310152_Compliance Evaluation Inspection_20200220 (2)

Division of Water Resources
Facility Number 3k - ® O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency
Type of Visit: Cooryrpliance Inspection Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: L'� Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: -c?O ea Arrival Time: O Departure Time: County: 17Up1T Region: INIRa _
Farm Name: 000) — 40-
Owner Name: �AV 1D "Cehr h1 I oo}�T� K
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Title:
Owner Email:
Phone:
Phone:
OnsiteRepresentative:
))fear
M&C'm
Integrator: QYntiN'YkUs f�,�^(�l*Y
Certified Operator:
DAVID tzi 10�d
c' c-j<
Certification Number:-l���—
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
to Finish
to Feeder
-to Finish
v to Wean
vto Feeder
vto Finish
Other
Other
Certification Number:
Latitude:
Design
Current
Wet Poultry
Capacity
Pop.
La er
Non -La er
2-20-20
Design
Current
Dry Poultry
Capacity
Pon.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey 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?
Longitude:
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
[—]Yes 2/No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [o ❑ 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
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ YesPNoo
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 21412015 Continuer)

Facili Number: '3 Date of Inspection: 02 —
a
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier: a CB
SpiIIWa�,' 0 p
Designed Freeboardlin):�'belv'l�s
S 3
Observed Freeboard(in��
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.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
o ❑ 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? ❑ Yes Io ❑ 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 1po ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes ❑ N ❑ 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 Po rag ❑ 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):
13. Soil Type(s)
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
Eq' o
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
Io
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
[2'<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
LJ N
❑ 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
[9 o
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
o
❑ 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 EKO ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes E3,<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes EEK ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facili Number: - I i5a jDate of inspection: aa-;?O -oa 0
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.
❑ 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 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes jj_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. D subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
[]Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes E94 ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [�'IVo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
p a-ac-riu
2Yeo ❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes
E�Ko
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[DA
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
ED,<
❑ 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).
- F0.(", +r,nS_�r(pw �yj 'ac aolq
we -mac a.. ImSS covcr,,,%f or dlK2 wolf— Qsck pr9vo" a.)11 (so
Deduc%P ca)tr Ap? V-t �V10uJ Uwhe(S� Over" arflic,,,f, on On -ELY /R mSu%7eo, �
- L .1 ovtr Opp &)
Corn CAI bi Al ee -;T 06) Wku' wt8 ClPdvc/Ni/ � h�7 f"r �ow 0, P✓•» ,n
far, w
I P
C,eactd' �f2 pV@r q.PP%1C6."�'i�wlpn wI'4d•f(
Fo.n., ;i usin�j R\J)sed (give 4/e,/ 0?o2.0
-CAI�, l/6roV.-is dve rar Cen-!es �Y1 &nd 4j- Aerw�y, F/0- rkfe for at" 14a
Coyne's Fr6.� ., I,'Ve F-Iow ra-fr_ ms oce6VS (aor'ft y) IXFioZC-)
keel (,tJIKKIy cgcercl} f t Stock q)/mo(�^Ii f'� (�eCj°S doerC%lar'S�
SiSn x2 �'S and ihLlud� WQ�thv CocleS And
Reviewer/Inspector Name: `Setro. I C I
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: rjlU wl-Qs
Date: 6Q-20 —Z0c20
21412015