SLIDE 1
Ag exemption from Clean Water Act removed in CA through Porter - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Ag exemption from Clean Water Act removed in CA through Porter - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Ag exemption from Clean Water Act removed in CA through Porter Cologne Ag regulated as a non point source First Ag Order brought together all stakeholders to develop regulations Five year Ag Order started 2004 Cooperative
SLIDE 2
SLIDE 3
Second Renewal Community Pressure Available Data Groundwater Element
SLIDE 4
Tier‐based classifications for all ‘farms’ <50 acres in lowest tier, >500 most onerous tier Farms within 1,000’ of impaired water body or public water
supply system well
30’ vegetated buffer from water body (Impermeable) retention ponds High nitrate load crops impacted most On‐farm monitoring of wells and runoff Conflicts with Food Safety agreements
SLIDE 5
Buffers along all impaired water bodies Water sampling for wells/water sources and tailwater exit
points
Groundwater percolation and recharge restrictions Targets crops using Chlorpyfiros and Diazinon Not always complimentary to other agency requirements
SLIDE 6
Riparian buffers extended along all water bodies in
addition to 300’ buffer for food safety – potential conflicts with LGMA and ‘super metrics’
On farm monitoring for fecal coliform in all water,
including stormwater runoff
Bare soils erosion during storm events Habitat areas conflict with access/control Possible ban on rodent bait stations
SLIDE 7
Complete reduction of nitrate loads in groundwater
within 5 years
Stormwater monitoring with possible retention during
severe storm events
Possible return of salt water intrusion due to restricted
groundwater recharge
Restrictions on crop protection tools Surface Water CMP continues as before
SLIDE 8
Chlorpyrofos or Diazinon are NOT used Farm is located > 1000’ for surface water body listed
for toxicity
Farm that grows high nitrogen demand crop cannot be
> 50 acres
OR S.I.P. Certified
SLIDE 9
Farms grow high nitrogen demand crop on > 500
contiguous acres
Chlorpyrifos or Diazinon are applied and irrigation
water discharges into water body listed for toxicity or pesticides
Located within 1000’ of impaired water body
SLIDE 10
Farm does not fall into Tier 1 or Tier 3 criteria Applies Chlorpyrofos or Diazinon with discharges to
impaired water body
Grows high nitrogen demand crop over 50 acres within
1000’ of public water supply system that exceeds nitrate standards
SLIDE 11
Not cause or contribute to exceedences of water quality standards
Implement, update, or improve management practices
Comply with Total Daily Maximum Load (TMDL) requirements
Shall not discharge fertilizer, fumigants, or pesticides down a well casing
Shall not discharge chemicals used to control wildlife directly into surface waters of the State
Shall not discharge Ag rubbish, refuse, irrigation tubing or tape into surface waters of the State
Functional and properly maintained backflow device on each well or pump
Properly destroy all abandoned wells
Construct and maintain water containment structures to minimize percolation of waste water and contaminates to groundwater
Implement proper handling, storage, disposal, and management
- f Ag chemicals
Compliance with DPR groundwater protection requirements
Prevent erosion, reduce stormwater runoff quantity and velocity, and hold fine participles in place
Minimize bare soil areas vulnerable to erosion and sediment runoff
Implement erosion control, sediment and stormwater management practices in non‐cropped areas
Comply with stormwater permits
Maintain existing, naturally occurring riparian vegetative cover
Mitigate impacts on aquatic habitats
Develop a Farm Water Quality Plan
Obtain education and technical assistance
If requested, consent to inspections by CCRWQCB staff
Pay annual fee to SWRCB
Pay cooperative monitoring program fees
File and update NOI annually:
- Identify tier for each (new) farm
- Change tiers of farms where C&D are used
- Provide information regarding farm wells
- Sign under ‘penalty of perjury’ statement
SLIDE 12
Submit Annual Compliance Form Photo monitor riparian areas if farm is located next to
impaired water body
Determine and report nitrogen loading risk factors and
- verall nitrate loading risk level
If high nitrogen loading risk:
- Record and report total nitrogen applied by crop, and
determine nitrogen uptake
SLIDE 13
Initiate surface water monitoring representing
80% of discharges for tailwater, tile drain discharges, and in‐flows to retention ponds (10/13)
Report monitoring results (10/14) OR Participate in alternative (cooperative) monitoring
and reporting program approved by CCRWQCB
SLIDE 14
Report total nitrogen applied by acre per farm (10/14) Determine crop nitrogen update (10/15) Submit Irrigation and Nutrient Management Plan
(INMP), including nitrogen balance ratios, along with progress toward achieving ratios(10/15)
Submit INMP Effectiveness Report with nitrogen
balance ratios (10/16)
SLIDE 15
Submit Annual Compliance Form Create an individual monitoring QAPP (3/13) Develop Water Quality Buffer Plan (WQBP) (10/16) Submit WQBP with Annual Compliance Form (10/16) Implement WQBP upon submittal to CCRWQCB
SLIDE 16
Pesticide and toxic discharges: 100% of samples must
not be toxic by 10/15
Sediment and turbitity: 75% load reduction by 10/15 Nutrients and surface waters: 50% load reduction by
10/15 and 75% load reduction by 10/16
Nitrates to groundwater: achieve nitrogen balance
ratios by 10/16
SLIDE 17
Photo monitoring of riparian areas Practice effectiveness and compliance Containment structure percolation Nitrate loading risk factors Crop nitrogen uptake ratios Delayed: backflow prevention device installation (3/13) Delayed: Annual Compliance Form (12/12)
SLIDE 18
Expecting Decision in June 2013
SLIDE 19
Requires implementation of management practices Requires compliance with water quality standards
according to time schedules
Requires surface and groundwater monitoring Requires submittal of NOI Requires Farm Plan Still subject to inspection & enforcement
SLIDE 20
Must complete Auditable Farm Plan template Must complete Nutrient Management Plan template Must conduct representative soil sample All Subject to Independent Audit High Risk Subject to Practice Effectiveness Evaluation
Program
Removal from third‐party for failure to comply
SLIDE 21
Participants must prepare and submit nutrient
management plan for TAC to assess individual nutrient management practices
Participants must take one representative soil sample
from each farm/ranch, submit to third‐party and TAC, to be used to prioritize farms for Practice Effectiveness Evaluation Program
SLIDE 22
Annual Summary of Independent Audit Results Annual Risk Self‐Assessment Summary Annual Summary of Farm Water Quality Plans Annual list of Dischargers in good standing & those
that are not
Practice Effectiveness Evaluation Summary, which
summarizes practices necessary to ensure compliance with water quality standards
SLIDE 23
All participating farms subject to independent audit
within term of the Order
Highest risk farms subject to audits first Highest risk farms subject to Practice Effectiveness
Evaluation first
Compliance with surface and ground water standards
same as with others (5 years and 10 years)
SLIDE 24
1)
Provides for actual review of all Participating operations v. random RWQCB inspections
2)
Requires implementation of management practices to be in 3rd Party Group v. paper reporting to RWQCB
3)
Provides assistance & resources to operations that need assistance v. immediate enforcement action
4)
3rd Party Group likely to have more credibility with Participants v. RWQCB as the regulator
5)
Outcome is water quality improvement v. prescriptive regulatory program
SLIDE 25
SLIDE 26
- Data Security for the Long Term
- An Accurate Characterization of the Aquifers
- Science‐Based, Consistent, Aggregated Reporting
SLIDE 27
Cooperative Monitoring:
- Elect Cooperative Groundwater Monitoring on NOI by August 1, 2012
- GSA/MCFB/SCzFB/SClFB/SBFB/WG Other Partners Submit Monitoring Proposal
by March 15, 2013
- If the proposal is not accepted by CCRWQCB, or if the proposal is not
submitted due to infeasibility, there is no penalty to those grower who selected this option; the groundwater monitoring requirement will begin with individual sampling in October 2013 and March 2014, with first results reportable in
October 2014.
SLIDE 28
- For Tiers 2 & 3, Well Data still a part of Annual
Compliance Form
- Equal to or Less than Individual Cost
SLIDE 29
- An Accurate Characterization of the Aquifers
- Science‐Based, Consistent, Aggregated Reporting that
we can reference
- Scientifically defensible data in the long term
SLIDE 30
- Identify and Coordinate Technical Information Needs. Create a
groundwater cooperative monitoring program, with the following incorporated:
- Assist the stakeholders in identifying gaps in information, agree on the
methods for obtaining it and jointly select the individuals or agencies that will provide data and analysis.
- Look to other programs in development in the Central Valley to
determine additional opportunities, ideas.
SLIDE 31
Key questions include:
- What is the relevant groundwater data and how do we utilize
it?
- Can it be collated in a cohesive way?
- What data gaps must be filled?
- Do we report aggregated nutrient management? If so, how? If
not, should this be a separate project?
- What are the administrative professional requirements for
facilitation of the final approved program?
SLIDE 32
Develop educational opportunities to create shared
meaning and understanding of legal, historical, technical, contextual issues for all participants;
Fee Structure & Funding:
- What’s the fee structure & cost allocation by percentage of
enrolled growers participating?
- Estimate cost of participation based upon two potential scenarios:
a functioning non‐profit organization being named administrator
- vs. a new non‐profit being created to administer the program.
- Are there grant opportunities?
SLIDE 33
An objective groundwater monitoring cooperative
program that is spatially distributed, statistically defensible, and strategically planned.
- The final program will have been well‐vetted among
stakeholders and regulators before its submittal to the CCRWQCB.
- The final program will dovetail with the coalition concept
submitted by Farmers for Water Quality to the State Water Board.
SLIDE 34
The program area will likely include (but not necessarily be limited to) the following basins located in California’s Region 3: 3‐1: Soquel Valley; 3‐ 2: Pajaro Valley; 3‐3: Gilroy‐Hollister Valley (3‐3.01 Llagas Area, 3‐3.02 Bolsa Area, 3‐3.03 Hollister Area, 3‐3.04 San Juan Bautista Area); 3‐4: Salinas Valley (3‐4.01 180/400 Foot Aquifer, 3‐4.02 East Side Forebay, 3‐4.03 Arroyo Seco, 3‐4.04 Forebay Aquifer, 3‐4.05 Upper Valley Aquifer, 3‐4.09 Langley Area); 3‐ 6 (Lockwood Valley).
SLIDE 35
New program managed by the Grower Shipper
Association of Central California, Western Growers, Monterey County Farm Bureau and the Santa Cruz County Farm Bureau. Authored by Dr. Marc Los Huertos (CSUMB) and Kay Mercer.
SLIDE 36
Goal: Demonstrate water quality improvement,
quantify and collect information about management practices currently being implemented by growers, tie water quality improvement to operational business goals and to disseminate information in the growing community and to the public.
SLIDE 37
Growers implement fertilizer program using nitrate quick
tests as a decision tool.
OFS coordinates training, installation and maintenance of
monitoring equipment.
All monitoring data submitted directly to a secure
database and analyzed without ID’ing the grower or block.
SLIDE 38
Objectives:
Develop and demonstrate the potential for growers to
implement a rigorous and verifiable soil management program to minimize nitrate leaching.
Implement a program that protects trade secrets and
promotes innovation while verifying for the public that the risk of nitrate contamination to ground and surface waters is being minimized.
SLIDE 39