1. Planning Riparian Buffer Practices in FY16 Rachel Maggi NRCS West Area Biologist

2. Today’s Objectives ▪ Discuss our job as quality conservation planners ▪ Announce what has changed for FY16 planning ▪ Explain revised TN-14 (Wildlife Habitat Evaluation Guide) ▪ Explain SVAP2-Stream Visual Assessment Protocol ▪ Introduce a new planning tool to assist with buffer alternative development ▪ Walk through example buffer planning process ▪ Discuss a proposed timeline for integrating changes into CREP

3. Conservation Planning-Back to Basics The NRCS objective in conservation planning is to help the client manage resources for sustained use and productivity while considering economic and social needs.

4. Planning is complex and dynamic The planner strives to balance natural resource issues with economic and social needs through the development of the conservation plan. Angry Neighbor Beginning Farmer “Best” hayland is adjacent to stream Old fence infrastructure Modified natural channel

5. RMS Alternative Our Job is to: ▪ Identify ALL resource concerns on the planning unit ▪ Provide conservation practice alternatives to treat all resource concerns ▪ Discuss the alternatives with the landowner ▪ Document the discussion in case file (P&I Note, CPA-52, other)

6. Quiz Question #1 True or False: NRCS program participants must adopt all the conservation practices presented in an RMS plan alternative in order to receive financial assistance? True = Yes False=No

7. What has changed? Biology Tech Note 14 (1999) has been revised

8. What has changed? New buffer width requirement for treating Inadequate Fish & Wildlife Habitat resource concern

9. Riparian Width Requirement

10. What has changed? Riparian length element added

11. Riparian Buffer-Length Requirement Gap

12. Gaps in the buffer ▪ Infrastructure near channels on agricultural operations is common ▪ Access roads, livestock lanes, pump stations, outbuildings, etc. ▪ 30% of a buffer can measure less than 50 feet in width and still meet planning criteria

13. Quiz Question #2 Would this stream reach meet the new buffer width planning requirement? Yes= True No=False

14. Answer #1NO

15. How do I know if the site meets Planning Criteria? eFOTG Section III

16. Planning Criteria for Aquatic Habitats

17. Planning Criteria for Terrestrial Habitats Different PC for each habitat type Xercies Assessment Guides Option for planning for specific species or habitat type

18. PC and Biology TN-14

19. What has changed? Replaced Stream evaluation with SVAP2

20. SVAP2 Revised for Washington 75 Page Document! 4 Page Document!

21. SVAP2 Revised for Washington ▪ Data Sheets formatted for use in the field ▪ Summary Section for instant results! ▪ Notes Section to remind you why you circled what you did

22. TN-14 Evaluation Summary

23. Using the results in Planning Process TN-14 formatted to point out the specific habitat elements that are in need of improvement.

24. Using the results in Planning Process ElementAlt #1 (A)Alt #2) Forest diversity No ChangePCT to improve understory Downed wood Drop trees SnagsCreate limited small snags Create large snags Forest openings Thin heavy around old landing Create add’l meadow openings Develop alternatives to improve each habitat element scoring less than Planning Criteria level (60%)

25. TN-14 Evaluation Summary PC for Aquatic Habitats is 70% Alternative #1: Riparian (Right Bank) still shows 50%=Below PC Present Condition All Habitat types score Below PC Alternative #2: All Habitat types score Above PC

26. Quiz Question #3 Use the TN-14 Evaluation sheet shown to the right: Does the Planned A (aka Alt #1) score meet PC for riparian plant community? Yes = True No = False

27. Riparian Buffer Conservation Strategy for Working Lands ▪ NRCS will Pilot in FY16 ▪ Intended to provide planners with buffer alt’s to include in producer conservation plans ▪ Applies to all NATURAL channels, including streams modified to improve drainage ▪ NOT intended for planning buffer alternatives on constructed ditches (drainage or irrigation)

28. Riparian Buffer Conservation Strategy for Working Lands ▪ Strategy assumes natural channels have been modified in past (moved, straightened, dredged) and that channel maintenance will continue to facilitate active agriculture ▪ Tool identifies individual ecological functions provided by riparian buffers ▪ Allows planner to provide education to landowners regarding comprehensive list of ecological functions

29. Riparian Buffer Conservation Strategy for Working Lands ▪ Provides criteria to provide practice alternatives to treat different resource concerns and specific ecological functions at the individual agricultural operation

31. Site specific planning - Example

32. Step #1 – Identify Resource Concerns Run the tools Benchmark Score: ▪ TN-14 Riparian Area (Right Bank)= 0.13 ▪ SVAP2= 4.3 (Poor) ▪ 303d listed reach for Bacteria located ~1000 feet downstream

33. This is the RMS Conservation Practice Alternative

34. Landowner selected alternative Landowner selected planting a shrub buffer for pollinator enhancement EQIP funding to treat Inadequate F/W Habitat- Degradation-Terrestrial

35. Reminder… ▪ The new buffer width criteria is used when planning a buffer which will treat an Aquatic HABITAT resource concern ▪ Buffers to treat a WATER QUALITY resource concern are still going to be offered as an alternative during RMS planning Photo Credit: Whatcom CD

36. Where to Find the Documents UPDATES COMING SOON!

37. Effects to CREP ▪ New enrollments will require the 50 ft minimum width on 70% of the planning unit ▪ Program managers understand need for a transition period ▪ Looking for feed back on a winter 2016 start date for new policy ▪ After the stated date, all CRP-2 forms signed after this date will require the new buffer width ▪ Re-enrollments will have flexibility; 35 ft minimum will be allowed

38. CREP Training

39. Questions? Rachel Maggi, West Area Biologist Rachel.maggi@wa.usda.gov (360)883-1987 x 111