4VAC50-70-70. Review of a resource management plan.
A. Upon completion of a new or revised RMP in accordance with 4VAC50-70-50 and 4VAC50-70-60, the owner or operator or the RMP developer on behalf of the owner or operator, shall submit the RMP to the review authority. If the RMP developer is a district employee or district board member of the district that is the designated review authority, the department shall serve as the review authority for that RMP.
B. Each soil and water conservation district shall establish a Technical Review Committee (TRC). RMPs received by a soil and water conservation district shall be referred to the TRC for review to ensure the RMP fully meets the minimum standards set forth in 4VAC50-70-40 and the components specified in 4VAC50-70-50. Within 90 days of receipt of the RMP, the soil and water conservation district shall notify the owner or operator and the RMP developer in writing if the RMP fulfills such requirements. An RMP that fails to fulfill such requirements shall be returned to the RMP developer noting all deficiencies. A revised RMP may be resubmitted once the noted deficiencies have been satisfactorily addressed. Revised submittals shall be reviewed and a response regarding RMP sufficiency or a listing of RMP deficiencies provided within 45 days of receipt.
C. If an RMP is located within multiple soil and water conservation districts, each TRC will review the portion of the plan applicable to the management unit within their district, either in consultation or independently of each other. The soil and water conservation district with the largest amount of acreage under the RMP has lead responsibility for (i) coordinating the review among multiple districts; (ii) resolving disputes; (iii) corresponding with the owner or operator and RMP developer regarding the RMP review; and (iv) when appropriate, submitting required documentation to the department to support issuance of a Certificate of RMP Implementation.
D. RMPs received by the department where no local soil and water conservation district exists, or where the RMP developer is a district employee or district board member of the district that would have been the designated review authority, must fully meet minimum standards set forth in 4VAC50-70-40 and the components specified in 4VAC50-70-50 and shall be reviewed by the department. Within 90 days of receipt of the RMP, the department shall notify the owner or operator and the RMP developer if the RMP fulfills such requirements. An RMP that fails to fulfill such requirements shall be returned to the RMP developer noting all deficiencies. A revised RMP may be resubmitted once the noted deficiencies have been satisfactorily addressed. Revised submittals shall be reviewed and a response regarding RMP sufficiency or a listing of RMP deficiencies provided within 45 days of receipt.
E. When an RMP is determined by the review authority to be insufficient to meet minimum standards set forth in 4VAC50-70-40 and the components specified in 4VAC50-70-50, such review authority shall work with the owner or operator and the RMP developer to revise the RMP.
F. Where an RMP is deemed sufficient, the notification issued to the owner or operator and the RMP developer by the review authority shall include approval of the plan and its implementation in accordance with subsection B or D of this section, whichever is applicable.
G. When an owner or operator is aggrieved by an action of the review authority pursuant to this section, the owner or operator shall have a right to appeal in accordance with 4VAC50-70-110.
Statutory Authority
§ 10.1-104.8 of the Code of Virginia.
Historical Notes
Derived from Virginia Register Volume 30, Issue 18, eff. July 1, 2014.