Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout310091_Compliance Evaluation Inspection_20231005 (2)rvision of Water Resources Division of Soil and Water Conservation Facility Number 3 0 Other Agency Type of Visit: CY—Compliance Inspection Operation Review 0 Structure Evaluation 0 Technical Assistance Reason for Visit: Sef outine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access Date of Visit: ( $ Arrival Time: Departure Time: County: Farm Name: 0y },xl(,Xst // .LVev, �d ��, Owner Email: Owner Name: &6r d n Phone: Mailing Address: Physical Address: Facility Contact: Onsite Representative: Ta-n lial Certified Operator: &Z Jh v Back-up Operator: Location of Farm: Design Current Swine Capacity Pop. Wean to Finish Wean to Feeder eederto Finish Farrow to Wean Farrow to Feeder Farrow to Finish Gilts Boars Other Title: Integrator: Phone: Region: W Ile Certification Number: 1 d-o13 Certification Number: Latitude: Design Current Wet Poultry Capacity Pop. Layer Non -Layer Other Design Current Longitude: Design Current Cattle 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? ❑ Yes 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 ❑ NA ❑ NE 2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes VNo ❑ NA ❑ NE 3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes ❑ NA ❑ NE of the State other than from a discharge? Page I of 3 511212020 Continued Facilit Number: jDate of Inspection: J i Waste Collection & Treatment 4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate? ❑ Yes a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard? ❑ Yes Struc� Structure 2 Structure 3 Identifier: Spillway?: Designed Freeboard (in): Observed Freeboard (in):— Structure 4 Structure 5 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? Io ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE Structure 6 ❑ Yes �allo ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes �nNo ❑ 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 o ❑ NA ❑ NE 8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit? ❑ Yes 7No ❑ 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 �o ❑ NA ❑ NE maintenance or improvement? Waste Application 10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need ❑ Yes ;yNo ❑ NA ❑ NE maintenance or improvement? 11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Excessive Pending ❑ 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 El Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements [:]Yes N �o ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes L1J � o ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes Q No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes Eo ❑ NA ❑ NE [—]Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes L]Xo ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes [�No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑Other: 21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. [:]Yes ro ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code ❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey 22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes Q4o ❑ NA ❑ NE 23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment? ❑ Yes ❑Xo/ ❑ NA ❑ NE Page 2 of 3 511212020 Continued Facili Number: 1 Date of Inspection: 16 , 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: 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: KI,No ❑ NA ❑ NE [ No" ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes EC1> — ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes ❑ No Q I A ❑ NE ❑ Yes �o ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes ETNNo ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes ]�No ❑ NA ❑ NE ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ NA ❑ NE 32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP? ❑ Yes Ea'<o ❑ NA ❑ NE 33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative? [—]Yes ETNo ❑ NA ❑ NE 34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency? ❑ Yes D40 ❑ NA ❑ NE Comments (refer to question ft 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). Reviewer/Inspector Name: Reviewer/Inspector Signature: Page 3 of 3 Phone:ylU 5-a / 6Ko Date: 16/1-/ 3 511212020