310417_Compliance Evaluation Inspection_20200320

U Division of Water Resources B I M S- 7
Facility Number 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency
Type of Visit: C�opliance Inspection . O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: (� Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: 101 _30-k Arrival Time: '�` ... Departure Time: Q County: /iupl�
Farm Name: 0, jo ro SlRw4a J ox rA Owner Email:
Owner Name: C Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative: Cy'A's Jl'°sj
Certified Operator: CsxS &'rwd
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Title:
Integrator:
Phone:
Region: �—
Certification Number: M0 S
Certification Number:
Latitude:
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
Non -Layer
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
1%/o 0
9160
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Design Current
Dry Poultry Canacitv 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 WNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes Vo ❑ 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
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
dNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
E�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: '� 1 - Date of Inspection: '3 —'3 0 — a02,0
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes [Z�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes E]No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): , 5
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes ff 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 dNo ❑ 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 EZ/No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes [g(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 2/No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
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 [?I/No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ 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
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): RIc'fywU C6,
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
dNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
[2(No
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
9No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
EZrNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
P�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
[20"No
❑ 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 N"'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 InspectioYNo
❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? [:]Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes [ZfNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: jDate of Inspection: — o—aa'a.®
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes dNo
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes 21 No
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 E2No
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes 10<0
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
ENo
❑ 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
0 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
EKO
❑ 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
D;rNo
❑ 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
['TNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
ZNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Ggni ments (refer to question ft) , 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). ,
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
AV, oar -the Ias+- 3 4ears vjA . - ,,,,, Mprc,I,,
Phone: (4le�i
Date:
21412015