· 2017-05-18 · via email to [email protected] april 7, 2017 charlene herbst...

Family Farms ~ Environmental Sustainability ~ Animal Well-Being

915 L Street, #C-438, Sacramento, CA 95814 ~ PHONE (916) 441-3318 ~ FAX (916) 441-4132 www.DairyCares.com

Via email to [email protected]

April 7, 2017

Charlene Herbst

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board

11020 Sun Center Drive, Suite 200

Rancho Cordova, CA 95670-6114

Re: Comments on [Tentative] “Waste Discharge Requirements General Order for Confined

Bovine Feeding Operations” (hereafter “Tentative Order”)

Dear Ms. Herbst:

On behalf of Dairy Cares, we are providing comments on the above-referenced tentative order.

As you know, Dairy Cares is a coalition of California’s dairy companies and associations,

including the state’s largest dairy producer trade associations, milk processing companies and

cooperatives. Formed in 2001, Dairy Cares is dedicated to promoting long-term environmental

and economic sustainability for California’s family-owned dairy farms, and several of our

member groups represent confined beef cattle operations.

Our biggest concern with the Tentative Order is the significant economic burden it will place on

newly regulated facilities, many of who raise calves and heifers to supply dairies. This creates

new costs that will be added to the already large cost increases that have been placed on

California dairies in recent years as a result of increased regulation of water quality, air quality,

greenhouse gases, labor, and others. The cumulative effect of these costs increases, combined

with other cost increases and volatile milk market conditions, has led to many dairies shutting

down or moving out of state and a steady shrinking of the state’s dairy community, which also

means fewer jobs and less economic growth in the Central Valley. We incorporate by reference

the comment letters also submitted by Western United Dairymen, California Dairy Campaign

and California Cattlemen’s Association as experts in the economic conditions impacting

California’s family-owned dairy farms and other cattle operations. These letters explain the

difficulty posed on the newly regulated operations and also how these costs will be passed on to

dairy farmers, who themselves cannot pass the costs on to consumers or set milk prices.

DC 1

mailto:[email protected]

Comments from Dairy Cares on Tentative Bovine Order April 7, 2017

of 9

With regard to the Tentative Order, we appreciate the opportunities since February 2016 to meet

with your staff and various experts from the University of California and feedlot/calf

ranch/heifer ranch sectors to discuss the previous administrative draft and provide technical

information to the Regional Board. As a result of these meetings and information shared by

various experts, several modifications have been made to the previous draft, which will enhance

the Tentative Order’s ability to protect water quality while moving toward more reasonable and

practical expectations for the regulated community.

Despite these incremental improvements, we continue to have significant concerns. In

summary, these include:

1. Regulatory threshold is too small. The Tentative Order proposes now to focus on

operations with as few as six animal units (hereafter “AU,” e.g. six full-grown steers).

This is excessive regulation, solving no established environmental threat, creating an

enormous administrative burden for the Regional Board, and with it, costs that could be

unfairly passed on to larger regulated operations indirectly through increased fees and

surcharges commonly added to those fees. The Regional Board should at minimum

return to its previously announced intention of regulating only facilities with more than

100 AU. In addition, efforts should be made to exclude all educational projects related to

secondary schools, FFA and 4-H programs, and similar endeavors where education and

not commercial profit is the primary goal.

2. Implementation timeline is too short. The proposed implementation timeline remains

far too aggressive. We propose a more reasonable timeframe that properly takes into

account the previously unregulated nature of this sector, lack of experience of ranch

owners with and awareness of this level of regulatory intervention, the extremely low

and sometimes nonexistent profit margin of small, family-owned operations, lack of an

established education-and-outreach arm for this sector, lack of current and complete data

about the regulated entities, especially the smaller operations, and other socioeconomic

factors. Below we provide suggestions for a more reasonable timeframe.

3. Regional Board should streamline approval for (single) geosynthetic lagoon liners.

While the Regional Board has created streamlined approval for double-lined retention

ponds with leachate collection, failure to do the same for single-geosynthetic-liner ponds

amounts to a requirement to over-engineer pond construction. Single-lined ponds

meeting proper construction standards provide a more-than-adequate level of

groundwater protection, especially given that ponds are only a temporary storage area

for manure that will be applied later to (unlined) fields. Reducing the cost and increasing

the practicality of geosynthetic liners will encourage and incentivize wider use, leading

to reduced seepage from ponds and faster improvement in this area of dairy manure

management.

4. Continued, inappropriate reliance on 1.4 ratio as appropriate regulatory target.

The Regional Board included a regulatory requirement that applied nitrogen on dairy

crops not exceed 140 percent of harvested nitrogen, in General Order R5-2013-0122

DC 2

DC 3

DC 4

DC 5

DC 6


of 9

“Reissued Waste Discharge Requirements for Existing Milk Cow Dairies” (hereafter

“Dairy Order”). Dairy Cares has stated many times previously that setting such a

threshold reflected a significant misunderstanding of what is achievable on most dairies,

and failed to reflect significant uncertainties in measurements and many caveats in the

recommendations of University of California experts, whose 2005 report was used as the

alleged basis for the recommendation. We appreciate that the Tentative Order seems to

slightly soften the emphasis on the 1.4 ratio, however we suggest this ratio be abandoned

entirely in favor of a system that simply requires reporting the A/R ratio until

appropriate guidelines can be set. It may never be appropriate to set a specific numerical

target in regulation because of site-specific conditions, and evolving practices and

technologies. Measurements should be used instead to assess and track performance and

inform future management decisions with a goal of continual improvement. We explain

this further below.

5. Notice of Intent (hereafter “NOI”) is too complex. We strongly advocate for a much

simpler and more straightforward approach for regulated entities to notify the Regional

Board of their intent to comply with the order. This will help ensure a successful first

step in the regulatory process, and improve the chances of establishing a cooperative and

collaborative relationship between regulators and the regulated community throughout

implementation. We offer below several specific suggestions for simplifying the NOI.

6. Regional Board should provide forms for reporting. Regional Board staff have

communicated to us that they have no plans to provide or develop standardized reporting

forms for annual reports. This was an essential part of successful implementation for the

Dairy General Order. Existing forms for dairies are not appropriate for dairy heifer lots,

beef feedlots and calf ranches and requiring those to be used will create confusion.

Rather, the Regional Board should work with stakeholders to identify funding and

appropriate expertise to create user-friendly reporting forms for Annual Reports,

Nutrient Management Plans and Waste Management Plans.

7. Expectations for Representative Monitoring Programs (RMPs) need to be more

practical and realistic. Requirements for RMPs as stated in the Reissued General Order

Waste Discharge Requirements for Existing Milk Cow Dairies (R5-2013-0122, hereafter

“Dairy Order”) are based on impractical assumptions. The requirements state, in

essence, that the RMP shall identify management practices that are protective of

groundwater quality – and those management practices that are not protective – toward

eliminating those non-protective practices and adopting those that are protective. In fact,

no single practice by itself is protective, and often the relative effectiveness of practices

is determined by how diligently they are implemented, site-specific conditions, and their

use in combination with other practices. Even when conditions are ideal, impacts to

groundwater may occur. We suggest the Regional Board update this section to require

RMPs to identify tools, practices and strategies that enhance operators’ ability to reduce

impacts to groundwater. Moreover, this section should recognize and attempt to be

consistent with the ongoing process to amend the Regional Board’s Water Quality

Control Plans to incorporate recommendations from the Salt and Nutrient Management

Plan received by the Regional Board on March 9, 2017. Specifically, it should

DC 6

DC 7

DC 8

DC 9

DC 10


of 9

acknowledge that adopted practices, when employed alone or in combination with other

practices, may be useful if they result in a reduction in impacts, even if those practices

cannot by themselves result in achieving water quality objectives (WQOs) to protect

beneficial uses. This reflects the reality that growers and dairy operators will need to

adopt best management practices to reduce nitrogen and salt impacts in groundwater

even if those practices may not result in immediate or even near-term compliance with

WQOs in all areas.

8. Additional scoping with Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program (ILRP) coalitions is

needed. The Tentative Order identifies in several locations, including the Monitoring

and Reporting Program Attachments B and B1, certain requirements that can be met by

joining an ILRP coalition, or by already being a member of such a coalition. Conversely,

the Tentative Order includes requirements for newly regulated cattle facilities that are

not, or will not be, members of such coalitions. In some cases, deadlines are included for

notifying the Regional Board about intent to join such coalitions. Dairy Cares supports

ILRP coalition membership as an alternative to enrolling cattle operation-related crop

acreage under the Tentative Order, and any such enrollment as a method for complying

with surface water monitoring requirements where they apply. However, for reasons

explained in more detail below (see section on “implementation timeline”), it is not clear

how many operations will be regulated under this Tentative Order, let alone how many

acres of associated cropland may be subject to potential inclusion under the Tentative

Order. Consequently, it also is not known how many acres of land associated with these

to-be-regulated facilities might already be enrolled in one or more ILRP coalitions. It

also is not known how many regulated facilities will seek to join such coalitions anew,

how many acres of land they might attempt to enroll, nor whether such coalitions have

both capacity and willingness to include additional enrolled members and acres. These

are issues that should be scoped collectively by Regional Board staff, cattle industry

representatives and ILRP coalition leaders prior to including these options in an adopted

order. Further, results of such scoping, including concerns raised by ILRP coalitions and

the Regional Board’s plan for addressing those concerns, should be included in the staff

report prior to adoption of the Tentative Order.

Detailed comments

For the remainder of this letter, we provide additional details that expand and supplement the

above comments, as well as specific technical comments on various portions of the Tentative

Order.

A. Implementation timeline should be extended and doing so will not significantly

impede the time necessary for reaching the ultimate goals.

We are concerned that the Tentative Order is overly aggressive in how it proceeds toward

implementing significant requirements. These requirements include engineering plans, other

plans requiring professional certification, monitoring well design and installation, and a

multitude of expensive and crucial operational decisions. All of these decisions must be made,

DC 11

DC 4


of 9

implemented and paid for by some of the state’s smallest and least sophisticated cattle

operations, many of whom are unfamiliar with and have little or no history, familiarity or

experience in dealing with regulations of this type. It is at best questionable whether all of these

businesses, especially those smaller operations that are operated part-time and with low

margins, will have the capacity to quickly understand and act upon what is required. This is not

helpful in supporting operators to make the correct decisions about how to invest their time and

limited resources to comply, to find qualified professional help, and to spend money

implementing the required actions.

There is unknown capacity to assist these newly regulated facilities via Cooperative Extension

and trade associations. In fact, even the number of to-be-regulated facilities remains uncertain,

with the California Department of Food and Agriculture estimating a range of somewhere

between 270 and 420 facilities. Many of these facilities do not appear to belong to trade

associations or industry groups that can assist them.

Of particular concern is the Regional Board’s proposed provision to require regulated facilities

to develop engineered waste management plans at regulated facilities within 18 months, while

concurrently requiring nutrient management plans be prepared by certified professionals. This

does not allow sufficient time to develop an effective education and outreach program, locate

the entirety of regulated facilities, and complete the work. Nor does it allow individual

operations or industry groups sufficient time to assemble resources and financing for reaching

these goals. As such, this timeline sets up both the regulated community and the Regional Board

for failure. This timeline also fails to provide time for regulated operations to spread costs over

multiple budget years, which may be necessary given the extremely high cost estimates for

compliance combined with low margins on many operations.

In Attachment 1, we provide a suggested implementation timeline that reaches the same goals,

but does so in a staged fashion that will not eliminate, but should at least reduce, the negative

practical and financial impacts on the regulated community and Regional Board staff, who

without such a timeline, would largely need to focus their efforts on remediating non-

compliance. Although our proposed timeline takes somewhat longer to stage and reach the

initial goals, it provides a much better chance of early success and still reaches the ultimate

goals along a very similar timeline to that proposed in the Tentative Order, i.e., full

implementation of the various requirements of the Tentative Order, a representative monitoring

program, and a summary report from the monitoring program within nine years (compared to

the Tentative Order’s eight-year timeframe). (see Attachment 1)

B. Tentative Order should include streamlined approval for geosynthetic single-liners

in construction of new (or reconstruction of existing) manure retention ponds.

Before the previous Dairy General Orders were adopted in 2007 and reissued in 2013, Dairy

Cares expressed concerns about the Regional Board’s decision to streamline approval of new

construction permits for manure and process water retention ponds with double-liners and

leachate collection. The Orders contain a finding that ponds so constructed are consistent with

68-16, but do not make the same finding for earthen ponds or ponds constructed with a single

geosynthetic liner.

DC 5


of 9

The (we hope inadvertent) consequence of this decision has been to raise the overall cost of new

pond construction by setting a nearly impossible standard for ponds constructed with a single

geosynthetic liner with leak detection. This is inappropriate because such ponds perform at a

level that is reasonably comparable with double-lined ponds and certainly provide an adequate

level of protection to support a finding that they are consistent with 68-16, especially when cost

and practicality are considered.

Further, by greatly increasing the cost of construction, the de facto double-liner policy actually

discourages dairy operators from acting to retrofit ponds where it could be helpful to protect

water quality. Adopting streamlined approval of single liners could help encourage dairies to

expand and line existing earthen lined ponds where it is advisable as a means to comply with

winter storage requirements and to reduce leaching to the subsurface.

Attachment 2 includes a more detailed technical rationale for including single-lined ponds as a

streamlined permitting option, along with suggested language revisions in the Tentative Order

to allow this to occur.

C. Regulated Application/Removal (A/R) ratio remains inappropriate and is based on

a misunderstanding or oversimplification of University of California

recommendations.

While not explicitly stating that achieving a 1.4 A/R ratio is required, Item 5, page MRP-16 of

the Attachment B, Monitoring and Reporting Program (hereafter “MRP”) continues to treat 1.4

as a special threshold and implies that an exceedance of this threshold is not acceptable:

“If the applied/removed ratio exceeds 1.4 for a given crop, provide an explanation

for the exceedance and a discussion of steps that have been taken to limit such an

exceedance in the future”

Meanwhile, page 5 of the Information sheet states:

“The UCCE [sic] review of dairy waste states that based on field experiments and

computer models, the appropriate nitrogen loading rate that minimizes nitrogen

leaching and maximizes nitrogen harvest is between 140 to 165% of the nitrogen

harvested.”

This is misleading because it does not acknowledge the significant uncertainties and caveats

included in the cited report.1

N input requirements for forage crops will generally be in the range of 140% to

165% of the crop N harvest removal, assuming that the manure application

would consist of lagoon water, which is approximately 75% NH4-N … The

1 Section 5.9, “Managing Dairy Manure in the Central Valley of California,” 2005, Chang et al., University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Committee of Experts on Dairy Manure

Management. Section 5.9 (not the entire report) is included as Attachment 3 to this letter.

DC 6


of 9

combined evidence from laboratory, field, and modeling studies indicates that

precise nutrient management, while plausible in principle, may be problematic

when implemented in full-scale production systems, as it requires careful timing

of the N applications, close monitoring of the amount of N and water inputs, and

best management of crop production.

There are several significant problems with jumping from the very general modeled

assumptions in the UC report to enforceable regulatory requirements on operating dairies. First,

even under ideal conditions, the experts suggested a range of 140 to 165 percent, and did not

suggest that it was reasonable or even possible for all regulated facilities to meet the low end of

the range. Regardless, the Regional Board set that as the target. And while the experts suggested

meeting targets somewhere in the range would be “plausible in principle,” that is an

astonishingly weak basis for a regulatory requirement. Further, the assumption that applications

would be lagoon water with 75 percent of the nitrogen as NH4 is not supported by any data

reflective of conditions on regulated dairies, and even if such information were available, it

would not explain setting such a standard for all fields and crops, especially those where only

solid manure can be applied. Finally, the UC experts clearly stated that applying these targets

“may be problematic when implemented in full-scale production systems” and that doing so

would require an undefined amount of “close monitoring of the amount of N and water inputs”

and “best management of crop production.” While this certainly sounds like good advice, the

UC experts did not enumerate what would constitute the level of management necessary to

achieve the targets, whether that level existed in practice or would require substantial

retrofitting and radical changes in management, or if such targets were achievable with existing

technology and infrastructure available to most Central Valley dairies. Our experience since

passage of the Dairy Order suggests that to meet the targets with any level of precision, many

dairies will need to adopt transformational technology or completely (and expensively) retrofit

everything from manure storage to irrigation systems.

A/R ratios are a factor in determining Best Practicable Treatment or Control (BPTC) or Best

Efforts, but need to be combined with site specific information to make a determination if a

discharger is meeting BPTC/Best Efforts. In other words, the ratio is a line of evidence, but is

not in of itself a regulatory endpoint, and should not be treated as such. Notably, the IRLP

orders do not set specific A/R ratios for any crop. Given the difficulties associate with managing

manure, with its high amounts of organic nitrogen, it does not make sense to set a stringent

performance standard here. It is unfortunate that so little analysis went into setting the 1.4 target

in regulation. This can and should be remedied.

The good news is that recording and tracking A/R is a useful endeavor, and can provide

valuable information and feedback toward improving practices and precision of measurements

over time. With the existence of representative monitoring programs, quality assurance

programs, UC Cooperative Extension and other institutions dedicated to carrying out outreach,

information of this nature can be used to educate those who grow crops with manure and other

fertilizers toward a goal of continual improvement. Setting unrealistic targets with regulatory

penalties puts growers and everyone else in different camps and discourages positive interaction

that can lead to improvement.


of 9

D. NOI needs to be simplified.

For much the same reasons stated in Section A above, the NOI should be simplified to remove

complicated requirements from the first step of compliance for the newly regulated facilities. As

such, it will help ensure a successful first interaction, and set the stage for further success as the

facilities proceed toward subsequent milestones.

We are concerned about the NOI’s apparent requirements:

• To be submitted with a fee;

• To be submitted via GeoTracker;

• To be submitted with a third-party wastewater agreement;

• To be submitted with a plot plan.

We suggest that the NOI be significantly simplified to include only simple, straightforward

information about the operation that can easily be prepared or compiled by the facility operator

without professional assistance or any financial burden, and without any special training such as

knowing how to use GeoTracker. That will allow the facility to reach the first step of

compliance easily while setting the stage for future progress. It will also establish for the benefit

of the Regional Board, Cooperative Extension and industry groups a better idea of the number,

location, herd size and other facility parameters so that resources can be properly directed where

needed to assist in subsequent compliance steps.

Additional comments

Main body of the order

• Dairy Cares seeks additional clarity on the issue of whether to-be-regulated dairy calf or

heifer facilities can be included within and added to existing dairy permits. The

Tentative Order should include language clearly stating calf or heifer ranches can be

added to dairy permits wherever they are contiguous to the dairy, or when either is

contiguous to farmland regulated under the dairy order.

• Section 10 allows Representative Monitoring Programs (RMPs) to propose pond designs

to be included in “pre-approved Tier 2.” We suggest that others (not just RMPs) such as

engineering firms or other qualified experts be allowed to propose such designs for

approval by the Executive Officer.

Monitoring and Reporting Program

• The requirement to sample for General Minerals in wastewater and solid manure in

Table 2 and discharges of Wastewater to Ponds in Table 3 should be every five years

instead of every two years. (Table 2, MRP 6-7)

DC 7

DC 12

DC 13

DC 14


of 9

• Once a baseline is set for both General Minerals and nutrients/TDS in discharges to

ponds in Table 3, testing should not be required to continue. No purpose for ongoing

testing has been identified. (Table 3, MRP-8)

• In Table 2 under plant tissue testing requirements, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)

should be removed. This appears to be a technical error. (Table 2, MRP-7)

• Soil nitrogen testing frequency should be reduced from annually to every three to five

years. This is an expensive test that provides comparatively little information compared

to its cost. (Table 2, MRP-7)

• The Farm Evaluation Survey and Farm Water Quality Plan seem partially redundant.

We suggest these be combined or one of them be eliminated.

• We suggest that nitrate analysis of wastewater only be required if the pond is aerated,

consistent with the previous Dairy Order. Pondwater is not likely to contain significant

amounts of nitrate due to its anaerobic nature. (Table 2, MRP-6)

Conclusion

Thanks again for the opportunity to provide these comments and for considering input from the

regulated community on this Tentative Order. We look forward to working with you to provide

further information as needed. Again, we urge the Regional Board to consider this action not in

a vacuum, but in the context of the many, many regulatory burdens that have been places on

dairies in recent years. We urge the Regional Board to make every effort to minimize costs and

maximize the time and flexibility available for implementation, in hopes of avoiding driving

even more family farms out of business.

Sincerely,

Jean-Pierre “J.P.” Cativiela

For Dairy Cares

C: Charles “Chuck” Ahlem, Dairy Cares Chairman

Michael Boccadoro, Dairy Cares Executive Director

Lynne McBride, California Dairy Campaign

Kevin Abernathy, Milk Producers Council

Paul Sousa, Western United Dairymen

Justin Oldfield, California Cattlemen’s Association

Kari Fisher, California Farm Bureau Federation

Rich Matteis, California Farm Bureau Federation

DC 15

DC 16

DC 17

DC 18

DC 19

ATTACHMENT 1, SUGGESTIONS FOR BOVINE ORDER IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE

Due date Document due

One year after adoption of General Order (est. June 2017 for General Order and a due date of July 1, 2018 for NOI)

• NOI due

• 24 months after adoption of G.O.

• July 1, 2019

• Farm evaluation due

• NMP due

• Certification of participation in ILRPmonitoring or pesticide dischargemonitoring plan

• NOI to join (groundwater) RMP or toundertake individual monitoring

• 36 months after G.O. adoption

• July 1, 2020

• First annual report due

• WMP (engineer signoff) due

• RMP/MPEP workplan due

• Individual monitoring/MPEP plansdue

• July 1, 2021 • Annual report due

• Certification of full implementation ofNMP

• April 1, 2021 (coincides with dairyRMP)

• First RMP/MPEP report due (annuallythereafter)

• July 1, 2021 • First individual monitoring/MPEPreports due (coincides with annualreporting)

• July 1, 2022-2025 • Annual reports including monitoring

• April 1, 2026 • RMP/MPEP SRMR

• July 1, 2026 • Individual MPEP/Monitoring SRMRs

ATTACHMENT 2

Letter from Luhdorff & Scalmanini Consulting Engineers regarding “REVIEW OF SECTION C.10.

OF THE PUBLIC DRAFT GENERAL ORDER FOR CONFINED BOVINE FEEDING OPERATIONS” and

suggestions for revised language in this section to address concerns

www.lsce.com

G R O U N D W A T E R R E S O U R C E S H Y D R O L O G Y · D E V E L O P M E N T · M A N A G E M E N T

April 7, 2017 LSCE File Number: 16-1-083

Electronic Submittal

Mr. J.P. Cativiela President, Cogent Consulting and Communications 1225 8th Street, Suite 230 Sacramento, CA 95814

SUBJECT: REVIEW OF SECTION C.10. OF THE PUBLIC DRAFT GENERAL ORDER FOR CONFINED

BOVINE FEEDING OPERATIONS

Dear Mr. Cativiela:

Per your request, Luhdorff and Scalmanini Consulting Engineers (LSCE) reviewed Section C.10 (p. 19-21) of the Public Draft General Order for Confined Bovine Feeding Operations (Draft Bovine Order).

The Draft Bovine Order finds a newly constructed or reconstructed pond designed to consist of a double liner constructed with 60-mil high density polyethylene (HDPE) or material of equivalent durability with a Leachate Collection and Removal System (LCRS) (constructed in accordance with Section 20340 of Title 27, California Code of Regulations) between the two liners to be consistent with State Water Board Resolution 68-16. This is referred to as a Tier 1 pond, and the Draft Bovine Order offers expedited review for ponds designed to this standard.

In contrast, the Draft Bovine Order requires Tier 2 and Preapproved Tier 2 ponds “to be protective of water quality as demonstrated by calculations of seepage amounts and the effect of that estimated seepage on underlying groundwater”. This is similar to the requirements for Tier 2 dairy ponds (Reissued Waste Discharge Requirements General Order for Existing Milk Cow Dairies, Order R5-2013-0122 [Dairy GO]). In practice, this necessitates the modeling of leakage, vadose zone fate and transport, and groundwater fate and transport. Although these modeling efforts are non-trivial and can be expensive, they are subject to many assumptions that can be challenged. This affords Regional Board staff the ability to reject virtually any pond design proposal. As a result, a pond design involving a single HDPE liner has become a non-option for most dairy farmers in the context of the Dairy GO.

The above situation can be reconciled in the Draft Bovine Order. We propose that the same rationale applied to the Tier 1 pond design should also be applied to a pond designed to consist of (i) a single liner constructed with 60-mil HDPE or material of equivalent durability in conjunction with (ii) an LCRS on engineered subgrade below the synthetic liner. While this system may not be as effective as an LCRS between two synthetic liners in detecting very small

DC 5

http://www.lsce.com/

MR. J.P. CATIVIELA

APRIL 7, 2017 PAGE 2 OF 2

leaks, such leaks could be regarded as sufficiently small to be found consistent with Resolution 68-16. Using a range of assumptions for the estimation of leakage from a single liner manurewater pond, and considering leakage data from landfill cells (which do not contain manurewater that has demonstrated sealing ability (LSCE 2008)), it is clear that single liner pondsprovide a vast leakage risk reduction over earthen liner ponds (Beck 2014; Beck 2015; LSCE2015). Therefore, it appears reasonable that single liner ponds should be a realisticallyattainable option to dairy farmers.

Sincerely,

LUHDORFF AND SCALMANINI CONSULTING ENGINEERS

___________________________ Till Angermann, P.G., C.Hg. Technical Program Manager, CVDRMP

References

Beck, A., 2014: Designing to Minimize Geomembrane Leakage. Geosynthetics 32, 7. Beck, A., 2015: Available Technologies to Approach Zero Leaks. Geosythetics 2015

Conference, 10. LSCE, 2008: Technical Memorandum, Liquid Animal Waste Lagoons, Input Loading to

Subsurface Soils and Groundwater - A Research Review. Luhdorff and Scalmanini Consulting Engineers in cooperation with University of California Cooperative Extension. September 2, 2008.

LSCE, 2015: Seepage Rates of Liquid Dairy Manure Lagoons in the Central Valley of California and Associated Sibsurface Nitrogen Mass Emissions. Luhdorff and Scalmanini Consulting Engineers. November 30, 2015.

DC 5

10. New and Reconstructed Wastewater Ponds

a. New ponds installed in order to comply with the requirements of this Order or modifications of existing ponds shall be designed and constructed to comply with Receiving Water Limitations G.2 (Groundwater Limitations) of this Order.

b. New and reconstructed pond designs must be reviewed and approved by the Executive Officer prior to construction. This Order provides a tiered approach to pond design requirements to provide an option that will significantly reduce the time required for approval by the Executive Officer as defined below:

i. Tier 1 includes either of the following:

a) Tier 1: A pond designed to consist of a double liner constructed with 60-mil high density polyethylene or material of equivalent durability with a leachate collection and removal system (constructed in accordance with Title 27, section 20340) between the two liners will be considered to be consistent with State Water Board Resolution 68-16. Review for ponds designed to this standard will be conducted in less than 30 days of receipt of a complete design plan package submitted to the Board.

b) Tier 2: A pond designed to consist of a single liner constructed with 60-mil high-density polyethylene or material of equivalent durability. The liner will be placed over a prepared subgrade with a venting and leakage system that meets the requirement of an alternative leachate collection and removal system as specified in Title 27, §20340(f), with post construction electrical leak location (ELL) by ASTM D7002, D7240, D7703 or D7593 prior to putting it into service.

Review for ponds designed to this standard will be deemed approved by the Central Valley Water Board unless the Central Valley Water Board submits objections in writing to the

permittee within 30 days of receipt of the complete design plan package.

b) ii. Tier 2: A pond lined so as to be protective of water quality as demonstrated by calculations of seepage amounts and the effect of that estimated seepage on underlying groundwater as required in Pond Specification 10.c below. The pond design must include a pan lysimeter monitoring device under the lowest point of the pond, or an equivalent engineered alternative. The engineered alternative must provide equivalent assurance of the earliest possible detection or prevention of a release from the pond.

Formatted: Font: 12 pt

Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style:

a, b, c, … + Start at: 9 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at:

1.32" + Indent at: 1.57"



Formatted: Right: 0", Space Before: 0 pt, No bullets

or numbering, Tab stops: Not at 1.94"



Formatted: Normal, Left, Indent: Left: 1.7", No bullets

or numbering



c) iii. Alternative Design Option: This Order recognizes that on some confined non-dairy bovine facilities, ponds are built and/or maintained to capture and prevent discharges of stormwater and manure runoff to surface waters of the state. As such, the volume and character of runoff may be significantly different than that of previously regulated facilities, such as dairies. Therefore, the Executive Officer maintains the discretion to approve alternative pond designs other than those in Tier 1 and Tier 2, provided there is data/information to show that a proposed alternative design option is

sufficiently protective of waters of the state.Preapproved Tier 2: A Representative Monitoring Program may develop and propose a pond design that is demonstrated to be protective of water quality under certain specified site or operational conditions. The design and demonstration shall include leakage calculations and monitoring of groundwater at representative dairies with such ponds. Following approval by the Executive Officer, use of this design under the specified site and operational conditions would not require additional leakage calculations or individual groundwater monitoring wells unless specifically required by the Executive Officer. The Discharger shall obtain written approval by the Executive Officer prior to construction or use of such a pond.

c. Prior to the enlargement of an existing pond (settling, storage, or retention) or the construction of such new pond, the Discharger shall submit to the Executive Officer:

a) For Tier 1, 2, and the Alternative Design OptionPreapproved Tier 2 pond designs, a design report prepared by, or under the direct supervision of, and certified by, a Civil Engineer or Certified Engineering Geologist who is registered pursuant to California law or other person as may be permitted under the provisions of the California Business and Professions Code to assume responsible charge of such work. The design report shall include the following:

Formatted: Normal, Left, Indent: Left: 1.66", No

bullets or numbering


ATTACHMENT 3

EXCERPTS FROM Section 5.9, “Managing Dairy Manure in the Central Valley of California,”

2005, Chang et al., University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources,

Committee of Experts on Dairy Manure Management.

48

5.8 Needs for Further Study

The ANR (Apparent Nitrogen Recovery) and the corresponding NIR (Nitrogen Input Requirement) for dairy manure applications are dependent on the specific agronomic and environmental circumstances at a particular location. While it is not practical to evaluate the ANR and NIR case by case, it may be appropriate that ANR and NIR targets be established for sub-regions, rather than generalizing over the entire Central Valley. Through this approach, the Central Valley may be subdivided into operationally homogeneous regions according to potentials for denitrification, ammonia volatilization, crop N uptake, and nitrate leaching. In Shaffer and Delgado (2002), the merits of this approach were elaborated. Pratt (1979) and Coppock and Meyer (1980) proposed an index for judging the “relative sensitivity” of irrigated croplands to leaching of nitrate. The index included factors relating to soils, crops, irrigation and climate. The UC Center for Water Resources has recently completed development of a regional nitrate leaching hazard index that classifies soil series in irrigated lands in the southwestern US according to the potential for nitrate leaching and denitrification (www.waterresources.ucr.edu).

For improvements, additional and more concise information is needed in the following areas:

Accurate estimates on the extent of N losses through the various pathways: o Denitrification in soil profile in relation to soil texture and irrigation water

management o Denitrification potential in the deeper unsaturated zone and in groundwater o Ammonia volatilization when dairy manure is applied on cropland o Nitrate leaching in relation to the irrigation and leaching fractionso Potential direct N losses through plants

Role of alfalfa in the overall N budget of the dairy manure-irrigated forage production system; Long-term organic N accumulation and mineralization in dairy manure-receiving fields; Fate and transformation of N in solids separated from the liquid manure stream.

5.9 Summary

Both field and modeling studies reviewed and implemented for this report consistently show that the N input requirements for forage crops will generally be in the range of 140% to 165% of the crop N harvest removal, assuming that the manure application would consist of lagoon water which is approximately 75% NH4-N. As stated above, inputs include not only manure and fertilizer N but also atmospheric N sources and nitrate present in irrigation water. Investigations of the crop N recovery in several field experiments showed that the appropriate N loading rate that minimizes N leaching and maximizes N harvest is between 140 to 150% of the N harvested. Computer models indicated a somewhat larger range of 140% to 165%. While field studies provided important feedback on loss pathways and loss rates as well as mineralization rates, model simulations were well suited to study the dynamic behavior of the soil nitrogen pool and its interaction with the crop N uptake. Simulations are particularly valuable to understand the role of various loss pathways. Field mineralization, volatilization, and denitrification rates for

49

specific field conditions can be obtained from detailed field and laboratory studies using standard model calibration and validation approaches.

The combined evidence from laboratory, field, and modeling studies indicates that precise nutrient management, while plausible in principle, may be problematic when implemented in full-scale production systems, as it requires careful timing of the N applications, close monitoring of the amount of N and water inputs, and best management of crop production. More importantly, the growers must show flexibility to make necessary adjustments on N inputs during the course of a growing season to achieve satisfactory results.

With respect to the potential for groundwater degradation, all of the computations and field observations point to a fundamentally critical issue: Given that practically achievable leaching fractions in border check and furrow systems are 15 to 30%, nitrate leaching is at best in the range of 10% to 15% of the N applied. Based on the above-described NIR of 140 to 165% of N removal at harvest, at annual crop yields that typically remove 400 – 600 lbs N ac-1 yr-1, input requirements will be in the range of 560-990 lbs N ac-1 yr-1. Hence, nitrate-nitrogen leaching losses – under optimal irrigation and nutrient management – will be in the range of 55 to 150 lbs N ac-1 yr-1. Assuming recharge rates in irrigated systems of 1 – 2 acre-feet per acre per year (300 – 600 mm per year), the nitrate concentration in the leachate is in the range of 10 to 55 ppm (mg L-1) NO3-N, which is at or above the regulatory limit for drinking water quality (10 mg L-1) and at or significantly above the average measured leachate value for other California farming systems (15 mg L-1, Rible et al. 1979). The potential for denitrification in the unsaturated zone below the root zone (not considered in this report) and within the Central Valley aquifers therefore becomes a key factor in determining, whether such (optimal) leaching water quality conditions will still cause groundwater degradation or whether denitrification naturally attenuates nitrate levels to non-degrading levels.

· 2017-05-18 · via email to [email protected] april 7, 2017 charlene herbst...

Documents