Section 319
NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM SOCGESS STORY
Vtra
Implementing Management Practices Reduces Nitrate in Virginias
Muddy Creek
\A/ t h H I H Nutrients from agriculture and failing septic systems contributed to
VVdierDOQy improved Vj0|atjons Of tne nitrate-nitrogen drinking water use water quality
standard in Virginia's Muddy Creek. As a result, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
added a 2.17-mile segment of the creek to the state's Clean Water Act (CWA) section 303(d) list of
impaired waters in 1998. Project partners worked with landowners to implement numerous residential
and agricultural best management practices (BMPs), which overtime brought nitrogen levels in the
creek into compliance with the water quality standards. As a result, VA DEQ removed this segment of
Muddy Creek from the state's list of impaired waters for nitrate-nitrogen in 2010.
Problem
Muddy Creek is in Rockingham County, approxi-
mately 15 miles northwest of Harrisonburg, Virginia
(Figure 1). Muddy Creek drains into Lower Dry
River, a headwater tributary of the South Fork of the
Shenandoah River in the Chesapeake Bay water-
shed. Land uses in the 20,025-acre watershed are
predominantly agriculture and forestry.
Lower Muddy Creek is designated for public
drinking water use because it is less than 5 miles
upstream of the water treatment plant intakes for
two local municipalities. DEQ added the lower
2.17 miles of Muddy Creek to the state's 1998
CWA section 303(d) list of impaired waters for
violating the state's water quality standard for
nitrate-nitrogen. The creek was listed again in
2004 based on monitoring that showed that three
of 53 samples violated the public drinking water
use water quality standard, 10 milligrams per liter
(mg/L) nitrate-nitrogen. The creek was also listed
as impaired for nitrate-nitrogen during the 2006
and 2008 assessment cycles. In 1996 all of Muddy
Creek (a 10.36-mile-long segment extending from
the headwaters to its confluence with Dry River)
had been listed as impaired for violating bacteria
water quality standards for recreation and for failing
to support its aquatic life designated use.
In 2000 DEQ completed a total maximum daily
load (TMDL) study for nitrate in Muddy Creek. The
TMDL identified the load reductions that would be
necessary for the creek to comply with water qual-
ity standards. The study identified the key sources
of nitrogen as failing septic systems, straight pipes,
and runoff from pasture and cropland areas.
Muddy Creek
Watershed
Figure 1. Muddy Creek is in northwestern Virginia.
Project Highlights
In 2001 the Virginia Department of Conservation
and Recreation (OCR) completed a TMDL imple-
mentation plan with the help of local landown-
ers and watershed partners. After more than an
estimated 1,100 hours of community input and
assistance, OCR released a plan that outlined the
BMPs that would be needed to achieve the TMDL,
along with associated costs and a project timeline.
Following completion of this plan, OCR provided
the Shenandoah Valley Soil and Water Conservation
District (SVSWCD) with CWA section 319 grant
funds to help watershed landowners implement the
recommended BMPs.
In the early 2000s, SVSWCD staff worked with prop-
erty owners to implement BMPs, including installing
-------
Figure 2. Livestock exclusion
fencing was voluntarily
implemented in the Muddy Creek
watershed.
5,514 feet of livestock
exclusion fencing, planting
14 acres of riparian buffers,
establishing permanent veg-
etative cover on 108 acres
of cropland, establishing
no-till forage production on
26 acres and cover crops
on 4,030 acres, and build-
ing 14 animal waste control
facilities and eight loafing
lot management systems.
SVSWVD staff also worked
with homeowners to pump
out 41 septic systems and
repair or replace 18 systems (four of which were
replaced with alternative waste treatment systems).
The Shenandoah Resource Conservation and
Development Council (RC&D) developed a flexible
fencing program using private, non-government
grant funds to assist farmers (including those within
the Muddy Creek watershed) with streamside
livestock exclusion fencing (Figure 2).
Numerous farmers worked with OCR staff to
develop and implement nutrient management plans
on more than 3,200 acres. Many of the farmers
also worked with OCR to conduct pre-sidedress
soil nitrate testing in cornfields, which determines
whether the soil has adequate nitrogen for the
growing season. OCR estimates that this test-
ing allowed farmers to reduce nitrogen inputs on
200 acres of farmland in Muddy Creek. Efforts are
currently under way to further increase precision
in nitrogen application on corn through a cornstalk
nitrogen testing program.
Results
DEQ monitors Virginia's impaired streams through
the agency's ambient monitoring program. Between
2003 and 2006, data showed no violations (out
of 31 samples) of the nitrate-nitrogen standard.
Beginning in 2007, DEQ transitioned from monitoring
nitrate-nitrogen as a single parameter to monitoring
nitrate + nitrite nitrogen (combined) because of bud-
getary constraints. During 2007-2008, the combined
nitrate + nitrite nitrogen monitoring data showed no
violations of 15 samples (Figure 3). Based on these
data, DEQ removed the 2.17-mile-long segment of
Muddy Creek from the state's 2010 list of impaired
waters for its nitrate-nitrogen impairment. The creek
remains listed as impaired for bacteria and aquatic
life use non-support.
Date
Figure 3. Average nitrate levels in Muddy Creek have
steadily declined and have consistently met water quality
standards (10 mg/L nitrate-nitrogen) since 2003.
Partners and Funding
The success of this conservation initiative in the
Muddy Creek watershed was largely attributed to
partnerships between the local community and the
conservation organizations that serve the water-
shed. Key partners include SVSWCD, OCR, DEQ,
Shenandoah RC&D, Virginia Cooperative Extension,
Rockingham County Farm Bureau, the Virginia
Department of Health, and the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS). These partners hosted
farm tours, developed and distributed outreach
materials promoting agricultural and residential
BMPs, and provided technical assistance to anyone
in the watershed wanting to implement conservation
practices. In addition, the watershed's Old Order
Mennonite community played a significant role in
the success by voluntarily implementing BMPs.
Between 2001 and 2008, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency CWA section 319 funds sup-
ported two full-time SVSWCD staff positions to
provide technical assistance for installing agricultur-
al and residential BMPs. As a result, the SVSWCD
administered $286,965 in CWA section 319 funds
for agricultural BMPs and $55,855 for residential
BMPs within the watershed. Virginia's Agricultural
Cost Share Program provided $472,405 between
2000 and 2011 for agricultural BMP implementa-
tion in the watershed. Cost share funds were also
provided through the NRCS Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Program and Environmental Quality
Incentives Program.
<
•a
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Washington, DC
EPA841-F-12-0010
June 2012
For additional information contact:
Megan O'Gorek, Residential TMDL Coordinator
Shenandoah Valley Soil and Water Conservation District
540-433-2853, ext. 4
Nesha McRae, TMDL/Watershed Field Coordinator
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
540-332-9238
------- |