Laserfiche WebLink
likelihood that supplemental treatment would also be needed to overcome soil/percolation <br />limitations in areas impacted by years of truck traffic. Recognition of the probable future <br />need for supplemental treatment, and where it could be located, should be included in the <br />plans and/or pen -nit documents, as clear notice to all parties. <br />I would also note that the projected wastewater flows associated with maximum use of the <br />facility indicate the possibility of exceeding 10,000 gpd, which would require review and <br />potentially waste discharge permitting by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control <br />Board. <br />3. Nitrate Loading Analysis. The revised nitrate loading analysis is consistent with my <br />recommendations, and includes reasonable assumptions for runoff and groundwater recharge <br />estimates. I noted an error in the calculation of the value of "R2" near the bottom of page 2. <br />The total site acreage (45.67 acres) was used in place of the total runoff volume (36.08 ac- <br />ft/yr), resulting in an overestimation of rainfall -recharge. Carried through, this results in an <br />underestimation of the final nitrate -nitrogen, nr calculation (2.5 mg-N/L instead of 3.1 mg - <br />NIL). This does not alter the final conclusion, which shows the projected nitrate -nitrogen <br />loading to be safely within the threshold criterion of 10 mg-N/L. <br />