930001_Compliance Evaluation Inspection_20240925

AW S Division of Water Resources
Facility Number -? i 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit: t9 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: VI-24;-2.1,j 1 Arrival Time: jCj',Z oAt-Al Departure Time: County: Vgaf 2r Region: f-P.Q
Farm Name: (ire -en I4CreS Egty r1
Owner Name: N G NYyt j F ay v n S
Mailing Address:
Owner Email: A.-OnIvrool-e 1 Ia-15r 'grn0k%1, cav-n
Phone:
Physical Address: 3c16 Fa1Knt?r GjvQoe,- t-,p r,
Facility Contact:
Title:
Onsite Representative: �y, iMoCrre Otto - lots _ -1 ip-t �
Certified Operator: 3Aryye3 pq
Back-up Operator:yqo, +e ryvi iS a n
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Latitude:
Phone:
,a,sEl.s,�i r.� i:.r„�•�:.,
Certification Number: of to - QU,a - 7_29-1
Certification Number:
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
Non -Layer I I Ed
Pullets
Poults
Design Current
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)?
Longitude:
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
.Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes O No [:]NA ❑ NE
[]Yes
❑ No
[:]NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR)
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
of the State other than from a discharge?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page I of 3 511212020 Continued

F'acili Number: 3 - O 1 Date of inspection: c�'L-—2ti
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ONo [DNA ❑ 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: Mel
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in): "
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes 0 No [3 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
E] 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?
❑ Yes
O No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
[:]Yes
Lallo
❑ 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
C] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
0 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 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
B No
❑ NA
0 NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
Z No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
[] Yes
2 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
[Z No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18, Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
O No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
❑ No
[] NA
ONE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
0 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 E5 No
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and I" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? [:]Yes No
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No
❑NA ❑NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 511212020 Continued

Facilii Number: &NI - O Date of Inspection: q - V7 - 2
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes 0 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 0 No ❑ NA ❑ 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? (o V\0S) -V. q
• • A d�q c.¢. Crrwpo�,�
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? S
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 E No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [a No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes Z No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes JZNo [DNA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ 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).
S o � 1 +e.S k _:1:0?• l a - m -'L'L , ow-, 'LO-LT
taxcbrakion) (tot-1 ) 6-5` t-', '030 jfm 100oi
S tvd9 e Svfv-e) C 20_ 1_%) R'LO -11 1 P
WAS}t` gnA4✓ S� S �' 31-241 1.S`'t N pt
pcmct-o s
PALS V . L-1 p'>Il -7
Reviewer/ Inspector Name: _( ayy-eyl 4 � ti�-t
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: cl 1 Gk -z 14 - 137 1
Date: q'115- Z"l _
511212020