930034_Compliance Evaluation Inspection_20241028

AWE Division of Water Resources
Facility Number oj"3 - O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency
Type of Visit: QZ Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine Q Complaint O Follow-up O Referral C) Emergency Q Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: Y1n County: `/VcA1YL°rn Region: ?J20
Farm Name: NC FOurm i'W A"r lhi12
Owner Name: NC C-OIYrn Party-'oY.min
Mailing Address:
Owner Email: Deer ,
F g i� nG� e i 1 ®, twit � 1 c G ti►.
Phone:
Physical Address: 9k1 ke.rr Lathe. Coke 13k Ooe_ Cot, N r , p\
Facility Contact: Title: Phone: 0111- McAo - 2LA 31
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: FCkbiCA n t nae i
Back-up Operator:
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
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Latitude: Longitude:
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
La er
1104 I gV I I iNon-Layer
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)?
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?
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
.Non
-Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes [2No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes []No [DNA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page I of 3 511212020 Continued

Facili Number: ' - JLJ
Date of Inspection: I 0 —19, - Zu1
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ff No ❑ 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
„�
%fk u e
Identifier: �` MF_I
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): k`
Observed Freeboard (in): 1�
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes
2 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
ErNo
❑ 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
❑i No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
[] Yes
❑'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
ErNo
❑ NA
0 NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
2No
❑ 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
JZ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
0 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
[ZNo
❑ 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
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
ONo
❑ 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. 'ZYes Q N
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1 " Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes ❑'Nf
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes 0 N
o ❑NA ❑NE
W r Code
ud e S
o ❑ NA ❑ NE
o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3
511212020 Continued

Facil Fty Number: CI - I Date of Ins ecdon: 0 —24�i
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? [:]Yes ❑ No
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑"No
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 2'No
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes [�JNo
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:
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?
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ZNo [:]NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ,] Nb ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
[� No
❑ 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).
SoAl +eat dlje 2OTS
Cak%bmboy'\S ('2Nk_1 ) 115�s y-C-1-Zy
51\idye survey �zoz� I -2,c,-z2 00 JGwl 6011, t f
LV ZGLZ, hay'\
VVrA S k-e q►nu►y5 S - +nu p�+-in Zyrcly
y-��-z�-t U •�N
W ►hC h \ncA'V-- 5 VO t-
ReviewerlInspectorName: L61Vlr'i'Y1 Milim 1-e
Reviewerrinspector Signature:
Page 3 .f3 IA trPV\ AM„�aP G' AeA - 1v n,iV
Phone: 1161 - 10
Date: ICJ -L$ ILA
S/12/2020