Mr. White said as he reads the WIP goals some of the nitrogen is going for ag sector and he is concerned whether the goal are realistic in looking at the details. A lot of the easy stuff has been done and the more challenging aspects have not been done and he is concerned whether enough attention is being focused on that. He is concerned there is a communication problem and the regs have not kept up with it. There may be a trade off with the animals out of the steam or a riparian buffer and in some case can’t get those and now they are doing nothing. Down in the weeds, there are a lot of things going on that impact the ability to get that number. Mr. Hynson said he is correct and the easy stuff has been done and he is not certain if the numbers are achievable. Mr. White said FOR has some programs that sit on this that should be looked at. Ms. Conner said this will be a proving ground to see what can be done. There are things out there but we have never counted them. We are paying farmers to report what they are doing so we can finally take credit for it. Mr. White said someone needs to get out of the box to look at other solutions. Mr. Webert said he has implemented 16,000 feet of fencing and the only time they have come close to running that was in 2015. The WIP mandate program terrifies them. He said they have never had any longevity with funding for these programs. He said there are a lot of streams along the Shenandoah River and other rivers. He said if they can maintain it they have to guarantee the funding is there for 5-6 years. Ag is sitting there with a huge target on their back and ag and corn is just sitting there. Chairman Hodges said all this is going into the bay, He asked the EPA if conservational landscapes 100 foot budget cannot be enhanced. He said he has some legislation to enhance the RPA. Mr. Webert suggested workable projects to have a bigger impact and he said it is not going to be there unless everyone stands together and puts in a budget amendment for this. It has to be there. Mr. White said there is a real disconnect and someone needs to see that. Delegate Webert said he is trying to educate higher ups on what is being done. He said it will be a process and the things need to happen for those making a living in ag, mandates have to be out and the funding has to be there.

Mr. Hofmann said the WIP is a guide forward and discussed some of the ways and if we don’t want to put the impetus on ag may have to spend 1 million for a project instead of less. He said he thinks Virginia and all the PDCs work hard to task the best plan. What is on the document will not happen by 2025 because there will be changes. He discussed the cost share incentives and how it changes. Delegate Webert asked how much land involved in SL6 meets reforestation. Ms. Conner said you do not have to reforest with an SL6. Mr. Hoffman said you can get paid to put a fence in and not paid to put trees in and with this program may get more pay to put the trees in 250 dollars an acre for 1 acre for forest buffer. Dr. Spethamn said he serves on the inter agency team and lot of these projects are there. He added why they are looking for natural capital because a lot of the funding does not exist. When you look at the healthy watershed forest it puts money in the pockets of the localities and farmers. He said some if the numbers were self reporting by SWCD. When DEQ went around to meetings, took numbers and added them into the WIP and when you try to argue form the point they are not realistic and they are self reported it becomes a little harder argument. Creativity and innovation are programs that look at how to asses how to accomplish the big bay cleanup project. Urban canopy, was not included in previous WIPs. There will be significant gains looking at maturity measurements, looking at satellite information being collected as we seek and will get the gains. How much further did the canopy grow to get extra feet of credit toward