730011_Compliance Evaluation Inspection_20220829

Facility Number
r13
11
Division of Water Resources
0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: ,Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 6..Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit:
Arrival Time:
10 15
Farm Name: 9e -\ Sw;ne, y,('Iv1
Owner Name: Pea\ D, � ty
Mailing Address:
Departure Time:
11'th
Owner Email:
County: ?tcs-bn Region: Z,_j
Phone: .1-;(0 - 3(L a�35
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: t� }
Onsite Representative: I�UNA: Lam-, , \VOA
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Title:
Latitude:
Integrator:
Phone:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Swine
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
C7„
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
Non -Layer
Design Current
Dr Poultr Ca ' aci Po
Cattle
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
Discharges and Stream Impacts
I. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
ID Yes No ❑NA ❑NE
❑Yes dNo ❑NA ❑NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR) ❑ Yes litiNo ❑ 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 fo ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
5/12/2020 Continued

Facility Number: 13 - 11
Date of Inspection: $ - a41 - 2'
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) Tess than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Identifier:
❑ Yes IZI/No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes liNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): 4 a Id, g+6
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes zrNo ❑ 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 "No ❑ 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 [,2'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 [J 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 lal/No ❑ NA ❑ NE
O 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):
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes +iNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes I"No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes 111/No ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes Er No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? 0 Yes g No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check 0 Yes [ /No ❑ NA 0 NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP DChecklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements El Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes [ 'No 0 NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis D Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking 0 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 INo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 5/12/2020 Continued

Date of Inspection: 2 . 3.11.
Facility Number: 17, - '�
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
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:
❑ Yes dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes ErNo ❑ 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 ❑ Yes 'No ❑ 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 [ '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 m-No ❑ 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 'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond El Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes I'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes [ay No ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes D/No ❑ 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).
Cc10 n '�5 GPM
at) 2•v
Ktcp lOdoohS mowa
- comp t.A.0 by 13)
� 3
f a3.0 ppm
; �3 •�
05
r 3
(3- 1. c,
W
b .So
Reviewer/Inspector Name: �U S e\r) Q,t
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: 06:51Oyk/
Date: S • UQ •
5/12/2020