**Colorado State Technical Committee**

Holiday Inn - Denver West - Golden, Colorado

June 21, 2007

*[Welcome:]{.underline}* **Allen Green**, State Conservationist with the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), welcomed everyone and
introductions were made. The purpose of the session was presented
including reporting accomplishments, and seeking input and
recommendations to United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in
implementing programs. Allen made a plea to all employees and
individuals with interest in farming and ranching to get informed and be
involved by letting Congress and the Administration know your views on
the Farm Bill. He provided the following websites which offer more
information on the Farm Bill.

-   hhtp://agriculture.house.gov/inside2007farmbill.html

-   hhtp://agriculture.senate.gov/

-   hhtp://www.usda.gov

Randy Loutzenhiser, Immediate Past President, Colorado Association of
Conservation Districts (CACD), was unable to attend and present the 2007
Farm Bill Outlook presentation.

*[Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative (CSI)]{.underline}*

**John Brenner**

**NRCS Liaison to Western Governors Association**

-   John introduced the presentation for CSI and explained that 19
    states are involved with the program. The graph depicts the changes
    in the sage grouse population over the last 40 years.

![](media/image1.wmf){width="3.3in" height="1.9548611111111112in"}

-   Why sagebrush and not sage grouse? One cannot focus on only one
    species, since many live in sagebrush country.

-   The number of drilling permits in Colorado has gone from 600 in 1964
    to an estimated 4900 in 2006

-   Wyoming's 30,000 acre Jonah field has increased drilling densities.
    Jonah has transformed the spacing of gas wells. Old fields were
    developed on 160-840 acres -- at most four per square mile. Jonah
    averages 64 wells per square mile. A huge increase in impact on the
    ground.

-   Biologists list casual factors for decline of sage grouse.

-   Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) completed
    the Greater Sage Grouse Comprehensive Conservation Strategy in
    December 2006. It highlights three areas needing attention, Funding,
    Organizational Structure and Leadership. WAFWA estimates the cost of
    stewardship/restoration to be between 450-500 million dollars over
    the next 5 years.

-   Cooperative Sagebrush initiative Focus on Sagebrush ecosystem - 11
    states, 2 Canadian provinces, Inclusive of all Stakeholders,
    Citizen-Led, volunteer organization, Transparent, Science Based,
    Develop Public-Private Partnerships and Deliver Funding to Local
    Working Groups.

-   ESA Status of Greater sage grouse - eight petitions filed with
    United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFSW).

-   CSI Leadership and Partners: Private Landowners, Conservation
    Organizations, Lessees, Grazing Rights, Mining, Oil & Gas, State
    Agencies, Universities, Industry, Counties, Tribes, Local Working
    Groups, Federal Agencies, Philanthropists

-   The group in December charged the leadership to convene an Interim
    Partnership Council and to establish a process for nominating
    partnership council member that would be broadly representative of
    all the stakeholders. CSI is a non-profit organization and
    nominations for the partnership council have been received. One of
    the Partnership Council's first actions will be to establish a
    Science Advisory board and a Projects committee to move the
    important work forward on a strong science base.

-   In January, a set of CSI leaders met with more than 25 Department of
    Interior (DOI) folks in Washington and presented 5 options for
    addressing issues of Endangered Species Act (ESA) assurances for
    landowners. The Secretary is preparing a policy response to those
    suggestions, and we expect those soon. Experts in mitigation banking
    and environmental credit trading were brought together with
    sagebrush species biologists and sagebrush ecologists in Tucson,
    Arizona in early March 2007 to develop metrics for a sagebrush
    conservation credit. Subgroups are taking those ideas and adding
    detail for field testing in demonstration projects. A contractual
    framework of assurances is in development, but will almost certainly
    require vetting with the Department of Interior.

Comments: Sounds like a good program. Are there other oil and gas
companies contributing to the program?

Response: There are four or five oil and gas companies involved and coal
companies in Wyoming. The oil, gas and coal companies are interested in
cooperating while still pursuing their own business on the land.

Comment: Are they looking at the technological side of the program?

Response: Yes there a number of technological and scientific groups
involved in the program

Comment: Does the initiative have a stated goal?

Response: Yes there is a stated goal and the oil and gas companies and
non-governmental organization (NGO) are looking at forms of measuring
the impact of the initiative.

Comment: Are there measurable goals recorded.

Response: There are reporting tool in place to measure included acres.

Comment: How are you going to deal with the fact that there is a
perception that sagebrush is a weed?

Response: There is an educational process that the group is working on
to get the message out. Monitoring of how it works. We need a matrix of
what is really happening.

Comment: How many projects are in Colorado?

Response: Two are proposed in Colorado with more in Wyoming and Utah.

Comment: Do you expect CSI Request for Proposals to be a seasonal or
annual project?

Response: Annual, pending availability of funds. The group is also
looking at projects utilizing the national Conservation Innovation
Grants (CIG). Department of Defense (DOD) is also engaged and they are
working to be good neighbors and will help to make it work.

Allen commented on market-based initiatives such as the DOD Ft. Hood ESA
project. DOD has a base surrounded by private land. DOD recognized that
they may have an impact on the wildlife habitat. They are working on a
credit system where they accumulate credits by working with landowners
on conservation projects.

CSI projects help improve habitat with private landowners getting
involved and doing the work. Concerned science based agencies and
biologists are creating baseline studies and finding the numbers are not
accurate. There needs to be centralization on baseline studies.
Conservation districts need to be involved in order to get the education
and information out to the public. There are 11 groups involved to
coordinate the effort.

*[Central Shortgrass Prairie Initiative]{.underline}*

**Bill Ulfelder**

Eastern Colorado Program Director

The Nature Conservancy (TNC)

-   A collaborative, science-based vision for conservation success.

-   Ecoregional Assessment (EA) are suites of ecological and
    socio-political analyses that prioritize and inspire conservation
    actions with partners thru the development of a lasting vision for
    conservation success.

-   Covers much of eastern CO, portions of six other states, 56 million
    acres 87% private.

-   The Need

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   1\. Temperate Grasslands is the most threatened yet least protected
    habitat type of Earth

-   2\. The Central Shortgrass Prairie ecoregion has lost 50% of its
    native grasslands

-   3\. Native species are declining (e.g. grassland birds) -- we need
    to prevent further losses

-   In 2004, TNC established a partner steering group and core team to
    kick off a revision of the Conservation Security Program's (CSP)
    ecoregional assessment thru a collaborative partnership effort

-   Steps for setting priorities. There are basic steps in this process,
    followed by a last step of the partners incorporating the results
    into their organization-specific planning processes.

1.  What do we need to conserve? Species, communities and ecological
    systems

2.  Where is it? Compile and map data

3.  How well is it doing?

4.  How much is enough?

5.  What is needed for conservation?

    -   Terrestrial Network of Conservation Area

    -   Network of area that meet goals for species, communities &
        ecosystems.

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="3.270138888888889in"
height="4.232638888888889in"}

43 areas, 24 million acres, 44% of ecoregion, 83% of targets met goal

-   Aquatic Network of Conservation Area -136 area in Central Shortgrass
    Prairie, Met goals for 53% of targets

![](media/image3.wmf){width="2.5in" height="2.5in"}

-   Primary Threats include invasive species, urban-suburban
    development, Global warming, new tiling of prairie, energy
    development.

-   Land Ownership, 87% of conservation areas are privately owned.

-   Success depends upon collaboration with private landowners,
    collaboration between conservationists and producers (ranchers), and
    understanding the link between land and water.

-   The CSP Partnership provides the opportunity to collaboratively work
    together to ensure the long-term viability of native species and
    ecosystems of CSP.

-   Strategies 4 key elements include provide state-of-the art science,
    convene stakeholders to identify collaboration opportunities and how
    to address them, create a network of effectively conserved working
    landscapes through easements, good land management practices and
    restoration projects, and influence policies & public programs to
    benefit conservation in priority areas.

-   Major Accomplishments

1.  State of the art science available

2.  Priorities & shared vision

3.  A group eager to collaborate

4.  Smith ranch project -- 23,000 acres ranch in Lincoln county, sold to
    State Land Board

Comment: How can conservationists and producers work together to promote
the program?

Response: Offer proposals and how to target into the farm bill. Share
institutional priorities to bring multi-landowners together.

Comment: Ninety percent of land is private. Is the Nature Conservancy
trying to honor the privacy of landowners?

Response: The land in the Rapid Watershed Assessments (RWA) is not
tagged to individual landowners. Public is not accessible to private
information.

*[Rapid Watershed Assessments]{.underline}*

**Frank Riggle**

ASTC-Water Resources, NRCS

Watershed Assessments:

-   Predominantly qualitative rather than quantitative analysis.

-   Flexible enough to accommodate variability between watersheds to
    address local needs.

-   Rapid, which limits detailed analysis.

-   A compilation of basic resource information that can serve as a
    starting point for a wide variety of additional detailed resource
    assessments and watershed planning efforts.

![](media/image4.jpeg){width="5.75in" height="3.1729166666666666in"}

Rush Watershed Profile

HUC 11020012

  -------------- --------------- ------------------ ------------- -------------
  ** **          **County        **County Acres in  **Watershed % **County % of
                 Acres**         Rush Watershed**   of county**   Watershed**

  **Cheyenne**   **1,140,413**   **152,294**        **13.4**      **17.7**

  **El Paso**    **1,362,305**   **14,439**         **1.1**       **1.7**

  **Elbert**     **1,183,409**   **188,937**        **16.0**      **21.9**

  **Kiowa**      **1,142,976**   **130,958**        **11.5**      **15.2**

  **Lincoln**    **1,654,532**   **374,504**        **22.6**      **43.5**
  -------------- --------------- ------------------ ------------- -------------

Rush Watershed location map

![](media/image5.jpeg){width="1.0590551181102361in"
height="0.7925196850393701in"}![](media/image6.jpeg){width="2.869291338582677in"
height="2.1653543307086616in"}

Land Use Map

![](media/image7.jpeg){width="3.720138888888889in"
height="2.384027777777778in"}

Water Quality Information

![](media/image8.jpeg){width="3.379861111111111in" height="2.0in"}

Resource Concerns Identified Through the Conservation Districts Long
Range Planning Process

![](media/image9.jpeg){width="2.375in" height="2.7888888888888888in"}

![](media/image10.jpeg){width="4.040277777777778in"
height="3.029861111111111in"}

Next Steps in Colorado

-   Complete the RWAs initiated in 2006

-   Continue to Communicate the vision internally and externally

-   Complete ten RWAs in the Upper Arkansas and the San Luis Valley in
    2008

-   The goal -- Complete the RWAs for all the eight digit hydrologic
    units predominantly in Colorado by 2010

Comment: What are the sources of information?

Response: Sources of information include Ag census data, United States
Geological Service (USGS), Natural Resources Institute (NRI), state
lists for Water Quality, USFWS for endangered species, state water
conservation mapping activity undertaking and data form many ecological
sources and links. There will be links available for information.

Comment: Is the basic intent for it to be available to everyone?

Response: Yes, it is an additional source of information on a watershed
basis.

Comment: Will there be updates to the information over time?

Response: Yes, there will be updates. Demographics may change, as well
as land ownership. There will be an update schedule.

Comment: The information will come in handy for funding issues.

Comment: Will RWA integrate data from other tools?

Response: Yes, it will be a matter of combining information in the
future.

*[Snow Survey Information Products]{.underline}*

**Mike Gillespie**

Snow Survey Supervisor

NRCS

New Snow Survey Data Products

-   All products are available on Colorado NRCS webpage. Our website is
    broken down by different topics.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Colorado Snow Survey Webpage](http://www.co.nrcs.usda.gov/snow)\
    http://www.co.nrcs.usda.gov/snow

Google Earth Data Products

-   SNOTEL -- Site Locations

-   SNOTEL Snowpack -- percent of average

-   SNOTEL Precipitation -- percent of average

-   Reservoir Storage -- percent of average

-   Streamflow Forecasts -- percent of average

Snow Projection Graphs -- can look into the future and gauge what will
happen for the remainder of the winter. There is a graph for each
watershed for 98 sites in the state. Graphs show average snow pack and
(see map) Demonstration of graph usage and how to answer questions about
snow pack.

![](media/image11.png){width="3.875in"
height="2.842361111111111in"}![](media/image12.png){width="5.829861111111111in"
height="3.3881944444444443in"}

![](media/image13.png){width="5.2in" height="4.364583333333333in"}

*New* Experimental Daily

Streamflow Forecasts

[Daily Forecast Update Graphs \| Colorado
NRCS](http://www.co.nrcs.usda.gov/snow/fcst/site/current/daily/maps_graphs/daily_forecasts.html)

-   Three graphical forecast products per forecast point

-   Completely automated\--use hydroclimatic data collected by

the SNOTEL, Colorado Department of Water Resources (DWR

) and USGS data networks

-   Unofficial forecasts on an experimental basis

-   Most useful as a guide to basin trends between monthly forecasts or
    assessing the impacts of storm events subsequent to forecasts.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Currently 56 forecast points in Colorado with additional points
    planned.

[]{.mark}

Comment: How is our snowpack and water supply this year?

Response: East of the continent divide pretty well, between 90 and 110 %
of average west of the cont divide from 50 to 80% of average. Impacted
because of dry conditions in wy.

Comment: Any correlation between temp change and snowpack?

Response: Series of years where the spring warmup, in the last 10 yrs.
Meltouts have been less than average and a lower accumulation. Based on
historical records melts are not usually seen in May.

Comment: Have you charted 30-year average in with your forecast?

Response: Just all based on historical and statistical records.

Comment: How does the snow survey program interact with other
statistics?

Response: Snow Survey makes a forecast and that information is provided
to base decisions. Some of the water rights are based on that
information.

*[Farm Service Agency (FSA) Programmatic Issues]{.underline}*

**Lewis Frank**

Executive Director

Farm Service Agency

-   They are anticipating a disaster plan, projecting \$3 billion for
    disaster relief coming in the near future, for farm and ranch
    programs for 2005, 2006, and 2007.

-   Livestock compensation and indemnity programs.

**Lynette DiFeo**

Program Specialist

Farm Services Agency

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) -- State Acres for Wildlife
Enhancement (SAFE) Program

-   SAFE announced in March 2007.

-   Some draft proposals have come in.

-   It is a continuous sign-up.

-   These will be 10-15 year contracts.

-   Stewardship Incentives Payments (SIP) and Practice Incentive
    Payments PIP will be issued for all practices under this initiative.

**Shane Briggs**

Farm Bill/PCL/CHIP Coordinator

Colorado Division of Wildlife

State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement (SAFE)

-   The Wildlife Subcommittee of the NRCS State Technical Committee met
    on April 11, 2007 to discuss, priorities, opportunities, potential
    proposals, and next steps regarding the development CP38 (SAFE)
    proposals in Colorado.

-   Proposals need to be in National Headquarters (NHQ) in November.

-   The Private Land Wildlife Biologists (PLWB) will collaboratively
    develop two to four proposals that could be supported by all the
    conservation partners.

-   July 2 is the submission deadline to FSA for in-state proposals.

Comments: Are 11,000 acres contingent on Farm Bill approval?

Response: Good question, all acres will be in place until used up. There
are provisions for change for CRP.

Comment: When and how is the information going to get to the producer?

Response: Local people are involved. Drafts have been sent out to
Conservation Districts (CDs) on June 20.

*[CP38E Colorado Western Slope Grouse SAFE Presentation]{.underline}*

**Noe Marymor**

Private Lands Wildlife Biologist

Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW)/NRCS

Western Slope Grouse Need a "SAFE" Place

-   Columbian Sharp tailed grouse

-   Gunnison Sage grouse

-   Greater Sage grouse

Proposal Development

-   Steamboat Springs Stakeholder Group: CDOW, NRCS, Routt County CD,
    Trapper Mine, Landowners

-   Durango Stakeholder Group: CDOW, NRCS, Utah DWR, Utah NRCS, Utah
    Cooperative Extension

-   Acres requested: Minimum of 5,850

Project Boundaries:

![](media/image14.jpeg){width="3.520138888888889in"
height="4.555555555555555in"}

Technical Requirements

-   Approved practices: CP4D, CP10, CP12

-   Moffat/Routt Project Area:

-   CP10 must be approved and have a conservation plan developed by a
    NRCS, CDOW or USFWS biologist. One mix available for CP4D.

-   Dove Creek and Montezuma Project Areas: CP10 must have a
    conservation plan developed by a CDOW, NRCS or USFWS biologist.
    CP4D. Requirements on number and type of species that may be used in
    seed mixes.

Monitoring, Education and Outreach

-   Monitoring: Use existing brood and lek surveys. Hire additional
    contractor or CDOW temporary.

-   Education/Outreach: Word of mouth, newspaper, and radio.

Comment: What is the involvement with the CDs?

Response: All the CD's within the proposed project areas were invited
but only Routt showed up.

Comment: Why was the meeting in Durango and not Dove Creek?

Response: Location of meeting affects which landowners show up. Fifty
percent of the landowners met by teleconference.

*[Eastern Colorado SAFE Proposals]{.underline}*

**Matt Reddy**

Area 2 Wildlife Biologist, NRCS

**Lesser Prairie Chicken (LEPC) SAFE Area**

-   Within five miles of currently active lek

-   Four counties - Baca, Cheyenne, Kiowa, and Prowers

-   Coordination with five other LEPC states

-   Requested Acres: 2900 acres

![](media/image15.wmf){width="5.104166666666667in"
height="3.8333333333333335in"}

**Lesser Prairie Chicken SAFE Outreach**

-   Landowner workshops

-   Conservation District outreach

-   Direct mailing to eligible applicants

-   Media news release

-   Conservation Technical Assistance

**Plains Sharptailed Grouse SAFE**

-   State Threatened Species

-   Range Restricted to Northern Colorado

-   Heavy Utilization of Existing Conservation Reserve Programs (CRP)
    Tracts

-   Eligibility Criteria: Within Existing Range in Logan, Morgan, and
    Weld Counties

-   Requested Acres: 1463 acres

![](media/image16.png){width="5.120138888888889in"
height="4.000694444444444in"}

**[PSTG]{.mark} CRP Management**

-   Midcontract Management is allowed: Interseeding of forbs and
    beneficial grasses, Light discing, Prescribed Burning

-   Managed Grazing is allowed: Current rules -- 1:5 years outside of
    nesting season (March 15 -- July 15)

**Colorado Shortgrass Prairie (SGP)**

-   Largest remaining tracts of native North American

-   Habitat for numerous avian species of concern

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Grassland type neglected by current CRP programs

-   Largest remaining tracts of native North American Prairie

-   Eligibility Criteria: Within one mile of large (36,000mi2) tracts of
    SGP, ≥160 acres, Contiguous or within a protected SGP property,
    (Uncapped County)

-   Requested Acres: 1463 acres

![](media/image17.png){width="5.320138888888889in"
height="5.204861111111111in"}

Comment: Why is wildlife watering not allowed?

Response: Targeted species do not require watering.

Comment: Landowner bird monitoring protocol, has it been run by FWS?

Response: No, too expensive to monitor. CSI is struggling with this same
issue.

*[Coordinator Rio Grande Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
(CREP)]{.underline}*

**Tim Davis**

Coordinator Rio Grande

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)

-   Republican River CREP was approved.

-   June 6, 2007 signup deadline.

-   23,000 acres enrolled or obligated within the Republican River CREP.

-   Seeking change in cash match. Initial match was cost share land
    retirement incentives, etc.

-   Republican River Water Conservation District requested a CRP cap
    exemption for Lincoln and Washington counties, so they can apply
    initial CREP acres.

[]{.mark}

Comment: What is the possibility of an amendment to the CREP language
that would state that when a well is retired to meet compact
obligations, you can retire the well without retiring the land?

Response: CREP is a land retirement program.

Comment: Encourage looking at the regional water enhancement program. To
change the language to allow a land retirement program to a non
retirement program is doubtful because they should look at other
programs like the EQIP-GSWC program or the proposed RWEP to cover these
issues.

Comment: Rio Grande, San Luis Valley, CREP proposal is in the early
stages. Is a portion of 3 of those 11 counties, in Sub-District #1?

Response: There are three counties, Alamosa, Rio Grande, and Saguache,
within the Rio Grande Basin (San Luis Valley) that are currently being
considered for a proposal for CREP. The portions of these three counties
are within Sub-District #1 of the Rio Grande Water Conservation
Districts. The Sub-District will be seeking the CREP approval and will
be providing the majority of the cash match required by USDA (20%). Tim
Davis is currently consulting with both the Republican River Water
Conservation District and the Sub-District #1of the Rio Grande Water
Conservation District on CREP and other Farm Bill related issues.

The Alamosa, Saguache, and Rio Grande aquifer is not sustaining itself.
No practices identified, make aquifer sustainable, long term balance.
Need to retire 40,000 acres. In spring of 2008 we hope to have the
proposal in place (generally takes a year).

*[NRCS Conservation Planning and Programs Update]{.underline}*

**Tim Carney**

ASTC-Programs

NRCS

Summary of 2007 Financial Assistance, Easement & Stewardship Programs.

Charts displayed:

North Platte-White Yampa FY 07 Environmental Quality Incentives Program
(EQIP) Funding Allocations

Colorado River FY 07 EQIP Funding Allocations

Gunnison/Dolores FY 07 EQIP Funding Allocations

San Juan FY 07 EQIP Funding Allocations

Upper South Platte FY 07 EQIP Funding Allocations

Lower South Platte FY 07 EQIP Funding Allocations

Republican FY 07 EQIP Funding Allocations

Upper Arkansas FY 07 EQIP Funding Allocations

Lower Arkansas FY 07 EQIP Funding Allocations

Rio Grande FY 07 EQIP Funding Allocations

FY 07 EQIP CIG Funding

-   CIG demonstrates innovative approaches to conservation practices

-   18 proposals submitted, 10 tentatively funded

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Request for Proposal Process

-   10 proposals funded

-   \$400,000 obligated o benefit: SW Willow Flycatcher & Rio Grande
    Chub, Arkansas Darter, Long billed Curlew, Gunnison Sage Grouse,
    Northern Leopard Frog, Greater Sage Grouse, Prebble\'s meadow
    jumping mouse, Long Nose Dace and Migrating waterfowl

FY 07 Easement Programs

-   Currently processing FRPP, Grasslands Reserve Program (GRP) and WRP
    applications and working to award final funding for 13 easements in
    11 counties.

-   Final announcements pending.

Invasive species discussion: The state advisory board discussed Canadian
thistle and other invasive species. Invasive species are not a primary
emphasis of EQIP but are very important issues statewide. A factor is
competition for natural resource dollars and congressional intent. What
do we need to do to get Russian Olive handled like Tamarisk? Ask for
emphasis on a watershed basis with the watershed work groups and
Colorado Dept. of Agriculture.

2008 Conservation Programs - Proposed Program Signup Timelines

-   2008 Proposed Program Signup Timelines

-   EQIP -- General & Salinity

-   November 1, 2007 for 2008 projects

-   July 1, 2008 for 2009 projects (GSWC possibly later pending compact
    issues)

-   WRP

-   September 1, 2007 for 2008 projects

-   July 1, 2008 for 2009 projects

2008 Proposed Program Signup Timelines - RFPs

-   EQIP Invasive Species Proposals

-   WHIP Project Proposals

-   July 31, 2007 to announce RFPs for 2008 projects

-   November 1, 2007 cutoff for proposal submission

Discussion: Could all deadlines be in the same timeframe? A consistent
deadline may have a more positive outcome. This will involve
communication to the producers.

2008 EQIP Screening Tool proposal --

-   Input welcomed

-   Conservation planning emphasis before program participation.

Management Incentive Practices (MIP)

-   Encourage adoption of new practices and technology

-   Colorado Policy: \$10,000 cumulative limit per eligible recipient
    per practice

-   Do we need MIP?

Comment: Are there new practices and technologies that we would like to
encourage to bring forward?

Response: Aggressive IWM program to where producers are aware. The
change in technology going to raise the caps and similar issues.1

*[Payment Schedule Implementation]{.underline}*

**Dollie Gonzales**

Resource Conservationist --Programs

NRCS

FY 2008 Cost Basis for payment rates

Programs, Conservation Security Program (CSP), environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP), Wetlands Habitat Improvement Programs (WHIP)

Why?

-   Simplify program development, contracting, and contract
    administration

-   Time saving, increase time for planning and technical consultation

-   Improve participant understanding of compensation

-   World Trade Organization (WTO) compliant/Internal Revenue Service
    (IRS) ruling friendly

-   Nationwide, consistent Process

-   Eliminating cost share rates, methods, average costs, practice
    components, number of items in the payment section

Comment: NHQ has recommended one payment schedule/docket. Can we go to
one payment schedule in the state?

Response: It may not be fair to have just one cost docket because the
state is too diverse. The costs are so different, geographic areas may
be a better division.

Comment: How often is the cost dockets updated, reviewed?

Response: Annually.

Comment: Would a geographic area be better?

Response: Benefits include 160 practices, cost docket contains all
different components, narrowing it down makes it much simpler in a
management perspective, less modifications on payments, practices can be
done cheaper, cost lists created upfront enable participants to make
knowledgeable decision.

Comment: If the producer can do the job cheaper, the producer still gets
the cost list amount.

*[Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) -- Review Ranking Tool]{.underline}*

**Gary Finstad**

Easements Coordinator

NRCS

-   Handout provided

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Similar ranking tool for 2008 that was used in the last cycle.

-   A few revisions and edits have been made.

-   Eligibility ranking must be done first, so time is not wasted
    ranking the application.

-   Ranking criteria on page 3, make a few minor adjustments

-   Will add more definitions to the criteria

-   Bulletin out next week announcing initial cut-off date of September
    1

-   13 WRP easements for funding

*[Closing Comments]{.underline}*

**Allen Green**

-   Announcement of \$500,000 of EQIP funds directed to resource
    recovery in parts of the Lower Arkansas watershed affected by recent
    severe weather events. Funds need to be obligated by September 30.

-   Republican River is applauded for taking it on themselves to try to
    resolve compact issues. We wish to be considered part of the
    solution.

-   Next meeting: Presented by the State Engineer and his/her staff.

Announcements/Comments:

-   DOW is close to completing their statewide greater Sagegrouse
    document. Will receive comments until July 30. Information available
    on website.

-   Status of the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP) in the
    process of getting cooperative agreements signed.2.5 million.

-   CACD, Camp Rocky July 8-15. Have room for more folks, ages 14-19.
    Contact Callie Hendrickson for information. The CACD annual meeting
    is being held

> November 12-13.

Adjourn @ 3:00

**Attendees**

Abbott, David - Colorado River Watershed

Brenner, John -- NRCS/Western Governor's Association

Briggs, Shane - Colorado Division of Wildlife

Burwell, Jeff - NRCS

Carney, Tim - NRCS

Castrodale, Shannon -- Shavano Conservation District

Coryell, Dennis -- Republican River Water Conservation District

Davis, Tim - Contractor

DiFeo, Lynette - FSA

Ernest, Harley - Haxton Conservation District

Filsinger, Matt - US FWS

Finstad, Gary - NRCS

Fitzgerald, Katy - US FWS

Frank, Lewis - FSA

Gallagher, Seth - Rocky Mountain Bird Organization

Gates, Landon - Colorado Farm Bureau

Gillespie, Mike - NRCS

Gonzales, Dollie - NRCS

Gray, Susan - US Forest Service

Green, Allen - NRCS

Hall, LeRoy - NRCS

Hendrickson - Callie, CACD

James, Travis -NRCS

Kettler, Steve - US FWS

King, Pam - Colorado State Conservation Board

Knapp, John - NRCS

Lair, Cindy - State Conservation Board

Lane, Eric - Colorado Department of Agriculture

Marymor, Noe -- Colorado Division of Wildlife/NRCS

Molinaro, Debra - NRCS

Murphy, Stan -- Republican River Water Conservation District

Neely, Betsy - The Nature Conservancy

Neilson, Ed -- NRCS

Paulter, Tim -RRWCD

Radke, Kathryn -Division of Water Resources

Reddy, Matt - NRCS/ Colorado Division of Wildlife

Riggle, Frank - NRCS

Ristau, Randal - Colorado Department Public Health/Environment

Robots, Marsha - Environmental Defense

Starkebaum, Brian - Haxton Conservation District

Stevenson, Suzanne - EPA

Sundstrom, Greg -- Colorado State Forest Service

Ulfelder, Bill - The Nature Conservancy

Villano, Marta - NRCS

Warner, Bob - CACD, Upper South Platte Watershed

Wright, J.D. - CACD, and Olney Boone Conservation District

Wyckoff, Reggie -- FSA