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