OpportunityTitle: Laguna Division Conservation Area
Description: The Laguna Division Conservation Area is being evaluated to determine the cost effectiveness and technical feasibility of establishing a mosaic of native vegetation land cover types. The objective of this request for proposals (RFP) is to define and estimate the cost of three restoration alternatives for the Conservation Area. Proposals from eligible applicants should evaluate the provided technical data and conceive three studies for large-scale restoration, adjust the project according to feedback from the planning group, and ultimately suggest an overall restoration plan for the creation of riparian and marsh land cover types. The final preferred concept should maximize the creation of native riparian and marsh land cover types using the assumed water resources, while minimizing the amount of earthwork required. This final recommendation allows for responsible resource management decisions, which may or may not lead to actual project implementation. Each alternative, at a minimum, must address the following issues: Conceptual Study. The alternatives should clearly articulate the approach for restoration which would include; removal of existing non-native vegetation, balancing of cuts and fills, reshaping and contouring of the project area, and establishment of native vegetation. Stay within the project boundary as depicted in Appendix B. Restoration activities are not authorized within the Laguna dredge disposal area. Conceptual Benefits. The alternatives should describe the anticipated benefits to the LCR MSCP including the projected acreage by land cover type. Hydrologic Modeling. The alternatives should describe any hydrologic/hydraulic modeling used to estimate water surface profiles within the project area. Flow Regime. The alternatives should provide a conceptual operational hydrograph and include estimates of the timing and delivery rate of projected water demands for the site, as well as resultant design water levels. The alternatives should address possible seasonal flooding for maintenance and establishment of native plants, projected water surface elevations, and estimate the rate at which flooded areas would recede. Sufficient flow through created marshes to maintain water quality necessary to maintain habitat conditions for covered species. Water Balance. The alternatives should address the seasonal water requirements and losses by providing a conceptual water balance. Water balance should be estimated for one calendar year with inflows, outflows, and changes in storage tracked on a monthly basis. This simplified water accounting balance is intended to show the relative magnitude of water requirements and would not be construed as a final determination of water accounting. The conceptual water accounting may be subject to wide variation. The final accounting would be determined by Reclamation through strict application, and in conformance with, the Lower Colorado River Accounting System. Conveyance of Water. The alternatives should address the modifications required to the existing Mittry Lake inlet canal to increase capacity to 100 cfs. Additional modifications to the inlet canal, such as extending the lined portion or creating new turnouts, should be identified and that cost included in the cost estimate. Water Elevation Control. The alternatives should identify the location, size, access to, maintenance of, and approximate cost of any on-site water control structures intended to control water elevations. Sediment Load. The alternative should address the potential for increasing sediment load into the lower Colorado River. Operation and Maintenance Requirements. The alternatives should address future operation and maintenance requirements for the Conservation Area. This would include engineered features such as canals, water control structures; roads, as well as maintenance of the created land cover types. Conceptual Cost Estimates. The alternatives should provide a planning-level estimate of the anticipated cost for development and management of the Conservation Area. Cost estimates are solely for comparison purposes, to give a very general sense of the project&#146;s scale. Cultural Resources. Do not include Federal compliance requirements or costs of NEPA compliance activities in the budget formulation.
GrantorContactEmailDescription: smthompson@lc.usbr.gov
GrantorContactText: Shawna Thompson &lt;br/&gt;Grants Specialist &lt;br/&gt;Phone 702-293-8570