SU0005250 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

E FACILITY INSPECTION REPORT MUSCO FAMILY OLIVE COMPANY SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY Concrete Bypass Channel and Altered Streambed I inspected the concrete bypass channel, which bypasses of surface water flow around the Reservoir, and discharges to the drainage that traverses Musco's property and flows through a culvert under 1-580 adjacent to the first culvert near Evaporation South Field . I observed no water discharging from its terminus to the drainage (Photo 50). In March, I had documented evidence of wastewater spilling from the bypass channel to the drainage (compare with Photos 45 through 53 of the March 2006 FIR)_ At the channel's head, I observed that closed gate valve impounded water in the drainage and a portable pumping station was set up to pump impounded water to the Reservoir (Photo 51). Upstream of the impounded water, I saw that the vegetation, as well as sediment discharges, in the altered streambed had been removed in the reach to the spring (Photos 52 through 58) (compare to Photo 52 of the March 2006 FIR). Leikam indicated that it was his understanding that Musco has authorization to maintain the channel and that this maintenance work includes vegetation removal. Oldfather said Musco does not have authorization from DFG for the vegetation removal work and that this work was performed in violation of Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. Oldfather also said that the discharge of wastewater and wastewater-affected sediment to the drainage constituted a violation of Section 5650 of the Fish and game Code. I collected for laboratory analysis a sample of soil in the altered streambed below the bridge (Sample 5) and a sample of the spring water (Sample 2). ' 55 West Field 1 inspected 55 West Field and observed multiple erosion channels and no vegetation growth (Photo 59). 1 inspected two sumps uphill from the altered streambed. The first is close to the head of the concrete bypass channel; the second is close to the upper end of the Reservoir. I observed that the condition of the first sump was improved compared to when I inspected it last March, when I documented that wastewater and storm water runoff had discharged from the sump to the altered streambed (see Photos 48 through 52 of the March 2006 FIR). I observed a metal tank had been placed in the sump to prevent erosion damage, and an overflow steel pipeline had been installed to convey overflow to the Reservoir (Photo 60). 1 collected a sample of the discharge from this pipeline (Sample 3). I inspected the second sump and observed that a steel pipeline had been installed to convey overflow from the sump to the Reservoir (Photo 61). 1 photographed the sump's tank and overflow pipeline Photo 62).