream Impacts
1. is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
Longitude:
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
,Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
[—]Yes 5DNo ❑NA ❑NE
a. Was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ 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
?. Is there evidence ora 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 [C No ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I rrj3 2/4/2015 Continued

Facility Number: 5.1 - &3 Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes � No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure I Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes 2 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
CR No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
� No
❑ NA E] NE
the appropriate box.
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
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
❑ 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?
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
21 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
� NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3
Waste Aop[ication
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes r5j'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 Drill ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): (01A. M1 I106, WM0- Ahnval
13. Soil Type(s):
I4. 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 [Z No ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Reauired Records & Documents
❑ Yes © No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
[S No
❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
� No
❑ NA E] 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
[5j 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
C� No
❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
E] No
� NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3
21412015 Continued

Facili Number: Date of Inspection:
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 g No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
p 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 ®No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA 53 NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document 0 Yes [,2 No [DNA ❑ 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 [�4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office ofemergency situations as required by the ❑ Yes [5' No ❑ 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
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
® No
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on-site representative?
❑ Yes
JZ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
MNo
❑ 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).
.�' . Ale) W ill n & � e5 CcA%npal
Lod- before- the. &1d cf fh eyear.
- stud es'vrv7CE
is-�-tig .s�Ye_ s,9 La T�}-3�S-c�- so n, �a�l~ Cars;dP/ V&6
-Nr s d9,& l ,
(vrj?e'b&krf)I �.
y 1 )1g W OtRM
111119 hYOOH'$7
Q13�))� w o ��
(pllyl>S Y��S�
a)1( kc vDD 9
C -gash 6v+of id -e&) Jeal W 1,e level is 10�v,
Bei l h�j is u r -fo dafe
�e�ewal er»flrk was recef i"
ReviewedlnspectorName, ` �(� _ i)`f'jf'! t tele. cs).&acC �'-�1�r o? t j�' t{ Phone:
Reviewerllnspector Signature: k'P A'_ ;�J l7 Lglel Date: May a- 0!.9
i
Page 3 of 3 2/4/2015