820415_Routine_20231011

Facility No. I F2 Time in Time Out Dam
� i
Farm Name � lnteuracc sy - Q G e
Owner }-
-M 11► I G Site R m
eeratc No,
Sack -up No.
COC Q- S— Circle: General . or NPDES 1
FREEBOARD: Design ffC
Observed��
Crop Yield
Rain Gauge
Soil Test
Weekly Freeboard
Spray/Freeboard Drop _
}heather Codes
Waste Analysis:
Date
ILISM 1UM-0e
Wettable Acres
_ Daily Rainfall "-)/.9 —_.-/I _ 1
120 min Inspections'
Nitrogen (N)
Sludge Survey
Calibration/GPM /
Waste Transfers
Rain Breaker i ciq oo Yt
PLAT _ ( 0O
1-in Inspections
q ":f * Z/a
Date Nitrogen (N)

Ii ype of visa: W uompuance inspection V Operation Review U Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance I
Reason for Visit: ('_� Routine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
Date of Visit: la Il 23 Arrival Time: li) : p Departure Time: County: SG �l1 N
Farm Name: I Owner Email:
Owner Name: PreSfia g 2 f� r m 5 Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: AMPN M b Title:
Onsite Representative: O I I e
Certified Operator: V j Clro �- p d n ,029 q C
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Phone:
Region:
Integrator: pyQ�ne I
Certification Number: 10 6 � � f
Certification Number:
Longitude:
3 Design
Current
Design` Current==
I)pesign
Current
Swine . Capacity
Pop.,-
Wet Poultry
3
Capacity Pop. y,
Cattle Gapac>ty
`Pop.
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Layer
Non -Layer
DOD S Design Current
Dry Poultry Capacity Pon. °h
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Discharees 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?
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes N No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 511212020 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of Inspection:
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes n No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?: Iy NQ_
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes ls� 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 h] 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 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 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes Q 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 Acceptablljje Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): G�" I- I
13. Soil Type(s): GQ l h I o J
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes Q No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes Q No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes q No ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
Q] No
❑ 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 Coverage & Permit
Yes]
No
NA
of readily available?
❑
❑
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
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
�] No
❑ NA
❑ NE
0 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
[ No
❑ 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
511212020 Continued

Facility Number: jDate of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check Yes ❑ 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 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes No ❑ 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 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 No ❑ 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?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question#): Explain any YES answers; and/or any additionaTrecommendations (it- an' other comments
Use drawings=of fh6lity'to liettier„explain situations (use additional pages as necessary)°:
°.
arm W had high c,,1vd9Q since 2o1�)
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Phone:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Date:
511212020