Kittitas County Voluntary Stewardship Plan

Transcription

1 Kittitas County Voluntary Stewardship Plan Presented by John Small and Nora Schlenker, Anchor QEA 1

2 Agenda Welcome and Follow-up from Last Meeting Follow-up on Comments Received Stewardship Practices Description Enhancement Benchmark Updated Critical Areas Maps and Data Next Steps 2

3 12/18 Watershed Group Meeting Recap from Last Meeting 3

4 Goals, Benchmarks and Indicators (November) Goals are to protect and enhance wetland functions fish and wildlife habitat conservation area functions critical aquifer recharge area functions geologically hazardous area functions frequently flooded area functions Benchmarks are measured by tracking the amount of stewardship practices implement Indicators are measurements such as water temperature, that are used in adaptive management to understand if practices are working 4

5 Recap from 12/18 Watershed Group Meeting Reviewed updated Community Areas (Kittitas Valley, Shrub-Steppe Upland, and Forested Upland) Implementation Discussed that the Watershed Group will continue to oversee VSP implementation after approval of the Work Plan Brainstormed potential outreach activities Discussed reporting requirements and timeline Discussed potential budget Reviewed the Self-Assessment Checklist 5

6 Follow-up on Comments Received 6

7 Comments Received on Section 5 Received 16 comments on Section 5 No comments needed further discussion (see comment table for responses) Can comment on all sections during this comment period Comments received by Anna in person Questions about CPPE Scores Confusion about what the Stewardship Practice groupings meant and what purpose they serve Concern that the Enhancement Goals are not aspirational enough 7

8 Stewardship Practices Description 8

9 Stewardship Practices Description Create benchmark and objectives for groups of similar practices which provide similar benefits to critical areas functions and values Simplify reporting by focusing on stewardship practice groups not specific NRCS Conservation Practices Includes the self-funded stewardship activities that provide significant benefits to critical area functions and values, but may not meet the exact NRCS specifications 9

10 Water Management Practices which provide improved efficiency of irrigation water delivery mainly for the purpose of water conservation. Example Stewardship Practices Irrigation Water Management Sprinkler System Micro-irrigation 10

11 Nutrient Management Practices which reduce or more efficiently apply nutrients to crops to reduce nutrient runoff Example Stewardship Practices Nutrient Management 11

12 Pest Management Practices which more efficiently apply crop protection tools to reduce nutrient runoff or utilize alternative methods of pest reduction Example Stewardship Practices Integrated Pest Management 12

13 Soil Management Practices which act to reduce water and wind erosion related soil loss Example Stewardship Practices Cover Crop Mulching 13

14 Range Management Practices which reduce the impact of livestock on natural systems such as reducing trampling, soil compaction, and streambank erosion Example Stewardship Practices Range Planting Managed Grazing Stock Watering Facility 14

15 Habitat Management Practices whose main purpose is to protect or enhance upland habitats including riparian areas Example Stewardship Practices Stream Habitat Improvement and Management Riparian Herbaceous Cover Riparian Forest Buffer Tree/Shrub Establishment Fence 15

16 Stream Enhancement Practices whose main purpose is to protect or enhance in-stream habitats such as removing barriers or preventing erosion Example Stewardship Practices Streambank and Shoreline Protection Aquatic Species Passage Structure for Water Control 16

17 Enhancement Benchmark 17

18 Beyond Enhancement Benchmark Comments received that the benchmark is not aspirational enough The law references an enhancement benchmark, using multiple benchmarks may be confusing Brainstorm qualitative ideas for enhancement to put in the text of the document as suggestions for additional enhancement if the County reaches the enhancement benchmark Use a single enhancement benchmark, but raise the bar every 2 years if met, and funding to meet a higher standard exists. 18

19 Updated Critical Areas Data and Maps 19

20 Community Planning Areas 20

21 Agricultural Land Cover 21

22 Agricultural Land Cover Agricultural Landcover Forested Upland Shrub-steppe Upland Kittitas Valley Total Irrigated Cropland ,371 76,537 Irrigated Pasture ,113 22,440 Orchard/vineyard 0 1,323 1,942 3,265 Dryland 1,420 1, ,463 Rangeland Shrub-steppe Rangeland Forested 0 81,422 1,924 83,346 32,950 5, ,962 Total 34,586 90, , ,128 22

23 Stream and Wetlands 23

24 Stream Agricultural Intersect (Stream Miles) Stream Type Forested Upland Shrub-steppe Upland Kittitas Valley/Irrigated Total Shorelines of the State Fish Use or Potential Fish Use No Fish Use Unknown (including canals) Total ,374 24

25 Wetland Agricultural Intersect Wetland Type Forested Upland Shrub-steppe Upland Kittitas Valley/Irrigated Total Freshwater Emergent Wetland ,098 3,336 Freshwater Forested/ Shrub Wetland Lake/Pond Riverine Other Total ,171 4,954 25

26 Fish Habitat 26

27 Fish Habitat Agricultural Intersect Species Forested Upland Shrub-steppe Upland Kittitas Valley/Irrigated Total Yakima Coho Summer Steelhead Yakima Spring Chinook Bull Trout Rainbow Trout Westslope Cutthroat Columbia River Species

28 Priority Habitats and (PHS) 28

29 PHS Agricultural Intersect Species Forested Upland Shrub-steppe Upland Kittitas Valley/Irrigated Total Spotted Owl 7, ,295 Greater Sage Grouse 0 2, ,490 Dusky Grouse Mule Deer 9,181 53,680 3,301 68,574 Elk 16,614 32,781 3,283 52,696 Shrub Steppe , ,928 Biodiversity Areas and Corridor 0 15, ,927 29

30 Wellhead Protection Areas 30

31 Geologic Hazards Steep Slopes 31

32 Frequently Flooded Areas 32

33 Critical Areas Agricultural Intersect Critical Area Forested Upland Shrub-steppe Upland Kittitas Valley/Irrigated Total Wellhead Protection Areas Hazard Slopes 12,695 26,518 1,373 40,586 Frequently Flooded Areas ,027 8,788 33

34 Expected Next Steps Watershed Group Review Full Work Plan and Appendices Comments due January 26, 2018 New maps and data and updates to chapter 3 Updated CPPE scores (using national standards) Updated Enhancement Benchmarks (rangelands) Public Review Period February 9, 2018 to February 21, 2018 Submit to the Technical Panel Friday March 2, 2018 Second public review period February Watershed Group Meeting Vote to submit Work Plan to the Technical Panel Potential Dates: February 15-10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. 34