Meeting Attendees
Name / Organization / Email / Phone
Barb Osmundson / US Fish & Wildlife Service / / 243-2778 ext. 21
Dave Soker / Interested citizen / / 464-5393
Derek Lovoi / Colorado Parks & Wildlife / / 210-7048
Frank Watt / Town of Palisade / / 464-1116
John Heideman / Riverfront Commission / / 250-5206
JT Romatzke / Colorado Parks & Wildlife / / 255-6178
Kathy Portner / City of Grand Junction / / 244-1420
Pete Firmin / Colorado Parks & Wildlife / / 434-3388
Rusty Lloyd / Tamarisk Coalition / / 256-7400
Shannon Hatch / Tamarisk Coalition / / 256-7400
Stacy Beaugh / Tamarisk Coalition / / 256-7400
Stan Young / Landowner/contractor / / 216-8112
TureNycum / City of Fruita / / 858-0360 ext. 10

Introductions & Recap of Last Meeting(6/14/2012):

  • At last meeting, there was consensus that partners were interested in moving forward with Valley-wide initiative; didn’t delve into the specifics too much, but identified items that needed discussion at this meeting (and others), including:
  • Name, scope, focus, goals, prioritization
  • Brief discussion of some of the background surrounding this project, including the Army Corp of Engineers 206 Project.
  • Several “shovel-ready” projects were selected to be considered for funding through the Water Supply Reserve Account (WSRA) grant; TC to submit application on behalf of Collaborative
  • Should note that information provided in grant regarding Collaborative is fluid; not beholden to name or scope; just needed to provide some information

Update on WSRA Grant Application Process:

  • TC to attend next Colorado River Basin Roundtable meeting on July 23rd to learn if application will be submitted to the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) for consideration.
  • CWCB staff review all eligible applications and provide a written recommendation to the CWCB Board at its September Board meeting.
  • The CWCB Board evaluates the application and makes a funding decision.
  • Within 30 days of the Board review, the CWCB will provide each applicant with a summary of why the application was approved for full funding, partial funding or no funding.
  • Successful applicants are expected to execute a contract with the CWCB within 6 months from approval.

Scope of Collaborative Effort:

The general consensus ofmeeting participants was that the Collaborative should keep its geographic scope and project focus broad. The Collaborative should remain inclusive; selecting projects based on a comprehensive prioritization process.

  • Primary focus areas to include: water quality and watershed protection, with emphasis on the re-establishment of native plants in areas affected by tamarisk and Russian olive.
  • Demonstrated improvements in water quality and watershed health can be a valuable addition
  • May help for funding for the project.
  • All lands affected by tamarisk and Russian olive, including the Colorado River mainstem, tributaries, and upland areas should be considered.
  • Mesa County was considered the main focus area, however, portions of the Gunnison River where critical fish habitat exists should also be considered.
  • Touch base with partners in Delta County to determine what gaps exist

Goals& Principles:

The following overarching goals were identified by meeting participants. These are overall Collaborative goals, notsite specific goals. While each project should strive to complement these goals in some fashion, each project will be unique and completed in accordance with landowner objectives and site realities.

  • The Collaborative should promote projects that conserve, protect or improve:
  • Habitat for Colorado River endangered fish species and other fish species
  • Habitat for terrestrial wildlife
  • Water quality; including tributaries on the 303d list for selenium
  • River function/flood control
  • Erosion
  • The Collaborative is also interested in improving recreational experiences and opportunities in communities along the river
  • The Collaborative should be inclusive and voluntary
  • The Collaborative should respect and support landowner goals; expectations of the Collaboration for landowner/ land managers should be clearly outlined.
  • Facilitation of partners to increase information sharing and maximization of resources should be a priority
  • Outreach and community awareness should be fostered, promoted.
  • A comprehensive prioritization scheme should guide efforts (see below) such that the Collaborative is able to maximize funding while reducing redundancy.

Prioritization:

Prioritization was identified as a key component, critical to ensuring the success of partnership efforts. The following are factors that should be taken into consideration as the prioritization process unfolds.

  • Strive to look at the system from a bird’s eye view; identify priority areas and address them as needed.
  • Determine what gaps exist; don’t want to duplicate efforts
  • This should be a truly inclusive effort that combines mapping, data, knowledge from all agencies, landowners
  • Include information on potential threats to the system
  • Consider working with willing landowners on tributaries; work towards mainstem
  • Include data on high priority fish and wildlife habitat, rare or sensitive plants, recreation priorities, landownership
  • Consider doing a weighted analysis of criteria
  • Consider habitat continuity
  • Prioritize where most valuable habitat is at risk
  • Compile existing mapping resources
  • Mesa County may be a good partner to work with to house data
  • CPW has mapping data and criteria that they can contribute
  • Work with NRCS to obtain soil data
  • May be beneficial to look for capacity grant to gather/compile data
  • Prioritize where projects will yield the most return on investment
  • How can funding partnerships enhance ability to complete work?
  • Where can enhancement actions (vs. full restoration) occur to yield benefit
  • How accessible are sites?

Mission Statement:

Do we create a mission statement around the following words; still very open to suggestions!?

  • Riparian or riverside habitat
  • Weed management
  • Restore
  • Protect
  • Maintain
  • Develop partnerships

Frank Watt suggested the following mission statement:

To restore, protect, and maintain the native habitat of the river corridors of Mesa and Delta counties through the development of community partnerships.

Name of Collaborative:

For the purposes of the WSRA grant, the name Grand Valley Riparian Restoration Collaborative was used; this name is open to change, especially in light of an expanded focus.

  • Will revisit name again

Other Topics of Discussion:

  • A field trip/ tour of the Valley should be scheduled this fall to see restoration successes and failures
  • Additional outreach needed
  • Contact the gravel mining companies
  • Grand Valley Coalition of the Homeless
  • Can Valley wide restoration techniques be employed?
  • Ecosystem wide seeding?

Important Considerations:

  • Need to start to articulate what Collaborative is trying to do, outreach/awareness
  • Utilize other groups, including DRIP, Riverfront Commission to help with outreach
  • Once Collaborative is better defined, an Memorandum of Understanding should be developed to help secure funding, better formalize partnership
  • Identify some ways to tap into private land owners
  • NRCS, Conservation Districts, irrigation companies, Mesa Land Trust, Drainage District
  • Plant Materials
  • Need to address early on to obtain desired materials
  • Could work with local landowners to grow plants/coppice yards
  • TC already working with Stan Young to grow cottonwoods
  • Consolidated plant purchases?

Other Projects:

City of Fruita:

The following projects were identified by the City of Fruita as ongoing or future tamarisk removal and revegetation sites.

  • Wastewater Reclamation Facility – 85 acre site; still need to complete some tamarisk removal, need help with restoration
  • Snooks Bottom Open Space, still need to remove 2-5 acres along the banks
  • Erosion is a consideration
  • Fruita Riverfront Park (Disc Golf Course) – additional revegetation/retreatment efforts needed
  • Big and Little Salt Wash; 10-12 acres of removal and revegetation work

Clifton Sanitation District:

  • Would like to enhance properties to provide wildlife and community benefit
  • Enhancement will remove invasive species and perform mass excavation and grading to create wetlands, shallow and backwater habitat, upland habitat and food sources
  • Applied for GOCO grant but did not receive funding for October 2011 round

West Salt Creek

  • 50 acres of tamarisk have been removed through mulching by Stan Young
  • NRCS involvement

Watson Island/Las Colonias

  • Continuing to implement goals set forth in riparian restoration plan
  • City looking at moving forward with scoping for development at Las Colonias

Additional Funding Opportunities:

  • Colorado Water Conservation Board – Invasive Phreatophyte Control Program (IPCP)
  • Supplemental Environmental Projects
  • Develop list of potential projects

Follow-up (lead group indicated):

  • Meet with Mesa County and others to discuss GIS database structure (TC to take lead, will meet with partners to gather data once structure is defined)
  • Continue to work on Name/Mission of Collaborative (TC to take lead; feel free to contribute ideas!)
  • Continue outreach efforts (TC to take lead with partner input and suggestions)
  • Start planning for field trip (TC to take lead, will be in touch with partners)
  • Continue to look for additional funding opportunities (TC/all)
  • Schedule next meeting after GIS database structure takes shape (TC)