310063_Compliance Evaluation Inspection_20210713

Division of Water Resources
Facility Number - O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency
Type of Visit: om lance Inspection 0 Operation Review O Structure Evaluation O Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Routine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: ArrivalTime:L/e: � Departure Time: County: (n
Farm Name: _��l n r� 7v Ock i,t (t t Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: �jJ // Title:
Onsite Representative: ,e/�J/J�// lhl f
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Design Current
Swine Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
eederto Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Other
Phone:
Phone:
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Latitude: Longitude:
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Non -Layer La er
Design Current
Dry Poultry Canaeity Poo.
[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?
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
Region: W i Qd
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
1, D-Ye's ❑1 J❑ No NA ❑ NE
� 4LetK r Si e - koo vo,0 _�
❑ Yes 0-llo` ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 02-,N-o ❑ NA ❑ NE
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR) 1 . Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? rp_ a,i tt acktkS Y 1 es ❑ Now❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impAfs loth waters '1' 4" ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 511212020 Continued

Facili Number: \ - Date of Inspection: Z
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
D4_0 ❑ 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: 2—
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): _% 2
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?
es
❑ No ❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
[PNe' ❑ 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 �o ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application _,�
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes I,_J't�o ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes 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
E 4
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
[ o
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
E]4o
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
[3 o
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
Ff No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑'Ko�
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
[f"No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑WUP ❑Checklists ❑Design ❑Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑Other:
21. D s record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
es
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Weather
Code
❑ Rainfall [:]Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections
[]Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
[�Jo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
Io
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3
511212020 Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes C:_NK
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes Q-lo
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ 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 o ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphors loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No DNA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes ED.Ne- ❑ 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
n( ,Aib
❑ 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 ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
Eg4o
❑ NA
❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
E! N
❑ NA
❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
�Uomments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments. I
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
rr— 5r1a11 CLJ(hatitx 640W^,-CA Ao, � crack 'I,,�-k A u,&V aF " hour-e-Cur3.4j I- a. kL
+f-�� " la�coo #a. (ould not it_o.(1 $UrrACA UX41to �v 0. � }rev`. bL) W
b.e4u>4% 67) A —a& , Gnj g-e rLc ✓' tea K 6VAJ %epair-ed "Alr c pzule S fr/If
47
7— rq&ir U„ � coo t j
ZI - �xca�cuf,� i
0,69
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
j�� rot e� aoaU
40 3 /glzr ql 3/L/��( %'qJ'1ea✓ qe
l AVIl
Phone: we S-a l 06
Date: 113A /
51121202o'