310478_Compliance Evaluation Inspection_20210827

Division of Water Resources
Facility Number �i _ - 0 Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit lecompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reasan for Visit: *Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: Arrival Time: Departure Time: ® County: .i A tilt/ i Region: U 1 Ri
Farm Name: L "e f`:( '�\ 1.-L- n �,(�rl_ Owner Email: '�'�"`
Owner Name: Lee, e1C F-ICf LCjjT1q t� �,,� Phone: ��/�
Mailing Address: 1 [r) 1 ii YI(U.�)Cll ILI�r Pjf1y- I'll 1) I li
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: 17l i Title:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Phone:
Integrator: I l lr1P `�In�/Y�/(�lian
Certification Number:
`I (C�errttification Number: —'7-1, �/ "1'
Latitude: c q) I0 Longitude: '—'f 7 c 49 LLoq
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
Layer
Non -La yer
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wcan
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gills
Boars
Other
Other
Design Current
Dry Poultry Capacity Pop.
La ers
Non -La ers
Pullets
Turks s
Turks Poulls��l
Other
Discharues and Stream Impacts
I. 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?
Page I of 3
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes ®No ❑ NA [:]NE
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes Z No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes g No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes J�g No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [@ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
21412015 Continued

Facility Number: 11tate of Inspection,
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ® 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
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any ofthe structures observed? ❑ Yes 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 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 tW 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 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes IV No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes K 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 ofAcceelptable Crop Window
-_,,�❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
l
12. Crop TYpe(s): uo -3nA
13. Soil Type(s): Nog
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes UI No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ 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 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Reunited 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 IN 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 W No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall [:]Stocking ❑ Cmp 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 m install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of3 2141201S Continued

Facility Number: Date of Inspection: -
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 PDA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List stmcture(s) and date of fast survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes
® No
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes
No
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 ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes W No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[:]Yes N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
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 facfli to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
( (d'91d GeVY0 c Ir d� 11
wlC ah�
�I�bs��� ulz��zo ►2ZC�'�'►
tu- 1z 4MI11,5 0,04 aJ 1.51
o3134V 14,i3
�orlTe�s1': �►hn�21
11* Oea�_� 4115 QC&
wuoL�e�l 3}2�ril
51( e 3,, fete -Z5 Zo
1:� Zr�
Reviewer/inspector Name: ( Phone: "I -bµ - t4%
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: = Date: � Page 3 oj3 V 21412015