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.