United States Department of Agriculture
Natural Resources Conservation Service		 Colorado Go to Accessibility Information
Skip to Page Content

 

Colorado State Technical Committee

Holiday Inn Denver West – Golden, Colorado
March 3, 2009


Welcome: Allen Green, State Conservationist with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), welcomed everyone, reviewed the agenda, and discussed the advisory the role of the State Technical Committee.

Two Chief’s Award presentation to Greg Sundstrom:
Jeff Jahnke, Colorado State Forest Service, Lyndon Weibe, U.S. Forest Service, and Allen Green presented Greg Sundstrom of the Colorado State Forest Service the Two Chiefs Partnership Award recognizing significant efforts promoting locally led forest stewardship with private landowners in Colorado.

Colorado Statewide Forest Resource Assessment & Strategy: Page Lewis with the Nature Conservancy and Joseph Duda with CSFS presenting.

The Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) is undertaking a comprehensive statewide forest resource assessment that examines conditions, trends and opportunities related to Colorado’s forests and will be used to identify state level opportunities for action.
Congress directed statewide assessments be conducted to identify forest resource related conservation priorities. The CSFS has partnered with The Nature Conservancy to coordinate the development of this assessment, which is expected to be completed in July 2009.

Colorado’s assessment will be built by assembling geospatial data layers that highlight areas of interest and/or concern in accordance with three national themes: Conserve Working Forest Landscapes; Protect Forests from Harm; and Enhance Public Benefits from Trees and Forests. Upon completion, the Statewide Forest Resource Assessment will serve as the foundation for a subsequent, locally-based collaborative process through which key interests will develop specific management strategies, timelines and resource needs to address state-level priorities.

The NRCS and its associated conservation programs can play an important role in improving and sustaining Colorado’s critical forest resources, particularly on non-federal lands. As the Assessment is being developed, Agency input is requested. Input is also requested regarding how the NRCS, conservation districts and private landowners can most effectively be engaged as part of the subsequent strategy-building process.

Colorado Natural Heritage Program: The Colorado Natural Heritage Program’s Role in Conserving Colorado’s Biodiversity Wealth. David Anderson- Director, presenting.

The Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) housed at Colorado State University (CSU) is one of a number of natural heritage programs across the United States. The CNHP represents a tremendous wealth of knowledge about Colorado’s critical biological resources and natural landscapes flowing to the people of Colorado and beyond. For 30 yea, the CNHP has been building and managing Colorado’s only comprehensive dataset on the location and status of imperiled animals, plants, and plant communities, and sharing the data with a wide range of stakeholders in the service of conservation efforts in

Colorado. The CNHP actively works to augment data by working with partners to integrate information and conduct surveys. The work on private lands throughout Colorado often puts the CNHP in the role of bridging gaps between the agricultural community and conservation science. Data is used to conduct analyses that feed into conservation planning and natural resource management on many levels.

The CNHP work products discussed were the Scorecard project for Measuring Colorado Biodiversity of Species, the Landscape America project, support for the Colorado Department of Transportation’s Short Grass Prairie Initiative, yearly monitoring for The Nature Conservancy on several Colorado easements, the Floristic Quality Assessment, the Coefficient of Conservatism (C-Value), Vegetation Index of Biotic Integrity (VIBI), the Ecological Integrity Assessment (EIA) and various noxious weed monitoring and wetland inventory and conservation strategies.

For example: the biodiversity scorecard, developed collaboratively with The Nature Conservancy, is a tool to assess the relative status of elements of biodiversity statewide, including large patch ecological systems, and measure conservation success for these targets. Ways that the CNHP data can be used to assess restoration potential for ecological sites was discussed, along with an overview of data and tools, and how they can be used to provide insight into conservation status and priorities.

A discussion of about potential opportunities for collaboration was held. CNHP staffer, Michael Menefee, was suggested as the contact for watershed work groups seeking resource priority input information or collaborative opportunities. Mr. Menefee may be reached at 970-491-7331 or at www.cnhp.colostate.edu.

Organic Agriculture in Colorado: Mitch Yergert, Colorado Department of Agriculture presenting.

Congress passed the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) of 1990. The OFPA required the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to develop national standards for organically produced agricultural products to assure consumers that agricultural products marketed as organic meet consistent, uniform standards. The OFPA and the National Organic Program (NOP) regulations require that agricultural products labeled as organic originate from farms or handling operations certified by a State or private entity that has been accredited by the USDA. The NOP is a marketing program housed within the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service. Neither the OFPA nor the NOP regulations address food safety or nutrition.

Organic certification has changed to a national program. Certification means that an independent third party has verified that the requirements of organic production and handling have been met. The NOP is part of the USDA’s agriculture marketing service, as cited in the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 205. The national organic program rules became effective in October, 2002.

The types of organic certification are crops producer, livestock producer, process/ handling, and wild crops harvesting.

Transitional certification:
There is no such thing as a federally recognized organic transitional certification. Certification requires 36 months without a prohibited product and no synthetic fertilizers. Some non-government, independent certifiers offer transitional certification during the 36 months for crops that have been approved. Any product that enters the U.S. has to be certified according to the NOP rules.

Accredited certifying agents:
The Colorado Department of Agriculture is the only Colorado based accredited certifying agent. There are 55 accredited certifying agents in the U.S. and 45 outside the U.S. There are 13–15 private entities as well as state or local agencies.

The Certification process has a number of components. The operation submits an organic system plan to the certifier; the certifier evaluates the plan; onsite inspection is done; and a certification decision is made. The system plan lists all things that have been done to take care of the land. If producers have used synthetic products they will not be certified.
Certification inspection can take 3 to 4 hours and sometimes a full day. Organic certification has to be done annually.

An Organic Systems Plan includes:

  • description of everything that has been applied to the land,
  • the management processes,
  • record keeping,
  • allowed and prohibited substances,
  • synthetic substances except those that are allowed,
  • non-synthetic substances that have been prohibited,
  • non-agricultural substance use in or on processed products except those that are allowed,
  • non-organic agricultural substances used in or on processed products, and
  • excluded methods like (GMOS).
What is organic crop production?
• It is a farming system that is managed in accordance with NOP rules in response to site-specific conditions.

What is monitored?
Water and soil are monitored to minimize soil erosion. Producers must manage manure in a manner that does not contribute to contamination of the crops, soil or water by plant nutrients, heavy metals, etc. Wild crop harvesting must be harvested in a manner that is not destructive to the plant. Organic certification is largely based on recordkeeping and how producers meet the requirements.

Organic certification cost ranges from $800 to $3000 per year based on size of the operation plus $600 just for application. Colorado has recently experienced10-20 % a year growth in organic certification. Colorado certifies approximately 200 operations a year. Producers with less than $5000 a year in sales or income do not have to be certified, but still have to follow the rules.

Organic certificates:
Producers are given a certificate with the name of company and what categories they are certified in, date given and when the inspection was. Animals have to be fed an organic diet after 3rd of gestation. A cow has to be treated for a year before the milk can be sold as organic milk. As of one day of age, chickens must be feed organic feed to be eligible for certification.

If only half of a producer’s land is managed for organic production only the organic half’s income needs to be counted for the certification income threshold. Producers may raise the same crops but organic and conventional production must be parallel. More paper work, record keeping and careful maintenance are required of dual or split operations. For example, if you use a mower on the non-organic land, it must be washed before it can be used on the organic side. For certified beef operations, a producer can change the cow in or out of the organic feeding to be organic, but for milk operations the cows must be fed an organic diet.

Items Specific to Soil and Water Resources:
The NOP regulations have several provisions requiring production practices that are implemented must maintain or improve the natural resources of the operation, including soil and water quality.

In the soil fertility and crop nutrient management practice standard, the NOP regulations state the following:
(a) The producer must select and implement tillage and cultivation practices that maintain or improve the physical, chemical, and biological condition of soil and minimize soil erosion.
(b) The producer must manage crop nutrients and soil fertility through rotations, cover crops, and the application of plant and animal materials. The producer must manage plant and animal materials to maintain or improve soil organic matter content in a manner that does not contribute to the contamination of crops, soil, or water by plant nutrients, pathogenic organisms, heavy metals, or residues of prohibited substances.

In the livestock living conditions standard, the NOP regulations state:
The producer of an organic livestock operation may provide temporary confinement for an animal because of risk to soil or water quality. The producer of an organic livestock operation must manage manure in a manner that does not contribute to the contamination of crops, soil, or water by plant nutrients, heavy metals, or pathogenic organisms and optimizes recycling of nutrients.

Farm Service Agency Update: Billy Merritt, CRP Program Specialist and Gary Wall, Acting State Director presenting.
  • CRP update.
  • The new CRP program rule as not been finalized.
  • National program caps for CRP in the 2008 Farm Bill have been reduced to 32 million acres.
  • Eligibility criteria and the process for requesting waivers from the County.
  • 25% of cropland caps have also changed.
  • More information on the CRP program, including information regarding any future signup or re-enrollment opportunity will be forthcoming once announced nationally.
State Technical Committee Wildlife Advisory subcommittee issues: Ken Morgan, Colorado Division of Wildlife presenting.

Members of the wildlife subcommittee are requesting an Environmental Quality Inspection Program (EQIP) special initiative to address resource concerns presented by the potential plow out of significant cropland acres in Colorado that are currently in perennial grass cover funded through the CRP. Subcommittee members are asking for an EQIP funded and partnership leveraged program to encourage producers to develop progressive grazing systems incorporating critical wildlife habitat management. The subcommittee is recommending EQIP and partner funded structural and management practice financial assistance targeted to these lands. Approximately $130,000 has been pledged by the Colorado Department of Wildlife (CDOW), Pheasants Forever, Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (RMBO), the Short Grass Prairie Partnership, and the United States Forest Service (USFS) and others.

The State Technical Committee discussed the proposal and asked questions of the presenter. What are the best ways to target producers with expiring CRP contracts who are not interested in CRP re-enrollment, and what is the best way to manage the matching funds?

A commitment to utilize the NRCS programs and facilitate the subcommittee’s recommendations to address resource concerns presented by the expiring CRP contracts was stated by Tim Carney, NRCS Assistant State Conservationist for Programs. Input was requested on structuring the program to target interested and eligible producers, and to effectively manage the matching funds was requested.

CRP Safe Program Seeding Mixes: Ken Morgan, Colorado Division of Wildlife presenting.

Updated seed mixes for plantings authorized through the CRP State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement (SAFE) were presented for review and comment.

NRCS Administered 2008 Farm Bill Conservation Programs Update: Tim Carney – NRCS Assistant State Conservationist for Programs presenting.

EQIP, AWEP (subset of EQIP), CIG, WHIP updates were presented.

Program Interim Final Rules have been announced and published in the Federal Register for Agency use and public comment. The current comment period expires on or before March 16, 2009.

The EQIP rule clarifies the program to include forest management, energy conservation, practices related to organic production and fuel management, increase payments for historically underserved by 25% above the general payment rate not to exceed a maximum of 90%. EQIP provides increased emphasis to water conservation or irrigation efficiency applications, forest health and organic production operations.

Program payment limitations are reduced to $300,000 from $450,000. Priority is authorized to improve conservation practices or systems already in place.

Colorado EQIP changes previously discussed with the State Technical Committee were re-emphasized including:
  • Contracts based on comprehensive conservation plans are prioritized.
  • Shorter term contracts emphasized.
  • Payment schedule fully implemented.
  • Payment rates are being increased for the general EQIP program.
  • Inflation indexed payments providing the current year payment basis for structural practices implemented on or ahead of schedule. (FY07 + FY08 contracts) to be implemented. (Note: We have since been informed that indexed practice payments have been delayed by NRCS nationally until 2010.)
An increase in the general EQIP payment rate is authorized. The State Conservationist requested recommendations from the State Technical Committee on the proper payment rate to offer. A proposed base rate of 60% for FY2009 was discussed.

The NRCS Colorado EQIP policy regarding the eligibility of conservation practices commenced prior to contract approval and signature was discussed. The policy is that an application has to be screened as high priority and ranked in the system before a waiver can be applied for and considered for approval.

New Farm Bill and Administration Priorities regarding including energy conservation and climate change issues were discussed. NRCS will be more progressive in incorporating these concerns in conservation program technical and financial assistance to producers.

Conservation activity plans:
The 2008 Farm Bill provides for NRCS program related conservation planning activities. The NRCS will pilot the process nationally in FY 2009 and Colorado will pilot Agricultural Energy Management, Forest Management, Grazing Management, and Converting Irrigated Lands to Dry Land Conservation Activity Plans using 3rd party providers this summer. State Technical Committee members were asked for input regarding suitable partners to implement and evaluate the pilots.

The EQIP Agricultural Water Enhancement Program was reviewed. The Program replaced the former Ground and Surface Water Conservation Program. AWEP includes water quality and quantity restoration or enhancement projects, irrigation system or irrigation efficiency enhancement, drought mitigation, and other related activities deemed by the Secretary of Agriculture

Comments on the AWEP Interim Final Rule published in the Federal Register can be made until March 16, 2009. AWEP is currently open for national partnership proposals.
Pending AWEP applications from Colorado include two from the Republican River Basin. The State Conservationist asked representatives from the Basin to discuss key points from their proposals with the Committee. The two proposals seek water conservation within the Basin through various program emphases on reduced consumptive use and the conversion of irrigated lands to dry land.

Tim Davis presented highlights of the AWEP proposal from the Republican River Water Conservation District (RRWCD). The RRWCD has had a successful program over the last 4 years and 11,000 acres have been enrolled in the program. Brian Starkebaum presented the priorities of the Yuma Conservation District in a planned AWEP proposal.

The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) was discussed by Tim Carney.
Comments on the WHIP Interim Final Rule published in the Federal Register are being accepted on or before March 17, 2009.

WHIP legislative changes include a higher percentage of WHIP funds are available nationally for long-term agreements. Priority goes to projects that address State, regional and national conservation initiatives. WHIP focuses on native species and habitats. WHIP payments may not exceed $50,000 per year. Colorado uses both a landscape scale project Request for Proposal (RFP) process and a general statewide WHIP signup if funds remain.

The NRCS administered private lands protection easement program was discussed. Highlights were provided for the Farm & Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP), Grasslands Reserve Program (GRP), and Healthy Forests Reserve Program (HFRP).

Legislative changes expanded the purpose of FRPP from “protecting topsoil” to “protecting agricultural use and related conservation values of the land.” Long-term agreements with eligible land trust partners for easement programs are now possible. The
authority of the Secretary of Agriculture has changed from purchasing FRPP easements to funding easements. The USA retains a contingent right to enforce terms of deed

The GRP legislative changes include a shift to a targeted acreage goal rather than a funding limit. Acreage that may be enrolled nationally increased by 1.2 million acres over the 2002 Farm Bill. Program priorities support grazing operations, enhancement of plant and animal biodiversity, protection of grassland and land containing grasses, and forbs from threats of conversion. GRP provides priority for enrollment of up to 10% of enrollment for certain expiring acreage from the CRP that otherwise meet program criteria. New authorities expand GRP eligible land to include areas with historical or archeological resources and land that addresses state, regional, or national conservation priorities.

Other GRP legislative changes are the requirement of a grazing management plan for participants, easement compensation using a process similar to WRP, and that easements may now be acquired by eligible entities based on a 50 percent cost-share with the Federal Government.

The HFRP legislative authorities include permanent easements, cost share agreements and 30-years contracts with Tribes. HFRP priorities are to protect and restore forest resources that support important habitats. The State Technical Committee’s input was requested for the development of a future HFRP proposal.

WRP priorities are to maximize wildlife benefits and wetland values and functions. Statutory authorities include permanent easements, cost share agreements and 30-year contracts with Tribes. Changes have been made in the process for determining the easement compensation. The authorized program acres that can be enrolled nationally is 3,041,200 acres, an increase of 766, 2000. For restoration cost-share agreements, annual payments may not exceed $50,000 per year.

No WRP easement may be created on land that has changed ownership during the proceeding 7 years. The Secretary may grant limited exceptions to this new rule. Eligible acres are limited to private and Tribal lands. Eligible land technical requirements are that land must be farmed wetlands or converted wetland together with adjacent land functionally dependent land.

The Conservation Stewardship Program legislative changes are that eligible participants must demonstrate they are meeting the stewardship threshold for at least one priority resource concern, and address at least one additional priority resource concern by the end of the conservation stewardship contract. National agency training is planned for
April, 2009. The program will enroll an additional 12,769,000 acres each fiscal year. Open signup for all producers is planned. States anticipate acreage enrollment, not watershed based allocation.

EQIP Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG): Dollie Gonzales, NRCS Colorado EQIP Coordinator presenting.

The purpose of the CIG is to help fill the NRCS technology gaps in addressing priority and natural resource concerns. CIG is not a research funding program. The national NRCS CIG program has a budget of $20 million and proposals are being accepted through mid March, 2009. Individual projects may be funded up to $2 million with projects not to exceed three years. Projects must involve and benefit EQIP eligible participants. The State Conservationist must submit a letter of support and concurrence for national CIG project applications with involving producers and/or lands within the State.

National CIG eligible categories are natural resource concerns addressing:
  • Water resources, quality or quantity,
  • Soil resources, enhance resources,
  • Atmospheric resources,
  • Grazing land, invasive species,
  • Forest health.
This year, there is a national technology category seeking proposals addressing:
  • Improved agricultural energy efficiency,
  • Water management (both drainage water and irrigation water),
  • Improved nutrient management to improved water quality,
  • Air quality,
  • Conservation technology transfer to targeted groups of farmers or rancher (limited resources),
  • National grants leveraging category,
  • Non industrial forestland management,
  • Adoption.
An NRCS Colorado in-state CIG funding opportunity is being developed for release late this spring. An announcement will be made on the NRCS Colorado web site and on www.grants.gov detailing conservation priorities, application requirements and timelines. State level CIGs are limited to $75,000 maximum over 3 years. Proposals must address the specific categories noted in the grant opportunity announcement. CIG is not a research funding program.

The 2008 Farm Bill State Technical Committee Rules and Procedures: Allen Green, NRCS State Conservationist presenting.

Legislative changes to the State Technical Committee structure in the new Farm Bill include expanded agricultural and forestry involvement. An exemption of local working groups from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) was legislated.
The State Technical Committee authority related to reviewing local working groups’ efforts was expanded. The Farm Bill supports standardization of Committee operations, modified responsibilities of Committees, and reaffirmed the role of the State Technical Committee as advisory in nature.

Colorado will implement these changes with new guidance for the State Technical Committee and subcommittees, watershed work groups and local work group roles and responsibilities. New guidance is being developed.

Closing Comments: Allen Green

The State Conservationist thanked all those participating for their input. A general discussion of the Administration’s interests in energy conservation and air quality issues was held. The pending release of the NRCS Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative Interim Final Rule and partner application announcement was noted. The next State Technical Committee is planned to be held outside Denver and is scheduled for late summer (July or August) on the Western Slope of Colorado.

The meeting was adjourned at 2:40 p.m.
 

< Back to NRCS Colorado ECS Page