COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL ADVISORY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES
Final
Embassy Suites – Paloma Village Hotel
3110 East Skyline Drive
Tucson, Arizona
Advisory Council Beginning Time: Wednesday, October 28, 2015, 1:00 p.m.
Designated Federal Officer: Kib Jacobson
Presiding: Chairman David Robbins
I. Welcome and Introductions Robbins
Advisory Council (Council) Chairman David Robbins called the meeting to order. As there was no one in
attendance who had not been previously introduced at the Forum meeting held earlier, he decided to
dispense with introductions. A roster was circulated to take attendance for the meeting. A copy of the
attendance roster is attached to these minutes as Appendix A.
II. Opening Comments, Acceptance of letters of substitute members Jacobson
Kib Jacobson welcomed the group and thanked Arizona for hosting the meetings in Tucson. He mentioned
that he had letters designating alternates for Council members who could not attend. Alternates sitting in
for Council members included Matthew Garn for Leah Ann Lamb from Utah, Paul Harms for Tom Blaine from New Mexico and Andrew Burns for John Entsminger from Nevada.
III. Review and Approval of proposed Agenda Robbins
Chairman Robbins explained that he would like to move agenda item XII to agenda item X.A.a. to be a
subsection of the Basin Funds Status and Accounting. There was a motion to approve the agenda as
amended. It was approved. A copy of the agenda is attached as Appendix B.
IV. Draft Minutes of 2015 Spring Council Meeting – Salt Lake City, UT Jacobson/Robbins
Jacobson reported one minor edit that needed to be made to the minutes of the May 20-21 meeting in Salt
Lake City. There was a motion to approve the minutes with this modification. The motion passed.
V. Charter Renewal Jacobson
Jacobson explained that the Advisory Council operates on a charter that has to be renewed every two years.
It was last renewed in 2014. Due to the long process of review and getting signatures, an effort was made
to get the charter renewed earlier in the year so that it would be in place well in advance of the October
Council meeting. Despite starting the process earlier in 2014, it was not completed until September.
Jacobson recommended trying again to get the renewal done by July or August. Chairman Robbins asked
for a motion to request that Jacobson commence immediately to have the charter renewed in a timely
manner. There were no requests for changes to the charter, so that motion was made and approved.
VI. Items from the Forum Tanya Trujillo
2
Tanya Trujillo reminded the group that the Forum had discussed funding recommendations and suggested
that it be addressed later in the meetings following reports that would be given on the subject. She proposed
that she wait until the end of the Advisory Council meeting to present recommendations from the Forum to
the Council on proposed funding for the program. Chairman Robbins agreed and suggested that it be
presented the following day as one of the last agenda items for the Council.
VII. Agency Reports – EPA Peter Monahan
Peter Monahan touched on the highlights presented in the Federal Accomplishments Report (FAR). During
FY2015 EPA continued to provide coordination and assistance to the Salinity Control Forum and Advisory
Council with several key items. They provided informational updates to the Forum and Council on state
water quality standards and other related program information. EPA Region 8 has assumed the lead role
for EPA and is coordinating with Region 6 and Region 9 as they respond to questions and needs of the
Forum and Advisory Council. They are continuing to participate as a cooperating agency in the Bureau of
Reclamation’s effort to prepare an EIS for the Paradox Valley Unit. Monahan noted that in the FAR there
is a table of the states that have adopted the 2014 Review. He reported that all of them have partially or
wholly adopted the standards. EPA has approved the application of five tribes within the Colorado River
Basin to administer water quality and 401certification for their tribal lands, and four tribes have been
approved for water quality standards. The adopted and approved water quality standards for the four tribes
have been published and are available online. All the tribes are participating in activities such as the non-
point source control program and the NPDES permitting program.
VII. Agency Reports – USGS Dave Susong
David Susong gave some highlights of the ongoing scientific investigations USGS is conducting for the
salinity control program. Most of the work that USGS does in support of the salinity control program falls
into three broad categories. One is ongoing monitoring support in the modeling efforts, such as the 20-
station network. They also estimate loads and build tools for that purpose, and they are heavily involved
in some of the site assessment work, such as Paradox, and also specific point sources like Pah Tempe
Springs. In the FAR there is a list of all the major projects that are ongoing and are wrapped up. He offered
to answer questions on any of those efforts.
Susong highlighted two specific projects. The first was Pah Tempe Springs. The purpose of this project is
to assess and evaluate whether you could capture the discharge from those springs in a similar type of
project as the pumping that is going on at Paradox. He showed some slides of the area and the work they
are doing there and indicated that a report on this project should be out by the end of the fiscal year. Susong
also noted the ongoing effort to update the SPARROW model which is used to estimate salinity loads
throughout the basin and yields of salinity off of various landscapes. It has been used heavily to date in the
design and implementation of various salinity control projects. They are updating this model and adding
some new geographic information layers to it, as well as adding more calibration sites. They will include
a differentiation between irrigation types on sprinkler and flood irrigated lands. They are also looking at
land ownership to see if they can estimate how much salinity is being yielded from lands according to who
owns the land. He showed some slides having to do with the model. Susong’s PowerPoint is included as
Appendix C.
VII. Agency Reports – USDA-NRCS Travis James
Travis James shared some slides with the group which are shown in Appendix D. He referred to a summary
by project and state of the new salinity contracts that were developed with EQIP funds in 2015. There were
114 new contracts in Colorado for about $6.5 million. In Utah there were 53 new salinity contracts totaling
3
about $5.1 million. In Wyoming there were 7 new contracts for $352,000. In total NRCS developed 174
new contracts on about 6,000 acres for slightly over $12 million. When fully implemented, that will provide
about 11,000 tons of new salt control, costing about $105 per ton.
James showed numbers for contracts in 2015 for irrigation practice installation. These numbers included
new sprinklers installed, improved surface systems, microspray areas and improved flood areas in the three
states. These are multi-year contracts which could take anywhere from two to five years, or longer, to have
completely implemented. James explained that in addition to the new contracts that will be developed with
EQIP funds, NRCS passes applications to the EQIP program that are ineligible due to Farm Bill criteria to
Reclamation for consideration of possible funding with Basin States funds. There were 9 such applications
from Colorado. Reclamation has determined to approve 8 of those for about $1.3 million. In Utah there
were 23 applications passed to Reclamation which will not be funded for various reasons.
The financial assistance obligation from the three states in 2015 was slightly over $12 million. The
technical assistance expenditures were $3.2 million. So the total expenditure by NRCS for salinity EQIP
in 2015 was about $15 million. Cost share for NRCS financial assistance obligations from the Basin States
Program was about $5.1 million, and technical assistance was about $1.3 million, for a total of about $6.5
million.
James passed out an errata sheet showing corrections to numbers shown in the FAR (see Appendix E). This
Table 2 is a summary of the progress to date since the inception of the salinity projects. Total salinity
control is approximately 600,000 tons at a cumulative cost of around $385 million. This represents 76
percent of the goal.
James reported that there has been precedent for distributing the Basin States cost share back to the states
proportional to how the EQIP expenditures have occurred. The earning on the NRCS EQIP FA
expenditures in Colorado for 2015 would be $2.8 million. In the past those funds would have been
distributed 60% to the Colorado State Conservation Board for new contracts and 40% for technical
assistance. Of that 40%, 10% would have gone to the Bureau of Reclamation area office to do NEPA and
cultural resources and other activities that remain under their control, and 90% would have gone to NRCS
to service those Basin States contracts. In Utah, the total cost share generated from EQIP FA expenditures
was $2.1 million.
VII. Agency Reports – FWS Barb Osmundson
Barb Osmundson reported that FWS is involved in a document review. Whenever there is a piping project,
there is an environmental assessment which often involves Section 7 consultations. These are being taken
care of by FWS offices in Grand Junction, Salt Lake City and Cheyenne. She reported that there have been
two newly listed endangered species this year, which are the Yellow-Billed Cuckoo and the Gunnison Sage
Grouse. This makes the consultation process a little bit more cumbersome because their habitat overlaps
with some of the salinity control project and habitat replacement sites. They are working through the
process. She reported that FWS has also been pretty involved as a partnership agency in the Paradox
process thus far.
Osmundson noted that one of the biggest roles of FWS has to do with wildlife replacement activities. She
highlighted a few of those projects. In particular, she noted that there has been great progress in the Grand
Valley wildlife replacement project where massive acres of tamarisk have been removed and re-sprouts
have been treated. The Olathe Pond wildlife replacement project is a good example of FWS involvement
when considering wildlife replacement sites. In addition to non-native vegetation removal, they have been
trying to control non-native fish in the pond by screening the inlets and the outlets so they won’t escape
4
into the Gunnison River. They were a little disappointed with a non-native vegetation removal project at
one of the Colorado State wildlife areas where a mosquito control pesticide killed the tamarisk beetle and
they didn’t get the tamarisk removal they were hoping for. Osmundson enjoyed working with Reclamation
to score some habitat loss at the Lower Mammoth Canal realignment area in Price. It was beneficial to
cooperate in that effort.
Osmundson reported that she has been reviewing the M&E reports to see if the work is proportional and
concurrent in the different salinity control units. She was impressed with how important it is after a habitat
replacement project has been done for NRCS or the Bureau to visit the sites to make sure that they did what
they were supposed to do. Oftentimes habitat replacement projects are not kept up either because
landowners decide not to maintain them or urbanization kind of pushes them out. The result is that acreage
is lost. She suggested that in order to stay proportional and concurrent, it would be a good idea to plan on
getting more acres than what you anticipate losing because over the long haul you are going to be losing
acres by urbanization or other reasons.
VII. Agency Reports – BLM Bob Boyd
Bob Boyd focused his presentation on the progress BLM is making in addressing some of the longer-term
concerns that have been raised. Over the years there have been numerous requests for BLM to devote more
funds to salinity control. He became aware that work in other programs that have salinity control benefits
had not been tracked or reported, so they are now working on finding ways to quantify those efforts.
Boyd noted that upstream of Yuma there are about 53 million acres of BLM managed land. A good chunk
of that is rangeland, but it is managed for many different purposes. The updated SPARROW model
indicates some rangelands yield around 3 acre-feet of salt per year. If some of that could be controlled
through appropriate management activities and other programs, there could be significant salinity control.
The challenge would be trying to quantify that. There are both point and non-point sources on BLM lands.
There are some point sources that can be captured and easily tracked. But by far the biggest thing for BLM
is non-point sources. Their main strategy to control salinity is through minimizing erosion and sediment
transport. Management practices in many different programs are aimed at doing that.
Boyd explained that the work they have been doing with ARS involves developing a rangeland hydrology
model based on some new technologies, new understandings and new data capabilities that they are trying
to fully utilize. The good news is that those results are showing progress. They have entered data from the
individual projects in the area into the early version of the model, and it is showing 1,248 tons of salt
retained. They are hoping to be able to report results from these projects in the near future. As they
address rangeland management effectiveness in various categories, they hope to be able to run the data they
collect through the model and have some numbers in time for the 2017 Review. Boyd noted that they are
seeing some additional resources coming from other agencies. ARS is committing about $3 million to
continue improving their model. Also, they appreciate the collaboration and funding that has been given
in the last several years from the Salinity Control Program.
BLM is also working with ARS directly to improve water quality monitoring throughout the Basin. They
are looking at the effectiveness of individual projects and using statistical analysis to try to build baseline
conditions. They have worked with ARS to purchase additional water quality equipment which is housed
in Reno and will simplify sampling and allow for more available information.
Boyd reported that BLM is also partnering with EPA on their Western Rivers and Streams Assessment,
which looks at aquatic and water quality in streams across the western U.S. They have added many sites
on BLM lands to improve the statistical power of the tools used in this effort. They also have connections
5
with the National Resource Inventory, which is looking at land change conversion and conditions. All of
these efforts will result in better tools for BLM’s use in addressing salinity control needs and results.
VII. Agency Reports – USBR Jacobson
Kib Jacobson noted that the summary tables for the FAR had been handed out to the group (see Appendix
F). The Summary of Federal Salinity Control Programs shows measures in place by Reclamation, NRCS
and BLM, totaling 1.3 million tons of salinity control. He noted that the goal which appears in the 2014
Review was 1.68 million tons. Goals to reach the target include 222,000 tons by Reclamation and 150,000
tons by NRCS. Another sheet shows the repayment schedule for the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund, as
well as up-front cost sharing to match appropriations for the Basinwide Program and the O&M in the
different project areas. This represents 15 percent of the cost share. Another table shows the Surcharge
Fund Status in the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund. It shows revenues that come in from
power generated at Hoover and Parker/Davis and the balance in the fund after transfers to the Treasury and
payments to the UC Region. The Lower Basin Fund balance for FY2015 is broken down in another table.
The next spreadsheet shows repayment from the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund. He
noted that payments were made to the Treasury through 2013, but at the request of the Advisory Council
for short-term management of the fund, payments were not made to the Treasury in 2014 and 2015. The
other table shows the up-front cost share from the Lower Basin Fund. Another spreadsheet shows the
funding of contracts in the Basinwide Program at the end of FY 2015. Jacobson reported that they were
fortunate to be able to get additional year-end funds again this year. The total for the program in 2015 was
about $10.5 million. In 2016 they are showing the $8.4 million from the President’s budget, which along
with cost share and additional year-end appropriations could add up to $13.8 million. The last spreadsheet
shows the Funding Forecast for the Basinwide Program in out years. It includes ten projects that were
selected from this year’s FOA. They are unnamed because they are not yet under contract. It is anticipated
that another FOA would take place in 2018. Jacobson expressed appreciation to all those who assisted in
the 2015 FOA process to make it so successful.
VIII. Public Comment Robbins
There were no comments from the public, so the Advisory Council meeting was recessed until the following
day.
Reconvene Meeting: Thursday, October 29, 2015, 8:30 a.m.
IX. Agency Reports – This agenda item was combined with VII above.
X. Basin States Program
The order of the sub-items under this agenda item was rearranged.
X.C. Status of Basin States Program Marcie Bainson
Marcie Bainson referred to a table for her report which is included as Appendix F. Regarding state ag
agreements, she reported that the Colorado agreement is currently maxing out on their first funding mod
for $626,000. A new agreement is already in the works to obligate the additional funds needed. Contracts
for the State of Utah and the State of Colorado will expire on September 30, 2016. Both will max out their
contracts before that time, so there will be new contracts put in place this year. The State of Wyoming is
now under contract with a cooperative agreement which will allow them to have a project in the FOA. With
the NRCS agreements, the mods should be completed within the next two weeks to get their FY 2016
funding. Regarding the Studies, Investigation and Research (SIR) projects, Bainson noted that many of the
6
projects are being done by the USGS, which is greatly appreciated. She reported that just over $700,000
was obligated in FY 2015. For FY 2016, a proposal will be given to the Advisory Council for approval of
$300,000 for the economic damages project, $150,000 of which would come from SIR funding and the
other $150,000 from the Basin Funds. Another $56,143 will be used as yearly funding for an existing SIR
project, leaving $331,273 for new SIR projects in 2016.
Patrick Dent explained that the TAG brings together recommendations from the Science Team about SIR
studies they would like to take on in the coming year. Those proposals are considered by a smaller
committee on the Science Team, with a focus on facilitating implementation of the salinity control program.
Of the $700,000 that went to SIR studies in FY 2015, a large chunk had to do with the rangeland studies
that BLM was doing in partnership with ARS. In its meetings earlier in the week, the TAG tried to
determine how many dollars they would like to spend for SIR projects in FY 2016. One of those is cost
sharing in the economic damages studies which the Advisory Council will consider later in the meeting.
Dent noted that they are kind of pulling back on the dollar amount for SIR projects, with FY 2016 being
about half the amount of FY 2015.
Bainson reported that the contracts for the SIR projects approved at the May meeting are already in place,
which is a big improvement in contracting time. Jacobson noted that on the table shown, the economic
damages study was mislabeled as the “Upper Basin Benefits Report.” It should be labeled “Economic
Damages Study.”
Bainson pointed out that there was one small FOA project, listed as FOA 11, for $153,000 that they
determined to keep in house and not pass off to Colorado. With the retirement of Jim Currier and the need
to replace him, it was felt that the State of Colorado would be plenty busy with the $1.3 million in EQIP
work to be done this year.
Also, at the bottom of column FY 2015, it shows approximately $8 million spent, with an Upper Basin cost
share of $731thousand. Bainson requested only $3.85 million from the Lower Basin, which was made
possible due to a $3.2 million carryover from previous years of money that had been drawn down but not
spent. The $3.85 million is $2.3 million lower than what could have been withdrawn, which actually added
to the accrual this past year. The carryover to the new year is $92,000. The projections for FY 2016 are to
spend $6.8 million, $1 million of which will come from the Upper Basin and $5.7 million from the Lower
Basin. Bainson also noted that the salinity consultant contract will be expiring at the end of FY 2016, so
they will have to get out a solicitation for a new contract.
X.A.a. Basin Fund Payments/Accrual Don Barnett
Don Barnett explained that, with the help of the Program Funding Subcommittee and Brad Parry, they have
created from the detailed tables a couple of summary tables to try and forecast future carryover in the actual
fund, as well as accrued carryover (see Appendix G). For FY 2015, the actual income to the Lower Basin
Fund was just under $8.7 million and a cost-share obligation was created of $9.6 million. As the actual
expenditure was only $8.3 million, the accrual went up by $1.3 million. With zero repayment to the
Treasury, the actual amount in the checking account at the end of the year was $11.7 million. Netting out
at the end of the year would show the fund at $1.8 million to the negative. With projected federal
expenditures based on the request for Reclamation funding and the three-year funding plan of the state
conservationists, a cost-share requirement of $11 million would be created. If $10.5 million was taken from
the fund, with a zero repayment to the Treasury, then at the end of the year there would be about $10.2
million. That’s a drop of $1.5 million because the actual transfer was $1.5 million greater than projected
income. The accrual would go up by $.5 million because the expenditure was $.5 million smaller than the
accrual. Moving forward over the following three years, if we only expend what the prior year’s Lower
Basin income was, as the Advisory Council recommended to Reclamation, there would be $10 million cash
7
in the bank and $22 million accrual owing, netting $12 million to the negative. Barnett noted that they
would tighten up the numbers with year-end dollars, but this is fairly close to the projections. He indicated
that we are very solvent as far as the actual fund is concerned, but the accrual amount has been marching
up because projected revenues are below projected cost-share requirements by $2-3 million per year.
Chairman Robbins interjected that this assumes that in the coming three or four years, we are unable to
reach an agreement on how to reset the Lower Basin Fund. Barnett agreed, noting that if somehow we
could find $3 million and reset this, then it would start to slowly reverse itself.
Dent pointed out that power revenues from Hoover, shown in Column C, were different in FY14 and FY15
and that projected revenues going forward are larger than the amount of money that was earned in FY15.
He felt that, though we don’t have a perfect crystal ball on what the revenues are going to be, perhaps we
should make lower projections, such as carrying the FY15 revenue forward. Dent mentioned that they did
an analysis about a year ago on what would happen if shortages were declared to the revenue, with the first
level of shortage being a 6% reduction to revenue. He wondered if it would be appropriate to put some
shortage numbers into the projection.
Bill Hasencamp commented that lower numbers are good, even if you don’t go into shortage. For example,
CAP plans to create ICS every year for the next several years, system conservation is expanding and there
are more and more efforts in the Lower Basin to reduce demands. So even without shortage, you are likely
to see the reduction that you saw in 2015 going forward into the future. He felt that the numbers were too
high and that we need to be conservative and assume that the Lower Basin won’t deliver its full allocation
every year going forward.
Dent asked Barnett to change the number to $8.5 million for the purpose of the discussion. He noted that
the conservation measures are intended to try and avoid shortage declaration and also prop up the levels in
Lake Mead, which helps with generation. He hoped they could maintain a balance there even though there
is an increased risk of shortages into the future.
Dent also pointed out that repayments in FY14 and FY15 were delayed partly for the purpose of having
available moneys on hand to continue with implementation. The salinity control they had planned to
implement would have been for “EQIP castoffs,” projects proposed through the NRCS EQIP program that
didn’t meet their qualifications and were consequently sent to the Basin States Program for implementation
by the states. Dent indicated that funds needed for these projects haven’t been as high as anticipated, which
may be part of the reason why the actual Lower Basin Development Fund hasn’t dropped in recent years.
It also contributes to the carryover. Dent explained that when a FOA is done, there is a group of projects
selected for award based on available funds. There is another group of projects within the competitive
range that are identified as backups in the event that an awarded project falls out. Dent noted that this is
the case this year, and they have contemplated picking up one of those projects. It would be a Basin States
project in the amount of about $2.5 million. Barnett noted that the Lower Basin’s share would be about
$2.1 million. So the drawdown in FY16 would increase by about $400,000 and then $863,000 for the
following two years, added to the amounts on the table. Therefore, with a reduced projected income and
then paying for the new project, the actual carryover would decrease to $9.3 million, $8.0 million, $6.7
million and $6.4 million for FY16-19. The effect on the accrual would be a decrease from $22 million to
$20 million.
Regarding repayment, Dent indicated that there is a sufficient balance in the fund for the first balloon
payment, but they continue to defer on the repayment obligation. He wanted to demonstrate that it won’t
change the accrual, but it will change the balance. He explained that they came out of the Work Group
meeting prepared to make a recommendation to the Chairman of the Advisory Council from the TAG to
take on another project to offset the money that is sitting there unspent, but they had not considered the
$10.5 million number that had just been discussed. He noted that it represents about a $2 million greater
8
impact than they had modeled. So the question would be how comfortable we are in the short term about
the balance in the Lower Basin Development Fund.
Barnett suggested that the numbers on the summary sheet are for planning purposes, and this represents an
increase of $2.1 million over 3 years. It may be that the $2.1 million can just fall into Reclamation’s
planning processes. In other words, if there is another FOA, then it just slips within those numbers and so
it may not be all the way to $6.4 million. It might be more like $7.5 million or so. Robbins suggested that
the decision would be to wait and see if something better comes along (in another FOA) or proceed with
more salinity control right away (with a NRCS-EQIP pass-off project). He was concerned that the $6.4
million was starting to get below his personal comfort zone of the amount of money needed in the fund to
keep the promise to always be ready to pay back the Treasury in each year leading up to the time when it
is actually owed.
Rich Eastland extended an invitation to the group. He noted the additional liability of the repayment
obligation to the Treasury which continues to ratchet up slightly for each year the payment is not made.
When that is coupled with the accrual, it really begins to add up. He suggested that Reclamation would
like to help in developing some financial scenarios to help facilitate the discussion and look at possible
outcomes, potentially incorporating results from CRSS modeling scenarios and revenue stream generation.
Reclamation would like to actively participate with the Council in developing some alternatives and getting
a better perspective on the future to help in the decision making process.
Robbins suggested that in a philosophical point of view, he would like to have the money available to use
as the programs are planned and then pay the Treasury back when it’s owed. He felt that as long as we can
continue to show that we can do that, whether the amount changes or not doesn’t matter because we are not
talking about a time value of money. It’s just an amount we owe in the future. Robbins expressed his
personal opinion that he didn’t want to be depleting the fund by tossing money into the Treasury when we
are struggling to make sure there are enough funds to do the things we are obligated to do.
Tanya Trujillo mentioned that they have long urged Reclamation to be more accurate with revenue
predictions, so if they can be more accurate, that would be great. She noted that the backdrop to this
problem is the inflexibility that exists in the cost-share ratio, so our hands are tied, except for flexibility in
repayment in terms of a revenue generating perspective. That’s the only possibility she could see.
Responding to a question about achieving salinity reduction goals, Barnett explained that the plan coming
out of the review would be for Reclamation to achieve 11,600 tons of salinity control each year over the
next three years. Salinity control from the FOA, as presently proposed, would amount to 30,000 tons over
the next three years, which would be about 4,500 tons short of the goal. The additional project proposed
would add about 2,500 more tons.
Barnett responded to another question by explaining that the President’s budget was $8.423 million and if
Reclamation picks up another $1 million from year-end dollars, then we are at $9.5 million. We were
seeking about $12.5 million based on cost effectiveness, but the new cost effectiveness reduced it to about
$10.2 million, so we are getting closer. Robbins added that we are in a position where we have done a very
good job and have accomplished everything we said we would do for the last 35 years. Because our society
operates in the crisis mode, the government tends to spend its money on the crises. Consequently, we
haven’t been squeaking, so we don’t get any grease. The reason we don’t want to look 30 years down the
road is if the numbers start to get bad, but we don’t want to be crying wolf. We have to wait until we really
have a problem, but at that point in time, we start to squeak throughout the basin and we can start to ask for
significantly more money to keep in line with our plan of implementation.
9
Pat Tyrrell suggested that, looking at the financial situation, we are going to start squeaking. We have
reduced income coming in. We may fund this additional project which drives us down a couple of million.
We have our own issues internally to solve the $3 million Lower Basin Fund deficit. It was Tyrrell’s
opinion that we have about 3-5 years to fix this. He noted that as he watches the numbers morph on the
page, listens to Reclamation and watches the hydrology of the Basin, it is his opinion that we would need
to get over these political problems quickly or else we are going to be non-compliant in the Basin, and
broke.
Robbins reviewed the two legitimate perspectives. One is we should try to keep a reasonable amount of
money available in the actual fund balance in order to be conservative in terms of giving assurance that we
can manage whatever obligations we have to the Treasury. The other, which he felt was equally valid, is
that our job is to try and get some salt out of the water and give assurance to our constituencies in the seven
states that the river at least stays the same, if it doesn’t improve, in terms of TDS.
Tyrrell added that whether or not we are controlling salt, we will be developing water with additional water
rights, reservoirs and industrial users that come on line. If we are not controlling salt, we will not be able
to keep up with this increased load. He stated that he was in favor of the project opportunity if only for the
reason that we could lose a year or two of that salt control that we may wish we had down the road.
Chairman Robbins asked Dent to make his recommendation from the TAG. He suggested that the Advisory
Council should then take a break so the states could discuss how they want to proceed on this fairly
significant decision. The recommendation would come under the next agenda item.
X.D. Funding Recommendations from TAG Robbins/Dent
The Advisory Council received three recommendations from the TAG Chairman. The first was that
$150,000 of Basin States money be allocated to match the Bureau of Reclamation’s funds to pay for a
consultant to help in the improvement of the economic damages model. A motion was made on this
recommendation and it was approved by the Advisory Council.
The second recommendation was to engage the Bureau of Reclamation and accept Rich Eastland’s offer to
look further at revenues for the short term and how the plan would operate going forward in terms of
managing these short-term alternatives. Jacobson asked that Reclamation receive a letter from the Advisory
Council regarding short-term management of the Lower Basin Fund earlier in the year, as opposed to
receiving that letter as late as June the previous year. Don Barnett suggested that as he understood it, the
letter would recommend not to expend more than $10.5 million and to not make the repayment to the
Treasury in 2015. The rest of the letter would be very similar to the prior year’s letter, except that it might
talk about getting together and looking at the overall solvency. Robbins added that the letter would begin
by acknowledging and accepting Eastland’s offer and include expectations for that dialogue and how to
proceed forward. Eastland verified that the TAG Chairman will be the point person to work with
Reclamation on what scenarios need to be modeled in terms of what the revenue streams might be looking
forward. Robbins suggested that the TAG develop a sub-group to deal with this issue. This sub-group
could include representatives from all the states or from just those which desire to participate. Robbins
asked for a motion to accept Eastland’s offer to engage the Bureau of Reclamation on the issue of revenues
and the plan for the coming year and future years and to instruct Dent to put together a sub-group of the
TAG to commence that process. The motion was made and approved.
Dent mentioned that, as a result of discussions during the break, he would like to amend the third
recommendation. He suggested that they still move forward with the funding of another project; however,
if the financial modeling shows a minimum balance of $7.5 million in the out-year, this would become the
break-even point to determine whether or not to move forward with the additional project.
10
There was a discussion about this suggestion. Barnett explained that the original legislation allowed that a
repayment could go negative, but operational dollars cannot be spent if they are not there. The fund will
build through the year, but because of the dynamic of the Reclamation program, it is often necessary to
draw money out very quickly right after the first of the fiscal year. So the idea of putting a floor there
makes it possible to draw out the needed money without running the fund into negative territory. Chairman
Robbins stated his understanding that Dent wants to defer the million dollar repayment until the bulk of the
balloon payment is due, but they want to be sure that between now and then they always start the next fiscal
year with $7.5 million in the fund to avoid going negative should there be a need for Reclamation to make
a significant draw on the fund early on. It was suggested that if the $2.5 million payment for an additional
project were to be made now, it would cause that number to drop below $7.5 million at the start of a fiscal
year between now and when the balloon payment is due. It was explained that the $2.5 million would be
taken out over three years, so it would never all be pulled out at the same time.
Robbins summarized the suggested motion. It would be to ask Reclamation to look at the numbers and
then instruct Dent and the TAG to verify that we won’t be driving the fund below neutral by taking this
action. If it is true that the fund would stay positive, then the next project available under the FOA would
be moved into the funding category and funded. The motion was made and approved. As far as timing,
Dent was instructed to make that determination before the end of November.
X.B. Update on State Ag Agreements projects Mark Quilter/Cindy Lair
Prior to this presentation, Chairman Robbins mentioned something he thought the group should consider.
He said one of the things that has not been funded as much has been state assistance for the ag program,
which used to be under the Parallel Program. He thought it would be a good idea to have Quilter and Lair
evaluate their programs and to gather information that would allow for a knowledgeable discussion about
how to proceed as to whether we are going to move toward funding FOA and away from the past funding.
Cindy Lair mentioned that she had her hands full as she has taken on Jim Currier’s work since he retired.
She appreciated the Chairman’s comments about the future of the program as they look at filling his position
and making sure that they have the future work to do from the Basin States perspective.
Lair reported on the efforts of Beth Karberg, the salinity coordinator in the Lower Gunnison. Karberg has
done a great job in that position and has accomplished a lot in a short time. She has reported to both the
Lower Gunnison Study Team and the Work Group, which presentations were very well received. She spent
a lot of time helping applicants prepare good quality FOA applications early in the summer. Lair felt that
Karberg has proven herself to be a very worthwhile addition to their team.
Lair mentioned that they are happy to get an early start on renewing their agreement with Reclamation. She
reported that they are finishing up a couple of FOA projects. They were pleased to receive about $1.3
million in non-eligible EQIP applications. One project is in the Book Cliff Conservation District in Silt,
four in the Delta Conservation District, and three other projects will be in Grand Valley.
Lair commented that they employ about 12 technical positions through NRCS in the various district offices,
and they are doing very good work out there. NRCS and the conservation districts appreciate these
employees and are anxious to give them raises. This is Lair’s biggest problem right now, where to find the
money to give them the raises that they deserve. She is working with Dawn Jackson from NRCS on trying
to find a solution.
Mark Quilter reported that through the FOA process, his department was pleased to be able to do a canal
project in Daggett County. They have completed most of that work. They have received two FOA projects
11
for the next year, another one in Daggett to allow for piping of all of Sheep Creek Canal Company’s delivery
system. There is a small project in Vernal which will provide pressurized water to several farmers in the
Vernal area. They are currently working with the Attorney General’s office to develop a new contracting
form which will resolve issues they have had with the old form. This has caused a little delay in contracting,
but that should be finished soon. He noted that they are pleased with Reclamation for getting agreements
out in a timely manner. That has been very helpful.
Quilter mentioned that it has been a great experience to have Brett Prevedel as the salinity coordinator for
the Uinta Basin. His long experience in the area has been very valuable. Due to his work, Utah has been
very successful with the FOAs that have been submitted. He has been up front with the irrigators,
suggesting that they would need to come up with outside funds in order to be competitive in the FOA
process. They have followed his suggestion in bringing in significant funds, and they have had great success
in getting projects approved. Quilter noted that, as requested by the Work Group, Prevedel has been
meeting with irrigators and challenging them to sign up with Reclamation and FSA to make sure all their
paperwork is in line so they can qualify for EQIP contracts with NRCS.
Chairman Robbins suggested that the Advisory Council give the TAG or the Work Group the assignment
of looking at the activities that Lair and Quilter direct in terms of where they stand in the hierarchy of
funding and how we can be sure that they understand that their funding will be at a certain level or will be
increased or decreased so they can make some plans going forward. Dent indicated that the Work Group
will address this issue.
X.E. Lower Gunnison and Uinta Basins Planning Studies/Teams Jacobson/Jack Barnett
Jacobson reminded the Council of the effort that began about three years earlier to study the Lower
Gunnison Basin and the Uinta Basin to determine what needed to be done to encourage more participation
from these areas in the salinity control program. Reclamation got a contractor on board for this purpose.
They conducted interviews with farmers, irrigation entities, NRCS and others and studied the areas to get
an idea of what the issues were and to make recommendations. They completed their work with a report
and recommendations for each basin. One of the main recommendations was to get a salinity coordinator
for each area. Reclamation proceeded with the hiring of the salinity coordinators, which has proven to be
a good move. Recently these coordinators have been a great help to the entities in the FOA process.
Jack Barnett added that from the start there were study teams put together in each basin composed of local
people. Their input was very helpful in the reviews performed by the consultant, and they have been
supportive in getting the salinity coordinators up and running. Recently there was a meeting of each study
team to kind of close the loop. At the end of the Lower Gunnison meeting, there was a little confusion and
perhaps they concluded that the study team would not need to meet again. On the other hand, the Uinta
Basin study team asked to come together again the following year. There will be a need to come back to
the Advisory Council through the TAG’s recommendation as to whether or not to continue the funding for
the two coordinators. For those involved, it is apparent that the coordinators have done a great job and the
funds have been well spent.
Gawain Snow, a member of the Advisory Council who served on the Uinta Basin study team, added his
perspective on this. He reported that he had worked quite closely with the coordinator and has seen very
good results. He miraculously brought canal companies together on a FOA project to build a common
pipeline that would have never happened otherwise. As a neutral party with nothing to gain personally, he
was able to address the issues on a straight-forward basis and help them to understand the program and the
realistic costs to them and answer their questions. His efforts have encouraged a lot of people to be involved
in salinity control that would not have otherwise.
12
Dave Kanzer reported that the coordinator in the Lower Gunnison has been a great addition and has brought
people together. She has not only helped with the FOA and getting projects moving, but she has also been
educating people to come to the realization that old irrigation methods are changing for the better. Now
that the FOA is over, she is looking forward to working more on the on-farm piece of the program.
XI. Allocation of Payments between Upper and Lower Basin Funds Robbins
It was noted that each year the Council looks at the 15/85 split in allocation of payments between the Upper
and Lower Basin funds and agrees that it will continue to follow that statute. Tanya Trujillo commented
that this is not discretionary and that they have an existing process in place to try and address the fact that
the inflexibility in the existing statute is causing trouble in terms of being able to fund the program.
XIII. Direction to the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) Robbins/Dent
Dent made notes on assignments for the TAG, which include engaging very quickly with Reclamation and
fine tuning revenue projections regarding the Lower Basin Development Fund in order to be able to advise
Reclamation about proceeding with another FOA project. There was also an assignment to talk to the Work
Group Chair about looking at the impact to the ag programs resulting from an increase in the amount of
FOA projects versus the EQIP projects they have historically been working on.
On the latter issue, Chairman Robbins commented that there should be an open and direct conversation on
the subject of the amount of FOA projects versus EQIP projects so that things don’t sort of occur by default.
Regarding the first assignment, Robbins instructed Dent that as soon as they have arrived at an agreed-upon
set of runs that look at the consequences to the Lower Basin Fund, he should promptly send out a
notification of the results and conclusions to all of the Advisory Council/Forum members so they can
understand very promptly the reason for the decision on whether or not to fund an additional FOA project.
If the members of the Council have concerns or questions, he suggested that it might become necessary to
have a conference call or some other method of discussion so that members are fully understanding and
satisfied with the decision. This may need to be done as a Forum to avoid FACA problems.
It was noted that the TAG will also be bringing recommendations on SIR projects to the Advisory Council
at their spring meeting.
XIV.A. 2015 Advisory Council Report Robbins
Chairman Robbins asked Tanya Trujillo to review the recommendations from the Forum regarding funding
levels that should be used in the Advisory Council Report. Trujillo referred to Forum Memo 2015-61.
Table 1 showed FY2017 funding recommendations for BLM of $1.5 million and for Reclamation of
approximately $10.3 million. The Department of Agriculture recommendations were summarized in Table
2, including a recommendation not to make the current repayment to the Treasury for the coming year.
Chairman Robbins suggested that Trujillo’s report could serve as a motion to include those matters in the
Advisory Council Report. The motion was seconded and passed.
In addition to the program funding recommendations, Dent reported additional items to be included in the
Advisory Council Report that had been discussed in the meetings. He suggested that we encourage CTA
dollars to still be made available for support of the EQIP implementation program. Reclamation should be
encouraged to proceed with the studies regarding the CRB recommendations for solar evaporation ponds
and the replacement well for the Paradox Valley Unit. Reclamation should also stick with the schedule
presented as they move forward on the EIS and also consider the actions of the EIS as they plan their
13
budgets in future years. They need to plan on funding for the anticipated Record of Decision and the studies
and dollars needed to follow those alternatives. There will be a continued need to coordinate with
Reclamation regarding cash flows in the Lower Basin Development Fund, short-term management
solutions for the deficits and how to engage in resolving those issues.
Dent suggested encouraging NRCS to continue to provide a salinity coordinator who will be competent and
active in coordinating NRCS’s efforts regarding the implementation of the salinity control program.
XV. Items for the Forum Trujillo
Tanya Trujillo had no items to take back to the Forum. Chairman Robbins suggested that there should be
a discussion of funding for NRCS field activities in Colorado and Utah. He felt that the Forum should at
least instruct the Work Group to begin to look at that. As the group had determined to continue significant
funding for the FOA, it would be important to look at what this means for the NRCS folks. They need to
be able to move ahead on firm ground and know that they have funding support beyond just the next budget
cycle.
XVI. Other Business/Actions Robbins
There were no additional items to consider.
XVII. Public Comment Robbins
There were no public comments to come before the Advisory Council.
The Advisory Council was then adjourned at 11:00 a.m.
Appendix A
Advisory Council MeetingEmbassy Suites - Paloma Village Hotel
3110 East Sþline DriveTucson AZ
October 28-29,2015
. C¿ruh
av
Name Entity Phone Number E-Mail Address1 I Ø/'-s-;9-Ðg= #, o .d Áswt/ ¿/58,4| ozs ¿¿
2 ?a, D .4..)=-,-,. 6.gz-Ê1oq-2lll -'h"-"ua c-ao-/>..^/ftJ Az/'* Þr',<R a,tE 7?t Ø11a 4,, -. ln o -le ßz @ bnl aa¿,
4 )n¡i Tnort¿7 Aè DEa t02, ?7/ ,11/Ç -0cl Ðat/¿c,ev5 H ,#-t -vrø\l L)V .çEþ 7a7-?77-¿r,Sô oælnìc,k. ,rL( et)"o. eot6 ee f b.\P7)F/) 7r;7->t-/na.a '.fu,¡,) , , ,kér<t l-e -+{ãu!u -,n-, ^,l (8c NV 20'L -Ll fr( o - Jt"1o ìh¿..f( tns@ o ,¿, ¡1e,c:ov( 0
8 I ".D-4rJ f3.rß^rs -\tt^rê *n- .lb'?,.T*+z- L^r{n ^^r- ß .¿-.s, ê s^r,.,14 ¿-,9 \ \\.u\.. ,t74'79D- tqø0 rì ?l': r>s-t6( rr.rl10 Ezr¿ Mu-utí 8òt -s.3E -1zã;0 .ìì r*r¡t t i. 2,t1n L - o ^,t
J11 UT DE.b tût. e\r-4)tl on¿¡^n/) .'lbL^t2 c4rn¿tl l"t WO . Lk zt3 ,2t7, 6 r't-t7 ot4 ,l-"13 '-1-a*.,
", 'Trtrt ,ìlrå ck -cøß , 12 -3 eq-72aß 1+-,
"^.rl 1,, F)ci, b, c-ø., _ q .1¡,t
t4 ûA - î'ul{ /,Íl q I A-3Lt t- î flq /v,,rL . lnÐ,' n nm(lJvl,,ùføl hta ilc I al5 ?n,^l Ann^< N^^ fs. <ôt-9)'7-1 t ÐA laul.l,a¡ n¡t'ãsla+p - ^
}1- ¿J s
t6 C^o coPdF' ?> r,ot9' -ât9(, CÚrtvi¿. "",, , e$.trtenré\@ 6{e,le b.vst7 t, É be¡Jt ed4" 4rtt¿t+¿- ¿'23 'eó'(r - Z€Øt18 I ,at" i J lt). (-nhloì"n^ Cd,a.ttàc, '303.àgÚ-9too ,1o,:,Å-nlh,'n.- ê kl I i
"^ \ nn inL;,
19 ,fLv( i e, IÒíthn ssn w9lbl>- ât-(, 6òt-5L4-4f1 h hr M\ r¡4 @ rt gbv', îov20 \ \o,r*\ -¡7Xç
^v-f'f'fi-4.^-, *¿ Zçz /4/,/'Z- JLraerlte-kn n'fe,r ¿
2l I (¡b t"Jc.+{,,-(¡"r n t 3ò" Þ6t ¡vvl -!ìfe,z r. ¡.,'ì1b- fùl,Fo,db . eo, rJJ
22 ,.,J',fla*,^+l For¿*', ßo I 'Lc1l"- /€, 7 ¿ t h'+np$þr-J) i"-1,., tJA¿liI¡," , ,,23 I ('\ "ç ,FI4/ c-- 170 -624,-7.t</7 -ß.^nl,
-Os nu^,1t)- o h¿5. '
24 D?z:nnu TJuút - kT,- /r¡>tòß- trsl-]|t- 964t Àt<ìt<e.tlal â|-t¿rLtr. 4ôV L
25 Mr1 os lú STrrrr fìlM. t>,c-, Aro'â q,\ e l\j- "^qL:4r^ Ð -\^\ n. ¿¡,¡t/26 Lì^Åi a r.rrr y'rlß n c fuV qoo tl"zS l(¡utlò crh,r¡.nov "27 ¿) ü79F a 9o+-7>z -é,51 l>rr,nno.-,rlA.Å.å Ç)yo , et ov28 Hay,.v Ruza(zrl,.v..- MWDs <- Lti z t1 60Ø7. h,ru + aa-f \ â vt @ m w d H Z o. *-'
29 ¿lOAtr rA/'2-c2/-{Z?S z/"L,?á',/..* ? /¿ r'a L, 7.t/30 (¡l.ibÞ -tlF.-7V-Vz(- t/ _ !t^\a_qL\yo,ea,31 {vtlctlhe.(, AHotylA3 wlOECI. /,,"ClD 1o7 -17+ -2ÒT3 mich<¡.g | ,+l¡orncts (ùv¿vO,qOJ32 of\ç5f¿5 ù\oßFró CÁ.P - i*,.,,urr CAZ, <lcoq,-Ail-1 .,.¡{oCÇ i ú\ rô cct iÞ,-(r-7-l¡ r,
,
JJ o I R rna 'lo 7 -23L-lv?,x r Ln _t Å O- ll*, .4 otl34 -f no r.2 5Lt3c,t& q 9C.S t*î øol -1Òg-5ô6L ÅJ tu 1 aL, e @ t^ t ot. té t-)
35 P<z<ct- /4oa*Á a n) APA R8 3o3-3|z- eTclç /t1 on t*/, *¡tt - P.-r ->(y'', aÞn, é ¿
36^JV
h7 .1q\ úÔâ4 b=TûJ/Gíf6¿ C¡(.c .¡'t¿ fu/37
,RL*,^o, uáÞA - r.Jßc5 3o1- zLL- zB36 ?:o^ lrro,.lo . L oo¡r Âh¡V, t/tD /t,l ty'
Appendix A
Entitv Phone Number E-mail AddressName38 2'nol ø /.¡ ;t- co ueff¿',f ftg 304-vLq.Qosq. rùøár.t . lo ,'n rÐ x*¿,fi,^ aÒ - u¿39 illQ.CS -(.: ?2n-S'?7-2ßO-z elt:Y /, ¿>t rã..( s(4) t-tt,&,*.0n.rla40 Qritnc-s¡,tvù xl?r-:- ør ÐoI- ç>4-Ççs¿ 2o.lvo- .ir, r,¡¿ú) u l u ,Ja. , n, I
4t tÅ,t',¿^l. rî,4a føt-6fr,.11KÞ 'r ln a, t-,a.zl â,'rh/ ..¡,rv."42 (&\ %," 9\f g'íTL43 1rt^I ás¡[, n ?tr.lz,',,,l;t^ ßotSZ4,7Lo, , b¿sptra€Lr:b/'.qov o
-toZ 7,47'Ç14ß1 rrq¿i"*lrrn clúJ r rsbf, cov44 I L I,sBRt"r rÄÉ3É 1oL z qts ê14í-r'l FLenvnf p.u,(ßf , Ão¿45 vk l^eau, f
4çÐ-ti11.ljaL ctl¿l * e-, c¿4¿. 'ô aJ46 Lc¡l,U J a,l't\p¿ Cz\(.DN4748495051
5253
5455
565758
59606t6263
6465
66676869707t72IJ7475
7677787980
Appendix B
AGENDA
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL ADVISORY COUNCIL
Embassy Suites – Paloma Village Hotel
3110 East Skyline Drive
Tucson AZ
Advisory Council Beginning Time: Wednesday, October 28, 2015, 1:00 p.m.
Designated Federal Officer: Kib Jacobson
Presiding: Chairman Dave Robbins
I. Welcome, Introductions Robbins
II. Opening Comments, Acceptance of letters of substitute members Jacobson
III. Review and Approval of Agenda Robbins
IV. Draft Minutes of 2015 Spring Council Meeting – Salt Lake City, UT
A. Review Jacobson
B. Action Robbins
V. Charter Renewal Jacobson
VI. Items from the Forum Tanya Trujillo
VII. Agency Reports (about 20 minutes each)
A. EPA Peter Monahan
B. USGS Dave Susong
C. USDA-NRCS Travis James
D. FWS Barb Osmundson
E. BLM Bob Boyd
F. Reclamation Rich Eastland/Jacobson
VIII. Public Comment Robbins
Recess Meeting: Approximately 3:30 p.m.
Agenda Continued on Next Page
Appendix B
Reconvene Meeting: Thursday, October 29, 2015, 8:30 a.m.
IX. Agency Reports (completed in VII above)
X. Basin States Program (BSP)
A. Basin Funds Status and Accounting Jacobson/Eastland
B. Update on State Ag Agreements projects Mark Quilter/Cindy Lair
C. Status of Basin States Program Marcie Bainson
a. State Ag Agreements
b. NRCS Agreements
c. SIR (studies, investigations, research) agreements
d. Other
D. Funding Recommendations from TAG Robbins/Patrick Dent
a. Funding for Economic Damages Study Jacobson/Harry Ruzgerian
E. Lower Gunnison and Uinta Basins Planning Studies / Teams Jacobson/Jack Barnett
XI. Allocation of Payments between Upper and Lower Basin Funds Jacobson
XII. Basin Fund Payments / Accrual Jacobson
XIII. Direction to the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) Robbins/Dent
XIV. 2015 Advisory Council Report Robbins
A. Program Funding Recommendations Robbins
B. Discussion of Items for Report Dent
XV. Items for the Forum Trujillo
XVI. Other Business/Actions Robbins
XVII. Public Comment Robbins
Adjourn Meeting: Approximately 11:00 a.m.
USGS FAR UPDATE
Colorado River Salinity Forum October 2015
Twenty Station Network Pah Tempe Springs
Muddy Creek
USGS Activities Summarized in 2015 • Colorado River Basin Monitoring
Network and Basic-Data Collection • Documenting the Effects of Grazing
on Sediment, Water, and Salinity Production from Mancos Shale Soils – Badger Wash, Colorado
• Mineralogical Controls on Salinity and Related Elements Impacting the Pariette Draw and Wetland, Utah
• Hydrogeologic Characterization of Paradox Valley and Evaluation of Alternatives for Salinity Reduction for the Paradox Valley Unit, Montrose County, Colorado
• Rangeland sources of salinity – Evaluation of the Effects of Selected Rangeland Conditions on the Sources and Transport of Dissolved Solids Delivered to Streams in the Upper Colorado River Basin
• Statistical Modeling (SPARROW and LowGunS) Applied to Assessing the Distribution of Salinity Loads and Load Sources in Streams of the Colorado River Basin
• Mapping Irrigated Lands and Irrigation Type in the Upper Colorado River Basin
• Investigation of Transport of Dissolved Solids Discharged from Pah Tempe (La Verkin) Springs, Southern Utah, and Possible Remediation of Salinity Load to the Virgin River
• Monitoring Salt Loads Discharged from the Manila-Washam Salinity Control Project Area, Utah
• Trends in Surface-Water Salinity and the Effects of Salinity Control Projects in the Uinta Basin, Utah
Evaluation of potential capture of the discharge of saline water from Pah Tempe
Springs Washington County, Utah
Low flow test High flow test
Pah Tempe Springs, background and motivation
• Average spring discharge, > 11 cfs and 40 oC
• Dissolved solids (salt) concentration, 9,500 mg/L
• Springs add nearly 100,000 tons/yr to the Virgin River
Pump tests & design
Objective: Evaluate feasibility of salt load mitigation through pumping to capture the Pah Tempe Spring discharge
1) Conduct pumping/interference tests at different river stages - pump from fractured limestone to capture thermal water - monitor flow, temperature, and chemistry in river and springs
2) Synthesized results into conceptual model of hydraulic connectivity between withdrawal location and springs orifices
3) Estimate general range of hydraulic properties
4) Construct simplified numerical model, evaluate utility for project planning and future, similar feasibility studies
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0
5
10
15
20
25
2/8/14 2/9/14 2/10/14 2/11/14 2/12/14 2/13/14 2/14/14 2/15/14
Disc
harg
e, c
fs
Virgin River response to pumping
Diss
olve
d so
lids l
oad,
tons
/day
Measured downstream Q, cfs Pumping rate, cfs
Salt load remaining in river below spring reach, tons/day
- During low flow test, pumping captured only thermal water - Capture results in annual salt load reduction of 49,000 tons
Low flow test, Feb 2014
• Nearly flat gradient upstream, below 3,075 ft • Highest thermal head at Grotto Springs, > 3,076 ft • Lowest thermal head near observation Well#3, 3,063 ft
Pre pumping thermal-system hydraulic head
• Significant drawdown extends to observation Well #2 • Pumps set at altitude higher than downstream springs
cannot capture all spring discharge
Maximum-stressed hydraulic head
• Improve spring capture by relocating and lowering altitude of pumping • Enhanced drawdown expected next to fault barrier
Optimize pumping locations
• Improve spring capture by relocating and lowering altitude of pumping • Enhanced drawdown expected next to fault barrier • Model can be used to determine optimal pumping locations and rates
Optimize pumping locations
Next Steps
• Meeting with Washington County Water Conservancy District
• Test drilling 2 deep wells in the fault zone • Refinement of numerical model • Optimization of pumping design/final
feasibility assessment
SPARROW II (SPAtially Referenced Regressions On Watershed attributes)
Objectives of Model Update Effort
Overall Objective Construct and calibrate an updated and enhanced UCRB TDS SPARROW model to improve understanding of current (2010) sources and transport of TDS
Specific Updates to Original Model a. 318 calibration sites instead of 218 b. TDS loads for 2010 c. Differentiation of irrigation type (Sprinkler vs. Flood irrigation)
Expected completion and publication FY2016
TDS Yield from Irrigated Lands
TDS Yield from BLM-Managed Land
Mean Annual TDS Load by Source Source Mean Annual
Load (Tons) Fraction of Total
Load
Flood Irrigated Lands 1.8x106 23%
Sprinkler Irrigated Lands 2.1x105 3%
Geologic Sources 5.2x106 62%
BLM Lands 1.6x106 20%
Rangelands 2.3x106 30%
Grazing Allotments 1.9x106 24%
Point Sources 1.6x106 12%
Irrigated Lands + Geologic Sources + Point Sources = 100% of total load BLM + Rangeland + Grazing = 111% of Geologic Load (> 100% due to overlap among groups)
TDS Yield from Rangelands
• Improve spring capture by relocating and lowering altitude of pumping
Optimize pumping locations
Generic optimization modelling slides follow in case you’re interested
TDS Yield from BLM-Managed Land
• BLM ownership polygons were intersected with the SPARROW-derived estimates of TDS yield to map the yield values for just BLM lands in each catchment.
Simple optimization example: Dewater Streambed Problem
Lower the water table in the area to be excavated with the minimum amount of pumping.
Impose Constraints
( ) uhh 11 ≤Qw
( ) uhh 22 ≤Qw
( ) uhh 33 ≤Qw
( ) uhh 44 ≤Qw
( ) uhh 55 ≤Qw{ }4321 ,,, QwQwQwQw=Qw
Impose upper bounds on heads at five selected locations
Heads depend on pumping at all wells
Define Objective
Minimize ∑=
=4
1jjQwf
Represent total pumping as simple sum of pumping rates. Minimize this value.
Complete Formulation for Streambed Dewatering
Minimize
Such that
( ) uhh 11 ≤Qw
( ) uhh 22 ≤Qw
( ) uhh 33 ≤Qw
( ) uhh 44 ≤Qw
( ) uhh 55 ≤Qw
∑=
=4
1jjQwf
{ }4321 ,,, QwQwQwQw=Qw
Could also be used to locate optimal well locations.
Will This Approach Yield THE Optimal Solution?
Yes: It is a formal solution to the problem No: Depends on: 1-Reliability of the simulation model 2-Specification of constraints, objective function, candidate well locations 3-May be a local minimum if problem is nonlinear Conclusion: This approach yields THE optimal solution relative to the specific problem set-up.
Appendix D-1
NRCS Project Summary - FY 2015 EQIP Salinity Contracts
Project Number Acres Financial Reduction ¹Cost
Assistance (Tons/Year) ($/Ton)
Lower Gunnison 44 1878 $3,878,195 2,312 $162
McElmo Creek 32 732 $1,202,608 952 $122
Mancos Valley 5 59 $314,503 118 $258
Silt 3 45 $110,969 30 $358
Grand Valley (comp) 9 175 $308,291 269 $111
Tier II 14 364 $577,357 819 $68
Wildlife 7 120 $201,377 n/a n/a
Totals 114 3373 $6,593,300 4,500 $142
Price-San Rafael 26 1151 $2,217,471 3,306 $65
Uintah Basin 16 560 $1,411,765 873 $156
Manila-Washam 5 263 $544,515 626 $84
Muddy Creek 1 122 $239,657 175 $132
Green River 4 420 $711,331 1,357 $51
Wildlife 1 2 $18,449 n/a na/
Totals 53 2518 $5,143,188 6,337 $78
Big Sandy 2 29 $71,734 202 $34
Henrys Fork 5 141 $281,581 77 $354
Totals 7 170 $353,315 279 $122
Grand Totals 174 6061 $12,089,803 11,116 $105
¹Amortized at 3.375 percent for 25 years
Revised 22 October 2015
Appendix D-2
Highlights of FY2015 Salinity EQIP:
New Contracts Colorado obligated $6M into 93 new salinity contracts on 3,009 acres within the five project areas.
These contracts, when implemented, will control about 3,681 tons annually at a cost of about $158/ton.
Colorado developed seven wildlife contracts on 120 acres at a cost of $201,000.
Colorado also obligated $577,000 into 14 salinity contracts on 364 acres outside of the project areas, but within the Colorado River Basin. These contracts will control about 820 tons annual at a cost of $68/ton. Colorado NRCS referred nine non-EQIP-eligible applications to the BSP totaling $2.3M, including several carry-overs from 2014. It is anticipated that eight BSP contracts will be developed.
Utah obligated $5.1M into 52 new contracts on 2,518 acres within its five project areas. These contracts
will control about 6,337 tons at a cost of $78/ton. Utah also developed one wildlife contract on 1.5 acres
for about $18,000. Utah did not obligate any salinity EQIP funds outside of its project areas. Utah NRCS
referred 23 non-EQIP-eligible applications to the BSP totaling $997,000. None were selected for funding
due to very high cost per ton, they were replacements of existing systems or had little to no salt control,
or did not have irrigation history.
Wyoming obligated $353,315 into seven new contracts in its two project areas. These contracts, when
implemented, will control about 279 tons at a cost of $122/ton. Wyoming did not have any non-EQIP
eligible referrals to the BSP.
Practice Installation In Colorado, there were 1,159 acres of sprinklers, 1,197 acres of improved surface systems and 232 acres of drip or micro-spray installed in 2015, including 111 acres of sprinklers and 96 acres of improved surface systems outside of the project areas. In Utah, there were 3,248 acres of sprinklers, 3 acres of improved surface systems and 11 acres of drip or micro-spray installed in 2015, including 10 acres of sprinklers and 3 acres of improved flood outside the project areas. In Wyoming, 339 acres of new sprinklers were installed in 2015 in the Big Sandy Project area. No installation has yet occurred in the new Henrys Fork project.
Appendix D-3
22-Oct-15
FY 2015 Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
On-Farm Program
Final
I. Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) Financial Assistance (FA)
Obligations and Technical Assistance (TA) Expenditures
To Approved Projects
FA TA TotalColorado $6,592,904 $1,564,145 $8,157,049
Utah 5,064,082 $1,570,781 6,634,863
Wyoming 353,315 $81,261 434,576
TOTALS $12,010,301 $3,216,187 $15,226,488
II. Cost Share Available from Basin States Program (Bureau of Reclamation)
Cost Share on NRCS FA $5,147,272
FA TA Total
ColoradoState Board 1,695,318
NRCS 1,017,191
Reclamation 113,021
2,825,530
UtahUDAF 1,302,193
NRCS 781,316
Reclamation 86,813
2,170,321
WyomingSt. Engineer 90,852
NRCS 54,511
Reclamation 6,057
151,421
TOTALS 3,088,363 2,058,909 5,147,272
Cost Share on NRCS TA $1,378,366
Total Cost Share from Basin Funds $6,525,638
salinity/2015/2015 Interim EQIP FA,TA, No CTA, 10% for BOR
Table 2. USDA Salinity Control Unit Summary
Thru 22 Oct 2015
Selected
¹Controls Alternative Percent Cumulative ²Indexed ᶟCost/ton
Unit (tons) Goal (Tons) of Goal Cost (nominal $) Cost/ton FY2015
Mancos River, CO 4,426 11,940 37% $7,037,014 $66 $192
Muddy Creek, UT 99 11,677 1% $187,475 $75 n/a
Manila-Washam, UT 10,417 17,430 60% $8,463,894 $53 $52
Silt, CO 2,274 3,990 57% $4,466,241 $92 $232
McElmo Creek, CO 29,455 46,000 64% $26,141,274 $98 $134
Uinta Basin, UT 157,217 140,500 112% $122,634,864 $133 $186
L. Gunnison, CO 119,057 186,000 64% $86,080,081 $86 $164
Price/San Rafael, UT 80,114 146,900 55% $56,605,330 $36 $44
Grand Valley, CO 143,495 132,000 109% $59,701,529 $39 $150
Big Sandy, WY 58,180 83,700 70% $13,844,400 $39 $23
Green River, UT 685 6,540 10% $430,964 $103 $32
Henrys Fork, WY 0 6,540 0% 0 n/a
Totals 605,419 793,217 76% 385,593,066
¹Includes Off-farm funded with EQIP or Basin States funds, not selected thru BOR FOA
²Cost per ton as projected in NEPA document indexed by Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index.
ᶟNominal cost of current year practice installation.
Updated October 22, 2015
Appendix E
Appendix F
Summary of Federat Salinity Control ProgramsFY 2015
Salinity UnitTons / YearRemoved
MEASURES IN PLACE BY RECLAMATIONBasinwide ProgramBasin States Program (BSP)Meeker DomeLas Vegas Wash PitmanGrand ValleyParadox ValleyLower Gunnison Winter Water (USBR)Dolores
U
2t
214,70016,50048,000
3,800122,300100,700
41,40023,000
Reclamation Subtotal 570,000MBASURES IN PLACE BY USDA/BSPGrand ValleyPrice-San RafaelUinta BasinBig Sandy RiverLower GunnisonMcElmo CreekMancosMuddy CreekManilaSiltGreen RiverTier 2
-'t I
4t
143,50080,100
157,20058,200
I 19,10029,5004,400
10010,400
2,300700
6,800
USDA Subtotal 612,000
5lMEASURES IN PLACE BY BLMNonpoint Sources
Well-Plugging111,600
14,600
BLM Subtotal 126,000
Measures in Place Total 1,308,000
GOALS TO REACH TARGETReclamation Basinwide ProgramUSDA-NRCS Program
222,000150,000
Goals Subtotal 372,000
Total (Measures in Place * Goals)Tarqet bv 2035
1,680,000
1,680,0001/ Off-farm projects funded by Basin States Program2l Paradox injection well capacity estimated to decline beginning in2020; assumed continuation of
well or alternative control methods after 2020
3l l1.ay include off-farm controls that were not goaled.
4/ Measures in areas outside approved projects5/ BLM non-point source are estimates.
A B c D s TF
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAM TITLE II
Upper Colorado River Basin FundAs of 9/30/2015
GHIJKLMN o P a R
Year19ð //
1988't 989't c901991'1992'1993
1 9941gg5
19971998
20002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120't2201320142015
20162017201820192020202120222023202420252026202720242029203fì20312032203320342c35203620372038203920402U41
20422043204420452U4620472044
Totalfransfer toTreasury
tt,91t90,08€
1'10,531156 936
200,o41301,47a451,32Í357,687
1 93 454
2,750,14t285,64?135,66€87,604
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
6.868.522c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
1,3U,314c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
3,200,00€64 747
c347,605158,454
cc
1,0/.1,18!1,91 9,584
15,O14,423
USDANRCS
4,9U5
86,570105,163146lJ71183,802266,734404,o723'19,2964âO 114
145,568'128,770
2.255,065
2,255,æ5
MCE¡mO çreeK(Dolores Pro¡ect)
O&M
2,2e.92,3215,23C1,911a aLa
13,657
12,61316,483
63.335
63,335
Conlrucron
2,4V,49221,829't0,658
28,273
-'t7,328
2,504,324
Lower Gunnisono¿tM
I 0,301
1 1,000I 5,86516 021
1 E,52518,77419,188
109,674
109,674
Construdion
I 405 078-7,6E0
675
59,331
1,457.361
-42'l
1,456,940
Las VegasWash
0
64 747
64,747
o&t\4
2,O1?,
2,545914
3 675
4,3174,418
1'l,o'12
2,15214 647
24,E6022,64518,704
111.902
111,902
I O€¡
0
0
00
0
0
0
000
0
0
00
00
000
0
0
3,200,0080
0347,605154,454
00
01,91 9,584
05,ô25,651
5ep-v9
0
LI
000o
650,148
650,148
sep-vð
000000000000000o0o000u00
00000000
1,059,717
1,O59,711
Þep-Y/
0
0000o
00000000000
209,719
209,7't9
ùep-YJ
000000000000000o0000o0000o00
158,454
158,454
5ep-Yz
000000000000000o0000oLI
000o
347,605
ó4l,ÞUa
Þep-ðY
c
00000000000000o0000o000
3,200,008
J,ZUU,UUõ
Paradox Vallev unitUóM
9734,45471909,659
17,70'l16,011
18,45729 74990,32680,33770,676
345.5J3
J4þ.CJó
raqtltes
U
0000000000U
000
0000o0000o0000o
1,071,1E9
I,U/ t, t öv
Well
U
0000000000
1,4U2,U63
I,4UZ,UOJ
Fis€lYear
19ö I1 988198919901991
1992
1994ls95
't 997't 998
2000200120022003200ø20052006200720082009201020112012201320142015
l'UDtotat20162017201420'192020202120222023202420252U26,
2027202820292o-3o
20312032203320utõ352036203720382039to¿õ20412042204320442o,¿5
204620472044I Orat
ECD
XE)
Appendix F
A
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAM TITLE II
Upper Colorado River Basin FundAs of 9/30/2015
CDEFGH
was from the Basin Fund, but was not into the Program u
The total amount was accounted for in the Bas¡nwide Program portion2i The actual amount transferred from the Upper Basin Fund to the UC Region for the Salin¡ty Program was $2,038,000, of which
$ST3,000wasfortheBasinwideProgram Pleaseseefootnotel/fortheexplanationofthed¡fference
J
TotalRepaymentTransfer toTreasury
TotalAnnual
RequirementUC
ParadoxValleyo&M
GrandValleyo&M
LowerGunnison
o&M
USDANRCSBSP
FiscalYear1 987
BasinwideSCP
Creek(Dolores)
o&M
TotalTransfer to
6,918 6,9181 988 90,088 90,0881 989 1 10,531 I 10,5311 990 1 56,936 I 56,9361 991 200,047 200,0471992 301 475 301,4751 993 451,325 451,3251 994 357,687 357.6871 995 1.934.454 1,934.4541 996 2,750,148 2.750.1481 997 222 505 (254.6441 0 285 643 253.500I 998 65.752 126.103 s26.036 25 622 447 341 131,146 862,000 135,666 997.666I 999 80.561 i 50.013 21.423 I 7.1 95 803,533 244,275 ,000 87,604 '1,304,604
2000 122.523 42.997 17.817 20.513 773,201 1,611,949 2,589,000 0 2,589.0002001 104.192 25.425 19.707 20202 693,579 (863,1 05) 0 0 02002 97.249 49.402 14.879 11 045 738.660 318 765 1 230 000 0 '1,230,000
2003 73.375 42.442 23.274 'ìbr 549,268 271,358 960,000 0 960,0002004 88.788 37.1 00 21.859 189) 613,687 1,200,655 1,962,000 0 1,962,0002005 95.089 32.359 27 996 529,948 1,256,756 1,942,148 0 1.942.1482006 90.822 45.863 33 206 544,650 1,469,355 2,1 83,896 0 2.183,8962007 98.721 50.252 18 809 574 676 3 274 556 4 017 014 0 4.017.0142008 1 35.786 42.143 25.114 5't 3,236 (2.541.323\ 0 (1.825.000)2009 117.029 65.919 27.105 1 ,110,870 4,725,077 6,046,000 0 6.046,0002010 14'1.167 3A.278 30 396 430,984 1,289,302 1,930,127 0 1.930j2t2011 137.250 51 500 22 114 545 989 ao1 942 1 558 835 0 1,558.8352012 121.350 48 336 21 592 533,448 861,682 1.58ô.408 0 1.586.408
1't7.199 56 644 25 341 557,908 930,508 c
131 .600 70 700 21 536 450,964 1.603.4001,687,6002.278.200 c
201320142015 212.622 94.1 00 44.293 639./93 1,009,161 1,999,989 c
1,687,60C2,278,20C1,999,989
subtotal 1 ,E1E,453 875,956 J9ó,212 32t 'lu,ot4,44t 1ö.331 .ttgu 5L ,1 93,Uö5 6.6ttð,522 3 /,061 ,6072016 1 68,800 1 10,450 35,679 541,479 835.714 c 1.692.1222017 1 75,000 75,550 25,714 524,700 771.429 1.572.393 c 't.572.3932014 1 37 500 75 550 25 000 500 000 580.000 I .318.050 c I .318.0502019 1 38,000 75,550 25,000 500,000 580.000 I .318.550 c I .318.550
1 38,000 75,550 25,000 500,000 580.000 I .318.550 0 1 .318.55C20202021 1 38,000 75,550 25,000 500,000 580,000 I .3 18.550 0 I .318.5502022 I 38,000 75,550 25,000 500,000 580,000 1.318.550 0 I .318.5502023 1 38.000 75 550 25 000 500,000 580.000 1.318.550 0 I .318.5502024 1 38,000 75,550 25,000 500.000 580.000 1.318.550 0 1 .318.5502025 138,000 75,550 25,000 500,000 580.000 '1.318.550 0 1 318 5502026 1 38,000 75,550 25,000 500,000 580,000 1.318.550 I .384.314 27024642027 1 38,000 75,550 25,000 500,000 580.000 1.318.550 0 1 318 5502024 1 38 000 75,550 25,000 500,000 580.000 1 .318.550 0 1 318 5502029 1 38,000 75.550 25,000 500.000 580.000 0 1 ,318,5502030 1 38,000 75.550 25,000 500.000 580.000 1 .318.550 0 1 ,318,5502031 1 38,000 75.550 25.000 500.000 580.000 't .318.550 0 1 ,318,5502032 1 38.000 75.550 25.000 500.000 580.000 1.318 550 0 1,31 8,5502033 1 38.000 75.550 25.000 500.000 580.000 1 1 318 5502034 1 38.000 75.550 25.000 500.000 580 000 0 1,318,5502035 1 38.000 75.550 25.000 500.000 580 000 0 1,318,5502036 1 38.000 75.550 25.000 500.000 580,000 0 1,318,5502037 1 38.000 75.550 25.000 500 000 580,000 0 1.318,5502038 1 38.000 75.550 25.000 500 000 580 000 318 550 0 1 .318,5502039 1 38.000 75.550 25 000 500,000 580,000 1 ,318,550 3,200,008 4,518,5582040 75.550 25 000 500,000 580,000 1 ,318,550 64.747 1,383,2972041
I 38,000I 38.000 75 550 25,000 500,000 580,000 1 ,318,550 0 I .318,550
2042 I 38.000 75,550 25,000 500,000 580,000 1 ,318,550 347.605 1.666.1s52043 1 38 000 75,550 25,000 500,000 580,000 1 ,31 8,550 158.454 1.477.0042044 138 000 75 550 25 000 500 000 580 000 1,31 8,550 0 1 .318.5502045 75,550 25,000 500,000 580,000 1,318,550 0 1 .318.5502046 75,550 25,000 500,000 580,000 1,318,550 1,071 .189 2,389.739
1 38,000 75,550 25,000 500,000 580,000 1,318.550 1 ,919.584 3.238.134I 38.000 75 550 25 000
20472048 500,000 580,000 't,318.550 0 1.318.550Total 6,439,753 3,404,006 1,234,605 94,327 27,240,626 35,91 8,833 ,525,223 15,014,42i 12ð,408.16ð
Appendix F
LOWER GOLORADO RTVER BASTN DEVELOPMENT FUND (LCRBDF)SURGHARGE FUND STATUS te1t2 M|LLS)
as of 9/30/14
BA c
DEFICIENCYPAYMENTS
2t
DSALINITY
TRANSFERSTO TREASURY
2t
E
SALINITYPAYMENTSUC REGION
2t
(A+B-C-D-E)F
CUMULATIVEBALANCE
IN LCRBDFV42 FUNDS
YEAR COLLECTIONS COLLECTIONS1t 4t
1987 1,540,704.991988 9,359,325.001989 8,442,385.001990 8,899,347.501 991 8,055,1 37.501992 7,622,747.501993 6,960,422.501994 8,830,220.001995 8,212,818.421996 9,644,684.161997 9,172,878.541998 10,398,523,941999 10,908,408.292000 10,410,325.45
3t 2001 10,255,846.462002 8,674,271.242003 8,202,776.782004 8,307,425.372005 6,700,765.002006 8,174,032.502007 8,008,372.502008 7,842,785.00
5t 2009 7,574,720.006t 2010 7,201,522.50
2011 7,846,225.002012 8,154,242.502013 7,657,120.002014 7,840,925.002015 7,',t13,462.50
TOTALS 238,012,421.14
0.001,532,868.001,532,868.001,532,868.00
11,532,868.001,532,868.001,532,868.001;532,868.001,532,868.001,532,868.001,532,868.001,532,868.00
730,O73.250.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
27,591,621.25
448,360.431,462,304.761,418,251.901,478,286.681,547,287.681,519,804.851,593,620.74't,552,975.781,562,447.261,569,266.871,560,023.63
15,712,630.58
0.0056,609.00
671,012.00967,576.00
2,424,156.003,341,252.005,502,160.007,853,582.005,833,699.004,575,630.001,370,282.002,279,925.001,180,267.001,034,975.001,034,975.001,029,973.001,032,474.001,032,474.001,032,474.004,901,904.00
779,905.00419,593.00997,172.00997,172.00997,172.00997,172.00997j72.00
0.000.00
53,340,757.00
1,540,704.999,310,552.99
15,549,057.992',t,947,961.4916,046,074.9918,794,702.4918,720,096.9918,163,866.9919,010,118.4122,546,304.57
3,552,000.00 25,264,033.114,887,000.00 26,962,764.056,215,000.00 29,745,832.09
13,783,000.00 25,338,182.541,100,000.00 33,459,054.006,966,000.00 34,137,352.24
10,885,000.00 30,422,655.021 1,104,000.00 26,593,606.396,581,000.00 26,129,257.82
12,399,000.00 18,464,691.0811,544,000.00 15,567,410.4810,336,000.00 14,132,889.16
0.00 22,257,724.845,475,213.00 24,506,667.19
14,237,779.00 18,711,561.9313,015,306.00 14,406,302.2112,461,662.00 10,"167,O35.47
8,139,052.00 1',t,438,175.348,331,242.00 11,780,419.47
161,012,254.0ù 581,115,056.33
1/ Amounts collected into Colorado River Dam Fund and Transferred to LCRBDF
2/ Payments from LCRBDF
3/ Salinity payment for 2001 was estimated. A trueup was received in 2002 which was $2,501 .00less than was actually paid. Adjusted from 2002 estimate.
4/ Amounts collected into Parker Davis and Transferred to LCRBDF
5/ UC d¡d not request any funds for cost-sharing due to existing & sufficient unliquidated obligations in place
6/ lncludes prior year adj of $615.00
C:\Users\bjparry\Desktop\2015 FALL WORK GROUP MEETING\FOR KIB\LCRBDFMILS 2015.xlsx
SALINITY FUND BALANCE
FISCAL YEAR 2015
Parker-Davis TotalDeposits Transferred Cash Balance
Ll,438,775.34
MonthPrior Year Balance
OctoberNovemberDecemberJanuary
February
MarchApril
May
June
July
AugustSeptember
Hoover
52L,267.50592.50
500,635.00906,057.50
373,935.00
71o,o77.50
527,482.5O
826,250.00
888,075.00
674,567.50
644,582.50545,940.00
83,447.28
110,460.69t02,t62.22L14,899.47
93,552.50
86,900.24
164,475.45
r58,673.!7162,554.67
182,669.29
L61,334,18t38,894.47
604,7L4.78
LL1,053.19602,797.22
L,020,956.97
467,487.50
796,977,74
685,957.95984,923.17
t,05o,629.67
857,236.79
805,916.68684,834.47
(1,000,000.00)
(3,802,400.00)
(3,353,541.00)
(175,301.00)
L2,O42,89O.t2
t2,1.53,943.3tLl,756,740.53t2j777,697.50
73,245,r85.00
L0,239,762.74
7,572,179.698,557,102.86
9,607,732.53
70,464,969.32
11,270,886.00lL,780,419.47
,1t3,462.5O 1,560,023.63 8,673,486.73 (8,331,242.00l !t,78O,419.47
Deposits represent 2.5 Mills Collected.
fó
(DIÞ.X
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINIW CONTROL PROGRAM TITLE IILovy€r Colorado Riyer Bas¡n Development Fund (wlth delayed repaymenet of pro¡ects)
As of 9ri10r2015H J R
20012002200320042^15
20062007200E2009201020'1120'12201320't4201s
2016201720182019tîtî20212022202320242025202ø2027202ø2025203020312032203320u2¡Æ2U3õ2037203820s9
'Mî204.1
20/.2204.32044tîL520462ø.72MR
Yæ¡I9BE198Stcco1991'1992'1993
'1994
1CSs
199619971SS8l99g2000
4,901,904779,905419,593997,172997j72997,172997,172997,'172
00
000
00
0
0
000
0
0
00
3 4Jö 4:¿1
U
0
0
0
n
10,942,112198.123
0
0
0
0
1,166,404304,7il
4,096,2U1,8S5,2102 Êú ?\2
TransÞr toTfæsury
¡6,6UC67'l.,O12flF7 57â.
2,4:¿4,15ö3,U1,2525,5C2,160
7,655,5825 833 6C9
4,575,6301,370,2822,275,92e1,180,2671.034.97t1,OU,e7Í1.029,S73I,Oaê2,474
1.0's2,474I
^.ê 471
USDANRCS
2t,tcr490,5625S5 923827,733
1,M1,5451,5'11,4812,312,4601 809 :l¿5
z,tt41,054791,145
269.93
12,857'13,'t51
29,635lo 86t97,91ü29,59275,921
1ll.414.911
1,13S
166,25e-5n,579
McElm cÞek
1 I,1UZt60,s15t76 194685,579
1,022,0561,791,8s73,50E,2E62 243343
¿lt /,ttug122,133616,036
52,ø23I 130
58,37462,33589 901
150,53È45,22261,102
467.41
151,91145,3ô1
382,343-266
1.3621,362
€83,526
Lower Gunnlsn
683,9081,0r8,0311,800,2501,4ø1,2361 2A5 D2Á
7,338
7,3387,3367.338?,3387,3387,3387,3387 3347,33ö7,3387,33E
15,4 774
1CA 127
364 aS7
Las VegasWash
36,69C7 342
11,4393,23'l7,33€7,33€7.33€
11,410!14,424
5.17820,82824.46125,O3162,4O311 198
172,5U15r,373
't08,753
105,9E7
1.025,13€1,029,973't,025,1361,025,136'I 02s_136
t,uzã, t 3b603,95!603,953603,953âo3 cs.q
bu3,95¡603,9s3603,95¡
't0,942,112
I,'t66,404so4,7*
't,895,2102 6fJ4 352
lß5 ô3a
16õ,366167,566201,706269,E'10271 îà1419,t2C1?5,241720,442s61,E41
1.025.1 36
9AS A
2 691352
40.1096E,629
6,4,76157,ø4753,74758,3335e 76358,76376,98r76,98r76,9817A 9âl7tt,96176,98r76,SE1
313,270491,475540 162512,û2623,997523,9ô4521,838521 921521,C:¿1
37,4'1437,41497,414a7 ¿1L
3t,414s7,41437,414
1,272,056
134,568't34,66923.82224,53624,05323,82223,82223 422'¿3,ð2:¿
18,3281E,32E'tE,32E1AA)A't9,32618,32818,328
623,154
304,7il
65,779â6 016
õ6,02466,033ô6,03866,04317 974'18,064
18,1 5217,97817,97817 S7A
17,St6'10,15S
10,1 5910,159ln l5q10,15S10,15910,1 59
ðo3.
30,75533,0493¿ OA3
35,02335,34735,71339,95239.25439,49ð39,54041,79235,27539 27ã39,27640,22140,22140,221Lî 2t140,22140,22140,221
I, t66,404
363,376420,850420,850420,950420.550420,850420,850420,850
7.1n1.
10,942,112
I Â5 nlq165,366167,5ôô170,951170,98217î qßt
31 8,06123,861
171,053171,053363 8l 1
3öb,¡ftb366,3E4363,833363,E901Ât 17â
ua¡M
5 511tc tlt40,74454,736
100,30490,727
ln¿ 5A¡523,452156,976307,79C
52,534
1,214,010121AO11214O1121,401121.401121 $tt1121,401121,401
4,006,254
¡-aqù!eswe[
2,655,424264,480264,4ø0264,4ø02â ¿AO
2ô4,4ð0264,48O264,4E0
3,438,424
Pãrãdd Vâllev Un¡t
zg112012201320142015
zo'tõ201720152019tîtî20212022202320242A2E
20262027202820292030203120322033203/2035zu3ti203720382039tñ¿(l20412042204320442045
Yearr9ðB1989I 9901991't9921993'1994
1S95
1996199719981999,nnn2001200220032004200s2006200720082009t¡1¡
zu4ti204.720ÁATot l
E€oÞ.XF!
Appendix F
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAM TITLE II
Lower Colorado R¡ver Bas¡n Development FundÀs of 9130/2015
E
LowerGunnison
Acluel and
TEnsfurloPro¡sct€d Actual LCRBDF
BalanceDeflclencyRepetmsntTransl€r lo
ParadoxVâllsyo&M
Grand McElmoCGek
werecost was year.th€ PaEllel Progr¿m.
account,
25,62=
52,06C
2,101
9,427
)¿7 59,F
337 521
351,504
l5 qsl
't997 1998 1999 2000 2û1
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAM TITLE IIAppropriat¡ons and Col Sharc frcm the Basin Funds 1996 thru 20.15
9t30t2015
TOTAL PROGRAM (91,000)
2007 2008 2009 20lo 2016 2017 )O1AGEnd Valley O&M
Paradox Valley O&lu
Lower Gunnison O&l\¡
McElmo Creek (Dolores) O&1/l
USBR Basinwide Program
Subtotal (USBR
USDA Program
Bas¡n
Total
Grand Velley O&N4
PaEdox Valley O&lu
Liler Gunn¡son O&M
McElmo Cæek (DoloEs) O&M
USBR Basinwide PrcgEm
Subtotal (USBR Progam)
USDA
Total
Grand Valley O&M
PaEdox Valley O&iil
Lwer Gunn¡son O&[/l
McElmo Creek (Doloes) O&i,
USBR Basinwide Prcg€m
Subtotal (USBR Prog6m)
Total Payment
tlnit
GEnd Valley O&M
PaEdox Valley O&lV
Lwer Gunnison O&[/l
McElmo Creek (Dolores) O&iil
USBR Bas¡nw¡de ProgEm
USDA
Total
0
0
0
0
3,363
1,753
1,147
3,267
1,331
2,593
998
1,945
172
231
283
551
63
84
186
1,144
1,957
0
517
I,340
0
'1,005
1,975
0
293
't,125
3,621
0
444
2,716
0
239
770
142
1,373
3,660
1,289
3 236
0
480
967
2,427
0
336
2,247
3,575
0
576
't,685
2,68'l
0
403
Subtotal
30,424
2,368
742
1,776
(1)
uo
1,333
2,148
381
476
õþJ
2,536
0
2,423
0
1,757
3,121
0
603
1,O21
3,7U0
676
1,515
3,124
0
563
1,885
3,501
0
479
2,945
4,501
0
793
12.033
2læ
0
16 026
677
27794s6 444 2ß396 439 330
989
0
486
50
99
0
19
46
91
0
33
95
0
28
37
89
0
22
0
23
373
N
0
154
285
560
0
107
210 183
s03 539
00124 159
0
491
104
2,400
5,213
0
793
16.026
20?72 2¿43) )) Aa)
24,421
570
579
830
2 522
1 315
399
405
17 17 181 1
7,744
800
739 419 559
17860797914
23,43 22,121 19,077 20,697 21,751800 800 800 800
't,s14 10,249 23,U0 30,738 30,662 28,820 36,644 3s,001 46,373 .14,636 45,432 44,428 40,314 54,313 36,67'1 41,a32 39,781 37,477 37,3u 39,3ô7 7U,97e
APPROPRÁNONS EXPENDED (¡I,OOO)
1998 1æ9 2000 2001 2002 2003
0 4,504 5,4Æ
80027,014
800
510
1,'108
0
202
4 047
25,474
800
7,416 8,2U 14,930 1A,377 28,093 28,039 28,194 26,ß6 22,803 23,U6 20,833
800 800 800
2011 2012 2013 2014
45,894 52,246 49,106
)016 )n17 20180
0
0
0
0
0
't 530
1,000
1,61'r
333
860
2 450
319
277
43
't23
21
18
U
517
858
1 ¡168
(3)
508
20u314
307
789
647
't,902
(2\
436
1,817
1,030
2,745
0
344
1,133
2,U3
394
1,414
2,626
0
335
2,209
3,376
0
555
a 423
917 1,318 766
2,341 2,A23
0042. 473
14 563 17 Æ3 16 283
17 375 la clo 17 A?2
31,938 36,393 34,115
2016 2017 201A
'1,800
3,910
0
11 214
1,800
2,7'tO
0
555
11 218
90
196
0
36
721
856 1,042 982
500
1 996
6,6'14 16,034 21,131 21,124 19,7A7 25,2A7 24,093 32,068 30,853 31,459 30,738 27,897 37,703 25,U9 28,974 27,513 25,903 25,878 27,288 486,193
UPPER BASIN FUND COST SHARE PAYMENTS (¡T,OOO}
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
42
136
U
25
672 427
11 7
,235 1,s83 1,s16 2,026 1,947 1,983 1,933 1,743 2,371 1,578 1,809 1,720 1,616 1,606 1,692
LOWER BASIN FUND COST SHARE PAYMENTS (¡I,OOO}
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
2014
50
97
11
15
0
U
0
U
32
104
20
20
863
372
977
3U311
50
81
17
21
804
972
3Æ
132'l
731
975
0
0
0
0
222
222
126
66
26
447
715373
145
144
425
1 997
90
136
0
36
7)'l
66
117
U
27
12 064
(D
a.X
38 52 48 57 71 84
141 137 121 117 131 lU000000
30 22 22 25 22 26
431 545 533 558 451 469
110
'169
0
541
1 996
71367532
32
526
957
202
3 068
477
760
U
147
40'l
744
0
122
1.117 1216 11¡16
1,973 2,25A 2J29
2016 2017 2014
0
0
0
'l82
244
694
116
101
144
590
't14
112
260
515
0
188
217
800
0
172
292
778
0
125
32s
664
0
144
243
456
97
121
243416
0
132
112
274
688
0
122
510
768
0
202
4 047
14 903
182 2,409 5,530 7,4æ 7,427 6,998 8,974 8,590 11,47A 11,034 '11,239 10,95ô 9,874 13,438 8,944 10,249 9,748 9,.ts9 9,100 9,587 172,402
4.853 5.907 5.567
6 329 6 889 6 496
11,'t82 12,795
19,214
39,045'1,465
6,599
173 417
)¿a 1¿a
2¡t6 053
961
1,952
424
11 174
14 606
l5 Âlß
5,4Æ'1 1,063
535
2,404
63,31 9À) 7ã9
89 634
THE BASINWIDE PROGRAM FY 2015 END
1 131 425s
600 000s1-731.A25$
5 r,13r,62s
a ía1 825ß
FY 2017
Cost Share + l5% Endof vear
5-977-076I
1.747 .157$
1 AAO ODO$
s
7-a60.710s
l3_437_746¡
$ 7.850,710
a.423 000s3.609.857s
1.263.450sila a7gç
FY 2016Appofopflalrons ¿r
Cost Share + 15% Endof vear
399 228s
7v.541s
2 499 744ß
7.260.710600 0{ì0î
950-0003
924 762s'I 296 516
,t 't 70 000s300 000s
2021 265s1 13.135$
lO-/L34 604ß
10,42,857$
8,253$
1.200,000$
s 9.684.6(M
FY 2015Apporopnalrons alCost Share + 15%
End of vear
300 000ss
1.000.000$
1 ?54 92Ês
76n nonç
6 360 000ß
2-725-7143
407.1433
10,434,604$
?5'l Ê)11
435s
At 9æs293 536s
ss 48.008
ss
R
s
3 Sl5-¿¿1ß
$ 530.318
$ I 071.858
c
e
s lst 874
s 6.318I
Bâlanæ tcEromd
s ?aî)?a
3 031 313s
163 12F,S
3 071 667s
g 3 3272
2 A¿â 40qs
191 27ñ$
)) ã0â ¿24s
4A1A 1t2s
67 669 134ß
Expended toDate
s 5 969í8Cs 2419545$ 1 264,682
s 200 786
q 016 667q
$ 168.285
A 50q tußs
s 5 806 126s 1 434.885$ 1,207,822I
s
g 39S 228
Is
a î11 È)6çs
954 594s
ß
ßî
Balancs ToObllmto
s 2336R5
s 't.747 1ît
s 734 581
2 Âm nolq
$ 893.620
s
$
$ 10.652.667
s 2 420 000
I 35n nOOs
3 Ct71 667s
3 9!3 272s
a î)A 7â'ç
Obl¡gated toDate
s â219417
s 1 795 000
s 1 272644I 67n nnns
$ 3 0'16 667
s 216.293
r t, î¡Ã Ãta
$ 6 509 548Ã ?14 1)tc
$ 1 434 885
s 1,214,140I3 72.711.689
I 43¿ 88ss
6 509 548$
s 2a1922A
? o2A7ât3 324 AA9s
I 350 000s5704 670s
a gaa 272s
â fìno oo0s
ContEcl Amount
e ¿54 î72$
s 3542157
î, 2007 225$ 4 581.825
4 î2Ê tâ5s1 109.913$
s 22006.423
l alR 1))R
s 1,214,140
3 83.374.356
GEn.l Vâllêv - (ìânål lñnrôvêmenl lAì 201O
Clevelând Prôiect Conlinuâtion
I lncñmnãhorê Fâstsi.iÊ I âlerâl Phese 5
Âdd¡f ¡ônãl Âôôrôôr¡âtiôns Sl0
Hrnt¡nolôh Clêvelând lEid Cô
JVWtIA Eâst S¡de Lâterâls Pro¡ecl Phâse I
coNtRÂcT cosTs
Cosf Shere Xlo
VIC cãnãl lmô.ôvêment 2012
Cohtrecl/Non Contracl Totals
Add¡t¡ônel Cost Shãrê X10
Minnesotã Ditch Proiect 1
ower Stêwârt Pioeline Pro¡ect
Contracl Name
Fârcôn/Fdên PiñêliñÊ Pint
M¡nnesota Canal Pio¡no Proiect Phase ll
SlacldPatterson Laterals PiDino Proiect - R-Mesa
Cettelmân's - Cedâr Cânvôn lion SDrinos
Aust¡n/Wall off-Farm lrr¡oation Pro¡ectBhre Cut/ Mâmmôth lln¡tSouth Vallev LateÉl Salinitv Pro¡ect - Sheeo Cree<
aôfôñw ñd araak Pr ia^l I
"c" Ditch/Needle Rock Proiect
NONCONTRACT COSTSOPEN AGREEMENTS
Rêcoveries Sl 0
TOTAL
R1 14C40030
R1 14C40035
Ftrnd¡ndFundind
Costs
ContractNumbêr
lg-FG-40-2880Rnq-a P-¿o-aaoR1 lA(:¿On37
R13AC40005R't34C40003
RIlAC¿OnOÂ
R't34C40017R 13A(ì¿OO1 IR13AC40015R134C40021
îL-FC4i-2rL)
R't04P40001R1 tAeÁnoro
R124C40002R12AC40033I
Fund¡nqF"ndindFund¡nd
I
EE(D
ÈXE
FUNDING FORCAST FOR THE BASINWIDE PROGRAM FY 2016 .2017Dale as of 10l16l201s
Contract Name
East Laterals
Cattelman's -
FOA 1
FOA2
FOA 1O
Recover¡es Sl 0
5
sl0
'1.644.367
1424.553
1.495.305
600.000s
FY 2014Apporopr¡at¡ons &Cost Share + 15%
End of year
1 662 859s1 246 000I 650 00fts
I 068.1451 7't2 06'ls
700,000$
s 12 603 2S0
'l
353 00t)s
1.362.074
1 , 1 00,000b1 065 000
FY 2ù17Apporopr¡at¡ons tCostShare +15%
End of year
I 13' 425s
't 565 257ßI 080 000s
't.125 308sI 150 000sI 200 0001.734.242$
$
$ 12.E66.706600.000s
3.609.857$
I 840 000s
714 7'17s
2.499.744$
73 00ns287.500$
1,200,000$
13,837,786s
47s
FY 20t6Apporopr¡at¡ons &Cost Share + 15%
End ofyear399224
1 747 157s
734 541s
520 50ísI 845 581s
410 551$
1 t1 000s155 412s736, 3â7s
s
13.315.3393s22.OOOt
1.263.4503541.4793
1?-gl7-746t
13.837_33St
2F1 ã?ns$ 1E8.259
I fRÂ Â7rlss54.598
$ 193.874
a ,q3 lj6
Bãtanco toErpend
455ß$ 53n 3lR
s t o7l ß58
s 25022As 82 353
s
$ 6.318I
s 191 2703.016.667
2't6293
3 tì31 313I 63.1 26
$ 6.509.5485.806.12ô
Expended toDate
s 2 4'19 545s 1 )â4 â42
s 200 7Â6
ss
s
s 5 969 189s 2 946 409
s 3 071 667g 220,0,Ê4)?
s 1,207,e22I
3 0l't 825s
s 4 ß35 391
$ 3.153.410
1 2Èn 7?ns
399.22i
s 2.499.7M893 620
2.814.4993.514.U7
t qaa a1tR
5.564.8013 634 242
Balrnco ToOblbars
a 1 741 157
ß 734 5ß1
s 5.363 078
ß 2 671 305
t 4s,306,623
s ?o2476.2
ß
s 2 420 000
I 570 nOOss 3.204.926
$s
sss
s 3.324.849
$ 6.509.548$ 6 000 000
Obligated toDate
s 1 7q5 noô
s 1 272 A4¿
g 2't6253s
ss
s I 350 000s 4 0?6 265
s 1,214j40I,|
2 ^71
AO5$
4.581.8255 704.670
4.835,391$3.153.410
1.240.720
3.O28.762$3s24_849
22.006.4236.509.548
Contract Amount2 A1S 224ß? 5A2 157s
2 llî7 225ß
'I 10S 913ss 363 078s
2AM 499s3 514 A47$
2954 512s5 5ô4 809s3 634242$
6 ¿53. î72s
I 3s0 000s$ 4,026.265
6 000 000h
$ 1,214,140
DDroDr¡at¡ons/Cost Share Totals
Lower Stewart Pioeline Proiect
Aust¡n/Wall Off-Farm lrrioation Proiect
:ôllônwôô.i Crêêk Proieêl 1
lâeklPãltêrsôn I âlemls P¡o¡no Proiect - R-Mêsã
ioa 4
iôa q
Fâßôn/F.len Pioeline P¡ctMinnesôfâ Cânel P¡Dino Proiect Phese ll
South Vallev Lateral Salin¡tv Proiect - Sheeo Creek
CD
Þ.X'L)
Funding Forecast BasinStates ProgramDate as of 1112312015
E¡dCDpèXFr1
61 47S
$ 1.600.
9.0$
$ 985,
$ 100,
$
s 5.756.757
$ 52.719
s 300.000
6.250$
s 5ô.143$ 153,412
s 1.300.000
$ 100,ooo
$ 'f 8.000353 417s
$ õ,772,õ55$ 92.902
FY 201õ
Obl¡gat¡onss 973,476ü 859.967
s 700,000$ 626.600
s 59 500
5 1 15,OOO
s 700,000
$ 331 273s 150 000
9.000$
5 6,Eô5,557
985,352
$ 24.595975 000
10.000
110,750
1.383.983
M_000
12 243J;
'18.000
:t4u 99ud;
s 69,701
5 7,996,502I$ 731.386
247,151
i 3.850.000
FY ZO15
Obl¡gat¡ons
$ 700.000
$ 2.500.000
$
$ 6,250
s 103 540
s 223719$ 81,605s 233.400
v 112,777$ 31.998
s 8,599
s 834.166
8 2,1 ,214
4/A {É0ti
s 19,684
a1 6{15$
$ 24.595$ 184.¡t87
$ E.¡lO654.507
s 110.750
$ 171.900s 2.157
$ 23.656
$ 9.131s 198_955
S 233.¡ttx)$ 64.000
112.771$$ 16.q)2
Ëatance ¡oExp€nd
ü Ð,üx)
$ 1s2.000
$s 4,545,396I
$ 5067222,4O3,344
4.515.513
144.O29
't 0t .383
$ 24,344
$ 290,869
i 3,140,742
EXpenoeo toDate
't.594$
$ 424 019$ 150,OOO
$ 2.787.083
$ 30 000t 73,31tt
$ 73.009
$ 22 658
$ 31.998
s 14,613,94'lI
s 2.625.0q)
s 6.0o0.ün
$ 3.941.4081 _508-5ms
tiz6-6t,u$
$ 364.838
50_u)t)s
(($
$ 56.143$ 153.¡t12
$ 150.000
Þatance I oObligate
$ s6.839
$ 2.790.q)O
$ 225,(X)O
$
0$
$
5 14,650,353I
$ 4.700.000
$ 985.352
534.769
$ 103,54030.000
221.613
'l't2777
voilgareo toDate
s 3 637 5t0s 24,595
s 5 334 000
$ 1O,OOO
$ 198.536
s 200 000
$ 2,954,983
$ 93 000
$ 48,000
$ 225,009s 300,000
s 81 605s 233,400$ 64.000
$ 4E,OOO
s 67,072
5 19,226,/t{t9I
$ 6,000,000
$ 4.926.760
u 4u,00u
$ 5 14ô 031
s 121,434
s 534.769
$ 30.000
$ 221.613
$ 233.400
g 112.777
$ 153,412
Amountvonüacl
s 7.325.000s 5.9ô0 600$ 2,AOO,OOO
s 567.374
s 250 000t 3,1E3,983$ 103.540
s 93 000
$ 46,000
$ 225,009$ 300,000
$ 81 605
$ 64,000
ç 123,215
$ 150.000
s 33,876,763I
End Date
9'30r201S3t31t2018
3t2t2lJ21
9/30/20169/30/2016
9t7t20196t31t20't6at3'1t20't7
12t30t20162JN2016
9t30t201s9/30/20169t30t2015
12t31t20169/30r20159/30/20f89t17t20179/30/2014
9t2t20169t27t20179/30r20163t20t20'17
NRCS UOLORADO (New)
SIR Rangeland Sal¡n¡ty Mob and Transport ARS
contracuNon contract Totals
Upper Bas¡n Cost Shafe
ilR Prolects rn l-uture
us r-&ws (3024)
SlRl5-2 USGS Salin¡tv loadinq from qroundwatr
SlR14-2ab Pah Temoe USGS
lR13 Uesen Seep Wash
RiverwarelDlQStreamqaq¡n0 Contracts W USGS
EVAP PONdS CRB
R Upper Bas¡n Benef¡ts Report
Adv¡sorv Membef's Travel
Contract Name
NRCS UTAHNRCS WYOMINGstate o1 utahState 01 uoloradoState of Wvomino
Bamett lntermounta¡n - Sal¡n¡tv ConsultantUn¡versitv of Colorado -Pra¡rieUncompahgre Easts¡de Lateral Phase 7
SlR14-1 LowGun Model Enhancement USGS
SIR'14-5 Desert Lake Monitorinq BOR5rKr4-/ Kangetano l'atl MoDilzaIonWateßhed Modelinq
SlR15-1 MODI&2 Effects of Veqetation Treatm(
SIR'|5-3 USGS Stream Chem¡strvSlR15-4 USGS Watershed Charactenst¡csSlRl 5-6 USGS/BOR Assessment of ReqressiorSlR15-7 BOR Desert Lakes Mon¡tor¡no
FOA #1 1
State of UtahState of Colorado
Reclamation T/A
Non Contract Costs
Lower Bas¡n Cost Share based on NRCS FA
RecoveriesALL FUNDING TOTAL
R1 5PGUUOUA
R13PG40038
R'I3PG4IJO1U
Funding
Fund¡nq
çontractNumber
R13PG40026R15PG0001 1
Rt2AC400f9R124C4001 IR'154C00054Rt4PG00069R1 1 PX40081R1 2PC40009Rl 14c40025R1 5PU000/4R1 4PGOO1 59R14PG00161ln House
R14PG001 04
R15PGOO1 23R15PG001 25R15PG001 26R',t5PGU0tZ/R15PG00128ln House
NEWNEWNEWNEW
R13PD40066
t';ostsIFund¡no
Fund¡nq
Preliminary FY2015 Values
Fiscal Year
Actual/ Projected
Fund Revenues
Actual/Projected Federal
Expenditure (Basinwide, O&M,
EQIP)
Total LCRBDF Required Cost
Share
Actual/ Projected
Transfer to UC Region
Repayment to the
Treasury Actual Accrual Net
2013 9,219,567$ 25,903,460$ 13,036,467$ 12,461,662$ 997,172$ 10,167,036$ (12,316,304)$ (2,149,268)$ 2014 9,410,192$ 25,884,234$ 8,139,052$ 8,139,052$ -$ 11,438,176$ (12,316,304)$ (878,128)$ 2015 8,673,486$ 27,473,333$ 9,642,574$ 8,331,242$ -$ 11,780,419$ (13,627,636)$ (1,847,217)$ 2016 $9.0 M $31.4 M $11.0 M $10.5 M $0.0 M $10.2 M -$14.1 M -$3.8 M2017 $8.9 M $32.2 M $11.4 M $9.0 M $0.0 M $10.1 M -$16.5 M -$6.4 M2018 $8.8 M $32.9 M $11.7 M $8.9 M $0.0 M $10.0 M -$19.3 M -$9.2 M2019 $8.8 M $32.9 M $11.7 M $8.8 M $0.0 M $10.0 M -$22.2 M -$12.1 M
Appendix G - Summary table showing projected LCRBDF revenues and expenditures.
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAM TITLE IILower Colorado River Basin Development Fund
Last Revised: September 21, 2015
LCRBDF Transfers LCRBDF Fund Balance
Preliminary FY2015 Values
Fiscal Year
Actual/ Projected
Fund Revenues
Actual/Projected Federal
Expenditure (Basinwide, O&M,
EQIP)
Total LCRBDF Required Cost
Share
Actual/ Projected
Transfer to UC Region
Repayment to the
Treasury Actual Accrual Net
2013 9,219,567$ 25,903,460$ 13,036,467$ 12,461,662$ 997,172$ 10,167,036$ (12,316,304)$ (2,149,268)$ 2014 9,410,192$ 25,884,234$ 8,139,052$ 8,139,052$ -$ 11,438,176$ (12,316,304)$ (878,128)$ 2015 8,673,486$ 27,473,333$ 9,642,574$ 8,331,242$ -$ 11,780,419$ (13,627,636)$ (1,847,217)$ 2016 $8.5 M $31.4 M $11.0 M $10.9 M $0.0 M $9.3 M -$13.7 M -$4.3 M2017 $8.5 M $32.2 M $11.4 M $9.9 M $0.0 M $8.0 M -$15.2 M -$7.3 M2018 $8.5 M $32.9 M $11.7 M $9.8 M $0.0 M $6.7 M -$17.2 M -$10.4 M2019 $8.5 M $32.9 M $11.7 M $8.8 M $0.0 M $6.4 M -$20.0 M -$13.6 M
Appendix H - Summary table showing projected LCRBDF with reduced revenues and an additional $2.5M expenditure over several years.
COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAM TITLE IILower Colorado River Basin Development Fund
Last Revised: September 21, 2015
LCRBDF Transfers LCRBDF Fund Balance
Top Related