Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIntegrated Water Resources Plan (IWRP).pdf Commission Memorandum REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Brian Heaston, Project Engineer Richard Hixson, City Engineer Chuck Winn, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Integrated Water Resources Plan (IWRP) MEETING DATE: May 2, 2011 AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action RECOMMENDATION: Make a motion directing city staff to procure professional services in developing an Integrated Water Resources Plan (IWRP) in general accordance with the IWRP framework discussed in packet materials and the staff presentation for the regular meeting of the City Commission on May 2, 2011 including any specific deliberations modifying said framework as agreed to by the City Commission. BACKGROUND: The city of Bozeman entered the 21st century with a population of 28,000 people. By 2010, after a decade of record growth, the population grew to 37,280 - an increase of 33% over the 10 year period, or an average 3.3% per year. With increasing population, comes increasing water demand and the city has been diligent in planning for these future demands as exhibited by its efforts in water facility planning. The 2005 Water Facility Plan indicates that the city’s existing water rights are capable of serving a total population of 88,000 people. However, the reliable yield of these rights – which is the quantity of water available during drought – has a significantly lower service capacity of 54,500. These numbers are based upon a simple per capita demand model using 170 gallons per person per day (gpcd). The plan uses conservative estimates of per capita use (170 gpcd), and a 5% future population growth value, to predict a water rights deficit to occur in 2025 and reliable yield deficit in 2016. When these deficits will truly occur is a function of experienced population growth and actual per capita water demand. Water supply planning is an oft contentious, complex, and resultantly protracted exercise. Generally, it takes many years to work through the myriad issues surrounding new supply options - to build community consensus, to permit, fund, and construct. The water facility plan provides suggestions for new sources of supply, but does not detail specific issues each potential source must overcome for successful implementation. Furthermore, the plan does not address the viability of supply options in terms of contentious and high-dollar issues surrounding community consensus, environmental compliance permitting, and water rights. 95 In June 2009 the city hired Great West Engineering to prepare a plan for developing a new dam and reservoir in Sourdough canyon. The basic intent of the plan was an exercise in due diligence, performed to gauge the sphere of issues surrounding project development and how best to navigate those issues to successful project implementation. A special presentation was made to the City Commission on May 24, 2010 by staff and Great West Engineering to discuss progress of the Sourdough development plan. The Commission was concerned that the project appeared pre-decisional and that perhaps a dam in Sourdough was not the best approach for a new source of future water supply. Staff explained the concern the city had about preserving its water rights in Sourdough and that the dam/reservoir option would perfect a presently non- useable right to 6,000 acre-feet/year of supply water. In response to direction given by the Commission during the special presentation, a work session and policy discussion was held on November 1, 2010. The meeting covered several broad topics, including: summary of previous planning efforts; overview of supply deficiency, water conservation, water rights abandonment, and groundwater development. At the conclusion of the session it was made apparent that a shift in approach was needed to address the supply deficiency and that it was not sensible to purely focus on a dam and reservoir in Sourdough to provide for the future water needs of the community. Admittedly, the focus of the reservoir plan was narrow going in. Now, nearly two-years after the plan was begun; the way forward coming out is broad and integrated by necessity. The desire of the Commission, as staff understands it, is to develop a process that objectively evaluates all available supply alternatives in an integrated fashion, to place further emphasis on water conservation, and to procure the counsel of a water rights attorney. A draft framework for an Integrated Water Resources Plan (IWRP) is proposed as follows. Staff welcomes Commission discussion on the outline provided and any deliberated modifications to the framework. This outline is intended to guide the IWRP process and will form a scoping basis for future requests for proposals (RFP) used to procure professional services in relation to IWRP preparation and execution. Integrated Water Resources Plan – Draft Framework A) Supply Planning Purpose and Need B) Supply Planning Alternatives Analysis C) Work Plan Development and Implementation The IWRP will proceed through the three principal compartments outlined above in the order in which they appear. Further detail is provided below. A) Supply Planning Purpose and Need Intent: Establish clear and well defined project goals and objectives reflecting the collective values of the city of Bozeman. The purpose and need analysis will culminate with a specific purpose and need statement that documents the analyses conducted and will provide the foundation for the subsequent Supply Planning Alternatives Analysis compartment. A draft outline of anticipated tasks necessary to complete the Supply Planning Purpose and Need compartment follows. A.1 Compile existing data and reports related to water supply sources and facilities. 96 A.2 Evaluate all water rights held and/or owned by the city. A.3 Reinvestigate firm water yield. A.4 Characterize existing water use patterns. A.5 Update the water conservation plan. A.6 Prepare a robust water demand project model using the information gathered in items A.1 thru A.5. A.7 Develop a draft purpose and need statement incorporating items A.1 thru A.6. This is intended to be a collaborative effort that includes a technical committee, an advisory committee, and the general public. A.8 Complete public work sessions to present the draft purpose and need statement to the Bozeman community. A.9 Finalize purpose and need statement based on public and committee input. Completion of the Supply Planning Purpose and Need is estimated to take six months at a cost of $100,000 - $150,000. The following flow chart graphically represents relationships between the anticipated tasks above. Note: the chart is taken from the draft Sourdough Reservoir Development Plan. 97 B) Supply Planning Alternatives Analysis Intent: Identify a reasonable range of practical alternatives to meet the purpose of need for the project developed in the Supply Planning Purpose and Need compartment. The process will involve stakeholders and is the primary tool used to arrive at a supply alternative that satisfies community values. A draft outline of anticipated tasks necessary to complete the Supply Planning Alternatives Analysis compartment follows. B.1 Develop alternatives selection criteria with input from the technical committee and advisory committee. A three-tiered screening process will be employed with increasingly detailed screening criteria applied. B.2 Prepare an initial list of alternatives with input from the technical committee and advisory committee. An exhaustive list of possible source solutions satisfying the purpose of need will be prepared. B.3 Complete a public work session to inform the Commission and general public on items B.1 and B.2. B.4 Complete a reconnaissance level screening of alternatives list prepared with item B.2. This screening tool is intended to identify alternatives with fatal flaws when screened against reconnaissance level criteria. Example criteria include technical feasibility, water rights protection, severity of environmental impacts, quality of life, etc. This level of alternative screening typically does not involve cost and uses existing available information. The technical committee and advisory committee will be included. B.5 Complete a preliminary level screening of alternatives remaining after completion of item B.4. This will include a qualitative and quantitative analysis for each remaining alternative. The level of detail is preliminary, but must be sufficiently detailed to justify the elimination of alternatives. Existing data will be utilized to the degree practicable, but limited field investigations and engineering study may be required. A ranking matrix will be developed with input from the technical committee and the advisory committee. Ranking criteria could include parameters such as cost per acre-foot, impact on demand and firm yield, water rights, environmental considerations, recreation, quality of life, etc. B.6 Complete a detailed level screening of alternatives remaining after completion of item B.5. The primary goal of this last screening level is to select a preferred alternative or a small number of alternatives that proceed into compartment C of the IWRP framework (Work Plan Development and Implementation). This level of screening must be sufficiently robust to justify the cost of proceeding into implementation. This may require extensive field work and testing depending on the alternatives that have made it to this detailed screening level. B.7 Complete public work sessions to inform stakeholder groups and the general public of the selected alternatives. 98 B.8 Finalize the preferred alternative selection(s) moving forward into the work plan and implementation compartment of the IWRP. Base finalization(s) on public input received, and present conclusions to the City Commission. Completion of the Supply Planning Alternatives Analysis is estimated to take between 12 and 18 months at a cost of $300,000 - $400,000. The following flow chart graphically represents relationships between the anticipated tasks above. Note: the chart is taken from the draft Sourdough Reservoir Development Plan. C) Work Plan Development and Implementation Intent: Implement the preferred alternative(s). Tasks required within the work plan to implement the preferred alternative are highly variable and depend upon the nature of the preferred alternative and the level of environmental compliance permitting required. For example, development of a reservoir in Sourdough canyon 99 will require full compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) through preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EIS process requires its own separate purpose and need statement and alternatives analysis, ultimately leading to a Record of Decision (ROD) for the preferred EIS alternative. The IWRP purpose and need, and alternatives analysis compartments are distinct from the EIS elements of the same name, yet are interrelated. Understanding the nuances between the interrelating elements of the IWRP tasks and NEPA EIS requirements will create a strategic IWRP that can move relatively seamlessly into and through similar NEPA elements. All new supply sources must obtain a water right from the Montana DNRC. The process employed to successful navigate the permitting requirements are dependent upon the preferred supply alternative. The following flow chart graphically represents the NEPA EIS process. Note: the chart is taken from the draft Sourdough Reservoir Development Plan, but the process is identical for any alternative. 100 A draft outline of anticipated tasks necessary to complete the Work Plan Development and Implementation compartment follows: C.1 Release a RFP to obtain professional services to design, permit, and manage the preferred alternative. C.2 Complete environmental compliance permitting. C.3 Obtain approval for a new water right. C.4 Design the project. C.5 Prepare and implement a capital funding strategy. C.6 Bid and construct. Time and budget necessary to complete this compartment of the IWRP is dependent upon the preferred alternative. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: The city has been approached by Salar Properties, LLC to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to formalize a relationship to participate in a joint feasibility analysis to assess the risks and benefits the Salar water resources project. Staff does not recommend the city enter into an MOU with this group at this time. Salar properties is a joint venture between John Dunlap, Kent Brodie, and George Metcalfe. The project proposes to construct a 3,000 acre-foot off-stream storage reservoir midway between Four Corners and Gallatin Gateway east of Highway 191. Staff proposes that the Salar project be included as an available alternative in the IWRP alternatives analysis. If the project, after being vetted through the IWRP, is selected as a preferred alternative, then a formal relationship can be pursued. Until this occurs, the project is not ripe for an MOU. ALTERNATIVES: As recommended by the Commission. FISCAL EFFECTS: Compartments A & B of the proposed IWRP framework are estimated to cost between $400,000 and $550,000 to complete. The FY’12 water impact fee CIP allots $250,000 to complete the IWRP. This leaves an estimated deficit of $150,000 to $300,000 to complete the project as contemplated by the proposed framework. There are sufficient funds within the water impact fee CIP to complete the IWRP purpose and need at an estimated cost of $100,000 to $150,000. Attachments: None Report compiled on: April 22, 2011 101