Washington State Nonpoint Plan Update

Dear WA State Dept. of Ecology,

I am a citizen with serious concerns about the impact of bio-solids application to forest and cropland and the subsequent non-point pollution of Washington surface waters. We observe that the current draft of Washington...↓'s Water Quality Management Plan to Control Nonpoint Sources of Pollution references Washington's General Permit for Bio-solids on page 23, stating:

Bio-solids are the nutrient-rich organic materials resulting from the treatment of sewage sludge (the name for the solid, semisolid or liquid untreated residue generated during the treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment facility). Bio-solids facilities in Washington operate under a statewide General Permit for Bio-solids Management issued by Ecology.29 This permit covers land application of bio-solids and other related processes and aspects of operations related to biosolids.30 The state bio-solids program regulates bio-solids (including septage) applied to the land, bio-solids sold or given away in a bag or other container, bio-solids being stored, bio-solids transferred from one facility to another, and sewage sludge disposed in a municipal solid waste landfill. The existing general permit expires on August 20, 2015. Ecology is currently in the process of developing a new general permit. There are currently about 200 applicable facilities in the state.

This statement is incorrect. Washington issued a new General Permit for Bio-solids in June 2022 that became effective in July 2022.1 As many commenters noted there is inadequate testing for harmful pollutants in permitted bio-solids.2 Bio-solids have been misclassified and incorrectly applied, endangering nearby rivers and streams with endangered and threatened species. 3Bio-solids have been applied to forests where they pollute runoff. 4Applications are not adequately monitored in Washington State, and the impact of the thousands of chemicals in bio-solids on public health, plants and animals is largely unknown.5

At a minimum Washington's Water Quality Management Plan to Control Nonpoint Sources of Pollution should acknowledge the risks of non-point source pollution from bio-solids to the surface waters of our great state.

Sincerely,

Jean Mendoza

1 Statewide General Permit for Bio-solids Management. 2022. https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/publications/documents/2107006.pdf

2 Response to Comments: General Permit for Bio-Solids Management. 2022. Page 200. https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/publications/documents/2207015.pdf

3 Response to Public Comments Fire Mountain Farms Bio-solids Permitting Agreed Order. 2021. https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/ezshare/swm/biosolids/fmf-2021-finaAO19442-RTComments.pdf

4 Response to Comments: General Permit for Bio-Solids Management. 2022. Page 356. https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/publications/documents/2207015.pdf

5 Response to Comments: General Permit for Bio-Solids Management. 2022. Page 30. https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/publications/documents/2207015.pdf

I have been dairy and beef farming in Skagit County for 47 years. It's important to point out the lack of true field tested peer reviewed science in developing this proposed draft Clean Water Guidance Chapters and the Chapter 12 Riparian Surface Wat...↓er Protection. Using faulty data and nonfactual opinions in computer modeling will continue the deterioration of the fish population. Before any more taxpayers funds are wasted on riparian and habitat projects we need to see reviewed studies clearly proving the millions upon millions of tax dollars have accomplished a goal. Most of the these riparian and habitat projects in Skagit County have failed their expectations and are now causing more harm to fish and water quality. For example the project at Hansen Creek has turned into a stagnant swamp. Or the question of ocean conditions and overpopulation of seals causing the major decline of fish numbers returning.

Skagit County has been adequately protecting critical areas as the County is enrolled in the VSP. If this draft becomes a mandatory regulatory document it will destroy one of the best agriculture valley in the world.

Thank you for the opportunity to give comments.

Randy Good

We are a multi-generational family farm and we value being land stewards and everything that encompasses, proposals feel as though stage is being set for mandatory, regulatory requirements on family ranch operations and that is something we strongly ...↓oppose.

We oppose anything that puts the viability of our business and risks the health of our livestock as

a real and opposing threat to agriculture's future.

While we can appreciate some of the other goals as good stewardship, some of the actual

recommendations for livestock management lack practicality. It would be important to note that if a

rancher were interested in some of these, it would require funding that they may not have. Stream

crossings and fences all cost money. Ranching these days is already a narrow margin, if not at a loss some years. Barriers to access of pasture and range-lands, all of which need management for wildlife and wildfires would be a HUGE detriment to local communities.

We have concerns if a recommendations to range, water and soil implications would not be viable on many of our family ranches.

There is no "one size fits all" recommendation that works for every ranch. We strive toward regenerative ranching practices which are leading the way to improvement of soil, forage, habitats and water sources and undue regulatory implications will slow if not stop most local ranchers or if unable to fund such regulation to be non-compliant by force where they are already doing "good stewardship".

In addition to comments regarding the Livestock Management Recommendations, we want to

comment further regarding the chapter on Riparian Areas. Using Site Potential Tree Height (SPHT) for

riparian restoration, even on a voluntary basis, ignores responsible stewardship.

In addition, we don't

feel this recommendation adequately considers the positive impacts of current state and federal

conservation practices such as CREP, ACEP, EQUIP CRP and others including the Washington Voluntary

Stewardship Program, which is not even mentioned in draft chapters continues to be significantly

underfunded.

Please consider our local family farms and not stand in the way of progress toward improvements being made to continue to feed our local communities, with disruption or food chains, poor crop harvests, declining ranching and farmers providing care to animal agriculture we find continued push in this direction to be unsettling to the future of agriculture and eventually society as a whole, should that system fail.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment.

We are a multi-generational family farm and we value being land stewards and everything that encompasses, proposals feel as though stage is being set for mandatory, regulatory requirements on family ranch operations and that is something we strongly ...↓oppose.

We oppose anything that puts the viability of our business and risks the health of our livestock as

a real and opposing threat to agriculture's future.

While we can appreciate some of the other goals as good stewardship, some of the actual

recommendations for livestock management lack practicality. It would be important to note that if a

rancher were interested in some of these, it would require funding that they may not have. Stream

crossings and fences all cost money. Ranching these days is already a narrow margin, if not at a loss some years. Barriers to access of pasture and range-lands, all of which need management for wildlife and wildfires would be a HUGE detriment to local communities.

We have concerns if a recommendations to range, water and soil implications would not be viable on many of our family ranches.

There is no "one size fits all" recommendation that works for every ranch. We strive toward regenerative ranching practices which are leading the way to improvement of soil, forage, habitats and water sources and undue regulatory implications will slow if not stop most local ranchers or if unable to fund such regulation to be non-compliant by force where they are already doing "good stewardship".

In addition to comments regarding the Livestock Management Recommendations, we want to

comment further regarding the chapter on Riparian Areas. Using Site Potential Tree Height (SPHT) for

riparian restoration, even on a voluntary basis, ignores responsible stewardship.

In addition, we don't

feel this recommendation adequately considers the positive impacts of current state and federal

conservation practices such as CREP, ACEP, EQUIP CRP and others including the Washington Voluntary

Stewardship Program, which is not even mentioned in draft chapters continues to be significantly

underfunded.

Please consider our local family farms and not stand in the way of progress toward improvements being made to continue to feed our local communities, with disruption or food chains, poor crop harvests, declining ranching and farmers providing care to animal agriculture we find continued push in this direction to be unsettling to the future of agriculture and eventually society as a whole, should that system fail.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment.

We are a multi-generational family farm and we value being land stewards and everything that encompasses, proposals feel as though stage is being set for mandatory, regulatory requirements on family ranch operations and that is something we strongly ...↓oppose.

We oppose anything that puts the viability of our business and risks the health of our livestock as

a real and opposing threat to agriculture's future.

While we can appreciate some of the other goals as good stewardship, some of the actual

recommendations for livestock management lack practicality. It would be important to note that if a

rancher were interested in some of these, it would require funding that they may not have. Stream

crossings and fences all cost money. Ranching these days is already a narrow margin, if not at a loss some years. Barriers to access of pasture and range-lands, all of which need management for wildlife and wildfires would be a HUGE detriment to local communities.

We have concerns if a recommendations to range, water and soil implications would not be viable on many of our family ranches.

There is no "one size fits all" recommendation that works for every ranch. We strive toward regenerative ranching practices which are leading the way to improvement of soil, forage, habitats and water sources and undue regulatory implications will slow if not stop most local ranchers or if unable to fund such regulation to be non-compliant by force where they are already doing "good stewardship".

In addition to comments regarding the Livestock Management Recommendations, we want to

comment further regarding the chapter on Riparian Areas. Using Site Potential Tree Height (SPHT) for

riparian restoration, even on a voluntary basis, ignores responsible stewardship.

In addition, we don't

feel this recommendation adequately considers the positive impacts of current state and federal

conservation practices such as CREP, ACEP, EQUIP CRP and others including the Washington Voluntary

Stewardship Program, which is not even mentioned in draft chapters continues to be significantly

underfunded.

Please consider our local family farms and not stand in the way of progress toward improvements being made to continue to feed our local communities, with disruption or food chains, poor crop harvests, declining ranching and farmers providing care to animal agriculture we find continued push in this direction to be unsettling to the future of agriculture and eventually society as a whole, should that system fail.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment.

I would be hesitant to come up with such large zones for the RMZ and such a large RMZ for western WA. While this may be "guidelines" that are not required, they will affect funding sources for agencies that help landowners address resource concerns. ...↓If these agencies have to abide by the guidelines, it will limit the amount of actual work that gets implemented. It would be better to actually get projects completed that do help address resource concerns and work with the landowner objectives rather than have impractical goals or guidelines that will decrease the work that is done. Getting landowners to agree to such large zones will prove to be difficult and is already difficult to limit ag activities in smaller buffer zones.

We oppose further regulation of private property. Current Federal and State regulations cover this area adequately and do not need anymore confusing overlay of additional regulations. The agriculture community is the best steward of private land, E...↓cology would much better focusing on urban pollution sources. The eastern and western sides of Washington can not be lumped together in any plan, the geography and farming practices are too varied.

After reviewing your nonpoint plan and guidance for Agricultural I would like to say I find this to be offensive and very troubling for a magnitude of reasons. If the DOE thinks that this charade they call public comment is fooling anyone to believ...↓e that they are fulling the requirement for public participation they are not. They know they are not and everyone involved knows it. We get invited to a webinar where you introduce reams of what can only be called complicated rhetoric on December 14th and the public is allowed to make comments until December 23th. Give me a break. The first thing I would recommend is to change the title. Don't call it Voluntary Clean Water Guidance for Agricultural. It's 444 pages and that's just one chapter of what's going to be more then 13 chapters. I don't know any agricultural producers who is going to want to seek guidance from this garbage. There is nothing useful in it and it contradicts itself. There is so much trash that I don't know where to begin. You have made the document so complicated that the average person can't understand it. These DOE experts are really scientist that have spent all their life in a classroom or a lab studying numbers and graphs looking at lab results and plotting numbers to make graphs and trends. Whereas agricultural producers have spent their lives working to protect and care for their land and their animals while supplying food for the world. I know what the DOE is doing because I have had years of experience working with the DOE. They are manipulating the science to get the results they want so they can make their own rules. You don't think there is already science and guidelines for agricultural producers. The NRCS has used science and experts that have been guiding agricultural producers for decades. Helping and assisting agricultural producers to make farm plans and nutrient management plans. The WDFW has guidelines for agricultural producer along with the Department of Agricultural. Seems like everyone has guidelines for the agricultural producers but the DOE doesn't like any of that guidance, they want their own. Because the State of Washington has created this DOE that wants absolute power to dictate and govern and they also have immunity from any liability of their guidance. A more appropriate title would be Field Guide for DOE Agents To Put Farmers Out Of Business.

This is just a wolf trying to disguise themselves in sheep clothing. Someone in the webinar claimed that some agricultural producers were bad actors and wouldn't Volunteer to comply with keeping water clean because they are only interested in doing what makes them money. That shows the huge disconnect between most people and their agricultural producers. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The farmers have been the stewards of the land for centuries. Livestock producers and dairy producers in particular care for their land and their animals out of love for the land and the animal. They aren't in it for the money the livestock producer can hardly sell his livestock for what he has invested in it. The dairy farmer is producing milk that cost him $2.00 to produce but is only getting paid $1.45 to produce it. Nobody wants to ask how can they survive then, because they can't. The agricultural producers also know about keeping the water clean, they have been blamed and unfairly fined for water violation for decades now. Do you actually think that the people in agriculture don't want clean water? The have been made to be the scapegoat by the DOE for all the other pollution because they are the easiest target. Oh look farm animals, they must be pooping in the water.The livestock producers and dairy producers go to extremes to prevent being blamed and fined because fines further reduce their already thin profit margins or losses you might as well call them.

I noticed you could resist mentioning in your plan about the Joe Lemire vs. Department of Ecology. Why would mention legal case law in your management plan or agriculture guidance except to make a subtle threat or for intimidation. You want to make the point that Ecology's authority now includes the ability to require a nonpoint source polluter to implement DOE best management practices (BMPs). Ecology's authority can be used to prevent nonpoint pollution and require their own BMPs, as necessary whether or not there is any actual pollution and whether or not there is already proven BMP in place.. You are putting your own spin on the facts to make It look like a livestock producer was polluting and DOE was the hero and required buffer fencing in this case. When in fact there was no evidence of any pollution and you don't mention what Mr. Lemire plan was or what BMPs he was using. He is no longer with us because the amount of stress you put him through with harassment I am sure contributed to his early and young demise. So you can pat yourselves on the back for that, you not only put a cattle rancher out of business but you could say you contributed to his early death.

Since you.want to mention past case law in your plan Let's mention another case Dunlap vs. Department of Ecology. In that case the livestock producer was fined $500 everyday for having buffer fencing to keep livestock out of the water. The livestock producer worked with the NRCS, whereas the made a farm plan using BMP as necessary to protect water quality. The worked was going to be partially funded by a grant program similar to CREP but required a permit to actually perform the work because some of the work would be within the buffer area. The livestock producer was required to have a public hearing in order to get permits to perform the necessary work. The DOE provided input and guidance to the regulatory agency making the decision on the matter. The regulatory agency on the advise of DOE denied portions of the permits for buffer fencing and water crossings. A bunch of bureaucrats who didn't know anything about agriculture or had never been to the farm decided that they knew better then the NRSC experts and just picked and choose what portions of the permit they would allow because they wanted strict adherence to the 50' and 100' buffers and they felt the 35' buffer wouldn't be enough even though the science showed 35' buffers to be sufficient. They also denied the water crossings portion of the permits. The plan the agricultural producer was left with was 50' buffer fencing along the waterway that went through this property. Basically creating (3) separate islands of property with no way to get livestock or equipment from one island to any of the other island. They also informed the agricultural producer he could install movable fencing and bring his livestock in the other end of his daylight basement barn. Anyone who understands daylight basement knows that one end is open to the daylight and the other end is covered up with the soil. Those bureaucrats who did the picking and choosing from the plan never mentioned how the agricultural producer could remedy the problems they created. Dig a pit in the dirt and install a freight elevator to bring livestock in and out of the barn? They never addressed how to move from one island parcel to the next island parcel either. Maybe they wanted him to install a barge or ferry system to get across the waterways? That would of required another public hearing and permits or maybe he was just suppose to have some large helicopter pad and fly animals and equipment from one parcel to the other. After the agricultural producer was left with just a remnant of a useful plan and he lost portions of his funding and was forced to appeal the permit denials and was again fined for his 35' buffer fencing $500.00 a day because his fencing was within the 50 foot buffer and now without a permit. He appealed to the Shoreline hearings board, Growth Management Hearings board and Superior court whereas the DOE has the Washington State Attorney General represent them in all those action, but in none of those court proceeding was he allowed to bring up his Constitutional rights. Because the DOE has you confined to appeal their decisions to these State Boards who have no authority to rule on constitutional issues. So you are basically confined to a kangaroo court where they hold all the cards. Then after exhausting all those administrative remedies. The agricultural producer was able bring his own action of a lawsuit claiming an unconstitutional taking of property and address the Constitutional issues he was unable to bring up before. The first thing the DOE did was filed a motion to be dismissed from the action which was granted because they have immunity from liability even though they participated all along the way. They regulation agency also made a motion to be dismissed from the action claiming they were only acting as an agent for the State doing what the DOE was advising them. The court denied the agency request which left the regulatory agency that conducted the public hearing and ultimately voted on the decision to deny the permits holding the bag even though the DOE was guiding them all along the way. In other words the DOE provided the gun the bullets and the encouragement telling them to pull the trigger, but because their finger wasn't actually on the trigger they get a free pass. Absolute immunity! After the case bounced around from Whatcom Superior Court, Skagit County Superior Court, U.S. District Court, Washing State Court of Appeals, and Washington State Supreme Court. It resulted in the only case in Washington State History where the regulation of a buffer area resulted in a total taking of property. You also didn't mention in your plan where you wanted to review case law what one of Washington State Court of Appeals Division I Justices said, in the Dunlap case," it doesn't matter the reason you took it... You took the man's property and now your going to pay for it!"

I believe the DOE is sincere in their effort to protect water quality but they are run by special interest groups. They are bias, manipulative, unreasonable, and want to blame Agricultural for all the pollution because they are the easiest target. Because the facts show that the DOE punish agricultural producers for not building buffer fences, and also punish and fine the agricultural producer for building buffer fences. You can't have it both ways, except apparently you guys can and you want to disregard the current science and BMPs and build your own science and your own rules and BMPs that aren't conducive to agriculture and not be held responsible for any of your actions. It is pretty clear to me after my experience with your agency that your end game is to put agriculture out of business. I think a better title to your book of complicated rhetoric would be Crusade To Crush Agricultural. I wish you luck on your crusade, because if your successful in your mission you will starve to death without food because you guys don't know the first thing about farming. So I take some comfort in that thought.

The guidance for nonpoint agricultural impacts on riparian water quality best practices should be based on local evaluation of agricultural impacts on temperature and pollutants on local, regional, state and national goals. Rather than rely on the WD...↓FW riparian references which were the ideal, prescriptions for actions should be related to local actions needed to address the water quality parameters of concern based on monitoring information, and best professional judgement of all governmental and stakeholder parties. This would allow matters of concern based on water quality be addressed at a size and scale necessary to reduce or eliminate agricultural impacts on water quality based on the waterbody of concern. The fallacy of using the WDFW mapping tool is clear when you bring it up in the lowlands of Puget Sound and see their version of a Riparian management zone in the ideal with the existing situation. It would behoove WDOE to determine relative impacts of different riparian treatments that would eliminate or significantly reduce the impact of non-point agricultural operations on the water quality parameters WDOE is responsible for protecting or restoring.

Including RMZ in acronyms lists (also maybe define at first use in the first sentence of introduction when RMZ is written without the acronym).

Is the omission of Benton and Franklin counties on 145b intentional due to a lack of data or was this an ov...↓ersight?

Cheers,

-Tom

A description and function of a surface skimmer may be useful at first mention for those unfamiliar with its utility.

Defining site potential tree height at first use on top of page 10d (or maybe including a list of acronyms for this chapter as was do...↓ne with other chapters would be greatly helpful)

Duplicate word: "water watering systems" in middle of page 12d

The same list of these watering systems is shown both on page 12d as well as on 180d - this may be intentional as a reminder, just double checking.

For this chapter as well as others, it is my opinion that readability would be improved by moving appendix B: Implementation considerations above citations and the annotated bibliography. (however, I understand formatting restrictions may make be restricting this).

Overall, a very nice read and well put together.

I am curious why created wetlands weren't included as an option for sediment control? Sediment capture is certainly one of their functions along with others that help address stormwater run-off pollutants. They can generally be very affordable to c...↓reate just by simple vegetated contour modifications to the landscape that increase residence time of flow allowing for treatment. They may provide a landowner options to achieve multiple goals such as increasing wildlife for either viewing or hunting, wind breaks along with the improved water management reducing soil loss. They don't require much maintenance once established, but since they were intentionally created could most likely be maintained similar to any facility created as an approved treatment option. Maybe I missed it as an option? thanks, Bill

Hi, Thanks for the opportunity to comment. I see a lot of work has gone in to this by staff and the partners striving to find a workable document. I generally agree with most of the document, and realizing the work is targeted at Ecology's respons...↓ibility to water quality I believe there is merit to cross referencing other functional contributions of a riparian area just in case this is the only guidance a landowner reviews. Even if it is a reference to a WDFW document, the average person doesn't realize all of the ecosystem functions riparian areas provide. Specifically wildlife needs is a concern, as it relates to the proposal of doing Agro-forestry within the buffer area. I support agro-forestry when done correctly, but important in this document to highlight that use must be accompanied by a stewardship plan similar to what occurs with RCO grant funded projects. The critical area and buffers are truly the only lowland habitat areas protected by GMA, and over the next couple of hundred years they may be the only habitat left in the lowlands. Stewardship plans identifying temporal limitations for entering the riparian zone for actions related to agro-forestry is essential. The buffers serve multiple life stage needs for over 50% of Washington's wildlife. Specifically juveniles of many species could not escape management actions, nor would try as their nature is to hunker down and not draw attention. Our pollinators rely on plants in the riparian zones. Some birds species simply won't nest within sight of another bird and simplified buffers may reduce reproductive success. I was in charge of the buffers in the City of Arlington for 17-years both planting new ones and managing existing that experienced many non-authorized multiple uses such as recreation or over enthusiastic adjoining use maintenance. A disc golf course was integrated in to a riparian zone which led to nesting song birds being displaced by crows, and deer that were common prior to the course completely disappeared from the frequent human disturbance and impacts to the only migratory corridor available. Off leash dogs are also not very compatible with spawning salmon so providing a heads up in a stewardship plan can provide landowners some simple guidance rather than having Scooby showing up with a fish in his mouth. Having worked with many farmers over the years the majority embrace stewardship and appreciate the knowledge it takes to do the best job they can. Please, include the requirement for a stewardship plan to go along with multi-use buffer options. thanks, Bill

I would like to comment on the riparian and surface water quality section of the Clean Water Guidance for Agriculture. I have three specific comments.

1. My experience with planting trees along riparian areas in eastern Washington indicates that Po...↓nderosa pine is actually a good selection. Ponderosa grow along many creeks and rivers in Spokane County and do very well with little maintenance. They tolerate flooding, as well as drought, unlike many hardwood species that are hard to get started and need watering for several years.

2. I have participated in a study that indicated biochar is very capable of trapping contaminents, including PCB's, metals and petroleum products. I believe that applying biochar along riparian areas could assist in trapping fertilizers and herbicides that are making their way from farms and ranches into water bodies. Biochar has other benefits as well that could benefit riparian restoration, and there is a gassifier located near Rockford that could be used to produce it locally.

3. While physical fences are discussed as ways to keep livestock out of riparian areas, I did not see mention of using electronic fencing, which could be a way to herd and keep livestock our of key areas, while not impacting wildlife like physical fences can do.

Thank you for your work on this important issue of protecting riparian areas and surface water from agricultural impacts. Please feel free to reach out if you want more details about Ponderosa planting or biochar.

Mike Petersen

mikeppetersen@gmail.com

509-990-5719

Thanks for the opportunity to make comments on the VCWGA – Livestock Management Pasture and Rangeland Grazing document.

• Page 8d, Early season grazing: Early season grazing might be as early as February and March in some areas.

• Page 10d, Riparian Ma...↓nagement Zones: SPTH is used with definition.

• Page 10d, Permanent Streamside Exclusion Fence: Re working this section to discuss the fence first then the reasons why might create a better tone.

• Page 11d, Livestock Water Sources & Drink Water Quality: Don't mention water rights and permits (HPA required for setting pump in water and electrical permit for solar or electric system.

• Page 13d, Setbacks of 820 ft or greater: Where did you come up with this number? This seems huge and in many situations not practical or possible.

• Page 17d, Location of sacrifice area: For some properties, sacrifice areas cannot be located outside the RMZ. Having a "must" here makes it impossible for some operations to install HUA, & Sacrifice area. What if your already built barn in located close to the stream? Suggest language to say "should be when possible" or similar.

• Page 21d: Grazing Management Strategies: There is no section for Continuous Grazing in the part although it is defined on page 8d.

• Page 21d: Early Season grazing: There is grazing before April in many situations.