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..........