Final Report Nitrogen Tracking & Reporting System Task Force

Amadou Ba, Environmental Program Manager II, CDFA 2014 AAPFCO Annual Meeting Agenda

Hyatt Regency, Sacramento, CA July 29, 2014

Nutrients are essential for

productivity but when managed poorly result in environmental

problems.

Plant Nutrition

Managing Agricultural Use of Nitrogen

Regulations Farmer

New Technologies

Professional Experts

Nutrient Management

Plans

Research

USDA ARS UC

CSU

Regional Water Boards

CDFA FREP

Water Coalitions

CCA

Technical Education / Outreach

FREP

Managing Agricultural

Use of Nitrogen

US EPA & CA Department of Public Health

Cropping Patterns & Regional

Influences

N Management Training Program for CCAs

Are you now better able to address nitrogen mitigation regulatory requirements?

Yes, 86.50%

Maybe, 8.28%

No, 5.21%

Areas with shallow

groundwater and

intensive agriculture

are vulnerable to

nitrate contamination

Above 45 mg NO3/L

(10 mg NO3-N/L)

Below 45 mg NO3/L

(10 mg NO3-N/L)

Los Angeles, San

Bernardino and Tulare

are counties with the

most nitrate drinking

water violations.

.

Purpose and Expected Outcome

SBX2 1 (Perata, 2008) – Water Code Section 83002.5: “To improve understanding of the causes of groundwater contamination […], the State Water Resources Control Board […] shall develop pilot projects in the Tulare Lake Basin and the Salinas Valley that focus on nitrate contamination and do all of the following:

(a) (1) […] utilizing existing data […] along with the collection of new information as needed […]:

o (A) Identify sources, by category of discharger, of groundwater contamination due to nitrates in the pilot project basins.

o (B) Estimate proportionate contributions to groundwater contamination by source and category of discharger.[….]”

(emphasis added for clarity)

Background: SBX2 1 Report Findings (2012)

Background: SBX2 1 Report Findings

Similar to the 1989 Nitrate Working Group report

Agriculture is a large contributor to nitrate in ground water

Proposed several promising options

One of the most feasible, practical, and cost effective promising options is “pump and fertilize”

Last 20 years

Background: SBX2 1 Report Findings

Previous Slide: spatial resolution - 50 m x 50 m (~1 acre) Below: spatial resolution - study area total

Irrigation water

Atmosphere

Synthetic Fertilizer

Biosolids

Effluent

Poultry, Swine

Dairy Manure

Atmosphere

Runoff

Leaching to Groundwater

Harvest

18

Total Nitrogen Inputs: 420,000 tons N/yr

Total Nitrogen Outputs: 420,000 tons N/yr

Scale: Study Area

Where is the Nitrate Coming From in CA?

The two major N inputs on

cropland are:

Synthetic fertilizer 53%

Dairy Manure 33%

Data from Salinas

Valley and Tulare Lake

Basin

N Fertilizer

Dairy N

Where is the Nitrate Going in CA?

• 34% removed in harvest

• 10% gaseous loss

• 5% runoff

• 51% available to leach to

groundwater

Data from Salinas Valley

and Tulare Lake Basin

Harvested N

Leachable N

15 Recommendations in four major categories:

1. Providing safe drinking water – creating a reliable and

stable funding source

2. Monitoring, assessment, and notification – defining

nitrate high-risk areas in order to prioritize regulatory

oversight and assistance efforts (Rec 6)

3. Nitrogen tracking and reporting – develop and

implement nitrogen mass-balance tracking and

reporting system (Rec 11)

4. Protecting groundwater – nitrogen management

training, research, nitrate control, evaluating

effectiveness of existing permits to address nitrate

high-risk areas.

Background: State Water Board Legislative Report on Nitrate (2013)

PROCESS OF CDFA TASK FORCE

Recommendation 11 of State Water Board

(February 2013 report)

"CDFA, in coordination with the Water Boards, should

convene a Task Force to identify intended outcomes and

expected benefits of a nitrogen mass balance tracking

system in nitrate high-risk areas. The Task Force should

identify appropriate nitrogen tracking and reporting

systems, and potential alternatives, that would provide

meaningful and high quality data to help better protect

groundwater quality."

Recommendation # 14 State Water Board Expert Panel:

1. Assess Existing Agricultural Nitrate Control Programs–

evaluate ongoing agricultural nitrate control measures

to ensure ongoing efforts are protective of groundwater

quality.

2. Develop Recommendations– for possible

improvements in the regulatory approaches being

used.

3. Application of Findings – the panels findings will be

evaluated by the State Water Board and CDFA, and

where appropriate, implemented in the Water Board’s

nitrate control programs.

Background: State Water Board Legislative Report on Nitrate (2013)

Nitrogen Tracking and Reporting

Background

Process

Recommendation

PROCESS OF CDFA TASK FORCE

CDFA convened Task Force in coordination with the

State Water Board

Charge: Identify the intended outcomes and benefits of

a nitrogen mass balance tracking system in high risk

nitrate areas

Membership: Comprised of experts from academia;

agricultural, environmental and environmental justice

communities; regulators; conservation agencies, and

resource experts (page 23: Appendix A)

Systems Evaluated…

1. Central Valley Water Board - Dairy Reporting System

2. East San Joaquin Water Quality Coalition

3. Central Coast Regional Water Board - Ag Regulatory Program

4. Department of Pesticide Regulation - Pesticide Use Reporting

5. Department of Food and Agriculture - Fertilizing Materials Tonnage Report

Process: Systems Evaluated

Systems Evaluated…

6. MINAS: Dutch Mineral Accounting System – via Skype

7. Maryland: Nutrient Reporting

8. Nebraska: Central Platte Valley Groundwater Management Program

Decision Support Tools…

1. CSU Fresno Waterright: online irrigation scheduling

2. Nitrate Groundwater Pollution Hazard Index

3. UC CropManage: online irrigation and nutrient tool

4. Stewardship Index for Specialty Crops

Process: Systems Evaluated/Decision Support

Presentations of Systems Located at…

http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/environmentalstewardship/

Under Nutrient Section, click on Supplemental Information and Materials

Process: Reference Materials

Several important points

Focused on high risk areas "The Task Force affirmed

the importance of nitrogen tracking and reporting in

high nitrate areas to contribute to improved

groundwater quality" (page 13).

High risk areas designation was assigned to the State

Water board.

Builds on existing efforts "The Task Force recognized

that many of the data elements proposed are listed in

templates under development as part of the CVRWB

LTILP" (page 17)

RECOMMENDATION

Recommendation: System Structure

Data Tracked by Growers (Event Basis at Field Scale) Data Reported by Growers to 3rd Party Aggregators (Annual Basis at Farm Scale) Data Reported by 3rd Party Aggregators to Regional Water Boards (Annual Basis at Defined Scale by Regional Water Boards) Data Represented in Status and Trends Report (Annually to the State Water Board)

Recommendation: System Structure

Name of owner/manager

Assessor Parcel Number (APN)

Field identification number

Crop type

Crop age

Total acres per crop

Expected yield

Recommendation: Data Tracked by Growers (Event Basis; Field Scale)

Actual yield

Nitrogen needed by crop

Total nitrogen applied to field

Residual soil nitrogen credits

Irrigation method

Recommendation: Data Tracked by Growers (Event Basis; Field Scale)

Management unit

Crop year

Grower identification number

Crop type

Crop age

Total acres per crop

Nitrogen removed

Residual soil nitrogen credits

Annual nitrogen ratio

Recommendation: Data Growers Report to 3rd Party Aggregator(s) (Annual Basis; Farm Scale)

Annual Basis

Further aggregated at scale set by Regional Water Boards

Aggregated grower data at the appropriate reporting unit

Aggregation of data performed by qualified professionals

Recommendation: Data that 3rd Party Aggregator(s) Report to Regional Water Boards

Status and trends of nitrogen applied and harvested in nitrate high-risk areas within pertinent regions

Status and trends of nitrogen loading to groundwater in various cropping systems, soil types and management practice conditions

Recommendation: Data reported by Regional Water Boards to State Water Board

State Water Board will conduct annual review of status and trends across Regional Boards and report on the mass balance of nitrogen

State Water Board will annually produce a report of the mass balance which will include management practice effectiveness data that signal water quality improvements

Recommendation: State Water Board “Status and Trends Report”

Purpose Participants Process Final Steps

• To identify intended outcomes and expected benefits of a nitrogen mass-balance tracking and reporting system for nitrogen high risk areas

• AG Community

• Academia

• Environmental Interest

• USDA-NRCS

• RCD

• Water Boards

• Cal-EPA

• DPR

• Agricultural Commissioners

• Other experts

• Facilitated by CSUS-CCP

• Reviewed existing tracking and reporting (T&R) models

• Identified characteristics of a good T&R system

• Designed reporting structure

• Developed roles and responsibilities

• Produced Final Task Force Report

• Held Community Forums and solicited public comments

• Task Force recommendation fed into State Water Board expert panel organized by (Rec #14)

Tracking & Reporting System Task Force

CDFA held an open comment period to solicit all verbal and written comments received through the end of January 2014.

A Supplemental document will be appended to the Final Task Force Report with additional public comments.

The Task Force Final Report and Supplement comments will aide the overall approach taken by the State Water Board’s Expert Panel (Rec 14) and Nitrate High-Risk area definitions (Rec 6).

Ending Thoughts:

For comments or questions:

Amadou Ba, PhD. Environmental Program Manager II

Amadou.ba@cdfa.ca.gov

Thank You