310337_Compliance Evaluation Inspection_20220120

Division.af Water Resources
Fa61ity.N1_"er 3 r - 33 Z 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation. , a
r 0 Other Agency , e
Type of Visit: 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: Arrival Time: Q Departure Time: County:
Farm Name: �G✓�-S �t �- �S C_ e Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Phone:
Facility Contact: I vvN t k" < {' Cs Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Design , Current
Swine :Capacity :P4P•
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish `j ` ctoo
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Latitude:
Phone:
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Design Current
Wet Poultry Capacity : "Pop.
Layer
Non -Layer
Design Current
Dry Poultry Capacity Pon. }
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Region:
`: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
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
❑Yes
❑ No A
❑ NE
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?
t.
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
❑ Yes
❑ No A
❑ NE
,2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
NA
❑ NE
Were there„any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
VNo ❑ NA
❑ NE
R" of the State other than from a discharge?--
itI.
4_...... •:fi.:'�.1;. ._... .
i ...
,. e.
Page 1 of 3
..
511212020 Coiztinued

Facility Number: - Date of inspection: I' Z-6 IZ
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ff No ❑ NA 0 NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes [:]No NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3
Identifier: i LOo 1j< 2- S ,-c k I
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in)
Structure 4
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 NA ❑ NE❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Zo
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 o NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes o ❑ 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? f°
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 No ❑ NA, ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 101bs. ❑ 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 N ❑ NA, ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes ❑ 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 o ❑ 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? ❑ Yes 6 ❑ 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 ❑ Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. [:]Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes No ❑ 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 - 33 Date of Inspection: TL
24. Did the facility fail to .calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit. ❑ s No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check Yes ❑ No ❑ 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 �NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes 2<0 ❑ 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?
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 Ef�NoE]
NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA MINE
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
u lv ❑ NA ❑ NE
[ Ny E j NA ❑ NE
❑Z ❑ 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).
(,--I 4y--
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
1
r, I, �, 1 LL 21
Phone: )v � L
Date: J
e
51 /2020