Irrigated Lands Update

Transcription

1 Irrigated Lands Update THE NEXT GENERATION OF THE IRRIGATED LANDS REGULATORY PROGRAM STWEC BOARD BRIEFING MAY BRUCE HOUDESHELDT DIRECTOR, REGULATORY AFFAIRS NORTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER ASSOCIATION

2 Overview On March 12 Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) and Monitoring Reporting Program (MRP) for nonrice growers in Sacramento River Watershed. Previous Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program (ILRP) for Central Valley Region covered just surface water. The Sacramento Valley Approach to the new ILRP. What changes are coming and when.

3

4 Sacramento Valley Water Quality Coalition Approach Delineate Sacramento Valley from other parts of Central Valley Soil conditions, precipitation, use and depth to groundwater are different Differentiate, clearly and comprehensively, areas of low and high vulnerability to surface and groundwater. Institute the same Prioritization of Parameters approach Replace Reporting Requirements with education and outreach Keep Costs in Check - Focus on things growers can respond to Registered agricultural pesticides versus water quality exceedances that have variety of sources

5 Legal and Regulatory Setting Challenges by California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA) to Coalition Conditional Waiver and new WDR increase pressure on Regional Board to regulate individually Elevating every WDR to State Board and filing litigation against Regional Board CSPA characterize Coalitions as Storefront operations that haven t resulted in one molecule of improvement to water quality Regional Board response Show me the Management Practices!!!!

6 Expanded Focus/New Requirements On March 12 Board adopted Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) and Monitoring Reporting Program (MRP) with groundwater quality component New grower and Coalition reporting requirements reporting cycle based on vulnerability (low every five years or high annual beginning March 2015) Identify areas where groundwater quality is impacted by developing a Groundwater Quality Assessment Report Trend Monitoring baseline using existing state and federal agency wells (e.g., Dept. of Public Health) Monitoring/Management Practices Effectiveness Program

7 What s in the WDR and MRP Regional Board amnesty period for non-members (September 2014) Reports and Requirements Growers Third Party Entity (a.k.a., Coalition) Reduced Monitoring/Management Practices Verification alternative (Only Coalition with this option) Groundwater Quality Assessment Report

8 Requirements Owners/Operators Enroll by September 15 if not currently a member If a member complete Notice of Confirmation by June Be Familiar and Maintain Copy (electronic or otherwise) of WDR and MRP on property Attend Annual Education Events like this.

9 New Reporting Requirements of Growers Three Types of Reports Farm Evaluation ESJ Approved by Regional Board December 9 in low vulnerability areas completed every 5 years In high vulnerability areas as determined by Coalition annually Nitrogen Management CDFA and State Board Expert Panel to determine final format Nitrogen Management Summary Report Sediment and Erosion Control

10 Farm Evaluation Four pages total- Completed and Submitted by March Crops grown and number of acres per field- representative Irrigation Practices per crop type - drip, flood, furrow, microsprinkler, etc. Irrigation Efficiency Practices - soil moisture, ET, scheduled as needed, etc. Nitrogen Management Methods to Minimize Leaching Past the Root Zone - cover crop, fertigation, tissue/petiole testing, etc.

11 Farm Evaluation Pesticide Application Practices follow label, attend trainings, use drift control agents, PCA recommendations, etc., including no pesticides applied. Who develops crop fertility plan CCA, Farm Advisor, Certified Technical Providers by NRCS, soil scientist, agronomist, individual prepared, etc. Does farm have the potential to discharge sediment to off-farm surface waters? Yes or No Sediment and erosion control practices used on farm field(s)

12 Farm Evaluation Wellhead protection for irrigation wells Abandon well information Sediment and erosion control practices used on farm field(s) Irrigation Practices Cultural Practices

13

14

15 Deadlines and Deliverables NCWA filed request to be Third Party April 10 Prepare Member Requirements document and Notice of Confirmation form before June 15 Submit Groundwater Quality Assessment Report June 9 Develop database management system Send out Farm Evaluation Templates mid October 2014 Compile and report on Township level Farm Evaluation results May 1

16 Questions

17 GAR Update: Discussion of Preliminary Results and Conclusions Sacramento River Watershed Groundwater Quality Assessment May 14, Shasta Tehama Watershed Education Coalition Graphic source: USGS

18 Where we are now. 18

19 General GAR Analysis Results and Conclusions Valley Floor: Hydrogeology: Driven primarily by depth to water highest susceptibility: Sacramento and Feather rivers, and Delta Nitrogen Hazard Index: Driven primarily by irrigation method and to a lesser degree soils Most areas of the valley moderate to low susceptibility Water Quality Nitrate: Elevated levels of nitrate seen in the Chico-Durham area, Yuba City/Marysville area, Yolo area, Solano area, northern Glenn County, and limited areas in the Delta Salinity: Elevated TDS seen in the Sutter Basin, the northern Delta, and areas west of Williams along the Coast Range Upland Areas: Majority has unclassified soils for the total NHI calculation Generally good water quality Some wells with high nitrate in El Dorado, eastern Upper Feather River, and Pit River Subwatersheds (not necessarily due to irrigated agriculture) Water quality data gaps in Napa County 19

20 Methodology Overview Potential Vulnerability (susceptibility) Indicators Vulnerability Indicators Hydrogeology (SACFEM*) Recharge rate (July 2010) Depth to groundwater (Spring 2010) Agronomic/Soils (NHI) Crop type Irrigation method Soil texture Observed Water Quality** (USGS, DWR, GAMA, CDPH, DPR, other) Nitrate Salinity Pesticides Other *Valley floor only at the section scale for all data ** Most recent and trends, where available 20

21 Composite Susceptibility Factors 21

22 Water Quality Valley-scale Results NO3 Statistics: 2645 wells total Most recent data 15% above half MCL 5% above MCL Average: 11 mg/l Median: 7 mg/l 22

23 Designation Categories High Vulnerability Low Vulnerability Data Gaps Not Ag MPEPs GWQMPs Trend Monitoring Trend Monitoring Reduced Trend Monitoring? Vulnerability Assessment Data Gap Trend Monitoring Natural Sources Non-Ag Anthropogenic Sources 23

24 Vulnerability Designation Concept Yes Inconclusive ½ WQO exceeded Yes Attributable to agricultural source? Definitively No High Vulnerability MPEPs Inconclusive No Increasing Trends with High NHI/HG Yes* Uncertain Pending Vulnerability Determination Vulnerability Assessment Data Gap Not part of ILRP (Natural sources and nonag anthropogenic sources) Data Gap No Pending Vulnerability Determination Trend Monitoring Stable/Declining Trends with High NHI/HG No Yes* Low Vulnerability Trend Monitoring Stable/Declining Trends with Low NHI/HG Yes* Low Vulnerability Reduced Trend Monitoring * An assessment of the contribution of agricultural sources will be conducted for each determination. 24

25 Review Process GAR Subwatershed Sections review focus on the following: Descriptions and past studies Existing monitoring networks and programs Vulnerability conclusions Factors other than irrigated agriculture that might influence groundwater quality Adminstrative Draft of GAR May 30 Draft to Regional Board for Review June 9 GAR Section 5 Butte/Yuba/Sutter 6 Colusa-Glenn 7 Dixon/Solano 8 - PNSSNS 9 Sacramento-Amador 10 Shasta-Tehama 11 Yolo 12 El Dorado 13 Goose Lake 14 Lake 15 Napa 16 Pit River 17 Upper Feather River 25