310023_Compliance Evaluation Inspection_20230907

Cam` Division of Water Resources
�Eacility` Number l i ` - z3 ^ O Division of SoYd and Water Conservation
(: Qther�Agency=
Type of Visit: (5 Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
treason for Visit: (2)Routine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency 0 Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: 7 2 3 Arrival Time: Departure Time: County:
Farm Name: <,J 1 �� �- j Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Title:
Phone:
Onsite Representative: r i S &ZL.,� 0 S Integrator:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Region:
Phone: �i l O` —010 3 4 b K
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design Current ; Uesli Current
Swine Capacity i'op Wet Pon[try Capacity Pop
Wean to Finish I ILayer
Wean to Feeder I lNon-Layer
Feeder to Finish '13
Farrow to Wean �' Desigu Cucient
Farrow to Feeder Dry Poultry sCapacity Pop
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other = .
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Design
Cattle Capacit
Cattle
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
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
[:]Yes
❑ No A
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
❑ Yes
❑ No P _ _ _
❑ 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 L31NA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
o ❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge? . /
Page I of 3 511212020 Continued

Facility Number: _� % - 7 Date of Inspection: 7 Z
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes Ck<o 0 N ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No A ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
y 7 l
Identifier: (� -J
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): S L J-c-3 3
/No
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
16 ❑ 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
EZ 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?
0 Yes
®.Pao DNA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
E;Xo ❑ 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
/
❑ ' ❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
CCC
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
Z No ❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
es
' o ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.
❑ PP ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge
into Bare Soil
El"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
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
Er o ❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
E24o ❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes Flo ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
❑4 o ❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
Ejllqo❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑Yes
NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design ❑Maps ❑LeaseAgreements
❑Other-
2 1. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ es
[ No ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Applica - n ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall StockingF1t_r11_01'p Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes d o ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 511212020 Continued

Facility Number: 31 - .ZQ jDate of Inspection: q7
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes D NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes Q�oo 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 to 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 ZNA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes E2<o ❑ 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 E �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 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
2 E
❑ 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 rr>No"/ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes ❑ NA
❑ NE
lComments (refee to question #); Explain any YES_answers,and/or a'eco"mmeadations or any other comments::_
Use'diaw-iogs of facility to better explain situations (u`se additional pales as'necessary). °:
clif
�1 CJ CJ�ts (� ` ¢ C�J �w C d1;� ��+r,e a.�✓Uy /✓ F
k�r�� Sow
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
9
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone:
Date: `� Z3
511212020