820613_Routine_20211022

Kr .Plric
Type of Visit: ‘9;) Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 13 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit:
Farm Name:
Owner Name:
to-aa•l
Arrival Time:
'Pi
l,n mi►e Farm
Gard Gilau obn
Departure Time:
50
Owner Email:
Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address: b
Facility Contact: Cv it I 1� t �- ba r w ► cK Title: Te C 9I
Onsite Representative: SQ ni e
Certified Operator: J 0h n Bil 1 ct
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
County: SQmpcon Region: fro
Latitude:
Integrator:
Phone:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
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?
❑ Yes 'INo ❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ YesNo ❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes No ❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes ' No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes is No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3
5/12/2020 Continued

Facility Number: C ego - (p
3
Date of Inspection: 10 Via' al
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
Structure 1
NO
I9
Structure 2
No
19
Structure 3
NO
❑ Yes fNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 9No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
y
Nn
,0 3(p
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes RNo ❑ 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 -Kt No 0 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? Ryes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
(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 Th,No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes jNo ❑ NA
❑ 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): CQQ;I OI//�� Bekm00114
ut�d a
13. Soil Type(s): wQq iJI'l 90V Y horo
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?
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes Et_No 0 NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis 0 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? 0 Yes kNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 5/12/2020 Continued
❑ Yesl'gNo ❑ NA 0 NE
❑ Yes "SI.,No ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ Yes RNo ❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes [S,No 0 NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes CNo 0 NA 0 NE
El Yes qNo ❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes ISI‘No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ONo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes CNo ❑ NA 0 NE

Facility Number: ci5,91 - (coo
Date of Inspection: (O'gia'r%1
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes .0No ❑NA ❑NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes IS. 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 noncompliance:
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 0,1Vo ❑ 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 hi 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 ❑ 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?
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 EcNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes NNo ❑ 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).
hit-e'• Soil screopte dye 0--3i•0-1
hot€ worgi'ng oh bete areas oh (Q900f f. added hay fb bQfK5.
note. farm is ci fUinq verb-C-PcJ
ante b-esidec lagoon z -H'w othaxc hqd good vgeta- IvN
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Katie fonfi-?.xlof
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: lI g. C/ (a" 111C
0? Date: 1O"92/
5/12/2020