Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2017-05-08-AMENDMENT NO.1
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BOZEMAN(OWNER) AND ADVANCED ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. (ENGINEER) This Amendment No. I ("Amendment") dated MCI, 2017 ("Effective Date") amends and supplements the Professional Services Agreement between the City of Bozeman, a Municipal Corporation, Bozeman, Montana 59715 (OWNER) and Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc., 1050 E. Main Street, Suite 2, Bozeman, Montana 59715 (ENGINEER) dated August 24, 2015("Agreement")as indicated below. This Amendment is executed pursuant to Section 9.16 of the Agreement. Owner and Engineer hereby agree to modify the above-referenced Agreement as set forth in this Amendment. All provisions of the Agreement not modified by this Amendment remain in full force and effect. ARTICLE 1 -ENGINEERING SERVICES A. Delete Section 1.1 in its entirety and replace with the following: "This project consists of monitoring and controls improvements to the Lyman Spring junction box, Lyman Creek Parshall Flume, and Lyman Water Treatment Plant flow control valve. Tlie detailed description of the specific project components added or modified by this Amendment is provided in Exhibit A, incorporated by reference herein. Task 1.0 Project Management(for Survey and Lyman Spring Study) Task 1.1 City of Bozeman Property Line and Topographic Survey Task 1.2 Lyman Spring Study Task 1.3 Project Management(for this Amendment No. 1) Task 1.4 Preliminary Engineering Report Task 1.5 Final Design Task 1.6 Bid Services Task 1.7 Construction Administration and Observation Task 1.8 I&C Integration and SCADA Programming" ARTICLE 2-ENGINEER'S RESPONSIBILITIES A. In Section 2.5,delete the words"Gary Cline"and replace with"R.Nathan Weisenburger". ARTICLE 4-BASIC ENGINEERING SERVICES A. Delete Section 4.2 in its entirety and replace with the following: I After acceptance of the pre-design report and receipt 01 writlers authorization to proceed with the, preliminary Design Phase,ENGINEI;'R shall: 4,2.1.. Its consultation with OWNER determine general scope, exteut and character of tho Project. 4.2.2. ENOTNC~ER shall then prepare a. 'Preliminary Design Report, preliminary plans and spQ65cations and a written description for the Project. 4.2.3, Preliminary Design 1+<oyaq: Specific items to be nddre.ssud in thu design report will include,but not be Hinitcd to: 4.23,1_ Summary of construction regoiremonts with appropriate drawings fcir- caoh task included in the project, 4.2.3.2. flans for providing water and sewer services for affected. properties during COM tr4diots. 4.2.33. Summary geotechnical report for specific tasks, if needed. 4,23A Special design considerations for Project tasks with conditions not covered in standard construction methods or specifications. 4.2.3.5, A traffic control plan for each project task, if necessary. 4.2.4_ T_7esign and C'.ansl.X ct isE _Sut� !w The ENGINEER shall anttcluct a design field survey of the project areas, as necessary, for locating existing, utilities (such as gas, power, telephone, TV cables, water and sewer litres, irrigation facilities, fences, and approach driveways), existing right-of-way and easements, and making measured drawirgs of or investigating conditions of existing; facilities. The I?NGINFER shall provide suitable horizontal and vertical reference ccon.lrol points for the Construction phase. 4,2.5, l'crtnits„iznci Rmi hts-of War '.I•'he ENGINEER shall obtain approved pe axztits, licenses, and/or easement ag;rectttents from prrvate landowners and any other agencies or urrtities requiring similar approvals prior to bidding. Thesc approvals will be coordinated with the OWNER and will be made on easement and permit documents approved by the OWNER, Information and easement &,scriptions provided in the Basic Engineering Services will he based on data available from.design surveys and courthouse records, i 4.2.6. (Yeotechnical Explorat(ott�_grtnl_ nttly_sis: 1'he I NC"xINP,EIt shall conduct such gcateclsnical explorations and analysis as necessary for project design and bidding. A geoteclinical report will be prepared with recommendations relating to conditions pertinent to the design and construction of the Project. Subsurface information will bu obtained by reviewing any existing geotechnical data available: trrul using additional back hoe test pits and soil borings as necessary. 2 The ENGINEER shall furnish copies of a geotechnical report a5 requested to OWNER for use by OWNER and Contractors,and review the results of the irepoit with Contractors io a fx'e-bid meeting,. The report is to be prepared for design purposes; E'NUINE EER will not be respoiasible if it is used by others for otb r purposes. 4.2.7. Preliminary. jl t] artiq_Sp fcations. Prepare preliminary construction plans and specifications with information which addresses tho special features o'f each project task. 4.2.8. I3ased oo the information contained in the preliminary design documents, ENC3INEIiR will submit a revised opinion of probable "total Project Costs to the OWNER. 4.2.9, ENGINEER shall prepare and furnish complete paper and electronic ccapies of preliminary bidding docunionts and design report as recluesled to OWNER and at the same. time fin-nish copies as directed by OWNER to agcyicies atad/or parties having regulatory responsibilities or direct :6nfinciO Participation in any hart of the Project; provide any technical criteria, written descriptions and design data necessary for 5e"ctlring permits or approval From authorities having jurisdiction to review and approve the design., and assist owner in secw'ing suclr approvals; and review documents in person with OWNER and review authorities, anal, if necessary, conduct a plan-in-hand site review. All changes agreed to between ENC`rTNEIER. and OWNER will be noted in a memorandurn from the.ENGINEER to the OWN17R.and incorporated into the final plans and specifications. The Preliminary Design .Phase will be completed and s'ubrnitted within 4.5 calendar days following written authorization frorn OWN1 R to ENGINEER to proceed with that phase of services," JR. Delete Section 43 in its entirety and replace with the following: `°43 FINAL DJ SICTN PHASE After written authorization to proceed with the Final Design Phase,FNGINE'EIt shall: 4.3.1. On the basis of the accepted Prelirtainary :Design documents and the revised opinion of probable Pots! Project Costs, prepare for incorporation in the Contract Documents final drawings and "technical Specifications of sufficicnt detail to show the general scope, extent and detailed character of the work to be fnrnishccd amd perfornned by the Contractor'(s)suitable for use in the project bidding and construction. 4.3.2. Advise OWN1 R of zany adjustments to the Iatost opinion of probable Total. Project Costs caused by ellonges in general scope, extent or character or design requirements of the Project or Construction Costs. Furnish to OWNER a revised opinion of probable Total Project Costs based on the Drawings and Specifications. 4.3.3. Prepare for review at►d approval by OWNER, its legal Counsel and other advisors, contract agreement Forms, gonoral conditions and supplementary conditions, and (where appropriate) bid forms, invitations to bid and instructions to bidders, sp4nial ptovisions, technical specifications, and standard drawings, and other related contract 3 documents in conformalic4 with the latest edition of the Montaa7S Public Works Standard Specifications (M WSS) and City of Bozeman Modifications to MPWSS adopted by the City of Bozeman. 4.3.4. Fuoiisll OWNER six copies and al, electronic copy of the Contract Documents (including design drawings,specifications and contracts). The Final Phase will be complete and submitted within 45 calendar days following written authorization frona OWNER to ENGINEER to procced with that phase of services." C. .11)elete Scctiolz 4A in its entirety and rcplaoc:with the;following; "4.4 BIDDING OR NEGOT AT>ING PHASE After written authorization to proceed with the Bidding or Negotiating phase, ENUINEYR shall: 4.4.1. Assist OWNER in advertising for and obtaining bids or negotiating proposals for constructions contraot(s) and record prospective bidders to whom Bidding Documents have been issued, reouive and process deposits for Bidding Documents and conduct pre- bid conferences,, 4.4.2. Provide interpretation or clarification to prospective: bidders regarding (lie Bidding Documents,and 'Issues addenda as appropriate. 4.4.3. Consult with and advise OWNER as Lo tlly acceptability of the prime contractor, subcontractors, suppliers and other persons and organizations propose([ by the prinne conti,auor.'(s)(herein call "Contraetor(s)") for those portions of thv work as to which such acceptability is required by the Bidding Documents. 4.4.4. Consult with OWNER concerning arid determine the acceptability of substitute materials and equipment proposed by Contractor(s) when substitution prior to the award of contracts is allowed by the Bidding Documents. 4.4.5. Attend the laid opening, prepare bid tabulation, evaluate bids, assess biddors' responsiveness and responsibility and make award recommendation to OWNER, 4.4.6 Facilitate contract award, and the execution and diAribution of the contract documents for construction, materials, equipment and Services. Furnish Owner two original sign atrrre sots of executed contract documents (including design drawings, specifications and contracts). Furnish contractor with one set of original. si.graaturc executed contract documents and up to tbree sets of construction doexrrn.ent8." D. Delete&,ction 4.5 in its entirety and replace with the following: "45 CONS'MU(:"". IONPHASE "rho responsibilities of the EWGINEER during rite;Cotrstruction Phase are surnmtari�,,ed as follows: 4 4.5.1. General AdztljWAI�wation of Constructic�� Gc�aairtiGt, ENGINEER small c osrsult with and advise 0"ER and act as OWNER'S representative as provided in EX$I13:T 13 - W(--fNII34,'',li'S STATUS DURING CONSTRUCTION, attached to and made part a- this Amendment and may be fin-ther provided under the General Conditions of the: contract documents. The extent and limitations of the authority, duties, and responsibilities of the ENGMER on the construction job site as assigned here-in shall not he modified except as the ENGINEER may othcrwise agree in writing. All of OWNER's instruction to Contractor(s) will be issued through EN(.i1NIEER who will have authority to act on behalf of OWNER to the extent provided it) the Goneral Conditions except as otherwise provided in writing. In addition to the: services provided under Article 1.0 (Exbibit A) the ENGINEER shall provide the following services during construction: 4.5.1.1 Schedule and conduct a pre-constr'riction conference. 4 5:1. ". rovi e-pe{; tine}; ecluipn en x�}d-sttp ylies �►tw rar�stttretion 4yoot-ond ae"��ttc�lttding$st$bl�sl3t�}et'#t of-litre;g2�a�lc+-a-rye-toli�:�ur�tr��tA-}€�itr� 4; —, 444view-- te—Aie4u4es and-eperat4owi -and--the Cantr`ttatc�r-�tt�'s--ec�zh'c�l--plrtr3�,�_ ��n�lc ;��k�timr3-�Fior to tl ��c�f eat�t�t3etiorr: 4:5:-1 43cierta}rt f# -1l�e�Ea��tistsitseeeeie �ii�+c�-peter rter�ded�-irj aeeerrrrp9611-1}iS Wffl . 4.5.1.5 Prepare and provide weekly activity and progress reports to the City's Task Director. 4.5,1.6 ENG N)-U-'',R shall provide OWNER copies of all correspondence between the ENGINEER and Contractor. 4,5.1.7 Issue stop and resume work ordors, in whole or in.part, when work is not or cannot be performed in accordance with.the(::ontract Documents. 4.5.1.8 Review and approve, for conformance with the project technical specifications all strop drawings, and outer Contractor submittals required by the Contract Documents. 4.S.1.9 During construction review Contractors' construction sdhedulus and evaluate:eonfon-na.nce and progress under the Contract time provisions. 4.5.1.10Prepare for OWNER'S approval any plan and specification changes which due to any initial design or engineering deficiencies are required to complete the project original design concept. 4,5.1.11Inspect the project and wbea appropriate, and at''t'ur conferring with OWNER, issue a Certificate of Substantial Completion to the Contractor, 5 4,51.12Prior to recomincriding final payment, schedule and condiiut with the OWNER a final project inspection and submit a report to the OWNER documenting any outstanding items or deficiencies requiring correction prior to final payment. Upon satisfactory pro jest completion ENOTNI711'sR shall certify in writing to the OWNER, and any required regulatory agencies, that thu constTuclion was CDMPICtGd in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and is performing in accordance,with the design concept. 4.5_1.13Twonty-three months after pro substantial completion schedule find conduct with the Owner a Two Year Warranty Inspection of the project anc1 advise the: owner in writing whether project deficiencies exist and if the project is, performing in accordance with the design concept d-.5.2. IRo,1�C11t Pl'Dji Gt Representative. ENGINEER shall provide: a gilalified Resident Project. Representative w: the job site to provide observation of the work as provided in Mflflff C - A LISTING OF THE DIATES, RESPONSDITLITIES AND LIM117ATTONS OF AUTHORITY OF THE R SIDENT PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE,attached to and made part of this Amendment. The ENGINEER shall sulnnit to the OWNED., for review and acceptance, (lie resume of each Resident Projmt Representative who may be assigned to) the job site during the course of the I'rgjssct riot less than 10 calendar days prior to the pre-construction ineeting, Any subsequent change in the resident representative: shall also be subject to the OWNE'R'S approval. 4.5.3 Limitations ol:,] pgnsibilities. ENGE14LER will clot be responsible for CONTRACTowN means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures of construction, Or the safety precautions and programs incident thereto, and ENGINEER will not be responsible for CONTRACTOR's failure to perform or furnish the Work ill accordance with the Contract Documents; However, nothing contained in this amendment sliall be construed to release ENGINEER from liability for firiluru to properly perform duties and responsibilities assumed by ENGINEER,in the Contract Documents." E. Delete Section 4.6 in its entirety and replace with the following: "4.G_ PROJECT DOCUMENTATION ENGINEER shall f mrish OWNED with (a) one mylar copy, two paper copies, and all electronic copy of the.1'rgjcct Record Drawing,, ("As-I3uilts"), (b) written nionthly progress reports, and(c) a project notebook containing Such correspondence and. documentation as requested by OWNER." ARTICLE fi- COKPUNSATIO'.N FOR ENGINEEI Rf1NG SERVICE A, In the first sentence of paragraph 6,1.1, delete the member "$131,511" and replace witll the number"$118,837". B. Delate in its entirety the second sentence: ",T-h• '"x�- ' skall-p� Qecl oirir��t 6 C. Wee Section 6.2 in its entirety and replace with the following; "6,2 10-RI±;CT LABOR COST PAYMENT FOR 13ASIC SE,RVXC.US A1N.1') EXPENSES OF ENG-XNEER. Constr-iaction and project docuttreniation services performed as 13asic Engineering Services under sections 4.4 through 4.7 including General Administration of Construction Contract, Resident Project Representation, Project. Documentation, and Construction Testing, shall he compensated in accordance with the.following: 6.2.1 The OWNER shall pay for- Construction Phase and Project :Documentation Services an amount not to exc,q'ed. J jj,096 except as provided und(-r 6.2.1.2 and 6.2.4. 6.2.1.1 ,Qpsh Compensation. Compensation for these services shall he haled on the ENGINEER's ]Direct]labor Cost times a factor of 3.0 far services rendered which shall cover Direct Tabor, Direct Labor Overhead, General & .Administrative Overhead and Profit. 6.2.1.2 TToti c. I c z>: At any time during the construction that it becomes apparent that the Construction Phase and Prcjcct Doc:t.r.tnentation Services rendered under this Agreement will cxreed the negotiated cornpemo-atimi for these services, and prior to performing services in excess of the contract ceiling, the ENGINEER shall give OWNER written notice thereof. Promptly tlierealter OWNER and ENGINEER. shtnit review the scope and progress of the project work. ENCi1N1 1 1!t shall obtain written authorization lkni OWNER, prior to any additional costs being incurred under paragraph 6.2.1.3, If it is determined that due to a change in project scope under paragraph 5,2.1, the ENGINEER is entitled to additional compensation, OWNER and ENGINEI I;Z. may negotiate teri ns as provided under 6.2.1.1. The amount and terms of, any additional compensation under 6.2.1.1 or 6.2.1.3 shall be negotiated and agreed in writing pursuant to 9.1.6. 6.2.1.3 k is E� eciirrg Estimated Con)p�xs tion. Except as allowed under 5.2.1, when the total cost of the original scope Construction Phase and Project I)ocumentation Services exceeds the negotiated compensation for these services, the OWNER shall pay only for the direct costs incurred in exc:css of t:he esthnated corupensation. "These costs consist of an atnount equal. to the ENGINEER'S Direct.Tabor Cost times a factor of.„�_61 for services rendered which shall include Direct Labor, the federally audited payroll Direct Tabor Overhead, and General Sc Administrative Overhead costs, but shall not include any allowance for profit, 6.2.2. Reimbursablem xl e,tl,%5, as defined in section 7.4. of this Agreement, for Basic Services and Approved Additional Services shall be paid to the ENGMEX by the OWN12R in the actual amount of the costs incurrod up to an amount not to exceed $ j,&O% which includ" $ 0,00 for consultants employed by the Engineer and, 0,00 for all other reimbursable expenses. The estimated reimbursable expenses tare identified in Exhibit A. 7 6.2.3. railed Test Expense . The ENGINEER shall maintain and provide to the OWNER, a record of the costs associated with failing quality control tests performed for the OWNER during the course of the construction of the project and recommend an amount the OWNER deduct from the contractors)payments. 6.2.4 The OWNER shall pay an amount for Additiunal Services rendered by the ENGINEER and approved in writing by the OWNER on the basis of the RNGTNEER'S Direct Labor Costs times a factor of 3.0 , or an amount otherwise negotiated at the time such services are requested and approved by the OWNER." ARTICLE 7—MEANING OF TERMS A. I)clete the direct labor costs for Principals, Proicct Manager and Clerical and replace with the following: 2017 Direct Personnel and Classification Labor Cost Scott Buecker, Senior Project Manager $62.74 Scott Jungwirth, Engineer 1 $28.32 James Sletten, I&C Tech II $29.25 Ross Hanson, I&C Tech IV $46.15 In witness whereof, the Parties hereto do make and execute this Amendment. CITY OF BOZEMAN,MONTANA ENGINEER BY: BY:Vp Manager tions Ma►y&�ger) 20 l DATE:� DATE �t� 2G/ ATTEST: $dz�' c � �A • BY:_ (City Clerks ' =7 oe 1l. •• C� . ''71.V C 8 Exhibit A Amendment No. 1 to the Bozeman Lyman Creek System Expansion PER Scope and Fee for X ymaox Spring Ainction Box Monitoring and C'outrol Improvements BACKGROUND Multiple workshops were held with the City of Bozeman in May and June of 2016, regarding the risk, cost and potential benefits of well drilling at Lyman Spring. The outcome of these meetings was a decision to forego drilling the spring in the near-term, and instead utilize some of the budget originally allotted to the drilling phase for controls improvements to the existing spring junction box and flow control valve in the Lyman Water Treatment Plant(WTP). The purpose of the controls improvements is to improve capture of the water currently lost as overflow to the headwaters of Lyman Creek, within the City's annual and instantaneous water right (4,:346 ac-ft/yr and 2,671 gpm, respectively). Based on 330 measurements of the overflow from 2010 through the end of 2015, the rate of flow averaged 513 gpm. Efforts to minimize this overflow (via more frequent trips to the junction box and adjustments to the flaw setpoint) have reduced this loss rate in recent years, but the average is still over 250 gpm, and ranges well above 500 gpm during the periods of highest spring production. Control Improvements Project to l�,liiniinate Spring Box Overflow Flow control from the spring box can be automated by continuously monitoring the level Ill the spring box and using the level to automatically adjust the flow rate setpoint that the existing Cla-Val flow controller can use to adjust the flow control valve in the chemical treatment facility. The level in the junction box will be measured with a submersible pressure transducer that will be anchored to the spring box to measure the water level above it. The level signal from the transducer will need to be transmitted to the Lyman WTP. This would be done via radio ' between the spring box and the chemical treatment facility. The level transducer and radio would both be run using 12 or 24V direct current (DC) power, which can be provided by a conventional battery system since very little power is required. Routing power to the level sensing and radio system from power supply at the chemical treatment facility would be very expensive for the little amount of power that will be required. Batteries could instead be charged by installing power from a small solar panel array, or by installing pica hydropower on the Lyman transmission pipeline. Identification of the source of r power will need to be completed before a final cost can be provided for completion of the work. Solar would need to be installed up and out of the canyon to provide consistent power, along with a signal repeater for the radio, Locating the panel on the ridge between the spring and the chemical treatment facility may trigger resistance from local property owners. The signal cable for the level transducer would need to be direct-buried from the transmitter and solar panel to the spring junction box. • Pico hydropower could be installed within the upper pressure reducing vault_This would simplify burial of the signal cable, as it would follow the existing road. However, a radio repeater would still be needed near the mouth of the canyon, or a signal would need to "flood" Lyman canyon to be transmitted to the chemical treatment facility. The determination of flow to power the radio signal will be made with preliminary design and a cost-benefit comparison between solar and pica hydropower. The spring box level signal will be received by a new receiver installed at the chemical treatment facility, and fed into a Programmable Logic Controller (PLC). The PLC will convert the level to a flow rate setpoint for the existing flow controller for the the Cla-Val. The level will be converted to a flaw setpoint through pre-configured stages, where several ranges of water level can each be configured to have a corresponding flow set point, Alternatively, the PLC could also directly calculate the flow setpoint by using Proportional-Integral-Derivative (P1D) control that is integral to the PLC. The setpoints will be adjustable by an operator through an operator interface installed in the PLC control panel at the WTP. The City requested that with these monitoring and controls Improvements, the level sensing and flow calculation utilized at the lower Parshall flume on Lyman Creek ("Two Foot Flume") also be incorporated to SCADA for long-teem continuous monitoring. This will require a new level sensor, transmitter, power source and radio; and programming to accept the signal and translate it to a creek flow. 'The scope and fee included herein replaces the remaining scope of the Lyman Creek Water System Expansion project. 2 Lyman Spring Junction Box Monitoring and Control Improvements Scope and Fee Description: The fallowing tasks have been added to the original Tasks 1.0 through 1.2. The scope and fee for original task 1.3, "Test Well Drilling", has been cancelled and is replaced with the following tasks 1.3 through 18. Task 1.3-Project Management — --- _..... ._..... -- - Tasks...................M.,.. - Overall Management of Schedule and Budget for Pr j_.,..... ..,.,..,,...,...,,"�--— • Project • Development of Project Management Plan • BI-Weekly Team Coordination Conference Calls • Monthly Progress Reports _...... _ Deliverable ---- - ------- ._... s •_ Monthly Progress Reports Total(Proposed • 12 Hours ---- Hours/Total Fee,) • $2,472 Task 1.4--Preliminary Engineering Report Tasks • Solar and�pico-hydro power sources will be evaluated to determine the most cost-effective means of providing power to level sensing and signal transmission equipment. Leval sensing and transmitters will be in two locations, ■ Lyman Spring Junction Box ■ Lower Parshall Plume(Two Foot Flume) • Determine optimum location and design requirements for an air-relief station upstream of the uppermost PRV Station. Evaluate suitability of existing flow control valve positioner and micro- PLC for use with level signal from spring junction box, • Determine best means of installing signal wire and electrical conduit between power source, level sensor and radio transmitter • Provide preliminary cost estimate for construction of improvements « Preliminary Engineering Report • Civil Site Plan showing overall layout + PreliminaryProcess& instrumentation Diagram Meetings • Preliminary Engineering Workshop Total Proposed Hours .,.�,.10 _.. • 4 hours and Fees • $13,,6, Task 1.5—Final Design —- - ENGINEER shall generate plans and specificmm.ions Tasks specifications for installation of ' Lyman Spring Junction Box Monitoring and Controls improvements, which will include monitoring improvements to the Two Foot Par-shall Flume on lower Lyman Creels. • Preliminary Sheet List, ■ Overall Site Layout(two sheets) • Electrical Single-Line Diagram Process& Instrurt7entatio —_.-._._.-.__ n Diagram • Power Soured, -Junction Box, and Radio Transmitter detail sheets and Two Foot Parshall Flume l7eliver'ables ,....• ,.". - + 90%Set of plans and specifications: ...................__.----------•----.._.,,__..,. (two, one each for Junction lox p p Three (3)hardcopies and USB « Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Cost • City's review comments will be incorporated into the 90% Design Set, 100% design drawings and specifications will be re-issued for final review(three(3) hardcopies and USS stick). • Drawing deliverables will be 11x17 format. USB stick will have pdf and CAD files. Me,—et i s « Final Design Worksho -- 9U,,. .Desgn presented __._.e City. � 'g p % Design will bF', rpyc.nted to the Cit _Review comments will be incorporated into 100% Design Set. -'l.otal Pro osed H- U"15"..- ----+ 120 ....•.. Hours. _._ �.,•....,•,.,w.-•-- ond/ens « $15,248 Task 1.6-•-Bid Services 70,5k5 • Bid Document Distribution • Response to Contractor Questions • Addenda • Pre-Bid Conference • Bid Opening, Reviews • Recommendation of Award of Contract s a Conformed Documents(Plans and Specifications) o PDF(11 x 17 and 22 x 34 PDF drawings, Specifications) a AutoCAD Drawings o M5 Word Specifications • Addenda as Required • Bid Recommendation, Letter •...7o tal Pr ,....urs 3E� Hours .. - ._.,, .- - -._„,,..,...,,..._ �•��o�•sed N..o and Fees....,. « $4,576 -- .,..,....n.•,._ ..._ Task 1.7-Construction Administration and observation° _.......- ------_.................,u,,....,....,,,,,..,,.........__...__. . _-- 7asks Engineer shall provide the following services during construction: •Construction Observation and Documentation •Respond to Requests for Information (RFIs) i •Review shop drawings and submittals ■Process Requests for Change Orders and provide recommendations and processing •Review and certify Contractor's applications for payments •Conduct substantial and final completion reviews, punchlist tracking •Provide Record Drawings • Engineer shall provide daily visits to site. Visits shall last 1 to 4 hours depending on work in progress by Contractor. A 60 day (Approximately 42 work days) construction period has been assumed for the purpose of .•_ ...�.., ...,, w.......M•. this fee prop. s'•sa .,••_.l....- .�.•..•.•_...-- 4 Deliverables Construction Observation Updates (Daily) • RN responses v Submittal Reviews • Change order responses ........... • Progress Payment certifications Total Proposed Hours • 116 Hours and Fees • $13,520 ............... Task 1,8 Instrumentation and Controls Integration-and SCADA Programming Tasks 4P Instrumentation and Controls Technician shall integrate signals sent from transmitters at the Lyman Spring, Junction Box and two foot Parshall flume. • Instrumentation and Controls Technician shall provide programming services for: • Monitoring, recording and conversion of level signal from Lyman Spring Junction Box to the flow control valve position at the Lyman Treatment Plant. Monitoring, recording and conversion of level signal from two foot Parshall flume to a flow estimation for lower Lyman Creek, Support services to ensure flow signals, adjustment of valve and resulting spring diversion flows are received and transmitted to the Sourdough Water Treatment Plant's SCADA system and HMIs located at the City Shop Complex and Sourdough WTP. ............... oeliverables 0 N/A ........... Total Proposed Hours 0 64 Hours and,rees Fee Sum.marV Task 11.3 Management Task k 17.4 Preliminary Engineering Report $13,360 Lump Sum Task 1.5 Final Design $15,248 Lump 5um Task 1.6 Bid Services $4,576 Lump Scam J -7 Construction Administration and Observation $13,520 Task 1.8-1 I&C Integration and SCADA Programmin $6,888 Lump Sum Reimbursable Expenses(Travel, Document Production) $1,065 Lump Sum Lump Sum Fee subtotal $43,609 Time and Materials Fee $13,520 Ly man.ipnng unction Box Monitoring and Controls Improvements $57,129 Fee Total EXHIBIT B TO AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND ENGINEER FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ENGINEER'S STATUS DURING CONSTRUCTION ARTICLE 10-ENGINEER'S STATUS DURING CONSTRUCTION 10.1. OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE ENGINEER will be OWNER's representative during the construction period, The duties and responsibilities and the limitations of authority of LNGTNEER as OWNER's representative during construction are set forth in the Contract Documents and shall not be extended without written consent of OWNER and ENGINEER. 10,2. VISITS TO THE SITE ENGINEER will make visits to the site at intervals appropriate to the various stages of construction to observe the progress and quality of the executed Work and to determine, in general, if the Work is proceeding in accordance with the Contract Documents. ENGINEER will not be required to make exhaustive or continuous on-site inspections to check the quality or quantity of the Work. ENGINEERSs efforts will be directed toward providing for OWNER's greater degree of confidence that the completed Work will conform to the Contract Documents. On the basis of such visits and on-site observations as an experienced and qualified design professional, ENGINEER will keep OWNER informed of the progress of the Work and will endeavor to guard OWNER against defects and deficiencies in the Work. 10.3. PROJECT REPRESENTATION If OWNER and ENGINEER agree,ENGINEER will furnish a Resident Project Representative to assist ENGINEER in observing the performance of the Work. The duties, responsibilities and limitations of authority of any such Resident Project Representative and assistants will be as provided in EXHIBIT C TO THIS AMFNDMENT, A LISTING OF TI1T, DUTIES, RESPONSIBILITIES AND LIMITATIONS OF AUTHORITY OF THE RESIDENT PROJECT REPRESEN'1'ATIVI✓. 10.4. CLARIFICATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS ENGINEER will issue with reasonable promptness such written clarifications or interpretations of the requirements of the Contract Documents(in the form of Drawings or otherwise)as ENGINEER may determine necessary,which shall be consistent with or reasonably inferable from the overall intent of the Contract Documents, If CONTRACTOR believes that a written clarification or interpretation justifies an increase in the Contract Price or an extension of the Contract Time and the parties are unable to agree to the amount or extent thereof,CONTRACTOR may make a claim therefor as provided in the General Provisions of the construction Contract Document. 10.5. AUTHORIZED VARIATIONS IN WORD ENGINEER may authorize minor variations in the Work from the requirements of the Contract Documents which do not involve an adjustment in the Contract Price or the Contract Time and are consistent with the overall intent of the Contract Documents. These may be accomplished by a Field Order and will be binding on OWNER, and also on CONTRACTOR who shall perform the Work involved promptly. If CONTRACTOR believes that a Field Order justifies an increase in the Contract Price or an extension of the Contract Time and the parties are unable to agree as to the amount or extent thereof, CONTRACTOR may make a claim therefor as provided in the General Conditions of the Construction Contract. 10.6. REJECTING DEFECTIVE WORK 6 ENGTRI I R will have authority to disapprove or reject Work which RN GINEER believes to be defective, and will also have authority to require special inspection or testing of the 'Work as provided in the General Provisions of the construction Contract Document whether or not the work:is fabricated, installed,or cornpletod. 10.7, STIOP DRAWINGS,CHANGE ORDERS ANT)PAYMEM 10.7.1, The I NGINEMR's responsibility for Shop Drawings and samples shall comply with the shop drawing Provisions of the general Provisions of the construction Contract Document 10.7.2. The ENGIN,E.Ms responsibilities for Change Orders shall comply with the change order provisions of the General Provisions of the construction Contract T7octtment. 10.7.3. The ENGINEI'R's responsibilities for contractor's Application for Payment shall comply with the payment provisions of the General Provisions of the construction Contract Docutnent. 10.8_ x)'I;'1"1'tRM1NATIONS FOR TJNTT PRICES l3'NGINF}'sR will determine the actual quantities and classifications of Unit Price Work performed by CONTRACTOW UNOINEER will review with CONTRACTOR the I NGIN1JriR's pitliminary determinations on such inattei;s before rendering a written recommendation thereon (by recommendation, of an Application for Payment or otherwise)to OWNI R. 10.9. DECISION ON DISPUTES 10.9.1. ENGINEER will be the irritiirl intrrprctcr of the requirements of the Contract Documents and judge of tine acceptability of the Work thereunder. Claims, dispales and other matters relating to the acceptability of the Weak or the interpretation of ilia requirements of the Contract Documents pertaining to the perforinance.and famishing of the Work wind Oalmn under The General Conditions of the Construction Contract in respect of changes in the Contract Price or Contract Time will be rrferrcd initially to ENCYIN'-ER in writing with a request For a formal decision in accordance with this paragraph, which ENGINEER,will render in writing within a rcasonable tirne. Written notice of each such claim. dispute and other matter sliall be promptly reported and copied to the OWN1iR, 10.9.2. When functioning as intcrprcter under paragraphs 10.8 and 10.9,1, ENG NEF,R will not show partiality to OWNER or CONITLACTOIZ mid will not be liable in connection with any Interpretation or decision rcndcrcd in good laigr ill such capacity. The rendering of a decision by ENGINEER pursuant to paragraphs 10.8 and 10.9.1 with respect to any such claim, dispute or other rnalter will be a condition precedent to any exercise lay OWNER or CONTRACTOR of such rights or remedies as either may other wisc have under the C:ontrRcl.Documents or by Laws or Regulations in respect of any such claim,dispute or other matter_ 10.10, LIMITATIONS ON I(MUNEER'S RESPONSIBILITIES 10,10.1, Neither ENGTNE1,11's authority to act Under thi9 Article or elsewhere in the Contx8ct.Documents nor Oily decision made by ENGINE)4-R in good faith either to exercise or not exercise such authority shall give rise to any duty or responsibility of ENGINEER to CONTRACTOR, any Sub-contractor, any Supplier, or any other person or organization Performing any of the Work,or to any surety for any of them. 10,10.2. Whenever in the Contract Documeuts the terms "as ordered", "as directed", "as required", "as allowed", "as approved" or terns of like effect or import are used, or the adjectives "reawonablc", "suitable", "acceptable", "proper" or "satisfactory" or adjectives of like effect or import are used to describe a requirement, direction, review or jrldgmcnt of ENGINEER as to the Work,it is itltendecl that such requirement,direction,review or judgmeart will be solely to evaluate the, Work for compliance with the Contract Docurrl>nls(unless there is a specific stalrmcnt indicating otlivrwisa). The use of aoy such term or adjective shall not be effective to assign to ENGINEER any duty at authority tp supervise or direct the furnishing or performance of the Work or any duty or autiority to undertake responsibility contrary to the provisions of paragraph 4.5.3. 7 EXHf13Y1'C TO AMENDMENT NUMBER I OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND ENGINEER FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES A LISTING OF THE DUTIES,RESPONSIBILITIES AND LIMITATIONS OIL AUTIIORITY OF THE RESIDENT PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE. _ARTICLE II DUTIES, RESPONSIBILITIES ANll LIMITATIONS OF AUTHORITY OF THE RESIDENT PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE ENGINEER shall furnish a Resident Project Representative (RPR), assistants and other field staff to assist ENGINEER in observing performance of the work of Contractor. Through more extensive on-site observations of the work in progress and field checks of materials and equipment by the ItPR and assistants, ENGINEER shall endeavor to provide further protection for OWNER against defects and doficiencies in the work of CONTRACTOR; but, the furnishing of such services will not make ENGINEER responsible for or give ENGINEER control over construction means,methods, techniques,sequences or procedures or for safety precautions or programs, or responsibility for CONTRACTOR's failure to perform the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents and in particular the specific limitations set forth in section 4.5 of the Amendment are applicable. Tire duties and responsibilities of the RPR are limited to those of ENGINEER in this Amendment and in the construction Contract Documents,and are further limited and described as follows: 11.1. GENERAL 1tPR is ENGINEER's agent at the site, will act as directed by and under the supervision of ENGINEER, and will confer with ENGINEER regarding RPR's actions. RPR's dealings in matters pertaining to the on-site work shall in general be with ENGINEER and CONTRACTOR keeping OWNER advised as necessary. RPR's dealings with subcontractors shall only be through or with the full knowledge and approval of CONTRACTOR. RPR shall generally communicate with OWNER with the Icnowledgo of and under the direction of ENGINEER. 11.2. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF RPR 11.2.1. S edules: Review the progress schedule, schedule of Shop Drawing submittals and schedule of values prepared by CONTRACTOR and consult with ENGINEER concerning acceptability. 11.2.2. Conferences alid Meetings; Attend meetings with CONTRACTOR, such as preconstruction conferences, progress meetings, job conferences and the project-related meetings, and prepare and circulate copies of minutes thereof. 11.2.3. LW5 i 11.2.3.1.Serve as ENGINEER's liaison with CONTRACTOR, working principally through CONTRACTOR's superintendent and assist in understanding the intent of the Contract Documents; and assist ENGINEER in serving as OWNER's liaison with CONTRACTOR. 11.2.3.2.Assist in obtaining from OWNER additional details or information, when required for proper execution of the Work. 11.2.4. ShogDrawings and S ►Rlos: 1 11.2,4.1. Record date of receipt of Shop Drawings and samples, 112.4.2. Receive samples which. are furnished at the site by CONTRACTOR, and notify ENGINEER of availability of samples for examination. 11,2,4.3. Advise ENGINEER and CONTRACTOR of the commencement of any Work requiring Shop Drawing or sample if the submittal has not been approved by ENOINI:6.ER, 11.2.5, Review_uf_Work,Rciect.ion of De:fectivo Wor:}t,fztspgctigns and Tests: 11.2.5,1,Coaduct on-site observations of the Work in progress to assist ENGINEER in deteimining if the Work is in general proceeding in accordance with the Contract Documents. 11.2.5.2.Report to ENCi1NEER whenever MIR believes that any Work is unsatisfactory, faulty or defective Or does not ronform to the Contract Documents, or has been damaged, or does not meet the requirerne.nts of any inspection, test or approval required to be made; and advise ENGINEER of Work that Rl'R believes should be corrected or rejected or should be uncovered for observation, or requires special testing,inspection or approval. 11. Verify that tests, equipment and systerns starhip and operating and maintenance training are conducted in the presence of appropriate personnel, and the CONTRACTOR maintains adequate, records theroof; and observe, record and report to ENGINEER appropriate details relative to the test procedures and startup. 11.2.5.4.Accompany visiting inspectors representing public or other agmicies having jurisdiction over file Project,record Cho results of these inspections and report to ENGINEER. 11.2.6. Intcroi�ctat�t,�l c� (�4pi .ptµ I>ocumertts: Report to ENGINEER when clarifications and interpretations of the Contract: Documents are needed and transmit to CONTRACTOR clarifications and interpretations as issued by ENGINEER. 11,23, Modifications: Consider and evaluate C0N,rRAC1'OR's suggestions for modifications in Drawings or Specifications and report with RPM recommendations to ENOINE1,111A. Transmit to CONTRACTOR decisions as issued by 1NGINEER. 1I.2.8, Records: 11.2.8.1.Maintain at the job site orderly files for correspondence,reports of job conferences, Shop Drawings and samples, .reproductions of original Contract Documents including all Work Directive Changes, Addenda, Change Or-dens, field Orders, additional Irawings issued subsequent to the execution of the Contract,ENGINEER's clarifications and interpretations of the Contract I,7ocutrients,progress reports,and other Project related documents, I 1.2.8,2,ICeep a detailed and accurate diary or log book, recording CONTRACTOR hours on the job site, weather conditions, prime and subcontractor daily work force, daily log of equipment onsite or on standby, data relative to questions of Work Directive Changes, Change Orders or changed conditions, list of job site visitors,daily activities,decisions, observations in genaial,and Specific observations in more detail as in the case of observing test procedures;and send copies to ENGINEER. i 1.2.8.3.Record names, addresses and telephone numbers of all COMMACrom,subcontractors and major suppliers of materials and equipment, 2 11.2.9. Reports: 11.2.9.1.1'urnish ENGINEER periodic reports as required of progress of the Work and of CONTRACTOR's compliance with the progress schedule and schedule of Shop Drawing and sample submittals. 11.2.9.2.Consult with ENGINEER in advance of scheduled major tests, inspections or start of important phases of the Work. 11.2.9.3.Draft proposed Change Orders and Work Directive Changes, obtaining backup material from CONTRACTOR and recommend to ENGINEER Change Orders, Work Directive Changes, and Field Orders. 11.2.9.4.Report immediately to ENGINEER and OWNER upon the occurrence of any accident. 11.2,10. Payment Ikeypests: Review applications for payment with CONTRACTOR for compliance with the established procedure for their submission and forward with recommendations to ENGINEER, noting particularly the relationship of the payment requested to the schedule of values, Work completed and materials and equipment delivered at the site but not incorporated in the Work. 11.2.11, Certificates. Maintenance and Operation Mam►als: During the course of the Work, verify that certificates,maintenance and operation manuals and other data required to be assembled and fnunished by CONTRACTOR are applicable to the items actually installed and in accordance with the Contract Documents,and have this material delivered to ENGINEER for review and forwarding to OWNER prior to final payment for the Work. 11.2,12. Completion: 11.2.12.1. Submit to CONTRACTOR, and ENGINEER a list of observed items requiring completion or correction before ENGINEER may issue a Certificate of Substantial Completion. 11.2,12.2 Assess completion or correction of items noted under 11.2,12.1,advise ENGINEER on their status, and make recommendation to Engineer regarding issuance of a Certificate of Substantial completion. 11.2.12.3, Conduct final inspection in the company of ENGINEER, OWNER, and CONTRACTOR and prepare a final list of items to be completed or corrected. 11.2.12.4. Observe that all items on final list have been completed or corrected and make recommendations to ENGINEER concerning final acceptance. 11.3. LIMITATIONS OF AUTHORITY Resident Project Representative: 11.3.1. Shall not authorize any deviation from the Contract Documents or substitution of materials or equipments,unless authorized by ENGINEER 11.3.2. Shall not exceed limitations of ENGINEEWs authority as set forth in the Amendment or the Contract Documents. 11.3.3. Shall not undertake any of the responsibilities of CONTRACTOR, subcontractors or CONfRACI'OR's supetintendent. 3 1 1.3.4- Sliall riot advise on, issue directions relative to or assume control over any aspect of the ineans, rrretlrods, techniques, sequences or procedures of constractian unless such advice or directions are specifically required by the Contract Documents, 11.3,5. Shall riot advise on, issue directions regarding or assume control over safety precautions mid programs in corurection with(lie Work- 11.3,b. Shall not kiccept Shop Drawing or sample submittals fi-onr anyone other°than COM ACTOR. 11,3-7. Shall not authorize OWNER to occupy the Proiect in whole or in part. 11.3.8, Shall not participate .til sl)eciali7ed field or laboratory tests or, inspections conducted by others except as specifically authorized.by ENGINEER. 4 April 21, 2017 Ms. Lain Leoniak Mr. Brian Heaston City of Bozeman 20 East Olive P.O. Box 1230 Bozeman, MT 59771-1230 Via email: bheaston@bozeman.net lleoniak@bozeman.net RE: Lyman Creek Water Use Dear Lain and Brian: Thank you for meeting with us on April 3, 2017. We found the meeting lobe enlightening and appreciate the information that you shared. As you are aware, we own property along Lyman Creek in the west half of sections 28 and 33, Township 1 South, Range 6 East. The property is owned under Lyman Creek, LLC ("LC") LC also owns several water rights to Lyman Creek, including the water right claim nos. 4 1 H 115677-00, 4 1 H 179248-00, 4 1 H 179251-00, and 4 1 H 179255-00. We are interested in the City's plans for its Lyman Creek system because of the potential adverse effect it may have on our downstream water rights, property values and the surrounding environment. Lyman Creek is an important natural feature to us,just as it is to many others. LC sent the City a letter in May of 2016 describing LC's concerns with expansion of use by the City from Lyman Creek. The City's outside legal counsel responded on June 21, 2016 and assured us that the City has no intention of diverting or using any more water than what was properly authorized at the time LC acquired its property. On February 23. 2017, we received a copy of the City's document titled "City of Bozeman Lyman Water System & Lyman Spring Study" dated January 17. 2017. The study indicates that the City will be embarking a project to expand its diversion and use of water from Lyman Creek by approximately 400 to 500 acre-feet per year. The report suggests the City has unused available capacity under its water rights that it now can put to use. The study did not evaluate the downstream impacts of the City's expansion as to use of Lyman Creek generally or address any of the concerns raised in our May 2016 letter. We also have a different perspective on the City's legal right to expand beyond its historic use. At the April 2017 informal meeting, I described our concerns with the City's proposed increase in water use from Lyman Creek. If the proposal is implemented as the report suggests, we are quite concerned that Lyman Creek would be dewatered at certain times of the year, which would be harmful to our water rights. in addition to the fishery and ecological amenities the creek provides. We desire to work cooperatively with the City to ensure that the City can exercise its water rights while at the same time ensuring that LC's downstream water rights are not negatively impacted. We would prefer to avoid an acrimonious legal or public dispute and do believe that a mutually agreeable solution can be reached. As a first step in determining what a resolution might include. we request that before the City increases its diversions from Lyman Creek. that it evaluate the likely impacts to downstream flows and water rights. LC is willing to cooperate in this study by providing the City, Trout Unlimited or FWP access to its property along the creek to take stream flow measurements. In the meantime, we ask that the City refrain from activities that might lead to expanding use of water from Lyman Creek until this study can be completed, and discussed by all parties and the general public. Based on the results of this study. we envision working with the City to develop an agreement that enables the City to move Forward while also protecting the environment and downstream interests. We look forward to working collaboratively with you on this issue. We are happy to discuss this matter further with you at your convenience. Sincerely, -1 Lance& Siri Gilliland Cc: Stephen R. Brown. Garlington. Lohn & Robinson PLLP Trout Unlimited, Pat Byorth Fish. Wildlife and Parks, David Moser &Bill Schenk Deborah Stephenson. DMS Natural Resources, LLC TROUT Patrick Byorth UNLIMITED Director of Montana Water, Western Water&Habitat Project Craig Woolard Public Works Director City of Bozeman 20 East Olive P.O. Box 1230 Bozeman, MT 59715 April 21, 2017 Re: Lyman Creek Dear Craig, I have recently become aware of the City of Bozeman's plan to update its water intake at Lyman Creek. As you may know, Lain Leoniak and Brian Heaston graciously took the time to meet with a group of us regarding the project in early April. While I appreciate the City's need to meet its growing demands for water, 1 am concerned about the projects' effects on fisheries values in Lyman Creek and the effects on downstream water users including the Gillilands and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks' (FWP) instream flow reservation in Bridger Creek. FWP has documented the presence ofjuvenile rainbow and brown trout in Lyman Creek, which indicates it is an important source of recruitment to Bridger Creek. As a spring-fed stream, its stable water temperatures in winter and summer provides both ice-tree rearing habitats for fall spawning brown trout and guards against transmission of whirling disease to spring spawning rainbow trout. Furthermore, this stable spring source augments FWP's instream flow reservation in Bridger Creek and support riparian habitats vital for a variety of wildlife, including a diverse avian community and large and small mammals. The City has apparently taken the position that its senior water rights enable it to exercise the full measure of its water right claims. However, the measure of a water right in Montana has always been limited to the amount of water historically put to a beneficial use. The City's proposal appears to expand the amount it diverts into the Lyman Creek system, which raises factual and legal questions about the extent of its water right claims, not the least of which is whether the expansion causes adverse effects to downstream water users and the fishery. TU seeks your cooperation in analyzing the effects that the City's proposal may have on downstream water users and the fishery. In particular, we would like to better understand how water bypassing the City's diversion affects streamflows downstream. For example, it may be that the proposed expansion will not significantly dewater Lyman Creek because groundwater accretions may maintain sufficient instream flow. If this is the case, we'll all be relieved. However, until we have sufficient data, it will be difficult for the parties to predict downstrearn effect. Ideally, the parties can agree on a minimum bypass flow to protect the fishery and downstream water users from adverse effects. Trout Unlimited. America's Leading Coldwater Fisheries Conservation Organization 321 East Main Street,Suite 411,Bozeman,MT 59715 office:(406)522-7291 • cell:(406)548-48,30 • email: pbyorthm?tu.nrg 9 www.tu.org Page 2 To identify a minimum instream flow necessary to protect the fishery and downstream users, I'd suggest gathering streamflow measurements at various locations to correlate intake and bypass flows. Lain and Brian kindly provided streamflow records, although gaps make it difficult to harmonize diversions with flows downstream of the City's diversion. If the City is amenable to a partnership with FWP, TU, and the Gillilands, TU agrees to conduct an analysis of minimum streamflows necessary to protect the fishery and downstream water users. FWP will collaborate by collecting flow data downstream of the diversion works. Tile Gillilands will provide access to their property to enable data collection below the City's diversion. Would the City please consider two requests: 1. allowing access to City property to measure streamflows, and 2. refrain from increasing the flow rate of diversions until minimum bypass flows can be established and agreed upon? We have long enjoyed a productive relationship in balancing the City's water needs with other resource values across the Gallatin Valley. I look forward to working with you and your staff to resolve the questions raised by the proposed Lyman Creek expansion project. Sincerely, Patrick Byorth C: Lance and Siri Gilliland, Dave Moser, Deborah Stephenson SCOTT I LAW 682 S. FERGUSON AVE. #4 BOZEMAN, MONT 59718 pete r@scott-law.corn June 21, 2016 (406) 585-3295 Mr. Steve Brown Garlington Lohn Robinson 350 Ryman St PO Box 7909 Missoula MT 59808 Re: Lyman Creek Water Use Mr. Brown: Scott Law represents the City of Bozeman ("City") in connection with various water related matters. This letter responds to yours of May 2, 2016, in which you expressed concern on behalf of Lyman Creek, LLC ("LC letter") regarding the City's use of Lyman Creek water. More specifically, the LC letter challenges planned work by asserting that the Lyman Creek system has a "bottleneck" and that "nonuse has occurred for a sufficiently long period of time to cause abandonment of any excess water rights above what historically has been used." First, there is no bottleneck in the system. Work is being conducted to improve the performance of the City's primary points of diversion ("POD"), not to increase the overall system capacity as the LC letter asserts. City records demonstrate that the Lyman Creek system has at all times been constructed with adequate capacity to divert or distribute water at the full rate allowed. The City holds two rights on Lyman Creek, claims 41H 140882 00 and 41H 140883 00, which entitle the City to divert 3.75 cubic feet per second ("cfs") and 2.2 cfs respectively. The system was constructed in the late 191h century with a head gate and a distribution system capable of using water in full measure. In the 1920s the original woodstave pipeline was replaced with a new pipeline, also capable of delivering water in full measure. In 1964, the original POD was replaced with sufficient capacity to divert water in full measure. In 1991, DNRC authorized the use of subsurface spring collectors as the primary PODs and an additional backup surface diversion. Both the primary and backup PODs have independent capacity to divert water in full measure. Thus, as far as this office has been able to determine, there has been no time during which the City was unable to divert or distribute the full measure of its rights. Regarding the assertion that "nonuse has occurred for a sufficiently long period of time to cause abandonment of any excess water rights above what historically has been used," the Water Use Act contains an exception to any presumption of abandonment for municipal water rights. Under the Act, water rights are presumed not to be abandoned when any portion of the right is used for municipal purposes and the City has: (a) obtained a filtration waiver under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300(f), et seq.; (b) acquired, constructed, or regularly maintained diversion or conveyance structures for the future municipal use of the water right; (c) conducted a formal study, prepared by a registered professional engineer or qualified consulting firm, that includes a specific assessment that using the SCO'rz' l LAW Lyman Creek June 21, 2016 12 water right for municipal supply is feasible and that the amount of the water right is reasonable for foreseeable future needs; or (d) maintained facilities connected to the municipal water supply system to apply the water right to: (i) an emergency municipal water supply; (ii) a supplemental municipal water supply; or (iii) any other use approved by the department under Title 85, chapter 2, part 4. § 85-2-227(4), MCA. In addition to historically using water at the maximum allowable rate, the City is: 1) not subject to a filtration requirement, 2) has constructed and maintained diversions and conveyance structures for future use, 3) has conducted qualified studies, and 4) has maintained facilities for emergency and back up supplies. In short, the law will presume that the City has not abandoned any part of its existing rights to Lyman Creek water. The LC letter also cites to the Supreme Court's 1894 Creek decision as grounds for objecting to the City's continuing use of water under its existing claims. However, that decision has no bearing on the validity of the City's rights. In the 1894 decision the Supreme Court remanded the matter to the district court, which then entered a decree in favor of the City's rights as claimed in Creek v. Bozeman Water Works, Case #7-1594 (April 21, 1896). A partial copy of that decree can be found in the City's claim files. Based on the foregoing your client may be assured that City has no intention of diverting or using any more water than what was properly authorized at the time LC acquired their interest. Please do not hesitate to contact me with comments or questions about this letter. Warm Regards, PETER G.SCoTT, LAW OFFICES, PLLC _14 eL- Peter G. Scott Cc: Greg Sullivan, Bozeman City Attorney Montana Dept. of Fish Wildlife & Parks Montana Dept. of Nat. Res. & Conserv. City of Bozeman Lyman Creek Water System Expansion DRAFT Go/No-Go Summary To: Craig Woolard, PE, Public Works Director , BO Brian Heaston, PE, Project Engineer q 0 From: Scott Buecker, PE, AE2S = ' Date: June 3rd, 2016 CO' Lyman Creek Water System Expansion Go, NoGo Summary LymanCreek Water Rights ..........................................................................................................1 HistoricalMaximum Lyman Creek Usage....................................................................................2 CurrentLyman Spring Yield .........................................................................................................5 LymanSpring Improvements.......................................................................................................5 Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Project Costs...................................................8 Comparison of Lyman Spring Improvements to Hyalite Share Purchases..................................9 QualitativeConsiderations ....................................................................................................10 Lyinan Creek Water Rights The City's existing rights on Lyman Creek, via subsurface springboxes, are listed in Table 1. Table 1. City of Bozeman's Water Rights on Lyman Creek Water Right Source Type Maximum Max Volume Period of Priority Number Flow Rates (ac-ft/yr) Use Date 41H-140882-00 Lyman Stream 1,683.75 gpm 3.75 cfs 2,740.2 Year-round 1864 41H-140883-00 Lyman Stream 987.80 gpm 2.20 cfs 1,606.0 Year-round 1881 Total Right 2,671.55 gpm 5.95 cfs 4,346.2 City of Bozeman WFPU Update Page 1 of 11 Think Big. Go Beyond. PJ(IE2S www.ae2s.com Historical Maximum Lyman Creels Usage Historical flow data on Lyman Spring and Lyman Creek is a sporadic mix of intermittent data sourced from five different measurement locations: 1. Upper Weir — this weir appears to have been installed in 2001 just upstream of the current location of the spring diversion box. The purpose of the upper weir was to measure water not captured by the spring collectors. It was removed during construction of improvements in 2009. 2. Trapezoidal Flume — this flume is installed in a manhole in the bed of the "headwaters" of Lyman Creek in 2002, just downstream of the existing spring box overflow. Between 2002 and 2008, the flume measured overflow from the spring collectors and discharge from a drain pipe that has since been removed. The drainpipe was reportedly installed during construction of the original spring boxes in 1990. This drainpipe was removed during construction of the third spring collector in 2008. Currently, this flume only captures overflow from the spring diversion box installed in 2008. With respect to measurement accuracy, it should be noted that it was routinely submerged in late spring and early summer prior to 2008. 3. 3-foot Weir — this weir is located on upper Lyman Creek, immediately upstream of the "Upper Surface Water Diversion Structure". Flow measurements taken from this location date back to 1908. However, the period of record is very intermittent, with gaps between 1915-1920, 1925-1961, 1971-2001, and 2009 to present day. 4. Parshall Flume — the Parshall Flume is located upstream of the "Lower Surface Water Diversion Structure". Flow measurements were obtained for this flume from 1976 to 1988, and then again from 2001 to 2009. Since the spring of 2015, the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology has been measuring levels in the upper spring box overflow and in the Lower Surface Water Diversion Structure flume to better understand and assess gain or loss in Lyman Creek streamflow between the two locations. 5. 10-inch Pipe — this supposedly represents flows through an existing 10-inch pipe that was the terminal discharge into the Lyman Reservoir from upper and lower diversions on Lyman Creek. The obtainable period of record is 1961 through 1988, with a brief period of records in 1991-92 followed by a stretch of data from 2001 to 2008. The previously described flow measurement locations are shown in Figure 1, which was taken directly from the City's "Lyman Spring Water Source Data Review and Evaluation" work done by Josh Gelfenbaum in 2011. All data that could be gathered on Lyman Creek and Lyman Spring was compiled into a single spreadsheet for evaluation. The data was reviewed to determine the highest historic use of Lyman water. City of Bozeman WFPU Updale Page 2 of 11 Think Big. Go Beyond. �'�J R www.ae2s.com The best combination of data quantity and increased spring production occurred in the late 1960's and early to mid-1970's, as measured at the 10-inch pipe discharging into Lyman Reservoir. The data is an indication of water actually used by the City. In 1968 and 1969, there are overlapping flow measurements from the 3-foot weir that match well with the 10-inch pipe data. From 1969 through the 1970's, there is overlapping data taken from the Parshall flume that also correlates well with the 10-inch pipe data. The flow measured at the 10-inch pipe from 1961 to 1978 is shown in Figure 2. The data set from 1968 provides the best combination data quantity, data distribution (31 measurements distributed across the year), and increased spring flows. The 1969 data shows higher flows, as shown in Figure 2, but there are fewer data measurements (23) and no measurements after August 29tn Figure 1. General Location of Flow Measurement Structures on the Lyman Creek Source. i Lyma 9Prin "L Div rsi n for 10 In i T apez Idal FI e r + Q. a r ti • ti Ft Par all I 4 man Spring Wat r T atment Plant ' City of Bozeman WFPU Update Page 3 of 11 Think Big.Go Beyond. A www.ae2s.com Figure 2. Inflow of Lyman Creek to Lyman Reservoir (1961- 1978). 0.000 R,ma - 101N PIPE(NORTII RESERVOIR INFLUENT( /,allu 6,000 S,011u A,(HJ0 1.000 l,L01 1,000 0 a R 9 vat* The 31 flow measurements from 1968 were used to estimate the volume of water withdrawn from the Lyman Creek source based on the number of days between measurements. Much of the data from the period from 1962 to 1979 indicates flows well above the City's instantaneous water right of 2,671 gpm. It is uncertain whether use of water above the instantaneous water right would be usable for the purpose of cornpleting an historic water use analysis. Therefore, values above 2,670 gpm were capped at 2,670 gpm to calculate the annual withdrawal volume. The resulting volumetric use for 1968 is 3,629 acre feet (ac-ft), corresponding to an average annual flow of 2,250 gpm. Figure 3 shows both the 1968 measured flow and the "capped at 2,670 gpm" flow. Figure 3. Measured Flow into Lyman Reservoir (1968) 1,000 Measured Flow into Lyman Reservoir 6,000 —>—within Instantaneous water Right 5,000 - a 4,000 -- v 3,000 -- -- �—— 2,000 1,000 - -- - -- 12/6/1967 1/25/1968 3/15/1968 5/4/1968 6/23/1968 8/12/1968 10/1/1968 11/20/1968 1/9/1969 Date City of Bozeman WFPU Update Page 4 of 11 Think Big. Go Beyond. ]AE5 www.ae2s.com Current Lyman Spring Yield Since the completion of improvements to Lyman Spring in 2009, consisting of the addition of a third spring collector and a new spring box with an overflow weir, Lyman Spring has produced an average of 1,618 gpm, or 2,610 acre feet per year (ac-ft/yr). The best year in the six-year period of record from February of 2010 to May of 2016 was 2011, when the spring produced an average of 2,140 gpm, or 3,451 ac-ft. The data from 2011 includes an average of 970 gpm of overflow measured by the overflow weir at the spring box. Some overflow is necessary to prevent air from entering the transmission line. Subtracting this overflow, the City's corresponding annual withdrawal and consumption of water averaged 1,109 gpm, or 1,789 ac-ft/yr. Notably, in recent years City staff have been able to reduce the average overflow amount, by more frequent monitoring and adjustment, to approximately 250 to 300 gpm. Figure 1 shows the data from February of 2010 through May of 2016. Inclusion of the snow water equivalent from the Sacajawea SNOTEL site supports the understanding that the general downward trend in spring production since the 2009 project is likely climate-driven rather than due to any reduction in performance of the spring collectors. Lyman Spring Improvements The City is considering exploratory and test well drilling of the aquifer feeding Lyman Spring and Lyman Creek, with the objective of increasing the firm yield of the spring, while remaining within the City's existing water right. Desktop and field geologic and hydrogeological investigations completed to date indicate that additional yield may be attainable. There is concern that installing a well at the general location of the existing spring collectors will trigger water rights challenges, potentially resulting in a reduction in the City's annual water right as compared to the maximum volume historically withdrawn. Table 2 summarizes the City's water right, the 1968 data (assumed to represent the maximum provable yield of the Lyman Creek Spring), and the current average yield of the spring boxes. City of Bozeman WFPU Update Page 5 of 11 Think Big. Go Beyond. tJ AEZS www.ae2s.com lull HMS 161ous 00-10" m Qi N 0 ui O 6 y� qC �r � � E N 0 N .p o Ln 3t; a � N �n O b O L O C i .CL a' O N o a l' rA, CE " C d & m i a } 1 a - v LL tl m N � N Co ti N m Table 2. Lyman Water Rights, Maximum Historic Use, and Current Average Spring Production Item Volume (ac-ft/yr) Current Average Spring Production (2010—2016) 2,610 Current Average Use (2010—2016) 1,789 Maximum Spring Production Since 2010 (2011) 3,451 Maximum Use Since 2010(2011.) 1,887" Maximum Provable Historic Use (1968) 3,629 Total Volumetric Lyman Water Rights 4,346 "Management/monitoring of springbox overflows has improved significantly since 2011, but spring production in 2011 far outweighed overflow management. The purpose of Table 2 is to provide a range of potential benefits of implementing improvements on the Lyman Creek Spring. From a water rights perspective, the maximum potential gain that could be achieved by installing a well at the Lyman Creek Spring is the difference between the maximum provable historic use (3,629 ac-ft) minus the current annual average use (1,789 ac-ft), which is 1,840 ac-ft. The larger unknown is how much more water could be obtained via the installation of a well to access water from the aquifer feeding the Lyman Creek Spring. The following should be considered when assessing the merit of drilling a well: • At minimum, a well installation should allow better capture of the water currently lost as overflow to the headwaters of Lyman Creek. Based on the 330 measurements of the overflow since 2010, the rate of flow averages 513 gpm. It appears that management of this overflow has improved over time, but it still averages over 250 gpm and ranges well above 500 gpm during the periods of highest spring production, even when the City's use is below their instantaneous water right. • It is probable that there is some seepage of spring water below or around the existing spring collectors that flows through the alluvial deposits in the canyon and enters Lyman Creek further downgradient as surface water. Based on limited differential measurements between the three foot weir and the Parshall Flume, and anecdotal reporting from Randy Moran, the rate of seepage probably ranges from 200 to 500 gpm. • Finally, if there is significant leakage of groundwater along or down the fault between the Mission Canyon limestone and the metamorphic rock, a well could reduce the amount of leakage by lowering the water surface profile of the aquifer. Given the available data and to be relatively conservative, an average annual improvement of 700 ac-ft/yr will be utilized as the minimum benefit of installing a well at Lyman Spring. City of Bozeman WFPU Update Page 7 of 11 Think Big. Go Beyond. J J FIE-5 www.ae2s,com Engineer's Opinion of Probable Construction Project Costs The cost items to improve the yield from Lyman Spring include the following: • Exploratory/Test Well Drilling • Legal Fees associated with Water Rights • Final production well installation, including engineering and construction costs. Construction costs include pump, motor, piping and valving to connect to the existing transmission line, flow metering, power feed from the existing chemical feed facility, monitoring and control systems, site access and site improvements, and a well house (unless the City elects for a pitless installation). • City administrative costs • A 25% "Total" Project contingency to capture the uncertainty at this stage in administrative, legal and engineering costs, rather than just construction. These costs are presented in Table 3. City of Bozeman WFPU Update Page 8 of 11 Think Big. Go Beyond. J A www.ae2s.com Table 3. Conceptual-Level Total Project Cost Estimate iEstimate Exploratory and Test Well Drilling $75,000 Test Well Pumping/Return Water $25,000 Drilling Observation,Sampling&Analysis and $40,000 Drilling Subtotal $140,000 Legal Fees associated with Water Rights $60,000 Final Production Well Project Engineering and Construction Administration $250,000 Final Production Well Project Construction Well Installation $200,000 (assumes 18-inch well, 150 ft depth, 75 hp pump) Power line, Service, MCC $900,000 Site Improvements(Access, Security) $30,000 Metering/Instrumentatlon/Telemetry $80,000 Well House $40,000 Construction Subtotal $1,250,000 Contractor Overhead and Profit(15%) $187,500 Production Well Project Subtotal $1,437,500 City Administrative Costs $50,000 Project Subtotal $1 952,500 Total Project Contingency(25%) $484,375 Total Project Cost $2 421 875 Comparison of Lyman Spring Improvements to Hyalite Share Ptirchases In an effort to assess the feasibility of developing a well on Lyman Spring, it is helpful to consider the cost-benefit of improvements at Lyman Spring as compared to the purchase of additional shares from Hyalite Reservoir. The generally accepted metric for the purchase of Hyalite Reservoir shares is $5,500 per ac-ft of water right. The potential value of a Lyman Spring Improvement project using this metric is provided in Table 4. City of Bozeman WFPU Update Page 9 of 11 Think Big.Go Beyond. Po A11E;�; www.ae2s.com Table 4. Potential Value of Additional Yield from Lyman Spring Additionalr W Assumed Minimum Benefit of Lyman Spring Improvements 700 $3.85M Estimated Limit on Additional Yield due to Maximum, 1,840 $10.12M Provable, Historic Water Use Qualitative Consi(terations In addition to capital cost considerations, there are qualitative/subjective differences between the potential improvements associated with a Lyman Spring well project and the existing water rights on Lyman Creek and those from Hyalite Reservoir: Lyman Spring Improvements: Purchase of Hyalite Shares: • Only baseflow can be considered • Water is stored "stored" • No 20% surcharge applied at source • 20% surcharge applied at source • Quantity of additional yield from a • Hyalite water and infrastructure to well is uncertain, although what capture and treat it are already in additional volume is provided does place not require treatment • Project would rectify springbox • Hyalite water is part of the water overflow losses, at minimum. lost at the City's WTP intake, to However, other, less expensive Bozeman Creek means of reducing overflow losses are available. • Water rights issues are complex and • Hyalite water rights are the outcome is uncertain straightforward, when they do become available • Project could be completed within • May require several years for 2 years similar amount of water rights to become available on Hyalite Reservoir So(ii"ce ".5easonallty" The water rights for both Lyman Creek and for Hyalite Reservoir are year-round. However, there are some nuances to the availability of both that should be considered. City of Bozeman WFPU Update Page 10 of 11 Think Big.Go Beyond. P AE5 www.ae2s.com A well project on Lyman would, ideally, dampen the peak spring production rate by taking more water from the spring source in the spring months (April and May) ahead of the historical peak spring production period. As a result, peak City usage of Lyman may be stretched from April through the summer months. From probably mid-fall through winter, the well's production would capture the historic baseflow (approximately 640 gpm in drier years) plus any water that is currently seeping into the fault or shallow alluvium, Hyalite reservoir water rights are typically utilized by the City from April-May through September time frame. There's nothing restricting the City from utilizing these rights year- round, but at this time the City prefers to save Hyalite Reservoir rights for the heaviest demand period (summer and early fall). Once, or if, more Hyalite shares are obtained the City could utilize these rights any time of year. City of Bozeman WFPU Update Page 11 of 11 Think dig.Go Beyond. F� www.ae2s.com r �"b A City of Bozeman Lyman Creek Water System Expansion Lyman Spring Assessment Study To: Brian Heaston, Project Engineer, City of Bozeman 0' From: Scott Buecker, PE, AE25 Greg Warren, RPG, CH2M Colin Shaw, Montana State University y�': l.''•�.1883•..�•';,� Kevin Boggs, PhD, RPG, CHg, CH2M Date: April 4' , 2016 Table of Contents CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................................. 3 RECOMMENDATIONS .....................................................................................................................3 BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................4 Lyman Water Source History and Description............................................................................ 4 LymanCreek Water Rights..........................................•............................................................... 6 Purposeof the Project.................................................••................................................................. 6 SiteGeology................................................................................................................................ 9 SurficialGeologic Units...........................................................................................................9 BedrockGeologic Units......................................................................................................... 10 Structural Geologic Setting....................................................................................................... 11 Structural Control of Groundwater Flow.................................................................................. 12 LymanSpring Aquifer Yield........................................................................................................... 12 LymanSpring Recharge............................................................................................................. 14 Interpretation of Lyman Spring Recession Curves................................................................ 16 Site Geologic and Hydrogeologic Setting.................................................................................. 11 Recommendations for Increasing Lyman Spring Yield .............................................................22 City of Bozeman WFPU Update Page 1 of 32 Think Big. Go Beyond, iA[�s www,ac2s.com RECOMMENDATION l: Vertical Exploratory Borehole.......................................................... 22 RECOMMENDATION 2: Angled Exploratory Borehole.......................................................... 24 RECOMMENDATION 3: Horizontal Exploratory Borehole.................................................... 2S Summary of Recommended Borehole Advantages and Disadvantages ...................................... 28 Permitting ..................................................................................................................................... 32 City of Bozeman WFPU Update Page 2 of 32 Think Big.Go Beyond. J R E2S www.ae2s.com CONCLUSIONS Based on the findings described herein, the Lyman Creek Water System Expansion project team has drawn the following conclusions: 1. Since the addition of a third spring collector in 2009, the annual yield from Lyman Spring has averaged approximately 2,000 ac-ft. The City's total annual water right for Lyman is 4,346 ac-ft. 2. Though the exact nature of geologic formations underlying Lyman Spring are still unknown, there appears to be a somewhat karstic Mission Canyon water-bearing strata there that potentially holds significantly more water than the City has historically been able to access with traditional spring collection boxes. 3. The potential volume of water that could be obtained beyond the historic spring yield warrants further investigation via exploratory drilling and test well drilling. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the analysis included herein, and a workshop held with City of Bozeman staff, the project team recommends the following path forward: 1. Authorize the project team to procure the services of a drilling contractor that is qualified for municipal groundwater aquifer exploration and test well development, to drill a vertical test well and an angled borehole. 2. Shut down the Lyman Spring collection system and commence drilling operations in September of 2016. Drilling period would last approximately 4 to 8 weeks. 3. Utilize spring box overflow for drilling fluid and discharge return and testing water to Lyman Creek while maintaining compliance with the State of Montana Construction Dewatering General Permit. 4. Depending on the results of the drilling operation (including lithology of the aquifer r _gip cr.. formation, static hydraulic gradeline and pump testing), cap the pilot holes and drill a y new larger diameter well in close proximity to-the pilot hole_, for long-term drinking water production from the Lyman Aquifer. Should the vertical and angled borings yield information that indicates a horizontal well would be a better long-term solution for accessing the water-bearing strata, the horizontal well would be pursued at this time. �J N 5. Once all drilling activity has stopped, equipment is removed, and the site has been fully restored, begin testing the water from the existing Lyman Spring collection system. Once water quality testing results verify that the water is in compliance with State and Federal drinking water standards, bring the water from it back online. The existing Lyman spring system would be utilized until power and/or other site improvements (well house, instrumentation and controls, connecting piping) can be constructed and the new well can be commissioned for long-term use. City of Bozemar—i(W Update, Page 3 of 32 Think Big. Go Beyond, Aus www.ae2s.com BACKGROUND 771 Lyman Water Sotii-ce History aitc e,criptior. Lyman Creek drains a canyon locat near the southern end of the Bridger Mountain Range. The creek discharges to theE�ast Gallatin-River approximately 2 miles northeast of the City of Bozeman. A Google Earth image showing the spring location in reference to the City is provided in Figure 1. Lyman Creek is primarily spring fed. The creek was the town's original w ter source, beginning in the late 1800's. Surface water impoundments were constructed and used to divert the surface water into Lyman Reservoir.- In 1990 the City initia�ed.a project to construct spring collectors near the natural spring to ,calsture wat& ire`ctly from the sp�ing source and to ' protect it from contamination. Two collectors were constructed in 1991 and a third was constructed in 2009. The three spring collectors capture and convey water from the spring and divert it to a spring box and subsequent`�6-inch ductile iron transmission lineJ:[may,.- ' '% The spring collectors vary in construction specifics, but generally consist of 8 to 12 ft excavated trenches with a perforated pipe or well screen section laid in the invert, backfilled with drain rock and sealed/dammed downstream with either sheet-pile or clay. The "Main Spring Collector", which is at the upper end (northeast) of the spring collector complex, is shown in Figure 2. The third collector constructed in 2.009 did result in increased water captured from the spring, but to a diminishing degree from the first two collectors. The water from the Lyman Creek source is classified as groundwater, not under the influence of surface water. Therefore, the water supply is not subjected to surface water treatment requirements_ It is chlorinated and fluoridated at the City's chemical storage and feed facility downslope from the canyon. After chlorination and fluoridation, the water is stored in a 5.3 MG reservoir that was originally constructed in 1889, and has been rehabilitated on numerous occasions since.. '4 Production from the Lyman spring varies during the year, typically peaking in early summer at approximately(3;000 to 4,000 gallons per minute (gpm) before tapering to a baseflow of approximately 600 to 700 gpm. Average annual yield from the developed springs is approximately 1,100 gpm. On an annual basis, Lyman spring supplies approximately 15 to 20 percent of Bozeman's municipal water supply. The transmission pipeline has two pressure reducing valve (PRV) stations between the spring box and the chemical feed plant. Air must be kept out of the transmission line and these PRV stations. This is accomplished using an overflow weir in the spring box, with an elevation above the transmission pipeline crown. The water elevation in the box is always maintained above the City of Bozeman WFPU Update Page 4 of 32 Think Big.Go Beyond. ��AE.,s www.ae2s.com N Lyman Sprin�' r e ► ' P an ek y de .dN�SIr�LR)+ �• r` uul�. � J ! .t .r 1 f Y - It 1 191 t' jAtr�iw '11 IM�� �+� lr� Yv� Figure 1.Aerial Proximity Map for Lyman Spring and Lyman Creek CuNTRACIOR 10 REESTABLISH ,-EXISTING CONTOURS FOR SURFACE DRAINAGE 6" THICK BENTONITE CLAY SEAL COVERED WITH 6"NATURAL MATERIALS (SEE NOTE) 5 l SHEET PILE 50` 26 L.F. OF 24 UTA. �--`NATURAL GRAVEL BACKFILL ' PERFORAI EU PIPE -FABRIC ?4" RESTRAINED - JOINT DIP +- ?°/. SLOPF 51 (FOR GRADE)-1MI II Mpg IR=1lillll {�__� (SFE SHT 2) -" slll IIII IOF 41 I{A RESTRAINED JOINT Iltl IIII CLAMP WIIH ALL 5 10' BEYOND END OF PIPE 1HREAU 24" SBT DIP w 24" HE PVC 165PS1 B(.UE BF�UTE Figure 2.Cross-Section of Main Lyman Spring Collector(Gaston Engineering As-Built,1992) City of Bozeman WFPU Update Page 5 of 32 Think Big.Go Beyond. PJ AE2S www.ce2s.com weir, by adjusting a control valve down at the chemical feed plant, resulting in some water overflowing the weir and discharging into Lyrnan Creek. The amount of water diverted from the spring to Lyman Creek varies, but in general ranges from 175 to 400 gpm. City operators try to maintain it at approximately 200 gpm, striking a balance between the risk16 air entrainment in, the transmission line and the lost water resource. L Lyman Creek Water Rights Two water rights exist for the Lyman Creek source account: Water Right Maximum Max Volume Period of Priority Number Source Type flow Rates (ac-ft/yr) Use Date 41H-140882-00 Lyman Strearn 1,683.75 gpm 3.75 cfs 2,740.2 1/1 - 12/31 1864 41H-140883-00 Lyman Stream 987.80 gpm 2.20 cfs 1,606.0 1/1 - 12/31 1881 Total Right 2,671.55 gpm 5,95 cfs 4,346.2 Each water right shares the four separate points of diversion (POD). -I"wo of these four PODS are actively operating to divert water from the source, Purpose of the Project ` Historically the City has only been able to obtain approximately 2,000 acre Feet annually from the spring:Preliminary analysis of the Lyman Spring hydrograph, water losses over the overflow weir, and the gaining streamflow of Lyman Creek have led the City to further explore the potential to increase the am-u-nt-of-water obtained from the aquifer, within the existing water lei t< � ��,.�,x,.�-,•'zi?. �.y _s right. VLL C IC E•xpa-nsion of the Lyman Creek source was prioritized for potential improvements in the City's recently completed Integrated Water Resources Plan (IWRP). Expansion of the Lyman Creek supply is appealing for a few reasons: • The Lyman Spring source supplies pristine water that does not require significant infrastructure for treatment • The source is at a high elevation, potentially requiring little to no pressurization and energy usage • Water rights are in place to access additional supply • System infrastructure is in place to make use of additional supply capacity, with some possible limitations or capacity improvements required The purpose of this Lyman Spring study is to characterize the aquifer feeding Lyman Spring, to the degree that this can be done from the surface, and develop recommendations for developing a project to obtain m.or-e,--water from the aquifer. City of Bozeman WFPU Update Page 6 of 32 Think Big. Go Beyond.AE2S www.ae2s.com Geologic Seeing The Lyman Spring site is in the Rocky Mountains-Great Basin transition, which is characterized by mountain ranges separated by intermontane basins (Locke and Lageson, 1989). The geology of the vicinity was mapped by Roberts (1964) at a 1:24,000 scale. McMannis (1952; 1955) identified aquifer formations and recognized the structural geologic control of the aquifers. Hackett et al (1960) described the geology and groundwater of the Gallatin Valley area, Figure 3 shows the 1.24,000 scale geologic map of the area, adapted from Roberts (1964). This is the smallest-scale geologic map of the project area. The work of Lageson, Roberts, and Betty Skipp was reviewed in regards to its applicability to the further development of Lyman Spring. The spring collection boxes lay immediately up-gradient of the intersection of three faults in the Lyman Creel( drainage. These faults control the subsurface geometry of aquifer (primarily the Madison group limestones) and aquitard units (notably the Archean gneisses, also referred to herein as Pre-Cambrian metamorphic rack), Fractured rocks associated with the faults probably allow them to act as conduits for sub- surface water flow. Constraining the dip of the three "triple junction" faults is important to optimally target exploratory drilling: • The Lyman Creek fault that trends NE parallel to the upper reaches of Lyman Creek. • The Bridger-Bear Canyon fault that trends south from the Lyman Spring and parallels the middle N-S reach of Lyman Creek. This fault is likely part of the down-to-the- west Bridger Range bounding normal fault system. • A NW trending fault that truncates the ridge running along the northwest side of the Lyman Creek drainage. This fault will be informally referred to as the 'Ridge Fault'. McMannis shows this fault merging into the Bridger-Bear Canyon fault. Fault traces shown by McMannis (1955) are correctly located as far as can be determined from available field data. Fault traces shown by Roberts are correct within uncertainty for the Lyman Greek fault and the NW-trending Ridge Fault. Bridger-Bear Canyon Fault south of the spring is not shown by Roberts who interprets the Tertiary/Archean contact as an on-lapping depositional contact. Published maps that cover the area (Roberts, 1964 and McMannis, 1955) show different Interpretations of fault dips and relative net sense of slip. City of Bozeman WFPU Update Page 7 of 32 Think Big,Go wYeyond. qi%a www.0e2s.com 11 ru 1 r flw. r1 Y�Y4N,Ny,l I ! `.. rn1 Inm..rnr.4.�.r.4rl.Mw Ifw«w+: I / 44 RM�a..14 1 i -.- irw:h •r H,•.rnH•M.�I r InL = _ .4i•w..r�••4iN�N IJr. 1.4 i.w«1rr1• � 1 - nJ.11tn..iJn..«.«H44.H I„•� w Ip.Mw�Hn J r...r k•..• Iw. ® -C p p 5 �" I lu WL.u..r.r+••..r..n�••mr Ix / �� � � .., ..:... . 1. / f«..•..w Its , IGII[OU4 Nf1LN1: 1•NMM n.4 a � I.w.r..lw4,nrwir.r. I�1 14rIW 1 Iwyll.4M.:i.r rTwr4.r, ♦•`. •+�liwi Yr A.r4.l.M.1.4.r �,rnwrw14r.1r.�.r in.i.4...�..41..•....+H.•.Lew � An1Ar mm n.+•+rr.+r.JNI.Iw4J.V•n 69 Qac •./rr•....N.I..rJ,LnN rL•r•rHW >w4n h,,.r4 r r W Y.v 14i.N.4i w.w t mn4.,J in+l Yir 111 � r � hlA..riV J.••,I.r.wl1.4 • f - I w: w.w...w..•rlw 1 / � 1 28 , 1 HGUR[2 Goologlc Map(adapted from Roberts 1964) 0 650 1.300 Lyman Spnng Expansion Study Feet AA YNN xaOIrMv1RIh JPa'0t11GhgCn_ItnkvM4lk Hl.r_Iu�IVIMh'.�111NOGIii1+iVArlr7htll:VWZU U1 ,MIV YAe CfA710�R 111140101t IM Ch////w���� �- The most recent map of the Bridger Range (Skipp, Lageson and McMannis, 1999) that covers an area to the north of the study area suggests yet another interpretation: • Roberts interprets the Lyman Creek and NW-trending fault as a single structure that is twisted from a SW-dipping orientation to a NW-dipping orientation. • McMannis shows the Lyman Creek Fault as a steeply SE-dipping reverse fault, the Bridger-Bear Canyon fault as a west-dipping normal fault that bends into the NW- trending Ridge Fault that is shown as a SW-dipping Reverse Fault. • Skipp et al. show the northern continuation of the Lyman Creek Fault (Baldy Mountain Fault) as part of a down-to-the-west normal fault system that accommodated collapse of the ancestral Bridger uplift during the Miocene. The dips of the three faults remain uncertain. Direct observations of the dips of the primary faults have not yet been made because of limited exposure. However, field observations allow some inferences about fault dips: • The Ridge fault appears to dip moderately to the SW based on the trace of the fault across the ridge. • The no observations of the Bridger-Bear Canyon fault dip have been made, but it is likely to dip west based on the interpretation that is linked to the normal fault system that bounds the Bridger Range and accommodated subsidence of the Gallatin Valley. • The Lyman Creek fault is reinterpreted as a NW-dipping normal fault based on correlation with structures mapped north of the field area by Skipp et al., by application of modern models of basement cored-uplift geometry and kinematics, and models of Miocene Basin and Range faulting. The spatial disposition of geologic units shown on maps by McMannis (1955) and Roberts (1964) has been verified as substantially correct. Site Geology Surficial Geologic Units Surficial geologic deposits consist of unconsolidated alluvium in the canyon and creek bottom, which consists primarily of silt, sand, and rounded gravels. Colluvial deposits mantle the hillslopes on the south side of Lyman Canyon. This unit consists of locally-derived angular boulders in a sand and silt matrix. Talus deposits that consist of locally-derived angular limestone gravels mantle the southeast-facing hillside north of Lyman Creek. City of Bozeman WFPU Update Page 9 of 32 Think Big.Go Beyond. °J AE5 www.cie2s.com ` Recti-ocic Geaingic lltiitt; The following sections describe the bedrock units observed in the immediate project area. Metamorphic Pre-Cambrian age metamorphic rocks are mapped and were observed on the southwest and southeast sides of Lyman Creek canyon. These rocks consist of intermediate to felsic gneiss, amphibolite, schist, metaquartzite, marble, and numerous small pegmatite (coarse-crystalline) dikes. The total thickness of the metamorphic rocks is unknown. Based on field observations and published mapping, the metamorphic rocks are in fault contact with the Madison Limestone. l,ltttlieacl Smidstone The Flathead Sandstone is mapped and was observed near the fault contact between the metamorphic rocks/Madison limestone on the west side of Lyman Creek, and also on the ridge above the southeast side of Lyman Creek. The Flathead Sandstone (or quartzite) is a resistant, ridge-forming formation that consists primarily of pink and reddish-brown quartz-rich sandstone. The average thickness of the Flathead in the area is approximately 130 feet. Mcrclison Grorrh The Madison Group includes the thick-bedded upper Mission Canyon Limestone and the lower thinner-bedded Lodgepole limestone. Both of these formations were observed at the site and are described as follows. I,odgupole LinlesLone The Lodgepole Limestone consists of gray and brown limestone and minor dark-brown to black silty shale. It can be further divided into the Paine Shale and the Woodhurst Limestone Members (Reference). The Paine Shale is approximately 330 feet thick and consists of limestone and dolomite that contains silty units. The Woodhurst Limestone is approximately 146 feet thick and is comprised of thin-bedded limestone and dolomite. At the site, the Lodgepole Limestone was mapped on the ridge on the north side of Lyman Creek. Mission CiInyon Formation The Mission Canyon Formation overlies the Lodgepole Limestone. The Mission Canyon consists of pale yellow-brown, massive, poorly-bedded limestone that weathers light gray and forms cliffs and castellated ridges. The Mission Canyon is further subdivided into the lower member that averages 330 feet thick and consists of massive, mediurn- to fine-grained limestone and dolomite. The upper member averages 326 feet thick and is comprised of finely-crystalline limestone and dolomite interbedded with dolomitic solution breccia. The Mission Canyon formation crops out in numerous places in the project area. As will be discussed later, the solution breccias play an important role in the aquifer characteristics of the Mission Canyon. City of Bozeman WFPU Update Page 10 of 32 Think Big.Go Beyond. P,AE5 www.ae2s.com Structural Geologic Setting The structural geology of the vicinity is dominated by large mountain uplifts that formed during the Laramide Orogeny, approximately 65 million years ago (Locke and Lageson, 1989). The Lyman Spring study area is located on the southwest flank of the Bridger Range which was formed by compression and uplift during the Laramide orogeny. The Bridger Range is a high, north-trending, linear mountain range that bounds the Gallatin Valley on the east. This range is comprised of Precambrian-age metamorphic rocks generally overlain by Paleozoic and Mesozoic-age sedimentary rocks. The Paleozoic-age rocks generally strike north.. to northwest and form the crest of the range. Many of the Paleozoic-age sedimentary rock units in the project vicinity (the Flathead Sandstone, the Lodgepole Formation, and the Mission Canyon Formation) are folded and overturned to the southeast, and are dipping back to the northwest. However, due to the complex folding and faulting, the bedding dips in the immediate project vicinity are highly variable. This is confirmed on existing geologic mapping and field measurements, and is discussed later in this report. After compressional folding and uplift, the west flank of the Bridger Range has down-dropped along a normal dip-slip system of faults. The Bridger Range in the project area is generally fault- bounded on the southwest side. Normal faulting is interpreted to have elevated the range, with up to 3,000 feet of displacement along the range-bounding fault. In the immediate project vicinity, the configuration and geometry of the large-offset faults is disputed, and has been interpreted differently by previous mappers. Roberts (1964) interprets an east-southeast trending thrust fault west of Lyman Creek that juxtaposes metamorphic rock against the Madison Limestone, but does not show a south- trending normal fault. In this interpretation, the metamorphic rock has been thrust upward against the Madison limestone (up on the south side of the fault). Roberts (1964) interprets the trace of this fault to bend to the northeast, cross Lyman Creek, and then thrust the Madison Limestone over gneiss and folded Flathead sandstone. The sense of offset on the fault, based on Roberts' interpretation, is that of an overturned thrust fault. Berg et al (2000) adopt an interpretation similar to Roberts, with a fault trending southeast and then bending northeast up Lyman Creek. Hackett et al (1960) interpret a north-northwest-trending range-bounding fault west of Lyman Creek that juxtaposes metamorphic rocks against Paleozoic sedimentary rocks. At Lyman Creek this fault bends to the south and becomes the range-bounding "Bridger Creek-Rear Canyon Fault", which is a down-to-the-west range bounding fault. Where this fault crosses Lyman Creek, a third fault, named the "Lyman Creek-Baldy Mountain fault" trends to the northeast up the south side of Lyman Creek. City of Bozeman WFPU Update Page 11 of 32 Think Big,Go Beyond. `AiE5 www.ae2s,com Field mapping conducted for this project confirmed the presence and general location of these faults. The team's interpretation is that these are high-angle reverse faults that form a low- permeability boundary across Lyman Creek, and as discussed later in this report, the faulting is very important to structural control of groundwater flow, and evaluating where and how to explore for additional water from Lyman Spring. Structural Control of Grot ndivater Ulovv The Precambrian rocks are not considered a potential source of groundwater, because they have very low primary and secondary porosity. Test wells previously drilled into these gneissic rocks yielded small quantities of water, some of which may have been derived from weathered zones (Hackett et al 1960). The Madison group, on the other hand, is an extremely productive aquifer for several reasons, and is used as a groundwater source in the region. The Madison Group, in particular the Mission Canyon Formation, is characterized by solution features, karst, and collapse breccias. Paleokarst features include enlarged joints, sinkholes, caves, and evaporite solution zones. Enlarged joints tend to be either perpendicular or parallel to bedding planes and can be up to one foot wide. These enlarged joints are most common in the uppermost thickly bedded portion of the Mission Canyon limestone. The thick beds of the Mission canyon concentrate groundwater along the bedding planes and create large conduits where the limestone was removed by dissolution. In addition to the paleokarst features increasing the formations permeability, post Laramide fracturing imparts even greater permeability to the aquifer (Huntoon, 198S; 1993). This is because the paleokarst features are porous, albeit poorly interconnected. The Laramide fracturing created secondary porosity which (a) channels water through the formation by hydraulically connecting the paleokarst features and (b) has led to increased dissolution of the carbonates and the development of additional karst features. These fractures are especially prevalent on the flanks of mountain ranges or along the crests of folds. Lyman Spring Aquifer Yield According to previous researchers, groundwater flow in the Mission Canyon Formation is rapid and typically discharges from springs in the Madison aquifer along the mountain front rather than flow into the basinal aquifer. Mills (1981) noted that groundwater can travel more than 3 miles per day in the karstic aquifers, and that flow directions within the aquifer are different than surface water drainage patterns (due to the fracture flow and structural orientations of fractures). According to Huntoon (1985), some water lost from (losing] streams migrates beneath topographic divides and discharges into streams in adjacent drainages. City of Bozeman WFPU Update Page 12 of 32 Think Big. Go Beyond.FIE2S www.oe2s.com McMannis (1952; 1955) notes the Lyman Creek "gains flow from Lyman Springs, which is at the junction of two faults. These faults juxtapose low-permeability Archean gneiss with the high- permeability Mission Canyon Formation". McMannis also shows geologic cross-section interpretations of this relationship. As with Lyman Spring, discharge from karstic springs is continuous throughout the year but increases significantly during snowpack runoff. Therefore, the project team interpretation is that a continuous underground "reservoir" of water exists near Lyman Spring. Flow from;Lyman Spring has been captured by the City of Bozeman utilizing spring collectors since 2d01-.`In 2009 the City installed a third spring collector and a spring box that serves as a junction box for flows from Collector No. 1 and Collector Nos. 2 and 3. To prevent air from entering the transmission pipe to the chlorination and fluoridation facility at bottom of the Lyman valley, the water level in the spring box is kept above the inlet of the transmission line. To ensure that the level is always above the pipe invert, a weir is used to back up water above it, and some flow is allowed to flow over the weir and back to Lyman Creek. The City has only measured this flow, along with the volume that is transmitted to the treatment facility, since 2009, so the 2009 to 2015 data is the only historical data that really captures Lyman spring production. This data is shown in Figure 4 on the following page. The temporal discharge variation shown in Figure 4 is the Lyman spring hydrograph. The recession curve is that part of the hydrograph that extends from the peak of the discharge to the start of the next rise. There are two primary factors that dictate the shape of the hydrograph: • Drainage characteristics, including: basin area, basin shape, basin slope, soil type and land use, drainage density, and drainage network. • Nature of the Precipitation: precipitation intensity, duration, and their spatial and temporal distribution. Lyman spring is a descending spring, meaning it drains water from an unconfined aquifer and shows seasonal variation in discharge rate. During the dry season the spring hydrograph shows a continuous decreasing trend (recession limb); the flat portion that typically occurs in winter and early spring, at the end of the recession limb, is known as baseflow. The short period of baseflow, aligns well with the fact that the basin is made up of karst. This is in contrast to groundwater entering a stream from a basin made up of a porous mediurn (sand or gravel, for example), where the groundwater discharge to a stream occurs relatively slowly over time. As can be seen in Figure 4, spring production has been varying between a low of approximately 640 gpm to a high of 4,860 gpm. Since it never completely "bottoms out" at less than 640 gpm indicates that there may be a sustained reservoir of groundwater underneath the site. City of Bozeman WFPU Update Page 13 of 32 Think Big.Go Beyond. J 'J AE5 www.ae2s.com 6000 --s—Lyman Spring Production 2030-2015 5000 4000 E {M 0 O Q. U c N 2000 A E 3 1000 --- 0 12/3/09 12/3/10 1213111 1212112 12/2/1) 12/2/15 Date Figure 4. Lyman Spring Production, 2009-2015. Lyniati Spring Recharge In an attempt to determine the correlation between flows from Lyman spring and level of snowmelt/ moisture in the watershed, the spring flows were graphed with the snowpack water content (inches of snow water equivalent) measured at the nearest snow moisture sensing station, which is the Sacajawea SNOTEL. The Sacajawea SNOTEL is located approximately 10 miles north of Lyman spring, and is on the eastern slope of the Bridger Range, but is a reasonable assessment of moisture levels in the snowpack across the Bridger Range. Figure 5 shows Lyman Spring flows with snow water equivalent measurements from the Sacajawea SNOTEL, for the same period (2009-2015). The correlation between Lyman spring flows and snowpack at the Sacajawea SNOfEL is strong. In years where snowpack moisture content is high, such as from the winter of 2010-2011, flows from Lyman spring are high. When it is low, such as in the winter of 2012-13, flows from Lyman are very low. The recharge period for the aquifer is obviously approximately City of Bozeman WFPU Updc7te Page 14 of 32 Think Big,Go Beyond.FIE, www.oe2s.com 6000 �0 1 Lyman Spring Production 2010-201S -ar--Saca)awea Snow Water Equivalent 5000 l; v 0 4000 - - - 20 y° o � � 3000 + 0 O C r 20Mpb _� C � 10 W I � 1 yN 1000 i1 —0�u r�vn/ U 12/3/09 12/3/10 12/3/11 1212112 1212113 12/2/14 12/2/15 Date Figure 5. Lyman Spring Production with Sacajawea Snotel Snow Water Equivalent(2009-2015) 1 year, so it appears that the snowpack of the current year provides hydraulic head to drive the previous years' aquifer storage out of the spring. This phenomenon is referred to as a groundwater wave, illustrated in Figure 6 below (Kresic and Stevanovic, 201.0). Recharge to mac) 1 c t� Spring Saturated Zone _ Discharge Figure 6. Groundwater Waves Driven by Recharge Period (Kresic and Stevanovic, 2010) City of Bozeman WFPU Update Page 15 of 32 Think Big. Go Beyond. e.4 AEs www.oe2s.com 10ei-m-el—atiotl ofI.vninn Spring Recession Cmires Quantitative analyses of the recession limb of the hydrographs of descending springs such as Lyman can reveal information regarding the size of the catchment and the volume of water held in storage. The traditional approach of recession limb analysis is carried out by using the baseflow recession equation: Q = Qoe—kt [Equation 1] Equation 1 is appropriate for a linear reservoir without recharge, where the discharge is proportional at any time to the water volume stored. Rearranging: log(Q) =log((20) + log(e—"t) [Equation 21 log(Q) =log(Qo) — kt [Equation 3] where Qo is peak discharge, k is decay rate (slope), and t is time. In this case, log(Q) versus t is a straight line with slope —k; log(Qo) is the intercept (log flow at time 0), These values are illustrated on the Lyman Spring recession curves in Figure 7 and tabulated in Table 1. -1 00 -}Lyman Spring Production 2010.2015 --2012 --A—2013 —2014 2.50 —2015 -6 2011 E 2.00 c 0 V V 7 n O 0 a 4 N m o ].00 — — �4• y••0.0058x.13.166 _ y •0.0056x•5.033 R1-0.9595 m R'•0.9178 a y-•0.0056x•6.6309 ' 0.50 Rj•0.9699 - y^-0.0052x•30.214 R'•0.9773 y--0.005 R'=U.9286 0.00 - 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Elapsed Time(day) Figure 7. Natural Log of Lyman Spring Production with Recession Limb Slopes(2009-2015) City of Bozeman WFPU Update Page 16 of 32 Think Big.Go Beyond. J 'J FIIE S www.ce2s.coni Since there are five years of quality data, an average —k (slope) can be estimated. Similarly, log(Qo) can be averaged and exponentiated to obtain an average Qr). This averaging followed by exponentiation is equivalent to assuming a log-normal distribution for Qo, so the result is not biased high by a few large Qo values. The unbiased estimate of Qo will be slightly lower than what we would calculate if raw Qo values were averaged. For Lyman, the average k = 0.0055 day-1 and average Qo is 7.2 ft3/second, or 622,080 ft3/day. Table 1. Lyman Spring Recession Curve Decay Coefficients and Estimated Peak Aquifer Flows. Year Decay Coefficient Peak Q (k) (CFS) 0.0056 10.83 12011 012 0.0056 6.24 2.01.3 0.0051 _ 5.08 2014 0.0052 7.82 2015 0.0058 6.11 Average 0.0055 7.20 The total amount of water in the aquifer is the amount that would discharge over an infinite amount of time, without any additional recharge. This is: co Qoe—ktdt = Qo fk U Dividing 622,080 ft3/day by 0.0055 results in an estimated total storage value of 113,105,455 ft3 or approximately 2,600 acre-feet. To put this in perspective, Hyalite Reservoir holds approximately 10,000 ac-ft at full pool and 5,600 ac-ft at winter pool. Site Geologic and Hydrogeologic Setting The above discussion provides background, evidence, and rationale for attempting to increase capture of water from the aquifer feeding Lyman spring. Site-specific geologic mapping was conducted to refine the previous interpretations. In particular, mapping the extent of the Mission Canyon Limestone aquifer in the vicinity of the existing spring boxes, and interpreting the 3-dimensional configuration of the fault-bounded aquifer. Figure 8 shows an aerial-photograph based view of the vicinity, with mapped faults, distribution of pre-Cambrian metamorphic rocks (non-aquifer bearing), the contact of the Mission Canyon and Lodgepole limestones, and the interpreted faulted boundaries of the Mission Canyon Limestone aquifer. Outcrops of the major rock units are shown by colored polygons. The locations of Geologic Cross Sections (A-A' and B-B') are also shown on Figure 8 (see Figures 10 and 11). Interpretations of the geologic cross sections are presented later in this Study. City of Bozeman WFPU Update Page 17 of 32 Think Big. Go Beyond. P.,ncwww.ae2s,com Figures 8 and 9 (9a and 9b) also show the interpreted surface traces of the faults. The locations and orientations of the faults that bound the lower portion (discharge area) of the Mission Canyon Limestone aquifer are crucial to evaluating the potential to capture additional flow. Figures 3 and 9 show previous geologic interpretations of the fault locations. The project geologists have interpreted the trace of the "thrust" fault trend west-northwest up the swale west of the spring collection boxes, and the fault plane to be at a relatively steep angle (>60 degrees). The fault was mapped in this vicinity based on outcrops of limestone on the northeast side of the swale, and outcrops and float of metamorphic rock and Flathead Sandstone on the southwest side of the Swale. The limestone beds adjacent to the fault trace were tightly folded, potentially related to fault movement. The trace of this fault was mapped down the swale to the approximate bend in the creek, where it is covered by talus and colluvium. The "reverse" fault (Lyman Creek fault) we interpret to trend in a northeast direction up the southeast side of Lyman Creek canyon. In the vicinity of the spring collection boxes, the trace of the fault is buried by thick colluvium on the north-facing, southeast canyon slope. However, east and northeast of the spring collection the trace of the fault is evidenced by Mission Canyon Limestone juxtaposed against Flathead Sandstone and metamorphic rock (Figure 8). The geometry of the triple-junction of the three faults in canyon bottom, downstream of the spring collection boxes, could not be precisely mapped. These faults are interpreted to be relatively high-angle (>60 degrees), based on the geometry of the outcrops and canyon. The south-trending fault may transmit groundwater southward along its fractures. It is possible that groundwater may also flow downward to deeper portions of the Mission Canyon aquifer beneath the "reverse" fault. Figures 9a and 9b show a lower elevation view of the spring collection area with a geologic maps background and an aerial photograph background, respectively. These figures show structural geologic measurements and the proposed—drilling locations. The geologic structural parameters are the strike and dip of bedding and fractures. These are important because the secondary porosity of the bedrock aquifer is dictated by the permeable openings along the bedding and joints. In general, on the hillslope above the springs the Mission Canyon and Lodgepole Limestone dip to the southeast at angles between 45 and 60 degrees. The primary joint set is perpendicular to bedding and is northwest-trending and near-vertical. However, other outcrops in the vicinity exhibited vertically-folded, north-trending bedding and faulting; demonstrating the relatively complex geology of the site. Appendix A contains geologic stereonets that represent the orientation of geologic discontinuities (planar features). The stereonets show poles (perpendicular) to the contoured bedding planes and joints. The trend of plunge of the average pole to bedding is to the northwest at approximately 32 degrees, which equates to a northeast-southwest strike and 58 City of Bozeman WFPU Update Page 18 of 32 Think Big.Go Beyond. P,,,)AE5 www.ae2s.com Lodgepole Limestone Mission Canyon Limestone . pre-Cambrian pre-Cambrian Metamorphic rock Metamorphic rock Flathead Sandstone r t • LEGEND Horizontal Borehole Conloul 10 fl Notes: � Contact of MI and DJ Surve,data by TD&H Angled Borehole p❑ Contncl of Mmc and Mlp(dashed where Inferred) Engineering.2015� Collection Box �—niag Fold A-A'Cross Seclion/Prufilo Location FIGURE 3 (See Figures 5 and 0) Mapped Outcrops QPrr--Cambrian Metamorphic Rock Site Geologic Features and Outcrop Map o Inferred Fault =Flathead Sandstone 0 175 350 Lyman Spring Expansion Study -&Thrust Fault Lodgepole Limestone Feet Mission Canyon Limestone _ rJI/,��• 11B fn piFP )ItGmupstUosif7nlGeo._TeamlGootechnicallLyrnsnSpnngGISU;IS1MapFlns\Rn:a_Sitrr_G �^/ rologic_Foalurea mxo CG021858 1112/2U�8 y. MDtin M I '64 i 60 65 ~67 / 80 � / 66 79 45 63 48y� 69 47OPM 74 821' 48� 65' 36 Note: 1_XAggf-pre-Cambrian metamorphic rock 2. MI-Madison Limestone(undivided) 3. MDtm-Three Forks Shale/Jefferson Dolomite LEGEND Strike and Dip of Bedding A-A'Cross SectionlProrile Location Contour 10 fl (See Figures 5 and 6) Ps Mapped Outcrops 4( Strike and Dip of Jointa Contact of Mme and Mlp(dashed � =pre-Cambrian Metamorphic Rock FIGURE 4a ® Collection Box where Inferred) =Flathead Sandstone ♦ Horizontal Borehole —Drag Fold at Fall Lodgapolo Limestone Geologic Field Data and H • Vertical Borehole DJ Contact =Mission Canyon Limestone Exploratory Bore Hole Locations Angled Borehole Inferred Fault 0 100 200 Lyman Spring Expansion Study Thrust Fault Feel \\NolFFNol\Groups\Dosign1Geo_Team\Goolnrhnirinl yrnanSpnngG151G1S\MaoFllos\hcj4a Ciaologic Field_Data mxd CG021868 112MAIG ch!M__ • • sa 4 . ,t c � 60� � "Lyman Creek/Baldy Mountain�ault" 'int&pieted by Hackett et al(1960)and a 60 �t AtUioicatiorn7of ,, 40 • i Ie ee 40 00 Lyman Collection t• 400 Location of Thrust Fault SS Proposed Vertical Exploratory Borehole,$ Lyman Collection Box I Ilk Proposed Horizontal Exploratory Borehole IF 1 � 38 LEGEND Strike and Dip of nodding A A'Cross Section/Profile Location Contour 10 It Strike and Di of Joints (See Figures 5 and 6) P Mapped Outcrops Contact of Mmc and Mlp(dashed 0 Collection Box .Contact inrerred) =pre-Cambrian Metamorphic stock FIGURE 4b # Horizontal Borehole Drag Fold at Fault W alhead Sandstone Geologic Field Data and Vertical Bornholc = DJ Contact Lodgepole Limestone Exploratory Bore Hole Locations Angled Borehole Inferred Fault QMlsslon Canyon Limestone Lyman Spring Expansion Stu 0 100 2W .� d y � p y ' thrust I suit Feet G.\Gl5\MapFiles\ro4b_Geologic_Field_Dela mxd CG021050 1/25/20113 C �M�• degree average dip. The discontinuity orientations in the immediate vicinity of the spring collection area were used in part to decide which direction/azimuth to drill in order to intercept the greatest number of water-bearing geologic discontinuities and bedding planes. The orientations of these faults and their control of groundwater flow within the Mission Limestone aquifer are discussed in greater detail in the next sections. Recommenclai_ions for Increasing Lyman Spl-ing Viell(I Based on the field evaluation and data analysis described in the previous sections, the project team interprets that there could potentially be a larger "reservoir" of groundwater that is not discharging at the spring collection area. The project team presented the work contained herein to the City of Bozeman and discussed potential approaches to increasing the yield from Lyman spring with City staff. Based on that workshop, the project team has developed three potential exploratory drilling operations to further define the geometry of the aquifer and obtain additional water from the aquifer. These are described in the following section. RECOMMENDA'rm 1: Vertical Exhloralory Borehole Based on the site-specific geologic mapping, interpreted fault locations, and the orientations of bedding planes in the immediate vicinity of the Lyman Spring collection boxes, a Vertical Exploratory Borehole is recommended for the following reasons: 1. This borehole would intersect high-permeability bedding planes of the Mission Canyon Limestone at a roughly 42 degree angle; and intersect numerous bedding planes in a nominal 100-foot drilling depth. 2. At a depth of 100 feet or more, this borehole will likely intersect the contact of the top of the less porous Lodgepole Limestone; presumably the lower elevation of the most productive aquifer.This will yield good information regarding the geometry of the aquifer. 3. This vertical borehole may also possibly intersect the reverse fault plane, depending on the exact trace, dip angle, and most importantly the dip direction of this fault, which would enable further characterization of the aquifer's subsurface geometry. 4. A vertical borehole will enable measurement of the static hydraulic gradeline (HGL) in the aquifer, and, if pumped, an aquifer test. Figure 9 (a and b) shows the location of the proposed vertical exploratory borehole. Figure 10 presents a Geologic Cross Section that shows proposed depths/angles of drilling in relation to the interpreted subsurface configuration. As previously noted, the exact trace, dip angle, and dip direction of the high-angle reverse fault (contact of the Pre-Cambrian and Mission Canyon is not known; therefore a range of high-angle fault limits from northwest-dipping to southeast- dipping is shown, A northwest-dipping fault would create a cutoff on the bottom of the aquifer. Conversely, a southeast-dipping fault would indicate that the Mission Canyon Limestone City of Bozeman WFPU Update Page 22 of 32 Think Big.Go Beyond. AEs www,oe2s.com m � � w § a) 8 a � % k £ » ® - - a ® < kn Ln a)k � U / wv \ _ . § ] 2 / . = a = » _ _ � \ � \ < � 0 o t E _ _ ® n U- o � < ) ( _\ \ / © :3 � � / \ / � � n % o J= b ) % e. x 3 / / = z as . . � u o� m / � ) x \ 2 > + LL u o � & c z .§ \ j E r \ % § ' / \ @ < 2 r 70 jcu \ _ 0 ) \ \ } o; (u c \n 2 to © ' 0 V \ \ , ~ / \ \ - � / E 2 t \2 ®_ 2 �Ln \ $ 0 c - CL = _ � / ui \{ ° \ \ \ t / _$ 3 u \ \ \ � ( Ez w \ Ln < Ln § E f \ \ f § 3 2 2 - 7 / ) \ :r § ) \\ could extend to a much greater depth and thus could be used to produce significantly more water. It is recommended that the City contract to initially drill a small-diameter (-4-inch) "pilot hole", drilled using diamond coring. This method would provide continuous core samples and enable a precise evaluation of lithology, fracture density, void spaces, porosity, and contact with other rock types. The alternative drilling technology is a downhole air hammer, but this is not recommended as it would only return rock chips for logging and provide less accurate characterization of the rock mass. When diamond coring, clean water must be pumped downhole, and therefore measuring water levels or production during drilling is difficult. The borehole would need to be cased for subsequent static water measurements. At the point Pre-Cambrian metamorphic rock or non-productive limestone is encountered, the borehole would be progressed approximately 25 more feet to confirm the contact. After coring, casing would be placed in the hole for longer-term monitoring of the HGL near the springs. If, based on the findings of the pilot hole and subsequent monitoring of the HGL, it appears that this vertical configuration can produce a significant long-term volume of water, a larger-diameter (12 to 24 inch) borehole could be drilled to install a large, high-volume pump (based on anticipated discharge). Installation of a vertical well would require power be brought up Lyman Canyon. In an effort to estimate the costs of this, Northwest Energy was contacted, as it would be their voltage feeder extension to the site. However, without a new service application submittal, Northwest Energy was not responsive. Therefore, the project team developed an estimate based on other, recent power supply extensions: The approximately two miles of underground primary voltage feeder extension, from the existing chemical storage and feed building to the proposed location of the vertical well, is estimated to cost approximately $500,000. The low voltage electric service, a fiber optic line laid in the same trench as the power line, instrumentation and controls, and small pump station building are estimated to cost $300,000. RECOMMENDATION 2: Angled Exploratory Borehole Based on the results of the vertical exploratory borehole, an angled exploratory borehole could be drilled in a southeast direction, roughly parallel to the dip of the bedding planes in the Mission Canyon Limestone. The purpose of this borehole would be to intersect fractures and to locate, and thus define, the reverse fault plane. If this fault plane is found to dip to the southeast, this angled borehole would enable additional volume of underground aquifer storage to be tapped. As with the vertical borehole, a small-diameter "pilot hole" using diamond coring is recommended to enable a more precise subsurface characterization. City of Bozeman WFPU Update Page 24 of 32 Think Big.Go Beyond. J A �s www.ae2s.com Figure 9 (a and b) shows the location of the proposed angled exploratory borehole — it would essentially be very close to the vertical borehole. Figure 5 shows the proposed angled borehole and intersecting subsurface geology. This borehole would be drilled until contact with either the fault plane or the underlying Lodgepole Limestone (if folded or faulted) is contacted, or to a maximum depth of 200 feet. A field decision can be made regarding conducting the angled borehole after the vertical borehole is completed and the information gleaned is interpreted. There are angled wells in use for municipal water supply in the United States. However, the vast majority of these installations are shallow and installed in unconsolidated formations such as alluvium along rivers for riverbank filtration applications. Deeper installations in consolidated formations could not be referenced for this project. Even in shallow, unconsolidated formations, angled well installation costs are significantly higher than for vertical wells, primarily due to the need for more bearings inside the casing, to keep the pump column concentric and stable during operation. For this reason, the initial plan for an angled well would be just aquifer characterization and as a second monitoring point for the hydraulic gradeline during pump testing from the vertical borehole. Only if it appeared that the angled well could access substantially more water would it be considered for ultimate development into the long-term municipal production well for the City. RECOMMENDATION 3: Ilorizontal Exploratory Borehole. A third possible exploratory borehole would consist of a relatively long (400 to 500 feet), near- horizontal (approximately 2 percent slope) borehole. This borehole would be drilled up-canyon to the south of and at lower elevation than the existing spring collection infrastructure. This borehole would be drilled initially through the metamorphic rock, but should intersect the thrust fault that juxtaposes the low-productivity pre-Cambrian rock with the Mission Canyon Limestone aquifer within approximately 50 feet. The goal of this borehole would be to penetrate the "sidewall" of the low end of the interpreted underground reservoir. Ideally, after the borehole penetrates into the Mission Canyon Limestone, it could be terminated well short of the spring collection system. Figure 9 (a and b) shows the location of the proposed horizontal borehole. Figure 11 shows the up-canyon profile, the approximate elevation of the proposed horizontal borehole, intersections of key geologic features, and the approximate existing spring collection infrastructure, The elevation in the middle of the profile is also approximate. This borehole would not likely intersect a large number of bedding planes, but would be perpendicular to several joint planes and fractured rock in the fault zone that may be permeable. This borehole could be cased with perforated pipe and provide additional water via City of Bozeman WFPU Update Page 25 of 32 Think Big. Go Beyond. J J nES www.ae2s.com C bA X 0 b O� co >O p / LA c0 4J Ln Y two yLA E" c � Ln ., Ln I J o LnCL Vl C L—supo8 Ajoleaoldx3 le:)iljaA pasodoad L Lu U W �^ c I 3 wo J m To I& W cu cz z ., mo 4 46 Ln g c / I Lu (�• ,m o � .. �L 0Lu.2 O LA v o o,4 aE 0CL* W rq y 0 LO Ln Ln II tw O A O tw N Ln 0 O O �0 u X Lu O O III °1 0 u z Ln o C p gravity flow, the primary advantage of a horizontal well over a vertical well. Other advantages of horizontal wells include potentially better contact between the well screens and the aquifer unit, due to the potentially greater horizontal dimension of the aquifer than the vertical dimension. it remains to be seen what the true geometry of the Lyman aquifer is. Drilling a horizontal borehole presents the following installation challenges: • Borehole collapse and/or other potential damage to water bearing conduits in the Mission Canyon limestone - this could occur during the drilling, prior to installation of the casing. • Potential for leakage around the borehole in weak and weathered rock--this may not be as much of an issue with the Pre-Cambrian metamorphic rock between the initial drill entry point and the Mission Canyon limestone, however, it is still a risk and may require grouting or other mitigation efforts. • More difficult casing installation —horizontal well casings are subjected to significantly greater stress during installation than vertical wells of similar size.The horizontal well for Lyman would have to be a single-ended installation, which means compression force would be necessary to push in the casing, which would have to overcome pressures from soils over the borehole, and overcome minor beads in the borehole that are inherent in horizontal drilling. Slots in the casing make it less resistant to these compression forces. • Somewhat unpredictable and uncontrollable return water flow—there would be a period during installation where the driller would have no control over the rate of return water flowing from the borehole. A short casing with a valve on it can be used as a sleeve for the drilling, so that the valve could be closed upon withdrawal of the drill, but this would be challenging if several hundred gallons a minute of return water was exiting the starter casing. Managing the temporary storage and dispersion of this water would be challenging and add significant cost to the drilling operation. In addition, as the City pointed out in the project workshop, a horizontal well would only produce significant flow when the hydraulic gradeline In the aquifer is significantly above the well. Well production would be critically limited by its installation elevation. This is contrast to a vertical well, which although would require a pump and motor, could still access water even when the aquifer hydraulic gradeline is well below the surface. Due to the risks of a horizontal installation, and its elevation limitation on production, it was decided at the workshop that the horizontal well would be put on hold. The horizontal exploratory drilling would only proceed if the vertical and angled bores yielded information that indicated that a horizontal well was the best option for increasing Lyman Spring yield. City of Bozeman WFPU Update Page 27 of 32 Think Big.Go Beyond. � www.ae2s,com Summary of Recommended Borehole Advantages and Disadvantages Table 2 provides a comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of the three recommendations, and relative costs of each. For now, the horizontal borehole is included even though it has been put on hold. City of Bozeman WFPU Update Page 28 of 32 Think Big.Go Beyond. AE,,S www.ae2s.com I a) N ca O U_ U > 0 w � O � C Q O O C O I— O m V L N ~ N O C w ul m o 0 m c c C: Q) a) ° E m o � c v ° o c Q) C O �— O _O L m O p — O H O W m O p O •C E V U C �B (7 0 — U c0 ao � a`) rn oaEEoo M o a) M + 0 0 X C:) O v � a) o = mini ai :? a) .� aLOa) v, b U N E -0 z �n � - MO' t o 3 V o . . CI- � 3 m � Y � C >. U Q) Cn (p to �. 'O a) ` cC L " C a) O C C p, o) _C .O ~ a fn = 0 m O E p (U C a) C Q) a) +� p U O L O '� (tl a) M Q N ° o a) E aLi � �' f° c�Lo � U m m 0) N C O CT C O 4 E p - U C in _ O + to U) N C � .L .` v) O � � a m � ° a) Em � � � � o E c mac ` aa)) 0 n � 'm oc a`) � m c . o a �, 3 E a) c E a) a ` a) «. C p o ca n c ca v o o o m u -0 O � w " o o E ro c .� >, 0 3 �° E U a) 3. .- � ° � E m U @ `o -C °'M a) -oc -ccc- W 0 3 a) a) U C: 0 �} cu o 1i omo O `�° � ° c oo ° `. o � o a � � > ro _0 Q p o of E c o O x � > E c aoi M � 'ca) EEn ma) L � E � m = rn v, c — M C u) U N Q 0 E- Z) ? > `9C U � m O t m oMUE c) — o a L> mc a) aC m j a — � v �C) o U o W m Cf Z > .c ' a c a a C O uj z J ~ N w w Q 0 m U 0 2 .. 0 a W �- x w wxO = ._ ad > wM U ti / k m O �g k S c 4 £ o O ® f ± 0@ _ G ® » § 0 < CD / S 9 C)�/ R» / 9 S > E > S ! o t � � / o n U a 0 � / 5 -'\ § % E k / CL m neo 2 E & / y E o ¥ e + c 2 » E 6 0 � .c o a � E 2 7 --- 0 ocm n ) e c - -0 0 / & /f / / \ c0 - / /$ 70 qE c = = o .® m c E - E G M Q < g •= e- » .¥ n - c a 7 = ._ o z 5 - & / '/ e c c o m e G f - o o E ; « § s 'E »D ± ® $ � E \ ® o o E % > & ti tom n o E " 0 = o $ o .@ k f e R » § 2 § E E 2 '$ & 6 m m £ (D * 0) f c . • O m _0 § / 0 o / D2-0 CD 0 u :3 0 a 2 c o c 7 m % * % § .- o § C. = m 0 7 g 2 2 0 E > ° § n 2 \ 6 2 - / / 0 o e c m f 0 § 2 oƒ / m - £ c E2 6- E C m % f [ ƒ C / > / \ M § / \ 00 .C / cm E k / § S g &,e 0- a-) - m % m 9 2 j a) E—0 « � / / 0 / c 7 3 \ D 7 / 2 / m > E m a Ek c: r — - ° / 2 f / 2 a)n m e » -00 m En7 n k * o @ G = ) caa m � � % % / m \ ° % � »/ > § E0 \ fm 2 a r o n > ( > c E E o 2 0 o ff ._ 3 O 2 o R * m o 'a o n ' « ( 3 a .® $ C7 _�/ % m % -0 a) \ / 2 / / C) / > ƒ % c ƒ 6 / a E 8 / w § / ix 0 2 / 2 q � 3 / 0 2 0 C > ) w 2 x 0 q / « < w m O m u I- U Q) m Q) _0 V m. 0) U O U) O O) m o O O O C (n O a) _O .C > J C C (D U + o O p U O m a) O ` .� j 19 (� (n p a) C O N Q)CY) C m E a N U O 0 6 'n O = x a) p . E 7 L a) - — L m O O m O L m N a 0 a) v T L m CD 0) >, ch 3 0) ° � � a ( E C: x v, E C C m Q) O C 0 O _ E (n q 0 m a p a> > a) a EEn .o am o > -0 .cua) ao_ oa) v oC — cn aE Ry � Q > � a) � cm - o v ami E ° a as o N � (�v > E o) O C a) cv E c N L C = na) u o O c� C a N u O V - U UL> E ° i3 a) in - II o mDCl) - CO ' OZ- a 0- a) a) .- '- b l(n7 ]SO'C po C ° n a -, O � ° 44 CO Ca a) O p O ° —v � � o m Oz E m ON L � M0 O C � ( d) Q) C H Q) ? N� . C 7 n a) NU .o O En .O U O p i O Q@ mo OM NN2 U -p a C • O Cm O> mJ N Q E - ) � > U) C > - E O L a) U ❑ O m O a) m N + n ( Q -0 IL o 0w2 3: Q) -0a : S S; oQ)) tO9 c ni a) a) O CY) L -0 L C O -0C +� Q) p o L E Q c a C O a) a O C WWI U m m . O O (D � m m C @ m C U) `� � Q. O) U N m (D > C U O Q1 OU m U N N Q) U U) = r C m O U -D Q a) O m C 0 »� rn Fz � N (U 70 � C a C O > -j ° O U c (n ° n o 0 U- a 3: O v o � � Eo z ►a— � w ^' cu w 0 w 0 m 000 N _jww, O m W G 0x0 cr Q M w.mi U Permitting Drilling boreholes will require water for the drilling fluid, and there will be some return water from this operation. Additionally, significant water will be generated during aquifer pump testing. At minimum, a State of Montana Construction Dewatering General Permit will be required. This permit states that "water discharged from well development" and "well pump tests" are sources of water eligible for coverage. The effluent turbidity limits and monitoring requirements preventing impact to discharges to rivers, lakes and wetlands would be complied with (20 NTU maximum day, 10 NTU monthly average). Section 17.30.610 of the Administrative Rules of the State of Montana, Water-Use Classifications, designates the Lyman Creek drainage "to the l3ozernan water supply intakes" as A-Closed.This designation means that no discharge is allowed to the waterbody at this location. Therefore, any return or pump test water will be treated, if necessary to comply with the Construction Dewatering General Permit turbidity limits, and then discharged well down- gradient from the City's spring collection infrastructure. This document will be used as the basis for discussions with the Montana Department of Environmental Quality on the drilling operation. City of Bozeman WFPU Update Page 32 of 32 Think Big.Go Beyond.AEs www.ae2s.com SarlinSton lohn robinson Stephen R.Brown Mark S.Munro Gary B Chumrau Robert L.Novels 350 Ryman Street Randall J.Colbert J.Andrew Person P.O. Box 7909 Justin K.Cole Robert J.Phillips Missoula, Montana 59807-7909 Kathleen L.DeSoto Anita Harper Poe (406)523-2500 Scott W.Farago Larry E.Riley FaX(406)523-2595 Candace C.Feischer Jeffrey M.Roth Elizabeth L.Hausbeck Robert E.Sheridan www.garlington.com Isaac M.Kantor Brian J.Smith Tessa A.Keller Jeffrey B.Smith Bradley J.Luck Peter J.Stokstad Robert C.Lukas Christopher B.Swartley Kathryn S.Mahe Kevin A Twidwell Alan F.McCormick William T.Wagner Charles E.McNeil Ross C.Wecker+ Emma L Mediak 'Currently adMIlled In Massixhusells and Vermont only May 2, 2016 Greg Sullivan Bozeman City Attorney 121 North Rouse P.O. Box 1230 Bozeman, MT 59771-1230 Via email: gsullivan@bozeman.net Craig Woolard Director of Public Works City of Bozeman 20 East Olive P.O. Box 1230 Bozeman, MT 59771-1230 Via email: CWoolard@bozeman.net RE: Lyman Creek Water Use Dear Gentlemen: We represent Lyman Creek, LLC ("LC") in connection with various water rights matters. LC owns real property in the west half of sections 28 and 33, Township 1 South, Range 6 East. LC's property is on both sides of the creek for approximately a mile above its confluence with Bridger Creek. In addition to its property ownership, LC owns several water rights to Lyman Creek, including the water right claim nos. 41H 115677-00, 41H 179248-00, 4114 179251-00, and 41 H 179255-00. The City of Bozeman also holds water rights to Lyman Creek, with diversion points upstream from LC. As we understand the system, the City diverts up to 1,400 gallons per minute ("gpm") from the creek, conveys it through a pipeline to a reservoir and disinfection system and ultimately distributes it to the Bozeman municipal supply system. 1988317.3 A Professional Limited Liability Partnership / Attorneys at Law Since 1870 RE, Lyman Creek Water Use May 2, 2016 Page 2 Recently we learned that the City issued a notice seeking proposals for services to assist the City in evaluating alternatives to increase the capacity of`the City's f.,yman Creek water Supply system as part of the City's IW1tl' process. 1`he City evidently believes that it has unused available capacity under its water rights that it now can put to use. We write this letter to note LC's concerns with the potential water rights implications of this proposal. There are at least two reasons why the City's proposal to increase its water use from Lyman Creek would run counter to Montana water law. First, from everything we have reviewed, the City constructed a system that has limited diversion and treatment capacity from Lyman Creek. Based on review of publicly available documentation published by the City, the city has never been able to fully divert or utilize the full extent of its water rights. '['his nonuse has occurred for a sufficiently long period of time to cause abandonment of any excess water rights above whet historically has been used. The Montana Supreme Court has held in at least two cases that a pudic service company - which would include a municipal system -.. may abandon portions of its "paper" water rights by constructing a system that precludes them from being; put to use. See Curry v. Ponderca Cnly. Canal & Reservoir, 2016 MT 77; bailey v. Tintinger, 45 Mont, 154 (1912). By constructing a system and operating with a bottleneck that precluded full use ol`the claimed flow and volume, the City lost the; right to increase its use up to the claimed flow and volume. Second, the City's water rights on Lyman Creek have been addressed specifically by the Montana Supreme Court. In Creek v. Bozeman Waterworks Co., 15 Mont. 121 (1894), the Court addressed a conflict between the predecessor to the City and the predecessor to LC. The Court held that because a portion of the City's water rights were historically put to an agricultural use that ensured return flows to Lyman Creek - for the benefit of LC's predecessors, the City could not change the water rights to put water into a municipal system that caused the return flows to be eliminated. To the extent the City now is proposing to increases its diversions to the City system, and increase the burden on the stream by reducing flows, the proposal would run afoul of the Supreme Court's decision in Creek. We also note that the City's proposal runs the risk of dewatering Lyman Creek and causing harm to its fishery and other environmental and resource attributes. Our clients do not desire to enter into an acrimonious dispute. However because the water rights and the streamflows LC counted on when they purchased their property may be materially affected by the City's proposal to expand its use from Lyman Creek, they believe it important to voice these concerns before the City dedicates resources to its proposal. 1968317 A Professional Limited,Liability Partnership / Attorneys at Law Since 1870 RE: Lyman Creek Water Use May 2, 2016 Page 3 We are happy to discuss this matter with you at your convenience. Very truly yours, ZGARLO , OI & ROBINSON, PLLP Stephen R. rown C: Lyman Creek, LLC Deborah Stephenson Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife & Parks Montana Department of Natural Resources & Conservation SRB:srb 1998317 A Professional Limited Liability Partnership / Attorneys at Law Since 1870 O�-BO City of Bozeman—Lyman Creek Water System Expansion U: Lyman Spring Study Workshop �.,., ::'�� Stiff Professional Bldg, 20 E. Olive Street 83...��,� tN co.i January 28"', 2016 1. Introductions a. Project Team: i. Scott Buecker, PM, AE2.5 ii. Greg Warren, Geologist, CH2M iii. Kevin Boggs, Hydrogeologist, CH2M (remote access) iv. Colin Shaw, Assistant Research Professor MSU b. City of Bozeman: i. Craig Woolard, Public Works Director ii. Brian Heaston, I'M iii. Rick Hixson, City Engineer iv. Eric Campbell, Water Treatment Superintendent v. Jill Miller, WTP Operator/Lab and Compliance Coordinator vi. Randy Morin, Water System Technician 2. Refresher on Project/Overview 3. Lyman Spring Hydrologic Data and Analysis 4. Structural Geology Investigation S. Exploratory Drilling Recommendations and Projected Costs 6. Permitting Discussion a • 0 two CD Z)i C ° !� cr or CD TIP To r �1 C) C) a. • I n� r r _ r� 1� It "Aw ID CL Ln' C m C-) Oi. n> O o n- 3 .. O f 4 � r o .fir ' .` •�,� 7 t, • ' ! t F G� Ol 13 CDQ Nfi+ 0 n) mCL � ai OM to o a o /•� C. m o s� kl �s r-P� ° co ,� Q c? Opal f M M v� �en. zT CD CD CD Cn a C? CWII a•+''. G -n O 1 CD 3 CD Ul r ti G) n p ' 7 C n < CDCD cn i — CD m � p m (DQ 3 ' o G' Cr -n 7 rt m CD Cn C. Z ul fD k C Qo rt CL CD Coo) to 3 ti � � �' � ; c o ID a> , W_ r• -Awl' ,..- - • yr. -4 , r0 ^ ���I// • , * f U. Im . . , �, r u • (G QJ • i O aJ 0. , i0 X � L7 • i a N , a W CM m0 , • • Qj V v X Q `�. • O ` O tv .► in _ yaj a— a.Cr CL K = i C C .rr .f.. •, _ C .�. • • 1' e N O • 47 !0 • • OO • • . • a CLux : VOW y` le' R`L • je y ^mac } :i s:.;.'+� � I�. , -f•" ,+ [� Fes..}� � , * ;� , ' . • T• i • 40 13 5800 Estimated Contact Mmc/ Mlp 5750 Existing Ground Mission Canyon Limestone 5700 average 480 dip Exact Fault Location Covered by Colluvium Alluvium Proposed Exploratory Boreholes 5650 Co l l uvl u m ♦ This is the Vertical Elevation ♦ "Best Case" (feet) ♦ (deepest aquifer) Pre-Cambrian ♦♦ fault angle. 5600 Metamorphic Rock ♦� 9.0 Mission Canyon �♦ _ <'O Limestone �`S 0 1 High Angle 5550 Fault- Dip Angle not Known ♦ Assumed saturated portion of Mission Canyon Limestone This is "Worse Case" Fault Angle and -100' Deep location e d ,,_ ? 5500 to Intersect /.,��/�;L Lodgepole Limestone 4 etj�> Total depth based on subsurface geology 5450 Possible Mission A Scale 1"=50'Vertical and Horizontal Canyon/Lodgepole Contact Northwest (No Vertical Exaggeration) A' Southeast 5400 NOTE: Horizontal borehole not shown,see Figure 6. FIGURE 5 Geologic Cross Section A-A' Lyman Snrinn Fxnnncinn Sti irh. Intersection of Cross Section A-A Elevaao (feet)tion Pre-Cambrian Lower Lyman Spring U .o Metamorphic Rock Collection Box �, m (Projected 100 ft.) 0 L -0 0 5650 N ro " O 0.a x aw Mission Canyon Limestone r . 5600 Existing Ground F� Groundwater Flflw Upper Lyman Spring F -- Collection Box 5550-_______i! 1E--Low End of Reservoir Starting Elevation =5560' Proposed Horizontal >< E Exploratory Boring 1 (2%Slope) ? ? 5500 Interpreted Fault Type- � Boundary of Rock T Ending Elevation Groundwater Not Known ? =5570 Reservoir Scale V=100'Vertical and Horizontal FIGURE 6 0 50 100' Geologic Profile B-B I I Lyman Spring Expansion Study No Vertical Exaggeration ----- --- --- - �S'��*rQ-.'vt"�,.�C�"-t� //C CSC/ �.�=•�'. e --- - _ S� Y