Many Perennial streams in Virginia's Ridge & Valley geological areas begin in mountain watersheds in Forested areas and then flow out into valley areas with Karst geology where they may go underground for part of the year.

Therefore it is important that the mountain streams in forested areas are shown in enough detail on at least one of the data sets that DCR uses, so that a stream that goes underground into the Karst geology of the Valley areas, can be considered to be a Perennial stream based on its upstream portion that has riffles and pools.

Livestock in streams cause excess sediment and nutrient pollution. Nutrient pollution kills aquatic invertebrates. These include larval food species for fish, swifts and swallows which are showing the greatest declines for birds.  Grazing cattle will mean less trout and other fish for recreation. 

Swifts and swallows are showing the greatest declines of all bird groups in North America. These are the canary in the coal mines for the problems of increasing nutrient pollution. Dying Eagles and Osprey warned us of problems with DDT in the 1970’s. It wasn’t until 2020 that we learned that DDT caused testicular cancer. But is was a good thing that we stopped it in the 1970’s. 

Richmond Audubon members enjoy counting birds as part of ecotourism. But the declines in these birds let us become aware of larger problems. Farmers on small farms should be given funds or tax deductions to defray the cost of water troughs and their maintenance.  As more of our land is developed and less forests protect water, we should act to fence off streams from cattle before more damage is done.

Cattle having free range into the rivers is a major problem for many reasons. Creating an open source for stormwater runoff, mud and silt is a huge problem. Siltation is a major problem facing the James River now, and it has been for a while.  The tidal James River continues to fill with silt on each flood, and the non tidal James continues feeding it. The non tidal James has accumulated far too much silt, and it covers the majority of the historic spawning grounds for smallmouth bass, red-breasted sunfish, bluegill and other important species of the river. Smallmouth bass numbers in Richmond have dropped dramatically, and this downward trend is working it's way upriver. While there are multiple reasons for their demise, siltation and the loss of spawning habitat is one of the biggest.

Farmers with cattle should be given tax deductions or special funds to create water troughs for their cattle. It is the right thing to do. Every step we can take to protect what is left of the James River's ecology is a step in the right direction.  Thank you.

As a retired veterinarian who had a small animal practice and then obtained a Masters of Public Health and transitioned to working for the Virginia Department of Public Health as their first state public health veterinarian and later became deputy state epidemiologist I feel qualified to strongly agree with fencing cattle from streams. Livestock in streams are bound to have a negative impact on humans, animals, other living organisms and the local stream environment in general. I support the state's plan to help farmers help the environment.

Cows and live stock in or near streams introduce urine and feces that interfere with the web of life.  In the old days, it did not matter.  Today with so many people and so much development, fencing the animals to keep them in their fields is a small price to pay for cleaner water.  This is the foundation of the web of life.  Clean water effects all creatures.

On behalf of Virginia Farm Bureau Federation representing 34,000 farm families across the state of Virginia, we offer the following comments on the “Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board Guidance Document on the Methodology for Identifying Perennial Streams.” We disagree with the definition of perennial stream in section II.  In the webinar to describe the process of utilizing three different sources of digital data, DCR notes that some of the maps do not adequately show the actual location of a stream.  Therefore, how can a definition be used for “ensuring compliance with §62.1-44.123 of the Code of Virginia” without field verification.  DCR has several years before a possible contingent enactment to implement some type of field verification. This is the only true way to ensure the location of a perennial stream. While we appreciate the utilization of more than one digital map to make this determination of a perennial stream, we do not understand why not require a consensus of all three or four datasets for determination as opposed to only using two of the datasets.  

We also find the guidelines devoid of offering a landowner or farmer a remedy to if the location of the stream is not valid after field verification.  We believe that the guidelines should offer some type of relief for an appeal based on field verification process in the guidelines.  DCR noted in the webinar on this topic that a person wishing to appeal this can go through a process offered by APA, that process is very cumbersome and not clear as to how to achieve a correction to a determination.  At a minimum, we encourage DCR guidance document to outline and provide an appeal process with information from a field verification process in the guidelines.  This ensures transparency and the ability to correct a data problem that does not match the actual location of the perennial stream. 

Finally, we believe that this guidance only selectively references the implementation of §62.1-44.123 without any reference that this section is contingent upon § 62.1-44.119:1.  Therefore, the underlying authority for implementation of the compliance with this section should also reference that the provisions of these guidelines “shall not become effective unless, on or after July 1, 2026, the Secretary of Agriculture and Forestry and the Secretary of Natural Resources jointly determine that the Commonwealth's commitments in the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load Phase III Watershed Implementation Plan have not been satisfied by a combination of agricultural best management conservation practices, including the coverage of a sufficient portion of Chesapeake Bay cropland by nutrient management plans or the installation of a sufficient number of livestock stream exclusion practices." Without this contingent reference, it could be interpreted by future Directors of Department of Conservation and Recreation that they can implement these guidelines without any type of determination if they are applicable or not.

In summary, we believe the guidelines should:

1. Include field verification
2. Offer an clear path for a landowner or farmer to appeal this determination based on field verification
3. Require a consensus of all of the data sets before a determination of perennial stream is made
4. Add that these guidelines only become valid contingent upon the provisions of § 62.1-44.119:1

On behalf of the Culpeper Soil and Water Conservation District Board of Directors.

Absolutely necessary for the effectiveness of the proposed ( or any ) methodology for identifying perennial streams related to any "requirement" for fencing out livestock is the inclusion of extensive field testing of adopted methodology(s)  prior to expecting any landowner to abide by it.  We recommend that this be included in the narrative of the draft guidance document as an essential step in the process. Secondly, we recommend that it be clearly identified in the draft what recourse any landowner has to appeal any such determination using the proposed methodology and what process will be utilized to reconcile the appeal. 

The Board appreciates the opportunity to provide comment. 

Advancements in geospatial technologies have made it possible to extensively define and monitor our shared hydrologic systems.  This proposal outlines a comprehensive approach to further defining existing watershed data.  Data necessary to better enforce Code of Virginia, §62.1-44.123.