On behalf of Virginia Farm Bureau Federation representing 34,000 farm families across the state of Virginia, we offer the following comments on the “Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board Guidance Document on the Methodology for Identifying Perennial Streams.” We disagree with the definition of perennial stream in section II.  In the webinar to describe the process of utilizing three different sources of digital data, DCR notes that some of the maps do not adequately show the actual location of a stream.  Therefore, how can a definition be used for “ensuring compliance with §62.1-44.123 of the Code of Virginia” without field verification.  DCR has several years before a possible contingent enactment to implement some type of field verification. This is the only true way to ensure the location of a perennial stream. While we appreciate the utilization of more than one digital map to make this determination of a perennial stream, we do not understand why not require a consensus of all three or four datasets for determination as opposed to only using two of the datasets.  

We also find the guidelines devoid of offering a landowner or farmer a remedy to if the location of the stream is not valid after field verification.  We believe that the guidelines should offer some type of relief for an appeal based on field verification process in the guidelines.  DCR noted in the webinar on this topic that a person wishing to appeal this can go through a process offered by APA, that process is very cumbersome and not clear as to how to achieve a correction to a determination.  At a minimum, we encourage DCR guidance document to outline and provide an appeal process with information from a field verification process in the guidelines.  This ensures transparency and the ability to correct a data problem that does not match the actual location of the perennial stream. 

Finally, we believe that this guidance only selectively references the implementation of §62.1-44.123 without any reference that this section is contingent upon § 62.1-44.119:1.  Therefore, the underlying authority for implementation of the compliance with this section should also reference that the provisions of these guidelines “shall not become effective unless, on or after July 1, 2026, the Secretary of Agriculture and Forestry and the Secretary of Natural Resources jointly determine that the Commonwealth's commitments in the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load Phase III Watershed Implementation Plan have not been satisfied by a combination of agricultural best management conservation practices, including the coverage of a sufficient portion of Chesapeake Bay cropland by nutrient management plans or the installation of a sufficient number of livestock stream exclusion practices." Without this contingent reference, it could be interpreted by future Directors of Department of Conservation and Recreation that they can implement these guidelines without any type of determination if they are applicable or not.

In summary, we believe the guidelines should:

1. Include field verification
2. Offer an clear path for a landowner or farmer to appeal this determination based on field verification
3. Require a consensus of all of the data sets before a determination of perennial stream is made
4. Add that these guidelines only become valid contingent upon the provisions of § 62.1-44.119:1