1 Agricultural Nonpoint Source Abatement and Control Program Frequently Asked Questions Round 23 RFP, Highlights and Proposal Rating Sheet for more (Please also review the Round 23 documents, please information. If you do not find the answer to your question in any of these Bethany Bzduch , [email protected] ) contact Round 23 Question and Answer Q. The NYS DEC 303(d) list was updated in 2016, however, on the DEC website, the plan is Proposed Final 2016 NYS Section 303(d) List . Is this the version of the 303(d) that we labeled should be using when applying for preference points? A. Yes egetated Treatment standard was released in February 2017. The standard Q. An updated V Area trated livestock areas be installed requires that any VTAs installed to treat runoff from concen only in conjunction with a Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan (CNMP). The AGNPS program does not require a CNMP when implementing a Livestock Heavy Use Area System. Will a CNMP be required if we apply for a Livestock Heavy Use Area System with a VTA? The RFP for Round 23 of A. AGNPS does not require a CNMP when implementing a Livestock Heavy Use the Area System. When implementing a VTA as part of a Livestock Heavy Use Area System, the Landowner would not be requi red to develop or implement a CNMP in Round 23. Per program policy , a minimum of an AEM Tier 3A plan need s to be in place. Q. I have been asked by an agricultural research institute to apply on their behalf for Round 23 e storage facility. They operate a Ag NPS grant funding for a wast Medium CAFO Dairy Farm In order to comply with new 391 cows and owning/operating 997 acres of cropland. milking Is the institute eligible for stat e CAFO regulations, they need to increase waste storage capacity. from the Ag NPS program? funds Program funds are available for nonpoint source abatement and control projects that plan or implement Ag A. BMPs on New York State farms. The definition of farm in the Agriculture and Markets Law (which is the definition that is used for the AgNPS program) is: -farm buildings, “Farm operation” means the land and on equipment, manure processing and handling facilities, and practices which contribute to the production, preparation and marketing of crops, livestock and livestock pr oducts as a commercial enterprise (AGM Article 25- AA § 301). Because this facility identifies itself as a not -for -profit educational institution rather than a commercial enterprise it is not eligible to apply for funding through the AgNPS program. Q. If a farm is considering implementing both types of cover cropping (basic and multiple species) at the different $ rates as shown of the Cover Crop Implementation Guidance sheet, do ch that the farm wishes t o do? we need to break out the total number acres of ea How much flexibility is there in the actual number of acres of each does the farm have in the implementation of each if the project was to be awarded? A. On the SW 3, the number of acres of each type (basic and multiple species) should be separated out. There is some flexibility regarding the actual number of acres implemented for each type. However, the amount of state funding cannot increase. The District needs to document any change in the cover crop planning tool.

2 Q. After a further rev iew of the Ag Waste Storage screening tool I have a few questions regarding #3 in the additional operation and Maintenance section: 1. The requirement for districts to complete annual site reviews of these systems once installed is outside of both our contr act with the state and our contracts with our farms, so how are the districts supposed to enforce this requirement? -Point Source Guidance Manual, “A BMP that is funded by the NYS According to the Ag Non a. Agricultural NPS Abatement & Control Program must b e maintained and properly operated for the conservation purposes for which the practice was approved. BMPs must, at a minimum, be maintained by the Landowner and/or Operator for the lifespan period set forth below.” The District should ensure that the Op eration and Maintenance provisions are provided to the . The intent of #3 of the Additional Operation and landowner as part of their contract Maintenance section of the Ag Waste Screening Tool, is to ensure that the project is evaluated regularly or as req uired . 2. “The system is performing as designed and constructed” is an engineering review as per requiring either a PE or NRCS employee with job approval authority necessary AEM Tier 5B policy. How are districts supposed to complete this task unless th ey have the a PE on staff or hire one to complete this task? a. An engineering review is not being required. When assessing the performance of the system, the District should, at a minimum, be evaluating the implementation of the system as a whole. The compl However, if it will be etion of a Tier 5B is not necessary when evaluating the system. completed as Tier 5B the AEM Policy should be followed. Q. I am currently interested in submittin g two NPS grant proposals for greenhouses . It has been recommended i n their Nutrient Management Plan that they install ebb and flood benches to Can you tell me if these would qualify for funding from the NPS reduce the nitrogen leaching. grant program and if so what BMP should I list them under? A. Ebb and Flood benches would be eligible for cost share through the Ag Non -Point Source Program. This The NRCS -NY standard 443 – practice would be listed as part of the Irrigation Water Management System. arding zero runoff systems for Irrigation System, Surface and Subsurface does not include language reg However, the AGNPS program allows for the use of an NRCS standard from a different state greenhouses. that has been deemed applicable to New York . In this instance, Massachusetts NRCS Irrigation System, Surface and Subsurfa Additionally, as stated in the AG ce (443) standard would be an appropriate substitute. BMP System Catalog, the development of an “Irrigation Water Management Plan” that addresses the irrigation scheduling, in both timing and amount, control of runoff, mi nimizing deep percolation and the uniform application of water is an essential component of this practice. The plan should also address how wastewater, generated from the cleaning of the system, will be disposed to ensure there is zero leaching and zero r unoff throughout the life of the system. Q. If a BMP being applied for is on rented property; should the lease between farmer and landowner be for the life of the practice (10Yrs) or the life of the practice plus the years in the contract (13 e BMP doesn’t get implemented until the last year of the contract)? Also, -14yrs) (th should the lease be on file and submitted with the application or do we not need it until the Plan of Work? uld not be submitted for funding A. According to the RFP, “BMPs to be implemented on rented property sho unless there is a written lease for the use of the property for the life span of the BMP (see attached BMP Operation & Maintenance Guidelines, Page 17).” In order to qualify for funding under the AG NPS program, the farmer must have an existing lease with the landowner. The lease would need to cover application, award, construction, and the lifespan of the BMP. In your scenario, if the BMP system is not implemented until the last year of a 4 year contract and there is a 10 year lifespan, the lease would be 14 years plus the application

3 time period. According to previous Q and A, “The District should ensure that the lease exists, but it need not If funding is awarded, a copy of the lease m ay be required.” (2002, Round IX) be included in the application. This is a system that is Q. Is a Center Pivot Irrigation System eligible for inclusion in Round 23? fixed in a field and pivots around the well water source to irrigate a large tract of land. It will be computer control led, with drop water nozzles that regulate the water flow to match field conditions and crop needs. A. Implementing conservation systems on acreage that is rotated between specialty crops and field crops is acceptable. Implementing an irrigation system t hat would provide a water quality benefit would be acceptable as part of an Irrigation Water Management System. Q. We have a farm that has previously received funding to install a waste storage facility that only receives silage leachate. They are now applying for funding for a waste storage facility that will only receive manure. Is this considered an expansion related practice and does that mean that they should provide “significantly more cost share” as it says in the guidance manual? The already have manure storage and they have expanded, but we never cost shared their farm does existing manure storage just their leachate collection storage. A. If the manure storage is being proposed to address a water quality concern that originated from inten tional he past 5 years then it is considered a n expansion related practice. farm growth that occurred within t Landowners implementing expansio n related practice systems must provide a contribution significantly greater refer to the Match Requirements section of the RFP for more information). than that required by the program ( Previous guidance indicates that the amount of contribution may be determined by the applicant and the landowners involved. Q. The RFP states that CAFOs should provide a landow ne r contribution “significantly greater than that required by law.” What amount is appropriate? A. The amount of the contribution may be determined by the applicant and the landowners involved. (2002, Round IX) Q. We are working on a grant for Round 23 for a Waste St orage and Transfer System. Some of we would like to include in the SW -3 under this system are not in the the BMP components that Are we allowed to include them under this BMP catalog under Waste Storage and Transfer. system even though the y aren’t in the catalog? A. The list of component practices in the Ag BMP System Catalogue is not all inclusive and other NRCS Standards can be utilized. If the practices you list are necessary components of the Waste Storage and y include them on the SW 3. Transfer System you ma Q. We are looking to put in a waste storage for a landowner that owns a farm, but is renting to What is required by the AGNPS program if the landowner versus the operator another farmer. intends to pay for the manure storage? A. The AGNPS program requires that the person who will be responsible for contributing match funds to be listed on all SW forms. If the project is funded this is the person who will be signing a Letter of Commitment and/or Landowner Funding Agreement. Additionally, if funding is awarded, the Landowner would be responsible for properly operating and maintaining the BMP system for the design ated lifespan. While it is not required that a lease agreement be submitted at the time of application, the Distr ict should ensure that a lease agreement exists and covers the lifespan of the proposed BMP System. A copy of the lease agreement may be required if the project is awarded fu nding. (2017, Round 23) Q. The District is working with a farmer whose primary facilities are located in our county. The farm has a heifer facility in a neighboring county where they would like to construct a waste

4 storage structure. Can our District write an AgNPS grant for the farm if the project location would be outside of the county? A. Since the main facility is located in your county and the AEM records for the heifer facility are maintained The two Districts by your SWCD, you may submit an application for a project located in a neighboring county. application by way of a motion or joint resolution. (2017, Round 23) may want to approve the Q. We are working with a dairy/beef operation and the application will pertain to the beef side of the operation. There are approximately 45 brood cows, most of which are owned by the dairy/beef farm, but some (approx. 25%) are owned by the landowner who owns the land on which these cows are maintained. Should the dairy/beef operation be listed as applicants for funding, or the landowner, where the BMP would be installed? A. The Land owner(s) who will be financially responsible for the implementation of the BMP System should be identified on the SW 1 and SW 3 form . (2017, Round 23) AGNPS Frequently Asked Questions Eligibility Q. A farm has a silage bunk located o n a Trout stream and the only solution is to relocate the bunk and provide treatment at the new site. Can the new bunk pad, exterior wall, and , the be cost shared? The farm will also require an access road which will be used to treatment system Can the access road be included as part of the Silage . maintain the VTA, pump out the tank, etc Leachate System? A. The AGNPS program will only allow the treatment (apron to facilitate collection of the leachate, the low/high flow separation, transfer, and the VTA or other treat ment as deemed appropriate by the planner and engineer) to be cost -shared . The cost of the new bunk floor as well as the exterior wall is not eligible for cost share . However, the cost associated with the construction match. Int erior walls can be used as Landowner be eligible for cost share or Landowner match T he access road is an allowable practice and can be are NOT (2016, Round 22). cost shared as it will be used to maintain the VTA, pump out the tank, etc Q. A farm is interested in installing a Livestock Waste Recycling system, which is a system that removes nutrients from waste and produces clean water. Would this type of system be eligible for cost share through the Ag NPS program? If so, what BMP syste m would this practice fit under? A. The Livestock Waste Recycling system would be eligible for cost share through the AgNPS program. The BMP System that this would fall under would be Manure and Ag Waste Treatment System (2016, Round 22). torage away from the farmstead. Q. A farm is interested in installing a satellite s The farm storage (slurry store) that they can purchased for a reduced c ost. indicates that there is a used If they were to purchase the used slurry store , can they apply for Ag Non Point to help offset the costs of install ing the slurry onto their property? A. A used Slurrystore can be used and cost shared provided a representative of Slurrystore oversees the construction of the storage. The storage as set up in its new location will need to be certified that it is str ucturally sound and meets the NRCS standard 313 – Waste Storage Structure. All other program requirements such as the use of the Waste Storage Screening Tool, and a CNMP eventually being developed or revised to reflect the presence and proper use of the S lurrystore must be met (2016, Round 22) .

5 Q. In Round 22, the cover crop program has two categories for payment: Small Grain or Legume Can we assume that and Advanced (aerial seeding, early planting or mixes of 3 or more species). if we sign someone up based on the Advanced program and they can’t pull it off one year (due to weather constraints, etc.), but can plant a single species that we could count it and just have to pay them at the lower rate? A. Yes. If the farmer cannot complete the Advanced C over Crop due to weather constraints, etc., a single cover crop species may be planted and would be eligible to be reimbursed at the lower rate if it can be certified (2016, Round 22) . that ship s all manure off site would like to construct a H eavy Use Area to store Q. A farm shipping containers while they are being loaded with manure. My question is, do these plans need a CNMP for Heavy Use Area? A. The AGNPS program requires a CNMP be developed when implementing a Waste Storage Facility (NRCS – andard 313) which would fall under the Waste Storage and Transfer System as described in the NY St . I t will be the responsibility of the project designer Agricultural Best Management System Practice Catalogue and the farm planner to determine if the project you describe would need to meet the Waste Storage Facility If not, then a CNMP would not be required. However, it will also be the responsibility of the standard or not. der the appropriate project designer, farm planner, and District to ensure that this project is reported un system title and that the implemented component practices meet the appropriate NRCS Standard and . Specification (2016, Round 22) Q. We have a farmer interested in an Agrichemical Mixing Facility, and he's asked if we could help fund a storage shed for his spraying equipment. Would it be possible to make his mixing pad large enough to hold his 3 sprayer implements/tractors at once all under the same roof? A. -NRCS Standard 309) is a component In response to your question, an Agrichemical Handling Facility (NY practice of the Agrichemical Handling and Storage System (please refer to the Agricultural Best Management Practice Systems Catalogue). The system description indicates that an agrichemical handling facility consists of a wate rtight containment structure comprised of a concrete pad and all necessary equipment for pumping, transferring, and storing water used in agrichemical mixing, loading, unloading, and rinsing operations. The size of the pad and storage capacity is related to the volume and size of the largest spray tank on Containment storage vessels incorporated in the facility design allow for the recovery of the pad. agrichemical, rinsate storage, plus handling/mixing/recovery/disposal. Surface runoff from a 25 -year, 24 hour A roof and sidewalls may be used to shelter the facility duration storm event is diverted away from the facility. from rain, snow, and ice, preventing precipitation from accumulating on the pad and contaminating runoff. The NY – NRCS Standard 309 also states that the agrichemical handling pad should be sized “to accommodate the largest spraying equipment.” The NY – NRCS Standard 309 does not include provisions for housing of all spraying equipment simultaneously as it is not meant to be an equipme A professional engineer should be consulted when designing Agrichemical Handling nt shed. Facilities. Q. A farm in the county is interested in applying for a satellite manure storage and also has indicated he may want to cover that storage with an imp ermeable type heavy plastic with a flare system . Is the cover and flare system eligible for cost -share? If the farmer decides to cover the storage with a wooden/metal roof, is that eligible for cost -share? A. Both types of covers, impermeable or wooden/metal truss roof systems are eligible for cost -share consideration. For the impermeable option , a flare is an integral component that enhances the practice system

6 by reducing methane emissions, but does not directly improve water quality. Therefore, the flare and associated components can be a part of the farm’s match contribution. The Agricultural Waste Storage System Screening Tool must be submitted with the application. The Screening Tool for Roofs and Covers is not . required for proposed covered agri cultural waste storage systems (2015, Round 21) Q. We have a Dairy farmer with an existing Silage Leachate Control System that was installed in 2006 under EQIP. The size of the herd and, consequently, the Bunk Silo has been expanded since , the VTA should be resized. then. Thus We have also determined that the VTA should be repositioned as now it runs towards the roadside ditch and would be susceptible to polluting the waterways if there was a failure of the system. Is this an acceptable project, ev en though the 10 year life span of the VTA has not elapsed yet? eligible for cost A. This project is consideration. However, disclosure of the farmer’s participation in -share EQIP for the same practice system as well as documentation of the existing wate r quality concerns should be (2015, Round 21) g related Q&A included in the proposal narrative . Eligibility is determined by the followin from past rounds: How detrimental to the proposal is it to include a participant if that individual had been a previous recipient of EPF funding either for a completely different BMP or a similar BMP -6 years ago. but one that was installed 5 If a landowner has been included on a previous EPF grant it does not make that landowner ineligible for the program. However, if a similar or different BMP is being proposed to address the same pollutant from the same source as a previously funded BMP, analysis and documentation of why the water quality problem still exists should be explained on the proposal. The reviewers will also consider whether the proposed BMP is being implemented on a different location on the farm. Any previously funded Ag. NPS projects on this farm must be listed on the application (2004, Round XI) If, during Tier 5 evaluation review, it’s determined that a new BMP or a repair is needed to Are there an existing BMP, can this concern be included on an implementation grant? funds available for needed implementation identified through the Tier 5 process? If Tier 5 identifies the need for a new BMP or a repai r to an existing BMP and it is determined that the need of repair is not due to noncompliance with operation and maintenance requirements, it may be funded through the Ag. NPS Grant Program. However, funding is not guaranteed and the process to nds could take several months. The Ag. NPS Grant Program may not be the most receive fu appropriate funding source if the remediation activity requires immediate action. Currently, there is no new or repair to an existing dedicated funding available through this program for implementation of a BMP identified through the Tier V evaluation process. Please note; if the BMP requiring repair was funded under this program, the landowner may be responsible for costs under the SWCD/Landowner (2005, Round XII) Contract. Q. I have a question in regards to cost -sharing mulch installation on vineyard lands. I understand that once we have cost -shared mulch installation for three years with one farm, they additional mulching cost -share are not eligible in the near future for Is that only for payments. those vineyard blocks or is that for any vineyard lands the farm has un der their control. If a vineyard owner picks up a new piece of property that has never had mulch installed before , if they could be eligible for AgNPS grant funds for mulch installation at the new property. A. With cover crops and mulching, the AgNPS Program is piloting an approach that supports the learning phase with a new practice for three years so a farmer can efficiently adopt it within their o wn farm budget post -

7 contract. T he AgNPS Program cannot cost rounds passed the -share the same practice on new acres until 3 of the contract. This policy is related to the farmer not his/her land base . end (2015, Round 21) Q. Is a -sharable und er cover crop implementation? soil test cost A. No, soil testing could be performed under the Tier 3 planning process for cover crops. Q. For t he map requirements for Ag NPS RFP ask for 3 maps, (1) a watershed view map with the a USGS topo with qua ds, farm and project locations and (3) a farmstead/ field farm locations, (2) AEM plan map for project site locations. For a broad agronomic or nutrient management project farm scale like cover cropping, that covers many areas of the watershed, are we able to include a "projec t area map" for each farm in place of a "project site map". A. Yes, a farm scale map showing all fields and indicating which are to be cover cropped would satisfy the farmstead/field AEM plan map requirement. A farm scale map can be submitted in lieu of a project site map for the following Best Management Practice Systems: Feed Management System, Irrigation Water Management System, Integrated Pest Management System, Nutrient Management System -Cultural, Soil Conservation Cultural (this includes c System – over crop), and Waste Storage & Transfer System. In addition, projects proposed to protect public drinking water over a sole source aquifer can supply one project map with the farms identified and the sole source aquifer overlaid. The intent of as king for the farmstead or field map from the AEM Plan as described on page 5 of the RFP is to show the project evaluators a visual of the existing condition and resource concern including the flow -path and echarge area. distance to a receiving waterbody or groundwater r project site locations as described on page 5 of the RFP shall be A farmstead/field AEM plan map for included for the following BMP Systems: Access Control System, Agrichemical Handling and Storage Systems, Animal, Live stock Heavy Use Area Runoff Management System, Pathogen Management Composting System - System, Petroleum and Oil Storage System, Process Wash Water Management System, Silage Leachate Control d Rotational Prescribe and Treatment System, and Stream Corridor and Shoreline Management System , (2015 – Round 21, updated Round 22). Grazing System, and Riparian Buffer System Q. Is permanent seeding between vineyard and orchard rows considered Cover Crop (NRCS -NY Standard 340) or Conservation Cover (NRCS -NY Standard 327) for purposes of three year cost sharing and use of AEM Planning Tool for Cover Crop? A. The correct – Cultural. The correct NRCS Standard to be applied BMP System would be Soil Conservation (NRCS for permanent seeding between vineyard and orchard rows is Conservation Cover -NY Standard 327), which applies on all lands needing permanent vegetative cover for reasons other than forage production or critical area planting. Because the appropriate practice system calls for permanent vegetative cover, and fits NRCS -NY Stand ard 327, cost share through the AgNPS Grants Program is not eligible for the same acreage for a three year period. In addition, the AEM Cover Crop Planning Tool does not apply for the implementation of (Round 19, 2012) -NY Standard 327). Conservation Cover (NRCS Q. Would excluding livestock and establishing a marginal pastureland wetland buffer (CREP CP 30) that meets the appropriate NRCS -NY Standard(s) qualify for preference points pursuant to the Round 19 Proposal Rating Sheet?

8 A. Yes, the purpose of the preference points is to encourage the adoption of livestock access control and buffers for all hydrologically sensitive areas, including wetlands. In order to qualify for the points, all livestock (Round 19, 2012) on the farm must be excluded from all wetlands wher e they currently have access. Q. Can the AgNPS Program provide cost share for BMP Systems that utilize NRCS Standards from other states for the purpose of design, implementation, and certification? A. BMP Systems cost -sharable under the AgNPS Grants Program must be identified in the Ag ricultural Best Catalog ue and the individual Conservation Practices must meet NRCS -NY Management Practice Systems ural NPS pollution Practice Standards. The AgNPS Program funds proven technology in NYS to address agricult concerns. If NRCS -NY has approved the use of a particular standard or suite of standards to address a NPS pollution concern, standards from other states cannot be used in place of the NRCS -NY standard(s). If no -NY Practice Standar d exists for a particular NPS pollution concern, then the Practice must be designed to NRCS meet nationally recognized standards (e.g. American Concrete Institute Standards). All practices implemented (Round 19, 2012, updated Round 22, authority. must be approved by an individual with appropriate approval 2016) Q. There are farmers in the county that are in need of dike repair to protect the water resources on their farms and to protect the bay for farm stormwater runoff. Can you tell me if the USDA NRCS Dike BMP would be eligible for funding through the Ag Nonpoint Source Pollution grant program? A. The NRCS -NY Dike Standard (356) is an eligible compon ent practice under the Stream Corridor and (Round Shoreline Management System listed in the Agricultural Best Management Practice Systems Catalog ue . ) 19, 2012, updated Round 22, 2016 Q. Can the AgNPS Program cost share the construction of a ramp into an existing manure storage to facilitate the clean out of manure? The existing storage does meet NRC S Standards, but clean out is difficult. A. Construction of the clean out ramp would not be eligible in an existing certified storage as it is not a standalone water quality BMP. unding through the AgNPS Q. If a farm is under a consent order from DEC, are they eligible for f program? A. A farm would not be ineligible because of the consent order. It should be noted, however, that due to the time frame of the grant program, applicants should not expect to use grant funds for a problem that requires (2002, Round IX) an urgent, immediate remedy. [UPDATED – 11/4/10] Q. Referring to Question 5. “Are all regulated CAFO farms compliant with appropriate requirements? Can a CAFO that (CAFO = Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation.)” has not yet met CAFO requ irements be included on an application? A. No, a CAFO that has not met CAFO requirements is not eligible to be included on an application and cannot (2004, Round XI). be considered for funding. The Department of Environmental Conservation recommends an d the Ag NPS contract requires that funding not be provided to a CAFO that has been issued a Notice of Violation under the terms of the CAFO General SPDES Permit by which the farm is permitted at time of application ( CWA Permit – GP -04-02 or ECL Permit – GP-0-14-001) . If a CAFO that is part of a funded project receives a Notice of Violation for either type of

9 permit, it must agree to a consent order with a compliance schedule or otherwise resolve the Notice of [UPDATED – 11/4/10 , 2/3/2016]. Violation with DEC, in order to release Ag NPS funding Letter from Division Director to Undisclosed District (January, 2006) “ requires that The [AgNPS Program] - participating farms be in compliance with all federal, state, and local laws, rules, and regulations. The DEC Division of Water has informed us that the Blank Farm is not in compliance with their CAFO General Permit and has not addressed the terms of the Consent Order issued on... When the Blank Farm is in compliance with the terms of the Permit, we can rel ease funds for the projects identified on the plan of work. Until such time, however, no state funded expenses can be allocated to the Blank Farm’s portion of the contract. include state funds for the Blank Farm portion as identified on the Consequently, all entitled advances cannot plan of work.” Q. Can the planning, design, and siting of a community anaerobic digester on private farm lands the RFP ? be funded through the planning segment of A. Planning activities funded through the Agricultural NPS Grant Program are limited to AEM Tier IIIA/B/C. Q. A SUNY College horse farm has requested that we look for grant funds to address some of the issues at their operation. My question is, are they eligible for funds through the EPF? The ed by the SUNY College Foundation INC and the individuals running the operation property is own are state employees. Any guidance would be appreciated. A. The objective of this program is to fund plans or projects that will reduce and/or prevent the nonpoint source cont ribution from privately owned agricultural land. The SUNY College horse farm does not qualify as agricultural land for the purposes of this program. Q. What components of an Anaerobic Digester are eligible for EPF cost -share through the Ag NPS m? Progra A. Only those stand alone component practices of an Anaerobic Digester that have a direct connection to water quality improvement. Examples of such components include equipment and installation of manure tual digester vessel, manure collection, transfer and handling and treatment systems, such as the ac conveyance systems, manure holding/storage/containment, solid separators, separated solids storage areas, The SWCC passed a policy that further explains the eligibility for Ana erobic Digester manure mixers/agitators. components. Please contact the SWCC for a copy of this policy. Q. A dairy farm in the county bottles its own milk. The bottling facility waste and the milkhouse parlor waste are a part of the same waste stream. Can the grant cost -share a Milkhouse Waste Treatment and Disposal System that will treat the waste from both the Milkhouse and the bottling facility? A. The Agricultural Nonpoint Source Abatement and Control Program funds plans, and projects that will reduce and/or prevent t he nonpoint source contribution from agricultural activities. The Program can fund the portion directly attributable to the milkhouse waste. Milk processing waste is considered a non -recognizable food processing waste . Therefore, treating and disposing o f waste from the processing and bottling facility is not eligible for funding under this program. Q. Does the actual Tier 3A plan need to be submitted with the application?

10 A. The proposal does not need to have the actual plan attached. The District is certifying that the planning The SW1 asks the highest level of Tier 3 requirements are met by answering “yes” on the application. planning per farm and the month and year completed. Any other pertinent planning details should be included in the project narrative. Q. I’m writing a grant proposal for Petroleum Product Storage and Containment. Shipping charges for one tank can be a high as $500. Would that be considered an eligible cost? Also there are permitting and registering fees which ar e part of the requirements to comply with Would they be eligible? County Health Codes... A. The costs you describe could be eligible for cost -share assistance. These costs may also be considered as a portion of the matching contribution. Q. If EQIP projects are used as match, does the NRCS planning process that takes place meet the requirement of having a tier 3 plan? A. Yes, if NRCS has completed the plan that meets EQIP requirements prior to proposal submission, this g requirement. satisfies the Tier 3 plannin Q. Can grant funds be used to pay for site prep that includes demolition of existing structures? A. Site prep is an eligible expense for the grant. It can also be used as a landowner contribution. for roof structures where a consultant engineer will not Q. Can grant funds be used to pay allow/approve a wastewater treatment strip? A. Grant funds may be used to cost -share a roof structure if the project engineer documents that the roof is needed to meet the water quality objectives of the planned best management practice. This alternative may be costly. If proposing this alternative, the Screening Tool for Covered Heavy Use Areas must be completed, signed and submitted with each copy of the d a policy on February18, proposal. In addition, the SWCC approve 2014 outlining the requirements for Roofs and Covers for Livestock Heavy Use Area Runoff Management Systems : Cost Share Eligible Components . Please contact the SWCC office for a copy of this policy. (Updated for Round 20 ). Q. Are Bedded Packs [or Composted Bedded Packs] eligible practice system[s] for manure storage and feeding? If so what components would be cost shareable? Yes, both Bedded Packs and Composted Bedded Pack Systems for manure storage or composting are A. elig ible practice systems through the Ag NPS Grant Program. Components that are an integral part of the practice standard being applied may be considered for state funding. Other related or indirect components may be eligible as a match. The SWCC approved a policy on February18, 2014 outlining the requirements for Waste Storage and Transfer System - Bedded Pack / Composted Bedded Pack Cost Share Eligible Practices Please contact the SWCC office for a copy of thi s policy. (Updated for Round 21 ).

11 Q. Are sol ar systems for livestock watering eligible for payment? A. Yes, a solar powered alternative watering system is eligible and could address water quality, if a part of a grazing system with livestock exclusion while also conserving energy at the same time. Eligible Match Q. Could you please give some guidance on where to put NYSERDA funds on the SW -2 budget form for Districts submitting methane digester proposals that need these additional state dollars to be viable? A. NYSERDA funds can be used as a match for EPF funds under the Ag NPS Program. These funds should be noted under landowner contribution. Q. Can the cost which would have incurred for an item donated to a farmer for the completion of n-kind matching funds? a best management practice, be used as landowner I A. Yes, the cost that would have been incurred if it were not donated may be considered when calculating landowner match. Q. Can FLOWPA dollars be used as a landowner match? A. FLOWPA dollars cannot be used as a landowner match because FLOWPA funds originate from state sources. Agricultural Waste Storage Screening Tool Q. Regarding the Screening Tool for Ag Waste Storage: if the District is resubmitting an to provide an updated unsuccessful application from a previous AgNPS Round, is it necessary Farmer Review and Certification Page if nothing has changed in the planning/screening for the BMP System? A. Yes it is necessary to provide a current Farmer Review and Certification page. By providing the certification armer and AEM Planner agree that the conditions and water quality purpose for the BMP System page, the f (Round 19, 2012) have not changed. Q. Item number 14 of the Screening Tool requires that test pits be conducted in part to determine soil permeability. D oes the soil permeability require laboratory analysis? Who is responsible for the costs of the test -pits? A. Yes, the soil permeability does require laboratory analysis for earthen manure storages. However, due to the time frame for submitting applicat ions under the RFP deadline, it will be acceptable to indicate that the soil samples have been taken and sent to the lab. Indicate on item number 14 that the results are pending if they cannot be obtained before the proposal submission deadline. A prof essional engineer or an NRCS employee with appropriate job approval authority should be able to observe the test pit to make a determination on the location, type and estimated cost of the facility. The landowner is responsible for the costs of the test -pits. The costs cannot be reimbursed by the state or used as landowner match because it must be completed before the proposals are submitted.

12 Q. Are the Screening Tool and test pit required for a 7 day manure storage that will consist of a ad with 3 to 4 foot walls adjacent to a heifer and dry cow barn? concrete p A. If the standard does not require site specific soil data for the proposed type of structure, then a test pit may not be required. Please refer to the applicable NRCS Standard and consu lt with an engineer to determine whether a test pit is required for your proposed type of waste storage. If the proposed project falls under NRCS Standard 313, Waste Storage Facility, the Screening Tool must still be completed and attached, but question n umber 14 can be marked with an N/A if the test pit is not required for the specific type of structure. Q. Does the Agricultural Waste Storage Screening Tool need to be completed for a farm that is requesting funds to evaluate an existing waste storage ? A. The Agricultural Waste Storage Screening Tool would not be required in the application for a farm proposing to evaluate an existing waste storage. However, if the evaluation results in a storage that meets NRCS Standard 313 either through a certif ication by the engineer or by implementing necessary improvements, then the completion of a CNMP meeting NRCS Standard 312 is required by the program. Q. If the CNMP already exists, what must be included with the application for an agricultural torage system? waste s A. The Tier 3A, Screening Tool checklist must be completed and submitted with each proposal to verify that the items have been reviewed with the farmer. The screening tool addresses items not already in the CNMP, including conducting test pits for certain types of storages. If the grant is awarded, the costs of updating the CNMP so that it reflects the management of the stored waste may be used as a component of the landowner’s match. d existing storage that needs to be evaluated Q. Is the Screening Tool required for an uncertifie by an engineer and properly expanded? A. Yes, the Screening Tool would still need to be completed prior to submitting a proposal to expand an existing manure storage. Q. Is the Screening Tool required for a bedded pack winter feeding system? A. If the bedded pack winter feeding system is designed and certified under the NRCS Standard 313 Agricultural Waste Storage System, then yes, the Screening Tool is required to be submitted with the application. District Resolution Q. Can one resolution be obtained that authorizes the District to submit multiple applications? A. Yes, one resolution can cover more than one grant application. Please list all of the proposals that the resolution covers and subm it the resolution with all copies of those proposals. Proposal Format

13 Q. Can before and after photographs of past projects be included in a proposal to demonstrate the effectiveness of a practice? A. Yes, photographs may be included as supporting documentation.

Related documents