The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2013 Integrated Water Resources PlanIntegrated Water Resources Plan Recommendations of the Technical Advisory Committee to the Bozeman City Commission September 30, 2013 Executive Summary In 2012-2013 the City of Bozeman developed an Integrated Water Resources Plan to guide its water supply and water use policy and practices for the next 50 years. As part of the planning process a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of local water experts was engaged. The TAC participated in evaluating a broad range of possible water supply and water-use alternatives. The TAC concurs with the recommendations set forth in the Plan and recommends additional measures. A vigorous water conservation program should be the cornerstone of Bozeman's water management. In this regard, the city should take the following steps: continue to make the distribution system more efficient, enact policies to encourage landscape irrigation using non-potable water, institute code revisions and otherwise encourage water-use efficiency in new development. Bozeman should work to acquire additional water rights in Hyalite Reservoir and senior rights in Hyalite and Sourdough Creeks. Over the next 5-10 years, the city should conduct detailed studies to define the costs, legal requirements, and engineering feasibility of optimizing the Lyman Creek water source, creating one or more impoundments in Sourdough Canyon, raising Hyalite Dam a second time, developing a new well field in the Gallatin Valley, and acquiring new water from the Salar Project near Gallatin Gateway. These new water supplies should be phased-in as needed, in the order established by a multiple-criteria screening exercise such as that conducted in this planning project. It is also essential that the city periodically review and update the water resources plan, and commit the funds necessary to better understand its water sources and to mitigate water-system operational difficulties. Background These recommendations are part of an integrated planning process for water resources that was undertaken in Spring, 2012. This process is the latest in a series of actions taken by our growing community to balance water supply and demand. Notably, in the past 15 years the city has substantially upgraded and enlarged both its water and wastewater handling facilities, examined water conservation as a way to harmonize supply and demand, initiated an aggressive program to repair leaks and replace old water-distribution lines, and studied the potential for constructing a new impoundment in the canyon of Sourdough Creek. The planning process that was just completed is well-described in the Integrated Water Resources Plan , dated August 2013, prepared by the firms AE2S and CH2MHill under contract to the city. Its broad purpose has been to project the city's water demand decades into the future, examine an exhaustive array of means to meet the demand - both sources of supply and water-use practices -and recommend the most promising measures for further study and potentially for implementation. The planning process has been carried out by city staff and contractors with expertise in hydrology, climate science, water-supply engineering and Montana water law (hereinafter referred to as "the consultants"). This "Technical Advisory Committee," chartered in April 2012 by the City Commission, has participated in every stage of the process. As described in the resolution creating it (Appendix A), the twofold role of the TAC has been to bring local expertise into the planning process and to incorporate interests of key stakeholder groups. To do this, the Commission named to the TAC local experts in water resources, water use, and water law, as well as key agency personnel (Appendix B). The TAC convened in eight public meetings between June 2012 and August 2013, including six meetings with the city's consultants (see table below). There are two products of its work: specific measures and approaches that were incorporated into the technical analysis reported in the Water Resources Plan, and several additional recommendations to the Bozeman City Commission, described below. Technical Advisory Committee Meetings Date Major Topics June 6, 2012 Procedural actions; review background information; review general types of alternatives and authorize alternatives screening aooroach July 5, 2012 Finalize TAC mission statement and process; define alternatives screening criteria and weights; discuss background assumptions August 3, 2013 Adoption of ranking criteria; discussion of water conservation December 6, 2012 Conservation planning; water rights management; alternatives refinement January 11, 2013 Contents and evaluation of conservation alternatives; integrated utilities alternatives situation March 1, 2013 Alternatives ranking and selection for portfolio analysis Mav 23, 2013 Consultant presentation and TAC discussion of portfolio results August 16, 2013 Review of city public-involvement plan; formulation of recommendations to Commission TAC Perspective The TAC strongly commends the Bozeman City Commission and city staff for undertaking this comprehensive planning process before a crisis impends, taking stakeholder concerns into account. We are satisfied that a full range of potential water sources has been examined and the best available science has been applied. We have seen the TAC's input incorporated into the plan at every stage, including the shaping of the alternatives-analysis procedure. This long-term, large-scale planning exercise has set the stage for the detailed future examination of specific measures to secure the city's water. Should the Water Resources Plan and the TAC's supplementary recommendations be adopted, the Commission and the citizens of Bozeman can be confident that its water-management policies and practices will serve the city well for decades to come. Early in the planning process the consultants, in consultation with the TAC, developed twenty-five potential measures ("alternatives") that could be applied to reconcile Bozeman's water supply and demand (see Table 5-1 of the Water Resources Plan). The alternatives ranged from aggressive water conservation by residents, to re-use of reclaimed wastewater, to importing water from distant locations. A vital role of the TAC Technical Advisory Committee September 2013 Page 2 of 6 was to rank the alternatives with regard to their priority for further analysis (and hence, potential implementation). We did this by elaborating a set of evaluation criteria first developed by the consultants. The 30 criteria and the relative weights assigned to them by the TAC are attached as Appendix C; the criteria descriptors comprise Appendix D. CATEGORIES OF EVALUATION CRITERIA WEIGHT(%) Technical criteria 18 Environmental criteria 28 Social criteria 13 Economic criteria 19 Water supply criteria 22 TOTAL 100 The ranking criteria and their relative weights were the lens that focused this planning process according to our community's values. Among the five types of criteria, environmental factors collectively were scored highest by the TAC. These included factors like energy use (conveying water to the treatment plant via gravity vs pumping using fossil fuels), disruption to aquatic environments, and resilience to climate change. Water-supply factors -the reliability and proximity of the source, its vulnerability to contamination, its quality -were judged next-most-important by the TAC. Alternatives were evaluated on the basis of five economic criteria and six social criteria such as quality-of-life impacts, maintenance of irrigated agriculture, and likely customer satisfaction. Alternatives were also assessed according to technical criteria such as compatibility with existing infrastructure and ability to meet water-supply targets. "Redundancy" was judged an important consideration. A redundant water supply has multiple sources, such that it is resilient to catastrophe. For example, an earthquake that renders Bozeman's Hyalite water source unusable would also likely deprive the city of its Sourdough Creek supply -but possibly not the Lyman Creek supply, which thus provides some degree of redundancy. The criteria are in conflict, to a degree. The same measure cannot both "maximize use of existing infrastructure" and bolster water supply redundancy. This shows how each alternative has both advantages and drawbacks. Recommendations To meet its 50-year water needs, the TAC recommends that the Bozeman City Commission formally adopt the Integrated Water Resources Plan. In particular, the TAC favors the plan's "Portfolio 14," augmented with additional measures. Beginning this year, the city should take the following actions: ► Initiate a water-conservation program, as specified in the FY 2014 budget recently adopted by the Commission. This should include conventional measures such as a consumer-education program and incentives for change-out of water-wasting fixtures, but also plans for piloting and monitoring less-conventional water-saving measures. Water conservation and water-use efficiency should be the bedrock of the city's water-resource management. These measures are cost-effective relative to developing new sources of supply, and hold important ancillary benefits such as environmental preservation and securing water for agriculture in the Gallatin Valley. Technical Advisory Committee September 2013 Page 3 of 6 ► Implement an ongoing effort to acquire additional shares in the Hyalite Reservoir from willing-seller shareholders. As they become available, the city should also seek to acquire flow rights in Hyalite and Sourdough Creeks with older priority dates. This water can be conveyed by gravity to the new water treatment plant, optimizing the city's very substantial investment there. ► Continue to take the legal actions needed to define, consolidate and make the best use of currently-held water rights. ► Continue and intensify current work to cut unaccounted-for water in the distribution system. The TAC recommends adopting an aggressive goal: less than 10% of produced water. Re-visiting past decisions regarding distribution-system pressure, which is very high by national standards, is recommended. This high pressure exacerbates all leaks, from the largest water mains to the smallest customer tap. Both the "moderate" and "high" conservation alternatives described in the Water Resources Plan rely on further cutting water losses from the distribution system. In the intermediate term, the city should: ► Conduct a cost/engineering/legal feasibility study to define how it can optimize water production from the Lyman Creek source. The city holds a much larger water right there than it is currently able to use. This source could not, alone, make up the water shortfalls projected for the 30-and 50-year planning horizons. ► Work with developers to implement non-potable irrigation in new developments, as possible and appropriate. When lands annexed to the city come with appurtenant irrigation rights, those rights should be accepted and the water used for landscape irrigation, sparing capacity at Bozeman's advanced water treatment plant. ► Expand the conservation program to include the commercial and institutional sectors. The program should emphasize water-use efficiency in new developments, where significant savings may be realized. It should deploy an array of tools, ranging from educational campaigns, to incentive programs, to municipal-code updates. In the longer term, the city should conduct the appropriate studies and then phase in, as needed, the measures below: ► Construct one or more impoundments on Sourdough Creek above the treatment plant. This would take advantage of the city's water rights and water reservation there, and conveyance to the treatment plant would be by gravity. Alternatively, it may be possible to slightly raise Hyalite Dam, or to raise the maximum-pool elevation behind the existing dam by changes to the intake structure. The city should explore these latter possibilities with water-project engineers and water-rights specialists from the Montana Department of Natural Resources & Conservation. ► Site and develop a new well field to supply the city. The Gallatin Valley has abundant groundwater (the use of which would have to be mitigated with existing Technical Advisory Committee September 2013 Page 4 of 6 water rights). Groundwater has major advantages: it is resilient to drought and impervious to wildfire, and requires less treatment than surface water. ► Work with the owners of the "Salar Project" to develop, on their property near Gallatin Gateway, either a well field or an impoundment drawing from two irrigation canals that originate in the West Gallatin River. These waters would principally be used untreated, for landscape irrigation within the western part of the city. The TAC recommends against importing water from outside the Gallatin watershed, or far downstream, unless extraordinary circumstances render the approaches above inadequate. Cost, legal hurdles and environmental drawbacks would all be high for such long-range water transport. The only circumstance we can envision that might make this approach worth Bozeman's consideration would be high population growth throughout the Gallatin Valley, sustained for a long period (>5% for more than 10 years). An important question arising from the development of the Water Resources Plan is the implementation schedule for the various recommended water-supply alternatives. An essential aspect of the recently-completed work was comprehensiveness: all measures that were even remotely feasible were screened. Consequently, the cost and engineering data developed for the many alternatives were necessarily very rough. Selecting which measures to undertake, when and in what order, hinges on developing much more detailed information. Therefore, the TAC urges the city to adopt the following practices: ► For the next 5-10 years, as needed, program into the city's capital budget funds for detailed definition of the costs, legal requirements and engineering feasibility of the major water-supply alternatives listed above: Lyman, Sourdough impoundment(s), Hyalite dam raise, a new well field, and the Salar project. ► When these alternatives are well-understood, devise the implementation schedule using the screening matrix developed for the Water Resources Plan, or update it with the assistance of a new TAC. This is a comprehensive and robust tool that applies the community's values to capital planning. Among the possible capital construction projects, the TAC looks most favorably on optimizing the Lyman Creek water source. While the City is pursuing the above measures, it also needs to conduct several ancillary activities: ► Engage the public in active review and comment on this process and the water resource possibilities open to Bozeman. ► Develop a plan to address the "shrink factor" or "conveyance loss" of Hyalite Reservoir water. More water may be available to the city than is currently assumed. ► Instrument and monitor Lyman and Sourdough Creeks so that their hydrographs - and the reliable water yields of the watersheds -are better understood. Technical Advisory Committee September 2013 Page 5 of 6 ► Continue to work to mitigate operational difficulties, which were outside the scope of this exercise. TAC members have come to appreciate that having an adequate water supply on paper does not mean it is straightforward for operations staff to get that water into the water plant and the distribution network. If the challenges are clearly defined, Bozeman ratepayers will accept modest added water fees to, for example, update the cumbersome and wasteful operational protocol for the Hyalite dam. ► Assist MSU in its continuing work to optimize water-use efficiency on campus. For example, it may be possible for the city to convey unused water rights to MSU's Family & Graduate Housing, allowing it to cease irrigating its grounds with treated city water. ► Re-visit and update the Water Resources Plan every five years. This is especially critical in light of the extreme sensitivity of its analysis to the population growth rate . If growth turns out to be slower than the "moderate-growth" scenario from the plan, the city can delay some actions and save money. On the other hand, rapid growth must be accommodated by accelerating the acquisition of new water and intensifying conservation efforts. An effective conservation program will steadily bring down per-capita water demand over time, allowing the city to postpone major expenditures on new water supplies. Concluding Observations This initial effort has been comprehensive and robust, but water-resource activities must be ongoing. Assuring water security into the future will require sustained commitment from future commissions. This must involve not just directing city staff to re-visit plans and assumptions periodically, but committing adequate funds to engage technical consultants and to initiate new demand-side or supply-side water projects. Only a serious level of commitment over a long term will allow the Water Resources Plan to be brought to fruition. Collectively and individually, the members of the TAC thank the Bozeman City Commission for the opportunity to participate in this interesting and vital process. We look forward to following the city's water-resource management in coming years. We are confident it can take place in a manner that provides adequate water for a vigorously-growing city while protecting resident quality of life and the wonderful natural environment we so cherish here. Appendices A. City Commission resolution creating the TAC B. List of TAC members and affiliations C. TAC criteria scoring matrix D. Criteria descriptors Technical Advisory Committee September 2013 Page 6 of 6 Resolution. The professional experience and technical background of TAC members will provide a means of broadening the basis of scrutiny and collective knowledge utilized in review and preparation of the IWRP beyond City Staff and its professional contractors. Section 2 The TAC will be asked to assist City Staff and its professional contractors in: 1. Water conservation planning. 2. Selecting and weighting alternatives ranking criteria. 3. Developing water supply alternatives. 4. Reviewing modeling efforts, cost estimates and plan results. Section 3 The structure and oversight of the TAC shall be organized according to the following: l. The Bozeman City Commission shall appoint members lo the TAC from individuals with a technical background or understanding of water supply planning and water rights. TAC is considered temporary in nature. If the Committee is still constituted two years after the date of this Resolution, members will need to be reappointed to the Committee by the City Commission. Vacancies shall be filled in the same matter as original appointments. 2. A Commission liaison is required for the TAC for consultation and infom1ation, but the liaison is not required to attend each meeting. At least one Staff member shall attend each TAC meeting. 3. The TAC, at its first scheduled meeting, will elect from amongst its appointed membership a committee Chairperson. 4. Three TAC meetings will be held unless additional meetings arc directed and/or approved by the Bozeman City Commission. 5. TAC schedules and agendas shall be prepared by Staff and AE2S with input provided by the committee Chairperson. Agendas will then be provided to the City Clerk for public display at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. Materials for TAC review and deliberation shall be provided by AE2S. 6. TAC minutes will be recorded by AE2S and will be made available to the public. 7. The TAC may, at its discretion, forward an independent formal recommendation to the Bozeman City Conunission regarding its work and deliberations on the IWRP. 8. TAC meetings will be open to the public and conducted in accordance with all applicable rules and regulations ofthe State and the City of Bozeman. 9. The actions of the board shall be advisory only and shall not constitute policy of the City and shall not be binding upon the City Commission or upon the City. 10. Meetings shall be conducted according to Robert's Rules of Order, Eleventh Edition and the model Advisory Board Rules of Procedure. 11. Compliance with the City Code of Ethics. All members are required to follow State ethics laws regarding appointed officials and the city of Bozeman Code of Ethics. Members will receive the City of Bozeman ethics handbook and must sign a fom1 RESOLUTION NO. 4373 Page 2 of 3 acknowledging receipt of the handbook and take a written oath they will uphold the state and city ethics codes. Members are also required to take an online or paper ethics training shortly after appoinh11ent. Non-compliance with the City Code of Ethics and training requirements may result in removal of a Committee member. PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Conunission of the City of Bozeman, Montana, at a regular session held on the 9th day of April, 2012. APPENDIX B Members of the Technical Advisory Committee Gretchen Rupp (Chair) has practiced water engineering in Bozeman for more than 25 years, in both the private and public sectors; she currently chairs the Gallatin County Board of Health and the Board of the Gallatin Local Water Quality District. Kerri Strasheim is the Deputy Regional Manager of the Montana Department of Natural Resources & Conservation, heading the Bozeman Water Resources Regional Office. Frank Cifala was the US Forest Service Lands and Uses Specialist regarding permits and processes on the Gallatin National Forest. Laura Ziemer is a Trout Unlimited water law attorney and Director of TU's Montana Water Project; she is a 15 year resident of the Bozeman area. Walt Sales is a Rancher/Farmer and President of the Association of Gallatin Agricultural lrrigators (AGAI); he is a fourth generation rancher in the Gallatin Valley. Alan English is a hydrogeologist who served for 12 years as Manager of the Gallatin Local Water Quality District. Peter Skidmore is a hydrologist and owner of Skidmore Restoration Consulting, LLC; Chair (former) of Greater Gallatin Watershed Council; Chair (former) of the Lands Committee of the Gallatin Valley Land Trust; President (incoming) of the Board of River Restoration Northwest; founding board member of Montana Aquatic Resources Services, Inc. Tammy Crone is Acting Manager of the Gallatin Local Water Quality District. She has served on the Gallatin Water Resource Task Force, as President of Montana Section of the American Water Resources Association and as an advisory committee member for the Bozeman Source Water Protection Plan. Rick Moroney is Bozeman's Water Treatment Plant Superintendent. Rick Hixson is the Bozeman City Engineer. Carson Taylor is an attorney and mediator who currently serves as a Bozeman City Commissioner. APPENDIXC TAC CRITERIA SCORING MATRIX Categories of Evaluation Criteria Technical Criteria Environmental Criteria Social Criteria Economic Criteria Water Supply Criteria Criteria Total (Weight must equal 100%) Technical Criteria Constructability Regulations and Drinking Water Quality Impacts Existing Infrastructure Compatibility Water Re-use Water Supply Redundancy Meets 30-Year Planning Horizon Targets Meets SO-Year Planning Horizon Targets Total (Weight must equal 100%) Environmental Criteria Clean Water Act Compliance (TMDLs) In-stream Flow Maintenance Permitting, Environmental Impact Statements, and Easements Energy Generation and Carbon Footprint Climate Impacts Resiliency General Environmental Impacts (Wildlife, Forested Areas) Total (Weight must equal 100%) Social Criteria Customer Service Satisfaction Public Health and Safety Quality of Life Impacts Overall Public Support Economic Development and Growth Water Marketing and Leasing -Maintain Ag Rights Total (WelgM must equal 100%) Economic Criteria Magnitude of Capital Investment per Acre-ft of Developable Water Supply Relative Operation and Maintenance Costs Eligibility for Outside Funding Economy of Scale Impacts Delay of Infrastructure to Encourage Growth to Pay for Growth Total (Weight must equal 100%) Water Supply Criteria Reliability and Control of Water Supply (degree of certainty) Initial Water Quality of Water Supply Risk of Water Supply to Contamination/Sabotage Proximity of Water Supply Storage Volume Potential Potential Impacts to the Water Resources Total (Weight must equal 100%) Weight(%) 18 28 13 19 22 100% Weight(%) 13 17 15 9 14 19 13 100% Weight(%) 15 21 16 18 15 15 100% Weight(%) 18 21 15 24 10 12 100% Weight(%) 26 27 13 11 23 100% Weight(%) 21 13 15 18 14 19 100% APPENDIX D TAC SCREENING CRITERIA DESCRIPTIONS SCORING APPROACH: The TAC and Technical Team will independently apply points to each ofthe ranking categories noted above so that a project that receives full points in every category for each heading {Technical, Social, Environmental, Economic, and Water Supply) would receive 100 points. The TAC and Technical Team will develop two scoring approaches independent of the other. To facilitate this process, the Technical Team has already developed a draft of its scoring approach and will work with the TAC during TAC Meeting #1 to verify the scoring categories and moderate the development of the TAC scoring approach. The Technical Team scoring approach will be finalized with the finalization of the ranking criteria to meet the objectives of the scoring process. Once the scoring approach is established, each of the alternatives to be considered will have up to the score for each category applied based on each individual evaluator's best judgment. The individual scores will then go into a spreadsheet and be totaled to identify the projects that have the highest qualitative score of the alternatives considered. This process has successfully been applied in other Integrated Water Resources Planning efforts to capture the intrinsic differences between the experiences, exposure, and priorities of a broad spectrum of professionals tasked with long-range, big picture, planning efforts. The following descriptions of each scoring category are provided to assist in standardizing the interpretations of each of the categories listed above. Note that alternatives should be scored as they relate to each other. In cases where alternatives qualitatively address the ranking category in the same way, the same scores can be applied. However, every attempt should be made to do a comparative analysis of the alternatives to be considered. Constructability To receive points for constructability, the evaluator should consider the process of physically constructing an alternative. For example: • Would the construction site for the project have accessibility issues? • Are the site conditions where the alternative will be located unknown, challenging, or dangerous? • Does the alternative require specialized and unique construction strategies that may be difficult and costly to bring to Montana? • Are there barriers to construction, such as natural features (mountains, rivers, lakes, wetlands, etc.) • Would there be any timing/seasonal issues that could make constructing an alternative more challenging? • Will alternative construction involve construction related inconveniences to the public? • Can the alternative be constructed to withstand catastrophic events? Any of the above types of considerations, or others that are similar in nature to the construction of an alternative should result in a reduction in total allowable points for this category. Regulations and Drinking Water Quality Impacts To receive points for this category, the evaluator should consider the following: • Is the proposed water supply consistent with current water supplies for which treatment processes are already in place to treat the water to existing potable drinking water regulations? • Can treatment processes be constructed to treat the proposed water source to existing potable drinking water regulations? • Are there regulatory issues with the water supply that will result in regulatory issues in the future and may have public health impacts if implemented prior to regulations being put into place (endocrine disruptors, human health standards for nitrates, cytotoxins (algae) by products, high organic carbon or organic matter, requiring unique disinfection strategies with byproducts that could be regulated more stringently in the future, etc.). Higher points should be given to alternatives where water quality is known and regulations can thoroughly be addressed now, with the flexibility to address them into the future as they change. Existing Infrastructure Compatibility This category will require that that evaluator consider whether the proposed alternative optimizes use of existing infrastructure. For example: • Does the proposed solution allow for full utilization of the City of Bozeman WTP that is under construction? The facility is being constructed to a peak capacity of 22 mgd and consists of membrane treatment technologies designed to water quality standards associated with Bozeman Creek, Middle Creek, and Hyalite Reservoir. • Is there infrastructure already in place to deliver water to the distribution system and serve the different zones of the system effectively? • Can new infrastructure be constructed to complement the existing infrastructure? If so, rank the alternatives in term of general feasibility of the infrastructure necessary as they compare to each other. Water Reuse Does the proposed solution involve a water reuse component, particularly one associated with effluent from the Bozeman Water Reclamation Facility? • Does the proposed project assist in compliance with the City's Wastewater Permit? • Is the proposed solution acceptable to the general public? • Does the solution provide a non-potable water supply to another water rights hold that could then contract its water right to the City for drinking water purposes? Water Supply Redundancy A redundant water supply should not only be considered in terms of overall quantity of water from one source (i.e. the source has twice the water in reserve than necessary to serve the community in dry year), but more appropriately: • Are the supplies developed in two (or more) distinct water sources that have different responses to climate conditions, different delivery mechanisms to the system, different treatment needs, and can effectively replace the other in the event of an emergency (i.e. fire in the Bozeman Creek/Hyalite Watershed, contamination of the water supply, slope failure in Bozeman Creek resulting in temporary loss of the stream, failure of the treatment process equipment, prolonged drought, etc.)? Meets 30-Year Planning Horizon Targets Does this Alternative provide enough water supply to meet water demand and population targets that have been established for this study effort in the 30-Year Planning Horizon? If not, could it be combined with other alternatives to accomplish this objective? Meets SO-Year Planning Horizon Targets Does this Alternative provide enough water supply to meet water demand and population targets that have been established for this study effort in the 30-Year Planning Horizon? If not, could it be combined with other alternatives to accomplish this objective? Clean Water Act Compliance (TMDLs) Does this alternative have components that can assist in watershed water quality improvements, particularly as they relate to various TMDLs (Nutrient, Sediment, and E.Coli) in the Lower Gallatin Watershed? Examples include: • Wastewater Reuse to prevent discharge of wastewater into the East Gallatin River during Seasonal Permitted Conditions • Application of reuse water in a manner that reduces the use of chemical fertilizer applications • Reduction of direct stormwater discharge to local streams • Provision of augmentation flows to increase low flow conditions in areas of the watershed where water quality impairments could be a challenge (i.e. an out-of-basin import project or impoundment constructed with additional capacity to maintain minimum stream flows at a healthy level could be an example. While this would not offset water supplies, it may be possible to put existing or new water supplies to use under different conditions either on a temporary or permanent basis to achieve this type of compliance objective in the future). In-Stream Flows Does the proposed project have the potential to compromise in-stream flows during low flow conditions? Does the proposed project have the potential to add flexibility in mitigating instream flow issues during low flow conditions? Permitting, Environmental Impact Statements, and Easements Does the proposed alternative require an extensive permitting, environmental clearance, and easement development process? If so, does the extent of this effort carry risk that the alternative may not be viable or carry with it, the possibility of legal action against the City? If a permit or easement cannot be developed for an alternative, or environmental issues result in a need to modify the alternative, can the alternative be modified to address the concern? Energy Generation and Carbon Footprint Does the proposed alternative have the ability to generate energy to offset the gross energy requirement of the alternative, in turn reducing the net carbon footprint of the alternative? Carbon footprint considerations include energy to construct the alternative as well as operate and maintain the alternative. Climate Resiliency Is the proposed alternative capable of sustaining reasonable service levels with regard to the potential range of long-term climate impacts? If so, can it also withstand temporary and harsher climate conditions such as drought? Is the water supply able to return to normal conditions relatively quickly after drought events? General Environmental Impacts (Forests, Wildlife, Water Quality. etc.) Does the project have the potential to have a significant impact on local forested areas, fish and wildlife, historical and cultural resources, and water quality? Does the alternative have potential to harm or impact endangered species recognized for protection under the Endangered Species Act? Are environmental impacts associated with the alternative reversible in the event the alternative is removed in the future? Does the alternative have long-term applicability in sustaining activities employed to mitigate impacts to forests, wildlife, water quality, etc.? Customer Service Satisfaction Will the proposed solution result in acceptable levels of customer satisfaction with regard to aesthetics, water quality and quantity, and cost? How will it compare to the service levels that customers are accustomed to, today? Public Health and Safety Outside of regulatory requirements and potable drinking water quality (which were addressed in previous categories), does the proposed alternative present any public health and safety concerns? For example, a reservoir above the City could pose some flood risk if a breach were to occur. Operator safety in maintaining and managing an alternative could be considered in this category as well. Quality of Life Impacts Would the water supply alternative carry any impacts that could increase or decrease the quality of life for the City of Bozeman. In the case of an impoundment, could it be used for recreational activities, or does it limit or eliminate recreational activities? Could it be used to sustain a recreational activity that may use large amounts of water (i.e. golf course or park irrigation)? Does developing a large, imported water supply encourage growth that impairs quality of life in Bozeman, or does it allow for structured growth that will continue to attract people to the area that will enhance the quality of life of those in Bozeman? While there are many ways that this category could be scored, it should be scored relative to the other alternatives evaluated, to the greatest extent possible. Overall Public Support Does the proposed alternative seem consistent with public sentiment from past water supply planning efforts in regards to what a final project should consider? Does it feel like a project that the City of Bozeman community would generally support, fund, and advocate for in the future. Economic Development and Growth Does the proposed alternative include components that will hinder Economic Development and Growth in any way? For example, would the proposed alternative improve or sustain recreational opportunities based on use of our local water supply resources? Would the alternative allow for flexible and appropriate Economic Development and Growth in the City of Bozeman? Would moratoriums on certain types of service sectors be a possibility under certain conditions? If the baseline planning conditions set forth in this study effort are no longer applicable due to unanticipated growth, increased water use, climate, or natural disaster, does the proposed alternative provide flexibility to adapt? Is the alternative easily expandable to allow for large water using industries to locate to the Bozeman area, if desired? Can it accommodate unpredictable swings in growth, both through expansion to serve new growth and overall cost considerations to minimize the pressures of building large infrastructure projects for future populations that don't develop as planned? Can it be combined with other solutions to delay the project until constructing the project is necessary without sacrificing service levels? Water Marketing and Leasing -Maintain Ag Rights If a new water supply is using water formerly used for irrigated agriculture, does the use of agricultural water rely on short-term, drought-year, or other temporary leases so that agricultural land remains in production? Such approaches could use rotational fallowing, split-season leases, drought-year leases or dry-land pasture, in contrast to "buy and dry" approaches that would take land out of agricultural production altogether for its associated water rights. Magnitude of Capital Investment per Acre-ft of Oevelopable Water Supply Although cost information is not available for all alternatives at this level of the alternatives evaluation, the goal ofthis category is to provide relative consideration for each alternative as they compare to each other. In general, ranges of developable acre-ft for each alternative are provided in the alternative information. The goal of this category is to consider levels of investment versus the amount of water and flexibility that could be developed. For example, the Sourdough Creek Reservoir Project has included cost estimates of $50 to $70 million dollars for a possible 6,000 ac-ft of water supply. While the alternative evaluation will place some risk on the potential for 6,000 ac-ft (there is some concern regarding the potential of securing the full amount, or any of the 6,000 ac-ft due to water rights law in Montana), in the event that this project could be completed, this results in a range of $8,333/ac-ft to $11,666/ac-ft. Likewise, the current cash in-lieu program charges developers $6,000/ac-ft or the relinquishment of water rights equal to what is necessary to serve the development so that new water rights could be purchased. Likewise, a large development project, such as an import project, may run well over $100 million (perhaps even $200 million) dollars, but result in the development of 30,000 acre ft, for a relative cost per ac-ft of much less than the alternatives. Relative Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Costs While detailed O&M costs have not been developed at this time, the evaluator should consider whether extensive O&M will be required for various alternatives. Will additional staff be required? Does the raw water supply delivery system associated with the proposed alternative require extensive pumping and energy requirements? Will new treatment processes be required that could involve increased mechanical treatment and energy requirements to meet drinking water regulatory requirements? Eligibility for Outside Funding Would the proposed alternative be eligible for funding assistance to offset the rate impacts of the project to the City of Bozeman rate payers? Projects that involve regional approaches and address water issues across service sectors (service sectors being municipal, industrial, agricultural, and natural) could be projects that would be eligible for federal and possibly even special State grant funding. The Red River Valley Water Supply Project in North Dakota imports water from the Missouri River to the Red River and is funded through a cost share of 1/3rd federal, 1/3rd state, and 1/3rd local funding. The local portion is allocated based on water reserved from the project by each community participating. Other examples of regional funding programs could be discussed, such as the Rocky Boy's/North Central Montana Regional Water System Project, the Lewis and Clark Regional Water System Project (South Dakota), the Western Area Water Supply Project (WAWSP), in Northwestern North Dakota, etc. While some of these projects have unique circumstances that may not make their strategies directly applicable to a regional project in the Gallatin Valley, these projects are coordinated with the Bureau of Reclamation and funding for both collaborative planning efforts and future projects has been available in the past, is available now, and could be developed in the future. The extent of outside funding would need to be further explored, but some alternatives considered as part of this study effort could be eligible for funding, where others will primarily be the City of Bozeman's responsibility to fund. Economy of Scale Impacts A project that can be constructed to serve a larger population base now and in the future will result in economy of scale benefits. The evaluator should consider the population that could be served by each alternative in relationship to the cost of constructing and operating the system. Although one project may be more expensive up front, if it can serve a larger population over the long-term, a cost/benefit analysis may result in the more costly alternative in the future. Delay of Infrastructure to Encourage Growth to Pay for Growth This ranking category will mostly be associated with alternatives that involve phasing, organizational mechanisms, or temporary solutions that allow for the delay of infrastructure construction until the population is in place to support the project. Not all alternatives will receive scores in this category. Reliability and Control of the Water Supply (degree of certainty) How much does the source fluctuate based on weather patterns and other user demands? Does the development option include senior water rights or ownership in a storage control structure? If storage is involved and a private or other government entity controls the structure, what are the associated risks, such as long-term operation, timing issues, maintenance issues, etc? This allows analysis for whether a source is available continuously, seasonally, or only during periodic events, such as a large storm event or a high-water year. Initial Water Quality of the Water Supply Water quality components includes: microbial, nutrient, temperature, metals, etc. Cleaner water in a source leads to reduced treatment costs, saving significant energy and monetary resources. Some components found in water are easier to treat for drinking water than others. This ranking category would include analysis of existing water quality, vulnerability of source to contamination, and water quality compatibility with other supplies. Risk of Water Supply to Contamination/Sabotage Is the water supply and/or development protectable? Is the location vulnerable to tampering? This would include the source and any conveyance or storage structures. Potential contamination/sabotage could either be regarding physical supply or quality of the supply. Proximity of Water Supply This ranking category helps to promote developing closer water supplies, minimizing conveyance length and loss potential. This ranking criteria could also include analysis of whether conveyance can be by gravity flow or would involve higher energy transport. Storage Volume Potential Storage is a critical element in a city water supply, so this category allows analysis for the potential to add storage up front or to develop storage sometime in the future to aid in water supply security. If aquifer storage project, this would allow analysis for whether the aquifer has available capacity for recharge water storage in the aquifer. For other projects, this would allow analysis for the potential to develop storage concurrently or in the future with the water supply development. Potential Impacts to the Water Resource Some water supply developments impact a source more than others. Developing groundwater springs can permanently impact the spring flow down development. Also, aquifer storage projects can create gaining reaches of streams and ditches that didn't exist previously. Along with physical water quantity impacts, water quality impacts and other riparian ecosystem impacts could occur. The local community has shown that water source health is an important value. This takes those local values into consideration when analyzing alternatives. INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES PLAN City of Bozeman Bozeman, MT August 2013 I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Montana. Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT August 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS List Of Tables ................................................................................................................................ ii List Of Figures ............................................................................................................................... ii List of Appendices.................................................................................................................................. iii Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... EX-1 Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Scenario Planning Philosophy ....................................................................................... 1-2 1.2 Project Contact Information ......................................................................................... 1-2 Chapter 2 Water Rights Considerations ...................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Existing Water Rights .............................. ...................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Firm Yield Of Existing Rights .......................................................................................... 2-2 2.3 Climate Change Impacts ............................................................................................... 2-2 2.4 Watershed Monitoring ................................................................................................. 2-4 2.5 Additional Water Rights Available To The City Via Formal Application ........................ 2-4 Chapter 3 Water Demand Model Development ......................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Water Demand Pattern Characterization ........................................... .......................... 3-1 3.2 Service Level Analysis .................................................................................................... 3-4 3.3 Population Projections .................................................................................................. 3-4 3.4 Water Demand Projections ........................................................................................... 3-6 Chapter 4 Water Conservation Plan ............................................................................................ 4-1 Chapter 5 Alternative Development & Screening Process .......................................................... 5-1 5.1 Summary Of Alternatives .............................................................................................. 5-1 5.2 Alternative Screening Process ................................... .................................................... 5-1 5.3 Summary Of Portfolio Modeling Results ...................................................................... 5-9 Chapter 6 Conclusions And Recommendations .......................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Recommendations ................................................................. ....................................... 6-3 Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT August 2013 LIST OF TABLES Table EX-1: Moderate And High Growth Population Projections ............................................. EX-1 Table EX-2: Estimated Climate Adjusted Annual Water Balance Gap ....................................... EX-2 Table 2-1: Summary Of Existing Water Rights ............................................................................. 2-1 Table 2-2: Estimated Firm Yield Of Existing Water Sources ........................................................ 2-2 Table 2-3: Climate Change Impact On Firm Yield Of Existing Water Sources ............................. 2-3 Table 2-4: Water Rights Currently Available Via Formal Application ...................................... , ... 2-4 Table 3-1: Moderate And High Growth Population Projections ................................................. 3-6 Table 3-2: Estimated Climate Adjusted Annual Water Demand Projections .............................. 3-7 Table 3-3: Estimated Climate Adjusted Annual Water Balance Gap ........................................... 3-8 Table 4-1: Water Conservation Reduction Summary .................................................................. 4-1 Table 4-2: Climate Adjusted Water Balance Gap Including Water Conservation ....................... 4-2 Table 5-1: IWRP Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 5-2 Table 5-2: Qualitative Evaluation Categories And Weighting Factors ........................................ 5-3 Table 5-3: Qualitative Ranking Criteria And Weighting Factors ................................................. 5-4 Table 5-4: TAC Qualitative Criteria Ranking Results .................................................................... 5-6 Table 5-5: Alternatives Considered For Portfolio Development ................................................ 5-7 Table 5-6: Summary Of Portfolios Evaluated Using Voyage™ Model........................................ 5-8 Table 5-7: Description Of Portfolio 14 ........................................................................................ 5-9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3-1: Characterization Of Total Water Demand By User Class ......................................... 3-2 Figure 3-2: Characterization Of Indoor Water Demand By User Class ....................................... 3-2 Figure 3-3: Characterization Of Outdoor Water Demand By User Class .................................... 3-3 Figure 3-4: Service Level Objective Statistical Analysis ............................................................... 3-5 Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT August 2013 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Climate Change Adjustments to Firm Yield and Demand for Bozeman, MT Appendix B: City of Bozeman 2012 Water Conservation Plan Appendix C: Technical Summaries of Alternative & Alternative Screening Criteria Appendix D: City of Bozeman Water Resources Plan Portfolio Analysis Model Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT August 2013 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Bozeman (City) has experienced varied population growth and anticipates that growth will continue in the future. The future growth trend of Bozeman is uncertain; however, the City recognizes that it possesses a finite supply of water that could potentially be surpassed as the demand for water increases with community growth. The City is located in a closed basin with respect to water rights, and existing water supplies relied upon by the City are susceptible to the impacts of drought and climate change, which could limit the availability of water on a seasonal or annual basis. Based on these concerns, the City retained Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. (AE2S) and CH2M Hill to complete an Integrated Water Resources Plan {IWRP) that could conceivably address the water supply requirements over the next 30 to 50 years corresponding to planning horizons of 2042 and 2062. The work completed for the IWRP consisted of identifying the existing water rights of the City and comparing them to future water demands that could be experienced in relation to community growth, climate change, and other factors. The comparison resulted in the ability to estimate the water balance gap that may occur in the future, which could also be defined as the amount of water needed to meet increasing demands. Based on a range of possible population growth trends, which are presented in Table EX-1, the estimated water balance gap for the planning horizons varies from approximately 2,000 to 18,000 acre-feet, and is presented in Table EX-2. Depending on population growth and the corresponding use of water, estimates indicate that the City could experience a water balance gap under a timeline of 2025 to 2030, as the population approaches approximately 57,000, if new water supply capacity development and/or water demand reductions are not implemented. The range of possibilities prompted the development of the IWRP under an approach that is relatively flexible and capable of being adapted as the City monitors the validity of assumptions and planning values used in the IWRP and updates the information to address actual future conditions. Table EX-1: Moderate and High Growth Population Projections Item Description 2012 2042 2062 Moderate Population Projection 38,786 85,72570,256{2%/yr for 30-years, 1%/yr for next 20-yrs) High Population Projection 38,786 94,144 139,900{3%/yr for 30-years, 2%/yr for next 20-yrs) Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT August 2013 Table EX-2: Estimated Climate Adjusted Annual Water Balance Gap Item Description 2042 2062 2042 2062 Moderate Growth High Growth Annual Water Demand (acre-feet/year) 13,500 17,790 17,900 28,700 Annual Firm Yield Supply (acre-feet/year) 11,237 10,948 11,237 10,948 Water Balance Gap (acre-feet/year) 2,263 6,842 6,663 17,752 Alternatives involving water conservation measures and concepts to increase the available water supply capacity were identified to meet the estimated water balance gap. Water conservation was given substantial consideration and credibility in the development of the IWRP as a strategic near-term initiative to be implemented by the City to reduce the rate of demand for water by its user classes. Monthly water demands, which serve as the basis for estimating the effectiveness of various water conservation measures, are presented in Table EX-3. The monthly water demand information also indicates the potential viability of other alternatives, such as non-potable irrigation, to meet seasonal (outdoor) demands. The alternatives were initially screened with respect to a water rights legal assessment and qualitative criteria that were developed with assistance from the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), which was created by the City to review documentation and provide stakeholder perspective at critical milestones. The alternatives selected through the water rights and Table EX-3: Historical Indoor and Outdoor Water Use by Month Month Indoor Water Use Outdoor Water Use Total Water Use January 106 0 106 February 112 0 112 March 109 0 109 April 109 0 109 May 116 50 166 June 117 87 204 July 118 190 308 August 122 176 298 September 115 107 222 October 129 0 129 November 110 0 110 December 106 0 106 Average Annual Water Demand 165 Note: Values presented in units of gallons per capita per day (gpcd) Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT August 2013 qualitative screening processes were then combined in strategic ways to create 13 different portfolios. A life-cycle cost analysis was completed using the VOYAGE™ model and specific information developed for each of the portfolios. Cost estimates generally included capital and operating cost elements over the SO-year planning horizon. Resulting life-cycle costs reported are comparative and provided at a conceptual level, and estimates may not include all necessary costs for implementation. The individual portfolios, which included varying levels of demand reduction via water conservation program implementation, were developed to meet the estimated water demands related to the moderate growth projections or the high growth projections. The alternatives comprising the portfolios were prioritized for implementation to achieve a balance between the demand and the available supply of water, such that the timing of alternatives could be completed to meet short-term and long-term demand requirements. Upon review of draft life-cycle cost analysis results, the TAC expressed interest in the development of an additional portfolio comprised of a more comprehensive list of alternatives to meet the high population growth scenario. Given the conceptual level of effort to generate the portfolios, City representatives also introduced the possibility of initiating parallel efforts that would build on the results of the IWRP and provide more precise information to better define the implementation requirements for the alternatives. Consequently, an additional portfolio (Portfolio 14) was created and evaluated using the VOYAGE™ model. The estimated comparative net present value of Portfolio 14 is approximately $148 million, compared to a range of $113 million to $296 million for high growth scenarios, and is constructed to meet high growth demands on a monthly basis. Despite a modestly higher cost per unit of annual water volume provided, Portfolio 14 offers increased value as compared to the other portfolios developed to meet the high population growth scenario, based on several criteria developed by the TAC, staff, and the consultant team collaboratively. Portfolio 14 also represents a more diverse range of scalable options and provides increased flexibility and resiliency to the City with respect to changing conditions and uncertainty in the future. Based on this refined input, Portfolio 14 was tested as the basis for an IWRP strategy to be implemented by the City to meet a range of future growth scenarios through the 2042 and 2062 planning horizons: • Initiating a water conservation program that considers the success of various conservation measures, public acceptance, and a comparison of cost with respect to water supply capacity development with the goal of meeting low to medium water demand reduction targets. • Adding storage in Sourdough Canyon or Hyalite Reservoir via an infrastructure project to improve current withdrawals and treatment plant operations. • Developing groundwater system capacity in the Gallatin Gateway area or other appropriate location to meet demand on an as-needed basis. • Strategically purchasing shares from Hyalite Reservoir and senior surface water rights from Hyalite Creek and Sourdough Creek to obtain water in the near-term . ., CH2MHILL EX-3 I Page ~ Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT August 2013 • Developing non-potable irrigation for new developments on an incremental basis. • Optimizing the capacity of the Lyman Creek water source. The future water needs of the City of Bozeman will depend on future conditions, such as the rate of population growth, impacts of climate change, success ofthe City's water conservation program, availability of useful water rights, and other conditions that are not completely predictable. The IWRP was developed in recognition that future decisions by the City will be made in the context of these conditions as they evolve, and the IWRP is intended to be flexible enough to account for the conditions and contingencies created by these evolving conditions. The following recommendations were developed to represent a logistical strategy for the City to proceed in fulfilling the objectives of the IWRP: Near-Term • Implementation of Portfolio 14 should proceed with a robust economic and engineering feasibility analysis for each of the portfolio components, followed by a comparative analysis of the components based on the screening assessment framework established by the IWRP. These steps provide a sound basis for prioritized decision-making by the City of Bozeman regarding its water resource management. • Incorporate the implementation of Portfolio 14 into the City of Bozeman Capital Improvement Planning budget such that anticipated costs are budgeted well into the future. • A water conservation plan should be prioritized for implementation to reduce the rate of demand for water as a substantial contribution toward addressing the water balance gap identified for the 2042 and 2062 planning horizons. • The installation of stream flow monitoring equipment in the watersheds should be implemented to provide useful information to the City for the purpose of assessing climate change impacts and better manage its water resources moving forward. • Implementation of strategies to improve the capture efficiency of water requested and released from Hyalite Reservoir, such as reducing or potentially eliminating the conveyance efficiency factor and providing increased raw water and/or finished water storage. • The formal application process with the DNRC should be initiated to secure water rights that are currently available to the City totaling approximately 6,750 acre-feet of water an annual basis. This value does not reflect a historical use analysis that will be conducted for any change applications, and should be noted to avoid any mistaken expectations about the amount of water that is potentially available. • Shares from Hyalite Reservoir and senior surface water rights from Hyalite Creek and Sourdough Creek should be purchased to the extent possible. Long-Term • Water supply and demand trends should be monitored to assess the need for additional water supply capacity development. CH2MHILL EX-4 I Page Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT August 2013 • Revisit population growth trends every 5 years, or on a more frequent interval if necessary. • Additional water supply capacity should be developed by the City in accordance with the outcome of subsequent efforts to evaluate alternatives in more detail and planning objectives that will evolve with actual population growth and water demand trends. WCH2MHILL EX-5 I Page ~ Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT August 2013 Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION The City of Bozeman (City) has experienced varied population growth since year 2000, ranging from over 5 percent per year to no growth in population associated with the recent recession. As the economy appears to be recovering, the City and surrounding area is once again experiencing an increase in development activity and positive growth. The future growth trend of Bozeman is uncertain; however, the City recognizes that it possesses a finite supply of water that could potentially be surpassed as the demand for water increases with community growth. Prior to the recent recession and based on a relatively aggressive rate of growth, the 2005 Water Facility Plan estimated that a water supply shortage could be experienced as soon as 2015. The City is located in a closed basin with respect to water rights, which prevents the City from filing applications for new water rights from the State of Montana without mitigation. Existing water rights held by the City are subject to restriction with respect to senior water rights, stipulated periods of use during the year, and rates of withdrawal. Operational concerns include cold weather and reduced flow impacts that limit the ability to withdraw water from Bozeman Creek (Sourdough Creek). Cold temperatures cause ice formation on Bozeman Creek, which has interfered with intake operations when low flow conditions persist. Hyalite Creek (Middle Creek) can also experience reduced flows, which are supplemented by the release of stored water from Hyalite Reservoir. Calls for the release of water from Hyalite Reservoir must be made 24 hours in advance based on estimates by operators. Operators typically estimate conservatively in order to ensure an adequate release of from Hyalite Reservoir is available to meet demands, which often results in the incomplete capture of the releases by the intake system. The City also recognizes that water supplies are susceptible to the impacts of drought and climate change, which could limit the availability of water on a seasonal or annual basis. The anticipation of future community growth and limited water supply availability prompted the City to complete an Integrated Water Resources Plan (IWRP) that could conceivably address the water supply requirements over the next 30 to 50 years. Specific components ofthe IWRP, as envisioned by the City, include: • Completing an inventory of existing water rights currently held by the Bozeman; • Conducting a hydrologic firm yield analysis assessing the sensitivity of existing sources to drought and climate change impacts; • Characterizing existing water use patterns; • Developing a water demand model, using population projections and water use patterns; • Developing a preliminary water conservation plan with considerations for drought contingency; • Identifying and assessing alternatives available to the Bozeman to enhance the availability of existing water supplies and/or develop new water supplies; it CH2MHILL 1-1 I Page ~ Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT August 2013 • Coordinating work efforts with Water Rights Solutions, Inc. (WRSI), the specialized firm retained by the City to provide consulting on water rights issues, and Peter Scott, legal counsel; and • Conducting a series of meetings with a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to provide local input and perspective on the technical information prepared for the IWRP. 1.1 Planning Approach Several variables affect the supply and demand for water in the Bozeman area. The range of possibilities regarding such variables that ultimately contribute to the development of the IWRP for the City is infinite. An abbreviated list of such variables include assumptions regarding population projections; the effectiveness of specific water conservation measures on future water demands; the potential impacts of climate change; and the accuracy of conceptual opinions of cost developed for water supply alternatives. Furthermore, the City recognizes the difficulty of predicting the impact that these and other pertinent factors may have through the identified 30-year and SO-year planning horizons corresponding to year 2032 and year 2062, respectively. To address the range of possibilities, AE2S/CH2M Hill developed the IWRP under a planning approach that is relatively flexible and capable of being adapted as the City monitors the validity of assumptions and planning values used in the IWRP and updates the information to address actual future conditions. 1.2 Project Contact Information The primary contact person for the City with respect to the administration of the IWRP is: Brian Heaston, PE City of Bozeman -Engineering P.O. Box 1230 Bozeman, MT 59771 Email: bheaston@bozeman.net Ph: (406) 582-2280 The work completed by AE2S/CH2M Hill for the IWRP is presented in this report document and related appendices. It should be noted that not all of the work products used to generate this document are provided for reference; however, additional support documentation, if needed, is available upon request. The primary contact persons regarding the contents of the report and supporting documentation are as follows: R. Nathan Weisenburger, PE Mark Anderson, PE, D.WRE AE2S CH2M Hill 300 15th Street S., Suite #7 2020 SW 4th Avenue, Suite 350 Great Falls, MT, 59405 Portland, OR 97201-4958 Email: Nate.Weisenburger@ae2s.com Mark.Anderson@CH2M.com Ph: (406) 268-0626 Ph: (503) 872-4700 Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT August 2013 Chapter 2 WATER RIGHTS CONSIDERATIONS 2.1 Existing Water Rights The City holds several water rights in various watersheds located in the vicinity of Bozeman. The existing water rights available to the City on an annual basis are summarized in Table 2-1. When considering the volume of water available, it is important to recognize that water demand varies throughout the year. The City typically experiences increased rates of water demand during late spring, throughout the summer, and into the early fall months when outdoor use is prevalent. Similarly, the amount of water available on a daily or monthly basis varies with withdrawal provisions, inadequate flow or production from the source, and infrastructure limitations. For these reasons, the development of the water demand model included in the scope of work for the IWRP considered the comparison of projected water demands to the available supply of water rights on a monthly time step and on an annual total volumetric basis. As indicated in Table 2-1, some ofthe water rights are not available for use at the existing site of the Sourdough Water Treatment Plant (WTP). Table 2-1: Summary of Existing Water Rights Water Source Documented Water Right (acre-feet/year) Sourdough Creek (Bozeman Creek) 4,800 Hyalite Creek (Middle Creek) 1,631 Hyalite Reservoir 5,652 Total Water Rights Available at Existing WTP 12,083 Sourdough Storage Reservation* 609 Lyman Creek 4,346 Total with Sourdough Storage Reservation 17,038 Total without Sourdough Storage Reservation 16,429 * Requires action by the City with respect to the construction of appropriate infrastructure. Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT August 2013 2.2 Firm Yield of Existing Rights As stated above, portions ofthe existing water rights listed in Table 2-1 are not currently available to the City for various reasons. The City has commissioned previous efforts to assess the firm yield of its existing water rights. The basis for this study stems from the 1997 Water Facility Plan. Firm yield values from that study were reviewed and revised, where applicable, based on future climate projections. The estimated firm yield of the existing water rights, as compared to the documented water right, is presented in Table 2-2. 2.3 Climate Change Impacts Long-term water supply planning must consider whether historic, documented climate trends and projected future conditions may affect proposed strategies. Climate change models have been developed to assess the long-term impact of carbon emissions and are being used to predict the response of a given watershed to changes in the temperature of the atmosphere and the timing and intensity of precipitation, including reduced levels of precipitation that would contribute to drought conditions. Climate change impacts were estimated using SimCLIM, which is a proprietary model developed by ClimSystems. A technical memorandum was prepared by CH2M Hill to explain how SimCLIM was used to estimate the impact of climate change on the firm yield of water sources used by the City. The technical memorandum is provided in Appendix A for reference. Table 2-2: Estimated Firm Yield of Existing Water Sources1 Water Source Documented Water Right (acre-feet/year) Estimated Firm Yield (acre-feet/year) Sourdough Creek (Bozeman Creek) 4,800 3,734 Hyalite Creek (Middle Creek) 1,631 1,526 Hyalite Reservoir 5,652 4,295 Total Water Rights Available at Existing WTP 12,083 9,555 Sourdough Storage Reservation 609 609 Lyman Creek 4,346 1,280 Total with Sourdough Storage Reservation 17,038 11,444 Total without Sourdough Storage Reservation 16,429 10,835 1-Data Source: 1997 Water Facility Plan Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT August 2013 The results of the Sim CLIM model with respect to sources of water used by the City are summarized in Table 2-3 and are reported for 2012 and the year 2042 and year 2062 planning horizons. Generally, the firm yield of water sources that are not associated with impoundments or reservoirs to provide storage, such as that for Sourdough Creek and Hyalite Creek, is estimated to decline in the future. The estimated firm yield for water from Hyalite Reservoir and Lyman Creek, which is classified as groundwater from a natural spring, are assumed to remain relatively stable for the analysis, but also may be influenced by changing climate patterns. Releases of water from Hyalite Reservoir, as requested by WTP staff, are subject to adjustment based on an 80 percent conveyance efficiency factor. The results presented in Table 2-3 for Hyalite Reservoir assume that the adjustment factor could be removed from releases requested by the City to maximize the capture efficiency of the total amount available based on the increased number shares owned by the City and the relative proximity of the City's intake facility as compared to the withdrawal points of other shareholders. The City has also evaluated potential strategies to minimize the amount of released water that is not captured by the intake facility. Possible improvements include raw water storage and/or increased distribution system storage to provide increased operational flexibility in regards to accurately predicting water demands and the corresponding requests for the release of water from Hyalite Reservoir. The increased amount of water reported for Lyman Creek, as compared to that presented in Table 2-2, reflect relatively recent capital improvements to the spring intake collection system and Lyman Treatment Plant piping system that have increased the firm production capacity. Table 2-3: Climate Change Impact on Firm Yield of Existing Water Sources ' Water Source 2012 Firm Yield (acre-feet/year) 2042 Firm Yield (acre-feet/year) 2062 Firm Yield (acre-feet/year) Sourdough Creek (Bozeman Creek) 3,633 3,491 3,277 Hyalite Creek (Middle Creek) 1,489 1,436 1,360 Hyalite Reservoir 4,521 4,521 4,521 Total Water Rights Available at Existing WTP 9,643 9,447 9,158 Sourdough Storage Reservation 609 609 609 Lyman Creek 1,790 1,790 1,790 Total with Sourdough Storage Reservation 12,042 11,846 11,557 Total without Sourdough Storage Reservation 11,433 11,237 10,948 -- Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT August 2013 2.4 Watershed Monitoring During the initial meeting with the TAC, the lack of monitoring equipment to measure stream flow in area watersheds was discussed and identified as a limitation to accurately determine the firm yield of existing water sources. The installation of monitoring equipment, such as gauging stations, would facilitate the development of trending assessments in the watersheds. The ability to trend information could assist in understanding the impacts, if any, associated with climate change and potentially provide opportunities to better manage water resources available to the City moving forward. 2.5 Additional Water Rights Available to the City via Formal Application In addition to the water rights listed in Table 2-1, the City has the ability to secure additional water supply from water rights claims not presently used. A summary of such water rights is presented in Table 2-4. Water rights acquired through annexation are obtained as prescribed by City ordinance as additional development occurs. Developers are required to provide the City with a water right that is capable of meeting the water demand of the subject development or provide payment to the City for the purpose of purchasing water rights. The Mystic Lake water rights pertain to water that was stored behind a dam in the Sourdough Creek watershed. The Mystic Lake water rights have not been available to the City since 1985, when the dam was intentionally breached due to safety concerns experienced in 1984. The water rights presented in Table 2-4 require formal action by the City via preparation and submittal of appropriate change applications to the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC). Based on the water supply development objectives ofthe City and the results of the IWRP, the City will continue to consult with WRSI and its legal counsel to make use of these water rights. Table 2-4: Water Rights Currently Available Via Formal Application Water Source/Right Available Water Right (acre-feet/year) Mandeville/Tracy Rights ~500 Water Rights Acquired via Annexation "'250 Mystic Lake Water Rights 6,000 Total 6,750* * The values do not reflect a historical use analysis that will be conducted for any change applications and should be noted to avoid any mistaken expectations about the amount of water that is potentially available. Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT August 2013 Chapter 3 WATER DEMAND MODEL DEVELOPMENT A primary component of the IWRP consisted of developing a water demand model. The water demand model serves as the basis for projecting future water demands, comparing the projected water demands to the amount of water available from existing sources, and quantifying the amount and at what point in time the City will need to acquire additional sources of water. The development of the water demand model for the IWRP involved several steps, including: • Characterizing existing water use patterns • Identifying a service level objective and corresponding water demand • Establishing a defensible method for population projections • Estimating water demands for planning horizons 3.1 Water Demand Pattern Characterization Historical water demand data from 2000 to 2010 was provided by the City for review, interpretation, and statistical manipulation purposes. The data provided by the City included a categorization of the water demand between user classes, such as residential, commercial, industrial, and Montana State University (MSU). It should be noted that a portion of the work effort consisted of working with the City's Geographical Information System (GIS) department to develop reports that link water meter data to specific zones, user class, seasonal periods, etc., to facilitate trending and additional statistical analyses to conduct continued evaluations of water demand patterns, as needed, in the future. The characterized water use by user class based on the set of water demand data provided by the City is presented in Figure 3-1. Given the format in which the data was provided, it is also possible to present similar characterizations of the water demand information by indoor use and outdoor use trends, which are presented in Figure 3-2 and Figure 3-3, respectively. The ability to review water demand information in the amount of detail afforded by the data presents a substantial amount of increased perspective regarding the use of water and how water use may change or be adjusted moving forward. The historical water demand data was also manipulated such that seasonal water demands could be reviewed and assessed. Water demands typically vary considerably in communities such as Bozeman that experience a wide range of temperature variation associated with the change of seasons. Water demand trends typically increase during the months associated with late spring, summer, and early fall when outdoor water use is more prevalent. A monthly breakdown of the seasonal demand for Bozeman is provided in Table 3-1 to indicate how the water demand changes over the course of the year. As shown, Bozeman currently experiences a substantial increase in water demand during the summer months. Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT August 2013 Figure 3-1: Characterization of Total Water Demand by User Class TOTAL WATER DEMAND Figure 3-2: Characterization of Indoor Water Demand by User Class INDOOR WATER DEMAND 2% 1% '9 CH2MHILL ~ ■ Residential ■ Commercial ■ Top 8 Commercial ■ MSU ■ Industrial ■ Government ■ Unaccounted for Water ■ Residential ■ Commercial ■ Top 8 Commercial ■ MSU ■ Industry ■ Government ■ Unaccounted for Water 3-2 I Page Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT August 2013 Figure 3-3: Characterization of Outdoor Water Demand by User Class OUTDOOR WATER DEMAND 0% 0% Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT August 2013 The seasonal water demand data in Table 3-1 served as the basis for several efforts completed as part of the IWRP. For instance, the data provided a benchmark for the purpose of estimating the effectiveness of various water conservation measures, which are a prominent component of the IWRP moving forward. The monthly water demand information also indicates that the potential viability of other alternatives, such as those that are consistent with the use of non potable irrigation water, could be implemented to meet increased seasonal demands that do not necessarily require water treated to drinking water standards. 3.2 Service Level Analysis Most water utilities are willing to accept an operational philosophy that it will not be able to meet the demand for water 100 percent of the time, as this requirement results in additional costs for infrastructure capacity that is rarely used. For this reason, a discussion regarding the identification of an acceptable service level factor was facilitated with the City and members of the TAC. A service level analysis involves statistically evaluating historical water demand data to identify a water demand value that serves as the basis for the implementation of future improvements. The service level analysis for the City of Bozeman was based on the average of monthly water demand data sets. Historical water demand information from 2000 through 2010 was used to identify planning values for summer months because the data set over this period of time varied considerably with climate conditions. The planning values for the summer months were based on historical water demand information from 2005 through 2010, which have been relatively stable since declining somewhat steadily from 2000 through 2005. Based on input from the TAC, the City approved the recommendation to base the IWRP on meeting a service level objective of 95 percent. Therefore, the IWRP has been developed to provide enough water supply capacity to theoretically meet 95 percent of the possible average month water demand values that could be experienced by the City. The annual water demand corresponding to a 95 percent service level establishes a reasonable planning value of 165 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). A graphical representation of the statistical analysis used to identify an acceptable service level is presented in Figure 3-4. Water demands that exceed the water supply capacity in the future are anticipated to be managed via the implementation of drought contingency measures. More detailed discussion regarding the service level analysis and drought contingency planning is provided in the Water Conservation Plan technical memorandum, which is located in Appendix B. 3.3 Population Projections Population growth has varied considerably in the Bozeman area over the past few decades. Previous planning documents, such as the 2005 Water Facility Plan, estimated a population growth rate of 5 percent from 2005 through 2025 based on the amount of development that was occurring in the Bozeman area at that point in time. The Sourdough Creek Reservoir Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT August 2013 Figure 3-4: Service Level Objective Statistical Analysis Service Level Analysis 350.0 300.0 >n, C ... 250.0&. n,.... ·a n, u 200.0... QIA. Ill C .2 150.0ca (!J .5 "t'S C n, 100.0 E QI C 50.0 0.0 ~~ ~fl, ~ rt-rt-~~ ~~ cS' ~'l,4. ")~4. fl-' rt- ~v ~v ~,§, '?-'Q. \'V ~ 2P # \'lj '?-,s 't,,,'li # 0tf sfl-# cf"<~ c.,fl-'Q. ~o <::f Month Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT August 2013 Development Plan completed in April 2011 estimated that the firm yield of existing water supplies could become inadequate by 2015 to 2020 based on the 2005 Water Facility Plan water demand analysis. Due to the negative impact of the recent economic recession, the City has experienced substantially less growth over the past three to four years, resulting in an opportunity to plan for a range of growth possibilities moving forward. Using a flexible planning approach, the future population of Bozeman was estimated based on two possibilities consisting of a moderate population projection and a high population projection. The moderate population projection increases the estimated 2012 population by 2 percent per year for 30 years through the 2042 planning horizon, and increases the population by 1 percent per year for a consecutive 20-year period through the 2062 planning horizon. The high population projection increases the estimated 2012 population by 3 percent per year for 30 years through 2042, and increases the population by 2 percent per year for a consecutive 20•year period through the 2062 planning horizon. The results of the population projections are shown in Table 3-2. Actual population projections will most likely differ from the two scenarios documented herein, and the City should monitor the rate of population growth periodically to assess whether adjustments to the recommendations and related implementation timelines are necessary. 3.4 Water Demand Projections Water demand projections were estimated using historical water demand data, the 95 percent service level analysis, and the inclusion of an adjustment factor to address potential climate impacts on water use. A discussion of the impacts on water demands related to climate change is included in the technical memorandum provided in Appendix A. The annual water demand is calculated by multiplying the climate adjusted water demand value by the projected population corresponding to a given planning horizon. The product of that calculation is converted to units of acre-feet/year by applying a factor of 365 to convert from a daily value to an annual value, and dividing by approximately 325,850 to convert gallons to acre.feet. Table 3-2: Moderate and High Growth Population Projections Item Description 2012 2042 2062 Moderate Population Projection (2%/yr for 30-years, 1%/yr for next 20-yrs) 38,786 70,256 85,725 High Population Projection (3%/yr for 30•years, 2%/yr for next 20-yrs) 38,786 94,144 139,900 Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT August 2013 As presented in Figures 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3, the water demand projections are indicative of the anticipated requirements for each user class and seasonal variation associated with indoor and outdoor water use trends. Specific water demand values associated with the various user classes and seasonal trends that contribute to the overall annual demand calculation is provided in the Water Conservation Plan technical memorandum in Appendix B. The projected annual water demands for 2042 and 2062, with provisions for growth by Montana State University (MSU), are provided in Table 3-3 for the moderate growth and high growth population projections. The similarity in projected water demands for the 2042 high growth projection and the 2062 moderate growth projection is notable, differing only by 110 acre-feet. The projected water supply shortage, or water balance gap, is calculated by subtracting the amount of water that is currently available from existing supplies used by the City from the projected water supply demand presented in Table 3-3. The amount of water that is available from existing supplies, as determined from the climate adjusted firm yield analysis, is presented in Table 2-3. Using the data without including the Sourdough Storage Reservation, the projected water balance gap ranges from about 2000 acre-feet to nearly 18,000 acre feet, as presented in Table 3-4. The projected water balance gap for the 2042 high growth projection and the 2062 moderate growth projection are relatively similar, only differing by approximately 180 acre-feet. The water balance gap determined by the water demand model serves as the foundation for reducing water demand via water conservation or developing additional water supply capacity. Table 3-3: Estimated Climate Adjusted Annual Water Demand Projections without Water Conservation Item Description 2042 2062 2042 2062 Climate Adjusted Water Demand (gpcd) Moderate Growth High Growth 165 180 165 180 Population Projection 70,256 85,725 94,144 139,900 Bozeman Water Demand (acre-feet/year) 13,000 17,290 17,400 28,200 MSU Growth (acre-feet/year) 500 500 500 500 Total Annual Water Demand (acre-feet) 13,500 17,790 17,900 28,700 Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT August 2013 Table 3-4: Estimated Climate Adjusted Annual Water Balance Gap without Water Conservation Item Description 2042 2062 2042 2062 Moderate Growth High Growth Annual Water Demand (acre-feet/year) 13,500 17,790 17,900 28,700 Annual Firm Yield Supply (acre-feet/year) 11,237 10,948 11,237 10,948 Water Balance Gap (acre-feet/year) 2,263 6,842 6,663 17,752 Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT August 2013 Chapter 4 WATER CONSERVATION PLAN The scope of work for the IWRP included an update to the 2002 Water Conservation Plan for the City. Water conservation was a prominent discussion topic during several of the meetings conducted with the City and the TAC, and the approach taken to develop the Water Conservation Plan was tailored in accordance with the input and direction that was received. A detailed explanation of the work completed for the Water Conservation Plan is provided as a technical memorandum in Appendix B. To meet the objectives established by the City and TAC, three levels of water conservation were developed to estimate the potential reduction in the future demand for water. The three levels of water conservation were developed to reflect low, medium, and high degrees of effort that could be put forth by the City to reduce the overall rate of water consumption. The cost associated with implementing the identified water conservation measures were estimated such that the three levels of water conservation could be included as potential alternatives to assist in meeting the future water supply needs of the City. The estimated volume of water demand reduction achievable by the three water conservation levels at the 2042 and 2062 planning horizons are provided in the top portion of Table 4-1 for the moderate population growth projection. The estimated volume of water demand reduction achievable by the three water conservation levels at the 2042 and 2062 planning horizons are provided in the bottom portion of Table 4-1 for the high population growth projection. The amount of water required from alternatives other than water conservation measures to meet future demands is equal to the difference between the water balance gap values presented in Table 3-3 and the estimated water reduction for the three levels of water conservation, as presented in Table 4-1. The resulting values of this calculation for the corresponding planning horizon and projected growth scenario are provided in Table 4-2. Table 4-1: Water Conservation Reduction Summary Item Description 2042 2062 Moderate Population Growth Estimated Low Conservation Reduction (acre-feet/year) 2,013 2,770 Estimated Medium Conservation Reduction (acre-feet/year) 4,282 5,908 Estimated High Conservation Reduction (acre-feet/year) 6,369 8,218 High Population Growth Estimated Low Conservation Reduction (acre-feet/year) 2,838 4,806 Estimated Medium Conservation Reduction (acre-feet/year) 5,921 10,108 Estimated High Conservation Reduction (acre-feet/year) 8,240 12,991 Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT August 2013 Table 4-2: Climate Adjusted Water Balance Gap Including Water Conservation Item Description 2042 2062 2042 2062 Moderate Growth High Growth Water Balance Gap -Low Conservation (acre-ft) 250 4,072 3,825 12,946 Water Balance Gap -Medium Conservation (acre-ft) -2,019 934 742 7,644 Water Balance Gap -High Conservation (acre-ft) -4,106 -1,376 -1,577 4,761 As shown in Table 4-2, the estimated water balance gap could potentially be addressed through water conversation measures, depending on the amount of growth experienced by the City and extent of water conservation achieved. The estimated water balance gap could approach 13,000 acre-feet by 2062 under the high growth scenario and low water conservation. The water balance gap that remains after the consideration of the water conservation alternatives needs to be met with alternatives that increase the amount of water available to the City. Negative values suggest that water conservation measures could potentially be adequate to address increasing water demand associated with population growth, provided that the increased levels are less expensive than the cost of developing additional water supply. As identified in Table 4-2, high water conservation does not adequately address the water balance gap over the SO-year planning horizon and high growth conditions, indicating that water supply capacity development would be required . Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT August 2013 Chapter 5 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT & SCREENING PROCESS 5.1 Summary of Alternatives Alternatives were developed to increase the amount of water supply capacity available to the City to meet the water balance gap calculated in the previous section of this report (Table 4-2). The alternatives were generated at a conceptual level with representatives ofthe City, the TAC, and AE2S/CH2M Hill. The alternatives developed for the IWRP were split into the following general categories: Integrated Utility (IU) Alternatives: The IU alternatives consist of several concepts to leverage water that could be made available from other utilities operated by the City, primarily treated effluent from the Bozeman Water Reclamation Facility (BWRF). Water Supply Development (WSD) Alternatives: The WSD alternatives consist of targeting a specific source that could provide additional water supply capacity to the City. Other Supply (OS) Alternatives: The OS alternatives consist of miscellaneous concepts to increase the available supply of water to the City, either via optimization or strategies to offset the current use of water, such as water conservation. The list of the alternatives developed for the IWRP is provided in Table 5-1. Summaries ofthe alternatives were prepared to convey technical information to the City and TAC to facilitate the alternative screening process. The technical summaries for each of the alternatives are provided in Appendix C for reference. 5.2 Alternative Screening Process The alternatives were screened using a methodical process to eliminate the need for detailed engineering and cost analysis for alternatives that may not be legally or technically feasible or were viewed less favorable as compared to more viable alternatives. The screening process consisted of the following three levels of evaluation: Screening Level 1: Water Rights Legal Assessment Screening Level 2: Qualitative Criteria Screening Level 3: Quantitative Criteria -VOYAGE™ Model Alternative Analysis Screening Level 1: Water Rights Legal Assessment As an initial screening effort, the alternatives were reviewed by the City's water rights consultant and special legal counsel with respect to Montana Water Law. Based on the input received, the alternatives were classified into one of three rankings: Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT August 2013 Table 5-1: IWRP Alternatives Alternative Number Alternative Name IU Alternatives Northside Non-Potable Water Reuse Northside and Southside Non-Potable Water Reuse Northside Non-Potable and Potable Water Reuse Northside and Southside Non-Potable and Potable Water Reuse Agricultural irrigation Water Use Industrial Water Reuse Groundwater Recharge -Water Reuse WSD Alternatives Sourdough Reservoir WSD2A Canyon Ferry Import Reservoir Delivery WSD2B Canyon Ferry Import Confluence Delivery Madison Aquifer Groundwater Belgrade Subarea Groundwater Gallatin Gateway Subarea Groundwater Yellowstone River Import Adjacent Drainage Development WSD6 Canal Company lmpoundment Sourdough Pond Storage WSD8 Hyalite Share Purchasing Hyalite Reservoir Dam Raise Brackett Creek Import OS Alternatives Non-Potable Groundwater Supply OS2 Lyman Creek Expansion 0S3 Low Water Conservation Approach 0S4 Medium Water Conservation Approach ass High Water Conservation Approach Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT August 2013 Green : The alternative is consistent with existing provisions of Montana Water Law, and could likely yield the anticipated results if pursued for implementation by the City. : The alternative may or may not be consistent with provisions of Montana Water Law, and the actual outcome may differ from the anticipated results if pursued for implementation by the City. Red : The alternative is not consistent with Montana Water Law and should not be pursued for implementation by the City unless changes to Montana Water Law are possible. Alternatives that were classified as green or yellow in accordance with their respective consistency with Montana Water Law proceeded to the second level of the screening process. Alternatives that were classified as red were dismissed from further evaluation. Screening Level 2: Qualitative Criteria The alternatives that were deemed possible from a water rights legal assessment perspective were subjected to an evaluation based on wide range of qualitative criteria. The qualitative criteria were developed by AE2S/CH2M Hill and presented to the City and TAC for review, input, and revision . Once the list of criteria was established, each of the criteria was placed into one of the following categories: Technical Criteria; Environmental Criteria; Social Criteria; Economic Criteria; and Water Supply Criteria. The criteria comprising each of the categories were assigned weighting factors, with the sum of the weighting criteria factors for each category being equal to 100. Similarly, each of the categories was assigned a weighting factor such that the total sum of the weighting factors for the categories resulted in a sum of 100. Based on the identified criteria and categories, which were determined through consensus with the TAC, each member ofthe TAC was asked to assign weighting factors. The weighting factors assigned to the criteria and categories for the ranking process were determined based on the average of the factors provided by the TAC. The categories and respective weighting factors used to evaluate the alternatives are presented in Table 5-2. The qualitative criteria comprising each category and respective weighting factors are presented in Table 5-3, and detailed descriptions of the criteria pertaining to the evaluation of the alternatives are provided in Appendix C. Table 5-2: Qualitative Evaluation Categories and Weighting Factors Categories of Evaluation Criteria Weight{%) Score Technical Criteria 18 Environmental Criteria 28 Social Criteria 13 Economic Criteria 19 Water Supply Criteria 22 Total (Weight must equal 100%) 100% Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT August 2013 Table 5-3: Qualitative Ranking Criteria and Weighting Factors Technical Criteria Weight(%) Score Constructability 13 Regulations and Drinking Water Quality Impacts 17 Existing Infrastructure Compatibility 15 Water Re-use 9 Water Supply Redundancy 14 Meets 30-Year Planning Horizon Targets 19 Meets SO-Year Planning Horizon Targets 13 Total (Weight must equal 100%) 100% Environmental Criteria Weight(%) Score Clean Water Act Compliance (TMDLs) 15 In-stream Flow Maintenance 21 Permitting, Environmental Impact Statements, and Easements 16 Energy Generation and Carbon Footprint 18 Climate Impacts Resiliency 15 General Environmental Impacts (Wildlife, Forested Areas) 15 Total (Weight must equal 100%) 100% Social Criteria Weight(%) Score Customer Service Satisfaction 18 Public Health and Safety 21 Quality of Life Impacts 15 Overall Public Support 24 Economic Development and Growth 10 Water Marketing and Leasing -Maintain Ag Rights 12 Total (Weight must equal 100%) 100% Economic Criteria Weight(%) Score Magnitude of Capital Investment per Acre-ft of Developable Water Supply 26 Relative Operation and Maintenance Costs 27 Eligibility for Outside Funding 13 Economy of Scale Impacts 11 Delay of Infrastructure to Encourage Growth to Pay for Growth 23 Total (Weight must equal 100%) 100% Water Supply Criteria Weight(%) Score Reliability and Control of Water Supply (degree of certainty) 21 Initial Water Quality of Water Supply 13 Risk of Water Supply to Contamination/Sabotage 15 Proximity of Water Supply 18 Storage Volume Potential 14 Potential Impacts to the Water Resources 19 Total (Weight must equal 100%) 100% Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT August 2013 Members of the TAC were tasked with scoring each of the alternatives with respect to the qualitative criteria using a scale of Oto 3, with O being the least favorable score possible and 3 being the most favorable score possible. The average scores for the TAC are presented in Table 5-4. Table 5-4 also includes the TAC rankings presented as ordinal sum values. The scores and ordinal sum values represent data sets from eight of the TAC members. Three members of the TAC abstained from completing the qualitative ranking exercise. The results ofthe ranking process were presented to the City and TAC for review and consideration with respect to the development of water supply portfolios, which consist of a combination of alternatives to meet the projected water needs of the City. The scoring and subsequent ranking process prompted vigorous discussion of the alternatives and the possible combinations thereof to create the limited number of IWRP portfolios to be further evaluated using the VOYAGE™ model. Representatives of AE2S/CH2M Hill completed the qualitative scoring and ranking process. This information, along with technical guidance and perspective, contributed to the selection of alternatives and the development of portfolios. The IU alternatives generally involve the use of effluent from the BWRF as a potential strategy to simultaneously meet a portion of the water demand and achieve compliance with increasingly stringent wastewater discharge regulations. The IU alternatives generated substantial discussion regarding potential conflicts between Montana water law and current and potential wastewater discharge regulations enforced by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality. As Montana municipalities consider alternatives to reduce or eliminate the need to discharge wastewater, it was recognized that mitigation would likely be necessary for BWRF effluent reuse to be considered as an approved strategy to circumvent wastewater discharge permit requirements. Due to the identified water law constraints and uncertainty regarding feasibility, all of the IU alternatives involving the use of effluent from the BWRF were excluded from further consideration. The possibilities of obtaining water from the Yellowstone River (WSD4), adjacent drainage basins (WSD5), and Brackett Creek (WSDlO) were also excluded based on the relatively low qualitative scores and rankings as compared to other alternatives. The decision was made to use cost information from the Sourdough Creek Reservoir Development Plan prepared in April 2011 as a placeholder for the potential construction of an impoundment or series of impoundments in the Sourdough Creek watershed or the concept of raising Hyalite Dam to gain additional water storage. Therefore, alternatives WSDl, WSD7, and WSD9 were indirectly identified for inclusion in the portfolio modeling process. The development of groundwater was supported by the City and TAC. Several unanswered questions surround the concept of obtaining water from Madison Aquifer, whereas the ability to obtain groundwater of acceptable quantity and quality in the Belgrade and Gallatin Gateway areas is generally accepted as a feasible option. With respect to the application process, it is recognized that both alternatives would need to satisfy mitigation requirements. As compared 5-5 I Pageit CH2MHILL ~ Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT August 2013 Table 5-4: TAC Qualitative Criteria Ranking Results Alternative Number/Name Average Score Ordinal Sum IU Alternatives IUS Agricultural irrigation Water Use 1.69 0.83 IUl Northside Non-Potable Water Reuse 1.61 0.81 IU7 Groundwater Recharge -Water Reuse 1.61 0.76 IU2 Northside/Southside Non-Potable Water Reuse 1.53 0.71 IU3 Northside Non-Potable and Potable Water Reuse 1.49 0.68 IU4 Northside/Southside Non-Potable/Potable Water Reuse 1.47 0.67 IU6 Industrial Water Reuse 1.33 0.60 WSD Alternatives WSD8 Hyalite Share Purchasing 2.55 6.67 WSD3A Madison Aquifer Groundwater 2.05 1.35 WSD3C Gallatin Gateway Subarea Groundwater 2.03 1.54 WSD7 Sourdough Pond Storage 1.97 1.11 WSD9 Hyalite Reservoir Dam Raise 1.95 1.32 WSD3B Belgrade Subarea Groundwater 1.92 1.23 WSD6 Canal Company lmpoundment 1.88 0.98 WSDl Sourdough Reservoir 1.84 1.05 WSD2B Canyon Ferry Import Confluence Delivery 1.70 0.79 WSD2A Canyon Ferry Import Reservoir Delivery 1.70 0.81 WSD5 Adjacent Drainage Development 1.65 0.83 WSD4 Yellowstone River Import 1.52 0.68 WSDl0 Brackett Creek Import 1.38 0.57 OS Alternatives OS2 Lyman Creek Expansion 2.25 2.13 OS4 Medium Water Conservation Approach 2.19 2.00 OS3 Low Water Conservation Approach 2.14 1.47 OSS High Water Conservation Approach 2.13 1.69 OSl Non-Potable Groundwater Supply 2.05 1.54 Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT August 2013 to the Belgrade area, the Gallatin Gateway area offers inherent advantages regarding its relative elevation with respect to the City of Bozeman and the possibility of competing interests from the City of Belgrade. Therefore, the Gallatin Gateway area (WSD3A} was selected as the best representative involving the development of a groundwater supply in the Bozeman area. The alternatives involving groundwater development from the Madison Aquifer (WSD3A) and in the Belgrade area (WSD3B} were subsequently excluded from the portfolio modeling process. The Canyon Ferry import alternative was included in a portfolio as a concept to meet high growth projections with limited efforts expended toward water conservation program implementation. Because of anticipated cost impacts, the confluence option (WSD2B) was selected as a more credible alternative than extending the pipeline from Canyon Ferry Reservoir near Townsend, MT, which eliminated alternative WSD2A from consideration. The remaining alternatives, including the three water conservation levels, received relatively high scores and were identified for inclusion in the portfolio modeling process. A summary of the alternatives selected for further evaluation is presented in Table 5-5. Screening Level 3: Quantitative Criteria -VOYAGE™ Model Alternative Analysis The third level of the screening process consists of completing a life-cycle cost analyses for the identified portfolios based on conceptual capital costs and conceptual operations and maintenance costs. A total of thirteen portfolios, which are listed in Table 5-6, were created using different combinations of the alternatives identified for additional evaluation through the Table 5-5: Alternatives Considered for Portfolio Development Alternative Description WSD1/WSD7 /WSD9: Sourdough lmpoundment(s)/Hyalite Dam Raise WSD2B: Canyon Ferry Import Confluence Delivery WSD3C: Gallatin Gateway Subarea Groundwater WSD6: Canal Company lmpoundment (i.e. SALAR) WSD9: Hyalite Shares Purchasing OSl: Non-Potable Groundwater Supply OS2: Lyman Creek Expansion OS3: Low Water Conservation Approach OS4: Medium Water Conservation Approach OSS: High Water Conservation Approach Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT August 2013 qualitative screening process. The portfolios were also developed based on the moderate and high growth projections. Costs for the various alternatives comprising the individual portfolios were optimized and adapted in accordance with requirements to balance the water supply capacity gap, which result in deviations in cost values used for the same alternatives. A discussion of the detailed cost analysis involving the development and quantitative evaluation of the portfolios is provided as a technical memorandum in Appendix D. Table 5-6: Summary of Portfolios Evaluated Using VOYAGE™ Model Portfolio Description Portfolio 1 WSD9 -Hyalite Shares Purchasing; OS2 -Lyman Creek Expansion; OS3 -Low Water Conservation Approach Portfolio 2: WSD9 -Hyalite Shares Purchasing; OS4 -Medium Water Conservation Approach Portfolio 3 WSD9 -Hyalite Shares Purchasing; OSS -High Water Conservation Approach Portfolio 4 WSD2B -Canyon Ferry Import Confluence Delivery; WSD9 -Hyalite Shares Purchasing; OS3 -Low Water Conservation Approach Portfolio 5 WSD3C: Gallatin Gateway Subarea Groundwater; WSD9 -Hyalite Shares Purchasing; OS3 Low Water Conservation Approach Portfolio 6 WSD3C: Gallatin Gateway Subarea Groundwater; OS4 Medium Water Conservation Approach Portfolio 7 WSD3C: Gallatin Gateway Subarea Groundwater; OSS High Water Conservation Approach Portfolio 8 WSD1/WSD7 /WSD9: Sourdough lmpoundment(s)/Hyalite Dam Raise; WSD9 - Hyalite Shares Purchasing; OS2 -Lyman Creek Expansion; OS4 -Medium Water Conservation Approach Portfolio 9 WSD9 -Hyalite Shares Purchasing; OSl: Non-Potable Groundwater Supply; OS4 -Medium Water Conservation Approach Portfolio 10 WSD6: Canal Company lmpoundment; WSD9 -Hyalite Shares Purchasing; OS4 - Medium Water Conservation Approach Portfolio 11 WSD9 -Hyalite Shares Purchasing; OS2 -Lyman Creek Expansion; OS4 - Medium Water Conservation Approach Portfolio 12 WSD9 -Hyalite Shares Purchasing; OSl: Non-Potable Groundwater Supply; OS2 -Lyman Creek Expansion Portfolio 13 WSD6: Canal Company lmpoundment; WSD9 -Hyalite Shares Purchasing; OS2 - Lyman Creek Expansion; OS3 -Low Water Conservation Approach Note: Shading denotes that the portfolio was developed to meet the water demands associated with the high population growth scenario. Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT August 2013 5.3 Summary of Portfolio Modeling Results The life-cycle analyses were completed with the VOYAGE™ model using data consisting ofthe conceptual cost information developed for the portfolios and the qualitative rankings from the screening process. The model results, which are provided in Appendix D as a technical memorandum, were subsequently normalized using the total annual volume of water provided in year 2062 to facilitate a basis of comparison between the moderate growth portfolios and the high growth portfolios. Draft model results were presented during the last meeting with the City and the TAC to provide perspective and gain preliminary input. A comment received from a member of the TAC consisted of the development of an additional portfolio comprised of a more comprehensive list of alternatives to meet the high population growth scenario, particularly incorporating scalable supply development options. City representatives also introduced the possibility of initiating parallel efforts that would build on the results of the IWRP and provide information to better define the implementation requirements for the alternatives. For these reasons, Portfolio 14, as described in Table 5-7, was created and evaluated using the VOYAGE™ model. Despite a modestly higher cost per unit of annual water volume provided, as indicated in Table 14 of technical memorandum in Appendix D, Portfolio 14 offers increased value as compared to the other portfolios that were developed to meet the high population growth scenario, based on several criteria developed by the TAC, staff, and the consultant collaboratively. Portfolio 14 also represents a more diverse range of scalable options and provides increased flexibility and resiliency to the City with respect to changing conditions and uncertainty in the future. After testing the portfolio to address comments and concerns expressed by the TAC and the City, Portfolio 14 was identified as the most advantageous option for implementation by the City. Key findings related to the model results for Portfolio 14 are as follows: Table 5-7: Description of Portfolio 14 Alternatives Comprising Portfolio 14 WSD1/WSD7 /WSD9: Sourdough lmpoundment(s)/Hyalite Dam Raise WSD3C: Gallatin Gateway Subarea Groundwater WSD9: Hyalite Shares Purchasing OSl: Non-Potable Groundwater Supply OS2: Lyman Creek Expansion OS3: Low Water Conservation Approach Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT August 2013 • Sensitivity analysis confirmed that the purchase of additional shares from Hyalite Reservoir is a relatively cost effective strategy to obtain additional water supply capacity, especially in the near future. The purchase of senior in-stream rights in Sourdough Creek and Hyalite Creek is also an option available to the City for consideration. • Conventional water conservation measures could be implemented in the near-term with the possibility to consider more aggressive water conservation strategies depending on the actual amount of water supply capacity obtained from other alternatives comprising Portfolio 14, public acceptance, and the measured success of water conservation efforts on reducing the rate of demand for water. Higher levels of water conservation could be pursued by the City to further reduce water demand if such measures are achievable at a comparable cost to other available alternatives. • Due to water right withdrawal and seasonal constraints, the portfolio analysis, which is presented in Appendix D, concluded that the City is currently at risk of an intermittent shortage of water during the month of May and should implement an alternative that delivers a new water supply as triggered by the demand for water. A demand trigger of approximately 600 acre-feet during the month of May is suggested as an initial benchmark for the City to proceed with its monitoring efforts. • Securing approximately 900 acre-feet of water storage via an impoundment or series of smaller impoundments in the Sourdough Creek drainage basin deserves a more detailed investigation, with a secondary objective of improving the operational reliability of the intake system. A series of smaller impoundments above the City's existing water intake is anticipated to be more feasible than building a large reservoir in the Sourdough Creek basin. Raising the level of Hyalite Reservoir via modifications to the dam could also be considered in lieu of or in conjunction with the Sourdough impoundment(s) alternative. • Non-potable irrigation for new developments could be assessed on an incremental basis, with actual results prompting the need for water from other water sources, which may include irrigation surface water, such as that provided via the Canal Company lmpoundment alternative. • Groundwater development in the Gallatin Gateway subarea was identified as a relatively flexible alternative to serve as a "relief valve" to balance the amount of water supply needed to meet increased water demands related to future growth. Variations to this alternative are possible and include alternate sites for groundwater development or potentially leveraging the property associated with the Canal Company lmpoundment alternative. • The actual costs associated with acquiring new water rights may deviate from that assumed for the life-cycle cost analysis and need to be considered as the implementation of alternatives moves forward. 5-10 I Pageif CH2MHILL ~ Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT August 2013 Chapter 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Conclusions The following conclusions were identified based on the work product completed for the IWRP: • The planning approach used to develop the IWRP offers the City much needed flexibility with respect to meeting future growth and the associated increase in water demand. • The City possesses a finite supply of water with an estimated 2012 annual firm yield ranging from 11,433 acre-feet to 12,042 acre-feet, depending on the inclusion of 609 acre-feet associated with the Sourdough Storage Reservation. • The existing water supplies are currently capable of meeting the annual demand for water; however, operational constraints have been encountered due to seasonal impacts that limit the availability of existing water supplies on an intermittent basis. • Changing climate conditions could potentially reduce the estimated annual firm yield of existing water supplies that are not regulated with storage, resulting in a decline in the annual firm yield of approximately 200 acre-feet by 2042 and approximately 500 acre feet by 2062. • The installation of stream flow monitoring equipment in the watersheds would provide useful information to the City for the purpose of assessing climate change impacts and better managing its water resources moving forward. • Strategies to improve the capture efficiency of water requested and released from Hyalite Reservoir should be considered; such strategies consist of reducing or potentially eliminating the conveyance efficiency factor and providing increased raw water and/or finished water storage. • Up to 6,750 acre-feet of water on an annual basis, which is subject to a historical use analysis, could be available to the City via the formal application process with the DNRC. • A water demand of 165 gpcd, which is subjected to adjustments with respect to climate change and likely reduction via water conservation program implementation, represents a reasonable value for planning purposes based on characterization of historical water demand data and the objective of achieving a service level of 95 percent. • In anticipation of future growth, and the relative uncertainty thereof, population projections for the City were developed to represent moderate and high growth scenarios for the 2042 and 2062 planning horizons. • The population projections for the 2042 and 2062 planning horizons under the moderate growth scenario are 70,256 and 94,144, respectively. • The population projections for the 2042 and 2062 planning horizons under the high growth scenario are 85,725 and 139,900, respectively. • The climate adjusted annual water demand projections for the 2042 and 2062 planning horizons under the moderate growth scenario are estimated to be 13,500 acre-feet and 17,790 acre-feet, respectively. Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT August 2013 • The climate adjusted annual water demand projections for the 2042 and 2062 planning horizons under the high growth scenario are estimated to be 17,900 acre-feet and 28,700 acre-feet, respectively. • The climate adjusted annual water balance gap for the 2042 and 2062 planning horizons under the moderate growth scenario are estimated to 2,263 acre-feet and 6,842 acre feet, respectively. • The climate adjusted annual water balance gap for the 2042 and 2062 planning horizons under the high growth scenario are estimated to 6,663 acre-feet and 17,752 acre-feet, respectively. • A suggested trigger regarding the need for additional water supply capacity is a demand of approximately 600 acre-feet during the month of May. • The implementation of a more formal water conservation plan is a strategy available to the City to reduce the rate of demand for water and could be used to meet a portion of the water balance gap identified for 2042 and 2062 planning horizons. • Several alternatives are available to the Bozeman to increase the annual water supply capacity to meet future water demands, and the combination of various alternatives to comprise a comprehensive portfolio is consistent with the planning approach of the IWRP. • The net present value of portfolios developed to meet the moderate population growth scenario ranged from approximately $85 million to $118 million. • The net present value of portfolios developed to meet the high population growth scenario ranged from approximately $113 million to $296 million. • Despite marginally higher life-cycle costs, Portfolio 14, consisting of the implementation of the following alternatives, offers the City increased value as compared to other portfolios and a higher degree of flexibility and resiliency to meet a range of future growth scenarios through the 2042 and 2062 planning horizons: o Initiating a water conservation program that considers the success of various conservation measures, public acceptance, and a comparison of cost with respect to water supply capacity development with the goal of meeting low to medium water demand reduction targets. o Adding storage in Sourdough Canyon or Hyalite Reservoir via an infrastructure project to improve current withdrawals and operational efficiency. o Developing groundwater system capacity in the Gallatin Gateway area or other appropriate location to meet demand on an as needed basis. o Strategically purchasing shares from Hyalite Reservoir and senior surface water rights from Hyalite Creek and Sourdough Creek to obtain water in the near-term. o Developing non-potable irrigation for new developments on an incremental basis. o Optimizing the capacity of the Lyman Creek water source. • The estimated net present value of Portfolio 14 is approximately $148 million, and is intended to provide an annual volume of water equivalent to 16,240 acre-feet through a planning horizon of 2062. 6-2 I Page..W CH2MHILL Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT August 2013 6.2 Recommendations The future water needs of the City of Bozeman will depend on future conditions, such as the rate of population growth, impacts of climate change, success of the City's water conservation program, availability of useful water rights, and other conditions that are not completely predictable. The IWRP was developed in recognition that future decisions by the City will be made in the context of these conditions as they evolve, and the IWRP is intended to be flexible enough to account for the conditions and contingencies created by these evolving conditions. The following recommendations were developed based on the conclusions outlined above and a logistical strategy for the City to proceed in fulfilling the objectives of the IWRP: Near-Term • Implementation of Portfolio 14 should proceed with a robust economic and engineering feasibility analysis for each of the portfolio components, followed by a comparative analysis of the components based on the screening assessment framework established by the IWRP. These steps provide a sound basis for prioritized decision-making by the City of Bozeman regarding its water resource management. • Incorporate the implementation of Portfolio 14 into the City of Bozeman Capital Improvement Planning budget such that anticipated costs are budgeted well into the future. • A water conservation plan should be prioritized for implementation to reduce the rate of demand for water as a substantial contribution toward addressing the water balance gap identified for the 2042 and 2062 planning horizons. • The installation of stream flow monitoring equipment in the watersheds should be implemented to provide useful information ~o the City for the purpose of assessing climate change impacts and better manage its water resources moving forward. • Implementation of strategies to improve the capture efficiency of water requested and released from Hyalite Reservoir, such as reducing or potentially eliminating the conveyance efficiency factor and providing increased raw water and/or finished water storage. • The formal application process with the DNRC should be initiated to secure water rights that are currently available to the City totaling approximately 6,750 acre-feet of water an annual basis. This value does not reflect a historical use analysis that will be conducted for any change applications, and should be noted to avoid any mistaken expectations about the amount of water that is potentially available. • Shares from Hyalite Reservoir and senior surface water rights from Hyalite Creek and Sourdough Creek should be purchased to the extent possible. Long-Term • Water supply and demand trends should be monitored to assess the need for additional water supply capacity development. • Revisit population growth trends every 5 years, or on a more frequent interval if necessary. Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT August 2013 • Additional water supply capacity should be developed by the City in accordance with the outcome of subsequent efforts to evaluate alternatives in more detail and planning objectives that will evolve with actual population growth and water demand trends. 6-4 I Page-CH2MHILL ~ APPENDIX A Climate Change Adjustments to Firm Yield and Demand for Bozeman, MT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM CH2MHILL® Climate Change Adjustments to Firm Yield and Demand for Bozeman, MT PREPARED FOR: AE2S COPY TO: Mark Anderson/POX Armin Munevar/SDO PREPARED BY: Tyler Jantzen/SEA Emily Callaway/POX DATE: July 25, 2013 PROJECT NUMBER: 435325.03.35.25.05 This technical memorandum documents the methods, results and analysis involved in the development of climate change adjusted firm yield and demand values for the Bozeman Integrated Water Resources Plan. The adjusted firm yield and demand values will be used in the water balance and scenario modeling efforts conducted under separate tasks of the Bozeman Integrated Water Plan. Executive Summary Analysis of global climate models (GCMs), downscaled to the Bozeman region, and local hydrologic and climatic data were used to develop adjustment factors for firm yield and water demand values. The analysis indicates a predicted general trend of warming earlier in the year and overall lower precipitation, resulting in lower peak stream flows that occur earlier in the year than historical peaks. These trends also result in an extension to the period of time in which irrigation is needed to sustain crops and landscape plants, and increasing the amount of irrigation water required during historical irrigation months to make up for the lack of precipitation. Methodology Overview The goal of this task was to establish an estimate of climate-change impacts to the four water sources included in the Bozeman IWRP: Sourdough, Middle, Lyman, and Hyalite, and adjust the firm yield values used in other IWRP tasks accordingly. This adjustment projects existing firm yield to the 30-year and SO-year planning horizon: 2042 and 2062. City of Bozeman Water Facility Plan firm yield values were used as the basis for this analysis. Facility Plan firm yield values for Hyalite Reservoir, Lyman Creek, and Middle Creek represent the reliable yield from existing water rights, which are related to hydrologic conditions, but not necessarily directly proportional because of priority, volume, and seasonal limitations. Details of the original development of the existing firm yield values are not available except that Sourdough Creek (also called Bozeman Creek) firm yield was developed from historic dry year flow data. Reported values for Lyman and Middle Creek were used with no further adjustments. Monthly distribution of firm yield values for Hyalite Reservoir were adjusted to reflect current withdrawal operations, based on conversations with city staff. Firm yield of Middle Creek was adjusted by the same climate-change based scaling factor established for Sourdough Creek through the process described in this memorandum, equal to the change in projected dry year stream flow in Sourdough Creek. Hyalite Reservoir and Lyman Creek were not adjusted for climate-change effects based on perceived supply resiliency of Hyalite Reservoir and operator feedback that Lyman Creek is not presently being used at a level above its firm yield . In order to generate climate change adjusted stream flows (and thus firm yield scaling factors), a simple monthly water balance hydrologic model was created and calibrated. The USGS's Thornthwaite Monthly Water Balance Program was used because it generates results on a monthly scale, only requires inputs of monthly temperature FIRMYIELDCLIMATECHANGETM_FINAL-V6 / [INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR] CLIMATE CHANGE ADJUSTMENTS TO FIRM YIELD AND DEMAND FOR BOZEMAN. MT and precipitation, and because calibration is relatively simple due to limited calibration parameters. The USGS Thornthwaite Model program uses an accounting procedure to analyze the allocation of water among various components of the hydrologic system; this procedure is generally known as the Thornthwaite water balance and is used in both academia and industry for hydrologic evaluations. Climate change adjustments for temperature and precipitation were developed for 2042 and 2062 using SimCLIM, a climate change analysis software package developed by CLIM Systems. Climate change adjusted temperature and precipitation time series were used as inputs to the hydrologic model to develop adjusted stream flow time series, which were used to develop firm yield scaling factors. Data Sources Numerous data sources were used to calibrate and validate the hydrologic model. Climate data sources are summarized in Table 1. It was important to understand the geography of the basin tributary to the USGS Sourdough Creek gage. Geographic Information System (GIS) data sources used to develop Sourdough Creek basins statistics are summarized in Table 2. A map of the three gages, as well as the Sourdough Creek basin is shown in Figure 1. TABLE 1 Summary of Hydroclimate Data Sources Name Source Location Date Range Notes Sourdough Creek Monthly Average Flow lick Creek Daily Precipitation and Temperature Bozeman, MT Precipitation and Temperature USGS; obtained as PDF file from the City of Bozeman. Not available electronically on USGS NWIS website. Gage number 06047500. SNOTEL; lick Creek. Site No. 578. NOAA;Bozeman MT., 59715. Long: -111.020833 Lat: 45.577778 Elev: 5,351 Long: -110° 58' Lat: 45° 30' Elev: 6,860 Long: -111.05 Lat: 45.67 Elev: 4,900 October 1937 to September 1986 (see Notes) October 1982 to September 2011 (precipitation record started in 1978) January 1892 to December 1997 PDF is of poor quality fax of data. Some values, particularly those before 1947, were not readable. The reliable period of record from this data was limited to October 1947 to September 1986 FIRMYIELDCLIMATECHANGETM_FINAL-V6/[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR] COPYRIGHT [INSERT DATE SET BY SYSTEM] BY [CH2M HILL ENTITY] • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL CLIMATE CHANGE ADJUSTMENTS TO FIRM YIELD AND DEMAND FOR BOZEMAN, MT TABLE 2 Summary of GIS Data Sources Name Publisher Website National Hydrography Dataset; Prestaged USGS; nhd.usgs.gov; accessed 5/4/2012 Subregion NHDM1002_92v200 National Hydrography Dataset Plus; Horizon Systems (with EPA and USGS) http://www.horizon-systems.com/nhdplus/; Prestaged Region lOUV0l_0l accessed 5/4/2012 National Elevation Dataset; USGS ned.usgs,gov; accessed 5/4/2012 CLIMATE CHANGE ADJUSTMENTS TO FIRM YIELD AND DEMAND FOR BOZEMAN, MT flow 26 cfs. Given a 28.2 square mile watershed, approximately 32 percent of the annual precipitation is seen as stream runoff on an annual basis. Dry year hydrologic firm yield from Sourdough Creek is reported to be 3.23 million gallons per day (MGD) for every month of the year except for May and June. The May firm yield is 4.04 MGD and the June firm yield is 3.64 MGD. The resulting total annual dry year hydrologic firm yield volume is 1,217 million gallons. Hydrologic Model The USGS Thornthwaite Monthly Water Balance model (McCabe and Markstrom, 2007) was used as the hydrologic model for this project. Inputs to the Thornthwaite model are monthly temperature and precipitation in degrees C and mm. Outputs include potential evapotranspiration, total runoff, actual evapotranspiration, snow storage and snow melt. USGS Sourdough Creek gage data from 1960 to 1970 were used to calibrate the model. Because the existing firm yield is known to be developed from dry year hydrology, and because the 1960s includes many low flow years, this time period was selected as the calibration period. The Thornthwaite model tracks soil moisture storage which can carry over from year to year, thus it is important to run the model for multiple years at a time. GIS analysis of the tributary basin to the USGS Sourdough Creek gage shows that the mean elevation ofthe basin is 7,051 feet. Although the Lick Creek gage is not in the Sourdough Creek basin, its elevation (6,860 feet) is much closer to that of the basin, and is more likely to represent the temperature and precipitation patterns observed in the basin. Unfortunately, the date ranges for the Lick Creek climate gage full record (precipitation and temperature) and the Sourdough Creek flow gage only overlap 4 years (1982 to 1986). Thus, NOAA Bozeman temperature and precipitation gage data was used as a substitute for Lick Creek data to calibrate to a full decade of flow gage data, and to validate model performance. To use this data, a correlation between the Lick Creek climate gage and the NOAA Bozeman climate gage was developed, and the NOAA Bozeman climate gage transformed to the Lick Creek gage site. In addition to this transformation, the temperature was decreased by 0.7 degrees F (0.4 degrees C), the temperature lapse for the 190 feet difference between the Lick Creek gage and mean Sourdough Creek basin elevation. The correlation between the Lick Creek (SNOTEL gage) and Bozeman (NOAA gage) for temperature and precipitation is shown in Figures 2 and 3. FIRMYIELDCLIMATECHANGETM_FINAL·V6/ [INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR] COPYRIGHT [INSERT DATE SET BY SYSTEM] BY [CH2M HILL ENTITY] • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL 4 Temperature Comparison 20 15 10 g:,_i 5 1:1 ~ 0 0 z"' -5 -10 -15 -15 25 CLIMATE CHANGE ADJUSTMENTS TO FIRM YIELD AND DEMAND FOR BOZEMAN, MT The adjusted precipitation and temperature data were used to calibrate the Thornthwaite model. Calibrated Thornthwaite parameters are listed in Table 3. For a full description of how these parameters are used, see the Thornthwaite model documentation (McCabe and Markstrom, 2007). TABLE 3 Calibrated Thornthwaite Monthly Water Balance Parameter Values Parameter Name Parameter Value Runoff Factor 16% Direct Runoff Factor 5% Soil-Moisture Storage Capacity Latitude of Location Rain Temperature Threshold Snow Temperature Threshold Maximum Melt Rate 47 mm (1.85 inches) 46 Degrees of Latitude 3.3 Degrees Celsius (37.9 degrees F) -1.0 Degrees Celsius {30.2 degrees F) 90% Calibration of the Thornthwaite model focused on low flow years, especially on the maximum and minimum flow values for those years. The declining limb of the Sourdough Creek hydrograph, as measured by the USGS gage. was especially difficult to match during model calibration. Flow rates in the Thornthwaite model tended to move from peak spring runoff to minimum summer/fall flows much more slowly than recorded at the USGS gage. This could possibly be due to the changing soil-moisture storage capacity resulting from the freezing and thawing of the ground. The Thornthwaite model is only able to account for a single value for the soil-moisture storage capacity. In order to account for the timing difference between model outputs and gage data, a modification factor was developed for each month based on the average ratio between USGS and Thornthwaite flow rates for the entire period of stream gage record (October 1947 to September 1986; see Table 1). Use of unmodified Thornthwaite flow rates resulted in a modeled volume 134 percent of the USGS measured volume (for entire period of overlapping record), and a standardized root mean square error (a measure of calibration, where 1.0 is perfect) of0.71. The use of the monthly modification factor resulted in a 100 percent volume match, and a standardized root mean square error of 0.58. The monthly adjustment factors used are listed in Table 4. FIRMYIELDCLIMATECHANGETM_FINAL·V6 / [INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR] COPYRIGHT [INSERT DATE SET BY SYSTEM] BY [CH2M HILL ENTITY] • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL CLIMATE CHANGE ADJUSTMENTS TO FIRM YIELD AND DEMAND FOR BOZEMAN, MT TABLE 4 Thornthwaite Model Monthly Flow Rate Modification Factors Month Monthly Average Flow Rate Scaling Factor October 0.47 November 0.50 December a.so January 0.53 February 0.71 March 0.77 April 1.00 May 1.00 June 1.00 July 1.00 August 0.53 September 0.47 Calibration to the low flow years resulted in a good match between model outputs and gage data in years with low peak flows. This calibration approach, however, also resulted in a mismatch between model outputs and gage data in years with high peak flows. This was deemed acceptable because the firm yield values were developed • using only low flow years, and thus the firm yield climate change adjustment factors would also be developed using only low flow years. Therefore, it is more important to match model outputs to low flow years than to high flow years. Thornthwaite model calibration results for the calibration period 1960-1970 are shown in Figure 3. This figure illustrates how the modification factors were used to get a better match between the gage data (shown in blue) and the model outputs (unmodified outputs are shown in red; modified outputs are shown in green). The figure also shows how the modified model matches the lower peaks (for example the peaks in 1960-1963), but does not match the higher peaks {1964-1968) The entire validation period, 1947 to 1986, is shown in Figure 4. This figure demonstrates that the modification factors and matching trend established for the ten-year calibration period are relevant throughout the entire period of record. A scatter graph comparing gage and both modeled and the modified model flow is shown in Figure 5. The distribution of data shows that modified model outputs are closer to a perfect match to gage flows for flows up to about 25 cfs. FIRMYIELDCLIMATECHANGETM_FINAL-V6 / [INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR) COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL 180 160 140 120 ,______ I 100 ~ 80..: 60 40 20 0 t 2042 Temperature Change 3.5 9 2.5 u .. !!" 2 ~ 1.5 0.5 0 t CLIMATE CHANGE ADJUSTMENTS TO FIRM YIELD AND DEMAND FOR BOZEMAN, MT TABLE 5 Monthly and Annual Temperature Adjustments for Selected GCMs Temperature (increase, degree C) 2042 2062 Month B125th AlFI 50th AlFI 75th Bl 25th AlFI 50th AlFI 75th October 1.0 1,6 1.8 1.4 3.0 3.2 November 0.8 1.3 1.6 1,1 2.5 2.9 December 0.9 1.6 1.9 1.2 3.0 3.4 January 0.9 1.6 2.0 1.3 2.9 3.7 February 0.7 1.5 1.-9 1·.0 2.7 3.5 March 1.1 2.7 3.3 April 0.8 1.5 1.!! 0·.6 1.2 1.8 0.9 2.2 3.3 May 0.7 1.3 1.6 1.0 2.4 3.0 June 1.6 3.5 3.6 July 1.1 1.9 2.0 1.4 2.2 2.7 1.9 4.1 5.0 August 1.3 2.4 2.9 1.9 4.5 5.4 September 1.4 2.1 2.5 2.0 3.9 4.6 Annual 1.1 1.7 1.9 1.5 3.1 3.5 TABLE 6 Monthly and Annual Precipitation Adjustments for Selected GCMs Precipitation (percent change) 2042 2062 Month Bl 25th A1FI 50th Alfi 75th Bl 25th AlFI 50th Al Fl 75th October -0.4 3.4 10.4 •0.4 3.4 10.4 November 0.3 5.2 8.9 0.3 5.2. 8.9 December 1.4 6.4 10.3 1..4 6.4 10,3 January -0,8 2.1 7.9 -0.8 2.1 7.9 February o.o 5.2 10.4 0.0 5.2 10.4 2,4 7.8 9,9 March 2.4 7.8 9.9 April 3.5 7.7 11.8 3.5 7.7 11.8 May -1.4 1.8. 3.4 -1.4 1.8 3.4 -6.3 -5.8 -0.1June -6.3 -5.8 -0.l July -8.6 -9.4 ·0.7 -8.6 -9.4 -0.7 August -13.0 -10.5 0.9 -13.0 -10.5 0.9 September -9.6 -8.2. -2.S -9.6 -8.2. -2.5 -1.2 -0.6 2.2Annual -1.2 -0.6 2.2 FIRMYIELDCLIMATECHANGETM_FINAL·V6 /[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR] COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC.• COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL 11 Dry Year, Water Year 1972 Dry Year, Water Year 1986 70 ------- 60 0 CLIMATE CHANGE ADJUSTMENTS TO FIRM YIELD AND DEMAND FOR BOZEMAN, MT Table 7 Firm Yield Adjustment Factors Percent Change Month SimCLIM Baseline (1990) to 2012 2012 to 2042 2042 to2062 January -5% -8% -12% February -5% -8% -12% March 8% 11% 29% April 11% 15% 5% May -4% -5% -7% June -5% -6% -7% July -5% -7% -9% August -6% -7% -9% September -7% -9% -11% October -4% -6% -12% November -6% -8% -12% December -6% -8% -12% FIRMYIELDCLIMATECHANGETM_FINAL·V6 / [INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR] COPYRIGHT [INSERT DATE SET BY SYSTEM] BY [CH2M HILL ENTITY] • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL 14 CLIMATE CHANGE ADJUSTMENTS TO FIRM YIELD AND DEMAND FOR BOZEMAN, MT Table 8 Climate Adjusted Firm Yield Climate Adjusted Flow at Beginning of Planning Period (2012) (AC-FT) 5 M 19 18 20 19 22 24 11 13 7 6 10 10 2 2 2 2 10 9 20 19 19 18 19 18 161 158 Basin Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Annual Volume(MG) Un-Adjusted Hydrologic Firm Yield (AC-FT) 30-Year Planning Horizon (2042) Flow (AC-FT) SO-Year Planning Horizon (2062) Flow (AC-FT) 5 307 278 307 297 384 335 307 307 297 307 297 307 3733 M 20 20 20 10 7 11 2 2 11 20 20 20 165 s 17 17 26 14 6 9 2 2 9 17 17 17 153 M 16 16 29 16 6 8 1 1 8 16 16 16 149 s 13 13 36 17 5 8 1 1 7 14 13 13 144 M 5 = Sourdough; M = Middle Climate Change Adjustments to Demand The Thornthwaite hydrologic model calculates potential evapotranspiration (PET) as an intermediary step in calculating runoff and provides monthly values for each timestep of the model period. PET results from the calibrated Thornthwaite model were used to estimate climate change effects on baseline demand rates. Climate change effects were limited to effects on irrigation demand. Other behavioral changes in response to increased temperature and decreased precipitation (such as increased use of air conditioners or more frequent filling of private pools) were not considered. The Thornthwaite model results indicate an increase in PET for every month of the year. However, urban irrigation demands are only expected to increase during the active growing season after freezes have stopped occurring, and are not expected to exactly mimic water demands in the natural environment. The Montana State Univers ity (MSU) agricultural extension service provides a climatological data summary which states that the average growing season for the City of Bozeman is 120 days, based on the average number of frost-free days per year for the period 1991-2000. According to frost freeze data provided by the extension service, spring freezes end in late May and fall freezes begin in mid-September. Monthly baseline demand rates were provided by AE2S based on analysis of historical records provided by the City of Bozeman . Increases in temperature and decreases in precipitation in the spring and fall months as projected in the GCM simulations can reasonably be expected to extend the growing season into April and October. The percent change in PET between 1990 and 2042 was used to adjust the baseline demand for each FIRMYIELDCLIMATECHANGETM_FINAL-V6 / [INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR] COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL 12 12 45 18 5 7 1 1 6 13 12 12 142 15 CLIMATE CHANGE ADJUSTMENTS TO FIRM YIELD AND DEMAND FOR BOZEMAN, MT month. Linear interpolation was used between the 1990 baseline and 2042 to determine an incremental annual increase up to the 2042 percent change. Linear interpolation was also used to determine an incremental annual increase from 2042 to 2062. Half of the projected 2042 percent change was applied to baseline demand rates to estimate increased demand in April and October in 2042; the total projected 2042 percent change was used to increase May-September demands. The total projected 2062 percent change was used for all months (April -October) to estimate increased demands in 2062. Baseline demand rates, adjustment factors through 2042 and 2062, and the resulting increased demand rates for each month of the extended growing season in 2042 and 2062 are summarized in Table 9. TABLE 9. Climate Adjusted Demand based on PET Month Baseline Demand Rate (gpcd) Demand Increase through 2042 Demand Increase 2042- 2062 Adjusted Demand Rate 2042(gpcd) Adjusted Demand Rate 2062 (gpcd) April 109 2% 11% 112 124 May 166 5% 8% 174 188 June 204 7% 12% 218 244 July 308 9% 14% 335 382 August 298 9% 16% 326 378 September 222 8% 13% 240 271 October 129 3% 16% 133 154 Assumptions, Limitations and Recommendations The following assumptions and limitations should be considered when using the data presented in this memorandum. The analysis summarized in this memorandum is high level and based on simplified methods. Recommendations for more robust analysis are included below. • Climate Change o A medium climate response was assumed for all climate change analysis o Other than AlFI and Bl, only the median set of monthly results from an ensemble of 21-GCMs was considered. For AlFI and Bl, the 75th percentile and 25th percentile (respectively) of the 21- GCM ensemble were also considered. Using this limited set of GCM simulations tends to exclude outliers. Use of the median emphasizes the central tendency of the 21-GCM ensemble. Additional consideration of a fuller range of possible futures is recommended. This would include the use of data in the hydrologic model of more than the three scenarios included here {AlFI 75th percentile, AlFI 50th percentile, and Bl 25th percentile) o The change in temperature and precipitation considered is that for the City of Bozeman. Actual changes may vary spatially across the Sourdough Creek basin. o Future analysis should include a representation of changes to temperature and precipitation spatially distributed across the entire Sourdough Creek basin. Downscaled GCM results in SimCLIM are available at a 1-km grid cell resolution. Use of spatially distributed climate will require a spatially distributed hydrologic model. o Linear interpolation was used to develop an estimate of incremental annual change between the SimCLIM baseline and each ofthe planning horizons. In the absence of a recent-year complete set FIRMYIELDCLIMATECHANGETM_FINAL-V6/[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR] COPYRIGHT [INSERT DATE SET BY SYSTEM] BY [CH2M HILL ENTITY] • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL 16 CLIMATE CHANGE ADJUSTMENTS TO FIRM YIELD AND DEMAND FOR BOZEMAN, MT of stream gage data, temperature and precipitation data, the correlation between the three cannot be verified. o Verification of the climate change predictions could be achieved in the future with a thorough monitoring program for each of the four sources of water considered. • Thornthwaite Model o The Thornthwaite Model is a very simple hydrologic model, and does not account for many ofthe complex hydrologic processes-especially those present in snowmelt-dominated watersheds. Additional analysis should consider using a more robust hydrologic model that better accounts for the complex physical processes that affect snowmelt and runoff in the Sourdough Creek basin. Such a model should account for changes in infiltration rates due to the freeze and thaw of soils, effects of soil type on infiltration, effect of vegetation type on evapotranspiration, spatially distributed differences in precipitation, temperature and snowmelt, the effect of hill aspect on snow melt, and other more complex processes. o Calibration of the Thornthwaite Model is limited to the 10-year calibration period, and is imperfect. As noted above, relationships between snow, snowmelt, and streamflow are complex, and may be sensitive to the rough model calibration parameters. Future analysis should consider calibration to a longer period oftime, and focus on more than just dry year hydrology. o Because the climate change analysis focuses on the change in hydrology affecting firm yield, and not the gross magnitude of flows in Sourdough Creek, we believe the use of a simple hydrologic model is appropriate for high level discussion of effects of climate change. Model bias that creates consistently high or low flows is present in both the base and climate change scenarios, and should not affect the difference between scenarios. • Firm Yield o The specific method used to develop the original Firm Yield is unknown. It is assumed that monthly values were developed using dry year hydrology for Sourdough Creek and summer reductions in Middle Creek; the specific "dry" years are not known. o The hydrology of each of the four basins may not be representative of Sourdough Creek dry years (1972, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1994). o That the firm yield is adjusted by the same ratio as that between the average dry year flows and the average dry year flows projected using climate adjusted precipitation and temperature is a gross assumption. o Firm yield for Lyman Creek and Hyalite Reservoir would require a more thorough hydrologic dataset extending multiple years. At the present time, only operational usage is available, which has never been limited due to hydrologic conditions of both sources. To assess true firm yield conditions, hydrologic flow monitoring is recommended. o Future analysis should confirm the methods used to develop the original firm yield, and consider using the same and/or an improved method using adjusted climate inputs. FIRMYIELDCLIMATECHANGETM_FINAL·V6 / [INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR] COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL 17 CLIMATE CHANGE ADJUSTMENTS TO FIRM YIELD AND DEMAND FOR BOZEMAN, MT References CH2M HILL. 2011. Best Management Practices for Incorporating Climate Change Information in Water Resources Planning. July 2011. Horizon Systems. 2006. National Hydrography Dataset Plus. Prestaged Region lOUV0l_0l. http://www.horizon systems.com/nhdplus/. Accessed May 4, 2012. McCabe, G.J., and Markstrom, S.L., 2007, A monthly water-balance model driven by a graphical user interface: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File report 2007-1088, 6 p. http://wwwbrr.er.usgs.gov/projects/SW_ MoWS/softwa re/thorn_s/thorn .shtm I Montana State University Extension Service. 2006. Climatological Data Annual and Growing Season Precipitation and Frost Free Days, Montana, USA. http:ljwww. mtmasterga rd ene r .o rg/docu ments/CI imatologica l%20%20Data.pdf. Accessed June 12, 2012. United States Geologic Survey. 2012a . National Elevation Dataset 1 arcsecond. http://ned.usgs.gov/. Accessed May 4, 2012. United States Geologic Survey. 2012b. National Hydrography Dataset Medium Resolution. Prestaged Subregion 1002. http:ljnhd.usgs.gov/. Accessed May 4, 2012. FIRMYIELDCLIMATECHANGETM_FINAL·V6/[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR] COPYRIGHT [INSERT DATE SET BY SYSTEM] BY [CH2M HILL ENTITY] • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL 18 APPENDIXB City of Bozeman 2012 Water Conservation Plan TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ~ R~ CH2MHILL® TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM To: Brian Heaston, PE, City of Bozeman From: Judel Buis, PE AE2S, Inc. Mark Anderson, PE, CH2M HILL Re: City of Bozeman 2012 Water Conservation Plan Date: July 18, 2013 BACKGROUND The City of Bozeman secured Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. (AE2S) to complete an Integrated Water Resources Plan (IWRP), Task 4 of which consists of an update to the City of Bozeman Water Conservation Plan, completed in 2002. The purpose of the IWRP is to explore, evaluate, and prioritize the range of alternatives available to address anticipated water supply challenges for the City of Bozeman. The IWRP will focus on four categories of water demand and supply projects, including water conservation, water rights management, water reuse, and new water supply development. The scope of the 2012 Water Conservation Plan includes: • Identification of water conservation measures (including those in the 2002 Water Conservation Plan and others that may be appropriate for consideration as well) that could have an impact on the City of Bozeman water usage patterns. Areas that will be explored include: o Public Education Programs o System Efficiency (Unaccounted for Water Reduction/Leak Reduction Programs) o Residential Water Conservation Measures o Commercial Water Conservation Measures o Large User/Industrial Water Conservation Measures o Government/City Water Conservation Measures • Conducting a screening level evaluation of water conservation measures with a Commission appointed Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for the City of Bozeman to pursue in the future. • Use of a water demand and supply model (developed as an outcome of other Task efforts associated with the IWRP) to determine viable ranges of achievable water conservation reductions over time. These achievable levels will be associated with monthly water usages. • Development of a matrix of water conservation measure impacts based on 5 gpcd increments of reduction and the impact this would have on supply management, revenue generation, and an anticipated cost of accomplishing these reductions in $/acre-feet. Due to a modification of the original scope that involves the use of a computer model to calculate measure impacts and cost, this information is presented as an estimate of potential reductions that could be achieved given the level of water conservation targeted for implementation. • Prioritization of water conservation measures with a City commission appointed Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) that are most likely to accomplish water demand reductions for the City. City of Bozeman, MT: IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Pagel TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ~ RE-i:5 CH2MHILL® • Proposal of a series of water conservation measure pilot studies that can be used to measure achievable water conservation in the Bozeman Community over time. • Proposal of a threshold where water conservation would cross into drought contingency planning (voluntary measures versus mandatory restrictions, respectively). o A table of possible drought contingency levels will be proposed, including a 3-tiered, 4-tiered, and 5-tiered drought contingency plan. o A review of drought contingency plans from other communities similar in size to the City of Bozeman will be completed. o A summary of information regarding trigger conditions, enforceability, and structure of the plans will be provided. This technical memorandum will summarize the outcomes of the Water Conservation Plan, including recommendations for implementing the plan, updating the plan, considering drought contingency planning, and incorporating water conservation as a long-term system management strategy for the City of Bozeman. 2002 Water Conservation Plan The City of Bozeman completed its first Water Conservation Plan in 2002 with Aquacraft, Inc. Water Engineering and Management, Boulder, Colorado. The original plan included an overview of the existing Bozeman water system, a review of water demands (based on year 2000), and development of a number of different possible conservation approaches, with a recommendation of Scenario B, involving: • Reduction of Single Family Home Water Use from an estimated 70 gpcd to 40 gpcd and Multi-Family Home Water Use from 45 gpcd to 40 gpcd through the implementation of indoor technology installation (faucets, toilets, showers, and washing machines). • Upgrading of 5 percent of existing homes per year to new technologies. • 25 percent reduction in bathroom uses in commercial and public accounts, with all new customers and 5 percent of existing customers complying per year with requirements, including waterless urinals, dual flush toilets, and metered faucets being considered. The success of the proposed Scenario B was based on the following assumptions: • No change in baseline for Montana State University beyond compliance with Energy Policy Act requirements and basic new plumbing fixture installation. • An assumption of a planning population of 46,600 people in 2020. The results of the proposed plan were: • Savings of 948 acre-ft, 11.9 percent of the baseline water demands (30-years). • A conservation scenario that considered both indoor and outdoor conservation measures and incorporated more aggressive conservation at Montana State University (MSU) was proposed, which increased savings up to 1,424 acre-ft after full implementation (30-years), or 16 percent reduction in demands. • A cost-benefit analysis was completed that considered only the cost of implementing building codes and policy, including staff time to administer the program. No rebate incentives were included in the analysis. All but the residential only indoor and outdoor conservation program showed a cost benefit (more money was saved by the City in terms of not operating treatment facilities than would be required to implement a conservation program based on the previously noted assumptions). City of Bozeman, MT: IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Pagel TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM /\jR~ CH2MHILL® • It was recommended that the City initiate a residential only indoor conservation program as the lowest cost program for the highest value of return. • The plan suggested that water supply challenges were not an issue in the City of Bozeman and the incentive to complete a water conservation program were purely economical. Water Conservation in the Citv of Bozeman since the 2002 Water Conservation Plan Since the completion of the plan, the following water conservation practices and policy changes have been implemented in the City of Bozeman, none of which were directly related to the recommendations of the 2002 Water Conservation Plan, but have likely impacted water use in the City of Bozeman (the degree of which has not been directly measured): 1) The City of Bozeman experienced considerable growth, some of which came through annexation and much of which was associated with the construction of new development. That new development was required to meet Uniform Building Code standards, which, over time, have incorporated more water efficient requirements for indoor water use. 2) The planning department implemented an outdoor landscaping policy requiring that developers meet a minimum number of points for their landscaping plan before approval of the development by the City. Higher points are awarded for drought tolerant and water efficient plantings, making it easier for developers to achieve approval. 3) In 2008, the City of Bozeman initiated a toilet rebate program. The rebate program presently provides $125 for pre-1996 toilets and $50 for post-1996 toilet replacements with a maximum of two rebates per household. As of December 2012, 1,455 toilets have been replaced by the program, with 91% being for pre-1996 toilets. The program requires toilets with a rating of 1.28 gallons per flush (gpf) or better be installed. The total replacement above, equates to approximately 981 households. Although the 2002 Water Conservation Plan recommended indoor conservation, the mechanism for accomplishing this was through mandatory policy changes as opposed to incentivized rebate programs. This water conservation plan will provide information on the advantages and disadvantages of each. A table providing details of the current program's estimated impact on water use to date is provided at the end of this section. 4) In 2008, the City of Bozeman implemented an inclining rate structure for its water utility. The modified rate structure looks as follows: a. The City's 2012 base rate for water is $19.42, which includes up to 200 CF. b. From 200 to 700 CF, the rate is $2.38 per HCF. c. From 800 to 1,500 CF, the rate is $2.56 HCF'. d. Over 1,500 CF, the rate is $3.02 per HCF. 5) The City of Bozeman has had a "cash-in-lieu" program since 1984 that requires a developer to relinquish water rights equivalent to the amount necessary to serve a developed area of land via the City of Bozeman water supply. If water rights cannot be supplied (or the developer does not want to relinquish them), a payment in a pre-determined amount can be paid to the City so that the City may purchase the water rights, as appropriate. In 2008, the "cash-in-lieu" program was modified to significantly increase the cost per acre-ft to $6,000. While this program does not directly result in a decrease in water demand, it is anticipated that it will have implications and could be the driver behind several water conservation approaches and efforts in the future. 6) Montana State has been actively reducing water demands, primarily related to its irrigation needs, but also associated with technology upgrades on heating and cooling systems, residence halls and food courts, and installation of efficient water fixtures with new and remodeled construction. City of Bozeman, MT: IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page3 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ,. R~ CH2MHILLe Table 1: Existing Toilet Rebate Program Estimated Reductions in Water Use TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ~ R~ CH2MHILL® 3) Average values ranged from 4 to 13 flushes per day per person in various study efforts. The table was calculated at a range of possible conditions within this range. However, without verification, City Staff felt most comfortable assuming a lower savings. Most estimates ranged from 4 to 7 flushes per day per person in a literature search. Some variability in projecting the success of the program forward was built into development of planning targets later in this report to acknowledge the possibility of doing better. However, 4 flushes per day per person seemed the most justifiable and conservative value given that no data has been collected to suggest otherwise. City of Bozeman Water Use 2000 to 2010 Task 6 of the IWRP encompasses a comprehensive characterization of water use across the City of Bozeman for the period of 2000 to 2010. A more detailed discussion of the outcome of this effort is provided as an appendix to the deliverable document for the IWRP. Pertinent information to water conservation planning is summarized herein, including: • Water demand baseline planning criteria • Water demand baseline planning criteria broken down by month, by seasonal requirements, and by indoor and outdoor use: o System-wide Water Use o System-wide Water Use without MSU o By Service Sector • Water demand baseline planning criteria broken down by the following service sectors: o Residential (Single Family and Multi Family are combined for this evaluation) Indoor o Residential (Single Family and Multi Family are combined for this evaluation) Outdoor o Commercial Indoor o Commercial Outdoor o Largest 8 Commercial (Note that the accounts change on an annual basis, but this general reflects the largest hotels and Bozeman Deaconess Hospital) o Montana State University (MSU) o Industrial o Government o Unaccounted for Water o Water Treatment Plant Efficiency Factor Baseline Planning Criteria System-wide Water Use The IWRP process involved a statistical analysis of the water use from 2000 to 2010 to determine whether there were trends in water use that are occurring. The analysis involved fitting the data to a bell curve, identifying average monthly water use information, and then determining a standard deviation at various "service levels". A service level can best be explained as a measure of the variability in the data set that will capture a prescribed percentage of possible water demands that could be experienced. For datasets where there is more variability, a larger standard deviation results and a more conservative planning value is selected. Service levels ranging from one standard deviation to 3 standard deviations (68% to 99.8%) were considered. The period of 2000 to 2010 demonstrated a steady decline in indoor water use, followed by a leveling off from 2005 to 2010. As a result, data from 2005 to 2010 was used as the basis for water supply planning associated with indoor water uses, Outdoor water use, however, did not demonstrate any discernible trends during the study period. As a result, the entire dataset was used for outdoor months and standard deviations were greater. City of Bozeman, MT: IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Pages TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM REzS CH2MHILL® The result of the baseline planning effort was the selection of a 95 percent service level for planning purposes. Per capita average annual use rates varied between 165 and 180 gpcd in the planning analysis, depending on what period was considered of the SO-year planning horizon. Monthly values varied between 106 and308 gpcd due to seasonal fluctuations in water use. The City has two separate water supply sources with different factors of efficiency since one system has treatment and the other does not. A factor of 95 percent, which is consistent with the design criteria for the new membrane treatment facility on the Sourdough/Middle Creek Supply was used for the entire water supply. A water loss factor associated with the raw water delivery system for the Lyman Creek system has never been calculated. The 95 percent efficiency factor should more than account for any water losses in the raw water pipeline, storage tank, and transmission pipeline of disinfected water supply from this source. For conservation planning purposes, the planning demand was also broken down to consider winter versus summer water use and also indoor versus outdoor water use. Figure 1 provides a pie chart of the breakdown in total gallons per year and overall percentage of winter versus summer water use (winter months include October to April). Table 2 provides an overall breakdown of indoor and outdoor water use by month. For conservation planning purposes, the above information was then broken down by service sector. Special consideration was given to MSU as the University has worked diligently over the study period to reduce water demands for both indoor and outdoor uses, with particular regard to the development of a dedicated landscape irrigation system and updates to institutional heating and cooling systems. Figure 1: Overall Breakdown of Annual Water Use based on Indoor and Outdoor Water Use TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ~ REzS CH2MHILLe Table 2: Overall Breakdown of Indoor and Outdoor Water Use by Month MONTH Indoor Water Indoor Water Use Outdoor Water Use Outdoor Water Use (MG) (gpcd)* (MG) Use (gpcd)* January 128 106 February 121 112 March 131 109 April 126 109 May 139 116 60 50 June 136 117 101 87 July 142 118 229 190 August 146 122 212 176 September 134 115 125 107 October 155 129 November 128 110 December 127 106 TOTAL 1612 727 AVERAGE 114 122 *Note: The indoor and outdoor water use (gpcd) values are calculated by dividing the total volume of water delivered from the sources to the community by the estimated population for that given time period. A historical review of MSU water demands demonstrates a downward trend for both indoor and outdoor water use over the study period. During this same timeframe, enrollment at the University was relatively consistent at around 14,000 students a year. The following three figures demonstrate: • Figure 2: Annual MSU Water Use from 2000 to 2010. • Figure 3: Monthly Outdoor Water Use from May through September from 2000 to 2010. • Figure 4: Winter and Summer Water Use Trends (gpcd) from 2000 to 2010. The information in Figure 3 was normalized to the 2000 population of 27,800 people. The reason for this is that MSU enrollment has been somewhat steady during the last decade while the population of the City of Bozeman has grown considerably. The get a true representation of how the gallons per capita per day were impacted by MSU improvements, normalizing the data to a set population was necessary. Note that when applying true population data over that time, the per capita demands required for MSU are even less than shown because there is more people in the City of Bozeman to share essentially the same population of water use for the University. Growth in the City of Bozeman without growth at the University results in a natural reduction in per capita demands over time that is significant. City of Bozeman, MT: IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Pagel Every Month Shows a Continuously Declining Trend in Summer Month over Study Period 5,000,000 0 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM • R ~ CH2MHILL@ TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM /~RE-z45 CH2MHILL@ Service Sectors A historical analysis of the other service sectors also resulted in the following planning assumptions: 1) Unaccounted for water was fairly consistent across a typical year and could not be attributed to any specific seasonal condition. As a result, it was assumed that Unaccounted for Water is a part of Indoor Water Use. 2) Industrial water use was an extremely small portion of the City of Bozeman water use and is also consistent throughout the year. Industrial water use was therefore considered Indoor Water Use. Table 3 provides a breakdown of water demands on a monthly basis for each service sector, using a planning value of 173 gpcd. Table 3 does not provide a breakdown of outdoor water use for Government and Top 8 commercial users as they are a very small fraction of the overall water use across the system. Later sections of the conservation plan consider these fractions in more detail and apply a fractional responsibility to these areas for water reduction goals. MSU also has an outdoor water use component, but due to reasons noted above, it was not broken out separately for this analysis. This analysis also considers the fraction of water use related to water losses at the treatment plant, which will drop proportionally as water use across the City decreases. Table 3 provides the foundation for applying water reduction goals to each service sector for planning purposes of the IWRP. Figures 5 and 6 provide an annual snapshot of water use by sector for planning purposes. A summary of the current conditions for the City of Bozeman based on the historical analysis and other considerations that may impact water use in the future include: • In 1989, the City of Bozeman Average Annual Demand was 191 gpcd. • In 1993, the City of Bozeman Average Annual Demand was 211 gpcd, the 20-year peak annual demand. • In the year 2000, the City of Bozeman Average Annual Demand was 163 gpcd. • In the year 2010, the City of Bozeman Average Annual demand was 134 gpcd. • The 20-year minimum annual demand happened in 2009, at 127 gpcd. • A 30 percent reduction in water use has occurred from 1989 to 2010. City of Bozeman, MT: IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page10 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ~ R e::, CH2MHILL® Table 3: Service Sector Breakdown of Monthly Planning Demand for the City of Bozeman Supply WTP Unacc. Top8 Res. Res. Comm. Comm.Based Efficiency MSU for Ind. Comm. Govt.Month Indoor Outdoor Indoor OutdoorDemand losses (gpcd) Water (gpcd) (Hotels) (gpcd) (gpcd) (gpcd) (gpcd) (gpcd)(173 gpcd) (gpcd) (gpcd) (gpcd) January February 112 118 6 6 10 10 21 23 1 1 6 7 3 2 43 45 22 23 March April May June July August September 114 114 174 214 324 314 234 6 6 9 11 16 16 12 10 10 13 15 20 20 16 22 23 23 25 24 26 23 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 7 9 11 17 16 12 3 2 6 7 13 11 9 43 43 45 47 47 49 46 31 53 116 108 65 23 23 24 25 25 26 24 12 21 46 42 26 October November 135 116 7 6 12 10 27 22 1 1 8 7 3 3 51 44 27 23 December 111 6 10 22 1 6 2 42 22 Average 173 9 13 23 1 9 5 45 75 24 29 % Total 100% 5% 8% 14% 1% 5% 4% 25% 18% 14% 7% Figure 5: Indoor Planning Demand Breakdown by Service Sector Indoor (113.9 GPCD ALL YEAR) ■ Residential ■ Commercial ■ Top 8 Commercial ■ MSU ■ Industry ■ Government ■ Unaccounted for Water 21% 23.9 GPCD TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM REzS CH2MHILL® Figure 6: Outdoor Planning Demand Breakdown by Service Sector Outdoor 122 GPCD (May to September) 5% TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ~ R~ CH2MHILL® Water Supply The IWRP Report provides a comprehensive discussion of the City of Bozeman Water Supply, including a review of sources, an update to the City's firm yield, and the application of climate change impacts through the year 2062 (a SO-year planning horizon). The IWRP concluded: • Within the 30-year and SO-year planning horizons, the City of Bozeman will exceed its water supply at current baseline planning demands. • At a baseline planning demand of 173 gpcd {Supply) and 165 gpcd (Treated Water), the climate adjusted supply can serve up to a population of approximately 57,600 people. • Climate impacts will reduce firm yield and increase demand over the SO-year planning period. • Population projections have been established for planning purposes at two different thresholds as part of the IWRP Study effort: o 85,725 people through 2062 using a growth factor of 2 percent per year through 2042, followed by 1 percent per year through 2062. o 139,900 people through 2062 using a growth factor of 3 percent per year through 2042, followed by 2 percent per year through 2062. The 2005 Water Facility Plan considered a growth rate of 5 percent per year based on the significant development activity experienced by the City of Bozeman at that time. The recent economic recession and reduction in development activity suggests that the population projections included in the 2005 Water Facility Plan could potentially overestimate future community growth for Bozeman, and revised projections were necessary to complete the IWRP. As an alternative projection methodology, it was assumed that periods of growth could vary substantially in the future, with periods of high growth followed by periods of relatively low growth. Ultimately, the actual rate of growth will reflect the compounded average of community development activity when applied over an extended planning horizon of 30 to 50 years. As a reasonable alternative, a range of relatively modest growth rates, as defined above, were presented to the City for consideration. The City approved the range of population projections based on past historical data indicating that the City of Bozeman has experienced an average population growth rate of approximately 2.07 percent over the SO-year period of time from 1960 through 2010. The use of growth rates that are more consistent with what has been experienced over the past 50 years was generally accepted as reasonable scenarios of growth that the City could experience over an extended period and more accurately reflect a cyclical pattern of community growth moving forward. Based on the above information, a range of conditions termed a water balance gap have been identified. By 2042, the City of Bozeman may need to develop anywhere from 2,260 to 6,660 acre-ft. By 2062, the City of Bozeman may need to develop anywhere from 6,840 to 17,750 acre-ft. Closing this gap could be accomplished either by developing or purchasing new water supplies or through demand reduction. This information is summarized in Table 4. BENCHMARKING EVALUATION A considerable benchmarking effort was completed by both AE2S and CH2M HILL of communities across the US. Water conservation programs and successful achievement of water demand reductions were evaluated with the goal of determining reasonable planning goals for the City of Bozeman. Identifying demand reduction strategies most likely to help the City accomplish these goals was also a priority of the survey. City of Bozeman, MT: IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page13 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM " R~ CH2MHILLe Table 4: Range of Water Supply Planning Targets for Various Planning Conditions 2042 2062 Climate Adjusted Firm Yield Supply 11,240 acre-ft 10,950 acre-ft Climate Adjusted Water Demand (gpcd) 165 gpcd 180 gpcd MSU Demand Reservation (acre-ft) 500 ac-ft 500 ac-ft Moderate Population Projection 70,256 85,725 Climate Adjusted Water Demand (acre-ft) 13,500 acre-ft 17,790 acre-ft Water Balance Gap (Supply versus Demand) 2,260 acre-ft 6,840 acre-ft Corresponding Demand Reduction 22 gpcd 71 gpcd High Population Projection 94,144 139,900 Climate Adjusted Water Demand (acre-ft) 17,900 acre-ft 28,700 acre-ft Water Balance Gap (Supply versus Demand) 6,660 acre-ft 17,750 acre-ft Corresponding Demand Reduction 63 gpcd 113 gpcd Water providers and communities initiate programs to increase water use efficiency (water conservation) for a variety of reasons. For example, programs may be a result of regulatory requirements, water supply shortages, and infrastructure with limited peaking capacity or as part of a community ethic to incorporate sustainable water resource approaches into their utility management systems. Publically available data were used from water providers the project team deemed similar to the City of Bozeman based on demographics, location, and data availability. The project team discovered few "aggressive" conservation programs in Montana and the surrounding states; therefore, communities of similar size that were not in water-scarce regions were selected. Some of which are in the early stages and some of which have been actively investing in conservation programs for decades. Where information was available, the drivers and goals for water conservation are provided, conservation measures implemented in the community were listed, and information on water use and gallons per capita per day (gpcd) is provided. For conservation planning purposes, it is estimated that Bozeman's water use is 173 gpcd of supply. The American Water Works Association conducted a survey of various utilities across the country. The range of overall per capita water use in the survey was 97 to 274 gallons per capita per day (gpcd); the national average per capita water use is 160 gpcd (AWWA), 2001). At the planning level, Bozeman is slightly above the national average. Actual recent usage is below the national average. While gpcd is one way to measure water use intensity and efficiency within a system and useful as a measure to track efficient use of water with a growing population, it is not the only standard. For example, in Georgia's Water Conservation Plan, water use intensity for commercial and industrial users is evaluated based on water used per unit of production or activity (e .g., gallons per square foot of carpet or per hotel bed) (Georgia, 2010). Another way to gauge water use efficiency is to look at average use versus peak use, especially in situations in which peak use results from discretionary uses such as outdoor watering. Evaluating peak to average water use ratios is another way to assess water usage. Generally, peak usage represents discretionary outdoor water use that could present an opportunity for water demand reductions. As with gpcd comparisons, however, other factors could contribute to a water system's peak use such as large seasonal populations relative to the permanent population or seasonal variation in manufacturing outputs. Whatever metric is selected to measure water use efficiency, it tends to be most useful when used to track an individual water system's changing water consumption over time with consideration given to changes in external forces (e.g., weather or general economic conditions) as well as changes to the customer base such as gains or losses of high-water using industries (BBC, 2012). Conservation efforts that were studied as comparable communities to the City of Bozeman for planning purposes spanned the Arid Western US with highlighted communities including the following list and Table 5: City ofBozeman, MT: IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Pagel4 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM " A~ CH2MHILL® • The State of Utah o St. George, UT o Park City, UT • The State of California o 20 x 20 Conservation Plan o California Urban Conservation Council • The State of Colorado o Colorado Water Conservation Board o Colorado Springs, CO • The State of Oregon -Bend • The State of Montana o Helena, MT o Billings, MT • The State of Texas -San Antonio Table 5: Water Customer And Utility Profile For Benchmarked Water Providers City/Water 2010 Annual Peak to Residential Customers Comments Provider Population Water Use Average (estimated annual growth rate) 1 MG (Acre- feet) Ratio Percent of total customer base gpcd Outdoor Use (%of annual) Bozeman, MT 37,285 (2%) 2339 MG 2.2S 87% 77 31% Residential gpcd includes (7,178 af) residential indoor and outdoor water use Boise, ID 20S,671 (2.2 %) 14,000 MG Not available United Water serves Boise 240,000 (total (42,96S af) and surrounding area. served by United Water) Town of Cary, 135,249 (3.2 %) 5,146 MG 1.53 65% 58 30% NC Claremont, CA 34,926 (0.6%) Not available Not Not available 143 50% Gpcd calculated using aver available cons of 11,100 per residence & 2.58 people/household Denver, CO 600,008 (3.3%) (234,000 af) Not 48% 80.6 Residential gpcd derived (1.3 million -available from 168 total gpcd total served) Longmont, CO3 86,270 (1.7%) 5,909 MG Not S4% 104.S gpcd based on rolling (18,134 af) available average 2000-2007; raw water canal system provides outdoor water Waukesha, WI 70,718 (0.2%) 1.28 58.3 % 40 31% Residential use includes single-family and multi- family Wichita, KS 382,368 (0.05 %) 18,1S8 MG (55,725 af) 1.26 85 65 35% Data derived from Cost of Service Study; gpcd for 430,000 (total served) inside city limits customers only City ofBozeman, MT: IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page15 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM " REz45 CH2MHILL® Many of the water providers identified have adopted detailed integrated water supply plans or water conservation plans. For other providers, such plans were not identified. To some degree, the reasons, or drivers, contributing to the providers' conservation efforts provide a foundation for understanding the level of investment in the program. For example, a city that is water-short or investing in expensive additional supplies or infrastructure to meet peak demands has an incentive to invest in water conservation, which can be a lower cost option to meet demands. Other cities responded to permit requirements or court mandates specifying water use or water efficiency requirements. Still others have implemented conservation programs for a variety of reasons, such as part of sustainability plans, environmental awareness programs or because it is the "right thing" to do. Where possible, the conservation drivers for the benchmarked cities are presented in Table 6. Table 6: Drivers For Water Conservation In Benchmarked Cities City/ Water Provider Conservation Goal Planning Year Driver for Conservation Comments Program Bozeman, MT 2002 Growing population, need 2002 plan suggests for additional water supply, conservation of 1,400 acre-feet makes good business sense per year at certain levels. Boise, ID None Identified Town of Cary, NC No numeric goal, but On-going Reduce operating costs; delay they are focused on infrastructure expansion and reducing peak and need for new supplies overall gpcd Claremont, CA 20% by 2020 State law Denver, CO 22% from pre2006 Growing population; costs of drought levels by alternative supplies; 2016 (165 gpcd) permit/court requirement in 1980's Longmont, CO 10% by 2025 2008 Part of integrated water supply portfolio Waukesha, WI 1% per year 2012 Right thing to do; Future 2012 Conservation Plan outlines infrastructure needs; Great numerous new conservation Lakes Permit measures over next 5 years Wichita, KS 15% 1993 Part of integrated water supply portfolio Just as the reasons for implementing a water conservation programs vary among utilities and cities, the measures to increase water use efficiency also vary. Across the country most conservation programs begin with a foundation of information and education provided through a website, speaker's bureau, newsletters, social media such as Twitter and similar methods. Financial incentives including rate structures and rebates for fixture, appliance and landscape replacements or retrofits are often implemented. A third strategy often incorporated into conservation programs includes ordinances establishing standards for water-using fixtures or activities such as irrigation systems, water times or frequency, standards for new construction and other policies or regulations. Table 7 provides an overview of conservation measures in place at the benchmarked communities. A presentation was provided summarizing relevant information at the Technical Advisory Committee meeting #2, in August of 2012 for systems and programs listed above. Conclusions drawn from this benchmarking effort pertaining to conservation planning for the City of Bozeman include: City of Bozeman, MT: IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page16 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ~ REzS CH2MHILL® • In general, water demands are going down nationally due to water conservation practices related to updated plumbing codes, new development, and conservation education and program development. • In general, the cost of implementing conservation programs is perceived to be less than developing new water supplies, particularly when water supplies are scarce. • Water conservation programs have been accused of reducing revenue, with an unintended consequence of requiring rate increases. • State legislation and regional water supply development tend to drive Conservation Program development. • Program development and management can be more costly than originally intended with fewer impacts than predicted. Selecting measurable water reduction strategies has become a goal of many conservation programs that have been completed in recent years. • Program outcomes are still primarily predictive. Relatively few programs have implemented measurable programs or effective monitoring approaches. • A programmatic shift towards measuring outcomes of conservation programs is happening. This is necessary to know the true impact and cost of these programs as the reported information varies considerably based on cost inputs, who's paying for what, and the overall imposition using less water has on the community as a whole. • It is generally reasonable to plan for around 1 to 2 percent per year water conservation. • Water conservation could be inevitable whether concerted programs are established or not. As homes and commercial entities update plumbing fixtures and address high energy uses, water conservation typically follows. As utility bills increase, consumers become more aware of their uses and find ways to be more efficient. Balancing these inevitable conditions against conditions that are intentionally impacted may only serve to achieve water use reduction faster with the same overall future outcome regardless of program implementation. • A Conservation program needs to be continually reviewed and updated. The most successful programs appear to be based on establishment of goals for a 10-year timeframe, with a 5-year review of progress towards goal achievement. • Pilot study programs, public education, and retaining a Conservation Program Coordinator are critical to implementing a successful conservation program. City ofBozeman, MT: IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page17 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM RE_iS CH2MHILL® Table 7: Conservation Measures For Benchmarked Communities City/Water Provider Residential Indoor Outdoor (Residential & Commercial) Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Youth Education and Public Information System Management Other Conservation Measures Bozeman, MT Rebate for High Efficiency Toilets Incentive for new development None found Web site information Universal metering, leak repair, monthly billing Increasing block rates Boise, ID None found None found None found Information and tips on the website None found Town of Cary, NC High Efficiency Toilet Rebates; showerhead, rain gauge aerator give-away Turf buy-back program; rain barrel distribution program; alternate day watering schedule; irrigation plan review; new development ordinance; separate irrigation meters required Reclaimed water; new programs under consideration with 2012 plan update. School program, Website, newsletter, block leader program; media Leak detection; main replacement; reuse system Increasing block rates; water waste prevention ordinance Claremont, CA High Efficiency Toilets and clothes washers Turf removal program; free sprinklers & nozzles; irrigation controller and nozzles rebates (commercial) High Efficiency Toilets and urinals, cooling tower improvements; dry vacuum pump, food steamer, ice maker, flow restrictor Website and other information; demonstration garden; workshops; festivals; None found Year round ordinance with watering schedule and prohibiting waste (no car washing on hard surfaces), restaurants serve water only upon request, hotels must allow guests to refuse daily laundering; no once-thru cooling system; Increasing block rate structure Denver, CO Clothes washer, High Efficiency Toilet Rotary nozzle & smart controller rebates; soil amendment requirements; landscape requirements; watering schedules; water use audits Rebates for high efficiency toilets, urinals, flushometers, coin operated laundry machines, cooling tower retrofits, sub- metering, and ware- washing equipment; Extensive school curricula (changes overtime); workshops; outreach; media Leak detection; reuse system; other system management Standards for new construction; water waste prevention ordinances. Dynamic program City ofBozeman, MT: IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page 18 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM R ~ CH2MHILL® Table 7: Conservation Measures For Benchmarked Communities City/ Water Provider Residential Indoor Outdoor (Residential & Commercial) Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Youth Education and Public Information System Management Other Conservation Measures "customer defined" conservation incentives; water use audits; public housing retrofits; retrofit of city facilities and landscapes; Longmont, CO Waukesha, WI Wichita, KS Fixture and appliance rebates High-Efficiency toilet rebate Irrigation audits; xeriscape in a box kits; rebates; Landscaping Ordinance/Rebate for New Construction Voluntary Watering Restrictions Sprinkling ban; Conservation rates (base/excess use tiered rates) Landscape requirements & low fixtures required for new construction and C of O; soil amendments required for new construction Dishwashing faucet replacements High-Efficiency toilet rebate; other rebates planned Municipal facilities retrofits; Water festivals, website and other media, workshops Tours; classroom tours; newsletters; events; website Extensive outreach Meter replacement; city facility and irrigation retrofits Leak detection & repair; pressure management; system water audits; System water audit; Leak Detection and Repair; Meter Testing, Repair and Replacement; Water Waste Ordinance /Hotline; Plumbing Fixture requirements Waste prevention ordinance; demonstration garden; Increasing block rate structure Longmont, CO Clothes washer, toilet, and dishwasher rebates; fixture replacement to received cert of occupancy (C of 0) Boise, ID Information to customers about water audits and finding leaks Free rain sensors and hose timers; landscape workshops and demonstration garden No information available Tours, information and conservation tips No information available None identified City of Bozeman, MT: IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page 19 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ~ REzS CH2MHILL® CONSERVATION SCENARIO PLANNING Upon finalization of the historical data analysis and benchmarking approach, the project team acquired the Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE) Conservation Tracking Tool (version 2.0) and populated the tool to develop a hypothetical portfolio of potential conservation measures the City could implement over the next 10 years for three potential water conservation scenarios, including a Low, Medium, and High. Numerous assumptions were made to develop the portfolio at this stage of planning, so the tool is able to provide planning level/order of magnitude costs and water savings estimates. For each scenario, assumptions were made with respect to participation rates, number of retrofits, etc. The assumptions led to "inputs" for various measures into the tool. For each scenario, the assumptions and variables are presented. Also for each scenario, a table is provided to show assumptions or savings factors in the tool for various measures. For the "behavior based" savings, CH2M HILL developed some savings estimates. Note that system efficiency (City-wide infrastructure projects that could decrease the rate of water loss) were added to the results of the AWE Modeling Tool and CH2M HILL effort in a later step. The following tables outline the inputs and assumptions used to generate the results of the AWE Modeling Tool conservation development effort. Table 8 provides the inputs to the tool that were used throughout all of the scenarios to estimate savings. It also summarizes some basic financial assumptions used to project the cost of implementing the various conservation measures that were evaluated through the 10-year conservation planning horizon. Tables 9 through 24 provide the additional assumptions, mathematical translations, and outcomes that were made under each of the low, medium, and high scenarios. The first table in each set of tables provides a summary of the assumptions that the project team made regarding the participation in each of the conservation measures that were considered. The next table includes a translation into the number of accounts that have begun using the measure. And the final table provides the results of each measure. It should be noted that the proposed Conservation Program assumes a 10-year program implementation timeline. However, the planning horizon for this project extends to 30-or SO-years. The methodology used to project the impacts of a low, medium, or high conservation plan through the complete planning horizon is discussed in subsequent sections of this technical document. City of Bozeman, MT: IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page20 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM REzS CH2MHILL® Table 8: General Bozeman Assumptions Input into AWE Tracking Tool Analysis Start Vear 2013 2020 2030 2040 2050 Service Area Population 38,786 45,444 55,396 67,528 76,077 Service Area Population in 1990 22,660 2.66% 2.10% 1.73% 1.16% Peak-Season Start Date ('month/day') 1-May Peak-Season End Date ('month/day') 30-Sep Nominal Interest Rate 4.00% Inflation Rate 3.00% Vear in which to Denominate Costs & Benefits 2012 Persons Per Household -SF (2010 Census) 2.3 Persons Per Household -MF (2010 Census) 1.9 Full Bathrooms Per Household -SF 1.70 Half Bathrooms Per Household -SF 0.60 Full Bathrooms Per Household -MF 1.80 Half Bathrooms Per Household -MF 0.20 SF Housing Units Built before 1992 (City of Bozeman Records} 3,880 MF Housing Units Built before 1992 (City ofBozeman Records} 7,198 Reference ET (inches/yr) 40.75 Avg. Annual Rainfall (inches/yr) 19.30 Table 9: Low Scenario -Assumptions (Inputs) Measure/ Activity Participation/ Market Penetration Assumptions Assumed replacement of toilets in 10% of single family homes, Residential HE Toilets, SF divided evenly across 10 years. Table 10: Estimated Accounts that are Using Measure by Year~ Low Scenario Measure/ Activity 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 I Residential HE Toilets, SF so I 90 I 90 I 90 I 90 I 90 I 90 I 90 I 90 I 90 1 City ofBozeman, MT: IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page21 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM /~ H'=zS CH2MHILL@ Table 11: AWE Tool or CH2M HILL Water Savings Estimate~ Low Scenario Measure/Activity Savings Factor Residential HE Toilets, SF Water saved: 4,072 gallons/year/unit . Increased Education Assumed a 3% decrease in use based on an increased education/public outreach program. Passive Conservation Includes water savings from activity implementation that is not attributable solely to the program action because it would have occurred anyway due to code requirements or program free-riders. *Savings for this measure was defined by CH2M HILL based on literature and/or best professional judgment Table 12: Medium Scenario -Assumptions (Inputs)~ Medium Scenario Measure/Activity Participation/ Market Penetration Assumptions Assumed replacement in approximately 70% of homes built prior to 1992 that had not previously participated in toilet Residential HE Toilets, SF retrofit program Residential HE Toilets, MF Assumed replacement in 35% of homes built prior to 1992 Residential Surveys, SF Assumed two per month. Assumed approximately one per month, as these are more Residential Surveys, MF involved. Assumed these would be given to residents or installed at the Residential LF Showerhead, SF time a survey is conducted. Assumed these would be given to residents or installed at the Residential LF Showerhead, MF time a survey is conducted. Residential HE Washer, SF Assumed a total replacement in 50% of homes. Assumed approximately 2 facilities per year, 5 machines per Residential HE Washer, MF facility. Assumed replacement in approximately 2% of households per year, with a 2 year "ramp up" time period. This was assumed to be a combination of turf replacement, irrigation system Residential Turf Replacement replacement, or similar measures. Assumed 5 urinals per property, 10 properties per year, with a 1 CII 1/2 Gallon Urinal year "ramp up" time period. Assumed 15 toilets per property, 10 properties per year, with a CII Tank-Type HE Toilet 1 year "ramp up" time period. CII Laundromat Assumed a total of 15 washing machines would be replaced. Assumed replacement in a total of 2 facilities per year CII Dishwasher beginning in year 4. Assumed replacement in a total of 2 facilities per year CII Spray Rinse Valve beginning in year 4. City of Bozeman, MT: IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page22 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM " R E.zS CH2MHILL® Table 13: Estimated Accounts that are Using Measure by Year~ Medium Scenario Measure/ Activity 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Residential HE Toilets, SF Residential HE Toilets, MF 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 Residential Surveys, SF 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 Residential Surveys, MF 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Residential LF Showerhead SF 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Residential LF Showerhead MF 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Residential HE Washer, SF 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Residential HE Washer, MF 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Residential Turf Replacement 5 50 100 100 100 100 100 100 Cll 1/2 Gallon Urinal 30 50 so so so so 50 so CII Tank-Type HE Toilet 90 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 CII Laundromat 3 3 3 3 3 CII Dishwasher 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 CII Spray Rinse Valve 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Table 14: AWE Tool or CH2M HILL Water Savings Estimate~ Medium Scenario Measure/ Activity Savings Factor Residential HE Toilets, SF Water saved: 4072 gal/year/unit Residential HE Toilets, MF Water saved: 4,613 gal/year/unit. Residential Surveys, SF Water saved : 12,373.0 gallons/year/household Residential Surveys, MF Water saved: 4,015.0 gallons/year/household Residential LF Showerhead, SF Water saved: 2,062.3 gallons/year/unit Residential LF Showerhead, MF Water saved : 1,898.0 gallons/year/unit Residential HE Washer, SF Water saved: 7,043.3 gallons/year/household Residential HE Washer, MF Water saved: 25,310.0 gallons/year/household Residential Turf Replacement Water saved : 40,261.2 gallons/year/household Cll 1/2 Gallon Urinal Water saved: 6,206.0 gallons/year/unit CII Tank-Type HE Toilet Water saved : 11,426.1 gallons/year/unit CII Laundromat Water saved: 50,000.0 gallons/year/unit CII Dishwasher Water saved : 57,757.0 gallons/year/unit CII Spray Rinse Valve Water saved : 28,285.0 gallons/year/unit Public Information* Assumed a 3% decrease in use based on increased ed./public outreach. Pricing Mods/ Water Budgets* Assumed a 3% decrease in use due to inverted pricing structure. Watering restrictions Assumed a 3% decrease in use based on implementation of a sprinkling (stwice/week)* ordinance that limits days a facility may be watered to no more than 2. Includes water savings from activity implementation not attributable solely to the program action because it would have occurred anyway Passive Conservation due to code requirements or program free-riders. *Savings for these measures were defined by CH2M HILL based on literature and/or best professional judgment City of Bozeman, MT: IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page23 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ~ R~ CH2MHILL® Table 15: High Scenario -Assumptions (Inputs) Measure/Activity Participation/ Market Penetration Assumptions Assumed a total replacement of 67% (2/3) more than the medium scenario (would include home built post-1992), evenly dispersed Residential HE Toilets, SF over 10 years. Assumed replacement in 70% of homes built prior to 1992. 10% would receive rebates (this activity), 50% would benefit from direct Residential HE Toilets, MF installation (below). Residential Surveys, SF Assumed approximately 10 per month conducted. Residential Surveys, MF Assumed 5 per month conducted. Assumed these would be distributed or installed alongside HE toilet Residential LF Showerhead, SF rebates. Assumed these would be distributed or installed alongside HE toilet Residential LF Showerhead, MF rebates. Residential HE Washer, SF Assumed replacement in 50% of homes. Residential HE Washer, MF Assumed replacement in 50% of homes. Residential Turf Replacement Assumed replacement in approximately 25% of homes. Cll 1/2 Gallon Urinal Assumed replacement in 50% of commercial entities. CII Tank-Type HE Toilet Assumed replacement in 50% of commercial entities. Based on literature, assumed a 40% water savings over traditional units and 225 washing machines available to be replaced. Assumed CII Laundromat 100% replacement. Based on literature, assumed a 30% water savings over traditional CII Dishwasher units, which equated to 130 units. Based on literature, assumed a 30% water savings over traditional CII Spray Rinse Valve units, which equated to 130 units. Assumed 20% of commercial accounts would be considered large Large Land. Turf Replacement landscapes that could be replaced. Assumed replacement in 70% of homes built prior to 1992. 10% Residential HE Toilet Direct Install, would receive rebates (above), 50% would benefit from direct MF installation (this activity). Assumed 22 hotels with an average of 75 rooms each, replacement Hotel HE Toilet Direct Install in 3 hotels per month starting in 4th quarter of 2015, ending in 2016. City ofBozeman, MT: IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page24 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ~ RE.zS CH2MHILL® Table 16: Estimated Accounts that are Using Measure by Year~ High Scenario Measure/ Activity 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Residential HE Toilets, SF 332 332 332 332 332 332 332 332 332 332 Residential HE Toilets, MF 540 540 Residential Surveys, SF 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Residential Surveys, MF Residential LF Showerhead, SF 60 592 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 592 592 592 592 592 592 592 592 592 Residential LF Showerhead, MF 385 385 Residential HE Washer, SF 400 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 Residential HE Washer, MF 300 400 400 450 450 450 450 450 450 Residential Turf Replacement 100 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 CII 1/2 Gallon Urinal so so so so 75 75 75 75 CII Tank-Type HE Toilet so so so so 75 75 75 75 CII Laundromat so 150 25 CII Dishwasher 30 so so CII Spray Rinse Valve 30 so so Large Land. Turf Replacement 30 30 30 30 40 40 Residential HE Toilet Direct Install, MF 990 990 990 990 Hotel HE Toilet Direct Install 675 975 City ofBozeman, MT: IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page25 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ~ RE.zS CH2MHILL® Table 17: AWE Tool or CH2M HILL Savings Estimate~ High Scenario Measure/Activity Savings Factor Residential HE Toilets, SF Water saved: 9,541.2 gallons/year/unit Residential HE Toilets, MF Water saved: 14,363.4 gallons/year/unit Residential Surveys, SF Water saved: 12,373.0 gallons/year/household Residential Surveys, MF Water saved: 4,015.0 gallons/year/household Residential LF Showerhead, SF Water saved: 2,062.3 gallons/year/unit Residential LF Showerhead, MF Water saved: 1,898.0 gallons/year/unit Residential HE Washer, SF Water saved: 7,043.3 gallons/year/household Residential HE Washer, MF Water saved: 25,310.0 gallons/year/household Residential Turf Replacement Water saved: 40,261.2 gallons/year/household Cll 1/2 Gallon Urinal Water saved: 6,206.0 gallons/year/unit CII Tank-Type HE Toilet Water saved: 11,426.1 gallons/year/unit CII Laundromat Water saved: 50,000.0 gallons/year/unit CII Dishwasher Water saved: 57,757.0 gallons/year/unit CII Spray Rinse Valve Water saved: 28,285.0 gallons/year/unit Large Land. Turf Replacement Water saved: 811,933.2 gallons/year/facility Residential HE Toilet Direct Install, MF Water saved: 14,363.4 gallons/year/unit Hotel HE Toilet Direct Install Water saved: 14,363.4 gallons/year/unit Assumed a 3% decrease in use based on an increased Public Information* education/public outreach program. Pricing Modifications/ Water Assumed a 3% decrease in use based on an inverted pricing Budgets* structure. Assumed a 3% decrease in use based on implementation of a Watering restrictions sprinkling ordinance that limits days a facility may be watered to (Stwice/week)* no more than 2. Includes water savings from activity implementation that is not attributable solely to the program action because it would have occurred anyway due to code requirements or program free- Passive Conservation riders. *Savings for these measures were defined by CH2M HILL based on literature and/or best professional judgment City of Bozeman, MT: IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page26 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM H E:z45 CH2MHILL® Table 18: Low Conservation Scenario Results (Values presented in units of acre-feet) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Measure Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Years Year6 Year7 Years Year9 Year10 Residential HE Toilets, SF1 1.00 2.12 3.25 4.37 5.50 6.62 7.75 8.87 10.00 11.12 Increased Education2 132.99 135.73 138.77 141.92 145.19 148.57 152.07 155.69 159.27 162.87 Passive Conservation 58.86 103.82 147.72 190.46 232.12 272.78 312.52 293.85 278.99 Total 133.99 196.71 245.84 294.02 341.15 387.31 432.60 477.09 463.12 452.98 1. Assumed a replacement of 10% of single family homes. 2. Assumed a 3% decrease in use based on an increased education/public outreach program; it is difficult to correlate public awareness campaigns with reduced water use. Table 19: Estimated Annual Cost1 for Low Conservation Scenario 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Measure Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Years Year6 Year7 Years Year9 Year10 Residential HE Toilets, SF $10,300 $11,935 $12,293 $12,662 $13,042 $13,433 $13,836 $14,251 $14,679 $15,119 Public lnformation2 $19,000 $19,500 $20,000 $20,500 $21,000 $21,500 $22,000 $22,500 $23,500 $23,500 FTEs required ($1 00k per person per year)3 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 Total $54,300 $56,435 $57,293 $58,162 $59,042 $59,933 $60,836 $61,751 $63,179 $63,619 TOTAL PROGRAM COST $594,550 1. Cost estimate includes direct costs for the Bozeman utility system for a particular program. Expected savings (e.g., reduce treatment and power costs) have not been deducted. 2. Assumed value based on best professional judgment; this assumes approx $.50 per capita 3. Assumed quarter-time FTE Notes: Estimated water savings per conservation measure were calculated using the AWE Tracking Tool, unless noted. Conservation values are presented as cumulative values (including the previous year outcome) Cost are annual and must be totaled for each year to determine total program cost. Potential impact to revenues resulting from reduced consumption has not been evaluated for this study. City ofBozeman, MT: IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page27 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM R EzS CH2MHILL® Table 20: Medium Conservation Scenario Results (Values presented in units of acre-feet) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Measure Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Years Year6 Year7 Years Year9 Year10 Residential HE Toilets, SF 2.50 5.00 7.50 10.00 12.50 15.00 17.50 19.99 22.49 24.99 Residential HE Toilets, MF 3.54 7.08 10.62 14.16 17.70 21 .24 24.77 28.31 31.85 35.39 Residential Surveys, SF 0.91 1.64 2.22 2.69 3.06 3.06 3.06 3.06 3.06 3.06 Residential Surveys, MF 0.12 0.22 0.30 0.36 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 Residential LF Showerhead, SF 0.19 0.38 0.57 0.76 0.95 1.14 1.33 1.52 1.71 1.90 Residential LF Showerhead, MF 0.06 0.12 0.17 0.23 0.29 0.35 0.41 0.47 0.52 0.58 Residential HE Washer, SF 0.00 1.08 2.16 3.24 4.32 5.40 6.48 7.56 8.65 9.73 Residential HE Washer, MF 0.00 0.78 1.55 2.33 3.11 3.88 4.66 5.44 6.21 6.21 Residential Turf Replacement 0.00 0.00 0.62 6.80 19.15 31.51 43.86 56.22 68.57 80.93 Cll 1/2 Gallon Urinal 0.00 0.00 0.57 1.52 2.48 3.43 4.38 5.33 6.29 7.24 CII Tank-Type HE Toilet 0.00 0.00 3.16 8.42 13.68 18.94 24.20 29.45 34.71 39.97 CII Laundromat 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.58 0.87 1.16 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.45 CII Dishwasher 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.71 1.06 1.42 1.77 2.13 2.48 CII Spray Rinse Valve 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.35 0.52 0.69 0.87 1.04 1.22 Public Information 132.99 135.73 138.77 141.92 145.19 148.57 152.07 155.69 159.27 162.87 Pricing Modifications/ Water Budgets 265.98 271.45 277.54 283.84 290.38 297.15 304.15 311.39 318.54 325.74 Watering restrictions (Stwice/week) 265.98 271.45 277.54 283.84 290.38 297.15 304.15 311.39 318.54 325.74 Passive Conservation 58.9 103.8 147.7 190.5 232.1 272.8 312.5 293.8 279.0 Total 672.27 753.78 827.40 908.95 995.97 1,082.08 1,167.77 1,252.86 1,279.30 1,308.90 Notes: Consistent with those from Low Scenario City of Bozeman, MT: IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page28 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM R E:z45 CH2MHILL@ Table 21: Estimated Annual Cost for Medium Conservation Scenario 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Measure Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Years Years Year7 Years Year9 Year10 Residential HE Toilets, SF $25,750 $26,523 $27,318 $28,138 $28,982 $29,851 $30,747 $31,669 $32,619 $33,598 Residential HE Toilets, MF $32,188 $33 ,153 $34,148 $35,172 $36,227 $37,314 $38,434 $39,587 $40,774 $41 ,997 Residential Surveys, SF $2,348 $2,419 $2,491 $2,566 $2,643 $2,722 $2,804 $2,888 $2,975 $3,064 Residential Surveys, MF $515 $530 $546 $563 $580 $597 $615 $633 $652 $672 Residential LF Showerhead, SF $155 $159 $164 $169 $174 $179 $184 $190 $196 $202 Residential LF Showerhead, MF $52 $53 $55 $56 $58 $60 $61 $63 $65 $67 Residential HE Washer, SF $0 $10,609 $10,927 $11 ,255 $11,593 $11,941 $12,299 $12,668 $13,048 $13,439 Residential HE Washer, MF $0 $3 ,925 $4,043 $4,164 $4,289 $4,418 $4,551 $4,687 $4,828 $4,972 Residential Turf Replacement $0 $0 $5,311 $54,700 $112,681 $116,062 $119,544 $123 ,130 $126,824 $130,629 GIi 1/2 Gallon Urinal $0 $0 $14,752 $25,324 $26,084 $26,866 $27,672 $28,502 $29,357 $30,238 CII Tank-Type HE Toilet $0 $0 $19,669 $33,765 $34,778 $35,822 $36,896 $38,003 $39,143 $40,317 GIi Laundromat $0 $0 $1,213 $1,249 $1,287 $1,325 $1,365 $0 $0 $0 GIi Dishwasher $0 $0 $0 $2,251 $2,319 $2,388 $2,460 $2,534 $2,610 $2,688 GIi Spray Rinse Valve $0 $0 $0 $338 $348 $358 $369 $380 $391 $403 Public Information $19,000 $19,500 $20,000 $20,500 $21,000 $21,500 $22,000 $22,500 $23,500 $23,500 Pricing Modifications/ Water Budgets Watering restrictions (Stwice/week) Passive Conservation FTEs required ($1 00k per person per year) $100,000 $125,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 Total $180,007 $221,871 $340,637 $420,210 $483,042 $491,404 $500,001 $507,435 $516,983 $525,787 Total Program Cost $4,187,377 City of Bozeman, MT: IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page29 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM , R Ez5 CH2MHILL® Table 22: High Conservation Scenario Results (Values presented in units of acre-feet) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Measure Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Years Year6 Year7 Years Year9 Year10 Residential HE Toilets, SF 9.72 19.44 29.16 38.88 48.61 58.33 68.05 77.77 87.49 97.21 Residential HE Toilets, MF 23 .80 47.61 47.61 47.61 47.61 47.61 47.61 47.61 47.61 47.61 Residential Surveys, SF 3.80 6.83 9.27 11 .21 12.76 12.76 12.76 12.76 12.76 12.76 Residential Surveys, MF 0.74 1.33 1.80 2.18 2.49 2.49 2.49 2.49 2.49 2.49 Residential LF Showerhead, SF 2.10 4.20 6.30 8.40 10.51 12.61 14.71 16.81 18.91 21 .01 Residential LF Showerhead, MF 3.15 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 6.29 Residential HE Washer, SF 0.00 8.65 19.45 30.26 41 .07 51 .87 62.68 73.49 84.30 95.10 Residential HE Washer, MF 0.00 23.30 54.37 85.44 120.39 155.35 190.30 225.25 260.21 271 .86 Residential Turf Replacement 0.00 0.00 12.36 49.42 86.49 123.56 160.62 197.69 234.76 271 .83 Cll 1/2 Gallon Urinal 0.00 0.00 0.95 1.90 2.86 3.81 5.24 6.67 8.09 9.52 CII Tank-Type HE Toilet 0.00 0.00 1.75 3.51 5.26 7.01 9.64 12.27 14.90 17.53 CII Laundromat 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.67 30.69 34.52 34.52 34.52 34.52 34.52 CII Dishwasher 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.32 14.18 23.04 23.04 23.04 CII Spray Rinse Valve 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.60 6.94 11.28 11.28 11.28 Large Land. Turf Replacement 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 74.75 149.50 224.26 299.01 373.76 448.51 Residential HE Toilet Direct Install, MF 0.00 0.00 43.64 87.28 130.92 174.55 174.55 174.55 174.55 174.55 Hotel HE Toilet Direct Install 0.00 0.00 29.75 72.73 72.73 72.73 72.73 72.73 72.73 72.73 Public Information 132.99 135.73 138.77 141.92 145.19 148.57 152.07 155.69 159.27 162.87 Pricing Modifications/ Water Budgets 265.98 271.45 277.54 283.84 290.38 297.15 304.15 311.39 318.54 325.74 Watering restrictions ( :Stwice/week) 265.98 271 .45 277.54 283.84 290.38 297.15 304.15 311 .39 318.54 325.74 Passive Conservation 58.9 103.8 147.7 190.5 232.1 272.8 312.5 293.8 279.0 Total 708.26 855.14 1,060.38 1,310.12 1,609.82 1,895.90 2,140.73 2,385.24 2,557.90 2,711 .19 Notes: Consistent with those from Low/Medium Scenarios City ofBozeman, MT: IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page30 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ~ REzS CH2MHILL® Table 23: Estimated Annual Cost for High Conservation Scenario 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Measure Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Year5 Year6 Year7 Year8 Year9 Year10 Residential HE Toilets, SF $42,745 $44,027 $45,348 $46,709 $48,110 $49,553 $51 ,040 $52,571 $54,148 $55,773 Residential HE Toilets, MF $69,525 $71,611 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Residential Surveys, SF $9,785 $10,079 $10,381 $10,692 $11,013 $11,343 $11,684 $12,034 $12,395 $12,767 Residential Surveys, MF $3,090 $3,183 $3,278 $3,377 $3,478 $3,582 $3,690 $3,800 $3,914 $4,032 Residential LF Showerhead, SF $1,710 $1,761 $1,814 $1,868 $1,924 $1,982 $2,042 $2,103 $2,166 $2,231 Residential LF Showerhead, MF $2,781 $2,864 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Residential HE Washer, SF $0 $84,872 $109,273 $112,551 $115,927 $119,405 $122,987 $126,677 $130,477 $134,392 Residential HE Washer, MF $0 $117,760 $161,724 $166,575 $193,019 $198,810 $204,774 $210,917 $217,245 $223,762 Residential Turf Replacement $0 $0 $106,213 $328,198 $338,044 $348,186 $358,631 $369,390 $380,472 $391,886 GIi 1/2 Gallon Urinal $0 $0 $24,586 $25,324 $26,084 $26,866 $41,508 $42,753 $44,036 $45,357 GIi Tank-Type HE Toilet $0 $0 $10,927 $11,255 $11 ,593 $11,941 $18,448 $19,002 $19,572 $20,159 GIi Laundromat $0 $0 $0 $20,822 $64,340 $11,045 $0 $0 $0 $0 GIi Dishwasher $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $35,822 $61,494 $63,339 $0 $0 GIi Spray Rinse Valve $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,373 $9,224 $9,501 $0 $0 Large Land. Turf Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $681,723 $702,174 $723,240 $744,937 $767,285 $790,303 Residential HE Toilet Direct Install, MF $0 $0 $286,677 $295,277 $304,136 $313,260 $0 $0 $0 $0 Hotel HE Toilet Direct Install $0 $0 $195,462 $290,803 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Public Information 1 $38,000 $38,700 $40,000 $41,000 $42,000 $43,000 $44,000 $45,000 $46,000 $46,600 Pricing Modifications/Water Budgets Watering restrictions ( stwice/week) Passive Conservation FTEs required ($1 00k per person per year) $150,000 $200,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 Total $317,636 $574,857 $1,295,683 $1,654,452 $2,141,390 $2,182,342 $1,952,761 $2,002,024 $1,977,710 $2,027,262 Total Program Cost $16,126,116 City ofBozeman, MT: IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page31 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM , R ~ CH2MHILL® Table 24: Comparison of 1 0 year Conservation Program Scenarios Savings (Acre-Feet per Year)1 Savings (Total 10-Year Program Savings, Acre-Feet per Year)2 Savings (% of planning gpcd/ % of planning gpcd) Annual Cost (low)2 Annual Cost (high)2 Total Program Cost3 Low 453 3,425 $54,300 $63,619 $594,550 Medium 1,309 10,249 $180,007 $525,787 $4,187,377 High 2,711 17,235 $317,636 $2,182,342 $16,126,116 1. The annual water savings presented is in year 10 of the 10 year program. Annual savings increase as the program is implemented each additional year; this is the maximum reached. Saving continue during the following years. 2. Savings will continue for most measures beyond the ten years included in this planning exercise with minimal to no additional investment. 3. The lowest cost is always in the first year. The year in which the highest cost is achieved depends on the program implementation plan. 4. 10-year program total cost to City. Note this does not account for the reduction in revenue experienced when a utility is selling less water to its customers. City ofBozeman, MT: IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page32 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ~ REzS CH2MHILL@ Once the AWE Tracking Tool analysis was complete, the technical team made an effort to break the above information down into the following categories: 1) Retrofits Impacting Existing Accounts 2) Measures Impacting General Water Use Behavior for the Entire Population 3) Additionally, although not included in the above AWE Tracking Tool effort, the technical team considered system efficiency improvements as following: a. A reduction from 15.9% to 12% unaccounted for water due to current practices and spending the City has already incorporated into its Capital Plan was assumed as an addition to the Low Scenario. b. A reduction from 15.9% to 10% unaccounted for water due to the addition of a hydraulic model calibration and pressure optimization project to the current capital plan was assumed as an addition to the Medium Scenario. c. A reduction from 15.9% to 5% unaccounted for water due to the addition of a hydraulic model calibration and pressure optimization project, plus $100,000 per year added budget for system efficiency projects, increasing by $25,000 a year through the 10 year program was assumed as an addition to the High Scenario. Because the proposed planning horizon for this project is 30-years and SO-years, the proposed conservation program was extrapolated into future years using the following methodology: 1) All new growth associated with the low scenario could be required to develop according to improved development standards for water conservation. It was assumed that as a maximum condition, water demands achieved as part of the medium water conservation scenario could be achieved for new development. 2) All new growth associated with the medium and high scenarios could be required to develop according to improved development standards for water conservation to accomplish demand reduction equivalent to the amount predicted by the high conservation scenario. Based on the above considerations, Tables 25 through 28 present information associated with Conservation Program accomplishments at Medium and High Growth projections through the planning horizons. Costs have also been developed assuming that infrastructure improvement costs for system efficiency would continue through the planning horizon, staff positions would be retained, and educational budgets would be maintained. Costs estimated beyond the 10-year conservation program horizon were indexed at 3% per year. The costs that are shown are cumulative, according to each planning horizon. Some considerations to be applied to this analysis include: • The costs proposed are considered Level 5 cost estimates and as a result, it could be appropriate to apply as much as a 30 to 50 percent contingency factor to the costs for further alternative analysis. • The City of Bozeman may choose not to impose more stringent standards of water conservation for new construction as suggested herein. In this case, the achievable water demands projected into the future could be significantly less than those proposed in this analysis. • Due to the length of the planning horizon (SO-years), it is not impossible that dramatic improvements to technology could occur during the planning horizon that could have significant impacts on the way that water is used for a community. The technical team recommends that the City of Bozeman extract appropriate planning values from this effort that will provide for a range of planning conditions to consider in the future. City of Bozeman, MT: IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page33 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM R EzS CH2MHILL® Table 25: Moderate Growth Reductions in Acre Feet Due to Conservation Program Implementation at 2042 and 2062 Planning Horizons Item Description 2015 2025 2042 2062 Moderate Growth Population Projections 41,160 49,190 70,256 85,725 Water Demands (gpcd) 173 173 165 180 Annual Water Demands Pre- Conservation No MSU (acre-ft) 7,977 9,533 12,986 17,286 Annual MSU Growth Demand (acre-ft) 167 500 500 TOTAL 7,977 9,700 13,486 17,786 Low Conservation Retrofit Reduction (acre-ft) 11 11 11 City Efficiency Reduction (15 .9% to 12%) (acre-ft) 372 506 674 Low Conservation Non-Retrofit and Future Development Reduction (acre-ft) 442 1,175 1,602 Low Conservation Reduction 825 1,692 2,287 Medium Conservation Retrofit Reduction (acre-ft) 216 216 216 City Efficiency Reduction (15 .9% to 10%) (acre-ft) 562 766 1,020 Medium Conservation Non-Retrofit and Future Development Reduction (acre-ft) 1,093 2,965 4,173 Medium Conservation Reduction 1,871 3,947 5,408 High Conservation Retrofit Reduction (acre-ft) 1,618 1,618 1,618 City Efficiency Reduction (15 .9% to 5%) (acre-ft) 1,039 1,415 1,884 High Conservation Non-Retrofit and Future Development Reduction (acre-ft) 1,093 2,965 4,172 High Conservation Reduction 3,750 5,999 7,674 City of Bozeman, MT: IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page34 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM REzS CH2MHILL® Table 26: Estimated Opinion of Probable Cost in $/Acre-ft to Implement Low, Medium, and High Conservation for Moderate Population Growth Projections TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM " RE.zS CH2MHILL® Table 27: High Growth Reductions in Acre Feet Due to Conservation Program Implementation at 2042 and 2062 Planning Horizons Item Description 2015 2025 2042 2062 High Growth Population Projections 42,383 55,300 94,144 139,900 Water Demands (gpcd) 173 173 165 180 Annual Water Demands Pre- Conservation No MSU (acre-ft) 8,214 10,717 17,401 28,209 Annual MSU Growth Demand (acre-ft) 167 500 500 TOTAL 8,214 10,884 17,901 28,709 Low Conservation Retrofit Reduction (acre-ft) 0.0 11 11 11 City Efficiency Reduction (15 .9% to 12%) (acre-ft) 418 679 1,100 Low Conservation Non-Retrofit and Future Development Reduction (acre-ft) 442 1,590 2,657 Low Conservation Reduction 871 2,279 3,768 Medium Conservation Retrofit Reduction (acre-ft) 0.0 216 216 216 City Efficiency Reduction (15 .9% to 10%) (acre-ft) 632 1,027 1,664 Medium Conservation Non-Retrofit and Future Development Reduction (acre-ft) 1,093 4,101 7,162 Medium Conservation Reduction 1,941 5,343 9,042 High Conservation Retrofit Reduction (acre-ft) 0.0 1,618 1,618 1,618 City Efficiency Reduction (15 .9% to 5%) (acre-ft) 1,168 1,897 3,075 High Conservation Non-Retrofit and Future Development Reduction (acre-ft) 1,093 4,101 7,162 High Conservation Reduction 3,879 7,615 11,854 City of Bozeman, M T: IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page36 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM R E:zS CH2MHILL® Table 28: Estimated Opinion of Probable Cost in $/Acre-ft to Implement Low, Medium, and High Conservation for Moderate Population Growth Projections TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ~ R~ CH2MHILL® DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLANNING The concept of drought contingency planning involves considering water use management approaches that are not applicable on a primarily voluntary daily basis like water conservation, but instead, considers the application of more stringent, mandatory water restrictions when certain triggers are experienced that could impact the sustainability of the City's firm yield water supply. A preliminary effort to consider how development of a drought contingency plan might be considered by the City of Bozeman that aligns with the three proposed conservation scenarios was completed. The following recommendations are proposed: • A drought management plan for the City of Bozeman should be based on three tiers of triggers, including: o Drought Advisory ~ Tier 1 ■ 80% of Planning Demand at Climate Adjusted and Conservation Adjusted. ■ U.S. Drought Monitor at D1 Drought-Moderate or more intense. ■ Flows in Sourdough and Middle Creek at 120% or less of low monthly for 7 consecutive days. Flows need monitoring, and a flow of 5 cfs will be assumed as low for both. ■ Weather forecast for 2 week period projecting no rain. ■ Goal: Level off at 80% of planning condition based on Climate Adjusted projection and Conservation and maintain condition or improve. o Drought Warning ~ Tier 2 ■ Continued increase in water demands over ensuing 2 week period. ■ Weather forecast for the following 2 weeks with no rain. ■ Continued or worsening of Drought Monitor intensity. ■ OR the following occurs in conjunction with Trigger #1 and separate from #2 and #3 • Water Supply Flows drop to Firm Yield. ■ Goal: Level off at 80% of planning condition based on Climate Adjusted projection and Conservation and maintain condition or improve. Note: assumed a target of 132.8 gpcd and Firm Yield of 10,950 acre-feet would be sufficient for 73,703 people. o Drought Emergency ~ Tier 3 ■ Continued increase of demands ■ Continued weather forecast with no rain ■ Continued or worsening of Drought Monitor intensity ■ Water Supply Flows drop below Firm Yield ■ Goal: All outdoor use restricted, Water demand goal of 99 gpcd for 73,703 people will require 8,173 acre-feet of supply. City of Bozeman, MT: IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page38 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM :fi.. REzS CH2MHILL® As a comparison to the above drought management plan criteria, the firm yield, as it compares to indoor and outdoor water use is shown in Table 29. Note that without conservation considered, there is only one instance where the available firm yield would adequately cover indoor water needs in the event of a drought emergency, which is in Year 2042 under a moderate growth scenario. In all other cases, indoor water use reduction would be necessary to keep water use under the available firm yield in a drought emergency. As an alternative, indoor water conservation would be necessary to permanently reduce the indoor water use to make it possible for current supplies to cover indoor water use even in a drought emergency, where outdoor water use is completely restricted. Table 29: Comparison of Disaggregated (Indoor and Outdoor) Climate Adjusted Water Demands without Conservation to Available Water Supplies in a Drought Emergency Total Available Total Needed for Total Left for Outdoor Total Outdoor Gap (acre-ft) Indoor (acre-ft) Outdoor (acre-ft) (acre-ft) (acre-ft) Moderate Growth 2042 Planning Horizon, Population = 70,256 (No Conservation) 11,240 9,175 2,065 4,699 2,634 Moderate Growth 2062 Planning Horizon, Population = 85,725 (No Conservation) 10,950 10,963 -13 7,200 7,213 High Growth 2042 Planning Horizon, Population= 94,144 (No Conservation) 11,240 12,294 -1,054 6,296 7,350 High Growth 2062 Planning Horizon, Population = 139,900 (No Conservation) 10,950 17,892 -6,942 11,750 18,692 City of Bozeman, MT: IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page39 APPENDIXC Technical Summaries of Alternatives & Alternative Screening Criteria TECHNICAL CRITERIA ►. Blending could occur in a pretreatment facility where all the sources are brought together at a specified blending ratio to satisfy public health and safety concerns and regulatory requirements. • Reuse for potable supply may be less costly than reuse for non-potable supply due to the ability to use more ofthe water in close proximity to the BWRF without constructing pipeline infrastructure. • Water treatment could be located on the north side ofthe City and enter the distribution system via the Pear Street Pump House. • Pumping system improvements may be necessary . • Will likely increase the amount of water from the BWRF that could be used to directly influence water supply and reduce the number of leases of water rights from others that receive non-potable water. • A potable reuse option enables at least some portion of the effluent to be used year round if necessary. Although this may not be necessary to meet TMDL requirements, it could address potential water supply shortages during dry years and identified winter season impacts. Non-potable reuse only allows water to be used and offset during seasonal conditions. Environmental Criteria is the same as those noted for IUI Social Criteria is the same as JUI, with the following considerations: o The public may not be ready to accept the concept of potable water reuse when other options are available, no matter what the cost savings. ► • May eliminate need for purchasing water rights. • The costs proposed in JUI would change dramatically, depending on what percentage of BWRF flows are used for potable treatment and what percentage is used for non potable supplies. • A cost analysis would need to be completed to compare the economic impacts of potable versus non-potable treatment requirement. City of Bozeman, MT Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives WSD2A Canyon Ferry Import Reservoir Delivery LEGAL/WATER RIGHTS RANKING BACKGROUND INFORMATION ► • http://www.usbr.gov/gp/mtao/canyonferry/ AND REFERENCES • http://www. usbr. gov /gp/mtao/canvonferrv/contract r enewals/fea.pdf • 83,156 AF/yr estimated to Helena Valley Irrigation District • 7,496 AF/yr estimated to Toston Valley Irrigation District (Taken upstream of Reservoir 16 miles) • 11,300 AF/yr allocated to City of Helena for Municipal Needs WATER SUPPLY PLANNING ► • Water Quality issues include typical surface water quality CRITERIA concerns. • Natural Background Arsenic concentration due to influence from Yellowstone area. • Firm Yield of Reservoir could supply City of Bozeman water needs for many years • Resilient supply to catastrophic events outside of a dam failure. • Would require pumping and piping infrastructure to deliver to the Gallatin Valley. • Could be a full replacement option of water supply if developed strategically. _... CH2MHILL ~ ~ ORTn~ · Q .I.~ OLlmONS ~ NC.Think Big. Go Beyond. TECHNICAL CRITERIA ► • Pipeline and Pump Stations Through Open Corridor and Constructrable Terrain (60 miles to Reservoir). • Arsenic Concentrations in Reservoir of22 to 31 ppb. Upstream concentrations vary. • Helena Missouri WTP Treats Arsenic acceptably to drinking water standards. • Membrane treatment processes would need to be evaluated and optimized for source water change. • Provides total replacement supply • Available volume meets and exceeds 30-and SO-year planning criteria. City of Bozeman, MT Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives WSD2B Canyon Ferry Import Confluence Delivery LEGAL/WATER RIGHTS RANKING BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND REFERENCES WATER SUPPLY PLANNING CRITERIA • http://www.usbr.gov/gp/m tao/canyonferry/contract r enewals/fea.pdf • 83,156 AF /yr estimated to Helena Valley Irrigation District • 7,496 AF/yr estimated diverted to Toston Valley Irrigation District ( upstream of Reservoir 16 miles) • 11,300 AF/yr allocated to City of Helena for Municipal Needs ► • Water Quality issues include typical surface water quality concerns. • Natural Background Arsenic concentration due to influent from Yellowstone area. • Firm Yield of Reservoir could supply City of Bozeman water needs for many years • Resilient supply to catastrophic events outside of a dam failure. • Would require pumping and piping infrastructure to deliver to the Gallatin Valley. • Could be a full replacement option of water supply if developed strategically. CH2MHILLn~ · Think Big. Go Beyond. TECHNICAL CRITERIA ► • Pipeline and Pump Stations Through Open Corridor and Constructable Terrain (30 miles to Confluence). • Arsenic Concentrations should be evaluated. • Helena Missouri WTP Treats Arsenic acceptably to drinking water standards with Reservoir water. • Membrane treatment processes would need to be evaluated and optimized for source water change. • Provides total replacement supply. • Available volume meets and exceeds 30-and 50-year planning criteria. • TVID divertswater 16 miles upstream of reservoir. TECHNICAL CRITERIA TECHNICAL CRITERIA ► TECHNICAL CRITERIA City of Bozeman, MT Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives WSD8 Hyalite Share Purchasing LEGAL/WATER RIGHTS RANKING ► http:/ /dnrc.mt.gov/wrd/water _proj/factsheets/middlecreek _BACKGROUND INFORMATION fact sheet.pdfAND REFERENCES WATER SUPPLY PLANNING ► • Due to the fact that this water resource is the current CRITERIA resource for the City, purchase of shares from the existing reservoir provides water that is reliable, stable, high quality, and will have minimal impacts on the overall watershed given that the delivery system is consistent. • An analysis of water needed to meet peak day demands at the existing WTP suggests that if this alternative serves as only part of a portfolio, purchase of water shares may be strategically limited to be consistent with the peak month capacity of the new WTP. That analysis suggests the City may want to limit water right purchase from Hyalite Reservoir to 650 ac-ft until it is determined how the remainder of the portfolio will be constructed and whether new water supplies would be delivered to the existing facility or delivered to another location. • The primary "unknown" associated with this alternative is how the City would coordinate with other shareholders to obtain shares in the future, what those shares are valued at, and how many shares would actually be available. · [ORTCH2MHILL ~~n~· Q .&.~ OLtmONS "'-...::'. NC.Think Big. Go Beyond. City of Bozeman, MT Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives WSD9 Hyalite Reservoir Dam Raise LEGAL/WATER RIGHTS RANKING The City of Bozeman has coordinated with Montana DNRC in the past to increase the dam height of Hyalite Reservoir and obtain an additional 2,784 ac-ft of water for municipal uses (early 1990s). This alternative would involve increasing the height of the dam again. Water rights to fill the dam raise would need to come from either a transfer of rights from some other location in the basin, or through application for runoff storage from snowmelt, which could be exempt from closed basin restrictions. There is some concern that increasing the dam structure again would not be approved by Montana DNRC, would come with objections by other water users in the Gallatin Valley, and require considerable environmental evaluation before the project would be approved. BACKGROUND INFORMATION http://dnrc.mt.gov/wrd/water proj/factsheets/m idd leereek fact► sheet.pdfAND REFERENCES Kevin Smith Correspondence WATER SUPPLY PLA NNING ► • Due to the fact that this water resource is a currentCRITERIA resource for the City, purchase of shares from the existing reservoir provides water that is reliable, stable, high quality, and will have minimal impacts on the overall watershed given that the delivery system is consistent. • This alternative has not been studied to date and comes with a number of issues that would need to be evaluated. However, many of these are similar in nature and scope to a dam in the Sourdough drainage making this alternative one the City may want to consider. • Storing additional spring runoff could be a viable option given climate predictions that available water are anticipated to increase considerable, during spring runoff in the future due to climate impacts. While these are predictions at this point based on a limited dataset, a more robust study could be completed to confirm this potential. If this water is not stored in Hyalite, it will eventually be stored in Canyon Ferry Reservoir. (C:lh1:?M H I LLn~ · Thmk 819~ Go Beyond. - TECHNICAL CRITERIA City of Bozeman, MT Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives 0S2 Lyman Creek Expansion LEGAL WATER RIGHTS RANKING Thi alte,rmmve ittvulves otim.ati011 of exi tin tigbts heJd av the City fBor.eman on Lyme Creek. The ~elll S} leD!I. withckinv Mter from aspring tba\ is hydraulically tbmtea during tiJDeS ofthey.ear to prevent the City ft. mutilizi»g dle full ter rigbt 1Ssociated • Lyman Creek. The City' current supply on paper for the Lyman m is4.34,6.ae;.ft. Tie • ·r1g infrastrac\ure ppears kl be able to provide 1 790 ac-ft per year. ne infrastructure • constrllletecl i could acllie the additienal 2.S56 ac-l m also be possible tba the City could apply . r a change ofuse ooiated with this right ta tnm fer it to a loet¢ion mere it could be c0DSOlida d 'ith QM rtgbts the Ci o rns op~tbemamier in iafr~cum • Ollitnll! d fat futu,e ater pp~. The aJDOuttt of ~ ft after adlattp of application i HlteJy to be 1es ~ the oormrtly held rig~ BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND REFERENCES WATER SUPPLY PLANNING CRITERIA • Various studies have been completed by the City of Bozeman involving the measurement of flows on Lyman Creek and are► included on the City's ftp site . • The Lyman Supply has demonstrated reliable-and sustainable water supply over. time in .terms of quantity and also demonstrated historical use for the full right of 4,346-ac-ft. • -The Citychas already protected the watershed from public use. • The SWTR required updates to -this supply that included the ► construction of a spring, a raw Water-transmission pipeline, and upgrades to the reservoir. The fulhight of 4,346 ac-ft cannot be accessed witn the current treatment system due to gravitational issues, water tables,.and other operational intricacies. • The new WTP will be constructed in a manner that wilhllow the City to push the Lyman creek system to find its true limits of operations, which may be beyond 1,790 ac-ft, but less than the.full 4,346 ac-ft. • Flow data is,presently collect~d off the weir at the spring_box (the overflow) and at the reservoir. The combined-flow-equals the total production of the water supply. Measurements at the weir box are a challenge to collect in the winter due to accessibility issues. Telemetry and a robust metering system could improve data collection. • Additional withdrawal points in the City's water right would allow access to.creek flows; but surface water treatment would be required. • Installation of a pumping system at the spring or another ground water location or relocating the reservoir lower in the watershed may also increase access to available supply. w ~ BTHE;i' Q .&.~OLUTIONS Think Big. (jo Beyond. ""--.:'.INC. CH2MHILL SOCIAL CRITERIA ECONOMIC CRITERIA ► • • • " TECHNICAL CRITERIA P.u.li>M upfl .rt.an,d -~trf~~ri 11 Qf ~hlgp. l ' A~eirn!i\rve. do~ p; t• ~U9w Pi rJ'Jl."I • :nl\G>,W fQr-w~rer i:.t'Hens· e--0it~ra owev ll:iut-c0rr ide this not 11 • miles,. the. fl0ws loonnon. ;J;bis i !tdded,t0 tb illUpp)i)'. • •~J q~the~possiole ·o'luitons I\!-Lyman <if.eeJc,,are teGhnJ_ aHy;I feasible. ompatible wt tl, exi:''tmg infrilstru :fure, dim b • - ► 1r con '·wu_l ed'· LG eornply wHh·dr-iolcing,wate:i' regulat,ion , ari~ ;-p~ov!def ~ redun,;l:~n• water supply :rp the Ci ty o{ B,ozemah. -• _ I'1_Gt~ ~ f!~w. f _m lbe iiYfl'IIV.! _·y J ~J1!;9clJJ,b,e ~9Aveyed to th~, • ~ L)l thr~ugb rl1e c -i. ting Lrlln.m( • ~jon ~ain. Ho-.yever:1 ill}PJ'QY~ll}~llt_ t -~le p~ ~,!!eel !'.'u!!lP. ; arit!,rr ~e'rtilC_l!>t:!!m_~nd~d" for 1on g-tff□ I operation -©J)tiJ11i2a.!_ion <:if. th hY,drauJic bJJe~a'i'ons of tl-ie d1sl iibiiti'on system sho'.uld also be evaluared if thi :Sup~fy be¢ fne -a gr.eatel: pa-ro. 'f lb~ Gify -, water S'npp1y -jiorffeUo. ill~e. ce;clu.~dilncy is -n • t.a ,f'uli ·eplaeolileill and •,i· pre entJy, I~ • . ..: aq ~l'!"l( , (f •q\£ Cj ~ ~-. 1.3/a_t,Iit •e~<r 'dliftag.J~!11:0'le( m"'Q~!1"1s·. I' 1fbe~ 5 0 ac-ft-.could 01eet-~1e 30-yeai;, medium gro:wtb w_arer .~np of ~9 ac-ft. B0;we-ver fl i~ ,ngt en;c~ggll ,watl!~ r~ meet the 1-0- )'ear, higli,gr0wt11·water-gap o'f alm9 :t-5, 00 nc'-fti; • iFheT2' 55~ It -ft do s-nol,meet e.itb~rnf tlie high growlb waler gap· -r_alues. , ,__ ' ¥ •.,. Jf a change -of use fbr the _2;55.9-a,c:.ft \\la~ t>Utsued, so_rne amounr of this water could--be-moved and. .strategically-co1ribined with _ other _Water-i'esou(ces a_nd s~pplies in.the_systeri"\ to take_ -advantage-of shared infrastmcture. • This alternative may have a limited impact on TMDLs only due to the fact that using more water in Lyman creek translates to less► water flowing into the East Gallatin River. East Gallatin River in-stream flows could be impacted . • Permitting challenges are minor. • Operational experience suggests this right is less than the firm yield of the supply . More robust flow monitoring is recommended to verify and address future climate impacts . • Evidence suggests it does demonstrate decreased flows during dry years. The spring is currently a very low carbon footprint supply and is a natural delivery system with very high quality water. Limited impacts on the environment are anticipated due to the existing system being in place already. marketin ' COll]J?0-1\enn ta mi i;e. fit ~ a: de,; ellf a.no·o1:1wwarerwouldbe 1 a11v ~ijt fin(~· l!:ted tty ·io y gr◊ ~ n p(lrt-_ . Cost estimates for this alternative have not been completed and are highly dependent on how the water rights are incorporated into an overall portfolio. Developing infrastructure at this location without considering other pieces of a portfolio may result in a much higher cost per ac-ft to develop this water. If the infrastructure used to treat, store, and convey this water was the same infrastructure used for other supplies, the costs could become more palatable. CH2MH ILL n~· Think Big. Go Be yond, '- here i& . City of Bozeman, MT Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives 0S5 High Water Conservation Approach LEGAL WATER RIGHTS RANKING This tdtem.ati r.e invol eDCOllrnp,g tlte City ofBozematt CODlflmmty to rectute ter use. "Llle High Water CotlSfnaiiOlll pp oach devel:eped a fill li ofc~n~ind assumed amore aggt • e percenfage ofhouseholds and C8ln1i1ercia1 entities implement tile proposed con erv.atioa measures. It expanded oDtfloor cens ·atkm inctude a:large lllnd twf repl ement program. It mes lhe~ ofBomnan would :emp;lQy up to three full time conserffltien p:o~am speeialists over Ute course of die pwgram. that this option wu ~ relopecl ~ be Jiartce for " rBfticiellley ~onTtacldng Tool. 11 sh01lld be mud that from a lept pmpeod: . ~are 110 im,Ucadons of-water consen'ation a it pertain t0 water rights. It i& also intended to be asustainable ptaCtic and cU'li$ id&-spread benefits flat cenld impa'Ct the City utility ride. • 2002 Water Conservation Plan BACKGROUND INFORMATION • Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum developed as► part of this IWRP (note that additional references are outlined inAND REFERENCES this document of other utilities and programs used as a basis for developing a water conservation approach for the City of Bozeman. • Because this alternative is not a tangible supply, but a reduction in water use on a per capita basis, many of theWATER SUPPLY PLANNING criteria identified for this ranking category are not.applicable. CRITERIA ► • Reliability may be the most-appropriate to discuss as most conservation programs to-date·have-been-developed primarily on assumptions and _not well, tracked in accordance with related successes. Shifts in the industry to address this issue are happening and h;i.ve been proposed for the City of Bozeman as .it pursues.conservation. The predictions that have been made at this high level of_planning are based on a broad -set of assumptions-that may or may not be directly applicable to the City of Bozeman, itself. • Pilot study efforts and water use monitoring,are recommended with any conservation program.the City-pursues in the future to make sure that.goals are being. achieved. • · The high range water conservation scenario is based on I 0- -years"of implementation and results in 3,185 ac-ft per year, by the end of the 10-year period. At a 2025 population (assuming the program begins in 2015),_ this reduc.es water demands-by - 44% and drops the climate adjusted baseline.planning demand to 114 gpcd. CH2MHILLn~· Think Big. Oo Beyond. tiltHQW(&.G« E•h1a.tto.111.~a I Welaht 1&£1 Score Technical Criteria Environmental Criteria Social Criteria Economic Criteria Total (must equal 100%) 100% Technical Criteria Weight(%) Score Constructability Regulations and Drinking Water Quality Impacts Existing Infrastructure Compatibility Water Ruse Water Supply Redundancy Meets 30-Year Planning Horizon Targets Meets SO-Year Planning Horizon Targets Total (must equal 100%) 100% Environmental Criteria Weight(%) Score Clean Water Act Compliance (TMDLs) In-stream Flow Maintenance Permitting, Environmental Impact Statements, and Easements Climate Impacts Resiliency Energy Requirements General Environmental Impacts (Wildlife, Forested Areas) Total (must equal 100%) 100% Social Wel11ht (%) Score Customer Service Satisfaction Public Health and Safety Quality of Life Impacts Overall Public Support Economic Development and Growth Total (must equal 100%) 100% Economic Weight(%) Score Magnitude of Capital Investment per Acre-ft of Developable Water Supply Relative Operation and Maintenance Costs Eligibility for Outside Funding Economy of Scale Impacts Delay of Infrastructure to Encourage Growth to Pay for Growth Total (must equal 100%) 100% SCREENING LEVEL #1 -Water Rights Legal Assessment Green Project~ Meets Water Rights Laws, Developable Resource Yellow Project~ Does not meet Water Rights Laws, but may be Possible to Change Red Project~ Does not meet Water Rights Laws, and is Unlikely or Impossible to Change Note: Green Projects Move Forward, Yellow Projects Mo}! Move Forward, Red Projects Eliminate SCREENING LEVEL #2 ~ Qualitative Criteria Note: Criteria Above a Certain Threshold will be Moved into Conceptual Cost Development TAC TECHNICAL TEAM SCREENING LEVEL #3 -Cost Analysis Conceptual Capital Costs Conceptual O&M Costs Life Cycle Costs $/Acre-Foot Cost SCORING APPROACH: The TAC and Technical Team will independently apply points to each of the ranking categories noted above so that a project that receives full points in every category for each heading (Technical, Social, Environmental, and Economic) would receive 100 points. The TAC and Technical Team will develop two scoring approaches independent of the other. To facilitate this process, the Technical Team has already developed a draft of its scoring approach and will work with the TAC during TAC Meeting #1 to verify the scoring categories and moderate the development of the TAC scoring approach. The Technical Team scoring approach will be finalized with the finalization of the ranking criteria to meet the objectives of the scoring process. Once the scoring approach is established, each of the alternatives to be considered will have up to the score for each category applied based on each individual evaluator's best judgment. The individual scores will then go into a spreadsheet and be totaled to identify the projects that have the highest qualitative score of the alternatives considered. This process has successfully been applied in other Integrated Water Resources Planning efforts to capture the intrinsic differences between the experiences, exposure, and priorities of a broad spectrum of professionals tasked with long-range, big picture, planning efforts. The following descriptions of each scoring category are provided to assist in standardizing the interpretations of each of the categories listed above. Note that alternatives should be scored as they relate to each other. In cases where alternatives qualitatively address the ranking category in the same way, the same scores can be applied. However, every attempt should be made to do a comparative analysis of the alternatives to be considered, Constructability To receive points for constructability, the evaluator should consider the process of physically constructing an alternative. For example: • Would the construction site for the project have accessibility issues? Are the site conditions where the alternative will be located unknown, challenging, or dangerous? Does the alternative require specialized and unique construction strategies that may be difficult and costly to bring to Montana? Are there barriers to construction, such as natural features (mountains, rivers, lakes, wetlands, etc.) Would there be any timing/seasonal issues that could make constructing an alternative more challenging? Will alternative construction involve construction related inconveniences to the public? Any of the above types of considerations, or others that are similar in nature to the construction of an alternative should result in a reduction in total allowable points for this category. Regulations and Drinking Water Quality Impacts To receive points for this category, the evaluator should consider the following: • Is the proposed water supply consistent with current water supplies for which treatment processes are already in place to treat the water to existing potable drinking water regulations? Can treatment processes be constructed to treat the proposed water source to existing potable drinking water regulations? Are there regulatory issues with the water supply that will result in regulatory issues in the future and may have public health impacts if implemented prior to regulations being put into place (endocrine disruptors, human health standards for nitrates, cytotoxins (algae) by products, high organic carbon or organic matter, requiring unique disinfection strategies with byproducts that could be regulated more stringently in the future, etc.). Higher points should be given to alternatives where water quality is known and regulations can thoroughly be addressed now, with the flexibility to address them into the future as they change . Existing Infrastructure Compatibility This category will require that that evaluator consider whether the proposed alternative optimizes use of existing infrastructure. For example: Does the proposed solution allow for full utilization of the City of Bozeman WTP that is under construction? The facility is being constructed to a peak capacity of 22 mgd and consists of membrane treatment technologies designed to water quality standards associated with Bozeman Creek, Middle Creek, and Hyalite Reservoir. Is there infrastructure already in place to deliver water to the distribution system and serve the different zones of the system effectively? • Can new infrastructure be constructed to complement the existing infrastructure? If so, rank the alternatives in term of general feasibility of the infrastructure necessary as they compare to each other. Water Ruse Does the proposed solution involve a water reuse component, particularly one associated with effluent from the Bozeman Water Reclamation Facility? • Does the proposed project assist in compliance with the City's Wastewater Permit? Is the proposed solution acceptable to the general public? • Does the solution provide a non-potable water supply to another water rights hold that could then contract its water right to the City for drinking water purposes? Water Supply Redundancy A redundant water supply should not only be considered in terms of overall quantity of water from one source (i.e. the source has twice the water in reserve than necessary to serve the community in dry year). but more appropriately: Are the supplies developed in two (or more) distinct water sources that have different responses to climate conditions, different delivery mechanisms to the system, different treatment needs, and can effectively replace the other in the event of an emergency (i.e. fire in the Bozeman Creek/Hyalite Watershed, contamination of the water supply, slope failure in Bozeman Creek resulting in temporary loss of the stream, failure of the treatment process equipment, prolonged drought, etc.)? Meets 30-Year Planning Horizon Targets Does this Alternative provide enough water supply to meet water demand and population targets that have been established for this study effort in the 30-Year Planning Horizon? If not, could it be combined with other alternatives to accomplish this objective? Meets 50-Year Planning Horizon Targets Does this Alternative provide enough water supply to meet water demand and population targets that have been established for this study effort in the 30-Year Planning Horizon? If not, could it be combined with other alternatives to accomplish this objective? Clean Water Act Compliance ITMDLsl Does this alternative have components that can assist in watershed water quality improvements, particularly as they relate to various TMDLs (Nutrient, Sediment, and E.coli) in the Lower Gallatin Watershed? Examples include: • Wastewater Reuse to prevent discharge of wastewater into the East Gallatin River during Seasonal Permitted Conditions • Application of reuse water in a manner that reduces the use of chemical fertilizer applications Reduction of direct stormwater discharge to local streams • Provision of augmentation flows to increase low flow conditions in areas of the watershed where water quality impairments could be a challenge (i.e. an out-of-basin import project or impoundment constructed with additional capacity to maintain minimum stream flows at a healthy level could be an example. While this would not offset water supplies, it may be possible to put existing or new water supplies to use under different conditions either on a temporary or permanent basis to achieve this type of compliance objective in the future). In-Stream Flows Does the proposed project have the potential to compromise in-stream flows during low flow conditions? Does the proposed project have the potential to add flexibility in mitigating instream flow issues during low flow conditions? Permitting. Environmental Impact Statements. and Easements Does the proposed alternative require an extensive permitting, environmental clearance, and easement development process? If so, does the extent of this effort carry risk that the alternative may not be viable or carry with ii, the possibility of legal action against the City? If a permit or easement cannot be developed for an alternative, or environmental issues result in a need to modify the alternative, can the alternative be modified to address the concern? Climate Resiliency Is the proposed alternative capable of sustaining reasonable service levels with regard to the potential range of long-term climate impacts? If so, can it also withstand temporary and harsher climate conditions such as drought? Is the water supply able to return to normal conditions relatively quickly after drought events? Energy Requirements Does the raw water supply delivery system associated with the proposed alternative require extensive pumping and energy requirements? Will new treatment processes be required that could involve increased mechanical treatment and energy requirements to meet drinking water regulatory requirements? Could the new water supply be used to generate energy? General Environmental Impacts (Forests. Wildlife. Water Quality. etc.I Does the project have the potential to have a significant impact on local forested areas, fish and wildlife, historical and cultural resources, and water quality? Customer Service Satisfaction Will the proposed solution result in acceptable levels of customer satisfaction with regard to aesthetics, water quality and quantity, and cost? How will it compare to the service levels that customers are accustomed to, today? Public Health and Safety Outside of regulatory requirements and potable drinking water quality (which were addressed in previous categories). does the proposed alternative present any public health and safety concerns? For example, a reservoir above the City could pose some flood risk if a breach were to occur. Operator safety in maintaining and managing an alternative could be considered in this category as well. Quality of Life Impacts Would the water supply alternative carry any impacts that could increase or decrease the quality of life for the City of Bozeman. In the case of an impoundment, could it be used for recreational activities, or does it limit or eliminate recreational activities? Could it be used to sustain a recreational activity that may use large amounts of water (i.e. golf course or park irrigation)? Does developing a large, imported water supply encourage growth that impairs quality of life in Bozeman, or does it allow for structured growth that will continue to attract people to the area that will enhance the quality of life of those in Bozeman? While there are many ways that this category could be scored, it should be scored relative to the other alternatives evaluated, to the greatest extent possible. Overall Publjc Support Does the proposed alternative seem consistent with public sentiment from past water supply planning efforts in regards to what a final project should consider? Does it feel like a project that the City of Bozeman community would generally support, fund, and advocate for in the future. Economic Development and Growth Does the proposed alternative include components that will hinder Economic Development and Growth in any way? For example, would the proposed alternative improve or sustain recreational opportunities based on use of our local water supply resources? Would the alternative allow for flexible and appropriate Economic Development and Growth in the City of Bozeman? Would moratoriums on certain types of service sectors be a possibility under certain conditions? If the baseline planning conditions set forth in this study effort are no longer applicable due to unanticipated growth, increased water use, climate, or natural disaster, does the proposed alternative provide flexibility to adapt? Is the alternative easily expandable to allow for large water using industries to locate to the Bozeman area, if desired? Can it accommodate unpredictable swings in growth, both through expansion to serve new growth and overall cost considerations to minimize the pressures of building large infrastructure projects for future populations that don't develop as planned? Can it be combined with other solutions to delay the project until constructing the project is necessary without sacrificing service levels? Magnitude of Capital lnvetlment per Acre-ft of Oevelopable Water Supply Although cost information is not available for all alternatives at this level of the alternatives evaluation, the goal of this category is to provide relative consideration for each alternative as they compare to each other. In general, ranges of developable acre-ft for each alternative are provided in the alternative information. The goal of this category is to consider levels of investment versus the amount of water and flexibility that could be developed. For example, the Sourdough Creek Reservoir Project has included cost estimates of $50 to $70 million dollars for a possible 6,000 ac-ft of water supply. While the alternative evaluation will place some risk on the potential for 6,000 ac-ft (there is some concern regarding the potential of securing the full amount, or any of the 6,000 ac-ft due to water rights law in Montana), in the event that this project could be completed, this results in a range of $8,333/ac-ft to $11,666/ac-ft. Likewise, the current cash in-lieu program charges developers $6,000/ac-ft or the relinquishment of water rights equal to what is necessary to serve the development so that new water rights could be purchased. Likewise, a large development project, such as an import project, may run well over $100 million (perhaps even $200 million) dollars, but result in the development of 30,000 acre-ft, for a relative cost per ac-ft of much less than the alternatives. Relative Operation and Maintenance (O&Ml Costs While detailed O&M costs have not been developed at this time, the evaluator should consider whether extensive O&M will be required for various alternatives. Will new treatment be necessary? Will pumping be necessary? Will additional staff be required? Eligibility for Outside Funding Would the proposed alternative be eligible for funding assistance to offset the rate impacts of the project to the City of Bozeman rate payers? Projects that involve regional approaches and address water issues across service sectors (service sectors being municipal, industrial, agricultural, and natural) could be projects that would be eligible for federal and possibly even special State grant funding. The Red River Valley Water Supply Project in North Dakota imports water from the Missouri River to the Red River and is funded through a cost share of 1/3'' federal, 1/3'' state, and 1/3'' local funding. The local portion is allocated based on water reserved from the project by each community participating. Other examples of regional funding programs could be discussed, such as the Rocky Boy's/North Central Montana Regional Water System Project, the Lewis and Clark Regional Water System Project !South Dakota), the Western Area Water Supply Project IWAWSP). in Northwestern North Dakota, etc. While some of these projects have unique circumstances that may not make their strategies directly applicable to a regional project in the Gallatin Valley, these projects are coordinated with the Bureau of Reclamation and funding for both collaborative planning efforts and future projects has been available in the past, is available now, and could be developed in the future. The extent of outside funding would need to be further explored, but some alternatives considered as part of this study effort could be eligible for funding, where others will primarily be the City of Bozeman's responsibility to fund. Economy of Scale Impacts A project that can be constructed to serve a larger population base now and in the future will result in economy of scale benefits. The evaluator should consider the population that could be served by each alternative in relationship to the cost of constructing and operating the system. Although one project may be more expensive up front, if it can serve a larger population over the long-term, a cost/benefit analysis may result in the more costly alternative in the future. Delay of Infrastructure to Encourage Growth ta Pay for Growth This ranking category will mostly be associated with alternatives that involve phasing, organizational mechanisms, or temporary solutions that allow for the delay of infrastructure construction until the population is in place to support the project. Not all alternatives will receive scores in this category. APPENDIXD City of Bozeman Integrated Water Resources Plan Portfolio Analysis Model W CH2MHILL ~ DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM CH2IVIHILL® City of Bozeman Integrated Water Resource Plan Portfolio Analysis Model PREPARED FOR: AE2S, City of Bozeman PREPARED BY: Emily Callaway Mark Anderson DATE: July 18, 2013 Introduction This technical memorandum describes the portfolio analysis conducted by CH2M HILL in support of the City of Bozeman's Integrated Water Resource Plan. CH2M Hill's Voyage™ model, a dynamic water balance simulation tool built in the commercial ExtendSim software, was selected as the appropriate mechanism for conducting portfolio analysis. The customized model was built to represent the expected demands, possible conservation programs, current and future supplies for Bozeman. Further description of the demand projections, conservation program options and firm yield from current supplies is provided elsewhere in the project report. Objectives There are four objectives for the portfolio modeling exercise: 1. Evaluate supply and demand seasonality to produce a monthly water balance over the planning period; 2. Estimate lifecycle costs for each portfolio 3. Estimate timing of required expansions or new supplies and associated capital costs; 4. Develop recommendations for the best value portfolio to meet Bozeman's long term objectives. Water Supply Portfolio Analysis Portfolio Summary The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), city staff, and consultant team identified 13 portfolios to be evaluated with the dynamic simulation model. These Portfolios reflect various combinations of demand projections, conservation programs, and water supply alternatives. Water Supply Alternatives Comprising the Portfolios Seven new water supply alternatives are included in the portfolios. A brief description of the infrastructure or other requirements included in each alternative is provided in Table 1. TABLE 1. NEW WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES Alternative Name Description Sourdough Creek lmpoundment Construct new storage impoundment(s) on Sourdough Creek, convey to existing water treatment plant. Confluence Import from Canyon Ferry Construct new treatment facility and 42" pipeline to convey treated water to Bozeman distribution system. Groundwater in Gallatin Gateway subarea Drill new groundwater wells, pump water to existing treatment plant. Includes some operational storage. BOZEMAN_I WRPMODEL_TM_V6 CITY OF BOZEMAN INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE PLAN -PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS MODEL TABLE 1. NEW WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES Alternative Name Description Agricultural impoundment Construct new impoundment to supply non-potable quality water for agricultural irrigation. Purchase of Shares from Hyalite Purchase additional water rights from Hyalite reservoir. Ice protection for withdrawal during winter months included. Non-Potable Irrigation water Construct non-potable water distribution system in new developments. Lyman Creek expansion Expand treatment capacity of existing Lyman treatment plant by constructing new raw water intake, conveying raw water to a new 10 million gallon concrete storage reservoir, adding a new chlorine and fluoride injection facility, and a new parallel pipeline to connect to the distribution system. Additional shares from Hyalite, the agricultural impoundment, Gallatin groundwater and Sourdough Creek storage are all new raw water sources that were assumed to be treated at the Sourdough Water Treatment Plant. Portfolios requiring more than 22 mgd of water from the Sourdough Plant will trigger expansion of that facility to the maximum capacity of 36 mgd for which it is designed. Initial Portfolio Contributions based on Annual Water Balance New portfolios were initially developed based on an annual water balance designed to meet 2062 demands. The proposed annual volume of water contributed by each new supply and conservation is summarized in Table 2. Shaded columns indicate portfolios to meet high growth demands. TABLE 2. INITIAL PORTFOLIO CONTRIBUTIONS BASED ON ANNUAL WATER BALANCE (YEAR 2062) Alternative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Acre-Feet of Water from Each Alternative Sourdough Creek lmpoundment 6,000 Import from Canyon Ferry 20,000 Groundwater in Gallatin Gateway 13,714 9,062 6,179 Agricultural impoundment 2,700 2,700 Purchase Shares from Hyalite 1,765 1,792 650 650 650 650 650 650 650 650 650 Non-Potable Irrigation water 4,000 4,000 Lyman Creek expansion 3,165 3,165 3,165 3.165 3,165 Low Conservation 2,770 4,806 4,806 2.770 Medium Conservation 5,908 10,108 10,108 3,058 5,908 5,908 High Conservation 8,218 12,991 Total Portfolio 7,700 7,700 8,868 23,420 19,170 19,170 19,170 19,923 7,708 9,258 9,723 7,815 9,285 BOZEMAN_IWRPMODEL_ TM_ V6 CITY OF BOZEMAN INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE PLAN -PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS MODEL Planning Period and Model Time Step The modelling exercise evaluates portfolio performance over a 52 year planning period starting in 2010 and terminating in 2062. The model evaluates supplies, demands, and costs on a monthly time step. Evaluation Process The model was first used to check whether each portfolio, as described in Table 2, would work on a monthly basis after seasonality of conservation measures, supplies, and demands were taken into consideration. The model calls on existing supplies to fulfil demands (after accounting for reduced demand due to conservation). Unmet demands are then filled by new supplies according to each portfolio. The amount of water called for from each new supply was then adjusted to provide adequate water to balance each portfolio on a monthly basis. These adjustments were made based on assumptions about operational constraints and end-uses of water from a given source. Hyalite reservoir, the agricultural impoundment, Sourdough Creek impoundments, and Gallatin Gateway groundwater were all assumed to have full operational flexibility to withdraw as much water as needed in a given month (up to an annual maximum) to meet demands. The Lyman system was assumed to have no operational flexibility due to the presence of ice instead of flowing water in winter and shoulder months, as experienced in recent years. Net present value lifecycle costs for each balanced portfolio were then determined and used to calculate dollars per acre-foot of new water supply delivered in 2062 for each portfolio. These costs were graphed against the benefit scores determined by the TAC. The cost/benefit graph was used to identify which of the portfolios provide the highest value and to develop a recommendation for a diverse and resilient portfolio that could adapt over time to actual growth, demand, and supply variability. Lifecycle Cost Lifecycle costs include capital cost and operating cost for each new supply component of a portfolio, including the water conservation program. Details about specific components of the lifecycle costs included for each new water supply are provided in the Cost Basis section of this memorandum. Costs for new supplies are not incurred until water from that supply is required to meet demands. Costs for the conservation program were calculated on an annual basis and were assumed to begin in 2013. Annual costs vary over the ten-year program implementation period as the individual conservation measures are implemented, and then continue at a constant rate to reflect the cost of personnel and public information materials through the duration of the planning period. Further detail about the conservation program costs are provided elsewhere in the project report Lifecycle costs were converted to net present value in 2012 dollars to provide an apples-to-apples basis for comparing the portfolios using a discount rate of 1.5 percent per year. Benefit Score Overall benefit scores based on scores provided by individual members of the TAC were used in the portfolio evaluation process. Scores from individual members were combined into one score representing the entire committee. Discussion of the evaluation criteria, weighting, and scoring process is provided elsewhere in this report. The overall benefit score for each Portfolio used in the evaluation process is summarized in the Cost/Benefit comparison section of this memorandum. Aggregate scores for portfolios were water volume weighted by contributing supply alternative. Model Inputs and Assumptions The following sections describe the data inputs and assumptions used in the simulation model. BOZEMAN_IWRPMODEL_ TM_ V6 CITY OF BOZEMAN INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE PLAN -PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS MODEL Existing Supplies The City of Bozeman currently draws water from four sources: Hyalite Reservoir, Lyman Creek, Sourdough Creek, and Middle Creek (aka Hyalite Creek). For purposes of determining unmet demand which must be supplied by new water sources, each existing source was considered to have a firm yield - a maximum amount of water that could be supplied by that source in a given month. An update to the City's previous Firm Yield analysis provided in its 1997 Water Facility Plan was undertaken as part of the Integrated Water Resource Plan. Part of this update included adjusting expected future firm yield from Middle Creek and Sourdough Creek to account for climate change effects to hydrology. Although the Lyman system may in fact respond to reduced precipitation, it was assumed that Hyalite and Lyman are unaffected by climate change in the future. Discussion of the firm yield update is provided in a previous section of the project report. Climate adjusted values were used in the portfolio analysis. Firm Yield Monthly firm yield values used in the model for each individual supply are summarized in Table 3. Total firm yield values for climate-adjusted supplies (Middle and Sourdough Creek) and the total value are reported for the beginning of the model simulation period (2010), the mid-term planning horizon (2042), and at the end of the planning period (2062) to show the decrease in firm yield over time due to climate change adjustment. TABLE 3. FIRM YIELD OF INDIVIDUAL EXISTING SUPPLIES (AC·FT) Middle Creek Sourdough Creek Hyalite Lyman Month Reservoir1 Creek 2010 2042 2062 2010 2042 2062 January 0 91 186 171 150 290 267 235 February 0 87 168 154 136 266 245 216 March 0 83 212 236 304 332 369 475 April 0 72 106 122 128 331 381 400 May 261 106 50 48 45 369 351 326 June 1,200 180 83 78 72 319 299 278 July 1,200 312 18 17 15 291 271 246 August 1,204 313 18 17 15 290 270 246 September 917 226 94 85 76 278 253 225 October 0 142 187 176 155 294 276 243 November 0 95 180 165 145 282 259 228 December 0 83 186 171 150 290 267 235 Notes: 1. May firm yield for Hyalite Reservoir was assumed to equal the demand unmet by other supplies for 2012. TABLE 4. TOTAL FIRM YIELD EXISTING SUPPLIES AC·FT) Total Firm Yield Month 2010 2042 2062 January 567 529 476 February 521 486 438 March 627 687 862 BOZEMAN_IWRPMODEL_ TM_VG 4 CITY OF BOZEMAN INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE PLAN -PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS MODEL TABLE 4. TOTAL FIRM YIELD EXISTING SUPPLIES (AC-FT) Total Firm Yield Month 2010 2042 2062 April 509 575 600 May 552 531 503 June 1,781 1,757 1,731 July 1,821 1,800 1,774 August 1,825 1,804 1,778 September 1,515 1,481 1,444 October 623 595 540 November 556 519 468 December 559 521 468 Seasonality Seasonality of the existing supplies is reflected in the values reported in Table 4. High values in summer reflect current operations of Hyalite Reservoir which is drawn upon to fulfil peak demands. Demand The model portfolios reflect either medium or high growth and a 95% service level based on average historical water use. Demands were adjusted from historical trends to account for increases in irrigation demands resulting from global climate model predictions of warmer temperatures in earlier months and reduced precipitation over the course of the year. Climate-adjusted demands used in the model for each growth scenario are summarized in Table 5. Monthly demands are reported for the beginning of the model simulation period (2010), the mid-term planning horizon (2042), and at the end of the planning period (2062). TABLE 5. TOTAL DEMAND FOR MEDIUM AND HIGH GROWTH SCENARIOS (AC-FT) Medium Growth High Growth Month 2010 2042 2062 2010 2042 2062 January 378 667 803 378 877 1,278 February 397 698 840 397 917 1,336 March 386 681 819 386 894 1,304 April 385 689 919 385 904 1,460 May 588 1,121 1,463 588 1,485 2,356 June 722 1,382 1,861 722 1,823 2,981 July 1,093 2,169 2,988 1,093 2,878 4,819 August 1,057 2,093 2,931 1,057 2,774 4,723 September 787 1,540 2,100 787 2,040 3,380 October 456 835 1,165 456 1,099 1,859 November 389 681 818 389 892 1,297 December 375 667 803 375 878 1,283 Seasonality BOZEMAN_ IWRPMOOEL_TM_ V6 CITY OF BOZEMAN INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE PLAN -PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS MODEL Seasonality of demands is reflected in the values reported in Table 5, showing higher use in summer months due to irrigation demands, and lower use in winter months when there is no irrigation occurring. Conservation Reduction Conservation Scenarios and Gross Conservation Reduction The City has developed low, medium, and high conservation scenarios as described in a previous section of the project report. Each of the scenarios includes several individual conservation measures that will be phased in over a ten year implementation period. Conservation measures will continue to be practiced over the course of the planning period; therefore the conservation reduction to demand will grow in proportion to population (and the associated demand) growth. The gross annual conservation reduction for each conservation scenario for both medium and high growth is provided in Table 6. Conservation reduction values are reported in acre-feet for the end of the conservation program implementation period {2023), the mid-term planning horizon (2042), and at the end ofthe planning period {2062). TABLE 6. GROSS CONSERVATION REDUCTION (AC-FT) Conservation Scenario 2023 Medium Growth 2042 2062 2023 High Growth 2042 2062 Low 715 2,013 2,770 726 2,838 4,806 Medium 1,622 4,282 5,908 1,618 5,921 10,108 High 3,250 6,369 8,218 3,233 8,240 12,991 Seasonality of Conservation Measures Three ofthe conservation measures included in the medium and high conservation scenarios directly impact irrigation uses and will therefore only provide effective conservation during the summer irrigation months. The measures considered to directly impact irrigation uses are turf reduction (residential and commercial), pricing modifications, and watering restrictions. These outdoor measures result in a seasonal fluctuation to the overall conservation reduction, with more water being conserved in summer months. These measures are not included in the low conservation scenario and therefore there is no seasonal difference in conservation reduction for the low scenario. The proportion of overall conservation made up by the outdoor measures decreases over time as more indoor measures are implemented. For the medium growth scenario, outdoor measures account for approximately 79 percent ofthe total conservation reduction at the beginning of the conservation program, decreasing to approximately 56 percent toward the end of the implementation period. For the high growth scenario, outdoor measures comprise approximately 75 percent of the conservation reduction at the beginning of the implementation period, decreasing to about 50 percent at the end. The seasonal fraction is assumed to remain constant after the 10-year implementation period. The fraction of the total conservation reduction contributed by outdoor measures is shown in Figure 1. BOZEMAN_IWRPMODEL_ TM_ V6 CITY OF BOZEMAN INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE PLAN -PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS MODEL TABLE 7. NET CONSERVATION REDUCTION Net Conservation Reduction in 2062 -Net Conservation Reduction in 2062 - Medium Growth (ac-ft) High Growth (ac-ft) Low Medium High Low Medium High Month Conservation Conservation Conservation Conservation Conservation Conservation July 231 1,129 1,485 400 1,931 2,348 August 231 1,003 1,328 400 1,717 2,099 September 231 656 891 400 1,123 1,409 October 231 217 338 400 371 535 November 231 217 338 400 371 535 December 231 217 338 400 371 535 TOTAL 2,770 5,908 8,218 4,806 10,108 12,991 Cost Basis Lifecycle costs over the SO-year planning period for the various portfolios were estimated using the information contained in Tables 8, 9 and 10. Table 8 provides costs for conservation, Table 9 provides detail for the capital cost components and Table 10 provides details about the operations and maintenance costs. Cost information was collected from a number of sources. It was not possible to fully equalize cost assumptions across source data, so certain inconsistencies exist. In some cases, costs developed for a specific project type and size were scaled linearly to a different capacity. It is understood that this is a significant assumption and further refinement of costs for recommended alternatives is strongly advised. In general, cost estimates at a conceptual level have accepted accuracy of -50% to +100% ofthe stated value. In that context, comparative cost estimates should be interpreted based on general ranking and order-of-magnitude values. Comparative costs only attempt to capture the major differentiating elements between alternatives, rather than the full cost of implementation. Net present value provides comparative data, excluding inflation, material shortages, or other factors that would affect the actual dollar cost at the time of expenditure. TABLE 8. CONSERVATION COST BASIS Conservation Scenario Cost ($/AF saved) Low $620 Medium $1,560 High $1,750 BOZEMAN_IWRPMODEL_ TM_ V6 TABLE 9. CAPITAL COST BASIS Engineering/Permitting/ Contingency or Other Water Rights Allowance Included in Purchase Included in New Supply/Expanded Facility Total Capital CosUAF Total Total Source of Information and Notes Additional shares from Hyalite Reservoir Agricultural lmpoundment Gallatin Groundwater Lyman Expansion Canyon Ferry Import Sourdough Creek Storage Non-Potable Irrigation Sourdough Membrane Expansion $6,000 $9,900 $6,740 $9,080 $17,590 $10,580 $8,000 $11,640 None 8% mobilization, taxing, bonding, insurance; 20% contingency 25% 28% allowance for contractor markups on construction cost; 40% engineering/permitting/ legal 28% allowance for contractor markups on construction cost; 18% engineering/permitting/ legal Included 30% engineering/admin/legal 21 .5% allowance for contractor markups; 19 % engineering/admin Included Not included Not included Assumed not to be needed Not included Assumed not to be needed Not included Not Required for facility (costs would be associated with source water, not the treatment facility) Email communication (April 08, 2013), City of Bozeman Water Treatment Superintendent. Construction cost estimated from 3'° party document. Cost/AF based on project cost estimate of $27,695,146 for 2,806 AF capacity. Wellfield cost estimated from 3rd party document. Cost per acre-foot assume that each well operates 12/hr/day at 600 gpm and include $2,760,000 for electricity system expansion and storage (based on 2007 Belgrade Water Facility Plan). Total cost also includes $325,000/mile of collection piping, which varies with the number of wells required.. CH2M HILL cost estimating model (CPES), based on database of project costs adapted to specific location using industry standard location factors. Further detail included in City of Bozeman Cost Estimate and Assumptions memorandum included as an attachment to this memorandum. CH2M HILL cost estimating model (CPES), based on database of project costs adapted to specific location using industry standard location factors. Further detail included in City of Bozeman Cost Estimate and Assumptions memorandum included as an attachment to this memorandum. 2011 Sourdough Creek Reservoir Development Plan. Cost/AF based on midpoint of cost estimate range ($3.SM Environmental Compliance/NEPA process plus $60M project development) for 6,000 AF capacity. Total cost for trunkline non-potable water distribution system in Damascus, Oregon (CH2M HILL 2013) scaled to area required to consume 4,000 AF of non-potable water for irrigation in Bozeman (5,045 acres total residential area based on assumed irrigable landscape area per lot) Cost reflects facility expansion from 22mgd to 34 mgd only, and apply only to portfolios which require treatment of more than 22 mgd. Costs were scaled from City of Bozeman Hyalite/Sourdough Treatment Plant Replacement Project Cost Estimate (HOR 2010). BOZEMAN_IWRPMODEL_TM_V6 9 TABLE 10. OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE COST BASIS Operations & New Supply/Expanded Facility Maintenance Cost Source of Information and Notes Additional shares from Hyalite Reservoir Agricultural lmpoundment Gallatin Groundwater Lyman Expansion Canyon Ferry Import Sourdough Creek Storage Non-Potable Irrigation Sourdough Membrane Expansion $35/AF plus $6,715 annual site lease $60/AF $131/AF $115-$282/AF $310/AF $22/AF $295/AF $1,577,000/year plus $64/AF plus replacement of 2 2 mgd capacity membranes after 20 years (net present value = $851,161) Email communication (April 08, 2013), City of Bozeman Water Treatment Superintendent. Third party estimate adjusting data from HKM memo Oct 28, 2010 to Nov 2012 dollars. Includes power, general maintenance, and labor costs per third party cost estimate. Assumes that O&M costs vary directly with AF/supplied. CH2M HILL cost estimating model (CPES), based on database of project costs adapted to specific location using industry standard location factors. Total cost includes power and chemicals, equipment replacement and maintenance, and labor. Further detail included in City of Bozeman Cost Estimate and Assumptions memorandum included as an attachment to this memorandum. CH2M HILL cost estimating model (CPES), based on database of project costs adapted to specific location using industry standard location factors. Total cost includes power and chemicals, equipment replacement and maintenance, and labor. Further detail included in City of Bozeman Cost Estimate and Assumptions memorandum included as an attachment to this memorandum. Operational costs for earthen storage facility as used in Damascus Integrated Water Resource Plan, converted to appropriate units (CH2M HILL 2011). Operational costs for non-potable distribution system, assuming no treatment as used in Damascus Integrated Water Resource Plan, converted to appropriate units (CH2M HILL 2011 ). Costs include non-flow dependent annual operational costs for things like facility maintenance and staffing, and additional cost per acre-foot treated for power and chemicals. Costs are based on FY14 Operating costs provided by City of Bozeman Water Facility Superintendent, June 14, 2013. Assumes that 80 percent of FY14 operating costs are independent of volume of water treated flow while remaining 20 percent are for power and chemicals which vary with throughput. Operational costs are applied for all flows through the Sourdough plant regardless of BOZEMAN.JWRPMODEL_ TM_ V6 10 CITY OF BOZEMAN INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE PLAN -PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS MODEL TABLE 10. OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE COST B_ASIS Operations & New Supply/Expanded Facility Maintenance Cost Source of Information and Notes whether expansion from 22 mgd to 34 mgd is required (refer to Table 9). BOZEMAN_IWRPMODEL_ TM_V6 11 Results Portfolio Contributions based on Monthly Water Balance Year 2062 contributions to the total portfolio from each new supply, based on a monthly rather than annual water balance, are shown in Table 10. Water conserved is also shown in Table 11, along with the total annual volume for 2062. TABLE 11. NEW WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION PORTFOLIO CONTRIBUTIONS BASED ON MONTHLY WATER BALANCE (YEAR 2062) Alternative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Acre-Feet of Water from Each Alternative Sourdough Creek lmpoundment 3,371 Import from Canyon Ferry 10,994 Groundwater in Gallatin Gateway 10,994 6,505 4,282 Agricultural impoundment 1,025 1,137 Purchase Shares from Hyalite 2,641 1,416 456 643 643 545 2,379 390 428 1,758 543 Non-Potable Irrigation water 1,113 1,689 Lyman Creek expansion 1,125 2,590 988 2,699 2,086 Low Conservation 2,770 4,806 4,806 2,770 Medium Conservation 5,908 10,108 10,108 3,060 5,908 5,908 High Conservation 8,218 12,991 Total Portfolio 6,536 7,324 8,674 16,443 16,443 16,613 17,273 16,613 6,552 7,323 7,323 6,146 6,536 Due to the irrigation-based seasonality affecting water conservation measures and the degree to which non potable irrigation can offset overall demand, the amount of water actually needed from certain supplies may vary significantly from the amount identified in the original portfolios presented in Table 2 based on the annual water balance. Cost Summary & Ranking Results of the cost analysis for each portfolio are provided in Table 12, ranked in order from lowest to highest total lifecycle cost. High growth portfolios are indicated by shaded rows. Individual components of the total lifecycle cost (capital cost, operations and maintenance cost, and cost of the conservation program) are shown in addition to the overall lifecycle cost for each portfolio. All costs are presented in net present value 2012 dollars, expressed in millions. BOZEMAN_IWRPMOOEL_TM_ VG 12 CITY OF BOZEMAN INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE PLAN -PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS MODEL TABLE 12. NET PRESENT VALUE PORTFOLIO LIFECYCLE COST SUMMARY (MILLIONS OF DOLLARS) Operations & Conservation Total Maintenance Program Lifecycle Portfolio Description Capital Cost Cost Cost Cost 2 Hyalite shares, Medium Conservation 2 77 6 85 3 Hyalite shares, High Conservation 74 10 85 9 Hyalite, NP Irrigation, Medium Conservation (3058) 5 81 2 88 10 Ag lmpoundment, Hyalite Shares, Medium Conservation 11 77 6 93 11 Hyalite shares, Lyman, Medium Conservation 18 77 6 101 Hyalite shares, Lyman, Low Conservation 19 81 2 101 12 Hyalite, Non-potable Irrigation, Lyman, Low Conservation 26 86 0 111 6 Gallatin groundwater, Medium Conservation 12 86 14 113 7 Gallatin groundwater, High Conservation 12 80 23 114 13 Ag lmpoundment, Hyalite shares, Lyman, Low Conservation 36 81 2 118 5 Gallatin groundwater, Hyalite shares, Low Conservation 24 95 4 123 8 Sourdough lmpoundment, Hyalite, Lyman, Med Conservation 60 82 14 157 4 Canyon Ferry, Hyalite, Low Conservation 188 105 4 296 Notes: 1. Shaded rows indicate high growth scenario Cost/Benefit Comparison Benefit scores developed by the TAC for each portfolio are provided in Table 13. These scores reflect weighting of the individual alternatives by the relative contribution each alternative contributes to the portfolio. TABLE 13. BENEFIT SCORES FOR EACH PORTFOLIO Portfolio Description Score Hyalite shares, Lyman, Low Conservation 2.9 2 Hyalite shares, Medium Conservation 3.1 3 Hyalite shares, High Conservation 2.1 4 Canyon Ferry, Hyalite, Low Conservation 5 Gallatin groundwater, Hyalite shares, Low Conservation 1.7 6 Gallatin groundwater, Medium Conservation 1.8 7 Gallatin groundwater, High Conservation 1.6 8 Sourdough lmpoundment, Hyalite, Lyman, Med Conservation 1.9 9 Hyalite, NP Irrigation, Medium Conservation (3058) 2.2 10 Ag lmpoundment, Hyalite Shares, Medium Conservation 2 BOZEMAN_IWRPMODEL_ TM_V6 13 CITY OF BOZEMAN INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE PLAN -PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS MODEL TABLE 13. BENEFIT SCORES FOR EACH PORTFOLIO Portfolio Description Score 11 Hyalite shares, Lyman, Medium Conservation 2.4 12 Hyalite, Non-potable Irrigation, Lyman, Low Conservation 2.2 13 Ag lmpoundment, Hyalite shares, Lyman, Low Conservation 1.9 Lifecycle costs for each portfolio, as provided in Table 12, were converted to a unit cost per acre-foot of water delivered by the portfolio in 2062. Water conserved through the conservation program was included in the total volume of water delivered. Conversion of the total lifecycle cost to unit cost allows for direct comparison of the portfolios, regardless of growth scenario. Total lifecycle costs, total annual volume of water delivered in 2062 (including conservation), and the resulting unit cost per acre-foot for each portfolio are provided in Table 14. The portfolios are ranked from lowest unit cost to highest unit cost. Portfolios designed for high growth scenarios are indicated by the shaded rows. Unit costs have been rounded to the nearest $100. In general, economy of scale, especially for water treatment operations, makes the high-growth scenarios cost less on a per unit delivered basis. TABLE 14. UNIT COST ($/AC-FT) FOR WATER DELIVERED IN 2062 Annual Total Volume of Lifecycle Water Cost Delivered in Unit Cost Portfolio Description ($Millions) 2062 (ac-ft) ($/ac-ft) 7 Gallatin groundwater, High Conservation 114 17,273 $6,600 6 Gallatin groundwater, Medium Conservation 113 16,613 $6,800 5 Gallatin groundwater, Hyalite shares, Low Conservation 123 16,443 $7,500 8 Sourdough lmpoundment, Hyalite, Lyman, Med Conservation 157 16,613 $9,400 3 Hyalite shares, High Conservation 85 8,674 $9,800 2 Hyalite shares, Medium Conservation 85 7,324 $11,600 10 Ag lmpoundment, Hyalite Shares, Medium Conservation 93 7,324 $12,700 9 Hyalite, NP Irrigation, Medium Conservation (3058) 88 6,552 $13,400 11 Hyalite shares, Lyman, Medium Conservation 101 7,324 $13,800 Hyalite shares, Lyman, Low Conservation 101 6,536 $15,500 4 Canyon Ferry, Hyalite, Low Conservation 296 16,443 $18,000 13 Ag lmpoundment, Hyalite shares, Lyman, Low Conservation 118 6,536 $18,100 12 Hyalite, Non-potable Irrigation, Lyman, No Conservation 111 6,146 $18,100 Notes: 1. Shaded rows indicate high growth scenario Unit costs were plotted against both the TAC benefit score to demonstrate the relative value of each portfolio, where value is defined as achieving the highest benefit for the lowest unit cost. Following this definition, portfolios falling the lowest and furthest to the right of the graph provide the highest value. The cost/benefit graph is shown in Figure 2;shaded ovals indicate high growth. BOZEMAN_IWRPMODEL_TM_V6 14 14 CITY OF BOZEMAN INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE PLAN -PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS MODEL This recommended portfolio relies on a suite of new supplies that can be implemented in phases as the City evaluates growth and conservation program effectiveness. Contributions to the fourteenth portfolio, based on the high growth scenario, are provided in Table 15. Capacity selected for each contributing element was based on conservative assumptions about the likely contribution of each. In most cases, it may be possible to develop more supply from each individual source. TABLE 15. RECOMMENDED PORTFOLIO COMPONENTS AND ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS BASED ON HIGH GROWTH PROJECTION Contribution to High Growth Annual Portfolio Component Water Balance in 2062 (ac-ft) Conservation New shares from Hyalite Lyman system expansion Non-potable irrigation Sourdough Creek impoundments Groundwater from Gallatin Gateway subarea Total Annual Supply 4,500 650 3,165 1,200 915 5,810 16,240 Costs for Portfolio 14 are summarized in Table 16. TABLE 16. NET PRESENT VALUE RECOMMENDED PORTFOLIO LIFECYCLE COST SUMMARY (MILLIONS OF DOLLARS) Annual Volume Conser-of Operation vation Total Water Unit Capital & Maint. Program Lifecycle in 2062 Cost Portfolio Description Cost Cost Cost Cost (ac-ft) ($lac-ft) Hyalite shares, Lyman expansion, Non-potable irrigtation, Sourdough Impoundments, Gallatin 50 93 4 147 16,240 $9,100 Gateway groundwater, medium/low conservation Portfolio 14 was scored using the TAC scores for individual portfolio components (as discussed in a previous section of the project report). The composite TAC score for this portfolio is 2.05. The cost-benefit relationship scores for all the portfolios, based on the TAC scores, are shown in Figure 3. As shown on Figure 3, portfolio 14 provides a high value portfolio relative to the other high growth scenarios. While the unit cost is marginally higher than three of the other high-growth portfolios, portfolio 14 offers a more diverse and flexible water supply portfolio; diversity and flexibility make the portfolio more resilient to changing conditions and uncertainty in the future. These positive attributes are reflected in the higher benefit score. BOZEMAN_IWRPMODEL_ TM_ V6 16 CITY OF BOZEMAN INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE PLAN -PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS MODEL $20,000 $18,000 -~ $16,000 ~ cu "'C ... $14,000 f-----------------------------cu -~ "aj 0 $12,000 .... LI. I u <( $10,000 ... ♦ P14cu 0. $8,000t; 0 u cu $6,000u >u ~ $4,000::; $2,000 $- 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 TAC Benefit Score Figure 3. Cost-Benefit Relationship of Recommended Portfolio (Portfolio 14) Implementation The recommended portfolio would rely on conservation and new shares from Hyalite in the early years. Based on the assumed monthly availability of each supply, the water balance model indicates that additional water from other new water supplies required when May demands are approximately 610 ac-ft (6.5 mgd). Based on evaportranspiration rates for grass and assuming that 40 percent of residential areas are landscaped, approximately 1,500 acres of new development will be required to consume the 1,200 AF of water proposed for non-potable irrigation. The amount of water supplied by other sources can be increased if the rate of development in the non-potable irrigation area does not keep pace with growing demands in other areas ofthe city. Portfolio development assumed that the non-potable system would be brought on-line in 100 ac-ft increments (corresponding to a development of approximately 125 acres). Groundwater from the Gallatin Gateway subarea was considered a "relief valve" for purposes of balancing the fourteenth portfolio. Gallatin groundwater could be implemented relatively early in order to allow an evaluation period in which reliable groundwater yield could be assessed. If the groundwater yield proves to be less than called for by the portfolio, additional contributions from Hyalite could be added to compensate. Costs for new water rights purchase were included where those costs were known, but additional costs may be incurred for water rights acquisition from various sources. These costs will need to be taken into consideration as they become clearer and the City decides the order in which to implement new supplies. Conclusion The portfolio development and analysis process has resulted in a recommended portfolio that provides the City of Bozeman with a flexible, resilient water resource management strategy. Input from the TAC and technical team BOZEMAN_IWRPMODEL_ TM_ V6 17 CITY OF BOZEMAN INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE PLAN -PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS MODEL were used to make the analysis as robust as possible given the available information. The cost analysis provides an order of magnitude cost comparison between the portfolios, while the cost/benefit assessment reflects the values of the community for which the strategy is devised. The recommended portfolio is a high-value solution that delivers maximal benefits for a competitive cost. Both the order in which new supplies are implemented and the degree to which each new supply is utilised can be can be adapted by City managers to future conditions as those conditions unfold. BOZEMAN_IWRPMODEL_ TM_V6 18