HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources April 9 20021
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
April 9, 2002
The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. by Committee Chair Dan
McShane in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Seth Fleetwood None
Sharon Roy
Also Present:
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
L. Ward Nelson
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. SPECIAL PRESENTATION BY GEORGE BOGGS, WHATCOM
CONSERVATION DISTRICT, ON THE AGRICULTURE, FISH, AND
WILDLIFE PROCESS (AB2002 -112)
George Boggs, Conservation District Manager, stated he's been involved in
this process for three years. It was presented with the potential listing of the
salmon species as endangered. It is the cornerstone of the Governor's recovery
plan for the agricultural sector of the state. It is a process by which farmers can
obtain protection from the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Clean Water Act.
Districts have been using the federal practices put together by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service. The practices are called field
office technical guide (FOTG) practices. There are hundreds of them. They will
take advantage of the existing relationships that the federal government, Natural
Resource Conservation Service, Conservation District, and landowners to look at
the specifications and make them fish - friendly.
Because of the demands in Northwest Washington, a problem is the
maintenance of watercourses for drainage, which allows them to engage in very
successful agricultural activities. Set up a context for reviewing practices and the
process as a mechanism to put on the ground. King, Snohomish, Skagit, and
Whatcom counties were drawn in to develop this Agricultural Watercourse
Maintenance Policy manual. If they need to engage in watercourse maintenance to
maintain agriculture, then they have to ask what practices they need to modify to
be fish friendly and how to integrate with other agencies. The Conservation District
representatives from those counties were the technical team, which participated in
creating the policy manual.
Whatcom County has about 70,000 acres that needs to be artificially drained
for farmers to grow crops. A limitation is how to get a hydraulic permit to clean a
Natural Resources Committee, 4/9/2002, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
ditch. There's been an impasse between those agencies that permit and the
farmers who need to clean the ditches out without being burdened by mitigation
measures. There is a problem in Northwest Washington in how to maintain
drainage to maintain agriculture, and at the same time not impact threatened
salmon species and comply with the Clean Water Act.
McShane stated April is a key month. The farmers desire to get out into the
fields early. If they don't have drainage, they have to wait until June. Boggs
stated corn and grass are the problem crops. Grass can begin growing in February.
If it is under water, then it dies. Corn in this area needs to be planted early to
come to good production. It's important for farmers to get into the field early.
One example is a slough in the South Fork Nooksack that is choked with reed
canary grass. That grass slows the water. When the water slows, sediment falls
out and the bottom of the watercourse is raised. The water table gets high.
Another example is of a cornfield in June that is flooded. There is little grade from
one end of a creek to another. There are multiple factors that influence drainage,
which include a lot of water, flat areas, and anything that reduces the flow, such as
canary grass, and causes the water flow to back up.
Roy asked if drainage was less of a problem before an area is invaded by
canary grass. Boggs stated drainage has been a problem since the area was
settled, beaver dams were taken out, and timber was cut. Farmers use to
construct watercourse conveyances from cedar boxes. Beaver ponds were very
productive to fish and difficult for farmers. Unless maintenance is continued, it will
begin to go back to the natural state, and they will lose farmland. The goal of this
manual is to maintain drainage while not having a negative impact on fisheries and
water quality.
An integrated technical team was formed to review the planning process to
determine the practices that are used for agriculture that needs drainage.
Participants include farmers, drainage district representatives, conservation district
representatives, and local, state, and federal agencies such as USFW, DOE, and
others. They produced this manual, which was offered to the Executive Committee.
The conservation districts would provide technical assistance to a landowner, review
the landowners' needs, and prepare a conservation plan. Some landowners need
financial assistance. A United States policy is to have cheap food. That policy
doesn't support these activities. Farmers and landowners would need technical and
financial assistance. The districts would do public outreach and gather information
for monitoring. The district would not enforce any regulatory position. This process
would be a template for other areas of the state, and revised accordingly.
The manual includes planning processes and practices, when drainage can
occur, and identification of the watercourses that exist. It recognizes how the
stream or watercourse originated. If it is a natural watercourse, they want to
maintain and enhance it. For a drainage ditch, the concern is not recovery but is
Natural Resources Committee, 4/9/2002, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
water quality. Other issues include a permitting process through the Washington
State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and monitoring public outreach.
This manual was distributed in the agricultural community. They have a
riparian buffer committee to provide comment to the technical team. The key
issues are the watercourse classification and the riparian buffer review. There are a
number of things to protect a buffer, including a filter strip. When the water gets
through the filter strip, it is clean. Fifty thousand acres of farms have implemented
3,000 acres of that practice. The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
(CREP) is another program for doing that. WDFW and the State Department of
Ecology (DOE) have the highest expectations of what is to be done for a particular
watercourse. There has been an impasse, and the conservation districts suspended
participation in the process a month ago.
When a conservation district does a conservation plan, it looks at all the
resource concerns for the farm. It looks at the entire farm. He recommends the
filter strip practice, and they have achieved incredible improvements in water
quality. The expectations of other agencies is to not care that other practices are
happening on a farm, and that landowners must do certain things in certain areas.
There are polarized positions. One position is that, at a minimum, there must be
50 feet of trees and 25 feet of grass on modified watercourses. That action would
overprotect some areas and under - protect other areas. A lot of agriculture land
would go out of production. The State agencies will pursue funding that option.
This policy manual is going to be finalized in June, but not in a form that will
embrace these buffer practices. It will be put through a federal process of
consultation with the Natural Resource Conservation Service. Section 7 of the ESA
requires one federal agency to consult with another as to what they intend to do.
These practices will go through a consultation process and then be available for
federal funding. They are independent of the State expectations. Their
implementation may not get State funding or approval, but he expects them to get
federal funding and approval. There will be a contrast between programs. More
funding is coming due to President Bush's shift from subsidies to conservation
planning. The challenge is to be in a position to take advantage of it. His staff has
a plan to generate these plans in an expedited manner.
They will complete the Section 7 requirement by February 2003. For the
past five years, the Conservation District has participated in a geographic priority
area, including N. Puget Sound counties to address water quality problems. They
have received about $600,000 per year, for which landowners in all those counties
compete. If an area has significant resource concerns, they can create a priority
area. They have to petition the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural
Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) office in Spokane for that designation. If
they get it, they get a block grant to distribute to competing landowners. He is
working on a geographic priority area for the Nooksack Basin. Substantial funds
are proposed in Congress. The State of Washington may get $4 million to $6
million for this program. In setting up this area, they will locally identify what the
Natural Resources Committee, 4/9/2002, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
resource concerns are. They will argue to the State that it is a high - priority area
compared to other areas in the state. They have been successful doing that in the
past. All the activities are done through a conservation plan. Typically, a diary
farmer would sign up, talk to a technical Conservation District staff person to
identify the problems, work up a bid, and submit a sealed bid. Those farmers who
bid lowest to do the most amount of environmentally friendly practices will get an
environmental benefit index rating. They would go to the top of the list, and be
funded accordingly. It's very competitive. There is a weighted ranking sheet.
They can get up to $50,000 in cost sharing to put the practices in. When
implemented as part of a conservation plan, they can expect to have better water
quality.
They are looking at the amount of cost sharing funds that will be available to
the State of Washington. He expects to have some cost sharing funds available.
There may be money available for the Conservation District to write the
conservation plans. He's had funding from the Conservation Commission to write
conservation plans for dairies to capture federal funds. The Conservation District
hasn't had money to do non -dairy conservation plans. That is a new element that
will attract resources to local landowners.
McShane asked if the current contracts are all dairy farms. Boggs stated it is
a mix. They identified a lot of bacteria in the water when this was set up. The
likely potential source of the bacteria was the cows, so that is what they
emphasized. A lot of dairies got those funds, but they were a priority because they
were the biggest potential.
For the next round, they will have to convene a local priority ranking group
that should be diverse, including county officials, state officials, tribal
representatives, and the agricultural community. Water quality continues to be a
concern. At this juncture, the emphasis could shift to other areas, such as
endangered species and salmon recovery.
Nelson asked how it ties into the water resource inventory area (WRIA)
process. Boggs stated it is not the same group.
Nelson asked how they are linked. Boggs stated there would be participants
on this local work group who also work with WRIA. They are not plugged into the
WRIA process. The timeframe doesn't permit a lot of collaboration.
Nelson asked if it is essential to have that link. Boggs stated it is not
essential. It comes with basic recognition about the practices and sources of
problems. The program would be offered basinwide, but it is geared to the rural
area. There are many opportunities to improve things with management practices.
It's not so technically challenging to offer an incentive -based program.
Roy asked if the State Department of Ecology (DOE) would determine that a
farmer's conservation plan is inadequate, and consequently will enforce against the
Natural Resources Committee, 4/9/2002, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
farmer. Boggs stated the expectations of certain agencies that there is a certain
minimum conservation requirement will foreclose many landowners from
participating. If there is a separate stream of funds available through the federal
process, and it includes National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) scrutiny, the
farmers who elect that path will make significant contributions and will have
funding. They will be better than those farmers who refuse to do any conservation.
Offenders are those who blatantly refuse to do anything, as opposed to those who
are trying. The Northwest director of NMFS wants to embrace local process. The
director likes what is going on in Whatcom County. There is a progressive
agricultural community that is doing things. If the agricultural community here
keeps pulling in resources, they are not going to have a problem that the
recalcitrant landowners will have. He doubts whether a landowner will receive a
citation if he or she doesn't have a 50 -foot buffer of trees.
McShane asked if it more of a negotiation impasse. Boggs stated it has yet
to play out at the State level. They are talking about incentives. They are not
talking about any regulations, with the exception of the counties and the Growth
Management Act. The counties do not intend to regulate agriculture. The Critical
Area Ordinance (CAO) exists. The 100 -foot no -touch zone without a conservation
plan is valid. He's asked the Planning Commission to not be too aggressive in
pursuing it, unless there is a real problem, and to refer to the Conservation District.
Offer the landowner options, and it costs money. Not having financial assistance
available has been problematic. With funds, they will broaden the base of people
who the Conservation District can assist.
He foresees important collaboration with the County to enhance review at
that level. He hopes to have a program that people will participate in within the
next few months.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the Conservation District is separating from the
CREP. Boggs stated the Conservation District is involved. The conservation
districts have suspended participation in the Agriculture, Fish, and Water (AFW)
process until people recognize the importance of conservation plans and that
landowners are given credit for that. They would like to, on a case -by -case basis,
look at individual watercourse circumstances and determine appropriate buffers.
State agencies don't determine buffers on individual circumstances. That is
problematic.
McShane stated reed canary grass is lousy for fish, but treats water. Boggs
stated that reed canary grass is a problem for both fish and farmers. Appropriate
buffers will provide shade, keep predators from eating fingerlings, stabilize the
bank, provide a filter strip, and have other uses. Shade also eradicates reed canary
grass. Those solutions are appropriate for the circumstances and help with fish and
farm objectives. These are the solutions he wants adopted by Whatcom County's
progressive agricultural community as an alternative to the required buffer.
McShane stated planting trees is expensive and often fails.
Natural Resources Committee, 4/9/2002, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Boggs stated that is correct. Species such as willows, nine bark, and
hardhack are pretty vigorous. They are easier to establish. Trees have to be
planted in more site - specific spots. The CREP objective includes wildlife, so they
want a mix of a tree stand. It costs about $2,500 per acre to do a CREP project. It
has to be maintained for three to five years to make sure it grows. The filter strips
cost about $150 per acre. It has an immediate payback to water quality issues.
They can refine where they want enhance streams, where trees are not a problem
for drainage, and where they present an opportunity for fish.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if Dorrie Belisle's program on Ten Mile Creek is
aimed at the filter strip type of buffer, or a mix. Boggs stated Dorrie Belisle's
program is about community. It's about the people along that watershed having a
vision about how they want their buffers. In the program, Ms. Belisle talks to older
people about what they remember and what they want to see planted again. Ms.
Belisle has been able to get contributions from people for various types of buffers.
The main thing is recognizing that people can take steps and gain resources. They
are making progress in getting people to get rid of the invasive species and plant
filter strips. In another five years, people can look back at this program and realize
it is not a problem to do this.
Roy asked if the Conservation District is connected with the Nooksack
Salmon Enhancement Association (NSEA). Boggs stated there is a very close
relationship. When the fish enhancement group was authorized by statute, NSEA
came to John Gillies. The Natural Resource Conservation Service had a significant
project in Johnson Creek, and made introductions to farmers for NSEA. Since then,
the district received numerous fisheries grants, and it contracts with NSEA to do the
work. The Ten Mile Creek grant that he wrote for Ms. Belisle includes money for
NSEA to do work.
Boggs showed photographic slides of practices such as cover crops, filter
strips, and field borders.
Nelson asked if there is a mechanism for maintenance to prevent intrusion of
unwanted species. Boggs stated there is. A number of landowners have said they
don't want trees in there. One advantage of shrubs is that the big excavators can
work on top of them. Getting trees established is more difficult than the woody
shrubs. A difficulty is that NSEA would get a grant, but there isn't funding to go
back and do maintenance. One advantage of CREP is that the State is picking up
the cost of maintenance for five years. By then, those trees should be successful.
Nelson asked if they are also doing buffers for wetlands, in addition to
streams. Boggs stated the wetland areas next to watercourses are included. CREP
benefits are to fish and wildlife, so it's maximum potential width of 180 feet would
Natural Resources Committee, 4/9/2002, Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
provide a large corridor that would include wetlands adjacent to a watercourse.
The actual planting and tree selection is site - specific.
Boggs stated he has a dairy planner position who will work with non -dairy
farms. Each contract through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
has to have a management plan. They will have to determine the courses and
concerns. He is working with his staff to prepare an EQIP proposal for the
Nooksack watershed. The steps are to prepare a draft document, convene a local
work group, and submit to state NRCS. There is a meeting scheduled on April 23.
Bob Wiesen, citizen, asked if there is an estimate of agriculture land that
they would lose if the DOE minimum buffer standard were applied throughout the
County. Boggs stated he didn't know. It would be a very significant amount. It
would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost revenue and to install the
buffers.
McShane stated he had visualized the regulatory buffers as being full of reed
canary grass that would not serve any purpose. This is a better approach. They
are making good progress in the county, and he hoped it would be recognized at
the State level.
OTHER BUSINESS
McShane stated that there has been discussion at the Council regarding the
nitrate in groundwater study, and its funding with County dollars. He asked Mr.
Boggs to comment. Relay cropping would address some of that problem. He asked
if there have been any nitrate studies around the state. Boggs stated there are a
lot of sources to a nitrate problem. The values they see were contributed from
other sources. Canada is a major source of nitrate in the groundwater. An
international task force is trying to address it. There are 180 out of 205 farms with
dairy nutrient management plans. All the dairies will have a plan by July 1 of this
year, which will be implemented by December 31, 2003. They all have substantial
resources to do that. Ninety five percent of the farmers are doing the right thing.
Two studies have been proposed. One study is by a professor at Washington
State University (WSU) to look at dairies in this area and to do soil sampling. The
study will gauge and judge management practices.
Another WSU faculty member has proposed fate and transport of nitrate in
this area. He helped craft a grant application.
McShane stated that within WRIA, there is a work plan proposal to do a
nitrate groundwater study. He is concerned about it. It will cost a substantial
chunk of money, and it will take a lot of studies. Boggs stated it would take a
complex model. He's had conversations with Utah State University (USU). The
alternatives aren't to eliminate dairies. The alternative may be to have dairies
Natural Resources Committee, 4/9/2002, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
implement best management practices. When they look at the groundwater
studies, they have old information that doesn't reflect the new agricultural
practices. They need to reconcile that fact. One option may be to reduce cow
densities instead of outright eliminating a dairy. He's concerned that they are
making decisions on a model where the options aren't as easy as eliminating corn
for pasture. The Nitrogen Loss Economic Analysis (NLEA) Program gets to things
like cropping patterns and irrigation. That information was provided to USU. One
thing to think about with the nitrogen model is that the soils aren't uniform
throughout. One request from Environment Canada was to get funding to put
together a transport model that he was working on, which took into account the
well logs in the area. It was to get an idea of the soils. He hopes that USU puts
together a system that's sophisticated enough to know that options aren't on or off.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if there is any information on how the method of
application influences nutrient absorption on the soil, and if there is one method
that should be used under certain soil conditions. Boggs stated there are different
efficiencies attached to each method of application. There are consequences of
each.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if these funds could be invested to help farmers
come up with the best available technology to fertilize fields. Boggs stated there is
a preference for injectors because of the problems with the big guns. The local
work group looks at the contract and can say that it prefers a contractor use an
injector. It is incentive - based.
Roy stated many of the efforts are focused on the agricultural community.
She asked if the support would broaden beyond that. Boggs stated this work group
would talk about what the priorities are. Landowners with livestock present the
problems. They would be eligible for assistance.
The activity of landowners is a big factor in prioritizing issues. For example,
the Ten Mile Creek project has initiative and momentum. When deciding the
priority areas, they look at resource concerns, sources, livestock, and what they are
going to do about it. Emphasize those positive landowner activities. The local work
group works every year to adjust the rating sheet. It's local priority as opposed to
the State's priority.
Roy stated it sounds like it helps to have community interest and
involvement. Boggs stated it helps. He will come to the Council asking for a letter
of support for the EQIP project when it is developed.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 10:53 a.m.
Natural Resources Committee, 4/9/2002, Page 8
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
1 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
2
3
4 ATTEST:
5
6
7
8
9 Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan McShane, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 4/9/2002, Page 9