820345_Routine Inspection_20240821

Type of Visit: ti Compliance Inspection U Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: rf Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: l(!J Arrival Time: LYJ14ii] Departure Time: aU
Farm Name: A %y�i1 j y ,, qyit-
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: 6&11Title:
OnsiteRepresentative: __. it
Certified Operator: p� �14e y
to
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Owner Email:
Phone:
Region: eK0
Phone:
Integrator: jn> w /
Certification Number: `c7 '1/t_
Certification Number:
Longitude:
q¢ t k, § §4b41 �ti#rcak+a»
td$d44i t"4A 6}51
#&�L'xt .+mxi#Ns€;#µ4axNN
4`�q}p#;� t#0ry'k #t'-0n#
d40M1 iY A$Nuts c-mpRY B'w #ak9t9r4e$�i�$pp..#'}9
m4t�u#Nana
d$
x##ibk@ A #}�p. k�kmaaff�t4Y`�i4n`§yry
84484b A#,pS4Ye kia44tnnao�.P�4f7Hk&a#§#a�}aio-t
iid'44Ud,
a'#11a0�x ua 4e ay.;a4
»4NaCxiaep#kk
$}N *'u#**Deer n u #���";
A§#ate#a tr.a#t
a)va a, exs#�+a,.: li
a'Rxi aau ?r�##4s #Non-Layer4,..m�v+} w, KKa aaa
N44#ca.
Ax$4':d Wft.'a rra°l'Ula�t, #
tt Wean to Finish
;g
Wean to Feeder
4 Layer se
Dairy Cow,
Dairy Calf §
Dairy Heifer
Feeder to Finisht*r
a Farrow to Wean
°#
# * 60 0 6, °
Dry Cow
+'M
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow
to Finish
&°
Layers
Beef Stocker
=44} Gilts
e.#a
§s'
pa
'sue'
Non -La ers
'
Is=
% i
Beef Feeder
z¢( Boars
a#a
Pullets
S
Turk
as
Beef Brood Cow
}+Y
i4t'4b5E9# S}*4¢R%ktli4$Axgp§g'4 ri 5]#f##kdxd##`dM9#Ytti §b•+rokNa�$x#naq #x6:Yg
N��:N�Ri�b n4�Fs4'9t
i�pehMm�$Csppgit�S
gq#y,Tt'Novti#i
�d4 4' '##G###948#1
a
Turkey Poults
I
$
as
Otherwit
4 a+
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?
❑ YesANo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [—]No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes
❑ No
ql AA
❑ NE
ElYes.
No
M �lNzA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
ETNo
❑+NA
❑ NE
Page 1 of 3 511212020 Continuer)

Facilit Number: jDate of Inspection: p-/
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes _0 *To
❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes ❑ No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Struerre 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5 Structure
6
Identifier:
Spillway?: �--
Designed Freeboard (in): 77
Observed Freeboard (in): Zt
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes 2/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 E!�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 -2-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<-Er�o
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes eNNo
❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes ErNO ❑ 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): _1� as
13. Soil Type(s):
(
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑7`
Yes No` ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes AE�No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes jo'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 EI'No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes El'No
❑ 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 El Checklists ❑Design ❑Maps ❑ Lease Agreements
❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes ., No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Weather
Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rainfall
Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes ❑/ JNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes 2�No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3
511212020 Continued

Facili Number: jDate of Inspection: d
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes .Ej< ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
❑ Yes E j FIo ❑ 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:
py,
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge?
❑ Yes [3-No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification?
❑ Yes J No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes Q'qo ❑ 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_Q 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 -E3 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.
❑ YesL❑ 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 J:[Ao ❑ 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 Eallo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Phone: '7/(J g i5—
Date: g(/7
Page 3 of 3 511212020

r•aaury NO. —3dfs Time In
Time Out
Farm Name
Owner Integrato'
Operator • Site Rep,
'
No.
Back-up
No. _
COC Circle: General or NPDES
FREEBOAKu: uesign
Observed
Crop Yield Ll�--
Rain Gauge
Soil Test y Wettable Acres
Weekly Freeboard Daily Rainfall
Spray/Freeboard Drop
Weather Codes _4,:f 120 min Inspectionsy
Waste Analysis:
Date Nitrogen (N)
7
Date
Calibration/GPM
Waste Transfers
Rain Breaker
PLAT
1-in Inspections
Date Nitrogen (N)