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.