HomeMy WebLinkAbout330002_Compliance Evaluation Inspection_202408281, 14 0 r U-Division of Water Resources
Facility Number - O Division of Soil and Water Conservation
O Other Agency 1.
Type of Visit: Co lance Inspection Operation Review Q Structure Evaluation p Technical Assistance
Reason for Visit: Routine O Complaint O Follow-up O Referral O Emergency O Other O Denied Access
�- ZS-
Date or visit: Arrival Time: J i U Departure Time: County: 6 D 6a tiP fW Region: 90
Farm Name: c 1qj' 11,0A A � ff/C - Owner Email:
Owner Name:
Mailing Address:
Phone:
Physical Address: '7 // NL 17 L),
Facility Contact: Toil yL1J G M'4'j Title: Phone: 2 SZ - 4 "'!9
Onsite Representative:
Certified Operator: d pd 41 p K Aid
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Swine
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Other
Integrator:
Certification Number: ��
Certification Number:
Latitude:
Design Current Design Current
Capacity Pop. Wet Poultry Capacity Pop.
La er
Non -La er
Pullets
Poults
Design Current
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?
Longitude:
Design Current
Cattle Capacity Pop.
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
.Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
[—]Yes El "NU ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Yes ICJ<c [DNA ❑ NE
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR)
❑ Yes
allo ❑ 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
Io ❑ NA
❑ NE
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 511212020 Continued
Facility Nu jnber: 33 - p Z I I Date of Inspection: 8 _'LB — Z Lf
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
Zf No ❑ NA ❑ NE
ZJ'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
Structure l Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4 Structure 5 Structure 6
Identifier: �` _ 2 •� S
Spillway?:
Designed Freeboard (in): q 7—
Observed Freeboard (in): Z ey/N_1�iAN%
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed? ❑ Yes Ee 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 ff No ❑ NA 0 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 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 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 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 ❑ 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? ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement? ❑ Yes FJ'No ❑ NA ❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable ❑ Yes E31Flo ❑ NA ❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
L2<o ❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
51KO",❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
Flo ❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ YesFa-lq'01:1
NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑Checklists ❑ Design ❑ Maps ❑ Lease Agreements ❑Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes to ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis [—]Soil Analysis ❑ Waste Transfers ❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and V Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge? ❑ Yes �o ❑ 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 511212020 Continued
Facility N bcr: - 02, Date of Inspection: R _ 7 .9_ -z
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes ffNo ❑ NA ❑ NE
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check 0 Yes Ej<o ❑ 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 0 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
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:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
33. Did the Revieweriinspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
ENo
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
Now
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
� o
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Yes
L3Ko
❑ 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).
lh'A S i t fI AIA
Z
GN,aI -
4'
pd
•�N
G
t`+
Reviewer/inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
Phone: g/g - 7 9l - 7 Zyl
Date: f 2- 8 - �-
5/12/2020