HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources September 28 19991
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
48
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
September 28, 1999
The meeting was called to order at 9:30 a.m. by Committee Chair Connie
Hoag in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Kathy Sutter None
Tom Brown
PRESENTATIONS
1. PRESENTATION BY CRAIG MACCONNELL AND GEOFF MENZIES
REGARDING INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT (IPM) IN WHATCOM
COUNTY (AB99 -372)
Craig MacConnell, Cooperative Extension, stated Geoff Menzies would not be
present for the presentation. He distributed information (handout on file).
Integrated pest management (IPM) is a decision - making process that includes data
collection, pest identification, evaluation of alternative approaches (including doing
nothing), choosing the most appropriate method (a method that has the least
impact on other non - target organisms and the environment, and still achieves
results), and intensive monitoring. One of the raspberry growers said IPM is smart
farming.
There is a federal plan around IPM. Three agencies [the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA)] made a joint policy decision regarding IPM. They
said IPM was the preferred method to protect the environment and still have a
productive agriculture. The national goal is for 75 percent of the cropland
nationally to implement IPM.
The national IPM Objective states, "Implement ecologically -based pest
management approaches that rely less on synthetic chemical pest controls, are
more sustainable, are equally efficient economically, and still provide Americans
with an economical, safe, and plentiful food supply." The National IPM strategy
says the key to the plan is the local IPM implementation team comprised of
farmers, private IPM practitioners, state research and extension scientists and
educators, appropriate state and federal agency personnel, and other interested
parties.
The driving forces around IPM are environmental protection, reducing the
reliance on pesticides, and conserving safe pesticides. By conserving safe
pesticides they will reduce the chance of resistance to those pesticides. Also, new
pesticides are very costly to bring into the market. The cost is over $60 million to
do the federal testing and standards to get any new pesticide to market. There is a
Natural Resources Committee, 9/28/99, 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
47
48
need for direct communication between the farmers producing the crop and the
researchers doing the work to develop the new tools. IPM provides a mechanism to
do that.
The local issues include a vulnerable environment, high -value crops, and
markets that demand pest -free material. Regarding the environment, there is a
shallow aquifer that is a drinking water source for many rural residents. There is
high precipitation from rainfall and irrigation. There are well- drained soils that
move what has been deposited onto the surface into the aquifer. The high -value
crops include raspberries, strawberries, blueberries, and cranberries. Most of the
certified seed potato crop in the state is located in this county. There is a
developing apple industry and an ornamental nursery industry that is one of the
largest in the entire state. Pest -free markets are due to demanding consumers,
premium buyers for the berry and seed potato products who demand high quality
controls, and the requirement of phytosanitary certificates for the exportation of
any nursery product.
The approach has been to have a local effort, community involvement that is
broader than just the agricultural community, and good university support from
Washington State University (WSU). They wrote a grant for the Nooksack IPM
Project. It was funded by a federal Clean Water Act grant. That grant finished July
1999 and was focused on raspberries and apples. Key elements to the Nooksack
IPM project include an advisory committee, educational programs, on -farm research
with farmers, a mentoring program, educational products, and project evaluation.
The advisory committee included eight farmers, including raspberry farmers,
organic farmers, and non - organic farmers. There were six agency representatives
including EPA, State Department of Health (DOH), State Department of Ecology
(DOE), and the local health department. There were five community leaders,
including the mayors of Sumas and Lynden, members of the Lynden City Council, a
member of the Whatcom County Planning Commission. Four research and
extension personal included staff from the WSU Extension Office and the B.C.
Ministry of Agriculture and Agriculture Canada. There were two farm suppliers that
have been in the county selling agriculture chemicals.
With the direction from the advisory committee, they began a broad
education program. There were a lot of on -farm demonstrations on the tools that
were available to do the monitoring and decision - making. They developed written
manuals. This material has gone around the world. There was a seasonal
newsletter that went to growers. Education also included a telephone hotline, e-
mail, and the Internet website. Seasonal breakfast meetings were held early in the
mornings with the growers to discuss the issues they had with IPM. There were
also a number of workshops.
They did a lot of infield activities, including a workshop of apple growers that
constructed a monitoring device and demonstrated its use. They also developed
publications for raspberry growers. They are finishing a manual for apple growers.
They have a decision - making chart that addresses the description, reasons for
Natural Resources Committee, 9/28/99, 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
48
concern, how to monitor, the decision - points, tolerance, and management options.
In one instance, a farm had a problem with two - spotted spider mites that de- foliate
the raspberry fields. They brought in a predatory mite that they bought from
commercial sources. They established partners with the industry who were
involved in planning, conducting, and evaluating the research. They also worked
with the apple growers. There was a tool kit from WSU that included a WSU
Codling Moth model. They established data monitoring stations in the apple fields.
This was used to show farmers the variability from field to field. IPM is about
individualized decision - making.
The mentoring program was intensively teaching a handful of farmers about
the sophistication that IPM can be, then using those farmers to teach their peer
farmers. Communication was crucial. Mentoring developed the peer support. It
showed peer interest. There were a number of meetings that brought together the
researchers with the growers to do collaborative planning, implementation, and
evaluation of research projects that were done locally.
There is a hierarchy of evaluative indicators that can be easy or more
difficult. They involved the advisory committee on how to evaluate the indicators.
They decided to use surveys when the project started and two and a half years into
it. Outcomes to date include a shift in attitude about IPM. Growers and chemical
dealers have become more knowledgeable. Buyers are interested in IPM. Key
growers and leaders in the industry are practicing IPM and telling others about IPM.
There is cooperative spirit and funding. New products are being developed and
used. People around the world have requested the manual. There is a new
research facility established on a farm in Lynden. The farmer provided the
buildings. WSU comes in and does research six months out of the year. That is
funded by the raspberry industry. There has been collaborative research with WSU.
The future for IPM in the county includes the continuation of local IPM efforts. The
comprehensive water plan has an IPM component that will commence in the year
2000. The Nooksack IPM Project will continue to support the pilot projects they
started with. They will use the model to expand into other areas, such as other
berries, nursery production, seed potatoes, public grounds, and homeowners. The
need is for environmental protection. They need practical alternatives for pest
management that are based on science. They need information that is locally
tested. The research that will provide the practical tools should be done in this
area. The Abbottsford /Sumas Aquifer International Task Force has an agriculture
plan that recognizes a strong need for IPM technical support. In the newly released
DOH and Whatcom County childhood Leukemia study, the very first
recommendation was to support the use of residential and commercial IPM.
Priorities will focus on critical needs and look at the priority risk areas, which
are activities occurring over the aquifer. They will also support existing interests
first. There will be an emphasis on areas where they expect to have success, such
as vulnerability of pests. They will look at new research and will test new tools that
become available. The implementation strategy is to go back to the broad advisory
system. They brought the advisory committee together because the community
leaders were saying to the farmers how important it was to protect the water, even
Natural Resources Committee, 9/28/99, 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
48
though it was difficult. The agency people were there to see how the local people
were working on this. He will continue to work with that type of model. They will
identify needs and opportunities. The education will be there focusing on attitudes,
tools, and then finally the skills. It is crucial to have local research. Having grower
participation on the research is crucial. They can craft the research to answer
questions that will be practical and useful to them. They can see the results first-
hand, which will spread the message throughout the community.
Evaluation is important; accountability is important. They will look for
changes in attitudes, skills and knowledge of the producers, contribution of
resources, changes in behavior, and changes in end results.
The keys to success are attitudes, tools, and skills. The USDA perspective on
IPM, "IPM is not an end product, but a form of ecological management that evolves
with the changes in agricultural production systems, introduction of new pests and
technologies, and new market demands."
Hoag asked about expanding to other crops besides seed potatoes.
MacConnell stated other berries and the nursery industry will also be the focus of
IPM. The nursery industry will be a challenge because there will be a diversity of
crops being grown. It will be easy to introduce them into the discipline of IPM, such
as record - keeping, monitoring, and scouting. To do the strategy, they will have to
look at the diversity of crops being grown. They will have to go through an
evaluation to prioritize what they focus on.
Hoag stated grass and corn is over the Sumas aquifer. She asked if they use
integrated pest control on those crops. MacConnell stated that there are herbicides
used on the corn. He was interested in bringing nutrient management into that
area and integrating nutrient and pest management together. They want to involve
the industries and the broader advisory committee.
Hoag asked what it means if a pesticide is not listed. MacConnell stated
they've scoured the material for information on safety, but the information was not
there or hard to get. The manual ranks pesticides by their threat to various
components of the environment, including water. That is part of what they are
teaching these folks.
Sutter suggested they also add the education of homeowners regarding pest
management, because the county is struggling with the issue of the Lake Whatcom
watershed. They are also enabling retail plant nurseries, and requiring certain
monitoring and testing. She questioned whether there was an opportunity for the
IPMs to integrate their systems as a part of the regulation's criteria for permitting.
MacConnell stated studies have shown that the contribution of pesticides to
the environment in Puget Sound is largest from the homeowner community. Urban
uses can find their way into the environment. They should give the homeowners
sound scientific advice. There are rampant misleading suggestions for alternatives
to homeowners. When they see alternatives and try them, but they don't work,
Natural Resources Committee, 9/28/99, 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
48
they give up. He wanted to focus on things that are valid and effective, as well as
educating the homeowners. Tolerance will go a long way.
Sutter suggested the Washington Pledge Program for Lake Whatcom.
MacConnell stated he modified the pledge documents to be closer to scientific
principals.
Brown agreed with the IPM. He practiced it as much as possible in previous
jobs. The position he held was responsible for the major corridors through which a
lot of pests and disease come in. Next to those corridors are areas with high -value
seed farms. There was very little tolerance for letting even a few plants survive
when a few plants put out seeds that ruin their entire crops. The USDA did not
allow any pesticides and herbicides and watched the State Route 20 corridor
become infested because they were relying on IPM that was totally ineffective.
Now there are thousands of acres that are infested. They are losing the wildlife
habitat. That is the bone of contention he sees. They need to be realistic. They've
got to realize that sometimes they need to use all the tools, and not just get by.
They must realize they can do more environmental damage by not facing these
things head on. MacConnell agreed. IPM is not just dealing with pests. It is not
saying pesticides won't be used. It is an intelligent decision - making process.
They've involved the industry all the way along. They know that to bring about
changes, people have got to see it as practical and allowing them to meet their
market demands. They've got to involve the growers, refine the techniques, and
get them to work as best they can. They produced a publication locally where they
used testimonials throughout from a variety of people. The growers are hearing
from their markets. The best balance is IPM with the growers' involvement.
Brown stated his budget was $200,000 for herbicides. Through the
endeavors and other techniques, they cut that amount in half, but had to allow for
costs to go into other methods, such as other personnel. They need the flexibility
to go back and forth. MacConnell is doing a good job.
Sutter questioned whether, by using other bugs to get rid of pest bugs, they
are not encountering the problem of resistance. MacConnell stated they were much
better off conserving the natural predators than to introduce new predators. That
has been the shift in the focus with the growers.
Sutter asked how big the market is for growing bugs. MacConnell stated it is
growing and very demanding. One predator is releasing beneficial nematodes to
deal with root weevil larvae. One of the biggest obstacles is the viability of the
nematodes whey they get them from the supplier. By the time they've been
harvested and shipped, the viability is low.
MacConnell stated this information is on the website.
2. PRESENTATION REGARDING THE POSSIBLE FORMATION OF A WATER
CONSERVANCY BOARD (AB99 -190)
Natural Resources Committee, 9/28/99, 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
47
Henry Bierlink, Whatcom County Agriculture Preservation Committee, stated
this was about water rights. The legislature in 1997 decided a fresh approach was
needed regarding water rights. A tool to solve some of the problems is the creation
of local water conservancy boards. They are units of government that can be
created on any level to affect transfers of water rights. They cannot issue new
water rights. They want to facilitate transfers of water rights that make sense.
They are created to help the State Department of Ecology (DOE), but does not have
any control. DOE still has control over the issue. The first two boards were created
in Benton and Lewis Counties in 1998. The Benton County board has been very
active in finding water transfers. They've also been created in other counties.
Whatcom County has been kicking this around for two years within the agricultural
community. There are several ways to get a board created. They would like to
have a petition signed by five or more water rights owners and a petition approved
by the County Council. They have signatures from four farmers. The City of
Lynden has signed, and the Public Utility District (PUD) has intended to sign since
May, but PUD Manager Tom Anderson has cautioned them that the watershed
planning process still in its infancy. There were concerns this would be a bold move
that would upset a process that is beginning. They've said they will hold off and let
the water planning board listen to their concerns and discuss the issue. They have
done that and given their intent to approve. Several members of the planning unit
have reacted to the intent to form the board. They have incorporated some
suggestions on forming the board. That will all come out in the public testimony
the Council must have to create the board.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Brown stated he was apprehensive at first. If everything is accurate, then it
is a good thing. He does have a concern about section 3.3. He asked why they
would want someone from Skagit County sitting on the board. That item should be
removed and it should just be Whatcom County. Bierlink stated the legislation is
written so that, when watersheds cross, it should allow for multi - jurisdictions. They
would support Councilmember Brown's suggestion, because there isn't much
crossing of watersheds with Skagit County. The Council doesn't have to appoint a
person from Skagit.
Brown asked if it could be removed from the language. Bierlink stated it
could be removed from the bylaws.
Hoag stated they need to make sure it is excluded from what they bring
forward in the bylaws.
Sutter asked if they could do this on a Watershed Inventory Resource Area
(WRIA) #1 basis instead of on a County basis. Bierlink stated that is also possible.
Brown stated there are more water resources in the county than WRIA #1.
There are resources in east Whatcom County.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/28/99, 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
48
Hoag stated there isn't anything they would want to avoid by restricting it to
W RIA # 1.
Sutter stated the other option would be to enter into a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) with Skagit County.
Bierlink stated they propose the geographic boundaries of Whatcom County.
The issue of having Skagit involved is moot.
Sutter stated the work the county does on water allocation issues that are, in
part, in Skagit County, will affect Skagit County. They may have some issues with
that, and they need to provide the ability for joint work to be done on those issues.
Dawson stated, between Benton and Lewis, there were five proposals for
water transfers. DOE approved three. There is an appeal process. Bierlink stated
it has not been a completely smooth road. Benton has for the most part had a
positive reaction from DOE. DOE is also trying to work through these new tools.
Hoag stated this is an important move for the farmers who have been
backlogged for years.
Sutter stated that when they do the water availability analyses, it will look at
how water is allocated now and determine if there is an actual water right being
used. Bierlink stated as they go through the water analysis, they need to have as
many tools available to the people as possible. This tool is available.
Brown asked if this has a cooperative nature. This board can't force
someone with an unused water right to transfer that right. Bierlink stated there is
no coercive or taxation ability. It only sets up a method for willing participants.
Sutter stated the transfer would only be triggered by the request from the
user. She questioned whether it regarded a change in point of use. Bierlink stated
that was correct.
Sutter stated probably lots of people have changed their point of use and
they could provide an amnesty period for those people. Bierlink stated it would
allow them to do anything except find new water. New water is not within the
scope of what could be done. Anything else in terms of transfers and uses could be
done. They have a situation in which there is a dis- incentive for conservation.
There is a use it or lose it philosophy. That is foolish. There are a number of
people interested in converting to micro - irrigation, but would forfeit a portion of
their water right by trying to conserve the water. This allows them to move or sell
some of that. It opens doors.
Hoag hoped they leave the capability there for the farmer if he decides to
change his crops.
Sutter stated it leaves open the option for selling the right.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/28/99, 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
48
Hoag stated it needs to be addressed. Bierlink stated farmers remind him of
that all the time.
Hoag asked if there were any differences in the information presented in
May. Bierlink stated there are not. Regarding funding, they request a $1,000 start
up, in which they would pay back. This is a tool that needs to be created. They will
pay back the $1,000 by the end of the year.
Hoag stated it is important not to hold this up. Bierlink stated once the
petition is filed, the process is that the County Council must have a public hearing.
Sutter stated the County could do this by resolution. She moved they go
ahead and draft two resolutions to be prepared by the next meeting.
The committee concurred to bring forward the resolutions in two weeks.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 99 -023, ESTABLISHING A
WHATCOM COUNTY MARINE RESOURCE COMMITTEE AS PROVIDED
FOR UNDER THE NORTHWEST STRAITS COMMISSION (AB99 -158B)
Hoag stated there were three members of the scientific community that were
willing to serve on the committee. There has been a suggestion to increase the
representation of relevant science experience to three positions, and there was no
language that required representation by commercial or sport fishers. The
committee had no commercial fishers. The Northwest Straits Commission stated,
based on the San Juan model, there needs to be commercial and sport fishers at
the table. They've added a citizen representative position, so that one
representative could be shifted to the citizen category. It opens up another spot for
commercial fishing and sport fishing.
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated with the approval of this
adjustment, applications will come forward at the next meeting.
Brown stated there was a lot of discussion when they arrived on the current
number and questioned whether they are going to change the resolution each time
they get another applicant. He suggested an amendment on packet page 11,
Exhibit A, "...economic interest (such as, but not limited to the Port, ineluding,
net IiFnited te, or commercial fishing.)..."
Sutter stated there is a way to do that, and strengthen the intent. They
need to stress that the position must include a commercial fisherman.
There was discussion on the specific language.
Natural Resources Committee, 9/28/99, Page 8
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
Hoag stated the reason it is worded that way was because the problem with
the previous language was that it was not essential to have the Port's involvement.
They do have to have a commercial fishing representative on the committee.
Sutter moved, "such as, but not limited, to the Port, provided that at least
one is a commercial fisher."
Sutter amended her motion to include 19 members "...(provided that
commercial fishing is represented)." She moved the same thing with the sport
fishers, "...(provided that the sport fishers are represented)."
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag stated that when they were trying to form this committee, they weren't
trying to create slots for people who expressed an interest. They tried to include
positions for people who weren't coming forward. Brown previously wanted to
increase the number of citizens to include upland interests.
Brown stated he believed they would not get any citizens involved, other
than those with special interest, because of the wording in the resolution.
Sutter stated when it comes to environmental issues, everyone is a special
interest.
Sutter moved to recommend approval of the amended resolution.
Motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 10:45 a.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Connie Hoag, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 9/28/99, Page 9