820131_routine_20210923

a'7 T'
:b'vision of Water Resources
Division of'Soiland Water Co
I Other.Agency
Type of Visit: e�. liance 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:
Farm Name:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Arrival Time:
g .oa
/1 - 4'14I1-t r t�R rn't-
Departure Time:
5119v
Owner Email:
Phone:
County: Region: FeD
nett is
Onsite Representative:
Title: / lj7e-c-
1 Integrator:
Certified Operator: (76:Z0 /97,€)
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
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?
/778/
❑ Yes ErNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑NA NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[Yes No El NA ID NE
❑ Yes , o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Ff
Page 1 of 3
2/4/2015 Continued

Facility Number: - /,5/
Date of Inspection: / A.3 of
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
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?
❑Yes EiCelo ❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): /9- /9"
Observed Freeboard (in): 027
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
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 ❑ 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
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 [ago ❑ NA ❑ NE
['No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
ETo ❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes []'1Go ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes QNo ❑NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes EKNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN 0 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
X/Y alt /pvd6=z-cl
l/z /gQ/wyo-
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes ENo ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? 'es ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes lErNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application? 0 Yes RIo ❑ NA ❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment? ❑ Yes Q'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available? ❑ Yes ago ❑ NA ❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check ❑ Yes algo ❑ NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements El Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes To ❑ NA ❑ NE
O Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ 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 © ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes 4o ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 5/12/2020 Continued

Facility Number: t 2 - 43/
Date of Inspection: ?-a,-j'Z`I
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey
on -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
❑ Yes [3 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
2 res ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
/a—?- m a La -fie' /M
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals
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? ❑ Yes
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? ❑ Yes
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? 'es
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
th 24 hours and/or document
2vNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
alto ❑ NA ❑ NE
iNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
QNo ❑NA ❑NE
E'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
[JNo ❑NA ❑NE
Et -No
[/]No
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NA
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ NE
❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YESanswers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
me /ia.o( a- °fib -gro ,./ ry z✓ 4 bib(a+-7L 3af,k ,
CClem-rend flire in a tb% ar1r Pr/ a612 Gt l?a �s'��1�%� '_ r ��d war
oriK3 ut "44b r'` O' ItoticJA L was- G9ewt +d('-10 1 't 4`^ d
rS.ssac 's;eap..as7bss,c 4dl
,Ht"Y Work- tl•_. Gaaa-t_Y s
,s 0I 4 2-101s
VwK I(fe//pc✓tt_p;rt, 0167,5%ofork_ l,je
roost baz, ce'fb:»YJ put
d'w3vX
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Phone: 9"/D 3.7 D/,S/
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Date:
5/12/2020 .