ARCHIVED REPORTS_LIMITED PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AND SUMMARY OF PROJECT TO DATE

Home Browse Search

November 16, 2005 NOA Project Number: E05120B Mr.Huggins stated that he would like to review a workplan for any further investigations on the Site,and that he will put an EHD dairy inspector on-site during any future investigations. 5.2 Communication with Regional Water Quality Control Board David Welch of NOA spoke with Charlene Herbst (916-464-4724) of the Confined Animal Unit, Regional Water Quality Control Board (Board), on November 2,2005. Mr.Welch inquired regarding the procedure to close a dairy site in preparation for residential use. Ms. Herbst indicated that in order to get the site "cleaned and cleared," all manure and discolored soil must be removed from the impoundment areas,including the corrals. Generally,removal of the soil should occur through the discolored zones. According to Ms. Herbst,it is the Board's policy that any groundwater contamination from the dairy should be reported to the new property owner in a real estate disclosure. Though the Board does not have any plans for requiring remediation of the groundwater at dairy sites,it is possible that future policy changes may require some action for monitoring and cleaning up groundwater. According to Ms. Herbst, the Board should be notified when the manure and discolored soil have been removed from the site. At that time, the Board will send an inspector to observe the soil conditions. After the site has been inspected by the Board,and with approval,it may be graded. The Board will then remove the dairy from its active list and send a letter stating it is a closed dairy. • 5.3 File Review at SJC EHD Abigail Racco of NOA performed a review of the dairy file for the site at the EHD on November 8, 2005. The file contained documentation of the California Superior Court lawsuit filed against the Machados and Kimbroughs,including a Tentative Decision dated September 7,2000 stating that "on at least fourteen days during the three years preceding the filing of this action, defendants discharged pollutants into the ditches bordering their property." Penalties totaling$1,000,000 were imposed; all but$100,000 were suspended. The Statement of Decision and Judgement included testimony by one neighbor to the east of the property that their well was flooded by manure-laden water, fouling the water which came from their internal plumbing. Other neighbors were also offended by the water. As of the 2000 decision, it was found that the"design and location of the pond does not allow complete cleaning even with a 50-foot reach excavator." The defendants were ordered to build high,compacted berms around the facility,increase the capacity of the pond to three million cubic feet,install valves between the pasture and the pond, construct roofs over the corrals, and grade the corrals to eliminate standing water. • 9