?Colorado River Pmtecting Western Colorado Witter Since 1937 MEMORANDUM April 6, 2017 TO: Board of Directors CC: Eric Kuhn, General Manager FROM: Dave Kanzer, RE. Hunter Causey, RE. Alesha Frederick RE: 2017 Annual Grant Program Recommendations: Staff Review Committee and Executive Committee This memo summarizes sta? and Executive Committee recommendations for ?nancial assistance pursuant to the River District ?s 2 0] 7 Annual Grant Program. It is requested that the Board adopt (or amend, as desired) these recommendations by formal motion to direct sta? to enter into contracts with selected recipients. On March 16, the Executive Committee (EC) of the Board of Directors met to review and analyze qualifying applications for funding under the Annual Grant Program. After a detailed discussion and evaluation process, the EC af?rmed staff review committee recommendations and, in turn, recommends that 8 projects receive funding, including 4 large grants (total project costs greater than $60,000) and 4 small grants (total project costs less than or equal to $60,000). This recommendation fully expends the $150,000 that is budgeted in the 2017 River District Capital Fund for the Annual Grant Program. The recommended projects are listed in Table and the geographic distribution of these projects are shown in Figure l. The full list of projects are listed and brie?y described in Table 2. All of the grant proposals are available by password-protected download by Board members, as desired, from the River District website (previously provided standard instructions should be used). The reviewed grant applications were very good and represented a diverse mix of water supply development, protection, improvement and related projects. In total, the Annual Grant Program received 34 qualifying requests for over $1.3 million for a wide range of projects with total project costs between $5,346 and $1.4 million. The total of the grant requests is over nine times the $150,000 available and therefore, it was extremely dif?cult for the review committees to limit the deserving and high quality proposed grant?funded projects without exceeding the available budget. 201 CentennialStreeti PO Box 1120 5* Stanwood Springs, CO 83602 (970.) 9458522 . (970) 945?8?99 Fax Page 2 of 6 April 6, 2017 2017 Annual Grant Program Recommendations for Funding Summary of Review Committee Process and Recommendations: On February 27, the Staff Grant Review Committee (including Hunter Causey, Mike Eytel, Alesha Frederick, Dave Kanzer, Don Meyer, Martha Moore, Lorra Nichols, Ian Philips and Audrey Turner) met to review, analyze, and rank the quali?ed grant applications. Each staff reviewer completed a standardized ranking score sheet to evaluate the grant applications for the following categories: appropriateness, project description, budget, funding, milestones and timelines, technical adequacy, project e?ectiveness, sponsor ?s capability, cost e?ectiveness and participation. To further help differentiate the projects, staff tried to also capture the intangible nature of the proposed projects project significance, uniqueness, transferability, and perceived ?ripeness?). The maximum possible individual score was 110; the staff scores were averaged and sorted. The staff review committee rankings for most proposals were predominately consmtent. Pursuant to previous Board direction, the proposed grant projects were divided into two category ?bins? for evaluation based upon size and total project costs to ensure that larger projects compete only amongst larger projects and that smaller projects compete primarily against similarly sized projects. Subsequently, on March 16, the Executive Committee of the Board met to further review the grant applications and to consider the staff recommendations. Tom Alvey, David Merritt, Bill Trampe, and Marti Whitmore met at the River District of?ce and constituted a quorum while Tom Gray and Kathy Chandler-Henry joined via teleconference, as non-voting members. The Committee concurred with the staff recommendation and recommends 8 water resources projects for grant funding, shown in Table 1. By fully funding the ?rst 7 recommended projects and partially funding the Tyler Snyder Pivot Irrigation Project, a total of $150,000 of grant funding would be obligated. (Due to limitations of available funding, the Tyler Snyder pivot irrigation project is being recommended for $25,629.23 of their requested $60,000, this amount represents the amount of remaining funding available after the ?rst 7 recommended projects would be fully funded.) Page 3 of 6 2017 Annual Grant Program Recommendations for Funding April 6, 2017 TABLE 1: YEAR 2017 GRANT PROGRAM Staff Review and Executive Committee Recommendations Project Name Project Sponsor Complete County Project Grant Amount Cost Recommended Cedar Mesa Ditch Company Head Gate Cedar Mesa Yes Delta $16,900 $6,380 Repair Ditch Company Eagle?Vail Riparian Enhancement Project #2 Eagle River No Eagle $31,391 $9,278 Watershed Council, inc. Grand Valley Project- Government Highline Grand Valley No Mesa $800,000 $50,000 Canal Top 500 Ft Lining Project Water Users Association Roseman Ditch Company - Ladder pipe, Roseman Ditch Yes Gar?eid $7,316 $3,658 repair and maintenance Company Harvey Gap Darn Outlet Repairs and Silt Water Yes Gar?eld $134,527 $33,632 improvements, Phase 1 (Completed). Conservancy District Gienwood Ditch Inlet Structure Repair 2016 Thompson Glen Yes Gar?eld $5,346 $2,673 Ditch Company Maryvale Reservoir - Construction and Town of Fraser No Grand $75,000 $18,750 Installation of Measurement and Recording . Equipment Phase 2: Pivot Irrigation Sprinkler Project for Tyler Snyder Yes Routt $380,000 $25,629* Tyler Snyder on the Fish and Cross Ranch Partial grant funding based upon limited funds available All of the 34 quali?ed grant applications that were received are summarized in Table 3 included at the end of this memo, in alphabetical order, with the recommended projects shown in bold type. The full suite of all grant applications, complete with all submitted info have been archived electronically and will be available for review during the Board meeting. Discussion of Annual Grant Program Eligibility and Guidelines The 2017 Annual Grant program, is being operated under the revised, updated and combined operating guidelines and criteria. These guidelines were reviewed and approved by the Board at the 2017 October quarterly meetings. While the guidelines and policies were altered and reformatted, the basic program has remained primarily unchanged. Grantapplicants must be located within the physical boundaries of the Colorado River District and generally are eligible for up to 25% funding of the total project costs. Additionally, grant applicants must meet one or more of the multiple objectives of the grant program. Projects should promote bene?cial use of water for agricultural, municipal, industrial, and other purposes; watershed management activities; water quality enhancement projects; and/or water use efficiency enhancement projects. Ranking priorities are given to those projects that utilize and/or preserve pre-Colorado River Compact water rights. The published policies and guidelines state that: ?Projects eligible for funding should generally address one or more of the foilowing*: 1. Development of a new water supply Page 4 of 6 April 6, 2017 2017 Annual Grant Program Recommendations for Funding 2. Improvement of an existing water supply system 3. Measures to improve instream water quality 4. Water use e?iciency improvements 5. Sedimentation reduction; and/or 6. Implementation of watershed and riparian management actions Priority will be given to those projects that utilize and/or preserve pre-Colorado River Compact water rights (those rights that were put to use before 1922). All grant practices and related information was combined and formatted into ?Annual Grant Program Operating Guidelines and Criteria? that is. available on the River District website 1/annual-grant-pro gram? Additional Discussion - - During the Executive Committee meeting, members identi?ed several topics for potential further discussion with the River District Board: 0 Funding level for Annual Grant Program: Some members stated a desire to boost the Grant Program funding to $250,000, subject to annual budget limitations; 0 Adding ranking priority for Tier 1 Basin Implementation Plan (BIP) projects: the Staff Review committee recommended that the Tier 1 list of proj ects be added as a consideration; consensus was not reached with the 0 Funding ef?ciency improvements: concerns persist regarding appropriateness of funding irrigation efficiency projects that may adversely impact return ?ow amount, timing and location, no'consensus was reached. In light of budget limitations, the Annual Grant Program has operated at a funding amount of $150,000 for the past two years, down from a high of $250,000 per year. With the popularity and the signi?cant demand of the grant program, this funding pool gets allocated quickly and many deserving projects go unfunded; less than one quarter of applications during the past two years have been selected compared to 38% during years with additional available funding. Table 2 shows a historical summary of the grant program applications and expenditures. During the review committee meeting, staff suggested that could be considered when evaluating applications. The Executive Committee brie?y discussed, noting the potential value, and identifying several concerns. Benefits include funding projects that are consistent with the broader goals of each basin. Drawbacks include creating con?icting evaluation measures due to differences in BIP goals. Inclusion could also create redundancy because the evaluation criteria are already largely consistent with the BlPs. Lastly, when discussing the proposed irrigation ef?ciency projects (approximately 3 large scale sprinkler projects were proposed with one being recommended), the Committee discussed the merits and problems associated with such projects. Members pointed out that conversion from ?ood to sprinkler or pivots can have unintended consequences including reducing return flows, Page 5 of6 April 6, 2017 2017 Annual Grant Program Recommendations for Funding dewatering riparian areas, and increasing consumptive use. Members also pointed out the River District may be sending mixed signals if we are simultaneously funding efforts to decrease consumptive use, under some initiatives like the Water Bank Work Group and System Conservation Pilot Project, while funding irrigation ef?ciency projects that may expand consumptive use in water short areas, Conclusion Amongst grant funding programs, the River District program continues to be unique in several ways, including the funding of completed projects, the potential funding of projects that expand irrigated acreage, and its ?exibility and user-friendly nature. Although the staff and board continue to re?ne the application, review, ranking and approval processes, the grant program appears to continue to be an excellent way to perform outreach to the River District?s constituents. Page 6 of 6 2017 Annual Grant Program Recommendations for Funding April 6, 2017 Table 2: Historical Summary of Grant Program Year Apjlie Awarded Requested Awarded 1998 11 8 $121,368 $80,118 $80,118 1999 17 14 $180,381 $137,371 $119,114 2000 29 21 $275,922 $177,335 $162,283 2001 35 16 $313,396 $150,833 $150,833 2002 59 17 $507,656 $173,529 $160,987 2003 64 14 $663,342 $157,800 $157,800 2004 42 17 $376,309 $157,639 $157,639 2005 36 16 $351,121 $148,941 $148,941 2005+ 3 3 $165,336 $120,000 $90,000* 2006 35 12 $369,961 $158,295 $156,600 2007+ 11 2 $1,143,502 $150,000 $150,000 2008 35 12 $422,421 $150,828.62 $113,329 2009+ 17** 3 $1,279,656** $150,000 $146,858 2010H 39 11 $1,344,662 $250,000 $239,454 2011? 24 11 $1,394,406 $249,658 $216,024 2012# 26 13 $991,107 $245,855 $209,252 2013 33 13 $1,570,534 $241,766 $238,374 2014 35 11 $1,509,603 $250,338 $205,088 2015 42 14 $1,667,350 $250,000 In progress 2016 35 8 $1,187,837 $150,000 In progress 2017 34 8 $1,308,546 $150,000 In progress (recommended) Totals 662 244 $17,144,416 $3,700,307 $2,902,694 Large Grant Program only Combined Grant Program Two applicants declined their awards Grant in the amount of $3 0,000 was terminated due to non?completion of originally designed project; proposed changes to the original grant by the grantee were deemed unacceptable his does not include two grant applications that were deemed ineligible for the Large Grant Program because the program did not fund completed projects at that time TABLE 3: 2017 ANNUAL GRANT PROGRAM - LIST OF 981 AND REVIEWED BY STAFF AND EXECUTEVE COMMITTEES No. Project Sponsor Project Name Project Description Complete? County Project Cost Requested Max Allowed Small or Large Staff Recommendation Bobby George Five Pipeline Add 150+l- of irrigated ground No Routt 690,370 150,000 3 150,000 Large NO Cedar Mesa Ditch Company Cedar Mesa Ditch Company Head Gate Repair Concrete repairs and reinforcement of Surface Creek diversion head gate Yes Delta 16,900 6,380 6,380 Small YES Dines Family Holdings Dines irrigation Project Parlia renovate an axis ing irrigation ditch (Huggins in order to comply with current water regulations? to heip regulate water evaporation in shoulder months; and to prevent soil erosion and ?ooding. No Grand 00,000 15,000 15,000 Small NO Eagie County Conservation District Eagle County CoAgMet Station project To instali a CoAgMet Station in order to provide a network 0 formation regarding weather and crop water use data. it is our goal to at as this data for better water use and irrigation scheduling. No Eagle 20,000 7,500 7,000 Small NO Eagle River Watershed Council, Inc. Eagle-Vail Riparian Enhancement Project #2 Improve instream water quality by revegetating areas within the project scope with native plants No Eagle 31,391 9,278 9,270 Small YES Fairway Pines Estates Owners Assooia "on Fairway Pines Water Storage Project Excavation of new storage pond and expansion of exis ng pond No Ouray 293,600 73,400 73,400 Large NO Gold Medal Ranch, LLC New Beaver Dam Ditch Head-Gate Structure The proposed project will accurately divert 1.0 c.f.s. to the landowner. Currently there is no diversion structure in place. No Grand 151,866 33,373 37,000 Large NO Gold Medal Ranch, LLC Beaver Dam Ditch Eisenhower Ditch Con?uence Flume The proposed project will he the installation of a paniai flume to accurately divert the adjudicated .5 c.f.s. from the Beaver Dam Ditch to the Eisenhower Ponds Ditch. No Grand 18,333 6,667 5,057 Small NO Gold Medal Ranch, LLC Beaver Dam Ditch South Lateral Flume instal ion Primary objective wilt be to instali a flame to accurately measure the diversion of 1 c.t.s. from the Beaver Darn ditch into the Byers Peak Ranch West South lateral. The beaver dam ditch can be conveying up to 6 c.f,s, No Grand 18,868 0,774 6,774 Smali NO Gold Medal Ranch, LLC Eisenhower Ponds Water Level Control Structure Installation The proposed replacement of exi ing outlet structures. The proposed structures are designed to aliow for management of water surface elevations with the removal of stop -logs or check boards Grand 05,705 20,357 21,691 Large NO Gold Medal Ranch, LLC irrigation Pipe from Beaver Dam Ditch Con?uence to Eisenhower Pond #1 installation of irrigation pipe from Beaver Dam Ditch Con?uence to Eisenhower Pond #1 No Grand 152,407 33,481 38,102 Large NO Gold Medal Ranch, LLC Irrigation Pipe from Beaver Dam Head-Gate to Beaver Dam Ditch/Eisenhower Ditch Con?uence installation ofi igation pipe from Beaver Dam Head-Gate to Beaver Dam Ditch/Eisenhower Ditch Confluence No Grand 126,826 28,365 31,706 Large NO Gold Medal Ranch, LLC St. Louis Creek Stream Restoration Project Focuses on establishing stabilized banks, reducing erosion, increasing riparian vegetation increasing low flow channeiization and high flow floodplain connecti y, increased recruitment from the Fraser river, increased spawning and overwintering habitat and more efficient use of diverted water in much at the project reach as weli as improves the overall function of the aquatic site. No Grand 179,769 38,954 44,042 Large NO Grand County irrigated Lands Company VaiE Ditch Flow Monitoring Improvements Improve water monitoring by replacing a ?ume with a prefabricated Parsnail flume No' Grand 27,000 0,400 8,400 Small NO 15 Grand Vatiey Water Users Association Grand Valley Project- Government Highlight Canal Top 500 Ft Lining Project- Canyon Canal Improvement The GVWUA and (Min are improving the hydrauiic efficiency of the top 500 feet of the Canyon Canal by installing a PVC liner and a shotcrete wear surface. These Improvements are expected to result In the accommodation of at least 100 cubic feet per second (cfsj more of the legal water rights adjudicated for this structure and increase the diversion ability and efficiency during times of river flow below 2,250 cfa. This project also provides connectivity and support to the on-golng regional watershed and water quality efforts in the Grand Valley. Mesa 800,000 50,000 150,000 Large YES Hightand Meadow Estates at Castle Peak Rach HOA and Sorrel Hills Mutual Ditch Company Irrigation Pipeline A pipeiine wiil be instailed to prevent erosion and losses of water to make possible proper management of irrigation water and to reduce water conveyance losses. Eagle 200,000 50,000 50,000 Large NO 17 James Barry Barry Water Supply and Pump Station Provide a secure source of irrigation water to a ten acre tract Yes Gar?eld 14,944 5,900 5,989 Small NO 18 Middle Colorado Watershed Council Butler Creek Riparian Vegetation Restoration Riparian restoration No Gar?eld 30,090 5,000 9,018 Small NO 19 Ouray Ranch Homeowners and Ouray Ranch Anglers Club Ouray Ranch Stream Restoration Project The Ouray Ranch Anglers Ciub hired a stream improvement company to augment and revitalize the major stream improvement work completed in 1981 as part of the ranch's original Habitat Improvement Pian. Yes Grand 96,000 24,500 24,500 Large NO 20 Raftopoiis Land Co. LLC DBA Two Bar Sheep Co. Pivot irrigation System on MCR 21, North of Headquarters Converting from fiood irrigation to a pivots I Mortal 151,230 37,808 37,808 Large NO Ranch Domestic Water Company, Inc. My Way Subdivision Potable Water Connection to Town of Coilbran Connecting the area being served bythe Ranch Domestic Water Company (Grove Creek area) onto the Town of Collbran's potabie water system for a new sustainabie water supply. Furthermore, Ranch Domestic's water system will undertake water system improvements to ensure its operating efficientiy, etiectively, sustainably and reiiabty while meeting all of the CDPHE, WQCD requirements. No Mesa 580,300 145,075 145,075 Large NO 2017 Annuai Grant Program TABLE 2017 ANNUAL GRANT PROGRAM LIST OF PROPOSALS RECEIVED AND REVIEWED BY STAFF AND No. Project Sponsor Project Name Proiect Description Com piete? County Project Cost Requested Max Allowed SmaEt or Large Staff Recommendation 22 Robinson Ditch Company Upper Robinson Ditch Piping Project ing project to alieviate safety concerns, improve the ?ow and decrease water loss. Yes Eagle 418,313 22,183 3 104,578 Large NO 23 Roseman Ditch Company Roseman Ditch Company - Ladder pipe, repair and maintenance Repair of trestle Yes Gar?eld 7,315 3,553 3,658 Smait N0 24 Sam McIntyre McIntyre Full Circle Pivot instaiiation of a pivot No Moffat 1,373,000 34,325 150,000 Large NO 25 Silt Water Conservancy District Harvey Gap Dam Outlet Repairs and improvements, Phase 1 (Completed). To preserve pre-Coiorado River Compact water rights associated with Harvey Gap Dam, by repairing and improving the outlet works infrastructure. Yes Gar?eld 134,527 33,532 33,532 Large YES 26 Siit Water Conservancy District Harvey Gap Dam Outlet Repairs and Improvements. Phase 2 (Proposed) To preserve pre-Coiorado River Compact water rights associated with Harvey Gap Dam, by repairing and improving the outlet works infrastructure. No Gar?eld 136,373 31,513 34,093 Large NO 27 Tamarisk Coalition DRRP: Towards Riparian Health and Community Stewardship implementation of watershed and riparian management actions Mesa 5 591,000 14,500 147,750 Large NO 28 Thompson Glen Ditch Company Gienwood Ditch inlet Structure Repair - 2016 improve an existing water suppty system Gar?eld 5 5,345 2,573 5 2,673 Small YES 29 Town of Fraser Elk Creek Ditch #2 Construction Installation of New Diversion Structure, Measurement it Recording Eq. Construct and install a surface water diversion structure on the main stem of Elk Creek at the Elk Creek Ditch No. 2 point of diversion and to instaii associated measurement and recording equipment in order to accurately monitor and administer diversions under Fraser's Elk Creek Ditch water rights from Elk Creek. No Grand 44,500 13,000 11,900 Small NO 30 Town of Fraser Maryvaie Reservoir - Construction and Installation of Measurement and Recording Equipment To construct and instaii surface water measurement equipment at Maryvaie Reservoir in order to accurately monitor and administer the augmentation plan requirements of the pond. No Grand 3 75,000 18,750 18,750 Large YES 31 Town of Fn?sco Water Department Well #7 Peninsula Recreation Area Development of well No Summit :5 1,327,700 150.000 150,000 Large NO 32 Town of Parachute Line Relocation Replacing 1350 LP of deteriorating asbestos concrete water line with new PVC line. 33 Tyler Snyder Phase 2: Pivot Irrigation Sprinkler Project for Tyler Snyder on the Fish and Cross Ranch No Gar?eld 619,550 150,000 5 150,000 Large NO Tnese improvemen 5 Inc measuring evrces head gate repair and many hours on a backhoe cleaning ditches for water rights dating back to the 18805. Conserve water in orderto mitigate rising water costs of leased water from the Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District and to save consumptive use on water owned by Fish and Cross Ranch to help in drought situations, all while increasing the health of the soil and plant life. Routt 380,000 60,000 95,000 Large YES 34 Water Users of Lateral Ditch #110, lnc. Piping Main Lateral Piping main lateral No Mesa 5 120,500 17,000 5 30,125 Large NO Summary Totals 8,981,784.62 1,308,545.54 1,811,855.41 Max 1,373,000.00 W93 150,000.00 150,000.00 Min .5 5,346.00 2,673.00 2,673.00 Average 3 264,170.14 36,486.63 53,289.66 Median ?5 130,676.19 "a In 23,341.69 6599656969 32,669.05 2017 Annua 'rogram 20f2