Section 319
NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM SUCCESS STORY
Implementing Agricultural Best Management Practices Reduced
Bacteria in Little Sandy Creek
A , . , , I , Bacteria loads from livestock, septic systems, pets and wildlife
VVaterDOay It flproved sources were Significant contributors to Little Sandy Creek, causing
the creek to violate the water quality standard for bacteria. As a result, the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) added 7.35 miles of Little Sandy Creek to Virginia's 1998 Clean Water
Act (CWA) section 303(d) list of impaired waters for failing to attain the primary contact recreation
designated use. Installing agricultural best management practices (BMPs) decreased bacteria levels in
the creek, allowing Virginia to remove a 2.91-mile-long segment of the initially listed 7.35 miles from its
2012 list of impaired waters.
Problem
The 7,649-acre Little Sandy Creek watershed is
in Prince Edward County, Virginia, and is a part of
the Appomattox River Basin (USGS hydrologic unit
code 02080207). Primary watershed land uses
include forestland (72 percent) and pastureland
(22 percent); the remaining land uses include a mix
of wetlands, commercial, residential, cropland and
water.
The 7.35-mile segment of Little Sandy Creek (seg-
ment VAC-J03R _ LIT01A02) was listed as impaired
in 1998, 2002 and 2004 on Virginia's CWA section
303(d) impaired waters list because it did not sup-
port the state's fecal coliform water quality stan-
dards for recreation/swimming designated uses.
The impaired segment begins at the headwaters of
Little Sandy Creek and continues downstream to
the Sandy River Reservoir (Figure 1).
Before 2003, the applicable bacteria standard
required that no more than 10 percent of samples
(based on a minimum of 12 samples) could exceed
a single sample maximum fecal coliform value of
400 colony-forming units per 100 milliliters of water
(cfu/100 ml). The bacteria samples collected over
the 1998-2002 assessment period at monitoring sta-
tion 2-LIT002.40 violated this threshold 23 percent of
the time. In 2003 the bacteria standard was changed
to one based on Escherichia coli. It requires that no
more than 10 percent of samples haveE coli levels
exceeding 235 cfu/100 ml. Data collected from 2002
to 2003 at station 2-LIT002.40 showed the Little
Sandy Creek segment violated the new standard
22 percent of the time.
O Monitoring Station
A Best Management Practice Location
XV US Highway
/V Secondary Road
Little Sandy Creek Delisted Segment-2012
Little Sandy Creek-VAC-J03R_UT01A02
River/Stream
Little Sandy Creek Watershed
Little Sandy Creek-Delisted Segment
2.91 Miles
Prince Edward Counh
Little Sandy Creek-Impaired Segment
3.24 Miles
0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles
Figure 1. Delisted and impaired segments, best management
practices and water quality monitoring stations in the Little Sandy
Creek watershed.
-------
DEQ developed a bacteria total maximum daily load
(TMDL) for the impaired segment in 2004 (included
in the Appomattox River Watershed TMDL).
Subsequently, in 2008 the Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation (OCR) developed a
TMDL implementation plan for bacteria in the Little
Sandy Creek watershed, in conjunction with Spring
Creek, Briery Creek, Bush River and Saylers Creek.
The plan included input from federal, state and local
government agencies, watershed stakeholders and
residents.
Project Highlights
Landowners installed various agricultural BMPs in
Little Sandy Creek watershed as part of a 2007-
2014TMDL implementation project. These BMPs
addressed bacteria from manure deposited by
livestock directly in the streams, by grazing animals
on pasture and stored manure spread on cropland.
Figure 1 displays the spatial locations of these
BMPs within the watershed.
Visits were made to local farms by state and federal
conservation specialists to promote the use of
agricultural BMPs and to explain their economic
and water quality benefits. The personal outreach
and farmer-to-farmer communication contributed
to the overall project success. The outreach efforts
resulted in a variety of BMP installations in the Little
Sandy Creek watershed during the implementation
period. The agricultural practices include install-
ing approximately 29,529 linear feet (5.6 miles) of
livestock stream exclusion fencing, conducting
2,200 linear feet of stream fencing maintenance,
constructing a composter facility, and planting
470 acres of small grain cover crop, 300 acres of
harvestable cover crop and 18 acres of riparian
forest buffer.
Results
Data calculations from OCR's BMP Tracking
Database indicated that installing BMPs in the
watershed significantly reduced nonpoint source
pollutant loadings, including bacteria. Progress
in reducing the bacteria loadings in the impaired
watershed was reflected in decreasing violation
rates of the single sample maximum criterion
(Figure 2).
^ 100
Si sn
fO
^ icn
O= AH
'•S3 20
o 0
Little Sandy Creek (2-LIT002.40)
22
I ^
2002-2003
Wate
(12 Samples)
^^^M
fl%
(o samples)
2009-2010 2013-Mar2014
Quality Sampling Period
Figure 2. Bacteria violation rate (%) during different sampling
periods in Little Sandy Creek watershed.
Of 12 bacteria samples collected from January
2009 through December 2010 at DEQ's ambient
water quality monitoring program monitoring station
2-LIT002.40, only one sample (less than 10 percent)
exceeded the £ co/i standard. During the 2013-2014
monitoring period, the violation rate dropped to
0 percent. The temporal decrease in violation rates
shows improved water quality. As a result, DEQ
removed a 2.91-mile segment of Little Sandy Creek
from the state's list of impaired waters in 2012.
Partners and Funding
The water quality improvement in the Little Sandy
Creek watershed has primarily resulted from
the outreach and financial and technical assis-
tance administered by Piedmont Soil and Water
Conservation District (SWCD), and several federal
and state agencies including OCR, DEQ and the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Natural
Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). Some CWA
section 319 funds supported OCR staff time as they
provided project oversight and guidance for TMDL
implementation. The outreach efforts included per-
sonal contacts with farmers and group meetings,
watershed tours and presentations to community
residents. Funding for the BMP cost share was pro-
vided through the state Water Quality Improvement
Fund and Virginia Natural Resources Conservation
Fund ($78,716), the USDA Farm Service Agency's
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
($89,912) and the USDA's NRCS funding programs
($44,029). Technical assistance has been funded
through state general funds. The state of Virginia
also provided $8,943 in the form of tax credits
issued to farmers implementing BMPs.
UJ
(9
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Washington, DC
EPA841-F-15-001AA
May 2015
For additional information contact:
Charlie Lunsford, VADEQ
Charlie.Lunsford@deq.virginia.gov • 804-698-4172
Charlie Wootton, Piedmont SWCD
Charles.Wootton@va.nacdnet.net • 443-392-3782
------- |