California Regional Water Quality Control Board

Santa Ana Region

August 20, 1999

ITEM: 10

SUBJECT: General Waste Discharge Requirements For Concentrated Animal Feeding

Operations (Dairies And Related Facilities) Within The Santa Ana Region,

Order No. 99-11, NPDES No. CAG018001

DISCUSSION:

See attached Fact Sheet

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt Order No. 99-11, as presented.

Comments were solicited from the following agencies and/or persons:

U.S. EPA, Washington, Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance - Michael B.

Cook

U.S. EPA, San Francisco - Alexis Straus

U.S. EPA, Permit Issuance Section - Terry Oda (W-5-1)

U.S. EPA, San Francisco - Dan Meer

State Water Resources Control Board, Office ofthe ChiefCounse1- Ted Cobb

State Water Resources Control Board, DWQ - Jim Kessel, Jack Hodges, Cheryl Closson

State Department ofWater Resources - Glendale

State Department ofHealth Services - San Bernardino/Santa Ana/San Diego

State Department ofFish and Game - Fred Worthley

Regional Water Quality Control Board (1) - Lee Mich1in

Regional Water Quality Control Board (2) - Loretta Barsamian

Regional Water Quality Control Board (3) - RogerBriggs

Regional Water Quality Control Board (4) - Dennis Dickerson

Regional Water Quality Control Board (5) - Gary Carlton

Regional Water Quality Control Board (6) - Harold J. Singer

Regional Water Quality Control Board (7) - Philip Gruenberg

Regional Water Quality Control Board (9) - John Robertus

San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors

San Bernardino County Department ofEnvironmental Health Services - Pam Bennett

San Bernardino County Transportation/F1ood Control District - Naresh Varma

San Bernardino County LEA

Riverside County Board of Supervisors

Riverside County Department of Environmental Health Services
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District - Jason Christie

Riverside County LEA

City ofChino

City of Ontario

Milk Producers Council- Robert Feenstra

California Milk Producers Association - John Godino

Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority - Joseph Grindstaff

Inland Empire Utilities Agency - Doug Drury

Orange County Water District - Bill Mills, Nira Yamachika

D.C. Extension, San Bernardino - Abraham Wubishet

Inland Empire West Resource Conservation District - Jeff Wilson

National Resource Conservation Service - Jim Earsom

City ofLake Elsinore - Dick Watenpaugh, Pat Kilroy

Eastern Valley Municipal Water District

Western United Dairymen - Gary Conover, John Borges

Chino Basin Watermaster - Tracy Stewart

Daily Bulletin - Bob Page

Orange County Register

Press Enterprise - Leslie Bergman

Northwest Mosquito and Vector Control District

Santa Ana River Watershed Group - Lindel Marsh

Orange County Sanitation District - Blake Anderson

Water Advisory Committee of Orange County - H. E. Hartge

Los Alisos Water District - Kenneth Petersen

Municipal Water District of Orange County - Stanley E. Sprague

El Toro Water District - Ronald Kennedy

Mesa Consolidated Water District - Fred Bockmiller

Irvine Ranch Water District - Paul D. Jones II

Metropolitan Water District - Bob Huntley

Yorba Linda Water District - Arthur C. Korn

City of Anaheim, Public Utilities Department - Edward K. Aghjayan

Dairy Mailing List

Page 10(2
California Regional Water Quality Control Board

Santa Ana Region

FACT SHEET

GENERAL WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS FOR CONCENTRATED ANIMAL

FEEDING OPERATIONS (DAIRIES AND RELATED FACILITIES) WITHIN THE

SANTA ANA REGION, ORDER NO. 99-11, NPDES NO. CAG018001

I. Need for General Waste Discharee Requirements

There are approximately 302 animal feeding operations (AFOs), including dairies, heifer ranches

and calf nurseries in the Santa Ana Region. These AFOs contain about 370,000 animals [213,000

lactating (milking) cows, 37,000 dry (pregnant) cows, 56,000 heifers (12-18 month old cows), and

60,000 calves (less than 12 month old cows)]. Two hundred and seventy nine of these facilities

(320,000 animals) are located in the Chino Basin, while 23 of the facilities (50,000 animals) are

located in the San Jacinto Basin. The wastes generated at these facilities include manure, wash

waterl and storm water runoff from manured areas. About 950,000 tons of manure (at 33%

moisture) were produced in the corrals by these facilities in 1998. This is equivalent to about

4,000,000 cubic yards ofmanure (at 33% moisture). About 15 million gallons ofwashwater, which

contains about 10% ofthe manure produced by milking cows, is discharged to the ground each day.

Wastes produced at AFOs contain high levels of bacteria, biochemical oxygen demand, ammonia,

nitrate, phosphorus, and other salts.

Wastes in rainfall runoff from AFOs in the Chino Basin affect Chino Creek, Mill Creek and Reach

3 of the Santa Ana River, which are 303(d) listed impacted water bodies. Wastes from AFOs that

are discharged to the Santa Ana River also affect the quality of groundwater in Orange County,

since the Orange County Water District captures and percolates a significant amount ofthe flow of

the Santa Ana River to recharge the Santa Ana Forebay Groundwater Subbasin. The Chino Basin is

considered to have the highest concentration ofdairy animals in the world, with its 279 facilities and

320,000 animals located within an area ofless than 50 square miles (30,000 acres). The application

of manure to the ground in the Chino Basin has resulted in significant groundwater pollution,

specifically total dissolved solids (TDS) and nitrate. Affected groundwater in the Chino Basin also

impacts the quality ofthe Santa Ana River because the Santa Ana River becomes a gaining steam in

the Prado Basin where groundwater from the Chino Basin contributes to the surface flow of the

Santa Ana River.

Wastes in surface runoff from AFOs in the San Jacinto Basin affect the San Jacinto River, Canyon

Lake and Lake Elsinore. Phosphorus from AFOs is considered to be the primary cause of algae

blooms in Lake Elsinore, the largest natural freshwater lake in Southern California. These algae

blooms deplete oxygen in the lake, creating fish kills and other conditions which affect the

economic development and aesthetics of the area. Proper management of wastes from AFOs is

essential to protect the surface and groundwater resources ofthe Region.

Water used to wash cows prior to milking, milking equipment and the milk bam. .
Fact Sheet - General Waste Discharge Requirements

for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

(Dairies and Related Facilities) Order No. 99-11, NPDES No. CAGOl8001

Page 2 of 10

Beginning in 1972, and continuing through 1994, the Board's regulatory approach was to issue

individual waste discharge requirements to each AFO. Changes in the location, size, number of

animals, or operator of these facilities were frequent and necessitated rescinding existing waste

discharge requirements and issuing new requirements. The time demands to draft and rescind

individual waste discharge requirements far exceeded the staffresources available to do so.

Criteria cited in 40 CFR 122.28 state that general permits may be issued for facilities 1) involving

the same or substantially similar types of operations; 2) discharging the same types of wastes; 3)

having the same or similar operating conditions; 4) requiring the same or similar monitoring; and 5)

that are more appropriately regulated under a general permit rather than individual permits. The

types of wastes and appropriate waste discharge requirements for dairies and related facilities are

similar. Given this, the AFOs in the Region can be adequately and appropriately regulated by

coverage under the terms of a general waste discharge permit.

On February 17, 1994, the Board adopted Order No. 94-7, General Waste Discharge Requirements

For Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, Including Dairies, Within The Santa Ana Region

(NPDES NO. CAG018001). Order No. 94-7 has allowed the Board to better utilize staffresources.

Currently, approximately 215 AFOs have been enrolled under Order No. 94-7. The remaining

AFOs are either covered under individual waste discharge requirements issued prior to 1994, have

submitted a Notice ofIntent (NOI) to be covered under Order No. 94-7, or have not yet submitted a

NOI. AFOs that have submitted a NOI and have not yet been granted coverage under Order No.

94-7 and AFOs that are still covered under individual waste discharge requirements, have not been

granted coverage under Order No. 94-7 because they have not yet completed Engineered Waste

Management Plans (EWMPs). Order No. 94-7 expired on March 1, 1999. Therefore, it is

necessary to renew the waste discharge requirements contained in Order No. 94-7.

Although Order No. 94-7 regulated the discharge of waste from all AFOs (including non-dairy

related facilities), the proposed order only addresses the discharge ofwastes from dairies and related

facilities, such as calf nurseries and heifer ranches. Over 95% of the dischargers enrolled, or

waiting to be enrolled, under Order 94-7 are dairies and related facilities. Many ofthe requirements

contained in Order No. 94-7, and this proposed order, are not appropriate for most other types of

AFOs. Therefore, persons discharging, or proposing to discharge, wastes from other types ofAFOs

must obtain coverage under individual waste discharge requirements or another general permit, if

one is adopted.

Currently, the larger AFOs are required to get coverage under the State Water Resources Control

Board (State Board) General Industrial Storm Water Permit (Order No. 91-13-DWQ) for storm

water runoff from their facilities. However, the proposed order consolidates all requirements for

AFOs, including those for storm water runoff, into a single permit. Once coverage is granted under

this order, other waste discharge requirements issued by this Regional Board and coverage under

the State's General Permit will be terminated.
Fact Sheet - General Waste Discharge Requirements

for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

(Dairies and Related Facilities) Order No. 99-11, NPDES No. CAG018001

Page 3 of 10

The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) states that all concentrated animal feeding operations

(CAFOs) are point sources and are subject to NPDES permitting requirements. The CWA defines a

CAFO as any AFO that has more than 1,000 animal units (i.e., dairy cattle are considered 1.4

animal units). About 70% of the AFOs in the Region have over 1,000 animal units, and are,

therefore, considered CAFOs under the CWA. However, the CWA states that smaller facilities can

be designated as CAFOs by the permitting authority (i.e., Regional Board) after considering certain

criteria. These criteria include, in part, the location ofthe AFO relative to surface waters, the slope,

rainfall and other factors that increase the likelihood or frequency of discharges, and the impact of

the aggregate amount ofwaste from many small operations in a watershed that exceed that of lager

operations. Board staff has determined that all dairies, heifer ranches and calf nurseries in the

Region meet one or more ofthese criteria, and, therefore, should be designated as CAFOs under the

CWA. Tentative Order No. 99-11 designates all dairies, heifer ranches and calf nurseries in the

Region as CAFOs, and makes them subject to NPDES requirements. Therefore, the acronym

"CAFO" will be used to describe all facilities addressed by Tentative Order No. 99-11.

II. Basis for Discharee Limitations

Development and Implementation ofEngineered Waste Management Plans

In compliance with the CWA and the California Code of Regulations, Tentative Order No. 99-11

prohibits discharges to any surface water bodies, or tributary thereof, unless rainfall events, either

chronic or catastrophic, cause an overflow of process waste water from a facility designed,

constructed and operated to contain all process generated waste waters plus the runoff from a 25-

year, 24-hour rainfall event. (Title 27, Chapter 7, Subchapter 2, Article 1, Section 22562(a),

California Code ofRegulations and 40 CFR Part 412). Therefore, process waste water in overflows

resulting from rainfall events that are chronic or catastrophic, or are in excess of a 24-hour, 25-year

rainfall event, may be discharged to surface water bodies in accordance with requirements specified

in this order. To insure that compliance with these requirements is achieved, all CAFOs are required

to develop and implement an Engineered Waste Management Plan (EWMP). The guidelines for

the preparation of an EWMP are included in Attachment "B" of the proposed order. Attachment

"B" is intended to be revised by the Executive Officer in the near future. As with expired Order No.

94-7, Tentative Order No. 99-11 authorizes the Executive Officer to make necessary revisions to

"Attachment B".

Prohibition on the Application ofManure to Land in the Chino Basin

The Regional Board has conducted extensive studies on TDS and nitrate using computer models to

determine acceptable salt loading rates to groundwater from various land uses, including dairies and

other animal confinement facilities. These studies are the basis of the TDS and nitrogen

management plan specified in the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the Region. In

accordance with the TDS/nitrogen management plan, since 1972, waste discharge requirements

adopted by the Board for CAFOs limited the amount of manure disposal on disposal acreage at
Fact Sheet - General Waste Discharge Requirements

for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

(Dairies and Related Facilities) Order No. 99-11, NPDES No. CAG018001

Page 4 of 10

CAPOs to 3 (dry) tons (4.38 tons @ 33% moisture) per acre per year to address potential

groundwater impacts. The resultant salt load is roughly equivalent to that permitted by the plan for

other types of land use when the affected receiving waters have salt assimilative capacity. Dairy

manure contains much more salt per unit of nitrogen than other types of fertilizers. The Board's

1990 Dairy Report, "Dairies and Their Relationship to Water Quality Impacts in the Chino Basin",

showed that the use of manure as a fertilizer results in two to four times more salt reaching

groundwater (up to 10 times more non-nitrate salts) than the use of non-manure commercial

fertilizers. For this reason, the use ofmanure to meet the nutrient needs of crops results in excessive

application ofsalts that are not utilized by plants and which can, therefore, migrate to groundwater.

Order No. 94-7 limited manure application to cropland to agronomic rates [up to 12 (dry) tons (17.5

tons @ 33% moisture) per acre per year]. Limiting the amount of manure applied to cropland to

agronomic rates was an attempt to minimize the amount of salt that would reach groundwater from

the use ofmanure on cropland, without hindering the effective use ofmanure as a fertilizer.

Ninety percent of the CAPOs in the Region are located in the Chino Basin, which has severe TDS

and nitrate groundwater quality problems. As noted in the Board's Basin Plan, the Chino II and III

Groundwater Subbasins lack assimilative capacity for these constituents. For groundwater

subbasins without assimilative capacity, additional salt inputs at rates above Basin Plan objectives

cannot be allowed (State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 73-4, the Rancho Caballero

decision). To meet the Chino Basin groundwater objectives, the discharge of manure and other

animal wastes, such as dairy wash water, and their application as fertilizer, cannot be legally

permitted unless this salt load is offset. The Basin Plan contains a dairy regulatory strategy that was

developed in the Board's 1990 Dairy Report. One element of that strategy addresses waste

discharge requirements for manure and wash water disposal and application of wastes to cropland.

That element specifies that ongoing manure and wash water disposal or application to cropland in

the Chino Basin must be prohibited unless suitable salt offset programs are implemented.

In 1994, the Board was informed that two desalters would be built in the Chino Basin. The Board

was also informed that a significant amount ofmanure would be exported from the Chino Basin by

the proposed Chino Basin Co-Composting Facility. It was assumed that after the Chino Basin CoComposting Facility began operation and began exporting a significant amount of manure, the

amount of salt to be extracted from the Chino Basin by the two desalters would be adequate to

provide sufficient salt removal to offset the present and projected salt loads from ongoing dairy

discharges. Therefore, the Board adopted Order No. 94-7, allowing manure and wash water

discharges to continue, on the assumption that adequate salt offsets would be implemented.

However, the desalters were never built (although one is now under construction) and the CoComposting Facility, built in 1995, has never exported the significant amount of manure that had

been projected. Therefore, sufficient offsets were not implemented, and manure and wash water

discharges, and the use of manure on cropland, have been continuing without adequate salt offsets,

in violation ofState law.

Board staff estimates that over 13 million tons of manure have been applied in the Chino Basin

since the mid-1950's, resulting in over 1.4 million tons of salt that have reached, or will reach,
Fact Sheet - General Waste Discharge Requirements

for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

(Dairies and Related Facilities) Order No. 99-11, NPDES No. CAG018001

Page 5 of 10

groundwater. The application of about 400,000 tons of manure (@ 33% moisture) per year to

disposal land, cropland and ongoing stockpiles in the Chino Basin is continuing. Board staff

estimates that the current rate of application ofmanure and wash water to land in the Chino Basin is

resulting in about 34,000 tons ofsalt that will reach groundwater each year. About 30,000 tons per

year is from the application ofmanure, and about 4,200 tons per year is from the discharge of wash

water. A desalter is currently being built in the Chino Basin. The extraction wells that will supply

water for the desalter are expected to remove about 11,500 tons of salt per year from the Chino

Basin. Kaiser Steel will be credited with an offset of 4,000 tons ofthis salt each year for a period of

25 years, in accordance with a previous settlement agreement with the Board. The Board has

previously indicated that it would accept the remainder of the salt that will be removed from the

extraction wells as an offset for continuing discharges from CAPOs in the Chino Basin. However,

that amounts to an offset of only 7,500 tons of salt per year, compared to a current CAPO salt

loading to groundwater of about 34,000 tons per year. In addition to the 4,200 tons of salt that

reaches groundwater each year from wash water discharges, salt also is discharged to groundwater

as a result of the percolation of rainfall runoff from corrals and drainage from manure stockpiles.

The amount of salt that reaches groundwater each year from the percolation ofrainfall runoff from

corrals and percolation of drainage from manure stockpiles has not yet been adequately determined.

However, staff believes that it may account for the remaining 3,800 tons of salt offset provided by

the desalter, leaving no, or very little, salt offset available for continued manure application in the

Chino Basin. No other mitigation measures are currently in place, and none are expected to be in

place immediately, to offset the salt loading from ongoing manure application in the Chino Basin.

Therefore, the discharge of manure and its application as fertilizer in the Chino II and Chino III

Subbasins must be prohibited. The remainder ofthe subbasins in the Chino Basin are of excellent

quality and are tributary to the Chino II and Chino III Subbasins. Also, the addition ofsalt to those

subbasins by the application ofmanure was not considered when the assimilative capacity for those

subbasins was determined. Therefore, Tentative Order No. 99-11 prohibits the discharge ofmanure

and its application as fertilizer throughout the entire Chino Basin (The accompanying cease and

desist order allows manure to continue to be applied to cultivated croplands within the Chino Basin

at agronomic rates as long as significant progress is being made towards the construction and

operation of a second desalter within the Chino Basin). Tentative Order No. 99-11 does not prohibit

the on-site discharge of wash water, rainfall runoff from corrals, or drainage from manure

stockpiles, since the salt loadings from these discharges appear to be offset by the salt that will be

removed by the desalter facility.

Removal ofManure from the Facility

Tentative Order No. 99-11 requires that manure be hauled from each facility within 180 days after

being removed from the corrals. Any manure remaining at the facility after 180 days of being

removed from the corrals is considered to be disposal of manure and is prohibited by Tentative

Order No. 99-11. Draft Order No. 99-11, which was distributed for comments in March and April

1999, proposed requiring the removal of manure from the facility within 90 days after removal of

the manure from the corrals. Several comments were received in writing and orally at Board

Workshops, stating reasons why this time frame was unreasonable. Board staff also solicited
Fact Sheet - General Waste Discharge Requirements

for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

(Dairies and Related Facilities) Order No. 99-11, NPDES No. CAG018001

Page 60flO

comments from farm advisors with the University of California Cooperative Extension. It was

determined that it is beneficial to "cure" manure for 90 to 180 days prior to composting or for

application to cropland, and that the nutrient value ofthe manure is not significantly affected when

manure is stored for less than 180 days. During the winter, 90 days would not allow sufficient time

for the manure to dry adequately prior to hauling. Providing 180 days of storage will allow the

moisture content ofthe manure to be sufficiently reduced, making it lighter per unit of volume, and

easier and less expensive to haul. Some commercial fertilizer facilities in the Chino Basin prefer

receiving manure that has been aged for at least 150 days. Also, CAPOs generally remove manure

from their corrals twice a year. Allowing up to 180 days (6 months) storage will result in manure

being removed from the facility prior to the next corral cleaning, and will still achieve the goal of

preventing the long term accumulation ofmanure at CAPOs. Board staff believes that allowing for

180 days storage is reasonable, and that there would be no significant difference in water quality

impacts from storing manure at the facility for 180 days instead of90 days.

Change in Language Pertaining to Containment ofStorm Water Runoff

Order No. 94-7 and Draft Order No. 99-11 included the following Discharge Specification: "The

discharge to any surface water bodies, or tributary thereof, is prohibited unless a chronic,

catastrophic or cumulative rainfall causes overflow from a storage facility designed, constructed,

maintained and operated to contain all process generated wastewater plus the runoff from a 24-hour,

25-year storm." These Orders defined a chronic, catastrophic or cumulative rainfall as rainfall

occurring over a 7-day period or less which is equivalent to that from a 24-hour, 25-year storm

event. This language is slightly different than similar language included in the CWA that does not

refer to "cumulative" rainfall, and does not contain a definition that refers to rainfall "occurring

over a 7-day period." The specification included in Order No. 94-7 and Draft Order No. 99-11 is,

overall, more stringent than the language in the CWA, and was developed to provide a more

objective basis for determining compliance with the rainfall containment requirement and to be

consistent with the Board's EWMP Guidelines. However, the USEPA, and others, have noted that

there could be instances during certain storm events of less than 7 days when the specification

included in Order No. 94-7 and Draft Order No. 99-11 can be less restrictive than the language

included in the CWA. They have requested that the language proposed in Draft Order No. 99-11 be

changed to be consistent with the language in the CWA, since NPDES permits cannot contain

requirements that can be less restrictive than the CWA. Therefore, the term "cumulative" and the

reference to rainfall "occurring over a 7-day period" has been removed from Tentative Order No.

99-11 to make the rainfall containment requirement consistent with the CWA.

Consistency with USDAIUSEPA "Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations"

In March 1999, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the USEPA finalized

their unified national strategy for APOs. Among other items, the national strategy recommended

that general permits require the development and implementation of Comprehensive Nutrient

Management Plans (CNMPs). In general, development and implementation of CNMPs is intended

to bring each CAPO into compliance with the requirements of the CWA and to minimize the
Fact Sheet - General Waste Discharge Requirements

for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

(Dairies and Related Facilities) Order No. 99-11, NPDES No. CAG018001

Page 7 of 10

impacts to groundwater and surface water by the implementation of best management practices.

The national strategy describes many best management practices that could be included in CNMPs

for individual CAFOs. The best management practices included in each CNMP for each CAFO

would include specific best management practices for that CAFO, depending on the specific

situations that exist at that particular CAFO. In general, the CNMP would assure that appropriate

wastewater facilities were developed, constructed and maintained to comply with the requirements

ofthe CWA, and that the use and application ofwaste water and manure (i.e., nutrient management)

was managed to minimize impacts to groundwater and surface water. Tentative Order No. 99-11

does not require the development and implementation ofCNMPs, as described and recommended in

the national strategy. This is because the requirements included in Tentative Order No. 99-11 are

equivalent to, or more stringent than, what would be required in CNMPs. Also, many ofthe BMPs

recommended to be included in CNMPs are not relevant to the specific, isolated conditions that

exist in the Chino Basin. The requirements in Tentative Order No. 99-11 for wastewater and

rainfall are equivalent to what the national strategy requires. General BMPs that can be

implemented to comply with the wastewater and rainfall containment requirements will be further

addressed in the Board's EWMP Guidelines when they are revised in the near future. Specific

BMPs that will be implemented at each CAFO to comply with the wastewater and rainfall

containment requirements will be addressed in each CAFO's specific EWMP. The prohibition on

the application of manure in the Chino Basin is obviously a more stringent requirement than the

BMPs for manure application and management that the national strategy recommends to be

included in CNMPs, since application ofmanure is not permitted. The limitation on the application

ofmanure to agronomic rates, not to exceed 12 (dry) tons (17.5 tons @ 33% moisture) per acre per

year, in groundwater basins outside the Chino Basin where assimilative capacity exists and

application ofmanure is permitted, is equivalent to the nutrient management guidelines included in

the national strategy. Specific BMPs addressing application of manure will be included in each

CAFOs specific EWMP.

Prohibition on Covering New Discharges in the Chino Basin Under this Order

The 1998 California 303(d) List and TMDL Priority Schedule includes several surface water bodies

as impaired due to CAFOs, including Chino Creek, Mill Creek (prado Area), and Reach 3 of the

Santa Ana River for nutrients, pathogens, salinity/TDS/chlorides, and suspended solids. The CWA

states that NPDES permits cannot be issued to a new source (discharger) ifthe discharge will cause

or contribute to the violation of water quality standards, unless certain specified criteria are met,

including the development of TMDLs. In the absence of a current TMDL, USEPA has

recommended that this general permit be limited to current facilities, and that any new sources (i.e.,

construction of any new facilities) be processed through an application for an individual NPDES

permit. Therefore, Tentative Order No. 99-11 prohibits new sources (i.e., new facilities) from being

covered under this general permit. Since the most recent new construction of a CAFO facility in

the Chino Basin was approximately 20 years ago, this prohibition is not expected to be a significant

Issue.
Fact Sheet - General Waste Discharge Requirements

for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

(Dairies and Related Facilities) Order No. 99-11, NPDES No. CAG018001

Page 8 of 10

Inability of Many CAPOs to Immediately Comply with Several Requirements Included in this

Order

Many CAPOs will not be able to immediately comply with several ofthe requirements contained in

Tentative Order No. 99-11. These requirements include the prohibition on the application of

manure in the Chino Basin, implementation ofEWMPs and containment ofrainfall from a 24-hour,

25-year storm. The Board will consider adoption of a Cease and Desist Order No. 99-65 with a

time schedule for compliance with these requirements.

III. Coveraee Under the General NPDES Permit

A. Dischargers Currently Regulated Under Order No. 94-7 or Under Individual Waste

Discharge Requirements, and Dischargers that have Submitted NOls

These dischargers will be automatically enrolled under the proposed order, once it is adopted.

Dischargers who have not yet submitted an acceptable EWMP (see Attachment "B" of the order)

are required to do so.

B. Dischargers Not Currently Regulated Under Order No. 94-7 or Under Individual Waste

Discharge Requirements, and Dischargers that have not Submitted NOls:

At least 60 days prior to initiating a discharge at an existing facility, the discharger shall

submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) (see Attachment "A") with the appropriate filing fee

(currently, the filing fee is $2,000.00 for each facility) and an acceptable EWMp2.

IV. Discharee Authorization Letter

Upon adoption of this order, the Executive Officer shall issue discharge authorization letters to

dischargers currently enrolled under Order No. 94-7, discharging waste under individual waste

discharge requirements or who have submitted an NOI to be covered under a general permit.

Upon receipt of a complete application for initiation of a discharge at an existing facility, the

Executive Officer will review the application to determine eligibility for discharge under this order.

If the Executive Officer determines that the discharger is eligible to discharge wastes under this

general order, the Executive Officer may authorize the proposed discharge. Otherwise, the

Executive Officer may require the discharger to obtain individual waste discharge requirements.

New operators/owners of existing facilities for which an EWMP has been approved are not required to submit an additional EWMP.
Fact Sheet - General Waste Discharge Requirements

for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

(Dairies and Related Facilities) Order No. 99-11, NPDES No. CAG018001

V. Antide2radation Analysis

Page 9 of 10

The Regional Board conducted extensive TDS and nitrate studies using computer models to

determine acceptable salt loading rates to groundwater from various land uses, including dairies and

other concentrated animal feeding operations. These studies indicate that if the requirements

specified in the proposed general permit are met, water quality of the Region is not expected to

degrade as a result of discharges authorized under this general permit. The Regional Board, in

establishing the requirements in the tentative order, has taken into consideration the requirements of

the State and Federal "antidegradation policies" and has determined that the discharges are in

conformance with the antidegradation policies.

VI. Written Comments

All written comments regarding the proposed general order should be submitted to: Robert Holub,

Regional Water Quality Control Board, 3737 Main Street, Suite 500, Riverside, CA 92501.

VII. Information and CoPyin2

Persons wishing further information may write to the address given below (see IX, below) or call

the Regional Board at (909) 782-4130. Copies of the proposed waste discharge requirements, and

other documents (other than those which the Executive Officer maintains as confidential) are

available at the Regional Board office for inspection and copying by appointment scheduled

between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday (excluding holidays).

VIII. Re2ister ofInterested Persons

Any person interested in a general permit, or in a particular application or group of applications,

may leave his name, address, and phone number as part of the file for an application. Copies of

tentative waste discharge requirements will be mailed to all interested parties.

IX. Workshops and Public Hearin2

The Regional Board conducted public workshops on April 9, 1999, May 21, 1999, and June 25,

1999, to solicit comments on the draft general waste discharge requirements that were distributed in

March and April 1999. Oral comments were received during these workshops, and written

comments were submitted by several parties. These comments were considered by staff and

incorporated into Tentative Order No. 99-11, as appropriate.
Fact Sheet - General Waste Discharge Requirements

for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

(Dairies and Related Facilities) Order No. 99-11, NPDES No. CAG018001

Page 10 of 10

The Regional Board will hold a public hearing and consider adopting Tentative Order No. 99-11

during a public meeting on August 20, 1999, beginning at 9:00 a.m. The meeting will be held at the

City Council Chambers ofLorna Linda, 25541 Barton Road, Lorna Linda.

Further information regarding the conduct and nature of workshops and pubic hearings concerning

waste discharge requirements may be obtained by writing or visiting the Santa Ana Regional Board

office, 3737 Main Street, Suite 500, Riverside, 92501 or by calling Robert Holub ofRegional Board

Staff at (909) 782-3298.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board

Santa Ana Region

Order No. 99-11

NPDES No. CAG018001

GENERAL WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS FOR CONCENTRATED ANIMAL

FEEDING OPERATIONS (DAIRIES AND RELATED FACILITIES) WITHIN THE SANTA

ANA REGION

The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (hereinafter, Regional

Board), finds that:

1. On February 17, 1994, the Board adopted Order No. 94-7, General Waste Discharge

Requirements For Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, Including Dairies, Within The

Santa Ana Region (NPDES NO. CAGOI8001).

2. Order No. 94-7 satisfied the criteria cited in 40 CFR 122.28 and, as such, served as a

General NPDES Permit. 40 CFR 122.28 pertains to the issuance of general permits to

regulate discharges ofwaste that meet the following criteria:

a. Waste discharges involving the same or substantially similar types of operations;

b. Discharge the same types ofwastes;

c. Require the same or similar operating conditions;

d. Require the same or similar monitoring ; and

e. Are more appropriately regulated under a general permit rather than individual

permits.

3. 40 CFR Part 122.23 defines a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) as any animal

feeding operation that has more than 1,000 animal units (dairy cattle are considered 1.4

animal units). Pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA), all CAFOs are point sources and

are subject to NPDES permitting requirements. Smaller animal feeding operations can also

be designated as CAPOs by the permitting agencies after considering certain criteria cited

under 40 CFR 122.23 (b)(I). The Regional Board has determined that all dairies, heifer

ranches, and calf nurseries in the Region shall be designated as CAFOs.

4. Order No. 94-7 has expedited the preparation of waste discharge requirements and has

allowed the Regional Board to better utilize staff resources. To date, approximately 215

CAFOs have been enrolled under Order No. 94-7. Another 72 CAFOs are in the process of

obtaining authorization to discharge wastes under that order. Order No. 94-7 expired on

March 1, 1999. The dairies currently enrolled under Order No. 94-7, or in the process of

enrolling under Order No. 94-7, will want to continue to discharge waste. Therefore, it is

necessary to renew the waste discharge requirements contained in Order No. 94-7 to

continue this expedited permitting process.

Page 1 of 10
General Waste Discharge Requirements for

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (Dairies and Related Facilities)

Order No. 99-11, NPDES No. CAG018001

Page 2 of 10

5. Persons discharging, or proposing to discharge, dairy wastes or other similar kinds of

wastes from an existing dairy or related facility in any manner that may affect water quality

are hereinafter referred to as "discharger" and are subject to the terms and conditions ofthis

order. Persons discharging, or proposing to discharge, wastes from other types of animal

feeding operations must obtain coverage under a separate general permit or individual waste

discharge requirements. Persons proposing to discharge wastes from a new dairy or related

facility must obtain coverage under individual waste discharge requirements.

6. The Regional Board adopted a revised Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) on March

11, 1994. The Basin Plan became effective on January 24, 1995. The Basin Plan specifies

beneficial uses and water quality objectives for surface and ground waters in the Santa Ana

Region (Chapters 3 and 4). This order specifies requirements necessary to meet the water

quality objectives and to protect the beneficial uses.

7. Revised regulations governing discharges from CAFOs, including dairies, are contained in

Division 2, Title 27 of the Combined State Water Resources Control Board/California

Integrated Waste Management Board AB 1220 Regulations, which became effective on

July 18, 1997. Chapter 7, Subchapter 2 (Article 1) contains requirements for Confined

Animal Facilities. Previously, these regulations were specified in Chapter 15, Division 3,

Article 6, Title 23 ofthe California Code ofRegulations.

8. Section 402(P) of the CWA as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987 and the related

regulations published by the U.S. EPA on November 16, 1990 (40 CFR Parts 122, 123 and

124), requires an NPDES permit for pollutant discharges from CAFOs. The EPA's Effluent

Guidelines and Standards for Feedlots are contained in 40 CFR Part 412 (revised July 1,

1993).

9. On April 17, 1997, the State Water Resources Control Board adopted the General Industrial

Storm Water Permit, Order No. 97-03-DWQ, NPDES No. CASOOOOOI. Order No. 97-03-

DWQ implements the final regulations (40 CFR 122, 123, and 124) for storm water runoff

published on November 16, 1990 by the U.S. EPA in compliance with Section 402(P) ofthe

CWA. This order includes those provisions of the General Industrial Storm Water Permit

that pertains to dairies. Once a discharger is authorized under Order No. 99-11, coverage

under the State Water Resources Control Board's General Industrial Storm Water Permit

(Order No. 97-03-DWQ) will be terminated.

10. Wastes from CAFOs contain high concentrations of salts (total dissolved solids and

nitrates). Previous studies conducted by the Board have shown that cow manure produced

in the Region contains about 160 pounds ofsalt per (dry) ton ofmanure (110 pounds ofsalt

per ton of manure @ 33% moisture). The application of manure or the discharge of process

wastewater1 to land results in the discharge of salts that has adversely impacted, and

continues to adversely impact, the quality of groundwater and surface water in the Region.

I Process wastewater shall mean any process generated wastewater and any precipitation (rain or snow) which comes into contact with any

manure, litter or bedding, or any other raw material or intermediate or final material or product used in or resulting from the production of

animals or poultry or direct products (e.g. milk, eggs).
General Waste Discharge Requirements for

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (Dairies and Related Facilities)

Order No. 99-11, NPDES No. CAG018001

Page 3 of 10

11. Most ofthe CAPOs in the Region overlie the Chino Groundwater Basin. The Chino II and

III Groundwater Subbasins lack assimilative capacity for additional salt inputs (total

dissolved solids and nitrogen). For groundwater subbasins without assimilative capacity,

salt inputs that exceed the water quality objectives for these subbasins cannot be allowed

(State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 73-4, the Rancho Caballero decision). To

meet the Chino Basin groundwater objectives, as well as the groundwater objectives for any

other subbasin lacking assimilative capacity, the discharge of manure and other animal

wastes, such as process waste water, and their application as fertilizer and irrigation water,

must be controlled to prevent further exceedance of water quality objectives. Salt

discharges in excess of water quality objectives can only be allowed if the additional salt

inputs are offset.

12. The Basin Plan assumed that two desalters would be built in the Chino Basin. The amount

of salt to be extracted from the Basin from these desalters was assumed to be adequate to

provide sufficient salt removal to offset the present and projected salt loads from ongoing

discharges from CAPOs. However, only one desalter is currently being built. This desalter

will extract enough salt to offset the amount of salt being added to the basin from process

wastewater water discharges. No mitigation measures are currently in place to offset the

salt loading from manure application within the Basin. Therefore, the discharge ofmanure,

and its application as fertilizer, must be prohibited.

13. The Board has considered antidegradation pursuant to 40 CFR 131.12 and State Board

Resolution No. 68-16 and finds that these discharges are consistent with the State and

Federal regulations, as long as appropriate salt offset programs are implemented.

14. In accordance with Water Code Section 13389, the issuance of waste discharge

requirements for these discharges is exempt from those provisions of the California

Environmental Quality Act contained in Chapter 3 (Commencing with Section 21100),

Division 13 ofthe Public Resources Code.

15. The Regional Board has notified interested agencies and persons of its intent to issue

general waste discharge requirements for discharges of wastes CAFOs, and has provided

them with an opportunity to submit their views and recommendations.

16. The Regional Board, in a public meeting, heard and considered all comments pertaining to

discharges of wastes from CAFOs proposed to be regulated under the general waste

discharge requirements.
General Waste Discharge Requirements for

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (Dairies and Related Facilities)

Order No. 99-11, NPDES No. CAG018001

Page 4 of 10

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, in order to meet the provisions contained in Division 7 of the

California Water Code and regulations adopted thereunder and the provisions of the Clean Water

Act as amended, and regulations and guidelines adopted thereunder, dischargers, their agents,

successors, and assigns, discharging wastes from CAFOs shall comply with the following:

A. DISCHARGE SPECIFICATIONS:

1. The discharger shall design, construct and maintain containment structures to retain all

wastewater within its facility, including all process generated wastewater and all

precipitation on, and drainage through, manured areas resulting from storms up to and

including a 24-hour, 25-year storm.

2. The discharger shall develop and fully implement an Engineered Waste Management Plan

(EMWP) acceptable to the Executive Officer. The EMWP shall be developed by a

registered professional engineer, or other qualified individual, in accordance with the

guidelines specified in Attachment "B" of this order. The Executive Officer is hereby

authorized to make necessary revisions to the guidelines for the preparation of an EWMP

outlined in Attachment "B".

3. The discharge to any surface water bodies, or tributary thereof, is prohibited unless a

chronic3 or catastrophic4 rainfall causes overflow from a storage facility designed,

constructed, maintained and operated to contain all process generated wastewater plus the

runofffrom a 24-hour, 25-year storm.

4. Retention ponds and manured areas at CAFOs in operation on November 27, 1984, shall be

protected from inundation or washout by overflow from any stream channel during 20-year

peak stream flows. Facilities existing before November 27, 1984 that are protected against

1DO-year peak stream flows must continue to provide such protection. New facilities (built

after November 27, 1984) shall be protected from 1DO-year peak stream flows.

5. No new containment structures shall be constructed of manure, and manure shall not be

used to improve or raise existing containment structures.

6. Disposal of manure to land is prohibited, unless allowed by separate waste discharge

requirements issued by the Board.

Process generated wastewater shall mean water directly or indirectly used in the operation of a feedlot for any or all of the

following: Spillage or overflow from animal or poultry watering systems; washing, cleaning of flushing pens, barns, manure pits or

other feedlot facilities; direct contact swimming, washing or spray cooling of animals; and dust control.

Chronic rainfall means a series of wet weather conditions which would not provide opportunity for dewatering and which total the

volume ofthe 25 year, 24 hour storm event.

Catastrophic rainfall means any single event which would total the volume of the 25 year, 24 hour storm event; this could include

tornadoes, hurricanes or other catastrophic conditions which could cause overflow due to winds or mechanical damage.
General Waste Discharge Requirements for

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (Dairies and Related Facilities)

Order No. 99-11, NPDES No. CAG018001

Page 5 of 10

7. The use ofmanure as a fertilizer in any area that may affect a groundwater subbasin lacking

assimilative capacity, including the Chino Groundwater Basin, is prohibited unless a plan,

acceptable to the Executive Officer, is implemented which mitigates the effects of that use

on the underlying groundwater subbasin.

8. Manure applied to cultivated cropland outside of any area that may affect a groundwater

subbasin lacking assimilative capacity, including the Chino Groundwater Basin, shall not

exceed agronomic rates and shall be incorporated into soil soon after application, or

appropriate containment (based upon the specific crop grown) controls must be provided.

For any application of manure to cropland in excess of 12 dry tons per acre per year (17.5

tons/year @ 33% moisture), an explanation ofthe type of crop and the number oftimes it is

harvested per year shall also be included in the annual report.

9. Manure removed from the corrals shall be removed from the facility within 180 days. Any

manure remaining at the facility after 180 days of being removed from the corrals is

considered to be disposal of manure and is prohibited in accordance with Discharge

Specification A.5. A manifest ofthe manure hauled away shall be prepared and submitted

with the annual report in accordance with Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 99-11.

(The discharger shall be responsible for active management of legal disposal of manure

from the property over the six month period following removal ofthe manure from corrals.

This means that legal disposal must be coordinated with periods ofrainfall such that manure

can be removed from the facility within 180 days of being scraped from corrals.)

10. On two designated "clean days" per calendar year, facilities subject to this order shall be

free of all stockpiled manure that has been removed from corrals. These "clean days"

shall be selected by each discharger, beginning in 2000. The two "clean days" shall be at

least four months apart. Each "clean day" shall be identified and reported to the Board

office at least five working days in advance ofthe selected date.

11. All surface drainage from outside ofthe facility shall be diverted away from any manured

areas unless such drainage is fully contained.

B. PROVISIONS:

1. Neither the treatment nor the discharge of wastes shall create, or threaten to create, a

nuisance or pollution as defined by Section 13050 ofthe California Water Code.

2. This order shall serve as a general National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit

pursuant to Section 402 ofthe Federal Clean Water Act or amendments thereto. The general

permit shall become effective 10 days after the date of its adoption provided the Regional

Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency has no objection. If the Regional

Administrator objects to its issuance, the permit shall not become effective until such

objection is withdrawn.
General Waste Discharge Requirements for

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (Dairies and Related Facilities)

Order No. 99-11, NPDES No. CAGOl8001

Page 6 of 10

3. This order expires on August 1,2004. However, it shall continue in force and effect until a

new general permit is issued. All dischargers authorized to discharge under the expired

permit may continue to discharge waste in accordance with that permit until a new permit is

issued.

4. Upon receipt of an application to discharge wastes under this order, the Executive Officer

shall authorize the proposed discharge by transmitting a "Discharge Authorization Letter"

to the discharger. The discharge authorization letter may be terminated or revised by the

Executive Officer at any time.

5. Upon issuance of a discharge authorization letter from the Executive Officer to discharge

wastes under this order, the discharger's authorization to discharge waste under the State

Water Resources Control Board's General Industrial Storm Water Permit (Order No. 97-03-

DWQ) is hereby terminated.

6. All discharges from the facility must comply with the lawful requirements of

municipalities, counties, drainage districts, and other local agencies regarding discharges of

storm water to storm drain systems or other courses under their jurisdiction.

7. Storm flows in excess of a 24-hour, 25-year storm event may be discharged to surface water

bodies in accordance with the requirements specified in U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency's "Effluent Guidelines and Standards for Feedlot's, 40 CFR Part 412". Additionally,

storm flows resulting from chronic or catastrophic events may also be discharged to surface

water bodies in accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's effluent

guidelines referenced above.

8. The discharger shall comply with Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 99-11.

9. The discharge of wastes to property not owned or controlled by the discharger, except as

authorized by this order, is prohibited.

10. The discharger shall comply with all Federal, State, County and local laws and regulations

pertaining to the discharge ofwastes from the facility.

11. Following a storm event, the discharger shall restore the wastewater holding capacity of

retention ponds in a timely manner.

12. The requirements prescribed herein do not authorize the commission of any act causing

injury to the property of another, nor protect the discharger from liabilities under Federal,

State, or local laws, nor guarantee the discharger a capacity right in the receiving waters.

13. This order does not convey any property rights of any sort, or any exclusive privilege.

14. An authorization to discharge wastes under this order is not transferable to any person

without written authorization from the Executive Officer.
General Waste Discharge Requirements for

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (Dairies and Related Facilities)

Order No. 99-11, NPDES No. CAGO18001

Page 7 of 10

15. The discharger shall comply with all requirements of this order and all terms, conditions,

and limitations specified in the discharge authorization letter issued by the Executive

Officer.

16. The discharger shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any discharge that has

a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the environment.

17. Any instance of noncompliance with this order constitutes a violation of the Clean Water

Act (CWA), its regulations, and the California Water Code, and is grounds for enforcement

action, and/or termination ofthe authorization to discharge.

18. The provisions of this order are severable, and if any provision of this order, or the

application of any provisions of this order to any circumstance, is held invalid, the

application of such provision to other circumstances, and the remainder of this order shall

not be affected thereby.

19. It shall not be a defense for a discharger in an enforcement action that it would have been

necessary to halt or reduce the permitted activity in order to maintain compliance with the

conditions ofthis order.

20. Compliance determination with the terms ofthis order shall be based on the following:

a. Periodic inspections by Regional Board staff;

b. Evaluation of the annual report of animal waste and storm water discharge

submitted according to the attached monitoring and reporting program; and

c. Any other information deemed necessary by the Executive Officer.

21. The Regional Board, USEPA, and other authorized representatives shall be allowed:

a. Entry upon premises where a regulated facility or activity is located or conducted, or

where records are kept under the conditions ofthis general permit;

b. Access to copy any records that are kept under the conditions ofthis general permit;

c. To inspect any facility, equipment (including monitoring and control equipment),

practices, or operations regulated or required under this general permit; and

d. To photograph, sample, and monitor for the purpose of assuring compliance with

this general permit, or as otherwise authorized by the CWA.

C. PERMIT REOPENING, REVISION, REVOCATION, AND RE-ISSUANCE:

1. If more stringent applicable water quality standards are promulgated or approved

pursuant to Section 303 of the Federal CWA, or amendments thereto, the Board will

revise and modify this order in accordance with such standards.

2. This order may be reopened to address any changes in State or Federal plans, policies or

regulations that would affect the quality requirements for the discharges.
General Waste Discharge Requirements for

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (Dairies and Related Facilities)

Order No. 99-11, NPDES No. CAG018001

D. PENALTIES:

Page 8 of 10

1. The CWA provides that any person who violates a provision implementing sections 301,

302, 306, 307, or 308 of the CWA is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $11,000 per

day of such violation. Any person who willfully or negligently violates provisions

implementing these sections of the CWA is subject to a fine of not less than $2,500 nor

more than $25,000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or

both.

2. The CWA provides that any person who knowingly makes any false statement,

representation, or certification in any record or other document submitted or required to

be maintained under this permit, including monitoring reports or reports of compliance or

noncompliance shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $11,000

per violation, or by imprisonment for not more than 6 months per violation, or by both.

3. The CWA provides that any person who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders

inaccurate any monitoring device or method required to be maintained under this permit

shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $11,000 per violation, or

by imprisonment for not more than six months per violation, or by both.

4. The California Water Code provides that any person who violates a waste discharge

requirement or a provision ofthe California Water Code is subject to civil penalties of up

to $5,000 per day, $10,000 per day, or $25,000 per day of violation, or when the violation

involves the discharge of pollutants, is subject to civil penalties of up to $10 per gallon

per day, or $20 per gallon per day of violation; or some combination thereof, depending

on the violation, or upon the combination of violations.

E. REQUIRED REPORTS AND NOTICES:

1. Reporting Provisions:

a. All applications, annual reports, or information submitted to the Regional Board

shall be signed and certified in accordance with 40 CFR 122.22.

b. Any discharger authorized to discharge waste under this order shall furnish,

within a reasonable time, any information the Regional Board or EPA may

request to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking and reissuing,

or terminating their authorization or this general permit. The discharger shall also

furnish to the Regional Board, upon request, copies ofrecords required to be kept

by this order.
General Waste Discharge Requirements for

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (Dairies and Related Facilities)

Order No. 99-11, NPDES No. CAG018001

Page 9 of 10

c. Except for data determined to be confidential under Section 308 of the CWA, all

reports prepared in accordance with the terms of this general permit shall be

available for public inspection at the offices of the Regional Water Quality

Control Board and the Regional Administrator of USEPA. As required by the

CWA, effluent data shall not be considered confidential. Knowingly making any

false statements on any such report may result in the imposition of criminal

penalties as provided for in Section 309 of the Act and Section 13387 of the

California Water Code.

2. The discharger shall notify the Regional Board by telephone within 24 hours of any

unauthorized discharge of waste from the facility. This notification shall be followed by a

written report including the following:

a. The approximate date and time ofthe discharge;

b. The volume and duration ofthe discharge;

c. The cause ofthe discharge; and.

d. A time schedule and a plan to implement necessary corrective actions to prevent the

recurrence ofsuch discharges.

3. The discharger shall report promptly in writing to the Regional Board of any changes or

proposed changes in:

a. The control, ownership, operation or location ofthe facility;

b. The character, location, volume or disposal methods ofwaste discharges; and

c. The size of the animal population, if it increases beyond the design capacity of the

facility specified in the EWMP.

4. The discharger shall give advance notice to the Regional Board of any planned changes in

the permitted facility or activity that may result in noncompliance with this general

permit.

F. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS:

1. Dischargers previously authorized to discharge wastes under Order No. 94-7, dischargers

currently discharging wastes under individual waste discharge requirements, and

dischargers who have submitted a notice ofintent to discharge wastes under Order No. 94-7

are automatically enrolled under this Order, unless they file an application to be covered

under an individual permit. Once the Executive Officer issues a discharge authorization

letter, the individual waste discharge requirements are hereby rescinded.
General Waste Discharge Requirements for

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (Dairies and Related Facilities)

Order No. 99-11, NPDES No. CAG018001

Page 10 of 10

2. Dischargers not previously authorized to discharge waste under Order No. 94-7 are

required to submit the following within 60 days of the effective date of this Order for

existing discharges and at least 60 days before the start of any new discharge:

a. A completed Notice of Intent Form (see attachment "A") with the appropriate

filing fee;

b. An Engineered Waste Management Plan for the facility, acceptable to the

Executive Officer (see Attachment "B");

c. If an acceptable EWMP has not been developed, the discharger must submit the

name of the engineer, or other qualified individual, who will develop the EWMP

and a proposed time schedule for its development; and

d. Any other information deemed necessary by the Executive Officer.

If the proposed discharge meets the requirements of this order, the Executive Officer will

provide the discharger with a written authorization to discharge waste in accordance with

these waste discharge requirements.

3. The following types of facilities are generally not required to obtain authorization under

this order. Such facilities must not discharge waste which may affect water quality, or

cause a nuisance or pollution as defined in Section 13050 ofthe California Water Code.

a. Dairies where the animal population is less than 20 (dry or milking cows).

b. Heifer or calfranches where the herd size is less than 50.

I, Gerard J. Thibeault, Executive Officer, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and

correct copy of an order adopted by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa

Ana Region, on August 20, 1999.

G d J. Thibeault

Executive Officer
II

California Regional Water Quality Control Board

Santa Ana Region

NOTICE OF INTENT

TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THE

GENERAL PERMIT TO DISCHARGE WASTES

ASSOCIATED WITH CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERAnONS

FACILITY

Attachment "A"

II

NAME AND ADDRESS OF FACILITY

NAME AND ADDRESS OF LEGAL OWNER OF FAClLlTY

NAME OF BUSINESS OPERATING FAClLITY

CONTAcr PERSON

TELEPHONE NO.

CONTAcr PERSON

TELEPHONE NO.

TELEPHONE NO.

1='==="iimllloi5.iitXl:nl£Ndiiiiiii"a£lti'aiOFr======T=Y=PE=O=F=O=P=ERA=T=IO=N===============:!Il

1. DAIRY

____ MILKING COWS

____ DRY COWS

____ HEIFERS

CALVES ,

~OTAL ACREAGE

2. CALFIHEIFER RANCH

_____ CALVES

_____ HEIFERS

DISPOSAL INFORMATION

3. OTIIER CAFO

(IDENTIFY TYP£ AHD NUWBEI. OF AHIJroCALSj

TYPE NO. _

TYPE NO. _

TYPE NO. _

II

SITE DESIGN CAPACITY II

DISPOSAL LAND'

(, SEE FJ«JlNEERID WASTE MANA<EMFNf PU.N FOR llEFINlT1Q<l

AGRICULTURAL LAND' _______ BUILDINGs/CORRALS'

II

PRESENTIPROPOSED POPULATION DESIGN POPULATION/CAPACITY

HAS AN ENGINEERED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN (SEE ATIACHED) BEEN PREPARED? YES NO

CALIF'ORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) COMPLIANCE

HAS ANY CEQA DOCUMENT BEEN PREPARED FOR TIllS PROJECT?

IF "YES", PLEASE ENCLOSE A COPY

IF "NO", WILL ANY CEQA DOCUMENT BE PREPARED?

WILL A NEGATIVE DECLARATION BE PREPARED?

YES

YES

YES

NO

NO

NO

IF "YES", WHO WlLL PREPARE TIIE NEGATIVE DECLARATION? _ APPROXIMATE DATE OF COMPLETION _

II CERTlFICAnON II

I HF.REBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE lNFOIVdATlON PROVIDED IN THIS NOTICE OF INTENT AND IN ANY ATTACHMENTS IS TRUE

fCCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE

SIGNATURE OF OWNER OF FAClLITY

PRINT OR TYPE NAME

TITLE AND DATE

SIGNATURE OF OPERATOR OF FACILITY

PRINT OR TYPE NAME

TITLE AND DATE
Attachment "B"

REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ENGINEERED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN

The Eneineered Waste Manaeement Plan must be prepared by a reeistered professional

eneineer in the State of California or another qualified individual.

A. SITE PLAN:

Site plan shall include:

1. Address and/or legal description ofthe property.

2. Name, address, and telephone number ofthe owner and operator ofthe property.

3. Total gross acreage of the property, showing property boundaries and all existing and

proposed facilities including buildings, storage areas, berms/levees, holding ponds, pumping

facilities, culverts, drainage easements, disposal areas, croplands (whether farmed by the

owner/operator or another party), etc. The site plan must include the overall dimensions,

contours, a vicinity map, north arrow, and the date the plan was prepared. The plan shall be

drawn on a standard blue print format using an appropriate scale that shows sufficient details

of all facilities.

4. Containment facilities shall be designed to retain, on the property, all process generated

wastewater and storm water runoff due to precipitation and drainage through manured areas

which results from a 24-hour, 25-year storm event. Facilities in operation on November 27,

1984 shall be designed for protection of all manured areas from inundation or washout by

overflow from any stream channel during 20-year peak stream flows. All manured areas for

new facilities (built after November 27, 1984) shall be protected from inundation resulting

from a IOO-year peak stream flow. The site plan shall show all facilities necessary for

containment and management of on-site storm water runoff as well as the interception and

conveyance of any off-site storm water runoffthrough the property.

5. The site plan shall show the size, elevation, and location of all facilities proposed for

containment of process generated wastewater and storm water runoff on the property

(berms/levees, holding ponds, upstream diversion structures, etc.). Cross section details of

these facilities shall be presented.

6. A description of existing and proposed disposal areas or cropland, designated to receive

operational water.

Page 1 of2
Attachment HB"

Requirementsfor an Engineered Waste Management Plan

B. DESIGN CALCULATIONS:

Design calculations shall include:

Page 2 of2

1. Present and proposed animal population (numbers of each: milk cows, dry cows, calves,

heifers, etc.) and the volume ofwash water generated.

2. Amount ofstorm water runoffresulting from a 24-hour, 25-year storm event.

3. Total amount ofwastewater (wash water and storm water) to be contained on the property.

4. Dimensions and capacity ofthe holding ponds.

5. Percolation rates, ifused.

C. CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS:

Construction specifications shall include the construction materials and method of compaction

utilized to build berms/levees and other containment facilities.

D. OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN:

Operations and maintenance plan shall include:

1. A proposed holding pond management plan (to provide maximum pond capacity prior to

winter storms; periodic dredging, etc.).

2. A proposed wastewater distribution plan (periodic rotation of wastewater to disposal areas or

croplands).

3. A proposed maintenance plan for berms/levees and other containment facilities, including a

proposed rodent control plan (periodic inspections to monitor for holes/cracks or breaks, etc.)
California Regional Water Quality Control Board

Santa Ana Region

Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 99-11

for

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (Dairies and Related Facilities)

Santa Ana Region

A. Monitoring

1. The discharger(s) shall inspect the waste holding and disposal areas and note any

discharges off the property that is under the control of the discharger. Inspections

will be made daily when wastewater is being applied to cropland and weekly during

other periods. The results of all inspections will be recorded and submitted with the

required reports.

2. During each significant storm events, the discharger(s) shall make visual inspections

of all storm water containment structures.

3. The discharger(s) shall record the approximate time of each storm-related discharge

that results in off-property discharges of storm water commingled with wastewater

or manure, and its approximate duration.

4. The discharger(s) shall record each manure-hauling event on a manure tracking

manifest form.

B. Reporting

1. By January 15 of each year, an annual report of animal waste discharge and storm

water discharge shall be submitted.

2. The annual report shall be submitted on forms provided by Regional Board staff and

shall also include copies of all manure tracking manifests for the reporting period

and copies of the inspection logs required to be maintained under A.l. and A.4.

above.

3. The discharger shall notify the Regional Board by telephone within 24 hours of any

unauthorized discharge of wastes. This notification shall be followed by a written

A significant storm event is defined as a storm event which results in continuous discharge of storm water for a minimum of one

hour, or intermittent discharge ofstorm water for a minimum ofthree hours in a 12-hour period.

Page 1 of2
M&RP No. 99-11

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

(Dairies and Related Facilities)

a. The approximate date and time ofthe discharge;

b. The flow rate and duration ofthe discharge;

Page 2 0[2

c. The specific type and source of the waste discharges (e.g., overflow from

holding pond, rainfall runofffrom manure storage areas, etc.); and

d. A time schedule and a plan to implement necessary corrective actions to

prevent the recurrence ofthe discharge.

All reports shall be signed by a responsible officer or duly authorized representative of the

discharger(s) and shall be submitted under penalty ofperjury.

A&

'4/;I;z \/14

Ordered by " ~~!ftd1..42'tt£I~---- Gerard J. Thibea'lt

Bxecuhve Officer

Al';gust 20 , 1999