Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

Colorado State Technical Committee Minutes by jr8z8OX


									                                                        Colorado State Technical Committee
                                                        Holiday Inn - Denver West - Golden, Colorado
                                                                        June 21, 2007

Welcome: 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://
                                             hhtp://
                                             hhtp://

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

Cooperative Sagebrush Initiative (CSI)
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.


           Percent of 2003 population






                                          1964   1969     1974   1979   1984   1989   1994   1999   2004

      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,
      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

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
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
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
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%

      The Need
        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
        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.

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

       Upper Platte
        River Basin

                      Middle Platte
                       River Basin

                                Republican River

                      Arkansas River
                          - West


   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

Comment: How can conservationists and producers work together to promote the
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
Frank Riggle
ASTC-Water Resources, NRCS

Watershed Assessments:
  • Predominantly qualitative rather than quantitative analysis.
  • Flexible enough to accommodate variability between watersheds to address local
  • 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

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

Land Use Map

Water Quality Information

Resource Concerns Identified Through the Conservation Districts Long Range Planning

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
Mike Gillespie
Snow Survey Supervisor

New Snow Survey Data Products

   All products are available on Colorado NRCS webpage. Our website is broken down
    by different topics.
     Colorado Snow Survey Webpage

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.

New Experimental Daily
Streamflow Forecasts
Daily Forecast Update Graphs | Colorado NRCS
     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.
     Currently 56 forecast points in Colorado with additional points planned.

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
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)

   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
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:

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
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

      Lesser Prairie Chicken SAFE Area

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

PSTG 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
 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

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)
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.

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
Tim Carney

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

   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

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)
 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
Dollie Gonzales
Resource Conservationist –Programs

FY 2008 Cost Basis for payment rates
Programs, Conservation Security Program (CSP), environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP), Wetlands Habitat Improvement Programs (WHIP)
    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

Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) – Review Ranking Tool
Gary Finstad
Easements Coordinator

      Handout provided
      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
      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
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.


      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

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


To top