SU0005250 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

J MUSCO FAMILY OLIVE COMPANY AND THE STUDLEY COMPANY -2- WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND LAND DISPOSAL FACILITY SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY INSPECTION REPORT close to 100% coverage with the NyPa Forage. Regional Board staff commented that based on a 2-ft on center planting plan, there were a considerable number of missing plants. Musco staff responded that a number of sprigs die with each planting. When asked by Regional Board staff about replanting to replace the dead sprigs, Musco staff stated that they would not be replanting the Pasture field. Regional Board staff observed that the sprinkler patterns in this field were whole circles and that the sprinklers appeared to have been watering unvegetated areas. Ms. Wyels reminded Mr. Hall of the requirement to irrigate only vegetated areas. According to Musco staff, irrigation is typically for 15-minute intervals in each field. Musco staff later added that if, for example, a field log in a monthly monitoring report shows that a field was irrigated for two hours, then that field was irrigated in 15-minute intervals totaling two hours, but with resting periods between irrigation intervals. Regional Board staff commented that the soil in the tailwater return ditch appeared to be recently disturbed; Mr. Leikam stated that the ditch had been put in a few days prior to the inspection. Tailwater flows under the entrance road and into the Spur North field. The background soil sampling station is located above the Pasture field. The inspection tour thenproceeded to cross the -_ s entrance road past the Spur North field to the 18 North f� field (Figure 2). NyPa Forage was planted in the western portion of 18 North last autumn; the eastern portion of 18 North was planted in spring of 2006. The NyPa Forage A field was sparsely planted, with poor to minimal growth. Regional Board staff observed eroded rills throughout the field, as well as occasional salt crusts (figure 3). The gullies deepened and darkened to Rills Figure 2—Field 18 North Rill Salt crust OR... Figure 3—Salt Crust and Rill in 18 North black toward o rd the sump at the lower end of the field. Standing tailwater was observed in the sump. When Mr. Rosenbaum asked why the wastewater in the sump z was bubbling, Mr. Hall replied that it was probably Figure 4—Fermenting Wastewater in 18 North fermenting (Figure 4). Regional Board staff asked about a pipe leading out of the sump to a larger sump area and were told that the pipe was capped off. Regional Board staff asked how tailwater was returned. Musco staff explained that one of their staff comes out with a portable pump and hose, and pumps out the sump back into the field. Musco staff