310321_Compliance Evaluation Inspection_20200207

UI"Division of Water Resources 8101 5- Z7
Facility Number F73a\ O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency
for Visit: (5 Routine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: - - a o Arrival Time: 0 �6 Departure Time: o� gyp"^ County: ivt Region:
Farm Name: �SAYhES 1=, 14INCr t-Axw) Owner Email:
Owner Name: J P t^E 5 C% t Ncr Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: -'1e rr1¢ $ D kl ,, .
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Title:
Latitude:
Phone:
Integrator: Free
—I
Certification Number: I g-75"Z
Certification Number:
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
]Layer
Non -La er
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
2148 0
C�
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Design Current
Dry Poultry Capacity Pop.
La ers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Longitude:
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made? ❑ Yes Imo° ❑ NA ❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
❑ Yes
Io ❑ 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
E3<o ❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
�Io ,❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
[—J oo ❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facili Number: 3 D l jDate of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes L No
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3
Identifier: I
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
=1 ..l— _.L_L-!_L
1-7
34 S&
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
waste management or closure plan?
❑ Yes Ci2to ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes Z No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental hreat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement? ❑ Yes [✓N ❑ 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)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes 2 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes r 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): Beemu d� '°�h�
13. Soil Type(s):
14, Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes N
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes o
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
N
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes [2
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes 2/No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes Ereo
❑ 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 Fao ❑ 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 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continuer!

Facility Number: 3 1 - a• Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes dN
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes LG 1V o
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ 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 Ed ❑ 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
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 bsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
[Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
❑ Yes
Co
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
ffNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
o ❑NA ❑NE
No�NoEo]
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).
L�w•e �-h{s 56t�n�
Reviewer/Inspector Name: -50W IJ 19 R-R-'J
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: ��0 � P — l')T7
Date: ��Y — �� xC')
21412015