Agriculture

Tag: Agriculture

Settlement agreement tackles water pollution caused by farming practices

As part of a legal settlement, state officials have agreed to develop “best management practices” for agricultural operations, while encouraging Washington farmers to take actions to improve water quality in streams and bays.
The agreement, which includes provisions for stream buffers, was approved by the Washington Department of Ecology and the federal Environmental Protection Agency. Signed by a judge, the agreement effectively ends a four-year lawsuit brought by Northwest Environmental Advocates, which accused the agencies of violating the federal Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act.
The lawsuit alleged that the EPA improperly approved the Department of Ecology’s 2015 plan for reducing nonpoint pollution (PDF 4mb) from ubiquitous sources. Because nonpoint pollution does not flow through regulated discharge pipes, cleanup actions involve reducing contaminants that wash off forests, farms and developed areas. Nonpoint pollution is one of the great challenges for Puget Sound recovery, according to experts.
Under the agreement, Ecology must develop a new plan by the end of next year that describes actions for reducing nonpoint pollution not included in the 2015 plan. The new plan, which was already in the works, will include “best management practices” (BMPs) for agriculture, providing assurance that a farm will generally meet state water-quality standards if specific voluntary actions are taken.
Among the ideas are methods of managing livestock wastes, along with maintaining or increasing vegetative buffers along streams that pass through forests and farms.
“The order in this case includes a combination of commitments by federal and state agencies to ensure that Washington identifies how wide and how tall streamside buffers must be to protect salmon from extinction,” said Nina Bell, executive director for NWEA.
The agreement requires Ecology to complete the first five chapters of a guidance document called “Voluntary Clean Water Guidance for Agriculture,” including a section on buffers, in the 2022 plan. The remaining eight chapters must be finished by the end of 2025.
Ben Rau, supervisor for watershed planning at Ecology, said the BMP guidance is being developed with help from an advisory group that has completed the first chapter on tillage and related crop issues. Go to the guidance website for details.
The section on buffers will be based on scientific studies that show how certain buffer widths and specific vegetation types can reduce sediment going into nearby streams and otherwise maintain healthy water conditions, Rau said. Buffers are just one measure among a “suite” of actions that together will help protect salmon and other aquatic species from harmful activities involving agriculture.
The BMPs will be promoted as a good way for farmers to protect water quality, Rau said. Eventually, the new buffers will become a minimal requirement for farm owners seeking government grants to improve water quality and make their property more salmon-friendly. Current buffer requirements for grants are based on an analysis outlined in a 2012 matrix and a 2013 letter from the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Agricultural BMPs may also come into play as part of an enforcement action by state or local water-quality inspectors. For example, based on stream surveys or citizen complaints, authorities might identify an area of a stream with high levels of bacteria. As part of the cleanup effort, it could be presumed that a farm owner would not need to take further corrective actions if the farm complied with approved BMPs, according to Rau.
The legal agreement also calls for agricultural BMPs to be incorporated into formal watershed-cleanup plans where a watershed includes farming areas. Such plans identify sources of pollution as well as specific measures designed to bring a waterbody into compliance with state water-quality standards. Such plans are often called TMDLs because they establish pollution limits known as “total maximum daily loads.”
The pace of cleanup for Washington’s waterways using TMDLs has been an issue of contention for more than 30 years. A legal action related to watershed cleanups was launched by NWEA in 1991 and renewed in 2019. The lawsuit (PDF 312 kb), which involves Ecology and the EPA, demands that polluted waters in Washington be formally identified and that Ecology increase its efforts to clean up polluted waters through TMDL planning. Beyond planning, there is a recognized need to find ways to get parties identified in the plan to carry out the actions needed to improve water quality.
The recent settlement related to agricultural BMPs raised concerns from the Washington Cattlemen’s Association and the Washington State Farm Bureau Federation, which were allowed to join the case. See their joint comment letter.
The settlement, they argue, could result in requirements for farmers to install nonpoint controls that are “more costly and possibly technically or economically infeasible.” Another problem, they say, has been the failure of the state and federal governments to include the groups in a conversation over BMPs that could affect their very existence.
“At this time, the associations do not intend to formally object to the settlement, if adopted,” their letter states. “However, the associations remain very concerned about implementation of the agreement and whether the water-quality standards to be further developed pursuant to the agreement will be based on sound science and include meaningful consideration to agriculture and the benefits of agriculture to society.”
In one section of its 2015 plan, the Department of Ecology acknowledges its unique statutory limitations when enforcing water-quality laws with respect to certain farming practices that fall under the authority of the Washington Department of Agriculture.
Those limitations plus a perceived reluctance to force farmers to improve water quality in agricultural regions has led to ongoing frustrations by some Native American tribes and environmental groups in Washington state. Check out “Agricultural Pollution in Puget Sound: Inspiration to Change Washington’s Reliance on Voluntary Incentive Programs to Save Salmon” (PDF 3.3 mb) by the Western Environmental Law Center.
While agriculture is a major focus of the recent legal settlement, the updated state plan must address all forms of nonpoint pollution, including that from forests, septic systems and developed areas.
Commercial forestlands, for example, are deemed to meet water-quality standards for the most part, provided that landowners comply with regulations under the state’s Forest Practices Act, Rau said. For years, forestland owners have cooperated in ongoing studies and negotiated with state and federal agencies, tribes and environmental groups to develop rules to protect salmon and water quality.
Through the years, a process of “adaptive management” has identified a need for rule changes, he noted. For example, areas where forest buffers may need to be increased in size are along smaller streams not likely to be used by salmon. With current buffers of minimal width, researchers have found an increase in water temperature due to a lack of shade. Those higher temperatures can affect salmon in downstream waters suitable for spawning.
For a discussion of nonpoint issues in our forests, review Ecology’s page on Forestry runoff, including the 2009 Clean Water Act Assurances Review by Ecology as well as the two-year extension granted in 2019 (PDF 583 KB).
After the next nonpoint plan is completed, the settlement agreement requires the EPA to submit the document to other federal agencies for review to make sure the result is protective of threatened and endangered species. For salmon and marine species, the National Marine Fisheries Service is in charge, while freshwater species are under the authority of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Ecology planners have been working steadily to complete the next nonpoint plan under self-imposed deadlines, but Rau acknowledges that the settlement agreement provides legally based time limits. Barring unforeseen circumstances, the next plan must be done by the end of 2022, followed by another update in 2025.
———-
Editor’s note: This article was produced with funds provided by a grant from the Environmental Protection Agency.

Riparian buffers are strips of trees and shrubs along stream sides. They filter nutrients and chemicals, shade and protect the stream, and provide habitat for birds, insects and fish. Photo courtesy of USDA.

Do financial incentives motivate farmers to conserve land?

Occasionally, this space includes reports and essays from guest writers on the subject of Puget Sound ecosystem recovery. Today’s guest blog is from Mollie Chapman, who received funding from the Puget Sound Institute in 2013 to study how financial incentives influence decisions by farmers to conserve ecologically important land.
By Mollie Chapman
Would you undertake conservation practices on your land when offered financial incentives? New research shows that financial incentives facilitate, but rarely motivate farmers. Instead, their values and relationships were key.
Sustainable food systems require the involvement of those who grow and raise our food. Yet many conservation programs struggle to recruit farmers, even when financial incentives are offered.
One such program is in Washington State’s Puget Sound region, where I was asked to help program mangers understand how to better recruit farmers. When I interviewed farmers[1]  many told me of their frustration. The program paid the farmers to convert some of their streamside land to habitat—what are called riparian buffers. Yet once the trees and shrubs were planted, farmers were instructed not to touch the new riparian buffer habitat.
The idea of leaving nature alone is common in the conservation and outdoor worlds. For example, wilderness areas often ask visitors to, “leave only footprints, take only photos.” But agricultural movements have a very different rallying cry, to keep their “hands in the dirt.” Being a good farmer means taking care of your land—and that requires getting your hands dirty.
 
(Above: Two very different ways of interacting with the land. Left: a lone hiker admires the view of the wilderness. Right: a farmer tends his potatoes with hands in the dirt.)
In our paper we analyzed several of these value conflicts between participants and programs. We based our analysis on relational values. Relational values offer a new way of thinking about values, or what matters to us and why. Most discussions of environmental values focus on the dollar value of something (instrumental value), or on its value based on moral standing (intrinsic value). We propose a third option. Environmental values are based on the relationships people have with specific places, landscapes, rivers, plants, animals or other parts of the natural world.
 
Fig. 1. Key relationships help to understand what matters. Farmers value their relationship to their land (1) and to their community (2). The farming community values its relationship to the landscape (3).
Fig. 1. Key relationships help to understand what matters. Farmers value their relationship to their land (1) and to their community (2). The farming community values its relationship to the landscape (3).
I explained this conflict between farmers’ values and the program’s no touch rule to the new program leader. My analysis aligned with his own intuitive experience.
A year later we spoke again. He had instructed his staff to start talking about the program using different language. Instead of describing the riparian buffers as “no touch” farmers were now told that they were growing a different kind of crop—a buffer crop.
In our paper we identify the relationships that are important to farmers. We show how these relationships form the basis for relational values. Finally, we describe how relational values conflicted with rules or language used by the incentive program. The table below shows some of the relational values that conflicted with the ‘No touch’ rule described above.

Relational Value Value conflicts with ‘No Touch’ rule
Neat and tidy aesthetics
Active land management
Agency over the landscape
Application of parcel specific experiential knowledge

Fig. 2. The above four relational values of farmers all conflicted with the idea of ‘no touch’ riparian buffers.
So, is money what matters most? Not for motivation. Most farmers can’t afford big projects like riparian buffers without financial assistance. But projects also need to line up with farmers’ values and relationships.
Overall, farmers in our study wanted:

  1. To use their own knowledge and experience
  2. Flexibility
  3. Projects with benefits for both the farm and the environment

Thinking about values and relationships can help all kinds of programs become more effective. Ill-considered financial incentives have led to poor outcomes in sectors from education to medicine, business to the military.
The first step to designing better programs is to listen. Listen to those who will be impacted. Find out what is important to them. Which relationships do they value? What does it mean to them to do their job well?
We recommend that conservation programs, even when they offer financial incentives, work to align with target participants’ relational values.
—-
Read the full article here:
Chapman, M., Satterfield, T., & Chan, K. M. A. (2019). When value conflicts are barriers: Can relational values help explain farmer participation in conservation incentive programs? Land Use Policy, 82, 464–475.
This research was made possible by support from the Puget Sound Institute and collaboration with the Snohomish Conservation District.
 
About the author:
Dr. Mollie Chapman is a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Zurich in Switzerland, where she studies the relationship between people and nature. She has interviewed farmers in Colombia, Costa Rica, USA and Canada.
 
[1] I use ‘farmer’ to refer to a variety of people who own and manage designated agricultural land, including full and part time agricultural producers, hobby farmers, nursery owners, and those who board horses.

Riparian buffers are strips of trees and shrubs along stream sides. They filter nutrients and chemicals, shade and protect the stream, and provide habitat for birds, insects and fish. Photo courtesy of USDA.

Do financial incentives motivate farmers to conserve land?

Occasionally, this space includes reports and essays from guest writers on the subject of Puget Sound ecosystem recovery. Today’s guest blog is from Mollie Chapman, who received funding from the Puget Sound Institute in 2013 to study how financial incentives influence decisions by farmers to conserve ecologically important land.
By Mollie Chapman
Would you undertake conservation practices on your land when offered financial incentives? New research shows that financial incentives facilitate, but rarely motivate farmers. Instead, their values and relationships were key.
Sustainable food systems require the involvement of those who grow and raise our food. Yet many conservation programs struggle to recruit farmers, even when financial incentives are offered.
One such program is in Washington State’s Puget Sound region, where I was asked to help program mangers understand how to better recruit farmers. When I interviewed farmers[1]  many told me of their frustration. The program paid the farmers to convert some of their streamside land to habitat—what are called riparian buffers. Yet once the trees and shrubs were planted, farmers were instructed not to touch the new riparian buffer habitat.
The idea of leaving nature alone is common in the conservation and outdoor worlds. For example, wilderness areas often ask visitors to, “leave only footprints, take only photos.” But agricultural movements have a very different rallying cry, to keep their “hands in the dirt.” Being a good farmer means taking care of your land—and that requires getting your hands dirty.
 
(Above: Two very different ways of interacting with the land. Left: a lone hiker admires the view of the wilderness. Right: a farmer tends his potatoes with hands in the dirt.)
In our paper we analyzed several of these value conflicts between participants and programs. We based our analysis on relational values. Relational values offer a new way of thinking about values, or what matters to us and why. Most discussions of environmental values focus on the dollar value of something (instrumental value), or on its value based on moral standing (intrinsic value). We propose a third option. Environmental values are based on the relationships people have with specific places, landscapes, rivers, plants, animals or other parts of the natural world.
 
Fig. 1. Key relationships help to understand what matters. Farmers value their relationship to their land (1) and to their community (2). The farming community values its relationship to the landscape (3).
Fig. 1. Key relationships help to understand what matters. Farmers value their relationship to their land (1) and to their community (2). The farming community values its relationship to the landscape (3).
I explained this conflict between farmers’ values and the program’s no touch rule to the new program leader. My analysis aligned with his own intuitive experience.
A year later we spoke again. He had instructed his staff to start talking about the program using different language. Instead of describing the riparian buffers as “no touch” farmers were now told that they were growing a different kind of crop—a buffer crop.
In our paper we identify the relationships that are important to farmers. We show how these relationships form the basis for relational values. Finally, we describe how relational values conflicted with rules or language used by the incentive program. The table below shows some of the relational values that conflicted with the ‘No touch’ rule described above.

Relational Value Value conflicts with ‘No Touch’ rule
Neat and tidy aesthetics
Active land management
Agency over the landscape
Application of parcel specific experiential knowledge

Fig. 2. The above four relational values of farmers all conflicted with the idea of ‘no touch’ riparian buffers.
So, is money what matters most? Not for motivation. Most farmers can’t afford big projects like riparian buffers without financial assistance. But projects also need to line up with farmers’ values and relationships.
Overall, farmers in our study wanted:

  1. To use their own knowledge and experience
  2. Flexibility
  3. Projects with benefits for both the farm and the environment

Thinking about values and relationships can help all kinds of programs become more effective. Ill-considered financial incentives have led to poor outcomes in sectors from education to medicine, business to the military.
The first step to designing better programs is to listen. Listen to those who will be impacted. Find out what is important to them. Which relationships do they value? What does it mean to them to do their job well?
We recommend that conservation programs, even when they offer financial incentives, work to align with target participants’ relational values.
—-
Read the full article here:
Chapman, M., Satterfield, T., & Chan, K. M. A. (2019). When value conflicts are barriers: Can relational values help explain farmer participation in conservation incentive programs? Land Use Policy, 82, 464–475.
This research was made possible by support from the Puget Sound Institute and collaboration with the Snohomish Conservation District.
 
About the author:
Dr. Mollie Chapman is a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Zurich in Switzerland, where she studies the relationship between people and nature. She has interviewed farmers in Colombia, Costa Rica, USA and Canada.
 
[1] I use ‘farmer’ to refer to a variety of people who own and manage designated agricultural land, including full and part time agricultural producers, hobby farmers, nursery owners, and those who board horses.