Electronic Application Form.docx
DOCX document 452 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Basinwide & Basin States Salinity Control Programs Federal grant opportunity
- Opportunity number
- BOR-UC-17-F003
- Issued by
- Department of the Interior
About this file
Application Package 3
View the file
Other files for this federal grant opportunity
Show all 20
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Bureau of Reclamation Colorado River Basinwide and Basin States Salinity Control Programs 2017 FOA Project Application
Colorado River Basinwide & Basin States Salinity Control Programs
2017 FOA Project Application FOA No. BOR-UC-17-F003
PROJECT NAME
PROJECT LOCATION
Applicant Name
Date
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I – PROJECT SUMMARY
PART II – PROJECT PROPOSED FOR FUNDING
PART III – PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING PLAN
APPENDIX A – PROJECT MAPS
APPENDIX B – SUPPLEMENTAL DATA TABLES AND/OR DATA FOR OTHER TYPES OF SALINITY CONTROL (NON IRRIGATION RELATED)
APPENDIX C – ESTIMATE OF ENABLED ON-FARM ACREAGE
APPENDIX D – DETAILED COST ESTIMATE(S)
APPENDIX E – SALT LOAD REDUCTION ESTIMATE(S)
PART I -- PROJECT SUMMARY
All information must be entered into the response boxes provided. Where information requested in not applicable enter “NA”.
| A |
| APPLICANT/ENTITY NAME: |
City/town, State
Response:
| B |
| PROJECT APPLICATION NAME: |
Response:
| C |
| PROJECT APPLICATION PREPARED BY: |
Response:
| D |
| FUNDING REQUEST SUMMARY: [Use * to denote an in-kind contribution] |
| FUNDING SOURCE |
| FUNDING AMOUNT |
Basinwide/Basin States Program:
Other Federal (list each source):
Other (list each source):
TOTAL PROJECT FUNDING:
| E |
| ABBREVIATED PROJECT SUMMARY: If the project is irrigation related, include name and length of canals and laterals to be improved by piping or lining. |
Response:
| F |
| ESTIMATED SALT LOAD REDUCTION: (See FOA Section IV.A) |
IN ORDER TO OBTAIN SALT LOAD REDUCTION ESTIMATES, THE SALT LOAD REDUCTION WORKSHEET MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE PROGRAM MANAGER WITH A COPY TO THE APPROPRIATE RECLAMATION TECHNICAL CONTACT. FINAL SUBMISSIONS MUST BE RECEIVED NO LATER THAN OCTOBER 2, 2017
Response:
| G |
| ESTIMATED COST EFFECTIVENESS VALUE: |
Response:
| I |
| ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF FOA AMENDMENTS: Applicants shall acknowledge receipt of any amendment to this Funding Opportunity Announcement by identifying the amendment number and date. |
List Amendment No. and Date:
| J |
| Engineering firm selected for project (if already selected) |
Title:
Address:
Telephone:
DUNS #
SAM #
How was this firm selected?
| K |
| Two entities submitting one Application: |
Name:
Name:
Lead Contact:
Telephone:
Fax:
E-mail:
| L |
| ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) Two or more applicants shall enter into one project agreement, if it combines ditches, laterals etc… They MUST have an MOA signed between them and attached in the FOA from Reclamation Approval. |
PART II - PROJECT PROPOSED FOR FUNDING
Provide a brief narrative or tabular data responding to each of the following sections that apply to the proposed salinity control project. All information must be entered into the response boxes provided in the application, with the exception of maps or data tables which may be inserted in the appropriate appendix.
| A. |
| BACKGROUND & DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA: Describe project setting and geographic location. For irrigation-related applications, include general hydrology, geology, soils, climate (average rainfall, temperature, and growing season), water storage facilities, existing irrigation facilities (total mileage of canals & laterals and number of users), irrigated acreage, types of crops, etc. |
Response:
| B. |
| PROJECT MAPS: Attach, as Appendix A, detailed GIS map(s) showing existing facilities and proposed improvements as described in Parts B.1 and B.2 below. Printed maps shall be no larger than 11x17. |
| B.1 |
| MAP(S) OF EXISTING FACILITIES: Attach a GIS detailed map(s) scaled appropriately to easily identify the project area, existing facilities, and major geographic features including roads, streams, reservoirs, towns, land ownership (Federal, state, Tribal, private, etc). If the proposed project is irrigation related, the map should show locations of canals, laterals, and irrigated lands. Those canals or laterals proposed for improvement or abandonment under this application should be clearly identified. |
| B.2 |
| MAP(S) OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS: Attach a detailed GIS map(s), along with a topographic ground and layout profile, scaled appropriately which clearly identifies improvements that would be constructed under this application. Any additional maps, such as those with an aerial photo background, can also be included to better help identify project location. If irrigation related, display proposed pipeline alignments and/or canal segments to be lined, along with locations of previously lined or piped sections. Indicate in the color blue, the portion of the delivery system facilities to be funded in whole or part by Reclamation and, in the color red, any portion to be funded by other sources. Those funding sources should be identified in Part III, B of this application. |
| C. |
| WATER RIGHTS AND SUPPLY: Describe the water rights for both diversion and storage. Include state diversion or reservoir structure ID, if applicable. Describe source of irrigation water supply and water shortages. Include average amount of total per year in acre feet. Provide method of water allocation such as splitter box delivery or water flow per acre. |
Response:
| D. |
| DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT: Describe the project in detail including the proposed salinity control process. Detailed project plans should include the following: preliminary hydraulic analysis, geologic descriptions, geo-technical investigations, initial design drawings, GIS map(s) detailing construction timeline, preliminary work on habitat mitigation plan, initial NEPA scoping and timeline. Projects should plan to begin construction within 12-18 months of agreement execution. |
Response:
| D.1.a |
| EXISTING IRRIGATION DELIVERY SYSTEM (CANALS, LATERALS, DITCHES, ETC.): Describe the specific existing facilities (canals, laterals, ditches) that are to be improved or replaced. Details should include names of each canal, lateral or ditch and existing lengths and flow capacities. Additional information concerning these existing facilities should be provided in Appendix E. Projects should identify the canal system or individual canals and laterals and describe in detail (lining method, pipe material, pipe sizes, lengths, etc.) the proposed lining or piping of those facilities. If the proposed project requires acquisition of water or water rights, describe the acquisition plan and required contracts. Describe plans for abandoning any facilities. |
Response:
| D.1.b |
| PROPOSED IRRIGATION DELIVERY SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS: Identify the canal system or individual canals and laterals and describe in detail the proposed lining or piping of those facilities. Include pipe/lining types, sizes, lengths, etc. If the proposed project requires acquisition of water or water rights, describe the acquisition plan and required contracts. Describe plans for abandoning any facilities including obliterating abandoned canal/ditch prisms. If the project plan does not remove or filling in the canal, then please describe why this will be left open (leaving a ditch/canal open will raise cost effectiveness). Projects must allow for appropriate pressure and velocity to enable NRCS-EQIP On-Farm sign ups, if the topography permits. Applications that proposes determent to future NRCS-EQIP On-Farm signups will not be considered for award. |
Response:
| D.2 |
| OTHER TYPES OF SALINITY CONTROL (NON-IRRIGATION RELATED): For desalinization, evaporation or other salinity control measures, clearly identify the salinity sources and quantify the amount of salt (in tons/year) that will be controlled or eliminated. Include data that defines the salt loading and control in tabular format in Appendix B. Also see FOA Section IV.E.3. |
Response:
D.3
NEW WATER IMPOUNDMENT STRUCTURES: If new ponds, reservoirs, settling basins, or other water impoundment structures are to be constructed or existing structures enlarged for any purpose (e.g., re-regulation, evaporation, etc.) as part of this application, address the requirements listed in FOA Section IV.E.1.b and identify the type and thickness of the liner, the average seepage rate expected over the project life, construction methods, and quality control program. If the size of a proposed or existing water impoundment structure increases later a new salt load calculation will be developed and funding may be reduced and/or the application ranking may change.
Response:
| D.4 |
| DESCRIPTION OF ON-FARM OPPORTUNITIES: If new irrigation features will provide water and pressure of such quantity, quality, and reliability to: 1) promote high efficiency sprinkler systems or 2) promote above ground and buried drip or tubing, micro spray, to meet the conditions required for precision leveled, border irrigated fields and/or surge irrigated fields, complete the Enable On-Farm Worksheet and submit required mapping in accordance with FOA Section IV.E.2. Attach the completed worksheet as Appendix C. Summarize below the number of eligible deliveries and “Claimable Acres” for each canal/lateral/ditch. Additionally, identify the percentage of acres that belong to landowners that have demonstrated their interest by signing the on-farm worksheet. |
Response:
| E. |
| ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: |
| E.1 |
| NEPA COMPLIANCE: Describe existing environmental compliance documents for the project area and new environmental documents (e.g., environmental assessments) required to implement the proposed project. Identify responsible parties and estimated costs. |
Response:
| E.2 |
| OTHER BENEFITS: Describe any additional environmental benefits of the proposed project including selenium-loading reduction. |
Response:
| E.3 |
| ENDANGERED SPECIES CONCERNS: Identify any known endangered or threatened species in the project area and assess the possibilities they may be affected by activities associated with the proposed project. |
Response:
| E.4 |
| CULTURAL RESOURCES: Identify any known archaeological sites in the area of the proposed project and assess the possibilities they may be affected by activities associated with the proposed project. Applicant must identify major geographic features including roads, streams, reservoirs, towns, land ownership (Federal, State, Tribal, private, etc). |
Response:
F.
HABITAT REPLACEMENT PLAN: If known, describe wetlands that may be affected by the proposed project and whether they have been previously inventoried. Identify existing Habitat Replacement Plans or new evaluations and analysis needed to develop a plan. Identify costs for studies and implementation of the plan. Justification must be provided if estimated costs are less than 5% of the Total Construction Cost. Construction Costs include the following: Labor, Supplies and Materials, Equipment and Construction Management & Contract Costs. See FOA Section IV.E.4 for further information. The habitat must be maintained for the life of the project which is 50 years. Future costs of habitat maintenance cannot be funded by Reclamation.
Response:
| G. |
| OPERATION, MAINTENANCE & FUNDING AND MANAGEMENT PLAN: Describe the proposed operation, maintenance, and management plan and habitat replacement plan that will assure the project achieves the proposed salinity control over the project life, which is 50 years. A proposed project that relies extensively on water management to achieve benefits, a detailed description of the plan and funding source must be included. Provide current yearly budget and personnel flowchart/description along with any anticipated changes for the proposed project. Applicants must also submit a funding and management plan, for future procedures, that will be implemented, to assure adequate O&M for the life of the project. (e.g. cleaning headwork screens and clearing sediment, performing electrical maintenance, replacing mechanical equipment, habitat mitigation etc.) O&M of water impoundment structures should be described as specified in FOA Section IV.E.1.b. All O&M management costs, including maintenance of habitat mitigation cannot be paid for with Salinity Grant Funding. |
Response:
| H. |
| EXPERIENCE IN IMPLEMENTING PROJECTS: The Applicant, Project Manager and Engineering Firm must identify and disclose past salinity control projects or projects of similar nature completed or underway by your organization (entity and consultant) and must include construction dates, brief description, and status. |
Response:
PART III – PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING PLAN
| A. |
| DETAILED COST ESTIMATE: Using the table in Appendix D provide a detailed cost estimate for materials and construction. The Habitat Replacement Plan, design, NEPA, and other similar costs must be shown as direct costs. Indirect costs such as overhead are to be included in the cost estimate as well. All quantities, materials, sizes, etc. must be consistent with those provided in the detailed project description in Part II.D of this application. |
| B. |
| FUNDING PLAN: Describe the funding plan for project implementation. The funding plan should have a timeline of proposed funding expenditures. If funding from sources other than the Basinwide or Basin States Programs is anticipated, the funding partner should be identified and a letter of commitment attached. Proposed in-kind contributions should be identified. Funding other than Salinity Control Program funding must be spent concurrently. |
Response:
| C. |
| COST EFFECTIVENESS: |
| C.1 |
| PROJECT LIFE IS 50 YEARS: The life of the project construction components and wildlife habitat mitigation must be maintained and operated for 50 years. |
TOTAL & AMORTIZED RECLAMATION COSTS:
| Total Basinwide / Basin States Program cost: |
| $ |
| Amortized Basinwide / Basin States |
Program cost:
(In the table provided, enter the total and amortized Basinwide Program or BSP costs. The amortized cost can be determined by applying the amortization factor of 0.04168 to the Basinwide or BSP costs. The amortization factor is based on the FY 2017 Federal planning interest rate of 2.875 percent and a project life of 50 years.)
| C.2 |
| ESTIMATE OF SALT LOAD REDUCTION: Include written response from Reclamation providing salt load reduction estimate in Appendix E |
| Off-farm: | _________ tons/year |
| Other: | _________ tons/year |
| Total: | _________ tons/year |
| C.3 |
| COST EFFECTIVENESS VALUE: Divide the Amortized Basinwide/Basin States Program cost by the total annual salt load reduction estimate. |
$ ________ /ton/year
| C.4 |
| CONSTRUCTION & FUNDING SCHEDULE: Include a detailed schedule (Gantt chart) displaying anticipated major work items similar to the detailed cost estimate along with the major NEPA and Habitat Replacement milestones. Also include funding requirements (including other funding and in-kind services) on a Federal FY basis (October 1 – September 30) for each year of the project. No more than $2.0 million of Salinity Funds, is allowed to be budgeted, per year. |
Response:
APPENDIX A: GIS PROJECT MAPS
Map(s) of existing facilities shall be scaled appropriately to easily identify the project area, existing facilities, and major geographic features including roads, streams, reservoirs, towns, and land ownership ( Federal, state, Tribal, private, etc. If the proposed project is irrigation related, the map(s) should show locations of canals, laterals, and irrigated lands. Those canals or laterals proposed for improvement or abandonment under this application should be clearly identified. A construction timeline should be included on the map(s)
APPENDIX B: SUPPLEMENTAL DATA TABLES AND/OR DATA FOR OTHER TYPES OF SALINITY CONTROL (NON IRRIGATION RELATED)
APPENDIX C – ESTIMATE OF ENABLED ON-FARM ACREAGE
The Page 2 table for Appendix C can be downloaded from the website http://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/salinity as an Excel spreadsheet. Instructions for completing Appendix C are contained in the spreadsheet file. Include the completed table with the final application as Appendix C and submit the completed Excel spreadsheet electronically.
PLEASE CLICK ON THE EXCEL ICON FOR THE ENABLE ON FARM WORKSHEET
APPENDIX D: DETAILED COST ESTIMATE
1. The cost estimates must be provided with sufficient detail to evaluate the reasonableness of your budget Application. For example, show items such as different pipe diameters, farm turnouts, road crossings, air vents, pressure reducing valves, fittings, isolations valves, diversion structures, trash cleaners, mechanical equipment, metalwork, earthwork, lining materials, concrete structures, canal obliteration, structure removal, re-vegetation, and right-of-way acquisition. The line item should show quantities and appropriate pricing either in unit prices or materials and installation. Add lines to this table and customize for your specific project.
1. All entries must match values and descriptions in the responses to Part II, Project Proposed for Funding.
1. Applicants must provide a detailed Budget Narrative which justifies the reasonableness of the cost estimates included in the budget Application. Failure to give enough detail will result in a lower ranking. Examples of acceptable justifications are quotes from more than one vendor in the competitive market, construction reference manual, historical documentation of actual costs on prior similar projects, open competitive requests for Applications (RFP) and/or evidence of the industry standards for your geographic area,.
1. The cost for the Habitat Replacement Plan should be at least five percent (5%) of the Total Construction Cost, unless, justification is provided in the project Application for a different value. See FOA Section IV.E.4. Construction Costs include the following: Labor, Supplies and Materials, Equipment and Construction Management & Contract Costs.
1. Costs must be included for NEPA compliance and compliance with cultural resource laws. The applicant is responsible for any costs of mitigation of cultural resource impacts and should include sufficient allowances. See FOA Section III.B.4.
1. Include cost of Single Audit(s) for each of your fiscal years when Federal expenditures exceeded $750,000.00. Expenditures begin when the financial obligations were incurred.
1. For further guidance please refer to the Budget Pricing Guide document which can be downloaded from http://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/salinity.
PLEASE DOUBLE CLICK THE EXCEL FILE ICON TO OPEN AND FILL IN THE COST ESTIMATE SHEET
APPENDIX E: SALT LOAD REDUCTION ESTIMATE(S)
Include the response letter from Reclamation providing the salt load reduction estimate.
PLEASE DOUBLE CLICK THE WORD AND EXCEL FILES ICON TO OPEN AND FILL IN THE SALT LOAD REDUCTION WORKSHEET
Electronic Application Form
Electronic Application Form FOA NUMBER: BOR-UC-17-F003 Appendix C - Enable On-Farm Worksheet.xlsx Instructions
Instructions for completing Appendix C, Page 2:
1 GIS Map that includes the Delievery ID of claimed acres.
2 Enter the name of the Canal/Lateral/Ditch in the space provided
3 Delivery ID (column B) - Enter the Delivery ID from GIS Map
4 Landowner name (column C) - List the landonwer name of acreage served by the delivery
5 Claimable acreage (column D) - Enter the number of acres claimed from GIS Map
6 Landowner signature (column E) - Obtain signature of the landowner when the landowner is willing to sign their intent to install a high efficiency irrigation system on the indicated acreage when sufficient volume and pressure are available
Claimable Acres Must:
● Have been irrigated two (2) of the last five (5) years (2012-2017).
● Have no irrigation improvements beyond land leveling (i.e., sprinklers, drip facilities, etc.).
● Be provided with a dynamic working pressure of 35 psi or greater.
o Where working pressure generated by the pipeline is insufficient booster pumps may be added. Capital costs for pumps and electrical connections would be part of the Reclamation funded project and must be displayed as project costs in Appendix E of the Project Application.
● For high efficiency, surface irrigation systems; must provide sufficient quantity, quality (low sediment etc.) and timeliness to service precision leveled border-diked fields, buried or above ground drip, surge, or other application systems providing at least 50 percent application efficiency.
Salinity Definitions
Appendix C -- Estimate of Enabled On-farm Acreage Page 2/2
Name of Canal/Lateral/Ditch: ____________________________
Proposed
Delivery Landowner name Irrigation Irrigated 2 out of the Claimable Landowner signature
ID Method last 5 years acreage I have an interest to install a high-efficiency irrigation system
(Corresponding Yes or No (Corresponding (on the fields represented by the ID number) to GIS Map) to GIS Map) when sufficient water quantity, quality, and application requirements are met.
TOTAL ACRES CLAIMED 0
Symbol Approx application efficiency
Description
UF 32%
Unimproved flood - earthen ditches, dirt or sod turnouts, poor or no field corrugations, undulating topography, uneven irrigation flows, poor water control. Field has obvious high and low areas, wet and dry areas, uneven greenness/growth and high run-off.
IFPC 37%
Improved flood, poor condition - earthen ditches to flexible temporary plastic pipe, no or poorly maintained corrugations, significant cross slopes and undulating topography.
Majority of the field appears to have even growth, few obviously wet or dry areas, high run-off.
IFPlus 45%
Partially improved flood, wo IFM - earthen ditch to siphon tube, marginal field corrugations, cross slopes and irrigation slopes are variable, some water control.
Operator has developed techniques to somewhat evenly irrigate most of the field and significantly reduce run-off.
OIFM 45%
Old improved flood - Improved flood systems w/ IWM beyond their practice life of 15 years. It is assumed that application efficiency has declined by 10% from new condition.
IFM 55%
Improved flood system with IWM being practiced - pipeline to gated pipe, concrete ditch w/ports or siphon tubes, etc., with IWM practice being applied per acceptable standard.
OPM 55%
Old periodic move, Wheel line, side roll, big gun, pod, hand line, etc., beyond its practice life of 15 years. It is assumed that application efficiency has declined by 10% from new condition.
PM 65%
Periodic Move - Siderolll sprinklers, hand line, pod, or solid set sprinklers and IWM being applied.
OCM 65%
Old continuous move, Center pivot, lateral move, spooled move big gun, etc., beyond its specified practice life of 15 years. It is assumed that application efficiency has declined by 10% from new condition.
CM 75% Continous move, Center pivot, lateral move, spooled move big gun, etc. with IWM.
High Tech 85% High Tech – 85% - Micro Spray, Drip, Center pivot with high efficiency and lowered nozzles (MESA, LEPA, etc.), with IWM being applied.
All of the values used in this spreadsheet represent broad-scale averages, as opposed to individual field level evaluations. The application efficiencies used represent averages, not the potential peak efficiency set out in the NRCS Engineering Handbook and are generalized to the salinity program.
Not all states will use all of the symbols in this list. These are a combination of definitions previously used in different states.
Irrigation efficiency is directly related to the uniformity of water application, control, and run-off. If the field appears to have even color throughout, on the latest NAIP, it is probably at 35% or better efficiency.
Irrigation Practice Definitions For calculating cost/ton for salinity ranking
Definitions image1.emf image2.emf
Appendix C - Enable On-Farm Worksheet.xlsx Instructions
Instructions for completing Appendix C, Page 2:
1 GIS Map that includes the Delievery ID of claimed acres.
2 Enter the name of the Canal/Lateral/Ditch in the space provided
3 Delivery ID (column B) - Enter the Delivery ID from GIS Map
4 Landowner name (column C) - List the landonwer name of acreage served by the delivery
5 Claimable acreage (column D) - Enter the number of acres claimed from GIS Map
6 Landowner signature (column E) - Obtain signature of the landowner when the landowner is willing to sign their intent to install a high efficiency irrigation system on the indicated acreage when sufficient volume and pressure are available
Claimable Acres Must:
● Have been irrigated two (2) of the last five (5) years (2012-2017).
● Have no irrigation improvements beyond land leveling (i.e., sprinklers, drip facilities, etc.).
● Be provided with a dynamic working pressure of 35 psi or greater.
o Where working pressure generated by the pipeline is insufficient booster pumps may be added. Capital costs for pumps and electrical connections would be part of the Reclamation funded project and must be displayed as project costs in Appendix E of the Project Application.
● For high efficiency, surface irrigation systems; must provide sufficient quantity, quality (low sediment etc.) and timeliness to service precision leveled border-diked fields, buried or above ground drip, surge, or other application systems providing at least 50 percent application efficiency.
Salinity Definitions
Appendix C -- Estimate of Enabled On-farm Acreage Page 2/2
Name of Canal/Lateral/Ditch: ____________________________
Proposed
Delivery Landowner name Irrigation Irrigated 2 out of the Claimable Landowner signature
ID Method last 5 years acreage I have an interest to install a high-efficiency irrigation system
(Corresponding Yes or No (Corresponding (on the fields represented by the ID number) to GIS Map) to GIS Map) when sufficient water quantity, quality, and application requirements are met.
TOTAL ACRES CLAIMED 0
Symbol Approx application efficiency
Description
UF 32%
Unimproved flood - earthen ditches, dirt or sod turnouts, poor or no field corrugations, undulating topography, uneven irrigation flows, poor water control. Field has obvious high and low areas, wet and dry areas, uneven greenness/growth and high run-off.
IFPC 37%
Improved flood, poor condition - earthen ditches to flexible temporary plastic pipe, no or poorly maintained corrugations, significant cross slopes and undulating topography.
Majority of the field appears to have even growth, few obviously wet or dry areas, high run-off.
IFPlus 45%
Partially improved flood, wo IFM - earthen ditch to siphon tube, marginal field corrugations, cross slopes and irrigation slopes are variable, some water control.
Operator has developed techniques to somewhat evenly irrigate most of the field and significantly reduce run-off.
OIFM 45%
Old improved flood - Improved flood systems w/ IWM beyond their practice life of 15 years. It is assumed that application efficiency has declined by 10% from new condition.
IFM 55%
Improved flood system with IWM being practiced - pipeline to gated pipe, concrete ditch w/ports or siphon tubes, etc., with IWM practice being applied per acceptable standard.
OPM 55%
Old periodic move, Wheel line, side roll, big gun, pod, hand line, etc., beyond its practice life of 15 years. It is assumed that application efficiency has declined by 10% from new condition.
PM 65%
Periodic Move - Siderolll sprinklers, hand line, pod, or solid set sprinklers and IWM being applied.
OCM 65%
Old continuous move, Center pivot, lateral move, spooled move big gun, etc., beyond its specified practice life of 15 years. It is assumed that application efficiency has declined by 10% from new condition.
CM 75% Continous move, Center pivot, lateral move, spooled move big gun, etc. with IWM.
High Tech 85% High Tech – 85% - Micro Spray, Drip, Center pivot with high efficiency and lowered nozzles (MESA, LEPA, etc.), with IWM being applied.
All of the values used in this spreadsheet represent broad-scale averages, as opposed to individual field level evaluations. The application efficiencies used represent averages, not the potential peak efficiency set out in the NRCS Engineering Handbook and are generalized to the salinity program.
Not all states will use all of the symbols in this list. These are a combination of definitions previously used in different states.
Irrigation efficiency is directly related to the uniformity of water application, control, and run-off. If the field appears to have even color throughout, on the latest NAIP, it is probably at 35% or better efficiency.
Irrigation Practice Definitions For calculating cost/ton for salinity ranking
Definitions image3.emf
APPENDIX E Salt Load Reduction Worksheet.docx
Colorado River Basinwide and Basin States Salinity Control Programs
Salt Load Reduction Worksheet
Funding Opportunity Announcement
FOA # BOR-UC-17-F003
Basinwide and Basin States
Salinity Control Programs
BOR-UC-17-F003 APPENDIX E – SALT LOAD REDUCTION
BOR-UC-17-F003 APPENDIX E – SALT LOAD REDUCTION
Funding opportunity announcement (FOA)
The Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, will be soliciting applications for reducing salinity contributions to the Colorado River through a Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) that will open August 14, 2017, and close November 14, 2017. Such applications may propose measures to reduce salinity contributions originating from saline springs, leaking wells, irrigation sources, municipal and industrial sources, erosion of public and private land, or other sources in the upper basin of the Colorado River. Anyone interested in submitting an application in the upcoming FOA should contact the appropriate Reclamation Technical Contact listed in Section B.
SECTION A: INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THE SALT LOAD REDUCTION WORKSHEET (WORKSHEET)
All potential applicants must obtain salt load reduction estimates by completing a Worksheet and submitting it to Reclamation prior to submission of their application.
Worksheet submittal instructions & Schedule
Completed Worksheets shall be submitted to the Salinity Program Manager with a copy to the appropriate Technical Contact listed in Section B. Reclamation will process requests on a first-come first-served basis and will provide a salt load reduction estimate once the FOA has been released. The salt load reduction estimates will be provided in a letter from the Salinity Program Manager.
The schedule and deadlines for Worksheet submittals will be specified in the FOA document. It is anticipated that for a single project, applicants will be allowed an initial submittal and one revised submittal for a total of two submittals of the Worksheet. Though Reclamation will not provide official salt load reduction estimates prior to release of the FOA, applicants are encouraged to submit the Worksheet prior to the release of the FOA. Early submissions allow Reclamation to begin processing the salt load reduction estimate and provide responses as soon as possible following the release of the FOA. Applicants should be aware that submittals may require 30 or more calendar days to process.
Applicants are encouraged to submit the Salt Load Reduction Worksheet as early as possible following the release of the FOA, especially if applicants anticipate submitting a revised version of the Salt Load Reduction Worksheet. Final submissions of Salt Load Reduction Worksheet must be received by Reclamation no later than October 2, 2017. Electronic submission of the Salt Load Reduction Worksheet by email is acceptable.
Proposed salinity control
Irrigation delivery system improvements
Prior to preparing the responses for the Worksheet, applicants proposing salinity control projects through irrigation delivery system improvements should contact the appropriate Reclamation Technical Contact listed in Section B to learn if salt load reduction estimates are available for your area. Salt load reduction estimates for agricultural areas can only be provided where Reclamation has been able to make estimates from Reclamation, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), or United States Geological Survey (USGS) salinity studies. For proposed salinity control projects through irrigation delivery system improvements, applicants must complete and submit the Worksheet including Part D.1 of the Background & Information section describing the facilities to be improved or replaced and Appendix B detailing the facility data.
Other Types of Salinity Control
Applications for other types of salinity control (non-irrigation related) will be accepted for evaluation in the FOA. Applicants proposing other types of salinity control must complete and submit the Worksheet including Part D.2 of the Background & Information section and Appendix C. The Worksheet is to include relevant information and data regarding the salinity source and proposed salinity control process and must quantify the salt load reduction. Reclamation will review the information regarding the salinity source and control process and may request additional information. In a response letter to the applicant, Reclamation will either confirm the applicant’s estimated salt load reduction or provide a revised estimate based on Reclamation’s analysis of the information.
Water impoundment structures
This section contains special provisions for applications involving new pond or reservoir construction.
It is allowable to include the construction of a new pond or reservoir in a salinity control proposal if that structure is needed for the operation of a piped irrigation water delivery system or for other essential purposes. Justification for the pond or reservoir must be provided in the application. To be acceptable the design and construction must meet standards developed by Reclamation. The standards are aimed at providing a liner sufficient to last for the life of the entire project (50 years if coupled with buried pipelines). Applicants contemplating a new pond or reservoir can obtain these standards from the appropriate Technical Contact listed in Section B. A successful applicant’s funding agreement will require a complete Reclamation review of the proposed design, specifications, and construction.
Additional seepage will likely occur from the new pond or reservoir and must be accounted for in the application’s overall salt load reduction estimate. This seepage must be identified and multiplied by the appropriate local salt loading rate to estimate new salt loading which will then be deducted from the application’s total salt load reduction estimate. Applicants proposing new water impoundment structures as part of a salinity control project must obtain a salt load reduction estimate from Reclamation by completing and submitting the Salt Load Reduction Worksheet.
- RECLAMATION SALINITY PROGRAM CONTACTS
Western Colorado & Southwest Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona
Mr. John Sottilare
Bureau of Reclamation
445 West Gunnison Ave Suite 221
Grand Junction CO 81501-5711
Phone: 970-248-0640
Fax: 970-248-0601
Email: jsottilare@usbr.gov
Eastern Utah and Western Wyoming
Mr. Ben Radcliffe
Bureau of Reclamation
302 East 1860 South
Provo UT 84606
Phone: 801-379-1213
Fax: 801-379-1159
Email: bradcliffe@usbr.gov
Basinwide and Basin States
Salinity Control Programs
PROJECT NAME & LOCATION
Applicant Name
Date requestor information
This worksheet may only be submitted by the owner/operator of the facilities proposed to be improved or constructed. The owners may, at their discretion, designate an engineering/consulting company or individual as their representative by formally notifying the Salinity Program Manager and appropriate Technical Contact (see Section B). Salt load reduction estimates will be provided directly to the Entity Manager with a copy to any designated representative.
A.
REQUESTING ENTITY NAME:
City/town, State
Response:
B.
PROJECT NAME:
Response:
C.
WORKSHEET PREPARED BY:
Response:
D.
ENTITY MANAGER CONTACT INFORMATION:
Name:
Title:
Address:
Telephone:
Fax:
E-mail:
E.
ENGINEER CONTACT INFORMATION (if applicable):
Name:
Title:
Address:
Telephone:
Fax:
E-mail:
BACKGROUND & INFORMATION FOR SALT LOAD REDUCTION ESTIMATE
In order to obtain salt load reduction estimates FOR FOA APPLICATIONS, THis WORKSHEET must be submitted TO THE salinity program manager with a copy to the APPROPRIATE RECLAMATION TECHNICAL CONTACT (Listed IN SECTION B).
Provide a brief narrative or tabular data responding to each of the following sections that apply to the proposed salinity control project. All information must be entered into the response boxes provided in the application, with the exception of data tables which may be inserted in Appendix B. Additional instructions for completing this worksheet are provided in Section A. (It is important to confer with or contact the appropriate Technical Contact listed in Section B, prior to preparing the responses for this worksheet)
A.
BACKGROUND & DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA: Describe project setting and geographic location. For irrigation-related applications, include general hydrology, geology, soils, climate (average rainfall, temperature, and growing season), water storage facilities, existing irrigation facilities (total mileage of canals & laterals and number of users), irrigated acreage, types of crops, etc.
Response:
B.
PROJECT MAP(S): Attach a detailed map(s) as Appendix A scaled appropriately to easily identify the project area, existing facilities, and major geographic features including roads, streams, reservoirs, towns, etc. If the proposed project is irrigation related, the map should show locations of canals, laterals, and irrigated lands and land ownership (Federal, state, Tribal, private etc). Those canals or laterals proposed for improvement or abandonment under this application should be identified. Existing lined or piped sections of canals or laterals should also be clearly identified.
C.
WATER RIGHTS AND SUPPLY: Describe the water rights for both diversion and storage. Describe irrigation water supply and water shortages.
Response:
D.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED SALINITY CONTROL: Describe proposed process or changes (in parts D.1, D.2, or D.3) anticipated by the proposed project that will lead to salt load reductions to the Colorado River system. This would include improvements to or elimination of existing facilities or operations. If the application does not contemplate changes in one of the three categories below, please indicate by entering “NA” or “Not Applicable”.
D.1
IRRIGATION DELIVERY SYSTEM (CANALS, LATERALS, DITCHES) IMPROVEMENTS: If specific facilities are to be improved or replaced, include a detailed description of the facilities and complete Appendix B.
Response:
D.2
OTHER TYPES OF SALINITY CONTROL (NON-IRRIGATION RELATED): For desalinization, evaporation or other salinity control measures, clearly describe the proposed project, identify the salinity sources and quantify the salt (in tons/year) that will be controlled or eliminated. Include data that defines the salt loading and control in tabular format in Appendix C.
Response:
D.3
NEW WATER IMPOUNDMENT STRUCTURES: If new ponds, reservoirs, settling basins, or other water impoundment structures are to be constructed for any purpose (e.g., re-regulation, evaporation, etc.) as part of this application, address the requirements listed Section A.2.C. If the size of a proposed or existing water impoundment structure increases later a new salt load calculation will be developed and funding may be reduced and/or the application ranking may change.
Response:
APPENDIX A. PROJECT MAPS
APPENDIX B:
EXISTING IRRIGATION DELIVERY FACILITIES DATA SHEET (Use required format by clicking on the Excel Icon provided below)
APPENDIX C: SUPPLEMENTAL DATA TABLES AND/OR DATA FOR OTHER TYPES OF SALINITY CONTROL (NON IRRIGATION RELATED) image2.emf
Salt Load Reduction Worksheet 2017.xlsx
Sheet1
Item Units Identify individual canal, lateral, or ditch
(Insert name here)
Length of existing canal/lateral/ditch feet
Irrigated acreage served acres
Irrigation season
Average diversion flow cfs
Average seasonal diversion ac-ft
Average no. of days water carried days
Non-irrigation season (stockwater)
Average diversion flow cfs
Average seasonal diversion ac-ft
Average no. of days water carried days
Length of ditch carrying winter water feet
Describe EXISTING lined or piped sections
Lined length (see Note 3) feet
Liner type (concrete, earth, etc) See
Note 1
Year installed year
Liner condition See
Note 2
Piped length (see Note 3) feet
Remaining unlined/unpiped length feet
Unlined Length to be replaced/improved feet
Existing piped/lined Length to be replaced/improved feet
Proposed replacement material pressurized pipe, non-pressurized pipe, or liner
Notes: 1. Type of liner may be concrete, earth (clay), membrane or other (please specify).
2. Condition of liner should be rated as poor, satisfactory, good.
3. Disregard dispersed piped or concrete lined segments with individual lengths of less than 100 feet.
image1.wmf image4.emf
APPENDIX E Salt Load Reduction Worksheet.xlsx Sheet1
Item Units Identify individual canal, lateral, or ditch
(Insert name here)
Length of existing canal/lateral/ditch feet
Irrigated acreage served acres
Irrigation season
Average diversion flow cfs
Average seasonal diversion ac-ft
Average no. of days water carried days
Non-irrigation season (stockwater)
Average diversion flow cfs
Average seasonal diversion ac-ft
Average no. of days water carried days
Length of ditch carrying winter water feet
Describe EXISTING lined or piped sections
Lined length (see Note 3) feet
Liner type (concrete, earth, etc) See
Note 1
Year installed year
Liner condition See
Note 2
Piped length (see Note 3) feet
Remaining unlined/unpiped length feet
Unlined Length to be replaced/improved feet
Existing piped/lined Length to be replaced/improved feet
Proposed replacement material pressurized pipe, non-pressurized pipe, or liner
Notes: 1. Type of liner may be concrete, earth (clay), membrane or other (please specify).
2. Condition of liner should be rated as poor, satisfactory, good.
3. Disregard dispersed piped or concrete lined segments with individual lengths of less than 100 feet.
image5.png
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .