310086_Compliance Evaluation Inspection_20230523

Division of Water Resources
'Facility Number 3 - g-(, O Division of Smiland Water Conservation
0 Other. -Agency
Type of Visit: (0 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: 5 23 2 Arrival \Time: Departure Time: County:
Farm Name: VC/(C�; Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Phone:
Facility Contact: !&�<P V✓► ► (�c,vim•-Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Design Current
Swine ,` Capacity ' Pop -
Wean to Finish
,-1
W
Wean to Feeder
[
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Latitude:
Phone:
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
)esign Current
iit Poultry ,Capacity, Pop:, Cattle
aver
Design- 'Cur nt
Dry Poultry £aoacity Pori.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Region:
Design Ciriel
,,Capacity 1'op.
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
Er No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑KA
❑ 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
D<A
❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
�/o
❑ NA
❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
❑ Yes
YNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
-"---,%Page I of 3 511212020 Continued

Facility Number: 31 - Date of Inspection: L3
23
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
0 Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes
❑ No F,�A
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
EjZo ❑ 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
o ❑ 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
t 'reat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
E:14.0 ❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
❑.}'V 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 ❑ ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks; or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes o ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes E21<o ❑ 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
❑ 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
0 NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes E!fNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes �o
❑ NA
❑ NE
Reauired Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes [3'1�o
❑ 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 VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Weather Code
Inspections
❑ 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
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
[—]Yes VNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 511212020 Continued

Facility Number: 3 l - Date of Inspection: S-23
2.7
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
E]H<o
❑ NA
❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
es
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
on -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
LoList structures) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance: 4
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 [:]No ❑ 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 [:]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 ❑ 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 ❑ 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 ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refex to question #): Explain any YES ansdvers:and/or.anyRadditional, re commendations br;any other con►iments::
UbSe.drawings of -facility ifo.befter-.explain situations (gse°additional pages�as necessary), _tl ,
�Sc1 a_k )
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: Cl (Q S2,0 3 Y 10
Date: ?,Z117
511212020