Virginia Nansemond-Chuckatuck (RCWP 21)

Figure 4.25: Nansemond - Chuckatuck (Virginia) RCWP project map, VA-1.

4.2 Project Findings, Recommendations, and Successes

4.2.1 Definition of Project Objectives and Goals

4.2.1.1 Findings and Successes

It was impossible to document achievement of some of the water quality goals because the variable involved was not measured, such as pesticide levels, soil loss, or sediment loads. Other water quality goals did not specify quantitative targets for reducing water contaminants.

Water quality monitoring goals outlined the steps necessary for a coherent water quality monitoring plan.

4.2.1.2 Recommendations

Water quality goals need to be based on quantitative guidelines so that monitoring can be used to document water quality changes.

Specific water quality variables utilized in goal setting must be monitored; otherwise, the goal is useless.

4.2.2 Project Management and Administration

4.2.2.1 Findings and Successes

This project was extremely well coordinated at all levels which is especially notable since the watershed spanned two counties. As a result, two Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) offices and six water quality monitoring groups were involved in the project. The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) was credited with serving as the bridge between all the various agencies.

The Local Coordinating Committee (LCC) formed a very cohesive working group with no turf battles. There were four subcommittees: Administration, Information and Education (I&E), Technical Assistance, and Monitoring. There was a high degree of coordination among several agencies concerned with water quality monitoring. These included the utilities departments of the cities of Portsmouth and Norfolk, the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences, the State Water Control Board, the State Department of Health, and the Hampton Roads Water Quality Agency, which was responsible for coordinating the monitoring program from 1981 through 1989. Beginning in 1990, the monitoring was coordinated by the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (formerly the Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission) (Spooner, 1991).

Several years before the project ended a number of agency personnel retired. The LCC and the State Coordinating Committee (SCC) discontinued their meetings. As a consequence of personnel changes and lack of meetings, communication broke down toward the end of the project.

4.2.2.2 Recommendations

Due to the long-term nature of water quality projects, a good transference of project history and details to new staff members is essential.

Meetings must be continued through the life of the project in order to keep people informed, involved, and enthusiastic about the project.

Good coordination and communication among participating agencies is a necessary condition for a successful project. Other factors such as critical area or BMP selection are equally important in determining success.

4.2.3 Information and Education

4.2.3.1 Findings and Successes

The Cooperative Extension Service (CES) had the lead role for I&E. Initially there was good coordination within the I&E committee, but meetings stopped, communication broke down, and the I&E effort became less effective.

The most effective tool the I&E committee had for communicating information to area farmers was one-to-one contact. The least effective tool was mailings.

CES was responsible for educating the farmers on fertilizer, animal waste, and pesticide management BMPs. Of the three, animal waste management was the most demanding because of the necessity for determining manure nutrient content, appropriate application rates, and type of application.

4.2.3.2 Recommendations

If project activities are to continue, it is essential that I&E Committee meetings continue over the life of the project.

There is no substitute for one-to-one contacts to transfer technical information to the farmers. Through such contacts, staff can communicate the projects' goals and objectives directly to the farmer.

4.2.4 Producer Participation

4.2.4.1 Findings and Successes

There was a high level of participation in this project. One hundred and thirty-two contracts were received; however, only 107 contracts were signed due to budgetary constraints. Prioritizing of farm attributes allowed the contracting of those farms most in need of BMPs. A combination of several factors led to the high number of participants: the threat of mandatory controls, a positive attitude by the SCS and ASCS, and the availability of cost share dollars.

4.2.4.2 Recommendations

The combination of financial incentive and threat of environmental regulation is effective in achieving farmer participation in water quality programs.

4.2.5 Land Treatment Implementation, Tracking, and Evaluation

4.2.5.1 Findings and Successes

Of the 13 BMPs tailored to address water quality problems, 12 were actually implemented. Both the fertilizer and pesticide management BMPs as well as the permanent vegetative cover and the sediment retention BMPs exceeded their contracting goals. All other BMPs were implemented at 50% of their target goals or higher. Within the expanded critical area, 15,084 acres were treated (63% of the acreage).

Some project personnel believed that in order for BMPs to have been effective in reducing nonpoint source (NPS) pollution, the entire watershed should have been designated as the critical area.

Several participants believed that Integrated Crop Management (ICM) would have been an extremely valuable BMP in that it would have dealt with the water quality problem within the context of a complete system rather than in separate parts.

Land treatment implementation practices were tracked through the use of color-coded SCS contracts. Annual status reviews were conducted by the SCS.

4.2.5.2 Recommendations

Flexibility in choosing and designing BMPs tailored to specific farm operators or sites was important in determining their successful implementation.

Farming practices that save the farmers money and are easily maintained will be continued beyond the formal end of the project.

4.2.6 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation

4.2.6.1 Findings and Successes

Monthly water quality monitoring efforts were conducted for trend analysis. Detailed data from water quality monitoring exist but the project lacked the funds for final data analysis and trend support.

Regression equations for the 1983-1988 water quality data were calculated using a program in STORET, but the equations have not been tested for significance. Improving trends in total suspended solids (TSS) and orthophosphorus (OP) was observed for Nansemond River as compared with reports from the 1960s. An improving trend in nitrate nitrogen (NO3-N) was observed for Chuckatuck Creek. However, these trends may not be attributable to the Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP) project because they emerged in the late 1960s after point sources were removed from the project area. Thus an improving trend in water quality was already in effect in the estuaries when the RCWP project began.

Analysis of water supply lakes in the project area indicates high variability in water quality data and little evidence of trends. Manipulation of the water supply lakes for water withdrawal and storage of pumped ground water substantially confounds results. Ground water with high OP contents was pumped into the reservoirs when the reservoirs drop below a specified height. No allowance was made for climatological variation, for events outside the project area such as a lack of homogeneity and changes in land use such as urbanization and population growth at the expense of farms and wetlands. No pesticide monitoring, flow measurements, or storm sampling was conducted.

Intense end of project water quality monitoring and statistical analysis had been planned. However, due to a shortage of funds, this monitoring and analysis was not completed.

4.2.6.2 Recommendations

In order to ensure water quality monitoring over the life of the project, adequate funds must be made available.

Trend detection in reservoirs is difficult even under good conditions. When water quality measures are confounded by pumping ground water into a reservoir or drawing a reservoir down, trend detection is almost impossible. In order to determine the effectiveness of BMPs on water quality, tributaries should have been monitored using paired watershed or downstream/upstream monitoring.

4.2.7 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality

4.2.7.1 Findings and Successes

The project was unable to demonstrate any linkage between land treatment and water quality.

4.2.7.2 Recommendations

Water quality and land treatment monitoring must be designed correctly if linkage between the two are to be documented.

4.3 Project Description

4.3.1 Project Type and Time Frame

1981 - 1991

4.3.2 Water Resource and Watershed Descriptions

4.3.2.1 Water Resource and Water Quality

4.3.2.1.1 Water Resource Type and Size

7 water supply reservoirs: 4,850 acres

Streams: 195 miles

2 estuaries: size not reported

4.3.2.1.2 Water Uses and Impairments

Reservoirs in the project area are sources of public water supply for the cities of Norfolk, Chesapeake, Portsmouth, Suffolk, and Virginia Beach, Virginia. Chuckatuck Creek is a productive shellfish growing area and a tidal tributary to the James River. Commercial and recreational fishing and shellfishing are important water uses. The reservoirs are becoming eutrophic due to sediment and nutrients. Tidal waters are impaired by high fecal coliform levels.

4.3.2.1.3 Water Quality Problem Statement

Tidal waters are impaired by high fecal coliform levels that increase during and after runoff events. Reservoirs in the project area are becoming eutrophic due to excess nutrients and sediment.

4.3.2.1.4 Water Quality Objectives and Goals

• Reduce the fecal coliform organisms in the water supply reservoirs, Nansemond River, and ChuckatuckCreek to within tolerable limits
• Reduce the total soil loss by 87,000 tons per year
• Reduce the turbidity and sediment loading of the 195 miles of streams and 4,850 acres of water supply reservoirs
• Reduce the amount of plant nutrients and pesticides being discharged into local streams and reservoirs

4.3.2.2 Watershed Characteristics

4.3.2.2.1

Watershed Area: 161,365 acres
Project Area: 161,365 acres
Critical Area: 23,908 acres

4.3.2.2.2 Relevant Hydrologic, Geologic, and Meteorologic Factors

Mean Annual Precipitation: 48 inches

Geologic Factors: The project area is characterized by nearly level to gently rolling topography with steep slopes adjacent to small tributary streams. Most soils have moderately low erodibility factors. Depth to ground water is generally 25 feet or more.

4.3.2.2.3 Project Area Agriculture

In the project area there are 825 farms, averaging 177 acres, which produce peanuts, corn, soybeans, small grains, hogs, beef, poultry, and dairy livestock. There are 162 animal operations. The majority of the 65,000 tons (T) of manure produced annually in the critical area is either from hog or beef operations. Before the project started, many of the hog production facilities were located on dirt lots.

4.3.2.2.4 Land Use

Use		% of Project Area	% of Critical Area
Cropland		27			32
Pasture-range		3			NA
Woodland		63			NA
Urban/roads		1			NA
Other		
  Wetland		4			NA
  Unspecified		2			NA

4.3.2.2.5 Animal Operations

Operation	# Farms		Total #		Total
		Animals		Units		Animal

Dairy		 1		    125		  175
Beef		24		  2,724		2,724
Hog		40		 24,000		9,600
Poultry		 8		448,000		1,478

Animal numbers and annual production of manure decreased during the life of the project. From 1982 to 1984, dairy cow numbers declined by 275; hog numbers declined by 6,365. Poultry declined by 18,000 birds. This translates into a reduction of 13,381 tons or 13% of wet manure generated per year. Figures given above are for 1984.

4.3.3 Total Project Budget

   SOURCES	Federal		State		Farmer	   Other
ACTIVITY							   SUM
Cost Share 	1,721,000	    0	      4,242,000	       0   5,963,000
Info. & Ed.	   63,900	    0		      0	   2,000      65,900
Tech. Asst.	  448,595           0	              0	  48,000     496,595
Water Quality
Monitoring	   72,000      23,400                 0	  25,000*    120,400
SUM		2,305,495      23,400	      4,242,000   75,000  $6,645,895**

4.3.4 Information and Education

4.3.4.1 Strategy

No information available

4.3.4.2 Objectives and Goals

Introduce farmers to the project

Teach farmers about nutrient management

4.3.4.3 Program Components

Newsletters

Personal visits

Media coverage (newspapers, radio spots)

Meetings

Tours

Education materials

Diagnostic clinic

Farm demonstrations on the use of swine and broiler waste as a source of nitrogen

Soil and animal waste testing

4.3.5 Producer Participation

4.3.5.1 Level of Participation

Between 50 and 70 producers were waiting to sign contracts when the contractual period started. More applications for contracts (132 contracts) were received than could be funded (107 contracts). Signed contracts covered 15,034 critical acres (84% of the critical area originally proposed). Although contracts were selected through a prioritization process based on location, type of animal operations, and other factors, the critical area ended up being defined based on funding availability.

4.3.5.2 Incentives to Participation

Cost share rate of 75% for most practices, except cover crops and some waste application equipment cost shared at 50%. Fertilizer and pesticide management were not cost shared.

Payment limit of $50,000 per contract (some contracts cover multiple tracts)

Excellent coordination among all the agencies involved, resulting in a well designed program that interested the farmers

Concern among area farmers that they would be regulated if they didn't participate

4.3.5.3 Barriers to Participation

Lack of availability of cost share funds

Lack of interest on the part of absentee landowners

4.3.5.4 Chances of Continued Maintenance/Adoption of BMPs

Chances for continued maintenance for most BMPs is considered excellent. Two of the four BMPs with the highest rate of implementation, fertilizer and pesticide management, were not cost shared, yet the farmers used them. The farmers are aware of the threat of regulation if they do not deal with the water quality problem through voluntary adoption of BMPs. Further, continued BMP maintenance will facilitate compliance with the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act.

Most structural BMPs and stabilizing structures at field edges will probably be maintained. Waterways will be harder to maintain due to the sandy soils and the necessity for reseeding.

4.3.6 Land Treatment

4.3.6.1 Strategy and Design

Application and maintenance of BMPs on the part of the farm contributing to water quality problems.

4.3.6.2 Objectives and Goals

No information available

4.3.6.3 Critical Area Criteria and Application

Criteria: Originally - the area one mile from the Nansemond River or its impoundments and one mile from Chuckatuck Creek

Due to concerns about accelerated soil erosion in the in the Nansemond, an erosion and sediment evaluation was conducted in 1985. As a consequence of the evaluation findings, RCWP critical areas were expanded to include areas of high erosion (the new boundary included a one-mile radius from all tributaries).

In treating the expanded critical area, the project established a priority checklist for ranking. Weights were based primarily on distance to live streams and less than optimal soil or animal waste management. Animal waste operations were given twice the priority of croplands, and erosion problems were given the same priority as pesticide and fertilizer management problems. Farms with animal operations and no cropland treatment needs did not qualify.

Unfortunately, the project was not able to secure the additional funds necessary to treat all farms needing and wanting BMPs in the expanded critical areas.

4.3.6.4 Best Management Practices Used

General Scheme: The project has concentrated primarily on animal waste management, for hog and dairy operations, and conservation tillage with fertilizer and pesticide management.

BMPs Utilized in the Project	*		Units	Goals	Achievements	Total %	
Permanent vegetative cover (BMP 1)		acres	   200	   282		141
Animal waste management system (BMP 2)		#	    41	    22		 54
Diversion system (BMP 5)			feet	15,000	 7,750		 52
Grazing land protection system (BMP 6)		#	    30	    21		 70
Waterway system (BMP 7)				acres	    20	    11		 55
Cropland protection system (BMP 8)		acres	14,000	 9,452		 68
Conservation tillage system (BMP 9)		acres	 9,500	 7,870		 83
Stream protection system (BMP 10)		feet	12,000	 8,000		 67
Permanent vegetative cover on critical areas
	(BMP 11)				acres	   100	    66		 66
Sediment retention, erosion or water control
	structures (BMP 12)			#	   100	   109		109
Tree planting (BMP 14)				acres	   100	     0		  0
Fertilizer management (BMP 15)			acres	14,000	14,536		104
Pesticide management (BMP 16)			acres	14,000	14,530		104

*Please refer to Appendix I for description/purpose of BMPs.

4.3.6.5 Land Treatment and Use Monitoring & Tracking Program

4.3.6.5.1 Description

The land treatment program was implemented by the SCS, which kept records to identify each contract with respect to the water resource affected. The watershed was divided into four subwatersheds for ease of tracking.

4.3.6.5.2 Data Management

No data management system was in place during this project.

4.3.6.5.3 Data Analysis and Results

Quantified Project Achievements:

Pollutant Critical Area Goals Source Units Total % Implemented Total % Implemented Cropland acres 23,908 63% 16,665 90% Dairies # 1 100% 1 100% Feedlots # 50 74% 38 97% Poultry # 8 38% 6 50% Contracts # 184 58% 107 81%

4.3.7 Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation

4.3.7.1 Strategy and Design

A monitoring program was developed by the Hampton Roads Water Quality Agency (HRWQA) based on ongoing monitoring efforts of public utilities in Portsmouth and Norfolk and the Virginia State Water Control Board and the Virginia Department of Health. HRWQA also funded and managed a major pre-project water quality assessment and evaluation conducted by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Beginning in 1990, monitoring was coordinated by the Southeastern Virginia Planning District Commission (now called the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission).

4.3.7.2 Objectives and Goals

The general objective was to determine whether or not large- scale implementation of agricultural BMPs would result in improved water quality in the principal project area water bodies.

Specific goals for each phase in the work plan included:

Setting pre-RCWP baseline as a basis for comparison

Collecting water quality data during the project so that annual changes could be observed

Conducting an intensive water quality survey at the end of the program

4.3.7.3 Time Frame

Reservoir Monitoring: 1982 - 1991

Estuarine Monitoring: 1983 - 1991

4.3.7.4 Sampling Scheme

4.3.7.4.1 Monitoring Stations

Reservoir Monitoring: 12 stations in Nansemond River water supply reservoirs

Estuarine Monitoring: 4 stations in Nansemond River estuary and 3 stations in Chuckatuck Creek estuary

4.3.7.4.2 Sample Type

Grab

4.3.7.4.3 Sampling Frequency

Monthly

4.3.7.4.4 Variables Analyzed

Reservoir Monitoring: Total solids (TS), total suspended solids (TSS), total phosphorus (TP), pH, temperature, fecal coliform (FC), dissolved oxygen (DO), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), algal species

Estuarine Monitoring: DO, salinity, TSS, nitrate nitrogen (NO3-N), dissolved orthophosphate (OP), FC, BOD

4.3.7.4.5 Flow Measurement

None

4.3.7.4.6 Meteorologic Measurements

Monthly rainfall: 1982-1988

4.3.7.4.7 Other Important Water Quality Monitoring and Evaluation Information

None

4.3.7.5 Data Management

Monitoring data for Chuckatuck Creek and Nansemond River stations are in STORET. Reservoir data are maintained as follows:
Norfolk Utilities: 6 stations in Lake Prince, Lake Burnt Mills, and Western Branch
Portsmouth Utilities: 8 stations in Lake Meade, Lake Cahoon, Lake Kilby, and Lake Speights Run

			STORET		STORET
			AGENCY CODES	STATION NO.
Chuckatuck Creek	21VASWCB	2-CKT000.19
					2-CKT001.63
					2-CKT003.05

Nansemond River		21VASWCB	2-NAN000.20
					2-NAN005.82
					2-NAN007.89
					2-NAN012.53
					2-NAN019.14

4.3.7.6 Data Analysis and Results

Visual comparison of monitoring data (tabular and graphic) with baseline information from a survey by Hampton Roads Water Quality Agency (1982) was done in order to detect trends. Regression analysis was also conducted. A more detailed statistical analysis was planned for the end of the project but was not completed due to funding limitations.

The project did not unequivocally meet its objectives for reducing fecal coliform, total soil loss, turbidity and sediment loading, plant nutrients, and pesticides. Some of the measurements needed for determination of goal achievement were never made, such as pesticide concentrations and total soil loss. Analysis of the water supply lakes in the project area indicated high variability in water quality data and little evidence of trends. For the other variables, initial trend analysis in the Nansemond River estuary indicated that TSS and NO3-N appear to be declining, but OP is increasing. NO3-N and OP are declining in the Chuckatuck Creek estuary. These trends may be attributable to changes in point source discharges on Nansemond River and closure of a large swine operation on Chuckatuck Creek rather than BMPs installed through the RCWP project.

4.3.8 Linkage of Land Treatment and Water Quality

4.3.9 Impact of Other Federal and State Programs on the Project

4.3.10 Other Pertinent Information

4.3.11 References

Nansemond-Chuckatuck RCWP Project. 1992. Ten-Year Report.

Smolen, M.D., S.L. Brichford, J. Spooner, A. Lanier, T.B. Bennett, S.W. Coffey, and K.J. Adler. 1989. NWQEP 1988 Annual Report: Status of Agricultural Nonpoint Source Projects. EPA 506/9-89/002.

Spooner, J., J.A. Gale, S.L. Brichford, S.W. Coffey, A.L. Lanier, M.D. Smolen, and F.J. Humenik. 1991. NWQEP Report: Water Quality Monitoring Report for Agricultural Nonpoint Source Projects - Methods and Findings from the Rural Clean Water Program. National Water Quality Evaluation Project, NCSU Water Quality Group, Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

4.3.12 Project Contacts

Administration

Wilson Leggett
USDA-ASCS
400 North 8th Street
Richmond, VA 23240
(804) 771-2591

Water Quality

John M. Carlock
Director of Physical and Environmental Planning
Hampton Roads Planning District Commission
723 Woodlake Drive
Chesapeake, VA 23320
(804) 420- 8300

Land Treatment

James Wright
USDA-SCS
1548 Holland Rd.
Suffolk, VA 23434
(804) 539-9270

Information and Education

Virginia Cooperative Extension Service
P.O. Box 364
Windsor, VA 23487
(804) 242-6195