310133_Compliance Evaluation Inspection_20200903

Division of Water Resources
Facility Number I L 1 O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency
Type of Visit: Q0 mpliance Inspection Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: C RRoutine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: rr Departure Time: County: County: )n Region:
Farm Name: 51,,mj2elej, )6L; Owner Email:
Owner Name: (�� 'l �l�,c, Phone.
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title:
Onsite Representative: 10 /1
Certified Operator: ( r c,L,,
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Other
Other
Discharees and Stream Imuacts
Latitude:
Phone:
Integrator:
Certification Number: 19 ('-s—Pi
Certification Number:
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
La er
Non -La er
Design Current
Dry Poultry Capacity Poo.
Layers
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
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑Yes
]�i p/ ❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ 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
FLPTo
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
Q.Nd
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of Ins ection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes tj-1go ❑ 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: 2.
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):�U
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes ®>cr ❑ 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 [(J�Ntf ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes Eq-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 [j No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Aoulication
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 U o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Pending ❑ 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
EUPdo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15.
Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
[TNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
16.
Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
[J]'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17,
Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
Eg4o
❑ NA
❑ NE
18.
Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
IS401,
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required
Records & Documents
19.
Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
��
L_I�qTo
❑ NA
❑ NE
20.
Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
E_I I 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 ftNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rainfall InspectionsNo 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 �do ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued