820711_Routine Inspection_20240715

Type of Visit: OTompliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation Q Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: 9111outine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other Q Denied Access
Date of Visit: / 3 Arrival Time: ru Departure Time: U iU/J County: E n
!n /
Farm Name: / �� �/iYii/l,GrOwner Email:
Owner Name: " Rap- Phone:
v
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: 4iC(,Gn td% A' o Title:
Phone:
Region: 1--;eGj
Onsite Representative: Integrator: ��c ['X
Certified Operator: 1� Certification Number: 17 7&
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
Location of Farm: Latitude: Longitude:
tij�fiitk,,
pi,
t is ili
it I
i{� tit
4
jj
Wean to Finish
Layer
Dairy Cow
Wean to Feeder
Non -Layer
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish - d 7
Dairy Heifer
I
Farrow to Wean
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
t '
{ti,�!'{ r Gl 1 i
Non -Dairy
{
Farrow to Finish
Layers
Beef Stocker
u;!!.Gilts
i
Non -Layers
I ' Beef Feeder
t�1EE
Boars
Pullets
i Beef Brood Cow
Turkeys
a
TurkeyPoults
{e!i
Other
if tfk6ilki { ;pS35
tn!:N it
,Eiii i:i 713t
t ii�i f�
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 2No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
_Q%o
❑ 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 r0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes eNo ❑ 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 of the structures observed?
❑ Yes `[SNo
❑ 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?
ZfYes ❑ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes E] 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 -E:j'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 ,,E![-�o
❑ 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. SoilType(s): LL.rm
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes EfNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes E]�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes PFNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes E:7 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes �Jallo
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes JZ14o
❑ NA
❑ 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 JZ'No
❑ 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?
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes e-No
❑ Yes fallo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 511212020 Continued

Facili Number: W --711 Date of Inspection: /S 1
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes J21 o ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ;2;�o ❑ 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 Z'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
dNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
[2�No
❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
E]"No
❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
C2'No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Reviewer/InspectorName: Ul o-if 19WIZIS61IJ Phone: (7,l4
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Date: 7
Page 3 of 3 511212020

racutry No. / I Time In
'n n Time Out
Farm Name
Owner
Integrara'
—
Operator Site Re^
No.
lack -up
No.
COC Circle: General or NPDES
FREEBOARD: Design
Observed
Crop Yield
Rain Gauge
Soil Test // Wettable Acres
Weekly Freeboard // Daily Rainfall 11/�
Spray/Freeboar [)top,
Weather Codes 120 min inspections
Waste Analysis;
Date Nitrogen (N)
Date
Sludge Survey 7I3a /a- C/ r S d
Calibration/GPM
Waste Transfers
Rain Breaker
PLAT
1-in Inspections
Date Nitrogen (N)
o a3 93