670041_Compliance Evaluation Inspection_20230131

- "Division of'Water Resources
Facility 1Nuvnber - r O:Divisiou of Soil and R?ater.Conservation,
,
Other Agency
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: 1 i Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: Region:
Farm Name: 4van� ti ��. ��` - t;r..- Owner Email:
Owner Name: Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative: -7 1 -��.. ' �� Integrator:
Certified Operator: Certification Number:
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude:
design Current Design Current
Swine � � Capacity Pop. � Wet Poultry_ Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
�, l v
21"
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
::Other,
Layer
Non -Layer
Design,' Current
Dry Poultry _ Capacity , Pop.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
besign Current
Cattle _ Capacity, :Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
Discharl4es and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
2rNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
ENA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
❑ Yes
❑ No
L=J A
❑ 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
FNA
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
�N�o ❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 511212020 Continued

Facility Number: jDate of Inspection: 1
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes / No
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Structure 1
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
❑NA ❑NE
2-N- A ❑ NE
Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
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?
❑ Yes ONo ❑ 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 Ea <o ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes E2"No ❑ 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 El"'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?
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
Reouired Records & Documents
❑ Yes o
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes [-No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes to ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
[�7-55- ❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
[DN`5`_'0 NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑ Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑ Other:
propriate box below.
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, ch;zAnalysis
es
❑ No ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ 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
2-<O NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 511212020 Continued

Facility Number: Co -I- jDate of Inspection: 1,3 p
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Y 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.
VN
to complete annual sludge survey ❑Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
mpliant 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 1a<0 ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes ❑ No Ej'<A ❑ 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:
❑ Yes QA_o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes /No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA E4-N<
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes
[: 1V ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
IComments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments..
Use drawines of facilitv to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
S ; J C,s O c� c, �' l cam,`) -�-\ J�z
U A c 1 YS
4-D Qnr
v CO
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone:
Date: 31
511212020