WSP06119 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

SEP-12-96 THU 02:33 PM BUREAU OF RECLAMATION FAX NO. 801 524 3336 p, 04 ton (range: $29-$70 per ton) or $62 per ton without 3D-percent cost sharing by the fanners, The performance risks for this proposal were judged to be relatively high. Additional studie.~ and funding for standalone, onfarm irrigation projects like this proposal should be pursued with the USDA. The rankin2 cnmmittee did not recommend Reclamation nroceed with nel!otiations on this MOlloSal. Castle Valley/Cottonwood Creek Proposal- This proposal is based on Reclamation's report titled, Price-San Rafael Rivers Unit, Planning Report/Flnal Environmental Impact Statement, dated December 1993. The proposal is essentially a portion of the winter water replacemenl portion of the project. The proposal includes $1.4 million in cost sharing. Costs are about what was estimated by Reclamation's report. Unit costs were compared to the Lower Gunnison winter water costs and were found to be conservative. Salt reductions, and performance risks are typical of a winter water replacement project (somewhat lower than iITigation improvements) and deemed acceptable. The rankinll: committee recomm"nds implementation of this proDOsal. Wellington Proposal. This proposal is ba.~d on Reclamation's repolt titled, Price-San Rafael Rivers Unit, Planning Report/Final Envirolll7Ulntallmpacl Statement, dated December 1993. This proposal integrates winter water replacement, onfann and off-farm improvements, and a secondary water system for the city, all of which should promote efficient water use. Cost effectiveness was compar4ble to Reclamation's report when the proposed cost sharing was included. The performance risks were considered to be typical of this type of pmject or maybe slightly better due to the high amount of cost sharing. This proposal was thought to be a very innovative approach to salinity control. The proposal includes some onfarm improvements normally funded by the USDA program. This was a concern to two members of the f'<lIlking committee (but not ovemding). This plan proposes for Reclamation to fund what would have been the USDA portion of the project. The RFP allows Reclamation discretion on this point. Normally Reclamation would not fund onfann improvements and would defer to the USDA to implement these types of improvements. However, because of the heavy cost sharing ($2.2 million or 36 percent for the entire cost of the system) and because the peIformance of the proposal relies on the integration ofthe three systems, the rankin~ committee recommends that Reclamation proceed with ne&:otiations for the implementation of this Droposal. The cooperative agreement should state that construction is contingent upon a review and potential update of the mitigation plan~ included in the Price-San Rafael report since Reclamation would be funding the onfarm program and has different wildlife replacement policies than the USDA. Ferron Watershed Proposal- This proposal is based on the USDAlReclamation's report titled, Price-San Rafael Rivers Unit, Pla7l1ling Repon/Final Environmental Impact STatement, dared December 1993. This proposal includes both onfarm (USDA) and off-farm (Reclamation) improvements as proposed by the report. The proposal improves on the project's cost effectiveness by elimin~ting redundanl (parallel) delivery systems. The perfomlance risk. of this proposal is consistent with other irrigation improvement projects and acceptable. The rankine commiltee reconunends that Reclamation Droceed with ne20tiations for the implementation of this DroooS~!. The cooperative agreement should state that funding of this project by Reclamation is contingent upon the USDA's commitment to fund their portion of the project. Reclamation should consider making the USDA a consigner of the cooperative agreement. '. fl r .. 19 I, v \.J \..