310477_Compliance Evaluation Inspection_20200811

W Division of Water Resources m S
Facility Number - 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: VRoutine
pliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
sit:
Reason for Vi0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: j ap Arrival Time: Departure Time: J�sp„� County: Region: W.6
Farm Name: L-iv NT E VAN S Owner Email:
Owner Name: 1N i LLi A M k Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: �J�, 0 a c��.,. F—vaK
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish I a L
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Title:
Integrator:
Phone:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Latitude:
Design ' Current
Wet Poultry Capacity, -Pop. ,
Layer
Non -Layer
Design n 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 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑Yes N ❑NA ❑NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR) ❑ Yes o ❑ 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 L 1V ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes N❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes �Oo
❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
M
Page 1 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: 3 jDate of Inspection: 0
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
o
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:_
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):_
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
DNo
❑ 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 d�qo ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes YNo ❑ 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 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes To ❑ 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):�-�
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes Ef No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes [ /No ❑ 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 E3No ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes FO/No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes2/No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes ®-No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the'appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑ Ot r:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check t e appropriate box below. Yes ❑ No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard [Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes ❑ No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
DNA ❑NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: -3 M - - Date of Inspection: �,' - I j -a e
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? El YNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ 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 dNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No [V(NA ❑ 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)
❑ Yes E�5/No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes / No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes VINO
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes E/No
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes Ea'No
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes To
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA N/NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ 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).
.— T-hclvAC wCe-k(I Slpe%ln��/(f�wl�1`i rG'-"rJS
N0 4n1A d'_',t .r o(31 / MAA-C c_w2C %G NAVE l l A Fo>;
Reviewer/Inspector Name: z "1 PE
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: M 5-P
Date: ao
21412015