26, 2001 Minutes
Wastewater Treatment Plant Conference Room)
meeting was called to order:
9:40 AM by Craig Schutt.
Lozano, Director, Environmental Laboratories, City of Ithaca-
is assisting with the final draft of the RPP (Restoration and Protection Plan).
The first draft should be out by the end of the year. He feels the Committee
must justify their funding requests to other agencies. The impact of the RPP
is very significant in that it will increase the chances of obtaining funding.
Jose distributed 2 handouts: A Program of Activities and an Estimated Cost
Sheet (for different Management Options). He hopes this Committee will help
him obtain endorsement for his proposals. He feels the first draft proposals
should be endorsed by the IO, and also the second draft of the RPP. He asked
what agencies the proposals should be sent to; Bond Act Funding or EPF. Craig
said that the EPF is the only source for Nutrient Management Planning funding.
Jose asked about funding from #319 source, Bond Act, EPA, DOE and USDA. He
feels we have at least 5 potential sources of funding. He stated that no
proposal has been successful without the endorsement of cooperating agencies.
It is imperative that this Committee endorse his proposal for success. He
stated that funding through USDA and EPA programs requires smaller cost/share,
approximately 50%. It was noted that through the Bond Act there is
approximately $7.5 million available for projects. Dan Dostie stated how a
proposal has already been submitted. Craig explained how an Agricultural Waste
Management Plan must be carried out. Usually the cost/share is at 75% and 25%
match. We are working with Mark Ochs on Nutrient Management Plans. Mark
Ochs’ concern is that of the producers. A need must be identified. Some
projects are estimated at between $75,000-$100,000. Funding may not be
available for these amounts.
noted how some farms are within two watersheds. Dan explained the HUC
(Hydrologic Unit Codes) and how this data is noted in the grant proposals.
Priority watersheds are taken into account when applying for funding. Jim
Young also noted how some farms are in more than one watershed and how this
would affect the cost/share of a project. Dan and Craig explained the Fall
Creek EQIP proposal and that only 8 farms may qualify for funding for the first
year. There were 20 sign-ups for EQIP FY 2001. The deadline was 2/23/01. Dan
is evaluating the requests and will visit all farms by the end of May. The
target is to fund 8 farms at $20,000 or less per farm for FY 2001. Dan must
assign Environmental Benefits to each farm as they relate to the request for
funding. The EQIP proposal is a 5-year proposal and hopefully it will be
funded for another $150,000 next year. We must reapply for this funding each
year. If the proposal is in the top two, USDA will fund it for 5 years without
reapplying each year.
Young mentioned the Owasco Lake EQIP funding for Nutrient Management Planning.
The funding was only for plans and not for storage. Jim feels storage does not
necessarily work and that it may create more problems than it solves. He noted
how there is a movement in the agricultural industry that shows manure storage
is not the only solution to this problem.
discussed other options, such as, SBR (Sequential Batch Reactor method). The
treated agricultural waste should have almost no water remaining in it. Many
reports have been written on this method and it is almost 100% efficient.
Sharon Anderson asked if this was theory or if a model had been done on this
method. It has been tested on a pilot scale. Lyn Odell explained how there is
a model to turn dairy waste into a product that is semi-dry. The composted
material can be used as bedding. Methane digestion is another method, but
there are issues concerning the liquid with this method. Through methane
digestion, power can be created and used on the farm. Lyn also explained the
aeration process to treat manure. This method needs a large surface area.
By-products from these treatment methods can be sold, but there is no market
for the product. Shawn feels a full-time person is needed to market the
product. The challenge with methane digestion is to make it more economically
was a lengthy discussion on the methane digestion and sequential batch reactor
methods and issues concerning their use. Other topics discussed were
phosphorus and nitrogen levels. Lyn foresees an increased demand for liquid
manure due to the price increase of nitrogen fertilizers. Shawn stated that
there are liability issues with spreading liquid manure.
to the Draft RPP –
Moran would like to make some corrections to the draft RPP. In the
“Recommendations” section she asked who would take leadership and
what was the time frame. Jim Young said that those he met with would like to
see the word “family” in “family farm”, changed to
“small farm”. Lyn also noted paragraph 5 on page 2. This
Agricultural Advisory Committee will make recommendations to the IO on the
changes to be made.
Ochs explained the P-Load Index Model that Cornell is working on as it relates
to NY soils.
explained NRCS standards and CAFO permit requirements.
would like to reword item #1-a-iii, balancing for ‘P’. This will
be reworded to reflect the NRCS standard. P-index data can be found on the
web. Janice Degni explained to the Committee about the P-index and what it
really means. The NRCS standard will also cover item 1-a-iv, page 3. Sharon
stated that the document should be worded for easy reading for the
non-agricultural community. Janice asked if Cayuga Lake is an area that needs
to be balanced for ‘P’. Craig said no, but it is an area of
concern. Item ‘iii’ must be reworded. Liz will handle this. Dan
will give the web information and NRCS standard to Liz. This is standard 590.
v. – BMPs for silage leachate – It was suggested to remove this
from the Nutrient Management Section and include it in a different one,
possibly the Agricultural Waste Management Plan section, Comprehensive Nutrient
Management Plans. These must meet NRCS standard #312.
were made for rewording section ‘v’, covered storages.
on the remainder of this part of the meeting concerned the rewording and/or
categorizing of topics in the draft RPP. Sections discussed were:
of the Agricultural Waste issues are to be listed – Manure
was a short discussion on the disposal of pesticides and a Household Hazardous
Mark Ochs referred to section C-iv, calf manure and how to isolate it. Janice
and Dan suggested deleting this section. Liz said that “Clean
Sweep” information will be added to section D-Pesticide Management.
worksheets found in the AEM (Agricultural Environmental Management) Handbook
should be added and put in bold face type. There should be a description of
what AEM is in the draft RPP.
wanted to know the number of dairy livestock in the watershed. The figures can
be obtained county-wide but not by watershed.
also suggested changing the word “manure” to
“by-products” in section 2a, page 4. Sharon was concerned with the
last paragraph on page 1, reading “resulting in new rural
Anderson – Cayuga Lake Watershed Steward –
had copies of the Seneca Lake Watershed Agricultural Environmental Management
brochure as an example of an educational brochure the Committee might produce.
The brochure could include information about the consumers’ relationship
to the watershed and the value of agriculture. Sharon asked the
Committees’ opinion about producing such an educational brochure.
Nothing was decided at this meeting.
Johnson – Cornell Ag. Engineering –
is working on his Master degree in Agricultural Engineering. He is doing a
watershed hydrology model with USGS near Rochester. The model will evaluate
potential problems. He met with the Technical Advisory Committee to find out
if any issues they were facing could be used as a test for this new model. He
needs more data to input into the model and hopes the use of the model will
benefit the overall goal of Cayuga Lake Watershed groups. Cornell is limited
to what they can accomplish with their present model. Mark did a
‘focus’ interview with the IO, Ag. Committee and Tech. Committee to
learn about some scenarios they would like to see simulated with the new model.
Liz was at one of the focus group meetings and found it very useful. Mark
would like to schedule a meeting to gain more data for the new model. He would
like at least 5-10 people, equally comprised of farmers and agency people. A
sample scenario might be,
would the watershed benefit if buffers were implemented on every farm?”
Mark said these models are the best available, to date. Mark Ochs asked what
models are in use today. Janice knows of a model used at Pennsylvania State
University, by Bill G. Burek (spelling may be incorrect) with the Agricultural
members of the Committee asked if the models could depict old data showing the
condition of the lake in past years, even from the 1930’s. Liz said
there is data as far back as 1910.
explained the timeline for completing the plan. She will send the editing
changes/corrections made to the plan today, to Sherry and they will be
forwarded to committee members for their comments.
next meeting of the Cayuga Lake Watershed Agricultural Advisory Committee will
be on Wednesday, April 25, 2001 from 9:30-11:30 AM at the Ledyard Town Hall.
meeting adjourned at 12:05 PM.
Return to index
To contact the
Cayuga Lake Watershed
CLW IO 2002