STATE OF CALIFORNIA

STAFF REPORT: INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR RULEMAKING

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE

LARGE CONFINED ANIMAL FACILITY DEFINITION

Release Date: May 6, 2005

Scheduled for Consideration: June 23-24, 2005

California Environmental Protection Agency

AIR RESOURCES BOARD
STAFF REPORT: INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE

LARGE CONFINED ANIMAL FACILITY DEFINITION

(Implementation of Senate Bill 700, Florez 2003)

Air Resources Board Meeting

Begins June 23, 2005 at 9:00 a.m.

and may continue June 24, 2005 at 8:30 a.m.

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

1990 East Gettysburg Avenue

Fresno, California 93726

or Via Videoconference (2 Locations)

District Northern Region Office District Southern Region Office

4230 Kiernan Avenue, Suite 130 2700 M Street, Suite 275

Modesto, California 95356 Bakersfield, California 93301

This report has been reviewed by the staff of the California Air Resources Board and

approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect

the views and policies of the Air Resources Board, nor does the mention of trade names

or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

This report and related materials are available for download from the Air Resources

Board’s Internet site at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/lcaf05/lcaf05.htm. In addition,

written copies may be obtained from the Board’s Public Information Office, 1001

I Street, 1st Floor, Environmental Services Center, Sacramento, California 95814,

(916) 322-2990.

If you have a disability-related accommodation need, please go to:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/ada/ada.htm for assistance or contact the ADA

Coordinator at (916) 323-4916. If you are a person who needs assistance in a

language other than English, please go to:

http://inside.arb.ca.gov/as/eeo/languageaccess.htm or contact the Bilingual Coordinator

at (916) 324-5049.

Questions

If you have questions concerning this report, please contact:

Mr. Mike FitzGibbon, Manager or Patrick Gaffney, Project Lead

Emission Inventory Analysis Section Emission Inventory Analysis Section

Phone: (916) 445-6243 Phone: (916) 322-7303

Email: mfitzgib@arb.ca.gov Email: pgaffney@arb.ca.gov
TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................... i

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ........................................................................ 1

SB 700 Requirements for Confined Animal Facilities............................................ 1

California Air Resources Board Requirements........................................................ 1

Local Air District Requirements.................................................................................. 2

CAPCOA Requirements.............................................................................................. 2

SB 700 Large CAF Implementation Schedule......................................................... 2

Description of Public Outreach.................................................................................... 3

Structure of the Staff Report......................................................................................... 4

2. CHARACTERIZATION OF CONFINED ANIMAL FACILITIES.................................. 5

The California Agriculture Industry............................................................................. 5

California Livestock Industry Overview..................................................................... 6

Livestock Facility Size and Animal Population Summary...................................... 7

Dairies ................................................................................................................................. 8

Overview of a Dairy...................................................................................................... 8

Dairy Distribution by Size and Population.............................................................. 10

San Joaquin Valley Dairies....................................................................................... 11

South Coast AQMD Dairies...................................................................................... 12

Other Region Dairies ................................................................................................. 13

Beef Cattle........................................................................................................................ 14

Other Cattle Operations (Calves, Heifers, Others)................................................ 15

Poultry (Broilers, Layers, Turkeys) ........................................................................... 15

Other Livestock (Swine, Sheep, Goats, Horses, Others)..................................... 19

3. CONFINED ANIMAL FACILITY IMPACTS ON AIR QUALITY................................21

Regional Ozone Attainment Status – Federal and State Exceedances........... 21

State Implementation Plan Commitments for Livestock Operations .............. 23

Odor and Ammonia Emissions and Air Quality..................................................... 23

Emissions from Confined Animal Facilities............................................................ 24

Current Livestock Research and Emission Factors.............................................. 24

Evaluating the Range of Emission Estimates and Emission Factors................. 24

Estimated Statewide Livestock Emissions ............................................................. 25

Estimated Regional Livestock Emissions ............................................................... 26

Existing Regulations Applicable to Confined Animal Facilities........................ 29

Local Air Districts........................................................................................................ 29

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency................................................................... 30

State Water Resources Control Board.................................................................... 30
4. BASIS FOR THE STAFF’S PROPOSED REGULATION..........................................31

Overview........................................................................................................................... 31

Large Confined Animal Facility Definition (Section 86500)................................ 31

Ozone Nonattainment Areas ................................................................................... 31

Ozone Attainment Areas ........................................................................................... 34

Basis for Dairies ......................................................................................................... 34

Basis for Beef Feedlot Cattle.................................................................................... 35

Basis for Other Cattle Operations.............................................................................36

Basis for Poultry.......................................................................................................... 36

Basis for Other Livestock .......................................................................................... 37

Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements (Section 86501) ........................ 39

5. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE REGULATION ............................................41

Air Quality and Environmental Impacts................................................................... 41

California Environmental Quality Act Analysis ...................................................... 41

Discussion of Other Environmental Impacts of Livestock Facilities ................... 41

Environmental Justice.................................................................................................. 42

Livestock Ammonia Analysis ..................................................................................... 43

6. ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE REGULATION ........................................................ 45

7. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED REGULATION............................................47

Take No Action................................................................................................................ 47

Base the Large CAF Definition on Individual Facility Emissions ..................... 47

Provide Consistent Statewide Definition................................................................. 49

More or Less Inclusive Definition.............................................................................. 49

8. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 51

APPENDIX A: PROPOSED REGULATION ORDER – DEFINITION OF LARGE

CONFINED ANIMAL FACILITY

APPENDIX B: DETAILED CALIFORNIA DAIRY INFORMATION

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF LIVESTOCK AIR EMISSIONS RESEARCH

SYMPOSIUM

APPENDIX D: ONGOING ACTIVITIES TO ADDRESS LIVESTOCK EMISSION

MITIGATION PRACTICES

APPENDIX E: TEXT OF SENATE BILL 700

APPENDIX F: PUBLIC WORKSHOP NOTICES

APPENDIX G: SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY MAJOR ROG SOURCE CATEGORIES
i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The California Air Resources Board (ARB/Board) is required by State law (SB 700,

Florez, Statutes of 2003, Chapter 479) to develop a definition of “large” confined animal

facilities (large CAFs) by July 1, 2005. This staff report and proposed regulation are

presented to comply with this provision. The local air pollution control and air quality

management districts (local air districts) will use the large CAF definition in the

development of rules to mitigate emissions from large CAFs.

In developing the proposed definition, ARB is required to review all available scientific

information, including emission factors for CAFs and the effect of these facilities on air

quality in the State’s various air basins. ARB is also directed to consider the impact of

emissions from these facilities on attainment and maintenance of ambient air quality

standards.

We focused our efforts primarily on two air basins – the San Joaquin Valley and the

South Coast (Los Angeles region). These two regions represent California’s most

challenging air quality problems for both ozone and particulate matter pollution. Based

on the available science, both areas will need substantial new reductions in emissions

of reactive organic gases (ROG) in order to meet the new federal eight-hour ozone

standard. Whether ammonia reductions will be a key part of the attainment strategy for

the new federal particulate matter standard (PM2.5) is still an open question. For these

reasons, our air quality analyses have focused on the contribution of livestock ROG

emissions to ozone air quality.

As shown in Table ES-1, the federal eight-hour ozone standard has been exceeded in

the San Joaquin Valley over 100 days in each of the past three years (ARB 2005a).

The South Coast has had nearly as many annual exceedance days. These areas also

exceed California’s more stringent State air quality standards by an even larger margin.

This makes the impact of emissions from CAFs in these regions a critical consideration

in the development of the large CAF definition.

Table ES-1. Number of Days over the Federal Eight-Hour Ozone Standard

Number of Days over the Federal

Year Eight-Hour Ozone Standard

San Joaquin Valley South Coast

2004 109 88

2003 134 109

2002 125 96

From the standpoint of attainment of ozone ambient air quality standards, ROG is the

most important class of compounds emitted from CAFs. There is significant ongoing

research associated with emissions factors of ROG from livestock operations,

particularly with dairies and certain chicken operations. There is also a peer review

process underway. ARB’s current ROG emission factor of 12.8 lbs/year/head for dairies

is within the range indicated by the research to date. When the evaluation of recent

research results is completed, the emission factor may be higher or lower. However,
ii

even if the emission factor were cut in half, the aggregate ROG emissions from dairies

would continue to be significant.

Overall, livestock ROG emissions are most significant in the San Joaquin Valley. The

current emission estimate is 29 tons per day – mostly from dairies. Table ES-2 shows

that the San Joaquin Valley accounts for about 63% of the State’s livestock ROG

emissions, while the South Coast accounts for 12%. Collectively, these two regions

account for about 75% of the total livestock ROG emissions in the State.

Table ES-2. Livestock ROG Emissions for 2004a

Livestock ROG Emissions (tons/day)

Region Dairies Other

Livestock Total Livestock

% of Total Statewide

ROG Emissions from

Livestock

San Joaquin Valley 23.5 5.5 29.0 63%

South Coast 4.6 0.7 5.3 12%

Statewide 35.7 10.1 45.8 100% aSource: (ARB 2004a) and other methods incorporating emission factor scaling by manure output and new poultry

research data.

Based on the current emission estimate of 23.5 tons/day, dairies are a significant

source category of ROG emissions in the San Joaquin. Other top categories include

light and medium duty trucks, passenger cars, and oil and gas production. Consumer

products, paints and coatings, and gasoline marketing, are other important source

categories. Each of these categories is subject to air quality regulations to reduce their

emissions. Bringing dairies and other livestock categories into the mitigation plan

process is an important step in reducing ROG emissions in the San Joaquin Valley.

Individually, livestock operations can also be significant sources of emissions. For

example, Table ES-3 illustrates the magnitude of emissions from the 1,161 San Joaquin

Valley dairies with 50 or more milking cows, compared to other facilities in the region

(ARB 2005b, SJV 2005). The larger emitting facilities, those over 5 tons per year of

ROG emissions, include refineries, power plants, and manufacturing facilities. The

smaller facilities, those under 5 tons per year of ROG emissions, include auto body

shops and gasoline service stations. These facilities, both large and small, are subject

to local air district permitting and control requirements.

Table ES-3. Emissions from Dairies Compared to Other Facilities

in the San Joaquin Valley

ROG Emissions

(tons per year) # of Other Facilities # of Dairies

0 – 1 889 108

1 – 5 319 461

5 – 10 46 293

10 – 15 30 164

15 – 20 14 53

Greater than 20 44 82

The mitigation plan process that will be triggered upon ARB approval of a large CAF

definition is to be implemented by local air districts. SB 700 specifies that local air
iii

districts designated as nonattainment for the federal ozone standard as of

January 1, 2004, adopt rules that require large CAFs to develop and implement a

mitigation plan. Areas designated as attainment for the federal ozone standard as of

January 1, 2004, are also required to develop a large CAF rule unless the local air

district makes a determination that large CAFs will not contribute to a violation of any

State or federal air quality standard. SB 700 requires that local air districts assess, and

consider in a public hearing, the costs, cost-effectiveness, and technical feasibility of

any proposed rule.

In developing the proposed definition for large CAFs, ARB staff considered input from

the livestock industry, environmental and community representatives, local air districts,

the public, other State and federal agencies, and academic researchers. Key factors

the staff considered include the:

− severity and nature of the air quality problem in various local air districts;

− number of animals and their associated emissions per district;

− status of research on emission factors;

− efficiency in definition structure (number of animals relative to facility number); and,

− ability of local air districts to expand the definition if warranted.

After considering these factors, staff is proposing the thresholds shown in Table ES-4.

The definition is designed to address the combined, aggregate air quality impacts of the

livestock industry in California, with an emphasis on the San Joaquin Valley. We did not

take an individual facility emissions approach in defining a large CAF because it is

impractical and uncertain, in part due to the developing state of livestock emissions

estimation research. At this time, facility emissions are calculated on a per animal basis

pending completion and peer review of research on specific emission rates for various

processes at a facility. Also, even if more comprehensive process-based emission

factors were available, we would still take the head count approach in order to provide

certainty in terms of the definition’s applicability.

For dairies, the proposed definition is 1,000 milking cows in the ten federal

nonattainment areas as defined in SB 700. In the San Joaquin Valley, this captures

72% of the milking cows and 36% of the dairies with 50 or more milking cows. There

are an estimated 430 dairies of 1,000 or more milking cows in the San Joaquin Valley

and 108 dairies in the South Coast. Federal attainment areas as defined in SB 700

would be subject to a threshold of 2,000 milking cows. This approach appropriately

excludes the smaller farms, ranches, dairies, and other livestock facilities, while at the

same time laying the groundwork for significant air quality benefits in the San Joaquin

Valley and the South Coast Air Basin, the regions that need them the most.
iv

Table ES-4. Large Confined Animal Facility Definition by Livestock Category

Facilities at or Exceeding Threshold are Considered Large

Livestock Category Nonattainment Areas* Attainment Areas*

Dairy 1,000 milk producing cows 2,000 milk producing cows

Beef Feedlots 2,500 beef cattle 5,000 beef cattle

Other Cattle Operations 7,500 calves, heifers, or other cattle 15,000 calves, heifers, or other cattle

Chickens – Broilers 650,000 1,300,000

Chickens -- Egg Layers 650,000 1,300,000

Turkeys 100,000 200,000

Swine 3,000 6,000

Sheep and Goats 15,000 30,000

Horses 2,500 5,000

Ducks 650,000 1,300,000

Rabbits, Pheasants,

Llamas, Others 30,000 60,000

 *Federal 1-hour ozone designation as of January 1, 2004

The thresholds shown in Table ES-4 take into account population and operation

information that highlight natural breaks in the distribution of facility sizes. These

thresholds allow most of the animals to be included, while minimizing the number of

facilities affected. The thresholds for all the livestock categories are also scaled to be

approximately equivalent in terms of facility emissions.

Higher thresholds are proposed for the SB 700 federal ozone attainment areas primarily

because livestock emissions are relatively small compared to other sources, and can be

addressed by local air districts on a case by case basis. Under SB 700, local air

districts retain their authority to establish requirements beyond staff’s proposed

thresholds and could bring in smaller sized livestock operations if warranted. We

believe that allowing local air districts this discretion is appropriate since the relative

importance of confined animal facilities emissions to nonattainment or other air quality

problems can vary considerably. The details and complete rationale for each livestock

category threshold are provided in the body of this report. The specific proposed

regulatory language is provided in Appendix A.
1

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Senate Bill 700 (SB 700, Chapter 479, Florez, Statutes of 2003) made agricultural

sources of air pollution subject to air quality permitting and specified emission mitigation

requirements. SB 700 requires the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to develop a

definition for “large” confined animal facilities (CAFs) that will trigger the requirement for

an emissions mitigation plan.

The objective of this staff report is to provide the definition of large confined animal

facilities for California and the supporting rationale for the recommend definition. This

definition is a key step in the framework to begin reducing livestock emissions from the

livestock industry. The next, and more critical step following the definition of “large,” is

that the local air pollution control and air quality management districts (local air districts)

must adopt rules that require large CAFs to submit emission mitigation plans. Emission

reductions from the livestock industry, along with all important air pollution sources, are

particularly needed in the San Joaquin Valley in order to meet health based air quality

standards.

SB 700 Requirements for Confined Animal Facilities

Senate Bill 700 has numerous requirements related to agricultural air emissions and

agricultural permitting. This staff report focuses specifically on the large confined

animal facility provision of the legislation. Relative to CAFs, there are specific

requirements for ARB, the local air districts, and the California Air Pollution Control

Officers Association (CAPCOA). The following sections describe these responsibilities

and the overall schedule for implementation.

California Air Resources Board Requirements

The ARB’s key responsibility is to develop a definition for the source category of a “large

confined animal facility” on or before July 1, 2005. In developing the large CAF

definition, the ARB “shall review all available scientific information, including, but not

limited to, emissions factors for confined animal facilities, and the effect of those

facilities on air quality in the basin and other relevant scientific information,” and “shall

consider the emissions of air contaminants from those sources as they may affect the

attainment and maintenance of ambient air quality standards” (HSC 40724.6(a)).

In a public hearing, the ARB must also approve livestock emission factors for use in the

implementation of local air district rules on mitigation plans for CAFs

(H&SC 40724.6(d)(1)(A). Due to the ongoing peer review of the research related to

emission factors, the ARB staff is not proposing to consider the approval of emission

factors as part of this public hearing and will consider emission factors at a later date.
2

Local Air District Requirements

Once ARB establishes the large CAF definition, local air districts designated as federal

nonattainment for ozone as of January 1, 2004, must adopt, implement, and submit for

inclusion in the SIP, a rule requiring large CAFs to submit a mitigation plan to reduce air

contaminants to the extent feasible (HSC 40724.6(b)). For severe and extreme ozone

attainment areas, best available retrofit control technology (BARCT) is required. In

moderate and serious areas, large CAFs will need to use reasonably available control

technology (HSC 40724.6(d)(1)(B)). In federal ozone attainment areas, districts must

adopt a rule requiring large CAFs to reduce air contaminants to the extent feasible

unless a district board makes a finding in public hearing that large CAFs will not

contribute to a violation of any State or federal standard (HSC 40724.7(a) and

40724.6(b)).

In developing large CAF rules, local air districts are required to perform an assessment

of the impacts of the rule or regulation. This assessment must include an evaluation of

the number and size of affected sources, the nature and size of emissions, the

emissions reduction potential, impacts on employment, probable costs of the rule, the

availability and cost effectiveness of alternatives to the rule requirements, and the

technical and practical feasibility of the rule requirements (HSC 40724.6 second (d)).

CAPCOA Requirements

SB 700 also requires the CAPCOA to develop a clearinghouse of available control

measures and strategies for agricultural sources of air pollution and emissions from

agricultural operations by January 1, 2005 (HSC 40731). The clearinghouse is

available on CAPCOA’s website (CAPCOA 2005) and includes control measures for

operations that create fugitive dust emissions, measures for confined animal facilities,

controls for internal combustion engines, and emission reduction strategies for other

agricultural equipment. The website is located here:

http://www.capcoa.org/AgClearinghouse.htm.

SB 700 Large CAF Implementation Schedule

Figure 1 illustrates the overall timeline of the SB 700 large CAF requirements. The

legislation became effective on January 1, 2004. By July 1, 2005, the ARB must define

a “large confined animal facility.” The local air districts have until July 1, 2006 to adopt

their large CAF mitigation rules. Large CAFs then have six months to submit their

emission mitigation plans, and the local air districts have six additional months to

approve submitted plans. One year after submitting their plans, large confined animal

facilities must comply with the requirements of their mitigation plans no later than

July 1, 2008.
3

Figure 1. SB 700 Large CAF Implementation Schedule

Description of Public Outreach

To develop the large confined animal facility (large CAF) definition, the ARB staff

worked with many stakeholders over the past several years to understand the livestock

industry and identify key issues. Stakeholders include the air quality regulatory

agencies, livestock industry representatives, academic researchers, other State and

federal agencies, environmental and community representatives, and others.

ARB staff held numerous workshops and meetings to develop the definition for large

confined animal facilities. In August 2004, we held our initial series of large CAF public

workshops in Modesto, Tulare, Chino, and Sacramento. In January 2005, we

sponsored a livestock emissions research symposium in Fresno, which was broadcast

via video to Modesto, Bakersfield, and Diamond Bar. In March 2005, we held a

workshop in Fresno to discuss specific proposals for the large confined animal facility

definition. This workshop was also video-conferenced to Modesto, Merced,

Diamond Bar, and Sacramento, as well as providing telephone participation. In addition

to the formal workshops, ARB staff participated in numerous formal and informal

meetings with representatives of the livestock industry, environmental organizations,

local air districts, researchers, or other governmental agencies.

2004 2005

July 1: Deadline to 

define “large CAF”

2006

July 1: 

•Ozone federal nonattainment areas must adopt, 

implement, and submit for inclusion in the SIP a rule 

requiring large CAFs to submit a mitigation plan to 

reduce air contaminants to the extent feasible

•Ozone federal attainment areas must adopt a similar 

rule unless the district board makes finding in a public 

hearing that large CAFs will not contribute to violations 

of State or federal standards

January 1: 

SB700 effective

2007

January 1 (or 6 months 

within rule adoption): 

Large CAF emissions 

mitigation plans due

July 1 (or 6 months 

within receipt of 

plan): Districts 

approve mitigation 

plans

2008

July 1 (or 1 year 

within receipt of 

plan): Large CAF 

must comply with 

mitigation plan
4

Structure of the Staff Report

This staff report is divided into the following sections:

− Section 1. Introduction and Overview: Discusses Senate Bill 700, regulatory

requirements, the implementation schedule, and the public process for

developing the proposed regulation.

− Section 2. Characterization of Confined Animal Facilities: Discusses general

information about livestock facilities, including the numbers, types, and sizes of

facilities in different regions of the State.

− Section 3. Confined Animal Facility Impacts on Air Quality: Following an

overview of the California air quality situation, provides information regarding

emissions from confined animal facilities, how these emissions relate to regional

air quality, and what environmental regulations are currently in place for the

livestock industry.

− Section 4. Basis for the Staff’s Proposed Regulation: Provides the rationale

used to develop the large confined animal facility definition for California and the

recommended proposal.

− Section 5. Environmental Impacts of Regulation: Describes what impacts the

proposed regulation may have on the environment, including a discussion of

environmental justice and ammonia emissions.

− Section 6. Economic Impacts of Regulation: Describes the economic impacts of

the proposed regulation.

− Section 7. Alternatives to the Proposed Regulation: Describes other alternatives

that were considered for the large CAF definition and why the alternatives are

less effective.

− Section 8. References: Provides references used for the analyses.

− Appendices. Appendices are provided that include the proposed regulatory

language, detailed California dairy information, a summary of the livestock air

emissions research symposium, a discussion of activities to address livestock

mitigation practices, the text of SB 700, the large CAF public workshop notices,

and a summary of the major ROG sources in The San Joaquin Valley.
5

2. CHARACTERIZATION OF CONFINED ANIMAL FACILITIES

The California Agriculture Industry

The agricultural industry within California is very important, far exceeding the

agricultural output of any other state in the nation. Agricultural marketings of

California’s farmers and ranchers reached $27.8 billion in 2003. There are

approximately 78,500 farming operations within California that produce 13 percent of

the nation’s gross farming receipts, while including only four percent of the total farms in

the nation. The top 10 agricultural counties within California from highest to lowest

ranking are Fresno, Tulare, Monterey, Kern, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus,

San Diego, Kings, and Ventura (CASS 2003a).

California’s top 20 crop and livestock commodities account for 74 percent of the State’s

gross farm income. At number one, milk and cream have a gross income of about

$4 billion. California is the nation’s largest dairy producer, producing one out of every

five glasses of milk consumed in the nation. California has some of the largest dairies

in the nation, with an average size of 800 milking cows, versus a national average size

of less than 100 milking cows. Second in terms of agricultural sales are nursery

products at $2.4 billion, and third are grapes at $2.3 billion, which accounts for

88 percent of all grapes grown in the nation. As shown in Figure 2, the combined

income from the vegetable, field crop, and fruit and nut sectors are also substantial

(CASS 2003a).

Figure 2. California Agricultural Cash Income, 2003 (billion $)

Farm Related

$1.6 Vegetables

$7.0

Livestock & 

Poultry

$7.0

Nursery & 

Greenhouse

$3.3

Field Crops

$2.7

Fruits & Nuts

$7.8
6

California Livestock Industry Overview

The livestock industry in California is continuing to grow. Livestock cash receipts during

2003 totaled $7 billion, which was up 12% from 2002. Cattle and calves marketed from

California feedlots increased by 7% in 2003, with a 27% increase in cash income.

Between 2002 and 2003, the chicken industry in California had a 19% increase in cash

income, egg layers showed a 38% increase in income, and milk and cream a 5%

increase in income. (CASS 2003b for all statistics).

Table 1 shows the number of livestock farms and animals within California. Because of

the dynamic nature of the livestock industry, these numbers are constantly changing,

but they provide a general snapshot of the number of animals within California. These

data are from the 2002 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) agricultural

census data (USDA 2004). Note that in performing the census, USDA includes all

farms in their census, including very small producers. For example, the number of dairy

farms includes 918 dairies that have less than 50 cows. For layer chickens,

3,167 farms are included that have less than 3,200 chickens. To give an indication of

the number of these small farms, the two right hand columns of the table show the

number of small farms (and associated animals) included in the total number of farms

listed. USDA does not provide farm size information for horse and goat operations so

the number of small farms is not shown for these livestock categories.

Table 1. 2002 California Livestock Farms and Animal Populations

Livestock Total Number

of Farms

Total Number

of Animals

Number of Very

Small Farms

Included

Number of

Animals in Very

Small Farms

Dairy 2,793 2,806,357a918 (<50 head) 37,545

Feedlot 552 535,734 423 (<50 head) 3,492

Chicken – Broilers 338 39,245,511b269 (<10,000 head) 92,243

Chicken – Layers 3,244 22,768,304 3,167 (<3200 head) 108,584

Turkeys 237 8,790,704c157 (<1000 head) 2,569

Hogs 1,521 163,465 1,359 (<50 head) 11,345

Sheep 4,009 731,558 3,616 (<1000 head) 66,958

Horses and Ponies 16,446 131,951 Facility sizes not provided by USDA

Goats 3,542 103,122 Facility sizes not provided by USDA

(USDA 2004) aDairy includes milk cows and support stock; bBased on a flock cycle time of 55 days, or

6.6 flocks per year; cAssumes 2 flocks per year

All of these animals produce substantial amounts of liquid and solid waste. A milk

producing dairy cow can produce 150 pounds of manure a day (or 75 tons per day for

1,000 milking cows). A typical 20,000 head broiler chicken house produces over

2.25 tons of manure per day (ASAE 2004). Through biological decomposition process,

these wastes produce emissions of reactive organic gases, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide,

some nitrogen compounds, and methane. In addition, the activity of the animals and

other facility operations can produce particulate matter emissions, oxides of nitrogen,

and other pollutants.
7

Livestock Facility Size and Animal Population Summary

As will be shown in detail in the following sections, the majority of livestock animals

within California are maintained in larger operations. For example, statewide there are

approximately 2,800 dairies. Approximately 38% of the dairies have over 500 cows,

housing about 87% of the total cows in the State. For cattle feedlots, 96% of the

animals are in just 3% of the facilities. The trend is similar for the other livestock

categories including broiler chickens, layer chickens, turkeys, and swine – most of the

animals are in a relatively small number of larger livestock facilities.

Table 2 illustrates the general mix of facility sizes and the associated animal

populations. The table shows the number of livestock facilities, the percent of facilities,

the number of animals (or head), and the percentage of animals in various livestock

facility size categories (USDA 2004). Also, because there are often a large number of

very small livestock facilities in each category (see Table 1), the percentage of facilities

in each category with these very small facilities removed is also provided. Because the

number of animals in the very small facilities is minor, and because they generally do

not make an important difference in the percentage of total animals, this adjustment is

not shown for the percentage of head calculation.

The reason for providing facility size information versus animal populations is the

relationship between livestock emissions and the number of animals at a facility. Using

dairies as an example, if all other process are identical, the ARB staff assumes that a

1,000 cow dairy will produce twice as many emissions as a 500 head dairy. The basis

for this assumption is twofold. First, the manure output produced at a dairy is directly

related to the number of cows at the dairy, that is, two milk producing cows will produce

twice as much manure as one milk producing cow. It is the output of this manure, the

treatment and biological decomposition of the wastes, and emissions directly from the

cow that produce the dairy air emissions. Each additional cow at the dairy produces

more manure and more gas, and thus more emissions. Second, the current method of

estimating cow, chicken, swine, or any other livestock animal emissions is expressed in

terms of emissions per head per year. Using this method, the facility emissions are

directly proportional to the number of animals at the facility.
8

Table 2. California Livestock Facility Sizes, Animals, and Size Ranges

Total Facilities Larger than “Size Cut”

Livestock Facilities Head Facility

Size Cut

# of

facilities

% of

facilities

% of

non-small

facilitiesd

# of head % of

head

Dairya2,793 2,806,357 500 1075 38 57 2,435,647 87

1,000 517 19 28 1,796,992 64

Feedlots 552 535,734 1,000 19 3 15 513,813 96

2,500 16 3 12 509,109 95

Broilersb338 39,245,511 55,000 45 13 65 38,598,215 98

135,000 29 9 42 37,505,983 96

Layers 3,244 22,768,304 50,000 57 2 74 22,198,928 97

100,000 44 1 57 21,236,253 93

Turkeysc237 8,790,704 30,000 66 28 83 8,647,995 99

100,000 57 24 71 8,320,812 95

Hogs 1,521 163,465 1,000 10 1 6 126,594 77

2000 6 0.4 4 123,094 75

Sheep 4,009 731,558 5,000 39 1 10 477,615 65

Goats 3,542 103,122 10,000 Facility sizes not provided by USDA

Horses 16,446 131,951 500 Facility sizes not provided by USDA

USDA 2004. aDairy includes milk cows and support stock; bBased on a flock cycle time of 55 days, or 6.6

flocks per year; cAssumes 2 flocks per year; dFacilities shown in the previous table, designated as “very

small” are removed from the percentage of facilities calculation.

Dairies

The dairy industry in California is the State’s largest single source of agricultural

revenue, generating over $4 billion in revenue each year. The latest USDA agricultural

census for 2002 indicates that that there are about 2,800 dairies in California housing

about 2,800,000 milking cows and support stock. Note that these statistics include 918

dairies that have fewer than 50 cows, accounting for about 1% of the total cows in the

State (see Table 1). In this report, we generally use the USDA statistics for overview

data because they provide data collected on a consistent basis and include all of the

major animal types. However, for some of the specific animal classifications such as

dairies and poultry discussed later, we were able to collect additional regional and

facility size information.

Overview of a Dairy

Although every dairy within California is unique, Figure 3 shows an aerial view of a

“typical” California San Joaquin Valley dairy. For scale, the vertical line on the left of the

photo is a two-lane county road. This flush lane freestall dairy supports about

3,000 milking cows. The dairy has two main freestall housing barns, which are the two

long horizontal structures shown, and a smaller barn in the center. Cows spend most of

their time in these freestall areas eating, sleeping, and resting. The barns are

surrounded by turnout areas (dirt corrals) for the cows to walk around and exercise.

The center of the photo shows the milking parlor. To the bottom of the photo is the

liquid waste storage lagoon, the manure dewatering area, and the dry manure storage
9

pile. The right hand side of the

photo shows areas where dry,

non milking, cows are

maintained.

Most dairies within the San

Joaquin Valley (SJV) are of

the flushed lane freestall

design in which manure

wastes are periodically flushed

from concrete lanes in the

freestall areas where the

wastes collect. Manure also

accumulates in the turnout

corral areas and they are

scraped periodically (e.g.,

monthly, semi-annually) using

a tractor to remove the

manure. As shown in the

photo, most dairies in the SJV

are also surrounded by

agricultural acreage, which is used to grow crops used for feed and other uses. These

crops are typically fertilized by some of the nutrients in the liquid and solid manure

wastes created by the dairy.

In comparison to dairies in the SJV, most dairies in Southern California are of the dry lot

design in which no flush water is used. Instead, the manure is periodically scraped or

otherwise removed using a tractor or other equipment. These dairies generally do not

have significant cropland associated with the dairy. Other parts of the State use a

variety of practices including those mentioned, as well as various grazing scenarios

used in Northern California.

Traditionally, in addition to the milk cows, dairies also include a variety of support stock

on-site including calves, young heifers that have not started milk production, and dry

cows that are not in their milk production phase. Statewide, approximately half of the

dairy-related cows within California are milked and the other half of the dairy cows are

support stock that ultimately will be used for milk production (ARB 2004b). With many

newer dairies, as well as some of the older facilities, there is a trend to remove support

stock from the dairy. In this way, the dairy operator can focus their efforts on milk

production and optimize their land use by placing as many milk (and revenue)

generating cows on the facility as possible. The support stock are then handled by

separate businesses that specialize in particular animals such as calves or heifers.

Emissions from a dairy can come from any and all of the locations mentioned including

the flush water and manure in the freestalls and flush lanes, the turnout corrals, the

lagoon(s), manure storage piles, manure applied to crops, emissions directly from the

Figure 3. Aerial Photo of a Freestall Flush Lane Dairy.
10

cows, and other sources. These dairy emissions are created by complex biological

processes and are released through many diverse and dispersed emission sources,

making them very difficult to effectively evaluate and quantify. More general information

on California dairies can be found in Appendix B.

Dairy Distribution by Size and Population

To give a sense of the California dairy industry, Figure 4 shows the size and regional

distribution of dairies in California. The upper graph shows the number of dairies by

region. The lower graph shows the number of milking cows contained in different sized

dairies by region. In both the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (San

Joaquin Valley APCD or SJVAPCD) and South Coast Air Quality Management District

(South Coast AQMD or SCAQMD), the majority of the dairies have over 500 milking

head of cattle and the majority of the total animals are maintained in these larger

dairies. (USDA 2004)

Figure 4. California Dairy Information for Specified Regions in California

California Dairies by Size Category

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

SC SJV Other

# of Dairies

500+

200 to 499

100 to 199

1 to 99

California Dairy Population by Size Category

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

SC SJV Other

# of Cows

500+

200 to 499

100 to 199

1 to 99

Dairy Size

(Number of Head)

Number of Dairies

Number of Cows

Dairy Size

(Number of Head)

SCAQMD SJVAPCD

SCAQMD SJVAPCD
11

San Joaquin Valley Dairies

Because the majority of dairies and cows in California are in the San Joaquin Valley

(SJV), this section provides additional detailed dairy size information for this region.

Table 3 shows the dairy size information for the SJV. This data set is a combination of

data available from USDA and the San Joaquin Valley APCD. The USDA data

(USDA 2004) subdivides dairies by size category, but the largest category provided is

500 or more milking head. The San Joaquin Valley APCD data (SJV 2005a) provides

detailed dairy size information, but generally does not include dairies less than

500 head. To get a complete picture of both the larger and smaller dairies in the SJV,

both data sets were combined.

Although different methods were used in compiling the two data sets, and the data

should not be considered exact, the information does provide a general characterization

of the SJV dairy industry. Using this approach, about 1,500 dairies are accounted for

from the total 1608 tabulated by USDA. As Table 3 shows, there are 340 very small

dairies with fewer than 50 milking cows. To provide comparisons, the table includes the

percentages of dairies and cows both with and without the very small dairies.

Table 3. San Joaquin Valley Dairy Size Distribution

Dairy Size Category # of Dairies

% of

Dairies

% of Dairies

>=50 Head

# of Milk

Cows

% of Milk

Cows

% of

Cows

>=50

Head

1 to 49 340 23% 1,977 <1% NA

50 to 199 108 7% 9% 12,904 1% 1%

200 to 499 355 24% 31% 120,888 10% 10%

500 to 699 111 7% 10% 65,546 5% 5%

700 to 999 157 10% 14% 127,876 11% 11%

1000 to 1999 284 19% 24% 400,175 33% 33%

2000 to 3999 116 8% 10% 314,005 26% 26%

4000 to 5999 25 2% 2% 117,773 10% 10%

6000 or more 5 <1% <1% 38,886 3% 3%

Total All Dairies 1501 1,200,030

Total Dairies > 49 Head 1161 1,198,053

Dairies <501 head from USDA 2004

Dairies >= 501 head from SJV 2005a

Table 4 shows the distribution of milking cows in the SJV in a different format. In the

SJV, there are 430 dairies (36%) with 1,000 or more milking cows and 731 dairies

(64%) with less than 1,000 milking cows. The dairies with 1,000 or more cows have

about 72% of the milking herd and the dairies with less than 1,000 cows have about

28% of the total milking herd. Looking at 2,000 head dairies, there are about

146 dairies (13%) in the SJV with 2,000 or more milking cows and 1,015 dairies (87%)

with less than 2000 head. About 39% of the cows are in dairies with 2,000 or more

milking cows, with the remaining 61% in the smaller dairies.
12

Table 4. Distribution of SJV Milking Cows by Farm Size

Size of the Dairy Dairies*

(Number of Milking

Cows per Dairy)

 Percent of Total

Milking Cows in the

San Joaquin Valley Number of Dairies Percent of Dairies

> 50 100 1161 100

> 500 89 698 60

> 700 84 587 50

> 1000 72 430 36

> 2000 39 146 13

 * Excludes the estimated 340 dairies < 50 Milking Cows

South Coast AQMD Dairies

The South Coast AQMD also has a concentration of dairies. Tables 5 and 6 provide

detailed facility size data for the South Coast AQMD. These data are provided by the

local air district, are based on locally collected information (SCAQMD 2004a), and

include some of the non-milking cows, so it is not in exact agreement with the USDA

data discussed previously. The South Coast AQMD data indicate that there are about

108 dairies (50%) with 1,000 or more cows on the dairy and 111 with less than 1,000

cows (50%). The dairies with 1,000 or more cows have 75% of the herd and the dairies

with less than 1,000 cows have about 25% of the total herd. There are about 31 dairies

(14%) with over 2,000 cows, which include about 38% of the cows.

Table 5. South Coast AQMD Dairy Size Distribution

Size Category # of Dairies

% of

Dairies # of cows % ofCows

1 to 499 30 14% 10,472 4%

500 to 699 36 16% 21,181 8%

700 to 999 45 21% 38,102 14%

1000 to 1999 77 35% 103,713 37%

2000+ 31 14% 107,249 38%

Totals 219 100% 280,717 100%

Table 6. Distribution of South Coast AQMD Milking Cows by Farm Size

Size of the Dairy Dairies*

(Number of Cows per

Dairy)

 Percent of Total

Cows Number of Dairies Percent of Dairies

> 50 100 219 100

> 500 96 189 86

> 700 89 153 70

> 1000 75 108 49

> 2000 38 31 14
13

Other Region Dairies

Based on USDA statistics (USDA 2004) for areas outside of the San Joaquin Valley

APCD and South Coast AQMD, there are only 89 dairies in other parts of the State that

have over 500 milking cows. These 89 dairies with over 500 head include about 4% of

the milk cows in the State. To give a sense of the number of dairies and cows

throughout California counties, Table 7 shows the number of cows in dairies that have

500 or more cows, the number of dairies with 500 or more cows, and the average size

of the dairies with over 500 cows.

The table shows that in those counties with substantial numbers of milking cows,

virtually all of the cows are in dairies with 500 or more milking cows. Also, the average

size of all of these dairies with 500 or more milking head is 1,336 milking cows. Note

that this information is based on the 2002 census, so it does not show the newest

dairies that have been built over the past 2 to 3 years.

Table 7. County Dairy Size Distribution by Number of Cows and Dairies

Number of Milking Cows Number of Dairies

County

# of Milking Cows

in Dairies >= 500

head

% of Milking

Cows in Dairies

>= 500 head

Average # of

Milking Cows in

Dairies > 500

Head

# of Milking Cows

in Dairies >=50

and < 500 head

# of Dairies

>= 500

Milking Head

% of Dairies

>= 500 head

# of Dairies >=50

and < 500

Milking Head

Tulare 396,858 96% 1,780 14,932 223 82% 48

Merced 183,679 82% 1,201 39,379 153 53% 138

San Bernardino 152,979 97% 1,319 4,958 116 88% 16

Stanislaus 127,425 79% 958 34,459 133 53% 119

Kings 127,280 92% 1,224 10,890 104 76% 33

Riverside 87,743 97% 1,350 2,279 65 86% 11

San Joaquin 86,284 84% 1,135 16,955 76 54% 64

Fresno 78,757 87% 1,313 11,556 60 59% 41

Kern 74,206 100% 2,394 0 31 97% 1

Madera 42,152 88% 1,686 5,621 25 57% 19

Sonoma 18,262 58% 730 13,338 25 31% 55

Glenn 9,550 56% 796 7,435 12 21% 45

Sacramento 9,473 53% 947 8,433 10 22% 35

San Diego 4,351 78% 725 1,245 6 60% 4

Marin 3,505 35% 584 6,616 6 23% 20

Humboldt 3,484 22% 697 12,627 5 5% 95

Tehama 3,154 66% 789 1,631 4 21% 15

Yuba 2,914 100% 971 0 3 60% 2

Counties where there are no dairies

greater than or equal to 500 milking cows

Alameda Mariposa Nevada Shasta

Alpine Inyo Orange Santa Cruz

Amador Lake Placer Sierra

Butte Lassen Plumas Siskiyou

Calaveras Los Angeles San Benito Solano

Colusa Mendocino San Francisco Sutter

Contra Costa Modoc San Luis Obispo Trinity

Del Norte Mono San Mateo Tuolumne

El Dorado Monterey Santa Barbara Ventura

Imperial Napa Santa Clara Yolo

Note: USDA reports 18 dairies in these counties with over 500

milking head, but lists the number of milking cows as zero.
14

Beef Cattle

As shown in Table 8, about 21% of California’s feedlots with over 50 head have over

2,500 head of cattle. These 30 feedlots with over 2,500 head raise about 96% of

California’s beef feedlot cattle. The remaining feedlots with less than 2,500 cows

include only 23,133 animals statewide. Information in the table is a combination of data

from USDA and the California Farm Bureau (USDA 2004 and CFB), so it is not

consistent with exclusive USDA data. Complete data were not provided for the larger

facilities. Therefore, the number of head in the categories at 2,500 head and above are

estimated based on the midpoint of the size category multiplied by the number of farms

in the category. This creates inconsistencies in the total number of feedlot head,

showing about 100,000 more feedlot animals than the USDA data would indicate.

Nevertheless, the data gives an indication of the size distribution of larger feedlots.

Geographically, about half of the feedlot animals are located in the San Joaquin Valley

(Fresno, Kern, Madera, Stanislaus, and Tulare Counties), and the other half are in

Imperial County.

Table 8. California Feedlot Size Distribution

Size Category Farms

% of Total

Farms

Estimated

Total Head

% of Total

Head

50 to 99 56 39% 3,592 1%

100 to 199 26 18% 3,268 0%

200 to 499 20 14% 6,308 1%

500 to 999 8 6% 5,261 1%

1,000 to 2,499 3 2% 4,704 1%

2,500 to 4,999 4 3% 15,000 2%

5,000 to 9,999 8 6% 60,000 9%

10,000 to 19,999 7 5% 105,000 16%

20,000 to 39,999 9 6% 270,000 41%

40,000 to 74,999 0 0% 0 0%

75,000 to 99,999 1 1% 87,000 13%

100,000+ 1 1% 100,000 15%

Total 143 100% 660,133 100%

Table 9 shows the distribution of feedlot animals in California by feedlot size. In the

State there are 30 feedlots (21%) with 2,500 or more animals, and 113 feedlots (79%)

with less than 2500 animals. The feedlots with 2,500 or more cows have about 96% of

the animals and the feedlots with less than 2,500 cows have about 4% of the feedlot

animals.
15

Table 9. Distribution of California Feedlots by Farm Size

Feedlots

Size of the Feedlot Percent of

Feedlot Animals Number of

Feedlots Percent of Feedlots

> 50 100 143 100

> 500 98 38 29

> 1000 97 33 23

> 2,500 96 30 21

> 5,000 94 26 18

> 10,000 85 18 13

> 20,000 69 11 8

 * Excludes the estimated 423 feedlots with < 50 animals

Other Cattle Operations (Calves, Heifers, Others)

In addition to cattle facilities that focus predominantly on milk or beef production, there

are a variety of other cattle ranches that both support these industries and provide other

products such as veal. For example, some ranches may specialize on raising young

calves to reproductive age for dairy use; others may raise heifers or other young cattle

for delivery to feedlots for fattening. In general, the animals at these facilities are

substantially smaller than productive dairy or beef cattle. Because of this, on a per

animal basis, they will produce lower manure waste output and lower emissions. For

example, an average producing dairy cow produces 150 pounds of manure per day and

a beef cow produces about 64 pounds per day. In contrast, a heifer produces

48 pounds of manure per day and a calf only produces 19 pounds per day (ASAE

2004). As the California cattle industry is currently configured, there are not yet

tremendous numbers of animals in these types of other facilities. However, there are

ongoing changes in the cattle industry towards increased facility specialization in raising

and managing the various animal components (calves, heifers, etc.).

Poultry (Broilers, Layers, Turkeys)

Poultry facilities either specialize in meat production (broilers and turkeys) or egg

production (layers). Enclosed houses, often on the order of 50 feet by 300 feet in size,

are most commonly used to house the birds. A typical poultry broiler house will have in

the range of 20,000 birds per house. A group of several houses constitutes a poultry

farm and several related farms are often called a ranch. Broilers have a 55-day

production cycle from initial placement, growth, harvest, and reconditioning of the house

for the next flock (SJV 2005b). Turkeys have about a 6-month production cycle.

Poultry operations can create significant quantities of waste that can produce airborne

emissions through biological decomposition processes, as well as particulate emissions

due to movement of the birds. A 20,000 head broiler chicken house can produce over

2.25 tons of manure per day. A 20,000 head layer house can produce up to 2 tons of

manure per day, and 20,000 turkeys can produce over 5.5 tons of manure per day

(ASAE 2004). Because most of the larger poultry operations in California maintain the

birds in ventilated houses on litter of rice hulls or other materials, and do not generally
16

use water to flush wastes, there are fewer open sources of emissions at poultry

operations compared to some other livestock sources such as dairies or feedlots.

The majority of poultry facilities in California are in the San Joaquin Valley and Southern

California. Broiler chicken farms are dispersed throughout the State, but nearly all of

the chickens are in Fresno, Madera, Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Tulare counties.

For egg layer chickens, facilities are also located throughout the State, but most of the

layer chickens are in Merced, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Joaquin,

Sonoma, and Stanislaus Counties. Most of California’s turkeys are raised in Fresno,

Kings, Madera, Merced, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne Counties. (USDA 2004).

In understanding the number of California poultry operations and their sizes, two

sources of data were available. The first is the USDA 2002 agricultural census data,

which has been shown previously. In addition to this information, representatives from

the poultry industry within California were able to provide additional data that more fully

describes the industry than the USDA data. For example, the largest facility size

category reported by USDA for broilers is 135,000 head. The broiler data supplied by

the poultry industry data show that there are 72 farms with over 135,000 head, and that

there are 24 farms with over 650,000 head, and 20 farms with over 1,000,000 head

(CPF 2005a). The industry supplied broiler data reports about 48 million broilers. The

USDA data provides reports about 39 million birds. The fact that the industry broiler

data reports more total birds than the USDA data gives us a good indication that the

industry data reasonably represents the California broiler industry. The industry did not

attempt to account for the over 250 very small broiler farms reported by USDA, but the

USDA data shows these farms house less than 0.3% of the total broilers. Table 10

shows the industry supplied broiler data

For the layer chickens, the USDA data has a maximum size category of 100,000 birds.

The layer industry was able to provide additional information regarding the larger

facilities. The USDA data shows 44 facilities over 100,000 head, with 21,236,253 birds

(USDA 2004). The layer industry data shows 45 facilities over 100,000 head with

18,385,000 birds (CGFA). This is reasonable agreement and helps to validate the

industry data. The industry also did not try to account for the over 3,000 very small

layer farms counted by USDA that include less than 0.5% of the layers. Table 11 shows

the industry supplied layer data.

The turkey data supplied by the poultry industry (CPF 2005b) also agrees well with

USDA data. Table 12 shows the industry supplied data.
17

Table 10. California Broiler Chicken Facility Size and Animals

Size Category # of Farms % of Facilities # of Broilers % of Broilers

<100,000 8 10% 490,075 1%

100,000 to 299,999 21 26% 4,426,308 9%

300,000 to 499,999 17 21% 6,684,856 14%

500,000 to 649,999 11 14% 6,466,766 14%

650,000 to 999,999 4 5% 3,408,214 7%

> 1,000,000 20 25% 26,131,840 55%

Total 81 100% 47,608,059 100%

Table 11. California Layer Chicken Facility Size and Animals

Size Category # of Farms % of Farms # of Layers % of Layers

<100,000 52 54% 2,349,000 11%

100,000 to 299,999 29 30% 4,748,000 23%

250,000 to 499,999 4 4% 1,577,000 8%

500,000 to 649,999 0 0% 0 0%

650,000 to 999,999 1 1% 660,000 3%

>1,000,000 11 11% 11,400,000 55%

Total 97 100% 20,734,000 100%

Table 12. California Turkey Facility Size and Animals

Size Category # of Farms % of Facilities # of Turkeys % of Turkeys

< 25,000 11 12% 168,371 2%

25,000 to 49,999 15 16% 574,795 7%

50,000 to 79,999 24 26% 1,580,563 20%

80,000 to 99,999 12 13% 1,018,848 13%

100,000 to 199,999 24 26% 3,143,761 39%

200,000 to 299,999 6 6% 1,283,359 16%

> 300,000 1 1% 301,600 4%

Total 93 100% 8,071,297 100%
18

Table 13 provides some additional description of the poultry broiler, layer, and turkey

industry within California. For broilers, statewide about 62% of the animals are in

24 farms over 650,000 head. The other 38% of the broilers are in the remaining

57 farms. For layers, about 58% of the animals are in 12 farms with over 650,000 head.

The other 42% of the layers are in the remaining 85 farms. For turkeys, 59% of the

animals are in 31 farms with over 100,000 turkeys. The other 41% of the turkeys are in

the remaining 62 farms.

Table 13. Distribution of California Poultry Operations by Farm Size

Farms Size of the Farm Percent of

Animals Number of Farms Percent of Farms

Broilers

> 0 100 81 100

> 100,000 99 73 90

> 300,000 90 52 65

> 500,000 76 35 44

> 650,000 62 24 30

> 1,000,000 55 20 25

Layers

> 0 100 97 100

> 100,000 89 45 46

> 250,000 66 16 16

> 500,000 58 12 12

> 650,000 58 12 12

> 1,000,000 55 11 11

Turkeys

> 0 100 93 100

> 25,000 98 82 88

> 50,000 91 67 72

> 80,000 72 43 46

> 100,000 59 31 33

> 200,000 20 7 7

> 300,000 4 1 1
19

Other Livestock (Swine, Sheep, Goats, Horses, Others)

There are a variety of other smaller livestock operations throughout California including

swine, sheep, goats, horses, rabbits, ducks, and others. Under SB 700, animals fed

predominantly by grazing are specifically excluded from the regulation.

Tables 1 and 2, shown previously, tabulate the statewide number of facilities and

animals for some of the additional livestock categories. As shown, the majority of the

livestock animals are in the cattle and poultry industries, and the number of animals in

the other categories is relatively small. For the other livestock categories including

goats, horses, ducks, rabbits, or any other livestock, the USDA does not provide facility

size information.

Table 14 provides the facility size breakdown for hog farms. As with the other livestock

categories, the majority of hogs are in large facilities. About 75% of the 163,645 hogs

are in just six facilities with 2000 or more swine. This includes only 3% of the 162 swine

facilities with 50 more hogs. About 70% (over 110,000) of California’s hogs are raised

in Tulare County. Other counties with substantial hog populations are San Bernardino

County with 10,000 head, and Stanislaus County with 23,000 head. The small number

of remaining hogs not in these counties are distributed throughout the State, mostly in

small farms with less than 100 hogs (USDA 2004).

Table 14. California Hog Farm Size Distribution

Size Category

# of

Farms

% of

Farms # of Head

% of Total

Head

% of Total Head

>=50 hogs

1 to 99 1426 93.8% 15,886 10% 4%

100 to 499 78 5.1% 15,822 10% 10%

500 to 999 7 0.5% 5,163 3% 4%

1000 to 1999 4 0.3% 3,500 2% 2%

2000 to 4999 2 0.1% 9,680 6% 6%

5000 or more 4 0.3% 113,414 69% 74%

Totals 1521 100% 163,465 100% 100%

Table 15 provides some further description of the hog industry within California.

For hogs, about 80% of the animals statewide in farms greater than 50 hogs are in

6 farms over 2,000 head. The other 20% of the hogs are in the remaining 156 farms.

Table 15. Distribution of California Hog Farms by Size

Farms Size of the Farm Percent of Hogs Number of Farms Percent of Farms

> 50 100 162 100

> 100 96 95 57

> 500 86 17 9

> 1000 82 10 5

> 2000 80 6 3

> 5000 74 4 2

 * Excludes the estimated 1359 farms with < 50 animals
20

Table 16 lists the number of farms and animals for the miscellaneous livestock

categories (USDA 2004). As shown, the number of animals in these other categories is

relatively small compared to the primary livestock categories.

Table 16. Other California Livestock Farms and Population

Livestock Category # of Farms # of Animals

Goats 3,542 103,122

Sheep 4,009 731,558

Horses and Ponies 16,446 131,951

Ducks 826 956,606

Emus 207 2,051

Geese 643 7,641

Ostriches 111 3,388

Pheasants 165 170,388

Pigeons or Squab 262 168,532

Quail 109 190,102

Other Poultry 377 168,029

Bison 98 1,810

Deer 9 924

Elk 6 202

Llamas 1,022 12,059

Mules, Burros, Donkeys 693 2596

Rabbits 417 45,795
21

3. CONFINED ANIMAL FACILITY IMPACTS ON AIR QUALITY

Regional Ozone Attainment Status – Federal and State Exceedances

During 2001 through 2004, the highest number of exceedance days for both the State and

federal 1-hour ozone standard occurred in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin and the South

Coast Air Basin. Both areas had more than 105 State ozone standard exceedance

days, 9 or more federal 1-hour ozone standard exceedance days, and more than 86

exceedances of the federal 8-hour ozone standard during each of the four years. The

Sacramento Metro Area, Mojave Desert Air Basin, and Salton Sea Air Basin all had more

that 35 State ozone standard exceedances and more than 25 or more federal 8-hour ozone

standard exceedances during the same period. The remaining five ozone nonattainment

areas (Mountain Counties Air Basin, San Diego Air Basin, San Francisco Bay Area Air

Basin, and the South Central Coast Air Basin) averaged from 7 to 62 State ozone standard

exceedances.

Table 17 shows the local air districts designated as nonattainment of the federal ozone

standard as of January 1, 2004. The table also shows the number of days above all

State and federal ozone standards during the years 2001 through 2004 in each region

(ARB 2005a, ARB 2005c, ARB 2005d). For all standards, the San Joaquin Valley

APCD and South Coast AQMD have the greatest number of exceedance days. In

these two areas in particular, all sources of air pollution produce air quality impacts and

have some level of significance. In these regions, virtually all emission sources, even

those that are very small, are regulated. In addition, emission sources that are very

small individually, but in aggregate can produce substantial emissions, are regulated.

Table 18 illustrates the magnitude of emissions from dairies relative to other facilities in

the San Joaquin Valley. The larger emitting facilities, those over 5 tons per year of

reactive organic gas (ROG) emissions include refineries, power plants, and

manufacturing plants. The smaller facilities, those under 5 tons per year of ROG

emissions, include auto body shops and gasoline service stations. Also, for

comparison, based on current emission estimates one cow emits as much ROG

emissions as two new cars.
22

Table 17. Federal 1-Hour Ozone Designation and

 Classification Areas as of January 1, 2004

Total Days Above Ozone

Standard From

2001 Through 2005

District Name (Area Description) Designation / Classification for

Federal 1-Hour Ozone Standard

State

1-Hour

Federal

1-Hour

Federal

8-Hour

South Coast (South Coast Air Basin) Nonattainment / Extreme 467 173 385

South Coast (Coachella Valley) Nonattainment / Severe-17 216 13 176

Antelope Valley Nonattainment / Severe-17

Mojave Desert (Central San Bernardino Co.) Nonattainment / Severe-17 298 38 234

San Joaquin Valley Nonattainment / Severe-15 493 109 477

Ventura Nonattainment / Severe-15 119 5 87

Sacramento Metro Nonattainment / Severe-15

Yolo-Solano Nonattainment / Severe-15

El Dorado Nonattainment / Severe-15

Placer Nonattainment / Severe-15

Feather River (S. Sutter Co.) Nonattainment / Severe-15

Feather River (N. Sutter Co. & Yuba Co.) Nonattainment / Sec.185A

198 19 156

Kern (East Kern Co.) Nonattainment / Serious 90 1 88

Butte Nonattainment / Sec.185A 21 0 30

Imperial Nonattainment / Sec.185A 103 16 40

Bay Area Nonattainment / Other 57 4 21

 * Severe 17 means that the area has 17 years to come into compliance; Severe 15 areas get 15 years.

Regions Designated as Attainment or Unclassified

for the Federal 1-Hour Ozone Standard

Attainment

San Diego Monterey Bay Unified

Santa Barbara

Unclassified

Lake Great Basin Unified

Amador Lassen

Calaveras Modoc

Mariposa Mojave Desert (East Riverside Co.)

Tuolumne Mojave Desert (East San Bernardino Co.)

Northern Sierra Siskiyou

Colusa North Coast Unified

Glenn Mendocino

Tehama Northern Sonoma

Shasta San Luis Obispo

El Dorado (Lake Tahoe) South Coast (East of Coachella Valley)

Placer (Lake Tahoe)
23

Table 18. Emissions from Dairies Compared to Other Regulated

Facilities in the San Joaquin Valley

ROG Emissions

(tons per year) # of Other Facilities # of Dairies

0 – 1 889 108

1 – 5 319 461

5 – 10 46 293

10 – 15 30 164

15 – 20 14 53

Greater than 20 tons 44 82

State Implementation Plan Commitments for Livestock Operations

The San Joaquin Valley APCD has a commitment in the Extreme Ozone Attainment

Demonstration Plan (EOADP) that will require confined animal facilities to reduce

emissions of ROG from livestock facilities. The EODAP anticipates a 10% reduction in

livestock ROG emissions by 2008 and a 25% reduction by 2010 (SJV 2004a).

In the South Coast AQMD, the primary livestock emission reduction strategy is in the

2003 Air Quality Management Plan (SCAQMD 2003), and is addressed by Rule 1127

(SCAQMD 2004a). This rule applies to dairies with more than 50 cows, heifers, and/or

calves. The rule, which increases in stringency over several years, requires dairies to

remove and dispose of their dairy manure on a frequent basis, pave their feed lanes,

and minimize excess water in corrals (SCAQMD 2004a). Rule 1127 anticipates a 45%

reduction in livestock ROG and a 30% reduction in ammonia emissions by 2010.

Odor and Ammonia Emissions and Air Quality

Nearly all of the local air districts have rules prohibiting nuisance emissions, such as

odors. In addition to odorous compounds, emissions of ammonia also pose air quality

concerns. Ammonia contributes to the formation of ambient particulate matter,

specifically ammonium nitrate or ammonium sulfate. These particles form to a varying

degree in the presence of ammonia and oxides of nitrogen or sulfur. The particle

formation is highly dependent on atmospheric temperature, humidity, concentrations of

the precursor compounds, and other factors, so the particle formation is extremely

variable and difficult to predict. Both the South Coast AQMD and San Joaquin Valley

APCD sometimes have elevated ammonium nitrate levels. However, only in the South

Coast AQMD has it been clearly established that reductions in ammonia levels will

improve air quality. Current analysis indicates that ammonia reductions within the San

Joaquin Valley APCD may improve air quality for only very limited parts of the SJV, but

additional analysis is ongoing to better understand the role ammonia plays in the SJV

particulate matter formation.

In addition to particle formation, there is also some concern about direct exposure to

ammonia gas produced by livestock facilities or other sources. ARB staff performed a

simplified modeling analysis to evaluate near-source exposure risks to ammonia. A

summary of this analysis is provided in the section of this report on the Environmental

Impacts of the Regulation.
24

Emissions from Confined Animal Facilities

The ARB and the local air districts estimate emissions from virtually all sources of air

pollution. Some of the key sources of agriculturally-related air pollution include on-field

land preparation and crop harvest activities, agricultural residue burning, agricultural

tractors and equipment, agricultural internal combustion engines, fuel storage tanks,

and livestock operations including dairies, feedlots, and poultry operations. The primary

pollutants of concern for meeting ambient air quality standards and produced by the

livestock industry include particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), ROG, ammonia, and

oxides of nitrogen (NOx). Other pollutants of potential interest include toxic air

contaminants, hydrogen sulfide, nitrous oxide (N2O), nitric oxide (NO), and methane.

Current Livestock Research and Emission Factors

The ARB has developed emission estimates for the livestock industry. It is important to

recognize that the emission factors used to develop some of the livestock emission

estimates are in a significant state of evolution, particularly for reactive organic gases

(ROGs) from dairies. Dairy emissions research is ongoing by at least half a dozen

researchers in California alone. As the research is completed, reviewed, and approved,

the livestock emission estimates will be updated. The ARB livestock emission

estimates are based on the current best available data as of March 2005. Other studies

are forthcoming, but their results are not sufficiently reviewed and approved for

incorporation in this report. For additional information regarding ongoing dairy

emissions research, see Appendix C.

Evaluating the Range of Emission Estimates and Emission Factors

There is ongoing research that needs to be considered in the development of improved

emission factors for estimating dairy ROG emissions. Table 19 shows estimated dairy

emissions for different size dairies showing a range of emission factors. The range of

emission factors was selected to illustrate the possible impacts of different emissions

factors. To assist in evaluating the data, we have provided the dairy sizes as both

number of milking cows, and an estimated number of total cows at a dairy. Based on

ARB statistics and information from the dairy industry, at a typical dairy, about 65-71%

of the cows may be support stock. This means that for a dairy with 1000 milking cows,

on average, there may be about 1710 total cows on the dairy (using the 71% value from

ARB analysis). The number of total head in Table 19 reflects this adjustment.

In computing emission estimates, it is generally accepted that cows that are not actively

being milked or cows that are young produce less manure and therefore produce less

net airborne emissions on a per head basis. The ranges of example emission factors

shown in the table below are for an adult milking cow. The current emission factor is

12.8 pounds ROG per head per year. To provide an adjustment for the smaller cows,

an emissions scaling factor was computed using manure production data for the various

classifications of dairy cows (milking, dry, heifer, calf) (ASAE 2004). Based on the

manure output of the various dairy animals and the animal population splits within the

SJV, the base adult cow emission factor shown is multiplied to 0.66 to adjust for the less
25

emitting cows. This adjusted emission factor is then multiplied by the total number of

cows, not just the milk cows.

Table 19. Dairy ROG Emissions Using Various Emission Factors

Dairy Size ROG Emissions (tons/year) Emission Factors

(lbs ROG/head/year)

# Milking

Head

# Total

Head

Using

EF 1

Using

EF 2

Using

EF 3

Using

EF 4 EF 1 EF 2 EF 3 EF 4

50 85 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.1 14.2 12.8 7.0 3.5

200 341 1.6 1.4 0.8 0.4 14.2 12.8 7.0 3.5

500 853 4.0 3.6 2.0 1.0 14.2 12.8 7.0 3.5

700 1,194 5.6 5.0 2.8 1.4 14.2 12.8 7.0 3.5

1000 1,705 8.0 7.2 3.9 2.0 14.2 12.8 7.0 3.5

2000 3,411 16.0 14.4 7.9 3.9 14.2 12.8 7.0 3.5

4000 6,821 32.0 28.8 15.8 7.9 14.2 12.8 7.0 3.5

6000 10,232 48.0 43.2 23.6 11.8 14.2 12.8 7.0 3.5

Estimated Statewide Livestock Emissions

Table 20 provides an estimate of the current statewide livestock emission estimates for

livestock reactive organic gas (ROG), particulate matter 10 microns or less in size

(PM10), and ammonia. As shown, estimates are provided for ROG and ammonia

emissions for all livestock categories. PM10 data are not provided for all of the livestock

categories due to lack of emissions data.

Table 20. Statewide Confined Animal Facility Emissions by Animal Type

Livestock Emissions (tons/day)

ROGaPM10a NH3b

Dairy 35.7 8.3 134

Beef Feedlots 3.8 11 48

Broilers 1.4 NA 22

Layers 0.8 NA 28

Turkeys 0.8 NA 23

Swine 1.1 NA 5.0

Sheep 1.1 NA 8.0

Goats 0.02 NA 0.1

Horses 1.0 NA 4.4

Statewide

All Livestock Total 45.8 19 274

Statewide

All Emission Sources 2479 2108 717

Notes: The base emission factor (EF) for dairy, beef, and other cattle operations is

12.8 lbs/head/year. The emissions for these categories are scaled based on manure

output of various animal classes and the animal composition in the SJV. The layer,

turkey, and duck EF are scaled based on the recently released broiler EF. Other

EFs are from the ARB emission estimation methodology (ARB 2004a).

NA – The ARB has not yet estimated livestock emissions for these categories.
26

As Table 20 shows, on an overall statewide basis, non-range livestock ROG emissions

are relatively small (about 2% of the total), as are PM10 emissions (about 1% of the

total), and ammonia emissions are substantial (about 36% of the total). However, air

pollution is a regional problem so it is also important to consider livestock emissions as

they relate to regional emission sources and levels.

Figure 5 graphically shows the estimates of reactive organic gas emissions from

livestock operations in California based on data and methods the ARB staff developed

in 2004 (ARB 2004a).

Figure 5. California 2004 Livestock Reactive Organic Gas (ROG) Emissions

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

ROG (tons/day)

Dairy Beef Broiler Layer Turkey Swine Others

Estimated Regional Livestock Emissions

Both the South Coast AQMD and the San Joaquin Valley APCD have significant

livestock populations. Table 21 shows ROG and ammonia emissions for the South

Coast AQMD, the San Joaquin Valley APCD, and other local air districts. Particulate

matter emissions from livestock are not shown here, but are estimated for some of the

livestock categories. Dairy emissions are shown independently from other livestock

emissions because they have some of the larger emission estimates and because there

has been higher interest in dairies versus the other livestock categories. Appendix G

provides a summary of major ROG sources in the San Joaquin Valley.

As Table 21 shows, the quantity of livestock ROG emissions in the South Coast AQMD

are relatively small compared to the overall ROG emissions in the District. However,

the South Coast AQMD is designated as an extreme ozone nonattainment area as of

January 1, 2004. Because of the significant air quality problems in this region, all

sources of emissions are important and warrant some level of emissions reduction. All

of the sources in total must be considered, and the South Coast AQMD recognized this

by requiring dairies that have 50 or more head to comply with local air district emissions

mitigation rules (SCAQMD 2004b).

The San Joaquin Valley APCD was designated as a severe federal one-hour ozone

nonattainment area as of January 1, 2004 and the ROG emissions from livestock
27

operations are more substantial. As an important source of air pollution, the majority of

livestock facilities must begin to reduce their emissions. Within the SJV, even if the

livestock emission estimates were cut in half, the emissions levels in aggregate are still

significant and need to be considered in a strategy to improve the regional air quality.

Without mitigation, livestock emissions will continue to grow while emissions from other

ROG source categories will decrease as new emission standards are implemented.

The remainder of Table 21 shows livestock emissions of ROG for local air districts,

sorted by dairy ROG emissions. Table 22 shows ammonia data.
28

Table 21. Livestock ROG Emissions for 2004

ROG (tons/day)

Air District All ROG

Sources Dairy OtherLivestock

% of ROG

Contributed by

Livestock

San Joaquin Valley APCD 368.4 23.5 5.5 7%

South Coast AQMD 773.3 4.6 0.7 1%

Imperial County 30.2 3.3 1.9 16%

Bay Area 411.7 0.7 0.3 0%

Monterey Bay Unified 72.9 0.5 0.1 1%

Sacramento Metropolitan 69.7 0.4 0.1 1%

North Coast Unified 31.4 0.4 0.0 1%

Northern Sonoma County 12.0 0.3 0.1 4%

Glenn County 9.6 0.3 0.0 4%

Feather River 20.0 0.2 0.0 1%

Tehama County 8.5 0.2 0.0 3%

San Diego County 194.9 0.2 0.2 0%

San Luis Obispo County 26.7 0.2 0.1 1%

Santa Barbara County 44.4 0.2 0.1 0%

All Other Districts 405.1 0.9 0.9 0%

Statewide Total 2478.7 35.7 10.1 2%

Notes: The base emission factor (EF) for dairy, beef, and other cattle operations is 12.8

lbs/head/year. The emissions for these categories are scaled based on manure output of

various animal classes and the animal composition in the SJV. The layer, turkey, and duck EF

are scaled based on the recently released broiler EF. Other EFs are from the ARB emission

estimation methodology (ARB 2004a).

Table 22. Livestock Ammonia Emissions for 2004a

Ammonia Emissions (tons/day)

Air District

All

Ammonia

Sources

Dairy Other

Livestock

% of Ammonia

Contributed by

Livestock

San Joaquin Valley APCD 235.0 85.96 80.51 71%

South Coast AQMD 109.6 14.06 15.53 27%

Imperial County 174.3 13.62 22.43 21%

Bay Area 47.5 2.67 3.54 13%

Monterey Bay Unified 11.9 2.00 1.77 32%

Sacramento Metropolitan 11.1 1.54 2.45 36%

North Coast Unified 4.2 1.47 0.16 39%

Northern Sonoma County 7.7 1.39 1.89 43%

Glenn County 4.0 1.36 0.16 38%

Feather River 4.3 0.81 0.25 25%

Tehama County 2.2 0.76 0.23 45%

San Diego County 24.4 0.67 4.21 20%

San Luis Obispo County 5.5 0.67 0.43 20%

Santa Barbara County 5.8 0.65 0.52 20%

All Other Districts 70.7 3.45 9.50 18%

Statewide Total 718.1 131.1 143.6 38%

 

aSource: ARB 2005a based on Environ 2002, and ARB methods.
29

Existing Regulations Applicable to Confined Animal Facilities

Local Air Districts

Several local air districts are already in the process of regulating emissions from the

livestock industry. In the Joaquin Valley APCD, District Rule 4550 defines agricultural

Conservation Management Practices (CMPs) for livestock particulate matter dust

control. Facilities subject to the rule include agricultural operations over 100 acres and

animal feeding operations with

- 500 or more mature dairy cows;

- 190 or more cattle other than milking cows or veal calves;

- 55,000 or more turkeys;

- 125,000 or more chickens, other than laying hens; or

- 82,000 or more laying hens.

The rule requires facility operators to implement a variety of options to reduce

particulate matter in the areas of manure handling, feed handling, unpaved road, land

preparation, harvesting, unpaved road dust, and other emission sources (SJV 2004a).

In addition, livestock facilities within the San Joaquin Valley APCD that produce more

than 12.5 tons per year of ROG are required to get permits. Using current emission

estimates, this would include:

- Farming operations with 350 or more contiguous acreage irrigated using internal

combustion engines,

- Dairy operations with 1,954 or more cattle,

- Feedlot operations with 3,086 or more heifers, or

- A broiler, laying hen, or turkey ranch with 130,211 or more birds

The San Joaquin Valley APCD is also in the process of developing Rule 4750, which

will require large confined animal facilities to obtain permits and specify requirements for

reducing emissions of ROG from livestock facilities. The District is now in the process

of holding public workshops to gather input on the rule (SJV 2005b). This rule

anticipates a 10% reduction in livestock ROG emissions by 2008 and a 25% emissions

reduction by 2010.

In the South Coast AQMD, the primary livestock regulation is Rule 1127. This rule

applies to dairies with more that 50 cows, heifers, and/or calves. The rule, which

increases in stringency over several years, requires dairies to remove and dispose of

their dairy manure on a frequent basis, pave their feed lanes, and minimize excess

water in corrals (SCAQMD 2004b). Rule 1127 anticipates a 45% reduction in livestock

ROG and a 30% reduction in ammonia emissions by 2010. In addition, South Coast

AQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust control is undergoing revisions that will include some

commercial poultry ranches in the District.

Finally, Imperial County Air Pollution Control District has Rule 420 for livestock dust

control (Imperial 2002). The rule requires any person using or operating a livestock

feed yard to prepare a dust plan containing procedures for assuring a moisture content
30

between 20% to 40% for manure in the top three inches of occupied pens, and provide

an outline of manure management practices, including manure removal plans.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Under the United States Clean Water Act, the United States Environmental Protection

Agency (U.S. EPA) requires confined animal feeding operations that produce

discharges to water to apply for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) permit. Facilities above a specified size, for example 700 adult cows for

dairies or 135,000 chickens for broiler ranches, are required to develop and implement

a nutrient management plan identifying manure management practices. (EPA 2003).

These plans and associated permits are administered by the California Regional Water

Quality Control Boards.

State Water Resources Control Board

California’s Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) imposes waste

discharge requirements for individual livestock facilities. Violations of these

requirements can lead to enforcement actions and facilities may be required to prepare

a Report of Waste Discharge. The RWQCBs are also responsible for the

implementation and enforcement of the requirements of the U.S. EPA confined animal

feeding operation regulations mentioned previously.
31

4. BASIS FOR THE STAFF’S PROPOSED REGULATION

Overview

This section provides a discussion of how staff developed the recommended definition

for large confined animal facilities (large CAFs). The definition is based on livestock

emissions, how those emissions contribute to regional air pollution, and the need to

include most of the livestock in the definition to provide the necessary scope to

substantially reduce the emissions where feasible and cost effective. ARB’s definition

of a large CAF is only the first step in the SB 700 process. Following our definition,

local air districts with large CAFs must then develop a rule that requires the facility

operators to develop and submit emission mitigation plans. SB 700 requires that local

air districts assess and consider in a public hearing the costs and technical feasibility of

any proposed rule, among other requirements.

Large Confined Animal Facility Definition (Section 86500)

The basis for defining large confined animal facilities at a certain threshold or headcount

is the understanding that it is necessary to reduce airborne emissions from the majority

of animals in livestock facilities, particularly in regions with significant air quality

problems. The definition is designed to address the combined, aggregate air quality

impacts of the livestock industry in California, with an emphasis on the San Joaquin

Valley. We did not take an individual facility emissions approach in defining a large

CAF because it is impractical and uncertain, in part due to the developing state of

livestock emissions estimation research. At this time, facility emissions are calculated

on a per animal basis pending completion and peer review of research on specific

emission rates for various processes at a facility. Also, even if more comprehensive

process-based emission factors were available, we would still take the head count

approach in order to provide certainty in terms of the definition’s applicability. This

approach provides a clear, consistent, equitable, and predictable large CAF definition.

Other approaches considered have significant shortcomings for both the livestock

industry and the local air districts responsible for developing rules to regulate the

industry. Alternative options are discussed fully later in the report.

The thresholds chosen take into account population and operation information that

highlight natural breaks in the distribution of facility sizes. These thresholds allow most

of the animals to be included, while minimizing the number of facilities affected. The

thresholds for all the livestock categories are also scaled to be approximately equivalent

in terms of facility emissions.

Ozone Nonattainment Areas

After consideration of the types and numbers of facilities involved, in order for regions

with the poorest air quality to meet their air quality goals and State Implementation Plan

commitments, a majority of the livestock emissions need to be brought into the

regulatory framework. This does not necessarily mean that a majority of the facilities

will be regulated, but instead that most of the animals and their associated emissions

will be included. Our proposal does this while minimizing the total number of affected

livestock facilities. We are also proposing that the definition be less stringent in those
32

areas in which there are less significant air quality problems. These are the areas

designated as attainment for the federal 1-hour federal ozone standard as of January 1,

2004. The details and complete rationale for each large confined animal facility

definition by livestock category are provided on the following pages.

Table 23 provides the specific recommended definitions for large confined animal

facilities. Facilities that have or exceed the specified number of animals on any day

would be considered “large” confined animal facilities. In addition, separate thresholds

are defined for those areas in which livestock operations are not significant sources of

regional air emissions, and where emissions reductions from livestock operations are

not necessarily needed to meet federally mandated air quality requirements. However,

SB 700 provides mechanisms for local air districts to provide more stringent

requirements if needed to meet other air quality goals.

Table 23. Large Confined Animal Facility Definition by Livestock Category

Facilities at or Exceeding Threshold are Considered Large

Livestock Category Nonattainment Areas* Attainment Areas*

Dairy 1,000 milk producing cows 2,000 milk producing cows

Beef Feedlots 2,500 beef cattle 5,000 beef cattle

Other Cattle Operations 7,500 calves, heifers, or other cattle 15,000 calves, heifers, or other cattle

Chickens -- Broilers 650,000 1,300,000

Chickens -- Egg Layers 650,000 1,300,000

Turkeys 100,000 200,000

Swine 3,000 6,000

Sheep and Goats 15,000 30,000

Horses 2,500 5,000

Ducks 650,000 1,300,000

Rabbits, Pheasants,

Llamas, Others 30,000 60,000

 *Federal 1-hour ozone designation as of January 1, 2004

In the next phase in the SB 700 large CAF process, local air districts will develop rules

that take into account specific information related to facility sizes, practices, and other

factors (as specified in HSC 40724.6 second (d)). We also expect that livestock

facilities will be provided with a variety of reasonable and cost effective options for

reducing emissions, and the facility operators will be able to select from the available

options those practices or technologies that are the most effective and applicable to

their unique situations. Appendix D provides some additional discussion about ongoing

activities to identify effective processes and technologies that can be used to reduce

livestock emissions.

This facility threshold approach, which is based on a fixed parameter (in this case

number of head), and which varies by region, is consistent with other regulations to

reduce air pollution. For another example, a rule to reduce boiler emissions is based on

a size of 5 million BTU/hour, and internal combustion engine rules are based on engine
33

size range such as engines over 50 horsepower. In both these cases, the criteria for

determining if the source is regulated are based on the size of the process, and not

specifically the emissions. Also, the San Joaquin Valley APCD, when adopting

Rule 4550, based the animal feeding operation sizes on capturing more than 70 percent

of the animal populations (SJV 2004a). Due to many factors, the headcount based

approach, which addresses the majority of the livestock emissions, is the most

beneficial, reasonable, and effective method for defining large confined animal facilities.

One other consideration in establishing proposed facility size cuts was whether the

natural break points resulted in equitable treatment between the different livestock

categories. As Table 24 shows, the proposed thresholds generally result in similar

amounts of emissions from the different types of livestock facilities, based on current

emission estimates.

Table 24. Livestock Facility Emissions at Proposed Size Cuts

Nonattainment Areas Attainment Areas

Livestock

Category Head

ROG

(tons/year) Head

ROG

(tons/year)

Dairy 1,000 milking cows 7.2 2,000 milking cows 14.4

Beef Feedlots 2,500 6.9 5,000 13.8

Other Cattle

Operations 7,500 8.0 15,000 15.9

Chickens --

Broilers 650,000 8.1 1,300,000 16.1

Chickens --

Egg Layers 500,000 6.2 1,000,000 12.4

Turkeys 100,000 3.2 200,000 6.4

Swine 3,000 6.9 6,000 13.8

Sheep 15,000 7.2 30,000 14.4

Goats 15,000 7.2 30,000 14.4

Horses 2,500 8.4 5,000 16.8

Ducks 650,000 8.1 1,300,000 16.2

Notes: The base emission factor (EF) for dairy, beef, and other cattle operations is 12.8 lbs/head/year. The

emissions for these categories are scaled based on manure output of various animal classes and the animal

composition in the SJV. The layer, turkey, and duck EF are scaled based on the recently released broiler EF.

Other EFs are from the ARB emission estimation methodology (ARB 2004a).
34

Ozone Attainment Areas

Some regions within California have minimal livestock industries relative to other

emission sources. The areas of the State that are attainment for the federal ozone

standard as of January 1, 2004, fall in this category. In these regions, we recommend a

head count of 2,000 or more milking cows on any day necessary to trigger the large

threshold for dairies, with equivalent head counts for other livestock categories. This

approach captures the very largest livestock facilities throughout the State, while

reducing unnecessary burdens on livestock facilities in those regions where air

emissions from the livestock industry are less critical to ozone attainment or

maintenance. This approach in no way limits the local air districts’ ability to regulate

their livestock facilities more completely if warranted on a case-by-case basis. SB 700

includes provisions that allow the local air districts to develop more stringent livestock

requirements than the State large CAF thresholds (HSC 40724.6(i), 40724.7(b)).

Basis for Dairies

Because of the structure of the dairy industry, developing a large CAF definition for

dairies is more difficult than the other livestock categories. Unlike most of the other

livestock facilities in California in which nearly all of the animals are concentrated in a

small number of relatively large facilities, the dairy industry has significant numbers of

dairies in a variety of size ranges. Returning to Figure 4, the charts show that the

majority of California cows are in dairies in the South Coast AQMD and the San Joaquin

Valley APCD. About 93% of California’s dairy cows are in these two regions. As of

January 1, 2004, the South Coast AQMD was classified as an extreme nonattainment

area for the federal one-hour ozone standard and the San Joaquin Valley APCD was

classified as severe, so both regions have significant air quality problems. In these two

regions combined, about 90% of the cows are in dairies over 500 head, which includes

about 65% of the total dairies (dairies <50 head excluded). The remaining 7% of

California’s dairy cows are outside of these areas, with about 4% in 89 dairies that have

500 or more milk cows. (USDA 2004).

For dairies, we recommend that facilities with 1,000 or more milking cows on any day be

defined as large CAFs in areas designated as nonattainment for ozone as of January 1,

2004. This would mean that in the area with the most milking cows, the San Joaquin

Valley, the majority of the cows and their emissions (about 72%) would be captured,

while impacting the smallest number of facilities (430, around 36% of all dairies with 50

or more milking cows). Moving to a smaller size, such as 700 milking cows, brings in

37% more dairies but only 17% of additional emissions. Moving to a larger size, such

as 2,000 milking cows would only capture around 39% of the emissions.

The definition of 1,000 head is designed to include only the milking cows. As mentioned

previously, most dairies within California still include support stock on site such as

calves and dry cows, increasing the total number of animals on site. The trend is

towards moving the support stock off of the milking dairy to maximize land use so that

the dairy operator can focus on the primary business of producing milk. We have

deliberately not included the support stock in the large CAF definition for the following

reasons:
35

1) The regulation is substantially simplified and clarified because a cow conversion

calculator is not needed to determine how many calves, or heifers, or dry cows

equal a milking cow;

2) Most dairy facilities will have exact information about the number of cows they

milk at any time, but the number of support stock can fluctuate and may be

tracked less completely;

3) Historically, a typical dairy includes about 50-75% support stock, meaning that a

1,000 head dairy may include about 1,500 to 1,750 total animals present. By

nature of their diet and size, these support animals produce substantially less

manure than milking cows, and will produce lower emissions than milking cows

at a dairy;

4) Using a definition of 1,000 milking head, and not explicitly including the support

stock in no way diminishes the effectiveness of the definition; the vast majority of

the milking cows are included while minimizing impacts on the industry;

5) Local air district emissions mitigation rules will apply to all components of the

dairy, including support stock. The support stock are only excluded for

determining the large definition, but not intended to be excluded in required

emission mitigation plans.

For all of these reasons, the large CAF definition for dairies is based on the number of

milking cows at the dairy.

As mentioned, in parts of the State other than the SJVUAPCD and SCAQMD, there are

only 89 dairies that have over 500 head of cows, making up about 4% of the total dairy

herd. These remaining dairies are primarily distributed in Sonoma, Glenn, Sacramento,

San Diego, Marin, Humboldt, Tehama, and Yuba counties. In general, because there

are a small number of these remaining dairies and they are widely dispersed, they are

less likely to have significant impacts on regional air quality. For this reason, in areas

that are attainment for the federal ozone air quality standard as of January 1, 2004, the

definition for large CAFs is less stringent because these regions do not currently have

the same urgency to begin the process of reducing livestock emissions. This approach

also reduces regulatory burdens on existing facilities in these regions, but ensures that

new large dairies would not be sited in areas for the express purpose of avoiding

permitting and emissions mitigation plans required under SB 700. Therefore, for parts

of the State designated as attainment areas for ozone as of January 1, 2004, dairies

with 2,000 or more milking cows on any day are considered large CAFs. Also, note that

under the authority of SB 700, the ARB definition of large confined animal facilities does

not restrict local air districts from using more stringent definitions than the ARB

develops.

Basis for Beef Feedlot Cattle

For beef feedlots, we recommend that facilities with 2,500 or more head on any day be

defined as large CAFs in areas designated as nonattainment for ozone as of

January 1, 2004. The majority of the cattle and their emissions (about 95%) would be

captured, while impacting the smallest number of facilities (16, or only ~3% of all beef
36

feedlot operations). Moving to a smaller size, such as 1,000 head, brings in 19% more

feedlots but only 1% of additional emissions. In keeping with the rationale for dairies, in

attainment areas for the 1-hour ozone standard, the feedlot large CAF definition is

5,000 head or greater on any day. This definition brings in the vast majority of the

feedlot cattle while excluding the large number of smaller facilities.

Basis for Other Cattle Operations

For the category of Other Cattle Operations, we recommend that facilities with 7,500 or

more calves, heifers, or other cattle on any day be defined as large CAFs in areas

designated as nonattainment for ozone as of January 1, 2004. In other regions of the

State, the recommended definition is 15,000 or more calves, heifers, or other cattle on

any day. There is very little information regarding the number and size of Other Cattle

Operations. These operations generally exist to support the dairy and beef industries,

so the animals often end up getting tabulated within these industries and are not clearly

identified. Nevertheless, there are facilities that raise cattle that are not explicitly

defined as dairies or feedlots. This Other Cattle Category is defined to include those

facilities.

With the lack of facility information, it was not possible to identify the size of an Other

Cattle facility that would include a specified number of animals in the large CAF

definition. Instead, to ensure equity between the Other Cattle Operations and the dairy

and feedlot operations, we compared manure output for the various types of animals.

These Other Cattle facilities include a variety of animals ranging from calves that

produce as little as 8 pounds of manure per day, to larger heifers that can produce up to

48 pounds of manure per day – ARB staff uses a figure of roughly 25 pounds of manure

per head. This value is 2.6 times smaller than the manure produced by a beef cow

(64 lbs/day) (ASAE 2004).

Scaling from the feedlot definition of 2,500 head to an Other Cattle definition, a value of

around 7,500 head is obtained, based on the ratio of 64 to 25 pounds of manure per

day. Thus, a definition of 7,500 or more head on any day was used in the

nonattainment regions and 15,000 or more head on any day in other areas to ensure

equity with other livestock categories under the large CAF definition.

Basis for Poultry

Broilers: For broiler chicken facilities, we recommend that facilities with 650,000 or

more broiler chickens on any day be defined as large CAFs in areas designated as

nonattainment for ozone as of January 1, 2004. A threshold of 1,300,000 or more head

on any day is recommended for the remainder of the State. About 62% of the broiler

chickens are in the 24 facilities (30%) with 650,000 or more chickens. Moving to a

smaller size, such as 300,000, brings in 116% more facilities but only 45% of additional

chickens. In addition, the majority of the facilities with 650,000 or more chickens are of

the more modern tunnel-ventilated design houses, which can be more effectively

updated to reduce emissions than the older style naturally ventilated houses used for

most of the smaller facilities. Moving to a larger size, such as 1,000,000, only excludes

4 facilities, while excluding 13% of the broiler chickens.
37

Layers: For layer chickens, we recommend a threshold of 650,000 or more head on

any day for the ozone nonattainment areas, and 1,300,000 or more head on any day for

the remainder of the State. This definition would include about 58% of the layers and

12% of the total 97 layer facilities. Moving to a smaller size, such as 100,000, brings in

266% more facilities but only 54% of additional emissions. Raising the definition to

1,000,000 for the ozone nonattainment areas includes slightly fewer facilities and

chickens. However, because the average layer facility size based on USDA data is

about 480,000 head, we felt it best to not raise the level above 650,000.

Turkeys: For turkeys, we recommend a threshold of 100,000 or more head on any day

for the ozone nonattainment areas, and 200,000 or more head on any day for the

remainder of the State. This definition would include about 59% of the turkeys and 33%

of the total 93 turkey facilities. Moving to a smaller size in the ozone nonattainment

areas, such as 50,000, brings in 92% more facilities but only 54% of additional

emissions. Moving to a larger size, such as 200,000 turkeys, would result in only 20%

of the turkeys being included.

Basis for Other Livestock

For swine, the basis for determining large facilities is very similar to feedlots. Based on

the earlier discussion of the hog industry, it is clear that a definition in the range of

2,000 to 5,000 head would capture the majority of the swine and their emissions (about

75%) while impacting the smallest number of facilities (4 to 6). Within the range

specified, we have selected 3,000 or more head on any day as the large CAF threshold

for areas designated as nonattainment for ozone as of January 1, 2004. In other areas

of the State, the swine large CAF definition is 6,000 head or greater on any day. This

definition brings in the vast majority of the hogs while excluding the large quantity of

small and very small facilities that have only 25% of the remaining hogs widely

dispersed throughout the State.

For the other animal classes, information is not readily available regarding the size

distributions of the various facilities. However, the total number of animals in these

other classifications is relatively minor compared to the beef and dairy facilities. So, it is

important to set definitions for these animal classes, and a requirement under SB 700,

but the air quality impact of these other facilities is expected to be extremely small

compared to the major livestock classifications.
38

To help set large CAF definitions for the other animal

types, we evaluated animal manure generation rates.

Referring to Table 25 (ASAE 2005), horses produce

about the same quantity of manure as beef feedlot cows.

On average, horses produce around 56 pounds of

manure per head per day and feedlot cows produce 64

pounds of manure per head per day. Although the

digestive processes, feed, and waste characteristics are

different for these two animals, for the purposes of

defining large CAFs, the similarities are sufficient to use

the same definition for both horses and feedlots.

Therefore, the large CAF definition for horses is 2,500 or

more head on any day in ozone nonattainment areas,

and 5,000 or more head on any day in other parts of the

State.

Because the quantity of duck manure output is relatively

similar to broiler chicken manure output, the

recommended large CAF definition for ducks is set to agree with the broiler chicken

definition.

Manure output data was not located for sheep or goats. Instead, adult sheep and goats

both weigh in the range of about 150 pounds. A beef cow weighs about 1,000 pounds

(Penn State). Dividing the beef cow weight by the sheep and goat weight, we see that

beef cattle are about 6 times heavier than sheep and goats. Making the assumption

that animal weight has some relation to manure output, and further, assuming that

manure output is related to the magnitude of air emissions, we can develop a large CAF

definition for the sheep and goats. Using this information, we have defined a large CAF

for sheep and goats as 15,000 or more head on any day in ozone nonattainment areas,

and 30,000 or more head on any day in all other parts of the State. This value is

effectively six times the beef cow definition to reflect the differences in animal weights.

For the other animal classes such as emus, geese, ostriches, pheasants, pigeons,

squab, quail, bison, deer, elk, llamas, mules, burros, donkeys, gerbils, rabbits, or other

animals raised in confined animal facilities, a size of 30,000 or more animals on any day

is defined as a large CAF in ozone nonattainment regions. The large CAF definition for

these animals is 60,000 or more animals on any day in all other parts of the State.

Based on the information provided previously in Table 16, it appears extremely unlikely

that facilities with these types of animals California will exceed these thresholds, which

is appropriate considering the small number of animals, the small facilities, and the

minor ambient air quality impacts they are likely to produce.

Table 25.

Livestock Manure Production

Manure

Production

(lbs/head/day)

Lactating Cow 150

Dry Cow 83

Calf 8 to 19

Heifer 19 to 48

Beef Cow 64

Broiler 0.23

Layer 0.19

Turkey (male) 0.59

Turkey (female) 0.31

Duck 0.36

Swine 10

Horse 56
39

Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements (Section 85601)

Beginning on January 1, 2006, a facility that is defined as a large confined animal facility

under this proposed rulemaking shall be required to keep records that specify the daily

number of animals maintained at the facility. The large CAF operator will be required to

keep these records on site and readily accessible, and will submit these records to the

local air districts consistent with compliance schedules set forth in any applicable local

air district regulations. Most large confined animal facility operators already keep daily

feed records and other information that would allow them to readily comply with this

requirement.
40

This page left intentionally blank
41

5. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE REGULATION

Air Quality and Environmental Impacts

California Environmental Quality Act Analysis

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and ARB policy require an analysis to

determine the potential adverse environmental impacts of proposed regulations.

Because the ARB's program involving the adoption of regulations has been certified by

the Secretary of Resources (Public Resources Code, Section 21080.5, Exemption of

specified regulatory programs), the CEQA environmental analysis requirements are

allowed to be included in the ARB Staff Report (i.e. the Initial Statement of Reasons) in

lieu of preparing an environmental impact report or negative declaration. In addition,

the ARB will respond in writing to all significant environmental points raised by the

public during the public review period or at the Board hearing. These responses will be

contained in the Final Statement of Reasons for the regulation.

Staff evaluated the potential environmental impacts from the proposed regulation and

determined that no significant adverse environmental impacts are likely to result from

the proposal. This determination was made because the proposed regulation simply

specifies a threshold by which a confined animal facility is considered “large”, with no

direct environmental impacts resulting from this action. However, the regulation will

trigger actions by local air districts that should have a positive air quality impact. This is

because large confined animal facilities as defined by this proposed regulation will be

required to submit information that the district determines is necessary to prepare an

emissions inventory of all regulated pollutants and to prepare and submit an emissions

mitigation plan that identifies the emissions reduction strategies the facility will use to

reduce emissions. The impact of these requirements is not currently quantifiable

because the environmental benefits will depend on regulatory approaches developed by

each local air district as a result of the adoption of their large CAF regulation. The local

air districts will be required to perform their own environmental analyses when adopting

the rules, thus ensuring that the requirements of the California Environmental Quality

Act are met.

Discussion of Other Environmental Impacts of Livestock Facilities

Confined animal feeding operations can have potential environmental impacts on air,

water, and soil. In addition, some animal feeding operations can create odor and fly

impacts that can cause nuisance problems. Most confined animal facilities have several

potential pathways for creating environmental impacts. Some of the key air emissions

pathways include the treatment, decomposition, distribution, and disposal of the

animal’s wastes, emissions from equipment used at facilities, emissions produced

directly by the animals, and other facility activities.

In general, the largest sources of air and water environmental impacts from confined

animal facilities are due to the animal waste products. These products include excreted

manure and urine, and can also include gaseous emissions directly from the animal. An

average milking dairy cow produces between 80 to 150 pounds of manure per day.

For a confined animal facility, substantial quantities of feed are brought to a single
42

location. This feed contains a variety of nutrients that are provided to the animals.

Those nutrients and other components that are not utilized by the animal are excreted

as wastes. The wastes are stockpiled within animal feeding operations and are

periodically disposed of or otherwise utilized. Nitrogen compounds in the waste can

provide valuable plant nutrients, but they can also produce ammonia gas and nitrates,

which can have negative air and water quality impacts. Organic material in livestock

waste is consumed by microbes that can produce a mix of volatile organic gases that

can contribute to ozone formation. Salts in the livestock wastes can create soil and

water problems.

Discharges of livestock wastes to water and land have historically been regulated within

California to mitigate some of the environmental impacts of these activities. Until

recently, the airborne emissions from livestock operations had been unregulated within

the State. In part, this is because there was not a clear recognition of the potential

significance of livestock emissions. However, as we continue progress in improving air

quality, it important that all sources of air pollution, including livestock, are included in

the regulatory framework. Throughout the State, emissions controls have become

increasingly more stringent on currently regulated sources of air pollution such as

factories, vehicles, consumer products, coatings, and other sources. To meet State and

federally mandated requirements to improve air quality, emissions from all air pollution

sources must be reduced whether they are large or small, industrial or agricultural,

individually or in aggregate.

Environmental Justice

State law defines environmental justice as the fair treatment of people of all races,

cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and

enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies (Senate Bill 115, Solis;

Stats 1999, Ch. 690; Government Code § 65040.12(c)). The Board approved

Environmental Justice Policies and Actions on December 13, 2001, to establish a

framework for incorporating environmental justice into the ARB's programs consistent

with the directives of State law. The policies subsequently developed apply to all

communities in California, but they recognize that environmental justice issues have

been raised more in the context of low income and minority communities, which

sometimes experience higher exposures to some pollutants as a result of the

cumulative impacts of air pollution from multiple mobile, commercial, industrial,

areawide, and other sources.

Actions of the ARB, local air districts, and federal air pollution control programs have

made substantial progress towards improving the air quality in California. However,

some communities continue to experience higher exposures than others because of the

cumulative impacts of air pollution from multiple sources. Adoption and implementation

of this proposal will have no negative environmental impacts on environmental justice

communities. Local air districts rules for large CAFs should result in air quality benefits

for all residents in those local districts. In addition, to ensure that everyone has had an

opportunity to stay informed and participate fully in the development of the large

confined animal definition, staff has held workshops throughout the State, provided
43

opportunities to participate in meetings by videoconference and phone, widely

distributed all materials, and maintained consistent contact with interested community

and environmental representatives.

Livestock Ammonia Analysis

At several of our SB 700 Large CAF workshops, concerns were raised regarding

exposure to gaseous ammonia emitted by dairies. To evaluate the potential

significance of these emissions, ARB staff performed a simplified modeling analysis of

dairy ammonia emissions. Using average meteorology for Fresno and assuming

emissions of 74 pounds of ammonia per cow per year, a dairy size of 500 meters

square, and 1,000 cows, on an annual average basis, ammonia concentrations of

1 to 5 micrograms/cubic meter (ug/m3) might be observed. The Office of Environmental

Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) ammonia health threshold for chronic exposure is

200 ug/m3 (OEHHA 2005). Based on this, it would require a dairy size of 40,000 to

200,000 head to reach the chronic exposure level. There are no existing California

dairies of this size.

This regulation does not directly address the potential impacts of ammonia emissions

from multiple facilities that might be situated in close proximity to residential

communities, schools, or other sensitive land uses. However, local air districts have the

authority to address any such issues within their jurisdictions.
44

This page left intentionally blank
45

6. ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE REGULATION

Sections 11346.3 and 11346.5 of the Government Code require State agencies to

assess the potential for adverse economic impacts on California business enterprises

and individuals when proposing to adopt or amend any administrative regulation. The

assessment shall include a consideration of the impact of the proposed regulation on

California jobs, business expansion, elimination, or creation, and the ability of California

business to compete.

State agencies are required to estimate the cost or savings to any State or local agency,

and school districts. The estimate is to include any nondiscretionary cost or savings to

local agencies and the cost or savings in federal funding to the State.

In developing any new regulatory program, it is important to ensure that any economic

burdens on the industry are consistent with the environmental benefits that may be

ultimately achieved. In addition, the livestock industry within California provides

thousands of jobs and other benefits to the State, so it is important to maintain a vital

California livestock industry while working to reduce the industry’s air quality impacts.

For those facilities that are defined as large under the SB 700 large confined animal

facility definition, there will be ultimately be additional costs to facilities to reduce their

emissions. However, the large CAF definition itself does not impose any direct costs.

The direct costs will occur in subsequent phases of the regulatory implementation as

local air districts determine which emissions mitigation practices are reasonable and

effective for “large” livestock operations, and the facilities develop and comply with

emission mitigation plans that are consistent with local air district rules. As the local air

districts develop their large CAF rules, they are required pursuant to SB 700 to perform

an assessment of the impacts of the rule or regulation to include: the number and size

of the affected sources, the nature and size of emissions, the emissions reduction

potential, impacts on employment, probable costs, availability and cost effectiveness of

alternatives, and the technical and practical feasibility of new rules and requirements.

Although a comprehensive cost analysis is not appropriate for this document, it is clear

that as local air districts develop their large CAF rules, a relatively minor new cost to

facilities will be additional permitting and administrative fees. Costs that are more

significant may be incurred for improvements in waste facility management and other

practices needed to reduce air emissions. In some cases, these costs may be relatively

minimal if the facility has already incorporated much of the best available management

practices. In other cases, costs could be substantial, ranging from tens to hundreds of

thousands of dollars or more for some potential control technologies.

In developing the large CAF definition, the ARB staff has attempted to minimize future

economic impacts to the extent feasible while still ensuring the most complete options

for improving air quality. To minimize unnecessary economic burdens, we have

focused the definition on those livestock facilities that include the vast majority of the

animals and their associated aggregate emissions. This approach excludes most of the
46

facilities that are clearly small and are typically less capable of absorbing the costs of

emissions mitigation regulations. In addition, the recommended large CAF definition is

described based on facility animal counts, which definitively excludes the smaller

facilities from being defined as “large” which could occur if the definition were based on

facility process-based emissions. We have also developed a definition that excludes

the vast majority of facilities from regulation in those areas where livestock emission

reductions may be necessary to meet air quality goals.
47

7. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED REGULATION

No alternatives considered by the agency would be more effective in carrying out the

purpose for which the regulation is proposed or would be as effective or less

burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed regulation. The staff

evaluated various alternatives to the current proposal. A description of the alternatives

considered and staff’s rationale for finding them unsuitable follows below.

Take No Action

ARB is required under State law (HSC 40724.6(a)) to adopt a definition of large

confined animal facility by July 1, 2005, so taking no action is not allowable under State

law.

Base the Large CAF Definition on Facility Emissions

One approach discussed during the development of this regulation was to have a

definition based on individual facility emissions at one-half the applicable emissions

threshold for a major source. The rationale behind this approach is that it would be

consistent with permitting requirements outlined in SB 700 (HSC 40724.6(c)). For the

San Joaquin Valley APCD, the permitting threshold under SB 700 for a large confined

animal facility is 12.5 tons per year of reactive organic gases (ROG), and in the South

Coast AQMD, the permitting threshold under SB 700 is 5 tons per year of ROG. Most

other areas of the State have permitting thresholds under SB 700 for large confined

animal facility of 50 tons per year of ROG.

One of the key shortcomings of the approach is that the definition would be based on a

foundation that is undergoing significant change – the data and methods used to

estimate livestock emissions. Several million dollars of livestock emissions research is

ongoing in California. From the preliminary livestock emissions research now available,

the range of measured emissions estimates is substantial. This work will continue over

the next several years to continue refining and better understanding livestock

emissions. An important finding from this research is that there are measurable

amounts of reactive organic gas emissions coming from confined animal facilities and

that there are many different kinds of reactive organic gas compounds being emitted.

As this report is being written, the San Joaquin Valley Dairy Permitting Advisory Group

(DPAG) is working to identify a dairy ROG emission factor and ARB is evaluating

ongoing research. The current emission factor is 12.8 lbs/head/year. The estimates

under consideration by the DPAG are higher and lower than this estimate.

We did not take an individual facility emissions approach in defining a large CAF

because it is impractical and uncertain, in part due to the developing state of livestock

emissions estimation research. At this time, facility emissions are calculated on a per

animal basis pending completion and peer review of research on specific emission rates

for various processes at a facility. Also, even if more comprehensive process-based

emission factors were available, we would still take the head count approach in order to

provide certainty in terms of the definition’s applicability.
48

To further illustrate, Table 26 shows the number of animals that would trigger the “large”

definition using the current livestock emission estimates and an emissions threshold of

12.5 tons per year of ROG. The table only shows reactive organic gases, but is it

possible that ammonia and particulate matter could also be considered in an emissions

based definition. Using this approach, a facility operator would need to first estimate

their overall emissions, ensuring that they were using approved emissions data. If they

exceed the threshold, they would be considered large. If the emissions data are

updated, or if there are changes to the facility that would affect emissions, the facility

operator would need to recalculate their emissions and reevaluate if they are

considered large under the new scenario. This would place a tremendous workload

burden on local air districts, as they would need to expend considerable resources

evaluating each facility on a case-by-case basis.

As shown, using facility specific emissions as a basis for defining large confined animal

facilities creates uncertainties for local air districts, industry, and other stakeholders. It

would also spur continuous debates regarding the “best” emissions data. A facility

emissions based approach also creates unpredictability in the planning processes for

developing State Implementation Plans for meeting air quality standards, and could

create potential economic and competitive inequities between larger (generally newer)

and smaller (generally older) livestock facilities. Finally, unless an emissions threshold

lower than 12.5 tons per year of ROG were used for a facility emissions definition,

significant portions of the dairy industry and their associated emissions will remain

unregulated in California.

One argument made on behalf of the facility emissions approach is that it would allow

the livestock industry to be regulated like other agricultural industries. However, the

livestock industry is being treated like other agricultural operations. SB 700 requires all

agricultural sources to mitigate their emissions, not just livestock facilities. Local air

districts with significant air quality problems are required to identify and implement

reasonable and cost effective emission reductions from all agricultural sources. For

example, in the San Joaquin Valley APCD, rules are already in place to reduce

particulate matter emissions from general crop-based agricultural operations and dairies

with 500 or more cows. In the South Coast AQMD, dairies with 50 or more cows are

permitted and required to reduce emissions. Rules are also being developed to reduce

emissions from agricultural engines. Agricultural processing plants also have stringent

emissions regulations on nearly all of their emission sources.
49

Table 26. Number of Head to Exceed 12.5 tons/year ROG

Number of Head to Exceed

Emissions Threshold

ROG EF

(lbs/head/year) 12.5 tons ROG/year

Dairy 12.8 1,735 milk cows

Beef Feedlots 12.8 4,577

Broilers 0.025 1,008,065

Layers 0.025 1,008,065

Turkeys 0.064 392,947

Swine 4.64 5,388

Sheep 0.96 26,042

Goats 0.96 26,042

Horses 6.7 3,731

Notes: The base emission factor (EF) for dairy, beef, and other cattle operations

is 12.8 lbs/head/year. The emissions for these categories are scaled based on

manure output of various animal classes and the animal composition in the SJV.

The layer, turkey, and duck EF are scaled based on the recently released broiler

EF. Other EFs are from the ARB emission estimation methodology (ARB 2004a).

Provide Consistent Statewide Definition

The staff also considered the alternative of recommending a large CAF definition that is

consistent statewide. After consulting with the local air districts, evaluating their air

quality needs, and evaluating the distribution of livestock distribution throughout

California, it was clear that many regions within California have relatively minimal

livestock populations and less severe air quality problems than the San Joaquin Valley

and the South Coast Air Basins. Providing a consistent statewide definition would not

provide meaningful air quality improvements, while imposing unnecessary workloads on

local air districts and industry. Therefore, for the areas of the State designated as

attainment for the federal ozone standard as of January 1, 2004, the proposed large

CAF definition is less stringent. In these regions, we recommend a head count of 2,000

milking cows at a dairy necessary to trigger the “large CAF” threshold, and equivalent

thresholds for other livestock categories (twice the nonattainment area thresholds).

This approach captures the very largest livestock facilities throughout the State while

reducing unnecessary burdens on local air districts and livestock facilities in those

regions where there is relatively good air quality and relatively minor air emissions from

the livestock industry. It also ensures that large dairies would not be sited in areas for

the express purpose of avoiding permitting and emissions mitigation plans required

under SB 700. Also under SB 700, local air districts have the authority to develop more

stringent requirements for bringing livestock facilities under regulation, so this approach

does not limit a local air district’s ability to regulate their livestock facilities more fully if

they so choose (HSC 40724.6(i) and 40724.7(b)).

More or Less Inclusive Definition

The staff recommendation provides an optimal combination of bringing the fewest

number of livestock facilities to get the most air quality benefit. Other options were

considered, including bringing in more facilities or bringing in fewer facilities under the
50

large CAF definition. In all cases, bringing in more facilities under the large CAF

definition would add a smaller number of livestock animals, providing very little

additional air quality benefit while adding unnecessary workload burdens to local air

districts and the livestock industry. On the other hand, bringing in fewer livestock

facilities does have the potential to significantly minimize the potential for effectively

reducing livestock emissions. This results from how the large CAF definition thresholds

were determined. The majority of livestock animals are in the larger livestock facilities.

The large CAF definition was developed to include the majority of the emissions, or

animals, which are in these larger facilities. If additional facilities are excluded, it will

include these larger facilities which confine significant portions of the livestock

population. Therefore, bringing in fewer facilities can substantially reduce the overall air

quality effectiveness of the large CAF definition. For these reasons, the alternatives of

including fewer or more facilities were determined to be less effective than the proposed

recommendation.
51

8. REFERENCES

ARB 2004a. Areawide Source Methodologies. Section 7.6, Livestock Husbandry

(Revised May 2004). California Air Resources Board.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/areasrc/index7.htm

ARB 2005a. ARB Air Quality Data Statistics Website. Trends Summary Reports run

April 2005. http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/welcome.html

ARB 2005b. California Air Resources Board Emissions Inventory, 2005. Report run

from California Emission Inventory Data Analysis and Retrieval System (CEIDARS),

April 2005. Facility Summary Reports.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/facinfo/facinfo.php

ARB 2005c. Review of the California Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone.

Staff Report. March 11, 2005. California Air Resources Board.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/ozone-rs/ozone-final/ozone-final.htm

ARB 2005d. Spreadsheet compiled from 40 CFR Chapter 1, Part 81 - Designation of

Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes. 7-1-04 Edition.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/12feb20041500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/

cfr_2004/julqtr/pdf/40cfr81.305.pdf

ARB 2005e. California Air Resources Board Emissions Inventory, 2005.

Top 25 Emissions Sources Report. http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/emissiondata.htm

ASAE 2004. Proposal for ASAE D384.1, Manure Production and Characteristics.

Draft 12/9/2004

CAPCOA 2005. Agricultural Sources Clearinghouse of Air Pollution Reduction

Methods, http://www.capcoa.org/Agclearinghouse/

CASS 2003a. California Agricultural Statistics Service. California Agricultural Statistics,

2003. California Agricultural Overview.

http://www.nass.usda.gov/ca/bul/agstat/indexcas.htm

CASS 2003b. California Agricultural Statistics Service. California Agricultural Statistics,

2003. California Livestock and Dairy.

http://www.nass.usda.gov/ca/bul/agstat/indexcas.htm

CDC. Personal communication with Kevin Abernathy, California Dairy Campaign.

October 22, 2004. Approximate information on California dairy herd and species milk

output.

CDFA 2003. California Cost of Production Annual 2003 California Department of Food

and Agriculture. www.cdfa.ca.gov/dairy
52

CFB. Feedlot statistics provided by Noelle Cremers, California Farm Bureau, via email

to Patrick Gaffney (ARB) on April 28, 2005.

CFGA. Layer broiler statistics provided by California Feed and Grain Association via

email from Kevin Clutter to Patrick Gaffney (ARB) on April 7, 2005.

CPF 2005a. Poultry broiler statistics provided by California Poultry Federation by letter

from Bill Mattos to Mike FitzGibbon (ARB), April 1, 2005.

CPF 2005b. Poultry turkey statistics provided by California Poultry Federation by letter

from Bill Mattos to Mike FitzGibbon (ARB), April 11, 2005

Environ 2002. Draft Final Report, California Regional PM10/PM2.5 Air Quality Study,

Ammonia Emissions Improvement Projects in Support of CRPAQS Aerosol Modeling

and Data Analysis: Draft Ammonia Inventory Development. ENVIRON International

Corporation. Prepared for the California Air Resources Board. September 6, 2002.

Also, Final Work Plan under same project, April 13, 2001.

EPA 2003. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Regulation and

Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for Concentrated Animal Feeding

Operations, Part II, Environmental Protection Agency, 40 CFR Parts 9, 122, 123, and

412. February 12, 2003. http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/afo/cafofinalrule.cfm

EPA 2004. National Emission Inventory – Ammonia Emissions from Animal Husbandry

Operations, Draft Report. January 20, 2004. United States Environmental Protection

Agency. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch09/index.html

Imperial 2002. Imperial County Air Pollution Control District. Rule 420 – Livestock

Feed Yards. Adopted 11/19/85; revised 9/14/99; 08/13/2002.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/drdb.htm

OEHHA 2005. Office of Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental

Protection Agency. Cal/EPA - OEHHA Toxicity Criteria Database. April 7, 2005.

http://www.oehha.ca.gov/risk/ChemicalDB/index.asp and Tables of Acute and Chronic

Reference Exposure Levels (RELs) at http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air.html

Penn State. Agronomy Facts 54. Pennsylvania’s Nutrient Management Act: Who Will

Be Affected? Pennsylvania State University, College of Agricultural Sciences

Cooperative Extension, 1997.

SCAQMD 2003. 2003 Air Quality Management Plan. South Coast Air Quality

Management District. Adopted August 1, 2003. Chapter 4, WST-01.

http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/AQMPintro.htm
53

SCAQMD 2004. Dairy size data provided by Mary Woods of South Coast Air Quality

Management District via emailed spreadsheet on October 15, 2004.

SCAQMD 2004a. Rule 1127. Emission Reductions From Livestock Waste. Adopted

August 6, 2004. South Coast Air Quality Management District.

http://www.aqmd.gov/rules/reg/reg11/r1127.pdf

SJV 2004a. San Joaquin Valley Air Basin Plan Demonstrating Attainment of Federal

1-hour Ozone Standards. Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan.

October 8, 2004.

http://www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/AQ_plans_Ozone_Final.htm

SJV 2004b. Rule 4550. Conservation Management Practices (Adopted May 20, 2004;

Re-adopted August 19, 2004). San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.

http://www.valleyair.org/rules/1ruleslist.htm

SJV 2005a. Dairy size data provided by Leland Villalvazo of the San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District via spreadsheet emailed March 22, 2005. Data

extracted from district permit and CMP databases and processed by ARB staff.

SJV 2005b. Rule 4570 (Confined Animal Facilities), Preliminary Draft Staff Report.

April 12, 2005. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.

http://www.valleyair.org/ (District Rules and Regulations)

USDA 2004. 2002 Census of Agriculture, California State and County Data. Volume 1,

Geographic Series, Part 5, AC-02-A-5. Issued June 2004. U.S. Department of

Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service.

http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/CAVolume104.pdf
54
A-1

APPENDIX A

PROPOSED REGULATION ORDER

DEFINITION OF LARGE CONFINED ANIMAL FACILITY

Title 17

Division 1

Chapter 1

New Subchapter 2.7

Large Confined Animal Facilities

A new Subchapter 2.7, commencing with section 86500 is added to Title 17, Division 1,

Chapter 1 to read as follows:

Title 17, New Subchapter 2.7

§86500 Large Confined Animal Facility

A large confined animal facility shall mean:

(a) In any area designated as a federal ozone nonattainment area for ozone as of

January 1, 2004, any confined animal facility that maintains on any one day:

- 1,000 or more milk-producing dairy cows;

- 2,500 or more beef cattle;

- 7,500 or more calves, heifers, or other cattle;

- 100,000 or more turkeys;

- 650,000 or more chickens other than laying hens

- 650,000 or more laying hens

- 3,000 or more swine;

- 15,000 or more sheep, lambs, or goats;

- 2,500 or more horses;

- 650,000 or more ducks;

- 30,000 or more rabbits or other animals.

(b) In any area other than an area described in subsection (a) above, any confined

animal facility that maintains on any one day:

- 2,000 or more milk-producing dairy cows;

- 5,000 or more beef cattle;

- 15,000 or more calves, heifers, or other cattle;

- 200,000 or more turkeys;

- 1,300,000 or more chickens other than laying hens

- 1,300,000 or more laying hens

- 6,000 or more swine;

- 30,000 or more sheep, lambs, or goats;

- 5,000 or more horses;

- 1,300,000 or more ducks;

- 60,000 or more rabbits or other animals.

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 39600, 39601, 40724.6 Health and Safety Code.

Reference: Sections 39011.5 and 40724.6.
A-2

§86501 Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

Beginning January 1, 2006, the owner or operator of a large confined animal facility

under Section 86500 shall be required to keep records that specify the numbers of

animals maintained daily and such other information as may be required by air pollution

control district or air quality management district rules. Such records shall be

maintained at a central place of business for a period of not less than three years and

shall be made available upon request to the Executive Officer or Air Pollution Control

Officer or their representative.

NOTE: Authority cited: Sections 39600, 39601, 40724.6 Health and Safety Code.

Reference: Sections 39011.5 and 40724.6.
B-1

APPENDIX B

DETAILED CALIFORNIA DAIRY INFORMATION

General California Dairy Information

The following section provides several descriptors of the dairy industry in California. In

many cases, the factors described below are not explicitly used in the definition of a

large CAF for dairies, but they were used to inform our decisions regarding the sizes

and types of facilities that would be responsible for the majority of dairy emissions, and

to give a clearer picture about what types of facilities would be affected.

Milk Output, Number of Dairies, Cows per Farm – Based on data from the California

Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), in 1960, there were nearly 8,000 dairy

farms in California producing about 10 billion pounds of milk per year. Based on the

CDFA data (which does not count the very small farms), now there are about 2,100

dairies producing 35 billion pounds of milk per year. In 1960, the typical dairy farm had

about 100 milking cows. Now, based on CDFA data, the average dairy size in

California is about 800 milking cows. During this same period, the number of cows has

roughly doubled in California, to the current estimate of about 1.7 million milking cows.

An average cow in California now also produces nearly 21,000 pounds of milk per year,

versus just 10,000 pounds of milk per year in 1960 (CDFA 2003). These CDFA

statistics are collected and compiled differently than the previously discussed USDA

data, which is why they vary from the earlier data.

Milk Output versus Number of Cows – Milk output is highly correlated to the number of

milk cows within California. As the cow population changes, the milk output directly

changes in direct relation to the population, particularly now that the per cow milk output

seems to have leveled off. An average California cow produces about 21,000 pounds

of milk per year (CDFA 2003). Most of California’s cows are Holsteins, which produce

an average of 22,700 lbs/year of milk, the highest of any breed. The other major breed

in California is Jersey cows, which produce about 16,700 lbs/year of milk. Other breeds

within California include Guernseys, cross breeds, Ayrshires, and Brown Swiss (CDC).

Dairy Size versus Dairy Product Sales – Based on USDA statistics, there are

approximately 517 dairies in California with over 1,000 milking head. These dairies over

1,000 milking head bring in about $2.4 billion in dairy product sales, or about 63% of the

total dairy product sales. A simple average of the number of dairies divided by the sales

equates to about $4.5 million in sales per 1,000 milking head dairy. For dairies from

500 to 999 milking head, the average dairy product sales are $1.6 million (USDA 2004).

Table B-1 provides this data for all of the dairy size categories. Of course, because the

computed averages shown are simply an average of the number of dairies divided by

the sales, it does not provide any indication about the sales of any specific dairy.

In addition, because expenses are not show, this information does not reflect dairy

profits. As with the other data in this report, the exact number of dairies does not
B-2

precisely agree with other data sets due to how the data were collected and compiled

by the USDA. These minor differences do not affect the outcome of the analysis.

Table B-1. Dairy Product Sales by Dairy Size

Dairy Size Milk

Cows

Number of

Farms

Dairy Product Sales

($1000)

Percentage of Total

Sales

Computed Average

Sales ($)

1 to 9 167 2,504 0% 14,994

10 to 19 135 4,343 0% 32,170

20 to 49 104 7,191 0% 52,875

50 to 99 136 26,705 1% 196,360

100 to 199 159 44,712 1% 281,208

200 to 499 504 377,393 10% 748,796

500 to 999 558 901,930 24% 1,616,362

1,000 or more 517 2,359,291 63% 4,563,426

Total 2280 3,724,068

Another way to look at this data is to

compare the number of farms, the

number of animals, and the market

value of total facility sales. In

Figure B-1, the bars show the number

of facilities that have market value

sales ranging from less than $50,000 to

over $1,000,000. The line part of the

graph shows the number of milking

cows within each sales category. From

this chart it is clear that the vast

majority of the cows (over 90%) are in

the 1,200 dairies with over a million

dollars in sales; of these 1,200 dairies,

539 have sales over $2.5 million.

Production Costs – Operating a dairy has many of costs. Animal feed is on average

43% of the operating costs, replacement cows are 13% of costs, operating expenses

are 13%, and labor is 11%. Additional costs include marketing (3%), taxes and

insurance (1%), depreciation (3%), allowances for return on investment (7%), and return

on management (3%). In terms of actual costs, the total Statewide average cost per

cow per month is about $216, breaking down to $104 for feed, $26 for labor, $31 for

herd replacement, $47 for operating costs such as supplies, veterinary services, fuel,

utilities, etc., and about $8 for marketing costs. On a milk production basis, the

production cost is about $12.44 per 100 pounds of milk production (CDFA 2003). This

information, although not directly related to the large CAF definition, helps indicate

those areas where a dairy operator incurs the largest expenses, and gives a sense of

the overall operation.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

<50

50 to 99

100 to 249250 to 499500 to 999

> 1,000

Market Value of Sales (1000's $)

Number of Farms

-

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

Number of Head In Category

# of farms

# head

Figure B-1. Dairy Farms versus Sales and Milking

Cows
B-3

On a industry-wide basis, the USDA census data indicates that there is a total of

$4.1 billion in total dairy market value sales and government payments, which averages

to $1,736,306 per dairy. For total dairy production expenses, $3.4 billion is shown, with

an average of $1,532,128 per dairy. So, based on this, the industry on a whole could

produce a profit of $669 million, or an average of about $204,000 profit per dairy.

Naturally, these values are all industry-wide averages and do not reflect the financial

performance of any specific dairy, which would vary substantially based on many

factors.

Dairy Ownership – Nearly 2,000 of California’s dairy farms, or about 70% are family

owned. These family owned farms have about 49% of the cows. About 25% of the

California dairies (about 700) are owned by partnerships, and have about 44% of the

cows. The remaining 5% of the dairies (about 140) and 7% of the cows are in family

corporations. (USDA 2004)

Manure Waste Handling – Based on a recent U.S. EPA study (EPA 2004), about 60%

of California’s dairy cow manure is processed through flush barn systems, 36% is

processed using scrape barns, and the remaining facilities use a variety of methods.

Based on knowledge of the distribution of dairies within California and the manure

management practices, the U.S. EPA estimate for flush lane dairies is probably

somewhat low. Instead, it if more likely that about 70 - 80% of the dairy manure is

processed in flush lane dairies. These different manure treatment options will ultimately

play a role in evaluating which manure management options are most effective for

reducing dairy emissions.
B-4
C-1

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY OF LIVESTOCK AIR EMISSIONS RESEARCH SYMPOSIUM

To get a better understanding of the state of the science for livestock emissions, the

California Air Resources Board (ARB) organized a Livestock Air Emissions Research

Symposium to provide a forum for researchers to present their most current research

findings on the airborne emissions from dairy, beef, and poultry operations. The

symposium, held on January 26, 2005, in Fresno, California, was also

videoconferenced to Southern California, Bakersfield, and Modesto, or participants

could call-in via phone. Nine researchers presented their results to approximately

150 participants.

Each livestock research project provides a piece of the puzzle for understanding

livestock air emissions. Much of the work presented, particularly for organic gas

emissions from livestock, are among the first of its kind. The majority of the

presentations focused on dairy and beef cattle. The presentations from the researchers

are available on ARB’s website at http://www.arb.ca.gov/ag/caf/lersymp.htm.

The following general conclusions can be drawn from the symposium presentations:

− All dairy and beef emissions results presented are preliminary. It is not possible

to draw supportable conclusions regarding dairy or beef facility emissions based

on information presented at the symposium.

− The research projects show that reactive organic gas (ROG) emissions are

produced directly from the cow (Mitloehner), as well as from the livestock wastes,

waste handling, waste decomposition, and animal feed (Krauter, Schmidt,

Cassel, Goorahoo, Zhang, Mukhtar, Koziel).

− Each project focused on different components of the overall livestock emissions

system. For example, Krauter focused on overall dairy emissions, Schmidt

focused on process specific dairy emissions, and Mitloehner measured

emissions directly from cows housed in an environmentally controlled chamber.

− In measuring ROG emissions from livestock, many different compounds were

identified.

− There was substantial variability in the livestock ROG emissions estimates

between the various research studies. This is likely due to the variability in the

different measurement and analytical techniques, as well as the large emissions

variability in complex biological systems such as a dairy facility or a cow.

− Additional work is needed to refine livestock emissions sampling and analysis

methods to identify the full mass of reactive organic gases produced. Work is

also needed to better understand the magnitude, sources, and variability of all

important livestock emissions including ROG, ammonia, and particulate matter.

− The symposium underscored the need for the researchers to develop consistent

reporting protocols so the results can be more easily understood and compared.
C-2

Summary of the Research Presented at the Symposium

The table below provides a summary of the research presented at the symposium.

Studies were performed to evaluate full facility emissions (ambient) and specific

processes at dairies (surface flux chamber), enteric emissions directly from cows and

their fresh wastes (enclosure), emissions from different waste management practices

(enclosure and laboratory), and emissions from a poultry house.

Table C-1. Summary of Research Presented at the Livestock Emissions Research Symposium

Emission Sources Evaluated

Researcher Measurement

Type Pollutants Cow EntericEmissions

Specific

Facility

Processes

Full Facility

Emissions

Cassel Full facility

ambient

Organics Yes, included

in ambient

measurements

No Yes

Mitloehner Cows in

enclosure

Organics,

NH3, others Yes

Enteric

emissions and

fresh manure

No

Schmidt Surface flux

chamber

Organics,

NH3, others No

Yes, multiple

processes

evaluated

No, enteric

not included

Krauter Full facility

ambient

Organics,

NH3, others

Yes, included

in ambient

measurements

Some process

specific

resolution

Yes

Goorahoo Full facility

ambient

NH3, CH4 Yes, included

in ambient

measurements

Some process

specific

resolution

Yes

Zhang Laboratory Organics,

NH3, others No

Manure

decomposition

in lab setting

No

Mukhtar Surface flux

chamber

NH3

No

Yes, multiple

processes

evaluated

No, enteric

not included

Koziel Surface flux

and ambient

NH3, H2S Yes, included

in ambient

measurements

Yes, multiple

processes

evaluated

Yes

Summers Poultry house

fan exhaust

outlet

Organics, NH3 Measured emissions from a ducted fan outlet of a

poultry house
D-1

APPENDIX D

ONGOING ACTIVITIES TO ADDRESS LIVESTOCK EMISSION

MITIGATION PRACTICES

There is significant work ongoing to gain a better understanding of activities and

processes that can reduce livestock air emissions. Already, some local air districts

have adopted, or are in the process of developing livestock rules to reduce particulate

matter, reactive organic gas, and ammonia emissions from livestock facilities

(SCAQMD 2004b, SJV 2004a, SJV 2005b). These rules and others have clearly

recognized the benefits of providing the agricultural industry many options for reducing

their emissions, and providing local flexibility for facility operators in selecting the

practices that are most effective and applicable for each unique agricultural operation.

We expect that this approach will also be used as air districts develop emission

mitigation rules for large confined animal facilities.

As part of the implementation of SB 700, the California Air Pollution Control Officers

Association (CAPCOA) was required to develop a clearinghouse of available control

measures and strategies for agricultural sources of air pollution and emissions from

agricultural operations by January 1, 2005 (HSC 40731). The clearinghouse is

available on CAPCOA’s website (CAPCOA 2005) and includes control measures for

operations that create fugitive dust emissions, measures for confined animal facilities,

controls for internal combustion engines, and emission reduction strategies for other

agricultural equipment. The website is located here:

http://www.capcoa.org/AgClearinghouse.htm.

Much of the effort to evaluate livestock emissions mitigation in California is currently

focused on dairy emissions. There are two major groups within California directly

focusing on identifying and categorizing practices, operations, and technologies for

reducing dairy emissions. The Dairy Manure Technology Feasibility Assessment Panel,

hosted by the California Air Resources Board and convened in February 2005, has a

panel of experts drawn from government, industry, academia, and environmental and

conservation groups. The goal of the group is to develop a report that provides:

- descriptions of technologies most likely to improve the management and

treatment of dairy manure in the San Joaquin Valley;

- a list of technology providers with full contact information;

- an assessment of each technology based on its environmental and economic

performance, and technology development status;

- discussion of knowledge gaps where additional research is needed; and

- recommendations about which types of technologies might hold the most

promise for improving management and treatment of dairy manure in the San

Joaquin Valley.

In evaluating technologies, the panel will consider reductions in air emissions, excess

nutrients (nitrogen, etc.), salts, and others items such as odors and pathogens. The

panel will also consider the economic performance, quality of supporting data,
D-2

development status of the technology, and the potential to create energy. The draft

report is scheduled to be completed in Summer 2005. The website for the panel is

located here: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ag/caf/dairypnl/dairypanel.htm

In addition, the San Joaquin Valley Dairy Permitting Advisory Group (DPAG) was

formed to act as a clearinghouse and gather technical and scientific information that will

be used as a resource in the permitting of dairy operations located in the San Joaquin

Valley Air District. The DPAG includes scientists, regulators, industry, and

environmental representatives. For more information, the DPAG website is located

here: http://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/dpag/dpag_idx.htm

In addition to these activities, several research studies are ongoing to evaluate

promising livestock emission mitigation practices. Livestock emission mitigation

research is being performed by the University of California at Davis, California State

University Fresno, Purdue University, Texas A&M, and others. In the upcoming years,

we will have a substantially better understanding of what approaches are effective,

technologically feasible, and cost effective for reducing livestock emissions.
E-1

APPENDIX E

TEXT OF SENATE BILL 700
E-2
E-3

BILL NUMBER: SB 700 CHAPTERED

BILL TEXT

CHAPTER 479

FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE SEPTEMBER 22, 2003

APPROVED BY GOVERNOR SEPTEMBER 22, 2003

PASSED THE SENATE SEPTEMBER 11, 2003

PASSED THE ASSEMBLY SEPTEMBER 10, 2003

AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY SEPTEMBER 9, 2003

AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY SEPTEMBER 4, 2003

AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY AUGUST 21, 2003

AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JULY 14, 2003

AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JULY 2, 2003

AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 26, 2003

AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 13, 2003

AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 7, 2003

AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 24, 2003

INTRODUCED BY Senators Florez and Sher

 FEBRUARY 21, 2003

 An act to amend Section 42310 of, and to add Sections 39011.5,

39023.3, 40724, 40724.5, 40724.6, 40724.7, 40731, 42301.16, 42301.17,

42301.18, and 44559.9 to, the Health and Safety Code, relating to

air quality.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

 SB 700, Florez. Air quality: emissions: stationary sources:

agricultural operations.

 (1) Existing law authorizes the board of every air quality

management district and air pollution control district to establish a

permit system that requires any person that uses certain types of

equipment that may cause the emission of air contaminants to obtain a

permit. Existing law exempts vehicles and certain types of

equipment from those permit requirements.

 This bill would eliminate that exemption for any equipment used in

agricultural operations in the growing of crops or the raising of

fowl or animals. To the extent that the bill would increase the

number of permits that a district board, electing to establish a

permit system prior to January 1, 2004, would be required to issue,

the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

 (2) Existing law defines various terms governing the construction

of air pollution control laws in the state, and authorizes the state

board to revise those definitions to conform with federal law.

 This bill would define the terms "agricultural source of air

pollution" and "fugitive emissions," and would prohibit,

notwithstanding the existing authority, the state board from revising

those definitions.

 (3) The existing federal Clean Air Act requires districts to adopt

local programs for issuing operating permits to major stationary

sources of air pollutants. The existing act defines a stationary

source as any building, structure, facility, or installation that

emits or may emit any air pollutant.

 This bill would require each district that is designated a serious

federal nonattainment area for an applicable ambient air quality
E-4

standard for particulate matter as of January 1, 2004, to adopt,

implement, and submit for inclusion in the state implementation plan,

a rule or regulation requiring best available control measures

(BACM) and best available retrofit control technology (BARCT) for

agricultural practices at agricultural sources of air pollution to

reduce air pollutants from those sources for which that technology is

applicable for agricultural practices by the earliest feasible date,

but not later than January 1, 2006, and would require each district

subject to those requirements to comply with a schedule for public

hearing, adoption, and implementation of the final rule.

 The bill would require each district that is designated a moderate

federal nonattainment area or an applicable ambient air quality

standard for particulate matter as of January 1, 2004, to adopt and

implement control measures necessary to reduce emissions from

agricultural practices by the earliest feasible date, but no later

than January 1, 2007, unless the district determines that those

sources do not significantly cause or contribute to a violation of

state or federal standards.

 The bill would require, by January 1, 2005, the state board to

review all available scientific information and develop a definition

of a "large confined animal facility."

 The bill would require, by July 1, 2006, each district that is

designated as a federal nonattainment area for ozone as of January 1,

2004, to adopt, implement, and submit for inclusion in the state

implementation plan, a rule or regulation that requires the owner or

operator of a large confined animal facility as that term is defined

by the state board to obtain a permit to reduce, to the extent

feasible, emissions of air contaminants from the facility. The bill

would require the district to perform an assessment of the impacts of

the rule or regulation prior to its adoption. The bill would

authorize a permitholder to appeal any district determination or

decision related to that permit.

 The bill would require a district that is designated as being in

attainment for the federal ambient air quality standard for ozone as

of January 1, 2004, to adopt the same rule or regulation required of

nonattainment districts, by July 1, 2006, unless the district board

makes a determination that large confined animal facilities will not

contribute to a violation of any state or federal ambient air quality

standard. The bill would provide the rule or regulation is not

required to be submitted for inclusion into the state implementation

plan.

 The bill would require the California Air Pollution Control

Officers Association, in consultation with the state board and other

interested parties, by January 1, 2005, to develop a clearinghouse of

available control measures and strategies for agricultural sources

of air pollution and emissions of air contaminants from agriculture

operations.

 The additional duties for districts under the bill would impose a

state-mandated local program.

 (4) Existing law establishes the Capital Access Loan Program for

Small Businesses, administered by the California Pollution Control

Financing Authority, which provides loans through participating

financial institutions to entities authorized to conduct business in

the state and whose primary business location is in the state.

 This bill would require the authority to expand the program to

include outreach to financial institutions that service agricultural

interests in the state for the purposes of funding air pollution
E-5

control measures.

 (5) Under existing law, any person who violates a rule,

regulation, permit, or order of a district is guilty of a

misdemeanor. Because this bill would increase the number of people

who are subject to that provision, it would expand the scope of a

crime, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program.

 (6) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse

local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the

state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that

reimbursement.

 This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this

act for specified reasons.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

 SECTION 1. (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the

following:

 (1) Agricultural operations necessary for growing crops or raising

animals are a significant source of directly emitted particulates,

and precursors of ozone and fine particulate matter. These emissions

have a significant adverse effect on the ability of areas of the

state, including, but not limited to, the San Joaquin Valley, to

achieve health-based state and federal ambient air quality standards.

 (2) Since 1999, the agriculture industry has reduced emissions of

oxides of nitrogen (NOx) by more than 2000 tons per year, emissions

of particulate matter of 10 microns in diameter (PM 10) by more than

500 tons per year, and emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs)

from agricultural chemicals by more than 20 percent. According to

the state board, however, agricultural sources of air pollution still

contribute twenty-six percent of the smog-forming emissions in the

San Joaquin Valley.

 (3) In the San Joaquin Valley, a large portion of the sources of

particulate emissions are areawide sources whose emissions are

directly related to growth in population and the resulting vehicle

miles traveled. According to the State Air Resources Board, however,

agricultural sources of air pollution account for over fifty percent

of the directly emitted particulate air pollution generated in the

valley during the fall, amounting to over 170 tons per day of

emissions.

 (4) All parties living or operating a business in an area that has

been classified as being a nonattainment area with respect to the

attainment of federal or state ambient air quality standards share

the responsibility of reducing emissions from air pollutants.

 (5) The federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7401 et seq.)

prohibits the state from adopting emission standards or limitations

less stringent than those established under the federal act,

including limitations on emissions from agricultural sources.

 (6) Division 26 (commencing with Section 39000) of the Health and

Safety Code establishes numerous policies and programs to reduce air

pollutants for the protection of public health.

 (7) The purpose of the act adding this section is to establish a

new set of programs at the state and regional levels to reduce air

emissions from agricultural sources in order to protect public health

and the environment.

 (b) It is therefore the intent of the Legislature to require the

State Air Resources Board and air quality management districts and
E-6

air pollution control districts in the state to regulate stationary,

mobile, and area sources of agricultural air pollution.

 SEC. 2. Section 39011.5 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to

read:

 39011.5. (a) "Agricultural source of air pollution" or

"agricultural source" means a source of air pollution or a group of

sources used in the production of crops, or the raising of fowl or

animals located on contiguous property under common ownership or

control that meets any of the following criteria:

 (1) Is a confined animal facility, including, but not limited to,

any structure, building, installation, barn, corral, coop, feed

storage area, milking parlor, or system for the collection, storage,

treatment, and distribution of liquid and solid manure, if

domesticated animals, including, but not limited to, cattle, calves,

horses, sheep, goats, swine, rabbits, chickens, turkeys, or ducks are

corralled, penned, or otherwise caused to remain in restricted

areas for commercial agricultural purposes and feeding is by means

other than grazing.

 (2) Is an internal combustion engine used in the production of

crops or the raising of fowl or animals, including, but not limited

to, an engine subject to Article 1.5 (commencing with Section 41750)

of Chapter 3 of Part 4 except an engine that is used to propel

implements of husbandry, as that term is defined in Section 36000 of

the Vehicle Code, as that section existed on January 1, 2003.

Notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Section 39601, the state board may

not revise this definition for the purposes of this section.

 (3) Is a Title V source, as that term is defined in Section

39053.5, or is a source that is otherwise subject to regulation by a

district pursuant to this division or the federal Clean Air Act (42

U.S.C. Sec. 7401 et seq.).

 (b) Any district rule or regulation affecting stationary sources

on agricultural operations adopted on or before January 1, 2004, is

applicable to an agriculture source.

 (c) Nothing in this section limits the authority of a district to

regulate a source, including, but not limited to, a stationary source

that is an agricultural source, over which it otherwise has

jurisdiction pursuant to this division, or pursuant to the federal

Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7401 et seq.) or any rules or

regulations adopted pursuant to that act that were in effect on or

before January 1, 2003, or to exempt an agricultural source from any

requirement otherwise applicable under Sections 40724 or 42301.16,

based upon a finding by the district in a public hearing that the

aggregate emissions from that source do not exceed a de minimus level

of more than one ton of particulate matter, nitrogen oxides or

volatile organic compounds per year.

 SEC. 3. Section 39023.3 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to

read:

 39023.3. "Fugitive emissions" mean those emissions that cannot

reasonably pass through a stack, chimney, vent, or other functionally

equivalent opening. Notwithstanding subdivision (b) of Section

39601, the state board may not revise this definition for the

purposes of this section.

 SEC. 4. Section 40724 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to

read:

 40724. (a) Each district that is designated as a serious federal

nonattainment area for an applicable ambient air quality standard for

particulate matter as of January 1, 2004, shall adopt, implement,
E-7

and submit for inclusion in the state implementation plan, a rule or

regulation requiring best available control measures (BACM) for

sources for which those measures are applicable and best available

retrofit control technology (BARCT) to reduce air pollutants from

sources for which that technology is applicable for agricultural

practices, including, but not limited to, tilling, discing,

cultivation, and raising of animals, and for fugitive emissions from

those agricultural practices a manner similar to other source

categories by the earliest feasible date, but not later than January

1, 2006. The rule or regulation shall also include BACM and BARCT to

reduce precursor emissions in a manner commensurate to other source

categories that the district show cause or contribute to a violation

of an ambient air quality standard. Each district that is subject to

this subdivision shall comply with the following schedule with

respect to the rule or regulation imposing BACM and BARCT:

 (1) On or before September 1, 2004, notice and hold at least one

public workshop for the purpose of accepting public testimony on the

proposed rule or regulation.

 (2) On or before July 1, 2005, adopt the final rule or regulation

at a noticed public hearing.

 (3) On or before January 1, 2006, commence implementation of the

rule or regulation.

 (b) Nothing in this section shall delay or otherwise affect any

action taken by a district to reduce emissions of air contaminants

from agricultural sources, or any other requirements imposed on a

district or a source of air pollution pursuant to the federal Clean

Air Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7401 et seq.).

 (c) In adopting a rule or regulation pursuant to this section, a

district shall do all of the following:

 (1) Ensure the size and duration of use of an internal combustion

engine subject to BARCT pursuant to this section is commensurate to

the size and duration of use of internal combustion engines subject

to regulation by a district or the state board regulated at other

stationary sources.

 (2) Ensure that BARCT established pursuant to this section for an

internal combustion engine is similar to BARCT for other stationary

source engines subject to regulation by a district or the state

board.

 (3) Ensure that the cost-effectiveness of BARCT for an internal

combustion engine subject to this section is similar to the

cost-effectiveness of BARCT for other internal combustion engines

subject to regulation by a district or the state board.

 (4) Compare the cost-effectiveness of BARCT for an internal

combustion engine subject to this section to the list of available

and proposed control measures prepared pursuant to Section 40922.

 (5) Adopt control measures pursuant to this section in order of

their cost-effectiveness, unless a district determines that a

different order of adoption is necessary due to the enforceability,

public acceptability, or technological feasibility of a given control

measure, or to expeditiously attain or maintain a national or state

ambient air quality standard.

 (6) Except as otherwise provided under this section, ensure that

any rule or regulation adopted pursuant to this section complies with

all applicable requirements of this division, including, but not

limited to, any applicable requirements established pursuant to

Sections 40703, 40727, 40728.5, and 40920.6.

 (7) Hold at least one public meeting that is conducted at a time
E-8

and location that the district determines is convenient to the public

at which the district reviews the comparison prepared pursuant to

paragraph (4).

 (d) Nothing in this section limits the authority of a district to

regulate a source including, but not limited to, a stationary source

that is an agricultural source over which it otherwise has

jurisdiction pursuant to this division or the federal Clean Air Act

(42 U.S.C. Sec. 7401 et seq.) or any rules or regulations adopted

pursuant to that act. Nothing in this section shall delay or

otherwise affect any action taken by a district to reduce emissions

of air contaminants from agricultural sources, or any other

requirements imposed upon a district or a source of air pollution

pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act. This section may not be

interpreted to delay or otherwise affect the adoption,

implementation, or enforcement of any measure that was adopted, or

included in a rulemaking calendar or air quality implementation plan

that was adopted, by the district prior to January 1, 2004.

 SEC. 5. Section 40724.5 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to

read:

 40724.5. (a) By the earliest feasible date, but no later than

January 1, 2007, each district that is designated a moderate federal

nonattainment area for an applicable ambient air quality standard for

particulate matter as of January 1, 2004, and that is not subject to

the requirements of Section 40724, shall adopt and implement control

measures necessary to reduce emissions from agricultural practices,

including, but not limited to, tilling, discing, cultivation, and

raising of animals, and from fugitive emissions in a manner similar

to other source categories from those activities by the earliest

feasible date. Control measures adopted and implemented pursuant to

this section shall also be implemented by the district to reduce

precursor emissions in a manner commensurate to other source

categories that the district show cause or contribute to a violation

of an ambient air quality standard.

 (b) A district is not required to adopt and implement control

measures pursuant to this section if it determines in a public

hearing that agricultural practices do not significantly cause or

contribute to a violation of state or federal standards.

 (c) In adopting a rule or regulation pursuant to this section, a

district shall do all of the following:

 (1) Ensure the size and duration of use of an internal combustion

engine subject to BARCT pursuant to this section is commensurate to

the size and duration of use of internal combustion engines subject

to regulation by a district or the state board regulated at other

stationary sources.

 (2) Ensure that BARCT established pursuant to this section for an

internal combustion engine is similar to BARCT for other stationary

source engines subject to regulation by a district or the state

board.

 (3) Ensure that the cost-effectiveness of BARCT for an internal

combustion engine subject to this section is similar to the

cost-effectiveness of BARCT for other internal combustion engines

subject to regulation by a district or the state board.

 (4) Compare the cost-effectiveness of BARCT for an internal

combustion engine subject to this section to the list of available

and proposed control measures prepared pursuant to Section 40922.

 (5) Adopt control measures pursuant to this section in order of

their cost-effectiveness, unless a district determines that a
E-9

different order of adoption is necessary due to the enforceability,

public acceptability, or technological feasibility of a given control

measure, or to expeditiously attain or maintain a national or state

ambient air quality standard.

 (6) Except as otherwise provided under this section, ensure that

any rule or regulation adopted pursuant to this section complies with

all applicable requirements of this division, including, but not

limited to, any applicable requirements established pursuant to

Sections 40703, 40727, 40728.5, and 40920.6.

 (7) Hold at least one public meeting that is conducted at a time

and location that the district determines is convenient to the public

at which the district reviews the comparison prepared pursuant to

paragraph (4).

 (d) Nothing in this section limits the authority of a district to

regulate a source including, but not limited to, a stationary source

that is an agricultural source over which it otherwise has

jurisdiction pursuant to this division or the federal Clean Air Act

(42 U.S.C. Sec. 7401 et seq.) or any rules or regulations adopted

pursuant to that act. Nothing in this section shall delay or

otherwise affect any action taken by a district to reduce emissions

of air contaminants from agricultural sources, or any other

requirements imposed upon a district or a source of air pollution

pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act. This section may not be

interpreted to delay or otherwise affect the adoption,

implementation, or enforcement of any measure that was adopted, or

included in a rulemaking calendar or air quality implementation plan

that was adopted, by the district prior to January 1, 2004.

 (e) Nothing in this section shall delay or otherwise affect any

action taken by a district to reduce emissions of air contaminants

from agricultural sources, or any requirements imposed on a district

or a source of air pollution pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act

(42 U.S.C. Sec. 7401 et seq.).

 SEC. 6. Section 40724.6 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to

read:

 40724.6. (a) On or before July 1, 2005, the state board shall

review all available scientific information, including, but not

limited to, emissions factors for confined animal facilities, and the

effect of those facilities on air quality in the basin and other

relevant scientific information, and develop a definition for the

source category of a "large confined animal facility" for the

purposes of this section. In developing that definition, the state

board shall consider the emissions of air contaminants from those

sources as they may affect the attainment and maintenance of ambient

air quality standards.

 (b) Not later than July 1, 2006, each district that is designated

as a federal nonattainment area for ozone as of January 1, 2004,

shall adopt, implement, and submit for inclusion in the state

implementation plan, a rule or regulation that requires the owner or

operator of a large confined animal facility, as defined by the state

board pursuant to subdivision (a), to obtain a permit from the

district to reduce, to the extent feasible, emissions of air

contaminants from the facility.

 (c) A district may require a permit for a large confined animal

facility with actual emissions that are less than one-half of any

applicable emissions threshold for a major source in the district for

any air contaminant, including, but not limited to, fugitive

emissions in a manner similar to other source categories, if prior to
E-10

imposing that requirement the district makes both of the following

determinations in a public hearing:

 (1) A permit is necessary to impose or enforce reductions in

emissions of air pollutants that the district show cause or

contribute to a violation of a state or federal ambient air quality

standard.

 (2) The requirement for a source or category of sources to obtain

a permit would not impose a burden on those sources that is

significantly more burdensome than permits required for other similar

sources of air pollution.

 (d) The rule or regulation adopted pursuant to subdivision (b)

shall do all of the following:

 (1) Require the owner or operator of each large confined animal

facility to submit an application for a permit within six months from

the date the rule or regulation is adopted by the district that

includes both of the following:

 (A) The information that the district determines is necessary to

prepare an emissions inventory of all regulated air pollutants

emitted from the operation, including, but not limited to, precursor

and fugitive emissions, using emission factors approved by the state

board in a public hearing.

 (B) An emissions mitigation plan that demonstrates that the

facility will use reasonably available control technology in moderate

and serious nonattainment areas, and best available retrofit control

technology in severe and extreme nonattainment areas, to reduce

emissions of pollutants that contribute to the nonattainment of any

ambient air quality standard, and that are within the district's

regulatory authority.

 (2) Require the district to act upon an application for permit

submitted pursuant to paragraph (1) within six months of a completed

application, as determined by the district.

 (3) Require the owner or operator to implement the plan contained

in the permit approved by the district, and shall establish a

reasonable period, of not more than three years, after which each

permit shall be reviewed by the district and updated to reflect

changes in the operation or the feasibility of mitigation measures.

The updates required by this paragraph are not required to be

submitted for inclusion into the state implementation plan.

 (4) Establish a reasonable compliance schedule for facilities to

implement control measures within one year of the date on which the

permit is approved by the district, and shall provide for 30 days

public notice and comment on any draft permit.

 (d) Prior to adopting a rule or regulation pursuant to subdivision

(b), a district shall, to the extent data are available, perform an

assessment of the impacts of the rule or regulation. The district

shall consider the impacts of the rule or regulation in a public

hearing, and make a good faith effort to minimize any adverse

impacts. The assessment shall include all of the following:

 (1) The category of sources affected, including, but not limited

to, the approximate number of affected sources, and the size of those

sources.

 (2) The nature and quantity of emissions from the category, and

the significance of those emissions in adversely affecting public

health and the environment and in causing or contributing to the

violation of a state or federal ambient air quality standard.

 (3) The emission reduction potential.

 (4) The impact on employment in, and the economy of, the region
E-11

affected.

 (5) The range of probable costs to affected sources and

businesses.

 (6) The availability and cost-effectiveness of alternatives.

 (7) The technical and practical feasibility.

 (8) Any additional information on impacts that is submitted to the

district board for consideration.

 (e) Nothing in this section shall delay or otherwise affect any

action taken by a district to reduce emissions of air contaminants

from agricultural sources, or any other requirements imposed on a

district or a source of air pollution pursuant to the federal Clean

Air Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7401 et seq.).

 (f) In adopting a rule or regulation pursuant to this section, a

district shall comply with all applicable requirements of this

division, including, but not limited to, the requirements established

pursuant to Section 40703, 40727, and 40728.5.

 (g) A permitholder may appeal any district determination or

decision required by this section pursuant to Section 42302.1, in

addition to any other applicable remedy provided by law.

 (h) Nothing in this section authorizes a district to adopt a rule

or regulation that is duplicative of a rule or regulation adopted

pursuant to Sections 40724 and 40724.5.

 (i) Nothing in this section limits the authority of a district to

regulate a source including, but not limited to, a stationary source

that is an agricultural source over which it otherwise has

jurisdiction pursuant to this division or the federal Clean Air Act

(42 U.S.C. Sec. 7401 et seq.) or any rules or regulations adopted

pursuant to that act. Nothing in this section shall delay or

otherwise affect any action taken by a district to reduce emissions

of air contaminants from agricultural sources, or any other

requirements imposed upon a district or a source of air pollution

pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act. This section may not be

interpreted to delay or otherwise affect adoption, implementation, or

enforcement of any measure that was adopted, or included in a

rulemaking calendar or air quality implementation plan that was

adopted, by the district prior to January 1, 2004.

 SEC. 7. Section 40724.7 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to

read:

 40724.7. (a) A district that is designated as being in attainment

for the federal ambient air standard for ozone shall adopt a rule or

regulation as described in Section 40724.6 shall fulfill both of the

following conditions:

 (1) The regulation shall be adopted not later than July 1, 2006,

unless a district board makes a determination in a public hearing,

based on substantial scientific evidence in the record, that large

confined animal facilities will not contribute to a violation of any

state or federal ambient air quality standard.

 (2) The regulation may not be submitted for inclusion in the state

implementation plan.

 (b) Nothing in this section shall delay or otherwise affect any

action taken by a district to reduce emissions of air contaminants

from agricultural sources, or any other requirements imposed on a

district or a source of air pollution pursuant to the federal Clean

Air Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7401 et seq.).

 (c) In adopting a rule or regulation pursuant to this section, a

district shall comply with all applicable requirements of this

division, including, but not limited to, the requirements established
E-12

pursuant to Section 40703, 40727, and 40728.5.

 (d) Nothing in this section authorizes a district to adopt a rule

or regulation that is duplicative of a rule or regulation adopted

pursuant to Section 40724.

 (e) The rule or regulation adopted by a district pursuant to this

section is not required to be submitted for inclusion into the state

implementation plan.

 SEC. 8. Section 40731 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to

read:

 40731. In order to assist in the development of the BACM, RACM,

and BARCT measures specified in Sections 40724, 40724.5, and 40724.6,

and to reduce or eliminate emissions of regulated air pollutants and

their precursors, the California Air Pollution Control Officers

Association, in consultation with the state board and other

interested parties, shall, not later than January 1, 2005, develop a

clearinghouse of available control measures and strategies for

agricultural sources of air pollution and emissions from agricultural

operations, including, but not limited to, the following sources:

 (a) Operations that create fugitive dust emissions, including, but

not limited to, discing, tilling, material handling and storage, and

travel on unpaved roads.

 (b) Confined animal facilities, including, but not limited to, any

structure, building, installation, barn, corral, coop, feed storage

area, or milking parlor, including, but not limited to, a system for

the collection, storage, treatment, and distribution of liquid or

solid manure from domestic animals, including, but not limited to,

cattle, calves, horses, sheep, goats, swine, rabbits, chickens,

turkeys, or ducks, if those animals are corralled, penned, or

otherwise caused to remain in restricted areas for commercial

agricultural purposes, and feeding is by means other than grazing.

 (c) Internal combustion engines used in the production of crops or

the raising of animals or fowl, except an engine that is used to

propel an implement of husbandry, as that term is defined in Section

36000 of the Vehicle Code, as that section existed on January 1,

2003.

 (d) Other equipment, operations, or activities associated with the

growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals, that emit, or

cause to be emitted, any regulated air pollutant, or any precursor to

any regulated air pollutant.

 SEC. 9. Section 42301.16 is added to the Health and Safety Code,

to read:

 42301.16. (a) In addition to complying with the requirements of

this chapter, a permit system established by a district pursuant to

Section 42300 shall ensure that any agricultural source that is

required to obtain a permit pursuant to Title I (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7401

et seq.) or Title V (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7661 et seq.) of the federal

Clean Air Act is required by district regulation to obtain a permit

in a manner that is consistent with the federal requirements.

 (b) Except as provided in subdivision (c), a district shall

require an agricultural source of air pollution to obtain a permit

unless it makes all of the following findings in a public hearing:

 (1) The source is subject to a permit requirement pursuant to

Section 40724.6.

 (2) A permit is not necessary to impose or enforce reductions of

commissions of air pollutants that the district show cause or

contribute to the violation of state or federal ambient air quality

standard.
E-13

 (3) The requirement for the source or category of sources to

obtain a permit would impose a burden on those sources that is

significantly more burdensome than permits required for other similar

sources of air pollution.

 (c) Prior to requiring a permit for an agricultural source of air

pollution with actual emissions that are less than one-half of any

applicable emissions threshold for a major source in the district,

for any air contaminant, but

excluding fugitive dust, a district shall, in a public hearing, make

all of the following findings:

 (1) The source is not subject to a permit requirement pursuant to

Section 40724.6.

 (2) A permit is necessary to impose or enforce reductions of

emission of air pollutants that the district show cause or contribute

to a violation of a state or federal ambient air quality standard.

 (3) The requirement for a source or category of sources to obtain

a permit would not impose a burden on those sources that is

significantly more burdensome than permits required for other similar

sources of air pollution.

 SEC. 10. Section 42301.17 is added to the Health and Safety Code,

to read:

 42301.17. (a) A district may adopt by regulation a program under

which the district does not require a permit to be obtained by an

agricultural source of air pollution that the district may otherwise

require to obtain a permit if the owner or operator of the source has

taken the following actions to reduce emissions from the source:

 (1) Removed all internal combustion engines used in the production

of crops or the raising of fowl or animals, except an engine that is

used to propel implements of husbandry, at the source and replaced

them with engines that meet or exceed the most stringent standards

adopted by the state board and the United States Environmental

Protection Agency for new internal combustion engines.

 (2) Reduced or mitigated emissions from all agricultural

activities, including, but not limited to, tilling, discing,

cultivation, the raising of livestock and fowl, and similar

activities, to a level that the district determines does not cause,

or contribute to, a violation of a state or federal ambient air

standard, toxic air contaminant, or other air emission limitation.

 (3) Reduced or mitigated all emissions from any farm equipment,

underground petroleum fuel tanks, or other similar equipment used in

agricultural activities to a level that the district determines does

not cause or contribute to a violation of a state or federal ambient

air standard, toxic air contaminant, or other air emission

limitation.

 (4) Complied with any other conditions required by state or

federal law or district rule or regulation for the source.

 (b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to those permits required to

be issued pursuant to Title I (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7401 et seq.) or Title

V (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7661 et seq.).

 SEC. 11. Section 42301.18 is added to the Health and Safety Code,

to read:

 42301.18. (a) Any agricultural source that existed prior to

January 1, 2004, that becomes subject to a permit requirement

pursuant to a district rule or regulation that was adopted prior to

that date shall be permitted as an existing source and not as a new

source.

 (b) Any agricultural source that is an existing source pursuant to
E-14

subdivision (a) shall be permitted by the district based upon its

maximum potential to emit air contaminants, to the extent that level

can be determined, as of January 1, 2004.

 (c) A district may not require an agricultural source to obtain

emissions offsets for criteria pollutants for that source if

emissions reductions from that source would not meet the criteria for

real, permanent, quantifiable, and enforceable emission reductions.

 SEC. 12. Section 42310 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to

read:

 42310. (a) A permit shall not be required for any of the

following:

 (1) Any vehicle.

 (2) Any structure designed for and used exclusively as a dwelling

for not more than four families.

 (3) An incinerator used exclusively in connection with a structure

described in subdivision (b).

 (4) Barbecue equipment that is not used for commercial purposes.

 (5) (A) Repairs or maintenance not involving structural changes to

any equipment for which a permit has been granted.

 (B) As used in this subdivision, maintenance does not include

operation.

 (b) Nothing in this section shall affect any requirements imposed

on a district or a source of air pollution, including, but not

limited to, an agricultural source, pursuant to the federal Clean Air

Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 7401 et seq.).

 SEC. 13. Section 44559.9 is added to the Health and Safety Code,

to read:

 44559.9. The authority shall expand the Capital Access Loan

Program established by this article to include outreach to financial

institutions that service agricultural interests in the state for the

purpose of funding air pollution control measures.

 SEC. 14. The provisions of the act adding this section are

severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held

invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or

applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision

or application.

 SEC. 15. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to

Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution for

certain costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school

district because in that regard this act creates a new crime or

infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty

for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the

Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the

meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California

Constitution.

 In addition, no reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to

Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution for

certain other costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school

district because a local agency or school district has the authority

to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for

the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the

meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.
F-1

APPENDIX F

PUBLIC WORKSHOP NOTICES

Agency Secretary 

The energy challenge facing California is real. Every Californian needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption.

For a list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs, see our Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov .

California Environmental Protection Agency

Printed on Recycled Paper

 Air Resources Board

Alan C. Lloyd, Ph.D.

Chairman

1001 I Street • P.O. Box 2815

Sacramento, California 95812 • www.arb.ca.gov

August 2, 2004

Dear Sir/Madam:

Senate Bill 700 (Florez, 2003) requires the California Air Resources Board (ARB or

Board) to adopt a definition for a Large Confined Animal Facility (large CAF) by

July 1, 2005. The staff of ARB invites your participation in a public workshop to solicit

input for developing a large CAF definition. Working with stakeholders, ARB staff will

review relevant scientific information, including emission factors for CAFs and how large

CAFs may affect the attainment and maintenance of ambient air quality standards.

A preliminary workshop agenda is attached as well as background information to

provide some initial topics for discussion.

These workshops are the first in a series of stakeholder meetings. Our planned

schedule for adopting the large CAF definition is as follows:

August 2004 Public workshops to solicit input on defining large CAF

January 2005 Public workshop to review livestock emissions research data

March 2005 Public workshops to discuss staff proposal to define large CAF

May 2005 Release staff report on proposed large CAF definition

June 2005 Public hearing on staff proposals to define large CAF

The first large CAF definition workshops will be held at the times and locations shown

below:

Modesto Tulare Chino Sacramento

August 24, 2004 August 25, 2004 August 26, 2004 September 2, 2004

10:00 – 12:30 10:00 –12:30 10:00 – 12:30 10:00 – 12:30

Stanislaus County Ag

Commission

3800 Cornucopia Way

Harvest Hall

Modesto, CA

County Ag

Commissioner's

Building

4437 Laspina Street

Tulare, CA

Inland Empire Utilities

Agency Headquarters

Board Room

6075 Kimball Avenue

Bldg. A

Chino, CA

Central Valley

Auditorium

Cal/EPA Building

1001 I Street

Sacramento, CA

(webcast available)
Sir/Madam

August 2, 2004

Page 4

The workshops in Modesto, Tulare, and Chino will have a call-in number for those

unable to participate in person. The toll free call-in number is (888) 220-3084, the pass

code is 41322, and the leader name is Sue Wyman. The Sacramento workshop will be

webcast via the internet. You may access the webcast at ARB’s homepage at

http://www.arb.ca.gov, and then select webcasts. Questions can be submitted to

onair@arb.ca.gov the day of the event. In addition, the meeting places are accessible

to persons with disabilities. If you have special accommodation or language needs,

please contact the Sue Wyman at (916) 445-9477 or swyman@arb.ca.gov as soon as

possible. TTY/TDD/Speech-to-Speech users may dial 7-1-1-for the California Relay

Service.

If you have any questions about the workshop, please contact Michael FitzGibbon, of

my staff, at (916) 445-6243 or mfitzgib@arb.ca.gov.

Sincerely,

/s/

Robert D. Fletcher, Chief

Planning and Technical Support Division

Attachment

cc: Mr. Mike FitzGibbon, Manager

Emission Inventory Analysis Section

Planning and Technical Support Division

Ms. Sue Wyman

Meeting Coordinator

Planning and Technical Support Division
05/06/05 1

Attachment 1

PRELIMINARY

AGENDA

Workshop to Discuss Defining Large Confined Animal Facilities (CAFs)

as Required by SB 700

I. Introductions

II. Summary of SB700 Requirements and Status of Research

III. Possible Concepts for Defining Large CAFs

IV. Stakeholder Comments and Discussion

V. Next Steps, Workshop & Meeting Schedules

VI. Adjourn

Note: A final agenda will be provided at the workshops.
1

Attachment 2

Background Information for Workshop to Discuss

Defining Large Confined Animal Facilities

as Required by SB 700

What are the California Air Resources Board’s responsibilities under SB 700

related to large confined animal facilities?

The Air Resources Board (ARB/Board) is required to review scientific information,

including emission factors, and develop and adopt a definition for “large confined animal

facilities” by July 1, 2005. In developing the definition, the Board must consider

emissions of air contaminants from these facilities as they may affect the attainment and

maintenance of ambient air quality standards. (Health and Safety Code (H&SC)

Section 40724.6(a))

Over the next few months, the ARB will host several stakeholder meetings regarding

livestock emission factors and the definition of large CAFs. These meetings will provide

an earlier opportunity for public comment on possible approaches before staff prepares

a definition for consideration by the Board.

What is a confined animal facility?

In summary, a confined animal facility (CAF) is a facility in which domesticated animals

are maintained in restricted areas for commercial agricultural purposes, and feeding is

not by grazing. As specifically defined by Health and Safety Code (H&SC)

section 39011.5(a)(1), a confined animal facility:

“Is a confined animal facility, including, but not limited to, any structure, building,

installation, barn, corral, coop, feed storage area, milking parlor, or system for the

collection, storage, treatment, and distribution of liquid and solid manure, if

domesticated animals, including, but not limited to, cattle, calves, horses, sheep,

goats, swine, rabbits, chickens, turkeys, or ducks are corralled, penned, or

otherwise caused to remain in restricted areas for commercial agricultural

purposes and feeding is by means other than grazing.”

What are the ramifications of being identified as a large CAF?

Large CAFs in regions designated as a federal ozone nonattainment area as of

January 1, 2004 will be subject to an emissions mitigation plan requirement. There are

some exemptions from the mitigation requirements for air districts that demonstrate that

large CAFs in their region do not contribute to a violation of any State or federal ambient

air quality standards.
2

What are the air districts responsibilities under SB 700 related to large confined

animal facilities?

Air districts that are designated as federal ozone nonattainment areas as of

January 1, 2004 must adopt, implement, and submit a rule for inclusion in the State

Implementation Plan that addresses large CAFs as defined by ARB. The rule or

regulation must require the facility to obtain a permit and to reduce to the extent feasible

emissions of air contaminants. (H&SC Section 40724.6) SB 700 provides detailed

district requirements for developing large CAF rules and criteria for removing facilities

from the program. The full text of the bill is located here:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html. Once on the webpage, search for SB 700

(Florez).

What air pollutants will be considered in evaluating air quality impacts of CAFs?

The focus will be on emissions of pollutants that contribute to ozone and particulate

matter pollution. This includes reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen, directly

emitted particulate matter, and ammonia.

What opportunities will stakeholders and the public have to provide input?

The ARB staff will host regular stakeholder meetings to solicit input on the large CAF

definition and to maintain an open exchange of the data, reasoning, and assumptions

used in defining large CAFs. The first workshops are scheduled for August 2004.

Additional workshops will be scheduled in January 2005 to discuss livestock emission

research results, and March 2005 to discuss staff proposals for defining large CAFs. A

draft staff report will be developed and released for comment.

In June 2005, the large CAF definition will then be presented to the Board for

consideration, during which further comment may be provided to the Board. A summary

of the schedule is shown below.

August 2004 Public workshops to solicit input on defining large CAF

January 2005 Public workshop to review livestock emissions research data

March 2005 Public workshops to discuss staff proposal to define large CAF

May 2005 Release staff report on proposed large CAF definition

May 2005 Stakeholder meetings to receive comments on staff report

June 2005 Public hearing on staff proposals to define large CAF

Who will be involved in developing the large CAF definition and identifying the

most appropriate livestock emission factors?

ARB staff will coordinate a process that in includes all interested stakeholders.

Stakeholders are expected to include local air districts, the California Air Pollution

Control Officers Association, livestock industry groups, Farm Bureaus, UC Cooperative

Extension staff, academic experts, U.S. EPA technical staff, environmental groups, and

others.
3

What are some possible topics for identifying large confined animal facilities in

California?

As a basis to start discussion, ARB staff has compiled topics to discuss for identifying

large CAFs. During the workshop, we will seek input and feedback on these ideas, and

any other options for identifying large CAFs.

1. Facility emissions

This approach might establish facility emissions thresholds that are consistent

throughout the State. If a confined animal facility exceeds the thresholds, then it

would be considered a large CAF. Discussion items:

• Would pollutants be treated individually, or collectively?

• Should different animal types have different emissions thresholds?

• Would livestock emissions thresholds be consistent with permitting thresholds

for other industries producing similar pollutants?

• What emissions data and methods are needed to effectively quantify facility

livestock emissions?

• Would consistent statewide thresholds be either too stringent, or too lenient

for some regions?

2. Facility emissions considering attainment status

Similar to A, above, except this approach would vary the large CAF emissions

thresholds by air district or basin, based upon the attainment status of the district.

If a confined animal facility located in a region exceeds the local thresholds, then

they would be considered a large CAF.

Discussion items:

• Similar to A, above, plus,

• If some regions have less stringent thresholds, could this encourage livestock

facility migration?

3. Number of animals present at facilities

Several agencies now use the number of animals present at a facility

(i.e., 1000 milking cows) to determine which facilities are regulated. This

approach could be used to define large CAFs under SB 700. Discussion items:

• Would headcount thresholds be varied by region?

• If emission factors or methods changed, would headcount thresholds also

need to be updated?

• If a facility has extensive emission controls, but exceeds the per-head

threshold, would it still be defined as a large CAF?

• Are facility-specific head count data reasonably available?

• Using the per-head approach, how can we avoid inequities between livestock

and other facilities regulated for their air emissions?
4

4. Economic or production information

This approach could be based on either the facility revenue, production, or some

other value. The approach includes an underlying assumption that facilities with

higher revenue or production: a) create more air pollution and, b) are more

capable of absorbing the costs of regulation. Discussion items:

• Will it be feasible to collect facility and species specific economic and

production information?

• What data are needed to show a link between air quality and economic or

production information?

• Using this approach, how could we avoid inequities between livestock

regulations and other regulated facility types?

5. Facility management practices

Some livestock management practices may be inherently more polluting and

more amenable to emission reductions. This approach would use information

about facility manure management practices and other factors to identify which

facilities are considered large CAFs. Discussion items:

• If a large dairy and a small dairy used the same management practices,

would they be treated the same?

• There are many management practice variations for each livestock category.

Will it be possible to catalog the various practices and associate them with air

quality impacts?

• Could existing facility operators avoid regulation by changing their

management practices? What undesirable consequences could this

produce?

What information will be evaluated to help define a large CAF?

This will be discussed with stakeholders during the workshop. Parameters used to

define a large CAF may include, but are not limited to the following:

• Types and quantities of air pollutants from CAFs;

• Facility size and population data;

• Management practices of animal activities (e.g., waste handling, feed

handling, housing) and non-animal activities (e.g., engines);

• Production information (head marketed, eggs produced, milk production);

• Economic information (gross & net receipts);

• Historical definitions of large CAFs or confined/concentrated animal feeding

operations (CAFOs);

• Existing district or EPA permitting programs and applicability thresholds;

• Emission reduction potentials for livestock types or sources; and

• Air basin attainment status.
Agency Secretary 

The energy challenge facing California is real. Every Californian needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption.

For a list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs, see our Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov .

California Environmental Protection Agency

Printed on Recycled Paper

Air Resources Board

1001 I Street • P.O. Box 2815

Sacramento, California 95812 • www.arb.ca.gov

January 6, 2005

Dear Sir/Madam:

The California Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) staff invites you to participate in a

Livestock Emissions Research Symposium. At the Symposium, researchers will

present their most current findings regarding the airborne emissions from dairy, beef,

and poultry operations. A preliminary program of presenters is attached.

The Symposium is part of ARB’s ongoing process to adopt a definition for a Large

Confined Animal Facility (large CAF) by July 1, 2005 as required by Senate Bill 700

(Florez, 2003). Following this Symposium, we expect to have a public workshop in

March 2005 to discuss the staff’s proposed definition for large CAFs. We expect to

release a staff report in May 2005 for consideration at the June 23, 2005 public hearing.

Details for the Symposium are as follows: 

DATE: Wednesday, January 26, 2005

TIME: 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

LOCATION: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

Central Office

1990 East Gettysburg Avenue

Fresno, California 93726

In addition, the workshop will video teleconferenced to the following locations:

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

Northern Office

4230 Kiernan Avenue, Suite 130

Modesto, California 95356

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

Southern Office

2700 M Street, Suite 275

Bakersfield, California 93301
Sir/Madam

Page 6

In addition to presentations by researchers, there will be limited time available for others

to provide 5-minute presentations regarding technologies or practices that may help

reduce livestock emissions.

The meeting places are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you have special

accommodation or language needs, please contact Ms. Heather Arias at

(916) 323-2722 or harias@arb.ca.gov. TTY/TDD/Speech-to-Speech users may dial

7-1-1 for the California Relay Service.

Please also contact Mr. Mike FitzGibbon at (916) 445-6243 or mfitzgib@arb.ca.gov with

any questions about the workshop or if you are interested in making a short technology

presentation.

Sincerely,

Robert D. Fletcher, Chief

Planning and Technical Support Division

Attachment

cc: Mr. Mike FitzGibbon, Manager

Emission Inventory Analysis Section

Planning and Technical Support Division

Ms. Heather Arias

Transportation Strategies Section

Planning and Technical Support Division
FINAL PROGRAM – LIVESTOCK EMISSIONS RESEARCH SYMPOSIUM

05/06/05 1

Livestock Emissions Research Symposium

Wednesday, January 26, 2005

9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.

WELCOME

9:00 a.m. Bob Fletcher, Air Resources Board

BEEF

9:15 a.m. "Ammonia and Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions from Beef Cattle Feedlots"

Dr. Jacek Koziel, Iowa State University

Research in air quality engineering and livestock odor. Measurements of gas, odor,

particulate matter emissions from livestock operations. Development and

evaluation of odor control technologies.

DAIRY

9:45 a.m. “On Farm Measurements of Methane and Select Carbonyl Emission

Factors for Dairy Cattle”

Terry Cassel, University of California, Davis

Modeled emission factors for methane and select carbonyls measured in

spring, summer, and fall at one dairy will be presented along with a

description of total non-methane, non-ethane organic carbon

measurements at dairies

10:15 a.m. Break

10:30 a.m. “Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) and Amine Emissions from a Northern

California, Flushed Lane Dairy: Technical Approach and Report of

Emission Factors”

Dr. CE Schmidt, Independent Environmental Consultant

Results are discussed from a field-sampling project to evaluate processspecific emissions at a Northern California Dairy. The United States

Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) flux chamber method was

used to collect emissions of ROG, amine, and other relevant compounds.

Emissions are reported for each tested process, the full facility, and on a

per cow basis.
FINAL PROGRAM – LIVESTOCK EMISSIONS RESEARCH SYMPOSIUM

05/06/05 2

11:00 a.m. “Use of Laser Technology to Monitor Ammonia”

Dr. Dave Goorahoo, Dr. Charles Krauter, B. Goodrich, and Matt Beene,

California State University, Fresno

A review of the technology involved in the use of an open path tunable

diode laser (OPTDL) for monitoring ammonia emissions at dairies.

Results showing diurnal and seasonal fluctuations of ammonia during

various dairy management practices and discussion of using the OPTDL

for modeling downwind emission concentrations.

11:30 a.m. "Monitoring and Modeling of ROG and Ammonia at Three California

Dairies"

Dr. Charles Krauter, Dr. Dave Goorahoo, B. Goodrich, and Matt Beene,

California State University, Fresno

Dairy emissions data from a sampling program at dairies in Merced,

Fresno, and Kings Counties that began in the fall of 2002. ROG samples

were collected in canisters and analyzed Gas Chromatograph Mass

Spectography (GCMS) and Gas Chromatograph Flame Ionization

Detection (GCFID). The ammonia was sampled with active denuders and

Tunable Diode Lasers. Samples were taken upwind and at several sites

downwind of various dairy operations. Modeling of emissions was done

using Industrial Source Complex Short-Term version 3 (ISC-STv3), a

steady state Gaussian plume model.

12:00 p.m. Break for Lunch

1:00 p.m. "Process-based Approach to Estimate Air Emissions from California

Dairies"

Dr. Frank Mitloehner, University of California, Davis

Discussion of projects designed to evaluate parameters such as animal

housing and manure handling, under controlled conditions using

environmental chambers, on emissions from livestock facilities. We will

use these data to drive a process-based model to identify the flow of

carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur through the different operational processes on

a dairy (feeding, housing, manure storage, land application) to eventually

predict emissions of volatile organic compounds, methane, ammonia,

nitrous oxide, nitric oxide, nitrogen and hydrogen sulfide. This site-specific

approach will significantly improve estimates of emissions from California

dairies.
FINAL PROGRAM – LIVESTOCK EMISSIONS RESEARCH SYMPOSIUM

05/06/05 3

1:30 p.m. “Treatment of Dairy Manure with Anaerobic Digestion and Aeration

Technologies for Reducing Gaseous Emissions”

Dr. Ruihong Zhang, University of California, Davis

This paper reports the findings of an on-going study at U.C. Davis in

quantifying the emission reductions of several gases (ammonia, hydrogen

sulfide, methane, and volatile organic compounds) by anaerobic digestion

and aeration treatment processes for dairy manure. Anaerobic digestion

and aeration technologies have proven to be effective in providing the

necessary treatment of animal waste for the benefits of water pollution

control. Anaerobic digesters could also provide dairies with the benefit of

biogas-energy production as well. Such waste treatment technologies are

expected to reduce the air emissions from manure management systems.

However, how much emission reduction that can be achieved for dairies is

not known.

2:00 p.m. "A Process Based Approach to Measure Ammonia from Dairy Operations

Using a Flux Chamber Protocol"

Dr. Saqib Mukhtar, Texas A&M University

Report on the methods and results of using flux chambers to measure

ammonia emissions at dairies.

2:30 p.m. Break

POULTRY

2:45 p.m. “Emissions from Poultry Production”

Matt D. Summers, California Department of Food and Agriculture

A collaborative effort to estimate the emissions from broiler production in

California is discussed. Methodology and equipment was developed so

that standardized U.S. EPA source test methods could be applied to a

mechanically ventilated poultry house. Resulting emissions throughout

the broiler cycle for ammonia, particulate matter, and volatile organic

compounds are presented and analyzed.
FINAL PROGRAM – LIVESTOCK EMISSIONS RESEARCH SYMPOSIUM

05/06/05 4

TECHNOLOGY PRESENTATIONS

3:15 p.m. “Five Minute Presentations Regarding Technologies or Practices that may 

Help Reduce Livestock Emissions”

Moderated by Patrick Gaffney, Air Resources Board

CLOSING

4:00 p.m. Bob Fletcher, Air Resources Board

FINAL PROGRAM WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THE SYMPOSIUM
Agency Secretary

 

The energy challenge facing California is real. Every Californian needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption.

For a list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs, see our Website: http://www.arb.ca.gov .

California Environmental Protection Agency

Printed on Recycled Paper

Air Resources Board

1001 I Street • P.O. Box 2815

Sacramento, California 95812 • www.arb.ca.gov

February 11, 2005

Dear Sir/Madam:

The California Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) invites you to participate in a public

workshop to discuss a proposed definition for a Large Confined Animal Facility (large

CAF). The workshop details are as follows:

 DATE: Wednesday, March 2, 2005

TIME: 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.

LOCATION: San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

Central Office

1990 East Gettysburg Avenue

Fresno, California 93726

Senate Bill 700 (Florez, 2003) requires ARB to adopt a large CAF definition by

July 1, 2005. ARB staff held a series of workshops in August and September 2004 to

solicit input for developing the large CAF definition. ARB staff also held a Livestock

Emissions Research Symposium on January 26, 2005, at which researchers presented

their most current findings regarding the airborne emissions from dairy, beef, and

poultry operations.

Throughout the last year, ARB staff has been working with stakeholders to review

relevant scientific information, including emission factors for CAFs and how large CAFs

may affect the attainment and maintenance of ambient air quality standards. This

information is being used to develop the draft definition proposals, which will be

presented at the workshop.

Staff will use input received at the workshop in proposing the large CAF definition. The

definition will be included in a staff report expected to be released in May 2005 for

consideration by the Board at the June 23, 2005 public hearing.

The workshop will also be teleconferenced and video teleconferenced. You may send

questions on-line during the workshop by e-mail to meetingquestion@valleyair.org. The

workshop title should be placed in the subject line, followed by your questions in the

body of the e-mail. To participate by teleconference, please call 888-549-9134, using

the pass code 148277.
Sir/Madam

February 11, 2005

Page 6

The following locations are available for video teleconference participation:

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

Northern Office

4230 Kiernan Avenue, Suite 130

Modesto, California 95356

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

Southern Office

2700 M Street, Suite 275

Bakersfield, California 93301

South Coast Air Quality Management District

21865 E. Copley Drive

Conference Room CC08

Diamond Bar, California 91765

The meeting places are accessible to persons with disabilities. If you have special

accommodation or language needs, please contact Ms. Heather Arias at

(916) 323-2722 or harias@arb.ca.gov. TTY/TDD/Speech-to-Speech users may dial

7-1-1 for the California Relay Service.

Please also contact Ms. Arias with any questions about the workshop.

Sincerely,

/s/

Robert D. Fletcher, Chief

Planning and Technical Support Division

Attachment

cc: Rich Burt

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

1990 East Gettysburg Avenue

Fresno, California 93726

Heather Arias

Transportation Strategies Section

Planning and Technical Support Division
Large Confined Animal Facility Definition Workshop

Wednesday, March 2, 2005

1:30 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.

WELCOME

1:30 p.m. Bob Fletcher, Air Resources Board

SB 700 REQUIREMENTS

1:40 p.m. Michael FitzGibbon, Air Resources Board

RESEARCH SYMPOSIUM UPDATE

1:50 p.m. Patrick Gaffney, Air Resources Board

LARGE CAF DEFINITION DISCUSSION

2:00 p.m. Patrick Gaffney, Air Resources Board

NEXT STEPS

3:15 p.m. Michael FitzGibbon, Air Resources Board

CLOSING

3:30 p.m. Bob Fletcher, Air Resources Board
G-1

APPENDIX G

SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY MAJOR ROG SOURCE CATEGORIES

Major ROG Emissions Sources in the San Joaquin Valley for 2004

Emissions

Rank Source Category ROG(tons/day) % of Total

1 Light and Medium Duty Trucks 37.4 10%

2 Light Duty Passenger Cars 33.6 9%

3 Oil and Gas Production (Evaporative Losses) 29.6 8%

4 Pesticides 25.8 7%

5 Consumer Products 24.9 7%

6 Livestock Waste (Dairy Cattle) 23.5 6%

7 Prescribed Burning 17.7 5%

8 Off-Road Equipment (Lawn/Garden-Construction, etc) 15.4 4%

9 Aircraft 12.3 3%

10 Coatings (Paints and Thinners-Non-Architectural) 11.6 3%

11 Architectural Coatings (Paints and Thinners) 10.5 3%

12 Petroleum Marketing (Gasoline Evaporative Losses) 10.1 3%

13 Food and Agriculture (Crop Processing and Wineries) 10.1 3%

14 Recreational Boats 10.1 3%

15 Heavy Duty Gas Trucks 9.3 3%

16 Agricultural Burning 8.5 2%

17 Farm Equipment (Tractors) 8.3 2%

18 Residential Fuel Combustion 6.5 2%

19 Heavy Duty Diesel Trucks 5.1 1%

20 Off-road Recreational Vehicles 4.6 1%

- All Other Sources 48.8 13%

Total 366.4 100%

ARB 2005e - Modified to reflect revised estimates for the livestock categories of diaries, poultry,

and beef cattle.