820347_Compliance Inspection Routine_20210623

Facility Number
p,)9q
397
j' Division of Water Resources
O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
elvIg
(p48\
Type of Visit: 16 Compliance 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:
Farm Name:
va-e.Q
Arrival Time:
ta.op
cl
Owner Name: ?VeC_Dil qe F, Ric INC
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Departure Time:
Owner Email:
Phone:
County:
Region: fry
Facility Contact: € j Ff (ctfl/b
Title:
Phone:
Fr Ct e
Onsite Representative: 1 Integrator: e
Certified Operator: d 111 Nc a I I' i ive
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Swine
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
NO60
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Wet Poultry
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
Layer
Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
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
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes 4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes Eci No ❑ NA ❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR) ❑ Yes r 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 No ❑ NA ❑ 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 ti No ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
5/12/2020 Continued

Date of Inspection:
13. Soil Type(s):
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 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: 0
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): U
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.)
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?
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
(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
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes y No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes y No ❑ NA ❑ NE
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes IV No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. E 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. p Type(s)coaqtli bermvgz sgo
qJtve) P)Kthft0N C!i4NhD1 Chip!e'J
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes Q 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 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑ Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appro plriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[I Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard Elaste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections El Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes t No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes it No ❑ NA ❑ NE
ra'Nre �
Page2 of 3 2/4/2015 Continued
❑ Yes IX, No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [4] No ❑ NA ❑ NE

Facility Number: - .7)in
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? C71a5peci Yes l] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes 4] No 0 NA 0 NE
the apjoropriate box(es) below.
10 survey Failure to developa POA for sludge levels
❑ Failure tocompleteannual sludge su y ❑ g
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
Date of Inspection:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes No 0 NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? 0 Yes -N o 0 NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes No ❑ NA 0 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 0 NA 0 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 NI 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 E] No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ 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 0 NA 0 NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No 0 NA 0 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).
Nrite'. records reviewed ofP site c�a��l
rote past PumP.eq 5 11-ai ON as 3 5(19)04 ac,aa
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
1
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
�t
ariqomno-
ph,.ne91qM T719
Date:
2/4/2015
Page 3 of 3