970008_Assessment of Civil Penalties_20180122 (2)

Rosebrock, Melissa
From: dhbuckslayer2l <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2018 3:24 PM
To: Rosebrock, Melissa
Subject: [External] Distance from creek
Attachments: 20180119 145044jpg;20180119 145034jpg
Enclosing 2 pictures of distance from the creek where the litter spill occurred. In letter it stated 20 ft, which I no was just a guess
due to no ruler. Please forward to whom ever needs to see, didn't enclose it in the letter that we sent
Thanks
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartpho

Rosebrock, Melissa
From: dhbuckslayer2l <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 3:04 PM
To: Rosebrock, Melissa
Subject: [External] Letter
CAUTION: ,External email rpo not click links or open attachments unless verified Send all suspicious'email as an attachment to
,re .. .�
Good day, I have the letter wrote,getting someone to proof read it to make sure i have touched on all your concerns.
Hope that your office takes in concentration that the elevated numbers in the creek is due to the stock trail and not the
minable litter spill
Milking 80 cows, so that means 1 st milking back and forth is 160 cows traveling thru. Then you got 2nd milking which
is another 160 going thru, which means there is over 300 cows traveling thru the stream 365 days of the year. I know
this is a problem, for over 3 years I have been in contact with soil and water. They have been out at farm several times
with no solutions besides them telling me out of sight out of mind which I don't agree with. Hope that your office, DOT,
DOT bridge crew and soil and water comes up with a solution to fix this on going problem instead of forcing the family
farm into bankruptcy.
Thanks for your time.
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

Rosebrock, Melissa
From: dhbuckslayer2l <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 1:35 PM
To: Rosebrock, Melissa
Subject: RE: [External] Fwd: Re: FW: Hutchison Dairy
Good afternoon, dad just picked up letter from post office today. He taking it to someone that can help him understand
what it is saying. It seems to have alot of information regarding the stock trail and not the accidental litter spill. Not
understanding why that is. But he will have it back to your office within the10 day grace period. Thanks
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: "Rosebrock, Melissa" <[e-mail]>
Date: 1/8/18 10:27 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: dhbuckslayer2l <[e-mail]>
Cc: "Chandler, Rebecca D" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] Fwd: Re: FW: Hutchison Dairy
Thanks Derek, I received both emails. Please include what is to take place in your/your dad's NOV/NOI response letter to
Division of Water Resources (Sherri Knight).
Melissa Rosebrock
Environmental Senior Specialist
NC Division of Water Resources
NC Department of Environmental Quality
336-776-9699 office
336-813-7084 mobile
melissa. rosebrockCa--)ncdenr.gov

Winston-Salem Regional Office
450 W. Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300
Winston-Salem, NC 27105
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties.
From: dhbuckslayer2l [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2018 11:03 AM
To: Rosebrock, Melissa <[e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Fwd: Re: FW: Hutchison Dairy
Here is my response back to Lee.
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Original message
From: dhbuckslayer2l <[e-mail]>
Date: 1/6/1811:02 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: "Holcomb, Lee - NRCS, Wilksboro, NC" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: FW: Hutchison Dairy
In his response he makes mention of a exception. Not understanding why containing the cows on top of hill at the
lagoon pond why that is not consider a waste management, instead of letting cows go thru creek. Need to get the

person he mentioned to approved the exception out here to discuss if they would help fund any portion of the facility,
grading, concrete,ect
Then I would see about get funding for roof, equipment my self.
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

Rosebrock, Melissa
From: Rosebrock, Melissa
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2018 4:11 PM
To: 'dhbuckslayer2l'
Subject: RE: [External] Distance from creek
I will print and provide to my supervisor, Sherri Knight (she signed the letter you received). Thanks Derek.
Melissa Rosebrock
Environmental Senior Specialist
NC Division of Water Resources
NC Department of Environmental Quality
336-776-9699 office
336-813-7084 mobile
melissa.rosebrock(o).ncdenr.gov
Winston-Salem Regional Office
450 W. Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300
Winston-Salem, NC 27105
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties.
From: dhbuckslayer2l [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2018 3:24 PM
To: Rosebrock, Melissa <melissa.rose [e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Distance from creek
Enclosing 2 pictures of distance from the creek where the litter spill occurred. In letter it stated 20 ft, which I no was just a guess
due to no ruler. Please forward to whom ever needs to see, didn't enclose it in the letter that we sent
Thanks
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartpho
1

Rosebrock, Melissa
From: dhbuckslayer2l <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 3:04 PM
To: Rosebrock, Melissa
Subject: [External] Letter
Good day, I have the letter wrote,getting someone to proof read it to make sure i have touched on all your concerns.
Hope that your office takes in concentration that the elevated numbers in the creek is due to the stock trail and not the
minable litter spill
Milking 80 cows, so that means 1 st milking back and forth is 160 cows traveling thru. Then you got 2nd milking which
is another 160 going thru, which means there is over 300 cows traveling thru the stream 365 days of the year. I know
this is a problem, for over 3 years I have been in contact with soil and water. They have been out at farm several times
with no solutions besides them telling me out of sight out of mind which I don't agree with. Hope that your office, DOT,
DOT bridge crew and soil and water comes up with a solution to fix this on going problem instead of forcing the family
farm into bankruptcy.
Thanks for your time.
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

Rosebrock, Melissa
From: dhbuckslayer2l <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2018 4:57 PM
To: Rosebrock, Melissa
Subject: [External] FW: Hutchison Dairy
Attachments: 515_SubpartJ.pdf
Here is the respond from soil and water
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message -------
From: "Holcomb, Lee - NRCS, Wilksboro, NC" <[e-mail]>
Date: 1/5/18 4:28 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: [e-mail]
Cc: "Evans, Jeremy - NRCS, Wilkesboro, NC" <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Hutchison Dairy
Derek,
Attached is the response from our Area Office. It doesn't look like we'll be able to help with a free -stall barn or buying out the
milk permit. Would you and your Dad like us to proceed in seeing about the stream crossing behind the milk parlor and moving
the cows to that side of the farm? That would require us to have an Area Engineer come and survey the property and see the
feasibility and economics of the proposed stream crossing.
Let us know how you'd like to proceed,
Lee
Zee P. gs&owd
Supervisory Soil Conservationist — Team 4
Wilkes, Surry, Yadkin, Forsyth, & Stokes Counties

Headquarters
Wilkes SWCD Field Office
416 Executive Drive, Suite C
Wilkesboro, NC 28697
(Work) 336-838-3622 x 107
(Work Cell) 252-370-0318
From: Firster, Jason - NRCS, Waynesville, NC
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 12:33 PM
To: Evans, Jeremy - NRCS, Wilkesboro, NC <[e-mail]>
Cc: Holcomb, Lee - NRCS, Wilksboro, NC <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Hutchison Dairy
Good afternoon Jeremy —
I can appreciate where Mr. Hutchison is at with his operation but unfortunately it does not look like NRCS can help with cost
sharing either a Free -Stall Barn or buying out his Milking Permit.
According to the Conservation Programs Manual 440 Part 515.91 B(xi) "any part of a building used solely for livestock housing,
feeding or animal comfort" is ineligible for EQIP cost share. There is one exception and that is "Buildings determined by the State
Conservationist to be a necessary component of an animal waste facility on an AFO are eligible if identified in a CLAMP." If the
building was going to somehow be a component of an animal waste facility we could possibly pursue a waiver from the State
Office, I'll just caution that it would take a very specific situation for this waiver to be approved.
The permit is also an ineligible cost share item based on Conservation Programs Manual Part 515.91 B (ii) which specifies
"Permits, fees, certifications, and miscellaneous production or operation related expenses not directly "related to
implementation of a practice" are ineligible.

Please let me know if you need any further information on these questions — more than happy to help if needed.
Thanks,
Ai-Aeti
USDA-N R.C; S
Area Resource Conservationist
589 Raccoon Rd Suite 246
Waynesville, NC 28786
Office: 828-456-6341 Ext 3243
Cell: 828-989-9849
X
From: Evans, Jeremy - NRCS, Wilkesboro, NC
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 1:36 PM
To: Firster, Jason - NRCS, Waynesville, NC <[e-mail]>
Cc: Holcomb, Lee - NRCS, Wilksboro, NC <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hutchison Dairy
Jason,
We recently visited Mr. Cliff Hutchison due to a NOV that he received from NCDWR. Mr. Hutchison is one of only three dairy
farmers in Wilkes County, and is located in the Traphill area. Melissa Rosebrock recently visited with him to discuss possible
solutions. Per her visit, we were informed that she would prefer is the cows were excluded from the creek, and stayed on the
side with the milking parlor. The issue with that solution is that there is limited grazing space available on the side with the dairy.
The cattle must cross the creek through a large culvert under the road that the stream also flows through. The issue there is
that the cattle are a point -source pollutant. Creating another crossing, or more intensive rotation, does not work well with the
milking schedule for the cows.
Mr. Hutchison would like to know if there is a possibility for NRCS to pay for a free -stall barn through NRCS programs to help
resolve his NOV. He is also curious if there is a way for NRCS to buy him out of his milking permit. We also discussed other
options that we were certain could be implemented through EQIP, but after discussion, these options did not compliment the

management of the dairy. The free -stall barn would please Melissa Rosebrock by keeping the cattle out of the stream. The other
option would end the operation of the dairy, eliminating the source of the resource concern, and helping the land repair itself
over time.
To clarify: 1) Can NRCS programs pay for a free -stall barn
& 2) Can NRCS assist with buying out his milking permit
We appreciate any guidance and assistance on this matter.
Thank you,
Jeremy K. Evans
Wilkes NRCS Soil Conservationist
Jeremv.evansCa)nc.usda.gov
336-838-3622 kl08
This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely for the intended recipients. Any unauthorized
interception of this message or the use or disclosure of the information it contains may violate the law and subject the violator
to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete the email
immediately.

Title 440 — Conservation Programs Manual
Part 515 — Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
Subpart J — Conservation Practice and Technical Assistance Payments
515.90 Payment Schedules
Policy guidance regarding payment schedules is located in Title 440, Conservation
Program Manual (CPM), Part 512, Subpart D. The process for developing payment
schedules is outlined in Title 300, Payment Schedule Handbook, Part 600.
515.91 Determining Eligible Payment Schedule Costs and Rates
A. Eligible Costs.—EQIP is authorized to make payments to implement conservation
practices based generally upon the estimated cost incurred for planning, design,
materials, equipment used for installation, installation and labor costs, management
and training costs as well as the estimated income foregone by the producer
associated with practice implementation. These payment costs are estimated and
incorporated into the payment schedules developed in accordance with 440-CPM,
Part 512, Subpart D.
(1) Payment rates are limited to the least -cost alternative to meet quality criteria
and the minimum practice standards and specifications needed to address the
resource concerns. The least -cost -alternative limitation is only applicable to
payment rates and.does not limit choice of treatment options. However,
treatment options must meet NRCS standards and specifications, address the
identified resource concern, and be approved by an individual with NRCS job
approval authority.
Example: If minimum standards and specifications require a three -wire fence
and the participant wants to install a woven wire fence that costs twice as
much as the minimum acceptable standard, EQIP will pay the minimum
payment rate, and any additional costs are borne by the participant.
(2) The participant is responsible for the expense of conservation practice
installation. The participant receiving the program benefit must also be
directly incurring the cost of the practice installation.
(3) Items eligible to establish levels and rates include the cost of any direct or
significant factors necessary to perform the practice, such as—
(i) New, donated, or used materials (in accordance with NRCS policy).
(ii) Services and labor from the participant or others.
(iii)- Sales tax.
(4) When setting payment rates with regard to income foregone for EQIP, the
State Conservationist may accord greater significance to conservation
practices that promote soil health; water quality and quantity improvement;
nutrient management; pest management; air quality improvement; wildlife
habitat development, including pollinator habitat; invasive species
management; and other resource issues of regional or national significance as
(440-515-M, 1st Ed., Amend. 110, Jan. 2017)
515.J-1

Title 440 — Conservation Programs Manual
determined by NRCS. Greater significance may be established by either one
of two methods:
(i) By establishing a higher priority to these practices in the screening and
ranking process
(ii) By assigning a higher program payment percentage in the foregone
income cost category of a payment schedule (not to exceed 100 percent) to
priority practices and a reduced program payment percentage assigned to
low -priority practices.
(5) Any practice in which used materials are used may be eligible for payment in
accordance with criteria set forth in Title 210, National Engineering Manual,
Part 512, Subpart C.
(6) All estimated incurred costs and income foregone associated with an EQ1P
payment must be documented in an approved payment schedule. Only costs
that are associated with components and items needed for implementation of a
conservation practice and the practice standard may be included in the
payment. See 440-CPM, Part 512, Subpart D, for additional information.
(7) Renewable energy production that is related to a conservation benefit
(excluding energy conservation), such as-
(i) Managing feedstock or other biomass to address soil conservation.
(ii)"Converting biogas,to:address air quality."
(iii) Hydrop6wer'to''address-watdt q"uantit!y.
(iv) Renewable power source (such as solar panels or windmills) that address
, multiple resource concerns in remote regions of rangeland.
The following are examples and categories of ineligible costs that may not be
included in program payment schedules. Such costs are usually ineligible, as they
may have no environmental or conservation benefit, are not allowed by the
practice standard, their primary purpose may be considered a production related
activity, or for which there may be no statutory authority to provide program
support:
(i) Production costs associated with the normal production activities are
prohibited. Examples of ineligible costs include, but are not limited to, the
following:
• Subsurface drainage installed solely to obtain better yields.
• Any pest control or treatment solely for crop production. Costs
associated with control, suppression, or management of invasive or
noninvasive plants, animals, pests, insects, rodents, feral hogs, deer,
birds, or other wildlife on cropland. Costs associated with control,
suppression, or management of invasive or noninvasive animals,
insects, rodents, feral hogs, deer, birds, or other wildlife on
noncropland is prohibited. See Section 515.91B(1)(iii), "Pest
Management," following.
• Costs that are not directly related to implementing an NRCS-approved
conservation practice or not allowed according to the NRCS practice
standard.
(440-515-M, 1st Ed., Amend. 110, Jan. 2017)
515.J-2

Title 440 — Conservation Programs Manual
• Costs that are not incurred by the program participant, such as value of
donated materials or labor.
• Costs for education or training that is not directly related to
implementation, operation, or maintenance of a conservation practice.
Costs for travel, lodging or hotel, transportation, fuel, food or per diem
are not allowed.
• Costs associated with risk of agricultural operations, such as the
potential loss of yield or production resulting from-
- Weather related conditions or events
- Cultural activities
- Wildfires
- Animal, pest, or other wildlife damages to crops
- Lack of operation and maintenance of practices or equipment
• Costs associated with agricultural enterprise changes where there is no
identified resource concern to be addressed (see section 515.81D(5)
for an exception).
Note: Risks and costs associated with the agricultural operation must be
borne by the producer.
• County earthmoving or NPDES permits
• Building permits
• Administrative costs or fees assessed by water, electricity, or other
utility companies or suppliers
• 404 permits or other regulatory permit costs
• Confined animal feeding operation (CAFO) permit
• Organic certification fees
• Administrative and overhead costs associated with agricultural
operations, such as telephone, drinking water, fuel and lubricants for
farm vehicles, replacement parts, electricity, photocopy, and similar
activities
• Repair costs of equipment used to construct conservation practice
• Structures and components that are not part of the appropriate
conservation practice standard, such as installing a composting facility
under the heavy -use, protection -area standard or drilling a well as part
of the pipeline standard.
(iii) Pest Management
• A program payment for control or management of noxious or invasive
weeds, insects, diseases, rodent, nematodes, predators, including
native or nonnative species, or other pests is prohibited. (Pest as
defined in 190-GM, Part 414, "Invasive Species," and agency policy in
190-GM, Part 404, "Pest Management.")
Example Ineligible Cost. —Costs associated with a practice (e.g., CP 382
Fence) to exclude animals from cropland field is prohibited.
(440-515-M, 1st Ed., Amend. 110, Jan. 2017)
515.J-3

Title 440 - Conservation Programs Manual
Example Eligible Cost.-L--Costs associated with CP 382 Fence established
to protect a sensitive area containing threatened or endangered plant
species.
Exception. —Payments for suppression of noxious and invasive weeds on
noncropland is allowed as part of the incurred cost to facilitate
implementation of an NRCS-approved conservation practice. For
example, costs associated with management or control of invasive or
noxious plant species to support success of a range planting, critical area
planting, or tree and shrub planting on noncropland is allowed.
(iv) Equipment
As defined in 440-CPM, Part 502, "Terms and Abbreviations Common to
All Programs," equipment is the tools, machinery, or similar items
needed to implement the practice to design standards. As noted in 440-
CPM, Part 503, "Commodity Credit Corporation Procedures," CCC and
program authority provide financial assistance to implement conservation
practices, but not for purchase of equipment to implement practices.
Examples of equipment that may not be purchased using EQIP financial
assistance include, but are not limited to the following:
- Equipment to haul or apply manure
- Spray or pesticide application equipment
- Tillage or cultivation equipment
- Global Positioning Systems (GPS)
- Monitoring cameras or GPS systems attached to equipment used for
practice implementation or to animals (cameras attached to
permanently installed practices, such as pumps, to meet safety
requirements may be eligible).
- Costs associated with telephone, radio, or similar transmission or
communication services. (e.g., phone or data services are ineligible).
- Other equipment not specifically addressed as being eligible for
EQIP funding or as determined by the NRCS conservation practice
standard
Note: EQIP allows for use of financial assistance to purchase materials that
are typically required by the conservation practice standard to address a
resource concern. Materials are components used to make, develop, or
implement a practice; such as sand, gravel, grass seed, soil amendments,
plants, pipe, concrete, sensors and required water measurement devices, and
similar products and devices cited as needed in the practice standard or design
requirements.
(v) Portable Equipment
a Engines, motors, pumps, and pumping equipment not affixed to a
land -based practice
a Motorized vehicles, such as trucks, trailers, and tractors, whether on or
off agricultural land
a Spray equipment
(440-515-M, 1st Ed., Amend. 110, Jan. 2017)
515.J-4

Title 440 — Conservation Programs Manual
• Monitoring equipment or components that are not affixed to a land -
based practice.
Exception. —Engine and motor replacement or retrofit may, be allowed for
an approved NRCS practice and identified resource concern (e.g.,
Pumping Plant (533) to replace an inefficient, polluting engine to meet
water conservation, air quality, or energy conservation).
Note: Portable equipment raises important accountability issues in terms
of providing program benefits to address an identified resource concern on
eligible land as well as statutory requirements. For documentation of
benefit through required ranking, NRCS must be able to associate the
conservation benefit with a specific land unit where the practice is
implemented. If the practice standard includes portable equipment, it may
only be relocated to land that meets land eligibility requirements and that
is included in the original contract.
(vi) Energy production, generation, or practices associated with residential
buildings.
(vii) Electric Power
• Running electrical lines from any power source to power equipment
unless specified in the practice standard
• Portable generators
• Payment for electricity generated or needed to run equipment
• Services needed to operate or maintain practices or equipment
• Fuel to run or operate generators or other energy equipment
(viii) Transportation costs associated with hauling or transporting manure,
animal waste, organic byproducts, or animal carcasses offsite.
(ix) Extents greater than technically needed to meet the minimum practice
standards.
Note: The least -cost standard must be applied to support payments for
practices to achieve the conservation objective. At the request of a participant,
NRCS may provide design and technical assistance for implementation of a
practice with extents greater than what is needed to address the resource
concern; however, expense and costs associated with the extra extent are the
responsibility of the producer and may not be reimbursed through program
financial assistance.
Examples:
• Fencing specifications call for two strands of wire, and the producer
installs a four -strand fence, in which case EQIP will only pay based on
two -strand fence.
• A concrete -walled manure storage structure where a less expensive
earthen structure would serve the resource need.
• Constructing a bridge instead of a stream crossing where a stream
crossing is more cost effective.
(x) Property Rights and Access
• Payments for obtaining an easement or right-of-way.
(440-515-M, 1 st Ed., Amend. 110, Jan. 2017)
515.J-5

Title 440 — Conservation Programs Manual
• Payments for river access.
(xii) Renewable energy production—
• That is not related to a conservation benefit, such as-
- Managing feedstock or other biomass for biofuel for the purpose of
renewable energy production.
- Converting biogas for renewable energy production.
- Hydropower for renewable energy production unless such
component or material is an integral part of an irrigation system
practice.
• For extents greater than what is required to address the identified
resource concern.
• Renewable power sources when other sources of electricity are
available.
C. Reviewing and Revising Payment Rates
See 440-CPM, Part 512, Subpart D.
515.92 Payments and Payment Limitations
A. Eligibility for Payments
(1) Requests for payment must meet the requirements found in 440-CPM, Part
512, Subpart C.
(2) A comprehensive nutrient management plan (CLAMP) is required for an AFO
— see section 515.80C(4) for guidance.
(3) If an EQIP plan of operations includes practices that address forestland
related resource concerns, the participant must develop and provide NRCS a
copy of a forest management plan prior to implementation of any forest
management conservation practice. See section 515.80C(5) for guidance.
B. Contract and Program Payment Limitations
(1) Contracts enrolled after February 7, 2014, are considered 112014 Farm Bill
Contracts," and each contract will be limited to no more than $450,000 in
financial assistance. There is no authority to waive the $450,000 payment
limitation.
(2) Contracts enrolled between October 1, 2008, and February 7, 2014, are
considered "2008 Farm Bill Contracts," and each contract will be limited to
no more than $300,000 in financial assistance. The Chief may waive the
$300,000 payment limitation up to a maximum of $450,000 for projects of
special environmental significance that include anaerobic digesters or other
(440-515-M, 1 st Ed., Amend. 110, Jan. 2017)
515.J-6

Title 440 — Conservation Programs Manual
innovative technology that will result in significant environmental
improvement. To qualify for this waiver, the application must meet all of the
following criteria: „ 4.
(i) Site -specific evaluation documents`have been completed, documenting
that the project will have substantial positive impacts�on critical resources
on`or near the project area.
(ii) The project clearly addresses a national priority as well as State, Tribal, or
local,:priorities, as applicable:
(iii) The project assists the participant in complying with Federal, State, and
local regulatory requirements.
(3) Contracts enrolled between July 15,4002, and October 1, 2008, are
considered "2002 Farm Bill Contracts," and the`sum total of all contract
payments during this period will be limited to no more than $450,000 in
financial assistance.
(4) Regardless of year enrolled, program payments for contracts associated with
the Organic Initiative are limited to $20,000 per fiscal year or $80,000 during
any 6-year period for persons or legal entities. Producers receiving payment
under this provision must be pursuing organic certification or must be in
compliance with the Organic Foods Production Act. There is no authority to
waive the annual payment limitation of $20,000 or the total payment
limitation of $80,000.
(5) Technical assistance payments for technical service providers do not count
against the financial assistance aggregate payment limitation or the contract
financial assistance payment limitation.
(6) Total contract payment limits may not be established other than what is
authorized by statute as cited in this section. For example,. State
Conservationists may not establish a $25,000 maximum payment cap for any
contract.
C. Aggregate Payment Limitation for Persons and Legal Entities
(1) Payment limitations will be monitored and tracked through ProTracts.
(2) For "2014 Farm Bill Contracts" the total amount of payments to a person or
legal entity under this part may not exceed an aggregate of $450,000, directly
or indirectly, for all contracts, enrolled in EQIP beginning February 7, 2014,
through fiscal year 2018. Payments received for technical assistance are
excluded from this limitation.
(i) Payments for conservation practices related to organic production to a
person, or legal entity, directly or indirectly, may not exceed in aggregate
$20,000 per fiscal year.or $80,000 during any 6-year period. Payments
received for technical assistance are excluded from this limitation.
(ii) All program payments must be attributed to persons or legal entities who
either received an EQIP payment directly or who are considered to have
received a payment indirectly by holding an interest in an entity that
received the EQIP payment. EQIP payments must be tracked by entity tax
identification numbers and Social Security numbers. In certain situations,
payments may be tracked using a unique identification number.
(440-515-M, 1st Ed., Amend. 110, Jan. 2017)
515.J-7

Title 440 — Conservation Programs Manual
(3) For "2008 Farm Bill Contracts," the total amount of payments to a person or
legal entity under this part may not exceed an aggregate of $300,000, directly
or indirectly, for all contracts, including prior -year contracts, entered into
during any 6-year period. Payments received for technical assistance ate
excluded from this limitation. These payment limitation rules also apply to
contracts enrolled in EQIP during the beginning of fiscal year 2014, prior to
February 7, 2014.
(i) The Chief may waive the $300,000 payment limitation, allowing up to
$450,000 per person or legal entity. for projects of special environmental
significance.
(ii) Payments for conservation practices related to organic production to a
person or legal entity, directly or indirectly, may not exceed in aggregate
$20,000 per fiscal year or $80,000 during any 6-year period. Payments
received for technical assistance are excluded from this limitation. The
Chief is not authorized to waive the payment limitation for the organic
initiative.
(iii) All program payments must be attributed to persons or legal entities who
either received an EQIP payment directly or who are considered to have
received a payment indirectly by holding an interest in an entity that
received the EQIP payment. EQIP payments must be tracked by entity tax
identification numbers and Social Security numbers. In certain situations,
payments may be tracked using a unique identification number.
(4) Persons or legal entities who are members of joint operations, partners in a
general partnership, or participants in a joint venture may be eligible for a
separate $450,000 payment limitation if all of the following apply:
(i) Each individual has a separate and distinct interest in the land or the
agricultural, forestry, or livestock production involved.
(ii) Each individual exercises separate responsibility for such interest.
(iii) Each individual maintains funds or accounts separate from that of any
individual or entity for such interest.
(5) Members of a Tribe (business type 20) or not -for -profit organization
(business type 10) do not receive any direct or indirect benefits from EQIP
and are not required to attribute EQIP payments received to individual
members. EQIP payments paid to the entity or organization will be tracked
only to the entity's tax identification number. Payments to an entity or
organization are limited to the payment limitations that were current as of the
time the contract was enrolled.
(6) Contracts with an Indian Tribe are not subject to contract or payment
limitations. However, payments made to individual Tribal members may not
exceed payment limitations. Such payments may only be made to the Tribal
member if a Bureau of Indian Affairs or Tribal official certifies in writing that
no one individual will receive more than the payment limitation. The Tribal
participant must also provide annually a listing of individuals who received
program payments, by tax identification number or other unique identification
number, during the previous year to verify that payment limitations to
individuals has not been exceeded. If verification indicates that excess
(440-515-M, 1 st Ed., Amend. 110, Jan. 2017)
515.J-8

Title 440 — Conservation Programs Manual
payments were made to individuals above allowable payment limitations,
recovery of funds may be required.
(i) Federally recognized Native American Indian Tribes or Alaska Native
corporations (business type 20) are exempt from the adjusted gross income
payment limitations regardless of the number of contracts entered into by
the Indian Tribe or Alaska Native corporation.
(ii) Where a Tribal official is the only authorized representative to approve
contracts for Tribes, EQIP contract obligations and payments will be
attributed to the Tribal entity or individual to receive payment.
D. Inherited Land
With respect to inherited land under EQIP contracts, payment limitations will not
apply to the extent that the payments from any contract on the inherited land
cause an heir who is a party to an EQIP contract on other lands prior to the
inheritance to exceed the applicable payment limitation. See 7 CFR Section
1400.100.
E. Advance Payments
(1) Contracts Approved Prior to the 2014 Act
Applications accepted from historically underserved groups are eligible to
receive an increased payment rate, advance payments, or be evaluated under
special subaccounts, as specified in individual program regulations and
policies. Historically underserved EQIP participants may receive an advance
of up to 30 percent of the total EQIP practice payment to purchase materials
or services to implement a practice associated with a contracted practice
installation.
(2) Contracts Approved During FY 2014 and Later
Historically underserved EQIP participants may receive an advance of up to
50 percent of the total EQIP practice payment to purchase materials or
services to implement a practice associated with a contracted practice
installation. If funds provided in advance are not expended during the 90-day
period beginning on the date of receipt of the funds, the funds must be
returned to the agency in a reasonable time as determined by the State
Conservationist.
F. Waiver Authority
For EQIP contracts enrolled through the Regional Conservation Partnership
Program (RCPP), waiver policy for AGI may be found at 440-CPM, Part 515,
Subpart F, Section 515.53.
(440-515-M, .1 st Ed., Amend. 110, Jan. 2017)
515.J-9

Rosebrock, Melissa
From: dhbuckslayer2l <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2018 4:57 PM
To: Rosebrock, Melissa
Subject: [External] FW: Hutchison Dairy
Attachments: 515_Subpart_1.pdf
Here is the respond from soil and water
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: "Holcomb, Lee - NRCS, Wilksboro, NC" <[e-mail]>
Date: 1/5/18 4:28 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: [e-mail]
Cc: "Evans, Jeremy - NRCS, Wilkesboro, NC" <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: Hutchison Dairy
Derek,
Attached is the response from our Area Office. It doesn't look like we'll be able to help with a free -stall barn or buying out the
milk permit. Would you and your Dad like us to proceed in seeing about the stream crossing behind the milk parlor and moving
the cows to that side of the farm? That would require us to have an Area Engineer come and survey the property and see the
feasibility and economics of the proposed stream crossing.
Let us know how you'd like to proceed,
Lee
.Lee P. qo&md
Supervisory Soil Conservationist —Team 4
Wilkes, Surry, Yadkin, Forsyth, & Stokes Counties
I

Headquarters
Wilkes SWCD Field Office
416 Executive Drive, Suite C
Wilkesboro, NC 28697
(Work) 336-838-3622 x 107
(Work Cell) 252-370-0318
From: Firster, Jason - NRCS, Waynesville, NC
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2017 12:33 PM
To: Evans, Jeremy - NRCS, Wilkesboro, NC <[e-mail]>
Cc: Holcomb, Lee - NRCS, Wilksboro, NC <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Hutchison Dairy
Good afternoon Jeremy —
I can appreciate where Mr. Hutchison is at with his operation but unfortunately it does not look like NRCS can help with cost
sharing either a Free -Stall Barn or buying out his Milking Permit.
According to the Conservation Programs Manual 440 Part 515.91 B(xi) "any part of a building used solely for livestock housing,
feeding or animal comfort" is ineligible for EQIP cost share. There is one exception and that is "Buildings determined by the State
Conservationist to be a necessary component of an animal waste facility on an AFO are eligible if identified in a CLAMP." If the
building was going to somehow be a component of an animal waste facility we could possibly pursue a waiver from the State
Office, I'll just caution that it would take a very specific situation for this waiver to be approved.
The permit is also an ineligible cost share item based on Conservation Programs Manual Part 515.91 B (ii) which specifies
"Permits, fees, certifications, and miscellaneous production or operation related expenses not directly related to
implementation of a practice" are ineligible.

Please let me know if you need any further information on these questions — more than happy to help if needed.
Thanks,
Y~OIV AV_a`e,-&
USDA-NRCS
Area Resource Conservationist
589 Raccoon Rd Suite 246
Waynesville, NC 28786
Office: 828-456-6341 Ext 3243
Cell: 828-989-9849
❑©
From: Evans, Jeremy - NRCS, Wilkesboro, NC
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 1:36 PM
To: Firster, Jason - NRCS, Waynesville, NC <[e-mail]>
Cc: Holcomb, Lee - NRCS, Wilksboro, NC <[e-mail]>
Subject: Hutchison Dairy
Jason,
We recently visited Mr. Cliff Hutchison due to a NOV that he received from NCDWR. Mr. Hutchison is one of only three dairy
farmers in Wilkes County, and is located in the Traphill area. Melissa Rosebrock recently visited with him to discuss possible
solutions. Per her visit, we were informed that she would prefer is the cows were excluded from the creek, and stayed on the
side with the milking parlor. The issue with that solution is that there is limited grazing space available on the side with the dairy.
The cattle must cross the creek through a large culvert under the road that the stream also flows through. The issue there is
that the cattle are a point -source pollutant. Creating another crossing, or more intensive rotation, does not work well with the
milking schedule for the cows.
Mr. Hutchison would like to know if there is a possibility for NRCS to pay for a free -stall barn through NRCS programs to help
resolve his NOV. He is also curious if there is a way for NRCS to buy him out of his milking permit. We also discussed other
options that we were certain could be implemented through EQIP, but after discussion, these options did not compliment the

management of the dairy. The free -stall barn would please Melissa Rosebrock by keeping the cattle out of the stream. The other
option would end the operation of the dairy, eliminating the source of the resource concern, and helping the land repair itself
over time.
To clarify: 1) Can NRCS programs pay for a free -stall barn
& 2) Can NRCS assist with buying out his milking permit
We appreciate any guidance and assistance on this matter.
Thank you,
Jeremy K. Evans
Wilkes NRCS Soil Conservationist
Jeremv.evansanc.usda.gov
336-838-3622 x108
This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely for the intended recipients. Any unauthorized
interception of this message or the use or disclosure of the information it contains may violate the law and subject the violator
to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete the email
immediately.
4

Rosebrock, Melissa
From: dhbuckslayer2l <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 3:35 PM
To: Rosebrock, Melissa
Subject: RE: [External] Re: email address
No, today was the 1 st rain we have received since you have been here and no litter has run anywhere. Even next to
the road where the water ditch is you clearly see where the litter stop and the grass is.
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message --------
From: "Rosebrock, Melissa" <melissa.rose [e-mail]>
Date: 12/20/17 2:58 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: dhbuckslayer2l <[e-mail]>
Cc: Lee Holcomb <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [External] Re: email address
Got both emails, thanks for photos. How's the straw holding up in the rain today? Noticing any waste coming out from under the
straw? Thanks for your efforts
Melissa Rosebrock
Environmental Senior Specialist
NC Division of Water Resources
NC Department of Environmental Quality
336-776-9699 office
336-813-7084 mobile
melissa.rosebrock(o)-ncdenr.gov
Winston-Salem Regional Office

450 W. Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300
Winston-Salem, NC 27105
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties.
From: dhbuckslayer2l [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 2:37 PM
To: Rosebrock, Melissa <melissa.rose [e-mail]>
Subject: [External] Re: email address
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Original message
From: "Rosebrock, Melissa" <[e-mail]>
Date: 12/20/17 2:29 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: email address

Melissa Rosebrock-
Environmental Senior Specialist
NC Division of Water Resources
NC Department of Environmental Quality
336-776-9699 office
336-813-7084 mobile
melissa. rosebrock(a)-ncdenr.gov
Winston-Salem Regional Office
450 W. Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300
Winston-Salem, NC 27105
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties.