310189_Compliance Evaluation Inspection_20200916

Q0 Division of Water Resources.
�91ms—a '
'Facility Niihi, ber O Division of Soil and`'Water Conservation o : R
O Other Agency
Type of Visit: & 7Routine
pliance Inspection O Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: O Complaint -O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: - j6-?,0aj5 Arrival Time:- Departure Time: County: l% Region:
Farm Name: by rE N& W HA LEY fA am Owner Email:
Owner Name: F__1 Cr N F_ W � A LEY Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Title:
Integrator:
Phone:
Certified Operator: (,,� N W N{4(`�( Certification Number: Q 33
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
° Design , Current ° , Design , .Current
Swizie ` ' _ Capacity Pop. ° ° Wet PouItry:, Capacity . Pop. Cattle, ,
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish 31 bo
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
lOther"
Other
Layer
Non -Layer
Design- Current °
Dry Ponitry Canacitv Pon: "
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Design. Current .
Capacity P'op.3
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
[M No
❑ 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
j'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
gNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
[—]Yes
56o
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
[:]Yes
FYINo
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: 31 - Date of Inspection: — —fox o
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: l `�
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): Q
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.)
No
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
G
❑ 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
VNo
❑ 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
[]No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
EKNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
[�Ko
❑ 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): 2#, S G-0
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
&!fNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
2"No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
[—]Yes
E�rNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
ZNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
DNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
�
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit'readily available?
El Yes
D l�o
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
❑'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 Ea<o ❑ 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 FgeNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: '3A - Date of Inspection: - - d,10
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes E2*No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes FO/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 ❑ No EgrNA ❑ 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 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 [/"No
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
[:]Yes E�(No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [:]No ❑ NA 0 E
❑ Yes 160 ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes F3/No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (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).
1 �rclvde S�o�k�n��.(ylo���;ir ('ec�rel�S week/y �e.�eer la��'��,
" Na s
"oZo�O _o Bo -A 1 tJ s
M
N Au
aCGErtql BcXF
Reviewer/Inspector Name: � a 44-0 R�� Phone: (,� )(� E
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: I ' 1(- 2 0 of w
Page 3 of 3 21412015