**COLORADO RIVER WATERSHED\
NRCS Colorado EQIP FY 2004**

**Screening Tool 12/12/03**

**Water QUALITY/WATER QUANTITY**

Does the participant have or will install a measuring devise at the
participants water source?

Yes = high No = medium

Does the project address both the off farm delivery system **and**
irrigation efficiency improvement on farm?

Yes = high No = medium

In the last 5 years has the producer had a previous cost share contract
cancelled due to lack of progress or were the proposed practices
previously installed but have failed due to lack of maintenance by
applicant(s)?

Yes = low No = high

After answering all of the questions, the lowest priorities will be
used. Example: Two answers are high and one is low -- the project will
be considered a low priority and will be funded only after higher
priority projects have been ranked and funded.

**Final Priority Status High Medium Low**

*(circle one)*

COLORADO RIVER WATERSHED

NRCS Colorado EQIP FY 2004 12/12/03

WATER QUALITY/WATER QUANTITY Ranking Criteria

*A minimum score of [70]{.underline} points is necessary to be eligible*

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| You can receive points for only 1a. or 1b,. not for both              |
|                                                                       |
| 1a. Improve stream water quality and fish habitat by installing a     |
| permanent in-stream diversion structure designed to reduce annual     |
| heavy equipment disturbance of the stream channel. (20 points max.)   |
|                                                                       |
| Reduced maintenance (Bio-engineered type structures)-- 10 points      |
|                                                                       |
| Eliminate maintenance (Concrete type structures) -- 20 points         |
|                                                                       |
| **OR**                                                                |
|                                                                       |
| **1b.** Improve the control of diverted water with the installation   |
| of a positive shut off gate at the water source. **10 points**        |
|                                                                       |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_points                                                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **2**. Control irrigation delivery ditch **active                     |
| [gully]{.underline}** erosion with the installation of pipe,          |
| structures, or new ditch grade. Assign points according to average    |
| depth of **actively** **eroding** ditch you are treating. **Ditch     |
| must be actively eroding.** (**25 points max**)                       |
|                                                                       |
| \<3ft. = **5 points**                                                 |
|                                                                       |
| 3-10 ft. = **15 points**                                              |
|                                                                       |
| \> 10 ft. = **25 points**                                             |
|                                                                       |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_points                                                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **3**. Improve the management of diverted water with the installation |
| of a measuring device at the water source. **5 points**               |
|                                                                       |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_points                                                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **4.** Eliminate irrigation ditch [seepage]{.underline} with the      |
| installation of one of the following:                                 |
|                                                                       |
| **(20 points max.)**                                                  |
|                                                                       |
| -   Install fabric lined ditch **4 points**                           |
|                                                                       |
| # Install concrete lined ditch 12 points                              |
|                                                                       |
| #### Install underground irrigation                                   |
|                                                                       |
| ####  pipeline not gated pipe. **20 points**                          |
|                                                                       |
| **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_points**                                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **5.** Construct irrigation regulating reservoir ( \< 10 acre feet)   |
| to                                                                    |
|                                                                       |
| regulate adequate delivery of water to irrigated fields. **5 points** |
|                                                                       |
| > **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_points**                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **6.** Improve the management of diverted water with the installation |
| of a measuring devise at the field. **(5 points max)**                |
|                                                                       |
| > **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_points**                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **7**. Install structures for water control adequate to increase      |
| water use efficiency to the systems capability. Check Structures,     |
| turn out slide gates, division boxes, pipe inlet etc. **15 points**   |
|                                                                       |
| **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_points**                                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **8.** Improve irrigation efficiency, reduce deep percolation, and    |
| irrigation induced erosion by                                         |
|                                                                       |
| converting: (**Select only one**) ( points = system efficiency change |
| using FIRI)                                                           |
|                                                                       |
| -   Dirt ditch flood to lined ditch or gated pipe flood. (no          |
|     corrugations) **6 points**                                        |
|                                                                       |
| ```{=html}                                                            |
| <!-- -->                                                              |
| ```                                                                   |
| -   Dirt ditch flood to lined ditch or gated pipe with corrugations.  |
|     **16 points**                                                     |
|                                                                       |
| -   Dirt ditch flood to sprinklers. **43 points**                     |
|                                                                       |
| -   Dirt ditch flood to drip system **54 points**                     |
|                                                                       |
| ```{=html}                                                            |
| <!-- -->                                                              |
| ```                                                                   |
| -   Dirt ditch with corrugations to gated or lined ditch with         |
|     corrugation. **6 points**                                         |
|                                                                       |
| -   Dirt ditch with corrugations to sprinklers. **34 points**         |
|                                                                       |
| ```{=html}                                                            |
| <!-- -->                                                              |
| ```                                                                   |
| -   Dirt ditch with corrugations to drip system **45 points**         |
|                                                                       |
| -   Lined ditch or gated pipe flood to (no corrugations) to           |
|     sprinklers. **37 points**                                         |
|                                                                       |
| -   Lined ditch or gated pipe flood to (no corrugations) to drip      |
|     system. **48 points**                                             |
|                                                                       |
| -   Lined ditch or gated pipe with corrugations to sprinklers. **27   |
|     points**                                                          |
|                                                                       |
| -   Lined ditch or gated pipe with corrugations to drip system. **38  |
|     points**                                                          |
|                                                                       |
| -   Sprinkler to drip system **11 points**                            |
|                                                                       |
| **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_points**                                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **9.** Reduce deep percolation, and irrigation erosion caused by      |
| irrigation tail-water by:                                             |
|                                                                       |
| (**maximum of 5 points**)                                             |
|                                                                       |
| -   Installing tail-water ditches on non-erosive grade. **5 points**  |
|                                                                       |
| ```{=html}                                                            |
| <!-- -->                                                              |
| ```                                                                   |
| -   Install erosion control structures i.e. concrete or pipe drops.   |
|     **5 points**                                                      |
|                                                                       |
| **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_points**                                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **10.** Cost effectiveness = 10,000/Total Cost per Acre treated. .    |
| Total cost not cost share cost. Acres treated are acres that will     |
| realize resource improvement due to application of practices used in  |
| this ranking) **20 points max.**                                      |
|                                                                       |
| **\_\_\_\_\_\_points**                                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Total Points\_\_\_\_\_\_**

Tie Breaker = Total cost per acre treated. Same figure used in item 10
above = \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**If total cost per acre exceeds \$1,500.00 the project becomes low
priority**

**COLORADO RIVER WATERSHED\
NRCS Colorado EQIP FY 2004**

**Screening Tool 12/12/03**

**Riparian**

Existing condition using Montana Riparian Assessment Method is.

At risk = High Priority

Sustainable = Medium Priority

Non-sustainable = Low Priority

Does producer agree to develop and follow a management plan that will
promote and maintain good riparian health for the life span of planned
practice(s) with the longest life expectancy?

Yes = high No = low

In the last 5 years has the producer had a previous cost share contract
cancelled due to lack of progress or were the proposed practices
previously installed but have failed due to lack of maintenance by
applicant(s)?

Yes = low No = high

After answering all of the questions, the lowest priorities will be
used. Example: Two answers are high and one is low -- the project will
be considered a low priority and will be funded only after higher
priority projects have been ranked and funded.

**Final Priority Status High Medium Low**

***(circle one)***

**COLORADO RIVER WATERSHED\
NRCS Colorado EQIP FY 2004**

RIPARIAN Ranking Criteria 12/12/03

**A minimum score of [50]{.underline} is necessary to be eligible**

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **1)** Existing condition using Montana Riparian Assessment Method.   |
|                                                                       |
| At risk to degradation from moderate storm event = 25 points          |
|                                                                       |
| Sustainable - functions maintained after moderate storm event = **10  |
| points**                                                              |
|                                                                       |
| Not sustainable -- functions often lost for long term due to even     |
| small storm events = **5 points**                                     |
|                                                                       |
| > **\_\_\_\_\_\_points**                                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **2)** For each type of practice planned: 5 points/practice type      |
| (**60 points max**)                                                   |
|                                                                       |
| **Planned practices must address elements identified in the ranking   |
| that make the area at risk Etc.)**                                    |
|                                                                       |
| Instream structures, (j-hooks, rock weirs, root wads, etc.)           |
|                                                                       |
| Bank Sloping                                                          |
|                                                                       |
| Rip-rapping                                                           |
|                                                                       |
| Bio-engineering (facines, willow mats, tree revetments etc.)          |
|                                                                       |
| Fencing                                                               |
|                                                                       |
| Alternative water                                                     |
|                                                                       |
| Water gaps/crossings                                                  |
|                                                                       |
| Plantings (seeding, pole & stakes, sod mats, willow clumps etc.)      |
|                                                                       |
| Invasive species control (brush management)                           |
|                                                                       |
| Buffers **(10 points for this practice)**                             |
|                                                                       |
| Channel reconstruction                                                |
|                                                                       |
| Predator control                                                      |
|                                                                       |
| Implement Integrated Pest Management Plan                             |
|                                                                       |
| > \_\_\_\_\_\_points                                                  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 3)  100 divided by total cost per foot of stream treated (measured at |
|     center line of stream):                                           |
|                                                                       |
| > **\_\_\_\_\_\_points**                                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| # Total Points \_\_\_\_\_\_\_                                         |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Colorado River Watershed\
NRCS Colorado EQIP FY 2004**

**Screening Tool 12/12/03**

**GRAZING LAND**

Does project apply cross fences that will facilitate improved
management?

Yes = high No = medium

Does project apply water development that will facilitate improved
management?

Yes = high No = medium

Does project apply brush management?

Yes = high No = Medium

Does the producer have a current range inventory and grazing management
plan (less than 7 years old)?

Yes = high No = medium

In the last 5 years has the producer had a previous cost share contract
cancelled due to lack of progress or were the proposed practices
previously installed but have failed due to lack of maintenance by
applicant(s)?

Yes = low No = high

After answering all of the questions, the lowest priorities will be
used. Example: Three answers are high and one is low -- the project will
be considered a low priority and will be funded only after higher
priority projects have been ranked and funded.

**Final Priority Status High Medium Low**

***(circle one)***

COLORADO RIVER WATERSHED

NRCS Colorado EQIP FY-2004

GRAZING LAND RANKING CRITERIA 12/12/03

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 1.  Improve grazing land health, by increasing plant diversity        |
|     through the application of one or more of the following           |
|     conservation practices: (10 points max)                           |
|                                                                       |
| -   Brush management to improve plant diversity - **5 points**        |
|                                                                       |
| ```{=html}                                                            |
| <!-- -->                                                              |
| ```                                                                   |
| -   Re-establishment of native plant species forbs, grasses and       |
|     shrubs on rangeland -- **5 points**                               |
|                                                                       |
| **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ points**                                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 2.  Establishment of introduced plant species of legumes on pasture   |
|     and hayland that will be managed separately from native plant     |
|     communities. **15 points**                                        |
|                                                                       |
| **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ points**                                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 3.  Improve [grazing distribution]{.underline} of animals with the    |
|     installation of permanent water source(s)                         |
|                                                                       |
| with spacing based on terrain and travel distance to draw animals     |
| away from\                                                            |
| heavy use areas. 20 points                                            |
|                                                                       |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_points                                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 4.  Facilitate uniform grazing and allow for planned grazing and rest |
|     periods to allow for plant growth and reproduction. **(choose     |
|     only 1)**                                                         |
|                                                                       |
| -   Install cross fence to facilitate a switchback grazing system     |
|     /or/ facilitates a deferred grazing system that rests the same    |
|     pasture during the same season in consecutive years. **5 points** |
|                                                                       |
| ```{=html}                                                            |
| <!-- -->                                                              |
| ```                                                                   |
| -   Install cross fence to facilitate a deferred grazing system that  |
|     allows deferment of pastures for different seasons in consecutive |
|     years /or/ facilitates a rest rotation grazing system. **10       |
|     points**                                                          |
|                                                                       |
| ```{=html}                                                            |
| <!-- -->                                                              |
| ```                                                                   |
| -   Install cross fence to facilitate a high intensity low frequency  |
|     (HILF) grazing system. **15 points\                               |
|     **                                                                |
|                                                                       |
| **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ points**                                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 5.  Improve deteriorated riparian areas by installing one or more of  |
|     the following conservation                                        |
|                                                                       |
| practices. **(15 points max)**                                        |
|                                                                       |
| -   Fence riparian areas to facilitate proper grazing management, can |
|     include water gaps. - 5 points                                    |
|                                                                       |
| ```{=html}                                                            |
| <!-- -->                                                              |
| ```                                                                   |
| -   Establish adapted grasses, forbs and woody species to protect     |
|     eroded stream banks and adjacent areas. -- 5 points               |
|                                                                       |
| ```{=html}                                                            |
| <!-- -->                                                              |
| ```                                                                   |
| -   Install adapted structural erosion control practices to stop      |
|     stream bank and                                                   |
|                                                                       |
| > Channel erosion. -- **5 points**                                    |
| >                                                                     |
| > **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_points**                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 6.  Will graze according to a prescribed management plan developed by |
|     NRCS or follow forage harvest recommendations. - **10 points**    |
|                                                                       |
| **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_points**                                              |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 7.  Cost Effectiveness = 800/Total Cost per acre treated. Total cost  |
|     not cost share cost. Acres treated are acres that will realize    |
|     resource improvement due to application of practices used in this |
|     ranking) **20 points max.**                                       |
|                                                                       |
| > **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_points**                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Total Points\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Tie Breaker = Total cost per acre treated. Same figure used in item 7 |
| above = \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

***A minimum score of [35]{.underline} points is necessary to be
eligible***

**Colorado River Watershed\
NRCS Colorado EQIP FY 2004**

**Screening Tool 12-03**

**Wildlife**

**High Priority -** Primary purpose of the project is to improve habitat
for one of the following species. Circle species.

Gunnison's sage grouse

> greater sage grouse

burrowing owl,

Colorado River cutthroat trout

greater sandhill crane

> Long-billed curlew
>
> kit fox

boreal toad

**Medium Priority -** Primary purpose of the project is to improve
habitat for one of the following species. Circle species.

> black footed ferret
>
> Colorado pikeminnow
>
> humpback chub
>
> razorback sucker
>
> pronghorn
>
> mule deer
>
> bonytail chub

bald eagle

> fish- other native Colorado River species

**Low Priority -** Primary purpose of the project is to improve habitat
for one of the following species. Circle species.

> grassland birds

Pheasant

bighorn sheep (desert and Rocky Mountain)

elk

trout, and mountain white fish (stream habitat only)

turkey

Species with stable or increasing populations, or not otherwise listed

In the last 5 years has the producer had a previous cost share contract
cancelled due to lack of progress or were the proposed practices
previously installed but have failed due to lack of maintenance by
applicant(s)?

Yes = low No = high

After answering all of the questions, the lowest priorities will be
used. Example: The wildlife species is medium but the previous contract
history is high the project will be considered a medium priority and
will be funded only after higher priority projects have been ranked and
funded.

**Final Priority Status High Medium Low**

***(circle one)***

Colorado River Watershed

NRCS Colorado EQIP FY 2004 1/20/04

Wildlife Ranking Criteria

1\) The proposed contract is located within a priority wildlife area and
addresses the target species and habitat. See attached map or
descriptions (riparian areas) for locations of wildlife areas.

Within a wildlife area **10 pts**

> Outside wildlife areas **0 pts**
>
> **points**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

2\) The proposed practice(s) are intended to maintain, enhance, or
restore which habitat types?

Pick one habitat type only for a maximum of 15 points. Habitat type
selected must correspond to habitat used by species selected in #3.

Sagebrush-steppe, riparian, mountain shrub, coldwater stream **15 pts**

Wetland, pasture & hayland or warm water stream, ponds **7 pts**

Pinion-Juniper, deciduous/coniferous woodland, cropland, other **1 pts**

**points \_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

3\) Project applies practice(s) for: (You should pick the one highest
category or species if a species fits in more than one category or if
you have more than one species on this item).

A State species of special concern, a state threatened species, a
Federal candidate

species, or a declining species. The bold **D** designates disturbance
sensitive species for

answering question #7

Includes:

> Gunnison's sage grouse **D**
>
> greater sage grouse **D**

Colorado River cutthroat trout

greater sandhill crane **D 10 pts**

long-billed curlew **D**

kit fox **D**

boreal toad

**OR**

A state endangered or a Federal threatened or endangered species

Includes: black footed ferret **D**

Colorado pikeminnow

> humpback chub
>
> razorback sucker **7 pts**
>
> bonytail chub

bald eagle **D**

fish-Native Colorado River species

Southwest willow flycatcher **D**

**OR**

Declining native species, or economically important species

Includes: grassland birds **D**

Pheasant **D**

bighorn sheep (desert and Rocky Mountain) **D 5 pts**

pronghorn **D**

elk **D**

mule deer **D**

trout and mountain white fish

turkey D

**OR**

Species with stable or increasing populations, or not otherwise listed
**2 pts**

**Points** \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

4\) Practices planned address limiting factors for target species.
Species specific practices found in Biology Technical Notes \# 10-20 are
worth 10 points. If the project is applying practices not listed in the
Biology Tech Notes, the local Work Group may assign a point value in
concurrence with the NRCS Area Biologist or other designated Area
representative. **Maximum of 10 points.**

**Points \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

5\) Will the planned practices alleviate or increase an identified game
damage problem?

> Alleviate damage = **5 pts**

No effect = **0 pts**

Increase damage **= minus 5 pts**

**Points\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

6\) **Two points** for each partner contributing dollars towards the
participants cost. Pheasants Forever, Ducks Unlimited, etc. Landowners
and NRCS do not count as a partners. **No more than 6 points** (3
different partners) maximum for this factor.

**Points\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

7\) Proximity to occupied dwelling or other area of measured from
dwelling to center of area treated. For disturbance sensitive species
designated with a bold **D** in question 3. **Non-sensitive species
receive 10 points.**

\> 1/4 mile = **10 pts**

1/8 - 1/4 mile = **5 pts**

\< 1/8 mile = **0 pts**

**Points\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

8)  Will project have significant positive impacts on water quality?
    (i.e. shallow water wetland, riparian buffer, buffers adjacent to
    perennial water etc.

> Yes = **5 pts**
>
> No **= 0 pts**
>
> **Points**\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

9)  Do planned practices encourage the establishment or maintenance of
    native vegetation?

> Yes = **5 pts**

No = **0 pts**

**Points\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

10) Habitat Improvement **= 2 points for every 1/10^th^ of point
    improvement** in Wildlife Habitat Evaluation Index using species
    models in Bio Tech Note 40 or if a model is not available for the
    species being targeted use the Colorado Wildlife Evaluation Guide
    (Bio Tech Note #7).

> **(10 points Maximum**)

**Points \_\_\_\_\_\_**

11) Cost effectiveness = 800/Total Cost per Acre treated. . Total cost
    not cost share cost. Acres treated are acres that will realize
    resource improvement due to application of practices used in this
    ranking) **20 points max.**

**Points\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**

**Total points (Maximum of 106 points possible)** \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

## Tie Breaker = Total cost per acre treated. Same figure used in item11 above = \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**Priority Wildlife Areas**

(See attached map)

# Riparian Habitat Areas

Riparian areas within designated critical habitats (as per U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service designation) in the Colorado River Basin for fish.
Contact an [Area or State
Biologist](http://www.co.nrcs.usda.gov/contact/staff-contacts/state-office-staff.htm#ecs)
if you are unsure of critical habitat locations.

**Greater and Gunnison's Sage Grouse**

(See attached map)

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="4.191666666666666in"
height="5.326388888888889in"}

**Colorado River Watershed**

**NRCS Colorado EQIP FY 2004**

**Screening Tool 12/12/03**

**WATER QUALITY/ANIMAL WASTE MANAGEMENT**

Is the project less than 500 ft. from surface water or less than 5 ft.
from ground water?

Yes = High No- see next question

Question #2 Is the project between 501 & 1,000 ft. from surface water or
between 5.1 & 10 ft.

from ground water?

Yes = medium No = low

In the last 5 years has the producer had a previous cost share contract
cancelled due to lack of progress or were the proposed practices
previously installed but have failed due to lack of maintenance by
applicant(s)?

Yes = low No = high

After answering all of the questions, the lowest priorities will be
used. Example: Two answers are high and one is low -- the project will
be considered a low priority and will be funded only after higher
priority projects have been ranked and funded.

**Final Priority Status High Medium Low**

***(circle one)***

Colorado River Watershed

NRCS Colorado EQIP FY 2004

WATER QUALITY/ANIMAL WASTE MANAGEMENT RANKING CRITERIA 12/12/04

A minimum score of 50 points is necessary to be eligible

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **1a)** Practices reduce pollution contributions to water course:     |
|                                                                       |
| > (10 points/each) **30 points max**                                  |
| >                                                                     |
| > Diversion and collection                                            |
| >                                                                     |
| > Filter strips and/or buffers                                        |
|                                                                       |
| # Water conveyance                                                    |
|                                                                       |
| # Fencing                                                             |
|                                                                       |
| > Alternate watering sources                                          |
|                                                                       |
| Collection and transport                                              |
|                                                                       |
| ##  Composting facility                                               |
|                                                                       |
| **1b)** Relocate facility (**30 points**.)                            |
|                                                                       |
| **Points \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 2)  Ground water = 100/depth in feet to ground water (**10 points.    |
|     max.)**                                                           |
|                                                                       |
| **Points \_\_\_\_\_\_\_**                                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 2)  Distance to surface water = 1000/distance in feet to surface      |
|     water **(10 points max.**)                                        |
|                                                                       |
| **Points \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 3)  Documented water quality (associated to animal waste pollution)   |
|                                                                       |
| problem in drainage. **(10 points**)                                  |
|                                                                       |
| **Points \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 4)  Proximity to urban development (4 houses per 40 acres)            |
|                                                                       |
| > \< ¼ mile 10 points                                                 |
|                                                                       |
| ¼ to ½ mile 5 points                                                  |
|                                                                       |
| \> ½ mile 0 points                                                    |
|                                                                       |
| **Points \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| 5)  Cost Effectiveness = 1600/Total Cost per animal unit treated.     |
|     Total cost not cost share cost. **20 points max.**                |
|                                                                       |
| **Points \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Total Points\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**                                        |
|                                                                       |
| Tie Breaker = Total cost per animal unit. Same figure used in item 6  |
| above = \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

***You can use ranking A or B,. not both***

**A. Operations -- animal confinement areas** (usually less than 50
animals) **:** (Use 1a or 1b not both)

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **1) Locality of existing facility:**                                 |
|                                                                       |
| 1A. In a 100 yr. Floodplain (**yes = 10 points**) **Points            |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**                                                    |
|                                                                       |
| 1B. Depth to groundwater (**10 points**) **Points \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**  |
|                                                                       |
| 100/depth in feet to groundwater                                      |
|                                                                       |
| ### 1C. Distance to surface water (10 points) Points \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ |
|                                                                       |
| 1000/Distance in feet to surface water                                |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **2) Plan Components:**                                               |
|                                                                       |
| adequate exists nonexistent                                           |
|                                                                       |
| inadequate                                                            |
|                                                                       |
| **0.0 pts**. **5 pts**. **10 pts**.                                   |
|                                                                       |
| Collection and Transport \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_          |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                                                    |
|                                                                       |
| Storage or Treatment \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_              |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                                                    |
|                                                                       |
| Seepage Control \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                   |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                                                    |
|                                                                       |
| Transfer and Utilization \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_          |
| \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                                                    |
|                                                                       |
| **Points \_\_\_\_\_\_\_**                                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **3)** Cost Effectiveness = 1600/Total Cost per animal unit treated.  |
| Total cost not cost share cost. **20 points max.**                    |
|                                                                       |
| **Points \_\_\_\_\_\_\_**                                             |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Total Points\_\_\_\_\_\_\_**                                        |
|                                                                       |
| Tie Breaker = Total cost per animal unit. Same figure used in item 3  |
| above = \$\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_                                            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**B. Operations-large livestock and feeding operations** (usually
dairies, feed lots etc.)**.**

**Colorado River Watershed**

**NRCS Colorado EQIP FY 2004**

**Screening Tool 2/26/04**

**SALINITY CONTROL**

**PROJECT TYPE -- [CIRCLE ONE ONLY]{.underline}**

**Project Type 1.** **75% or more of existing** [dirt
ditches]{.underline} **converted** [to lined ditches,]{.underline}

(High Priority). [pipelines or gated]{.underline} [pipe.]{.underline}
Includes any combination of off-farm and

on-farm delivery and tail water ditches on the offered irrigated acres

being contracted.

**Project Type 2.** **Less than 75% of existing** [dirt
ditches]{.underline} **converted** [to lined ditches,]{.underline}

(Medium Priority) [pipelines or gated pipe]{.underline}. Includes any
combination of off-farm and

on-farm deliver and tail water ditches, and subsurface drains on the

offered irrigated acres being contracted; and/or **conversion** [of
irrigation]{.underline}

[systems resulting in over 15% increase in efficiency.]{.underline}
**(See chart below)**.

(Or in Montrose County subsurface drain only plans, or land leveling
only

plans). (In Mesa County sub-surface drains will be limited to subsurface

interceptor drains.)

**Project Type 3.** [Conversion]{.underline} of irrigation systems
**resulting in less than 15%**

(Low Priority). **increase in efficiency**. (See chart below). Or other

projects.

If **Type 2 or Type 3** circled above, circle the efficiency increase
change from the increase efficiency change chart below. **CIRCLE ONE
ONLY**

**[INCREASE IN EFFICIENCY CHANGE CHART]{.underline}**

(Developed from Farm Irrigation Rating Index)

-   Dirt ditch flood to lined ditch or gated pipe flood (no corrugations

> or
> furrows)\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--
> 6%

-   Dirt ditch flood to lined ditch or gated pipe with corrugations or
    furrows.- 16%

-   Dirt ditch flood to sprinklers.
    \-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--
    43%

-   Dirt ditch flood to drip
    system.\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--
    54%

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Dirt ditch or 20 year old broken concrete lined ditch with
    corrugations

> or furrows to gated or lined ditch with corrugations or
> furrows.\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-- 6%

-   Dirt ditch with corrugations to
    sprinklers.\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--
    34%

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Dirt ditch with corrugations to drip
    system.\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--
    45%

-   Lined ditch or gated pipe flood to (no corrugations or furrows) to

> sprinklers.\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--
> 37%

-   Lined ditch or gated pipe flood to (no corrugations or furrows) to
    drip

> system.\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--
> 48%

-   Lined ditch or gated pipe with corrugations to
    sprinklers.\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-- 27%

-   Lined ditch or gated pipe with corrugations to drip
    system.\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-- 38%

-   Sprinkler to drip
    system.\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--
    11%

Depending on application numbers, project types and funding it is likely
only high and maybe medium priority applications will be ranked.

**Colorado River Watershed**

**NRCS Colorado EQIP FY 2004**

**Instructions and Supporting Formulas 2/26/04**

**SALINITY CONTROL**

**Instructions:**

**Client:** Enter name of person or project for reference

**Date:** Enter the date the worksheet is completed

**Service Area:** Enter Field Office Name and/or Conservation District
Name for reference

**Planner:** Enter your name

**Salinity Project Area:**

Select the appropriate project area from the drop down menu. Options for
Colorado are Grand Valley, McElmo, Lower Gunnison, and Mancos. The
project area selects the appropriate crop tables, effective
precipitation, adjustment for restricted irrigation season, and salt
loading value.

**Fiscal Yr.:**

Select the appropriate fiscal year for the evaluation from the drop down
menu. This will insert the correct amortization value for the year the
project was planned.

**Crop Data:**

Select the appropriate crops for the rotation and enter the percentage
in the rotation for each selected crop. You may select from 1 to 4
crops. If the rotation contains more than 4 crops, combine crops with
similar consumptive use values (i.e. combine spring grain and fall
grain, or combine silage corn and grain corn, etc.) Note the percentages
must add up to 100 percent. Use separate sheets for distinctly different
crop rotations.

**Irrigation System Changes:**

Select the before and after system that best fits your situation. Enter
the acres planned for each planned system change. For example, if on an
80 acre farm you are converting 40 acres from unimproved flood
irrigation to a side roll sprinkler and 40 acres from unimproved flood
irrigation to an improved flood system with irrigation water management,
then on line 1 select UF for the system before, SR for the system after
and enter 40 acres. On line 2 select UF for the system before, IFM for
the system after and enter 40 acres. If you have more than 4 system
changes, or are comparing alternatives it's probably easier to use
multiple sheets.

**Delivery Ditch Losses -- Upstream from the Field Boundary:**

**Note this is only for delivery ditches that are** **not part of the
field ditch system**. The field ditch loss and seepage reduction is
included in the on farm irrigation system improvements. A 'reach of
ditch' is a section of ditch with common characteristics such as soil
type, flow volume, or days per year. For example, a 3,000 foot ditch is
on two different soil types, treat the footage for each section on each
soil type as a separate reach. For example a shared ditch carries 6 cfs
for a distance and then it splits to two ditches at 3 cfs each, treat
the 6 cfs section as a reach and treat the two 3 cfs sections as a
reach. Or a ditch splits that carries water to one field for 45 days and
to another field for 45 days, but the shared section carries water for
90 days, treat the 90 day section as one reach and the 45 day sections
as a separate reach.

If a ditch is both a delivery ditch and a field ditch, then it is
appropriate to include it in this section. For example a ditch crosses
the head of a field and is used as part of the field distribution
system, and it also delivers water to adjacent fields. In other words
the producer installs gates and turnouts or siphon tubes to irrigate one
field, and then the ditch is used as a delivery ditch for another or
other fields adjacent to the first field. Use the length of the ditch
across the first 2 fields as delivery and adjust the delivery days to
not include the days the ditch is being used as a field distribution
ditch. Example, a ditch irrigates 3 fields with four 12 hour sets each
and 6 irrigations per season. The water is in the ditch 2 days for each
field and 6 times per season. The ditch is used 12 days on the first
field as a distribution ditch which is included in the on farm seepage
reduction. It is used 24 days as a delivery ditch. Use the delivery
ditch calculation for the 24 day delivery cycle. You can break down the
reaches and days as fine as you wish, but don't spend too much energy on
the details, the values are estimates anyway.

Since irrigation delivery ditches in most locations tend to seal with
time, it is recommended that you consider dropping 1 to 2 textural
classes for established ditches that contain water somewhat continuously
through the irrigation season. Ditches that are relatively new, or are
cleaned regularly, or only have water occasionally during the irrigation
season, are more likely to have seepage rates consistent with their
predominant soil texture. Ditches that have had the opportunity to seal
tend to seep at a rate somewhat less than the texture class would
indicate. For example, on an established irrigation delivery ditch that
carries water for most of the 100 day irrigation season on predominantly
loam or silty loam soils, you should consider using the sandy clay loam,
clay loam texture (which is 1 texture class lower); or the silty clay
loam, silty clay texture (which is 2 texture classes lower).

**Cost:**

Enter the estimated USDA cost share to install the practices represented
on the sheet. The amortization value is adjusted by the fiscal year
selected.

**FORMULAS**

**Crop Data:**

Sum of Crops 1 through 4 , ( Estimated Seasonal Evapo Transpiration x
(Percent in rotation/100)) = Weighted Average Evapo-Transpiration

**Irrigation Requirement:**

Weighted Average Evapo Transpiration -- Effective Precipitation =
Irrigation Requirement

**Adjusted Irrigation Requirement:**

This is a percentage adjustment to the irrigation requirement for water
short or areas with a restricted water season. Areas that are typically
water short and have a reduced irrigation season, and those areas do not
have the opportunity to continue to irrigate for a complete full season
on all crops and all fields. Typically they will have less water
available at the middle and end of the irrigation season, and will use
less net water. They also will normally expect a lower crop yield than
areas with good full season water, so the irrigation requirement is
adjusted accordingly. Mancos Valley is the only Colorado area included
in this worksheet that currently fits this situation.

**Deep Percolation Reduction Calculation:**

Deep Percolation Reduction x Irrigation Requirement x Delivery Factor x
Acres x Salt Loading Value = Tons Salt

Deep Percolation Reduction is the decimal percentage reduction in deep
percolation anticipated from the planned system improvements based on
the following predictive equation for before and after deep percolation.
Deep Percolation = ((Irrigation Requirement / (Percent Application
Efficiency / 100)) -- Irrigation Requirement) / 2. If the crop
irrigation requirement is 20 inches, and the before system efficiency is
25 percent, 20/.25 = 80 inches applied to get 20 inches to the crop at a
25 % efficiency. The 80 inches net meets the 20 inch crop requirement
(80" -- 20" = 60", with the excess 60 inches split evenly between runoff
and deep percolation, or 30 inches runoff and 30 " deep percolation.
These predicted values match with monitoring field measurements in Grand
Valley and Lower Gunnison.

At a 21 inch irrigation requirement in Grand Valley:

Example: (21" / (25% / 100) = 84" -- 21" = 63" x .5 = 31.5 " Deep
Percolation

Percent Efficiency Predicted Deep Percolation Measured Deep Percolation

25 31.5 31.0

35 19.5 20.0

45 12.8 12.5

55 8.6 7.5

65 5.7 4.0

75 3.5 2.0

85 1.9 1.0

**Delivery Factor**

The delivery factor is a percentage adjustment to the total excess water
applied to reflect typical salt carrying return flows to the river.
Phreatophyte vegetation, wetlands, some capture and reuse as irrigation
water, and other factors consume part of the excess irrigation water so
it does not return to the stream a salt carrying return flows. Per
salinity studies and field evaluations the return flows described by
John Hedlund, NRCS -- West National Technical Center, "Salt Primer Water
and Salt Budgets", typically range from 50 to 80% of the excess deep
percolation and runoff water. Since this number may be highly variable,
the low value of 50% of the excess flows is used as salt carrying return
flows for this worksheet. The 50 percent delivery factor amount for the
combined deep percolation and runoff is equivalent to 25 percent of the
deep percolation only.

**Delivery Ditch Losses -- Upstream from the Field Boundary:**

The following formula is based on a calculated pipe flow, opened up to a
typical U shaped earthen ditch. The validity of the calculation is
supported by wetted surface measurements in the field.

Q = Volume of Flow in Cubic Feet per Second (CFS)

L = Length of Ditch Reach in Feet

Wp = Wetted Perimeter is the wet width of the ditch water line to water
line, typically U shaped for earthen ditches

Basis: The wetted perimeter is estimated by multiplying the pipe
diameter for a given flowrate, with a full pipe velocity of 3 feet per
second by 1.5.

Wp=1.5\*D

D= Pipe Diameter, ft

Wp= Wetted Perimeter, ft

Q=V\*A

Q is flowrate, cubic feet per second

V is velocity, feet per second, and is set at 3

A is the area of a pipe, square feet

A=PI()\* R\^2

PI() = the constant pi (3.14...) as a function in EXCEL

R= the radius of the pipe, ft = 2\* Diameter

R=D/2

R\^2=(D\^2)/4

A=PI()\*(d\^2)/4

If V=3 then Q=3\*A

A=Q/3

Substitute for A

PI()\*R\^2=Q/3

R=\[(Q/3)/PI()\]\^.5

Since R=D/2

Then D=2\*R

D/2=\[(Q/3)/PI()\]\^.5

D=2\*\[(Q/3)/PI()\]\^.5

Wp=1.5\*D

Substitute for D:

Wp=1.5\*2\*\[(Q/3)/PI()\]\^.5

Therefore:

Wp=3\*\[(Q/3)/PI()\]\^.5

D = Days per Year the Ditch Carries Water

Concrete Lining Seepage is calculated at 15 percent of the Earthen Ditch
Seepage Rate

SR = Soil Type selects an appropriate seepage rate (SR) in Ft3/ Ft2/Day
Seepage

Seepage (Acre Inches) = L x WS x D x SR (x 0.15 if concrete ditch)

Salt Load Factor (SLF) = Tons of Salt per Acre Foot of Seepage

Salt Load (Tons/Year) = Seepage / 12" per Ac Ft \* SLF

Salt Savings = Difference between the Before Value and the After Value

Total Salt Saved is the sum of the Irrigation System salt savings and
the Delivery Ditch salt savings.

**Cost:**

USDA Cost Share Financial Assistance (FA) - Enter the estimated project
cost

Technical Assistance Cost (TA) = (FA x .67)

Total Federal Cost = FA + TA

Amortized Cost = (Total Federal Cost / Tons of Salt Saved Per Year) x
Current Amortization Rate