310587_Compliance Evaluation Inspection_20201120

Division of Water Resources 5 --'
Facility Number ® 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: 0 Com ance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
�, �
Date of Visit: -—auk Arrival Time: � Q "�- p� � Departure Time: County: ? i rN Region: W Re
Farm Name: C
v 4 orre I 1
r,4 .11
Owner Email:
Owner Name:
A"t,
M Mc-r, s 1 `
Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Title:
Onsite Representative: NIA Integrator:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Latitude:
Phone:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Design 'Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
Non -Layer
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
-j 5D
O
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Other
Design Current
Dry Poultry Canacitv Pon.
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
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
YNo ❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
N ❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
❑ Yes
❑ 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��00
o NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: - $ Date of Inspection: (-aO—a0a0
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ER<o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1
Identifier: 1
Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Spillway?: _
Designed Freeboard (in): 1g. 5-
Observed Freeboard (in): Ito _
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
waste management or closure plan?
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes [f No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
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 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 2No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 2"No ❑ 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
❑ No
EE�<A
❑ 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
❑ No
❑ NA
[I2NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
[q/No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
EEKes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? Yes []No ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check EYes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑ Other:
21. Does record keeping need i rovement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. Yes 2<o NA D2 E
dWaste Application [`� Weekly Freeboard Waste Analysis []'Soil Analysis Waste Transfers 6�eather Code
dRainfall 21Stocking EfCrop Yield Minute Inspections �Ionthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections Judge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA [j"NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No F�J/NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 21412015 Continued

Facility Number: 31 - 506-4 Date of inspection: - 0— Oot
Ryes
No
,S v�"a3 av
A NE
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 ❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
the a propriate 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
[RNA
❑ 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 Eg"No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA Lam4
I� T s ❑ No
Yes [:]No
E Z'es ❑ No
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑NA ❑NE
Comments (refer to question ft Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawinss of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
-- Ur�►b1e �6 Cs�.tact `�«.��-� - .
end 1-i . .
Nod i 2-019 For Ze ro -vrco rcU, ar<4 la� air
La50Ov` A'� 1101 l �Vl Cif"0.(i1�I1 W► 1 k (I 0�
S C,
r- die
�o� wce e
cwj
y c�-g t 1
S ,* qc).T-s v3z Se Q1^1\1U\/4J
doe S
IVA V-?Pee-'r- to
�e
�J00vl,
fAiLuRE -r";, S\Jwly �PCo0 "
Reviewer/Inspector Name: ®,nv. Tea�,.,
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone:
Date:
21412015