820448_Routine Inspection_20241002

a Silt k ti,ii -�• a. � }l: k; :', . tl:u I ii.:f<, L�' f, i6 _.: ���, � . f1
Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: JO-Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit:
UDA -% Arrival Time: !.' fI
FF��
Departure Time: , JT/
County: Region:
Farm Name:
Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Phone:
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: (� f�a
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Title:
Latitude:
Phone:
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes E5'1 NA ❑ NE
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure Application Field ❑ Other:
a. Was the conveyance man-made?
Yes
No
NA
❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
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)
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ NA
NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation?
❑ Yes
f] No
Ej NA
NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters
Yes
&No
NA
Ej NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page I of 3 511212020 Continued

Facility Number: jDate of Inspection
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes ,PT�Io ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ 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 .ErNo ❑ 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 _ETNo ❑ 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 F7rNo ❑ 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 A[ o ❑ 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 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 Acceptable Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
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
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes J:]No
❑ Yes [:]PNo
❑ Yes El -No
❑ Yes ®'No
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes Q No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �Io ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes IQ 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 ,ID -No
❑ Yes _EJ.No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3
511212020 Continued

Facility Number: - Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes „ ❑14o ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes J2-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?
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 with 24 hours and/or document
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?
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 ,E]14 ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes Q-5o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes -[]No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 4E) No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes Efj�o ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes �No
❑ Yes E AIo
❑ Yes ONo
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
rlYl �(/� a'oe'- Gum
4w-pc '45:� 164� c'��� car—�f� ,
A ate back c:>/Aaz-r�
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: <Fld
Date: A& Zzw
511212020

r•acsrry NO, 0�-"G �g Time In Time Out _
Farm Name r;4� Integraror
Owner Site Rec.
Operator No.
Sack -up No. _
cOC Circle: General or NPDES
Dam
Design
Current Design Currant
Wean - Feed
Farrow - Feed
Wean- Finish
I I Farrow - Finis`
Feed _ Finish
I I Gifts/ Boars
Farrow -Wean
—
I I Other.
FREEBOARD: Design
Observed
Crop Yield y/
Rain Gauge
Soil Test J �a� Wettable Acres
Weekly Freeboard _� Daily Rainfall L
Spray/Freeboard Drop
Weather Codes 120 min Inspections
Waste Analysis:
Date Nitrogen (N)
)-) Axv -7a--
Sludge SurveyG!
CalibratiorVGPN. j119112ya i16b
Waste Transfers
Rain Breaker
PLAT
1-in Inspections
Date Nitrogen (N)
ro/ y 13 . ;s-