820490_Inspection_20210217

KF ems z1612.
Back-up Operator: me I od rite
Location of Farm:
Facility Number
jogDivision of Water Resources
. Division of Soil and Water Conservation
0 Other Agency
Type of Visit:
Reason for Visit:
Compliance Inspection 0 Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance
Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit:
Farm Name:
621111111111
Arrival Time:
Bacon Pao;
Owner Name: Ci i f f tQ to
Po
Departure Time: RBA
Owner Email:
Phone:
Region: FC:\
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Facility Contact: CI i f f tO i--.e Title: O ne k o 1 C
Onsite Representative: C II f F m re Integrator:
Phone:
ifhftP icj
)
Certified Operator: Certification Number: (00878 7
Certification Number: IOO?)7
Latitude:
Longitude:
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
Wean to Finish
can to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Other
Wet Poultry
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
Layer
Non -Layer
Dry Poultry
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Cattle
Design Current
Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
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 No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes E No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes+1E1N° ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes JNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
Page 1 of 3
2/4/2015 Continued

Facility Number:
L
ta'1
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
Structure 2
2.
1 q I
10 e
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?
Yes
Yes
Structure 5
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
No ❑NA ❑NE
Structure 6
No ❑NA ❑NE
No ❑NA ❑NE
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 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
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.
D Yes No
❑ Yes hNO
❑ Yes
❑ 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): e Mill et
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑NE
13. Soil Type(s): Lk) Cq at CJ rf
C7oicJ; fPt7)
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
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes I No
❑ Yes 1 No
❑ Yes No
❑ Yes �] No
❑ Other:
❑ NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑NE
21. Does record keeping
need improvement? If yes, heck the appropriate bo below. / ❑ Yes No
Waste A lication✓ WeeklyFreeboard Waste Analysis Soil Analysis Waste Trans ers
❑ pP ❑ ❑ Y ❑ Y ❑
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield/ ❑ 120 Minute Inspections" ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes
Page 2 of 3
1.<,(1,. ft ra
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Weather Code
❑ Sludge Survey
[:V No ❑NA ❑NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
2/4/2015 Continued

Date of Inspection: '�I
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes
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:
No ❑NA ❑NE
No ❑NA ❑NE
26. Did the facility fail 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 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 No 0 NA 0 NE
❑ 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
❑ Yes
❑Yes
No ❑NA ❑NE
No ❑ NA ❑ NE
-No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
u-e, *-e (ov a Q 5 nv t-- nq2-e € N ),02t)
NDt.
Cali" igrOli o du-e 12-pi/al
�
Reviewer/Inspector Name: -P, �� ritvnDr•
Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Lk1U D
p g
Phone:
Date: ), 1
1'c)
Page 3 of 3
2/4/2015