760028_Inspection_20221212

Type of Visit: Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: kRoutine 0 Complaint - 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit:
Farm Name:
Owner Name:
Mir'
CAC4 -UC
Gk <AvkiiON\''is (ask t44
Arrival Time:
Departure Time:
County: \il.0t Region: Y-jC' E
Owner Email: r(,tc litt-N—S tang / O @ 1
1 corn
Phone:
Mailing Address: alj '� Da 'i S cow ` Y y e1 } , Rxi\a[mad\ IV / d lLS t 1
,/ I
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: '\A\01S 061110•214—
Onsite Representative:
Title:
Integrator:
Phone:
Certified Operator. lr (cC1/41 (j i/ (1O{ key \Nv j' * Certification Number:
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
c Latitude f V I
Certification Number:
Longitude:-19 s ��I�, l‘
R)Jv( L 3 -7 oc@a.r.9.
r r.e- 12eA . Tom � ?0) po,\J-15 (Ufltn(
£a .
#8 9,a6'A
gar��
#44ka #,�3e't#4@ A t j} 9k,gfrd 4n#at%4#'a
L'1#4ar.Ma G'pvat eak0
i
a'axmsaa�e yf(`It}t
4n'ag8+b A_
otj,(
r� esr1 ft: 1
Wean to Finish
f
Layer
a
Dairy Cow
L
d
f,
Wean to Feeder
Non -Layer
Dairy Calf
Feeder to Finish
� t
Dairy Heifer
to Wean
n
a�aa
Dry Cow
Farrow to Feeder
ataaaaaa
xtylliiy
4i1'tpy fp T�$$ ifs (ap:
a
Non -Dairy
Farrow to Finish
1
Layers
*
Beef Stocker
Gilts
) ;
Non -Layers
i
Beef Feeder
Boars
��"
Pullets
Beef Brood Cow
s s""` $iI1atl sg[sx'a°e=tazg fare aax�
e`'";
Turkeys
alari
av
xz 4 e s ate ».wuiusa'e+
Turkey Poults
x'ay.. estsa#xt#rasa
affi
F ar
Other
agesx,'"�faaaee3i�t
k
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?
❑ Yes XNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ 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 0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes{, No ❑ NA ❑ NE
CAI
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3
5/12/2020 Continued

Facility Number: 71C - ra
Date of Inspection:
1
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):
❑ Yes II�� No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 7❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
uorDP
o "grr
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes yt I No El NA ❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.) �C
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? 7ps1
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) T�
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes cgjNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.
E PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acce'ppttabbAcceptable�Crop Window ❑ Evidence of Wind Drift Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s):.. �1 CO ( fl L4 1a56
13. Soil Type(s):
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes No ❑ NA 0 NE
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?
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
El Yes No ❑NA ❑NE
❑Yes No ❑NA ❑NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check El Yes No El NA ❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑ Checldists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
2 Does record keeping need improvement?�.' — py Yes ❑ No .❑ NA ❑ NE
tyWaste Application Weekly Freeboard Waste Analysi ❑ Soil Analysis sferc Weather Code
❑ Rainfall Stocking Crop Yield . I —I �r onr JJc„PctiaLt8. Montlily and 1" Rainfall Inspections El -Sludge Site.),
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
Page 2 of 3
❑ Yes I No El NA ❑ NE
igation equipment? El Yes �❑ No vg NA ❑ NE
5/12/2020 Continued

Facility Number: I C
J C
Date of Inspection:
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check
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 TNo ❑ 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 I X I No ❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately. 7��/
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the El Yes �y No El NA ❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application) 7�
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? 0 Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 94 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes 0 No 1NA ❑ NE
es1
>;ls 1k oUkskavnC1t
(cU braJ-c u j niik Use'
'01/4)0e O --e5 ski\.k w( NY1'S
ly r0a,t \A Wks a c + 1\ 9,c9
_..\ a . vuo to Q,nn n lcln�2 ��e r ciS\V\
J f N"s likCQ -
fwwvv 'r- I faintCiU e,ei_ ski-hcos)
rn l53(c CeNtki t).(S*C cLY\cdysis
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
✓-i11V1 turn� kk'\i\0 k ���u �,VL Iy plc`) excIvte
asm
mt( crop t� t(,1-j'0'J5x..
r 4> oA- nC vosis CuJ. 5\' -S -- MAY\UVC Q ikvik
b
Phone:434 T % gins"
Reviewer/Inspector Signature. — "`-' Date: I2I 17 CYY
Page 3 of 3
5/12/2020