300022_Inspection_20221027

Type of Visit: Compliance 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:
Arrival Time:
\i d 1(�cz
Farm Name: elacACo1 C 3Q,v- 1ty6
Departure Time:
\VMS
Owner Email:
County:
vie)
Region: wjeb
Owner Name: Di t t k coo U J\acy..vv/vJ d j1�/� /\ /Phone {ry /52 �- ryq r-
Mailing Address: ��2",_J °Doer (( % I3OC I �� , C iC U n 0
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: I2 tQ , N Clt.Y Title: Phone:
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Latitude:
Integrator:
Certification Number:
Certification Number:
Longitude:
4
v
§ 9` 'surv+m R •n
� * m a4a�::�#xs �t
trtr��
ii # piiM i$i ttk
6 #d ?.
K� 9 #�'
e��
4'� #44#i$
.d .$ �$
# ��t`' 4��rtam�4�4x�a
$fit#
}'"
� #+ #'4i'NC
S4 #}&
daY vi#:A 4t4�obiMt
t�*�vtaa
@#u srkS
�g�y�#y y, #7n
ugilk 3�xs
A$# #, };Pk88u
:�'BE� db # £4#
� i • � �
##�
'4w& t #f&'h'&
X }�
1 � t
firoN.Svipn k
� N�@ #��x#af i#t•0&$���... al�� ($'
b ti� � r w a� d+�t � "i
#•x g8 tD s#'a Pbss G%)� 1# S{;08#
#5 tY'se*bI F ,YSt{ aaxpY $ I
in. tlk xx• tlia $$4
e q4
#
Wean to Finish
Layer
Y
��.. �
DairyCow
is
Vane
g, r
Wean to Feeder
4rt
Non Layer
fairy Calf
a;(
Feeder to Finish
#f4 k4ti. }4iffda a #p" } q g p
� � �¢aigq# #&� �itk #*�, a> 4&
Dairy Heifer
�q
Farrow to Wean
#�
�#e�&�•������,rs� ,��� u�mon �¢
Dry Cow
�$
$
Farrow to Feeder
rap'tt,�tri�y;;*paotp�`� ,•,3�Non-Dai
¢e
Farrow to Finish
$
Layers
e u
Beef Stocker
;
t
Gilts
t"
Non -Layers
i m4'
Beef Feeder
Boars
Pullets
i
Beef Brood Cow
s Turkey
rizmi�x
`a"`#a 4«�.assi," ( ar�pygpi $
#
pax
4..#k4S# -k#+ �xix8
#X#Nk# dE5!$G{G 55{�•�p•*#5iR I .tm '�
Turkey Poults
y
SSe�p§
#$�
5.._
Other
§
d4Ed�•}.�#<2 id Yfi ":x{%tR5iwx3. # $,`iYax..xax''p*. §"}44ipAk$•Ak Mc.}'ou..v*#+ 4xfi+}ix.8.aa�nt#.+4444 ,, ,x.:
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 rSi No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑Yes El No El NA ❑NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3
5/12/2020 Continued

Facility Number: OD -
(Date of Inspection:
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?
Identifier:
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in):
Observed Freeboard (in):
Structure 1
V�SaP
c
Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
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 pubd
❑ Yes T7"' No_ ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 5 Structure 6
❑ Yes 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes )1 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
c health or environmentalthreat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
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.
❑ Excessive Ponding D Hydraulic Overload
D PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs.
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window
12. Crop Type(s):
13. Soil Type(s):
❑ Frozen Ground
❑ Yes )4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 1I4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes ,I No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes [ZNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Heavy Metals (Cia, Zn, etc.)
❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
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 0 Checklists ❑Design ❑Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
❑ Yes RI No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 14 No ❑NA ❑NE
❑ Yes ❑ No cA NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes VI No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 7J No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA 0 NE
❑ Yes ® No ❑ NA ❑ NE
21. Does record keeping need improvement? Dyes;-oheok-the-appropriate.box_helow._ ® Yes 0 No
�
I�Waste Application Weekly Freeboard Waste Analysis Se 1 . ❑ W7�arRs rTrattsfers
• Rainfa P n egg Crop Yield 0-120-Mimrte loscrectirs Mon ly and 1" Rainfal ns
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?
Page 2 of 3
u
No
❑ Yes ❑ No
es
❑ NA ❑ NE
Weather Code
udge-Siuvey-
❑ NA ❑ NE
NA ❑NE
2/4/2015 Continued

Facility Number: % 0
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
Date of Inspection: i Or? I�"-
II ❑Yes MNo ❑NA ❑NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes ❑ No IA I 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 ricj 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 X 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 70 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 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
0sa a ert t
CU l U J7raFiof oluL i YY l3 yCOV (202) n.cC-C- 9,0;�
Sot 15 coe. (?fa)
�(G f ncetkl vvt bS-s , I•"C> C c5v�C2 rn
60 CO \OO (Linn 6 - p1oM s `Dt23 Glostil v e�
(` n VVAn5 Dr�2 rrv� i511\4t [ -�V GVui MG.k ses ik:k- Yretvi s
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
(Moe( (a C Acoc1l-e,r
Phone:
Date:
Ibl2ri.20-
5/12/2020