Yakima County Proposed VSP Work Plan

Yakima County Proposed VSP Work Plan August 2017

Yakima County VSP Work Group

YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM

Yakima County VSP Work Plan Yakima County Voluntary Stewardship Program Work Group – August 2017


August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan |Table of Contents i

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1

Purpose ............................................................................................................................................................ 1

Work Group Members ................................................................................................................................. 2

VSP Work Group and State and County Roles ....................................................................................... 2

Work Group Duties and Work Plan Requirements under VSP Legislation ......................................... 3

Core Elements of the Work Plan ................................................................................................................. 4

Setting Pragmatic Goals and Benchmarks for Protection and Enhancement ...................................... 6

Consequences of Not Having an Approved Work Plan ......................................................................... 7

2.0 County Profile ............................................................................................................................. 7

Land Area ....................................................................................................................................................... 7

Watersheds..................................................................................................................................................... 8

Critical Areas and Environmental Conditions .......................................................................................... 11

3.0 Agriculture in Yakima County .................................................................................................. 23

Extent of Agriculture .................................................................................................................................... 26

Livestock, Pastureland, and Rangeland ................................................................................................... 26

Irrigated Agriculture: Orchards, Vineyards, Vegetables ..................................................................... 28

Common Conservation Practices by Type of Agriculture ..................................................................... 29

Challenges to Agricultural Viability ......................................................................................................... 33

Yakima County Agriculture: Strengths, Weaknesses Opportunities and Threats ............................. 34

4.0 Background Information, Other Plans, and Regulations .......................................................... 36

Related Plans and Programs ..................................................................................................................... 37

Regulatory Backstop ................................................................................................................................... 40

Voluntary Producer Certification Programs ............................................................................................ 44

Work Plan Reliance on Regulatory Backstop ......................................................................................... 44

5.0 Baseline Conditions .................................................................................................................. 45

Baseline Agriculture ..................................................................................................................................... 45

Intersection of Agriculture and Critical Areas......................................................................................... 48


August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Table of Contents ii

Changes to Critical Area Baseline ............................................................................................................ 63

Conservation Practices ................................................................................................................................ 63

6.0 Technical Assistance ................................................................................................................. 71

7.0 Goals, Benchmarks, and Performance Metrics ......................................................................... 76

Agriculture and Critical Area Intersection Goals and Benchmarks ..................................................... 76

Participation Objectives ............................................................................................................................. 96

Agricultural Viability Aims ....................................................................................................................... 101

8.0 Monitoring, Reporting, and Adaptive Management ............................................................... 104

Monitoring Tools ........................................................................................................................................ 105

Monitoring Roles, Responsibilities, and Timeline ................................................................................. 106

Monitoring Context ................................................................................................................................... 107

9.0 Plan Approval Process and Timeline ...................................................................................... 113

10.0 Definitions ........................................................................................................................... 114


August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Table of Contents iii

Table of Exhibits

Exhibit 1-1. Differences between Critical Area Regulations and the VSP Alternative ..................................... 1

Exhibit 1-2. Work Plan Sections and Relationship to VSP Statute ........................................................................ 4

Exhibit 2-1. Land in Public and Private Ownership ................................................................................................. 7

Exhibit 2-2. Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) and Agricultural and Rangeland Acres ....................... 8

Exhibit 2-3. Yakima County Watersheds ................................................................................................................... 9

Exhibit 2-4. Habitat Maps .......................................................................................................................................... 14

Exhibit 2-5. Priority Species in Yakima County ...................................................................................................... 15

Exhibit 2-6. Mapped Wetlands and Priority Fish Streams in Yakima County .................................................. 18

Exhibit 2-7. Flood Hazard Areas and Priority Fish Streams – Yakima County ................................................ 19

Exhibit 2-8. Geologic Hazards in Yakima County ................................................................................................. 20

Exhibit 2-9. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas and Susceptibility ........................................................................ 21

Exhibit 2-10. Wellhead Protection Zones within 1,000 Feet of Well (Blue) and 10-year Travel Time (Pink)

......................................................................................................................................................................................... 22

Exhibit 3-1. Matrix of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats – Yakima County Agriculture 35

Exhibit 5-1. Agricultural and Rangeland in Unincorporated Yakima County ................................................... 45

Exhibit 5-2. Agricultural Additions (Yellow) and Deletions (Red) 2011-2016 ................................................. 47

Exhibit 5-3. Yakima County Agriculture and Rangeland by Watershed Resource Inventory Area (WRIA)

......................................................................................................................................................................................... 48

Exhibit 5-4. Intersection of Agricultural Activities and Critical Areas ................................................................. 49

Exhibit 5-5. Hydrologic Study Areas: Sum of Acres – 100 feet from Streams, Lakes, Wetlands ............... 50

Exhibit 5-6. Stream Miles on Agricultural Lands ..................................................................................................... 50

Exhibit 5-7. Stream Miles on Range Lands by Ownership Category ................................................................. 51

Exhibit 5-8. Priority Habitats and Species – Intersection with Rangeland ........................................................ 51

Exhibit 5-9. Priority Habitats and Species – Intersection with Agricultural Land ............................................. 52

Exhibit 5-10. Miles of Priority Fish Streams on Agricultural Lands by WRIA .................................................... 53

Exhibit 5-11. Miles of Priority Fish Streams on Rangelands by WRIA ............................................................... 53

Exhibit 5-12. Road Crossings and Fish Passage Barriers: Private, and Unknown Ownerships ...................... 54

Exhibit 5-13. Dams and Fish Passage Barriers: Private, and Unknown Ownerships ....................................... 55

Exhibit 5-14. Miscellaneous Blockages and Fish Passage Barriers Private, and Unknown Ownerships ...... 55

Exhibit 5-15. Alkali-Squilchuck WRIA Agriculture and Critical Area Intersect ................................................. 56


August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Table of Contents iv

Exhibit 5-16. Klickitat WRIA Agriculture and Critical Area Intersect ................................................................. 57

Exhibit 5-17. Lower Yakima WRIA Agriculture and Critical Area Intersect ...................................................... 58

Exhibit 5-18. Naches WRIA Agriculture and Critical Area Intersect .................................................................. 59

Exhibit 5-19. Rock Glade WRIA Agriculture and Critical Area Intersect .......................................................... 60

Exhibit 5-20. Upper Yakima WRIA Agriculture and Critical Area Intersect ..................................................... 61

Exhibit 5-21. Agriculture and Critical Area Intersect on Yakama Reservation................................................. 62

Exhibit 5-22. NRCS Conservation Projects, 2011 – 2016 ................................................................................... 63

Exhibit 5-23. Selected Agricultural Conservation Practices, 2012 ..................................................................... 65

Exhibit 5-24. South Yakima Conservation District Conservation Projects, 2011 – 2016 ............................... 66

Exhibit 5-25. Example Conservation: North Yakima Conservation District and Other Sponsors, 2011 –

2016 ............................................................................................................................................................................... 67

Exhibit 5-26. Restoration, Enhancement, and Acquisition Projects: Yakima Basins, 2011 – 2015 ................ 68

Exhibit 5-27. Habitat Work Schedule Projects in Yakima County – 2016 ....................................................... 69

Exhibit 6-1. Yakima Voluntary Stewardship Program: Potential Technical Assistance Providers ................. 72

Exhibit 7-1. Protection Goals, benchmarks, and monitoring approaches to maintain critical area functions

......................................................................................................................................................................................... 78

Exhibit 7-2. Goals, benchmarks, and monitoring approaches to voluntarily enhance critical areas ............ 89

Exhibit 7-3. Agricultural viability aims, incentives, and activities associated with critical area protection . 95

Exhibit 7-4. Agricultural Operations by Watershed and Agricultural Type (Adjusted for Duplicate Last

Names) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 97

Exhibit 7-5. Agricultural Acreage by Watershed and Agricultural Type (Unadjusted for Last Name) 97

Exhibit 7-6. Ownership Map ...................................................................................................................................... 98

Exhibit 7-7. Watershed Sub-Basin Map .................................................................................................................. 99

Exhibit 7-8. Conservation District Participation Priority Basin List .................................................................... 100

Exhibit 8-1. Monitoring Program Steps ................................................................................................................. 106

Exhibit 8-2. Adaptive Monitoring Matrix ............................................................................................................. 107

Exhibit 8-3. Benefits and Challenges of Remote Sensing Data ........................................................................ 109

Exhibit 8-4. Use of Imagery/Map Interpretation in Measuring VSP Benchmarks ......................................... 110

Exhibit 9-1. VSP Work Plan Preparation, Approval, and Monitoring Timeline ............................................ 113


August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Table of Contents v

Appendices

Appendix A – Map Folio

Appendix B – Map Methods and Data Sources

Appendix C – Related Plans

Appendix D – Existing Federal, State, and Local Regulations

Appendix E – Agricultural Mapping – 2011, 2015, and 2016

Appendix F – Checklists – Long-Form and Short Form

Appendix G – Adaptive Management Matrix

Appendix H – Outreach

This Work Plan was developed under Yakima VSP Work Group Direction by:

BERK Consulting, Inc.

The Watershed Company

Neil Aaland, Aaland Planning Services, Facilitator


August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Introduction 1

1.0 Introduction

PURPOSE

The Voluntary Stewardship Program (VSP) is an optional, incentive-based approach to protecting critical

areas while promoting agriculture. The VSP is allowed under the Growth Management Act as an

alternative to traditional approaches to critical areas protection, such as “no touch” buffers. Yakima

County is one of 27 counties that has “opted in” to VSP, and has received funding to develop a VSP work

plan. The VSP is locally prepared and monitored at a watershed scale by agricultural and environmental

stakeholders participating in a VSP Work Group; the VSP is voluntarily implemented by individual

agricultural producers to protect critical areas and improve agricultural viability through conservation

practices. Unnecessary regulations are avoided. The Work Plan is considered for adoption by the

Washington Conservation Commission. See Exhibit 1-1.

Exhibit 1-1. Differences between Critical Area Regulations and the VSP Alternative

FEATURE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE VSP ALTERNATIVE

Approach Regulatory provisions, e.g. buffers, and enforcement

Voluntary participation in individual stewardship plans

Scale Site-by-site basis Collective, watershed basis

Monitoring Both watershed review and site-by-site enforcement

Watershed scale monitoring of Work Plan goals and benchmarks

Responsible Party Yakima County VSP Work Group, Washington Conservation Commission

This VSP Work Plan applies to the intersection of agriculture and five critical areas – including fish and

wildlife habitat conservation areas, wetlands, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas,

and critical aquifer recharge areas used for potable water – in unincorporated areas of Yakima County.

(See Appendix A for maps and Appendix B for methods and data sources.)

This Work Plan is intended to fulfil the VSP legislative requirements to create a voluntary set of goals,

benchmarks, and planned activities, and is organized as follows:

Introduction

County Watersheds

Agricultural Context

Background Information, Other Plans, and Regulations

VSP Definitions

Technical Assistance

Baseline Conditions and Measurable Benchmarks



Monitoring, Reporting, and Adaptive Management

Plan Approval Process and Timeline

Appendices

WORK GROUP MEMBERS

The Watershed Work Group is responsible for the development of a work plan with measurable goals and objectives to protect critical areas while maintaining the viability of agriculture in the watersheds.

Yakima County opted into the VSP in 2012, and received state funding in 2014. The County compiled an initial list of potential stakeholder groups to form a Watershed Work Group to meet the VSP requirements that call for representatives of agricultural and environmental groups and tribes.

RCW 36.70A.715 (2) A county must confer with tribes and interested stakeholders before

designating or establishing a watershed group.

(3) The watershed group must include broad representation of key watershed stakeholders and, at a

minimum, representatives of agricultural and environmental groups and tribes that agree to

participate. The county should encourage existing lead entities, watershed planning units, or other

integrating organizations to serve as the watershed group.

(4) The county may designate itself, a tribe, or another entity to coordinate the local watershed

group.

The County charged the facilitator with contacting these potential stakeholder groups, and with revising the list as needed to ensure adequate representation given the range of agricultural types and

critical areas. Following several weeks of work, the member list was established and membership confirmed and posted on the County VSP webpage. See the side bar below. The Yakima County VSP

work group held its first meeting on March 30, 2016. It has met monthly during the Work Plan

preparation. Agendas and minutes are available at the County’s website:

http://www.yakimacounty.us/1657/Voluntary-Stewardship-Program-VSP

VSP Work Group Members

WA State Farm Bureau

WA State Tree Fruit Assoc.

WA State Hops Assoc.

Yakima County Cattlemen's Association

Yakima County Farm Bureau

Yakima Valley Dairy Federation

Individual Producers

Washington Beekeepers Assoc.

Cowiche Canyon Conservancy

Trout Unlimited

WA Water Trust

Yakima Valley Audubon

WA Department of Agriculture

WA Department of Ecology

WA Department of Fish & Wildlife

Yakama Nation

North Yakima Conservation Dist.

South Yakima Conservation Dist.

Yakima Basin Joint Board

VSP WORK GROUP AND STATE AND COUNTY ROLES

The County. The County has the initial authority to opt-in to the VSP program, designate participating

watersheds, recommend priority watersheds, convene, and confer with stakeholders, and designate the

VSP Watershed Work Group and Administrative Entity. If a VSP Work Plan is not approved within 3



years of initial funding, or if plan goals and benchmarks are not met after adaptive management efforts,

the County maintains the responsibility for protecting critical areas under GMA with standard regulatory

approaches.

The VSP Work Group. The VSP Watershed Work Group is responsible for developing and agreeing to

this Work Plan, designating technical assistance providers, identifying outreach and implementation

approaches, setting goals and benchmarks, establishing a monitoring plan, regular reporting, and

adaptive management toward those goals. The Work Group is responsible for developing and

administering the Work Plan on an ongoing basis throughout implementation and monitoring. The Work

Plan would be submitted by the Watershed Work Group to the Director of the State Conservation

Commission and technical panel (Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Ecology, and Agriculture) for

approval.

WORK GROUP DUTIES AND WORK PLAN REQUIREMENTS UNDER VSP LEGISLATION

The VSP legislation at RCW 36.70A.720 specifically outlines the duties of the Work Group and

requirements of this VSP Watershed Work Plan (Plan). These are:

(1) A watershed group designated by a county under RCW 36.70A.715 must develop a work plan to

protect critical areas while maintaining the viability of agriculture in the watershed. The work plan must

include goals and benchmarks for the protection and enhancement of critical areas. In developing and

implementing the work plan, the watershed group must:

(a) Review and incorporate applicable water quality, watershed management, farmland protection,

and species recovery data and plans;

(b) Seek input from tribes, agencies, and stakeholders;

(c) Develop goals for participation by agricultural operators conducting commercial and

noncommercial agricultural activities in the watershed necessary to meet the protection and

enhancement benchmarks of the work plan;

(d) Ensure outreach and technical assistance is provided to agricultural operators in the watershed;

(e) Create measurable benchmarks that, within ten years after the receipt of funding, are designed

to result in (i) the protection of critical area functions and values and (ii) the enhancement of

critical area functions and values through the voluntary, incentive-based measures;

(f) Designate the entity or entities that will provide technical assistance;

(g) Work with the entity providing technical assistance to ensure that individual stewardship plans

contribute to the goals and benchmarks for protection;

(h) Incorporate into the work plan any existing developmental regulations relied upon to achieve the

goals and benchmarks for protection;

(i) Establish baseline monitoring for: (i) Participation activities and implementation of the voluntary

stewardship plans and projects; (ii) stewardship activities; and (iii) the effects on critical areas and

agriculture relevant to the protection and enhancement benchmarks developed for the watershed;



(j) Conduct periodic evaluations, institute adaptive management, and provide a written report of the

status of plans and accomplishments to the county and to the commission within sixty days after

the end of each biennium;

(k) Assist state agencies in their monitoring programs; and

(l) Satisfy any other reporting requirements of the program.

RCW 36.70A.720

The table below shows the relationship of major VSP plan sections to the statute.

Exhibit 1-2. Work Plan Sections and Relationship to VSP Statute

KEY PLAN SECTION WORK PLAN REQUIREMENTS (RCW 36.70A.720(1) A THROUGH L UNLESS STATED)

Introduction

Work Group b

Core Elements of Work Plan: Protect Critical Areas Test RCW 36.70A.725 Maintain and Enhance Ag Viability Test RCW 36.70A.725 Create Protection and Enhancement Goals and

Benchmarks RCW 36.70A.720 (1)

Background Information, Other Plans, and Regulations a, h

Technical Assistance d, f, g

Baselines and Measurable Benchmarks c, e, i

Monitoring, Reporting, and Adaptive Management j, k, l

Plan Approval Process RCW 36.70A.725

CORE ELEMENTS OF THE WORK PLAN

The VSP Work Group’s first core task is meeting the statutory test the Technical Panel, Statewide

Advisory Committee and Conservation Commission Director will apply in determining whether or not to

approve the VSP Work Plan:

“… at the end of ten years after receipt of funding, the work plan, in conjunction with other existing

plans and regulations, will protect critical areas while maintaining and enhancing the viability of

agriculture in the watershed.” RCW 36.70A.725

According to the VSP statutes, the Work Plan must be approved if the above test is met within three

years after receipt of funding, as determined through the VSP Work Plan Approval process.

The Work Group’s second core task is to create measurable ten-year benchmarks designed to promote

voluntary, incentive-based measures 1) to provide long-term protection of critical areas and 2) to

encourage voluntary enhancements to improve critical areas.

Together these voluntary incentive-based efforts reflect the three core “test” elements of an approvable

VSP Work Plan: 1) protection of critical areas; 2) maintenance and enhancement of agricultural viability;

and 3) voluntary enhancement of critical areas through promotion of incentive-based measures.



1.5.1. Meet the “Protect Critical Areas” Test

This Work Plan must detail how Yakima County through VSP will protect critical areas while maintaining

and enhancing the viability of agriculture in the watershed. The definition of protection in the legislation

for the Voluntary Stewardship Program indicates that:

“Protect" or "protecting" means to prevent the degradation of functions and values existing as of

July 22, 2011.

RCW 36.70A.703

The VSP requirement "to protect critical areas" is met where a critical area is protected, at the

aggregate or watershed level, from new harms or degradations. Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v.

Western Washington Growth Management Hearing Board, 161 Wn.2d 415 (2007).

1.5.2. Meet the “Maintain and Enhance Agricultural Viability” Test

The VSP Work Plan must “maintain and enhance” agricultural viability to receive approval. RCW

36.70A.725. Some VSP statutory sideboards implicitly help to maintain agricultural viability.

▪ The VSP Work Plan is to rely on voluntary stewardship “as the primary method of protecting critical

areas and not require cessation of agricultural activities.” (RCW 36.70A.700.)

▪ The County, and the VSP Work Plan, may not “require an agricultural operator to discontinue

agricultural activities legally existing before July 22, 2011.” RCW 36.70A.702.

▪ VSP statutes do not grant counties or state agencies any additional regulatory authority to protect

critical areas on lands used for agricultural activities. (RCW 36.70A.702.)

▪ In order to promote producer participation and productive discussion among Work Group members,

VSP statutes prohibit county promulgation of new critical area regulations related to agricultural

activities during the VSP process (narrow exceptions apply). (RCW 36.70A.130 (8)(a).)

▪ Nothing in the VSP statutes requires participation from agricultural operators, which is voluntary only.

(RCW 36.70A.705.)

▪ With regard to conservation programs, VSP is not to be administered in a manner that prevents

operator eligibility for environmental incentives (RCW 36.70A.702), and volunteer “agricultural

operators implementing an individual stewardship plan consistent with a work plan are presumed to

be working toward the protection and enhancement of critical areas.” (RCW 36.70A.750.)

▪ Agricultural operators volunteering to participate may withdraw from the program at any time.

(RCW 36.70A.702.)

▪ VSP may not require participating operators who voluntarily enter conservation contracts to protect

or enhance critical areas to continue such voluntary measures after expiration of the applicable

contract. (RCW 36.70A.760.)



1.5.3. Create and Meet Protection and Enhancement Benchmarks

VSP statute requires the Work Group to:

“Create measurable benchmarks that, within ten years after the receipt of funding, are designed to

result in (i) the protection of critical area functions and values and (ii) the enhancement of critical

area functions and values through voluntary, incentive-based measures.” RCW 36.70A.720 (2)(b).

The VSP legislation further states the “Program shall be designed to protect and enhance critical

areas on lands used for agricultural activities through voluntary actions by agricultural operators.”

(RCW 36.70A.705 (1).) Failure to meet a goal or benchmark set in the Work Plan will result in plan

failure and will trigger a regulatory approach to critical areas protection. (RCW 36.70A.720 (2);

RCW 36.70A.735; RCW 36.70A.130 (8).)

Though critical area enhancement is not part of the initial VSP Work Plan Approval test, the Work

Plan must also include benchmarks for promotion and implementation of voluntary actions designed

to protect and enhance critical areas. The definition of “protection” is provided above. The VSP

legislation’s definition of “enhancement” establishes that:

“enhance” means “to improve the processes, structure, and functions existing, as of July 22, 2011, of

ecosystems and habitats associated with critical areas.” RCW 36.70A.703

SETTING PRAGMATIC GOALS AND BENCHMARKS FOR PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT

Goals and benchmarks need to be practical, achievable, and reasonable to measure and meet. Metrics

potentially affected by non-agricultural activities or factors should be avoided. The Work Group also

needs to account for potential VSP participant withdrawals when establishing goals and benchmarks: “If

the watershed group determines that additional or different practices are needed to achieve the work

plan's goals and benchmarks, the agricultural operator may not be required to implement those practices

but may choose to implement the revised practices on a voluntary basis and is eligible for funding to

revise the practices.” (RCW 36.70A.750.)

Conversely, if voluntary critical area enhancements have been implemented since July 22, 2011, the

county can take credit for such improvements. These credits can help the county meet its statutory

obligation to protect critical areas and keep the aggregate level of critical area protection from

degrading below the July 22, 2011 VSP protection baseline.

The five-year “goal and benchmark” testing and reporting process is separate from the “plan approval”

test and reporting process. If goals and benchmarks are not met as described in the Work Plan, the

Work Group must go through an adaptive management process. Regulatory enforcement may be part of

the adaptive management process: “Following approval of a work plan, a county or watershed group

may request a state or federal agency to focus existing enforcement authority in that participating

watershed, if the action will facilitate progress toward achieving work plan protection goals and

benchmarks.” (RCW 36.70A.720.) If adaptive management is not successful, the county must comply with

the regulatory requirements for critical area updates and agricultural activities under RCW 36.70A.735.


August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | County Profile 7

CONSEQUENCES OF NOT HAVING AN APPROVED WORK PLAN

Without the VSP Work Plan, Yakima County would have to apply critical area regulations to agricultural

production, and producers would potentially need to obtain permits from the County.

If a Work Plan is not approved, fails due to inability to meet protection benchmarks, or is unfunded,

within 18 months of those events, the County would have to accomplish one of the following:

▪ Adopt development regulations previously adopted under this chapter by another local government

for the purpose of protecting critical areas in areas used for agricultural activities. Approved

examples include: 1) Clallam, Clark, King, or Whatcom counties; or 2) have been upheld by a

growth management hearings board or court after July 1, 2011, where the board or court

determined that the provisions adequately protected critical areas functions and values in areas

used for agricultural activities.

▪ Adopt development regulations certified by the Department of Commerce as protective of critical

areas in areas used for agricultural activities as required by the VSP laws and implementing rules.

2.0 County Profile

LAND AREA

Yakima County lies in the heart of Washington State, and encompasses over 4,310 square miles or 2.76

million acres, and is the second largest county in the state. In total about 75% is owned by public

agencies with high percentages owned by the Yakama Nation, federal, state, and local government. A

focus of the VSP Work Plan is privately held land in agricultural production in unincorporated areas.

There may be some private leases on lands such as the US Forest Service where the VSP Work Plan

conservation practices may be suitable.

Exhibit 2-1. Land in Public and Private Ownership

ACRES SQUARE MILES PERCENT

Federal 689,817 1,078 25%

Tribal 1,035,777 1,618 38%

State 273,102 427 10%

County, City, Other 64,212 100 2%

Private 696,200 1,088 25%

Total 2,759,108 4,311 100%

Source: Yakima County 2017



WATERSHEDS

A "Watershed" means a water resource inventory area (WRIA), salmon recovery planning area, or a

subbasin as determined by a county. (RCW 36.70A.703(12)) The Washington State Department of

Ecology puts it into basic terms that a watershed is an area that drains to a common waterway, such as a

stream, lake, estuary, wetland, or aquifer.1

All Yakima County watersheds are included in the Yakima County VSP Work Plan with a priority status of

the Wenas Creek watershed that is within the Upper Yakima WRIA. (Yakima County Resolution 14-2012)

Watersheds in the County are numerous, but not all contain mapped agricultural or range lands.

The text and tables in this Work Plan refer to agricultural land and rangeland. Agricultural land includes

irrigated and dryland farming including livestock raising and dairies, and is based on WSDA estimates

and spatial mapping; however, it may be low by about 100,000 acres based on other estimates of

pastureland that are higher (W.F. Hendrix, 2017; see Appendix E). Rangeland includes grazing of

grasses, forbs, or shrubs by livestock. Both categories are included in the definition of “agricultural

activities” under VSP (see Chapter 10).

Exhibit 2-2. Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) and Agricultural and Rangeland Acres

WATER RESOURCE INVENTORY AREA (WRIA)

BASIN ACRES IN COUNTY

AGRICULTURAL ACRES

RANGELAND ACRES

26- Cowlitz 15,128 0 0

27- Lewis 462 0 0

29- Wind/White Salmon 24,299 0 0

30- Klickitat 389,542 0 16,744

31- Rock/Glade 64,899 43,673 19,607

37- Lower Yakima 1,378,630 286,419 259,387

38- Naches 634,947 20,957 316,501

39-Upper Yakima 206,590 11,186 104,915

40- Alkali-Squilchuck 44,360 0 4,066

Total 2,758,857 362,236* 721,220

1 Washington Department of Ecology. 2016. My Basin. Available: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/geographic/basins.html.



Note: * WSDA Pasture Estimate of 39,329 acres appears lower than other estimates by WSU of 140,000 acres (W.F. Hendrix, 2017). Because the WSDA information is available spatially, it is used in this analysis. As monitoring occurs, it is anticipated that pastureland mapping would improve.

Source: Washington Department of Agriculture, Washington Department of Ecology, BERK Consulting 2017

These basins are illustrated on the following map.

Exhibit 2-3. Yakima County Watersheds

Source: Yakima County, 2016; DOE, 2015; DNR, 2010; Microsoft Bing, 2010; BERK, 2016.

Based on the criteria in RCW 36.70A.710 3a-c, Yakima County nominated all Watersheds in the County

as participating basins for purposes of developing a Work Plan:

30- Klickitat

31- Rock/Glade

37- Lower Yakima

38- Naches

39-Upper Yakima

40- Alkali-Squilchuck



All basins are important to consider in terms of agricultural viability and critical area protection. Notable

WRIAs include the Lower Yakima, which is the most extensive in total area and irrigated agriculture, and

has the greatest urban and rural interface. The Upper Yakima WRIA contains the priority Wenas Creek

sub-basin. The Wenas Creek sub-basin was highlighted as a priority basin in the County’s nominating

resolution for the following reasons consistent with RCW 36.70A.710 (4):

WHEREAS, in nominating just the Wenas creek watershed as the County's Priority Watershed,

Yakima County applied the provisions of RCW 36.70A.710(4)(a)-(g) and specifically considered

the following factors in support of the nomination of this watershed as a Priority Watershed: (a) that

the primary land use in the Wenas valley has been designated in the County's comprehensive plan as

Agricultural Lands of Long Term Commercial Significance, in acknowledgment of the Wenas valley's

role as an important agricultural area with significant hay production, cattle grazing and various

other agricultural activities.; (b) that historically, salmonids were present in Wenas creek but that the

combination of hydrological changes and the damning of Wenas creek to create Wenas lake as a

water storage facility has eliminated access to spawning habitat for anadromous salmonids; though

above the damn resident populations of rainbow trout and native cutthroat trout still exist in the

tributaries to Wenas Lake and the lower approximately 1.7 miles of Wenas Creek does support

salmonid rearing and is rated as good to excellent off-channel habitat for rearing salmonids in its

tributaries; (c) the Wenas valley hosts a number of State Wildlife Refuges and contains a significant

intact shrub steppe habitat that has resulted in much of the area being designated as Upland Wildlife

Habitat in the county's critical areas ordinance, and there is a history along Wenas creek of conflict

between elk migration and winter range and agricultural activity; (d) there are both individuals and

community organizations in the Wenas that represent varied interests in the Wenas valley

environment and its watershed, including the Friends of the Wenas and the North Wenas

Conservation group, as well as the Coordinated Resource Management Team, a group that included

local agricultural land owners and wildlife managers to develop practices to reduces wildlife and

agricultural conflict; (e) in the past, the Wenas Creek watershed has seen conflict over water use in

the past and the resulting litigation (The Dept. of Ecology v. Acquavella et.ux et al., Yakima County

Cause No. # 77-2-01484-5) resulted in the creation of a management regime that include a water

manager and a commitment to maintain flow and manage water usage from the creek; (f) there

currently is no formal watershed group established in the Wenas watershed, or in any other

watersheds existing in Yakima County, though in the past there have been volunteers who have

participated and cooperated on resource issues no existing watershed group for the Wenas, or any

other watershed or WRIA located within Yakima County; and finally, (g) that once funding is

established, the prospects for success of any funded watershed program in the Wenas valley

watershed are improved because of the current enhanced water resource management and other

active measures being taken to improve salmonoid habitat in the lower reaches of Wenas Creek…

More information about potential conditions and strategies of watershed plans can be found in Appendix

C.



CRITICAL AREAS AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS

VSP applies only where critical areas and agricultural activities overlap in unincorporated areas within

the nominated watersheds on private property. Regarding applicability of VSP on public lands, the

Conservation Commission’s position is that VSP does not directly apply to public lands, but that

exploration of the management of public lands and effects on private agriculture and its intersect can be

part of a work plan:

VSP Newsletter September 2016 – VSP ON PUBLIC LANDS: A question has arisen among the work

groups about if VSP applies to public lands, or how public lands and what happens on them affect

agricultural viability on private lands for VSP purposes. For example, if public lands next to private

lands do not allow grazing and the lack of grazing increases underbrush which contributes to wildfire

that affects private agricultural lands and producers. The Commission’s position is that VSP does not

directly apply to public lands. VSP applies where agricultural activities intersect with critical areas in

a county. The main purpose of VSP is to protect critical areas and maintain agricultural viability. The

lack of grazing which leads to wildfires which affects critical areas or agricultural viability is

something that could to be analyzed in the work plan in the context of protection of the critical areas

or in maintaining agricultural viability in the county. If public lands are affecting agricultural

viability, the work group should explain the effect in the work plan. Are there any strategies that

could be crafted to mitigate activities on public lands in the county that affect agricultural viability?

Are those strategies within the control of the VSP work group? This is the kind of analysis that would

be part of the work plan.

Per the Growth Management Act (GMA) which contains the VSP law, critical areas include fish and

wildlife habitat conservation areas, wetlands, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas,

and critical aquifer recharge areas used for potable water. Broad definitions are included in the chart

below. Detailed mapping and definitions are included in Appendix A and Appendix B. The intersection of

agriculture and critical areas is addressed in Chapter 5, Baseline Conditions.



Sources - Images: Ferruginous Hawk, Audubon.org; Wetlands, Toppenish, Yakama Nation; Yakima River Flooding, Yakima County; Naches Landslide, Seattle Times; Aquifer Susceptibility (low-yellow, moderate-orange, extreme-red), Yakima County.

Definitions: See RCW 36.70A and WAC 365-190

Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas

•Land management for maintaining populations of species in suitable habitats within their natural geographic distribution so that the habitat available is sufficient to support viable populations over the long term and isolated subpopulations are not created. This does not mean maintaining all individuals of all species at all times, but it does mean not degrading or reducing populations or habitats so that they are no longer viable over the long term.

•Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas that must be considered for classification and designation include: Areas where endangered, threatened, and sensitive species have a primary association; Habitats and species of local importance, as determined locally; Naturally occurring ponds under twenty acres and their submerged aquatic beds that provide fish or wildlife habitat; Waters of the state; Lakes, ponds, streams, and rivers planted with game fish by a governmental or tribal entity; and State natural area preserves, natural resource conservation areas, and state wildlife areas. [Note: omits some marine habitats.]

Wetlands

•Areas inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.

•Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created from non-wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass-lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities, or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. However, wetlands may include those artificial wetlands specifically intentionally created from non-wetland areas to mitigate conversion of wetlands.

Frequently Flooded Areas

•Lands in the flood plain subject to at least a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year, or within areas subject to flooding due to high groundwater.

Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas

•Areas with a critical recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water, including areas where an aquifer that is a source of drinking water is vulnerable to contamination that would affect the potability of the water, or is susceptible to reduced recharge.

Geologically Hazardous Areas

•Areas susceptible to erosion, sliding, earthquake, or other geological events, where development is not suitable due to public health or safety concerns.

Hydro

logic

ally

Rela

ted C

ritica

l A

rea F

ea

ture

s



2.3.1. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas

Ecoregions

Within Washington State, Ecoregions have been described based on climate, landform, soil, and

hydrology as well as plant and animal species distribution. Two ecoregions fall within Yakima County:

East Cascades and Columbia Plateau and result in rich and diverse habitats and species:2

▪ East Cascades: This ecoregion applies to western Yakima County, and includes lands from the

montane crest down through open stands of ponderosa pine and Garry oak to the edge of the

sagebrush steppe. There are a high number of rare and endemic plants and diverse coniferous

forests. Large mammals in the ecoregion include blacktail and mule deer, elk, black bear, and

cougar. The ecoregion hosts 190 bird species. Bald and golden eagles are present, but much of their

historic range no longer supports them. Peregrine falcons have begun to recover in the ecoregion.

Salmonids, including threatened species, are found in East Cascades’ rivers and streams. Larger fires

are more common due to past practices of fire suppression. Brush and ladder fuels, formerly cleared

by low intensity fires every 5 to 15 years, have accumulated. These have both changed forest

structure and increased the hazard of catastrophic blazes.

▪ Columbia Plateau Ecoregion: This ecoregion is found in the eastern part of Yakima County and

extends beyond the county to cover one-third of the state: The ecoregion is defined by two major

river systems, the Columbia and the Snake and its tributary rivers such as the Yakima River, as well

as sagebrush and an extensive agricultural landscape. Shrub-steppe and grasslands support18

endemic plant species and several at-risk birds (e.g. sharp-tailed grouse). Fisheries contribute the

area’s biodiversity, but across the ecoregion, salmon runs have declined to less than a tenth of their

former size because of dams, diversions, fishing management, and upland habitat degradation.

There are approximately 450 plant community associations in the Columbia Plateau and about 20%

are considered vulnerable.

Based on the Washington Connected Landscapes Project Statewide Analysis, the western portion of

Yakima County has a high landscape integrity habitat supporting generalist wildlife species that can

inhabit a variety of habitats such as mule deer. This western area also has a relatively high level of

montane landscape integrity supporting species found in forests and mountainous areas such as black

bear. The eastern portion of the County in the Columbia Plateau Ecoregion has a range of low to high

landscape integrity supporting arid land species. 3

2 Landscope America. 2017. Ecoregions in Washington. Available: http://www.landscope.org/washington/natural_geography/ecoregions/.

Accessed: April 20, 2017.

3 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2010. Washington Connected Landscapes Project: Statewide Analysis, December

2010, available: wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01324/. Accessed: October 2016.

http://www.landscope.org/washington/natural_geography/ecoregions/



Priority Species and Focal Species

Within the ecoregions present in Yakima County, fish and wildlife species are found in mountainous

forested areas in the west, arid shrub-steppe areas to the east, and within and along streams and other

bottomlands throughout the county. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has

identified priority habitats, including: aspen stands, biodiversity areas & corridors, inland dunes, old-

growth/mature forest, Oregon white oak woodlands, shrub-steppe, riparian, freshwater wetlands & fresh

deepwater, instream, caves, cliffs, snags and logs, and talus. WDFW has also identified habitat

concentration areas, key linkage areas, and connectivity pinch-points for the Columbia Plateau Ecoregion

based on 11 focal species: Sharp-tailed Grouse, Greater Sage-Grouse, black-tailed jackrabbit, white-

tailed jackrabbit, Townsend’s ground squirrel, Washington ground squirrel, least chipmunk, mule deer,

Western rattlesnake, beaver, and tiger salamander. Based on WDFW information, Yakima County has

generally mapped upland habitat, as well as streams, as critical areas.

Exhibit 2-4. Habitat Maps

Yakima County Upland Habitat and Priority Fish

Yakima County Habitat Concentration Areas

Source: Yakima County-Upland 2009, WDFW-Priority Fish 2015, BERK 2016

Legend: Blue-Low, Green-Medium, Red-High, Yellow area -Very High; Wenas Creek basin in Yellow border. Source: WDFW 2010, 2012, 2013, BERK 2016

Within the County’s habitats, a number of fish and wildlife species are found as shown in the table below.

Maps of their common ranges in the state, including Yakima County, can be found in the 2015 State

Wildlife Action Plan4. Maps showing potential distribution based on prior sightings and habitat conditions

is included in Appendix A.

WDFW. 2012 and 2013. Columbia Plateau Ecoregion. Available here: http://waconnected.org/columbia-plateau-ecoregion/. Accessed:

October 2016.

4 WDFW. 2015. State Wildlife Action Plan. Available: Accessed: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/cwcs/

http://waconnected.org/columbia-plateau-ecoregion/

http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/cwcs/



Exhibit 2-5. Priority Species in Yakima County

SPECIES STATE STATUS FEDERAL STATUS

Fishes Pacific Lamprey Species of Concern

River Lamprey Candidate Species of Concern

White Sturgeon

Leopard Dace Candidate

Umatilla Dace Candidate

Mountain Sucker Candidate

Bull Trout Candidate * Threatened *

Chinook Salmon Candidate Threatened (Upper Columbia Spring run is Endangered)

Coho Threatened – Lower Columbia

Kokanee

Rainbow Trout/ Steelhead/ Inland Redband Trout

Candidate ** Threatened**

Sockeye Salmon Candidate

Westslope Cutthroat

Amphibians Cascade Torrent Salamander Candidate

Larch Mountain Salamander*** Sensitive Species of Concern

Van Dyke's Salamander Candidate Species of Concern

Columbia Spotted Frog Candidate

Western Toad Candidate Species of Concern

Reptiles Sharptail Snake Candidate Species of Concern

Striped Whipsnake Candidate

Sagebrush Lizard Candidate Species of Concern

Birds**** Western grebe Candidate

E WA breeding concentrations of: Grebes, Cormorants

E WA breeding: Terns

Black-crowned Night-heron

Great Blue Heron

Cavity-nesting ducks: Wood Duck, Barrow’s Goldeneye, Common Goldeneye, Bufflehead, Hooded Merganse

Harlequin Duck

Tundra Swan

Waterfowl Concentrations

Bald Eagle Sensitive Species of Concern

Ferruginous Hawk Threatened Species of Concern

Golden Eagle Candidate

Northern Goshawk Candidate Species of Concern

Peregrine Falcon Sensitive Species of Concern

Prairie Falcon

Chukar

Ring-necked Pheasant

Greater Sage-grouse Threatened Candidate

Sooty Grouse

Wild Turkey

Sandhill Crane Endangered

E WA breeding occurrences of: Phalaropes, Stilts, and Avocets

Band-tailed Pigeon

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Candidate Candidate



SPECIES STATE STATUS FEDERAL STATUS

Burrowing Owl candidate Species of Concern

Flammulated Owl Candidate

Spotted Owl*** Endangered Threatened

Vaux’s Swift Candidate

Black-backed Woodpecker Candidate

Lewis’ Woodpecker Candidate

Pileated Woodpecker Candidate

White-headed Woodpecker Candidate

Loggerhead Shrike Candidate

Sagebrush Sparrow Candidate

Sage Thrasher Candidate

Mammals Merriam’s Shrew Candidate

Preble's Shrew Candidate Species of Concern

Roosting Concentrations of: Big-brown Bat, Myotis bats, Pallid Bat

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat Candidate Species of Concern

Roosting Concentrations of Big Brown Bat, Myotis and Pallid Bat

Black-tailed Jackrabbit Candidate

White-tailed Jackrabbit Candidate

Western Gray Squirrel Threatened Species of Concern

Townsend’s Ground Squirrel Candidate Species of Concern

Cascade Red Fox Candidate

Fisher Endangered Candidate

Marten

Wolverine Candidate Candidate

Bighorn Sheep

Columbian Black-tailed Deer

Mountain Goat

Northwest White-tailed Deer

Elk

Rocky Mountain Mule Deer

Invertebrates Mardon Skipper Endangered

Silver-bordered Fritillary Candidate

Notes:

* Bull Trout only

** Steelhead only.

*** Yakima County Code notes that protection of Larch mountain salamander (Plethodon larselli) (State Sensitive, Federal Species of Concern) and Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis) (State Endangered, Federal Threatened) habitat is accomplished through management of federal, state, and other public lands by those responsible entities.

**** The common or rare presence of birds in Yakima County is identified by the Yakima Audubon in this checklist: http://yakimaaudubon.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2015/08/YAKIMA-COUNTY-CHECKLIST-2014_4.9.14-AS.xls.pdf.

General Note: These are the species and habitats identified for Yakima County as of 2013 per the Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) List and maps (see http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/).Species distribution maps depict counties where each priority species is known to occur as well as other counties where habitat primarily associated with the species exists. As new information becomes available, known distribution for some species may expand or contract.

http://yakimaaudubon.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2015/08/YAKIMA-COUNTY-CHECKLIST-2014_4.9.14-AS.xls.pdf



2.3.2. Wetlands

Wetlands are “transitional areas between land and water; these areas are saturated with water or

covered by shallow water at least part of each year, or part of most years.”5 Wetlands may be

associated with a water body such as a river or lake, or may be indirectly hydrologically connected. A

more detailed definition of wetlands appears in Appendix B. For the purposes of VSP the definition

excludes wholly artificial wetlands. Wetland functions and values include: water purification, flood

protection, shoreline stabilization, groundwater recharge, and streamflow maintenance, as well as

providing habitat for fish and wildlife.

Within Yakima County, wetlands in the Upper and Lower Yakima Basins are located along many water

bodies, and principally along the mainstem of the Yakima River or its tributaries such as Toppenish and

Satus Creeks. In the Naches River area, wetlands are present on the south side of the Naches River near

Goose Prairie and Soda Springs and near the confluence with the Naches River.6

Wetlands have been mapped by the National Wetland Inventory, and supplemented with Yakima

County information as development applications submit wetland reports. Wetlands information, as with

any critical area, would need verification in the field to determine if wetland characteristics are present

and to exclude artificial ones (see definition on page 3). Wetlands are mapped primarily along rivers

and streams.

5 Washington State Department of Ecology. 1990 and 2001. At Home with Wetlands: A Landowner’s Guide. Available:

https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/9031.pdf. Accessed: April 20, 2017.

6 US Bureau of Reclamation. March 2012. Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan FPEIS. Available:

https://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/yrbwep/reports/FPEIS/fpeis.pdf. Accessed November 2016.

https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/9031.pdf

https://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/yrbwep/reports/FPEIS/fpeis.pdf



Exhibit 2-6. Mapped Wetlands and Priority Fish Streams in Yakima County

Note: Wetlands identified are identified in blue; priority fish streams in green; Wenas Creek basin in yellow.

Sources: National Wetland Inventory, Yakima County project-based wetland information; reflects change to Sulphur Creek Wasteway as no longer accessible by priority fish; BERK Consulting 2017

A characterization of wetlands in major basins and river corridors is presented below based on the

Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan Final Programmatic EIS, 2012:

▪ Upper Yakima River Basin: Wetlands in the basin are located along the mainstem of the Yakima

River. In the upper basin, wetlands are found along smaller tributaries, at seeps and springs, at high-

elevation wet meadows, and along the shorelines of natural lakes.

▪ Lower Yakima River Basin: Wetlands are present throughout the lower basin and are primarily

associated with the mainstem and tributaries of the Yakima River.

▪ Yakima River Tributaries: Wetlands are common along Toppenish and Satus Creeks due to their

low gradient and braided channels. As in other Yakima River basin areas, most emergent wetland

habitat along these streams has been removed through draining and land leveling; however, the

Yakama Nation has undertaken extensive wetland restoration efforts in the area.

▪ Naches River Tributaries: Scrub-shrub and forested wetlands are present on the south side of the

river near Goose Prairie and Soda Springs and near the confluence with the Naches River.



2.3.3. Frequently Flooded Areas

Yakima County has mapped frequently flooded areas based on Federal Emergency Management

Agency information.

Exhibit 2-7. Flood Hazard Areas and Priority Fish Streams – Yakima County

Note: Floodplain identified are identified in blue; priority fish streams in green; Wenas Creek basin in yellow; reflects change to Sulphur Creek Wasteway as no longer accessible by priority fish.

Sources: FEMA, Yakima County, BERK

Flooding has been a concern in the County and as such the County established a countywide flood control

district in 1998: “Since 1894 the Yakima River has flooded 47 times, since 1970 the area was declared

a national disaster 8 times due to flooding. The Naches River and several tributaries experienced

flooding at the same time of the Yakima River flood events. On January 13, 1998, the Board of Yakima

County Commissioners established the Yakima Countywide Flood Control Zone District.”7

7 Yakima County. 2016. Flood Control Zone District. Available: http://www.yakimacounty.us/314/Flood-Control-Zone-District.



2.3.4. Geologically Hazardous Areas

Geologically hazardous areas include areas susceptible to erosion, sliding, earthquake, or other

geological events such as channel migration. Erosive soils have been mapped throughout the county, steep

slopes, and landslides less so. Channel migration zones are mapped along major rivers.

Exhibit 2-8. Geologic Hazards in Yakima County

Erodible Soils

Channel Migration Zones

Landslides

Steep Slopes

2.3.5. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas

Groundwater in Yakima County is found in the basalt that underlies most of the area, in the alluvium

deposits located along the various watercourses, and in the Ellensburg formation which both overlies and



interbeds within the basalt flows.8 The County has classified aquifers for their susceptibility to

contamination. Wells and wellhead protection zones (based on travel time to aquifer) are also mapped.

Exhibit 2-9. Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas and Susceptibility

Legend: Yellow-Moderate; Orange-High; Red-Extreme

Sources: Yakima County, BERK Consulting 2016

8 Information in this section is excerpted from: Yakima County. 2016. Horizon 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Draft Chapter VII Natural

Setting, Available: http://wa-yakimacounty.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/Home/View/2939.



Exhibit 2-10. Wellhead Protection Zones within 1,000 Feet of Well (Blue) and 10-year Travel Time (Pink)

Sources: Department of Health, BERK Consulting


August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Agriculture in Yakima County 23

3.0 Agriculture in Yakima County

The Yakima County region is one of the top ten agricultural regions of the world. There is a huge diversity

and wide array of crops.

Regional agriculture relies heavily on

irrigation and water rights, because

the region gets between 7 and 11

inches of precipitation annually. The

agricultural region of Yakima County

receives approximately the same

precipitation as Tucson, Arizona.

Access to irrigation is essential for

the production of agricultural

products, and thus the regional

economy.

Agriculture is an important part of

the County’s economy.

• Yakima County’s 3,143 farms produce $1.65 billion in income from crops and livestock in 2012. The

leading market commodities in 2012 were apples, milk, and hay.9

• Food processing industry gross sales were $1.17 billion in Yakima County as of 2013, based on the

Washington State Department of Revenue and Employment Security Department information.10 This

the highest of counties in Eastern Washington, and third highest in the state after King ($6.9B) and

Pierce ($1.3B) counties. 11

9 http://wunc.org/post/five-your-immigration-questions-answered#stream/0

10 http://agr.wa.gov/AgInWa/docs/127-ProcMap2015-Copier.pdf

11 cai. 2015. Washington State Agriculture & Food Processing Economic/Fiscal Impact Study. Available:

http://www.pnwer.org/uploads/2/3/2/9/23295822/cai.wa_farm_bureau_agriculture_&_food_processing_economic_and_fiscal_impact_

study_2015_0121_(1).pdf.

http://wunc.org/post/five-your-immigration-questions-answered#stream/0

http://agr.wa.gov/AgInWa/docs/127-ProcMap2015-Copier.pdf

http://www.pnwer.org/uploads/2/3/2/9/23295822/cai.wa_farm_bureau_agriculture_&_food_processing_economic_and_fiscal_impact_study_2015_0121_(1).pdf

http://www.pnwer.org/uploads/2/3/2/9/23295822/cai.wa_farm_bureau_agriculture_&_food_processing_economic_and_fiscal_impact_study_2015_0121_(1).pdf



A report prepared for the Yakima River Basin including Kittitas, Yakima, and Benton Counties shows the

importance of the agricultural economy to the counties and the state:12

▪ Every dollar of economic output from the agricultural and food processing sector (AFPS) yields $0.82

of economic output in the rest of the state.13

▪ Every job in the AFPS supports 0.71 jobs in the rest of the state.14

▪ Every dollar of labor income in the AFPS supports $1.16 in labor income in the rest of the state.15

▪ Every dollar of labor income from apple production supports $0.72 of labor income in the rest of the

state.16

▪ Every dollar of economic output from apple production supports $0.53 in the rest of the state.17

▪ Every job in the dairy industry supports an additional 1.4 jobs in the rest of the state.18

▪ Every dollar of direct labor income paid in the dairy industry supports an additional $3.08 of labor

income in other sectors of Washington’s economy.19

Agricultural-related employment in Yakima County in 2015 totaled 33,500 or 31 percent of the total

employment in Yakima County.20 In addition, farm operations support food processing, which is

considered part of the manufacturing sector. Yakima County ranks first in the state for employment in

crop production, animal production and agricultural support activities. 21 Based on covered employment

information, “Yakima is the only county with more than 1,000 employees engaged in animal production.”

11

Many products in Washington State are exported. The top crops exported in the state, which are also

top products in Yakima County, as of 2012 were apples (#1 state export and #1 national rank,

$2.189.1M) and milk (#2 state export, #10 national rank, $1.298.9M).

12 ECONorthwest. May 4, 2017. Increasing Water Security for the Yakima River Basin Economy, Communities, and Watersheds. Prepared

for: Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project Workgroup Economic Subcommittee. Portland, OR.

13 Community Attributes, Inc. (CAI). 2015. Washington State Agriculture & Food Processing Economic/Fiscal Impact Study. Ex. 5.7, page 78.

January.

14 CAI, 2015.

15 CAI, 2015.

16 Bunting, D., D/P. Jones, and M. Wagner. 2011. The Economic Impact of Washington Tree Fruit Industry. Eastern Washington University,

Institute for Public Policy & Economic Analysis. Table 11.2, page 62. October.

17 Bunting, Jones and Wagner, 2011.

18 Neibergs. J.S. and M. Brady. 2013. 2011 Economic Contribution Analysis of Washington Dairy Farms and Dairy Processing: An Input-

Output Analysis. Washington State University Extension. Farm Business Management Report. Page ii. May.

19 Neibergs and Brady, 2011.

20 Meseck, D. 2016a. Yakima County Profile. Washington Employment Security Department. https://www.esd.wa.gov/.

21 Community Attributes Inc. 2015, Washington State Agriculture & Food Processing Economic/ Fiscal Impact Study. January.

https://www.esd.wa.gov/



Yakima’s Agricultural Strengths

▪ Per the 2012 Census of Agriculture, 2016 Washington State Department of Agriculture

(WSDA), and industry data:

▪ Yakima County has the most acreage in apples both nationally and in the state, at about

51,000 acres in 2016; Yakima County is the largest apple-packing county in the nation, and

the state produces about two-thirds of America’s apples.

▪ Fruit growing also includes 29 percent of the nation’s cherries; 42 percent of the nation’s

pears and 38 percent of the nation’s concord grapes.1

▪ Yakima County is also the number one county in Washington and nationally in hops

production as of the 2012 Census of Agriculture. The Yakima Valley produces over 20

percent of the world’s supply of hop1s and 77 percent of the nation’s hops with 37,475 acres.

WSDA estimates over 31,000 acres planted in Yakima County as of 2016.1

▪ Washington State is a national leader in the production of mint oil. Growers produce about

3. 5 million pounds a year on 28,000 acres in the Yakima Valley and the Columbia Basin.

WSDA has estimated that there are nearly 11,000 mint-producing acres in Yakima County

as of 2016.1

▪ Yakima County has the largest number of cattle and calves in the state (2012 count of

258,663).

▪ Yakima County has the greatest number of sheep in the state (2012 count of 6,525).

▪ Whatcom County has the greatest number of dairy farms, but Yakima has more than twice

Whatcom County’s number of milk cows, and is by far the most productive, accounting for

nearly 40 percent of the state’s total milk sales. 11



EXTENT OF AGRICULTURE

The 2012 Census of Agriculture counted 1.78 million acres of land in farms, with about 17 percent in

agriculture and 83 percent in rangeland. Unincorporated land is eligible to participate in the Voluntary

Stewardship Program (VSP). Excluding the tribally owned land on the Yakama Reservation, there are

about 1.08 million acres of farmland in unincorporated areas, with 33 percent (362,236acres22) in

agriculture and 67 percent (721,220 acres) in rangeland.23 Some of the rangeland consists of leases on

federal or state lands.

LIVESTOCK, PASTURELAND, AND RANGELAND

Yakima County is #1 in the state in dairy, milk production,

cheese production, cattle and calves, sheep and lamb

production, and meat goats. 24

3.2.1. Pastureland

Irrigated pasture totals 140,000 acres25, managed range

totals 2.2 million acres and approximately 40,000 people in

the county own from 2 to 20 acres in small acreage production

systems.26

Irrigated pastures are one of the largest crop acreages, but

Washington State does not recognize pastures as a crop,

statistically. According to agricultural economic professionals,

irrigated pasture and grazing is one of the most consistently

profitable crops in the region. Approximately 40,000 people

own between 2 and 20 acres of pasture in the county.

3.2.2. Rangeland

Yakima County has1.5 million acres of range land with half subject to VSP and the other half primarily on

the Yakama Reservation. Blue bunch wheat grass was the native species on most of the upland range.

22 Excludes land in city limits, which are not subject to VSP. WSDA Pasture Estimate of 39,329 acres appears lower than other estimates by

WSU of 140,000 acres (W.F. Hendrix, 2017). Because the WSDA information is available spatially, it is used in this analysis. As monitoring occurs, it is anticipated that pastureland mapping would improve. 23 Subtracts out the Federal Wilderness areas from the rangelands dataset, as well as city limits, which are not subject to VSP.

24 http://ext100.wsu.edu/yakima/agriculture/irrigated-pastures-and-grazed-forages/

25 This is greater than the 2016 WSDA information at over 39,000 acres, though this is an increase in mapped data since 2011.

26 Based on W.F. Hendrix, WSU Extension information. This shows greater acreage than the Census of Agriculture which is based on self-

reports and land cover mapping, and greater than state mapping.

Teiton Farm & Creamery goats grazing, Seattle Met

http://ext100.wsu.edu/yakima/agriculture/irrigated-pastures-and-grazed-forages/



Livestock hold senior water rights in the state of Washington. Due to “first use” doctrine, they have the

right to physically drink from streams and wetlands.

The majority of the rangeland is on the Yakama Reservation, which is not subject to the VSP program. The

Yakamas owned and grazed cattle in the county and region since the 1830’s before irrigation and white

settlers arrived in the 1850’s. This is the basis for the “first use” rights. These rights are senior to all

irrigation rights.

3.2.3. Beef

Washington State annual beef gate value is $5.69 billion. As of 2014, Yakima County has

approximately 35 percent of the cows in the state, with an annual beef gate value of $1.2 billion.

Considering wages and the farm gate value together, the value of beef livestock is estimated to be

around $2.0 billion.

A large processing facility in Toppenish, the largest sales yard in the Pacific Northwest, and several

feeding operations together account for several thousand beef-related jobs within the county.

3.2.4. Sheep

The majority of the sheep in Washington State reside in Yakima County, with a head count of 6,525 per

the 2012 Census of Agriculture.

3.2.5. Dairy

Yakima County with the largest number of dairy cows in the

state (93,000 cows) and about 37 percent of the State’s total

dairy cow population, based on 2011 USDA information

included in a 2013 analysis of Washington’s leading dairy

counties by J. Shannon Neibergs and Michael Brady of WSU

Extension.27 Additionally, the Yakima Valley region of central

Washington - with more than 90 dairies and over 110,000

cows – is one of the largest dairy-producing areas in the

nation. About 67 dairies are located in Yakima County. 28

Washington's temperate climate, advanced animal genetics,

and farm management make Washington State one of the

nation's most efficient producers of milk. "Central Washington

has the ideal temperature for dairy production when compared to the extreme heat of California or

27 J. Shannon Neibergs and Michael Brady. School of Economic Sciences, Washington State University Extension. May 2013. Available.

http://wastatedairy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/2013-Updated-Dairy-Economic-Impact.pdf

28 Washington State Dairy Federation. No Date. Facts About Washington’s Dairy Industry. wastatedairy.com/category/dairy-facts/pages/2/.

South Yakima Conservation District, Cows feeding



extreme cold of the Midwest," said J. Shannon Neibergs Ph.D., WSU Extension Economic Specialist and

Associate Professor.

The dairy industry contributes an estimated $938 million from farm gate milk and beef production to the

Yakima Valley economy and employs more than 4,800 people, according to Washington State

University ag-economist Dr. J. Shannon Neibergs, who separated Yakima County dairy contributions from

a 2011 WSU economic study.29 Adding in wages to the farm gate value, the 2011 value is estimated to

be about $1.4 million.

Neibergs describes that "(d)airy farms make large capital investments in digester systems, water quality

treatment, and odor suppression technologies to develop energy efficient operations. He said “(m)odern

dairy operations are also in need of an increasingly trained workforce…The average dairy farm in

Washington is a $4.7 million business employing 18 people."

3.2.6. Horses

State statistics indicate there are 70,000 horses in Yakima County. This is likely a low estimate because

there isn’t an accurate count of the wild horses on the Yakama Reservation. In 1991, the count was

16,000 wild horses on the reservation. Wild horses on other ranges reproduce at a 20-35 percent rate

and thus the latest count is expected to be quite a bit higher than the 1991 population.

IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE: ORCHARDS, VINEYARDS, VEGETABLES

3.3.1. Tree Fruit

Yakima County is a national leader in apple production, and statewide for sweet cherries and pears

(including Bartlett pears). The County has the most acreage in apples both nationally and in the state, at

about 51,000 acres in 2016; Yakima County is the largest apple-packing county in the nation, and the

State of Washington produces about two-thirds of America’s apples. There are also hundreds of acres of

peaches, nectarines, plums/prunes, apricots, and other soft fruits.30

A 2011 Yakima County Economic Impact Study by Eastern Washington University found that:

• Tree fruit farming had a value of $314.2 million and supported 12,478 jobs

• Agricultural support activities had a value of $240.6 million and supported 10,461 jobs

TreeTop’s largest processing plant in Selah produces juice and apple sauce.31 A plant onsite also

produces fresh sliced apples.

29 Neibergs’ analysis came from data analyzed in a survey of Washington's 480 dairy farms (69 in Yakima County).

30 http://ext100.wsu.edu/yakima/agriculture/crop-production/

31 http://www.treetop.com/Facilities.aspx

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001gKkF9YMmJ2tuKvZxwS0gpLpwxUB6lB5pD9lGqauug0X_UYPhbCBkVHD4RW8LxsyZVUdyTQiOvU6TnpyanOuSyCzODpqutTkKP-XnWU-X2G2MoGqNjJtRStV_oo5JU1W19FSIF-lnlxtMNuclNTMM6yg6cb1e2f7lGe-nuCr2YZdv6UAMZcoEum6xE7D-5dKoxRUcfX8egpCccwSaISygA9GuDpQHpSATGO2C_YgthXs=&c=qkuv2xox-Jr8o_gPluSOyv1Kdc_xdPErC4sYmhfkbSbMEaMEVfQEFg==&ch=pVvz-LGAjweEt4mr00sqifgwVLlo-KgwBepU37U77dmu7L23G9tAww==



3.3.2. Hops

Yakima County is the leading county in the nation in the production of hops.30 The Yakima Valley contains

three-fourths of the total United States hop acreage, with an average farm size of 450 acres accounting

for over 77 percent of the total United States hop crop. WSDA estimates that Yakima County has over

31,000 acres of hops planted as of 2016.

3.3.3. Vegetable Crops

Yakima County is the leading producer of squash (summer and winter) and peppers (bell and chile) in

Washington and has over 3,600 acres of sweet corn.30

3.3.4. Gapes/Vineyards

In 2016, Yakima County had nearly 13,000 acres of juice grapes,

such as Concord grapes. Processing occurs in the Yakima Valley just

south of Yakima County in Sunnyside, Grandview, and Prosser at the

Welch’s, Smucker’s, FruitSmart, Milne, and TreeTop processing

facilities.

Yakima County also grows wine grapes. The County had over

6,000 acres of wine grapes as of 2016, according to WSDA crop

information. Premier wine grape varieties such as Merlot, Cabernet

Sauvignon, Cabernet Franc, Riesling, and Chardonnay are grown in

Yakima; the Yakima Valley is one of the fourteen American

Viticultural Areas (AVAs) found in Washington. The Valley has

become home to the State’s highest concentration of wineries, with

over 50 in the AVA.30

COMMON CONSERVATION PRACTICES BY TYPE OF AGRICULTURE

Conservation practices (also referenced as best management practices) are practical methods of

agricultural land management or improvements designed to protect or enhance natural resources – soils,

water, air, energy, habitat – while allowing efficient and productive use of the land. The conservation

practices available to a particular landowner vary by type of agricultural activity. The Natural Resource

Conservation Service (NRCS) and the local conservation districts of North Yakima Conservation District

and South Yakima Conservation District provide technical and financial assistance and work with willing

landowners to implement conservation practice standards.

3.4.1. Orchards/Vineyards

Orchards and vineyards commonly employ mulching, cover crops, and efficient irrigation to reduce soil

runoff, retain soil moisture and nutrients, conserve water, attract pollinators, and reduce inputs into

production. Organic production has increased to meet market demand, though there may be tradeoffs in

the frequency of pesticide application compared to standard practices. There is common participation in

Global Good Agricultural Practices (GAP), USDA GAP, TESCO, Salmon Safe, and other systems that

promote sustainable and common sense practices.

South Yakima Conservation District, Grapes



3.4.2. Livestock

Beef cows tend to eat potato, apple, and grape byproducts, which is an opportunity to reduce food

waste. Beef cows also eat hay that has been rained on and has lost some of its value as a marketable

commodity and can’t be exported as a premium hay; hay is better suited to a cow’s protein needs.

Grass-fed beef is becoming more common; pastureland helps encourage a crop that sequesters carbon.

Proper grazing management also reduces fire fuel.

Rangeland also provides open land for wildlife migration. Where solar powered water pumps are

installed to reduce livestock movement in waterbodies, the pumps often return power to the system, and in

winter draw electricity, resulting in close to a zero draw on the electricity system. While organic beef

production is present, there are concerns with parasites and other animal health issues, and it is not as

encouraged as grass-fed beef operations.

3.4.3. Dairy

Dairy operations can participate in cost-share programs when best management practices are

implemented to protect water quality through addressing the impacts of livestock nutrients on water.

Technical assistance for dairy nutrient management is provided through the technical and financial

assistance groups. The goal of nutrient management is to prevent the adverse impacts that dairy

operations can have on water. Solutions include management plans manure management systems. Eligible

projects can receive up to 75% of the total project cost in reimbursement (not to exceed $25,000).32

3.4.4. Planted Crops

Around 40% of the farmed acreage is planted row crops where replanting or rotation occurs regularly,

different than the “permaculture” often associated with orchards/vineyards.

A common conservation practice includes land set aside for conservation or enhancement by willing

landowners. Over 10 percent (39,000 acres) of the WSDA mapped farm acreage in Yakima County is in

the federal Conservation Reserve Program. The program, administered by the USDA Farm Service

Agency, requires farmers to remove environmentally sensitive land from production and plant species that

improve environmental health and quality in exchange for yearly rental payment. Contracts last 10 – 15

years. Farmers who have owned and operated suitable pastureland or plantable cropland for at least a

year are eligible for CRP. The land must be suitable for any of the following practices: wildlife habitat

buffer, wetland buffer, riparian buffer, wetland restoration, filter strips, grass waterways, shelter belts,

living snow fences, contour grass strips, salt tolerant vegetation, or shallow water areas.33 Irrigation

systems can cause both quantity and quality problems for water. Conservation organizations (such as

NRCS, NYCD, SYCD) provide technical assistance and reimbursement matching for operations looking to

32 http://www.sycd.us/home

33 http://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-programs/prospective-participants/index



install sprinkler or drip irrigation instead of rill irrigation or instill

gated pipe instead of siphon tubes. For example, the SYCD can

reimburse the landowners in exchange for the improvement of

water quality and the benefit of soil savings. SYCD will

reimburse farmers for up to 50% of the project costs ($1,000

per acre, not to exceed $10,000).34 NYCD runs an Irrigation

Efficiency Program that provides technical and financial

assistance to irrigators. NYCD requires that participating

growers implement qualified irrigation best management

practices (BMPs), measure water consistently, maintain water use

records, install fish screens, and agree to inspections. NYCD will

reimburse landowners for up to 85% of the cost of

implementation.35 Irrigation conservation practice contracts with NRCS include micro-irrigation, sprinkler,

water conveyance, and water management.

Soil moisture sensors are being used to log data on measurements of soil moisture at different depths to

provide growers with information about whether their crop is receiving too much or too little water.

Measurements can lead to better growth outcomes as well as efficient water use. SYCD provides growers

sensors and data loggers for up to two years, at which point the units can be purchased or loaned to

another grower.36

No-till seeding is encouraged as a way of reducing erosion, optimizing soil moisture, and improving

water quality through reducing the flow of topsoil and nutrients to the creeks, streams, and irrigation

ditches. The method also requires less fuel per acre to seed. SYCD has a no-till seeder available for

lease to any farmer with existing pasture or crop fields.37


35 https://northyakimacd.wordpress.com/projects-and-program/irrigation-efficiency-program/



South Yakima Conservation District, Soil

Moisture Data Logger



Conservation practices are also becoming more common to promote habitat for pollinators, important for

numerous crops, including orchards in the county. The NRCS has noted that “One out of every three bites

of food in the United States depends on honey bees and other pollinators.”38 Conservation practices to

promote pollinators include planting cover crops, planting wildflowers and native grasses in areas not in

production, and improving forage opportunities for pollinators on grazing lands. As shown in Chapter 5,

NRCS has funded 5 contracts in the last five years for cover crops. Another area of support for

beekeeping is research into declines in bee colonies due to a combination of factors related to mites,

pesticides, loss of habitat, and other factors. WSU Extension has expanded its research and support to

beekeepers and the agricultural community; for example, research is underway on mite control, and a

honey bee lab is contemplated with funding

sought. Different practices by beekeepers to

change honey combs more frequently where

pesticides can build up, changing overwintering

approaches (e.g. climate-controlled warehouse

in winter) and other practices can help avoid

stressors in bee colonies.39

Additional conservation technical and financial

assistance is provided by NRCS, NYCD, and

SYCD for the following:

▪ Pest management

▪ Energy management

▪ Pumping plants

▪ Seasonal high tunnel systems for crops

▪ Structures for water control

▪ Floodplain restoration

▪ Creek and river enhancement

▪ Riparian habitat enhancement

▪ Animal-friendly fencing

38 https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/plantsanimals/pollinate/?cid=stelprdb1263263

39 https://news.wsu.edu/2012/02/02/scientists-investigate-beekeepers-discovery/.

North Yakima Conservation District, Restoration work on Cowiche

Creek



CHALLENGES TO AGRICULTURAL VIABILITY

While Yakima County is a leader in agricultural employment as described in Section 3.1, based on

information compiled from federal and state sources, the Washington State Employment Security

Department indicates that incomes in Yakima County lag that of the state and nation.

▪ Per capita income in Yakima County in 2014 was $37,630 compared to the state at $49,610 and

the nation at $46,049.

▪ Median household income in 2014 was $43,956 in

Yakima County, only 72.9 percent of the state’s median

income ($60,294) and the nation’s ($53,482).

▪ Yakima County’s poverty rate in 2014 was

considerably higher (20.5 percent) than the state’s (13.2

percent) and the nation’s (14.8 percent) poverty rates.

The state and national rates are not directly

comparable to the county rate because they each use

different data sources.

For many families and households, incomes on average are

not high, and marginal changes in the cost of agricultural

production or commodity prices can be significant to

producers, processers, and workers. Some have noted:

“Farmers lose money, make money, and break even

throughout a 10-year window. They face the ongoing threats of bad weather, volatility in global

commodity prices, and increases in variable operating costs such as fuel.”11 Several additional factors

influencing the viability of agriculture in Yakima County are:

▪ Commodity prices in real dollars has been falling which encourages further consolidation of farms

into larger operations that are more corporate in nature, and different than the historic backbone of

family farms.

The percentage of total farms in the county that are family held is steadily around 85 percent

per the 2007 and 2012 Census’ of Agriculture. However, the number of acreage that is owned

by non-family corporations appears to have increased from over 33,400 acres to 88,600 acres

between 2007 and 2012.

▪ It is difficult to scale up operations due to cost of land; it is hard for new farmers or ranchers to enter

the business and increase their holdings. However, there has been a noticeable trend of part-time

farmers and ranchers starting smaller operations and requiring technical assistance providers to offer

evening and weekend support.

▪ There is a shortage of labor to help harvest crops, and an overall reliance on foreign nationals in

agricultural production. The seasonality of the work, and the relatively high percentage of non-

Agricultural Viability is the ability of a farmer or group of farmers to:

▪ Productively farm on a given

piece of land or in a specific

area,

▪ Maintain an economically viable

farm business,

▪ Keep the land in agriculture long-

term, and

▪ Steward the land so it will remain

productive into the future.



citizens, means that there are less long-term roots in the community, there’s less participation in

voting, and more unpredictability of the supply employable individuals.40

▪ Immigrant labor in Washington State has received national attention. There are concerns around

immigration policy and its potential impacts on the agriculture industry.41

▪ It is important to keep farmers and ranchers whole by avoiding additional regulatory burdens and

focusing on performance standards, and other alternatives, rather than hard buffers. It is most

important to address how land is managed. The VSP Work Plan is a good opportunity to

demonstrate voluntary management measures and avoiding prescriptive standards.

YAKIMA COUNTY AGRICULTURE: STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS

A “SWOT” analysis is an exercise considering strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and

challenges/threats regarding Yakima County’s Agricultural Economy and how to protect Agricultural

Viability over the long term. The table below summarizes a SWOT discussion by the Yakima County VSP

Work Group. The results have factored into agricultural viability aims in Chapter 7.

40 According to conversations that Kai Ryssdal from NPR’s Marketplace had with farm employers in the Yakima area and around Washington

State, seasonal workers are frequently uprooting and moving to where the crops are currently being harvested. Employers can’t predict

the going wage or when their workers will show up because it changes from day to day. http://wunc.org/post/five-your-immigration-

questions-answered#stream/0.

41 Kai Ryssdal of NPR’s Marketplace found that the current sentiment by some farmers around Washington State is that Congress may not

be prepared to deal with the conversation that needs to happen around immigrant labor. http://wunc.org/post/five-your-immigration-

questions-answered#stream/0.



Exhibit 3-1. Matrix of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats – Yakima County Agriculture

STRENGTHS

WHAT ARE THE POSITIVE ATTRIBUTES OF YAKIMA COUNTY’S AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY?

OPPORTUNITIES

WHAT CAN BE DONE TO ADDRESS ITS WEAKNESSES?

Enhance environment

Improved practices

Improved ecological understanding

Funding for research

New technology

Certainty of energy costs o Inexpensive energy costs

High margin commodities o Specialty crops

Education (both sides)

More water storage, more efficient use

Eat & wear American, local & small

Diversity - number/variety of products. Helps with price volatility

Diversity of producers. Ethnic, female, male

Having agriculture keeps land for both agriculture & wildlife

Peak/unique area to produce o Climate, soil, water o Marketing

Natural Resources capital

Agriculture money supports local businesses

Agriculture Infrastructure – distribution & production/process

Access to International markets

Education: WSU, CDs, Community College

Availability of labor – medium density

WEAKNESSES What local issues or characteristics limit opportunities?

CHALLENGES/THREATS What challenges and trends must be overcome in the

future to promote Yakima County’s agricultural viability?

Availability of water. Watershed limited compared to other parts of Columbia.

Variability of price for commodities. E.g. apples – can be others.

Lack of vertical integration. Producers getting into processing.

Decline of co-ops

Decline of middle class – due to vertical integration, social dysfunction

Lack of knowledge of agriculture; agriculture is energy.

o Consumer more remote & more critical

Globalization/Global Gap threat to small farmer/US farm

o Cap on money o Reasonable oversight – food safety; local &

imported food

Paradox

Don’t regulate food safety

Investment in agriculture infrastructure (irrigation)

Charge what it costs

Overregulation

Domestic market is flat

Rule of laws not distributed equally in other countries

Speed of research takes a while to catch up o 6 to 7 years to prove YouTube video is wrong

Transportation e.g. hay strikes

Nebulous citizenship

Vilification of agriculture

Vertical Integration (threat to the small producers)

Decline of coops

Loss of private ag land to public o Over leases only large producers can afford

Regulations & Global Gap o Endangered Species o Transfer of liability to farmer o Reduced autonomy o Additional burden to small producers

Introducing wolves, grizzly bears

Concentration of wealth

Inequality in global markets

Global economy

Citizenship of local labor force


August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Background Information, Other Plans, and Regulations 36

4.0 Background Information, Other Plans, and Regulations

Consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A.700, the Working Group reviewed existing water

quality, watershed management, farmland protection, and species recovery data and plans. This review

identifies critical area and agricultural viability issues that have been recognized by past planning efforts

within the County, as well as proposed strategies to address those issues. These plans were developed

for varying reasons, the scale and scope of which may differ from the VSP Work Plan. Specifically, the

Work Plan is to rely on voluntary stewardship “as the primary method of protecting critical areas and not

require cessation of agricultural activities” (RCW 36.70A.700). Nonetheless, existing watershed planning

documents can help the Working Group identify issues and strategies already identified by the science-

based and watershed planning groups. These planning documents may help focus efforts to promote

voluntary enhancement of critical area functions and values (above the critical area protection baseline)

through incentive-based measures.

A summary of current plan goals for the Yakima42, Rock/Glade43, and Klickitat44 WRIAs include:

▪ Restoring or maintaining the reliability of surface water supplies for both in-stream and out-of-

stream uses (all)

▪ Protecting, improving, and sustaining groundwater quantity and pumping levels of aquifers for the

benefit of current and future use (Yakima Basin)

▪ Protecting surface and groundwater from contamination (Yakima Basin)

▪ Identifying and protecting focal species and habitats of conservation concern (all)

▪ Developing an integrated, system-wide approach to water storage, distribution, and conservation,

and fish habitat enhancement (all)

42 See Appendix C. Yakima Plans: Lower Yakima Valley Groundwater Quality Preliminary Assessment and Recommendations (2010);

Relation between Nitrate in Water Wells and Potential Sources in the Lower Yakima Valley, Washington (2013): Yakima Bull Trout Action

Plan (2012); Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan- Final programmatic Environmental Impact Statement,

Benton, Kittitas, Klickitat, and Yakima Counties (2012); Detailed Implementation Plan Yakima River Basin (2007); Yakima River Basin Study

Mainstem Floodplain Restoration Technical Memorandum (2011); Yakima Steelhead Recovery (2009); Yakima Subbasin Plan (Northwest

Power and Conservation Council 2004).

43 See Appendix C. Rock Glade Plans: Lower Mid-Columbia Sub-Basin Plan (2004), Rock/Glade Water Resource Inventory Area

Watershed Management Plan (2008), and Level 1 Watershed Assessment WRIA 31 (2004).

44 Recovery Plan for the Klickitat River Population of the Middle Columbia River Steelhead Distinct Population Segment (2009); Klickitat

Subbasin Plan (2004); Klickitat Subbasin Anadromous Fishery Master Plan (2004); Klickitat Basin (WRIA 30) Watershed Management Plan

(2005).



Many existing federal, state, and local regulations and programs apply to agricultural activities,

independent of County critical area regulations. These regulations are outside of the purview of the VSP,

yet they provide context of the regulatory background within which agricultural activities operate within

the County.

The following section provides a summary of related plans reviewed and the regulatory setting within

Yakima County. More details are provided in Appendix C and Appendix D.

RELATED PLANS AND PROGRAMS

4.1.1. Watershed Planning under the Watershed Management Act (Chapter 90.82 RCW)

Watershed Planning under the Watershed Management Act was completed for each of the major basins

in Yakima County, including the Yakima Basin, the Rock/Glade Watershed, and the Klickitat Basin.

Watershed planning goals in each of the basins focus on the following:

▪ Restoring or maintaining the reliability of surface water supplies for both in-stream and out-of-

stream uses;

▪ Protecting, improve, and sustain groundwater quantity and pumping levels of aquifers for the benefit

of current and future use (Yakima Basin); and

▪ Protecting surface and groundwater from contamination (Yakima Basin).

4.1.2. Sub-Basin Planning

Sub-basin plans were completed in 2004 as a part of the Fish and Wildlife Program for the Northwest

Power and Conservation Council. Plans for the Lower Mid-Columbia Sub-basin, the Yakima Sub-basin,

and Klickitat Sub-basin identified focal species and habitats of conservation concern. Focal fish species

include bull trout, steelhead, spring Chinook, fall Chinook, sockeye, and Pacific lamprey. Focal wildlife

species include western toad, sandhill crane, white-headed woodpecker, Lewis’ woodpecker, western

gray squirrel, mule deer, sage grouse, Brewer’s sparrow, yellow warbler, mallard, and beaver. These

species were associated with focal habitats, including montane coniferous wetland, ponderosa/Oregon

white oak, interior shrub-steppe, and riparian wetlands. Plans address issues of instream flow and water

reliability, instream habitat degradation, and water quality, as well as wildlife habitat loss and

degradation.

4.1.3. Integrated water resource management planning in the Yakima River Basin

The Yakima River Integrated Water Resource Management Plan followed Watershed Planning efforts. Its

purpose is to develop an integrated, system-wide approach to water storage, distribution, and

conservation, and fish habitat enhancement. Proposals include building new and expanded reservoirs,

providing fish passage at all Reclamation dams in the Basin, improving irrigation and water delivery

infrastructure, and investing in fish and wildlife habitat protection and improvement projects. A

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, completed in 2012, serves as a framework for the plan.



4.1.4. Species recovery planning

Fish Species

Bull Trout and Middle Columbia River Steelhead are federally threatened species under the Endangered

Species Act (ESA) that occur in Yakima County. Recovery planning, required by ESA, incorporated locally-

written, basin-specific voluntary recovery plans that incorporate local population information and

priorities. In Yakima County, these include the Yakima Bull Trout Action Plan (2012), the Yakima

Steelhead Recovery Plan (2009), and the Recovery Plan for the Klickitat River Population of the Middle

Columbia River Steelhead Distinct Population Segment (2009).

Upland Species

The US Fish and Wildlife Service and WDFW have developed recovery plans for several species listed

by the federal or Washington State Endangered Species Act. Recovery plans have been developed for

the following species that may occur within areas used for agricultural activities in Yakima County

(associated habitat noted in parentheses):

▪ Greater sage grouse (shrub-steppe, particularly concentrated in Yakima Training Center)

▪ Ferruginous hawk (shrub-steppe, particularly Yakima Training Center and Rattlesnake Hills)

▪ Western gray squirrel (oak-conifer habitats)

▪ Gray wolf (generalist associated with prey populations, particularly elk)

▪ Recovery plans have also been developed for the following species; however, their habitats in

Yakima County are not expected to overlap with agricultural activities.

Northern spotted owl (mature conifer forests)

Sandhill crane (current known breeding sites in Yakima County are limited to Signal Peak on the

Yakama Indian Reservation and Deer Creek on lands owned by the Washington Department of

Natural Resources (DNR))

Fisher (extremely rare, possibly extirpated from Washington State)

More detail on specific recovery actions is included in Appendix C.

4.1.5. Shrub-Steppe Habitat

The WDFW mapping of Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) identifies expansive PHS occurrences

throughout the County, particularly in shrub-steppe habitats. Recent efforts from multiple agencies and

organizations have focused on identifying and prioritizing key areas for shrub-steppe habitats in

Washington State and the Columbia Plateau Region. These efforts include the Arid Lands Initiative (SAH

Ecological and Arid Lands Initiative Team 2014) and the Washington Connected Landscapes Project

(Washington Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Group 2010, 2012, 2013), both of which represent a

partnership of public, private, and tribal interests. These efforts use a focal species approach to

identifying habitat concentration areas, habitat linkages, and key pinch points and barriers to habitat



connectivity. Focal species were selected based on criteria such as representation of the Columbia

Plateau’s vegetation types, representation of key threats (e.g., climate change), ability to serve as an

"umbrella" for other candidates, and information availability. The following 11 focal species were

selected:

▪ sharp tailed grouse,

▪ greater sage-grouse,

▪ black-tailed jackrabbit,

▪ white-tailed jackrabbit,

▪ Townsend’s ground-squirrel,

▪ Washington ground squirrel,

▪ least chipmunk,

▪ mule deer,

▪ Western rattlesnake,

▪ beaver,

▪ tiger salamander.

4.1.6. Groundwater quality assessments and recommendations

In 2011, the Washington Department of Ecology granted a request by Yakima County to create a

special study area and establish an advisory committee to find solutions to prevent contamination and

protect residents who might be exposed to high levels of nitrate in their drinking water. The area is

known as the Lower Yakima Valley Groundwater Management Area.

The goal of the Lower Yakima Valley Groundwater Management Area is to reduce nitrate contamination

concentrations in groundwater below state drinking water standards. The target area extends from Union

Gap to County Line Road in Yakima County, Washington, minus the Yakama Nation.

4.1.7. Total Maximum Daily Load studies and implementation plans

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) are established for streams, rivers, and waterbodies with impaired

water quality conditions. Development of a TMDL involves monitoring water quality, identifying

contaminant sources, establishing water quality targets, identifying load allocations, and developing

implementation plans. Only point source pollutants are regulated through water quality-based effluent

limitations in TMDLs. Non-point source pollutants are addressed through voluntary measures through

education, outreach, and individual and cooperative implementation of water quality improvement

projects.

In Yakima County, TMDLS are established or under development for parameters including fecal coliform,

total phosphorus, temperature, toxics, and turbidity. Specific watercourses, parameters and TMDL status

can be found in Appendix C.



4.1.8. Washington State Department of Natural Resources Resource Management

The Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) leases and permits about one million trust

acres for agricultural and grazing production, subject to ecosystem standards that are applied through

Resource Management Plans. The plans may address potential practices that support soil stability,

watershed function, and local native plant communities.45 About 5% of county lands are in DNR

ownership. DNR manages parcels of land in the north-central portion of the County as well as the areas

bordering U.S. Forest Service lands on the western edge of the County. 46

In addition to managing lands for multiple purposes including agriculture and grazing, DNR is also

responsible for fire protection. DNR provides wildland fire protection on 151,160 acres of state lands;

forestlands are first priority followed by shrub-steppe.47

REGULATORY BACKSTOP

In addition to watershed-level plans, existing federal, state, and local regulations and voluntary

programs apply to agricultural activities throughout Yakima County. These provisions provide a

regulatory or programmatic backstop, which can help provide assurances that the voluntary nature of the

VSP can effectively conserve critical areas. Appendix D summarizes the application of existing federal,

state, and local regulations to agricultural activity in Yakima County.

It is important to note that VSP does not “limit the authority of a state agency, local government, or

landowner to carry out its obligations under any other federal, state, or local law” (RCW 36.70A.702).

4.2.1. Relevant Federal Regulations

Federal laws regulating the use of pesticides include the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

Act (FIFRA) and the Food Quality Protection Act. The Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates water quality

and wetland fill. The Clean Water Act encompasses Section 303(d) water quality standards and TMDLs,

the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Section 404 protections for wetlands and

streams, and Section 401 water quality certification for discharge to navigable waters.

It is important to note that agriculture is specifically exempted from the application of the Clean Water

Act in many cases.

▪ NPDES permits are not required for most agricultural activities, as they are considered non-point

sources of pollutants. Agricultural stormwater discharges and return flows from irrigated agriculture

45 Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Undated. Agriculture and grazing on Washington’s trust lands. Available:

http://file.dnr.wa.gov/publications/psl_ag_brochure.pdf. Accessed: April 21, 2017.

46 Yakima County, July 2015. Yakima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan 2015. Available:

http://file.dnr.wa.gov/publications/rp_burn_cwpp_yakima_county.pdf. Accessed: April 21, 2017.

47 Yakima County, July 2015. Yakima County Community Wildfire Protection Plan 2015. Available:

http://file.dnr.wa.gov/publications/rp_burn_cwpp_yakima_county.pdf. Accessed: April 21, 2017.

http://file.dnr.wa.gov/publications/psl_ag_brochure.pdf

http://file.dnr.wa.gov/publications/rp_burn_cwpp_yakima_county.pdf

http://file.dnr.wa.gov/publications/rp_burn_cwpp_yakima_county.pdf



are specifically exempted from NPDES permit requirements. NPDES permits are required for

discharge from concentrated animal feed operations (CAFOs). A general NPDES permit for CAFOs

was issued in 2006 and expired in 2011. A draft general NPDES permit for CAFOs is under

development.

▪ Normal ongoing farming, silviculture, and ranching practices such as plowing, cultivating, minor

drainage, and harvesting for the production of food, fiber, and forest products, or upland soil and

water conservation practices are generally exempt from Section 404.

The Endangered Species Act prohibits the “take” of species listed as threatened or endangered. Projects

with potential to affect listed species that involve federal funding, action, or approval require

consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service and/or US Fish and Wildlife Service.

4.2.2. Relevant State Regulations

A wide range of Washington State regulations apply to agriculture. Key provisions are briefly

summarized here and described in detail in Appendix D.

▪ Water Pollution Control: State water pollution control law (RCW 90.48) prohibits the discharge of

any polluting matter into the surface or groundwater of the state, and requires “the use of all known

available and reasonable methods … to prevent and control the pollution of the waters of the state

of Washington.”

▪ Pesticides: Pesticides are regulated under the Washington Pesticide Control Act (15.58.020 RCW)

and Washington pesticide application act (17.21 RCW).

▪ Work in Waters: The hydraulic code (77.55 RCW) gives WDFW the authority to review, condition,

and approve or deny “any construction activity that will use, divert, obstruct, or change the bed or

flow of any of the salt or fresh waters of the State.”

▪ Water Rights: The water code (90.03 RCW) establishes water rights appropriation standards and

procedures with a "first in time, first in right" clause. Yakima River Basin Water Rights are addressed

in RCW 90.38.

▪ Dairy Nutrient Management: The dairy nutrient management act (90.64 RCW) requires all dairy

producers, regardless of size to prepare and implement a dairy nutrient management plan, register

with WSDA, and participate in a program of regular inspections and compliance. The Department of

Ecology is responsible for developing and maintaining a standard protocol for water quality

monitoring of the waters of the state within the vicinity of dairies and CAFOs.

▪ Shorelines: The Shoreline Management Act (SMA) (RCW 90.58 and WAC 173‐18 through 173‐27)

requires cities and counties to prepare Shoreline Master Programs (SMPs). In shoreline jurisdiction (at

minimum, within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of “shorelines of the state”), both the local

county SMP and VSP will apply. Ongoing agricultural activities are not subject to the provisions of

the SMP. SMP regulations apply to new or expanded agricultural activities on non-agricultural land;

conversion of agricultural land to other uses; and non-agricultural activities on agricultural land. The

SMP does not need to incorporate the VSP work plan. The SMP cannot limit or modify agricultural



activities as defined in the SMA (essentially existing, ongoing agriculture). The VSP should apply

wherever agriculture and critical areas exist inside or outside of shoreline jurisdiction. SMP

regulations do not change with a VSP, and apply the same as before.

4.2.3. Relevant County Regulations

Zoning

County regulations that may affect agricultural activities include zoning code designations, which direct

uses, building bulk, scale, and location, and other design considerations.

State Environmental Policy Act

The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires consideration of environmental conditions and

potential impacts of new development. Development that exceeds exemption thresholds is required to fill

out a checklist and submit it with building or land use permit applications. Exemptions include: barn,

loafing shed, farm equipment storage building, produce storage or packing structure, or similar

agricultural structure, covering 10,000 square feet, and to be used only by the property owner or his or

her agent in the conduct of farming the property, unless a jurisdiction adopts a higher threshold of up to

40,000 square feet in accordance with WAC 197-11-800. Neither level of exemption applies to feed

lots. Other activities have different thresholds including grading, parking, and others. Yakima County has

adopted an exemption threshold in the range of what is allowed in SEPA, exempting barns/sheds/farm

storage buildings of less than or equal to 30,000 square feet.

Shoreline Master Program

Within Yakima County there are several waterbodies that are subject to the Shoreline Management Act

(SMA). This includes the Yakima River, Naches River, as well as other tributaries with greater than 20

cubic feet per second mean annual flow, and lakes larger than 20 acres. Yakima County and the

Washington Department of Ecology have jointly adopted a Shoreline Master Program (SMP) addressing

shorelines of the state, applicable to land within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of

rivers, their floodways, contiguous 100-year floodplain extending up to 200 feet inland of the floodway,

and associated wetlands. The SMP promotes a balance of shoreline uses, public access, and ecological

protection.

Shorelines governed by the SMA are not by themselves considered critical areas – except where the

conditions on the ground show there are critical areas present as defined by the Growth Management

Act (GMA). The SMP contains a set of critical area regulations that protect fish and wildlife habitat

conservation areas, wetlands, floodplains, geologic hazards, and critical aquifer recharge protection

areas within shoreline jurisdiction. Outside of shoreline jurisdiction, critical areas regulations prepared

under GMA apply everywhere else. Yakima County is currently updating its critical areas regulations.

GMA and case law indicate that there should be comparable protection of critical areas both inside and

outside of shoreline jurisdiction. Further GMA indicates that SMPs are considered an element of a county

or city’s Comprehensive Plan and development regulations.



Within shoreline jurisdiction, the SMA does not allow updated SMPs to require modification of or limit

agricultural activities on agricultural lands (RCW 90.58.065(1)) – essentially existing ongoing agriculture.

Existing agriculture is exempt from SMP regulation, except when non-agricultural activities occur on

agriculture lands.

The SMP only applies to agriculture when new land is brought into production (relatively rare) or when a

new development is added (WAC 173-26-241(3)(a). Activities such as building new structures or

stabilizing a shoreline may need a new shoreline permit or exemption from the county, but are not

defined as “agricultural activities” for purposes of VSP. SMPs do not apply to replacement, maintenance,

or repair of existing agricultural facilities [RCW 90.58.065(2)(a)].

The SMP does not need to incorporate the VSP work plan. The SMP cannot limit or modify agricultural

activities as defined in the SMA (essentially existing, ongoing agriculture). The VSP should apply

wherever agriculture and critical areas exist inside or outside of shoreline jurisdiction. However, a local

VSP work plan does not replace the shoreline regulations of an SMP. VSP work plans identify voluntary

practices to promote existing agricultural activities while protecting critical areas, as an alternative to a

regulatory approach. All existing regulations, including SMPs and water quality regulations (e.g. Clean

Water Act), still apply.48

Open Space Current Use Taxation

Counties are authorized in state law – State Open Space Taxation Act 1970 – to tax certain lands

according to their current value rather than their value under other highest and best uses. This allows

property owners that qualify a reduced tax burden to keep their land in its current use.

In Yakima County, here are three categories of Open Space land:49

▪ Open-Open: The Open-Open category is reserved for land that can be used for the benefit of the

Public. Land that is enrolled under this category is generally, privately owned, open land in its

natural state that is accessible by the public to enjoy and explore.

▪ Farm and Agriculture: The Farm and Agriculture category is reserved for land which is devoted

primarily to the production of livestock or agricultural commodities for commercial purposes. There

are specific income requirements which may apply.

▪ Timberlands: The Timberlands category pertains to land which is primarily used for the commercial

growth and harvesting of forest crops. A Forest Management Plan is required for the land in this

category.

48 State Conservation Commission. February 2017. VSP and SMP Memo. Available: http://scc.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/VSP-

and-SMP-memo.Feb-2017.pdf. Accessed: April 21, 2017.

49 Yakima County Assessor. 2017. Program Details. Available: http://www.yakimacounty.us/614/Open-Space. Accessed: April 21, 2017.

http://scc.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/VSP-and-SMP-memo.Feb-2017.pdf

http://scc.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/VSP-and-SMP-memo.Feb-2017.pdf

http://www.yakimacounty.us/614/Open-Space



VOLUNTARY PRODUCER CERTIFICATION PROGRAMS

Agricultural producers participate in numerous voluntary industry programs that may contribute to the

protection or voluntary enhancement of critical areas. Examples include GlobalGAP, Vinewise, and

others. It is important to note that these programs are dynamic and influenced by changing federal

regulations, industry norms, and market conditions. See Appendix D.

WORK PLAN RELIANCE ON REGULATORY BACKSTOP

In Chapter 7 and Appendix G, Goals and Benchmarks reference plans and regulations that are part of

the regulatory backstop:

▪ Water rights adjudication.

▪ Federal and state water quality regulations and TMDLs.

▪ County flood hazard management regulations to maintain flood insurance eligibility and address

health and safety.

▪ Yakima Basin Integrated Plan and Title 12 of the Yakima Basin Water Enhancement Project for flow

enhancement and groundwater recharge enhancement.

▪ Lower Yakima Valley Groundwater Management Area (LYGWMA) and groundwater protection

toolkit.


August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Baseline Conditions 45

5.0 Baseline Conditions

This VSP Work Plan addresses the intersection of agriculture and critical areas, to help identify baseline

conditions and goals and benchmarks for protect ion, enhancement, and operator participation. The VSP

law sets the baseline date from which critical area protection or enhancement is measured going

forward:

"Protect" or "protecting" means to prevent the degradation of functions and values existing as of July

22, 2011. (RCW 36.70A.703 (8))

BASELINE AGRICULTURE

The agricultural and rangeland mapping blends data sources from the Washington State Department of

Agriculture, Yakima County, and other federal and state agencies. In particular, WSDA provided 2011

and 2016 data sets that address all agricultural production apart from rangeland. The 2016 data is

considered equivalent to the 2011 baseline since most improvements in mapping, described below, are

based on improved accuracy.

Exhibit 5-1. Agricultural and Rangeland in Unincorporated Yakima County

A. Overview: Agricultural Activities in relation to Federal, State, and Local Government Lands



B. Irrigated/Dry Land Agriculture and Rangeland – Unincorporated Yakima County

Sources: WSDA 2016, Yakima County 2016, Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), and US Bureau of Land Management (BLM), BERK 2017

Though the 2016 data set shows additions and deletions of agriculture compared to 2011 data, much of

it (up to 61%) represents improved accuracy of agricultural mapping (e.g. developed, pasture, and

fallow land) and less of it is representative of new agriculture where there was none before (exceptions

may include added areas of vineyards or other crop types along SR 24, areas near Mabton and Zillah,

and in the Roza Irrigation District). Thus, the consolidated agricultural mapping prepared from multiple

sources represents the 2011 baseline for this Work Plan. For reference, a map showing the additions and

deletions of agriculture between 2011 and 2016 is provided below.



Exhibit 5-2. Agricultural Additions (Yellow) and Deletions (Red) 2011-2016

Source: WSDA 2011 and 2016, BERK 2017



By basin the agricultural and rangeland percentages are shown below.

Exhibit 5-3. Yakima County Agriculture and Rangeland

by Watershed Resource Inventory Area (WRIA)

WRIA AGRICULTURAL LAND

AGRICULTURAL LAND PERCENT

RANGELAND ACRES RANGELAND PERCENT

Alkali - Squilchuck 0 0% 4,066 <1%

Klickitat 0.43 <1 16,744 2%

Lower Yakima 286,419 79% 259,387 30%

Naches 20,957 6% 316,501 54%

Rock - Glade 43,673 12% 19,607 2%

Upper Yakima 11,186 3% 104,915 12%

Grand Total 362,235* 100% 721,220 100%

Note: * WSDA Pasture Estimate of 39,329 acres appears lower than other estimates by WSU of 140,000 acres (W.F. Hendrix, 2017). Because the WSDA information is available spatially, it is used in this analysis. As monitoring occurs, it is anticipated that pastureland mapping would improve.

Source: WSDA 2016, BLM, DNR, and Ecology, and Yakima County 2016; BERK Consulting 2016

Tables with crop types and changes between 2011, 2015, and 2016 are provided in Appendix E.

INTERSECTION OF AGRICULTURE AND CRITICAL AREAS

5.2.1. Intersection Countywide and by Watershed Resource Inventory Area

Critical areas were mapped based on Yakima County and state mapping criteria. Per Appendix B, the

dates critical area data was available varies from federal, state, and county sources but was received in

2016. The intent was to employ the best available data. The rationale is that there is typically an

improved accuracy of mapping, but not typically new critical areas, similar to the agricultural

information. Data may change over time, and would be evaluated per the Work Plan monitoring

program.

The depictions of potential critical areas on maps developed for the Work Plan are only for illustrative

purposes and are not to be used for regulatory purposes. The maps do not serve to designate critical

areas and only raises the possibility of a critical area location to help VSP technical service providers

determine how agricultural activities and critical areas might intersect for purposes of voluntary VSP

participation. Presence of critical areas can only be determined on case-by-case basis. In the event of a

conflict between mapping and actual county designations, the actual county designation, criteria, and

conditions in the field control.

Generally, field agriculture intersects most with critical aquifer recharge areas, followed by geologically

hazardous areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. Rangelands intersect the most with fish



and wildlife habitat conservation areas, followed by geologically hazardous areas, and critical aquifer

recharge areas.

Exhibit 5-4. Intersection of Agricultural Activities and Critical Areas

CRITICAL AREA 2016

AGRICULTURAL

ACRES

INTERSECTING

PERCENT

INTERSECT

2015

RANGELAND

ACRES

INTERSECTING

PERCENT

INTERSECT

Total Acres* 362,236 721,220

Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas and Wetlands

Hydrologic Study Areas – 100 feet from

Streams, Lakes, Wetlands**

9,908 2.7% 67,965 9.4%

Water Quality Impacted Waterbodies (303d) 123 0.03% 365 0.05%

Priority Habitats (All Types, State Def) 5,993 1.7% 245,525 34%

Priority Species (All, State Definition) 17,215 4.8% 566,639 79%

Wetlands

Wetlands 2,428 0.7% 6,532 0.91%


100 Year Floodplain 14,776 4.1% 13,786 1.9%


Erodible Soils 76,206 21.0% 500,192 69%

Landslides, Steep Slopes, Other (Alluvial Fan) 19,115 5.3% 287,855 40%

Channel Migration Zone 3,152 0.9% 6,470 0.90%


Susceptibility Areas: Moderate to Extreme 275,879 76.2% 185,685 26%

Potential Wellhead Protection Zone (1,000 Ft) 10,998 3.0% 4,883 0.68%

Surficial Alluvial Geology 91,685 25.3% 50,318 7.0%

Notes: Data may change over time, and would be evaluated per the Work Plan monitoring program.

*WSDA Pasture Estimate of 39,329 acres appears lower than other estimates by WSU of 140,000 acres (W.F. Hendrix, 2017). As monitoring occurs, it is anticipated that pastureland mapping would improve.

**Because there is no riparian data set, for analysis purposes a hydrologic study area was defined based on a distance of 100 feet from Streams, Lakes, Wetlands. This does not imply that there is actual riparian area or a buffer; rather it is just meant to be a way to take a closer look at the footprint of agriculture along lands abutting waterbodies and wetlands.

See Appendix B for Map Sources, BERK Consulting 2016



Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas have the most complex list of species, and thus are detailed

below. Fish habitat is considered first, followed by wildlife.

Hydrologic Study Areas consist of waterbodies and wetlands and lands within 100 feet as a reference

point to see where the footprint of agriculture and footprint of critical areas may intersect. The

information is represented in acres. There is no comprehensive database of riparian areas or wetlands,

and thus it serves as a place to take a closer look at the intersect.

Exhibit 5-5. Hydrologic Study Areas: Sum of Acres

– 100 feet from Streams, Lakes, Wetlands

BASIN AGRICULTURAL INTERSECT

ACRES

RANGELAND INTERSECT ACRES

Alkali - Squilchuck 0 204

Klickitat 0.1 2,977

Lower Yakima 8,667 18,739

Naches 306 38,126

Rock - Glade 38 524

Upper Yakima 898 7,396

Grand Total 9,908 67,965


Considering stream miles and their lineal mile intersect with agriculture, the greatest length of interface is

in the Lower Yakima WRIA, followed by the Upper Yakima WRIA and (including the Wenas Creek basin)

followed by the Naches WRIA. As a percentage of stream miles, Rock-Glade WRIA tends to have more

agriculture fronting streams.

Exhibit 5-6. Stream Miles on Agricultural Lands

ALKALI - SQUILCHUCK

COWLITZ KLICKITAT LOWER YAKIMA

NACHES ROCK - GLADE

UPPER YAKIMA

WENAS CREEK

Total Miles in

Agriculture

- - - 324.04 25.14 3.62 47.95 32.04

Total HSA

Stream Miles

275.16 34.04 1,471.13 2,968.21 2,611.93 24.65 701.85 299.31

Percentage

in Agriculture

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 10.92% 0.96% 14.70% 6.83% 10.70%




Regarding rangeland, there is extensive intersection of agriculture and stream miles in terms of mile

length in the Naches, Lower Yakima, and Upper Yakima WRIAs. Both the Wenas Creek basin and the

Rock-Glade WRIA have a high percentage of rangeland-stream mile interface.

Exhibit 5-7. Stream Miles on Range Lands by Ownership Category

ALKALI - SQUILCHUCK

COWLITZ KLICKITAT LOWER YAKIMA

NACHES ROCK - GLADE

UPPER YAKIMA

WENAS CREEK

Federal - - - 0.64 795.75 - 34.35 34.35

Yakima County

- - 96.04 339.27 418.17 - 141.15 140.60

Other 8.67 - 6.89 310.64 234.16 22.77 123.36 101.18

Total Miles in Rangeland

8.67 - 102.93 650.55 1,448.08 22.77 298.86 276.13

Total HSA Stream Miles

275.16 34.04 1,471.13 2,968.21 2,611.93 24.65 701.85 299.31

Percentage in Rangeland

3.15% 0.00% 7.00% 21.92% 55.44% 92.35% 42.58% 92.26%


A breakout of Priority Habitats and Species is presented in the following four tables addressing both

upland and aquatic species. It should be noted that multiple species may use a single habitat and habitat

areas may overlap one another. Still, the information shows an order of magnitude of mapped species

and habitat. The status of the species and their federal and state listing is found in Chapter 2.

Exhibit 5-8. Priority Habitats and Species – Intersection with Rangeland

RANGELAND & PHS INTERSECTION

ACRES % HABITAT / SPECIES

Shrub-steppe 219,293 89%

Cliffs/bluffs 5,577 2%

Waterfowl Concentrations 5,471 2%

Biodiversity Areas and Corridor 4,528 2%

Oak Woodland 4,482 2%

Talus Slopes 3,213 1%

Meadows 1,480 1%

Old-growth/mature forest 990 0%

Wetlands 317 0%

Aspen Stands 127 0%

Caves or Cave-rich Areas 47 0%

Islands 0 0%

Sub-Total Habitat 245,525

Elk / Rocky Mountain Elk 312,044 55%

Mule Deer 169,507 30%



RANGELAND & PHS INTERSECTION


Bighorn Sheep 66,152 12%

Mountain Goat 8,269 1%

Dusky Grouse 3,646 1%

Common Loon 1,888 0%

Chukar 1,408 0%

Bald Eagle 1,311 0%

Wood Duck 1,111 0%

Flammulated Owl 534 0%

Burrowing Owl 214 0%

Golden Eagle 179 0%

Great Blue Heron 124 0%

Mule and Black-tailed Deer 106 0%

Harlequin Duck 99 0%

Long-billed Curlew 27 0%

Townsend's Big-eared Bat 22 0%

Sub-Total Species 566,639

Grand Total (Acres may overlap) 812,165


Exhibit 5-9. Priority Habitats and Species – Intersection with Agricultural Land

AGRICULTURE & PRIORITY HABITATS AND SPECIES

INTERSECTION


Shrub-steppe 2,391 97%

Wetlands 67 3%

Cliffs/bluffs 5 0%

Biodiversity Areas and Corridor 1 0%

Oak Woodland 4 0%

Sub-Total Habitat 2,468

Elk 15,688 76%

Waterfowl Concentrations 3,525 17%

Mule Deer 1,128 5%

Long-billed Curlew 154 1%

Great Blue Heron 130 1%

Bald Eagle 55 0%

Wood Duck 46 0%

Bighorn Sheep 12 0%

Burrowing Owl 1 0%

Rocky Mountain Elk 0.4 0%

Sub-Total Species 20,740

Grand Total (Acres may overlap) 23,208


Streams with priority fish presence intersect often with agriculture in the Lower Yakima and Naches

WRIAs, though by percentage is also high in the Wenas Creek basin.



Exhibit 5-10. Miles of Priority Fish Streams on Agricultural Lands by WRIA

ALKALI -

SQUILCHUC

K

COWLITZ KLICKITA

T

LOWER

YAKIMA

NACHES ROCK -

GLADE

UPPER

YAKIMA

WENAS

CREEK

Bull Trout - - - 1.57 - - 0.35 -

Chinook (Fall) - - - 21.99 - - 0.35 -

Chinook (Spring) - - - 0.67 2.10 - 2.04 0.31

Steelhead - - - 48.49 7.85 - 0.66 0.31

Cumulative Miles in

Agriculture

- - - 72.73 9.96 - 3.39 0.62

Total PHS Stream Miles

(All Species)

6.65 - 194.25 644.45 461.94 - 46.11 4.34

Percentage in

Agriculture

0.00% - 0.00% 11.29% 2.16% - 7.35% 14.25%


There is a high level of intersection between rangeland and agriculture in the Lower Yakima and Naches

WRIAs based on mile length, and high percentages of intersection considering the Alkali – Squilchuck

WRIA and the Wenas Creek basin.

Exhibit 5-11. Miles of Priority Fish Streams on Rangelands by WRIA

ALKALI -

SQUILCHUCK

COWLITZ KLICKITAT LOWER

YAKIMA

NACHES ROCK -

GLADE

UPPER

YAKIMA

WENAS

CREEK

Bull Trout - - 2.12 45.43 41.35 - 2.41 -

Chinook (Fall) 6.65 - 0.06 36.54 - - 2.41 -

Chinook (Spring) - - 2.12 24.09 69.06 - 4.40 1.71

Steelhead - - 12.10 70.72 121.94 - 4.13 1.71

Cumulative Miles in

Rangeland

6.65 - 16.41 176.79 232.34 - 13.35 3.41

Total PHS Stream

Miles (All Species)

6.65 - 194.25 644.45 461.94 - 46.11 4.34

Percentage in

Rangeland

100.00% - 8.45% 27.43% 50.30% - 28.97% 78.71%


Below tables provide fish passage barrier information by watershed and stream with a focus on private

ownership as most likely related to agricultural activities. The information is derived from a Washington



State Fish Passage map compiled by the Department of Fish and Wildlife:

http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/fishpassage/.

Exhibit 5-12. Road Crossings and Fish Passage Barriers: Private, and Unknown Ownerships

WATERSHED / STREAM / FISH USE

OWNERSHIP: PRIVATE OWNERSHIP: UNKNOWN

GRAND TOTAL

Blockage Blockage

Partial Total Unknown Partial

37 Lower Yakima 9 1 0 4 15

Carpenter Cr

Fish Use: Yes 1

1

Reservation Cr

Fish Use: Yes

1 1

SF Foundation Cr

Fish Use: Yes 1

1

unnamed

Fish Use: Yes 2 1

3 7

DID 7

Fish Use: Yes 3

3

SF Ahtanum Cr

Fish Use: Yes 2

2

38 Naches 1 1 1 0 3

Cowiche Cr

Fish Use: Yes

1

1

NF Cowiche Cr

Fish Use: Yes 1

1

Indian Cr

Fish Use: Yes

1

1

39 Upper Yakima 1 0 0 0 1

Evans Canyon Cr

Fish Use: Yes 1

1

Grand Total 11 2 1 4 18

http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/fishpassage/



Exhibit 5-13. Dams and Fish Passage Barriers: Private, and Unknown Ownerships


OWNERSHIP: PRIVATE OWNERSHIP: UNKNOWN

GRAND TOTAL

BLOCKAGE BLOCKAGE

PARTIAL TOTAL UNKNOWN TOTAL

37 Lower Yakima 1 1

NF Ahtanum Cr

Fish Use: Yes 1

1

38 Naches 12 1 6 1 20

Cowiche Cr

Fish Use: Yes 4

4

NF Cowiche Cr

Fish Use: Unknown 1 1

1 3

Fish Use: Yes 3

4

7

SF Cowiche Cr

Fish Use: Yes 4

2

6

39 Upper Yakima 1 1

Wenas Cr

Fish Use: Yes 1

1

Grand Total 14 1 6 1 22

Exhibit 5-14. Miscellaneous Blockages and Fish Passage Barriers Private, and Unknown Ownerships


OWNERSHIP AND BLOCKAGE

GRAND TOTAL

PRIVATE: PARTIAL

UNKNOWN: TOTAL

38 Naches

Cowiche Cr

Fish Use: Yes 1

1

NF Cowiche Cr

Fish Use: Yes

1 1

Grand Total 1 1 2



By WRIA, the areas of critical area intersect are detailed in tables below.

Alkali-Squilchuck WRIA Agriculture and Critical Area Intersect

In the Alkali-Squilchuck WRIA, the greatest area of intersect is with rangeland and priority habitats and

species as well as steep slopes and landslides.

Exhibit 5-15. Alkali-Squilchuck WRIA Agriculture and Critical Area Intersect

CRITICAL AREA 2016 AGRICULTURAL ACRES INTERSECTING

PERCENT INTERSECT 2015 RANGELAND ACRES INTERSECTING

PERCENT INTERSECT

Total Acres - 4,066


Hydrologic Study Areas – 100 feet from Perennial Streams, Lakes, Wetlands*

- - 204 5.0%

Water Quality Impacted Waterbodies (303d)

- - 29 0.72%

Priority Habitats and Species (All Types, State Def)

- - 8,876 218%

Primarily Waterfowl Concentrations 21%, Common Loon 21%, Mule Deer 19%, Chukar 16%; multiple species may use a single habitat and habitat areas may overlap one another, which is why there are more than 100% of acres.

Wetlands

Wetlands - - - -


100 Year Floodplain - - 2,100 52%


Erodible Soils - - 229

5.6%

Landslides, Steep Slopes, Other (Alluvial Fan)

- - 1,551 38%

Channel Migration Zone - - - -


Susceptibility Areas: Moderate to Extreme

- - 771 19%

Potential Wellhead Protection Zone (1,000 Ft)

- - 34 0.84%

Surficial Alluvial Geology - - 424 10%

Note: Data may change over time, and would be evaluated per the Work Plan monitoring program.

*Because there is no riparian data set, for analysis purposes a hydrologic study area was defined based on a distance of 100 feet from Streams, Lakes, Wetlands. This does not imply that there is actual riparian area or a buffer; rather it is just meant to be a way to take a closer look at the footprint of agriculture along lands abutting waterbodies and wetlands.




Klickitat WRIA Agriculture and Critical Area Intersect

In the Klickitat WRIA the greatest area of intersect is with rangelands and all types of geologically

hazardous areas.

Exhibit 5-16. Klickitat WRIA Agriculture and Critical Area Intersect

CRITICAL AREA 2016 AGRICULTURAL

ACRES INTERSECTING

PERCENT INTERSECT 2015 RANGELAND ACRES

INTERSECTING

PERCENT

INTERSECT

Total Acres 0.43 16,744



0.01- 1.5% 2,977 17.8%


- - - -


0.43 100% 165 1.0%

Primarily Mule and Black-Tailed Deer 64%, Talus Slopes 29%, Mountain Goat 7%

Wetlands

Wetlands - - 429 2.6%


100 Year Floodplain - - - -


Erodible Soils - - 7,295 44%


- - 1,631 10%




- - 812 4.9%


- - - -

Surficial Alluvial Geology 0.43 100% 1,089 6.5%






Lower Yakima WRIA Agriculture and Critical Area Intersect

The Lower Yakima WRIA contains the most agriculture and rangeland in the county, and has the highest

acreage of overlap between farmland and critical areas. The greatest area of overlap with rangelands

is with priority habitats and species, geologically hazardous areas, and critical aquifer recharge areas.

Within agricultural areas, the greatest area of intersection is with critical aquifer recharge areas.

Exhibit 5-17. Lower Yakima WRIA Agriculture and Critical Area Intersect


ACRES INTERSECTING

PERCENT

INTERSECT

2015

RANGELAND

ACRES

INTERSECTING

PERCENT

INTERSECT

Total Acres 286,419 259,387



8,667 3.0% 18,739 7.2%


102 0.04% 147 0.06%


19,994 7.0% 235,901 91%

Primarily Elk 53%, Shrub-Steppe 28%, Mule Deer 16%

Wetlands

Wetlands 2,224 0.78% 3,430 1.3%


100 Year Floodplain 12,234 4.3% 6,458 2.5%


Erodible Soils 48,950 17% 173,803 67%


16,668 5.8% 125,436 48%

Channel Migration Zone 2,770 1.0% 4,183 1.6%



249,316 87% 107,660 42%


7,768 2.7% 1,290 0.50%

Surficial Alluvial Geology 82,618 29% 28,298 11%






Naches WRIA Agriculture and Critical Area Intersect

The Naches WRIA contains the most rangeland in the county, as well as some agricultural production. The

greatest area of intersect with rangeland is with priority habitats and species and geologically

hazardous areas. Within agricultural areas, the greatest intersect is with critical aquifer recharge areas

as well as erodible soils.

Exhibit 5-18. Naches WRIA Agriculture and Critical Area Intersect


ACRES INTERSECTING

PERCENT

INTERSECT

2015

RANGELAND

ACRES

INTERSECTING

PERCENT

INTERSECT

Total Acres 20,957 316,501



306 1.5% 38,126 12.0%


15 0.07% 150 0.05%


841 4.0% 326,753 103%

Primarily Elk 28%, Mule Deer 27%, Shrub-Steppe 20%, Bighorn Sheep

12%; multiple species may use a single habitat and habitat areas may overlap

one another, which is why there are more than 100% of acres

Wetlands

Wetlands 24 0.12% 2,457 0.78%


100 Year Floodplain 644 3.1% 4,392 1.4%


Erodible Soils 6,729 32% 235,635 74%


492 2.3% 128,870 41%

Channel Migration Zone 74 0.35% 2,163 0.68%



20,480 98% 65,481 21%


2,010 10% 2,864 0.90%

Surficial Alluvial Geology 4,720 22% 12,673 4.0%


*Because there is no riparian data set, for analysis purposes a hydrologic study area was defined based on a distance of

100 feet from Streams, Lakes, Wetlands. This does not imply that there is actual riparian area or a buffer; rather it is just meant to be a way to take a closer look at the footprint of agriculture along lands abutting waterbodies and wetlands.




Rock Glade WRIA Agriculture and Critical Area Intersect

Within the Rock Glade WRIA, most of the overlap is with rangeland and agricultural lands and erodible

soils. There is a high percentage of overlap with rangeland and priority habitats and species.

Exhibit 5-19. Rock Glade WRIA Agriculture and Critical Area Intersect


ACRES INTERSECTING

PERCENT

INTERSECT

2015

RANGELAND

ACRES

INTERSECTING

PERCENT

INTERSECT

Total Acres 43,673 19,607



38 0.086% 524 2.67%


-

-

-

-


501 1.1% 10,626 54%

Primarily Shrub-Steppe 100%

Wetlands

Wetlands - - 3 0.02%


100 Year Floodplain - - - -


Erodible Soils 17,840 41% 13,877 71%


1,107 2.5% 6,042 31%




48 0.11% 414 2.1%


- - - -

Surficial Alluvial Geology 27 0.06% 512 2.6%






Upper Yakima WRIA Agriculture and Critical Area Intersect

The Upper Yakima WRIA contains the priority Wenas Creek sub-basin. Within the WRIA, there are

significant areas of rangeland. The greatest intersect is with priority habitats and species, followed by

geologically hazardous areas. Within agricultural lands, there is a high intersect with critical aquifer

recharge areas.

Exhibit 5-20. Upper Yakima WRIA Agriculture and Critical Area Intersect


ACRES INTERSECTING

PERCENT

INTERSECT

2015 RANGELAND

ACRES INTERSECTING

PERCENT

INTERSECT

Total Acres 11,186 104,915



898 8.0% 7,396 7.0%


5.1 0.05% 38 0.04%


1,872 17% 229,843 219%

Primarily Shrub-Steppe 34%, Elk 33%, Mule Deer 18%, Bighorn Sheep 114%; multiple

species may use a single habitat and habitat areas may overlap one another, which is why

there are more than 100% of acres

Wetlands

Wetlands 179 1.6% 213 0.20%


100 Year Floodplain 1,898 17% 836 0.80%


Erodible Soils 2,687 24% 69,353 66%


847 7.6% 24,325 23%

Channel Migration Zone 308 2.8% 123 0.12%



6,035 54% 10,548 10%


1,219 11% 695 0.66%

Surficial Alluvial Geology 4,320 39% 7,320 7.0%






5.2.2. Intersection of Agricultural and Critical Areas on Yakama Reservation

Conservation districts work with willing landowners on the Yakama Reservation and would continue to do

so.

As shown on Exhibit 5-1, most of the mapped agriculture on the Yakama Reservation occurs principally in

the Lower Yakima WRIA. WSDA has provided mapping of irrigated and dryland agriculture across the

county including on the Yakama Reservation presumably representing deeded lands owned by non-

enrolled property owners (roughly half of the irrigated and dryland agriculture in the Lower Yakima

WRIA are found on the Reservation). Similarly, the Yakima County Assessor has identified rangeland.

Based on agricultural mapping, areas of agriculture and critical area intersect are included in tables

below.

Exhibit 5-21. Agriculture and Critical Area Intersect on Yakama Reservation

CRITICAL AREA 2015 AGRICULTURAL ACRES INTERSECTING

PERCENT INTERSECT

2015 RANGELAND ACRES INTERSECTING

PERCENT INTERSECT

Total Acres 133,417 24,391



5,708 4.3% 3,643 14.9%


1 0.0% 8 0.0%

Priority Habitats (All Types, State Def)

3,013 2.3% 13,219 54.2%

Priority Species (All, State Definition)

0 0.0% 10 0.0%

Wetlands

Wetlands 1,550 1.2% 1,273 5.2%


100 Year Floodplain 8,466 6.3% 1,216 5.0%


Erodible Soils 4,889 3.7% 985 4.0%


2,975 2.2% 4,747 19.5%

Channel Migration Zone 2,142 1.6% 556 2.3%



120,000 89.9% 9,586 39.3%


1,598 1.2% 194 0.8%

Surficial Alluvial Geology 51,505 38.6% 9,834 40.3%






CHANGES TO CRITICAL AREA BASELINE

With the VSP Work Plan, measures to protect critical areas and promote voluntary enhancement will be

established for the 2016-2026 period.

RCW 36.70A.720 (1) (e) Create measurable benchmarks that, within ten years after the receipt of

funding, are designed to result in (i) the protection of critical area functions and values and (ii) the

enhancement of critical area functions and values through voluntary, incentive-based measures;

However, the Work Plan can also identify the progress made towards protection and enhancement since

the baseline 2011 to the present.

Through a series of tables this document identifies conservation, enhancement, and restoration activities in

Yakima County that would improve the baseline conditions of agriculture and critical area intersect since

2011.

These activities, and others that may be added with further direction from the Work Group, show

progress on critical area protection and voluntary enhancement by willing landowners.

CONSERVATION PRACTICES

5.4.1. Countywide: Natural Resources Conservation Service

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) provides information about practices that can protect

critical areas and improve the viability of agriculture. The information presented in Exhibit 5-22 is at the

summary level to maintain confidentiality of detailed information. The number of contracts during the

various time periods can give a sense of participation in conservation practices designed to protect soils,

water quality, habitat, and other functions and values of critical areas.

In total, there were 335 contracts between 2011 and the present. There appears to be frequent

implementation of irrigation practices. Due to lack of resources to research the data in greater detail,

NRCS was not able to provide the acreages associated with the contracts.

Exhibit 5-22. NRCS Conservation Projects, 2011 – 2016

Program Range of Practices # Of Contracts

EQIP 2008 2011 Sign Up Year 2011 Planned Year

Agriculture Energy Management Plan - Written 11

Cover Crop 1

Forest Slash Treatment 1

Forest Stand Improvement 1

Irrigation System, Microirrigation 2

Irrigation System, Sprinkler 1

Irrigation Water Conveyance 2

Irrigation Water Management 5

Pest Management 15

Pest Management 1

Pumping Plant 3

Total 43



Cover Crop 2

Forest Slash Treatment 1









Nutrient Management 1

Pest Management 9

Pipeline 1

Pumping Plant 17

Seasonal High Tunnel System for Crops 1

Spring Development 1

Structure for Water Control 5

Watering Facility 1

Total 102



Cover Crop 2



Pest Management 2

Restoration and Management of Rare and Declining Habitats 1

Total 16



Total 4



Pest Management 1


Total 3








Pest Management 3

Pumping Plant 12

Residue and Tollage Management, No-Till/Strip Till/ Direct Seed 1




Total 56




Pest Management 2


Total 7



Pest Management 2


Total 6


Agriculture Energy Management Plan, Landscape - Written 5


Heavy Use Area Protection 1









Pipeline 1

Pumping Plant 13



Watering Facility 1

Total 56







Total 8

EQIP 2008 2013 Sign up Year 2016 Planned Year


Total 1





Pumping Plant 6


Total 25




Pumping Plant 1


Total 8

TOTAL PROJECTS 335

Source: NRCS, Yakima Field Office, 2016

5.4.2. Countywide: Census of Agriculture 2012

The United States Census of Agriculture lists a select number of conservation practices that may be

implemented either by the private operator or with the assistance of the NRCS and Conservation Districts.

Exhibit 5-23 shows the agricultural practices and the number of participating farms that were counted

during the 2012 Census of Agriculture based on self-reporting. More than 10 percent of farms practiced

grazing management. Though no respondents identified alley cropping, it can be seen from the NRCS

data that contracts for cover crops have been made. See Exhibit 5-22.

Exhibit 5-23. Selected Agricultural Conservation Practices, 2012

PRACTICE COUNT (FARMS)

Practiced alley cropping or silvopasture 0

Harvested biomass for use in renewable energy 18

Practiced rotational or management- intensive grazing 366

Total Number of Farms 3,143

Source: U.S. Census of Agriculture, 2012



5.4.3. Conservation Districts

Local Conservation Districts promote wise use, development, and conservation of natural resources

through providing assistance to local landowners and solve conservation resource problems. Yakima

County has two Conservation Districts, South Yakima Conservation District and North Yakima Conservation

District. Exhibit 5-24 and Exhibit 5-25 summarize the conservation practices and enhancement projects

that the Districts have helped implement since 2011. The South Yakima Conservation District served 44

farms and benefitted 5,500 acres over the period 2011 to the present.

Exhibit 5-24. South Yakima Conservation District Conservation Projects, 2011 – 2016

PRACTICES COUNT (FARMS)

Manure Transfer (piping from pond to field) 8

Mechanical Separators 4

Rill to Sprinkler Conversion 30

Underground Outlet (piping of in-field ditches) 1

Waste Storage Pond 1

TOTAL 44

Note: More than 5,500 total acres benefitted | Source: South Yakima Conservation District, 2016

The following map identifies locations of conservation activities in the North Yakima Conservation District

(NYCD), primarily by NYCD as well as other sponsors. The NYCD has also sponsored a number of

enhancement projects addressed in the next section.



Exhibit 5-25. Example Conservation: North Yakima Conservation District and Other Sponsors, 2011 – 2016

Source: NYCD, BERK Consulting 2016

Source: North Yakima Conservation District, 2016

5.4.4. Restoration and Enhancement – Habitat Work Schedule

Restoration and conservation actions taken since 2011 have been documented in the Habitat Work

Schedule data system. Watershed lead entities and project sponsors enter project information into the

database, where project status is tracked. Restoration and enhancement actions improve the quality of

critical area functions and values. Acquisition and conservation are likely to protect and preserve high

quality habitat. The projects in Exhibit 5-26 include those occurring on agricultural land, and other sites,

recognizing that critical area functions and values include conditions and processes that support the

ecosystem at more than a spite-specific scale. Many of the projects were sponsored by the NYCD and

overlap those in Exhibit 5-25.



Exhibit 5-26. Restoration, Enhancement, and Acquisition Projects: Yakima Basins, 2011 – 2015

PROJECT START END PROJECT STATUS*

COST AGRICUL-TURE RELATED

PARTNERS

Ahtanum Creek Restoration

Survey and Design

2015 2017 Active $130,000 X NYCD; Technical Working Group

Lower Cowiche Creek

Restoration, Phase 2

2011 2017 Active $106,791 X Mid-Columbia Regional Fisheries Enhancement

Group, Private

landowners

Lower Cowiche Floodplain

Reconnection, Phase 3

2014 2016 Active $202,675 X Private landowners; City of Yakima

Naches River Ramblers'

Acquisition and Restoration

2013 2016 Active $263,400 Yakima County Public Services

Floodplain Restoration with

post assisted willow structures

2014 2016 Active $56,910 X NYCD; Technical Working Group

Little Rattlesnake Creek Road

Decommission

2014 2017 Active $660,000 Mid-Columbia River Fisheries Enhancement

Group and the US Forest Service

Reducing road density in the

Naches watershed

2015 2018 Active $71,800 Mid-Columbia Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group; Naches Ranger

District

YTID Tieton to Cowiche

Delivery Assessment

2013 2015 Completed $100,000 X Yakima-Teiton Irrigation District

CCWUA Barrier Removal and

Trust Water

2013 2015 Completed $924,607 X Yakima Tieton Irrigation District; Cowiche Creek

Water Users; Washington Water

Project

Yakima Floodplain Ecosystem

Phase 2

2013 2015 Completed $298,396 City of Yakima, Yakama Nation,

WSDOT

South Fork Oak Creek Habitat

Enhancement

2015 2018 Active $156,690 Mid-Columbia Regional Fisheries Enhancement

Group

Total

8 Active; 3

Completed

$2,971,269

*Only those projects that are active or completed as of July 2016 are included in the exhibit.

Source: Habitat Work Schedule, 2016; Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery Board, 2016

A general map of Yakima County projects in the Habitat Work Schedule is shown in Exhibit 5-27 below.

It includes more projects than listed in the table above since it also shows proposed and conceptual

projects.



Exhibit 5-27. Habitat Work Schedule Projects in Yakima County – 2016

Notes:

Active Projects (included in Table above for 2011-current year)

Proposed Projects

Dormant Projects

Conceptual Projects

Completed Projects (included in Table above for 2011-current year)

Source: Habitat Work Schedule, 2016; Yakima Basin Fish & Wildlife Recovery Board, 2016

5.4.5. Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project

The Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project legislation (Title XII of P.L. 103-434) authorizes the

Bureau of Reclamation to evaluate and implement various measures to improve water management in the

Yakima River Basin to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife and improve the reliability of the

water supply for irrigation.



An important element of the project is voluntary water conservation program. The Bureau of Reclamation

and Ecology are cost-sharing partners in the program whereby Reclamation funds 65 percent of the cost,

and Ecology and the irrigation district each fund 17.5 percent. Two-thirds of the water savings remains in

the river and the irrigation district retains one-third. Conservation measures applied in irrigation delivery

systems increase system efficiency and can reduce the amount of irrigation water needed to be diverted,

thus increasing flow in the river reach between the point of diversion and the delivery system’s

downstream spill. At the point of the delivery system’s last return flow point, all of the conserved water

would have returned to the river, either from groundwater return flow or operational spill.

Examples of ongoing or completed water conservation and habitat efforts between 2011 and 2015

include, but are not limited to:

▪ Cowiche Creek Water Exchange – Participation by Cowiche Creek Water Users Association, the

Yakima Tieton Irrigation District, North Yakima Conservation District, Washington Water Project

Trout Unlimited, Salmon Recovery Funding Board, Ecology, Reclamation, and others to exchange

Cowiche Creek water rights for new Tieton River water rights in order to enhance flows and remove

fish barriers in Cowiche Creek. Opened up 25 miles identified by NOAA and YN as critical habitat

for steelhead.

▪ Roza Irrigation District Reregulating Reservoir – Seven-year three-party agreement between

Reclamation, Ecology and Roza ID to construct a reregulation reservoir; construction is estimated to

be completed in 2016 with funding through 2019; will reduce diversions by 5,523 acre-feet in the

Yakima River and provide 2,761 acre feet for improved reliability of irrigation supplies. ($26

million in YRBWEP funds).

▪ Land Acquisition - YRBWEP funds used to purchase nearly 2,000 acres of ecologically significant

lands for restoration. Lands are being restored to native grasses, forbs, trees, and shrubs; on some

lands, levees will be set back and side channels established or reinvigorated to restore the natural

floodplain of the Yakima River.

▪ Levee setback south of Hwy 24 is anticipated in the near future allowing Reclamation’s 600 acres to

interact with the Yakima River. This is a cooperative effort with Yakima County, Yakama Nation, US

Army Corps of Engineers, Washington State Department of Transportation, and others to set back

levees along the Yakima River, restore the natural floodplain and reduce risk of damaging floods.

YRBWEP funds have been used to buy land, reduce weeds, and restore natural vegetation. Other

entities are contributing funds to move levees.

For additional information on projects completed over the last 10 years, see:

https://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/yrbwep/phase2/.

https://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/yrbwep/phase2/


August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Technical Assistance 71

6.0 Technical Assistance

The VSP legislation places emphasis on outreaching to technical assistance providers that support

agricultural operators in the watersheds as a work plan is prepared to develop goals and benchmarks to

protect critical areas and maintain and enhance agriculture. In creating Work Plans under the program

Work Groups are in turn required to designate one or more entities to provide technical assistance to

help operators develop or implement individual stewardship plans to contribute to the goals and

benchmarks of the work plan. (RCW 36.70A.720).

RCW 36.70A.720 (1) A watershed group designated by a county under RCW 36.70A.715 must

develop a work plan to protect critical areas while maintaining the viability of agriculture in the

watershed. The work plan must include goals and benchmarks for the protection and enhancement of

critical areas. In developing and implementing the work plan, the watershed group must:

(d) Ensure outreach and technical assistance is provided to agricultural operators in the watershed;

(f) Designate the entity or entities that will provide technical assistance;

(g) Work with the entity providing technical assistance to ensure that individual stewardship plans

contribute to the goals and benchmarks of the work plan;

Though their participation and completion of a stewardship plan is entirely voluntary, “Agricultural

operators implementing an individual stewardship plan consistent with a work plan are presumed to be

working toward the protection and enhancement of critical areas” RCW 36.70A.750. Technical assistance

providers would be available to walk through stewardship checklist with producers and identify which

practices are already in use and those the producer is interested in voluntarily implementing.

The Yakima County VSP Work Group has discussed that the Conservation Districts are considered

primary all-around providers of technical assistance to agricultural operators, but other more specialized

expertise was noted in many other supporting organizations.

Role of Technical Assistance Providers: For the purposes of this work plan the following roles are

established for technical assistance providers:

• Lead technical assistance provider: North Yakima Conservation District and South Yakima Conservation District in their respective service areas

• Supporting technical assistance providers: See table on following page.

• Mapping Support: Yakima County

• Imagery interpretation: Work Group to Select Entity

• Administration of work plan monitoring and implementation: Compilation of monitoring, and submittal of reports to Conservation Commission Work Group. RC&D will serve in the fiscal agent role.

• Additional sources of technical assistance: Grower associations.



Exhibit 6-1. Yakima Voluntary Stewardship Program: Potential Technical Assistance Providers

TECHNICAL SERVICE PROVIDER

PROJECTS & PROGRAMS DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES OR VSP ROLE

WEBSITE

Providers with Broad Range of Expertise in Agriculture and Conservation

North Yakima Conservation District

Yakima Tributary Access Habitat Program (YTAHP)

Implementation Grant Program

Irrigation Efficiency Program

Conservation Education – Water on Wheels (WOW)

Washington Conservation

Corps (WCC)

Firewise Program

Promote and maintain best use(s) of natural resources; achieve good stewardship of natural resources; enhance, sustain, and protect natural resources; educate those NYCD serves.

https://northyakimacd.wordpress.com/

South Yakima Conservation District

Dairy and Livestock Program

Livestock/Dairy Cost-Share Program

Livestock/Dairy Nutrient Management Technical Assistance

District Implementation Cost-Share Program

Salmon in the Classroom

Soil Moisture Sensors and Data Loggers

Water on Wheels/Wheat Week

Promote the wise use, development, and conservation of renewable natural resources in the district by providing assistance to local landowners to solve conservation resource problems.

http://www.sycd.us/

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

NRCS offers the Natural Resource Conservation Planning Program, where its staff work with agricultural operators to assess conditions on their property, help identify conservation practices that can ameliorate environmental conditions affecting the operation (e.g. erosion), and monitor practices.

Conservation practices are designed for local property conditions following a site-specific assessment. The NRCS has developed objectives and standards for numerous conservation practices addressing

common agricultural activities or environmental conditions.

NRCS offers financial assistance to help agricultural producers install and maintain conservation improvements on their land. The financial assistance can be 50-70% of the cost of the practice, with some caps applying per practice.

Reduce soil erosion, enhance water supplies, improve water quality, increase wildlife habitat, and reduce damages caused by floods and other natural disasters.

http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome

https://northyakimacd.wordpress.com/projects-and-program/yakima-tributary-access-habitat-program-ytahp/

https://northyakimacd.wordpress.com/projects-and-program/yakima-tributary-access-habitat-program-ytahp/

https://northyakimacd.wordpress.com/projects-and-program/implementation-grant-program/

https://northyakimacd.wordpress.com/projects-and-program/irrigation-efficiency-program/

https://northyakimacd.wordpress.com/projects-and-program/wow-water-on-wheels/

https://northyakimacd.wordpress.com/projects-and-program/wow-water-on-wheels/

https://northyakimacd.wordpress.com/projects-and-program/washington-conservation-corps-wcc/

https://northyakimacd.wordpress.com/projects-and-program/washington-conservation-corps-wcc/

https://northyakimacd.wordpress.com/projects-and-program/firewise-program/

http://www.sycd.us/Dairy-and-Livestock-Program

http://www.sycd.us/livestock-dairy-cost-share-program

http://www.sycd.us/livestock-dairy-nutrient-management-technical-assistance

http://www.sycd.us/livestock-dairy-nutrient-management-technical-assistance

http://www.sycd.us/farm-plan-implementation-cost-share-grant

http://www.sycd.us/farm-plan-implementation-cost-share-grant

http://www.sycd.us/salmon-in-the-classroom

http://www.sycd.us/soil-moisture-sensors-and-data-loggers

http://www.sycd.us/soil-moisture-sensors-and-data-loggers

http://www.sycd.us/water-on-wheels

http://www.sycd.us/








WEBSITE

Washington State University Extension (WSU)

WSU provides the following services:

Education and research, turning results into best practices regarding irrigation, weed management, pesticide application, pest management,

Opportunities for certifications, such as pesticide application certification, online certificate in organic farming, and

Training and outreach.

Provide research-based outreach and creative solutions to enhance agricultural productivity, environmental stewardship, and quality of life.

http://ext100.wsu.edu/yakima/

Supporting Providers with Specific Expertise

Cowiche Canyon Conservancy

A land trust originally founded in 1985 to preserve Cowiche Canyon. The mission is to protect shrub-steppe land. The Cowiche Canyon Conservancy owns and manages 5,000 acres and offers close to 30 miles of trails through sage and grasslands, meadows, oak woodlands, and basalt cliffs.

Conservation Easements http://www.cowichecanyon.org/

Roza-Sunnyside Board of Joint Control (Board of Joint Control)

Members: Roza Irrigation District, Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District, Sunnyside Division of Yakima Reclamation Project (Grandview Irrigation District, Benton Irrigation District, Zillah, Sunnyside, Grandview, Prosser)

Water Quality Program Preserve, protect, and enhance water and land resources.

The RSBOJC’s mission is to “implement a program to enhance water supplies by supporting storage development, improving water quality, and increasing management efficiency".

http://www.roza.org/rsbojc.htm

Trout Unlimited Western Water Project Water Rights

Restore healthy stream flows and habitat, partner with ranchers and farmers on pragmatic on-the-ground restoration projects illustrating that working landscapes and fish can coexist.

http://www.tu.org/tu-programs/western-water

http://www.tu.org/connect/groups/node-112



http://www.cowichecanyon.org/

http://www.cowichecanyon.org/

http://www.roza.org/water%20quality.htm













WEBSITE

US Bureau of Reclamation

Water Management: storage, irrigation

Reclamation builds fish ladders and fish screens to help protect salmon, steelhead, and bull trout. Under the Water Enhancement Project, Reclamation purchases or leases water from willing sellers to leave in the rivers for fish and wildlife.

Biology / Restoration http://www.usbr.gov/

US Environmental Protection Agency

Tribal Water Programs Water Quality, Watershed Restoration

https://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/water.nsf/Office+of+Water/T

ribal+Water+Prgm/

Washington Department of Ecology

Water Resources Program

Wells, water rights, instream flows, water market

Water Rights, Water Quality, Watershed Restoration

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/wrhome.html

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Species & Ecosystem Science

Species Recovery & Management

Habitat Conservation, Protection & Restoration

Biology / Restoration http://wdfw.wa.gov/

Washington Water Trust Water right leases, sales, and donations to the Trust Water Rights Program

Drought-year leasing programs

Point of diversion changes

Surface to groundwater changes

Diversion reduction agreements

Irrigation efficiencies

Reverse water right auctions

Conveyance system efficiencies

Water banking facilitation and mitigation strategies

Develop innovative solutions with water rights holders who are looking for more cost-effective ways to use their water. For example, more efficient irrigation methods and technologies, to more profitable crop cycles and selections, to more effective diversions and sources, such as switching from surface to groundwater.

Lease and buy water from water rights holder, temporarily or permanently to leave instream, to improve and protect flows, especially during periods that are critical to the survival of imperiled salmon and steelhead.

http://www.washingtonwatertrust.org/

Yakama Nation The Department of Natural Resources was established to manage, co-manage, and protect the Yakama Nation's Ancestral, Cultural, and Treaty Natural Resources on Reservation, in the Ceded Area and at Usual and Accustomed Sites, to meet the tribal culture, protecting tribal sensitive areas and sites and restoring diminished damaged resources.

Biology / Restoration http://www.yakamanation-nsn.gov/

http://www.usbr.gov/

http://www.usbr.gov/

https://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/water.nsf/Office+of+Water/Tribal+Water+Prgm/







http://wdfw.wa.gov/

http://wdfw.wa.gov/



http://www.yakamanation-nsn.gov/

http://www.yakamanation-nsn.gov/





WEBSITE

Yakima Basin Integrated Plan Projects and Programs, Habitat Subcommittee

The goal is to identify priority aquatic habitat actions to be funded under the Fish Habitat element of the Yakima Basin Integrated Plan.

Serve as a resource for list of projects that may be funded under the YBIP, and that may also have a connection to implementation of the Yakima VSP.

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/cwp/ybip.html





August2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Goals, Benchmarks, and Performance Metrics 76

7.0 Goals, Benchmarks, and Performance Metrics

AGRICULTURE AND CRITICAL AREA INTERSECTION GOALS AND BENCHMARKS

The following goals, benchmarks, and performance metrics were developed to frame the Yakima

Voluntary Stewardship Program’s approach to protecting and voluntarily enhancing the value and

functions of critical areas. This section addresses the requisite components of the VSP work plan:

▪ goals and benchmarks for the protection and enhancement of critical areas (RCW 36.70A.720(1))

▪ measurable benchmarks that, within ten years after the receipt of funding, are designed to result in

(i) the protection of critical area functions and values and (ii) the enhancement of critical area

functions and values through voluntary, incentive-based measures ((RCW 36.70A.720(1)(e))

Work Plan implementation must be monitored, and periodic reporting will describe whether the

protection and enhancement goals and benchmarks have been met.

The following tables summarize the goals, benchmarks, and performance metrics developed by the

Yakima VSP Working Group for critical area functions. This chapter includes three tables:

▪ Exhibit 7-1. Protection goals, benchmarks, and monitoring approaches to maintain critical area

functions;

▪ Exhibit 7-2. Goals, benchmarks, and monitoring approaches to enhance critical area functions; and

▪ Exhibit 7-3. Agricultural viability aims, incentives, and activities associated with critical area

protection.

Exhibit 7-1 and Exhibit 7-2 summarize the critical area goals, benchmarks, and performance metrics

intended to both protect and enhance critical area functions. Performance metrics can be used to monitor

progress toward both protection and enhancement goals. For each performance metric, protection would

be indicated by no change in the metric (e.g. flows during critical low flow periods are maintained), and

enhancement would be indicated by a positive change (improvement) in the metric (e.g. new irrigation

efficiencies are installed). In this document, performance standards are differentiated between

implementation (i.e. installation of new activities) and effectiveness (i.e. measured effect of actions on

critical areas). The right-hand column that describes the relationship to agricultural viability is intended to

identify how critical area goals and benchmarks are compatible with agricultural viability.

Implementation is typically measured by the area directly affected by best management practices.

However, implementation benchmarks may also to relate to more programmatic actions led by the

working group or other members of the agricultural community. For example, coordinated fire

management among agriculture and fire-fighting and resource management agencies is a high-priority

programmatic action to reduce the frequency of fire affecting shrub-steppe habitat and rangelands.

Outreach to federal, state, and local land managers and owners is identified as an implementation

benchmark for enhancement.


August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Goals, Benchmarks, and Performance Metrics 77

Effectiveness benchmarks may be evaluated by the area of change, which is supplemented by the nature

of the change to understand the effects on critical area functions, or by follow up monitoring of the

effectiveness of best management practices. The measurable extent of change may be detected through

existing remote sensing information, an expert panel, or through follow-up monitoring by the technical

service providers.

Where referenced, expert panels would be convened by the Work Group, and would be made up of

qualified professionals and subject matter experts who have demonstrated education, experience,

accreditation, and knowledge relevant to the particular matter.

Exhibit 7-3 summarizes aims and activities that are intended to maintain and enhance agricultural

viability and that are associated with critical area protection. It should be noted that there are no formal

measurable benchmarks for agricultural viability, and success toward meeting agricultural viability goals

does not affect the County’s eligibility to participate in the VSP. Agriculture viability aims and activities

are meant to help the County plan for resource lands and to help the local agricultural economy.



Exhibit 7-1. Protection Goals, benchmarks, and monitoring approaches to maintain critical area functions

CRITICAL AREA PROTECTION GOAL

CRITICAL AREA PROTECTION BENCHMARK

PERFORMANCE METRIC

(IMPLEMENTATION)

PERFORMANCE METRIC

(RESOURCE MEASUREMENT)

Intersect Information

Consider during Monitoring of Functions and Values.

A= Irrigated and Dryland Acres R= Rangeland Acres

RELATIONSHIP TO AGRICULTURAL VIABILITY

In areas of critical area

intersect with

agricultural activities, and

at the

watershed level:

In areas of critical area intersect with

agricultural

activities, and at the watershed level:

At watershed scale in areas of critical

area / agriculture

intersect.

At watershed scale in areas of critical area

/ agriculture

intersect.

Coun

tyw

ide

Alk

ali-S

qui

lchu

ck

Klic

kita

t

Low

er

Yaki

ma

Nach

es

Rock

Gla

de

Upper

Yaki

ma

At watershed

scale:

Protect the

functions and

values of

hydrologically

related

critical areas,

including

streams,

wetlands,

floodplains,

and critical

aquifer

recharge

areas.

▪ Rely on regulatory backstop of water rights adjudication.

▪ No benchmarks or measurement required.

▪ Maintain floodplain connectivity and groundwater recharge during high flows.

▪ Avoid an increase in structures or barriers that result in floodplain disconnection.

▪ Apply regulatory backstop of flood hazard management regulations.

▪ Area of connected floodplain retained in areas of agricultural intersect (see wetland and riparian

benchmarks for cover metrics).

Floodpla

in A

: 14

,77

6 a

c 4.1

%

R: 13,7

86 a

c 1.9

%

Floodpla

in A

: 0 R

: 2,1

00 a

c 52%

Floodpla

in A

: 0

R: 0

Floodpla

in A

: 12

,23

4 a

c 4.3

%

R: 6,4

58 a

c 2.5

%

Floodpla

in A

: 644 a

c 3.1

%

R: 4,3

92 a

c 1.4

%

Floodpla

in A

: 0

R: 0

Floodpla

in A

: 1,8

98

1ac

7%

R: 836 a

c 0.8

0%

Groundwater

recharge during

high flows.





PERFORMANCE METRIC

(IMPLEMENTATION)

PERFORMANCE METRIC







intersect with


at the

watershed level:


agricultural



area / agriculture

intersect.


/ agriculture

intersect.

Coun

tyw

ide

Alk

ali-S

qui

lchu

ck

Klic

kita

t

Low

er

Yaki

ma

Nach

es

Rock

Gla

de

Upper

Yaki

ma

At watershed

scale:

▪ Manage riparian vegetation to maintain instream habitat, limit risk of channel migration into agricultural fields, maintain shading of stream, and other water quality functions.

▪ Livestock management practices maintained.

▪ Riparian vegetated area retained, except for noxious weeds. Allow riparian areas to reestablish after natural events.

▪ Area and cover of riparian vegetation intersecting agricultural activities.

HSA

50 A

: 9,9

08 a

c 2

.7%

R: 67,9

65 a

c 9.4

%

HSA

A: 0 R

: 204 a

c 5

.0%

HSA

A: 0.0

1 a

c 1.5

%

R: 2,9

77 a

c 17.8

%

HSA

A: 8,6

67 a

c 3

.0%

R: 18,7

39 a

c 7.2

%

HSA

A: 306 a

c 1

.5%

R: 38,1

26 a

c 12

.0%

HSA

A: 38 a

c 0.0

86%

R: 524

2.6

7%

HSA

A: 898 a

c 8

.0%

R: 7,3

96 a

c 7.0

%

Protect farmed

area and

irrigation water

and pump

infrastructure by

limiting risk of

channel jumping

banks (avulsing).

50 Hydrologic Study Areas (HSA): Because there is no riparian data set, for analysis purposes a hydrologic study area was defined based on a distance of 100 feet from Streams, Lakes,

Wetlands. This does not imply that there is actual riparian area or a buffer; rather it is just meant to be a way to take a closer look at the footprint of agriculture along lands abutting

waterbodies and wetlands.





PERFORMANCE METRIC

(IMPLEMENTATION)

PERFORMANCE METRIC







intersect with


at the

watershed level:


agricultural



area / agriculture

intersect.


/ agriculture

intersect.

Coun

tyw

ide

Alk

ali-S

qui

lchu

ck

Klic

kita

t

Low

er

Yaki

ma

Nach

es

Rock

Gla

de

Upper

Yaki

ma

At watershed

scale:

▪ Manage nutrients, pathogens, and other contaminants to maintain surface and groundwater quality (rely on regulatory backstop for pesticides, dairy nutrients, and stormwater, and on Lower Yakima Valley Groundwater

▪ Absent background regulations and TMDLs, best management practices maintained to reduce runoff

▪ Best management practices functioning as designed to protect water quality.

CA

RA

S.A

.51 A

: 275

,87

9 a

c 76

.2%

R: 185,6

85 a

c 2

6%

CA

RA

S.A

. A

: 0 R

: 77

1 a

c 19%

CA

RA

S.A

. A

: 0 R

: 812 a

c 4

.9%

CA

RA

S.A

. A

: 2

49

,31

6 a

c 87%

R: 107,6

60 a

c 4

2%

CA

RA

S.A

. A

: 2

0,4

80 a

c 9

8%

R: 65,4

81 a

c 21%

CA

RA

S.A

. A

: 4

8

ac

0.1

1%

R: 414 a

c 2.1

%

CA

RA

S.A

. A

: 6

,035 a

c 54%

R: 10,5

48 a

c 10%

Consistency with

existing

regulations.

Soil moisture

provides a “7th

reservoir” for

agricultural

producers.

51 Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas (CARA) Susceptibility Areas (SA): Moderate to Extreme.





PERFORMANCE METRIC

(IMPLEMENTATION)

PERFORMANCE METRIC







intersect with


at the

watershed level:


agricultural



area / agriculture

intersect.


/ agriculture

intersect.

Coun

tyw

ide

Alk

ali-S

qui

lchu

ck

Klic

kita

t

Low

er

Yaki

ma

Nach

es

Rock

Gla

de

Upper

Yaki

ma

At watershed

scale:

Management Area standards for groundwater).

▪ Maintain conditions for fish passage related to agriculture.

▪ Surveyed number of fish passage barriers and unscreened diversions associated with agriculture.

18 r

oads, 2

2 d

am

s, 2

misc.

fish

pass

age

barr

iers

52

14 r

oads, 1

dam

s fish

pass

age b

arr

iers

3 r

oads, 2

0 d

am

s, 2

misc.

fish

pass

age

barr

iers

1 r

oad, 1 d

am

fish

pass

age b

arr

iers

Consistency with

existing

regulations.

▪ Protect the functions and values of naturally occurring wetlands.

▪ Wetland area protected in CRP, conservation easement, or in-fee purchase.

▪ Wetland area and cover, as detected by Ecology’s Wetland Change Analysis,

Wetland

s: A

: 2,4

28

ac

0.7

% R

: 6,5

32 a

c

0.9

1%

Wetland

s: A

: 0 R

: 0

Wetland

s: A

: 0

R: 429 a

c 2.6

%

Wetland

s: A

: 2,2

24

ac

0.7

8%

R: 3,4

30 a

c

1.3

%

Wetland

s: A

: 24 a

c

0.1

2%

R: 2,4

57

ac

0.7

8%

Wetland

s: A

: 0

R: 3 a

c 0.0

2%

Wetland

s: A

: 17

9

1

ac

.6%

R: 213 a

c

0.2

0%

As irrigation

efficiencies are

implemented,

wetland area

may decrease;

however, stream

52 Blockages and Fish Passage Barriers: Private and Unknown Ownerships.





PERFORMANCE METRIC

(IMPLEMENTATION)

PERFORMANCE METRIC







intersect with


at the

watershed level:


agricultural



area / agriculture

intersect.


/ agriculture

intersect.

Coun

tyw

ide

Alk

ali-S

qui

lchu

ck

Klic

kita

t

Low

er

Yaki

ma

Nach

es

Rock

Gla

de

Upper

Yaki

ma

At watershed

scale:

▪ Implementation of practices that avoid and minimize impacts to wetland functions (area of practices to protect water quality, hydrology, and/or habitat) See riparian metrics above.

▪ Recognize federal wetland regulatory backstop.

if it becomes available.

functions may

improve. This is

part of the

process of

restoring natural

processes and

functions.





PERFORMANCE METRIC

(IMPLEMENTATION)

PERFORMANCE METRIC







intersect with


at the

watershed level:


agricultural



area / agriculture

intersect.


/ agriculture

intersect.

Coun

tyw

ide

Alk

ali-S

qui

lchu

ck

Klic

kita

t

Low

er

Yaki

ma

Nach

es

Rock

Gla

de

Upper

Yaki

ma

At watershed

scale:

Conserve

biodiversity

and sensitive

species,

particularly

within shrub-

steppe

habitats53

without

restricting

ongoing or

new

agricultural

activities.

▪ Maintain functions of shrub-steppe habitat, especially areas with deep soils through voluntary management and protection measures. Examples include but are not limited to:

o managed grazing at

▪ Area managed to limit landcover disturbance in areas of shrub-steppe (area of interface or overlap).

▪ Area managed to promote shrub-steppe- may include managed grazing (area of managed grazing or public/private grazing).

▪ Shrub-steppe protected (annual/seasonal review of composition and native cover compared to baseline).

Shr

ub-S

teppe: A

: 2,3

91 a

c R: 219

,29

3 a

c

Shr

ub-S

teppe: A

:

0 R

: 556 a

c

Shr

ub-S

teppe: A

:

0 R

: 0

Shr

ub-S

teppe: A

: 1,3

65 a

c R: 65,6

88 a

c

Shr

ub-S

teppe: A

: 58 a

c R: 64,1

28

ac

Shr

ub-S

teppe: A

: 501 a

c R: 10,6

26 a

c

Shr

ub-S

teppe: A

: 230 a

c R: 78,2

95 a

c

53 Shrub-steppe habitat encompasses rocky soils, shrubs, and grasses.





PERFORMANCE METRIC

(IMPLEMENTATION)

PERFORMANCE METRIC







intersect with


at the

watershed level:


agricultural



area / agriculture

intersect.


/ agriculture

intersect.

Coun

tyw

ide

Alk

ali-S

qui

lchu

ck

Klic

kita

t

Low

er

Yaki

ma

Nach

es

Rock

Gla

de

Upper

Yaki

ma

At watershed

scale:

appropriate times

o develop public/private grazing plans that enhance critical areas and agricultural viability.

o native bunch grass propagation. Using existing bunch grasses; divide plants into halves or quarters and replant. Best

done in late fall /winter.

o develop firefighting strategies that protect shrub-





PERFORMANCE METRIC

(IMPLEMENTATION)

PERFORMANCE METRIC







intersect with


at the

watershed level:


agricultural



area / agriculture

intersect.


/ agriculture

intersect.

Coun

tyw

ide

Alk

ali-S

qui

lchu

ck

Klic

kita

t

Low

er

Yaki

ma

Nach

es

Rock

Gla

de

Upper

Yaki

ma

At watershed

scale:

steppe habitats that compliment VSP plan goals (see also Table 2).

o install rain guzzlers in rangeland shrub-steppe areas to provide water sources for both livestock and wildlife.

▪ Maintain habitat connectivity in important linkage centrality areas or pinch points.

▪ Shrub-steppe linkage centrality or pinch point protected (connectivity retained)

o Voluntary informal set-asides by

Li

nkage: A

: 6

6,3

94 a

c 2%

R:

376

,79

7 a

c 14%

Pin

ch P

oin

t: A

: 28

,94

1 a

c 1%

R:

124

,12

2 5

%

Link

age: A

; 0 a

c; R

: 2

,17

6 a

c

5%

Pin

ch P

oin

t: A

: 0 a

c R: 810 a

c

2%

Li

nkage: A

: 0 a

c R: 6,8

66 2

%

Pin

ch P

oin

t:

0 a

c R: 3,0

84 a

c

1%

Link

age: A

: 3

6,7

77 a

c 3%

R:

165

,89

2 a

c 12%

Pin

ch P

oin

t: A

: 15

,04

1 a

c 1%

R:

74,4

50 a

c 5%

Li

nkage: A

: 1

,70

9 a

c 0.3

% R

:

135

,39

1 a

c 21%

Pin

ch P

oin

t: A

: 2,8

16 a

c 0

.4%

R: 21,5

11 a

c 3%

Li

nkage: A

: 2

6,7

24 a

c 4

1%

R:

13,2

79 a

c 2

0%

Pin

ch P

oin

t: A

: 10

,50

5 a

c 16%

R: 7,8

31 1

2%

Li

nkage: A

: 1

,18

3 a

c 1%

R:

53,1

93 2

6%

Pin

ch P

oin

t: A

: 57

8 a

c 0.3

% R

:

16,4

35 a

c 8%





PERFORMANCE METRIC

(IMPLEMENTATION)

PERFORMANCE METRIC







intersect with


at the

watershed level:


agricultural



area / agriculture

intersect.


/ agriculture

intersect.

Coun

tyw

ide

Alk

ali-S

qui

lchu

ck

Klic

kita

t

Low

er

Yaki

ma

Nach

es

Rock

Gla

de

Upper

Yaki

ma

At watershed

scale:

producers, leases, easements, or acquisitions to retain connectivity. Tools that retain taxable land area are preferred.





PERFORMANCE METRIC

(IMPLEMENTATION)

PERFORMANCE METRIC







intersect with


at the

watershed level:


agricultural



area / agriculture

intersect.


/ agriculture

intersect.

Coun

tyw

ide

Alk

ali-S

qui

lchu

ck

Klic

kita

t

Low

er

Yaki

ma

Nach

es

Rock

Gla

de

Upper

Yaki

ma

At watershed

scale:

▪ Maintain abundance of pollinator populations.

▪ Pollinator habitat protected (area and cover, of host species compared to baseline).

▪ Integrated Pest Management (IPM) plans maintained.

Track

cons

erv

ation

pra

ctic

es. U

se

cove

r data

if

ava

ilable

54 Int

erim

: co

nsid

er

pla

nted a

g.,

rang

e, and

ha

bitat d

ata

. C

ons

ider

seaso

nalit

y.

See C

oun

tyw

ide n

ote

s.

See C

oun

tyw

ide n

ote

s.

See C

oun

tyw

ide n

ote

s.

See C

oun

tyw

ide n

ote

s.

See C

oun

tyw

ide n

ote

s.

See C

oun

tyw

ide n

ote

s.

Pollinators are

critical for

agricultural

production

54 The baseline of acres in bloom and forage in crop land is not yet available. A WSU Work Program describes such research is needed:

https://agr.wa.gov/PlantsInsects/Apiary/docs/HoneyBeeWkGroupReport.pdf.

Census of Agriculture data reports some data on bee colonies, but it is insufficient. 2012 Census of Ag.: Colonies of Bees in Yakima County = 20,357.

https://agr.wa.gov/PlantsInsects/Apiary/docs/HoneyBeeWkGroupReport.pdf





PERFORMANCE METRIC

(IMPLEMENTATION)

PERFORMANCE METRIC







intersect with


at the

watershed level:


agricultural



area / agriculture

intersect.


/ agriculture

intersect.

Coun

tyw

ide

Alk

ali-S

qui

lchu

ck

Klic

kita

t

Low

er

Yaki

ma

Nach

es

Rock

Gla

de

Upper

Yaki

ma

At watershed

scale:

Avoid and

minimize risks

associated

with

geologically

hazardous

areas

associated

with

agricultural

activities.

▪ Manage irrigation practices and agricultural activities to maintain steep slopes by:

o Avoiding increases in erosion.

o Avoiding steep slopes or helping to stabilize steep slopes where practical.

o Avoiding irrigating unstable slopes.

▪ Best management practices implemented to manage runoff to steep slopes or to avoid erosion.

▪ Natural vegetative cover retained in areas of agricultural intersection with geologically hazardous areas

Geo H

az.

55A

: 19

,115 a

c 5.3

%

R: 287,8

55 a

c 4

0%

Geo H

az.

A: 0 R

: 1,5

51 a

c 38%

Geo H

az.

A: 0 R

: 1,6

31 a

c 1

0%

Geo H

az.

A: 16,6

68 a

c 5.8

%

R; 125,4

36 a

c 4

8%

Geo H

az.

A: 492 a

c 2.3

%

R: 128,8

70 a

c 4

1%

Geo H

az.

A: 1,1

07 a

c 2.5

%

R: 6,0

42 a

c 31%

Geo H

az.

A: 847 a

c 7.6

%

R: 24,3

25 a

c 23%

Dense, deeply

rooted

vegetation helps

to limit erosion



Exhibit 7-2. Goals, benchmarks, and monitoring approaches to voluntarily enhance critical areas

Critical Area Enhancement Goal

Critical Area Enhancement Benchmark

Performance Metric

(Implementation)

Performance Metric

(Resource measurement)

Relationship to Agricultural Viability


intersect with agricultural

activities, and at the

watershed level:

In areas of critical area intersect

with agricultural activities, and at

the watershed level:

At watershed scale in areas of

critical area / agriculture intersect.



At watershed scale:

Enhance the functions and

values of hydrologically

related critical areas,

including streams,

wetlands, floodplains,

and critical aquifer

recharge areas.

▪ Increase flow in critical reaches during critical low flow period.

▪ Acre-feet reduction in diversion, instantaneous flow.

▪ Number of water exchanges, storage, transfers, voluntary regional agreements, and/or water trusts established.

▪ Improve water supply security and increase water right stability.

▪ Compensate farmers who dedicate water to instream flow during key periods.

▪ Enhance on-farm and irrigation distribution efficiency.

▪ Increase floodplain connectivity, groundwater recharge, and instream habitat complexity.

▪ Stream enhancement or restoration projects implemented (length of stream)- including dike setbacks, floodplain reconnection, and bank contouring.

▪ Coordinated recharge projects implemented in areas of agricultural intersect.

▪ Floodplain area restored in area of agricultural intersect.

▪ Stream channel complexity restored in area of agricultural intersect.

▪ Groundwater recharge in areas of agricultural intersect (Acre-feet or pervious area sufficient to allow recharge).

▪ Improved groundwater storage may help support water supply to junior water rights.

▪ Opportunities to apply market functions to groundwater storage.

55 Geologic Hazards (Geo. Haz.), include Landslides, Steep Slopes, Other (Alluvial Fan).





Performance Metric

(Implementation)

Performance Metric






watershed level:








At watershed scale:

▪ Re-establish or enhance

riparian vegetation to improve instream habitat, shading of stream, and other water quality functions.

o Priority is given to basins where the benchmark of riparian area protection of functions and values is at risk of degrading compared to baseline and affects fish species. Second priority is other areas of focus per county, state, regional, tribal priorities for enhancement.

▪ Livestock management

practices implemented.

▪ Noxious weeds and invasive species removed from riparian areas intersecting agricultural activities (annual/seasonal review of cover compared to baseline).

▪ Native species restored in riparian areas intersecting agricultural activities (annual/seasonal review of cover compared to baseline).

▪ Invasive species distribution

and cover in riparian areas adjacent to agricultural activities.

▪ Native species cover in riparian areas adjacent to agricultural activities.

▪ Area or cover of natural vegetation in riparian areas intersecting agricultural activities.

▪ Commodity buffers.

▪ Control source of weeds in fields.

▪ Manage nutrients, pathogens, and other contaminants to improve surface and groundwater quality.

▪ Best management practices implemented to enhance organic matter in soil to improve moisture content.

▪ Best management practices implemented for contaminant storage.

▪ Number of off-channel

watering sites installed.

▪ Number of best management practices installed to limit runoff (including irrigation

▪ Water quality is improved in agricultural drains where monitored.

▪ Best management practices achieving water quality objectives.

▪ Groundwater quality improved in the Lower Yakima

Groundwater Management Area.

▪ Develop off-channel watering locations and improved efficiencies.

▪ Soil moisture provides a “7th reservoir” for agricultural producers.





Performance Metric

(Implementation)

Performance Metric






watershed level:








At watershed scale:

efficiencies and precision agriculture).

▪ Improve fish passage conditions related to agriculture.

▪ Fish passage barriers corrected.

▪ Fish screens installed on existing unscreened diversions.

▪ Surveyed number of fish passage barriers and unscreened diversions associated with agriculture.

▪ Consistency with existing regulations.

▪ Enhance wetland functions and values.

▪ Area of wetland enhancement and restoration projects implemented including artificial wetlands.

▪ Actions implemented to reduce artificial drainage of wetlands (number).

▪ Change in wetland area and cover, as detected by Ecology’s Wetland Change Analysis, if it becomes available.

▪ Habitat farming may support farmers and promote wetland habitat enhancements.

Increase biodiversity and

sensitive species

resilience, particularly

within shrub-steppe

habitats.

▪ Improve biodiversity of shrub-steppe habitats.

▪ Promote voluntary measures to enhance shrub-steppe habitat and shrub-steppe corridors with the first priority as basins where the benchmark of shrub-steppe protection of functions and values is at risk of degrading compared to baseline. Within basins, enhancement opportunities should include firstly current blocks and

▪ Area of shrub-steppe enhanced or restored (in area or native cover).

▪ Best management practices implemented to control invasive species and encourage native shrub-steppe species (enhanced in area or native cover) such as:

o Additional areas of managed grazing at appropriate times or public/private grazing plans that enhance or restore composition and cover of

▪ Voluntary incentives for conservation of corridors, grass banks, or easements; maintain baseline of shrub-steppe quality.





Performance Metric

(Implementation)

Performance Metric






watershed level:








At watershed scale:

currently utilized corridors and secondly historical or likely suitable corridors that could be established or renewed.

native shrub-steppe elements compared to the baseline,

o Native plant propagation in new areas.

o Added areas where rain guzzlers are installed in rangeland shrub-steppe areas to provide water sources for both livestock and wildlife

o Avoid disturbance of seedbank, or stockpile removed soils and reapply following disturbance,

o Integrated Pest Management to reduce noxious weeds and control invasive species, establishing desired vegetation.

▪ Improve habitat connectivity in important linkage areas or pinch points.

o See row above row for priorities.

▪ Area of shrub-steppe linkage centrality or pinch point restored (enhanced in area or native cover).

▪ Composition and native cover in linkage areas accessible to wildlife.

▪ Reduce fire risk to shrub-steppe habitat

▪ Efforts implemented to control invasive species, including managed grazing (based on an annual/seasonal review of composition and native cover).

▪ Reduce fire impacts on agriculture (see Table 3).





Performance Metric

(Implementation)

Performance Metric






watershed level:








At watershed scale:

▪ Outreach to federal, state, and local land managers and owners and fire-fighting and environmental agencies to develop a coordinated approach to fire management that will limit impacts to shrub-steppe.

▪ Monitor development of management plan for Yakima Training Center, and get involved where possible such as through comment periods or meetings

▪ Improve the abundance and diversity of native pollinators.

▪ Integrated Pest Management plans implemented.

▪ Habitat enhanced for pollinators to achieve diversity in pollinator species (enhanced in area, cover, or diversity of pollinator plants).

▪ Pollinators are critical for agricultural production.

Reduce risks associated

with geologically

hazardous areas

associated with

agricultural activities.

▪ Manage irrigation practices and agricultural activities to reduce risks associated with

steep slopes in agricultural areas.

▪ Best management practices implemented to manage runoff to steep slopes.

▪ Implementation of best management practices for slope stability (e.g. contour planting, retaining native

▪ Redesign of ranch roads to limit proximity to geohazards can

reduce long-term maintenance.





Performance Metric

(Implementation)

Performance Metric






watershed level:








At watershed scale:

vegetation, irrigation efficiencies).


August2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Goals, Benchmarks, and Performance Metrics 95

Exhibit 7-3. Agricultural viability aims, incentives, and activities associated with critical area protection

Agricultural

Viability Aim

Activities

Maintain and

increase reliability

and availability of

irrigation water.

▪ Facilitate use of water trusts to protect farmers who leave water instream from relinquishing water rights.

▪ Develop flexible infrastructure (wells, storage, pumps) drawing from within and out of basin.

▪ Develop emergency irrigation allocation plan (water wheeling).

▪ Protect irrigation water and pump infrastructure by limiting avulsion risk.

▪ Enhance on-farm irrigation efficiency with precision agriculture and other efficiency measures.

▪ Enhance efficiency of irrigation distribution.

Support actions that

benefit both stream

functions and

agricultural

viability.

▪ Support the Yakima Basin Integrated Plan and Title 12 of the Yakima Basin Water Enhancement Project for flow enhancement and groundwater recharge enhancement.

▪ Implement off-channel watering.

▪ Encourage programs that provide funds for Best management practices.

▪ Commodity buffers (http://www.capitalpress.com/water/20160323/commodity-buffers-pay-farmers-same-as-crops).

Support actions that

benefit

groundwater

quality and

agricultural

viability.

▪ Support Lower Yakima Valley Groundwater Management Area (LYGWMA) group outcomes.

Support measures

that provide

incentives for

conservation of key

habitats.

▪ Voluntary incentives for conservation of corridors, grass banks, or easements.

Reduce impacts of

fire on agriculture

and shrub-steppe

habitat.

▪ Coordinate with federal, state, and local agencies, as well as land managers, with both firefighting and environmental responsibilities to ensure a coordinated approach to fire management that will limit impacts to agricultural properties. Review entity management plans, and participate in providing comments and direction to promote the viability of agriculture as well as critical area protection.

▪ Coordinate with federal, state, and local agencies, as well as land managers, to ensure that agencies are supporting shrub-steppe restoration in areas affected by fire.

▪ Pursue opportunities to reinstate grazing on Yakima Training Center.

▪ Establish initial priority area of Blackrock for fire suppression and prevention in cooperation with rural fire districts, and state, tribal, and federal wildfire managers.

▪ Firebreaks established along critical zones.

http://www.capitalpress.com/water/20160323/commodity-buffers-pay-farmers-same-as-crops




PARTICIPATION OBJECTIVES

Participation and stewardship goals and benchmarks are to be identified in the Voluntary Stewardship

Program (VSP) Work Plan.

RCW 36.70A.720 Watershed group’s duties - Work plan - Conditional priority funding.

(1) A watershed group designated by a county under RCW 36.70A.715 must develop a work plan

to protect critical areas while maintaining the viability of agriculture in the watershed. The work plan

must include goals and benchmarks for the protection and enhancement of critical areas. In

developing and implementing the work plan, the watershed group must:

(c) Develop goals for participation by agricultural operators conducting commercial and

noncommercial agricultural activities in the watershed necessary to meet the protection and

enhancement benchmarks of the work plan;

Farmers and ranchers directly participate in VSP by implementing conservation projects on their

properties, often with the help of participating technical providers.

Examples of such activities include the creation of individual stewardship plans and implementation of

conservation practices such as irrigation efficiencies, grazing management, and others. See Appendix F

for a checklist that could serve as an individual stewardship plan.

Indirect participation of agricultural producers in stewardship activities consists of many of the standard

industry practices identified in Chapter 3, Agricultural Context, that are implemented on the initiative of a

producer without the use of a federal, state, or non-profit incentive program. Examples of standard

practices that have protective or beneficial impacts to critical areas to those identified in Appendix F

Checklist. Because many practices are installed without participation in a particular program, yet they

have the effect of protecting or enhancing critical areas, the presence of the practices should be tracked

and monitored.



7.2.1. Potential Participants and Priorities

Producers in Areas of Intersect

The number of agricultural operations that intersect with mapped critical areas are estimated below by

watershed and by type of agriculture. The information is based on the VSP mapping efforts and County

parcel records. Parcel records showing side-by-side common ownerships were combined to reduce

potential double-counts of properties. If some individuals own property in multiple categories (e.g. some

portion of land is irrigated and some is dryland) there may be some small number of double-counts.

Exhibit 7-4. Agricultural Operations by Watershed and Agricultural Type (Adjusted for Duplicate Last Names)

WATERSHED (WRIA) IRRIGATED DRYLAND RANGELAND TOTAL

Lower Yakima 7,692 2,838 1,982 12,512

Naches 1,700 490 861 3,051

Rock - Glade 5 81 80 166

Upper Yakima 1,321 279 330 1,930

Total Owners 10,718 3,688 3,253 17,659

Notes: The watersheds in the table contain 100 percent of state mapped irrigated and dryland farms and 97 percent of mapped rangeland. Other watersheds in the county include Alkali-Squilchuck with less than 1 percent of mapped rangeland and Klickitat with 2 percent of mapped rangeland).

Exhibit 7-5. Agricultural Acreage by Watershed and Agricultural Type (Unadjusted for Last Name)

WRIA TYPE PROPERTY COUNT ACRES

Alkali - Squilchuck Rangeland 59 3,887

Alkali - Squilchuck Total 59 3,887

Klickitat Rangeland 117 15,981

Klickitat Total 117 15,981

Lower Yakima Irrigated 10,144 266,009

NonIrrigated 2,589 32,122

Rangeland 3,309 258,116

Lower Yakima Total 16,042 556,246

Naches Irrigated 1,566 21,337

NonIrrigated 213 1,390

Rangeland 3,731 315,240

Naches Total 5,510 337,967

Rock - Glade Irrigated 3 771



WRIA TYPE PROPERTY COUNT ACRES


Rangeland 144 17,053

Rock - Glade Total 405 64,114

Upper Yakima Irrigated 846 10,902


Rangeland 994 106,147

Upper Yakima Total 2,003 118,202

Grand Total 24,136 1,096,397

The following map illustrates assessor parcel information and agriculture or rangeland uses.

Exhibit 7-6. Ownership Map

Source: BERK Consulting 2016

When considering rangeland properties of at least 160 acres in size and agricultural land of at least 20

acres in size intersecting with hydrologic study areas, there are about 1,125 properties. Screening

properties in terms of intersect and size may help with prioritization of outreach or conservation practices.



Participation Priorities

Within the WRIAs are sub-basins where the NYCD and SYCD work with producers and entities to

conserve natural resources and benefit agriculture. See Exhibit 7-7. NYCD boundaries are generally the

northern county to areas just south of the City of Yakima. The SYCD works within the southern half of the

county.

Exhibit 7-7. Watershed Sub-Basin Map

Note: Based on HUC 10 information; HUC 12 shown for Cowiche Creek basin. Source: Ecology 2016; BERK Consulting 2017

For the purposes of this Work Plan and its participation goal and benchmarks, each conservation district

has identified priority basins and the producers to be contacted. The priorities consider geographic

locations, similarities of conservation issues and threats, ongoing conservation activities, interest by

producers, and leveraging other entity initiatives. The priorities may be adjusted by the Work Group

based on biennial and 5-year reports and the need to ensure critical area protection and agricultural

viability.



Exhibit 7-8. Conservation District Participation Priority Basin List

PRIORITY WRIA SUB-BASIN FOCUS OF

CONTACTS:

PRODUCER SIZE

North Yakima Conservation District

Upper Yakima Wenas Creek Sub-Basin 40 acres+

Naches Cowiche Creek Sub-Basin 40 acres+

Lower Yakima Ahtanum Creek 40 acres+

Naches Naches / Tieton 5 acres+

Upper Yakima / Lower Yakima /

Alkali -Squilchuck

Moxee/Black Rock / Cold Creek 5 acres+

Lower Yakima Wide Hollow 5 acres+

Upper Yakima Selah (Urban Unincorporated) 5 acres+

Lower Yakima Yakima (Urban Unincorporated) 5 acres+

Other WRIAs Other Sub-Basins 20 acres+

South Yakima Conservation District

Lower Yakima Lower Yakima Valley Groundwater

Management Area

Includes: Granger Drain, Sulphur Creek,

and Toppenish Creek Sub-Basins

Contacts:

▪ Approximately 70 or more dairies

▪ Approximately 100 producers within irrigation districts

▪ Other referrals from NRCS

Other WRIAs Other Sub-Basins

7.2.2. Participation Goal and Benchmark

Participation Goal

Promote volunteerism and stewardship of agricultural land and critical areas.

Participation Benchmarks

A. Sufficient participation by commercial and non-commercial agricultural operators that achieves the

protection of critical area functions and values across WRIA basins.

1. NYCD: Every two years, survey VSP eligible producers across basins, and directly contact 20 percent of

producers about VSP program. Guide technical provider resources based on priorities in Exhibit 7-8.

2. SYCD: Every two years, contact VSP eligible producers about VSP program, targeting between 100 to 200

producers. Provide technical assistance or education annually on average to 35 to 65 producers. Direct

technical provider resources based on priorities in Exhibit 7-8.



B. Passive participation by commercial and non-commercial agricultural operators in VSP conservation

practices is maintained or increased over 10 years on agricultural land.

7.2.3. Participation Measurement

1. Indicators of active participation include:

▪ Number of outreach events

▪ Number/percentage of landowners contacted

▪ Number of event attendees

▪ Number of VSP participation signs and marketing materials distributed

▪ Education opportunities provided

▪ Technical assistance sought by producers (as tracked through meetings, calls, applications, and

contracts with technical assistance providers)

▪ Self-certification: See Appendix F for a checklist.

2. Indirect participation in common stewardship practices may be tracked and reported using one or more

methods:

▪ Mapping and remote sensing imagery interpretation of conservation practices in place across

watersheds, and

▪ Random sampling of farmers and ranchers in the field by technical assistance providers with willing

landowners, or

▪ Phone, mail, or online surveys, or

▪ Census of agriculture or other broadly gathered and published information (only available

periodically).

AGRICULTURAL VIABILITY AIMS

This section provides a synthesis of agricultural viability aims included in Section 7.1 for agriculture within

the agriculture-critical area intersect with some of the results of the Chapter 3 strengths, weaknesses,

opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis to create a full suite of agricultural viability aims addressing

both economic and environmental sustainability.

Suggested activities to improve agricultural viability are presented to encourage program goals of

“maintaining and enhancing the viability of agriculture in the watershed” (RCW 36.70A.725). These are

not formal measurable benchmarks, nor do they determine whether the plan meets compliance. Their

purpose is to help Yakima County do its planning for resource lands and to help the local agricultural

economy. Suggested aims, incentives, and activities relate to the protection and enhancement of

agriculture in the watershed. These should be considered throughout implementation, monitoring, and

adaptive management of the VSP Work Plan. Priorities for evaluation and implementation include

promoting conservation practices that avoid unnecessary regulations and increase agricultural

viability in Yakima County.



7.3.1. Suggested Agricultural Viability Aims:

Agricultural Viability Aims I through V were identified in Section 7.1 and are more specific to the

interface with critical areas. Aims VI to XI are also listed below and more broadly address the aim of

supporting the agricultural economy. Agricultural viability aims are considered priorities for evaluation

and implementation:

AG Aim-I. Maintain and increase reliability and availability of irrigation water.

AG Aim-II. Support actions that benefit both stream functions and agricultural viability.

AG Aim-III. Support actions that benefit groundwater quality and agricultural viability.

AG Aim-IV. Support measures that provide incentives for conservation of key habitats.

AG Aim-V. Reduce impacts of fire on agriculture and shrub-steppe habitat.

AG Aim-VI. Support funding for timely research to improve agricultural production.

AG Aim-VII. Continue to improve agricultural practices and ecological understanding.

AG Aim-VIII. Encourage technical assistance to support Yakima’s unique range of producers and products.

AG Aim-IX. Maintain and improve access to markets through a strong production and distribution system.

AG Aim-X. Encourage fair oversight of farm safety, labor, and other production aspects, while providing autonomy to innovate and adapt to changing market conditions.

AG Aim-XI. Develop private/public grazing plans to benefit the agricultural economy and shrub-steppe habitat.

7.3.2. Suggested Agricultural Viability Tracking Measures

AG Track-1. Increased agricultural crop production and economic value annually.

AG Track-2. Designated agricultural land in Comprehensive Plan continues to be protected.

AG Track-3. Water resources necessary for producers are available and reliable.

AG Track-4. Reduced erosion of productive land and improved water quality.

AG Track-5. Incentives to conserve habitat are meaningful and available.

AG Track-6. Fire coordination and prevention activities are developed with growers.

AG Track-7. Producers have more regulatory stability in Yakima County through continued application of VSP Program.

AG Track-8. On-farm and commercial storage, aggregation, and distribution services are available.

AG Track-9. Necessary supplies, equipment, and other farm inputs are accessible and available.

AG Track-10. Higher education, economic development entities (e.g. YCDA) and local governments include programs, policies, and community engagement that support agricultural economy.

AG Track-11. Producers have access to farm business expertise, training, and practical research that advances farm profitability and conservation.



AG Track-12. There are cooperative and stable grazing agreements with private and public land owners and managers.

7.3.3. Suggested Agricultural Viability Incentives and Activities:

Incentive-1 Facilitate use of water trusts to protect farmers who leave water instream from

relinquishing water rights.

Incentive-2 Develop flexible infrastructure (wells, storage, pumps) drawing from within and out of

basin.

Incentive-3 Develop emergency irrigation allocation plan (water wheeling).

Incentive-4 Protect irrigation water and pump infrastructure by limiting avulsion risk.

Incentive-5 Enhance on-farm irrigation efficiency with precision agriculture and other efficiency

measures.

Incentive-6 Enhance efficiency of irrigation distribution.

Incentive-7 Support the Yakima Basin Integrated Plan and Title 12 of the Yakima Basin Water

Enhancement Project for flow enhancement and groundwater recharge enhancement.

Incentive-8 Implement off-channel watering.

Incentive-9 Encourage programs that provide funds for conservation measures.

Incentive-10 Support voluntary participation in a commodity buffer program.56

Incentive-11 Support Lower Yakima Valley Groundwater Management Area (LYGWMA) group

outcomes.

Incentive-12 Support voluntary incentives for conservation of corridors, grass banks, or easements.

Incentive-13 Coordinate with federal, state, and local agencies, as well as land managers, with both

firefighting and environmental responsibilities to ensure a coordinated approach to fire

management that will limit impacts to agricultural properties. Review entity management

plans, and participate in providing comments and direction to promote the viability of

agriculture as well as critical area protection.

Incentive-14 Coordinate with federal, state, and local agencies to ensure that agencies are supporting

shrub-steppe restoration in areas affected by fire.

Incentive-15 Pursue opportunities to reinstate grazing on Yakima Training Center.

Incentive-16 Establish initial priority area of Blackrock for fire suppression and prevention in

cooperation with rural fire districts, and state, tribal, and federal wildfire managers.

56 See: http://www.capitalpress.com/water/20160323/commodity-buffers-pay-farmers-same-as-crops .



August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Monitoring, Reporting, and Adaptive Management 104

Incentive-17 Establish firebreaks along critical zones.

Incentive-18 Serve as technical advisors or as volunteers to higher education and private research and

development firms that are researching improved agricultural production.

Incentive-19 Support the testing and improvement of conservation practices by NRCS and local

conservation districts.

Incentive-20 Encourage priority funding to support VSP Program participation by farmers and

ranchers.

Incentive-21 Encourage higher education, economic development entities (e.g. YCDA), and local

governments to include programs, policies, and community engagement that support

agricultural economy.

Incentive-22 Identify options for farmers to reduce their production expenses via technical assistance

providers.

Incentive-23 Ensure the County and cities Comprehensive Plans, capital investments in roads and other

infrastructure, and zoning codes provide strong support for agricultural infrastructure that

may be located within urban areas, such as packing houses, etc.

Incentive-24 Support voluntary market-based certification programs that are fairly implemented and

flexible to unique circumstances of different commodities and changing national and

international economics.

Incentive-25 Recognize managed grazing can enhance shrub-steppe habitat and support agricultural

viability. Work with federal and state land owners and managers to forge agreements

allowing grazing on public land on a reliable annual basis. Agreements should address

water and access. Tools that retain taxable land area are preferred. Where state lands

are purchased in the future, work with state agencies to incorporate managed grazing

into management plans for shrub-steppe habitat.

8.0 Monitoring, Reporting, and Adaptive Management

The VSP Work Group is responsible for ongoing monitoring, reporting, and adaptive management of the

Work Plan implementation. RCW 36.70A.720 describes the schedule and actions the Work Group must

follow during implementation of the plan.

(b)(i) Not later than five years after the receipt of funding for a participating watershed, the

watershed group must report to the director and the county on whether it has met the work plan's

protection and enhancement goals and benchmarks.

(ii) If the watershed group determines the protection goals and benchmarks have been met, and

the director concurs under RCW 36.70A.730, the watershed group shall continue to implement the

work plan.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=36.70A.720




(iii) If the watershed group determines the protection goals and benchmarks have not been met, it

must propose and submit to the director an adaptive management plan to achieve the goals and

benchmarks that were not met. If the director does not approve the adaptive management plan under

RCW 36.70A.730, the watershed is subject to RCW 36.70A.735.

(iv) If the watershed group determines the enhancement goals and benchmarks have not been

met, the watershed group must determine what additional voluntary actions are needed to meet the

benchmarks, identify the funding necessary to implement these actions, and implement these actions

when funding is provided. (RCW 36.70A.720)

The statute further requires reporting, evaluation and, if necessary, adaptive management at “ten years

after the receipt of funding… and every five years thereafter.” Section 7 identifies specific benchmarks

and monitoring and measuring efforts for each.

MONITORING TOOLS

Three components of monitoring, reporting, and adaptive management have been developed with this

Work Plan, as illustrated with Exhibit 8-1, and described below:

▪ Stewardship Checklist: The Stewardship Checklist serves as an individual stewardship plan

referenced in the VSP law to help each farmer contribute to the goals and benchmarks of the

Yakima County VSP Work Plan. The results of the checklist regarding conservation practices installed

post July 2011, and new desired conservation practices are linked to each type of critical area.

Technical assistance providers (e.g. NYCD, SYCD, NRCS, and WSU-Extension) would be available to

go over the checklist with the producers to provide advice and potential funding resources. See

Appendix F. the results of each checklist will be input (with anonymity) into the Technical Assistance

Provider Tracking Tool below.

▪ Technical Assistance Provider Tracking Tool: A Technical Assistance Provider Tracking Tool will be

developed in Survey Monkey based on the goals and benchmarks of this Work Plan and the

Stewardship Checklist following Work Group review and input. It would allow the technical

assistance providers to enter information about conservation practices or enhancement/restoration

projects that are installed voluntarily by VSP participants. Technical assistance providers would enter

information into the cloud-based survey in the field or any location. In this way, multiple technical

assistance providers can enter information, ongoing tracking and regular reporting is possible.

Annually, the results of the tracking tool can be output and provided in a report to the Watershed

Work Group about the extent and type of conservation practices included, and general information

on the basin where the practice is occurring.

▪ Voluntary Stewardship Program (VSP) Adaptive Management Matrix: This matrix is based on an

example provided by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife representative to the

Technical Panel as a form that would ensure tracking of benchmarks, thresholds at which a closer look

would be taken if it appears a benchmark is not being met, responsibilities, and potential funding.

Based on Chapter 7, the adaptive management matrix lists each critical area goal and benchmark,

voluntary enhancement measure, and agricultural viability aim, and identifies more specifically: what





will be measured (performance metric), what results will produce an action (adaptive management

action threshold), responsibilities for monitoring, and frequency of monitoring. Appendix G contains a

matrix. The Work Group is encouraged to review the Adaptive Management Matrix to consider the

number of benchmarks, the level of effort to implement them, and priorities given the likely

constrained resources for implementation.

Exhibit 8-1. Monitoring Program Steps

MONITORING ROLES, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND TIMELINE

As described in Chapter 6, the North and South Yakima Conservation Districts (NYCD/SYCD) are lead

Technical Service providers in their service areas. Administration of work plan monitoring and

implementation will occur under Work Group direction: Compilation of monitoring, and submittal of

reports to Conservation Commission will be the responsibility of the Work Group. RC&D will serve in the

fiscal agent role. Exhibit 8-2. illustrates ongoing, annual, and biennial and five-year activities by the

BCD and other implementers. Details are included in the Adaptive Management Matrix in Appendix G.

▪ Ongoing activities by NYCD/SYCD include conservation practices and voluntary enhancement with

willing landowners and VSP Participation events.

▪ Annually, NYCD/SYCD will evaluate the Tracking Tool statistical output to describe conservation

practices and voluntary enhancement projects entered during the prior year and present it to the

Work Group. Annually, NYCD/SYCD will prepare a report describing VSP implementation based on

1. Participation & Action

•Conservation Practices -Stewardship Checklist

•Voluntary Enhancement

2. Tracking Tool

•Cloud Based

•Technical Provider Enters Conservation Practices & Enhancement Projects

•Annual Output & Review

3. Adaptive Management Matrix

•Measure Goals & Benchmarks

4. Adaptive Management Actions

•If monitoring shows some benchmarks are not being met, identify alternative measures to achieve benchmarks



the technical assistance agreements with willing landowners and any other grants or programs that

implement VSP efforts.

▪ Biennially and every five years, Yakima County would conduct mapping and the Work Group would

commission imagery interpretation, surveys, and convene an expert panel on fish and wildlife

conditions.

Exhibit 8-2. Adaptive Monitoring Matrix

Photo Credits: NYCD, SYCD, BERK Consulting

MONITORING CONTEXT

8.3.1. Monitoring based on Intersect and Watershed Scales

The biennial and five-year monitoring efforts will focus on the intersect of critical areas with agricultural

activities. Monitoring results will be reported at the watershed level. Additionally, adaptive management

thresholds in Appendix G define when a closer look at results would occur based on evaluation results.

Ongoing

•Conservation Practices and Voluntary Enhancement Projects with Willing Landowners

•VSP Participation Events / Activities

Annual Monitoring

Type 1

•Tracking Tool: Conservation Practices and Voluntary Enhancement Projects

•Annual Agency Reports

Biennial and 5-Year MonitoringType 2

•Mapping & Imagery Interpretation

•Producer Survey (Field Sample, Phone, Online)

•Convene Expert Panel (On a Critical Area System)



8.3.2. Areas outside the Scope of VSP Work Plan

Evaluation focuses on the intersect of critical areas with agricultural activities. Monitoring results would be

reported at the watershed level. Additionally, adaptive management thresholds in Appendix G define

when a closer look at results would occur based on evaluation results. Where adaptive management

thresholds are exceeded, the working group will first evaluate whether the changes are a result of

agricultural activities.

Activities that do not fit within the VSP definition for “agricultural activities” or that are outside the scope

and/or jurisdiction of the VSP will generally be excluded and will not be counted against the agricultural

community for VSP monitoring and reporting purposes. Such non-agricultural activities include but are not

limited to catastrophic fires, floods, natural disasters, GMA-regulated conversions, forestry activities

regulated by the Forest Practices Act, changes in eligibility for federal program, changes in federal

program funding contract conditions, technical mapping corrections, mapping errors, changes beyond a

producer’s control, etc.). Similarly, data or reports on mixed resource metrics or parameters affected by

both agricultural and non-agricultural actors and factors will generally be excluded for purposes of

determining compliance with VSP critical area baseline protection requirements or success in meeting

critical area protection and enhancement goals and benchmarks. Mixed-activity resources metrics may

however be useful as trend indicators to help focus VSP enhancement efforts on high priority areas.

As a general approach, the monitoring methods may include collecting information on acres or lineal feet

of a critical area within an intersect as an initial screening approach; however, the goals and benchmarks

are evaluated based on whether a critical area function or value is protected or enhanced.

Agricultural viability aims will be considered during monitoring, though are not formal measurable

benchmarks per Section 7. Regarding agricultural viability, national and international trends in the

market for agricultural products are beyond the control of this Yakima County VSP Work Plan.

8.3.3. Imagery Guiding Principles in Yakima County VSP Work Plan

Available Data

Remote sensing has been described as a potential monitoring tool. Currently available remote sensing

data includes:

▪ LiDAR – a remote sensing method that stands for light detection and ranging, and often used as a

band of multispectral imagery. This is analogous to radar (radio detection and ranging) or sonar

(sound detection and ranging), yet uses light instead to measure distance to an object or surface. A

primary use of LiDAR in the context of change detection is to derive high-resolution digital elevation

models and surface models, which can be used to analyze landscape changes over time. A good

example of this is using LiDAR to analyze river channel changes or erosion over time.

o In 2015, the Washington State Legislature mandated that the Department of Natural

Resources, Washington Geological Survey collect, analyze, and publicly distribute

detailed information about our state’s geology using the best available technology –

LIDAR. New airborne LIDAR collection is underway, starting with areas at higher risk for

landslides that do not already have high-quality LiDAR data. The goal of the project is to



gather high-quality LIDAR data for the whole state. Currently, LiDAR is available for the

Yakima River throughout Yakima County, for a portion of the upper Naches, and for the

Ahtanum area.

▪ National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) - Aerial imagery collected during the agricultural

growing seasons in the continental U.S. A primary goal of the NAIP program is to make digital ortho-

photography available to governmental agencies and the public within a year of acquisition. NAIP is

administered by the USDA's Farm Service Agency (FSA). Since 2011, NAIP has been conducted in

Washington State every two years at the 1 m resolution in RGB and near infrared. Washington

State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) uses the NAIP as the remote sensing element for mapping

agricultural land uses.

▪ National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) - The NWI is the most comprehensive digital coverage of

United States wetlands available and serves as a primary source of wetland mapping data for the

country. However, in Washington, NWI data were produced by interpreting aerial photographs

from the 1970s and early 1980s. NWI mapping in Washington State is nearly 40 years old.

Ecology recently developed a wetland inventory in Western Washington to try to improve the

resolution and accuracy of wetland data. This analysis used NOAA’s Coastal Change Analysis

Program (CCAP), which classifies data at a 30m resolution. This analysis is not yet available for

Eastern Washington.

▪ Yakima County Aerial Imagery – Similar to the NAIP aerial photography, the County collects aerial

imagery on a timescale of approximately every other year. Data are collected at a 1-meter

resolution across the county, with 6-inch resolution in urban areas.

Benefits and Challenges

There are certain benefits and challenges inherent in the use of remote sensing data. A comparison of

benefits and challenges is presented below.

Exhibit 8-3. Benefits and Challenges of Remote Sensing Data

BENEFITS CHALLENGES

Quick and inexpensive to conduct analysis relative to ground-based data collection

Precision and accuracy depend on resolution of data

Consistency in data collection process Potential for misclassification

Appropriate for planning level analysis and watershed characterization

Generally not appropriate for site-scale planning or analysis

Guiding Principles for Imagery Interpretation

This Work Plan includes the following Guiding Principles to ensure imagery interpretation would be

reported at a watershed scale, recognize the voluntary nature of the VSP program, and the privacy

concerns of volunteers and landowners:



▪ Monitoring activities that involve imagery should focus on already-available imagery such as NAIP

and Yakima County’s collected aerial photography.

▪ Monitoring should be reported at the watershed scale, not the parcel scale.

▪ Imagery and its interpretation is one of several tools that can be used for monitoring. Wherever the

adaptive management matrix identifies imagery other forms of monitoring should be noted as

alternatives such as: Technical Provider field visits, conservation practice implementation (tracking

tool), periodic watershed assessments by experts, or other methods.

▪ The Work Group will determine what entities are suited to interpreting the imagery, such as WSU or

other educational or professional bodies. The entity selected should understand the voluntary nature

of the program and produce results at broad basin-wide scales. The entity should not have other

roles in enforcement given the voluntary, basinwide scale of the VSP Work Plan.

▪ Use of drones towards VSP monitoring should only occur if permission is granted by the

producer/property owner to a Technical Provider.

▪ The Work Plan and Adaptive Monitoring Matrix should identify what is counted towards the

agriculture-critical area intersect and what is not. For example, natural events (flood, fire, etc.) may

alter the intersect, and these are not the responsibility of agricultural activities. Regarding

agricultural viability, national and international trends in the market for agricultural products are

beyond the control of the Work Plan.

Potential Information that Imagery or Mapping Interpretation Could Provide

Towards measuring progress on goals and benchmarks in Chapter 7 and Appendix G, the types of

information that mapping or imagery interpretation could provide are shown in the table below. The

intent is to interpret imagery and maps in combination with other monitoring tools such as rapid

watershed assessment or expert panels to provide as complete a picture of critical area functions and

values as possible.

Exhibit 8-4. Use of Imagery/Map Interpretation in Measuring VSP Benchmarks

CRITICAL AREA TYPES OF INFORMATION FROM IMAGERY/MAP INTERPRETATION

Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas

Shrub-Steppe Track:

▪ Composition

o Invasive/native species

o Rock/soils, shrubs, grasses (desirable species)

▪ Cover

o Percent rock/soils, shrubs, grasses (desirable species)

o Percent invasive

▪ Connectivity: acreage of rock/soils, shrubs, grasses (desirable species)

▪ Recognize natural variability



CRITICAL AREA TYPES OF INFORMATION FROM IMAGERY/MAP INTERPRETATION

Riparian Track cover.

See also wetlands below.

Wetlands Wetland Change Analysis, underway by Ecology. Consider if/when

available. Acknowledge the coarse scale. Specific functions could be

challenging to measure, particularly in forested areas.

Floodplains Use available LIDAR as a tool in the future, or changes in FEMA mapping.

Consider:

▪ Where is floodplain disconnection occurring as a result of agricultural activity?

▪ Where is water table present?

Pending available LiDAR or improved FEMA mapping, identify where

disconnection is occurring as a result of agricultural activities through

Technical Provider interface with interested producers, and use of Checklist

and Tracking Tool. Example questions:

▪ Are there measures that disconnect river from farm? Including roads?

▪ Do you experience flooding?

▪ Is flooding compatible with agricultural operations?

Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas ▪ Track cover. Cover helps with water quality.

▪ Acres implementing groundwater management practices.

Match with Tracking Tool and Technical Provider review.

▪ Five percent sampling of completed plans (e.g. producers implementing Groundwater Management Acre toolkit) – what percent are meeting objectives?

Geologic Hazards ▪ Track cover in geologic hazard areas.

Match with Tracking Tool and Technical Provider review.

▪ Example conservation practices: See Appendix F Checklist for Soil Health and Erosion Control measures.

▪ Promote proper location of farm ponds/detention particularly for those not addressed by regulatory backstop.

8.3.4. Interpretation Scenarios

This section describes how critical area and agricultural conditions may change overtime, and how the

Work Group would go about interpreting whether benchmarks are met.

Scenario 1: Loss of Shrub-Steppe Intersect Due to Fire

▪ 22,000 acres of intersect with rangeland lost due to fire from non-agricultural activity

▪ Exceeds adaptive management threshold of 2.5%

▪ Critical area, while damaged, is still considered part of baseline as of 2011. Describe loss as

unrelated to agriculture – does not count against benchmark.



▪ Technical providers work with affected producers to address options for rangeland operations and

shrub-steppe recovery.

Scenario 2: Acquisition of Shrub-Steppe by Entities

▪ Entity acquires 5,000 acres of shrub-steppe currently in rangeland use.

▪ Reduces rangeland acreage compared to baseline (i.e. no longer in intersect), unless agency allows

public/private grazing.

▪ Consider contributing to enhancement benchmark particularly if agency intends to address shrub-

steppe composition, cover, or connectivity.

Scenario 3: Loss of Shrub-Steppe Due to Conversion

▪ 500 acres converted from shrub-steppe in rangeland to irrigated farmland in Rock Glade WRIA.

▪ Loss is greater than 2.5% threshold as measured at watershed scale.

▪ Work Group directs Technical Providers to seek willing landowners in Rock Glade to conduct

enhancement in areas of intersect (e.g. enhance connectivity or remove invasive species in cover) to

avoid losses compared to 2011 baseline.

8.3.5. Priority Implementation

The Wenas Creek sub-basin was highlighted as a priority basin in the County’s nominating resolution (see

Section 2.2). The VSP law provided a means for the Conservation Commission to assign funding to priority

basins if there was not full funding for all watersheds:

RCW 36.70A.720 (4) The commission may provide priority funding to any watershed designated

under the provisions of RCW 36.70A.705(2)(g). The director, in consultation with the statewide

advisory committee, shall work with the watershed group to develop an accelerated implementation

schedule for watersheds that receive priority funding.

As of the date of this Work Plan, the State Legislature has provided full funding requested, and the

Conservation Commission does not need to prioritize funding.

Section 7.2 identifies participation objectives that illustrate an approach to reaching out to producers and

promoting participation to meet goals and benchmarks to protect critical area functions and values and

support agricultural viability. While the State Legislature has met the Conservation Commission’s funding

requests for the 2017-2019 biennium, funding resources for technical service providers remain limited,

and future Work Plan funding is not guaranteed. Therefore, this Work Plan prioritizes implementation

efforts in Section 7.2. The prioritization considers geographic locations, similarities of conservation issues

and threats, ongoing conservation activities, interest by producers, and leveraging other entity initiatives.


August2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Plan Approval Process and Timeline 113

9.0 Plan Approval Process and Timeline

The Conservation Commission Director must approve the Work Plan within 3 years of funding or the county must

comply with the non-VSP (regulatory) critical area protection requirements of RCW 36.70A.735. See Exhibit.

The Work Group submits the VSP Work Plan to the Conservation Commission Director, who gives it to the

Technical Panel for review. (RCW 36.70A.720 (2)(a)) The Technical Panel has 45 days to make a recommendation.

If the Technical Panel says the Work Plan doesn’t pass the statutory Work Plan Approval test, the Work Group

must modify and resubmit the Work Plan.

If the Conservation Commission Director does not approve the Work Plan within 2 years and 9 months of the

county’s receipt of funding, the Director must submit the Work Plan to the Statewide Advisory Committee for

resolution. If the Statewide Advisory Committee has final say. If the Statewide Advisory Committee recommends

Work Plan approval, the Conservation Commission Director must approve it.

Exhibit 9-1. VSP Work Plan Preparation, Approval, and Monitoring Timeline

ACTION TIMELINE

1. Receipt of funding to create a VSP Watershed Work Plan. January 2016

1. Prepare a watershed work plan within 2 years and 7.5 months after the receipt of

funding. (2 years 9 months, minus 45-day review period).

August 2018 per statute

2. Approval of Work Plan. Director of the State Conservation Commission and

technical panel (see RCW 36.70A.735) approves work plan within two years and

nine months after receipt of funding

- technical panel has 45 days to review and provide response to Director.

October 2018 if plan

approved

If no agreement in 2 years 9 months, work plan is sent to the Statewide Advisory Committee made up of representatives of environmental, agricultural, local governmental, and tribal agencies and stakeholders.

If no agreement in 3 years, the work plan does not go into effect and an alternative regulatory path must be selected. See RCW 36.70A.735 for alternative paths.

3. Conduct periodic evaluations, institute adaptive management, and provide a

written report of the status of plans and accomplishments to the county and to the

commission within sixty days after the end of each biennium.

August 2019, 2021, 2023

et seq.

4. Report on whether goals and benchmarks have been met in 5 years after receipt

of funding, and also at the ten-year mark and every 5 years after that.

January 2021

January 2026

5. Adaptive management or additional voluntary actions and funding may need to

be identified if goals and benchmarks are not met.

ongoing after Jan. 2026

Source: RCW 36.70A.700-760; BERK Consulting 2017


August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Definitions 114

10.0 Definitions

This section defines common terms in this Work Program. See also Appendix B for detailed definitions

and mapping criteria for critical areas.

Agricultural Activities is defined in the legislation for the Voluntary Stewardship Program as follows:

"Agricultural activities" means all agricultural uses and practices as defined in RCW 90.58.065."

RCW 90.58.065 (2) (a) "Agricultural activities" means agricultural uses and practices including, but

not limited to: Producing, breeding, or increasing agricultural products; rotating and changing

agricultural crops; allowing land used for agricultural activities to lie fallow in which it is plowed and

tilled but left unseeded; allowing land used for agricultural activities to lie dormant as a result of

adverse agricultural market conditions; allowing land used for agricultural activities to lie dormant

because the land is enrolled in a local, state, or federal conservation program, or the land is subject

to a conservation easement; conducting agricultural operations; maintaining, repairing, and replacing

agricultural equipment; maintaining, repairing, and replacing agricultural facilities, provided that the

replacement facility is no closer to the shoreline than the original facility; and maintaining agricultural

lands under production or cultivation;

(b) "Agricultural products" includes but is not limited to horticultural, viticultural, floricultural,

vegetable, fruit, berry, grain, hops, hay, straw, turf, sod, seed, and apiary products; feed or forage

for livestock; Christmas trees; hybrid cottonwood and similar hardwood trees grown as crops and

harvested within twenty years of planting; and livestock including both the animals themselves and

animal products including but not limited to meat, upland finfish, poultry and poultry products, and

dairy products;

(c) "Agricultural equipment" and "agricultural facilities" includes, but is not limited to: (i) The

following used in agricultural operations: Equipment; machinery; constructed shelters, buildings, and

ponds; fences; upland finfish rearing facilities; water diversion, withdrawal, conveyance, and use

equipment and facilities including but not limited to pumps, pipes, tapes, canals, ditches, and drains;

(ii) corridors and facilities for transporting personnel, livestock, and equipment to, from, and within

agricultural lands; (iii) farm residences and associated equipment, lands, and facilities; and (iv)

roadside stands and on-farm markets for marketing fruit or vegetables; and

(d) "Agricultural land" means those specific land areas on which agriculture activities are conducted.

Agricultural viability can be defined as the ability of a farmer or group of farmers to:

▪ Productively farm on a given piece of land or in a specific area,

▪ Maintain an economically viable farm business,

▪ Keep the land in agriculture long-term, and

http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=90.58.065


August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Definitions 115

▪ Steward the land so it will remain productive into the future.57

Critical areas include the following areas and ecosystems: (a) Wetlands; (b) areas with a critical

recharging effect on aquifers used for potable water; (c) fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas; (d)

frequently flooded areas; and (e) geologically hazardous areas. "Fish and wildlife habitat conservation

areas" does not include such artificial features or constructs as irrigation delivery systems, irrigation

infrastructure, irrigation canals, or drainage ditches that lie within the boundaries of and are maintained

by a port district or an irrigation district or company. RCW 36.70A.030(5)

Note: See Appendix B for definitions of each critical area and mapping criteria.

Enhance is defined in the legislation for the Voluntary Stewardship Program as follows:

“enhance” means “to improve the processes, structure, and functions existing, as of July 22, 2011, of

ecosystems and habitats associated with critical areas.” RCW 36.70A.703

Functions and Values is not a phrase defined in GMA itself, but is defined in various State rules (WAC

365-196-830(6)) and scientific and professional literature. State rules that implement GMA indicate that

functions are “the conditions and processes that support the ecosystem.” The conditions and processes

referenced in the definition can “operate on varying geographic scales ranging from site-specific to

watershed and even regional scales.” Wetland protection guidance (see attachment) offers a definition

of values that can be generalized to other critical areas: “wetland processes, characteristics, or attributes

that are considered to benefit society.” Some values of critical areas could be promoted in the Work Plan

as a way to promote participation, e.g. water quality as benefiting agricultural operators and the

community more broadly.

Protect is defined in the legislation for the Voluntary Stewardship Program as follows:

“Protect" or "protecting" means to prevent the degradation of functions and values existing as of

July 22, 2011.

57 The Washington Conservation Commission indicates in its Agricultural Viability Toolkit: This definition was originally found in the

“Farming in the Floodplain Project: Existing Conditions Report”, August 2016, Environmental Services Associate.

Documents

Yakima County Proposed VSP Work Plan