http://www.ravallinews.com/articles/2004/05/16/news/news01.txt
Bogged
down with wetland issues:
Bitterroot ranch family copes with bureaucracy in
pursuit of water conservation
By GREG
LEMON Staff Reporter
 |
 |
Rancher Tony Hudson and
Pete Schendel of the Army Corps of Engineers
look closer at a wetlands area on the Meyer
Ranch near Stevensville. Hudson and Meyer, who
ranch together, toured the ranch with Schendel,
Kristine Knutson of the EPA and Craig
Engelhard of the NRCS to determine if there
were wetlands violations and if it will be
possible for them to go through with a large
irrigation project.
Photo by JEREMY LURGIO - Ravalli Republic |
When Jay Meyer
started removing some old cottonwood trees on his
farm last winter, he thought he was doing the
right thing. Some of the trees were going to be in
the way of a new pivot sprinkler irrigation system
for which his ranch had recently been approved
through the Natural Resources Conservation
Service's Environmental Quality Incentives Program
(EQIP).
But because the trees were on wetlands, he was in
violation of the Clean Water Act.
On May 5, representatives from the Army Corps of
Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency and
the Natural Resources Conservation Service came to
the Meyer ranch to assess the violations.
"We're trying to stay ahead of the curve here,"
said Pete Schendel, who is with the corps of
engineers out of Helena.
By assessing the
violations, a recovery plan could be developed and
the irrigation project could continue, said Craig
Engelhard, assistant state conservationist with
the NRCS in Missoula.
But the little field trip to assess the violations
drew a crowd to the ranch Meyer and his wife,
Colleen, own on Burnt Fork Creek just east of
Stevensville.
State senators Fred Thomas from Stevensville and
Rick Laible from Victor and Ravalli County
Commissioner Greg Chilcott showed up in support of
agriculture producers in the valley.
Representatives from the local Farm Services
Association and Bitterroot Conservation District,
and local framers and ranchers made up the rest of
the nearly 25 person group present for the tour
around the ranch.
The EQIP, which was the program through which
Meyer applied for a grant to help fund his
irrigation project, was established in the 2002
Farm Bill as a voluntary conservation program for
farmers and ranchers. The program provides up to
75 percent cost-sharing on approved projects.
But there were some aspects of the program that
Meyer didn't understand and some rules that he
didn't follow. The paperwork can be complicated
and confusing, said Englehard.
The trouble
centers on the wetlands. When Meyer applied for
the EQIP program in October of 2002, he said
didn't know that he had any wetlands.
"If you have any inclinations at all that you have
a wetland area, request a determination," said
Englehard.
There is a pond, there are irrigation ditches, and
there is the creek, but none of that seemed to
indicate a wetland, said Meyer.
"In our mind we were not wetlands," he said. "That
was not a concern."
But they knew they were going to work near the
creek, so they asked the Bitterroot Conservation
District to send someone out to see if they needed
a 310 permit, which is the state permit required
to work within the high water marks of state
rivers and streams.
When it was determined they wouldn't need the 310
permit, Meyer assumed they wouldn't need a 404
permit, which is the federal permit required to
work on wetlands.
"We didn't need a
310 permit, how in the world would we need a 404
permit," asked Meyer.
But Meyer didn't cut the trees down, he uprooted
them with heavy equipment, and in the end that
raised some flags with the federal government.
"Under the Clean
Water Act, many times you'll need a 404 when you
don't need a 310," said Schendel.
For land to be determined a wetland it needs to
have three qualities: the right vegetation, the
right soils and the right hydrology, said Kristine
Knutson, environmental scientist with the EPA.
During the walk
around the Meyer ranch, someone asked her if
irrigation had created the wetland, would the
government still regulate it.
"It still falls under the jurisdiction of the
Clean Water Act," said Knutson.
And the federal government has decided that
"there will be no net loss of wetlands," she said.
The violations on the Meyer ranch focused on the
way the trees were removed.
Through a four-hour walk around the wetlands, it
was determined that the violations occurred when
the trees were up-rooted.
Under the Clean Water Act and under the Food
Security Act it is illegal to add fill material to
a wetlands without a 404 permit. When the trees
were pulled out of the ground, soil and rocks got
into the Meyer's wetlands, creating the violation,
said Schendel.
The history of the project
In October of 2002, Meyer was ready for a change.
His kids were heading off for college and moving
irrigation pipes seemed like a lot of work without
their help. Then he saw the new EQIP program and
decided to see how the program could help him out.
"I signed up with NRCS for a farm plan to see what
we could do with the government's assistance to
improve our irrigation," said Meyer.
Their current irrigation system of sprinklers and
flooding wasn't efficient and he knew it. Tony
Hudson, a construction worker and rancher who
works with Meyer, came up with the center pivot
idea.
Under flood irrigation, Meyer would water his land
once every three weeks, depending on availability
of water, said Hudson.
The pivot system would be much more efficient.
"In three days he could cover that same ground
with an inch of rain," said Hudson.
The other advantage was in water conservation.
Pivot irrigators
use about a third of the water used by flood
irrigators, said Meyer. Their ranch has junior
water rights on the Burnt Fork Creek, which means
in the summers he often can't get water from the
creek because farmers with more senior water
rights have the priority, he said.
Meyer was working to lease water from his
neighbor, who had senior water rights and is also
looking at a pivot irrigation system.
The plan was to use his neighbor's water to run
both pivot systems and Meyer would turn the water
he normally irrigated with back into the creek.
"With the
pivot, you can match the water needs to the plants
and the soil," said Meyer. "Where other methods
you are basically just guessing."
Once they applied for the EQIP program, their
application was ranked, processed and approved, he
said. The approval came through in the fall of
2003 and a contract was signed, said Meyer.
Meyer thought the contract gave him the go ahead
to start implementing his project, which meant
clearing the trees. But really the contract was
just the beginning of the process, said Engelhard.
"Before you start anything you need to have the
designs completed and that wasn't done," he said.
The design portion of the project comes after the
contract is signed and the NRCS sits down with the
land owner and comes up with different design
alternatives for their irrigation system, said
Englehard.
Meyer had been
working with a private irrigation design company
out of Bozeman, which is OK to do, said Englehard.
But the plans a private consultant comes up with
still need to be approved by the NRCS engineers,
said Englehard.
With contract in hand, Meyer started working to
inform his neighbors about his project. Because of
water rights, it was important to have good
communications with his neighbors, said Meyer. For
the most part people were excited.
"It allowed them to think 'Wow, there's
possibilities for me,'" he said.
So this past January Meyer started clearing the
trees - a part of the project that came out of his
own pocket, said Meyer.
"We understood from the very beginning that there
was no cost sharing money for tree removal," he
said.
When officials from the NRCS in Missoula visited
Meyer's neighbor, and potential partner in the
irrigation project, to inventory the irrigation
potential on his land, they told him he couldn't
remove his cottonwood trees. When the NRCS found
out that Jay had removed trees off his land, they
came by to investigate, said Meyer.
What followed was two more visits and the NRCS out
of Missoula telling Meyer to stop any further work
on his project until the Army Corps of Engineers
could come investigate the potential wetlands
violation.
The men out of Missoula were surprised that Meyer
was doing any work at all on his project and more
surprised that he had removed the trees from the
wetland area, said Englehard.
"I think they were blindsided," he said.
But their reaction didn't sit well with the
Meyers.
"First of all, we
felt like criminals," said Meyer. "Second of all,
we felt like the proposed pivot was history,
absolutely history."
The field trip
Through the four-hour tour of Meyer's
property, it became clear that the land Meyer had
hoped would not be determined wetlands, was just
that.
It is a determination that the average person
sometimes has hard time understanding, said
Schendel.
Most people associate wetlands with cattails, and
that's not always the case, he said.
"If you have
standing water on your property that would be a
wetland, more than likely," said Schendel. "The
best clue is that it's a marshy boggy area with
water often present. There are other wetland
vegetation plants that are not cattails."
At the ranch, Schendel pointed out grasses and
sedges common to the wetter soils of the wetlands.
The soil often feels more spongy and is uneven, or
hummocky, he said.
Though the violations were real, they weren't very
dire, said Knutson.
"My reaction was that it could have been a lot
worse," she said. "I've certainly seen more
shocking impacts in the past."
In the middle of the afternoon, the group wound up
in a circle in front of the Meyer home. Most of
the people who had started out on the tour were
gone. But there was still a resolution to reach.
Schendel wanted to come up with some type of
recovery plan.
Meyer and Englehard decided they would work
together on the plan, which would involve planting
trees in the wetland area and pulling some soil
away from the standing water.
The specifics of the restoration plan would be
ironed out between Englehard and the Meyers later,
but for Schendel to agree to it, the NRCS had to
agree to it first.
"I'd say try and come to a compromise that would
please NRCS, you and us," he said.
Englehard thought the NRCS could come up with the
money for replanting the trees. Meyer was worried
about whether he would need a 404 permit, but
Schendel said there was no need to have the
document to do recovery work.
In the end, Knutson hopes the message is that
wetlands and agriculture can mix.
"I hope that the take-home message is that you can
do irrigation projects without filling wetlands."
But for the
Meyers, the message isn't as positive. He didn't
want wetlands identified on his land. He didn't
want to have to file for a permit to do work on
his own property.
"It's going to be delineated wetland and I bought
into that by signing up for the program," said
Meyer.
Reporter Greg Lemon can be reached at 363-3300 or
at
glemon@ravallirepublic.com
