760008_Inspection_20191008

AFL 16 ' el $ ea ' — r @
'' , c� ,,f `+ .rr,'i . i;" b ,,--A-: r�v �, = ,..% ,,�-, -< ,v - ? _ v`_," _r,.�rs. a?=`
Type of Visit: Nip Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit:TT 111 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: mums s Arrival Time:1 ,O.-zrs-� Departure Time:1 \\'.ai,p County: gio* Region: ws
Farm Name: OrOlV VIA -FA
it tlA5' Owner Email:
Owner Name: NII( C AV-t \ Phone: lib tj"y,q- s-3 (I )
Mailing Address: LJ1 1' LLX \A loo k ,i i 0 . be/nwtNC 19O'
Physical Address: A/
Facility Contact: IN 1(X- CXavp v\-, Title: Phone: 6-95-3— (1,1' CC)
Onsite Representative: Integrator: VU r v I S
Certified Operator: V Certification Number: 6Tr0 Vi)(
Back-up Operator: Certification Number:
o 3(4Location of Farm: Latitude: Iu , t� Longitude: 1 3ol/
Wean to Finish -- Layer Dairy Cow
111 Wean to Feeder -- Non LayerDairy Calf
Feeder to Finish 1,017,1�L M4 Dairy Heifer -
11 Farrow to Wean £ 3. • f i-1 Dry Cow
•Farrow to Feeder = ` ` . :: - Non-Dairy
•Farrow to Finish '.1=111111111 Beef Stocker
IIII Gilts ;_-eIII Non-La ers Beef Feeder
MI Boars -- .'•Pullets -- Beef Brood Cow
r _ 4. ;_•Turke Poults —_
•Other -- El Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes rogj No ❑ 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 /4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes [$1 No El NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge? TT
Page 1 of 3 2/4/2015 Continued

Facdi Number: b - a 1 (Date of Inspection: (017
Waste Collection&Treatment
4. Is storage capacity(structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall)less than adequate? 0 Yes 114 No ❑ 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: Nt-P4hA
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard(in):
Observed Freeboard(in):
otl
-
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes 15Q 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 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 1K1 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 170 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 14 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
fin❑ Evidence of Windd Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): 4.&,X , e 6k ` l & I 1.o f r\/ 3r-a_i
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 1;i0 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16.Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes csi 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 VI No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Required Records& Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage&Permit readily available? ❑ Yes 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 ❑Checklists ❑Design ❑Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Waste Application Weekly Freeboard 11 Waste Analysis t Soil Analysis ❑Watt Tiartsf..,3 vi Weather Code
1A1 Rainfall [Stocking Crop Yield '120 Minute Inspections NMonthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections 41Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes rik No ❑ NA ❑ NE
23. If selected,did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑ No NA ❑ NE
Page 2 of 3 2/4/2015 Continued

Facility Number:lb - p � IDate of Inspection: VZ0 �{`CA
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes I No ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes,check ❑ Yes ❑ 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 provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes [4 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments(PLAT)certification? ❑ Yes t$ No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document ❑ Yes 141 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?1lAu vow-
29.At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern? ❑ YesEy(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 %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 4No ❑ 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
Y
Cal. ,90)vh inns . 104 upr (ioi°I�.
Is. pfr h rt se-e Y¢. -
Reviewer/Inspector Name: Qt=c14,4 {�- Phoned 17 O
Reviewer/Inspector Signature. Date: ID s 161
Page 3 of 3 2/4 015