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
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
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
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
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
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
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
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
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
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
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
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
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
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Introduction 2
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
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Introduction 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;
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Introduction 4
(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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Introduction 5
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.)
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Introduction 6
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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
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
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | County Profile 8
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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | County Profile 9
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
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | County Profile 10
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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | County Profile 11
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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | County Profile 12
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
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | County Profile 13
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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | County Profile 14
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/
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | County Profile 15
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
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | County Profile 16
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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | County Profile 17
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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | County Profile 18
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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | County Profile 19
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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | County Profile 20
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
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | County Profile 21
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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | County Profile 22
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
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Agriculture in Yakima County 24
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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Agriculture in Yakima County 25
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
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Agriculture in Yakima County 26
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
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Agriculture in Yakima County 27
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
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Agriculture in Yakima County 28
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
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Agriculture in Yakima County 29
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
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Agriculture in Yakima County 30
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
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Agriculture in Yakima County 31
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
34 http://www.sycd.us/home
35 https://northyakimacd.wordpress.com/projects-and-program/irrigation-efficiency-program/
36 http://www.sycd.us/home
37 http://www.sycd.us/home
South Yakima Conservation District, Soil
Moisture Data Logger
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Agriculture in Yakima County 32
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
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Agriculture in Yakima County 33
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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Agriculture in Yakima County 34
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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Agriculture in Yakima County 35
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
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
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).
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Background Information, Other Plans, and Regulations 37
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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Background Information, Other Plans, and Regulations 38
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
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Background Information, Other Plans, and Regulations 39
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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Background Information, Other Plans, and Regulations 40
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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Background Information, Other Plans, and Regulations 41
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
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Background Information, Other Plans, and Regulations 42
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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Background Information, Other Plans, and Regulations 43
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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Background Information, Other Plans, and Regulations 44
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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
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
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Baseline Conditions 46
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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Baseline Conditions 47
Exhibit 5-2. Agricultural Additions (Yellow) and Deletions (Red) 2011-2016
Source: WSDA 2011 and 2016, BERK 2017
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Baseline Conditions 48
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
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Baseline Conditions 49
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%
Frequently Flooded Areas
100 Year Floodplain 14,776 4.1% 13,786 1.9%
Geologically Hazardous Areas
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%
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas
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
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Baseline Conditions 50
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
See Appendix B for Map Sources, BERK Consulting 2016
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%
See Appendix B for Map Sources, BERK Consulting 2016
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Baseline Conditions 51
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%
See Appendix B for Map Sources, BERK Consulting 2016
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%
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Baseline Conditions 52
RANGELAND & PHS INTERSECTION
ACRES % HABITAT / SPECIES
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
See Appendix B for Map Sources, BERK Consulting 2016
Exhibit 5-9. Priority Habitats and Species – Intersection with Agricultural Land
AGRICULTURE & PRIORITY HABITATS AND SPECIES
INTERSECTION
ACRES % HABITAT / SPECIES
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
See Appendix B for Map Sources, BERK Consulting 2016
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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Baseline Conditions 53
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%
See Appendix B for Map Sources, BERK Consulting 2016
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%
See Appendix B for Map Sources, BERK Consulting 2016
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
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Baseline Conditions 54
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
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Baseline Conditions 55
Exhibit 5-13. Dams and Fish Passage Barriers: Private, and Unknown Ownerships
WATERSHED / STREAM / FISH USE
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
WATERSHED / STREAM / FISH USE
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
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Baseline Conditions 56
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
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas and Wetlands
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 - - - -
Frequently Flooded Areas
100 Year Floodplain - - 2,100 52%
Geologically Hazardous Areas
Erodible Soils - - 229
5.6%
Landslides, Steep Slopes, Other (Alluvial Fan)
- - 1,551 38%
Channel Migration Zone - - - -
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas
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.
See Appendix B for Map Sources, BERK Consulting 2016
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Baseline Conditions 57
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
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas and Wetlands
Hydrologic Study Areas – 100 feet from Perennial Streams, Lakes, Wetlands*
0.01- 1.5% 2,977 17.8%
Water Quality Impacted Waterbodies (303d)
- - - -
Priority Habitats and Species (All Types, State Def)
0.43 100% 165 1.0%
Primarily Mule and Black-Tailed Deer 64%, Talus Slopes 29%, Mountain Goat 7%
Wetlands
Wetlands - - 429 2.6%
Frequently Flooded Areas
100 Year Floodplain - - - -
Geologically Hazardous Areas
Erodible Soils - - 7,295 44%
Landslides, Steep Slopes, Other (Alluvial Fan)
- - 1,631 10%
Channel Migration Zone - - - -
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas
Susceptibility Areas: Moderate to Extreme
- - 812 4.9%
Potential Wellhead Protection Zone (1,000 Ft)
- - - -
Surficial Alluvial Geology 0.43 100% 1,089 6.5%
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.
See Appendix B for Map Sources, BERK Consulting 2016
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Baseline Conditions 58
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
CRITICAL AREA 2016 AGRICULTURAL
ACRES INTERSECTING
PERCENT
INTERSECT
2015
RANGELAND
ACRES
INTERSECTING
PERCENT
INTERSECT
Total Acres 286,419 259,387
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas and Wetlands
Hydrologic Study Areas – 100 feet from Perennial Streams, Lakes, Wetlands*
8,667 3.0% 18,739 7.2%
Water Quality Impacted Waterbodies (303d)
102 0.04% 147 0.06%
Priority Habitats and Species (All Types, State Def)
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%
Frequently Flooded Areas
100 Year Floodplain 12,234 4.3% 6,458 2.5%
Geologically Hazardous Areas
Erodible Soils 48,950 17% 173,803 67%
Landslides, Steep Slopes, Other (Alluvial Fan)
16,668 5.8% 125,436 48%
Channel Migration Zone 2,770 1.0% 4,183 1.6%
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas
Susceptibility Areas: Moderate to Extreme
249,316 87% 107,660 42%
Potential Wellhead Protection Zone (1,000 Ft)
7,768 2.7% 1,290 0.50%
Surficial Alluvial Geology 82,618 29% 28,298 11%
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.
See Appendix B for Map Sources, BERK Consulting 2016
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Baseline Conditions 59
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
CRITICAL AREA 2016 AGRICULTURAL
ACRES INTERSECTING
PERCENT
INTERSECT
2015
RANGELAND
ACRES
INTERSECTING
PERCENT
INTERSECT
Total Acres 20,957 316,501
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas and Wetlands
Hydrologic Study Areas – 100 feet from Perennial Streams, Lakes, Wetlands*
306 1.5% 38,126 12.0%
Water Quality Impacted Waterbodies (303d)
15 0.07% 150 0.05%
Priority Habitats and Species (All Types, State Def)
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%
Frequently Flooded Areas
100 Year Floodplain 644 3.1% 4,392 1.4%
Geologically Hazardous Areas
Erodible Soils 6,729 32% 235,635 74%
Landslides, Steep Slopes, Other (Alluvial Fan)
492 2.3% 128,870 41%
Channel Migration Zone 74 0.35% 2,163 0.68%
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas
Susceptibility Areas: Moderate to Extreme
20,480 98% 65,481 21%
Potential Wellhead Protection Zone (1,000 Ft)
2,010 10% 2,864 0.90%
Surficial Alluvial Geology 4,720 22% 12,673 4.0%
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.
See Appendix B for Map Sources, BERK Consulting 2016
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Baseline Conditions 60
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
CRITICAL AREA 2016 AGRICULTURAL
ACRES INTERSECTING
PERCENT
INTERSECT
2015
RANGELAND
ACRES
INTERSECTING
PERCENT
INTERSECT
Total Acres 43,673 19,607
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas and Wetlands
Hydrologic Study Areas – 100 feet from Perennial Streams, Lakes, Wetlands*
38 0.086% 524 2.67%
Water Quality Impacted Waterbodies (303d)
-
-
-
-
Priority Habitats and Species (All Types, State Def)
501 1.1% 10,626 54%
Primarily Shrub-Steppe 100%
Wetlands
Wetlands - - 3 0.02%
Frequently Flooded Areas
100 Year Floodplain - - - -
Geologically Hazardous Areas
Erodible Soils 17,840 41% 13,877 71%
Landslides, Steep Slopes, Other (Alluvial Fan)
1,107 2.5% 6,042 31%
Channel Migration Zone - - - -
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas
Susceptibility Areas: Moderate to Extreme
48 0.11% 414 2.1%
Potential Wellhead Protection Zone (1,000 Ft)
- - - -
Surficial Alluvial Geology 27 0.06% 512 2.6%
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.
See Appendix B for Map Sources, BERK Consulting 2016
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Baseline Conditions 61
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
CRITICAL AREA 2016 AGRICULTURAL
ACRES INTERSECTING
PERCENT
INTERSECT
2015 RANGELAND
ACRES INTERSECTING
PERCENT
INTERSECT
Total Acres 11,186 104,915
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas and Wetlands
Hydrologic Study Areas – 100 feet from Perennial Streams, Lakes, Wetlands*
898 8.0% 7,396 7.0%
Water Quality Impacted Waterbodies (303d)
5.1 0.05% 38 0.04%
Priority Habitats and Species (All Types, State Def)
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%
Frequently Flooded Areas
100 Year Floodplain 1,898 17% 836 0.80%
Geologically Hazardous Areas
Erodible Soils 2,687 24% 69,353 66%
Landslides, Steep Slopes, Other (Alluvial Fan)
847 7.6% 24,325 23%
Channel Migration Zone 308 2.8% 123 0.12%
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas
Susceptibility Areas: Moderate to Extreme
6,035 54% 10,548 10%
Potential Wellhead Protection Zone (1,000 Ft)
1,219 11% 695 0.66%
Surficial Alluvial Geology 4,320 39% 7,320 7.0%
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.
See Appendix B for Map Sources, BERK Consulting 2016
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Baseline Conditions 62
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
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas and Wetlands
Hydrologic Study Areas – 100 feet from Perennial Streams, Lakes, Wetlands*
5,708 4.3% 3,643 14.9%
Water Quality Impacted Waterbodies (303d)
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%
Frequently Flooded Areas
100 Year Floodplain 8,466 6.3% 1,216 5.0%
Geologically Hazardous Areas
Erodible Soils 4,889 3.7% 985 4.0%
Landslides, Steep Slopes, Other (Alluvial Fan)
2,975 2.2% 4,747 19.5%
Channel Migration Zone 2,142 1.6% 556 2.3%
Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas
Susceptibility Areas: Moderate to Extreme
120,000 89.9% 9,586 39.3%
Potential Wellhead Protection Zone (1,000 Ft)
1,598 1.2% 194 0.8%
Surficial Alluvial Geology 51,505 38.6% 9,834 40.3%
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.
See Appendix B for Map Sources, BERK Consulting 2017
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Baseline Conditions 63
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
EQIP 2008 2011 Sign Up Year 2012 Planned Year
Agriculture Energy Management Plan - Written 8
Cover Crop 2
Forest Slash Treatment 1
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Baseline Conditions 64
Program Range of Practices # Of Contracts
Forest Stand Improvement 1
Irrigation System, Microirrigation 1
Irrigation System, Sprinkler 22
Irrigation Water Conveyance 21
Irrigation Water Management 10
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
EQIP 2008 2011 Sign Up Year 2013 Planned Year
Agriculture Energy Management Plan - Written 1
Cover Crop 2
Irrigation Water Management 9
Nutrient Management 1
Pest Management 2
Restoration and Management of Rare and Declining Habitats 1
Total 16
EQIP 2008 2011 Sign Up Year 2014 Planned Year
Irrigation Water Management 4
Total 4
EQIP 2008 2012 Sign Up Year 2012 Planned Year
Agriculture Energy Management Plan - Written 1
Pest Management 1
Restoration and Management of Rare and Declining Habitats 1
Total 3
EQIP 2008 2012 Sign Up Year 2013 Planned Year
Agriculture Energy Management Plan - Written 1
Forest Stand Improvement 1
Irrigation System, Microirrigation 3
Irrigation System, Sprinkler 11
Irrigation Water Conveyance 14
Irrigation Water Management 5
Pest Management 3
Pumping Plant 12
Residue and Tollage Management, No-Till/Strip Till/ Direct Seed 1
Restoration and Management of Rare and Declining Habitats 2
Seasonal High Tunnel System for Crops 1
Structure for Water Control 2
Total 56
EQIP 2008 2012 Sign Up Year 2014 Planned Year
Forest Stand Improvement 1
Irrigation Water Management 3
Pest Management 2
Residue and Tollage Management, No-Till/Strip Till/ Direct Seed 1
Total 7
EQIP 2008 2012 Sign Up Year 2015 Planned Year
Irrigation Water Management 3
Pest Management 2
Residue and Tollage Management, No-Till/Strip Till/ Direct Seed 1
Total 6
EQIP 2008 2013 Sign Up Year 2014 Planned Year
Agriculture Energy Management Plan, Landscape - Written 5
Agriculture Energy Management Plan - Written 3
Heavy Use Area Protection 1
Irrigation System, Microirrigation 2
Irrigation System, Sprinkler 11
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Baseline Conditions 65
Program Range of Practices # Of Contracts
Irrigation Water Conveyance 15
Irrigation Water Management 1
Nutrient Management 1
Pipeline 1
Pumping Plant 13
Seasonal High Tunnel System for Crops 2
Structure for Water Control 1
Watering Facility 1
Total 56
EQIP 2008 2013 Sign Up Year 2015 Planned Year
Irrigation System, Microirrigation 1
Irrigation System, Sprinkler 2
Irrigation Water Conveyance 3
Irrigation Water Management 1
Nutrient Management 1
Total 8
EQIP 2008 2013 Sign up Year 2016 Planned Year
Nutrient Management 1
Total 1
EQIP 2014 2014 Sign Up Year 2015 Planned Year
Irrigation System, Microirrigation 3
Irrigation System, Sprinkler 7
Irrigation Water Conveyance 7
Pumping Plant 6
Structure for Water Control 2
Total 25
EQIP 2014 2015 Sign Up Year 2016 Planned Year
Irrigation System, Microirrigation 3
Irrigation Water Conveyance 3
Pumping Plant 1
Seasonal High Tunnel System for Crops 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
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Baseline Conditions 66
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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Baseline Conditions 67
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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Baseline Conditions 68
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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Baseline Conditions 69
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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Baseline Conditions 70
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/.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Technical Assistance 72
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
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Technical Assistance 73
TECHNICAL SERVICE PROVIDER
PROJECTS & PROGRAMS DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES OR VSP ROLE
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
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Technical Assistance 74
TECHNICAL SERVICE PROVIDER
PROJECTS & PROGRAMS DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES OR VSP ROLE
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/
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Technical Assistance 75
TECHNICAL SERVICE PROVIDER
PROJECTS & PROGRAMS DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES OR VSP ROLE
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
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Goals, Benchmarks, and Performance Metrics 78
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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Goals, Benchmarks, and Performance Metrics 79
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:
▪ 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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Goals, Benchmarks, and Performance Metrics 80
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:
▪ 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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Goals, Benchmarks, and Performance Metrics 81
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:
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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Goals, Benchmarks, and Performance Metrics 82
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:
▪ 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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Goals, Benchmarks, and Performance Metrics 83
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:
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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Goals, Benchmarks, and Performance Metrics 84
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:
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-
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Goals, Benchmarks, and Performance Metrics 85
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:
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%
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Goals, Benchmarks, and Performance Metrics 86
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:
producers, leases, easements, or acquisitions to retain connectivity. Tools that retain taxable land area are preferred.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Goals, Benchmarks, and Performance Metrics 87
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:
▪ 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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Goals, Benchmarks, and Performance Metrics 88
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:
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
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Goals, Benchmarks, and Performance Metrics 89
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
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.
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).
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Goals, Benchmarks, and Performance Metrics 90
Critical Area Enhancement Goal
Critical Area Enhancement Benchmark
Performance Metric
(Implementation)
Performance Metric
(Resource measurement)
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.
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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Goals, Benchmarks, and Performance Metrics 91
Critical Area Enhancement Goal
Critical Area Enhancement Benchmark
Performance Metric
(Implementation)
Performance Metric
(Resource measurement)
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.
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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Goals, Benchmarks, and Performance Metrics 92
Critical Area Enhancement Goal
Critical Area Enhancement Benchmark
Performance Metric
(Implementation)
Performance Metric
(Resource measurement)
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.
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).
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Goals, Benchmarks, and Performance Metrics 93
Critical Area Enhancement Goal
Critical Area Enhancement Benchmark
Performance Metric
(Implementation)
Performance Metric
(Resource measurement)
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.
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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Goals, Benchmarks, and Performance Metrics 94
Critical Area Enhancement Goal
Critical Area Enhancement Benchmark
Performance Metric
(Implementation)
Performance Metric
(Resource measurement)
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.
At watershed scale:
vegetation, irrigation efficiencies).
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Goals, Benchmarks, and Performance Metrics 96
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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Goals, Benchmarks, and Performance Metrics 97
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
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Goals, Benchmarks, and Performance Metrics 98
WRIA TYPE PROPERTY COUNT ACRES
NonIrrigated 258 46,290
Rangeland 144 17,053
Rock - Glade Total 405 64,114
Upper Yakima Irrigated 846 10,902
NonIrrigated 163 1,154
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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Goals, Benchmarks, and Performance Metrics 99
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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Goals, Benchmarks, and Performance Metrics 100
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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Goals, Benchmarks, and Performance Metrics 101
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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Goals, Benchmarks, and Performance Metrics 102
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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Goals, Benchmarks, and Performance Metrics 103
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 .
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Monitoring, Reporting, and Adaptive Management 105
(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
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Monitoring, Reporting, and Adaptive Management 106
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
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Monitoring, Reporting, and Adaptive Management 107
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)
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Monitoring, Reporting, and Adaptive Management 108
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
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Monitoring, Reporting, and Adaptive Management 109
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:
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Monitoring, Reporting, and Adaptive Management 110
▪ 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
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Monitoring, Reporting, and Adaptive Management 111
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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
August 2017 Yakima County VSP Work Plan | Monitoring, Reporting, and Adaptive Management 112
▪ 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.
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
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
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
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
YAKIMA COUNTY VOLUNTARY STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
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.