HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Craig Woolard, Public Works Director
Brian Heaston, Senior Engineer
SUBJECT: Key components and issues of the 2015 Water Facility Plan Update, Lyman Creek expansion, and municipal groundwater development projects.
MEETING DATE: October 19, 2015
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Special Presentation
KEY ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The policy, risk management and strategic
issues involved in the 2015 Water Facility Plan Update, the preliminary engineering analysis of the Lyman Creek water source, and development of a municipal groundwater supply are summarized for review and discussion by the City Commission. Tables summarizing these key
issues along with staff recommendations follow. Further discussion is provided within the body
of this memorandum. Staff requests that Commission review these recommendations and
provide feedback and guidance as appropriate.
2015 Water Facility Plan Update
Issue/Component Recommendation
Future water distribution facilities planning Incorporate conservation program water use efficiency gains into future facility sizing
recommendations.
Distribution system pressure and leakage reduction Credit water leakage reductions realized through distribution system pressure
management as conservation program water
savings.
Capital improvements plan Develop a water system CIP using a risk-based
approach wherein capital is strategically
allocated to projects that increase resiliency of
the water system.
76
Expansion of Lyman Creek Source
Issue/Component Recommendation
Protect designation of Lyman Creek source as groundwater not under the influence of surface
water
Drill exploratory wells into the Madison Limestone formation from which the Lyman
Spring emerges.
Facilitate utilization of the entire water right Maximize production well capacity in Madison Formation and incorporate into overall Lyman
Water System to make total legal water right of
4,346 AF/yr available for use.
Municipal Groundwater Development
Issue/Component Recommendation
Acquire mitigation water necessary for a
beneficial water use permit for a municipal
groundwater development
Collaborate with a multi-stakeholder group to
develop a Gallatin Valley Groundwater
Mitigation Bank (GVGMB).
Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) with
Montana Aquatic Resource Services (MARS)
Enter into an MOU with MARS formalizing
the City’s intent to collaborate in the
development of a GVGMB. Successful
creation of a mitigation bank would provide a mechanism for acquiring, in the future through separately negotiated agreements, mitigation
water necessary to obtain a beneficial water
use permit for a municipal groundwater
development.
BACKGROUND: Three water supply planning projects are in progress to ensure the city is
positioned to continue providing a reliable and resilient water supply meeting the long-range water needs of the community. Pursuant to the city’s adopted Integrated Water Resources Plan
(IWRP) and its Implementation Plan, these projects are the 2015 Water Facility Plan Update, the
preliminary engineering of the Lyman Creek water source, and the development of a municipal
groundwater supply.
2015 Water Facility Plan Update
The 2015 Water Facility Plan update will focus on the water distribution system delivering water
to current and future utility customers within the city. A complete hydraulic model of the
existing water system will be assembled and utilized to evaluate the performance and resiliency of the existing water system under various future water delivery scenarios. The Integrated Water
Resources Plan emphasized water conservation to meet long-range water supply needs. As a
result, predicted water conservation efficiencies will be incorporated into the water facility plan.
Incorporating water conservation targets may alter the amount and types of capital projects
recommended for the distribution system.
77
For example, existing static pressures in the distribution system are high in certain areas of town
and can exceed 160 pounds per square inch (psi). High operating pressures can result in
operational problems such as destructive water hammer (pressure surges), increased risk of water
main breaks and higher leakage rates. The water facility plan will address strategies for reducing system pressure and provide projections of reduced leakage volumes related to the reduced
pressures. Staff recommends that the supply-side water savings achieved via reducing the
leakage rate of system be credited as water conservation program savings to meet the long-range
IWRP conservation supply target.
This water master plan will also develop a capital improvements plan that screens and selects
recommended projects using a risk-based approach. Projects that reduce risk and increase the
resiliency of the water distribution system will be identified and prioritized.
Expansion of Lyman Creek Source
The existing Lyman Creek water source utilizes spring collection infrastructure where Lyman
Spring emerges from the Madison Limestone formation in Lyman Canyon. The Lyman Creek
source is designated as ‘groundwater not under the influence of surface water’. As a result,
water from this source requires only disinfection before being placed into distribution. Water treatment is not required. Protection of the groundwater designation is critical for the Lyman
Creek system to remain a cost-effective water supply source.
The city’s water rights for Lyman Creek are currently not being fully utilized by the existing
spring collection system. Water rights provide for a total annual diversion volume of 4,346 acre-feet, whereas the existing spring collection infrastructure reliably produces 1,790 acre-feet of
annual supply volume. The city’s legal rights provide for an additional 2,556 acre-feet of water
if the source can be developed in such a way to produce this volume of water for diversion.
The preliminary engineering project currently underway will evaluates a unique approach to increasing the production capacity of the Lyman Creek source while preserving the groundwater
designation. The first phase of the project consists of a detailed geologic characterization of the
Madison Limestone formation in Lyman Canyon and development of a drilling plan for an
exploration well. The second phase of the project would be the actual drilling of the well itself
and monitoring of the supply yield.
The professional services agreement recently approved by the commission for this project funds
Phase 1 only. Staff will include funding for Phase 2 of the project with the upcoming FY17-
FY22 capital improvements plan. Drilling exploration wells is not without risk, as there is no
guarantee that water will be found. However, staff believes that the geology of the formation is favorable and the potential to realize our full water right justifies this risk. Results of the
preliminary engineering analysis will be incorporated into the capital plan for upgrading the
Lyman Creek water system and storage infrastructure.
78
Municipal Groundwater Development
Groundwater was identified in the IWRP as an important new source of supply. Development of
a groundwater supply will require locating a large volume well field(s) and incorporating those sources into the existing distribution system. Utilizing groundwater as a municipal supply will
also require that the City obtain a beneficial water use permit, or the legal water rights to divert
groundwater and place it to municipal use. One requirement of a new water use permit will be to
have an accompanying mitigation plan.
The Gallatin Valley groundwater resource is situated within the Upper Missouri River basin,
which is a legislatively closed basin to the appropriation of new water rights. As a result, a
mitigation plan with sufficient supplies of mitigation water must be approved as part of the
beneficial water use permit for the groundwater supply source. The purpose of the mitigation
plan is to ensure that all existing water rights are preserved without injury. This is particularly challenging within the administrative framework of the state DNRC for water use permitting, as
the state of Montana recognizes the conjunctive use of groundwater and surface water. In
practical terms, this means that groundwater diverted by a well at ‘Location A’ could be
depleting nearby surface water at ‘Location B’. As a result of these depletions, a surface water
right at ‘Location B’ is not receiving its full water right and is being adversely effected. These adverse effects are required to be mitigated by the new groundwater appropriator through a
mitigation plan. The identification of the locations where adverse effects are likely to occur is a
function of the particular hydrogeologic interaction between the timing and amount of
groundwater being diverted at ‘Location A’ and those nearby surface waters. Understanding the
groundwater/surface water interaction in order to identify areas where adverse effects are occurring serves as the foundation of the mitigation plan.
Another important element that must be understood is the system of priority of water use that is
recognized by Montana and other western states under the Prior Appropriation Doctrine. At its
most basic level, the prevailing tenet of the doctrine is “first in time, first in right.” This means that that the earliest, or first water users on a source, have senior priority of use with subsequent
water users having junior priority. Junior water users are entitled to their water rights only once
the senior water rights are satisfied. Since municipal water uses originating from a groundwater
well have not yet been established, those water uses, once permitted, will be junior to all other
existing water rights. Thus, there is broad spectrum of potential adverse effects to existing water rights that must be mitigated for by the mitigation plan. The mitigation plan will not be
approved by DNRC unless a sufficient quantity of mitigation water is identified that will prevent
injury to senior water rights. These senior water rights include, but are not limited to, water for
agricultural purposes during the growing season as well as year-round instream flow rights.
Municipal groundwater would be used year round. As a result, adverse effects to both senior seasonal water rights and year round water rights will require mitigation. The mitigation plan
will likely require aquifer recharge due to the need to address adverse effects to downstream
senior water users by way of delivering mitigation supplies in sufficient time and amount.
Further complicating the issue of obtaining approval for a mitigation plan is the acquisition of water rights with sufficient temporal and spatial seniority to be used as sources of mitigation
water supplies for implementing the mitigation plan. The groundwater investigation project that
79
is currently underway is tasked with, among other items, identifying potential groundwater well
field locations, estimating the potential groundwater yield at those locations, modeling the
groundwater/surface water interaction at those locations by using existing available data, and
developing a mitigation plan strategy that prevents injury to all existing water rights that may be adversely effected by groundwater withdrawals. Developing and implementing a mitigation plan
will be challenging, not only because of the technical rigors and nuances involved, but also due
to the political and economic realities created by competing demands for water in an area seeing
such rapid changes in land use.
To address these water rights issues, staff have been collaborating with a group of stakeholders
to create a Gallatin Valley Groundwater Mitigation Bank (GVGMB). The purpose of the
GVGMB is for the bank administrator to make mitigation water available in the form of
purchasable credits that offset the net depletions of new groundwater withdrawals caused by the
purchaser of the credit. Montana Aquatic Resources Services (MARS), a 501c3 nonprofit organization incorporated in the State of Montana, has been identified to be the administrator of
the bank. MARS is well-positioned to perform this role and has experience creating and
administering an environmental resources credit program. The organization is certified by the
US Army Corps of Engineers and state DEQ to administer the Montana Statewide In-Lieu Fee
Program for compensatory mitigation of impacts to Montana wetlands and streams.
City staff are involved in the collaborative GVGMB effort and believe that a multiple
stakeholder driven approach is best suited to not only address the complexities of closed-basin
groundwater permitting, but to provide the City with the flexibility it needs in developing a
groundwater source that meets the projected water supply needs of the community. Furthermore, the permitting and mitigating of new groundwater withdrawals - whether the withdrawals are for
the city’s use or for other users such as community water systems in the county - affords the
highest level of protection to all existing water users in the Gallatin. These protections will be
reflected in subsequent permitting processes in which the potential for injury to senior water
users has been addressed. A mechanism that creates flexibility for the city in the management of its water resources that also adds certainty to the permitting process for new groundwater uses in
such a rapidly growing community would be a valuable asset to incorporate into the city’s water
management portfolio. With Commission support, staff envisions a continued collaborative
effort where the city undertakes the identification of its mitigation water needs via the
groundwater investigation project that is underway and the GVGMB serving as a warehouse for eventual mitigation water purchases.
Currently, the primary collaborators in the GVGMB are MARS, the City of Bozeman, Trout
Unlimited, and The Nature Conservancy. Creation of the GVGMB builds upon previous work
done by the developers of the Salar project, which is a commission-adopted water supply alternative in the IWRP. Continued efforts with the above collaborators have been undertaken
by staff to begin laying the groundwork for a successful and viable GVGMB. These efforts
include preparation of a concept paper for development of the mitigation bank as well as
submittal of several grant proposals to the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology and the
DNRC.
80
Staff recommends that the Commission support continued efforts to collaborate with local
stakeholders to develop a GVGMB. With the Commission’s support, staff will develop a
Memorandum of Understanding with MARS to formalize the parties’ intentions, roles, and
responsibilities in the on-going development of the GVGMB for the purpose of the City acquiring, in the future through separately negotiated agreements, mitigation water necessary to
obtain a beneficial water use permit for municipal groundwater development. The GVGMB
needs an anchor client to become viable and the city could fill that role in a manner that is
mutually beneficial to all parties involved. The entering into of the MOU will not create a
financial commitment on the part of the city. By collaborating in the development of a viable GVGMB, the city is afforded the expertise of a diverse and talented array of technical and legal
experts with formidable backgrounds in water resources management and water law all working
towards providing solutions to divisive water resources conflicts.
Outreach by the collaborative group to other stakeholder groups is also necessary at this point. With the support of the Commission, staff recommends that the city work with its collaborators
to engage in outreach concerning the vision and purpose of the GVGMB as a viable, stakeholder-
driven solution that will serve to reduce future water resources conflicts in the Gallatin Valley.
Outreach to agricultural community leaders (notably the Association of Gallatin Agricultural
Irrigators), the Gallatin Conservation District, Gallatin County Commission, Gallatin Association of Realtors, Southwest Montana Building Industry Association, and the area’s legislative
delegation would proceed with the support of the Commission.
ALTERNATIVES: As Suggested by the Commission.
FISCAL EFFECTS: Not included with this Special Presentation.
Attachments: GVGMB Concept Paper
GWIP Project Nomination
RRGL Watershed Planning Grant
Report compiled on October 13, 2015
81
September 2015
Gallatin Valley Groundwater Mitigation Bank
Concept Paper 1 | Page
Gallatin Valley Groundwater Mitigation Bank
Concept Paper
82
September 2015
Gallatin Valley Groundwater Mitigation Bank
Concept Paper 2 | Page
Project Overview
Executive Summary
Gallatin County’s rapid growth is placing increasing pressure on its water resources. The Gallatin
Valley Groundwater Mitigation Bank (GVGMB) is a much needed water resource project being
developed by Montana Aquatic Resources Services (MARS) in collaboration with the City of
Bozeman (Bozeman) and a variety of stakeholders. The mission of GVGMB is to ensure the
sustainability of the Gallatin River basin’s aquatic wildlife habitat, protect agricultural water
rights, and facilitate the availability of water to meet projected urban and residential demand.
The GVGMB project will foster water resource conservation management, as well as rational
water right transfers in the Gallatin River basin. GVGMB services will streamline the arduous
permitting process for entities seeking new groundwater appropriations.
GVGMB will acquire or lease water from existing senior surface water right holders, typically
agricultural irrigators, move the water rights through the change‐of‐use process to a mitigation
purpose, and then sell mitigation credits to new groundwater users, such as developers or the
City of Bozeman. To mitigate, or offset, these new water uses, GVGMB will convey the acquired
water to infiltration galleries or natural streambeds to recharge water into the aquifer. New
groundwater users will be spared the challenge of independently locating willing water right
sellers and navigating the complex regulatory process. Senior water right holders and
environmental agencies will be ensured that all new non‐exempt water appropriations in the
valley are properly mitigated.
Project Motivation
Gallatin County is the fastest‐growing area in Montana and in 2014 was ranked one of the ten
fastest growing micropolitan (between 10,000 and 50,000 people) areas in the nation, on par
with North Dakota’s oil and gas boom country.i High urban growth in the City of Bozeman,
proliferation of permit‐exempt wells in Gallatin County, and a strong agricultural economy has
led to water resource conflicts between senior surface water rights and new users. Gallatin
County is now faced with balancing the increasing demands on its water supply with senior
users and environmental quality.
Water issues in the area have become particularly pressing as a result of an October 2014
Montana First Judicial District Court ruling regarding permit‐exempt groundwater wells, which
decided a case brought by the Clark Fork Coalition, senior water rights holders, and other groups
against the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC). The ruling changed the
definition of a 'combined appropriation', determining that a project or development with one or
more wells that together use more than 35 gallons per minute or 10 acre‐feet per year must go
through water rights permitting—even if the wells are not physically piped together.ii The ruling
limits the ability for new subdivisions to rely on exempt wells, but increases the permitting
burden for new water users and the DNRC.
83
September 2015
Gallatin Valley Groundwater Mitigation Bank
Concept Paper 3 | Page
The complexity of the DNRC’s permitting process creates an additional hurdle to resolving water
conflicts and ensuring sustainable use.iii Groundwater Permit applicants are faced not only with
finding senior surface water rights for mitigation, but also with an arduous change‐of‐use
permitting process that can often stretch over multiple years. As part of that process, new
appropriators must show that their mitigation recharges the aquifer in a manner that ensures
no adverse impact to other water users, and that has considered the timing, volume, and
location of depletion to surface water due to new groundwater pumping.iv By undergoing the
regulatory process ahead of time, GVGMB will offer a streamlined process, sparing new water
users the time and expense of complying with these regulations independently.
Benefits to the Gallatin Valley
The GVGMB will provide the following benefits to the Gallatin Valley:
Enhance watershed sustainability. The West Gallatin River currently experiences water
shortages in dry years. Mitigating for new groundwater withdrawals protects both
streamflow and senior water rights.
Preserve and realize value for senior water rights: The GVGMB provides an opportunity
for senior water right holders to lease or sell their rights to other water users. As former
agricultural land is developed for residential use, GVGMB provides an opportunity for
water right holders to obtain revenue for their water assets while limiting their
marketing and regulatory costs.
Enhance viability of agricultural sector: Agricultural infrastructure including canals and
ditches will be maintained and improved to provide conveyance for mitigation water
while ensuring sustainable, reliable, and continued delivery of irrigation water.
Provide a cost‐effective solution for municipal and residential water supply. Water
supply development can be costly for municipalities and unincorporated subdivision
developments. Water right acquisitions, infrastructure development, and regulatory
costs all present financial burdens for new water users. By participating in the GVGMB,
end users will have access to a reliable source of mitigation water and minimize
transaction costs associated with developing additional water supplies and securing
groundwater permits.
Project Participants
The effort to create the GVGMB has received interest and support from a range of stakeholders.
Local project participants include Montana Aquatic Resources Services, Inc. (MARS) and The City
of Bozeman (Bozeman). MARS, a nonprofit entity located in Bozeman, will serve as the GVGMB’s
administrator. Bozeman is anticipated to be a buyer of mitigation water from GVGMB. Bozeman
is currently pursuing the use of large groundwater wells to provide additional municipal supply
required to meet projected future water demands. Bozeman’s development of groundwater is
dependent upon adequate sources of mitigation water, which GVGMB could supply.
84
September 2015
Gallatin Valley Groundwater Mitigation Bank
Concept Paper 4 | Page
Multiple senior water right holders in the region have been contacted and are actively
interested in the project; the Association of Gallatin Agricultural Irrigators, the Gallatin County
Conservation District, and the Gallatin Local Water Quality District have all been briefed on the
GVGMB and are supportive of the project. In addition, the Gallatin Valley Realtor’s Association
and the Southwest Montana Building Industry Association (SWMBIA) have been contacted to
discuss the project. DMS Natural Resources is a water right consulting firm managing project
development. The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Trout Unlimited (TU) and the University of
California Santa Barbara's Bren School of Environmental Science & Management are also helping
to facilitate the project’s development.
Project Location
Map of Gallatin Valley Groundwater Mitigation Bank project location, including theoretical service area.
85
September 2015
Gallatin Valley Groundwater Mitigation Bank
Concept Paper 5 | Page
Project Elements
Below is a schematic of the administrative and physical functions of the GVGMB. Further
description of the administration, aquifer recharge, conveyance, and regulatory components of
the project are provided below.
Administrative and physical depiction of the Gallatin Valley Groundwater Mitigation Bank operations.
86
September 2015
Gallatin Valley Groundwater Mitigation Bank
Concept Paper 6 | Page
Administration
MARS is currently seeking private investor, foundation, and grant support for its role as the
GVGMB’s long‐term administrator. MARS already administers a similar process for wetland
mitigation across the state of Montana and has the expertise to facilitate the GVGMB. As a
nonprofit organization, MARS will provide full transparency about the accounting process. MARS
will only pass through costs to mitigation credit buyers and will not charge a profit.
The GVGMB will acquire or lease water from existing water right holders, typically agricultural
irrigators, move the water rights through the change‐of‐use process to a mitigation purpose,
and then sell mitigation credits to applicants for new groundwater uses, such as subdivision
developers or the City of Bozeman. It will facilitate all regulatory processes including the
submission of a change application to convert existing water rights to mitigation water and
aquifer recharge to meet streamflow requirements.v
When an end user purchases a credit, the GVGMB will retire a portion of a water right from
agricultural use and convey the water to a recharge location to infiltrate into the groundwater
aquifer. As depicted below, prospective groundwater users will simply need to purchase a
mitigation credit to account for their new use, rather than purchasing a water right and
engaging in the regulatory process independently. The mitigation credits will be available to
anyone seeking new appropriations, including municipalities, developments, industrial users,
conservation organizations, and irrigators.
Individual water rights are pooled together and then transferred to mitigation credits.
87
September 2015
Gallatin Valley Groundwater Mitigation Bank
Concept Paper 7 | Page
Aquifer Recharge
The DNRC does not permit water transfers that change seasonal streamflow patterns. This
presents a technical challenge as irrigation water rights typically deplete streamflow during the
summer irrigation season, whereas municipal and industrial appropriations deplete streamflow
year‐round. In order to avoid altering current streamflow patterns, particularly in the winter
months when irrigation water was not historically used, the bank’s acquired water will be
artificially recharged into the groundwater aquifer through infiltration basins or natural
streambeds. This will allow for existing irrigation water rights, historically diverted and applied in
the summer months, to be available for new uses on an annual basis.
Change in time of use from historical irrigation to new year‐round mitigation.
The GVGMB is in the process of identifying recharge sites. Aquifer recharge site suitability is
based on:
1. The capacity of existing irrigation canal or natural infrastructure to convey water to the
site;
2. The infiltration capacity of the site to artificially recharge the underlying aquifer; and
3. The sites’ ability to mitigate for new groundwater users based on expected location of
new wells and the hydrogeologic conditions that affect the volume, timing, and location
of groundwater flow back to the West Gallatin River and its tributaries.
A Ground Water Investigation Program Project with the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology
(MBMG) is pending approval and will assist with this effort by delineating and characterizing
potential recharge sites. Further, the project proposed in partnership with MBMG is to
eventually develop a user‐friendly decision‐making hydrologic model that predicts the rate,
timing, and location of aquifer drawdown and streamflow depletion for any ground water
pumping proposed within the study area.
One site, Salar Properties, LLC. (Salar), has been identified as a potential recharge location. The
owner of the Salar property has completed a conceptual design and cost estimate for
underground storage and aquifer recharge through an infiltration gallery on the Salar site.
In addition to constructed recharge locations, GVGMB will investigate the suitability of
ephemeral stream channels and existing canal ditches to recharge the aquifer. Utilizing natural
and existing features to infiltrate water could help maintain the ecological and critical habitat
function of these areas in the Gallatin River watershed.
Jan Feb Ma
r
Apr Ma
y
Jun Jul Aug Sep
t
Oct Nov Dec
Jan Feb Ma
r Apr Ma
y Jun Jul Aug Sep
t Oct Nov Dec
88
September 2015
Gallatin Valley Groundwater Mitigation Bank
Concept Paper 8 | Page
Conveyance
To transport purchased water from its point of diversion to aquifer recharge locations, the water
could be conveyed through existing canals and ditches or natural infrastructure such as the
West Gallatin River and its tributaries.
Local canals have provided irrigation water to the southeastern portions of the Gallatin Valley
for many years. As the region has developed, land use and irrigation practices have evolved,
resulting in changes to the canals’ operation and maintenance requirements. The canal
structures and easements, however, are still intact, and could be used to convey both
agricultural and mitigation water.
These canals have varying degrees of excess capacity at different times of the year. The graph
below shows theoretical excess capacity in a canal. The excess capacity is dependent on many
factors, and will vary based upon time of the year and specific canal utilized. It is anticipated
that additional canal improvements and possibly canal capacity enlargements or lining may be
required to convey water to the recharge sites. These improvements will benefit agricultural
users as well as the GVGMB.
Theoretical excess capacity of canals. 40 MI equals 1 cubic feet per second.
Regulatory Process
To meet the statutory and administrative requirements for the DNRC’s change application
process, the GVGMB will create a facilitated exchange in which the specific end users are not
identified upfront at the time of the water right purpose and change application, but instead the
water rights are changed to mitigation for a general “service area.” The service area is a
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
Apr May June July Aug Sept OctCanal Capacity (MI)Capacity utilized by canal company for
irrigation water
Excess capacity due to reduction
in irrigated acres Excess capacity due to priority
date curtailment of irrigation
water rights
Excess capacity
due to limited
irrigation in
early
spring
CANAL CAPACITY
89
September 2015
Gallatin Valley Groundwater Mitigation Bank
Concept Paper 9 | Page
hydrologically‐connected region in which the end users can purchase mitigation credits to offset
stream depletions resulting from their water withdrawals.
In March 2011, the Montana legislature passed House Bill 24 (HB 24) that revised the DNRC
change application rules surrounding mitigation water and enabled a facilitated water exchange
to be implemented in Montana. HB 24, codified at Montana Code Annotated § 85‐2‐420,
amended two key elements of the Montana Water Code relating to water right changes:
1. Under the HB 24 amendments, only a proposed place of use, or service area, needs to
be identified at the time of the change application. If a water right holder is planning to
market the water for mitigation purposes, the applicant is exempt from identifying a
specific end user (including quantities and location) at the time of the change
application.
2. The changes under HB 24 also allow the water right holder to continue to use the water
right for the existing use (irrigation) until a portion of or all of the water right is sold or
marketed (as mitigation for new groundwater development). As portions of the right are
sold or marketed, the water is retired from the existing use in the apportioned amount.
The advantage of a facilitated exchange is that the supply of mitigation water is made available
prior to the identification of all mitigation credit buyers. The mitigation water is then available at
the time, place, and volume necessary to offset net depletions resulting from new uses.
Additionally, a facilitated exchange minimizes the high transaction costs associated with water
transfers by completing one change‐of‐use application for many end‐users.
90
September 2015
Gallatin Valley Groundwater Mitigation Bank
Concept Paper 10 | Page
Water Supply & Demand
Water will be stored and reallocated through the GVGMB.vi This water will be acquired or leased
from privately held irrigation rights and/or canal company water rights.
Water supply and demand in the Gallatin Valley.
The water stored and transferred in the GVGMB could be utilized by multiple end users to:
Offset new groundwater appropriations in Bozeman, Belgrade, Manhattan and
unincorporated areas;
Provide supplemental water to farmers looking to expand or firm up irrigation supplies;
and,
Augment in‐stream flows in the West Gallatin River and its tributaries to benefit aquatic
habitat and wildlife.
Water supply represents the primary constraint on economic and property development growth
in many of the highly populated markets in the western United States. The primary water
demand drivers in the Gallatin County are population growth and center pivots increasingly
employed by farmers. Gallatin County’s population was estimated at 97,308 in 2014.vii The
average annual population growth rate in Gallatin County was 2.9 percent in 2014 and the
county is estimated to reach 136,970 people by 2030.viii
Existing municipality planning documents indicate that demand will exceed current water supply
for Bozeman by 2025 and for Belgrade and Manhattan by 2019. These municipalities, local
water and sewer districts that serve unincorporated areas, and subdivision developments plan
91
September 2015
Gallatin Valley Groundwater Mitigation Bank
Concept Paper 11 | Page
to permit and drill new groundwater wells to meet future water demands.ix The majority of
these proposed wells do not have water rights and will require mitigation credits.
Gallatin County Municipal Population
Forecast
Gallatin County Growth Projection High,
Low Scenarios
Source: Belgrade’ Water Master Plan 2007; City of
Bozeman Water Facility Plan; Big Sky’s Water System
Source Capacity Plan, Census Bureau population
estimates.
Source: Belgrade’ Water Master Plan 2007; City of
Bozeman Water Facility Plan; Big Sky’s Water System
Source Capacity Plan, Total Manhattan Annual Water
Budget Sept 11,2008.
Gallatin County population projections and potential water supply gap.
GVGMB anticipates that the City of Bozeman, the largest municipality in the county, will be the
primary mitigation credit buyer. The City of Bozeman has identified its 50‐year water balance
gap (the difference between supply and demand) to be 17,750 acre‐feet under a high‐growth
scenario; mitigated new groundwater appropriations are expected to meet a portion of this
demand.x The City of Bozeman has informally confirmed its interest in the GVGMB and its
intention to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with MARS before the end of 2015.
Contact Us
We look forward to hearing from community members and project participants. Interested
parties are invited to contact Deborah Stephenson, DMS Natural Resources, at 406‐582‐4988 or
stephenson@dmsnaturalresources.com.
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030Projected PopulationBozeman
5.0 %
Belgrade
8.0 %
Manhattan
5.8 %
Big Sky
4.7%
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028Water Demand (AF)Supply GapExistingMunicipal
Supply
Municipal Demand
Unincorporated
Demand
92
September 2015
Gallatin Valley Groundwater Mitigation Bank
Concept Paper 12 | Page
i Bozeman Daily Chronicle, Eric Dietrich (March 26, 2015) http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/city/gallatin‐county‐among‐
fastest‐growing‐in‐nation/article_63b13f02‐c08b‐53eb‐932d‐98de3bda2e6c.html. Additional Bozeman Daily Chronicle articles
illustrate the rapid growth across every sector: “Statewide Economic Report Shows Gallatin Out in Front,” (February 2, 2015);
“Bozeman Leads State in Utility Hookups,” (Aug 2, 2013); “Gas Electric Connections Up as Bozeman Growth Continues.” (Jan 2,
2015); “New Utility Hookups Continue Rising for Bozeman,” (April 3, 2015). The City’s 2013 Integrated Water Resource Plan (IWRP)
identified a significant water supply gap for the City of Bozeman. The adopted IWRP recommendation to develop groundwater
resources for the City of Bozeman will require mitigation water, further supporting the need for Mitigation Bank due to rapid
growth.
ii Clark Fork Coalition et al v. Tubbs et al, Cause No. BDV‐2010‐874 (MT, October 17, 2014)
iii Changing Changes: A Roadmap for Montana’s Water Management, Laura Ziemer, Stan Bradshaw, and Meg Casey, 14 University of
Denver Water Law Review 47‐95 (Fall 2010).
iv Mont. Code Ann. §§ 85‐2‐360 to 362 (2009).
v Mont. Code Ann. § 85‐2‐420 (2014) provides the statutory authority to change a water right to a mitigation purpose and allows the
creation of a mitigation bank.
vi Value based on Gallatin Gateway groundwater contribution of 5,810 AF from the City of Bozeman Integrated Water Resources Plan
(2013), Appendix D, Table 15, and an estimated additional volume of 200 AF of water for unincorporated development.
vii United States Census Bureau. State and County Quick Facts for Gallatin County, Montana. (2015)
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/30/30031.html
viii Business Reallocation and Resource Guide for Gallatin and Park Counties, Montana (2013)
https://bozemanchamber.com/uploads/pdf/2013_Business_Relocation_Guide‐economic_profile.pdf and Dietrich, E. (2014,
December 14). Montana's mountains, plains contrast in migration study. Bozeman Daily Chronicle.
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/economy/montana‐s‐mountains‐plains‐contrast‐in‐migration‐
study/article_863e7186‐8807‐11e4‐9194‐3f7042809e3b.html
ix Gallatin Triangle Planning Study (2014). http://www.bozeman.net/Smarty/files/62/621e8e8c‐63c3‐4681‐adff‐196ebb540876.pdf.
x The City of Bozeman Integrated Water Resources Plan (2013). https://www.bozeman.net/Departments/Public‐Works/Water‐
Conservation/Resources/Residential/City‐of‐Bozeman‐s‐Integrated‐Water‐Resources‐Plan.
Images on pages 5, 6 and 10 were created using Piktochart.
93
Ground Water Investigation Program Project Nomination
Gallatin River Basin Hydrologic Investigation to Support a Ground Water Mitigation Bank:
A Multi-Stakeholder Approach to Resolving Water Conflicts
1. Project Purpose. In the face of the Gallatin River basin’s rapidly expanding population, a coalition of agricultural, municipal, and conservation stakeholders (Gallatin Stakeholders) has been working for over a decade to address the
basin’s growth-related water conflicts. With the evolution in Montana’s integration of ground and surface water management, the creation of a mitigation bank would resolve most of these conflicts by facilitating water transfers from
one purpose to another without harming existing agricultural or environmental uses. The bank would acquire water from existing water right holders, typically agricultural irrigators, and sell mitigation water to applicants for new ground water
uses, such as subdivision developers.1 In turn, new users are spared the challenge of having to locate willing sellers and navigate the complex regulatory process themselves, and impacts of the new uses are more effectively offset through the
guidance of a specialized water bank entity. While the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) allows these types of transactions, it does not permit water transfers that change seasonal streamflow patterns. This
presents a technical challenge because sellers typically deplete streamflow during the summer irrigation season, whereas buyers will most often deplete streamflow year-round. In order to avoid altering current streamflow patterns, the bank’s
acquired water would need to be artificially recharged into the aquifer via existing irrigation canals, wetlands, ephemeral streams, and/or infiltration basins. Consequently, a tool is needed to design the recharge program and ensure that changes
in streamflow depletions from new ground water pumping are successfully mitigated.
In this Project Nomination, we ask the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology (MBMG) to support the creation of the Gallatin River Mitigation Bank (“Mitigation Bank”) by providing necessary, verifiable hydrologic analyses. Specifically,
the proposal involves three components that could be sequenced as separate, discrete ground water investigation projects:
(1) Delineate potential recharge sites by analyzing the capacity of existing irrigation canal infrastructure to convey water to, and the infiltration capacity of, wetlands, ephemeral streams, and infiltration galleries to
artificially recharge the underlying aquifer; and, by analyzing these sites’ volume and timing of recharge back to the West Gallatin and its tributaries, based on the conveyance and infiltration capacity.
(2) Develop a hydrologic model that predicts the rate, timing, and location of aquifer drawdown and streamflow
depletion for any ground water pumping proposed within the study area. Develop a second model that predicts the timing and location of ground water discharge to the East and West Gallatin Rivers from the artificially
recharged water. Conjunctively, these models—identifying the impacts of new uses and capacity to efficiently deliver and recharge supply—are essential for operating a functioning mitigation bank.
(3) Design a user-friendly decision-making tool in collaboration with the DNRC and the Gallatin Stakeholders
that calculates changes in streamflow and ground water levels that result from mitigation bank operations; including irrigation retirement, artificial ground water recharge, and new ground water pumping. The model
would produce sufficient information to meet DNRC change application requirements.
2. Study Area. The study area would be defined in consultation with MBMG to fill in the gaps between the Bureau’s past
and on-going work in the basin in order to carry out the studies and ultimately develop the decision-making tool described above. The Gallatin Stakeholders suggest that the general study area include all or part of the City of Bozeman’s
Development Plan area; from Hyalite Creek westward to the Gallatin River, and from the West Gallatin Canal northbound to the northern extent of the City’s Development Plan or to the East Gallatin River. Within the general study
area, the Gallatin Stakeholders would work with MBMG to identify and characterize a handful of specific potential
Gallatin River Basin Hydrologic Investigation to Support a Ground Water Mitigation Bank 1
94
recharge sites that serve the purposes of the mitigation bank well to be selected for more detailed analysis. Please see
attached maps: “Gallatin Mitigation Bank Study Area,” and “MBMG Study Areas in Gallatin Basin.”
3. Overview and Magnitude of the Problem. The Gallatin River valley continues to be one of the most rapidly-growing areas in the State of Montana. In 2014, Gallatin was the only Montana County to make the “top-ten” rates of growth
nationally for a “micropolitan” area, joining the ranks of North Dakota’s oil and gas drilling-boom country.2 Increasing growth pressure on the City of Bozeman, proliferation of permit-exempt wells in Gallatin County, and the demand for the
fertile acres of the Gallatin’s agricultural community has led to water resource conflicts between senior surface water rights and new ground water pumping.3 For example, the Town of Manhattan filed an application for new ground water
pumping with the Montana DNRC in 2006, and despite a trip to the Montana Supreme Court, the town is still working to obtain a water right for its expanding municipality.4 Balancing the need to supply water for new growth while protecting
senior water rights—including instream water rights—in a closed (and fully appropriated) river basin is at the heart of the Gallatin’s water-resource conflicts.5
The complexity of the DNRC’s water rights permitting process creates an additional hurdle to resolving these water
conflicts.6 Ground water pumping applicants are faced with not only finding senior, surface water rights for mitigation, but also with the task of recharging that surface water to the aquifer in a manner that matches the timing and location of
ground water depletions to the Gallatin River.7 It was the awareness of the complexity of this task that motivated the 2009 Legislature to create the Ground Water Investigation Program (GWIP) when it integrated ground and surface water with
HB 831 during the 2009 legislative session.8 The MBMG’s 2014 Ground Water Modeling Report highlights the dramatic changes in land use and associated risks to aquifer levels over a relatively short period of time in much of the proposed
study area. It also includes a predictive model for an aquifer storage and recovery system and provides the basis from which to develop and conduct the site-specific analyses of this project nomination.9 Furthermore, the development and
application of this decision-making tool is a key component in the implementation of several recommendations set forth in the 2015 State Water Plan and the City of Bozeman’s 2013 Integrated Water Resources Plan to ensure adequate supply
of water to meet beneficial uses and future demands.10
4. Landowner Cooperation and Access. The MBMG’s recently-completed study of ground and surface water interactions in the upper Gallatin River basin11 received exemplary cooperation from landowners and ditch companies. The support of
the Gallatin agricultural community generally for MBMG’s work provides a natural avenue for contacting and cooperating with individual landowners.12 Key landowners within the proposed study area have been briefed on this
proposal and have voiced their support for the study. Gallatin stakeholders are willing to assist with securing access to monitoring sites, make necessary introductions and engage in outreach to landowners for the duration of the study period.
5. Uses of Project Results. The Gallatin Stakeholders, DNRC, and MBMG would use the project results to design and
operate the Mitigation Bank. The DNRC and Gallatin Stakeholders would use the first phase of the project—analysis of the recharge sites---to provide the basis of an application submitted to the DNRC to change an irrigation right to a
mitigation purpose. The first phase of the project and the DNRC change application would inform how much, where, and when mitigation water could be available to off-set stream depletions from new, proposed groundwater pumping. DNRC,
Gallatin Stakeholders, and permit applicants for new groundwater would use the second phase of the project to provide a tool for determining where, when and how much stream depletion would result from proposed groundwater pumping, and
thereby inform permit applicants and the Mitigation Bank how much and where recharge would be needed. Finally, the third phase of the project would be used to facilitate DNRC permit applications and Mitigation Bank supply of mitigation
water in order to reduce transaction costs for moving water from one use to another while fully protecting senior water rights.
6. Technical Urgency. This project nomination is particularly urgent as a result of Montana District Court Judge Sherlock’s October 2014 order regarding permit-exempt wells.13 This order was the result of years of effort by senior
water right holders to ensure that the cumulative impact of multiple, permit-exempt wells are taken into account in the water permitting process. Judge Sherlock’s Order did just that, in requiring that multiple, permit-exempt wells needed for
a single project or development go through water rights permitting. Even if proposed HB 519 passes with—or without—amendments in the Senate during this 2015 legislative session, there will still be an increase in permit pressure with the
bill’s limitation on the number of permit-exempt wells that can be used for any given project or development.14 The pressure that an increased permit load will put on the DNRC, permit applicants, and potential objectors, can be relieved
Gallatin River Basin Hydrologic Investigation to Support a Ground Water Mitigation Bank 2
95
with a well-thought-out, proactive Gallatin River Mitigation Bank that facilitates high-value river recharge through
investments in natural and existing agricultural infrastructure.
The problem is hardly limited to the Gallatin Valley. With exempt wells limited as an option, new water users in every closed basin in Montana face the same daunting tasks of identifying willing sellers and shepherding their water-right
changes through sometimes years of regulatory processes. A readily transferable process for streamlining groundwater mitigation banking is key to water development in closed basins statewide.
Beyond Montana, this mitigation bank is a critical test case for whether new water allocations can really be capped. Across the American West, drought-stricken states have failed to stop the proliferation of exempt wells, even as groundwater levels drop and rivers and streams run dry. They are looking to Montana as a desperately needed model.
This is a fragile time. If the cap hinders economic development, then it may not survive the next legislature. If, on the
other hand, a groundwater mitigation bank helps developers get their water while meeting regulatory requirements that protect other users and the environment, then it will pave the way for sustainable water use across the West.
7. Complementary Investigations and Project Support. The multi-stakeholder effort to create a Gallatin River Mitigation Bank has not only been nearly a decade in the making already, but it also is receiving timely infusions of capacity-building and financial support. Montana Aquatic Resources Services, Inc. (MARS) is currently seeking
foundation support for its potential role as the Gallatin River Mitigation Bank’s long-term administrator. MARS would work with other stakeholders to identify and contact potential water right holders that are well-situated to provide senior
water for mitigation purposes. MARS’ Board of Directors has already analyzed hundreds of water rights in the Gallatin Valley, and has a narrowed list of potential water rights that would be a good match for the Gallatin River Mitigation
Bank. MARS also has in-depth knowledge of water right marketing, transactions and valuation through its Board of Directors.
The City of Bozeman and MARS have already met with the DNRC regarding its application for a Watershed Planning Grant to assist the City in working with other stakeholders to design the Mitigation Bank. The goals of the Watershed Planning Grant would be the design and implementation of the initial set-up of the Bank so that it is ultimately self-
sustaining and integrates well with the City’s long-term water supply needs. More specifically, the City is in the process of pursuing groundwater development opportunities for additional municipal supply that is needed to meet future potable
demands pursuant to the City’s Integrated Water Resources Plan. This groundwater development is dependent upon adequate sources of mitigation water. Additionally, in light of the recent changes to the rules governing the use of exempt
wells, the City seeks a means in which to facilitate developers’ and the City’s access to a reliable source of mitigation water for permitted wells that could be used to irrigate parkland, open space, and other areas to eliminate the use of
potable water for such purposes.
The Nature Conservancy’s Dr. Eloise Kendy, North America Freshwater Scientist, and hydrologist formerly investigating the Gallatin River basin with the U.S. Geological Survey USG)15, will be assisting in the design and oversight planning of the Mitigation Bank. Trout Unlimited’s Laura Ziemer, Senior Counsel and Water Policy Advisor, will also be assisting in
the design and planning of the Mitigation Bank. Kendy and Ziemer have together secured a Masters’ Student Group Thesis Project, which will be a year-long dedication of six Masters’ students and a faculty advisor time to analyze and
research mitigation bank design, administration, and function from the University of California at Santa Barbara’s Bren School of Environmental Science & Management. Finally, this Mitigation Bank is a focus of a 2-year, high-profile collaboration of scientists, economists, and water rights experts to demonstrate watershed-scale benefits of innovative, multi-sector water-sharing agreements in the western United States. (https://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/featured/kendy).
In addition, the Association of Gallatin Agricultural Irrigators, the Gallatin County Conservation District, and the Gallatin
Local Water Quality District, have all been briefed on this Project Nomination and are supportive of the project.
Gallatin River Basin Hydrologic Investigation to Support a Ground Water Mitigation Bank 3
96
Cited References
1 Mont. Code Ann. § 85-2-420 provides the statutory authority to change a water right to a mitigation purpose and allows the creation of a mitigation bank. 2 Bozeman Daily Chronicle, Eric Dietrich (March 26, 2015) http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/city/gallatin-county-among-fastest-growing-in-nation/article_63b13f02-c08b-53eb-932d-98de3bda2e6c.html. Additional Bozeman
Daily Chronicle articles illustrate the rapid growth across every sector: “Statewide Economic Report Shows Gallatin Out in Front,” (February 2, 2015); “Bozeman Leads State in Utility Hookups,” (Aug 2, 2013); “Gas Electric Connections Up
as Bozeman Growth Continues.” (Jan 2, 2015); “New Utility Hookups Continue Rising for Bozeman,” (April 3, 2015). The City’s 2013 Integrated Water Resource Plan (IWRP) identified a significant water supply gap for the City of
Bozeman. The adopted IWRP recommendation to develop groundwater resources for the City of Bozeman will require mitigation water, further supporting the need for Mitigation Bank due to rapid growth. 3 Ground Water Management in Montana: On the Road from Beleaguered Law to Science-Based Policy, Laura Ziemer, Eloise Kendy, and John Wilson, 27 Public Land & Resources Law Review, 75-97 (2006). 4 Town of Manhattan v. DNRC, 2012 MT 81, 276 P.3d 920 (2012). 5 Mitigating for Growth: A Blueprint for a Ground Water Exchange Pilot Program in Montana, Laura Ziemer, Sarah
Bates, Meg Casey, and Ada Montague, 148 Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education, 33-43 (August 2012), published by Universities Council on Water Resources. 6 Changing Changes: A Roadmap for Montana’s Water Management, Laura Ziemer, Stan Bradshaw, and Meg Casey, 14 University of Denver Water Law Review 47-95 (Fall 2010). 7 Mont. Code Ann. §§ 85-2-360 to 362 (2009). 8 Pers. Comm. to Laura Ziemer from Representative Walter McNutt (2009); see also Mont. Code Ann. § 85-2-525 (2009). 9 Groundwater Modeling Report, Four Corners hydrogeologic investigation, near Bozeman, 2014 (MBMG Open-File 652) available at: http://www.gallatin.mt.gov/Public_Documents/GallatinCoMT_WQDReports/4CAreaMBMG_Open-
FileReport652-Aug2014b.pdf last visited: April 6, 2015. 102015 Montana State Water Plan, available at http://dnrc.mt.gov/divisions/water/management/docs/state-water-
plan/2015_water_plan_executive_summary.pdf, last visited: April 6, 2015; City of Bozeman Integrated Water Resources Plan (2013). 11 Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Ground Water Modeling Report, Four Corners Hydrologic Investigation Near Bozeman, 2014 (MBMG Open File 652), available at
http://www.mbmg.mtech.edu/gwip/gwip.asp. 12 MBMG presentations to Association of Gallatin Agricultural Irrigators (“AGAI”) Board Meetings and Annual
Membership Meetings, 2012-2014. 13 Clark Fork Coalition et al v. DNRC, BDV-2010-874, Order on Petition for Judicial Review, Judge Sherlock (October
17, 2014). 14 Text of HB 519 available at
http://laws.leg.mt.gov/legprd/LAW0203W$BSRV.ActionQuery?P_SESS=20151&P_BLTP_BILL_TYP_CD=HB&P_BILL_NO=519&P_BILL_DFT_NO=&P_CHPT_NO=&Z_ACTION=Find&P_ENTY_ID_SEQ2=&P_SBJT_SBJ_CD=&P
_ENTY_ID_SEQ=. 15 Magnitude, Extent, and Potential Sources of Nitrate in Ground Water in the Gallatin Local Water Quality District,
Southwestern Montana 1997-98, by Eloise Kendy, USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 01-4037 (March 2001).
Gallatin River Basin Hydrologic Investigation to Support a Ground Water Mitigation Bank 4
97
Legend
Bozeman Growth Plan Boundary
Bozeman City Limits
Dedicated Parkland
Salar Property
NRCS Artificial Wetlands
NRCS Natural Wetlands
Middle Creek Ditch
West Gallatin Canal
Farmers Canal
WaterwaysConservation Easements
Gallatin Valley Land Trust
Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks
Montana Land Reliance
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
.
1:40,000
0 1 2 3 40.5
Miles
GWIP Project Exhibit
Gallatin Mitigation Bank
98
9/25/2015 WebGrants - State of Montana
https://fundingmt.org/getApplicationPrintPreview.do?documentPk=1443219299562 1/7
Application
29731 - DNRC 2015-2016 RRGL Planning Grant - Final Application
34584 - Southeastern Gallatin Valley Irrigation Infrastructure Assessment to Support Development ofthe Gallatin Groundwater Mitigation Bank
DNRC
Status:Submitted SubmittedDate:09/25/2015 7:12 PM
Applicant Information
Primary Contact:
Name:*Mr. Brian Heaston
Salutation First Name Middle Name Last Name
Title:
Email:* bheaston@bozeman.net
Alternate Email
Address:* City of Bozeman - Engineering Dept
PO Box 1230
*Bozeman Montana 59771-1230
City State/Province Postal Code/Zip
Phone:*406-582-2280
Phone###-###-#### Ext.
Alternate Phone
Fax:
Organization Information
Name:* Bozeman, City of
Organization Type: City Government
Organization Website: www.bozeman.net
Address:* PO Box 1230
121 North Rouse Ave.
*Bozeman Montana 59771
City State/Province Postal Code/Zip
Phone:* 406-582-2306
Ext.
Alternate Phone
Fax: 406-582-2339
Email address
Alternate Email
Planning Grant Instructions
Please verify that youhave read the PlanningGrant DescriptionBEFORE filling out thisapplication.
Yes
99
9/25/2015 WebGrants - State of Montana
https://fundingmt.org/getApplicationPrintPreview.do?documentPk=1443219299562 2/7
Description
Additional Applicant Information
Planning Grant ApplicantName:* SE Gallatin Valley Irrigation Infra. Assessment
Governmental Entity (city,district, etc.):* City of Bozeman
Location
County:* Gallatin
Project Location Latitude(In Decimal DegreesONLY)*
45.63935° (SE Gallatin Valley) Format Example: 46.345678. Do not try to enter N or S
Project LocationLongitude (In DecimalDegrees ONLY)*
111.0913° (SE Gallatin Valley) Format Example: 112.345678. Do not try to enter E or W
State Senate District:* 31, 32, 33
State House District:* 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66
Contact Information
Authorized Representative
Name:* Brian Heaston, PE
Title Senior Engineer
Mailing Address:* PO Box 1230, Bozeman, MT 59771-1230
Phone:* 406-582-2280
Email Address:* bheaston@bozeman.net
Primary Contact
Name:* Chris Kukulski
Title City Manager
Mailing Address:* PO Box 1230, Bozeman, MT 59771-1230
Phone:* 406-582-2306
Email Address:* ckukulski@bozeman.net
Engineer or Professional Consultant
Name:
Firm Name:
Mailing Address:
Phone:
Email Address:
Has the engineer or
consultant beenprocured?*
No
Type of Project Planning Grant
ProjectType:* Larger Watershed Assesment
Technical Studies would include: Groundwater Investigation, Soil Investigation, Source Water Protection Plan, Watershed Surveysetc.
If applying foranadministrativegrant, pleasechoose whichtype
N/A
100
9/25/2015 WebGrants - State of Montana
https://fundingmt.org/getApplicationPrintPreview.do?documentPk=1443219299562 3/7
Does theapplicant
(community)have anadministrativeorder or othercomplianceissue thatneeds to be
addressed*
No
If yes, you arerequired toexplain: N/A
If you areapplying foranadministrativegrant, are yourequestingmore than$5,000 fromDNRC?*
No
If you areapplying forantechnical/PERgrant, are yourequestingmore than$10,000 from
DNRC?*
No
If you areapplying foran largerwatershedgrant, are yourequestingmore than$50,000 fromDNRC?*
No
Project Description
Brief Description of the problem needing to be solved
1. What renewable resource may be impacted by the project?*
Irrigated Agriculture in Gallatin ValleyEffective Irrigation Water DeliverySenior Water RightsFWP Instream Flow RightsGallatin River and Tributary Flows
This proposed watershed planning project is part of the overall effort to create a ground water mitigationbank. The ground water mitigation bank will protect senior, surface-water irrigation rights and the State’sinstream flow right from new depletions due to groundwater pumping. It is vitally important to the health ofthe Gallatin River and tributaries, and to the vibrant agricultural production in the Gallatin Valley, to protectboth river flows and the senior irrigation water rights from new depletions.
2. What public benefits may be impacted by the project?*
The goal of this watershed planning project is to identify and assess the condition of existing canal andirrigation water delivery infrastructure in the southeastern portion of the Gallatin Valley. The objectives ofthis effort require careful coordination with irrigation companies and water users to determine andcharacterize what irrigation infrastructure capital improvements and operations and maintenance upgradesare needed to continue to reliably deliver irrigation water for years to come. This infrastructure assessmentis crucial and timely in light of the relentless encroachment of urban and suburban development uponhistoric agricultural land uses and the aging condition of these irrigation infrastructure assets. Existingirrigation infrastructure can be strategically repurposed in the context of the groundwater mitigation bank todeliver mitigation water to aquifer recharge basins in a manner that preserves Gallatin River and tributaryflows that senior ag and instream water rights depend upon for beneficial use. By perpetuating the use ofirrigation infrastructure for mitigation water delivery, irrigation company assets and rights of way arepreserved notwithstanding the inevitable changes in land use.
Public benefits likely to be impacted by this proposed project include:
Identification and condition assessment of irrigation diversion structures, canal mainlines, lateralditches, head gates, return flow ditches and potential capital improvements and operation andmaintenance upgrades to same supported by irrigation companies to maintain reliable delivery ofirrigation water;Create opportunities to work with Gallatin Valley’s irrigated agriculture infrastructure so that canaland ditch companies have new sources of revenue for new capital improvements as well as on-going operational and maintenance (O&M) expenses; and,
101
9/25/2015 WebGrants - State of Montana
https://fundingmt.org/getApplicationPrintPreview.do?documentPk=1443219299562 4/7
Identify and assess ways to benefit the irrigation company infrastructure in the southeastern portionfo the Gallatin Valley while providing ways to deliver recharge water to provide year-roundaugmentation to Gallatin River and tributary flows. Preservation of instream flows and senior water rights.
3. Why is the project needed? *
This watershed planning project is needed in order to determine how to integrate the Gallatin Valley’sirrigation infrastructure with the recharge of water to the Gallatin River and tributaries through a handful ofstrategically placed recharge basins in hydrologically suitable locations. Recharge basins are needed forthe mitigation bank because groundwater pumping occurs year-round, whereas senior irrigation rights thatprovide mitigation water are only seasonal water rights. The recharge basins provide a way to augmentGallatin River and tributary flows year-round with the seasonal irrigation water rights. Augmentation mustbe provided through aquifer recharge on a year-round basis in order to protect and keep viable instreamwater rights owned by FWP for the benefit of fish and wildlife.
The aquifer recharge basins will be located in connection with a hydrologic investigation that is beingrequested through the Ground Water Investigation Program (GWIP) of the Montana Bureau of Mines andGeology as well as a municipal Groundwater Investigation currently being undertaken by the City ofBozeman. The recharge basins could be dedicated areas of flat ground prepared with gravel after top-soilremoval, or they may be natural features such as ephemeral stream channels (that in many instances mayalso serve as a ditch turnout conveyor of irrigation water), historic side channels, or basin interfluves. Arecharge basin could also be a historic irrigation feature like a lateral ditch, blow-off ditch, or return flowditch. The recharge location, the amount of water to be recharged, and means of delivery to the rechargearea will all come into play in making a final selection of recharge areas.
Ensuring that the Gallatin Valley’s existing irrigation infrastructure can be used to deliver water to therecharge areas is ideal for three reasons. First, it is more cost-effective to use water conveyanceinfrastructure that is already in place rather than build new infrastructure. Second, by using the GallatinValley’s existing irrigation infrastructure for conveying water to recharge basins, the mitigation bankbecomes a supporter of the canal or ditch company by contributing to capital improvements and annualO&M costs. Third, the recharge water provides carriage water in the canal or ditch before it is turned out tothe recharge basin, helping to ensure continued delivery of irrigation water to other ditch or canal users. This proposed watershed planning project is needed to ensure that the Gallatin Valley’s existing irrigationinfrastructure is preserved in perpetuity and works efficiently and effectively for both its long-time irrigatorsas well as future mitigation water deliveries to aquifer recharge areas.
4. What is a brief history of the project? *
In the face of the Gallatin River basin’s rapidly expanding population, a coalition of agricultural, municipal,and conservation stakeholders has been working for over a decade to address the Gallatin River basin’sgrowth-related water conflicts. These agricultural, municipal, and conservation stakeholders have togetherworked to integrate ground and surface water management in the closed basins of Montana, have workedto chart a path forward for the City of Bozeman’s future water supply needs in a way that is not harmful tothe vital water resources of the valley, and have worked together to obtain the official recognition of theState that multiple, permit-exempt wells, present a cumulative impact on water resources that must beaccounted for by Montana’s conjunctive ground and surface water management regime.
With the evolution in Montana’s integration of ground and surface water management, the creation of amitigation bank would facilitate water transfers from one beneficial use to another without harming existingagricultural or environmental uses and water rights. The Montana Legislature’s Water Policy InterimCommittee has examined the potential of water mitigation banks to alleviate the permitting pressure on theagency, applicants, and potential objectors alike. The State Water Plan specifically recommends usingwater banking to meet new water demands, stating that “opportunities for mitigation, water marketing, andwater banking require more research, innovation, and application in the next decade.” (2015 State WaterPlan at 71). The State Water Plan’s explicit intermediate-term recommendation is to “Create well-managedsystems that offer economic development opportunities to market, transfer, and lease water and buildpublic awareness of water marketing opportunities.” Id. The coalition of agricultural, municipal, andconservation stakeholders in the Gallatin Valley have been working together for over a decade to addresswater scarcity, and the proposed mitigation bank is a natural evolution in their efforts to create workablesolutions for all stakeholders.
Project Map:
If you have a project map, attach it here unless you are applying for a watershed project.Watershed projects are required to attach map in the watershed project section of the application.
Match Funding
FundingSource:
FundingSourceAmount:
Is the funding sourcecommitted?If No, Explain why the funding is not committed
Applicant $119,175.00 Yes In-Kind contribution for City's Groundwater Investigation -identification of mitigation water needs
Other $100,000.00 No Estimated in-kind hydrologic analysis of aquifer recharge areasthrough GWIP
Other $10,000.00 Yes Estimated In-kind contribution from MARS for canal companyoutreach - infra. assessment cooperation
102
9/25/2015 WebGrants - State of Montana
https://fundingmt.org/getApplicationPrintPreview.do?documentPk=1443219299562 5/7
DNRC Amount Requested
Amount Requested: $50,000.00
Total Budget $279,175.00
DNR Planning Grant Watershed Grant Questions
Are you applying for awatershed grant?*
Yes
Those applying for larger watershed grants will be required to answer the following questions. If your project is not a watershed grant select "No" and select save in the upper right hand margin.
Has an initial watershedsurvey been completed? Yes
Participants-List the stakeholders involved in this project:
City of Bozeman
Montana Aquatic Resource Services (MARS)
MT Bureau of Mines and Geology (through GWIP project, if successful)
Please address the magnitude and immediate need for the assessment based on the re-establishement ofstructure and function to a watershed:(TMDLs; weeds; fire prevention or rehab; flood mitigation; drinkingwater or waste water systems being threatened)
In order to make a final selection of appropriate aquifer recharge basins or recharge features, one of theinitial, key determining factors is whether mitigation water can be efficiently and effectively conveyed tothe recharge area through existing irrigation infrastructure, while maintaining and improving water deliveryto existing irrigators. This means that existing irrigation infrastructure in the southeastern portion of theGallatin Valley needs to be assessed for any needed capital improvements or operations and maintenanceupgrades in order to accomplish this conveyance of water to both irrigators and aquifer recharge areas.
TMDL, weeds, fire prevention or rehab, flood mitigation, drinking water or wastewater systems being threatened
Attach map by selecting pdf icon.
If applying for a
watershed grant youmust attach a map of thestudy area
RRGL Watershed Planning Exhibit_reduced.pdf
Are there any knownenvironmental impacts? No
Goals, Objectives, and Tasks
Please list the goals, objectives and tasks for these grants.
Goal: The goal of this watershed planning project is to assess and inventory the condition of existingirrigation infrastructure in the southeastern portion of the Gallatin Valley and identify limitations of existingirrigation infrastructure to convey mitigation water to aquifer recharge areas.
Objectives:
(1) To determine and characterize what irrigation-water infrastructure capital improvements and operationsand maintenance upgrades are needed to continue to reliably deliver irrigation water, especially in light ofurban and suburban encroachment;
(2) To interface irrigation water delivery with delivery of water to a strategically located aquifer rechargebasins to provide year-round augmentation of Gallatin River and tributary flows; and,
(3) To determine whether the valley’s irrigation infrastructure has any limitation on its ability to conveyrecharge water to potential aquifer recharge basins that would affect the selection of particular rechargesites.
Tasks:
(1) Discussions between mitigation bank partners and three separate irrigation companies in thesoutheastern portion of Gallatin Valley to garner support for and determine overall scope of theinfrastructure assessment.
(2) Joint development of a request for proposals (RFP) with mitigation bank partners and irrigationcompany representatives to select a qualified consulting firm to complete the irrigation deliveryinfrastructure assessment.
(3) Sub-contractor performs irrigation delivery infrastructure assessment, and prepares a final report withfindings and recommendations for irrigation-water infrastructure capital improvements and operations andmaintenance upgrades that are needed to continue to reliably deliver irrigation water, and findings onwhether there are any limitations on the ability to convey aquifer recharge water to potential recharge areas
103
9/25/2015 WebGrants - State of Montana
https://fundingmt.org/getApplicationPrintPreview.do?documentPk=1443219299562 6/7
that would affect the selection of particular recharge sites.
Study Timeline
Planning grants must be completed within a year of when a grant contract is executedwithin the community.
Will theproprosed
project becompletedwithin a yearof when thegrant contractis executed?*
Yes
Timeline* Task 1: Months 1-3Task 2: Months 3-5Task 3: Months 5-12
Authorizing Statement
This form is located in the funding opportunity, at the bottom of the page, under "attachments". Your application will not be accepteduntil we receive this document.
I have printed, signed andmailed in the authorizingstatement*
Yes
General Attachment Form
File Name Description FileSize
Gallatin County CD.pdf (106 KB)Gallatin County Conservation District agenda/minutes of support for GallatinValley Mitigation Bank RRGL Application 106 KB
Grant Authorization Form.pdf (49 KB)Grant Authorization Form 49 KB
GW Mit Bank Concept Paper_ Sept 172015.pdf (926 KB)Groundwater Mitigation Bank Concept Paper by Mitigation Bank Partners 926 KB
Letters of Support.pdf (1.4 MB)Letters of Support 1.4 MB
Scope of Svcs_RESPEC 07-15-2015.pdf (264 KB)City of Bozeman Groundwater Investigation Final Consultant Scope of Services 264 KB
Authorizing Statement
An authorized agent representing the applicant, usually the chief elected official, must, byhis or her signature, verify that this application is authorized as presented.
I hereby declare that theinformation included inand all attachments tothis application are true,complete, and accurate tothe best of myknowledge.*
Yes An authorized agent representing the applicant, usually the chief elected official, must, by his or her signature,verify that this application is authorized as presented.
I further declare that, onbehalf of (Applicant), I amlegally authorized to enterinto a grant agreementwith the Department ofNatural Resources andConservation to obtainfunding if this applicationis approved. I understandthat all grant funding must
be authorized by theDepartment of NaturalResources andConservation.*
Brian Heaston
Select your full name from the drop down to authorize the grant agreement.
Can you verify that you
104
9/25/2015 WebGrants - State of Montana
https://fundingmt.org/getApplicationPrintPreview.do?documentPk=1443219299562 7/7
will be printing theauthorizing Statementfrom the RRGLAuthorization StatementLink section and mailing asigned copy to DNRC?Failure to do so willprevent the application tobe considered forfunding.*
Yes
Link
105
Legend
Bozeman Growth Plan Boundary
Bozeman City Limits.Southeastern Gallatin Valley
Irrigation Infrastructure Assessment
Project Exhibit Map
Southeastern Gallatin ValleyIrrigationInfrastructure Assessment
General Project Area
1 in = 2 miles106