I am submitting the following comments on behalf of the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District Board of Directors:

If Virginia’s intention is to implement a resource management plan program which encourages voluntary participation, the program will be more successful if it is economically feasible for more farmers.  Flexible criteria and smaller buffers may actually result in more participation and greater environmental benefits than larger buffers and strict, inflexible criteria.  Additionally, a longer plan lifespan would offer more certainty to a farmer and would therefore provide a greater incentive for a farmer to participate.

One suggestion to address both of these issues and provide a greater participation incentive is to have a sliding scale where more water quality protection would allow a longer plan lifespan.  For instance, a 10’ buffer may mean a nine year plan, while a 35’ buffer may allow for a 20 year plan.  (i.e. The “gold standard” would be rewarded with additional years of surety.)

Another concern is that the 35-foot buffer for livestock fencing is incompatible with existing cost share programs (NRCS CBI; TMDL-specific funds).  It is illogical for government funding to encourage farmers to install fencing 10 feet from streams, require farmers to sign a 10-year contract for that fencing, and then expect them to move that fencing to meet RMP criteria.

Finally, Soil and Water Conservation Districts are given significant responsibilities in these regulations with no assurance for compensation.  The regulations should specifically stipulate that SWCDs will receive funding to cover the costs of implementing these regulations within their boundaries.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input.

On behalf of the Virginia Cattlemen's Association, it's members and Virginia beef cattle producers, I respectfully offer the following comments regarding the proposed Resource Management Plans offered from the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation.

1. A significant portion of the beef cattle produced in Virginia are managed on rented or leased land that is privately owned/held by individuals with no ownership of agricultural commodities.  Long term rental/lease agreements are difficult for many producers to acquire with these landowners due to both competition from other farmers to rent the land at a higher value and land use pressures that raise the posibility of taking the land out of agricultural production and place it on a course for development.  Many conservation programs, including this one, require a commitment of many years, and while this may be desireable to the farmer renter, it may not be of interest to a renting landowner to enter into long term agreements for conservation programs when the land can be taken out of production or rented elsewhere.  Please consider that all farmers are not operating on 100% owned land where they have control over the ability to implement conservation programs with or without cost share and therefore even consider participating in the RMP.  It is our fear that this and similar proposed/exisitng regulation of conservation practices will force beef producers to downsize due to inability to manage leased land decisions for the long term and lack of incentive for land owners renting to livestock producers to commit to long term agreements necessary for conservation program implementation.

2. The proposed RMP requires a riparian buffer setback of at least 35' which is NRCS standard.  The proposed RMP will provide participating producers "safe harbor" from further regulation over the course of the RMP agreement in the coming years.  Our concern is that the 35' buffer is excessive and not scientifically justified as well as vulnerable to being increased due to political pressures for further environmental regulation without scientific reinforcement for effectiveness.  There is a tremendous amount of money being spent on consservation programs to meet a still undetermined TMDL nutrient reduction goal for Virginia.  Without scientific validation of the minimum necessary riparian buffer width for all environments, we are concerned that the RMP will be exposed to new revisions and possibly costly adjustments in the future and within the terms of exisiting RMPs where implemented.

3. The local Soil and Water Conservation Districts throughout the Commonwealth are valuable resources for information dissemination and program marketing to farmers.  The proposed RMP places an unecessary regulatory burden on the local Soil and Water Conservation Districts and associated staff that they are ill equipped to execute and we feel is outside of the purpose of these Districts.  Soil and Water Conservation Districts are not going to remain effective in a potential regulatory role that they were not created to fill.

I must concurr with sections of the comments already submitted regarding the burden that certifying the Resource Management Plans will place on the Soil and Water Conservation Districts. The staffs of most of these districts are already stretched to the limit within their existing budgets. Wihout more funds to apply to these new duties SWCD's will be hardpressed to carry out these increased duties. We do not need another "unfunded mandate".*******************Mac Saphir-Hanover/Caroline SWCD Director***

I attended the August 14 meeting in Verona, the purpose of which was  to gather comments from local farmers/citizens as to their reactions to the proposed Resource Management Plan regulations. I heard about the meeting a few days before but was surprised to learn at the meeting that it was not publicly advertised. The farmers who attended had not seen the proposed regs and had to endure a reading of same which was crammed into a 30 minute period after which they were invited to make comments. The questions they asked were met with" we are only here to take your comments" and basically went unanswered. The meeting did nothing but reinforce the skepticism and distrust that farmers feel toward government officials.

This meeting could have been a winner if it had been widely publicized well ahead of time along with the proposed regulations, and run by those who used a powerpoint presentation with the key points, and could/would answer questions of clarification.

As the head of a citizen watershed improvement organization, I recognize that we have the same goals as the DCR to encourage best management practices. Farmers are important and deserve our best efforts to help them be successful while they protect our rivers and streams.

I would like to commend the people that no doubt spent long hours developing the proposed regulations. They have set a high bar for conservation and if passed, as is, will surely improve the waters of the Commonwealth.

I strongly support that cropland, pasture and hay-land meet the "T" value for soil erosion as defined by NRCS.

I strongly support the 35-foot buffers on perennial streams.

I would like to make the following comments and suggestions:

As a conservationist and farmer I am curious as to why only perennial streams are addressed in the RMP. I have seen many intermittent streams that are more polluted than the perennial streams they flow into. Therefore I would recommend that intermittent streams be addresses at least in pastures.

I  would rather see both perennial and intermittent streams, as defined by USGS be excluded from livestock with a minimum setback of 10 feet.  I think this would be more effective than requiring a minimum of 35 feet on perennial streams alone.

The published regulations do not mention feedlots or barnyards.  In many cases these land uses do more damage to the waters than the surrounding pastures.

I would suggest that the term "perennial stream" be defined.

Thank you for allowing comment and good luck with the regulations.  This will help restore our streams and the Chesapeake Bay.

I would like to commend the people that no doubt spent long hours developing the proposed regulations. They have set a high bar for conservation and if passed, as is, will surely improve the waters of the Commonwealth.

I strongly support that cropland, pasture and hay-land meet the "T" value for soil erosion as defined by NRCS.

I strongly support the 35-foot buffers on perennial streams.

I would like to make the following comments and suggestions:

As a conservationist and farmer I am curious as to why only perennial streams are addressed in the RMP. I have seen many intermittent streams that are more polluted than the perennial streams they flow into. Therefore I would recommend that intermittent streams be addresses at least in pastures.

I  would rather see both perennial and intermittent streams, as defined by USGS be excluded from livestock with a minimum setback of 10 feet.  I think this would be more effective than requiring a minimum of 35 feet on perennial streams alone.

The published regulations do not mention feedlots or barnyards.  In many cases these land uses do more damage to the waters than the surrounding pastures.

I would suggest that the term "perennial stream" be defined.

Thank you for allowing comment and good luck with the regulations.  This will help restore our streams and the Chesapeake Bay.

The Culpeper Soil and Water Conservation District Board appointed a committee which included Senior Staff of the Board, a Virginia Cooperative Extension Service Agent, several Ag producers and Board members to study the proposed Resource Management Plan Regulations.  The following is the report of the committee, which was unanimously adopted by the Culpeper Soil and Water Conservation District Board on September 4, 2012:

1.  Assuming even a moderate to low level of interest by producers for help in developing resource management plans, a significant question arises: Do the districts have the workforces to service this interest? For conservation district staff to perform as plan developers and/or plan reviewers/compliance "inspectors" requires increased staff levels.  Current staff levels are already strained by increased DCR programs and would not be able to support these functions.

2.  Undertaking plan development would require significant time involvement by senior staff, beginning with the initial inquiry by the producer to substantial final decisions regarding plan component options and implementation.  We must meet with the producers to determine their goals and objectives, assess the farm, develop alternatives and cost estimates which meet the RMP criteria, and present them to the producer.  If structural measures are required, engineering assistance would also need to be made to determine feasibility as well as cost estimastes.  These planning costs will occur even if the producer ultimately elects not to go forward with the RMP.  How would this be funded?

3.  Apart from the previously described on-the-ground costs, districts would also have additional marketing and administration costs.

4.  All the above would also generate data reporting and plan tracking.  How would these costs and needed computer and software resources be funded?

5.  Does a plan tracking database currently exist?  What are the development costs of such and who bears them?

6.  There exists a discrepancy between stream exclusion buffer widths that are funded by the Virginia Agricultural BMP Program (10') and what is proposed for an RMP (35').  Current programs offer reduced cost share for a 10' setback; an option originally created for use by local TMDL implementation plans, presumably to help meet the proposed reductions for those TMDL's.  It is our understanding that those local TMDL's mostly prescribe higher levels of implementation than the BAY WIP does, and if so, why would the 10' setback satisfy those plans and not the BAY WIP?  Thjis seems inconsistent and counterintuitive.  We advocate for including the 10' setbasck option into the RMP regulation.

7.  Depending on stage of implementation, a resource management plan could have up to a 9 year life span.  This creates the risk that a producer would implement a series of conservation practices based on current or past technical criteria and later be asked (required?) to change these practices based on new criteria that are computer model based, particularly for engineered practices.  A far better (and fairer) process would be to grandfather existing bmp practices that meet the technical criteria in place when they were established and (if?) an evaluation confirms their continued function.  Periodic compliance checks can still confirm this.  Case example:  2 years ago "Farmer Jones" fenced all his streams and included in this some 10' setbacks based on small stream widths.  He has fenced all streams on his farm and implements rotational grazing with good forage management.  Should he be excluded from a resource management plan unless he moves all his fences and surrenders a lot more pasture?  This could put him out of business, and the pending risk would make it difficult to generate interest in this program.

8.  We further believe that ongoing changes per computer model demands and then requiring the producer to implement even more restrictive practices at a later date will undermine the confidence of producers in the process and contribute to low interest in voluntary use of resource management plans and, ultimatelty, Bay WIP progress.  Permanence of a resource management plan and grandfathering of already established, technically competent practices should be the norm.

9.  The success of conservation districts in implementing voluntary programs in large part derives from their status as non-regulatory entities.  Adding compliance review functions may threaten our historic trust relationships  with producers and ultimately limit district's ability to implement Virginia's voluntary Bay WIP strategy.  Producers may be unwilling to come forward and engage our services for on farm planning if district's are seen as enforcement agencies.

10.  The economic impact analysis information we reviewed did not appear to include the revenue lost by the producer from the loss of production acres due to any best management practices required by the plan.  This analysis also appeared to underestimate the economic impact on conservation districts when the full costs of organizational growth to accommodate programmatic increases are considered; salary, fringe, office, vehicle, training, certification, etc..........

1) Subject regs. have large import to tens of thousands property owners in Va.- especially those doing real farming for a significant profit (not hobby farming); however, this record so far only has 6 comments--and few of 6 are affected farmers.  Suggest allowing more time here and much more out reach to the farming stakeholders-- are farmers really going to support doing these BMPs?

2) The e-mail received today from Va. Conservation Network helped explain these regs. and some of the many "pros" and efforts to gain them-- to this milestone.  However, I'm submitting and supporting their conclusion paragraph:

"The Department has now developed the details and there are many positive aspects. Unfortunately, the Department has failed to determine whether or not these practices meet Virginia’s water quality objectives. Please stand with us to urge the Soil and Water Conservation Board not to approve these regulations until we have certainty that these practices actually achieve our water quality objectives."

3) I've been fortunate to live in Rockingham since 1977.  For some years, Robert Whitescarver has become a leader and expert of these farm runoff/ water pollution issues.  I support his most current comments on subject regs--copied below:

Commenter: Robert Whitescarver *  You set a high bar - congratulations

I strongly support that cropland, pasture and hay-land meet the "T" value for soil erosion as defined by NRCS.

I strongly support the 35-foot buffers on perennial streams.

I would like to make the following comments and suggestions:

As a conservationist and farmer I am curious as to why only perennial streams are addressed in the RMP. I have seen many intermittent streams that are more polluted than the perennial streams they flow into. Therefore I would recommend that intermittent streams be addresses at least in pastures.

I would rather see both perennial and intermittent streams, as defined by USGS be excluded from livestock with a minimum setback of 10 feet. I think this would be more effective than requiring a minimum of 35 feet on perennial streams alone.

The published regulations do not mention feedlots or barnyards. In many cases these land uses do more damage to the waters than the surrounding pastures.

I would suggest that the term "perennial stream" be defined.

The Board of Directors of the Headwaters Soil and Water Conservation District would like to submit the following comments on the proposed Resource  Management Plan Regulations. 

4VAC50-70-10 Definitions

Line 21 “Management Unit” should be defined as a minimum of a USDA Farm Service Agency Tract as constituted as of July 16, 2012 when the regulations were issued for comment. 

 “Management Unit” is presently defined as being one or more fields or USDA FSA tracts.   The minimum that should qualify for a RMP is a tract of land.   The way it presently reads a farmer could receive a RMP on a crop field that meets the guidelines while a feedlot in the adjacent field contributes animal waste directly to a stream.   Picking and choosing your fields does nothing for water quality and will create a workload that cannot be met.   A conservation minded technician trying to convince the farmer on the initial on-farm assessment visit that he needs to address another issue that he or she is not interested in correcting while the guidelines clearly state that they can have a RMP on only one field will do little for water quality.  By using a set date, landowners will not reconstitute tracts just to isolate bad areas. 

The term perennial as used as a minimum standard of a resource management plan should be clearly defined.   A suggested definition for a perennial stream would be a well-defined channel that contains the flow of water year round during a year of normal rainfall with the aquatic bed located below the water table for most of the year.  This would differ from the intermittent stream which would have a well defined channel but water flow during only part of the year and the ephemeral stream which has flow only in response to a precipitation event and whose stream channel is above the water table.  

You cannot ignore intermittent or ephemeral streams.  There are some intermittent drainage patterns within a pasture that may not contribute flow directly to a stream and therefore would not have to have cattle excluded.  However, an unprotected intermittent stream or a spring branch with cattle wallowing in it can carry nutrients and bacteria in a defined channel through the 35 foot buffer and deposit it directly into the perennial stream.   It is the understanding of the District that the Regulatory Advisory Panel intended the on-farm assessment to determine the need.  The present wording addresses perennial streams only.   Those livestock producers who already refuse to work with government will use the present word perennial to appeal a field decision that an ephemeral stream needs to be fenced.   The definition of “perennial” has already been raised in the August 14 public hearing by a livestock producer.  A decision to include an intermittent or ephemeral stream will need to be made on a case-by-case basis.   The wording in the regulations needs to emphasize that a determination that an intermittent or ephemeral stream must be included can be made during the initial on-farm assessment. 

4VAC50-70-40 Minimum standards of a resource management plan

Lines 99-102 The requirement for a 35 foot buffer on hay land should be reconsidered.   It goes beyond the legislation that authorized Resource Management Plans.  The permanent stand of grass will be slowing velocities and filtering the runoff.    The nutrient management plan that is required prohibits application of animal manure within 100 feet of a perennial stream if there is no filter strip.   That is reduced to 35 feet if there is a minimum 35 foot filter strip.  The Virginia Agricultural Cost-Share Program (VACS) allows lime and commercial fertilizer to be applied to the filter strip and for it to be harvested for hay.   The NRCS specifications allow hay harvest, but may limit applications of fertilizer to prevent nutrient runoff.  Both programs dictate the species that can be planted.  The lime, fertilizer and hay guidelines within this buffer should be clearly defined. 

Lines 106 – 108 A pasture management plan needs to be fully defined.   Presently it states that it must achieve a maximum soil loss of T.  It is the understanding of the District that the Regulatory Advisory Panel expected the plan to only address the soil loss.   However, since other requirements have to meet NRCS standards the technical staff that read this immediately wonders if this pasture management plan means the NRCS Prescribed Grazing Plan.  Very few farmers will want to comply with a Prescribed Grazing Plan.   The RAP’s intentions that this only addresses soil loss of T and will not be an NRCS Prescribed Grazing Plan needs to be clearly stated as such.

Lines 113 – 116 The requirement for a 35 foot buffer goes beyond the legislation that authorized the Resource Management Plan system.  Present State and Federal programs allow a set-back less than 35 feet.   Stream monitoring studies show that this still improves water quality.   Requiring the 35 foot buffer will limit many farmers from receiving an RMP who have already received cost-share for fencing streams with a lesser set-back.   It will also limit the number of livestock producers who would find the RMP an incentive to fence a stream.  

All Resource Management Plans (RMPs) should use USDA FSA Farm, Tract, and Field numbers for consistency.  The Nutrient Management Plan (NMP) is supposed to use this system.   Since the NMP is a part of the RMP there is no reason for two identifying systems. 

DCR should provide templates for the RMP.  DCR should provide these templates, regulations, format, and timetable in an electronic manual easily accessible to all parties. 

4VAC50-70-60 Revisions to a resource management plan; 4VAC50-70- 70 Review of a resource management plan; 4VAC50-70-80 Issuance of a Certificate of Resource Management Plan Implementation;  4VAC50-70-90 Inspections; 4VAC50-70-100 Compliance

 The combination of duties outlined under Chapter 70 moves soil and water conservation districts into a greater regulatory role that will make selling voluntary best management practices more difficult. 

If Resource Management Plans are accepted by the agricultural community in significant numbers, the soil and water conservation districts do not have the personnel and funding to support the duties of the Technical Review Committee.

4VAC50-70-90 Inspections; 4VAC50-70-100 Compliance

Using past experience of the VACS program as a guide and if a significant number of Resource Management Plans are written, the soil and water conservation districts do not have the personnel, funding, and mileage budgets to conduct the inspections and deal with the compliance issues.

4VAC50-70-140 RMP developer qualifications and certification

DCR should provide training for writing RMPs and administration of the program to district staff and directors.  The training should be offered around the state within convenient travel distance and within a period of time that will allow new employees to be on the job quickly.  On-line training should be utilized as much as possible to reduce travel and limit the time personnel are absent from field duties.

General Comments

Staff has been evaluating how the proposed regulations would affect various sites.  It has developed the opinion that Resource Management Plans using the proposed regulations will not accomplish the intended goals. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.