030005_Compliance Evaluation Inspection_20190313

rYd Division of Water Resources
" acility umber ®- © Division of Soil and Water Conservations
' 0 Other Agency
Type of visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: (k Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: — — I Departure Time: � County-A"
ounty: 'Q Region: ygsa
Farm Name: �l Y1���� Sj')jV �1 ��(MS , �h (j Owner Email•
Owner Name: V Phone:
Mailing Address: �� Eay-IN 1 CV)Yll ce, 1V (�,
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: .�Qyp-& f S Title:
Onsite Representative: I'CAM
Certified Operator: +X�
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Phone: 6— zo - 63 61
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
0
Latitude: 3 6 %�- 5 � Longitude: II 00\
WS,VD 7 UC7 62' =� _ —1 y _ —�� s 7 N c I-Fwy 19 v\l —) Nc.t{wy I Y 5
7 ray yy\ O Y\((Z)- Oy\ E a v,13 j2d�
Swine
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
Non -Layer
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Design Current
Dry Pnultry Canaeity Pon.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turke 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 Current,`
Cattle Capacity :Pop:.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
❑ Yes ZjNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No
[:]Yes [:]No
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page I of 3 21412015 Continued

Facili Number: - Date of inspection: 3 l3 l
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):
Structure 1 Structure 2
\N, s
p
N6
Structure 3 Structure 4
Observed Freeboard (in): _
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
WYes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
19
Yes [:]No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
6. Are there-Vtuetmes,on-site which are not properly addressed andjqr managed kou h a
�1'� �-i� �' CAk' d -5MAA �,�}�" �j"� n
Yes
0 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
� No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
(00W hU f Qff (KQ
❑ 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
4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance altemativ s that need
Yes
[:]No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement? Git-C U nd Q jx^d
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. 7�] Yes [:]No ❑ NA
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu,, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 101bs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
Kh
LpkOutside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): COSH S'' l04b �-e5w'b V nw-q
13. Soil Type(s):
❑ NE
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 LP
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
M No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?N O SD 1 i d s f,d "c.t y,
�
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
CRNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑ Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, chec �1J` to box below.
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Lp Waste Application Weekly Freeboard Waste alysis [ Soil Analysis
Weather Code
Rainfall Shocking 0 Crop Yield ® Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections
ISS,
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ' `
❑ Yes
W No
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Lp NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3
21412015 Continued

Facili Number: - 5 Date of inspection: 09116119
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 NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below. T
❑ 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 r'�?' No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes � No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or 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
4 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
kA
❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
4 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
�K No
❑ NA
❑ NE
3 . i� fZr 1Gt�YY� �t"C A hg i � l ted ? Svr Puy W 0,+C r- o r.e,7 `''If-k , h `i J `yl t- �e
Gltie c K by errs Sed ► c cCern . v VI66, c
3 CbYvv C,�p� PM updc'-ed n CAvgIMPri-Cod-0
e
C,
��wnn�s C --ye* .
i low
OkiAhv Co"YnR.r OW !�► C 1_FfU e�,i ? r2ee�rd4d ? N3 e, �Vt-,-Cck &Y�e�i (0'4� "r e 6
in
Cv"ec"k -For D\fev' of 1� cc bv�. r'4`
No vi ov�u�t(s�s Fov e ,�v � 1 4-1-6rS_ Sow V-,�r\b k� €
�� �ivl gavG� �e.--�W
nI4ed ?S, d� 6� OC�p�,M� cl, wSY'��r`
OD (R 2wo m, o- - I o+-h 36DO % 3155c) Oa 5prta&t rs Jut +14;S (90Iq) .
Oct c1
(AA ConnHove rn.►eex, reew,�,
e
Reviewer/Inspector
Reviewer/Inspector
Page 3 of 3
Phone: 2-,3t C6—q26
Date: .0111221 t 1
4412015
S