SU0006227 SSCRPT - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

L L MACHADO PROPERTY Page 13 WKA No. 6078.02 L November 1, 2004 LSimilarly, abandonment and backfilling of the existing dairy wastewater ponds and the irrigation tailwater pond must be completed in conformance with the recommendations of an experienced L geotechnical engineering firm, and in close consultation with the earthworking, environmental and soils engineering staff when the abandonment work occurs. It will be important to remove all accumulated organics and redoxymorphic soils from the bottoms of on-site ditches, irrigation Lwater and wastewater ponds. The organics may be applied at agrarian rates to the surrounding cultivated fields, but we emphasize that this activity should be completed in coordination with Lthe project geotechnical engineer and earthworking staff. These operations are necessary for both geotechnical (soils stability of pond backfill) and environmental reasons (mitigate potential formation of methane gas). In summary, we have performed a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with Lthe scope and limitations of ASTM Standard Practice E 1527-00 for the Machado Property located in San Joaquin County, California. We have made no exceptions to, or deletions from, the Standard Practice with respect to the Phase 1-site assessment aspects of our work. This Assessment has revealed no evidence of Recognized Environmental Conditions in connection with the subject property. L LIMITATIONS LThe statements and conclusions in this report are based upon the scope of work described above and on observations made only on the dates of our field reconnaissance and field explorations, August 31,2004. Our work was performed using a degree of skill consistent with that of competent environmental consulting firms perfomvng similar work in the area, and we have Lattempted to obtain as much information regarding the property as possible, given what we consider to be a reasonable amount of research. Additional research and/or sampling, site clearing and L grubbing,or receipt of information regarding the property that was not disclosed or available to us during our assessment may result in revision of our conclusions. The conclusions in this report should be reevaluated if site conditions change. No recommendation is made as to the suitability of the property for any purpose. The results of our investigation do not V' preclude the possibility that materials currently or in the future defined as hazardous are present on l• the property,nor do our results guarantee the potability of groundwater beneath the property. Our concurrent soils sampling and testing program was targeted to evaluate surficial and near-surface soils of the property at the explored locations only for the most likely potential contaminants as Ift L WALLACE�KUHL E,ASSOCIATE5 INC.