510034_Compliance Evaluation Inspection_20190723

ivision of Water Resources
Facility Number ©- 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
Datc of Visit: Arrival Time: ,Q Departure Time: County: ahnLfL_fiegion:
Farm Name: K a I
r Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Title: Phone:
Integrator:
Certification Number: R'0 4 1,914 'a.
Certification Number:
Latitude: Longitude:
. 1. �'. . CW&Ti ____ . 1 0
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
Non -La er
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 1-ield ❑ 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
ofthe State other than from a discharge?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
,Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No [:]NA
❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 2/4/2015 Continued

Facility Number: -ar.4 jDate of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. Ifyes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: 0--A
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
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?
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of ApI roved Area
12. Crop Type(s): j
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environ
ental threat,
notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
[DNA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the stnictures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
[3 Yes
[} No
E]NA
E]NE
maintenance or improvement?
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
Waste Aimlication
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
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ HydrauIic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/SIL dge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of ApI roved Area
12. Crop Type(s): j
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
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
Reguired Records & Documents
I9. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ YetsFe
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Ye
❑ 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.
❑ Ye
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste ❑ Weather
Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspe❑
Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Ye
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Ye
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3
14/2015 Continued

Facili Number: - Date of Inspection:
24.;Did
''the facility fail to calibrat waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes
25. s t7`ie facility out o compa ce with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes
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
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes
No [DNA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours andlor document
❑ Yes
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
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
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
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes Up
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facI14 to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
C.tNvcbc -4 co_aaA
W0C!)'Y3/a f -/&_IT 'oI►y7 �ID-c.i 6`1!c-1$
St.. O 3555.
LO 00 -2 0-7 G s-16-15 l,� a
lPoo4yo a!
Dac�to ac)
til m
�s3 o
3 o �N-A� ?J\.�3
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/lnspector Signatur
Page 3 of 3
3 0 � jx r-�
e A 01 1)n A-VA&J 1 THAN %/001
Phone:
Date: ?b _
21412015

2017-2018 Interim Review
RM Hayes
3/25/2019
1/24/2019
2.47
NO SAMPLE
11/25/2018
r',
( 7/15/2018
}
133 days
5/16/2018
1.72
3/17/2018
3/17/2018
1/16/2018
1.97
11/17/2017
11/17/2017
9/18/2017
11.27
7/20/2017