Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIntegrated Water Resources Plan Update Commission Memorandum REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Brian Heaston, Project Engineer Craig Woolard, Director of Public Services SUBJECT: Integrated Water Resources Plan Update MEETING DATE: March 18, 2013 AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Special Presentation RECOMMENDATION: Consider the information provided. BACKGROUND: This agenda item serves to update the City Commission on progress of the Integrated Water Resources Plan (IWRP) and proceedings of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) that have occurred between September of last year and present. As the Commission will recall, a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) amendment was approved in September which modified the scope of services for the project in accordance with recommendations put forth by the TAC. The amendment included a budget increase of $54,250 and generally provided for 3 additional consultant-led TAC meetings (for a total of 6 for the project) and increased the level of TAC involvement with alternative screening, scoring, and portfolio development. The amendment further called for the development of a ‘best in the west’ water conservation planning scenario. The third (of six) TAC meeting was conducted on December 6, 2012 from 10a – 3p. An interim TAC meeting was held on January 11, 2013 from 1p – 3p. The interim meeting was not attended by the consultant team and does not count towards the six allotted meetings in the amended scope. The fourth TAC meeting was conducted on March 1, 2013 from 10a-3p. Two additional TAC meetings remain with the next targeted to occur towards the latter part of April. The record for TAC 3 and TAC 3A are attached. Partial record of the TAC 4 meeting is also attached, however meeting minutes have not been prepared as of the deadline date for this memorandum. Planning Criteria: Future water supply planning criteria were presented to the TAC, represented as a matrix of values spanning the gap between the predicted firm yield of existing water supplies and estimated future water demands under various growth and demand-reduction scenarios covering the 30- and 50-yr IWRP horizon. Please refer to Slide 6 of the attached TAC 3 presentation for the planning criteria matrix. The planning criteria values were adjusted upward by 500 acre-feet 108 following discussion from TAC 4 meeting to account for MSU water demand growth over the planning period. See Slide 5 of the attached TAC 4 presentation. Portfolio Approach: A portfolio approach is recommended to achieve adequate new volume to satisfy the future demand needs by integrating water conservation, existing water rights management, water re- use, and new water supply development projects into various portfolios. This four-compartment approach is represented graphically on slide 5 of the TAC-3 presentation. Water Conservation – Reduction in per capita demand extends the capacity of the existing water supply firm yield to serve a larger population. The ‘best in the west’ conservation scenario presented during TAC-3 suggested a value of 16.5% reduction. The TAC requested the consultant revise the ‘best in the west’ scenario to represent a more aggressive program because they were generally skeptical that 16.5% was the best the city could achieve. Revisions were made to the conservation planning criteria and presented in terms of three targeted levels of conservation; low, medium, and high scenarios. These three scenarios were discussed at the interim TAC meeting 3A and additional clarification was requested. Clarifications were presented to the TAC in a draft water conservation technical memorandum for their review. The three conservation scenarios will be treated as available alternatives for portfolio assembly. For instance, one portfolio option may utilize the medium conservation planning level where a different portfolio may utilize the high conservation planning level. Existing Water Rights Management – The city holds several water rights that cannot be currently put to use due to a lack of infrastructure and/or water rights issues. These rights generally fall into three sources: existing groundwater irrigation wells, Sourdough impoundment rights, and Lyman Creek. In order to realize supply from these sources, the city must successfully negotiate the DNRC water right change process and then fund, design, and construct infrastructure. One thought is to aggregate these rights into a common and strategic point of diversion downstream of where all these sources come together in the watershed and then construct a treatment facility to place the water into distribution. There are many unknowns that present difficultly in supply planning for this portfolio compartment. Most notably, that the volume of post-change rights could represent a highly variable range of values which adds large degrees of uncertainty and risk in planning. The water rights team has evaluated these existing rights and has presented a range of planning values from 3,165 acre-feet to 12,840 acre-feet as shown on Slide 31 of the TAC 3 presentation attached. The low value of the range will be used for planning purposes. Water Re-use – This compartment of the portfolio picture utilizes effluent from the water reclamation facility (WRF) for non-potable and/or potable end uses. Additional treatment of WRF effluent would likely be required and a dedicated piping system (known as a purple- pipe network) would be necessary to convey effluent to points of end use. Further, in order to use WRF effluent, a new water right must be obtained from the DNRC as the effluent is already claimed by existing downstream water rights holders. There is an exception to obtaining a new water right if the effluent disposal is part of an MDEQ approved treatment process. However, in the event the city were to utilize WRF effluent for non-potable use integral to an approved treatment process and discharge permit, claims of adverse affect from 109 existing water rights holders downstream of the WRF would be a likely occurrence which could require a mitigation plan to abate negative effects. New Water Supply Development Projects – This compartment is a simple as its name indicates. New sources of water supply reaching beyond the city’s existing supply sources and infrastructure would be developed. Common examples include groundwater wells (both deep karstic and shallow alluvial), surface water import projects (i.e. Canyon Ferry Import, Yellowstone River Import), surface water storage projects (i.e. Sourdough Canyon Reservoir, Salar Impoundment of canal company rights, Hyalite Dam Raise). Supply alternatives have been separately scored by the TAC and the consultant team using the qualitative evaluation criteria developed previously for the project. The attached TAC-3 packet materials provide worksheets for each alternative to be screened through the qualitative criteria. The TAC was concerned that the worksheets presented during the TAC-3 meeting were not inclusive of all alternatives that should be screened. Thus, development of additional worksheets was completed to fill in the gaps in the alternative analysis. The TAC felt strongly that the water conservation scenarios should proceed through qualitative screening in similar fashion to re-use and new supply projects. The three conservation scenarios previously mentioned have proceeded through screening to address the TAC concerns. There was also question by the TAC on how existing water rights management projects would proceed through qualitative screening as this compartment of the portfolio was absent worksheets. To address the questions raised, Lyman Creek will be evaluated as a water supply project. The focus of the TAC 4 was construction of portfolios. TAC scores were compiled for the alternatives and compared to the consultant team’s scores. Scoring results are attached with the TAC 4 presentation. Alternatives to be used in portfolio assembly were arrived upon using the TAC and technical team scores as a basis for discussion. The following alternatives will be used in assembling portfolios: • Low, Medium, and High Water Conservation • Hyalite Reservoir Share Purchase • Lyman Creek Expansion • Groundwater in Gallatin Gateway • Non-potable Irrigation Water • Sourdough Reservoir • North End Non-Potable Reuse • Agricultural Reuse • Canyon Ferry Important from ‘three forks’ Confluence • Agricultural Impoundment (i.e. Salar Project) • Sourdough Pond Impoundments • Hyalite Dam Raise A general portfolio assembly philosophy was agreed on by the TAC by the conclusion of the TAC 4 meeting. The consultant team will prepare portfolios based on the lengthy discussions that occurred during the TAC 4 meeting. Prior to portfolio modeling, the TAC will have an opportunity to review the portfolios. As of the deadline of this memorandum, portfolios have yet 110 to be ‘finaled’ by the TAC, however that should be complete by the time of the special presentation on March 18. If so, portfolios will be presented at that time. UNRESOLVED ISSUES: Portfolios have not yet been approved by the TAC for modeling. This should occur prior to the special presentation on March 18. The next TAC meeting (number 5) tentative for late April will discuss results of the modeling and begin a discussion on plan recommendations. ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission. FISCAL EFFECTS: The IWRP project is funded by the water impact fee fund. The project is proceeding within budget allocated with the approved Contract Amendment. The project is approximately 77% complete in terms of budget expended. Attachments: Exhibit A - December 6, 2012 TAC Meeting No. 3 Record Exhibit B - January 11, 2013 TAC Meeting No. 3A Record Exhibit C – March 1, 2013 TAC Meeting No. 4 Record (absent Minutes) Report compiled on: March 7, 2013 111 CITY OF BOZEMAN Integrated Water Resources Plan Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #3 ® A. CALL TO ORDER: 10:00 A.M. B. CONSERVATION PLANNING REVIEW C. OPTIMIZED CONSERVATION OVERVIEW D. WATER RIGHTS MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES E. WATER SUPPLY DELIVERY NODES F. ALTERNATIVES REVIEW AND REFINEMENT G. RANKING CRITERIA APPROACH H. TAC DISCUSSION ON TECHNICAL HANDOUTS AND ALTERNATIVES I. TAC MEETING #4 SCHEDULE AND AGENDA J. PUBLIC COMMENT - Please state your name and address in an audible tone of voice for the record. This is the time for individuals to comment on matters falling within the purview of this Committee. Please limit your comments to three minutes. Meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact our ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3232 (TDD 582-2301 DATE: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 6TH, 2012, 10:00 A.M. TO 3 P.M. LOCATION: City Commission Room, City Hall, 121 N. Rouse Ave Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 112 City of Bozeman, MT Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives IU1 Northside Non-Potable Water Reuse LEGAL/WATER RIGHTS RANKING This alternative involves utilization of effluent from the Bozeman Water Reclamation Facility (BWRF) to offset water use by customers of the City of Bozeman and/or by water users in the Gallatin Valley that may have an interest in effluent in exchange for a City lease of water rights held by that entity. Water reuse is a common approach in water resource management and is becoming more popular across the US, including within the State of Montana. In some instances, however, the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) may require an application for a new water right even in a reuse situation, making Water Reuse subject to the same legal conditions as any Water Supply Development Alternative being considered. WATER SUPPLY PLANNING CRITERIA BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND REFERENCES • HB 52 Summary Discussion • City of Bozeman Effluent Management Plan (EMP) ~ HDR and associated references in this document • Discussions with Tom Adams, BWRF Superintendent • Montana DEQ Circular-2 • Various Nutrient Work Group Meeting Minute and reference documents • Salt Lake City Reuse Feasibility Study Summary • Golf Course Environmental Profile Measures, ~ Applied Turfgrass Science • The East Gallatin River Nutrient TMDL cannot be met by current treatment technologies for wastewater. • The BWRF achieves TN and TP conc. near limits of technology, but ca not comply with new water quality regulations. • Authorization to continue discharge of wastewater from the BWRF has been granted by Montana DEQ through 2027. • A permit variance of 20-years to meet more stringent water quality criteria could be obtained to gain compliance time. • Additional advanced treatment or removal of its discharge from the East Gallatin River are available options for the City. • The BWRF produces a high quality, reliable effluent that could provide a variety of non-potable uses. • For the purpose of this analysis, up to 4 million gallons per day (MGD) (which will increase with growth) may be available for reuse that offsets or allows for lease of new supply. • BWRF effluent would need to be filtered at BWRF, stored, and pumped throughout system. • Not discharging may have water resource consequences during low flow conditions ~ evaluation needed. Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 113 For More Information Contact Brian Heaston: bheaston@bozeman.net (406) 582-2280 • Water Reuse options in this alternative include turf applications at local golf courses and a possible north-side development. • Supply redundancy is possible on a short-term basis only, as effluent flows are dependent on influent flows. • Planning for 0.7 MGD per 18-hole golf course is recommended. • For Bozeman, at least 3,000 homes may be needed to offset residential outdoor water use with 1 MGD of BWRF effluent. • Riverside Golf Course has 2 MGD irrigation right with pre-1880 priority date from April to October. • Riverside Water and Sewer District has provisional groundwater rights in excess of its water needs. • Bridger Creek Golf Course utilizes groundwater for irrigation. • EMP details other open spaces that may be candidates but may or may not use potable water for irrigation. More evaluation needed. • Potential to meet 30- and 50-year planning targets should be studied. Golf course use could range from 80K to 1.4M gpd. Lease potential could range from 0 gpd to a seasonal demand of 3 • MGD. Proposed Planning = 1.4 MGD reuse and seasonal 2 MGD • supply lease (equivalent to 1,200 ac-ft from May to September). • Potable Surface Water treatment of leased supplies will be required • Water Reuse is a compliance mechanism for the Clean Water Act. • Impacts on in-stream flows would need further evaluation. • Primary permitting issues are associated with approval from both DNRC and Montana DEQ on compliance approach. • Climate Resiliency impact should be studied further. Dry climate translates to less water and less flows in wastewater utility. • Treatment process is energy intensive and has a high carbon footprint, which may increase with additional treatment. Reuse impacts, however, could reduce carbon footprint of water treatment by using lower quality water for non-potable needs. • Environmental Impacts should be evaluated for net positive or negative benefit • Water Reuse has historically struggled with public support. However, trends suggest this sentiment may be changing and many non-potable projects have been implemented across the US. Class A Effluent (Food Crop Application Proposed). • Could be a resource for economic development for industrial users and may be a component of water marketing. • Riverside Golf Course has indicated it would be willing to receive some water from the City, but only estimated 40,000 gpd, which is significantly less than they use for irrigation. • May eliminate need for purchasing water rights. • EMP Estimates (2007 dollars):  $2.5M for effluent filters and disinfection for Class A effluent  $500K for effluent storage ponds  $2M for pumping system (designed for City-wide service)  $1.3 to 1.9M for trunk line infrastructure.  Dual pipe system for residential reuse not calculated.  O&M Estimated at $60K/yr • Saves money in reducing treatment of non-potable water and delays expansion of WTP • Leasing of water rights owned by partners may be necessary. • Likely not a regional solution • Costs may be as much as $9M with inflation + O&M + Water • Treatment of leased surface water supplies to potable standards. TECHNICAL CRITERIA ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA SOCIAL CRITERIA ECONOMIC CRITERIA Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 114 City of Bozeman, MT Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives IU2 Northside and Southside Non-Potable Water Reuse LEGAL/WATER RIGHTS RANKING This alternative involves utilization of effluent from the Bozeman Water Reclamation Facility (BWRF) to offset water use by customers of the City of Bozeman and/or by water users in the Gallatin Valley that may have an interest in effluent in exchange for a City lease of water rights held by that entity. Water reuse is a common approach in water resource management and is becoming more popular across the US, including within the State of Montana. In some instances, however, the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) may require an application for a new water right even in a reuse situation, making Water Reuse subject to the same legal conditions as any Water Supply Development Alternative being considered. WATER SUPPLY PLANNING CRITERIA BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND REFERENCES HB 52 Summary Discussion City of Bozeman Effluent Management Plan (EMP) ~ HDR and associated references in this document Discussions with Tom Adams, BWRF Superintendent Montana DEQ Circular-2 Various Nutrient Work Group Meeting Minutes and reference documents Salt Lake City Reuse Feasibility Study Golf Course Environmental Profile Measures ~ Applied Turfgrass Science Reference IU1 ~ Northside Non-Potable Water Reuse for appropriate Water Supply Planning Criteria. The only difference in this alternative is the amount of non-potable water reuse infrastructure that would be installed and the extent it would be made available. Includes all reuse technical criteria provided with IU1 Technical Handout in addition to the following: Water Reuse options include turf applications at 1 additional local golf course (Valley View), at MSU family housing and to offset MSU irrigation use on campus and on potential research crops with a lease of Hyalite shares owned by MSU, extends into the downtown area and to the southeast, near Deaconess Hospital, and to several park areas in the City Complicated operation and maintenance (O&M) program Will be planning intensive due to type of infrastructure needs Develops another underground infrastructure system in the community(“purple pipes”) Increased potential for cross-connections. TECHNICAL CRITERIA Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 115 For More Information Contact Brian Heaston: bheaston@bozeman.net (406) 582-2280 Additional water rights that could be leased/acquired include: o MSU Irrigation Shares (~0.5 MGD for Planning Purposes). o Valley View Golf Course (EMP Reported Groundwater right of 675 gpm, likely seasonal, but reuse need of only 186,000 gpd). o Local parks already irrigated with groundwater rights owned by City, which could go through change of use to municipal right. o Irrigation with potable water by proposed recipients of reuse water has not been evaluated in detail. Potential water supply needs in EMP estimated at 1.5 MGD. Estimate could underestimate golf course potential and MSU potential with diligent and attractive cooperation. Another 1 MGD may be possible. o EMP estimates a potential future use of 1.2 MGD. o Further study evaluation ofEMP study to better quantify opportunities and optimize to increase water supplies is necessary. Residential reuse should be evaluated as well. Environmental Criteria is the same as those noted for IU1 Water Reuse has historically struggled with public support. However, trends suggest this sentiment may be changing. More collaboration with public is recommended. Could be a resource for economic development for industrial users and may be a component of water marketing. This alternative requires construction of 86,000 feet of effluent reuse pipeline throughout the key corridors of the City of Bozeman. In some cases, this construction could cause temporary inconveniences and unforeseen construction costs. Establishes precedence for using the “right” quality of water for the “right” water need. Depending on how strategic a “purple pipe” system is developed and embraced by a community, growth could be served with outdoor use coming from reuse water supplies, allowing for some relief for growing areas in terms of the potable water treatment capacity needed to serve them. May eliminate need for purchasing water rights. EMP Estimates (2007 dollars): o $5M for filters and disinfection for Class A effluent and effluent storage ponds o $2M for pumping system o $9.9M for trunk line infrastructure. o Dual pipe system for residential reuse not calculated. o O&M Estimated at $750K/yr Saves money in reducing water treatment capacity; delays expansion of WTP Leasing of water rights owned by partners may be necessary. Likely not a regional solution. Costs may be as much as $22.3M with inflation + O&M + Treatment to Potable Standards. TECHNICAL CRITERIA ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA SOCIAL CRITERIA ECONOMIC CRITERIA Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 116 City of Bozeman, MT Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives IU3 Northside Non-Potable and Potable Water Reuse LEGAL/WATER RIGHTS RANKING This alternative involves utilization of effluent from the Bozeman Water Reclamation Facility (BWRF) to offset water use by customers of the City of Bozeman and/or by water users in the Gallatin Valley that may have an interest in effluent in exchange for a City lease of water rights held by that entity. Water reuse is a common approach in water resource management and is becoming more popular across the US, including within the State of Montana. In some instances, however, the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) may require an application for a new water right even in a reuse situation, making Water Reuse subject to the same legal conditions as any Water Supply Development Alternative being considered. Potable reuse of reclaimed water would also face considerable scrutiny by the public and by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality. WATER SUPPLY PLANNING CRITERIA BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND REFERENCES HB 52 Summary Discussion City of Bozeman Effluent Management Plan (EMP) ~ HDR and associated references in this document Discussions with Tom Adams, BWRF Superintendent Montana DEQ Circular-2 Various Nutrient Work Group Meeting Minutes and reference documents Salt Lake City Reuse Feasibility Study Summary Golf Course Environmental Profile Measures, ~ Applied Turfgrass Science Reference IU1 ~ Northside Non-Potable Water Reuse for appropriate Water Supply Planning Criteria. The only difference in this alternative is that any excess reuse water would be blended with other water supply resources on the northside of the City to provide a more robust potable water supply. Includes all reuse technical criteria provided with IU1 Technical Handout in addition to the following: Treatment of the water supply may require special advanced treatment processes beyond typical surface water treatment process due to addition of BRWF effluent. A blended supply could include multiple sources of groundwater and surface water combined at one location. Blending could happen upstream of a proposed new WTP or within a groundwater supply (ASR) to add an extra barrier between BWRF effluent and treatment. TECHNICAL CRITERIA Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 117 For More Information Contact Brian Heaston: bheaston@bozeman.net (406) 582-2280 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 of the water in close proximity to the BWRF without constructing pipeline infrastructure. Water treatment could be located on the north side of the 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. TECHNICAL CRITERIA Environmental Criteria is the same as those noted for IU1 ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA Social Criteria is the same as IU1, 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 IU1 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. SOCIAL CRITERIA ECONOMIC CRITERIA Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 118 City of Bozeman, MT Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives IU4 Northside and Southside Non-Potable and Potable Water Reuse LEGAL/WATER RIGHTS RANKING This alternative involves utilization of effluent from the Bozeman Water Reclamation Facility (BWRF) to offset water use by customers of the City of Bozeman and/or by water users in the Gallatin Valley that may have an interest in effluent in exchange for a City lease of water rights held by that entity. Water reuse is a common approach in water resource management and is becoming more popular across the US, including within the State of Montana. In some instances, however, the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) may require an application for a new water right even in a reuse situation, making Water Reuse subject to the same legal conditions as any Water Supply Development Alternative being considered. Potable reuse of reclaimed water would also face considerable scrutiny by the public and by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality. WATER SUPPLY PLANNING CRITERIA BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND REFERENCES HB 52 Summary Discussion City of Bozeman Effluent Management Plan (EMP) ~ HDR and associated references in this document Discussions with Tom Adams, BWRF Superintendent Montana DEQ Circular-2 Various Nutrient Work Group Meeting Minutes and reference documents Salt Lake City Reuse Feasibility Study Golf Course Environmental Profile Measures ~ Applied Turfgrass Science Reference IU2 ~ Northside and Southside Non-Potable Water Reuse for appropriate Water Supply Planning Criteria. The only difference in this alternative is that any excess reuse water would be blended with other water supply resources on the northside of the City to provide a more robust potable water supply. Includes all reuse technical criteria provided with IU2 Technical Handout in addition to the following: Treatment of the water supply may require special advanced treatment processes beyond typical surface water treatment processes due to addition of BRWF effluent. A blended supply could include multiple sources of groundwater and surface water combined at one location to accomplish treatment. Blending could happen upstream of a proposed new WTP or within a groundwater supply (ASR) to add an extra barrier between BRWF effluent and treatment. TECHNICAL CRITERIA Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 119 For More Information Contact Brian Heaston: bheaston@bozeman.net (406) 582-2280 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 of the water in close proximity to the BWRF via constructing pipeline infrastructure. Water treatment could be located on the north side of the City and enter the distribution system through 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 IU2 Social Criteria is the same as IU2, 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 IU2 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. TECHNICAL CRITERIA ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA SOCIAL CRITERIA ECONOMIC CRITERIA Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 120 City of Bozeman, MT Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives IU5 Agricultural Irrigation Water Use LEGAL/WATER RIGHTS RANKING This alternative involves utilization of effluent from the Bozeman Water Reclamation Facility (BWRF) to offset water use by customers of the City of Bozeman and/or by water users in the Gallatin Valley that may have an interest is effluent in exchange for a lease of water rights held by that entity that could be used by the City. While water reuse is a common approach in water resource management and is becoming more popular across the US, the State of Montana may require that the City of Bozeman apply for a water right to reuse the water supply, making Water Reuse subject to the same legal conditions as any Water Supply Development Alternative being considered. WATER SUPPLY PLANNING CRITERIA BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND REFERENCES HB 52 Summary Discussion City of Bozeman Effluent Management Plan (EMP) ~ HDR and associated references in this document Discussions with Tom Adams, BWRF Superintendent Montana DEQ Circular-2 Various Nutrient Work Group Meeting Minutes and reference documents The East Gallatin River Nutrient TMDL cannot be met by current treatment technologies for wastewater. The BWRF achieves TN and TP conc. near limits of technology, but can not comply with new water quality regulations. Authorization to continue discharge of wastewater has been granted by Montana DEQ through 2027. A permit variance of 20-years to meet more stringent water quality criteria could be obtained to gain compliance time. Additional advanced treatment or removal of its discharge from the East Gallatin River available option for the City. The BWRF produces a high quality, reliable effluent that could provide a variety of nonpotable uses. Not discharging will likely have consequences on the overall water resource during low flow conditions. The Beck-Jones Canal intersects the BWRF property, and the canal company has a water right from the East Gallatin totaling 2.23 MGD (likely seasonal). The Springhill Sod Farm is located north of the BWRF. The water right is unknown, but irrigation needs are 632,000gpd Other agricultural users and water rights holders exist, but have not been evaluated as potential reuse partners. Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 121 For More Information Contact Brian Heaston: bheaston@bozeman.net (406) 582-2280 Many of the same technical criteria for IU1 apply to this alternative. Beck-Jones Canal water users have a 3 MGD water right. The canal would provide low cost, effective transmission of reclaimed water to agricultural users and also potentially allow for transport of water supplies across the Interstate to areas where it could be used by developers for turf irrigation. To date, the Beck-Jones Canal water users have not been approached to determine interest in participating in a water supply partnership. Springhill Sod Farm responded to EMP stating it was happy with current water supply approach. Concerns with water losses along the canal delivery system may need to be addressed in terms of groundwater impacts. Environmental criteria are consistent with IU1. Water Reuse has historically struggled with public support. However, trends suggest this sentiment may be changing. More collaboration with public is recommended. Could be a resource for economic development for industrial users and may be a component of water marketing. Current potential recipients of reuse water have not been contacted or participated in discussions to gauge real interest. At this time, other alternatives appear to have more public interest and support. Social criteria for IU1 are applicable here. May eliminate need for purchasing water rights. If only these two users were contacted, the capital costs would include the following (from EMP ~ 2007$): o $5 million at BWRF o Around $700K to connect to both users. O&M would be around $60K A WTP facility on the north side of the City would need to be constructed to treat the surface water supply that could be leased by the City for drinking water purposes. Improvements to the Pear Street Pump Station and other possible distribution system improvements would need to be completed to treated water into the distribution system. TECHNICAL CRITERIA ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA SOCIAL CRITERIA ECONOMIC CRITERIA Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 122 City of Bozeman, MT Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives IU6 Industrial Water Reuse LEGAL/WATER RIGHTS RANKING This alternative involves utilization of effluent from the Bozeman Water Reclamation Facility (BWRF) to offset water use by customers of the City of Bozeman and/or by water users in the Gallatin Valley that may have an interest is effluent in exchange for a lease of water rights held by that entity that could be used by the City. While water reuse is a common approach in water resource management and is becoming more popular across the US, the State of Montana may require that the City of Bozeman apply for a water right to reuse the water supply, making Water Reuse subject to the same legal conditions as any Water Supply Development Alternative being considered. WATER SUPPLY PLANNING CRITERIA BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND REFERENCES HB 52 Summary Discussion City of Bozeman Effluent Management Plan (EMP) ~ HDR and associated references in this document Discussions with Tom Adams, BWRF Superintendent Montana DEQ Circular-2 Various Nutrient Work Group Meeting Minute and reference documents Water Supply Planning Criteria outlined in IU1 applies to this alternative. However: o There is presently not an industry located in the City of Bozeman, nor any industry actively seeking to locate to the City of Bozeman that may need a significant volume of water supply for industrial purposes. o Even if an industry relocated to the Gallatin Valley, it would likely not have water rights that could be shared with the City with attractive volumes, priority dates, and within a water supply that is consistent with the City’s other potential resources. Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 123 For More Information Contact Brian Heaston: bheaston@bozeman.net (406) 582-2280 At this time, this alternative has no basis for technical determination as there are no industrial water users that fit the parameters to provide a sufficient water supply resource for the City of Bozeman through reuse water and leasing of existing water rights. Environmental criteria are consistent with IU1. Depending on the type of industry, there could be other environmental impacts The social criteria of this alternative are unknown due to lack of an identified industrial entity at this point in time. An Industrial partner would need to be identified to provide an economic evaluation of this alternative. TECHNICAL CRITERIA ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA SOCIAL CRITERIA ECONOMIC CRITERIA Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 124 City of Bozeman, MT Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives IU7 Groundwater Recharge ~ Water Reuse LEGAL/WATER RIGHTS RANKING This alternative involves utilization of effluent from the Bozeman Water Reclamation Facility (BWRF) to mitigate groundwater use by the City of Bozeman in exchange for a City lease of water rights held by that entity. It falls under the “reuse category” due to the fact that the alternative would require that the City discharge to groundwater, then withdraw groundwater nearby for its drinking water supply. The aquifer would serve as “storage”, provide some natural treatment of the effluent, and allow mixing with existing groundwater supplies. The point at which effluent becomes part of the watershed again would need to be more thoroughly defined to determine the feasibility and legal basis of this alternative. The Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) may require an application for a new water right, making this alternative subject to the same legal conditions as any Water Supply Development Alternative being considered. WATER SUPPLY PLANNING CRITERIA BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND REFERENCES HB 52 Summary Discussion City of Bozeman Effluent Management Plan (EMP) ~ HDR and associated references in this document Discussions with Tom Adams, BWRF Superintendent Montana DEQ Circular-2 Various Nutrient Work Group Meeting Minutes and reference documents Water Supply Planning Criteria outlined in IU1 Apply to this alternative. The discharge would likely be subject to groundwater discharge permit limits. Infiltration/Percolation (IP) Beds already have been constructed to the west of the BWRF, but they are in poor condition and would need considerable work to be rehabilitated. Groundwater injection wells could be considered as an alternative technology, with approval from MDEQ. The EMP suggests that the groundwater in this area may not be hydraulically connected to surface water, but no verifiable reference was provided and more study would need to be done to evaluate this potential. Without a confined aquifer, it would be difficult to defend the concept of this water being temporarily held for additional treatment/reuse purposes, which may be the basis by which DNRC and MDEQ approve such an approach. Whether discharged to surface water or discharged to groundwater, the overall net volume of water discharged to the environment would not change. Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 125 For More Information Contact Brian Heaston: bheaston@bozeman.net (406) 582-2280 Many technical criteria have already been outlined in IU1. The BWRF operators have been challenged by the current IP bed design. Other options are available, but groundwater permitting rules in Montana makes these costly alternatives for meeting compliance. The groundwater aquifer essentially acts purely as a storage reservoir that is likely not very capable of securely storing a reliable volume of water. The current IP bed design is also not large enough to handle the full flows of the BWRF, so additional capacity would need to be added. As with all the reuse options, no water is added to the overall watershed. The benefit comes from reuse water offsetting water that would need to otherwise come from somewhere else as the community grows. More people could be served with the same amount of water. More detailed evaluation is necessary to establish volumes of water that could be stored through this approach, infrastructure costs, regulatory requirements, and legal implications. This approach may be the cheapest way to get the water into the system if Class A requirements do not need to be met (EMP proposes Class A), a piping network does not need to be constructed, and water from another location in the aquifer could be directly pumped to a strategically located WTP. Other reuse concepts, such as irrigating local agricultural land, golf courses, and other nearby open spaces could continue to be explored, with lease options for water rights held by the appropriate entities. Environmental Criteria outlined in IU1 are largely applicable to this alternative. While surface water flows could decrease as much as 33 percent during dry conditions (at current discharge volumes), the groundwater supply would receive this as a supplement and the water would likely stay in the local watershed longer. Use of the reuse supply would eventually result in a zero net benefit of water to the watershed. This impact should be evaluated in more detail. Water Reuse has historically struggled with public support. However, trends suggest this sentiment may be changing and many non-potable projects have been implemented across the US. Could be a resource for economic development for industrial users and may be a component of water marketing. May eliminate need for purchasing water rights. EMP Estimates IP Bed Reconstruction to be (2007 dollars): o $2.5M for effluent filters and disinfection for Class A effluent o $500K for effluent storage ponds o $2M for pumping system (designed for City-wide service) o ~ $7M to reconstruct IP Beds o O&M $270K May be more cost effective than a nonpotable delivery system. Leasing of water rights owned by partners may be necessary if some nonpotable uses still want to be considered. Likely not a regional solution Costs may be as much as $14.3M (2012$) + O&M + Water Treatment of groundwater supplies to potable standards. TECHNICAL CRITERIA ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA SOCIAL CRITERIA ECONOMIC CRITERIA Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 126 City of Bozeman, MT Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives WSD1 Sourdough Reservoir LEGAL/WATER RIGHTS RANKING The City of Bozeman holds municipal shares in the Bozeman Creek Reservoir Company at a flowrate of 25 cfs and a volume of 6,000 ac-ft for year round use. This water was originally stored in the Mystic Lake Dam, which was breached in the mid-1980s. The City has studied the construction of a reservoir in the Sourdough drainage to provide storage of these shares since that time. Various legal issues surround this water supply alternative that must be resolved prior to moving forward, including: 1) Verification that the City of Bozeman has shown no intent to abandon this water supply, 2) Establishment of the historical use of the water supply, and 3) Consideration for a change of use to allow the water supply to be more strategically used as a component of another alternative. WATER SUPPLY PLANNING CRITERIA BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND REFERENCES 1999 Feasibility Study Sourdough Creek Dam Project (URS) 2004 Sourdough Creek Watershed Assessment (Bozeman Watershed Council) 2011 Sourdough Creek Reservoir Development Plan (Great West) 1986 Memorandum on City of Bozeman’s Water Rights (Moon) 1978 BznCk Watershed Engineering File (CCS) 1980 BznCk Watershed Preli Investigation Rpt (SCS) 1974 BznCk Field Examination Rpt (SCS) • Current Planning Documents Propose a 6,000 ac-ft Dam o 6000 acre-feet BCRC Share tied to Mystic Lake Dam o Spring Runoff Exemption Potential (New Rights Could be Developed) o Other Rights in Basin Could be Moved to Reservoir o Legal Issues (Noted Above) • High Quality Headwaters Supply, out of same watershed as current treatment plant is designed to treat • Reservoir Construction Results in Stored Rights, Improving Reliability of Supply • Public Accessibility remains to be determined • Susceptible to Forest Fires • Gravitational Delivery through Sourdough Creek directly to the existing WTP Intake • Could be Designed and Constructed at greater volume • Would store water currently utilized in watershed in other ways. Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 127 For More Information Contact Brian Heaston: bheaston@bozeman.net (406) 582-2280 • Access to the proposed site presents construction challenges. • Slope and Seismic Studies completed, Reported high seismicity and unstable slopes; In vicinity of two potentially active faults. Despite this, study identified stable construction sites. • Poses flood risk if dam breaches • Consistent with current utility infrastructure • Limited chance of upstream contamination • Provides second storage reservoir, but may be susceptible to same environmental catastrophes (forest fires) • Some question of available water rights • Feasibility Level Engineering Screening Completed for Sites 1 and 3 in the 1999 Feasibility Study: o It is believed no “fatal flaws” existing environmentally to prevent construction. o agapetus caddisfly concerns. o Field surveys necessary of populace of variety of mammals and plant species. o Class III Inventory will be required. o Willow habitat impacts (moose winter range). • Environmental Compliance Plan completed for 2011 Study • In-stream flows would become managed via Dam Operations. • USFS Special Use Permit Required for Sites 1 and 3 • Delivery to WTP will not require energy and could create energy (hydropower evaluated) • Permitting, EIS, and Easement processes have not started. • Climate impact predictions suggest wetter spring runoff, drier fall. Storage capable of capturing spring runoff could help provide a more resilient supply to climate impacts for Bozeman • Storage generally improves customer service satisfaction in the quality of water delivered • Some risk of flooding due to a dam breach • High quality water supply • 6,000 ac-ft serves approx. 90,000 people, with no new large industrial water users • Public Involvement has been extensive with a strong sentiment towards conservation and continued evaluation of other resources. Recreational value of the Sourdough creek canyon is extremely high. • Capital costs in 2009 are ~ $37 million at Site #1. • The 2011 Report Suggests a range of $50 to $70M for 6,000 acre-ft (Capital) • 1999 Feasibility Study Estimated O&M at $10K/yr • 1999 Feasibility Study Estimated Site 3 as higher cost • City of Bozeman only Financial Contributor through reserves and low interest loan programs. TECHNICAL CRITERIA ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA SOCIAL CRITERIA ECONOMIC CRITERIA Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 128 City of Bozeman, MT Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives WSD10 Brackett Creek Import LEGAL/WATER RIGHTS RANKING Brackett Creek is located in the Bridger Mountain Range and flows to the Yellowstone River Drainage. The legal/water rights issues in Brackett creek are similar to the Yellowstone River, with one distinct difference. Brackett Creek is a much smaller drainage and little is known about the true physical availability of water under this alternative. Delivery of this water supply would involve piping the water from Brackett Creek into Bridger Creek. It may require legislative approval and come with objections to current water rights owners. At this point in time, it does not appear to be closed, but there are a number of water rights already existing for agricultural activities, local residences, and stock water. WATER SUPPLY PLANNING CRITERIA BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND REFERENCES Previous to this study effort, this alternative has not been considered or studied as a potential water supply for the City of Bozeman. Limited information is available and it is beyond the scope of this preliminary study effort to complete an extensive technical evaluation of this alternative. • It is anticipated that Brackett Creek could be treated to acceptable drinking water standards. • The water quality is anticipated to be good quality and there are a couple noted springs that are used by the Bureau of Land Management for stock and wildlife watering purposes. • The susceptibility of the water supply to contamination would be primarily due to forest fire potential, but is does provide redundancy to the sourdough/hyalite drainage from this perspective. • There is not enough information to determine the resiliency of the supply or the stability of the supply. • USGS flow gauge information is not available to determine minimum flow information. • A study has not been completed to evaluate the available water rights on the Yellowstone River. • Raw water storage may still be needed to assure a stable and reliable supply. • Seniority in water rights may be an issue. Additional study effort is necessary to confirm. Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 129 For More Information Contact Brian Heaston: bheaston@bozeman.net (406) 582-2280 • Surface water treatment technologies would be necessary. • The intake could be located in a way to minimize the raw water delivery infrastructure. Some pumping would be necessary, but the majority of delivery could occur naturally, via Bridger Creek. • An evaluation of available water rights and water supply yields would need to be conducted to confirm adequate supplies through planning horizons. • Provides redundancy. • Difficult Digging Conditions Could be Encountered. • Would Require Approximately 5 miles of Pipeline to Connect Brackett Creek to Bridger Creek along Bridger Canyon Road. • The anticipated infrastructure for this project will have limited impacts on the environment. • Instream flows impacts on Brackett and Bridger Creeks would need to be evaluated. • Pumping and energy costs of this alternative will exist, but would need to be studied to determine the true impacts. • Climate impacts could impact this supply in a similar manner to predictions for Sourdough and Hyalite Drainages. • More study is needed. • Potential for classification as intrabasin transfer. • Public support for this alternative has not been tested. • Public support would also need to consider water users in the Yellowstone River Watershed. • It is anticipated a project, if constructed would satisfy public health and safety and customer satisfaction criteria. • More study is needed to determine the potential for growth and expanding this right for future needs. • Given the need to apply for a water right in the Yellowstone, the appeal of this project regionally may be less desirable than other import alternatives. • Infrastructure costs are not known, but may not be the limiting factor in this alternative. Infrastructure and O&M may be within reasonable thresholds. However, the physical availability of enough supply to meet the City’s needs, along with providing a flexible supply into the future are concerns with this alternative. TECHNICAL CRITERIA ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA SOCIAL CRITERIA ECONOMIC CRITERIA Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 130 Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 131 Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 132 Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 133 Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 134 City of Bozeman, MT Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives WSD3A Madison Aquifer Groundwater LEGAL/WATER RIGHTS RANKING Withdrawal of water from the Madison Aquifer may be possible above the existing Bozeman Water Treatment Plant (WTP) in the Sourdough Canyon. The determination of supply interconnectivity to the surface water system is one that has not been determined. If the source were ultimately deemed “unconnected”, it could be considered a new supply and new rights could be developed. Loss of watershed runoff to the aquifer has been documented. Springs have been identified that supply water to watershed, but the source has not been definitively qualified as the Madison Aquifer. Low cost solutions may exist to capture some portion of needed water rights at this source, but not enough work has been completed to determine true feasibility. WATER SUPPLY PLANNING CRITERIA BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND REFERENCES  Madison Aquifer Study ~ Karin Kirk Thesis, MSU  Sourdough Creek Estimated to Lose 2,600 ac-ft/year to the Madison Aquifer out of the Sourdough Creek Drainage  Two Springs exist in the Sourdough Drainage, but it was unable to be determined if these were truly Madison Aquifer fed springs.  An attempt to identify Aquifer recharge points in the Hyalite, Sourdough, and Bear Creek watersheds was made. Hyalite has three springs, but not enough information is known about them to determine their source.  Well drilling was recommended at a minimum depth of 460 ft to over 2000 feet near Mystic Lake to determine the extents of the Madison Aquifer  Water quality was measured at Two Springs, which met water quality standards, excluding Total Coliforms.  Drilling locations in Hyalite and Bear Creek Watersheds were also noted with advantages and disadvantages of each.  Depth to the water suggested energy costs to pump water could be significant.  An alternate solution to drilling, involving piping across the areas where Sourdough Creek is losing 2,600 ac-ft/yr was proposed. Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 135 For More Information Contact Brian Heaston: bheaston@bozeman.net (406) 582-2280  Study Area located above WTP and within watersheds that deliver water to existing system already.  Accessibility to various drilling sites noted as a challenge in reporting documents.  Water quality samples have been collected, but how representative of desired aquifer should be studied further.  Madison Aquifer Extends beneath 8 States and is a very deep and active aquifer. Depth to solid water supply would need to be studied further.  Concept of bridging water losses to aquifer may result in 2,600 ac-ft/year of new water.  Interconnectivity issue not well defined.  Wells have limited impact on land and wildlife.  Deep, expansive aquifer likely robust when considering climate impacts.  Pumping, possibly from great depths could be required to extract adequate groundwater supplies to be delivered into surface water delivery system.  Small infrastructure footprint within existing delivery system with limited impacts to recreational and environmental characteristics of watershed.  Without more information on water supply characteristics, it is uncertain of whether the quality and volume of water is available to meet the social criteria identified.  Without more information on quality, volume of water, and physical characteristics of water supply, financial implications are difficult to predict. TECHNICAL CRITERIA ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA SOCIAL CRITERIA ECONOMIC CRITERIA Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 136 City of Bozeman, MT Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives WSD3B Belgrade Subarea Groundwater LEGAL/WATER RIGHTS RANKING The Gallatin Valley is a closed basin with requirements that new groundwater rights must demonstrate that there is no interconnectivity with surface water. The burden of proof is on the applicant and a successful application demonstrating that a specific groundwater source is not connected to surface water has not been completed to date. Studies completed by the Bureau of Mines have suggested that a “disconnected” aquifer does not exist. Mitigation of groundwater use through surface water recharge is a possible approach. Utility Solutions, a private water utility serving the Four Corners area of the Gallatin Valley has successfully used this approach to provide a drinking water supply to its customers. WATER SUPPLY PLANNING CRITERIA BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND REFERENCES Tom Michalek References • Groundwater in the Belgrade subarea is presently utilized for water supply by the City of Belgrade, the Town of Manhattan, and also several rural developments. • The water in this area is primarily shallow aquifer and interconnected to the surface water system. • Crop irrigation has a significant impact on late season recharge and changing land use will negatively impact shallow aquifer characteristics. • Water quality information suggests water generally meets current groundwater standards. • Degraded water quality due to septic system impacts has been noted as a concern, but not thoroughly documented. • The City of Belgrade currently holds a groundwater discharge permit for its lagoon treated wastewater facility. • The impacts of a significant, new withdrawal in the Belgrade Subarea has not been studied to the extent necessary to draw quantitative conclusions on viability of this water supply to meet the ranking criteria for this category. • Interconnectivity suggests that water cannot be stored with certainty in this area of the aquifer. To have no impact, water may need to be pumped into the groundwater supply reasonably close to the withdrawal site making recharge infrastructure a component of this alternative. Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 137 For More Information Contact Brian Heaston: bheaston@bozeman.net (406) 582-2280 • Construction of a well field in the Gallatin Valley is technically feasible from a constructability standpoint. • Septic and permitted groundwater discharges for municipal wastewater facilities may have a negative impact on water quality in the Belgrade Subarea, particular contaminants of concern include elevated nitrates and endocrine disruptors (not regulated, but on the EPA target list). • The Belgrade Subarea is a farther distance from the existing WTP. However, the water supply may not need to be treated pending blending analysis. • Water could be delivered to the Bozeman distribution system through the Lyman Creek infrastructure, which would require some pump station and distribution system optimization. • Provided that water rights and a mitigation approach acceptable to DNRC can be developed for the desired water supply, this alternative could meet the 30- and 50- year planning criteria. • A well field would likely have very limited direct impacts on wildlife and the natural surrounding environment. • Mitigating the withdrawals with water from other areas of the watershed could have consequences on in-stream flows, water quality, and the environment. • The interconnected nature suggests that this groundwater resource would be impacted by climate but not to the extent of a surface water supply. • A well field does require pumping, which can be optimized through design. In some cases, pumping is less energy intensive than treatment. A more indepth evaluation would be needed to establish this relationship. • In general, a well field and groundwater source would likely be supported by the community of Bozeman, but may not be supported by other communities or water rights holders that already use these resources. • Water marketing/leasing could be a mechanism for sustaining water resources in this alternative, instead of purchasing and changing the use of existing rights. It could allow this alternative to be expanded beyond the rights the City may be able to move to a well field that are presently owned by the City. • This could be an interim solution strategically planned to be part of a regional approach. Other groundwater users may be interested in collaborating on this solution. • Additional study is needed to establish viability of this alternative, but the closed basin nature and economic importance to Montana of the Gallatin Valley could drive State assistance in evaluating this alternative further. TECHNICAL CRITERIA ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA SOCIAL CRITERIA ECONOMIC CRITERIA Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 138 City of Bozeman, MT Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives WSD3C Gallatin Gateway Subarea Groundwater LEGAL/WATER RIGHTS RANKING The Gallatin Valley is a closed basin with requirements that new groundwater rights must demonstrate that there is no interconnectivity with surface water. The burden of proof is on the applicant and a successful application demonstrating that a specific groundwater source is not connected to surface water has not been completed to date. Studies completed by the Bureau of Mines have suggested that a “disconnected” aquifer does not exist. Mitigation of groundwater use through surface water recharge is a possible approach. Utility Solutions, a private water utility serving the Four Corners area of the Gallatin Valley has successfully used this approach to provide a drinking water supply to its customers. WATER SUPPLY PLANNING CRITERIA BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND REFERENCES Tom Michalek References • Groundwater in the Gallatin Gateway subarea is presently utilized for water supply by Utility Solutions and may serve as a supply for other rural developments and water districts in the future. • Two aquifers exist, including the shallow aquifer and a deep aquifer, but evidence of interconnectivity for both to surface water is available. • Crop irrigation has a significant impact on late season recharge and changing land use will negatively impact aquifer characteristics. • Water quality information suggests water generally meets current groundwater standards. • While this subarea is not as well developed as the Belgrade subarea, significant growth has occurred since the 1999 study and degraded water quality due to septic system impacts is possible, but not thoroughly documented. • The impacts of a significant, new withdrawal in the Gallatin Gateway Subarea has not been studied to the extent necessary to draw quantitative conclusions on viability of this water supply to meet the water supply planning ranking criteria. • Aquifer storage may be better in this subarea as part of the deep aquifer system, but more study would be necessary to determine this. Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 139 For More Information Contact Brian Heaston: bheaston@bozeman.net (406) 582-2280 • Construction of a well field in the Gallatin Valley is technically feasible from a constructability standpoint. • Septic and permitted groundwater discharges for municipal wastewater facilities may have a negative impact on water quality. Particular contaminants of concern include elevated nitrates and endocrine disruptors (not regulated, but on the EPA target list). • While closer to the existing WTP and water supply delivery system than the Belgrade Subarea, this system is farther from Manhattan and Belgrade. The water supply may not need to be treated pending blending analysis. • Provided water rights and a mitigation approach acceptable to DNRC can be developed for the desired water supply, this alternative could meet the 30- and 50-year planning criteria. • A well field would likely have very limited direct impacts on wildlife and the natural surrounding environment. • Mitigating the withdrawals with water from other areas of the watershed could have consequences on in-stream flows, water quality, and the environment. • The interconnected nature suggests that a groundwater resource would by impacted by climate, although probably not to the extent of a surface water supply. • A well field does require pumping, which can be optimized through design. In some cases, pumping is less energy intensive than treatment. A more indepth evaluation would be needed to establish this relationship. • In general, a well field and groundwater source would likely be supported by the community of Bozeman, but may not be supported by other communities or water rights holders that already use these resources. • Water marketing/leasing could be a mechanism for sustaining water resources in this alternative, instead of purchasing and changing the use of existing rights. It could allow this alternative to be expanded beyond the rights the City may be able to move to a well field that are presently owned by the City. • This could be an interim solution strategically planned to be part of a regional approach. Other groundwater users may be interested in collaborating on this solution. • Additional study is needed to establish viability of this alternative, but the closed basin nature and economic importance to Montana of the Gallatin Valley could drive State assistance in evaluating this alternative further. TECHNICAL CRITERIA ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA SOCIAL CRITERIA ECONOMIC CRITERIA Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 140 City of Bozeman, MT Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives WSD4 Yellowstone River Import LEGAL/WATER RIGHTS RANKING The Yellowstone River is an open basin and as such, new water right applications can be made. Although a detailed analysis of water rights in the Yellowstone River Basin has not been done previous to this effort and would need to be completed, the amount of water the City of Bozeman is seeking is not anticipated to be so great that the Yellowstone River could not support it. This supply serves as the municipal drinking water supply for the City of Livingston, approximately 30 miles to the East and over the Bozeman Pass from the City of Bozeman. Objections may be expressed by current water right holders and the City’s right would be the most junior on the river. The need for legislative approval should be evaluated. WATER SUPPLY PLANNING CRITERIA BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND REFERENCES Previous to this study effort, the Yellowstone River has not been considered or studied as a potential water supply for the City of Bozeman. Limited information is available and it is beyond the scope of this preliminary study effort to complete an extensive technical evaluation of this alternative.  The use of this supply for municipal drinking water is not a new idea. It can be treated to municipal drinking water standards via typical surface water treatment technologies.  The water supply is an open basin and the Yellowstone River has large flows even during drought conditions.  A study has not been completed to evaluate the available water rights on the Yellowstone River.  This supply would provide a redundant source and although storage on the river is not available upstream, flows are so great that it may not matter. Additional study effort is necessary to confirm. Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 141 For More Information Contact Brian Heaston: bheaston@bozeman.net (406) 582-2280  The Yellowstone River is already used as a water supply for municipal service.  Surface water treatment technologies would be necessary.  A raw water intake, pipeline, and pumping infrastructure would need to be constructed over Bozeman Pass.  Significant elevation impacts would present design and operational challenges.  An evaluation of available water rights and water supply yields would need to be conducted to confirm adequate supplies through planning horizons.  Provides redundancy.  Difficult Digging Conditions Could be Encountered.  The anticipated infrastructure for this project will have limited impacts on the environment.  Instream flows and TMDLs on the Yellowstone River are unlikely to be significantly impacted due to the City’s needs.  Pumping and energy costs of this alternative could be considerable given the elevation that must be overcome.  The potential for climate impacts that would compromise supply is limited based on available volume.  Permitting and easements could likely be attained over time and the piping route, while terrain challenged, is relatively open.  More study is needed.  Potential for classification as intrabasin transfer.  Public support for this alternative has not been tested.  Public support would also need to consider water users in the Yellowstone River Watershed.  It is anticipated a project, if constructed would satisfy public health and safety and customer satisfaction criteria.  Dual pipelines may be warranted to provide redundancy and limit supply interruption.  More study is needed to determine the potential for growth and expanding this right for future needs.  Other Gallatin Valley water users could be interested in participating in a project. However, given the terrain issues and need to apply for a water right in the Yellowstone, the appeal of this project regionally may be less desirable than other import alternatives.  Infrastructure costs would likely be greater than an import option from the head of the Missouri River due to cost of construction over the Bozeman Pass. O&M would also be more significant due to pumping costs over the pass. TECHNICAL CRITERIA ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA SOCIAL CRITERIA ECONOMIC CRITERIA Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 142 City of Bozeman, MT Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives WSD5 Adjacent Drainage Development LEGAL/WATER RIGHTS RANKING Adjacent Drainage Development would involve identifying a drainage (Bear Creek, Bridger Creek, Cottonwood Creek, etc) where water rights could be purchased and transferred to the City of Bozeman water utility infrastructure in some manner (pipeline, canals, etc.). There are technically many options that could be evaluated as part of this alternative, but because these drainages are all included in the Closed Basin area, they would be subject to the same legal and water rights development scrutiny as other in-basin options. Factors that could impact the viability of these rights include historical use, irrigation versus municipal rights, unknown firm yield information, system leakage losses (if transferred via canal), etc. WATER SUPPLY PLANNING CRITERIA BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND REFERENCES • City of Bozeman Integrated Water Resources Plan ~ Water Rights Report ~ Water Rights Solutions, Inc • Storage in the Adjacent Drainages is not available. • Flows are similar to Bozeman Creek and Middle Creek and could face firm yield issues without storage. • Water quality is anticipated to be similar to Bozeman Creek and Middle Creek. • Estimated available water based on paper rights by drainage: Drainage Pre 1880 (Ac-ft) Total (Ac-ft) At Firm Yield? Bear Creek 244 758 ? Big Bear Creek 1,963 10,741 ? Bridger Creek 309 1,089 ? Hyalite Creek 8,926 31,109 Likely Limestone Creek 124 247 ? Little Bear Creek - 123 ? Little Bridger Creek - 107 ? Sourdough Creek 2,347 5,346 Yes TOTAL (Ac-ft) 13,913 49,520 Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 143 For More Information Contact Brian Heaston: bheaston@bozeman.net (406) 582-2280 • Depending on which drainage and where in the drainage the rights are available, the technical challenges vary considerably. • In general, pumping infrastructure will likely be necessary • The potential for available rights to meet planning criteria at 30- and 50-years depends on the availability of willing sellers. The total pre-1880 rights from all of the drainages doesn’t meet the 15,500 ac-ft planning criteria established. • The only drainage with enough potential rights to meet 5,000 ac-ft needs is Hyalite Creek meaning water from multiple drainages would need to be obtained. • Energy required to get water to the City of Bozeman would vary with alternative approach and drainage. • Climate impacts are anticipated to be consistent with Sourdough drainage at present, without construction of storage component. • Storage approaches could impact environment similar to other storage options. • Instream flows and TMDL impacts should be further evaluated as municipal use would vary from irrigation use and could impact overall Gallatin watershed. • Public Support for these options may echo sentiments associated with Sourdough Reservoir project. • Irrigation water rights holders would need to be consulted to determine support for this type of project due to impacts on irrigation water sources. • Water marketing could be an option if focused on one specific drainage such as Hyalite Creek. • Overall lack of excessive rights to sustain all uses in the Gallatin Valley via these drainages may result in water supplies limiting growth. • Since alternatives within this alternative could vary significantly, costs could vary significantly as well. • Seeking water rights in multiple drainages will likely result in significantly higher costs, overall. • It is unlikely this solution could support a regional project, at least on its own. • Water rights attained via this type of alternative could be a component of a solution if they could be used as mitigation water for groundwater alternatives. TECHNICAL CRITERIA ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA SOCIAL CRITERIA ECONOMIC CRITERIA Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 144 City of Bozeman, MT Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives WSD6 Canal Company Impoundment LEGAL/WATER RIGHTS RANKING At present, the most likely solution to a Canal Company Impoundment involves the Salar Project, located in the Gallatin Gateway area, which involves construction of a reservoir on property that has two separate canal systems within its boundaries. The current approach proposed by the Salar project involves canal company leasing of water rights estimated at around 2,700 ac-ft. In this type of arrangement, the City would negotiate directly with other water rights holders and avoid the need to apply to the DNRC for changes to existing or purchased water rights. Viability hinges on canal company willingness to participate. The Salar project is presently held by a private entity and could be purchased by the City if desired. WATER SUPPLY PLANNING CRITERIA BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND REFERENCES • Salar Project Files and Presentations • Site Visit and Personal Communications with Project Representatives • Extensive study and planning has been completed to confirm the constructability of an impoundment at this location. • The impoundment could be used in a variety of ways. • A well field could also be constructed and additional water supplies from the canal could be used for recharge similar to the Utility Solutions approach. • Water quality from the canal would be worse quality than current source, but treatable to drinking water standards. • The canal system is relatively open to contamination points, but water treatment would be required to meet drinking water standards anyway. The type of treatment or impacts to treatment cost could go up. • The water could be used as mitigation water for other sources. • Like others, there are several alternatives within this one alternative. This alternative, however, has been very well studied and documented, including various sub- alternatives and many of the conversations and coordination has already begun by Salar Project representatives. • Other impoundments could be possible with other canal companies, but interest has not been expressed. Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 145 For More Information Contact Brian Heaston: bheaston@bozeman.net (406) 582-2280 • Extensive technical evaluation of this alternative has been completed to demonstrate technical feasibility, provided successful negotiations with canal companies could take place. • There is some concern that the existing project would not be able to meet the full planning needs of the City of Bozeman (5,000 ac-ft). It is unlikely the project could meet 15,500 ac-ft. • Various approaches could allow this project to be part of an overall solution to water supply challenges. • Depending on how the property and water supply system is developed, energy needs could vary. Utilization of the canal system to deliver the water to various locations across the Valley would be relatively low cost. • The canal systems likely lose a considerable amount of water and determination of carrying losses would need to be completed. • Stored water is more resilient to climate impacts and if spring runoff is stored, the climate study predicts spring runoff should increase making storage a good climate resiliency solution. • The agricultural land has been previously disturbed. Project will likely have limited environmental impacts. • Instream flows and TMDLs could be impacted positively if water is used to mitigate other withdrawals, but this will depend on how this alternative is ultimately developed. • Provided successful canal company negotiations can take place, this project is likely to be seen favorably by the public. • The project may not provide enough water to allow for progressive development, and high customer satisfaction by itself. • Project would require municipal and agricultural users to work collaboratively and fit the concept of water marketing. Other organizational and managerial approaches to the currently proposed strategy could be explored. • Considerable cost information has been developed on this alternative for both capital and operation and maintenance. • Ownership of infrastructure and cost sharing has yet to be developed. • Regional collaboration could be possible; however, the quantity of available water may not make this strategic. • Outside funding development would be a challenge. • Public/private partnership could be explored. • $16,500 NPV/Ac-ft stored, for fully treated and conveyed water supply based on current assumptions, which could be changed. TECHNICAL CRITERIA ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA SOCIAL CRITERIA ECONOMIC CRITERIA Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 146 City of Bozeman, MT Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives WSD7 Sourdough Pond Storage LEGAL/WATER RIGHTS RANKING The City of Bozeman holds municipal shares in the Bozeman Creek Reservoir Company at a flowrate of 25 cfs and a volume of 6,000 ac-ft for year round use. This water was originally stored in the Mystic Lake Dam, which was breached in the mid-1980s. The City has studied the construction of a reservoir in the Sourdough drainage to provide storage of these shares since that time. Various legal issues surround this water supply alternative that must be resolved prior to moving forward, including: 1) Verification that the City of Bozeman has shown no intent to abandon this water supply, 2) Establishment of the historical use of the water supply, and 3) Consideration for a change of use to allow the water supply to be more strategically used as a component of another alternative. WATER SUPPLY PLANNING CRITERIA BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND REFERENCES Similar to WSD1, but not studied in detail in past. Involves construction of small ponds throughout Sourdough Creek Drainage to store smaller quantities of water in multiple locations. This option was proposed as it may be more cost effective to construct, more supported by the public, and have less impacts on the environment. However, no studies have been completed to verify this potential. Current Planning Documents Propose a 6,000 ac-ft Dam o 6000 acre-feet BCRC Share tied to Mystic Lake Dam o Spring Runoff Exemption Potential (New Rights Could be Developed) o Other Rights in Basin Could be Moved to Drainage o Total could be split between small storage ponds throughout Drainage. High Quality Headwaters Supply, out of same watershed as current treatment plant is designed to treat Small ponds provide some storage, improving reliability of supply Susceptible to Forest Fires Gravitational Delivery through Sourdough Creek directly to the existing WTP Intake Would store water currently utilized in watershed in other ways. Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 147 For More Information Contact Brian Heaston: bheaston@bozeman.net (406) 582-2280 Access to the proposed site presents construction challenges. Small pond construction sites have not been identified and potential for enough sites to properly design holding ponds and appropriate control structures to serve City is unknown Consistent with current utility infrastructure Limited chance of upstream contamination Provides secondary storage to Hyalite Reservoir, but may be susceptible to same environmental catastrophes (forest fires) Some question of available water rights Operating plan for multiple smaller ponds could be challenging. Similar Environmental Issues to the Sourdough Reservoir could be associated with this alternative as well. Smaller ponds may have fewer impacts on the impacted land area. Smaller ponds may be able to take advantage of natural topography and be less susceptible to failure. Smaller ponds could impact more distance of the drainage than one large reservoir. USFS Special Use Permit(s) would be required for sites on USFS land Delivery to WTP will not require energy Permitting, EIS, and Easement processes have not started. Climate impact predictions suggest wetter spring runoff, drier fall. Storage capable of capturing spring runoff could help provide a more resilient supply to climate impacts for Bozeman More evaluation of the feasibility of this option in providing a reliable water supply is needed. Would likely not be capable of serving high growth scenario without other alternatives. Public support may be stronger as existing recreational uses may be more sustainable. However, additional study is needed to determine the accuracy of this statement. Costs are unknown at this time for both capital and O&M. City of Bozeman only Financial Contributor through reserves and low interest loan programs. TECHNICAL CRITERIA ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA SOCIAL CRITERIA ECONOMIC CRITERIA Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 148 City of Bozeman, MT Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives WSD8 Hyalite Share Purchasing LEGAL/WATER RIGHTS RANKING The City of Bozeman owns 5,652 ac-ft of shares in Hyalite Reservoir which is reduced to 4,521 ac-ft due to a 20% shrinkage factor applied across the system. Total shares in the reservoir are 10,184 ac-ft, (applying the shrinkage factor, the available water supply is 8,147 ac-ft, leaving 3,626 ac-ft of supply the City does not own). It may be possible to reduce the shrinkage factor or eliminate it entirely if the City were to acquire all of the rights in the reservoir or shift its municipal uses to outside the irrigation season. Potential concerns with this alternative include the willingness of present share holders to sell shares from the reservoir, the potential for modifying the shrinkage factor, and establishment of the strategic volume of water the City should seek from the reservoir. WATER SUPPLY PLANNING CRITERIA BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND REFERENCES http://dnrc.mt.gov/wrd/water_proj/factsheets/middlecreek_factsheet.pdf Due to the fact that this water resource is the current 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. Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 149 For More Information Contact Brian Heaston: bheaston@bozeman.net (406) 582-2280 This alternative does not provide a redundant water supply. Unless the shrinkage factor can be eliminated, this alternative does not meet the 50-year water supply planning criteria of 5,000 additional ac-ft. No or minimal construction is necessary to utilize the water. Purchase of the rights will make it immediately available to the City. Utilization of purchased shares requires no additional energy. The canal systems used by the irrigation share holders likely lose a considerable amount of water. Additionally irrigation water is a significant late season source of recharge for the groundwater supply. Using these water supplies for municipal use could have some environmental consequences, accordingly. Stored water is more resilient to climate impacts than free flowing supplies. Use of the water for municipal purpose could change the operations of the dam due to use on an annual basis instead of seasonal, and the potential for more continuous fluctuations in reservoir level. The impacts to TMDLs and Instream Flows of modified reservoir use have not been evaluated. This alternative would be well supported by the users of the water system of the City of Bozeman. Public support from other share holders may present a challenge. This alternative, by itself, may limit large industrial water users from considering Bozeman as a potential location for establishing business. This alternative, by itself, would make it difficult to allow growth to happen independent of the need for adequate water supplies. The City is currently assessing a fee of $6,000 per ac-ft to developers in lieu of providing water rights necessary to serve new developments via City services. The cost of purchasing shares from Hyalite Reservoir is a cost that must be negotiated between the purchaser and seller. TECHNICAL CRITERIA ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA SOCIAL CRITERIA ECONOMIC CRITERIA Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 150 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. WATER SUPPLY PLANNING CRITERIA BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND REFERENCES http://dnrc.mt.gov/wrd/water_proj/factsheets/middlecreek_factsheet.pdf Kevin Smith Correspondence Due to the fact that this water resource is a current 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. Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 151 For More Information Contact Brian Heaston: bheaston@bozeman.net (406) 582-2280 This alternative does not provide a redundant water supply. The dam has not been evaluated to determine whether raising it again is technically feasible. Or reconstructing the entire dam would be necessary. Dam improvements may be necessary in the future. The raise could be coordinated with improvements work. Capacity of a new dam has not been evaluated, but this alternative would likely be constructed to the greatest capacity possible. Considerable environmental assessment would be necessary for this type of a project, similar to what could be expected for a Sourdough Reservoir project. Arctic Grayling has been identified as a species to be listed as a High Priority for listing on the Endangered Species Act and any negative impacts would need to be addressed. Due to the fact that a dam is already there, a dam raise could have less environmental impacts than constructing a new dam in an alternate drainage. More study would be required to determine this. Public Support for this alternative has not been measured at this point. As with other mountain reservoirs, failure of this reservoir could have public safety concerns associated with a flood event. The reservoir does not provide a redundant supply, so in the event that the water quality is compromised or the dam fails, the City would immediately lose a major component of its water supply. If a project of this magnitude is completed, it is likely that it would be constructed with consideration for future growth needs. Likewise, acquisition of existing shares could increase the total available water supply from this one source. The cost to raise Hyalite Reservoir in the early 1990s was over $5 million dollars in capital costs. This project would require at least double the height increase of the 1990s project and perhaps complete replacement of the dam. If new water supply cannot be acquired through runoff increases, this alternative may also require the purchase of some amount of water rights, which is currently established at $6,000 per ac-ft for planning purposes. (Is City OK with this??) O&M of the Hyalite Reservoir would likely not change significantly with a dam raise. Raising HyaliteDam may or may not be a project eligible for outside funding and may or may not be a viable solution for a regional project. More study would be necessary to determine project feasibility. TECHNICAL CRITERIA ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA SOCIAL CRITERIA ECONOMIC CRITERIA Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 152 Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record153 Laura Ziemer Kerri Strasheim Tammy Crone Rick Moroney Peter Skidmore Gretchen Rupp Alan English Walt SalesTAC MEANTAC Std. Dev.OutliersCategories of Evaluation CriteriaWeight (%) Weight (%) Weight (%)Weight (%) Weight (%) Weight (%) Weight (%) Weight (%)Technical Criteria1020152010302020186.50Environmental Criteria25203550351025202812.20Social Criteria102020105101515135.30Economic Criteria2520150402015201911.20Water Supply Criteria3020152010302525227.00Total (must equal 100%)1001001001001001001001001000.0Technical CriteriaConstructability20151510551520135.90Regulations and Drinking Water Quality Impacts201515301552015177.00Existing Infrastructure Compatability205151010302010158.00Water Re‐use5101510150101095.00Water Supply Redundancy152015102551510146.20Meets 30‐year Planning Horizon Targets152015300505151915.50Meets 50‐year Planning Horizon Targets5151003051520139.60Total (must equal 100%)1001001001001001001001001000.0Environmental CriteriaClean Water Act Compliance (TMDLs)2020201010101515154.60In‐stream Flow Maintenance2015203025201520215.00Permitting, Environmental Impact Statements, and Easements102020105202020166.20Energy Generation and Carbon Footprint2020151030201020186.50Climate Impacts Resiliency2020101010202015165.00General Environmental Impacts (Wildlife, Forested Areas)105153020102010158.00Total (must equal 100%)1001001001001001001001001000.0Social CriteriaCustomer Service Satisfaction1520202515102020184.60Public Health and Safety2020252520152025213.50Quality of Life Impacts102015255152010156.50Overall Public Support20152025305020102412.21Economic Development and Growth15151001051015105.30Water Marketing and Leasing ‐ Maintain Ag Rights20101002051020127.50Total (must equal 100%)1001001001001001001001001000.0Economic CriteriaMagnitude of Capital Investment per Acre‐Ft of Developable Supply30203015501025302612.20Relative Operation and Maintenance Costs (including energy req's)30202515205025302710.70Eligibility for Outside Funding53010 10 0 20 20 10 13 9.61Economy of Scale Impacts51515101501515115.80Delay of Infrastrucutre to Encourage Growth to Pay for Growth30152050152015152312.21Total (must equal 100%)1001001001001001001001001000.0Water Supply CriteriaReliability and Control of Water Supply (degree of certainty)2030302010202020216.40Initial Water Quality of Water Supply1510101010102020134.60Risk of Water Supply to Contamination/Sabotage1520101525101510155.30Proximity of Water Supply2015152020201515182.70Storage Volume Potential151515200201015146.40Potential Impacts to the Water Resource1510201535202020197.31Total (must equal 100%)1001001001001001001001001000Red values identify outliers.  Defined as +/‐ 2 Std Deviations from MeanExhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record154 IWRP TAC MEETING #3 CITY OF BOZEMAN Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting #3 November 2012 ~ 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 155 Meeting Agenda Conservation Planning Review (Handout) Best in the West Conservation Overview (Handout) Water Rights Management Water Supply Delivery Nodes Alternatives Review and Refinement Ranking Criteria Approach TAC Input on Technical Criteria TAC Meeting #4 Schedule and Agenda TAC Meeting #3 Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 156 HANDOUT PACKET For TAC Independent Review •Draft Water Conservation Plan •Best Performance Water Conservation •Water Supply Delivery Nodes Figure •Revised List of Alternatives and Descriptions for Evaluation •Ranking Criteria Table and Scoring Approach Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 157 PLANNING CRITERIA Physically Available Supply (Firm Yield Analysis): Source Documented Annual Water Right (ac-ft) Pre-Project Firm Yield Supply (ac-ft) 2012 Firm Yield 2042 Firm Yield 2062 Firm Yield Sourdough Creek (aka Bozeman Creek) 4,800 3,734 3,633 3,491 3,277 Hyalite Creek (aka Middle Creek) 1,631 1,526 1,489 1,436 1,360 Hyalite Reservoir 5,652 4,295 4,521 4,521 4,521 Total at WTP 12,083 9,555 9,643 9,447 9,158 Sourdough Storage Reservation 609 609 609 609 609 Lyman Creek 4,346 1,280 1,790 1,790 1,790 Total With Reservation 17,038 11,444 12,042 11,846 11,557 Total Without Reservation 16,429 10,835 11,433 11,237 10,948 Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 158 Integrated Planning Process PORTFOLIO OF SOLUTIONS APPROACH Water Conservation and System Efficiency: 12.1% Planning Goal New Water Supply Development Water Rights Management Water Reuse Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 159 PLANNING CRITERIA Physical Needs Without Conservation With Conservation (12.1%) Item Description 2042 2062 2042 2062 Climate Adjusted Water Demand (gpcd) 174 189 153 166 Moderate Population Projection 70,256 85,725 70,256 85,725 Climate Adjusted Water Demand (acre-ft) 13,700 18,150 12,041 15,941 Climate Adjusted Firm Yield Supply (acre-ft) 11,240 10,950 11,240 10,950 Water Balance Gap (Supply versus Demand) (acre-ft) 2,460 7,200 801 4,991 High Population Projection 94,144 139,900 94,144 139,900 Climate Adjusted Water Demand (acre-ft) 18,350 29,620 16,136 26,015 Climate Adjusted Firm Yield Supply (acre-ft) 11,240 10,950 11,240 10,950 Water Balance Gap (Supply versus Demand) (acre-ft) 7,110 18,620 4,896 15,065 50-Year Water Supply Planning: Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 160 •Strategic Plan ~ September 2012: –16,000 Students by 2019 ~ 2% Growth per year •Current Water Use = 170 MGY for 14,000 Students = 33.3 gal/student/day •2019 water demand could be 194 MGY or 75 Acre-ft/yr •Additional 12.5 % Conservation Maintains Current Use •MSU Conservation Initiatives: –Cooling System Improvements –MSU Family Housing Irrigation Project (100 ac-ft) •Don’t have the Water Right ~ May need new Hyalite Shares –Water Use Reduction Plan for Student Housing Could be More Robust •Continued Growth at 2% per Year through 2042 –25,000 students by 2042 –304 MGY @ 33.3 gal/student/day ~ Additional 411 Ac-ft/yr –266 MGY with Conservation of 12.5% ~ Additional 295 Ac-ft/yr MSU PLANNING CRITERIA Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 161 RECOMMENDATION •Develop a Conservation Program for 12.1% Demand Reduction by 2022, with 5-Year Updates •Create a Portfolio of Implementable Projects for Incorporation into a Capital Plan for Around 5,500 Acre-ft •Portfolio Shall Allow for Flexibility to Increase the water supply to 15,500 ac-ft, if needed Picture Courtesy of National Geographic Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 162 Conservation Measures Public Education Programs System Efficiency Indoor Res/Comm./Govt. Water Conservation Outdoor Res/Comm./Govt. Water Conservation Large User Conservation Policy Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 163 TOILET REBATE PROGRAM •Current Program: –$125 / Toilet for pre-1996 Toilets –$50 / Toilet for post 1996 Toilets –Started in 2008 –Average cost of High Efficiency (HE) Toilet = $160.00 •Performance Statistics: –772 Toilets have been replaced –733 pre-1996 and 39 post 1996 –Assumptions: •4 flushes per capita per day •2.11 ppl per household (2010 census) •HE toilets 1.6 gallons per flush (gpf) versus 3.5 gpf for old toilets –6,190 gal/day savings related to program –6.93 ac-ft per year –Cost of Program to date has been $93,575 or $13,500/ ac-ft –Customer Payback w/out Rebate at current rates = 8.6 years –Customer Payback with Rebate at current rates = 1.9 years Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 164 TOILET REBATE PROGRAM ~ Using Alliance for Water Efficiency •Current Program: –$125 / Toilet for pre-1996 Toilets –$50 / Toilet for post 1996 Toilets –Started in 2008 –Average cost of High Efficiency (HE) Toilet = $160.00 •Performance Statistics: –772 Toilets have been replaced –733 pre-1996 and 39 post 1996 –Assumptions: •AWE Uses a Linear Regression Equation to determine flushes per day (~ 13) •2.11 ppl per household (2010 census) •HE toilets 1.6 gallons per flush (gpf) versus 3.5 gpf for old toilets –20,117 gal/day savings related to program –22.54 ac-ft per year –Cost of Program to date has been $93,575 or $4,152/ ac-ft –Customer Payback w/out Rebate at current rates = 2.6 years –Customer Payback with Rebate at current rates = 0.6 years Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 165 BASELINE DEMAND BREAKDOWN Month Supply Based Demand (173 gpcd) WTP Efficiency Losses (gpcd) MSU (gpcd) Unacc. for Water (gpcd) Ind. (gpcd) Top 8 Comm. (Hotels) (gpcd) Govt. (gpcd) Res. Indoor (gpcd) Res. Outdoor (gpcd) Comm. Indoor (gpcd) Comm. Outdoor (gpcd) January 112 6 10 22 1 6 2 43 22 February 118 6 10 24 1 7 2 45 23 March 114 6 10 22 1 7 2 43 23 April 114 6 10 22 1 7 2 43 23 May 174 9 13 25 1 9 5 45 31 24 12 June 214 11 15 23 1 11 7 47 53 25 21 July 324 16 20 24 1 17 12 47 116 25 46 August 314 16 20 25 1 16 11 49 108 26 42 September 234 12 16 24 1 12 8 46 65 24 26 October 135 7 12 26 1 8 3 51 27 November 116 6 10 23 1 7 2 44 23 December 111 6 10 22 1 6 2 42 22 Average 173 9 13 24 1 9 5 45 75 24 29 % Total 100% 5% 8% 15% 1% 5% 3% 25% 18% 14% 7% Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 166 Conservation Measures Conservation Measure GPCD Reduction Estimate $/ac-ft Indoor Rebate Program Washer Rebate Program (500 @ $125) 0.12 $5,989 Toilet Rebate Program (1,000 @ $125) 0.43 $6,156 Urinal Rebate Program Faucet and Nozzle Rebates (1,200 @ $25) 0.74 $928 Zero Water Footprint Developer Program Leak Kits Indoor Water Audits Indoor Res/Comm./Govt. Water Conservation 1.30 gpcd Reduction Goal Govt. (gpcd) Res. Indoor (gpcd) Comm. Indoor (gpcd) Average (173 gpcd) 2 45 24 % Total 1% 25% 14% Cons. (152 gpcd) 2 44 23.75 % Total 1% 29% 15.6% Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 167 Conservation Measures Large User Conservation Goal 1.06 gpcd Conservation Measure GPCD Reduction Estimate $/ac-ft/yr MSU Conservation Planning -- -- Hotel/School/Hospital/Gym Conservation Program (500 Toilets and 1,200 Showerheads) 1.06 $2,398 Month MSU (gpcd) Ind. (gpcd) Top 8 Comm. (Hotels) (gpcd) Average 13 1 9 % Total (173 gpcd) 8% 1% 5% Post-Conservation 13 1 8 % Cons. Total (152 gpcd) 8.5% 1% 5% Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 168 Conservation Measures Policy Conservation Measure GPCD Reduction Estimate $ Water Conservation Specialist $65,000/yr Conservation Program $300,000 Rate Restructuring 1 $5,000 Water Conservation Ordinance Enforcement Program Water Waste Ordinance 2 $5,000 Landscape Ordinance 2 $5,000 Landscape Professional Registration (500 @ $100) 0.25 $50,000 Revision to Local Engineering Standards Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 169 Conservation Measures Conservation Measure GPCD Reduction Estimate $ Outdoor Pilot Studies Xeriscaping Studies 0.1 $125,000 Spray Nozzle Studies ET Sensor/Rain Sensors 0.1 $40,000 Smart Irrigation Systems Irrigation Kits 0.1 $5,000 Rain Barrel Program Grey Water Irrigation Turf Water Budgeting Pervious Surface Systems Outdoor Water Audits (50/yr for 5 years 3 --- Outdoor Res/Comm./Govt. Water Conservation 9.67 gpcd reduction goal Month Govt. (gpcd) Res. Outdoor (gpcd) Comm. Outdoor (gpcd) May 3 31 12 June 5 53 21 July 10 116 46 August 9 108 42 September 6 65 26 Average 5 75 29 % Total 2% 18% 7% Cons. 4.43 69 26 % Total Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 170 Conservation Measures Public Education Programs Conservation Measure GPCD Reduction Estimate $ Education Programs (Schools, Universities, Water Fairs, Adult Education, etc.) 1 $20,000/yr Educational Materials / Commercials Participation in Local Community Events Collaboration with Water Professionals and Organizations Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 171 Conservation Measures System Efficiency <10% (to 15 gpcd) Unaccounted for Water Conservation Measure GPCD Reduction Estimate $/ac-ft Meter System Upgrades 8 N/A Distribution System Rehabilitation 6 N/A Pressure Management 1 $5760 WTP Efficiency Improvements 1.3 -- Month WTP Efficiency Losses (gpcd) Unacc. for Water (gpcd) Average (173 gpcd) 9 24 % Total 5% 15% Cons (152 gpcd) 7.7 15 % Total 5% 10% Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 172 Total Conservation Program Goal •Target 12.1% Reduction in Water Use •Total Cost in 2012$ = $2.37 Million •Cost per Ac-ft Reduction = $2,130 •$237,000 per year for 10-years •Recommendation: –Conservation Program Targeting 12.1% Should be Developed –Piloting of Proposed Measures to Verify Assumptions Highly Recommended –Piloting of Measures that May Build More Aggressive Program Should be Considered –City Should Initiate a 2-year Pilot Study Program and Conservation Program Development –Program should Extend 10-years with a 5-year Update –Expanding Program beyond 12.1% will have Cost Implications that Should be Studied more Thoroughly Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 173 Best in the West Conservation •Approach to Scenario Development –Benchmark comparable programs –Identify program best practices and measures available that could supplement Bozeman’s existing program –Develop “Advanced” conservation scenario –Compare to “Ideal” conservation scenario Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 174 Benchmark Comparable Programs City/Water Provider Population Served Annual Water Use (MG) Driver for Program Boise, ID 240,000 14,000 Not available Cary, NC 135,249 5,146 Reduce operating costs; delay infrastructure expansion and need for new supplies Claremont, CA 34,926 Not available State law Denver, CO 1.3M 76,250 Growing population; costs of alternative supplies; permit/court requirement in 1980’s Longmont, CO 86,270 5,909 Part of integrated water supply portfolio Waukesha, WI 70,718 Not available Right thing to do; Future infrastructure needs; Great Lakes Permit Wichita, KS 382,368 18,158 Part of integrated water supply portfolio Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 175 Benchmark Comparable Programs City/ Water Provider Res. Indoor Outdoor ICI Youth Ed. and Public Info. System Mgmt Other Boise X X None identified X None identified None identified Cary X X X X X X Claremont X X X X None identified X Denver X X X X X X Longmont X X X X X X Waukesha X X X X X None identified Wichita None identified X None identified None identified None identified None identified Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 176 Identify Program Best Practices •Successful programs involve a 3-point approach: –Education –Incentives –Regulations/Policies •System management (City’s treatment and distribution system) is key, as well Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 177 “Advanced” Conservation Scenario •Assumed, implementable combination results in a 16.5% reduction in current, “planned” use •16.5% in 10 years is more aggressive than the state of Texas goal (1% per year until at least 140 gpcd), but slightly less so than California (20% by 2020) Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 178 Current Vs. Possible Use WTP Losses (gpcd) MSU (gpcd) Unacc. for Water (gpcd) Ind. (gpcd) Top 8 Comm (hotel) (gpcd) Govt. (gpcd) Res. Indoor (gpcd) Res.* Out (gpcd) Comm Indoor (gpcd) Comm Out * (gpcd) Exst. Avg (gpcd) 9 13 23 1 9 5 45 75 24 29 12.1% Cons. 7.7 13 15 1 8 4.5 42 68 23.75 25 16.5% 6 13 15 1 8 5 40 56 23.5 22 Poss. Range (gpcd) 3.5-9 13 9-17 1 7-8 5 30-40 49-72 17- 23.5 19- 28.5 * Outdoor Values are Average of Months May to September, only, so totals shown here are higher than planning values if added together. A proportional calc can be done to prorate the gpcds above to the entire year. Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 179 Conclusions •12.1% reduction would make Bozeman one of the most aggressive conservation programs in the west •16.5% reduction is possible with aggressive implementation and funding •Focus on specific sectors can induce even more reductions •Prudent planning will include a justified business case, phased implementation, and monitoring Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 180 TAC Questions and Comments Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 181 WATER RIGHTS MANAGEMENT •How Can Bozeman Optimize its Current Portfolio, Legally, Physically, and Economically? Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 182 WATER RIGHTS MANAGEMENT •From Current Water Rights –Firm Yield ~ 10,948 ac-ft with Total Paper Rights at 17,038 ac-ft –Water Rights Not Physically Available •1,523 ac-ft on Bozeman Creek (Requires Storage) •271 ac-ft on Middle Creek (Require Storage) •1,131 ac-ft on Hyalite Reservoir (Requires Study, Acquisition of all rights, or Winter Use) –Water Rights Requiring Economic Investment •2,556 ac-ft (Requires Surface Treatment) •609 ac-ft (Requires Placement in Watershed) –Full Optimization of Paper Rights = 6,090 ac-ft of Water Requires ECONOMIC Investment to Make PHYSICALLY Available Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 183 WATER RIGHTS MANAGEMENT •Non-Potable Water Rights –~ 500 ac-ft (Mandeville/Tracey) –Annexed Water Rights (Est. at 250 ac-ft) •Water Rights Requiring Evaluation/Legal Determination –Mystic Lake Rights (Up to 6,000 ac-ft) –Issues with physical, legal, and economic availability •Total ~ 6,750 ac-ft Water Rights Team Believes City Can Successfully Pursue Change of Use Applications for All of the Above Rights (Total Water Rights Acquired as Result of Applications Unknown) Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 184 Water Rights Management Alternatives WRM ALTERNATIVES Total Rights WRM1 (Optimize Existing Portfolio) 3,165 to 6,090 ac-ft WRM2 (Non-Potable Rights Change of Use) 0 to 750 ac-ft WRM3 (Mystic Lake Reservoir Rights Evaluation) 0 to 6,000 ac-ft TOTAL 3,165 to 12,840 ac-ft WRM = Water Rights Management RECOMMENDATION: Plan that 3,165 ac-ft from some combination of the above WRM Alternatives could be Physically, Legally, and Economically Developed to Supply Infrastructure Alternatives Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 185 TAC Questions and Comments Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 186 Water Supply Delivery Nodes Confluence of Madison, Jefferson, and Gallatin Confluence of East and West Gallatin East Gallatin River, South of BWRF Gallatin Gateway GW (Or Other) Salar Project Hyalite Reservoir Sourdough Res. At Every Node With Conservation (12.1%) 2042 2062 Existing Portfolio 11,240 10,950 Optimized Portfolio (WRM) 3,165 3,165 Water Reuse Portfolio New Portfolio to Develop New Portfolio TOTAL 12,050 15,950 New Portfolio in Reserve Reserve Portfolio TOTAL 16,240 26,450 Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 187 EXISTING UTILITY FACTORS •Sourdough WTP Capacity Peak Day ~ 22 MGD –95% Climate and Conservation Adjusted Service Level Demand for July 2042 = 290 gpcd (Population = 70,256) –New WTP Est. Peak Month Supply = 17 MGD –In July 2042, Lyman Supply has Firm Yield to Serve 11,343 people –New Plant can Serve 58,913 People –10,093 ac-ft/yr needed in Sourdough/Hyalite Watershed to meet 95% Climate and Conservation Adjusted Service Level Demand –9,447 ac-ft/yr firm yield at WTP in 2042 •650 ac-ft/yr firm yield needed in Sourdough/Hyalite Watershed to use full 22 MGD capacity of WTP Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 188 HYALITE RESERVOIR FACTORS •HYALITE RESERVOIR WINTER USE –Minimum Reservoir Release is 10 cfs in Winter –3.3 cfs = 1,500 gpm = 2.2 mgd –Tower Protection Project ~ $300,000 –Potential for “Wasting” of Water Supply –May Allow for Removal of “Shrinkage” Factor for water used during Winter Months Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 189 EXISTING UTILITY FACTORS •Sourdough WTP Expansion Capacity is 36 MGD –95% Climate and Conservation Adjusted Service Level Demand for July 2062 = 327 gpcd (Population = 139,900) –New WTP Est. Peak Month Supply = 27 MGD –In July 2062, Lyman Supply has Firm Yield to Serve 10,050 people –New Plant can Serve 94,400 People –17,520 ac-ft/yr needed in Sourdough/Hyalite Watershed to meet 95% Climate and Conservation Adjusted Service Level Demand –9,158 ac-ft/yr firm yield at WTP in 2062 •8,400 ac-ft/yr firm yield needed in Sourdough/Hyalite Watershed to use full 36 MGD capacity of WTP •Still need Water Supplies and Treatment for 34,450 people ~ 6,400 ac-ft Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 190 Planning Questions Sourdough/Hyalite Watershed Can we Meet 22 MGD Capacity? Where Should the Rights be Obtained? Shift Hyalite Reservoir Use to Winter Purchase Additional Hyalite Reservoir Shares Can we Meet the 36 MGD Capacity? Where Should the Rights be Obtained? We need to Store, Purchase, Develop, or Transfer Rights to the Sourdough/Middle Creek Watershed in the amount of ~ 8,400 ac-ft Will require a Combination of the Above Approaches Only Project that Could Accomplish this as One Project would be to Raise Hyalite Reservoir and Purchase all Remaining Shares Will Still Require Identification of up to 6,400 ac-ft from other sources How Much Water SHOULD City Maintain in Watershed? Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 191 Planning Questions Lyman Creek Watershed Will this Supply give us Additional Firm Yield if Developed? How Much? (Up To 2,556 ac-ft) Infrastructure Requirements Can we Move Unused Supply to New Withdrawal? Will we Lose Rights if Withdrawal Point is Changed? Should the City Further Develop this Water Supply? Lyman Creek Expansion will only meet Some Water Supply Needs Supply Could be Applied to In-Stream Reservation Could be More Cost Effective to Develop Different Supplies Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 192 TAC Questions and Comments Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 193 PORTFOLIO DEVELOPMENT (Example) ALTERNATIVE WSD 3A ALTERNATIVE IU4 ALTERNATIVE IU5 ALTERNATIVE IU6 ALTERNATIVE IU1 ALTERNATIVE IU2 ALTERNATIVE IU3 ALTERNATIVE WSD 6 ALTERNATIVE WSD 2A ALTERNATIVE WSD 1 ALTERNATIVE WSD 5 ALTERNATIVE WSD 4 ALTERNATIVE IU7 ALTERNATIVE WSD 2B ALTERNATIVE WSD 3B ALTERNATIVE WSD 3C ALTERNATIVE WSD 7 WATER DEMAND = 173 GPCD, CLIMATE ADJUSTED DEMAND = 189 GPCD, AVAILABLE SUPPLY = 10,950 AC-FT, SUPPLY NEEDS = 18,200 AC-FT CONSERVATION GOAL = 149 GPCD, CLIMATE ADJUSTED DEMAND = 160 GPCD AVAILABLE SUPPLY = 10,948, SUPPLY NEEDS = 15,950 AC-FT WATER RIGHTS MANAGEMENT EFFORTS = ??? TOTAL PORTFOLIO SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT = ??? AC-FT TOTAL RESERVE = ??? AC-FT ALTERNATIVE WSD 8 ALTERNATIVE WSD 9 Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 194 Integrated Utility Water Reuse Alternatives IU ALTERNATIVES IU1 (Northside Non-Potable Water Reuse) IU2 (Northside and Southside Non-Potable Water Reuse) IU3 (Northside Non-Potable and Potable Water Reuse) IU4 (Northside and Southside Non-Potable and Potable Water Reuse) IU5 (Agricultural Irrigation Water Reuse) IU6 (Industrial Water Reuse) IU7 (Groundwater Recharge) Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 195 Integrated Utility Water Reuse Alternatives Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 196 Integrated Utility Water Reuse Alternatives Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 197 Integrated Utility Water Reuse Alternatives Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 198 Integrated Utility Water Reuse Alternatives Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 199 OSD ALTERNATIVES NEW OSD1 (Hyalite Reservoir Share Purchasing) (Originally WRM…moved) WSD8 OSD2 (Hyalite Reservoir Dam Raise)…moved WSD9 OSD3 (Brackett Creek)….moved WSD10 OSD4 (Aquifer Storage and Recovery) WSD3 or IU7 OSD5 (Purchasing Canal Company Rights for Future Development Irrigation) IU5 and WSD5 OSD6 (Utilize Miscellaneous City Water Rights for Mitigation Water to Develop a Large Well for Localized Irrigation) WRM1 (WSD3?) OSD7 (Split Season Water Leasing for Drought Supply) Water Market? Imbedded? OSD8 (Municipal Infrastructure Improvements) Water Cons. OSD9 (Groundwater Development Pods for Non-Potable Uses) Water Cons. Other Supply Development Alternatives Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 200 WSD ALTERNATIVES Total Available WSD1 (Sourdough Reservoir) 0 New (Purchase/Transfer) WSD2A (Canyon Ferry Import Reservoir Delivery) 300,000 acre-ft WSD2B (Canyon Ferry Import Confluence Delivery) 300,000 acre-ft WSD3A (Madison Aquifer Groundwater) Open WSD3B (Belgrade Subarea Groundwater) 0 New (Purchase/Transfer) WSD3C (Gallatin Gateway Subarea Groundwater) 0 New/Open? (Purchase/Transfer) WSD4 (Yellowstone River Import) Open WSD5 (Adjacent Drainage Basin Right Purchase) 0 New/Varies WSD6 (Canal Company Impoundment) 0 New (Purchase/Lease) WSD7 (Sourdough Pond Storage) 0 New (Purchase/Transfer) WSD8 (Hyalite Share Purchasing ~ Previously WRM) 200 ac-ft willing sellers, ~5,000 total WSD9 (Hyalite Reservoir Dam Raise) 0 New (Purchase/Transfer) WSD10 (Brackett Creek Import ~ Yellowstone Watershed) Open (Available Water TBD) Water Supply Development Alternatives Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 201 Previously Studied Alternatives Sourdough Creek Reservoir Project BWTP Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 202 ADJACENT DRAINAGE PROJECTS Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 203 AGRICULTURAL IMPOUNDMENT Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 204 AGRICULTURAL IMPOUNDMENT Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 205 IMPORT PROJECTS Canyon Ferry Reservoir Approximately 60 Miles Regional Opportunities 300,000 Ac-ft Affordable Purchase Price Yellowstone River Approximately 30 Miles Alternative Routes? Water Quality Geography Open Basin Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 206 Water Supply Development Alternatives Brackett Creek Bridger Creek Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 207 Portfolio Technical Criteria Handouts for Qualitative Ranking Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 208 TAC Questions and Comments Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 209 Structured Approach Finds the Right Choice How much does it cost? CAPITAL AND LIFECYCLE COSTS Which is best? BENEFIT SCORE What’s important to you? EVALUATION CRITERIA AND WEIGHTING What is the right choice for Bozeman? RECOMMENDATIONS NEAR TERM LONG TERM How do we do it? IMPLEMENTATION PLAN What can you do? DEVELOPMENT OF WATER MANAGEMENT SCENARIOS Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 210 Three Tiered Approach Water Rights Risk Analysis (Green, Yellow, Red) Green Water of some quantity is physically and or legally available Yellow Questions exist regarding legal and physical availability of water Red Water is not physically or legally available RANKING CRITERIA Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 211 Three Tiered Approach Screening Level #2 ~ Qualitative Criteria RANKING CRITERIA Note: Criteria Above a Certain Threshold will be Moved into Conceptual Cost Development TAC TECHNICAL TEAM Categories of Evaluation Criteria Weight (%) Score Technical Criteria 18 Environmental Criteria 28 Social Criteria 13 Economic Criteria 19 Water Supply Criteria 22 Total (must equal 100%) 100% Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 212 Three Tiered Approach Translating Alternative Scores to Portfolio Scores ~ Qualitative Criteria RANKING CRITERIA TECHNICAL TEAM Categories of Evaluation Criteria Alt. 1 (1,500 ac-ft) Alt. 2 (500 ac- ft) Alt. 3 (2,000 ac-ft) Alt. 4 (1,000 ac-ft) Score Technical Criteria 65 40 90 25 =(65*1,500+40*500+2,000*90 +1,000*25) / (5,000 ac-ft) Environmental Criteria Social Criteria Economic Criteria Water Supply Criteria Total (must equal 100%) Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 213 Three Tiered Approach Screening Level #2 ~ Qualitative Criteria RANKING CRITERIA 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 Resource 19 Total (must equal 100%) 100% Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 214 Three Tiered Approach Screening Level #2 ~ Qualitative Criteria RANKING CRITERIA Technical Criteria Weight (%) Score Constructability 13 Regulations and Drinking Water Quality Impacts 17 Existing Infrastructure Compatibility 15 Water Reuse 9 Water Supply Redundancy 14 Meets 30-Year Planning Horizon Targets 19 Meets 50-Year Planning Horizon Targets 13 Total (must equal 100%) 100% Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 215 Three Tiered Approach Screening Level #2 ~ Qualitative Criteria RANKING CRITERIA Environmental Criteria Weight (%) Score Clean Water Act Compliance (TMDLs) 15 In-stream Flow Maintenance 21 Permitting, Environmental Impact Statements, and Easements 16 Climate Impacts Resiliency 18 Energy Generation and Carbon Footprint 16 General Environmental Impacts (Wildlife, Forested Areas) 15 Total (must equal 100%) 100% Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 216 Three Tiered Approach Screening Level #2 ~ Qualitative Criteria RANKING CRITERIA Social 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 – Maintaining Ag. Rights 12 Total (must equal 100%) 100% Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 217 Three Tiered Approach Screening Level #2 ~ Qualitative Criteria RANKING CRITERIA Economic Weight (%) Score Magnitude of Capital Investment per Acre-ft of Developable Water Supply 26 Relative Operation and Maintenance Costs 27 Eligibility for Outside Funding 16 Economy of Scale Impacts 11 Delay of Infrastructure to Encourage Growth to Pay for Growth 23 Total (must equal 100%) 100% Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 218 SCORES 0 = Not Applicable 1 = Poor 2 = Average 3 = Good RANKING CRITERIA Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 219 TAC Questions and Comments Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 220 TAC Feedback on Technical Information Provided Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 221 TAC Questions and Comments Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 222 PORTFOLIO DEVELOPMENT (Example) ALTERNATIVE WSD 3A ALTERNATIVE IU4 ALTERNATIVE IU5 ALTERNATIVE IU6 ALTERNATIVE IU1 ALTERNATIVE IU2 ALTERNATIVE IU3 ALTERNATIVE WSD 6 ALTERNATIVE WSD 2A ALTERNATIVE WSD 1 ALTERNATIVE WSD 5 ALTERNATIVE WSD 4 ALTERNATIVE IU7 ALTERNATIVE WSD 2B ALTERNATIVE WSD 3B ALTERNATIVE WSD 3C ALTERNATIVE WSD 7 WATER DEMAND = 173 GPCD, CLIMATE ADJUSTED DEMAND = 189 GPCD, AVAILABLE SUPPLY = 10,950 AC-FT, SUPPLY NEEDS = 18,200 AC-FT CONSERVATION GOAL = 149 GPCD, CLIMATE ADJUSTED DEMAND = 160 GPCD AVAILABLE SUPPLY = 10,950, SUPPLY NEEDS = 15,950 AC-FT WATER RIGHTS MANAGEMENT EFFORTS = ??? TOTAL PORTFOLIO SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT = ??? AC-FT TOTAL RESERVE = ??? AC-FT Cost Estimate ~ $_______________ Portfolio Score ~ _______________ Portfolio Legal and Water Rights Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 223 Three Tiered Approach SCREENING LEVEL #3 ~ Cost Analysis Conceptual Capital Costs Conceptual O&M Costs Life Cycle Costs $/Acre-Foot Cost RANKING CRITERIA Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 224 $2.0 $2.5 $3.0 $3.5 $4.0 $4.5 $5.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 How Much Does it Cost? ($1,000 /ac-ft) Which is Best? Customized Results Identify Right Choice Right Choice for Bozeman Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 225 Meeting Agenda Review Alternative Ranking Outcome Review Comments on Conservation Plan Review Portfolios at each Delivery Node Approve Portfolios for Modeling TAC # 5 ~ Results ~ March 2013 Meeting #6 ~ Public Forum ~ April 2013 Commission Presentation ~ May 2013 TAC Meeting #4 ~ Jan 2013 Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 226 City of Bozeman Integrated Water Resources Plan Technical Advisory Committee Meeting 3 Date: Thursday, December 6, 2012, 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Location: City Commission Room, City Hall, 121 N. Rouse Ave City of Bozeman Brian Heaston (BH) John Alston (JA) AE2S Judel Buls (JB) Nate Weisenburger (NW) Deb Stevenson (DS) Tom Michalek (TM) TAC Frank Cifala (USFS) (FC) Tammy Crone (GLWQD) (TC) Alan English (GLWQD) (AE) Gretchen Rupp (Citizen) (GR) Kerri Strasheim (DNRC) (KS) Walt Sales (AGAI) (WS) Rick Maroney (COB) (RM) Carson Taylor (COB) (CT) Peter Skidmore (GGWC) (PS) Laura Ziemer (Trout Unlimited) (LZ) WRSI Dave Schmidt (DS) PREPARED BY: Judel Buls, AE2S CALL TO ORDER: 10:00 A.M. GR reread the TAC mission statement and provided an overview and introduction of the agenda and overall goals of the meeting. CONSERVATION PLANNING REVIEW (SLIDES 4-8) JB gave a brief informational presentation/status report on the Planning Criteria and Planning Process as a refresher for the group since it had not been together for some time. It is expected there will be a Draft report on Conservation Planning and Optimized Conservation for TAC review prior to the next meeting. The report will include “Best in the West” concept that demonstrates what could be the most aggressive and ideal conservation scenario for the City of Bozeman. JB explained that the high and medium population projections were based on growth percentages of 2% until 2042 then 1% until 2062 for the medium projection, and a 3% growth, through 2042, dropping to 2% ATTENDEES: Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 227 thereafter, through 2062, for a high projection. The Bozeman water supply projection with and without Climate adjustment and Conservation efforts compared to demands create a range of Water Balance Gaps shown on slide 6. JB led discussions regarding MSU as a separate and independent conservation entity. She noted an MSU planning study from September is looking at 2% population growth for university attendance. She noted discussions with MSU Facilities Management Staff indicated that MSU has been progressive in reducing water needed from the City and implementing water efficiency projects on campus. She further noted the University has indicated it can likely reach a goal to “hold the line” on water use despite growth (maintain current demand gpcd into the future). Measures to accomplish this will include new housing facilities with high efficiency (HE) fixtures and an update of the residential areas with boilers, etc. Growth projections through 2019 suggest it would be possible to maintain current use. However, JB noted that if growth continues at 2% per year through 2042, student enrollment could reach 25,000 and additional water would be needed, even at current water use rates. It was recommended to add 500 ac-ft to the planning criteria over the 50 year period to assure MSU could expand its campus enrollment as it sees fit. JB anticipated that 500 ac-ft would be the upper limit of needs for MSU. JB recommended adding this to the 50-Year Planning Criteria (Slide 7 and 8). (Audio 16:00) TAC member stated that MSU owns 500 shares of the Middle Creek Water User Association which makes MSU the 2nd largest share holder next to Bozeman. It’s not expected that they will need new shares. The point was also made that MSU uses water but does not provide any water to the system, as opposed to City of Bozeman. The City provides water. MSU is using some shares to augment irrigation system and alternatives to this present use of their Hyalite shares will be proposed in water reuse options. MSU indicated (to JB in phone conversation) that they are trying to get family housing off of City water supply. To get MSU family housing off of City water supply, will be looking for another 100 acre-feet they don’t have yet. City and MSU would benefit from a discussion. TAC member asked- What is meant by “Hold the line on city water use”? (Audio 18:00) Answer: MSU believes it can make conservation improvements and efficiency improvements to serve the new population without increasing water use from the City. One example is that MSU has shifted water use from potable to non-potable supply, including investing $200,000 in soil moisture sensors for irrigation, which likely has decreased the water use necessary per acre, allowing for campus expansion of irrigated area for the same amount of water. JB recommended the City work to develop a portfolio of 5500 acre-ft where 5000 ac-ft is reserved for the City and 500 ac-ft is reserved potentially for MSU based on population projections and climate affected water supply. The high demand projection of 15,500 ac-ft cannot be ignored, as a potential demand in the future if population growth is moving faster than expected by 50-year horizon (2062). OPTIMIZED CONSERVATION OVERVIEW (SLIDES 9-27) JB presented the thought process and assumptions for the calculations used to develop the Conservation Measures goals for water use reduction and cost for implementation of the 12.1% conservation alternatives that has been discussed in the past. The toilet rebate program was used as an example (at 25:00 of audio) to illustrate all assumptions and research necessary to create a defensible and logical rebate program. JB compared the City’s current toilet rebate program (slide 10) with other toilet rebate programs to come up with an improved and more effective program. Brian Heaston indicated that the current program requires HE toilet installation that can provide 1.28 gallons per flush (gpf); JB mentioned Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 228 other toilets at 0.8 gpf. She agreed to recalculate this conservation measure and BH indicated he would get her more detailed information. JB indicated that a limited planning budget limits the amount of research to track actual impacts of the toilet rebate program and could make it somewhat difficult to predict it forward. She demonstrated this by showing the outcome of applying the current rebate program to the Alliance for Water Efficiency tracking tool, which suggests 13 flushes per person as opposed to 4 flushes per person per day. This leads to uncertainty in the success of the rebate program without tracking and supports pilot study evaluations on an account by account basis when possible. TAC member also pointed out that Plumbers need to be educated about the steps of the rebate program as well as consumers. Some consumers and some plumbers are not reporting all toilet replacements. Likewise, developers may install these fixtures in new homes, which has not been tracked and measured for impacts. A clear rebate program needs to be developed that includes tracking features. BH noted that the current Building and Plumbing codes for City of Bozeman reference the Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) and as such, they do not require HE fixtures. One TAC member stated, “We do not go above and beyond.” JB –We are not developing a complete Conservation Program, we are developing conservation targets at this stage of planning. A true Conservation effort may include an effort to determine which measures are reasonable for Bozeman, then conduct a pilot study to test the water saving efficacy and to fix a cost per acre-feet for this measure. Policy costs on slide 15 are administrative estimates and the GPCD Reduction Estimates are based on what the consultant thinks is attainable for conservation. TAC member asked for clarification on the “0.1 gpcd” on slide 16 for Outdoor GPCD Reduction Estimates. JB explained that these are based on literature from other projects that performed pilot studies at these estimated costs that would impact overall gpcd in the long term. Bozeman needs to decide which Measures are economically “a good idea”, to decide which to pursue and to invest in. Pilot study costs are separate from full scale implementation programs, and would include metering of progress and a report for results of savings. (Audio time 44:00) Mark Anderson, Project Manager with CH2M HILL presented on the Best in the West Conservation (slides 20- 26, audio time (48:00). A. Mark supported the effort to take a look at City of Bozeman’s conservation goal of 12.1% and compare it to a more aggressive and ideal (Best) scenario for a conservation program. Discussion of the components that made up these programs revealed that Residential Indoor has a measureable outcome and is more straight forward when calculating savings (toilets) due to known performance of fixtures. However, cultural differences can even impact number of flushes and seasonal effects based on who is flushing (migrant and seasonal workers was noted as one instance where these behavioral issues have been noted.) Mark believes that 12.1% represents a reasonable benchmark based on similar communities with similar size of program, amount of funding, and water conservation goals. 12.1% and 16.5% are similar numbers for planning purposes, similar order of magnitude since planning numbers and goals are rarely “hard numbers.” Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 229 B. (58:00) The largest category is Outdoor Use and has the most potential for reduction through policy, Xeriscaping, turf replacement, irrigation efficiency, and water use habits. The Outdoor Use has broadest range for how aggressive a community decides to be in conservation. C. The difference between the planning values for water usage at 95% reliability level that considers use in a hot dry year compared to the City’s typical usage over last 5 years suggests that the focus should be targeting outdoor use during peak demands. The City needs to develop reasonable planning assumptions and develop policy to address these peaking months separate from the year round use. Addressing the hot dry year peaking demands separately may defer construction costs for infrastructure until the short term reveals how effective the policy efforts are in conservation. TAC member asked what will the Conservation Draft Report include? (1:03) JB replied that the Conservation Measures portion of the report will explain how every conservation value was calculated and chosen for reasonable planning goals and projections. The report will also include recommendations of conservation, ideas for pilot studies, implementation suggestions, cost per acre-foot estimates, technical background, and an Appendix that will break down all the numbers. TAC member asked if the report will be in the same format as the Supply Alternative Handouts as an easy way to make comparisons? Was the revision to scope of work to evaluate demand side? JB explained that the plan is to rank Alternatives independently with 12.1% as goal incorporated into revised demand scenarios. As a result, evaluating conservation as an alternative was determined at the previous TAC to not be necessary. Developing Supply Alternative handouts was not included in the revised scope amendment. The report will present a path to 12.1% and provide savings for each measure in savings per acre-foot, but will not act as a full implementation program. Report plays as a starting point in conservation. All indirect costs and benefits resulting from conservation measures and water reduction will be included in later reports and planning efforts. The scope of this technical document that has been requested is to satisfy basis for planning needs. WATER RIGHTS MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES (AT 1:10 IN AUDIO FILE AND SLIDES 28-32) Dave Schmidt addressed the water rights in the Gallatin Valley as an informative presentation. JB classified all water rights as Legally, Physically, and/or Economically feasible rights. There is a difference between water rights on paper vs. the water rights that are physically developed and currently used. It is possible that the development of certain water rights on paper may be too expensive to consider at this time. For instance, a project to reduce the 20% shrinkage factor for Hyalite or expand the Lyman system is possible (examples only) but the cost to implement may be more than moving the water rights to other areas of the watershed and utilizing them as a component of another strategic water supply approach (Slide 29). Non-potable water rights (750 ac-ft) and Change of Use Applications are also a possibility to add to an overall portfolio (slide 30). The range of 3,165 ac-ft to 12,840 ac-ft (which is the true range of potential water rights that could be acquired in the future) is not a helpful range to look at but through a combination of approaches, it is theoretically possible right now to attain some or even all of these water rights and put them in usable places. TAC member made the point that the vagueness of potential water rights is due to avoiding potential litigation based on claims made now for the future. The numbers are used for planning right now, but not Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 230 to be counted on for actual viability. From a planning perspective, TAC needs to see more, but for the time being they need to take these numbers as a distillation as some information to move forward and take with some level of legal input. Peter Scott (Water Rights Attorney) is not giving planning numbers. JB provides a planning number based on what makes economic sense and what is potentially available beyond what we KNOW we can get. TAC member noted that she thought the handouts were missing water rights management alternatives and some additional water supply development alternative. TAC member asked if the WRM Optimization Alternatives will be put through selection criteria to determine within range what is economically feasible. JB indicated that this would not occur as a total of 3,165 ac-ft would be incorporated into ALL portfolios as appropriate to the context of that alternative moving forward so ranking this as an independent alternative did not present advantages to the process. JB-The idea is to rank all alternatives individually and combine alternatives in portfolios with ranking scores. Those alternatives will all include conservation at 12.1% and water rights management of 3,165 ac-ft, somehow. TAC member wants to look at alternatives to Water Supply Treatment alternatives. For instance, economical feasibility of a north side treatment plant vs. water supply development alternative. (1:23) JB indicated that some of this might become clearer during the portfolio process depending on which alternatives rise to the top. WATER SUPPLY DELIVERY NODES (SLIDES 33- 39, AUDIO FILE 1:23) GR refers TAC members to the Informational map of nodes sent via email. The various alternatives will feed water into the municipal system with water supplies compiled at these locations. After TAC Identifies the desired Alternatives from the Portfolios (in terms of total water rights) then they will be able to determine which and how much water will be sent to each delivery node, treated, and sent out to delivery system. The City can apply for withdrawals at certain points to decrease piping lengths and costs. City will need to optimize locations based on Final alternative portfolio. For example: Can Sourdough rights and others be moved up into a reservoir? Should the City redo Hyalite Reservoir? The process now is to take all alternatives, look at how all of the rights add together, then determine locations that make most economic sense. TAC member asked if 3165 ac-ft is a locked number for WRM options? JB- For planning purposes, that number is locked in since there is no basis for saying there is more without additional analysis. In actuality, this number will vary tremendously. Can we run some WRM alternatives through deeper analysis to get to 5000 ac-ft or 6000 ac-ft number? JB attempted to explain that the 3,165 ac-ft simply suggests what the City can get out if its existing, but undeveloped rights. There is no infrastructure cost tied to this, only the cost of the petitioning for the change of use versus having to go out in the watershed and find rights to replace what it though it had. Infrastructure projects will be required either way and this is where the primary cost and implementation plan come into play. Whether the City is able to retain 2,000 ac-ft of rights in addition to what it’s planning or not, will likely have limited impact on the most preferable portfolios. Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 231 TAC member asked if we can meet future goals with existing rights by changing water use or changing points of diversion before doing any infrastructure projects, for cost effectiveness option to develop new supply? JB- Bozeman will realize the 3,165 ac-ft (from Lyman system maximization and application of its 1991 reservation) and the 5,000 ac-ft remains to be determined (1:30:00). Right now Sourdough/ Hyalite watershed needs additional 650 ac-ft/year to maximize the Water Treatment Plant’s 22 MGD capacity. Expanding the plant at its present location is not likely advisable without providing that location with additional firm supply. This is really only possible with storage in the south watershed. Conversations with DNRC on Hyalite are outlined on slide 35 and options for Sourdough can be found on slide 36. Brain Heaston asked JB if Slide 36 uses 8,400 ac-ft based on monthly demand. It’s based on what a 36 MGD plant could do in peaking condition. HDR design calculations did not include a peak month July number, but were contacted and generally agreed with a planning approach for peak month that JB used to get to 27 MGD in July. It is inclusive of monthly time steps. ALTERNATIVES REVIEW AND REFINEMENT (SLIDES 40- 55, START AUDIO AT TIME 1:38) TAC member asked if the Alternative list in the packet is the universe of Alternatives or is there a chance to add additional Technical Alternatives? JB suggested they were intended to be the narrowed list based on multiple passes through the TAC, but did leave the last hour for discussion to determine this.TAC members suggested that the alternatives presented did not include their understanding of what could be presented. JB reviewed the alternative list submitted to her via BH in July and how they were incorporated into the list presented at this TAC meeting. Members indicated they may push for the addition of some alternatives they feel were still excluded, primarily groundwater for residential irrigation and conservation options. Potable and Non Potable combinations were assessed including the concept to look at WRF and considering reuse of effluent at the Bozeman Water Reclamation Facility (BWRF). A study has been completed in conjunction with the BWRF facility plan that considers reuse. The study was driven by water quality regulations that may be imposed on the City in the future. The goal was to get rid of effluent as an alternative to providing a viable water supply. However, integrated utility planning could allow this solution to accomplish both. Additional improvements are necessary, including effluent filters and storage at the BWRF to treat the effluent to Class A (Food Grade Effluent). Class A effluent could be applied to crops or turf where there is access to public without the need for “buffers” to keep the public at a distance. Infrastructure options associated with the plan were provided and a brief discussion of the existing Infiltration/Percolation (IP) beds and operability (current system is not operable) was discussed (slide 45.) RANKING CRITERIA APPROACH (SLIDES 55-66, AUDIO TIME 1:51– 1:56) The scoring process was presented based on previously identified ranking criteria. A simple scoring process of three (1, 2, or 3, with a zero being an optional score for not applicable) was proposed to avoid complicating the scoring process and spending unnecessary time debating a more complicated approach, see slide 65. Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 232 The group was reminded the goal is to focus on qualitative alternative evaluation and less on specific costs associated with implementation of each option. TAC DISCUSSION ON TECHNICAL HANDOUTS AND ALTERNATIVES (SLIDES 66 TO END) JB indicated the goal for reviewing the handouts is to deliberate on 20+ Alternatives, have a common understanding within the TAC, and provide an opportunity for discussion and technical information to be shared by the group in preparation for scoring the alternatives as homework assignments. Ranking will be done in parallel with the consultants and the results will be reviewed at TAC #4. It was noted that the technical information on the alternatives was presented in varying forms of completeness. However, the goal was to consider the ranking criteria in the qualitative context so that the most sensible alternatives could go through a more rigorous evaluation as a next step. The TAC would need to do its best with the information as presented. BH agreed to be the clearinghouse for ranked spreadsheets and in preparation for TAC #4 and the consultants requested the opportunity to begin developing portfolios based on ranking outcome prior to this meeting to be sensitive to scope and budgeting limitations of the project. JB reiterated that Water Rights Management will not be scored, therefore there are no handouts. Other discussion is necessary to clarify 12.1% water reduction PLUS additional supply to get to 16.5% with Technical Handouts. JB addressed the TAC to explain the scope amendment that was developed and indicated it was determined this wouldn’t be one of the handouts developed as conservation would be incorporated into demand for all portfolios and opportunities to do better with conservation would simply adjust the implementation of future water supply projects. She offered an alternative to a handout in that part of the Technical Memorandum on Conservation could involve a sensitivity analysis regarding this item, indicating a range of years in an implementation plan that would need to happen based on varying degrees of success in conservation. Lunch (audio time 2:12- 2:18) After lunch the floor was opened for technical discussion by the group. JB noted that Salar has a significant amount of technical information available to demonstrate project viability. Tom Michalek, from the Bureau of Mines and Geology, Senior Research Hydro-geologist and Project Manager of groundwater (GW) investigations along West Gallatin introduced himself. Tom is a technical resource for the issue of connection between groundwater and surface water, as well as irrigation water impacts to surface water in the region. He noted that the Madison formation aquifer is an unknown. The water is accessible via springs throughout the surrounding mountain ranges that tap into the Madison formation via underlying geology. No one has tapped into Madison limestone for water supply or studied it to the detail necessary to date. (2:22) Groundwater information collected from Gallatin Gateway and Logan over a historically long term timeframe demonstrate very erratic availability, less water coming into valley, and less leaving valley, indicating increased use (over the last 60 years). Tom Michalek recalled his review of the data for Lyman spring and reported an apparent overall decline in flow. The take away is that the declining flow trend will continue and there will be less water available in the future especially considering that this is not a large basin. Surface area alone is not a good enough Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 233 indicator of basin/snowpack supply. Bridger is very narrow and very dry. Lyman spring is susceptible to climate change. In the model, Lyman is held constant because it is believed through past operating experience that the water right does not tap into the full firm yield supply, so climate change may not affect actual physical water supply. (2:28) Monitoring is necessary. Capturing full water right in the Gallatin Valley during dry years may require storage since some supplies have such a high flow focused within spring runoff, and flow drops off dramatically in dry months. TAC member asked question regarding IU7 groundwater Recharge/Reuse, Aquifer storage and recovery at the BWRF. JB indicated the Effluent Management Plan (EMP) prepared for HDR in conjunction with the BWRF Facility Plan suggests groundwater and surface water are not hydraulically connected in the vicinity of the BWRF (2:29). Clarification will be needed on this along with DEQ and DNRC approval for a permit. TM indicated that groundwater and surface water hydraulic-connectivity are likely within the region. However, there is the possibility that there is a small localized aquifer protected in shale that is not connected with the rest of the system. JB explained that the real questions are what the purpose of recharge within the basin is; what is the intended use? Will the water be pulled back out at the same location or used to mitigate flow in another location? Can it be verified with some level of confidence that the recharged water can be recaptured? Is it any different than using surface water since there is likely a hydraulic connection? JB noted that no one in the Gallatin Valley has volunteered to reuse reclaimed water to date. The City will need to visit the possibilities and negotiate with potential recipients of the water supply. One example might be irrigating Riverside Golf Course and negotiating use of the Golf Course water rights in the future. Their golf course water right has a priority date that is prior to of 1880 and it is presently an irrigation right, available from April to October. It is a bigger right than what is necessary for golf course needs and would allow an opportunity where reuse water could be traded with a natural water supply just upstream of the effluent discharge from the BWRF. (2:33) JB emphasized that one drawback of the IU alternatives is that they do not create new water rather water is used twice to the greatest extent possible. It is therefore not flowing downstream in the same manner as it does presently. Although, water flowing in the watershed would not need to be tapped into for future growth, so it essentially balances itself out in the end. (2:37) Kerri shared her perspective on DNRC’s policy on reuse and suggested that due to the closed basin nature of the Gallatin Valley, it could eventually be determined that reuse would constitute the need to acquire a new water right or a mitigation resource for its use. It will ultimately hinge on nutrient regulations and a determination by DEQ that irrigation is a form of treatment and therefore must be accomplished prior to discharge. If DEQ determines in the future that no additional treatment is required, then it will be considered a new use and subject to water right laws. The policy could change in the future, but there is risk associated with the assumption that water can be reused without having to consider the impacts to water rights in the Gallatin Valley. There was some discussion of the soils and tertiary deposits where the IP beds are currently located in regards to whether there in interconnectivity with groundwater at this location or not. Deep groundwater in tertiary layer is a separate aquifer than the shallower groundwater, which may be why there is some data suggesting no interconnectivity, but further evaluation is necessary. There have been only a few attempts to use the IP beds in the past. (2:44:00) To use them again in the future, the IP beds need complete rehabilitation and redesign. Their original purpose was to meet ammonia limits and they did not work well. They are still in great location, the City owns the property, and others have used this technology with success. They could play a role in meeting nutrient standards and serve as an avenue for Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 234 discharging BWRF effluent for reuse options. It was noted that there is a national context in the Western States for reuse of reclaimed effluent. It is not necessarily an emerging trend any longer. Constructed wetlands were discussed briefly by the TAC as an option for effluent discharge that would be beneficial for the watershed. It was noted by the TAC that they can help with TMDL compliance and new wastewater nutrient criteria. EDITORIAL RESPONSE BY JB POST MEETING: While constructed wetlands can serve as a viable option for TMDL compliance and are being studied and utilized in other systems, cold weather systems still need to be optimized and regulatory variances would be required with Montana DEQ’s standards. Additionally, because the BWRF is so effective it removing nutrients, the effluent has very little left to support a constructed wetland. There is concern that the natural conditions of the wetland may actually increase nutrient loading instead of reduce it prior to discharge to the East Gallatin River. Technology improvements, system controls, regulatory requirements and efficiency barriers still exist in the State of Montana that would need to be further explored before a project such as this would make sense for the City of Bozeman to pursue. The primary challenge with the reuse options involves the effect on junior rights holders on the East Gallatin. (2:49) Water marketing was discussed as a potential new alternative. JB noted that any portfolio not involving the import of water from a new supply will require either the permanent transfer or water market trading concept to increase the overall rights of the City beyond what it currently has in its portfolio and what it can obtain through change of use options. It is inherent to every solution besides an import project and still very much a possibility and a beneficial way to optimize the use of imported water. JB noted that one benefit of reuse is that increased water use translates to increased wastewater generation so it does make sense to consider the two together. However, there is considerable risk tied to reuse projects due to the uncertainty in the permitting and regulatory compliance process. (3:00) JB explained that another uncertainty with water reuse as an option is that the City has not had any conversations with potential partners in the type of venture with typical ones being (golf course, sod farms, etc.) JB also noted that reuse options would likely be fundable only through rate payers of the City of Bozeman. Other options on the list could bring in additional funding resources. If an import project was collaborated with other communities in the Gallatin Valley along a pipeline route, the project could and would likely receive both State and Federal Grant Funding, along with funding through other community rate payers, resulting in an economy of scale with significant financial advantages. It may even be possible to leverage the County if exempt wells become challenged. Strategic injection wells of raw water from the confluence of the Madison, Jefferson, and Gallatin, for example into the groundwater my help keep the groundwater table up, allowing exempt wells to continue to be installed in the Gallatin Valley. The cost could be translated to well permits with the County, accordingly. An import project can be turned into a very affordable option if people are willing to begin working together to solve a closed basin challenge. Conversation about whether the Agricultural Community is happy with the DNRC process for mitigation in closed basin occurred. It was noted that the Agricultural community is diverse and has a majority of the water in the Gallatin Valley. DNRC indicated it was actively advocating for an open conversation on the issue and the comment was made that cooperation between agriculture and municipal users is likely Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 235 inevitable. (3:09:00) JB referred to Deb Stevenson regarding agriculture and how the Salar project has tried to coordinate a project that would require this type of cooperation. The idea of irrigation canals used for delivery of municipal water to viable locations for City infrastructure to be developed was proposed. JB indicated that one option that the Salar project has not considered would be delivery of raw water through the two canals that cross its property into the East Gallatin River. Here, it could be picked up for treatment at a north side water treatment plant. (3:15). Deb Stevenson described the conversations she had with the two canal companies regarding water rights lease agreements and where the water would come from. DS described the rotational fallowing process that she has proposed to the canal companies, whereby, fields are rotated in and out of production to account for the water that will be contracted to a municipality. This process is happening in other Western States with tremendous support and success by those involved. (3:18) The process frees up consumptive use without drying up any agricultural areas permanently. DS referenced the Imperial Irrigation District as one example. This process also has the benefit of maintaining the irrigation and groundwater recharge relationship. Comments were made regarding algae blooms in a reservoir located on the floor of the Gallatin Valley, evaporation considerations, and the water losses associated with transferring water through canals. DS and TM discussed possible references that could be used for estimating canal losses in the Gallatin Valley and agreed to look into this issue and report back to the TAC. If losses across a canal were significant, pipeline conveyance could be considered, but would increase the cost of the option considerably. JB referenced the Safe Drinking Water Act (3:32) to address questions of regulatory issues that could be challenges in the future. She noted that the most likely compliance challenge will be Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (Endocrine Disruptors). In some communities, these issues are already driving public pressure for voluntary treatment. However, they are not well understood and are not anticipated in the near-term. She noted that different sources have different water qualities and treatment needs. Hyalite Reservoir, for example, is a high quality resource and is completely compatible with existing infrastructure because the water is delivered through an existing system. The City is already treating this water and the quality would not require a revised treatment approach. The same would hold true for a Sourdough Creek Reservoir, which offers significant advantages to the community from that perspective. JB acknowledged Frank Cifala, Forester, Program Manager for Gallatin Forest to provide information on the Forest Service perspective on a reservoir in the Sourdough Creek Drainage (3:37). Frank talked about what using National Forest Lands would entail. He reiterated information that has been shared with the community in the past that this project will require an extensive decision making process, proposals need to be submitted, screening of proposals and other “reasonable” alternatives will be necessary, and finally, the use of other lands before public lands for development are preferred. TAC inquired about the process for determination of what is “reasonable”. A. Frank presumed it will be a process of working together to explore the world of alternatives similar to what is occurring in the current TAC meetings, expanding the effort to include other steps such as site surveying, permitting processes, screening of proposals, putting the alternatives out for public comment, conducting the environmental work (in Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 236 this case, a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be required), receiving public comment and appeal, and then possibly facing Litigation. Litigation was discussed by the group and the consensus was that it would be very likely. The process of paying for and completing the EIS was discussed. FC indicated that the Forest Service would do the EIS and possibly hire a third party, which would be paid for through a collects Cost Recovery process. The applicant could apply to have the fees waived, which would need to be approved. This is as involved as permitting for dams, pipelines, and other special use permits. B. It was also noted that the NW Energy EIS has taken 4 years and is still not complete. A third party is hired for EIS. Delays can be caused due to Forest Service funding availability. TAC asked Frank how complicated raising Hyalite will be compared to Sourdough. (3:47) Frank responded that it will be just as much or more complicated than Sourdough. JB shared her discussion with Kevin Smith (3:48) and expects a Technical Reference based on that discussion. Kevin explained there are some considerable structural questions that need to be assessed regarding whether the dam could be raised as it was in the 1990’s. He suggested building another dam in front of the existing one could be a possibility. However, the Arctic Grayling is presently being proposed for the Endangered Species list. This issue alone could result in this project being a non-starter before it even begins. This option has not been studied in detail, however, and could have some merit in that the City would only need to operate one reservoir, not two. It was agreed that there is not much information on raising Hyalite Dam. There are also a lot of questions surrounding whether it is a good idea or viable solution. The concept would need to be studied in more detail. Peter Skidmore brought up concerns regarding public feedback solicitation and presenting best available information. Peter feels that 16.5% falls way short of what other communities are accomplishing and setting for goals. Best in West needs to be consistent with what is available in literature. Peter listed Boulder, Santa Fe, San Antonio, Austin as examples for more ambitious programs than the City Of Bozeman Best in the West. JB welcomed emails from Peter Skidmore and TAC members that include Benchmarked communities that are performing better. JB explained that many past presentations contained benchmarking across the western US already. PS questioned whether currently used benchmarks were from existing clients. MA clarified that this was not always the case and for indoor, CH2M HILL branched out nationally and internationally for appropriate measures. MA also noted that CH2M HILL enlisted Susan Butler, who has been integral to the development of many Texas conservation programs he referenced, including San Antonio, to develop a Best in the West Scenario for Bozeman. JB explained that the benefit to using Benchmark communities that were clients, is that all the conservation measures, goals, numbers were tracked well, could be more easily compared on an “apples to apples” basis, and that information is available. (4:02) It is very important for the community and public to understand what it takes to meet aggressive goals. They may not be efforts the people of Bozeman are willing to support. Optimizing Lyman Creek Facilities was discussed. JB indicated the water is already held as a right, but if this water is going to be used, then it has to be treated or the system needs to be optimized in some way to gain access to more water from the spring or through adjacent groundwater resources. She indicated she did not provide a technical handout because she intended to incorporate it into every portfolio in some manner, so ranking it would not make a difference in the outcome The question of why it needed to Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 237 be treated was posed. She indicated that the current withdrawal location is at a surface water point partway down the creek. Regulations now require filtration of this type of water supply. She noted that they did the best they could to bracket what they think is available through the current system. However, after the new WTP is constructed, the City may realize there is more water available at Lyman. Presently, winter use of Lyman is limited both by hydraulic issues with the spring (some of which were fixed with a project in 2010), and partly by the fact that the current WTP must run at a minimum of 2,000 gallons per minute. The WTP will not have this limitation and the operating staff can experiment with Lyman to find its true limits once the new facility comes online. (4:13)RM addressed the water quality issue once again, making a note that the City’s recent Water Quality Report demonstrates that out of 80 contaminants the City is required to monitor in its raw water supply, the current raw water resources in Hyalite Reservoir and Sourdough Creek only contain 7. This is extremely high quality source water, particularly for surface water and moving out of a headwaters supply situation will have impacts on the water quality and treatment efficacy that the public will want to know about. He referred to the City’s current supply positively as the: “Best drinking water you could ever hope to have.” GR reiterated the fact that was mentioned at the start of the meeting, whereby the TAC needs to make some recommendation in regards to how to bring the outcome of this effort to the public for comment in a public forum. This issue was tabled until the next meeting. ACTION ITEMS: This meeting served primarily as a working session and no decisions were made by the TAC. Action items include: • BH to make meeting information available to the TAC via the website. • GR to initiate an email discussion regarding the Public Process. • BH and GR to present project status to the City Commission before next TAC meeting (in January). • Bracket for dates for next meeting- Early February 10 am-3 pm, Late March for Results. Exhibit A - TAC 3 Meeting Record 238 Draft Agenda for Bozeman IWRP Interim Meeting 3A January 11, 2013, 1:00 p.m. Bozeman Professional Building, East Olive St. 1. Demand reduction and conservation alternatives “Best in the West” - what does this mean to us, and how is it defined? Evaluation of demand reduction alternatives. How can full evaluation be accommodated and integrated with IU and WSD evaluation? Overview of Low, Medium, and High conservation alternatives 2. Clarification of Integrated Utilities (IU) alternatives Clarification of how IU fits water supply planning, given that most IU alternatives will require water rights to fulfill How does this affect integrated evaluation with WSD alternatives? 3. Overcoming scoring matrix shortcomings 4. Process forward: Consultants’ work, TAC homework, further meetings 5. IWRP plan deliverables – clarification and criteria Integration of demand reduction and conservation alternatives in deliverables Seasonal water gap analysis – how addressed in deliverables for all portfolios Criteria for normalized reporting and comparison of alternatives and portfolios Exhibit B - TAC Meeting 3A Record 239 City of Bozeman, MT Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives OS1 Non-Potable Groundwater Supply DOMESTIC/PERMITTED WATER RIGHTS RANKING This alternative involves utilization of localized groundwater wells that would provide a water supply of untreated groundwater for irrigation purposes to a small community, neighborhood, subdivision, or development property. This concept would require the use of either exempt wells or larger wells that would be constructed with an associated water right. The acquisition of a water right under this scenario may include the transfer of existing water rights to these locations or purchase of water rights from others that would need to go through the permitting process. It is also possible that future developers would be left responsible for the development of their own water rights and irrigation system to be managed by a homeowner’s utility. At the present time, the available rights to support this concept have not been well defined. WATER SUPPLY PLANNING CRITERIA BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND REFERENCES • This concept has not been studied in the past and is a new concept in water resources planning for the City of Bozeman. • This alternative would involve drilling several small localized wells, primarily to serve new development. • The goal would be to develop wells for domestic irrigation that would be used from April/May to October of each year. • This alternative could serve existing areas if new piping infrastructure were constructed. However, it is most likely appropriate for new development. • Outdoor water demands are estimated at about 31% of the City’s current total water demand. • Groundwater supplies are connected to surface water and are considered undevelopable in a closed basin. • Rights could be purchased or transferred from existing or unused rights to support this alternative. • Since the water will be used for non-potable uses, the risk of contamination and sabotage is not a substantial factor. • The quality of the water is appropriate for the application. Using potable water for non-potable applications can be considered inefficient because high quality water is not necessary for irrigation purposes. • The water supply would be in close proximity due to the fact that it would be developed locally without any additional treatment. • There may be some risk that more water could be used under this alternative due to the fact that the cost structure would be different. Cost controls may need to be considered to encourage moderate usage. Exhibit B - TAC Meeting 3A Record 240 For More Information Contact Brian Heaston: bheaston@bozeman.net (406) 582-2280 • This alternative would require an additional network of pipeline infrastructure for new development. • As a non-potable application, the alternative is not subject to drinking water quality regulations • This alternative would require new infrastructure consisting of localized wells and piping infrastructure. • This alternative does not provide water supply redundancy as it is available for irrigation purposes only. • 2042 Available Water Supply = 11,204 ac-ft • 2062 Available Water Supply = 10,950 ac-ft. • Could reduce 2042 Growth Demands with 100% future outdoor use supplied through groundwater as follows: o Moderate Growth Demand: From 12,041 ac-ft to 10,754 ac-ft. o High Growth Demand: From 16,136 ac-ft to 13,780 ac-ft. • Could reduce 2062 Growth Demands with 100% future outdoor use supplied through groundwater as follows: o Moderate Growth Demand: From 15,941 ac-ft to 13,300 ac-ft. o High Growth Demands from 26,015 ac-ft to 20,400 ac-ft. • This alternative will not impact TMDLs directly, but if flows are removed from connected groundwater, there could be indirect impact. • This alternative will not address in-stream flow maintenance requirements. • Other than water rights permitting, it is not anticipated that this alternative would present major permitting challenges. • Groundwater supplies are not typically as susceptible to climate change, but due to connectivity to surface water, the impact of climate change should be considered. • Reduced carbon footprint would need to be studied. This alternative involves pumping costs, but would not require treatment of the supply. • Limited impacts on the environment are anticipated due to the urban location of the well. • This alternative may have mixed public support depending on customer preference for using potable water for irrigation purposes. • Public support may depend on who provides the well, the water right, and the increased cost of infrastructure development. • Could be a concept to incorporate into a conservation program as a mechanism for conservation marketing. Developers may choose this approach in lieu of a portion of water rights payment. • Cost estimates for this alternative have not been completed. However, compared to groundwater supply development, it is anticipated that the cost of developing one large well field and incorporating this water into the potable supply after disinfection could potentially be a much more efficient investment of dollars for potential developable acre-ft. • O&M, of decentralized systems such as this is typically higher than O&M of one major utility. • This alternative could serve as a mechanism for delaying larger infrastructure. TECHNICAL CRITERIA ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA SOCIAL CRITERIA ECONOMIC CRITERIA Exhibit B - TAC Meeting 3A Record 241 City of Bozeman, MT Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives OS2 Lyman Creek Expansion LEGAL WATER RIGHTS RANKING This alternative involves utilization of existing rights held by the City of Bozeman on Lyman Creek. The current system withdraws water from a spring that is hydraulically limited during times of the year to prevent the City from utilizing the full water right associated with Lyman Creek. The City’s current supply on paper for the Lyman system is 4,346 ac-ft. The existing infrastructure appears to be able to provide 1,790 ac-ft per year. If new infrastructure is constructed, it could achieve the additional 2,556 ac-ft. It may also be possible that the City could apply for a change of use associated with this right to transfer it to a location where it could be consolidated with other rights the City owns to optimize the manner in which infrastructure is constructed for future water supplies. The amount of water left after a change of use application is likely to be less than the currently held right. WATER SUPPLY PLANNING CRITERIA BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND REFERENCES • 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 City has 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 full right of 4,346 ac-ft cannot be accessed with the current treatment system due to gravitational issues, water tables, and other operational intricacies. • The new WTP will be constructed in a manner that will allow 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 collected 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 are 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. Exhibit B - TAC Meeting 3A Record 242 For More Information Contact Brian Heaston: bheaston@bozeman.net (406) 582-2280 • All of the possible solutions at Lyman Creek are technically feasible, compatible with existing infrastructure, can be constructed to comply with drinking water regulations, and provides a redundant water supply to the City of Bozeman. • Increased flows from the Lyman system can be conveyed to the City through the existing transmission main. However, improvements to the Pear Street Pump Station are recommended for long-term operations. Optimization of the hydraulic operations of the distribution system should also be evaluated if this supply becomes a greater part of the City’s water supply portfolio. • The redundancy is not a full replacement and is presently less than half of the City’s water needs during summer months. • The 2,550 ac-ft could meet the 30-year, medium growth water gap of 801 ac-ft. However, it is not enough water to meet the 50- year, high growth water gap of almost 5,000 ac-ft. • The 2,550 ac-ft does not meet either of the high growth water gap values. • If a change of use for the 2,550 ac-ft was pursued, some amount of this water could be moved and strategically combined with other water resources and supplies in the system to take advantage of shared infrastructure. • 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 as is 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. • Public Support and Satisfaction of this alternative are anticipated to be high. • Alternative does not allow for a lot of flexibility in the water supply to allow for water intensive community growth as a standalone alternative. However, it could be a part of an overall portfolio that could provide this flexibility. • There is not a strong water marketing component to this alternative unless the flows are used to mitigate use from a downstream location. This is already occurring, so no new water would be added to the supply. • 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. TECHNICAL CRITERIA ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA SOCIAL CRITERIA ECONOMIC CRITERIA Exhibit B - TAC Meeting 3A Record 243 City of Bozeman, MT Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives OS3 Low Conservation Approach LEGAL WATER RIGHTS RANKING This alternative involves encouraging the City of Bozeman community to reduce water use. The Low Conservation Approach encourages the continuation of the Toilet Rebate program, assuming an additional 10% of accounts could be switched to high efficiency toilets, the City adds to its education program budget and begins doing some basic promotion of water saving efforts in the community, and relies on a one of its current staff members to take on the role of parttime conservation specialist (estimated at about 25% of its time). Note that this option was developed using the Alliance for Water Efficiency Conservation Tracking Tool. It should be noted that from a legal perspective, there are no implications of water conservation as it pertains to water rights. It is also intended to be a sustainable practice and carries wide- spread benefits that could impact the City utility wide. WATER SUPPLY PLANNING CRITERIA BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND REFERENCES • 2002 Water Conservation Plan • Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum developed as part of this IWRP (note that additional references are outlined in 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 the criteria identified for this ranking category are not applicable. • 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 have 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 low range water conservation scenario is based on 10- years of implementation and results in 235 ac-ft per year, by the end of the 10-year period. At a 2025 population (assuming the program begins in 2015), this reduces water demands by 3% and drops the climate adjusted baseline planning demand to 169 gpcd. Exhibit B - TAC Meeting 3A Record 244 For More Information Contact Brian Heaston: bheaston@bozeman.net (406) 582-2280 • This alternative is technically feasible • It does not meet 30-year and 50-year planning criteria • While it does not serve as a redundant supply, it translates into supply that is never needed and as such, acts similar to a redundant supply in overall application. • Environmental Benefits of Conservation are significant. If more water is left in the watershed, water quality of the East Gallatin is likely to improve due to increased dilution. • No infrastructure must be constructed to account for increased water. • No permitting is required for reducing water use. • In-stream flows are impacted positively as more water is left in the watershed. • Natural systems are maintained at their current status and the likelihood of having to impact them in the future is less. • The carbon footprint of conservation is reduced. Less water is treated, less energy is needed to convey the water to customers, new infrastructure is delayed, and less energy is needed to treat the water at the City’s wastewater treatment plant. • For this particular alternative, the comparative acre-ft reduction is likely to have limited environmental impacts due to its relatively small amount when compared to the water that will be necessary to continue to serve a growing population. • Public support for conservation measures can be mixed. In some cases, not enough effort is placed on conservation to obtain support for the concept as a benefit to the community. In others, so much pressure can be placed on the community to take on the responsibility of using less water that the public can be resistant and unsupportive of the efforts. • For the City of Bozeman, the key will be to finding the correct balance of water conservation goals and public support. The Bozeman community is anticipated to be more supportive of a community due to its makeup than others. • It is anticipated that the low scenario would be supported, but would not excite the community enough to begin taking conservation to the next level on its own. • There are no water marketing components to this alternative. • The reduction in water use is not enough to provide the flexibility necessary for addressing water intensive development in the future on its own. It would need to be combined with other alternatives in a portfolio. • Cost estimates for this alternative have been completed, assuming continued toilet rebates, enhanced education, and use of 25% of a current FTE for the City to manage the conservation program. The associated 10-year cumulative cost (in 2013$) = $594,550. • A total cost per acre-ft of this conservation program is $2,531 per acre-ft. • Note that the above cost does not include the impacts of reduced treatment at the water and water reclamation facilities or the reduced cost of conveying the water to the community. • It also does not consider the one-time costs of having to purchase the comparative rights or evaluate the cost impacts of delayed infrastructure. TECHNICAL CRITERIA ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA SOCIAL CRITERIA ECONOMIC CRITERIA Exhibit B - TAC Meeting 3A Record 245 City of Bozeman, MT Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives OS4 Medium Conservation Approach LEGAL WATER RIGHTS RANKING This alternative involves encouraging the City of Bozeman community to reduce water use. The Medium Conservation Approach developed a full list of conservation measures and assumed a typical percentage of households and commercial entities implement the proposed conservation measures. It covered indoor and outdoor conservation, pricing modifications, education, and assumed up to two full time conservation program specialists over the course of the program. Note that this option was developed using the Alliance for Water Efficiency Conservation Tracking Tool. It should be noted that from a legal perspective, there are no implications of water conservation as it pertains to water rights. It is also intended to be a sustainable practice and carries wide-spread benefits that could impact the City utility wide. WATER SUPPLY PLANNING CRITERIA BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND REFERENCES • 2002 Water Conservation Plan • Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum developed as part of this IWRP (note that additional references are outlined in 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 the criteria identified for this ranking category are not applicable. • 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 have 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 medium range water conservation scenario is based on 10- years of implementation and results in 1,264 ac-ft per year, by the end of the 10-year period. At a 2025 population (assuming the program begins in 2015), this reduces water demands by 14% and drops the climate adjusted baseline planning demand to 149 gpcd. Exhibit B - TAC Meeting 3A Record 246 For More Information Contact Brian Heaston: bheaston@bozeman.net (406) 582-2280 • This alternative is technically feasible and leaves some options in the technical approach that encourage flexibility. If one approach doesn’t work, another could be developed. • It meets the 30-year, but not 50-year planning criteria • Although not redundant, it translates into supply that is never needed. • Environmental Benefits of Conservation are significant. If more water is left in the watershed, water quality of the East Gallatin is likely to improve due to increased dilution. • No infrastructure must be constructed. • No permitting is required for reducing water use. • In-stream flows are impacted positively as more water is left in the watershed. • Natural systems are maintained at their current status and the likelihood of having to impact them in the future is less. • The carbon footprint of conservation is reduced. Less water is treated, less energy is needed to convey the water to customers, new infrastructure is delayed, and less energy is needed to treat the water at the City’s wastewater treatment plant. • For this particular alternative, the comparative acre-ft reduction would have a more appreciable beneficial impact to the environment as it will save over 4 times the water to the low conservation scenario. • Public support for conservation measures can be mixed. In some cases, not enough effort is placed on conservation to obtain support for the concept as a benefit to the community. In others, so much pressure can be placed on the community to take on the responsibility of using less water that the public can be resistant and unsupportive of the efforts. • For the City of Bozeman, the key will be to finding the correct balance of water conservation goals and public support. The Bozeman community is anticipated to be more supportive of a community due to its makeup than others. • It is anticipated that the medium scenario would be well supported by the community and perhaps inspire some to take it to the next level, allowing for better success than the targeted goal. • Water conservation marketing components could be incorporated into this alternative. • Water rates may increase under this alternative. • There may be some increased flexibility for supporting water intensive development in the future, but not a lot. • Cost estimates for this alternative have been completed. The associated 10-year cumulative cost (in 2013$) = $4.67 Million. • A total cost per acre-ft of this conservation program is $3,541 per acre-ft. • Note that the above cost does not include the impacts of reduced treatment at the water and water reclamation facilities or the reduced cost of conveying the water to the community. • It also does not consider the one-time costs of having to purchase the comparative rights or evaluate the cost impacts of delayed infrastructure. TECHNICAL CRITERIA ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA SOCIAL CRITERIA ECONOMIC CRITERIA Exhibit B - TAC Meeting 3A Record 247 City of Bozeman, MT Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives OS5 High Conservation Approach LEGAL WATER RIGHTS RANKING This alternative involves encouraging the City of Bozeman community to reduce water use. The High Conservation Approach developed a full list of conservation measures and assumed a more aggressive percentage of households and commercial entities implement the proposed conservation measures. It also expanded outdoor conservation to include a large land turf replacement program. It assumes the City of Bozeman would employ up to three full time conservation program specialists over the course of the program. Note that this option was developed using the Alliance for Water Efficiency Conservation Tracking Tool. It should be noted that from a legal perspective, there are no implications of water conservation as it pertains to water rights. It is also intended to be a sustainable practice and carries wide-spread benefits that could impact the City utility wide. WATER SUPPLY PLANNING CRITERIA BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND REFERENCES • 2002 Water Conservation Plan • Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum developed as part of this IWRP (note that additional references are outlined in 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 the criteria identified for this ranking category are not applicable. • 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 have 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 10- 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 reduces water demands by 44% and drops the climate adjusted baseline planning demand to 114 gpcd. Exhibit B - TAC Meeting 3A Record 248 For More Information Contact Brian Heaston: bheaston@bozeman.net (406) 582-2280 • This alternative is technically feasible, but will be technical intensive to make successful. • It meets the 30-year, but not 50-year planning criteria • While it does not serve as a redundant supply, it translates into supply that is never needed and as such, acts similar to a redundant supply in overall application. • Environmental Benefits of Conservation are significant. If more water is left in the watershed, water quality of the East Gallatin is likely to improve due to increased dilution. • No infrastructure must be constructed. • No permitting is required for reducing water use. • In-stream flows are impacted positively as more water is left in the watershed. • Natural systems are maintained at their current status and the likelihood of having to impact them in the future is less. • The carbon footprint of conservation is reduced. Less water is treated, less energy is needed to convey the water to customers, new infrastructure is delayed, and less energy is needed to treat the water at the City’s wastewater treatment plant. • For this particular alternative, the comparative acre-ft reduction would have a more appreciable beneficial impact to the environment as it will save over 10 times the water to the low conservation scenario. • Public support for conservation measures can be mixed. In some cases, not enough effort is placed on conservation to obtain support for the concept as a benefit to the community. In others, so much pressure can be placed on the community to take on the responsibility of using less water that the public can be resistant and unsupportive of the efforts. • For the City of Bozeman, the key will be to finding the correct balance of water conservation goals and public support. The Bozeman community is anticipated to be more supportive of a community due to its makeup than others. • It is anticipated that the high scenario may be supported by some members of the community, but will likely not be supported by all of the community. • Water conservation marketing components could be incorporated into this alternative. • Water rates would likely increase under this alternative. • The increased flexibility may be tempered by restrictive water use policies. • Cost estimates for this alternative have been completed. The associated 10-year cumulative cost (in 2013$) = $16.45 Million. • A total cost per acre-ft of this conservation program is $5,164 per acre-ft. • Note that the above cost does not include the impacts of reduced treatment at the water and water reclamation facilities or the reduced cost of conveying the water to the community. • It also does not consider the one-time costs of having to purchase the comparative rights or evaluate the cost impacts of delayed infrastructure. TECHNICAL CRITERIA ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA SOCIAL CRITERIA ECONOMIC CRITERIA Exhibit B - TAC Meeting 3A Record 249 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES PLAN BOZEMAN, MONTANA January 11, 2012 ************************ The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of the Integrated Water Resources Plan (IWRP) met in the upstairs conference room of the Stiff Professional Building on Friday, January 11, 2013. Present were TAC Chair Gretchen Rupp and TAC Members Peter Skidmore, Carson Taylor, Rick Moroney, Rick Hixson, Kerri Strasheim, Alan English, Laura Ziemer. Absent were TAC Members Walt Sales, Frank Cifala, and Tammy Crone. City of Bozeman Staff Members present were Brian Heaston and Craig Woolard. Other members of the public present were Deb Stephenson. These minutes are not word for word and should be considered along with the audio recording. A. Call to Order – 1:00 p.m. – Upstairs Conference Room, Stiff Professional Building, 20 E. Olive Street. B. Demand Reduction and Conservation Alternatives. Chair Rupp opens discussion on conservation alternatives. Mr. Heaston explains that the consultant team has prepared 3 conservation alternatives: low, medium, and high; and that the alternatives represent increasing levels of conservation in terms of volume saved and costs expended to achieve the savings. Technical handouts were prepared by the consultant for the 3 conservation alternatives in similar fashion to technical handouts disseminated to the committee prior to TAC 3 on December 6, 2012. The excel spreadsheet of the 3 conservation alternatives was explained to contain individual conservation measures that were used to arrive at volume savings and costs. The Alliance for Water Efficiency conservation calculator tool was used for baseline measure volume savings and cost information. Mr. Skidmore is encouraged that the consultants have revised the conservation alternatives to be more in-line with the TAC’s intent regarding developing a ‘best in the west’ conservation program. Mr. Skidmore is not clear which individual conservation measures are existing building retro-fit savings and which are future building savings and would like distinction provided between these two categories. Chair Rupp states that it would be helpful for cost information to be presented in a consistent fashion so direct comparisons and judgments can be better made. Mr. English adds that the same consistency would be welcomed for presentation of supply and demand planning criteria and suggests that units of acre-feet be used. Ms. Ziemer agrees that unit consistency is important and presents a draft table to the TAC that she developed which has planning criteria broken down to monthly time steps for the 30- and 50-year, moderate and high growth so that seasonal supply gaps can be determined. The table will be further refined and emailed to the TAC, staff, and consultant. Exhibit B - TAC Meeting 3A Record 250 Mr. Taylor mentions that achieved water conservation savings are different than planning projections and that a successful conservation program may defer the need for expensive new supply development alternatives which may be politically difficult to fund through rate increases. Mr. Skidmore states that future development conservation volume savings is easy to determine for building code changes and wants to see existing retro-fit measures distinguished from future development savings in the measure lists for low, medium, and high conservation alternatives. C. Clarification of Integrated Utilities (IU) Alternatives. Chair Rupp opens the discussion on IU alternatives by stating the city has a huge potential resource in re-using treated wastewater effluent, or it doesn’t, and that it’s important to understand if a new water right is required when evaluating re-use alternatives. Ms. Strasheim mentions that the water rights box on the technical sheets for the re-use alternatives are coded orange by the consultant meaning that there is uncertainty surrounding water rights for re-use alternatives. Mr. English states his understanding of water rights concerning re-use water is that if re-use is part of the DEQ approved treatment process then a water right is not needed. If re-use is not part of the treatment process then a water right is required. Mr. English assumed that the re-use alternatives were not ‘treatment’ and that a water right would be needed with his evaluation of the re-use alternatives. Ms. Ziemer adds that costs for acquiring a new water right are not included on the technical handouts prepared by the consultant. It will likely be difficult and expensive to obtain mitigation water rights to make the existing downstream water rights holders on the East Gallatin whole. Ms. Ziemer states that the ranking criteria did not reflect the costs and uncertainty in obtaining new rights to such a degree that the she felt the re-use alternatives are not worth ranking. Mr. Woolard asks if the re-use alternatives should be removed from consideration entirely with the IWRP. Ms. Ziemer agreed that they should be removed from the IWRP as a new supply source. She further states and that re-use is better applied towards solving the water quality and TMDL issues on the East Gallatin and that re-use options are more appropriately considered water quality alternatives, not water supply alternatives. Mr. English mentions that he is hesitant to remove re-use alternatives from plan consideration because they may be needed in portfolios. Mr. Skidmore posits about using re-use alternatives to mitigate potential water quality issues that may result from implementation of other water supply alternatives. Ms. Ziemer states that in the hypothetical posed by Mr. Skidmore that the re-use alternative is not new supply, per se. Mr. Woolard states that there are two different puzzles that the city needs to solve which are complementary, yet separate. There’s the water supply puzzle and the water quality/TMDL puzzle on the East Gallatin River. He feels the re-use alternatives better serve the water quality/TMDL issue than the water supply issue and that portfolio assembly may be simpler if re-use alternatives were removed from consideration. Exhibit B - TAC Meeting 3A Record 251 Chair Rupp asks Mr. Skidmore and Ms. Strasheim their thoughts concerning removing re-use alternatives from portfolio development. Mr. Skidmore reiterates that re-use alternatives should be viewed as a mitigating component of another water supply alternative’s potential affect on water quality. Mr. English suggests that the re-use alternatives should remain viable for portfolio development and that the process play out concerning scoring and portfolio construction. He further adds that the TAC can voice its opinion concerning the application of re-use alternatives in its summary recommendations at the conclusion of the plan. Chair Rupp agreed that re-use should remain in the plan and that the TAC will provide remarks in their summary plan recommendation that re-use should focus on water quality issues. General consensus of the TAC members was achieved concerning this issue. D. Overcoming Scoring Matrix Shortcomings. Chair Rupp opens discussion on this item stating the difficulty of scoring all the alternatives against the detailed evaluation criteria with limited information presented on the technical sheets. She is confident that the TAC individually scored the alternatives consistently and that perhaps this is the best the TAC can expect given limitations in scope and budget. Ms. Ziemer states that it would be helpful for all cost data to be normalized and presented in consistent units for each alternative, i.e. $/acre feet. Mr. Skidmore agreed that relative comparisons are easy to make if data is presented in standardized fashion. Mr. Heaston suggests that cost data be presented in terms of net present value (NPV) per acre foot, i.e. $NPV/AF as this will eliminate the temporal component. He adds that he is not sure whether the scope and budget provides the capability to complete this level of analysis without an amendment, but will pose the question to the consultant. Mr. Hixson states that costs cannot be determined at this juncture for many alternatives because their implementation details have yet to be established which will affect costs. For instance, installing groundwater wells to meet future development peak demand can be implemented many different ways with dramatically different cost implications: localized exempt wells and small distribution boundary vs. regional permitted well with large distribution boundary. Ms. Ziemer directs the discussion to the Lyman Creek alternative expressing confusion regarding information presented on Slide 31 of the TAC 3 meeting. It is unclear where the 3,165 AF value recommendation of the consultant is coming from. Clarification regarding the derivation of this value is needed by the consultant. Chair Rupp moves the discussion back to how Lyman Creek and the non-potable groundwater alternatives will be evaluated by the TAC. Ms. Ziemer asks that the non-potable groundwater alternative be evaluated as a new supply source, but that proper evaluation of the alternative requires the planning criteria table her staff is preparing be completed first. This table will identify the seasonal peak demand supply gap at the 30 and 50 year planning horizons that this alternative could potentially meet on its own accord. Exhibit B - TAC Meeting 3A Record 252 Mr. Skidmore was unclear where demand reduction numbers presented on the technical sheet for the non-potable groundwater alternative were derived. Clarification is needed by the consultant before proper evaluation of this alternative can be made by the TAC. TAC members agree that the non-potable groundwater alternative will be evaluated as new supply alternative in the plan. Chair Rupp brings the conversation back to Lyman Creek and whether the TAC wants to evaluate this supply alternative in standalone fashion, or keep it compartmentalized within the water rights management scheme the consultant has recommended up until this point. The TAC is generally confused about the supply numbers presented on the technical sheet for the Lyman standalone alternative. Revisions are required by the consultant to provide clarity regarding supply volumes for this alternative. Chair Rupp suggests that the consultant work with Mr. Moroney directly to provide clarity. The general consensus among the TAC is to evaluate Lyman Creek expansion as a standalone water supply alternative. E. Process forward: consultant’s work, TAC homework, further meetings. Chair Rupp opens the item for discussion. Mr. Heaston states that 5 additional alternatives will need to be scored by the TAC (low, med, high conservation; non-potable groundwater; and Lyman Creek). Chair Rupp questions if the evaluation criteria need to be revised. Mr. Skidmore responds stating that the criteria are good and comprehensive; it’s the varying degrees of information available respective to the alternatives and apparent inconsistency in presenting planning values that has been difficult. The TAC generally seemed to agree with Mr. Skidmore’s statement. Chair Rupp suggests that staff work with the consultant to obtain answers to the questions posed during the meeting and that revised materials be provided to the TAC. Once received, the TAC will score the 5 additional alternatives, and make any revisions they feel necessary to their previously submitted alternative scores and remit to staff for transmittal to the consultant. Chair Rupp asks Mr. Heaston if the next formal TAC meeting scheduled for February 1 requires the consultant have the updated alternative scores from the TAC. Mr. Heaston believed that that was necessary. Mr. Heaston asked the committee how involved they want to be with assembling portfolios of alternatives to meet the planning criteria. Mr. Skidmore stated that it would be more valuable for the TAC to understand and have an opportunity to comment upon the consultant’s process for portfolio construction and then have them complete that exercise for the TAC’s review. Chair Rupp asked Mr. Heaston if the consultant would come prepared to the February 1 TAC meeting with draft portfolios to present. Mr. Heaston was unclear whether this would occur and stated he would follow up with the consultant on this. Chair Rupp stated that if the answer was yes, that a lot of work must occur in the 3 weeks and seemed doubtful that the timeframe was realistically achievable. Ms. Ziemer restates the importance for her to have the planning criteria presented in seasonal terms as discussed previously in the meeting in order to provide a good evaluation of the portfolios. By presenting the criteria in this fashion different strategies for meeting supply gaps can be arranged. Exhibit B - TAC Meeting 3A Record 253 Chair Rupp asked Mr. Heaston how the portfolio assembly process should be best presented to the TAC. Mr. Heaston suggested that the consultant prepare materials that describe the envisioned process which would then be disseminated to the TAC as an agenda packet prior to the meeting. In doing so, the TAC can come better prepared to have a robust discussion with the consultant concerning portfolio assembly philosophies and procedures. Mr. Skidmore stated that if the consultant has draft portfolios prepared for the next TAC meeting that it may be wasted effort if the TAC thinks the assembly process requires revision. Mr. Heaston responded saying that this is the kind of situation he is trying to avoid. Mr. Heaston stated that he would work with the consultant team to establish information needs requested by the TAC and a schedule for addressing these needs. Once materials are received, they can be forwarded to the TAC for review. Once this is done, the next formal TAC meeting can be scheduled, or perhaps another interim TAC meeting held if deemed necessary by the committee. Mr. English stated that the sooner the TAC can review the portfolio process the better. Chair Rupp summarized main topics of the meeting pertinent to requests for information. Mr. Heaston stated that developing cost information for each of the 25 alternatives under consideration is beyond the scope of the contract with the consultant. The TAC appeared to understand that this was a necessary limitation and would work the best information they could receive within the currently scoped parameters of the contract. Discussion ensues regarding whether the February 1 date can be met for the next TAC meeting with the information that needs to be prepared between now and then. Once materials are received from the consultant scheduling decisions for the next TAC meeting will be made. F. Adjournment The Chair adjourned the meeting 1hrs and 40 minutes after the meeting call to order. Exhibit B - TAC Meeting 3A Record 254 CITY OF BOZEMAN Integrated Water Resources Plan Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #4 A. CALL TO ORDER 1. Attendance/Recognition of Participants 2. Review Meeting Agenda/Intent/Purpose B. ALTERNATIVE RANKINGS 1. TAC Scores 2. Technical Team Scores C. ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION 1. Identification of Preferred Alternatives for Portfolio Consideration 2. Elimination of Alternatives for Portfolio Consideration 3. Discussion of Remaining Alternatives D. PORTFOLIO DISCUSSION 1. Technical Team Draft 2. Modifications (if any) E. NEXT STEPS 1. Portfolio Modeling Effort 2. TAC Meeting #5 3. City Commission/Public Interface F. PUBLIC COMMENT - Please state your name and address in an audible tone of voice for the record. This is the time for individuals to comment on matters falling within the purview of this Committee. Please limit your comments to three minutes. Meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability that requires assistance, please contact our ADA Coordinator, James Goehrung, at 582-3232 (TDD 582-2301) DATE: Friday, March 1st, 2013, 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. LOCATION: City Commission Room, City Hall, 121 N. Rouse Ave Exhibit C - TAC Meeting 4 Record (no minutes) 255 IWRP TAC MEETING #4 CITY OF BOZEMAN Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting #4 March 1, 2013 ~ 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Exhibit C - TAC Meeting 4 Record (no minutes) 256 Meeting Agenda Call to Order Alternative Rankings Alternative Evaluation Identification of Preferred Alternatives Identification of Alternatives for Elimination Discussion of Remaining Alternatives Portfolio Discussion Technical Team Draft Modifcations (if any) Next Steps Portfolio Modeling Effort TAC Meeting #5 Commission/Public Interfacting TAC Meeting #4 Exhibit C - TAC Meeting 4 Record (no minutes) 257 INTERIM SUBMITTALS For TAC Independent Review •Technical Handouts for OS Alternatives •Disaggregated Flows for Indoor and Outdoor Water Use •Portfolio Development Tech. Memo. •Draft Water Conservation Plan Tech. Memo. Exhibit C - TAC Meeting 4 Record (no minutes) 258 PLANNING CRITERIA Physically Available Supply (Firm Yield Analysis): Source Documented Annual Water Right (ac-ft) Pre-Project Firm Yield Supply (ac-ft) 2012 Firm Yield 2042 Firm Yield 2062 Firm Yield Sourdough Creek (aka Bozeman Creek) 4,800 3,734 3,633 3,491 3,277 Hyalite Creek (aka Middle Creek) 1,631 1,526 1,489 1,436 1,360 Hyalite Reservoir 5,652 4,295 4,521 4,521 4,521 Total at WTP 12,083 9,555 9,643 9,447 9,158 Sourdough Storage Reservation 609 609 609 609 609 Lyman Creek 4,346 1,280 1,790 1,790 1,790 Total With Reservation 17,038 11,444 12,042 11,846 11,557 Total Without Reservation 16,429 10,835 11,433 11,237 10,948 Exhibit C - TAC Meeting 4 Record (no minutes) 259 PLANNING CRITERIA Physical Needs Item Description 2042 2062 Climate Adjusted Water Demand (gpcd) 174 189 Moderate Population Projection 70,256 85,725 MSU Growth (acre-ft) 500 500 Climate Adjusted Water Demand (acre-ft) 14,200 18,650 Climate Adjusted Firm Yield Supply (acre-ft) 11,240 10,950 Water Balance Gap (Supply versus Demand) (acre-ft) 2,960 7,700 High Population Projection 94,144 139,900 MSU Growth (acre-ft) 500 500 Climate Adjusted Water Demand (acre-ft) 18,850 30,120 Climate Adjusted Firm Yield Supply (acre-ft) 11,240 10,950 Water Balance Gap (Supply versus Demand) (acre-ft) 7,610 19,170 Exhibit C - TAC Meeting 4 Record (no minutes) 260 BASELINE DEMAND BREAKDOWN Month Supply Based Demand (173 gpcd) WTP Efficiency Losses (gpcd) MSU (gpcd) Unacc. for Water (gpcd) Ind. (gpcd) Top 8 Comm. (Hotels) (gpcd) Govt. (gpcd) Res. Indoor (gpcd) Res. Outdoor (gpcd) Comm. Indoor (gpcd) Comm. Outdoor (gpcd) January 112 6 10 22 1 6 2 43 22 February 118 6 10 24 1 7 2 45 23 March 114 6 10 22 1 7 2 43 23 April 114 6 10 22 1 7 2 43 23 May 174 9 13 25 1 9 5 45 31 24 12 June 214 11 15 23 1 11 7 47 53 25 21 July 324 16 20 24 1 17 12 47 116 25 46 August 314 16 20 25 1 16 11 49 108 26 42 September 234 12 16 24 1 12 8 46 65 24 26 October 135 7 12 26 1 8 3 51 27 November 116 6 10 23 1 7 2 44 23 December 111 6 10 22 1 6 2 42 22 Average 173 9 13 24 1 9 5 45 75 24 29 % Total 100% 5% 8% 15% 1% 5% 3% 25% 18% 14% 7% Exhibit C - TAC Meeting 4 Record (no minutes) 261 DISAGGREGATED INFORMATION Water Demands (ac/ft) Month 2011 (Pop. 38,025) 2042 Moderate Pop. Growth (70,256) 2042 High Pop. Growth (94,144) 2062 Moderate Pop. Growth (85,725) 2062 High Pop. Growth (139,900) W/out Cons. With Cons. W/out Cons. With Cons. W/out Cons. With Cons. W/out Cons. With Cons. November 385 750 679 1005 910 916 869 1494 1352 December 384 742 675 994 905 905 824 1477 1344 January 384 745 682 1003 914 913 832 1491 1358 February 366 712 646 955 866 869 788 1419 1286 March 394 762 695 1021 932 930 848 1517 1384 April 382 724 660 971 884 979 892 1597 1504 May 601 1163 1023 1558 1370 1533 1346 2502 2196 June 714 1410 1223 1890 1638 1926 1673 3143 2731 July 1114 2239 1898 3000 2544 3115 2642 5084 4312 August 1078 2179 1851 2920 2481 3083 2626 5031 4286 September 777 1552 1339 2080 1794 2139 1839 3491 3001 October 467 889 809 1191 1084 1256 1142 2050 1863 Annual Indoor Use 4590 8870 8074 11898 10,822 11024 10106 17990 16456 Annual Outdoor Use 2546 4997 4106 6690 5500 7540 6215 12306 10161 Total Annual Demands 7136 13867 12180 18588 16,322 18564 16321 30296 26617 Indoor Increase from 2011 N/A 4280 3484 7308 6232 6434 5516 13400 11866 Outdoor Increase from 2011 N/A 2451 1560 4144 2954 4994 3669 9760 7615 Total Increase from 2011 N/A 6731 5044 11452 9186 11428 9185 23160 19481 City Water Currently Available 11,433 11,237 11,237 11,237 11,237 10,948 10,948 10,948 10,948 New Growth's Indoor Demand Not Met 0 179 0 3,207 2,131 2,622 1,704 9,588 8,054 New Growth's Outdoor Demand Not Met 0 2451 943 4,144 2,954 4,994 3,669 9,760 7,615 Total Annual Demand Not Met 0 2,630 943 7,351 5,085 7,616 5,373 19,348 15,669 City Water Available Over 2011 Use 4,297 4,101 4,101 4,101 4,101 3,812 3,812 3,812 3,812 Exhibit C - TAC Meeting 4 Record (no minutes) 262 TAC Ranking Results ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION Alt. Non-Potable Reuse on North End IU1 17 Non-Potable Reuse North and South IU2 20 Non-Potable/Potable North End IU3 21 Non-Potable/Potable South End IU4 23 Reuse for Ag Irrigation IU5 16 Reuse to Industrial Uses IU6 24 Reuse for GW Recharge IU7 19 Sourdough Creek Reservoir WSD1 12 Reservoir Import from Canyon Ferry WSD2A 15 Confluence Import from Canyon Ferry WSD2B 18 Groundwater from Madison Aquifer WSD3A 8 Groundwater in Belgrade Subarea WSD3B 10 GW in Gallatin Gateway Subarea WSD3C 6 Yellowstone River Import WSD4 22 Adjacent Drainage Import WSD5 14 Agricultural Impoundment WSD6 13 Sourdough Pond Impoundment WSD7 11 Purchase of Shares from Hyalite WSD8 1 Hyalite Dam Raise WSD9 9 Brackett Creek Import WSD10 25 Non-Potable Groundwater Wells OS1 5 Lyman Creek Supply OS2 2 Low Conservation OS3 7 Medium Conservation OS4 3 High Conservation OS5 4 Exhibit C - TAC Meeting 4 Record (no minutes) 263 TAC Ranking Results 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IU1 IU2 IU3 IU4 IU5 IU6 IU7 WSD1 WSD2A WSD2B WSD3A WSD3B WSD3C WSD4 WSD5 WSD6 WSD7 WSD8 WSD9 WSD10 OS1 OS2 OS3 OS4 OS5 TAC Ordinal Total Score 1 11 4 3 2 22 9 25 5 6 8 18 12 15 19 24 16 23 21 20 17 10 14 13 7 Exhibit C - TAC Meeting 4 Record (no minutes) 264 Technical Team Ranking Results ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION Alt. Non-Potable Reuse on North End IU1 14 Non-Potable Reuse North and South IU2 19 Non-Potable/Potable North End IU3 22 Non-Potable/Potable South End IU4 23 Reuse for Ag Irrigation IU5 18 Reuse to Industrial Uses IU6 25 Reuse for GW Recharge IU7 24 Sourdough Creek Reservoir WSD1 13 Reservoir Import from Canyon Ferry WSD2A 6 Confluence Import from Canyon Ferry WSD2B 1 Groundwater from Madison Aquifer WSD3A 11 Groundwater in Belgrade Subarea WSD3B 10 GW in Gallatin Gateway Subarea WSD3C 9 Yellowstone River Import WSD4 15 Adjacent Drainage Import WSD5 21 Agricultural Impoundment WSD6 7 Sourdough Pond Impoundment WSD7 16 Purchase of Shares from Hyalite WSD8 3 Hyalite Dam Raise WSD9 12 Brackett Creek Import WSD10 20 Non-Potable Groundwater Wells OS1 17 Lyman Creek Supply OS2 4 Low Conservation OS3 8 Medium Conservation OS4 2 High Conservation OS5 5 Exhibit C - TAC Meeting 4 Record (no minutes) 265 Technical Team Ranking Results 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 IU1 IU2 IU3 IU4 IU5 IU6 IU7 WSD1 WSD2A WSD2B WSD3A WSD3B WSD3C WSD4 WSD5 WSD6 WSD7 WSD8 WSD9 WSD10 OS1 OS2 OS3 OS4 OS5 Technical Team Ordinal Total Score 1 11 4 3 2 22 9 25 5 6 8 18 12 15 19 24 16 23 21 20 17 10 14 13 7 Exhibit C - TAC Meeting 4 Record (no minutes) 266 City of Bozeman, MT Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives WSD8 Hyalite Share Purchase OS2 Lyman System Expansion OS3 Low Conservation Scenario OS4 Medium Conservation Scenario OS5 High Conservation Scenario WSD3C Groundwater in Gallatin Gateway OS1 Non-potable Irrigation Water Alternatives Moving Forward Exhibit C - TAC Meeting 4 Record (no minutes) 267 Non-Potable Groundwater Wells Exhibit C - TAC Meeting 4 Record (no minutes) 268 City of Bozeman, MT Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives WSD10 Bracket Creek WSD4 Yellowstone Import WSD5 Adjacent Drainage Import IU2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 Alternatives WSD2A Canyon Ferry Reservoir Import WSD3A Madison Aquifer WSD3B Belgrade GW Subarea Alternatives to be Eliminated Exhibit C - TAC Meeting 4 Record (no minutes) 269 T3S T4S T2S T3S City of Bozeman Land Mt. Ellis Water TreatmentPlant Mystic Lake Two Springs Mystic Lake Cabin LangohrSprings Moser Map Source:USGS 7.5 minute seriesWheeler Mt. Quadrangle, 1987Mt. Ellis Quadrangle, 1987Mt. Blackmore Quadrangle, 1988Fridley Peak Quadrangle, 1988 N HyaliteReservoir Nash Rd. S. 19th St. Stream Channel Paved Road Dirt Road Lick CreekSNOTEL Scale in miles 0 1.0 2.0Madison Aquifer Wheeler Mt. Primary Study Area Palisade Mt. Madison Aquifer Exhibit C - TAC Meeting 4 Record (no minutes) 270 GW Belgrade Subarea Exhibit C - TAC Meeting 4 Record (no minutes) 271 City of Bozeman, MT Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives WSD1 Sourdough Reservoir IU1 North End Non-Potable Reuse IU5 Agricultural Reuse WSD2B Canyon Ferry Confluence Import WSD6 Agricultural Impoundment WSD7 Sourdough Pond Impoundment WSD9 Hyalite Dam Raise WSD2A Canyon Ferry Import Reservoir Delivery Alternatives Discussion Exhibit C - TAC Meeting 4 Record (no minutes) 272 Previously Studied Alternatives Sourdough Creek Reservoir Project BWTP Exhibit C - TAC Meeting 4 Record (no minutes) 273 Hyalite Dam Raise Exhibit C - TAC Meeting 4 Record (no minutes) 274 T3S T4S T2S T3S City of Bozeman Land Mt. Ellis Water TreatmentPlant Mystic Lake Two Springs Mystic Lake Cabin LangohrSprings Moser Map Source:USGS 7.5 minute seriesWheeler Mt. Quadrangle, 1987Mt. Ellis Quadrangle, 1987Mt. Blackmore Quadrangle, 1988Fridley Peak Quadrangle, 1988 N HyaliteReservoir Nash Rd. S. 19th St. Stream Channel Paved Road Dirt Road Lick CreekSNOTEL Scale in miles 0 1.0 2.0Madison Aquifer Wheeler Mt. Primary Study Area Palisade Mt. Sourdough Pond Impoundment Exhibit C - TAC Meeting 4 Record (no minutes) 275 IMPORT PROJECTS Canyon Ferry Reservoir Approximately 30 Miles Regional Opportunities 300,000 Ac-ft Affordable Purchase Price Exhibit C - TAC Meeting 4 Record (no minutes) 276 AGRICULTURAL IMPOUNDMENT Exhibit C - TAC Meeting 4 Record (no minutes) 277 AGRICULTURAL IMPOUNDMENT Exhibit C - TAC Meeting 4 Record (no minutes) 278 TAC Questions and Comments Exhibit C - TAC Meeting 4 Record (no minutes) 279 Water Supply Delivery Nodes Confluence of Madison, Jefferson, and Gallatin Confluence of East and West Gallatin East Gallatin River, South of BWRF Gallatin Gateway GW (Or Other) Salar Project Hyalite Reservoir Sourdough Res. At Every Node With Conservation (12.1%) 2042 2062 Existing Portfolio 11,240 10,950 Alternative Alternative Alternative New Portfolio TOTAL New Portfolio in Reserve Reserve Portfolio TOTAL Exhibit C - TAC Meeting 4 Record (no minutes) 280 Medium Growth Conservation Impacts Item Description 2015 2025 2042 2062 Moderate Growth Population Projections 41,160 49,190 70,256 85,725 Water Demands (gpcd) 173 173 174 189 Annual Water Demands Pre-Conservation No MSU (acre-ft) 7,977 9,533 13,694 18,150 Annual MSU Growth Demand (acre-ft) 167 500 500 TOTAL 7,977 9,700 14,194 18,650 Low Conservation Retrofit Reduction (acre-ft) 11 11 11 City Efficiency Reduction (15.9% to 12%) (acre-ft) 372 534 708 Low Conservation Non-Retrofit and Future Development Reduction (acre-ft) 442 1,468 2,051 Low Conservation Reduction 825 2,013 2,770 Medium Conservation Retrofit Reduction (acre-ft) 216 216 216 City Efficiency Reduction (15.9% to 10%) (acre-ft) 562 808 1,071 Med. Conservation Non-Retrofit and Future Development Reduction (acre-ft) 1,093 3,259 4,622 Medium Conservation Reduction 1,871 4,282 5,908 High Conservation Retrofit Reduction (acre-ft) 1,618 1,618 1,618 City Efficiency Reduction (15.9% to 5%) (acre-ft) 1,039 1,493 1,978 High Conservation Non-Retrofit and Future Development Reduction (acre-ft) 1,093 3,259 4,622 High Conservation Reduction 3,750 6,369 8,218 Exhibit C - TAC Meeting 4 Record (no minutes) 281 High Growth Conservation Impacts Item Description 2015 2025 2042 2062 High Growth Population Projections 42,383 55,300 94,144 139,900 Water Demands (gpcd) 173 173 174 189 Annual Water Demands Pre-Conservation No MSU (acre-ft) 8,214 10,717 18,350 29,620 Annual MSU Growth Demand (acre-ft) 167 500 500 TOTAL 8,214 10,884 18,850 30,120 Low Conservation Retrofit Reduction (acre-ft) 11 11 11 City Efficiency Reduction (15.9% to 12%) (acre-ft) 418 716 1,155 Low Conservation Non-Retrofit and Future Development Reduction (acre-ft) 442 2,111 3,640 Low Conservation Reduction 871 2,838 4,806 Medium Conservation Retrofit Reduction (acre-ft) 216 216 216 City Efficiency Reduction (15.9% to 10%) (acre-ft) 632 1,083 1,748 Medium Conservation Non-Retrofit and Future Development Reduction (acre-ft) 1,093 4,622 8,145 Medium Conservation Reduction 1,941 5,921 10,108 High Conservation Retrofit Reduction (acre-ft) 1,618 1,618 1,618 City Efficiency Reduction (15.9% to 5%) (acre-ft) 1,168 2,000 3,229 High Conservation Non-Retrofit and Future Development Reduction (acre-ft) 1,093 4,622 8,145 High Conservation Reduction 3,879 8,240 12,991 Exhibit C - TAC Meeting 4 Record (no minutes) 282 Adjusted Water Supply Shortage with Conservation Item Description 2042 2062 2042 2062 Moderate Growth High Growth Water Balance Gap - Low Conservation (acre-ft) 947 4,930 4,772 14,364 Water Balance Gap - Medium Conservation (acre-ft) -1,322 1,792 1,689 9,062 Water Balance Gap - High Conservation (acre-ft) -3,409 -518 -630 6,179 Exhibit C - TAC Meeting 4 Record (no minutes) 283 PORTFOLIO DEVELOPMENT (Technical Team Draft Portfolio #1) ALTERNATIVE WSD8 HYALITE SHARE PURCHASE (650 AC-FT ~ EXISTING WTP) (1,015 AC-FT ~ WTP EXPANSION) SHARE PURCHASE COST ALTERNATIVE OS2 LYMAN SYSTEM EXPANSION SURFACE WTP AND TRANSFER OF RESERVATION TO LYMAN CREEK (3,265 AC-FT) WATER DEMAND = 173 GPCD, CLIMATE ADJUSTED DEMAND = 189 GPCD, AVAILABLE SUPPLY = 10,950 AC-FT, SUPPLY NEEDS = 18,650 AC-FT CONSERVATION GOAL = LOW SCENARIO (2,770 AC-FT REDUCTION) AVAILABLE SUPPLY = 10,950, SUPPLY NEEDS = 15,880 AC-FT, GAP = 4950 AC-FT TOTAL PORTFOLIO SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT = 4,950 AC-FT TOTAL RESERVE = 0 AC-FT Cost Estimate ~ $_______________ Portfolio Score ~ 10.4 (TECH), 2.9 (TAC) Portfolio Legal and Water Rights Exhibit C - TAC Meeting 4 Record (no minutes) 284 PORTFOLIO DEVELOPMENT (Technical Team Draft Portfolio #1) •(Hyalite Share Score * Supply from Hyalite Shares + Low Conservation Score * Supply from Low Conservation + Lyman System Expansion Score * Supply from Lyman System Expansion) / (Total Supply) = Portfolio Score •(20*(650+1,015)+6.3*2,770+9.1*3,265) / (650+1,015+3,265+2,770) = 10.47 •Score Presented for both Technical Team and TAC Exhibit C - TAC Meeting 4 Record (no minutes) 285 PORTFOLIO DEVELOPMENT (Technical Team Draft Portfolio #2) ALTERNATIVE WSD8 HYALITE SHARE PURCHASE (650 AC-FT ~ EXISTING WTP) (1,142 AC-FT ~ WTP EXPANSION) SHARE PURCHASE COST MODERATE GROWTH WATER DEMAND = 173 GPCD, CLIMATE ADJUSTED DEMAND = 189 GPCD, AVAILABLE SUPPLY = 10,950 AC-FT, SUPPLY NEEDS = 18,650 AC-FT CONSERVATION GOAL = MEDIUM SCENARIO (5,908 AC-FT REDUCTION) AVAILABLE SUPPLY = 10,950, SUPPLY NEEDS = 12,742 AC-FT, GAP = 1,792 AC-FT TOTAL PORTFOLIO SUPPLY DEVELOPMENT = 1,792 AC-FT TOTAL RESERVE = 0 AC-FT Cost Estimate ~ $_______________ Portfolio Score ~ 23.8 (TECH), 3.1 (TAC) Portfolio Legal and Water Rights Exhibit C - TAC Meeting 4 Record (no minutes) 286 Three Tiered Approach SCREENING LEVEL #3 ~ Cost Analysis Conceptual Capital Costs Conceptual O&M Costs Life Cycle Costs $/Acre-Foot Cost RANKING CRITERIA Exhibit C - TAC Meeting 4 Record (no minutes) 287 $2.0 $2.5 $3.0 $3.5 $4.0 $4.5 $5.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 How Much Does it Cost? ($1,000 /ac-ft) Which is Best? Customized Results Identify Right Choice Right Choice for Bozeman Exhibit C - TAC Meeting 4 Record (no minutes) 288 Meeting Agenda Cost Estimating Approach Model Outcome Portfolio Recommendation Public/Council Interfacing TAC # 5 ~ Results ~ April 2013 Meeting #6 ~ Public Forum ~ May 2013 Commission Presentation ~ June 2013 TAC Meeting #5 ~ April 2013 Exhibit C - TAC Meeting 4 Record (no minutes) 289 TAC Questions and Comments Exhibit C - TAC Meeting 4 Record (no minutes) 290