Laserfiche WebLink
fell 0-7 760 <br /> e <br /> There is a septic system and a domestic well on site. According to the owner, there <br /> are no buried tanks on the property. There are not visual signs of any such tanks <br /> (ground settling, irregular ground, etc.). The only potential concern of contamination <br /> F would be the two above ground fuel tanks. They are not contained in a containment <br /> area. <br /> E There is not a pond to retain storm runoff from the 182 acre parcel. Rainwater is <br /> disposed of by natural drainage, percolation, or evaporation. <br /> As previously stated, the site has been farmed with grapes. The owner farms the <br /> property. There are no chemicals permanently stored on site. See the Appendix for <br /> chemicals that have historically been used on the site. The farmer applies these products <br /> with his own personnel under County permit (Permit No. 39-03-3904674). They are <br /> used in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. <br /> A brief summary of chemicals applied historically, paraquat, methyl bromide, <br /> chloropicrin, and sevin. See Appendix for a full list of chemicals used in that area and <br /> additional detail regarding chemical use. <br /> The depth to groundwater in this vicinity is approximately 100 feet. The soil type is <br /> generally loam. The types of products used on this site are consistent with the <br /> surrounding property. <br /> According to the landowner, there are no known chemical containers buried on the <br /> property. A visual inspection did not produce any evidence of buried containers. The <br /> field investigation also did not yield any unusual (noxious) orders. The only potential <br /> concern of contamination would be the two above ground fuel tanks. These tanks are <br /> not located in a containment area. The parcels will continue to be farmed in the same <br /> manner as in the past. <br /> CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION <br /> Based on visual observation, County records noted, and testimony of the property <br /> l owner, there appears to be no surface contamination. Given the scope of this study, <br /> l the probability of subsurface contamination should be considered low and normal to <br /> this region. Based on visual observation, no corrective action is necessary at this time. <br /> II <br /> 2 <br /> C:1Dillon&Murphy10326\Surface&Subsurface Report <br />