HomeMy WebLinkAboutIntegrated Water Resource PlanuVww.aa ,�.com
September 16, 2013
City of Bozeman
Attn: Mr. Brian Heaston, PE
PO Box 1230
Bozeman, MT 59771
RE: Integrated Water Resources Plan
Dear Brian:
Attached please find three (3) copies of the Integrated Water Resources Plan (IWRP) report document,
which reflects input and comments from City staff and the revisions requested by the Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC). The recommendations provided by the TAC and corresponding appendices are
provided as an attachment to this letter and serve as an integral component of the final deliverable for
the IWRP.
On behalf of CH2MHill, AE2S sincerely appreciates the opportunity to work with the City of Bozeman on
this very important planning effort. It was also a pleasure working with your water rights consultants
and members of the TAC to generate a work product that serves as the foundation for meeting the
City's water supply capacity requirements well into the future.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at (406) 268 -0626 or nate.weisenburger @ ae2s.com if our team can
be of further assistance.
In the Spirit of Service,
AE2S
R. Nathan Weisenbu ger, PE
Operations Manager
Attachments
cc: Gretchen Rupp, TAC Chairperson
Mark Anderson, PE, CH2MHill
Court Harris, PE, CH2MHill
Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc.
300 15th Street South Suite 107 • Great Falls, MT 59405 -2456 • (t) 406 - 268 -0626 • (f) 406 - 268 -0628
Integrated Water Resources Plan
Recommendations of the Technical Advisory Committee
to the Bozeman City Commission
September 30, 2013
Executive Summary
In 2012 -2013 the City of Bozeman developed an Integrated Water Resources Plan to
guide its water supply and water use policy and practices for the next 50 years. As part
of the planning process a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of local water experts
was engaged. The TAC participated in evaluating a broad range of possible water -
supply and water -use alternatives. The TAC concurs with the recommendations set
forth in the Plan and recommends additional measures. A vigorous water conservation
program should be the cornerstone of Bozeman's water management. In this regard,
the city should take the following steps: continue to make the distribution system more
efficient, enact policies to encourage landscape irrigation using non - potable water,
institute code revisions and otherwise encourage water -use efficiency in new
development. Bozeman should work to acquire additional water rights in Hyalite
Reservoir and senior rights in Hyalite and Sourdough Creeks. Over the next 5 -10 years,
the city should conduct detailed studies to define the costs, legal requirements, and
engineering feasibility of optimizing the Lyman Creek water source, creating one or
more impoundments in Sourdough Canyon, raising Hyalite Dam a second time,
developing a new well field in the Gallatin Valley, and acquiring new water from the
Salar Project near Gallatin Gateway. These new water supplies should be phased -in as
needed, in the order established by a multiple- criteria screening exercise such as that
conducted in this planning project. It is also essential that the city periodically review
and update the water resources plan, and commit the funds necessary to better
understand its water sources and to mitigate water - system operational difficulties.
Background
These recommendations are part of an integrated planning process for water resources
that was undertaken in Spring, 2012. This process is the latest in a series of actions
taken by our growing community to balance water supply and demand. Notably, in the
past 15 years the city has substantially upgraded and enlarged both its water and
wastewater handling facilities, examined water conservation as a way to harmonize
supply and demand, initiated an aggressive program to repair leaks and replace old
water - distribution lines, and studied the potential for constructing a new impoundment in
the canyon of Sourdough Creek.
The planning process that was just completed is well- described in the Integrated Water
Resources Plan, dated August 2013, prepared by the firms AE2S and CH2MHill under
contract to the city. Its broad purpose has been to project the city's water demand
decades into the future, examine an exhaustive array of means to meet the demand -
both sources of supply and water -use practices - and recommend the most promising
measures for further study and potentially for implementation. The planning process has
been carried out by city staff and contractors with expertise in hydrology, climate
science, water - supply engineering and Montana water law (hereinafter referred to as
"the consultants "). This "Technical Advisory Committee," chartered in April 2012 by the
City Commission, has participated in every stage of the process. As described in the
resolution creating it (Appendix A), the twofold role of the TAC has been to bring local
expertise into the planning process and to incorporate interests of key stakeholder
groups. To do this, the Commission named to the TAC local experts in water resources,
water use, and water law, as well as key agency personnel (Appendix B).
The TAC convened in eight public meetings between June 2012 and August 2013,
including six meetings with the city's consultants (see table below). There are two
products of its work: specific measures and approaches that were incorporated into the
technical analysis reported in the Water Resources Plan, and several additional
recommendations to the Bozeman City Commission, described below.
Technical Advisory Committee Meetings
Date
Major Topics
June 6, 2012
Procedural actions; review background information; review general types
of alternatives and authorize alternatives screening approach
July 5, 2012
Finalize TAC mission statement and process; define alternatives
screening criteria and weights: discuss background assumptions
August 3, 2013
Adoption of rankinq criteria: discussion of water conservation
December 6, 2012
Conservation planning; water rights management; alternatives refinement
January 11, 2013
Contents and evaluation of conservation alternatives; integrated utilities
alternatives situation
March 1, 2013
Alternatives ranking and selection for portfolio analysis
May 23, 2013
Consultant presentation and TAC discussion of portfolio results
August 16, 2013
Review of city public - involvement plan; formulation of recommendations to
Commission
TAC Perspective
The TAC strongly commends the Bozeman City Commission and city staff for
undertaking this comprehensive planning process before a crisis impends, taking
stakeholder concerns into account. We are satisfied that a full range of potential water
sources has been examined and the best available science has been applied. We have
seen the TAC's input incorporated into the plan at every stage, including the shaping of
the alternatives - analysis procedure. This long -term, large -scale planning exercise has
set the stage for the detailed future examination of specific measures to secure the
city's water. Should the Water Resources Plan and the TAC's supplementary
recommendations be adopted, the Commission and the citizens of Bozeman can be
confident that its water - management policies and practices will serve the city well for
decades to come.
Early in the planning process the consultants, in consultation with the TAC, developed
twenty -five potential measures ( "alternatives ") that could be applied to reconcile
Bozeman's water supply and demand (see Table 5 -1 of the Water Resources Plan).
The alternatives ranged from aggressive water conservation by residents, to re -use of
reclaimed wastewater, to importing water from distant locations. A vital role of the TAC
Technical Advisory Committee September 2013 Page 2 of 6
was to rank the alternatives with regard to their priority for further analysis (and hence,
potential implementation). We did this by elaborating a set of evaluation criteria first
developed by the consultants. The 30 criteria and the relative weights assigned to them
by the TAC are attached as Appendix C; the criteria descriptors comprise Appendix D.
CATEGORIES OF EVALUATION CRITERIA
WEIGHT ( %)
Technical criteria
18
Environmental criteria
28
Social criteria
13
Economic criteria
19
Water supply criteria
22
TOTAL
100
The ranking criteria and their relative weights were the lens that focused this planning
process according to our community's values. Among the five types of criteria,
environmental factors collectively were scored highest by the TAC. These included
factors like energy use (conveying water to the treatment plant via gravity vs pumping
using fossil fuels), disruption to aquatic environments, and resilience to climate change.
Water - supply factors - the reliability and proximity of the source, its vulnerability to
contamination, its quality - were judged next - most - important by the TAC. Alternatives
were evaluated on the basis of five economic criteria and six social criteria such as
quality -of -life impacts, maintenance of irrigated agriculture, and likely customer
satisfaction. Alternatives were also assessed according to technical criteria such as
compatibility with existing infrastructure and ability to meet water - supply targets.
"Redundancy" was judged an important consideration. A redundant water supply has
multiple sources, such that it is resilient to catastrophe. For example, an earthquake that
renders Bozeman's Hyalite water source unusable would also likely deprive the city of
its Sourdough Creek supply - but possibly not the Lyman Creek supply, which thus
provides some degree of redundancy. The criteria are in conflict, to a degree. The same
measure cannot both "maximize use of existing infrastructure" and bolster water supply
redundancy. This shows how each alternative has both advantages and drawbacks.
Recommendations
To meet its 50 -year water needs, the TAC recommends that the Bozeman City
Commission formally adopt the Integrated Water Resources Plan. In particular, the TAC
favors the plan's "Portfolio 14," augmented with additional measures. Beginning this
year, the city should take the following actions:
➢ Initiate a water - conservation program, as specified in the FY 2014 budget recently
adopted by the Commission. This should include conventional measures such as a
consumer - education program and incentives for change -out of water - wasting
fixtures, but also plans for piloting and monitoring less- conventional water - saving
measures. Water conservation and water -use efficiency should be the bedrock of
the city's water - resource management. These measures are cost - effective relative to
developing new sources of supply, and hold important ancillary benefits such as
environmental preservation and securing water for agriculture in the Gallatin Valley.
Technical Advisory Committee September 2013 Page 3 of 6
➢ Implement an ongoing effort to acquire additional shares in the Hyalite Reservoir
from willing - seller shareholders. As they become available, the city should also seek
to acquire flow rights in Hyalite and Sourdough Creeks with older priority dates. This
water can be conveyed by gravity to the new water treatment plant, optimizing the
city's very substantial investment there.
➢ Continue to take the legal actions needed to define, consolidate and make the best
use of currently -held water rights.
➢ Continue and intensify current work to cut unaccounted -for water in the distribution
system. The TAC recommends adopting an aggressive goal: less than 10% of
produced water. Re- visiting past decisions regarding distribution - system pressure,
which is very high by national standards, is recommended. This high pressure
exacerbates all leaks, from the largest water mains to the smallest customer tap.
Both the "moderate" and "high" conservation alternatives described in the Water
Resources Plan rely on further cutting water losses from the distribution system.
In the intermediate term, the city should:
➢ Conduct a cost/engineering /legal feasibility study to define how it can optimize water
production from the Lyman Creek source. The city holds a much larger water right
there than it is currently able to use. This source could not, alone, make up the water
shortfalls projected for the 30- and 50 -year planning horizons.
➢ Work with developers to implement non - potable irrigation in new developments, as
possible and appropriate. When lands annexed to the city come with appurtenant
irrigation rights, those rights should be accepted and the water used for landscape
irrigation, sparing capacity at Bozeman's advanced water treatment plant.
➢ Expand the conservation program to include the commercial and institutional
sectors. The program should emphasize water -use efficiency in new developments,
where significant savings may be realized. It should deploy an array of tools, ranging
from educational campaigns, to incentive programs, to municipal -code updates.
In the longer term, the city should conduct the appropriate studies and then phase in, as
needed, the measures below:
➢ Construct one or more impoundments on Sourdough Creek above the treatment
plant. This would take advantage of the city's water rights and water reservation
there, and conveyance to the treatment plant would be by gravity. Alternatively, it
may be possible to slightly raise Hyalite Dam, or to raise the maximum -pool
elevation behind the existing dam by changes to the intake structure. The city should
explore these latter possibilities with water - project engineers and water - rights
specialists from the Montana Department of Natural Resources & Conservation.
➢ Site and develop a new well field to supply the city. The Gallatin Valley has
abundant groundwater (the use of which would have to be mitigated with existing
Technical Advisory Committee September 2013 Page 4 of 6
water rights). Groundwater has major advantages: it is resilient to drought and
impervious to wildfire, and requires less treatment than surface water.
➢ Work with the owners of the " Salar Project" to develop, on their property near
Gallatin Gateway, either a well field or an impoundment drawing from two irrigation
canals that originate in the West Gallatin River. These waters would principally be
used untreated, for landscape irrigation within the western part of the city.
The TAC recommends against importing water from outside the Gallatin watershed, or
far downstream, unless extraordinary circumstances render the approaches above
inadequate. Cost, legal hurdles and environmental drawbacks would all be high for such
long -range water transport. The only circumstance we can envision that might make this
approach worth Bozeman's consideration would be high population growth throughout
the Gallatin Valley, sustained for a long period ( >5% for more than 10 years).
An important question arising from the development of the Water Resources Plan is the
implementation schedule for the various recommended water - supply alternatives. An
essential aspect of the recently - completed work was comprehensiveness: all measures
that were even remotely feasible were screened. Consequently, the cost and
engineering data developed for the many alternatives were necessarily very rough.
Selecting which measures to undertake, when and in what order, hinges on developing
much more detailed information. Therefore, the TAC urges the city to adopt the
following practices:
➢ For the next 5 -10 years, as needed, program into the city's capital budget funds for
detailed definition of the costs, legal requirements and engineering feasibility of the
major water - supply alternatives listed above: Lyman, Sourdough impoundment(s),
Hyalite dam raise, a new well field, and the Salar project.
➢ When these alternatives are well- understood, devise the implementation schedule
using the screening matrix developed for the Water Resources Plan, or update it
with the assistance of a new TAC. This is a comprehensive and robust tool that
applies the community's values to capital planning. Among the possible capital -
construction projects, the TAC looks most favorably on optimizing the Lyman Creek
water source.
While the City is pursuing the above measures, it also needs to conduct several
ancillary activities:
➢ Engage the public in active review and comment on this process and the water -
resource possibilities open to Bozeman.
➢ Develop a plan to address the "shrink facto" or "conveyance loss" of Hyalite
Reservoir water. More water may be available to the city than is currently assumed.
➢ Instrument and monitor Lyman and Sourdough Creeks so that their hydrographs -
and the reliable water yields of the watersheds - are better understood.
Technical Advisory Committee September 2013 Page 5 of 6
➢ Continue to work to mitigate operational difficulties, which were outside the scope of
this exercise. TAC members have come to appreciate that having an adequate
water supply on paper does not mean it is straightforward for operations staff to get
that water into the water plant and the distribution network. If the challenges are
clearly defined, Bozeman ratepayers will accept modest added water fees to, for
example, update the cumbersome and wasteful operational protocol for the Hyalite
dam.
➢ Assist MSU in its continuing work to optimize water -use efficiency on campus. For
example, it may be possible for the city to convey unused water rights to MSU's
Family & Graduate Housing, allowing it to cease irrigating its grounds with treated
city water.
➢ Re -visit and update the Water Resources Plan every five years. This is especially
critical in light of the extreme sensitivity of its analysis to the population growth rate.
If growth turns out to be slower than the "moderate- growth" scenario from the plan,
the city can delay some actions and save money. On the other hand, rapid growth
must be accommodated by accelerating the acquisition of new water and
intensifying conservation efforts. An effective conservation program will steadily
bring down per- capita water demand over time, allowing the city to postpone major
expenditures on new water supplies.
Concluding Observations
This initial effort has been comprehensive and robust, but water - resource activities must
be ongoing. Assuring water security into the future will require sustained commitment
from future commissions. This must involve not just directing city staff to re -visit plans
and assumptions periodically, but committing adequate funds to engage technical
consultants and to initiate new demand -side or supply -side water projects. Only a
serious level of commitment over a long term will allow the Water Resources Plan to be
brought to fruition.
Collectively and individually, the members of the TAC thank the Bozeman City
Commission for the opportunity to participate in this interesting and vital process. We
look forward to following the city's water - resource management in coming years. We
are confident it can take place in a manner that provides adequate water for a
vigorously - growing city while protecting resident quality of life and the wonderful natural
environment we so cherish here.
Appendices
A. City Commission resolution creating the TAC
B. List of TAC members and affiliations
C. TAC criteria scoring matrix
D. Criteria descriptors
Technical Advisory Committee September 2013 Page 6 of 6
APPENDIX A
COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO, 4373
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN,
MONTANA, CREATING AND DEFINING THE PURPOSE AND STRUCTURE OF A
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE CONVENING FOR THE CITY'S INTEGRATED
WATER RESOURCES PLAN.
WHEREAS, the purpose of the Integrated Water Resources Plan is to explore, evaluate,
prioritize, and document the range of alternatives available to address anticipated water supply
challenges for the City of Bozeman; and
WHEREAS, on February 6, 2012 the Bozeman City Commission authorized the City
Manager to sign a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with the firm of Advanced
Engineering and Environmental Services Inc (AE2S) to complete an Integrated Water Resources
Plan (IWRP) for the City of Bozeman; and
WHEREAS, Task 9 of the IWRP PSA scope of services provides that three Technical
Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings will be completed, however, additional TAC meetings
may be held if directed or approved by the Bozeman City Commission; and
WHEREAS, on February 6, 2012 the Bozeman City Commission directed interested
individuals with a technical background or understanding of water supply planning and water
rights to apply for TAC positions; and
WHEREAS, the Bozeman City Commission shall appoint members to the IWRP TAC
from applicants that have applied for the IWRP TAC.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA:
Section 1
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of the Integrated Water Resources Plan (IWRP) will
assist in reviewing and preparing plan components described in Section 2 of this Commission
RESOLUTION NO. 4373
Page 1 of 3
Resolution. The professional experience and technical background of TAC members will
provide a means of broadening the basis of scrutiny and collective knowledge utilized in review
and preparation of the IWRP beyond City Staff and its professional contractors.
Section 2
The TAC will be asked to assist City Staff and its professional contractors in:
1. Water conservation planning.
2. Selecting and weighting alternatives ranking criteria.
3. Developing water supply alternatives.
4. Reviewing modeling efforts, cost estimates and plan results.
Section 3
The structure and oversight of the TAC shall be organized according to the following:
1. The Bozeman City Commission shall appoint members to the TAC from individuals
with a technical background or understanding of water supply planning and water
rights. TAC is considered temporary in nature. If the Committee is still constituted
two years after the date of this Resolution, members will need to be reappointed to the
Committee by the City Conunission. Vacancies shall be filled in the same matter as
original appointments.
2. A Commission liaison is required for the TAC for consultation and information, but
the liaison is not required to attend each meeting. At least one Staff member shall
attend each TAC meeting.
3. The TAC, at its first scheduled meeting, will elect from amongst its appointed
membership a committee Chairperson.
4. Three TAC meetings will be held unless additional meetings arc directed and /or
approved by the Bozeman City Commission.
5. TAC schedules and agendas shall be prepared by Staff and AE2S with input provided
by the committee Chairperson. Agendas will then be provided to the City Clerk for
public display at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. Materials for TAC review and
deliberation shall be provided by AE2S.
6. TAC minutes will be recorded by AE2S and will be made available to the public.
7. The TAC may, at its discretion, forward an independent formal recommendation to
the Bozeman City Commission regarding its work and deliberations on the IWRP.
8. TAC meetings will be open to the public and conducted in accordance with all
applicable rules and regulations of the State and the City of Bozeman.
9. The actions of the board shall be advisory only and shall not constitute policy of the
City and shall not be binding upon the City Commission or upon the City.
10. Meetings shall be conducted according to Robert's Rules of Order, Eleventh Edition
and the model Advisory Board Rules of Procedure.
11. Compliance with the City Code of Ethics. All members are required to follow State
ethics laws regarding appointed officials and the city of Bozeman Code of Ethics.
Members will receive the City of Bozeman ethics handbook and must sign a form
RESOLUTION NO. 4373
Page 2 of 3
acknowledging receipt of the handbook and take a written oath they will uphold the
state and city ethics codes. Members are also required to take an online or paper
ethics training shortly after appointment. Non - compliance with the City Code of
Ethics and training requirements may result in removal of a Committee member.
PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Commission of the City of Bozeman, Montana, at a
regular session held on the 9th day of April, 2012.
ATTkS B O Z
V l ;rv; C-r - --
)� lz� I----
E Mayor
APPROVED AA TO FORM:
G SULLIVAN
Ci Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 4373
Page 3 of 3
APPENDIX B
Members of the Technical Advisory Committee
Gretchen Rupp (Chair) has practiced water engineering in Bozeman for more than 25
years, in both the private and public sectors; she currently chairs the Gallatin County
Board of Health and the Board of the Gallatin Local Water Quality District.
Kerr! Strasheim is the Deputy Regional Manager of the Montana Department of
Natural Resources & Conservation, heading the Bozeman Water Resources Regional
Office.
Frank Cifala was the US Forest Service Lands and Uses Specialist regarding permits
and processes on the Gallatin National Forest.
Laura Ziemer is a Trout Unlimited water law attorney and Director of TU's Montana
Water Project; she is a 15 year resident of the Bozeman area.
Walt Sales is a Rancher /Farmer and President of the Association of Gallatin
Agricultural Irrigators (AGAI); he is a fourth generation rancher in the Gallatin Valley.
Alan English is a hydrogeologist who served for 12 years as Manager of the Gallatin
Local Water Quality District.
Peter Skidmore is a hydrologist and owner of Skidmore Restoration Consulting, LLC;
Chair (former) of Greater Gallatin Watershed Council; Chair (former) of the Lands
Committee of the Gallatin Valley Land Trust; President (incoming) of the Board of River
Restoration Northwest; founding board member of Montana Aquatic Resources
Services, Inc.
Tammy Crone is Acting Manager of the Gallatin Local Water Quality District. She has
served on the Gallatin Water Resource Task Force, as President of Montana Section of
the American Water Resources Association and as an advisory committee member for
the Bozeman Source Water Protection Plan.
Rick Moroney is Bozeman's Water Treatment Plant Superintendent.
Rick Hixson is the Bozeman City Engineer.
Carson Taylor is an attorney and mediator who currently serves as a Bozeman City
Commissioner.
APPENDIX C
TAC CRITERIA SCORING MATRIX
Weight
Categories of Evaluation Criteria
Technical Criteria
Weight
18
Environmental Criteria
28
Social Criteria
13
Economic Criteria
19
Water Supply Criteria Criteria
22
Total (Weight must equal 100 %)
100%
Weight
Technical Criteria
Constructability
13
Regulations and Drinking Water Quality Impacts
17
Existing Infrastructure Compatibility
15
Water Re -use
9
Water Supply Redundancy
14
Meets 30 -Year Planning Horizon Targets
19
Meets 50 -Year Planning Horizon Targets
13
Total (Weight must equal 100 %)
Environmental Criteria
Clean Water Act Compliance (TMDLs)
100%
Weight (%)
15
In- stream Flow Maintenance
21
Permitting, Environmental Impact Statements, and Easements
16
Energy Generation and Carbon Footprint
18
Climate Impacts Resiliency
15
General Environmental Impacts (Wildlife, Forested Areas)
15
Total (Weight must equal 100 %)
1 100%
Social Criteria
Customer Service Satisfaction
Weight (%)
18
Public Health and Safety
21
Quality of Life Impacts
15
Overall Public Support
24
Economic Development and Growth
10
Water Marketing and Leasing — Maintain Ag Rights
12
Total (Weight must equal 100%)
100%
Economic
Magnitude of Capital Investment per Acre -ft of Developable Water Supply
26
Relative Operation and Maintenance Costs
27
Eligibility for Outside Funding
13
Economy_ of Scale Impacts
11
Delay of Infrastructure to Encourage Growth to Pay for Growth
23
Total (Weight must a ual 100 %)
100%
Supply Water
Reliability and Control of Water Supply (degree of certainty)
21
Initial Water Quality of Water Supply
13
Risk of Water Supply to Contamination /Sabotage
15
Proximity of Water Supply
18
Storage Volume Potential
14
Potential Impacts to the Water Resources
19
Total (Weight must equal 100 %)
100%
APPENDIX D
TAC SCREENING CRITERIA DESCRIPTIONS
SCORING APPROACH:
The TAC and Technical Team will independently apply points to each of the ranking categories noted
above so that a project that receives full points in every category for each heading (Technical, Social,
Environmental, Economic, and Water Supply) would receive 100 points. The TAC and Technical Team
will develop two scoring approaches independent of the other. To facilitate this process, the Technical
Team has already developed a draft of its scoring approach and will work with the TAC during TAC
Meeting #1 to verify the scoring categories and moderate the development of the TAC scoring approach
The Technical Team scoring approach will be finalized with the finalization of the ranking criteria to
meet the objectives of the scoring process.
Once the scoring approach is established, each of the alternatives to be considered will have up to the
score for each category applied based on each individual evaluator's best judgment. The individual
scores will then go into a spreadsheet and be totaled to identify the projects that have the highest
qualitative score of the alternatives considered. This process has successfully been applied in other
Integrated Water Resources Planning efforts to capture the intrinsic differences between the
experiences, exposure, and priorities of a broad spectrum of professionals tasked with long- range, big
picture, planning efforts.
The following descriptions of each scoring category are provided to assist in standardizing the
interpretations of each of the categories listed above. Note that alternatives should be scored as they
relate to each other. In cases where alternatives qualitatively address the ranking category in the same
way, the same scores can be applied. However, every attempt should be made to do a comparative
analysis of the alternatives to be considered.
Constructability
To receive points for constructability, the evaluator should consider the process of physically
constructing an alternative. For example:
• Would the construction site for the project have accessibility issues?
• Are the site conditions where the alternative will be located unknown, challenging, or
dangerous?
• Does the alternative require specialized and unique construction strategies that may be difficult
and costly to bring to Montana?
• Are there barriers to construction, such as natural features (mountains, rivers, lakes, wetlands,
etc.)
• Would there be any timing /seasonal issues that could make constructing an alternative more
challenging?
• Will alternative construction involve construction related inconveniences to the public?
• Can the alternative be constructed to withstand catastrophic events?
Any of the above types of considerations, or others that are similar in nature to the construction of an
alternative should result in a reduction in total allowable points for this category.
Regulations and Drinking Water Quality Impacts
To receive points for this category, the evaluator should consider the following:
• Is the proposed water supply consistent with current water supplies for which treatment
processes are already in place to treat the water to existing potable drinking water regulations?
• Can treatment processes be constructed to treat the proposed water source to existing potable
drinking water regulations?
• Are there regulatory issues with the water supply that will result in regulatory issues in the
future and may have public health impacts if implemented prior to regulations being put into
place (endocrine disruptors, human health standards for nitrates, cytotoxins (algae) by-
products, high organic carbon or organic matter, requiring unique disinfection strategies with
byproducts that could be regulated more stringently in the future, etc.).
Higher points should be given to alternatives where water quality is known and regulations can
thoroughly be addressed now, with the flexibility to address them into the future as they change.
Existing Infrastructure Compatibility
This category will require that that evaluator consider whether the proposed alternative optimizes use
of existing infrastructure. For example:
• Does the proposed solution allow for full utilization of the City of Bozeman WTP that is under
construction? The facility is being constructed to a peak capacity of 22 mgd and consists of
membrane treatment technologies designed to water quality standards associated with
Bozeman Creek, Middle Creek, and Hyalite Reservoir.
• Is there infrastructure already in place to deliver water to the distribution system and serve the
different zones of the system effectively?
• Can new infrastructure be constructed to complement the existing infrastructure? If so, rank
the alternatives in term of general feasibility of the infrastructure necessary as they compare to
each other.
Water Reuse
Does the proposed solution involve a water reuse component, particularly one associated with
effluent from the Bozeman Water Reclamation Facility?
• Does the proposed project assist in compliance with the City's Wastewater Permit?
• Is the proposed solution acceptable to the general public?
• Does the solution provide a non - potable water supply to another water rights hold that
could then contract its water right to the City for drinking water purposes?
Water Supply Redundancy
A redundant water supply should not only be considered in terms of overall quantity of water from one
source (i.e. the source has twice the water in reserve than necessary to serve the community in dry
year), but more appropriately:
• Are the supplies developed in two (or more) distinct water sources that have different
responses to climate conditions, different delivery mechanisms to the system, different
treatment needs, and can effectively replace the other in the event of an emergency (i.e. fire in
the Bozeman Creek /Hyalite Watershed, contamination of the water supply, slope failure in
Bozeman Creek resulting in temporary loss of the stream, failure of the treatment process
equipment, prolonged drought, etc.)?
Meets 30 -Year Planning Horizon Targets
Does this Alternative provide enough water supply to meet water demand and population targets that
have been established for this study effort in the 30 -Year Planning Horizon? If not, could it be combined
with other alternatives to accomplish this objective?
Meets 50 -Year Planning Horizon Targets
Does this Alternative provide enough water supply to meet water demand and population targets that
have been established for this study effort in the 30 -Year Planning Horizon? If not, could it be combined
with other alternatives to accomplish this objective?
Clean Water Act Compliance (TMDLs)
Does this alternative have components that can assist in watershed water quality improvements,
particularly as they relate to various TMDLs (Nutrient, Sediment, and E.Coli) in the Lower Gallatin
Watershed? Examples include:
• Wastewater Reuse to prevent discharge of wastewater into the East Gallatin River during
Seasonal Permitted Conditions
• Application of reuse water in a manner that reduces the use of chemical fertilizer applications
• Reduction of direct stormwater discharge to local streams
• Provision of augmentation flows to increase low flow conditions in areas of the watershed
where water quality impairments could be a challenge (i.e. an out -of -basin import project or
impoundment constructed with additional capacity to maintain minimum stream flows at a
healthy level could be an example. While this would not offset water supplies, it may be
possible to put existing or new water supplies to use under different conditions either on a
temporary or permanent basis to achieve this type of compliance objective in the future).
In- Stream Flows
Does the proposed project have the potential to compromise in- stream flows during low flow
conditions? Does the proposed project have the potential to add flexibility in mitigating instream flow
issues during low flow conditions?
Permittins. Environmental Impact Statements. and Easements
Does the proposed alternative require an extensive permitting, environmental clearance, and easement
development process? If so, does the extent of this effort carry risk that the alternative may not be
viable or carry with it, the possibility of legal action against the City? If a permit or easement cannot be
developed for an alternative, or environmental issues result in a need to modify the alternative, can the
alternative be modified to address the concern?
Enersv Generation and Carbon Footprint
Does the proposed alternative have the ability to generate energy to offset the gross energy
requirement of the alternative, in turn reducing the net carbon footprint of the alternative? Carbon
footprint considerations include energy to construct the alternative as well as operate and maintain the
alternative.
Climate Resilienc
Is the proposed alternative capable of sustaining reasonable service levels with regard to the potential
range of long -term climate impacts? If so, can it also withstand temporary and harsher climate
conditions such as drought? Is the water supply able to return to normal conditions relatively quickly
after drought events?
General Environmental Impacts (Forests, Wildlife, Water Quality, etc.)
Does the project have the potential to have a significant impact on local forested areas, fish and wildlife,
historical and cultural resources, and water quality? Does the alternative have potential to harm or
impact endangered species recognized for protection under the Endangered Species Act? Are
environmental impacts associated with the alternative reversible in the event the alternative is removed
in the future? Does the alternative have long -term applicability in sustaining activities employed to
mitigate impacts to forests, wildlife, water quality, etc.?
Customer Service Satisfaction
Will the proposed solution result in acceptable levels of customer satisfaction with regard to aesthetics,
water quality and quantity, and cost? How will it compare to the service levels that customers are
accustomed to, today?
Public Health and Safe
Outside of regulatory requirements and potable drinking water quality (which were addressed in
previous categories), does the proposed alternative present any public health and safety concerns? For
example, a reservoir above the City could pose some flood risk if a breach were to occur. Operator
safety in maintaining and managing an alternative could be considered in this category as well.
Quality of Life Impacts
Would the water supply alternative carry any impacts that could increase or decrease the quality of life
for the City of Bozeman. In the case of an impoundment, could it be used for recreational activities, or
does it limit or eliminate recreational activities? Could it be used to sustain a recreational activity that
may use large amounts of water (i.e. golf course or park irrigation)? Does developing a large, imported
water supply encourage growth that impairs quality of life in Bozeman, or does it allow for structured
growth that will continue to attract people to the area that will enhance the quality of life of those in
Bozeman? While there are many ways that this category could be scored, it should be scored relative to
the other alternatives evaluated, to the greatest extent possible.
Overall Public Support
Does the proposed alternative seem consistent with public sentiment from past water supply planning
efforts in regards to what a final project should consider? Does it feel like a project that the City of
Bozeman community would generally support, fund, and advocate for in the future.
Economic Development and Growth
Does the proposed alternative include components that will hinder Economic Development and Growth
in any way? For example, would the proposed alternative improve or sustain recreational opportunities
based on use of our local water supply resources? Would the alternative allow for flexible and
appropriate Economic Development and Growth in the City of Bozeman? Would moratoriums on
certain types of service sectors be a possibility under certain conditions? if the baseline planning
conditions set forth in this study effort are no longer applicable due to unanticipated growth, increased
water use, climate, or natural disaster, does the proposed alternative provide flexibility to adapt? Is the
alternative easily expandable to allow for large water using industries to locate to the Bozeman area, if
desired? Can it accommodate unpredictable swings in growth, both through expansion to serve new
growth and overall cost considerations to minimize the pressures of building large infrastructure
projects for future populations that don't develop as planned? Can it be combined with other solutions
to delay the project until constructing the project is necessary without sacrificing service levels?
Water Marketing and Leasing — Maintain AR Rights
If a new water supply is using water formerly used for irrigated agriculture, does the use of agricultural
water rely on short -term, drought -year, or other temporary leases so that agricultural land remains in
production? Such approaches could use rotational fallowing, split- season leases, drought -year leases or
dry-land pasture, in contrast to "buy and dry" approaches that would take land out of agricultural
production altogether for its associated water rights.
Magnitude of Capital Investment per Acre -ft of Developable Water Supply
Although cost information is not available for all alternatives at this level of the alternatives evaluation,
the goal of this category is to provide relative consideration for each alternative as they compare to
each other. In general, ranges of developable acre -ft for each alternative are provided in the alternative
information. The goal of this category is to consider levels of investment versus the amount of water
and flexibility that could be developed. For example, the Sourdough Creek Reservoir Project has
included cost estimates of $50 to $70 million dollars for a possible 6,000 ac -ft of water supply. While
the alternative evaluation will place some risk on the potential for 6,000 ac -ft (there is some concern
regarding the potential of securing the full amount, or any of the 6,000 ac -ft due to water rights law in
Montana), in the event that this project could be completed, this results in a range of $8,333/ac -ft to
$11,666/ac -ft. Likewise, the current cash in -lieu program charges developers $6,000 /ac -ft or the
relinquishment of water rights equal to what is necessary to serve the development so that new water
rights could be purchased. Likewise, a large development project, such as an import project, may run
well over $100 million (perhaps even $200 million) dollars, but result in the development of 30,000 acre -
ft, for a relative cost per ac -ft of much less than the alternatives.
Relative Operation and Maintenance (O &M) Costs
While detailed O &M costs have not been developed at this time, the evaluator should consider whether
extensive O &M will be required for various alternatives. Will additional staff be required? Does the raw
water supply delivery system associated with the proposed alternative require extensive pumping and
energy requirements? Will new treatment processes be required that could involve increased
mechanical treatment and energy requirements to meet drinking water regulatory requirements?
Eligibility for Outside Funding
Would the proposed alternative be eligible for funding assistance to offset the rate impacts of the
project to the City of Bozeman rate payers? Projects that involve regional approaches and address
water issues across service sectors (service sectors being municipal, industrial, agricultural, and natural)
could be projects that would be eligible for federal and possibly even special State grant funding. The
Red River Valley Water Supply Project in North Dakota imports water from the Missouri River to the Red
River and is funded through a cost share of 1/3`d federal, 1/3`d state, and 1/3`d local funding. The local
portion is allocated based on water reserved from the project by each community participating. Other
examples of regional funding programs could be discussed, such as the Rocky Boy's /North Central
Montana Regional Water System Project, the Lewis and Clark Regional Water System Project (South
Dakota), the Western Area Water Supply Project (WAWSP), in Northwestern North Dakota, etc. While
some of these projects have unique circumstances that may not make their strategies directly applicable
to a regional project in the Gallatin Valley, these projects are coordinated with the Bureau of
Reclamation and funding for both collaborative planning efforts and future projects has been available
in the past, is available now, and could be developed in the future. The extent of outside funding would
need to be further explored, but some alternatives considered as part of this study effort could be
eligible for funding, where others will primarily be the City of Bozeman's responsibility to fund.
Economv of Scale Impacts
A project that can be constructed to serve a larger population base now and in the future will result in
economy of scale benefits. The evaluator should consider the population that could be served by each
alternative in relationship to the cost of constructing and operating the system. Although one project
may be more expensive up front, if it can serve a larger population over the long -term, a cost /benefit
analysis may result in the more costly alternative in the future.
Delav of Infrastructure to Encouraee Growth to Pav for Growth
This ranking category will mostly be associated with alternatives that involve phasing, organizational
mechanisms, or temporary solutions that allow for the delay of infrastructure construction until the
population is in place to support the project. Not all alternatives will receive scores in this category.
Reliability and Control of the Water Supply (degree of certainty)
How much does the source fluctuate based on weather patterns and other user demands? Does the
development option include senior water rights or ownership in a storage control structure? If storage
is involved and a private or other government entity controls the structure, what are the associated
risks, such as long -term operation, timing issues, maintenance issues, etc? This allows analysis for
whether a source is available continuously, seasonally, or only during periodic events, such as a large
storm event or a high -water year.
Initial Water Quality of the Water Supply
Water quality components includes: microbial, nutrient, temperature, metals, etc. Cleaner water in a
source leads to reduced treatment costs, saving significant energy and monetary resources. Some
components found in water are easier to treat for drinking water than others. This ranking category
would include analysis of existing water quality, vulnerability of source to contamination, and water
quality compatibility with other supplies.
Risk of Water Supply to Contamination /Sabotage
Is the water supply and /or development protectable? Is the location vulnerable to tampering? This
would include the source and any conveyance or storage structures. Potential contamination /sabotage
could either be regarding physical supply or quality of the supply.
Proximity of Water Supply
This ranking category helps to promote developing closer water supplies, minimizing conveyance length
and loss potential. This ranking criteria could also include analysis of whether conveyance can be by
gravity flow or would involve higher energy transport.
Storage Volume Potential
Storage is a critical element in a city water supply, so this category allows analysis for the potential to
add storage up front or to develop storage sometime in the future to aid in water supply security. If
aquifer storage project, this would allow analysis for whether the aquifer has available capacity for
recharge water storage in the aquifer. For other projects, this would allow analysis for the potential to
develop storage concurrently or in the future with the water supply development.
Potential Imoacts to the Water Resource
Some water supply developments impact a source more than others. Developing groundwater springs
can permanently impact the spring flow down development. Also, aquifer storage projects can create
gaining reaches of streams and ditches that didn't exist previously. Along with physical water quantity
impacts, water quality impacts and other riparian ecosystem impacts could occur. The local community
has shown that water source health is an important value. This takes those local values into
consideration when analyzing alternatives.
INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES PLAN
City of Bozeman
Bozeman, MT
August 2013
I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Montana.
R. Nathan Weisenburger, PE
Date:__ & -- X0 /3 Reg. No. 17751
Prepared By:
- "Iroe11p4•-
Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc.
30015 th St. S., Ste 7
Great Falls, MT 59405
Phone: (406) 268 -0626
Fax: (406) 268 -0628
Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT
August 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ListOf Tables ................................................................................................... .............................ii
ListOf Figures .................................................................................................. .............................ii
Listof Appendices ................................................................................................... ...............................
iii
ExecutiveSummary .................................................................................... ...............................
EX -1
Chapter1 Introduction ................................................................................. ...............................
1 -1
1.1 Scenario Planning Philosophy ........................................................ ...............................
1 -2
1.2 Project Contact Information .......................................................... ...............................
1 -2
Chapter 2 Water Rights Considerations ....................................................... ...............................
2 -1
2.1 Existing Water Rights ..................................................................... ...............................
2 -1
2.2 Firm Yield Of Existing Rights ........................................................... ...............................
2 -2
2.3 Climate Change Impacts ................................................................ ...............................
2 -2
2.4 Watershed Monitoring .................................................................. ...............................
2 -4
2.5 Additional Water Rights Available To The City Via Formal Application
........................ 2 -4
Chapter 3 Water Demand Model Development .......................................... ...............................
3 -1
3.1 Water Demand Pattern Characterization ...................................... ...............................
3 -1
3.2 Service Level Analysis ..................................................................... ...............................
3 -4
3.3 Population Projections ................................................................... ...............................
3 -4
3.4 Water Demand Projections ............................................................ ...............................
3 -6
Chapter 4 Water Conservation Plan ............................................................. ...............................
4 -1
Chapter 5 Alternative Development & Screening Process ........................... ...............................
5 -1
5.1 Summary Of Alternatives ............................................................... ...............................
5 -1
5.2 Alternative Screening Process ........................................................ ...............................
5 -1
5.3 Summary Of Portfolio Modeling Results ....................................... ...............................
5 -9
Chapter 6 Conclusions And Recommendations ........................................... ...............................
6 -1
6.1 Conclusions .................................................................................... ...............................
6 -1
6.2 Recommendations ......................................................................... ...............................
6 -3
Pj F1 E,5 00 CH2MHILL
40
Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT
August 2013
LIST OF TABLES
Table EX -1: Moderate And High Growth Population Projections .............. ...............................
EX -1
Table EX -2: Estimated Climate Adjusted Annual Water Balance Gap ........ ...............................
EX -2
Table 2 -1: Summary Of Existing Water Rights .............................................. ...............................
2 -1
Table 2 -2: Estimated Firm Yield Of Existing Water Sources ......................... ...............................
2 -2
Table 2 -3: Climate Change Impact On Firm Yield Of Existing Water Sources .............................
2 -3
Table 2 -4: Water Rights Currently Available Via Formal Application ........... ...............................
2 -4
Table 3 -1: Moderate And High Growth Population Projections .................. ...............................
3 -6
Table 3 -2: Estimated Climate Adjusted Annual Water Demand Projections ..............................
3 -7
Table 3 -3: Estimated Climate Adjusted Annual Water Balance Gap ............ ...............................
3 -8
Table 4 -1: Water Conservation Reduction Summary ................................... ...............................
4 -1
Table 4 -2: Climate Adjusted Water Balance Gap Including Water Conservation .......................
4 -2
Table 5 -1: IWRP Alternatives ........................................................................ ...............................
5 -2
Table 5 -2: Qualitative Evaluation Categories And Weighting Factors ......... ...............................
5 -3
Table 5 -3: Qualitative Ranking Criteria And Weighting Factors .................. ...............................
5 -4
Table 5 -4: TAC Qualitative Criteria Ranking Results ..................................... ...............................
5 -6
Table 5 -5: Alternatives Considered For Portfolio Development ................. ...............................
5 -7
Table 5 -6: Summary Of Portfolios Evaluated Using Voyage TM Model ......... ...............................
5 -8
Table 5 -7: Description Of Portfolio 14 ......................................................... ...............................
5 -9
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3 -1: Characterization Of Total Water Demand By User Class .......... ...............................
3 -2
Figure 3 -2: Characterization Of Indoor Water Demand By User Class ........ ...............................
3 -2
Figure 3 -3: Characterization Of Outdoor Water Demand By User Class ..... ...............................
3 -3
Figure 3 -4: Service Level Objective Statistical Analysis ................................ ...............................
3 -5
A 10 CH2MHILL
4W
Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT
August 2013
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Climate Change Adjustments to Firm Yield and Demand for Bozeman, MT
Appendix B: City of Bozeman 2012 Water Conservation Plan
Appendix C: Technical Summaries of Alternative & Alternative Screening Criteria
Appendix D: City of Bozeman Water Resources Plan Portfolio Analysis Model
p4R CH2MHILL iii
Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT
August 2013
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Bozeman (City) has experienced varied population growth and anticipates that
growth will continue in the future. The future growth trend of Bozeman is uncertain; however,
the City recognizes that it possesses a finite supply of water that could potentially be surpassed
as the demand for water increases with community growth. The City is located in a closed
basin with respect to water rights, and existing water supplies relied upon by the City are
susceptible to the impacts of drought and climate change, which could limit the availability of
water on a seasonal or annual basis. Based on these concerns, the City retained Advanced
Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. (AE2S) and CH2M Hill to complete an Integrated
Water Resources Plan (IWRP) that could conceivably address the water supply requirements
over the next 30 to 50 years corresponding to planning horizons of 2042 and 2062.
The work completed for the IWRP consisted of identifying the existing water rights of the City
and comparing them to future water demands that could be experienced in relation to
community growth, climate change, and other factors. The comparison resulted in the ability
to estimate the water balance gap that may occur in the future, which could also be defined as
the amount of water needed to meet increasing demands. Based on a range of possible
population growth trends, which are presented in Table EX -1, the estimated water balance gap
for the planning horizons varies from approximately 2,000 to 18,000 acre -feet, and is presented
in Table EX -2. Depending on population growth and the corresponding use of water, estimates
indicate that the City could experience a water balance gap under a timeline of 2025 to 2030, as
the population approaches approximately 57,000, if new water supply capacity development
and /or water demand reductions are not implemented. The range of possibilities prompted
the development of the IWRP under an approach that is relatively flexible and capable of being
adapted as the City monitors the validity of assumptions and planning values used in the IWRP
and updates the information to address actual future conditions.
Table EX -1: Moderate and High Growth Population Projections
`'} A %0 CH2MHILL EX -1 I P a g e
Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT
August 2013
Table EX -2: Estimated Climate Adjusted Annual Water Balance Gap
Item Description
2042 i. 04 06
Moderate Growth High Growth
Annual Water Demand (acre- feet /year)
13,500
17,790 17,900
28,700
Annual Firm Yield Supply (acre- feet /year)
11,237
10,948 11,237
10,948
Water Balance Gap (acre- feet /year)
2,263
6,842 6,663
17,752
Alternatives involving water conservation measures and concepts to increase the available
water supply capacity were identified to meet the estimated water balance gap. Water
conservation was given substantial consideration and credibility in the development of the
IWRP as a strategic near -term initiative to be implemented by the City to reduce the rate of
demand for water by its user classes. Monthly water demands, which serve as the basis for
estimating the effectiveness of various water conservation measures, are presented in Table
EX -3. The monthly water demand information also indicates the potential viability of other
alternatives, such as non - potable irrigation, to meet seasonal (outdoor) demands.
The alternatives were initially screened with respect to a water rights legal assessment and
qualitative criteria that were developed with assistance from the Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC), which was created by the City to review documentation and provide stakeholder
perspective at critical milestones. The alternatives selected through the water rights and
Table EX -3: Historical Indoor and Outdoor Water Use by Month
Month
January
Indoor
106
Outdoor
0
106
February
112
0
112
March
109
0
109
April
109
0
109
May
116
50
166
June
117
87
204
July
118
190
308
August
122
176
298
September
115
107
222
October
129
0
129
November
110
0
110
December
106
0
106
Average Annual Water Demand
165
Note: Values presented in units of gallons per capita per day (gpcd)
A CH2MHILL EX -2 I P a g e
Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT
August 2013
qualitative screening processes were then combined in strategic ways to create 13 different
portfolios. A life -cycle cost analysis was completed using the VOYAGE TM model and specific
information developed for each of the portfolios. Cost estimates generally included capital and
operating cost elements over the 50 -year planning horizon. Resulting life -cycle costs reported
are comparative and provided at a conceptual level, and estimates may not include all
necessary costs for implementation.
The individual portfolios, which included varying levels of demand reduction via water
conservation program implementation, were developed to meet the estimated water demands
related to the moderate growth projections or the high growth projections. The alternatives
comprising the portfolios were prioritized for implementation to achieve a balance between
the demand and the available supply of water, such that the timing of alternatives could be
completed to meet short -term and long -term demand requirements.
Upon review of draft life -cycle cost analysis results, the TAC expressed interest in the
development of an additional portfolio comprised of a more comprehensive list of alternatives
to meet the high population growth scenario. Given the conceptual level of effort to generate
the portfolios, City representatives also introduced the possibility of initiating parallel efforts
that would build on the results of the IWRP and provide more precise information to better
define the implementation requirements for the alternatives. Consequently, an additional
portfolio (Portfolio 14) was created and evaluated using the VOYAGE TM model.
The estimated comparative net present value of Portfolio 14 is approximately $148 million,
compared to a range of $113 million to $296 million for high growth scenarios, and is
constructed to meet high growth demands on a monthly basis. Despite a modestly higher cost
per unit of annual water volume provided, Portfolio 14 offers increased value as compared to
the other portfolios developed to meet the high population growth scenario, based on several
criteria developed by the TAC, staff, and the consultant team collaboratively. Portfolio 14 also
represents a more diverse range of scalable options and provides increased flexibility and
resiliency to the City with respect to changing conditions and uncertainty in the future. Based
on this refined input, Portfolio 14 was tested as the basis for an IWRP strategy to be
implemented by the City to meet a range of future growth scenarios through the 2042 and
2062 planning horizons:
• Initiating a water conservation program that considers the success of various
conservation measures, public acceptance, and a comparison of cost with respect to
water supply capacity development with the goal of meeting low to medium water
demand reduction targets.
• Adding storage in Sourdough Canyon or Hyalite Reservoir via an infrastructure project to
improve current withdrawals and treatment plant operations.
• Developing groundwater system capacity in the Gallatin Gateway area or other
appropriate location to meet demand on an as- needed basis.
• Strategically purchasing shares from Hyalite Reservoir and senior surface water rights
from Hyalite Creek and Sourdough Creek to obtain water in the near -term.
CH2MHILL EX -3 I P a g e
Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT
August 2013
• Developing non - potable irrigation for new developments on an incremental basis.
• Optimizing the capacity of the Lyman Creek water source.
The future water needs of the City of Bozeman will depend on future conditions, such as the
rate of population growth, impacts of climate change, success of the City's water conservation
program, availability of useful water rights, and other conditions that are not completely
predictable. The IWRP was developed in recognition that future decisions by the City will be
made in the context of these conditions as they evolve, and the IWRP is intended to be flexible
enough to account for the conditions and contingencies created by these evolving conditions.
The following recommendations were developed to represent a logistical strategy for the City
to proceed in fulfilling the objectives of the IWRP:
Near -Term
• Implementation of Portfolio 14 should proceed with a robust economic and engineering
feasibility analysis for each of the portfolio components, followed by a comparative
analysis of the components based on the screening assessment framework established
by the IWRP. These steps provide a sound basis for prioritized decision - making by the
City of Bozeman regarding its water resource management.
• Incorporate the implementation of Portfolio 14 into the City of Bozeman Capital
Improvement Planning budget such that anticipated costs are budgeted well into the
future.
• A water conservation plan should be prioritized for implementation to reduce the rate
of demand for water as a substantial contribution toward addressing the water balance
gap identified for the 2042 and 2062 planning horizons.
• The installation of stream flow monitoring equipment in the watersheds should be
implemented to provide useful information to the City for the purpose of assessing
climate change impacts and better manage its water resources moving forward.
• Implementation of strategies to improve the capture efficiency of water requested and
released from Hyalite Reservoir, such as reducing or potentially eliminating the
conveyance efficiency factor and providing increased raw water and /or finished water
storage.
• The formal application process with the DNRC should be initiated to secure water rights
that are currently available to the City totaling approximately 6,750 acre -feet of water
an annual basis. This value does not reflect a historical use analysis that will be
conducted for any change applications, and should be noted to avoid any mistaken
expectations about the amount of water that is potentially available.
• Shares from Hyalite Reservoir and senior surface water rights from Hyalite Creek and
Sourdough Creek should be purchased to the extent possible.
Long -Term
• Water supply and demand trends should be monitored to assess the need for additional
water supply capacity development.
"'� A 40 CH2MHILL EX -4 I P a g e
Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT
August 2013
• Revisit population growth trends every 5 years, or on a more frequent interval if
necessary.
• Additional water supply capacity should be developed by the City in accordance with the
outcome of subsequent efforts to evaluate alternatives in more detail and planning
objectives that will evolve with actual population growth and water demand trends.
P4 A 0 CH2MHILL EX -5 I P a g e
Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT
August 2013
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Bozeman (City) has experienced varied population growth since year 2000, ranging
from over 5 percent per year to no growth in population associated with the recent recession.
As the economy appears to be recovering, the City and surrounding area is once again
experiencing an increase in development activity and positive growth. The future growth trend
of Bozeman is uncertain; however, the City recognizes that it possesses a finite supply of water
that could potentially be surpassed as the demand for water increases with community growth.
Prior to the recent recession and based on a relatively aggressive rate of growth, the 2005
Water Facility Plan estimated that a water supply shortage could be experienced as soon as
2015.
The City is located in a closed basin with respect to water rights, which prevents the City from
filing applications for new water rights from the State of Montana without mitigation. Existing
water rights held by the City are subject to restriction with respect to senior water rights,
stipulated periods of use during the year, and rates of withdrawal. Operational concerns
include cold weather and reduced flow impacts that limit the ability to withdraw water from
Bozeman Creek (Sourdough Creek). Cold temperatures cause ice formation on Bozeman Creek,
which has interfered with intake operations when low flow conditions persist. Hyalite Creek
(Middle Creek) can also experience reduced flows, which are supplemented by the release of
stored water from Hyalite Reservoir. Calls for the release of water from Hyalite Reservoir must
be made 24 hours in advance based on estimates by operators. Operators typically estimate
conservatively in order to ensure an adequate release of from Hyalite Reservoir is available to
meet demands, which often results in the incomplete capture of the releases by the intake
system. The City also recognizes that water supplies are susceptible to the impacts of drought
and climate change, which could limit the availability of water on a seasonal or annual basis.
The anticipation of future community growth and limited water supply availability prompted
the City to complete an Integrated Water Resources Plan (IWRP) that could conceivably address
the water supply requirements over the next 30 to 50 years. Specific components of the IWRP,
as envisioned by the City, include:
• Completing an inventory of existing water rights currently held by the Bozeman;
• Conducting a hydrologic firm yield analysis assessing the sensitivity of existing sources to
drought and climate change impacts;
• Characterizing existing water use patterns;
• Developing a water demand model, using population projections and water use
patterns;
• Developing a preliminary water conservation plan with considerations for drought
contingency;
• Identifying and assessing alternatives available to the Bozeman to enhance the
availability of existing water supplies and /or develop new water supplies;
A 1- 11Page
J
ZS
Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT
August 2013
• Coordinating work efforts with Water Rights Solutions, Inc. (WRSI), the specialized firm
retained by the City to provide consulting on water rights issues, and Peter Scott, legal
counsel; and
• Conducting a series of meetings with a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to provide
local input and perspective on the technical information prepared for the IWRP.
1.1 Planning Approach
Several variables affect the supply and demand for water in the Bozeman area. The range of
possibilities regarding such variables that ultimately contribute to the development of the IWRP
for the City is infinite. An abbreviated list of such variables include assumptions regarding
population projections; the effectiveness of specific water conservation measures on future
water demands; the potential impacts of climate change; and the accuracy of conceptual
opinions of cost developed for water supply alternatives. Furthermore, the City recognizes the
difficulty of predicting the impact that these and other pertinent factors may have through the
identified 30 -year and 50 -year planning horizons corresponding to year 2032 and year 2062,
respectively. To address the range of possibilities, AE2S /CH2M Hill developed the IWRP under a
planning approach that is relatively flexible and capable of being adapted as the City monitors
the validity of assumptions and planning values used in the IWRP and updates the information
to address actual future conditions.
1.2 Proiect Contact Information
The primary contact person for the City with respect to the administration of the IWRP is:
Brian Heaston, PE
City of Bozeman — Engineering
P.O. Box 1230
Bozeman, MT 59771
Email: bheaston @bozeman.net
Ph: (406) 582 -2280
The work completed by AE2S /CH2M Hill for the IWRP is presented in this report document and
related appendices. It should be noted that not all of the work products used to generate this
document are provided for reference; however, additional support documentation, if needed,
is available upon request. The primary contact persons regarding the contents of the report
and supporting documentation are as follows:
R. Nathan Weisenburger, PE
AE2S
30015 th Street S., Suite #7
Great Falls, MT, 59405
Email: Nate.Weisenburger @ae2s.com
Ph: (406) 268 -0626
J '� AE,2S 16 CH2MHILL
Mark Anderson, PE, D.WRE
CH2M Hill
2020 SW 4th Avenue, Suite 350
Portland, OR 97201 -4958
Mark.Anderson @CH2M.com
Ph: (503) 872 -4700
1- 21Page
Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT
August 2013
Chapter 2 WATER RIGHTS CONSIDERATIONS
2.1 Existing Water Rights
The City holds several water rights in various watersheds located in the vicinity of Bozeman.
The existing water rights available to the City on an annual basis are summarized in Table 2 -1.
When considering the volume of water available, it is important to recognize that water
demand varies throughout the year. The City typically experiences increased rates of water
demand during late spring, throughout the summer, and into the early fall months when
outdoor use is prevalent. Similarly, the amount of water available on a daily or monthly basis
varies with withdrawal provisions, inadequate flow or production from the source, and
infrastructure limitations. For these reasons, the development of the water demand model
included in the scope of work for the IWRP considered the comparison of projected water
demands to the available supply of water rights on a monthly time step and on an annual total
volumetric basis. As indicated in Table 2 -1, some of the water rights are not available for use at
the existing site of the Sourdough Water Treatment Plant (WTP).
Table 2 -1: Summary of Existing Water Rights
Water Source
Sourdough Creek (Bozeman Creek)
Documented Water Right
4,800
Hyalite Creek (Middle Creek)
1,631
Hyalite Reservoir
5,652
Total Water Rights Available at Existing WTP
12,083
Sourdough Storage Reservation*
609
Lyman Creek
4,346
Total with Sourdough Storage Reservation
17,038
Total without Sourdough Storage Reservation
16,429
* Requires action by the City with respect to the construction of appropriate infrastructure.
J J A # 4 CH211MHILL 2-11 P a g e
Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT
August 2013
2.2 Firm Yield of Existing Rights
As stated above, portions of the existing water rights listed in Table 2 -1 are not currently
available to the City for various reasons. The City has commissioned previous efforts to assess
the firm yield of its existing water rights. The basis for this study stems from the 1997 Water
Facility Plan. Firm yield values from that study were reviewed and revised, where applicable,
based on future climate projections. The estimated firm yield of the existing water rights, as
compared to the documented water right, is presented in Table 2 -2.
2.3 Climate Change Impacts
Long -term water supply planning must consider whether historic, documented climate trends
and projected future conditions may affect proposed strategies. Climate change models have
been developed to assess the long -term impact of carbon emissions and are being used to
predict the response of a given watershed to changes in the temperature of the atmosphere
and the timing and intensity of precipitation, including reduced levels of precipitation that
would contribute to drought conditions. Climate change impacts were estimated using
SimCLIM, which is a proprietary model developed by ClimSystems. A technical memorandum
was prepared by CH2M Hill to explain how SimCLIM was used to estimate the impact of climate
change on the firm yield of water sources used by the City. The technical memorandum is
provided in Appendix A for reference.
Table 2 -2: Estimated Firm Yield of Existing Water Sources'
Water Source
Sourdough Creek (Bozeman Creek)
Documented
Water Right
4,800
Estimated Firm Yield
(acre-feet/year)
3,734
Hyalite Creek (Middle Creek)
1,631
1,526
Hyalite Reservoir
5,652
4,295
Total Water Rights Available at Existing WTP
12,083
9,555
Sourdough Storage Reservation
609
609
Lyman Creek
4,346
1,280
Total with Sourdough Storage Reservation
17,038
11,444
Total without Sourdough Storage Reservation
16,429
10,835
1 Data Source: 1997 Water Facility Plan
4 J A 40 CH2MHILL 2 -2 1 P a g e
Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT
August 2013
The results of the SimCLIM model with respect to sources of water used by the City are
summarized in Table 2 -3 and are reported for 2012 and the year 2042 and year 2062 planning
horizons. Generally, the firm yield of water sources that are not associated with impoundments
or reservoirs to provide storage, such as that for Sourdough Creek and Hyalite Creek, is
estimated to decline in the future. The estimated firm yield for water from Hyalite Reservoir
and Lyman Creek, which is classified as groundwater from a natural spring, are assumed to
remain relatively stable for the analysis, but also may be influenced by changing climate
patterns.
Releases of water from Hyalite Reservoir, as requested by WTP staff, are subject to adjustment
based on an 80 percent conveyance efficiency factor. The results presented in Table 2 -3 for
Hyalite Reservoir assume that the adjustment factor could be removed from releases requested
by the City to maximize the capture efficiency of the total amount available based on the
increased number shares owned by the City and the relative proximity of the City's intake
facility as compared to the withdrawal points of other shareholders. The City has also
evaluated potential strategies to minimize the amount of released water that is not captured by
the intake facility. Possible improvements include raw water storage and /or increased
distribution system storage to provide increased operational flexibility in regards to accurately
predicting water demands and the corresponding requests for the release of water from Hyalite
Reservoir.
The increased amount of water reported for Lyman Creek, as compared to that presented in
Table 2 -2, reflect relatively recent capital improvements to the spring intake collection system
and Lyman Treatment Plant piping system that have increased the firm production capacity.
Table 2 -3: Climate Change Impact on Firm Yield of Existing Water Sources
J J A CH2MHILL 2 -3 P a g e
2012 Firm Yield
042062
Water Source
(acre-feet/year)
(acre-feet/year)
(acre-feet/year)
Sourdough Creek (Bozeman Creek)
3,633
3,491
3,277
Hyalite Creek (Middle Creek)
1,489
1,436
1,360
Hyalite Reservoir
4,521
4,521
4,521
Total Water Rights Available at
Existing WTP
9,643
9,447
9,158
Sourdough Storage Reservation
609
609
609
Lyman Creek
1,790
1,790
1,790
Total with Sourdough Storage
Reservation
12,042
11,846
11,557
Total without Sourdough Storage
Reservation
11,433
11,237
10,948
J J A CH2MHILL 2 -3 P a g e
Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT
August 2013
2.4 Watershed Monitoring
During the initial meeting with the TAC, the lack of monitoring equipment to measure stream
flow in area watersheds was discussed and identified as a limitation to accurately determine
the firm yield of existing water sources. The installation of monitoring equipment, such as
gauging stations, would facilitate the development of trending assessments in the watersheds.
The ability to trend information could assist in understanding the impacts, if any, associated
with climate change and potentially provide opportunities to better manage water resources
available to the City moving forward.
2.5 Additional Water Rights Available to the City via Formal Application
In addition to the water rights listed in Table 2 -1, the City has the ability to secure additional
water supply from water rights claims not presently used. A summary of such water rights is
presented in Table 2 -4. Water rights acquired through annexation are obtained as prescribed
by City ordinance as additional development occurs. Developers are required to provide the
City with a water right that is capable of meeting the water demand of the subject development
or provide payment to the City for the purpose of purchasing water rights. The Mystic Lake
water rights pertain to water that was stored behind a dam in the Sourdough Creek watershed.
The Mystic Lake water rights have not been available to the City since 1985, when the dam was
intentionally breached due to safety concerns experienced in 1984. The water rights presented
in Table 2 -4 require formal action by the City via preparation and submittal of appropriate
change applications to the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
(DNRC). Based on the water supply development objectives of the City and the results of the
IWRP, the City will continue to consult with WRSI and its legal counsel to make use of these
water rights.
Table 2 -4: Water Rights Currently Available Via Formal Application
The values do not reflect a historical use analysis that will be conducted for any change
applications and should be noted to avoid any mistaken expectations about the amount of
water that is potentially available.
4 J A� CH2MHILL 2 -4 P a g e
Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT
August 2013
Chapter 3 WATER DEMAND MODEL DEVELOPMENT
A primary component of the IWRP consisted of developing a water demand model. The water
demand model serves as the basis for projecting future water demands, comparing the
projected water demands to the amount of water available from existing sources, and
quantifying the amount and at what point in time the City will need to acquire additional
sources of water. The development of the water demand model for the IWRP involved several
steps, including:
• Characterizing existing water use patterns
• Identifying a service level objective and corresponding water demand
• Establishing a defensible method for population projections
• Estimating water demands for planning horizons
3.1 Water Demand Pattern Characterization
Historical water demand data from 2000 to 2010 was provided by the City for review,
interpretation, and statistical manipulation purposes. The data provided by the City included a
categorization of the water demand between user classes, such as residential, commercial,
industrial, and Montana State University (MSU). It should be noted that a portion of the work
effort consisted of working with the City's Geographical Information System (GIS) department
to develop reports that link water meter data to specific zones, user class, seasonal periods,
etc., to facilitate trending and additional statistical analyses to conduct continued evaluations
of water demand patterns, as needed, in the future.
The characterized water use by user class based on the set of water demand data provided by
the City is presented in Figure 3 -1. Given the format in which the data was provided, it is also
possible to present similar characterizations of the water demand information by indoor use
and outdoor use trends, which are presented in Figure 3 -2 and Figure 3 -3, respectively. The
ability to review water demand information in the amount of detail afforded by the data
presents a substantial amount of increased perspective regarding the use of water and how
water use may change or be adjusted moving forward.
The historical water demand data was also manipulated such that seasonal water demands
could be reviewed and assessed. Water demands typically vary considerably in communities
such as Bozeman that experience a wide range of temperature variation associated with the
change of seasons. Water demand trends typically increase during the months associated with
late spring, summer, and early fall when outdoor water use is more prevalent. A monthly
breakdown of the seasonal demand for Bozeman is provided in Table 3 -1 to indicate how the
water demand changes over the course of the year. As shown, Bozeman currently experiences
a substantial increase in water demand during the summer months.
J A CH2MHILL 3 -1 P a g e
J
Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT
August 2013
Figure 3 -1: Characterization of Total Water Demand by User Class
1
TOTAL WATER DEMAND
Figure 3 -2: Characterization of Indoor Water Demand by User Class
2 %,
1%
INDOOR WATER DEMAND
Residential
Commercial
Top 8 Commercial
• MSU
• Industrial
Government
Unaccounted for Water
Residential
Commercial
Top 8 Commercial
i MSU
• Industry
• Government
Unaccounted for Water
P,4 A #6 CH2MHILL 3 -2 1 P a g e
Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT
August 2013
Figure 3 -3: Characterization of Outdoor Water Demand by User Class
OUTDOOR WATER DEMAND
0% 0%
Table 3 -1: Historical Indoor and Outdoor Water Use by Month
Residential
Commercial
Top 8 Commercial
MSU
Industry
Government
Unaccounted for Water
Month
January
Indoor
106
...
0
106
February
112
0
112
March
109
0
109
April
109
0
109
May
116
50
166
June
117
87
204
July
118
190
308
August
122
176
298
September
115
107
222
October
129
0
129
November
110
0
110
December
106
0
106
Average Annual Water Demand
165
Note: Values presented in units of gallons per capita per day (gpcd)
J J R E , C H 2 M H I L L 3 -3 1 P a g e
Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT
August 2013
The seasonal water demand data in Table 3 -1 served as the basis for several efforts completed
as part of the IWRP. For instance, the data provided a benchmark for the purpose of estimating
the effectiveness of various water conservation measures, which are a prominent component
of the IWRP moving forward. The monthly water demand information also indicates that the
potential viability of other alternatives, such as those that are consistent with the use of non -
potable irrigation water, could be implemented to meet increased seasonal demands that do
not necessarily require water treated to drinking water standards.
3.2 Service Level Analysis
Most water utilities are willing to accept an operational philosophy that it will not be able to
meet the demand for water 100 percent of the time, as this requirement results in additional
costs for infrastructure capacity that is rarely used. For this reason, a discussion regarding the
identification of an acceptable service level factor was facilitated with the City and members of
the TAC. A service level analysis involves statistically evaluating historical water demand data
to identify a water demand value that serves as the basis for the implementation of future
improvements.
The service level analysis for the City of Bozeman was based on the average of monthly water
demand data sets. Historical water demand information from 2000 through 2010 was used to
identify planning values for summer months because the data set over this period of time
varied considerably with climate conditions. The planning values for the summer months were
based on historical water demand information from 2005 through 2010, which have been
relatively stable since declining somewhat steadily from 2000 through 2005.
Based on input from the TAC, the City approved the recommendation to base the IWRP on
meeting a service level objective of 95 percent. Therefore, the IWRP has been developed to
provide enough water supply capacity to theoretically meet 95 percent of the possible average
month water demand values that could be experienced by the City. The annual water demand
corresponding to a 95 percent service level establishes a reasonable planning value of 165
gallons per capita per day (gpcd). A graphical representation of the statistical analysis used to
identify an acceptable service level is presented in Figure 3 -4. Water demands that exceed the
water supply capacity in the future are anticipated to be managed via the implementation of
drought contingency measures. More detailed discussion regarding the service level analysis
and drought contingency planning is provided in the Water Conservation Plan technical
memorandum, which is located in Appendix B.
3.3 Population Proiections
Population growth has varied considerably in the Bozeman area over the past few decades.
Previous planning documents, such as the 2005 Water Facility Plan, estimated a population
growth rate of 5 percent from 2005 through 2025 based on the amount of development that
was occurring in the Bozeman area at that point in time. The Sourdough Creek Reservoir
J A 40 CH2MHILL 3 -4 P a g e
m
0
O N
va
N �
O O
ca Q
a
'a
v
0
v
cc
v
a
a,
c
` ne(j add e4!ue:) add SUOPE) ui PUMUOU
3
d0
ii
0
�P
q!
�J
ao
••a
10
90
JO
4�
S
b
t
d4 O
b
yJ�
�P7
V91)
N
Q
4J
J
V
L
MA
IA
z
Q
m
on
C
Ln
Q
fl a
ko
W �
CL
>
N
N
^
J
v
00
.N
:.
V
E
rI
A
N
3
E
o�D v
>
E
ca
m
OR
CU > i
of
O
}
(U
•L
O
O
O
O
O O O
NLr)
OLn
O �
O u01
O
M
M
N
N
M
` ne(j add e4!ue:) add SUOPE) ui PUMUOU
3
d0
ii
0
�P
q!
�J
ao
••a
10
90
JO
4�
S
b
t
d4 O
b
yJ�
�P7
V91)
Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT
August 2013
Development Plan completed in April 2011 estimated that the firm yield of existing water
supplies could become inadequate by 2015 to 2020 based on the 2005 Water Facility Plan
water demand analysis. Due to the negative impact of the recent economic recession, the City
has experienced substantially less growth over the past three to four years, resulting in an
opportunity to plan for a range of growth possibilities moving forward.
Using a flexible planning approach, the future population of Bozeman was estimated based on
two possibilities consisting of a moderate population projection and a high population
projection. The moderate population projection increases the estimated 2012 population by 2
percent per year for 30 years through the 2042 planning horizon, and increases the population
by 1 percent per year for a consecutive 20 -year period through the 2062 planning horizon. The
high population projection increases the estimated 2012 population by 3 percent per year for
30 years through 2042, and increases the population by 2 percent per year for a consecutive
20 -year period through the 2062 planning horizon. The results of the population projections
are shown in Table 3 -2. Actual population projections will most likely differ from the two
scenarios documented herein, and the City should monitor the rate of population growth
periodically to assess whether adjustments to the recommendations and related
implementation timelines are necessary.
3.4 Water Demand Projections
Water demand projections were estimated using historical water demand data, the 95 percent
service level analysis, and the inclusion of an adjustment factor to address potential climate
impacts on water use. A discussion of the impacts on water demands related to climate change
is included in the technical memorandum provided in Appendix A. The annual water demand is
calculated by multiplying the climate adjusted water demand value by the projected population
corresponding to a given planning horizon. The product of that calculation is converted to units
of acre - feet /year by applying a factor of 365 to convert from a daily value to an annual value,
and dividing by approximately 325,850 to convert gallons to acre -feet.
Table 3 -2: Moderate and High Growth Population Projections
J J A 10 CH2MHILL 3 -6 1 P a g e
Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT
August 2013
As presented in Figures 3 -1, 3 -2, and 3 -3, the water demand projections are indicative of the
anticipated requirements for each user class and seasonal variation associated with indoor and
outdoor water use trends. Specific water demand values associated with the various user
classes and seasonal trends that contribute to the overall annual demand calculation is
provided in the Water Conservation Plan technical memorandum in Appendix B.
The projected annual water demands for 2042 and 2062, with provisions for growth by
Montana State University (MSU), are provided in Table 3 -3 for the moderate growth and high
growth population projections. The similarity in projected water demands for the 2042 high
growth projection and the 2062 moderate growth projection is notable, differing only by 110
acre -feet.
The projected water supply shortage, or water balance gap, is calculated by subtracting the
amount of water that is currently available from existing supplies used by the City from the
projected water supply demand presented in Table 3 -3. The amount of water that is available
from existing supplies, as determined from the climate adjusted firm yield analysis, is presented
in Table 2 -3. Using the data without including the Sourdough Storage Reservation, the
projected water balance gap ranges from about 2000 acre -feet to nearly 18,000 acre feet, as
presented in Table 3 -4.
The projected water balance gap for the 2042 high growth projection and the 2062 moderate
growth projection are relatively similar, only differing by approximately 180 acre -feet. The
water balance gap determined by the water demand model serves as the foundation for
reducing water demand via water conservation or developing additional water supply capacity.
Table 3 -3: Estimated Climate Adjusted Annual Water Demand Projections without Water
Conservation
Item Description
Climate Adjusted Water Demand (gpcd)
2042 2062
Moderate Growth
2042 2062
High Growth
165
180
165
180
Population Projection
70,256
85,725
94,144
139,900
Bozeman Water Demand (acre- feet /year)
13,000
17,290
17,400
28,200
MSU Growth (acre- feet /year)
500
500
500
500
Total Annual Water Demand (acre -feet)
13,500
17,790
17,900
28,700
"�'' A * 0 CH2MHILL 3 -7 1 P a g e
Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT
August 2013
Table 3 -4: Estimated Climate Adjusted Annual Water Balance Gap without Water
Conservation
Item Description
04 0. 2
Moderate Growth
2042 2062
High Growth
Annual Water Demand (acre- feet /year)
13,500
17,790
17,900
28,700
Annual Firm Yield Supply (acre- feet /year)
11,237
10,948
11,237
10,948
Water Balance Gap (acre- feet /year)
2,263
6,842
6,663
17,752
"} AE�S 40 CH2MHILL 3 -8 1 P a g e
Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT
August 2013
Chapter 4 WATER CONSERVATION PLAN
The scope of work for the IWRP included an update to the 2002 Water Conservation Plan for
the City. Water conservation was a prominent discussion topic during several of the meetings
conducted with the City and the TAC, and the approach taken to develop the Water
Conservation Plan was tailored in accordance with the input and direction that was received. A
detailed explanation of the work completed for the Water Conservation Plan is provided as a
technical memorandum in Appendix B.
To meet the objectives established by the City and TAC, three levels of water conservation were
developed to estimate the potential reduction in the future demand for water. The three levels
of water conservation were developed to reflect low, medium, and high degrees of effort that
could be put forth by the City to reduce the overall rate of water consumption. The cost
associated with implementing the identified water conservation measures were estimated such
that the three levels of water conservation could be included as potential alternatives to assist
in meeting the future water supply needs of the City. The estimated volume of water demand
reduction achievable by the three water conservation levels at the 2042 and 2062 planning
horizons are provided in the top portion of Table 4 -1 for the moderate population growth
projection. The estimated volume of water demand reduction achievable by the three water
conservation levels at the 2042 and 2062 planning horizons are provided in the bottom portion
of Table 4 -1 for the high population growth projection.
The amount of water required from alternatives other than water conservation measures to
meet future demands is equal to the difference between the water balance gap values
presented in Table 3 -3 and the estimated water reduction for the three levels of water
conservation, as presented in Table 4 -1. The resulting values of this calculation for the
corresponding planning horizon and projected growth scenario are provided in Table 4 -2.
Table 4 -1: Water Conservation Reduction Summary
Item Description 2042 2062
Moderate Population Growth
Estimated Low Conservation Reduction (acre- feet /year)
2,013
2,770
Estimated Medium Conservation Reduction (acre- feet /year)
4,282
5,908
Estimated High Conservation Reduction (acre- feet /year)
6,369
8,218
High Population Growth
Estimated Low Conservation Reduction (acre- feet /year)
2,838
4,806
Estimated Medium Conservation Reduction (acre- feet /year)
5,921
10,108
Estimated High Conservation Reduction (acre- feet /year)
8,240
12,991
+ J A 40 CH2MHILL 4-11 P a g e
Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT
August 2013
Table 4 -2: Climate Adjusted Water Balance Gap Including Water Conservation
Item Description
2042 2062
Moderate Growth
2042 06
High Growth
Water Balance Gap - Low Conservation (acre -ft)
250
4,072
934
-1,376
3,825
742
-1,577
12,946
1 7,644
Water Balance Gap - Medium Conservation (acre -ft) -2,019
Water Balance Gap - High Conservation (acre -ft) -4,106
4,761
As shown in Table 4 -2, the estimated water balance gap could potentially be addressed through
water conversation measures, depending on the amount of growth experienced by the City and
extent of water conservation achieved. The estimated water balance gap could approach
13,000 acre -feet by 2062 under the high growth scenario and low water conservation. The
water balance gap that remains after the consideration of the water conservation alternatives
needs to be met with alternatives that increase the amount of water available to the City.
Negative values suggest that water conservation measures could potentially be adequate to
address increasing water demand associated with population growth, provided that the
increased levels are less expensive than the cost of developing additional water supply. As
identified in Table 4 -2, high water conservation does not adequately address the water balance
gap over the 50 -year planning horizon and high growth conditions, indicating that water supply
capacity development would be required.
A 00 CH2MHILL 4 -2 1 P a g e
AW
Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT
August 2013
Chapter 5 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT & SCREENING PROCESS
5.1 Summary of Alternatives
Alternatives were developed to increase the amount of water supply capacity available to the
City to meet the water balance gap calculated in the previous section of this report (Table 4 -2).
The alternatives were generated at a conceptual level with representatives of the City, the TAC,
and AE2S /CH2M Hill. The alternatives developed for the IWRP were split into the following
general categories:
Integrated Utility (IU) Alternatives: The IU alternatives consist of several concepts to
leverage water that could be made available from other utilities operated by the City,
primarily treated effluent from the Bozeman Water Reclamation Facility (BWRF).
Water Supply Development (WSD) Alternatives: The WSD alternatives consist of targeting a
specific source that could provide additional water supply capacity to the City.
Other Supply (OS) Alternatives: The OS alternatives consist of miscellaneous concepts to
increase the available supply of water to the City, either via optimization or strategies to
offset the current use of water, such as water conservation.
The list of the alternatives developed for the IWRP is provided in Table 5 -1. Summaries of the
alternatives were prepared to convey technical information to the City and TAC to facilitate the
alternative screening process. The technical summaries for each of the alternatives are
provided in Appendix C for reference.
5.2 Alternative Screening Process
The alternatives were screened using a methodical process to eliminate the need for detailed
engineering and cost analysis for alternatives that may not be legally or technically feasible or
were viewed less favorable as compared to more viable alternatives. The screening process
consisted of the following three levels of evaluation:
Screening Level 1: Water Rights Legal Assessment
Screening Level 2: Qualitative Criteria
Screening Level 3: Quantitative Criteria - VOYAGE TM Model Alternative Analysis
Screening Level 1: Water Rights Legal Assessment
As an initial screening effort, the alternatives were reviewed by the City's water rights
consultant and special legal counsel with respect to Montana Water Law. Based on the input
received, the alternatives were classified into one of three rankings:
J j A� 10 CH2MHILL 5 -1 P a g e
qW
Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT
August 2013
Table 5 -1: IWRP Alternatives
Alternative Alternative Name
Number
IU Alternatives
Northside Non - Potable Water Reuse
Northside and Southside Non - Potable Water Reuse
Northside Non - Potable and Potable Water Reuse
Northside and Southside Non - Potable and Potable Water Reuse
Agricultural irrigation Water Use
Industrial Water Reuse
Groundwater Recharge — Water Reuse
WSD Alternatives
Sourdough Reservoir
WSD2A
Canyon Ferry Import Reservoir Delivery
WSD2B
Canyon Ferry Import Confluence Delivery
Madison Aquifer Groundwater
Belgrade Subarea Groundwater
Gallatin Gateway Subarea Groundwater
Yellowstone River Import
Adjacent Drainage Development
WSD6
Canal Company Impoundment
Sourdough Pond Storage
WSD8
Hyalite Share Purchasing
Hyalite Reservoir Dam Raise
Brackett Creek Import
OS Alternatives
Non - Potable Groundwater Supply
OS2
Lyman Creek Expansion
OS3
Low Water Conservation Approach
OS4
Medium Water Conservation Approach
OS5
High Water Conservation Approach
A 40 CH2MHILL 5 -2 1 P a g e
4W
Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT
August 2013
Green: The alternative is consistent with existing provisions of Montana Water Law, and
could likely yield the anticipated results if pursued for implementation by the City.
: The alternative may or may not be consistent with provisions of Montana Water
Law, and the actual outcome may differ from the anticipated results if pursued for
implementation by the City.
Red: The alternative is not consistent with Montana Water Law and should not be pursued
for implementation by the City unless changes to Montana Water Law are possible.
Alternatives that were classified as green or yellow in accordance with their respective
consistency with Montana Water Law proceeded to the second level of the screening process.
Alternatives that were classified as red were dismissed from further evaluation.
Screening Level 2: Qualitative Criteria
The alternatives that were deemed possible from a water rights legal assessment perspective
were subjected to an evaluation based on wide range of qualitative criteria. The qualitative
criteria were developed by AE2S /CH2M Hill and presented to the City and TAC for review, input,
and revision. Once the list of criteria was established, each of the criteria was placed into one
of the following categories: Technical Criteria; Environmental Criteria; Social Criteria; Economic
Criteria; and Water Supply Criteria.
The criteria comprising each of the categories were assigned weighting factors, with the sum of
the weighting criteria factors for each category being equal to 100. Similarly, each of the
categories was assigned a weighting factor such that the total sum of the weighting factors for
the categories resulted in a sum of 100. Based on the identified criteria and categories, which
were determined through consensus with the TAC, each member of the TAC was asked to
assign weighting factors. The weighting factors assigned to the criteria and categories for the
ranking process were determined based on the average of the factors provided by the TAC. The
categories and respective weighting factors used to evaluate the alternatives are presented in
Table 5 -2. The qualitative criteria comprising each category and respective weighting factors
are presented in Table 5 -3, and detailed descriptions of the criteria pertaining to the evaluation
of the alternatives are provided in Appendix C.
Table 5 -2: Qualitative Evaluation Categories and Weighting Factors
Categories of Evaluation Criteria
Technical Criteria
Weight
18
Score
Environmental Criteria
28
Social Criteria
13
Economic Criteria
19
Water Supply Criteria
22
Total (Weight must equal 100 %)
100%
44
5 -3 1 Page
RE,
S CH2MHILL
Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT
August 2013
Table 5 -3: Qualitative Ranking Criteria and Weighting Factors
Technical Criteria
Constructability
Regulations and Drinking Water Quality Impacts
Weight (%)
13
Score
17
Existing Infrastructure Compatibility
15
9
Water Re -use
Water Supply Redundancy
14
Meets 30 -Year Planning Horizon Targets
19
Meets 50 -Year Planning Horizon Targets
13
Total (Weight must equal 100 %)
Environmental Criteria
Clean Water Act Compliance (TMDLs)
100%
Weight (%)
15
Score
In- stream Flow Maintenance
21
Permitting, Environmental Impact Statements, and Easements
16
Energy Generation and Carbon Footprint
18
Climate Impacts Resiliency
15
General Environmental Impacts (Wildlife, Forested Areas)
15
Total (Weight must equal 100 %)
Social Criteria
Customer Service Satisfaction
100%
Weight
18
Score
Public Health and Safety
21
Quality of Life Impacts
15
Overall Public Support
24
Economic Development and Growth
10
Water Marketing and Leasing — Maintain Ag Rights
12
Total (Weight must equal 100 %)
Economic
Magnitude of Capital Investment per Acre -ft of Developable Water Supply
100%
26
.
Relative Operation and Maintenance Costs
27
Eligibility for Outside Funding
13
Economy of Scale Impacts
11
Delay of Infrastructure to Encourage Growth to Pay for Growth
23
Total (Weight must equal 100 %)
Supply Water
Reliability and Control of Water Supply (degree of certainty)
100%
21
Score
Initial Water Quality of Water Supply
13
Risk of Water Supply to Contamination /Sabotage
15
Proximity of Water Supply
18
Storage Volume Potential
14
Potential Impacts to the Water Resources
19
Total (Weight must equal 100 %)
100%
J A th CH21MHILL 5 -4 1 P a g e
4W
Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT
August 2013
Members of the TAC were tasked with scoring each of the alternatives with respect to the
qualitative criteria using a scale of 0 to 3, with 0 being the least favorable score possible and 3
being the most favorable score possible. The average scores for the TAC are presented in Table
5 -4. Table 5 -4 also includes the TAC rankings presented as ordinal sum values. The scores and
ordinal sum values represent data sets from eight of the TAC members. Three members of the
TAC abstained from completing the qualitative ranking exercise.
The results of the ranking process were presented to the City and TAC for review and
consideration with respect to the development of water supply portfolios, which consist of a
combination of alternatives to meet the projected water needs of the City. The scoring and
subsequent ranking process prompted vigorous discussion of the alternatives and the possible
combinations thereof to create the limited number of IWRP portfolios to be further evaluated
using the VOYAGE TM model. Representatives of AE2S /CH2M Hill completed the qualitative
scoring and ranking process. This information, along with technical guidance and perspective,
contributed to the selection of alternatives and the development of portfolios.
The IU alternatives generally involve the use of effluent from the BWRF as a potential strategy
to simultaneously meet a portion of the water demand and achieve compliance with
increasingly stringent wastewater discharge regulations. The IU alternatives generated
substantial discussion regarding potential conflicts between Montana water law and current
and potential wastewater discharge regulations enforced by the Montana Department of
Environmental Quality. As Montana municipalities consider alternatives to reduce or eliminate
the need to discharge wastewater, it was recognized that mitigation would likely be necessary
for BWRF effluent reuse to be considered as an approved strategy to circumvent wastewater
discharge permit requirements. Due to the identified water law constraints and uncertainty
regarding feasibility, all of the IU alternatives involving the use of effluent from the BWRF were
excluded from further consideration.
The possibilities of obtaining water from the Yellowstone River (WSD4), adjacent drainage
basins (WSDS), and Brackett Creek (WSD10) were also excluded based on the relatively low
qualitative scores and rankings as compared to other alternatives.
The decision was made to use cost information from the Sourdough Creek Reservoir
Development Plan prepared in April 2011 as a placeholder for the potential construction of an
impoundment or series of impoundments in the Sourdough Creek watershed or the concept of
raising Hyalite Dam to gain additional water storage. Therefore, alternatives WSD1, WSD7, and
WSD9 were indirectly identified for inclusion in the portfolio modeling process.
The development of groundwater was supported by the City and TAC. Several unanswered
questions surround the concept of obtaining water from Madison Aquifer, whereas the ability
to obtain groundwater of acceptable quantity and quality in the Belgrade and Gallatin Gateway
areas is generally accepted as a feasible option. With respect to the application process, it is
recognized that both alternatives would need to satisfy mitigation requirements. As compared
A 0 CH2MHILL 5 -5 1 P a g e
AW
Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT
August 2013
Table 5 -4: TAC Qualitative Criteria Ranking Results
Alternative Number/Name Average Ordinal
Score Sum
IU Alternatives
IU5
Agricultural irrigation Water Use
1.69
0.83
IU1
Northside Non - Potable Water Reuse
1.61
0.81
IU7
Groundwater Recharge - Water Reuse
1.61
0.76
IU2
Northside /Southside Non - Potable Water Reuse
1.53
0.71
IU3
Northside Non - Potable and Potable Water Reuse
1.49
0.68
IU4
Northside /Southside Non - Potable /Potable Water Reuse
1.47
0.67
IU6
Industrial Water Reuse
1.33
0.60
WSD Alternatives
WSD8
Hyalite Share Purchasing
2.55
6.67
WSD3A
Madison Aquifer Groundwater
2.05
1.35
WSD3C
Gallatin Gateway Subarea Groundwater
2.03
1.54
WSD7
Sourdough Pond Storage
1.97
1.11
WSD9
Hyalite Reservoir Dam Raise
1.95
1.32
WSD313
Belgrade Subarea Groundwater
1.92
1.23
WSD6
Canal Company Impoundment
1.88
0.98
WSD1
Sourdough Reservoir
1.84
1.05
WSD26
Canyon Ferry Import Confluence Delivery
1.70
0.79
WSD2A
Canyon Ferry Import Reservoir Delivery
1.70
0.81
WSD5
Adjacent Drainage Development
1.65
0.83
WSD4
Yellowstone River Import
1.52
0.68
WSD10
Brackett Creek Import
1.38
0.57
OS Alternatives
OS2
Lyman Creek Expansion
2.25
2.13
OS4
Medium Water Conservation Approach
2.19
2.00
OS3
Low Water Conservation Approach
2.14
1.47
OS5
High Water Conservation Approach
2.13
1.69
OS1
Non - Potable Groundwater Supply
2.05
1.54
A� CH2MHILL 5 -6 Page
"
qW
Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT
August 2013
to the Belgrade area, the Gallatin Gateway area offers inherent advantages regarding its
relative elevation with respect to the City of Bozeman and the possibility of competing interests
from the City of Belgrade. Therefore, the Gallatin Gateway area (WSD3A) was selected as the
best representative involving the development of a groundwater supply in the Bozeman area.
The alternatives involving groundwater development from the Madison Aquifer (WSD3A) and in
the Belgrade area (WSD3B) were subsequently excluded from the portfolio modeling process.
The Canyon Ferry import alternative was included in a portfolio as a concept to meet high
growth projections with limited efforts expended toward water conservation program
implementation. Because of anticipated cost impacts, the confluence option (WSD2B) was
selected as a more credible alternative than extending the pipeline from Canyon Ferry
Reservoir near Townsend, MT, which eliminated alternative WSD2A from consideration.
The remaining alternatives, including the three water conservation levels, received relatively
high scores and were identified for inclusion in the portfolio modeling process. A summary of
the alternatives selected for further evaluation is presented in Table 5 -5.
Screening Level 3: Quantitative Criteria - VOYAGETM Model Alternative Analysis
The third level of the screening process consists of completing a life -cycle cost analyses for the
identified portfolios based on conceptual capital costs and conceptual operations and
maintenance costs. A total of thirteen portfolios, which are listed in Table 5 -6, were created
using different combinations of the alternatives identified for additional evaluation through the
Table 5 -5: Alternatives Considered for Portfolio Development
Alternative Description
WSD1 /WSD7 /WSD9: Sourdough Impoundment(s) /Hyalite Dam Raise
WSD2B: Canyon Ferry Import Confluence Delivery
WSD3C: Gallatin Gateway Subarea Groundwater
WSD6: Canal Company Impoundment (i.e. SALAR)
WSD9: Hyalite Shares Purchasing
OS1: Non - Potable Groundwater Supply
OS2: Lyman Creek Expansion
OS3: Low Water Conservation Approach
OS4: Medium Water Conservation Approach
OSS: High Water Conservation Approach
A t h CH2MHILL 5 -7 1 P a g e
J _
Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT
August 2013
qualitative screening process. The portfolios were also developed based on the moderate and
high growth projections. Costs for the various alternatives comprising the individual portfolios
were optimized and adapted in accordance with requirements to balance the water supply
capacity gap, which result in deviations in cost values used for the same alternatives. A
discussion of the detailed cost analysis involving the development and quantitative evaluation
of the portfolios is provided as a technical memorandum in Appendix D.
Table 5 -6: Summary of Portfolios Evaluated Using VOYAGE T11 Model
Portfolio Description
Portfolio 1 WSD9 — Hyalite Shares Purchasing; OS2 — Lyman Creek Expansion; OS3 — Low
Water Conservation Approach
Portfolio 2:
WSD9 — Hyalite Shares Purchasing; OS4 — Medium Water Conservation Approach
Portfolio 3
WSD9 — Hyalite Shares Purchasing; OS5 — High Water Conservation Approach
Portfolio 4
WSD213 — Canyon Ferry Import Confluence Delivery; WSD9 — Hyalite Shares
Purchasing; OS3 — Low Water Conservation Approach
Portfolio 5
WSD3C: Gallatin Gateway Subarea Groundwater; WSD9 — Hyalite Shares
Purchasing; OS3 Low Water Conservation Approach
Portfolio 6
WSD3C: Gallatin Gateway Subarea Groundwater; OS4 Medium Water
Conservation Approach
Portfolio 7
WSD3C: Gallatin Gateway Subarea Groundwater; OS5 High Water Conservation
Approach
WSD1 /WSD7 /WSD9: Sourdough Impoundment(s) /Hyalite Dam Raise; WSD9 —
Portfolio 8
Hyalite Shares Purchasing; OS2 — Lyman Creek Expansion; OS4 — Medium Water
Conservation Approach
Portfolio 9
WSD9 — Hyalite Shares Purchasing; OS1: Non - Potable Groundwater Supply; OS4
— Medium Water Conservation Approach
Portfolio 10
WSD6: Canal Company Impoundment; WSD9 — Hyalite Shares Purchasing; OS4 —
Medium Water Conservation Approach
Portfolio 11
WSD9 — Hyalite Shares Purchasing; OS2 — Lyman Creek Expansion; OS4 —
Medium Water Conservation Approach
Portfolio 12
WSD9 — Hyalite Shares Purchasing; OS1: Non - Potable Groundwater Supply; OS2
— Lyman Creek Expansion
Portfolio 13
WSD6: Canal Company Impoundment; WSD9 — Hyalite Shares Purchasing; OS2 —
Lyman Creek Expansion; OS3 — Low Water Conservation Approach
Note: Shading denotes that the portfolio was developed to meet the water demands
associated with the high population growth scenario.
v i J A Id CH2MHILL 5 -8 1 P a g e
4W
Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT
August 2013
5.3 Summary of Portfolio Modeling Results
The life -cycle analyses were completed with the VOYAGE TM model using data consisting of the
conceptual cost information developed for the portfolios and the qualitative rankings from the
screening process. The model results, which are provided in Appendix D as a technical
memorandum, were subsequently normalized using the total annual volume of water provided
in year 2062 to facilitate a basis of comparison between the moderate growth portfolios and
the high growth portfolios.
Draft model results were presented during the last meeting with the City and the TAC to
provide perspective and gain preliminary input. A comment received from a member of the
TAC consisted of the development of an additional portfolio comprised of a more
comprehensive list of alternatives to meet the high population growth scenario, particularly
incorporating scalable supply development options. City representatives also introduced the
possibility of initiating parallel efforts that would build on the results of the IWRP and provide
information to better define the implementation requirements for the alternatives. For these
reasons, Portfolio 14, as described in Table 5 -7, was created and evaluated using the VOYAGE TM
model.
Despite a modestly higher cost per unit of annual water volume provided, as indicated in Table
14 of technical memorandum in Appendix D, Portfolio 14 offers increased value as compared to
the other portfolios that were developed to meet the high population growth scenario, based
on several criteria developed by the TAC, staff, and the consultant collaboratively. Portfolio 14
also represents a more diverse range of scalable options and provides increased flexibility and
resiliency to the City with respect to changing conditions and uncertainty in the future. After
testing the portfolio to address comments and concerns expressed by the TAC and the City,
Portfolio 14 was identified as the most advantageous option for implementation by the City.
Key findings related to the model results for Portfolio 14 are as follows:
Table 5 -7: Description of Portfolio 14
Alternatives Comprising Portfolio 14
WSD1 /WSD7 /WSD9: Sourdough Impoundment(s) /Hyalite Dam Raise
WSD3C: Gallatin Gateway Subarea Groundwater
WSD9: Hyalite Shares Purchasing
OS1: Non - Potable Groundwater Supply
OS2: Lyman Creek Expansion
OS3: Low Water Conservation Approach
`.k`' AE?S
CH2MHILL 5 -9 P a g e
J a s
Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT
August 2013
Sensitivity analysis confirmed that the purchase of additional shares from Hyalite
Reservoir is a relatively cost effective strategy to obtain additional water supply
capacity, especially in the near future. The purchase of senior in- stream rights in
Sourdough Creek and Hyalite Creek is also an option available to the City for
consideration.
• Conventional water conservation measures could be implemented in the near -term with
the possibility to consider more aggressive water conservation strategies depending on
the actual amount of water supply capacity obtained from other alternatives comprising
Portfolio 14, public acceptance, and the measured success of water conservation efforts
on reducing the rate of demand for water. Higher levels of water conservation could be
pursued by the City to further reduce water demand if such measures are achievable at
a comparable cost to other available alternatives.
• Due to water right withdrawal and seasonal constraints, the portfolio analysis, which is
presented in Appendix D, concluded that the City is currently at risk of an intermittent
shortage of water during the month of May and should implement an alternative that
delivers a new water supply as triggered by the demand for water. A demand trigger of
approximately 600 acre -feet during the month of May is suggested as an initial
benchmark for the City to proceed with its monitoring efforts.
• Securing approximately 900 acre -feet of water storage via an impoundment or series of
smaller impoundments in the Sourdough Creek drainage basin deserves a more detailed
investigation, with a secondary objective of improving the operational reliability of the
intake system. A series of smaller impoundments above the City's existing water intake
is anticipated to be more feasible than building a large reservoir in the Sourdough Creek
basin. Raising the level of Hyalite Reservoir via modifications to the dam could also be
considered in lieu of or in conjunction with the Sourdough impoundment(s) alternative.
• Non - potable irrigation for new developments could be assessed on an incremental
basis, with actual results prompting the need for water from other water sources, which
may include irrigation surface water, such as that provided via the Canal Company
Impoundment alternative.
• Groundwater development in the Gallatin Gateway subarea was identified as a
relatively flexible alternative to serve as a "relief valve" to balance the amount of water
supply needed to meet increased water demands related to future growth. Variations
to this alternative are possible and include alternate sites for groundwater development
or potentially leveraging the property associated with the Canal Company Impoundment
alternative.
• The actual costs associated with acquiring new water rights may deviate from that
assumed for the life -cycle cost analysis and need to be considered as the
implementation of alternatives moves forward.
tj A 00 CH2MHILL 5 -10 1 P a g e
qOO
Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT
August 2013
Chapter 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Conclusions
The following conclusions were identified based on the work product completed for the IWRP:
• The planning approach used to develop the IWRP offers the City much needed flexibility
with respect to meeting future growth and the associated increase in water demand.
• The City possesses a finite supply of water with an estimated 2012 annual firm yield
ranging from 11,433 acre -feet to 12,042 acre -feet, depending on the inclusion of 609
acre -feet associated with the Sourdough Storage Reservation.
• The existing water supplies are currently capable of meeting the annual demand for
water; however, operational constraints have been encountered due to seasonal
impacts that limit the availability of existing water supplies on an intermittent basis.
• Changing climate conditions could potentially reduce the estimated annual firm yield of
existing water supplies that are not regulated with storage, resulting in a decline in the
annual firm yield of approximately 200 acre -feet by 2042 and approximately 500 acre -
feet by 2062.
• The installation of stream flow monitoring equipment in the watersheds would provide
useful information to the City for the purpose of assessing climate change impacts and
better managing its water resources moving forward.
• Strategies to improve the capture efficiency of water requested and released from
Hyalite Reservoir should be considered; such strategies consist of reducing or potentially
eliminating the conveyance efficiency factor and providing increased raw water and /or
finished water storage.
• Up to 6,750 acre -feet of water on an annual basis, which is subject to a historical use
analysis, could be available to the City via the formal application process with the DNRC.
• A water demand of 165 gpcd, which is subjected to adjustments with respect to climate
change and likely reduction via water conservation program implementation, represents
a reasonable value for planning purposes based on characterization of historical water
demand data and the objective of achieving a service level of 95 percent.
• In anticipation of future growth, and the relative uncertainty thereof, population
projections for the City were developed to represent moderate and high growth
scenarios for the 2042 and 2062 planning horizons.
• The population projections for the 2042 and 2062 planning horizons under the
moderate growth scenario are 70,256 and 94,144, respectively.
• The population projections for the 2042 and 2062 planning horizons under the high
growth scenario are 85,725 and 139,900, respectively.
• The climate adjusted annual water demand projections for the 2042 and 2062 planning
horizons under the moderate growth scenario are estimated to be 13,500 acre -feet and
17,790 acre -feet, respectively.
J J A� CH2MHILL 6 -1 P a g e
Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT
August 2013
• The climate adjusted annual water demand projections for the 2042 and 2062 planning
horizons under the high growth scenario are estimated to be 17,900 acre -feet and
28,700 acre -feet, respectively.
• The climate adjusted annual water balance gap for the 2042 and 2062 planning horizons
under the moderate growth scenario are estimated to 2,263 acre -feet and 6,842 acre-
feet, respectively.
• The climate adjusted annual water balance gap for the 2042 and 2062 planning horizons
under the high growth scenario are estimated to 6,663 acre -feet and 17,752 acre -feet,
respectively.
• A suggested trigger regarding the need for additional water supply capacity is a demand
of approximately 600 acre -feet during the month of May.
• The implementation of a more formal water conservation plan is a strategy available to
the City to reduce the rate of demand for water and could be used to meet a portion of
the water balance gap identified for 2042 and 2062 planning horizons.
• Several alternatives are available to the Bozeman to increase the annual water supply
capacity to meet future water demands, and the combination of various alternatives to
comprise a comprehensive portfolio is consistent with the planning approach of the
IWRP.
• The net present value of portfolios developed to meet the moderate population growth
scenario ranged from approximately $85 million to $118 million.
• The net present value of portfolios developed to meet the high population growth
scenario ranged from approximately $113 million to $296 million.
• Despite marginally higher life -cycle costs, Portfolio 14, consisting of the implementation
of the following alternatives, offers the City increased value as compared to other
portfolios and a higher degree of flexibility and resiliency to meet a range of future
growth scenarios through the 2042 and 2062 planning horizons:
• Initiating a water conservation program that considers the success of various
conservation measures, public acceptance, and a comparison of cost with
respect to water supply capacity development with the goal of meeting low to
medium water demand reduction targets.
• Adding storage in Sourdough Canyon or Hyalite Reservoir via an infrastructure
project to improve current withdrawals and operational efficiency.
• Developing groundwater system capacity in the Gallatin Gateway area or other
appropriate location to meet demand on an as needed basis.
• Strategically purchasing shares from Hyalite Reservoir and senior surface water
rights from Hyalite Creek and Sourdough Creek to obtain water in the near -term.
• Developing non - potable irrigation for new developments on an incremental
basis.
o Optimizing the capacity of the Lyman Creek water source.
• The estimated net present value of Portfolio 14 is approximately $148 million, and is
intended to provide an annual volume of water equivalent to 16,240 acre -feet through a
planning horizon of 2062.
� 4 A 0 CH2MHILL 6 -2 1 P a g e
q
Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT
August 2013
6.2 Recommendations
The future water needs of the City of Bozeman will depend on future conditions, such as the
rate of population growth, impacts of climate change, success of the City's water conservation
program, availability of useful water rights, and other conditions that are not completely
predictable. The IWRP was developed in recognition that future decisions by the City will be
made in the context of these conditions as they evolve, and the IWRP is intended to be flexible
enough to account for the conditions and contingencies created by these evolving conditions.
The following recommendations were developed based on the conclusions outlined above and
a logistical strategy for the City to proceed in fulfilling the objectives of the IWRP:
Near -Term
• Implementation of Portfolio 14 should proceed with a robust economic and engineering
feasibility analysis for each of the portfolio components, followed by a comparative
analysis of the components based on the screening assessment framework established
by the IWRP. These steps provide a sound basis for prioritized decision - making by the
City of Bozeman regarding its water resource management.
• Incorporate the implementation of Portfolio 14 into the City of Bozeman Capital
Improvement Planning budget such that anticipated costs are budgeted well into the
future.
• A water conservation plan should be prioritized for implementation to reduce the rate
of demand for water as a substantial contribution toward addressing the water balance
gap identified for the 2042 and 2062 planning horizons.
• The installation of stream flow monitoring equipment in the watersheds should be
implemented to provide useful information to the City for the purpose of assessing
climate change impacts and better manage its water resources moving forward.
• Implementation of strategies to improve the capture efficiency of water requested and
released from Hyalite Reservoir, such as reducing or potentially eliminating the
conveyance efficiency factor and providing increased raw water and /or finished water
storage.
• The formal application process with the DNRC should be initiated to secure water rights
that are currently available to the City totaling approximately 6,750 acre -feet of water
an annual basis. This value does not reflect a historical use analysis that will be
conducted for any change applications, and should be noted to avoid any mistaken
expectations about the amount of water that is potentially available.
• Shares from Hyalite Reservoir and senior surface water rights from Hyalite Creek and
Sourdough Creek should be purchased to the extent possible.
Long -Term
• Water supply and demand trends should be monitored to assess the need for additional
water supply capacity development.
• Revisit population growth trends every 5 years, or on a more frequent interval if
necessary.
4,J 6 -3 1 Page
J A CH2MHILL
Integrated Water Resources Plan, Bozeman MT
August 2013
• Additional water supply capacity should be developed by the City in accordance with the
outcome of subsequent efforts to evaluate alternatives in more detail and planning
objectives that will evolve with actual population growth and water demand trends.
J A 0 CH2MHILL 6 -4 P a g e
4W
APPENDIX A
Climate Change Adjustments
to Firm Yield and Demand
for Bozeman. MT
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM CH211VIIHILLe
Climate Change Adjustments to Firm Yield and Demand for
Bozeman, MT
PREPARED FOR: AE2S
COPY TO: Mark Anderson /PDX
Armin Munevar /SDO
PREPARED BY: Tylerlantzen /SEA
Emily Callaway /PDX
DATE: July 25, 2013
PROJECT NUMBER: 435325.03.35.25.05
This technical memorandum documents the methods, results and analysis involved in the development of climate
change adjusted firm yield and demand values for the Bozeman Integrated Water Resources Plan. The adjusted
firm yield and demand values will be used in the water balance and scenario modeling efforts conducted under
separate tasks of the Bozeman Integrated Water Plan.
Executive Summary
Analysis of global climate models (GCMs), downscaled to the Bozeman region, and local hydrologic and climatic
data were used to develop adjustment factors for firm yield and water demand values. The analysis indicates a
predicted general trend of warming earlier in the year and overall lower precipitation, resulting in lower peak
stream flows that occur earlier in the year than historical peaks. These trends also result in an extension to the
period of time in which irrigation is needed to sustain crops and landscape plants, and increasing the amount of
irrigation water required during historical irrigation months to make up for the lack of precipitation.
Methodology
Overview
The goal of this task was to establish an estimate of climate- change impacts to the four water sources included in
the Bozeman IWRP: Sourdough, Middle, Lyman, and Hyalite, and adjust the firm yield values used in other IWRP
tasks accordingly. This adjustment projects existing firm yield to the 30 -year and 50 -year planning horizon: 2042
and 2062. City of Bozeman Water Facility Plan firm yield values were used as the basis for this analysis. Facility
Plan firm yield values for Hyalite Reservoir, Lyman Creek, and Middle Creek represent the reliable yield from
existing water rights, which are related to hydrologic conditions, but not necessarily directly proportional because
of priority, volume, and seasonal limitations. Details of the original development of the existing firm yield values
are not available except that Sourdough Creek (also called Bozeman Creek) firm yield was developed from historic
dry year flow data. Reported values for Lyman and Middle Creek were used with no further adjustments. Monthly
distribution of firm yield values for Hyalite Reservoir were adjusted to reflect current withdrawal operations,
based on conversations with city staff.
Firm yield of Middle Creek was adjusted by the same climate- change based scaling factor established for
Sourdough Creek through the process described in this memorandum, equal to the change in projected dry year
stream flow in Sourdough Creek. Hyalite Reservoir and Lyman Creek were not adjusted for climate- change effects
based on perceived supply resiliency of Hyalite Reservoir and operator feedback that Lyman Creek is not presently
being used at a level above its firm yield.
In order to generate climate change adjusted stream flows (and thus firm yield scaling factors), a simple monthly
water balance hydrologic model was created and calibrated. The USGS's Thornthwaite Monthly Water Balance
Program was used because it generates results on a monthly scale, only requires inputs of monthly temperature
FIRMYI ELDCLI MATECHANGETM_FI NAL-V6 /[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR]
CLIMATE CHANGE ADJUSTMENTS TO FIRM YIELD AND DEMAND FOR BOZEMAN, MT
and precipitation, and because calibration is relatively simple due to limited calibration parameters. The USGS
Thornthwaite Model program uses an accounting procedure to analyze the allocation of water among various
components of the hydrologic system; this procedure is generally known as the Thornthwaite water balance and
is used in both academia and industry for hydrologic evaluations. Climate change adjustments for temperature
and precipitation were developed for 2042 and 2062 using SimCLIM, a climate change analysis software package
developed by CLIM Systems. Climate change adjusted temperature and precipitation time series were used as
inputs to the hydrologic model to develop adjusted stream flow time series, which were used to develop firm
yield scaling factors.
Data Sources
Numerous data sources were used to calibrate and validate the hydrologic model. Climate data sources are
summarized in Table 1. It was important to understand the geography of the basin tributary to the USGS
Sourdough Creek gage. Geographic Information System (GIS) data sources used to develop Sourdough Creek
basins statistics are summarized in Table 2. A map of the three gages, as well as the Sourdough Creek basin is
shown in Figure 1.
TABLE 1
Summary of Hydroclimate Data Sources
Name Source Location Date Range Notes
Sourdough Creek Monthly USGS; obtained as PDF file Long: - 111.020833 October 1937 to
Average Flow from the City of Bozeman. Lat: 45.577778 September 1986 (see
Not available Elev: 5,351 Notes)
electronically on USGS
NWIS website. Gage
number 06047500.
Lick Creek Daily
SNOTEL; Lick Creek. Site
Long: -110° 58'
October 1982 to
Precipitation and
No. 578.
Lat: 45° 30'
September 2011
Temperature
Elev: 6,860
(precipitation record
started in 1978)
Bozeman, MT Precipitation
NOAA;Bozeman MT.,
Long: - 111.05
January 1892 to
and Temperature
59715.
Lat: 45.67
December 1997
Elev: 4,900
PDF is of poor quality fax
of data. Some values,
particularly those before
1947, were not readable.
The reliable period of
record from this data was
limited to October 1947
to September 1986
FIRMYIELDCLI MATECHANGETM _FINAL-V6 /[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR]
COPYRIGHT [INSERT DATE SET BY SYSTEM] BY [CH2M HILL ENTITY] . COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
CLIMATE CHANGE ADJUSTMENTS TO FIRM YIELD AND DEMAND FOR BOZEMAN, MT
TABLE 2
Summary of GIS Data Sources
Name Publisher Website
National Hydrography Dataset; Prestaged USGS; nhd.usgs.gov; accessed 5/4/2012
Subregion NHDM1002_92v200
National Hydrography Dataset Plus; Horizon Systems (with EPA and USGS) http://www.horizon-syster-ns.com/rihdplus
Region 1OUV01_01 accessed 5/4/2012
National Elevation Dataset; USGS ned.usgs.gov; accessed 5/4/2012
Figure 1. Map showing location of climate and stream flow gages, and of Sourdough Creek basin outline (mean elevation
7051 ft).
Hydroclimate Summary
The Sourdough Creek watershed is located between 5 and 15 miles south of the City of Bozeman, Montana. Its
hydroclimate, as characterized by the nearby Lick Creek SNOTEL gage, has mean summer temperatures between
50 and 60 degrees Fahrenheit(F) (10 and 15 degrees Celsius (C)), and mean winter temperatures around 20
degrees F ( -5 degrees Q. Extreme summer temperatures of 97 degrees F (36 degrees C) and winter temperatures
of -50 degrees F ( -46 degrees C) have been recorded at the Lick Creek gage. Mean annual precipitation is 3.28 ft
(1.00 meter), with approximately 40 percent of the total falling during the wettest three months from April to
June. The remaining months receive between 2 -3 inches (50 -75 millimeters (mm)) per month on average. Flows
in Sourdough Creek, as measured by a USGS stream gage, range between a winter base flow of 5 -15 cubic feet
per second (cfs), and a spring peak runoff that ranges between 50 and 160 cfs. The peak runoff typically occurs in
June, and occasionally in May. The mean June flow is 76 cfs; the mean January flow 10 cfs, and the mean annual
FIRMYIELDCLIMATECHANGETM _FINAL -V6 /[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR]
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
CLIMATE CHANGE ADJUSTMENTS TO FIRM YIELD AND DEMAND FOR BOZEMAN, MT
flow 26 cfs. Given a 28.2 square mile watershed, approximately 32 percent of the annual precipitation is seen as
stream runoff on an annual basis.
Dry year hydrologic firm yield from Sourdough Creek is reported to be 3.23 million gallons per day (MGD) for
every month of the year except for May and June. The May firm yield is 4.04 MGD and the June firm yield is 3.64
MGD. The resulting total annual dry year hydrologic firm yield volume is 1,217 million gallons.
Hydrologic Model
The USGS Thornthwaite Monthly Water Balance model (McCabe and Markstrom, 2007) was used as the
hydrologic model for this project. Inputs to the Thornthwaite model are monthly temperature and precipitation
in degrees C and mm. Outputs include potential evapotranspiration, total runoff, actual evapotranspiration, snow
storage and snow melt. USGS Sourdough Creek gage data from 1960 to 1970 were used to calibrate the model.
Because the existing firm yield is known to be developed from dry year hydrology, and because the 1960s includes
many low flow years, this time period was selected as the calibration period. The Thornthwaite model tracks soil
moisture storage which can carry over from year to year, thus it is important to run the model for multiple years
at a time.
GIS analysis of the tributary basin to the USGS Sourdough Creek gage shows that the mean elevation of the basin
is 7,051 feet. Although the Lick Creek gage is not in the Sourdough Creek basin, its elevation (6,860 feet) is much
closer to that of the basin, and is more likely to represent the temperature and precipitation patterns observed in
the basin. Unfortunately, the date ranges for the Lick Creek climate gage full record (precipitation and
temperature) and the Sourdough Creek flow gage only overlap 4 years (1982 to 1986). Thus, NOAA Bozeman
temperature and precipitation gage data was used as a substitute for Lick Creek data to calibrate to a full decade
of flow gage data, and to validate model performance. To use this data, a correlation between the Lick Creek
climate gage and the NOAA Bozeman climate gage was developed, and the NOAA Bozeman climate gage
transformed to the Lick Creek gage site. In addition to this transformation, the temperature was decreased by 0.7
degrees F (0.4 degrees C) , the temperature lapse for the 190 feet difference between the Lick Creek gage and
mean Sourdough Creek basin elevation. The correlation between the Lick Creek (SNOTEL gage) and Bozeman
(NOAA gage) for temperature and precipitation is shown in Figures 2 and 3.
FIRMYIELDCLI MATECHANGETM_FINAL-V6 /[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR]
COPYRIGHT [INSERT DATE SET BY SYSTEM] BY [CH2M HILL ENTITY] . COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
CLIMATE CHANGE ADJUSTMENTS TO FIRM YIELD AND DEMAND FOR BOZEMAN. MT
Temperature Comparison
20
is
y= 0.8632x- 4.1691 ,.•
10 R'= 0.9873 ?
m s r
0
0 s°
vZi T.
-5
-10
-15
-15 -10 -5 U 5 10 15 20 25
NOAH Gage T (C)
Figure 2: Lick Creek (SNOTEL) and Bozeman (NOAH) gage temperature correlation. Transformed NOAA Bozeman data was
used for model calibration and validation.
FIRMYIELOCLIMATECHANGETM _FINAL -V6 /[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR] 5
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
CLIMATE CHANGE ADJUSTMENTS TO FIRM YIELD AND DEMAND FOR BOZEMAN, MT
The adjusted precipitation and temperature data were used to calibrate the Thornthwaite model. Calibrated
Thornthwaite parameters are listed in Table 3. For a full description of how these parameters are used, see the
Thornthwaite model documentation (McCabe and Markstrom, 2007).
TABLE 3
Calibrated Thornthwaite Monthly Water Balance Parameter Values
Parameter Name Parameter Value
Runoff Factor
Direct Runoff Factor
Soil- Moisture Storage Capacity
Latitude of Location
Rain Temperature Threshold
Snow Temperature Threshold
Maximum Melt Rate
16%
5%
47 mm (1.85 inches)
46 Degrees of Latitude
3.3 Degrees Celsius (37.9 degrees F)
-1.0 Degrees Celsius (30.2 degrees F)
90%
Calibration of the Thornthwaite model focused on low flow years, especially on the maximum and minimum flow
values for those years. The declining limb of the Sourdough Creek hydrograph, as measured by the USGS gage.
was especially difficult to match during model calibration. Flow rates in the Thornthwaite model tended to move
from peak spring runoff to minimum summer /fall flows much more slowly than recorded at the USGS gage. This
could possibly be due to the changing soil- moisture storage capacity resulting from the freezing and thawing of
the ground. The Thornthwaite model is only able to account for a single value for the soil- moisture storage
capacity. In order to account for the timing difference between model outputs and gage data, a modification
factor was developed for each month based on the average ratio between USGS and Thornthwaite flow rates for
the entire period of stream gage record (October 1947 to September 1986; see Table 1).
Use of unmodified Thornthwaite flow rates resulted in a modeled volume 134 percent of the USGS measured
volume (for entire period of overlapping record), and a standardized root mean square error (a measure of
calibration, where 1.0 is perfect) of 0.71. The use of the monthly modification factor resulted in a 100 percent
volume match, and a standardized root mean square error of 0.58. The monthly adjustment factors used are
listed in Table 4.
FIRMYIELDCLI MATECHANGETM _FINAL -V6 /[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR]
COPYRIGHT [INSERT DATE SET BY SYSTEM] BY [CH2M HILL ENTITY] . COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
CLIMATE CHANGE ADJUSTMENTS TO FIRM YIELD AND DEMAND FOR BOZEMAN, MT
TABLE 4
Thornthwaite Model Monthly Flow Rate
Modification Factors
Month Monthly Average
Flow Rate Scaling
Factor
October
0 47
November
0.50
December
0.50
January
0.53
February
0.71
March
0 77
April
1.00
May
1.00
June
1.00
July
1.00
August 0.53
September 0 47
Calibration to the low flow years resulted in a good match between model outputs and gage data in years with
low peak flows. This calibration approach, however, also resulted in a mismatch between model outputs and gage
data in years with high peak flows. This was deemed acceptable because the firm yield values were developed
using only low flow years, and thus the firm yield climate change adjustment factors would also be developed
using only low flow years. Therefore, it is more important to match model outputs to low flow years than to high
flow years.
Thornthwaite model calibration results for the calibration period 1960 -1970 are shown in Figure 3. This figure
illustrates how the modification factors were used to get a better match between the gage data (shown in blue)
and the model outputs (unmodified outputs are shown in red; modified outputs are shown in green). The figure
also shows how the modified model matches the lower peaks (for example the peaks in 1960 - 1963), but does not
match the higher peaks (1964 -1968)
The entire validation period, 1947 to 1986, is shown in Figure 4. This figure demonstrates that the modification
factors and matching trend established for the ten -year calibration period are relevant throughout the entire
period of record.
A scatter graph comparing gage and both modeled and the modified model flow is shown in Figure 5. The
distribution of data shows that modified model outputs are closer to a perfect match to gage flows for flows up to
about 25 cfs.
FIRMYIELDCLIMATECHANGETM _FINAL -V6 /[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR]
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
CLIMATE CHANGE ADJUSTMENTS TO FIRM YIELD AND DEMAND FOR BOZEMAN, MT
180 —
160 —
140 —
120 —
100 —
3
80 —
LL
60
40
20
0 - - I - I -.
Jan -60 Jan -61 Jan -62 Jan -63 Jan -64 Jan -65 Jan -66 Jan -67
—Gage -Model - Modified Model
Figure 3. Thornthwaite Monthly Water Balance Hydrologic Model Calibration
180 —
160
140
120
? 100
3
80
LL
60 i
40
20
Jan -68
t
Jan -69 Jan -70
0 . - y — . .- . - t. - -� may,_ : . . . . . . . . . .. _
Jan -47 Jan -51 Jan -55 Jan -59 Jan -63 Jan -67 Jan -71 Jan -75 Jan -79
-- Gage Model -- Modified Model
Figure 4. Thornthwaite Monthly Water Balance Hydrologic Model Validation
Jan -83 Jan -87
8 FI RMYIELDCLI MATECHANGETM _FINAL-V6 /[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR]
COPYRIGHT [INSERT DATE SET BY SYSTEM] BY [CH2M HILL ENTITY] • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
CLIMATE CHANGE ADJUSTMENTS TO FIRM YIELD AND DEMAND FOR BOZEMAN, MT
150
125
100 O
o � p
75
50
t1 /tit
25 ✓ !i
.,V
0 '00000e
25 50 75 100 125 150
Gage Flow (cfs)
— Perfect Match Model Modified Model
Figure 5. Model Calibration Scattergraph
Projections of Future Temperature and Precipitation
The SimCLIM tool was used to develop monthly adjustments to temperature and precipitation reflecting
projected changes in 2042 and 2062 as compared to the baseline year of 1990. The SimCLIM tool incorporates the
results from 21 global climate models (GCMs) simulated for multiple global greenhouse gas emission scenarios
developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Results from SimCLIM reflect a broad range
of global projections and are downscaled by the software to the 1 -km resolution in this region. As such there are
many possible climate futures that result from global climate change modeling. This analysis considered the full
range of Global Climate Model (GCM) and climate emissions scenario combinations included in the IPCC Fourth
Assessment Report (AR4), and selected a representative range of projections for use for use in this project.
Additional information on climate change, GCMs and climate scenarios can be found in CH2M HILL (2011).
Figures 6a and 6b show the projected monthly change in temperature between 1990 and 2042, and 1990 and
2062 for several emission scenarios. Unless noted otherwise, the median (50`h percentile) GCM result from an
ensemble of 21 GCMs is reported for each emissions scenario (e.g. graph series A113, A1F1, etc). These values
were generated using a medium climate sensitivity for the location of the Bozeman NOAA climate gage. Figures
7a and 7b show the percent change in monthly precipitation between 1990 and 2042, and 1990 and 2062. These
results show an increase in temperature between 1 and 3 degrees C during the summer by 2042, and between 2
and 5 degrees by 2062. The temperature increase is less extreme during the peak runoff season of May and June,
with an increase of between 0.5 and 1.5 degrees C by 2042 and between 1 and 3 degrees C by 2062. This overall
increase in temperature will cause an earlier snow runoff than previously experienced. While change in annual
precipitation is only expected to be a small decrease (between 0.5 and 0.6 percent decrease by 2042 and a 0.8 to
1.1 percent decrease by 2062), the seasonality of this precipitation is expected to change. In general, decreases
of summer and fall precipitation as high as 13 percent by 2042 and 20 percent by 2062 could be experienced.
Conversely, winter and spring precipitation could increase as much as 10 percent by 2042 and 20 percent by 2062.
FIRMYIELDCLIMATECHANGETM _FINAL -VG /[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR]
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
CLIMATE CHANGE ADJUSTMENTS TO FIRM YIELD AND DEMAND FOR
2042 Temperature Change
35
3 —
25
m
p 15
1 _ ,
0.5 —
0
Jan Mar May
July Sept. Nov.
Month
—A1B —A1FI A1T
—A2 BI B2
-- AIR 75th Percentile B1 25th Percentile
2062 Temperature Change
6
S
4 —
m3
0
Jan Mar May July Sept. Nov.
Month
— A1B[B] — A1FI[B]
—A2[B] —Bl[B]
-- - - A1FI75th Percentile B1 25th Percentile
A1T[B]
— B2[B]
Figure 6a and 6b: Change in monthly temperature (degrees centigrade) between (a) 1990 and 2042 and (b) 1990 and 2062.
Unless noted otherwise, the median value of an ensemble of 21 GCMs is reported for each emissions scenario (A113, AiFI
etc.).
2042 Precipitation: Percent Change
15
10
W 5
_
0
i -5
1 -10
15
Jan
Mar Mav Julv
Month
—A1B -- - =A1FI
A2 — °B1
- AlF175th Percentile --- B125th Percentile
Sept. Nov.
A1T
B2
2062 Precipitation: Percent Change
25
20
15 --
10 — —
m
5
L
-5
a -10
-15
-20
-25
Jan Mar May July Sept.
Month
— A1B(B] - A1FI[B] A1T(B]
—A2[B] B1[B] B2[B]
A1FI75th Percentile - B1 25th Percentile
Nov.
Figure 7a and 7b: Percent change in monthly precipitation between (a) 1990 and 2042 and (b) 1990 and 2062. Unless
noted otherwise, the median value of an ensemble of 21 GCMs is reported for each emissions scenario (A113, AiFI etc.).
The results from the A1Fl 50th percentile were selected as a conservative estimate of climate change for both
2042 and 2062, and were used for Firm Yield and Voyage model analysis. The A1FI 50th percentile results are
similar to the A2 75th percentile results, which are often used in climate change analyses. The A1FI 75th percentile
was selected as an upper bound and the 13125 th percentile was selected as a lower bound to represent climate
change uncertainty; both of these scenarios were used to develop changes in monthly stream flow values shown
in Figure 11, but were not carried through full Firm Yield and Voyage model analysis.
Monthly and annual adjustments for the A1Fl 50th percentile and the bounding A1Fl 75th percentile and 13125 1h
percentile are presented for Temperature and Precipitation in Table 5 and Table 6.
10 FIRMYIELDCLIMATECHANGETM _FINAL -V6 /[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR]
COPYRIGHT [INSERT DATE SET BY SYSTEM] BY [CH2M HILL ENTITY] • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
CLIMATE CHANGE ADJUSTMENTS TO FIRM YIELD AND DEMAND FOR BOZEMAN, MT
TABLE 5
Monthly and Annual Temperature Adiustments for Selected GCMs
TABLE 6
Monthly and Annual Precipitation Adjustments for Selected GCMs
Temperature (increase,
degree C)
2042
2062
Month
8125th
A1Fl50th
A1Fl75th
8125th A1Fl50th
A1Fl 50th
A1Fl75th
October
1.0
1.6
1.8
1.4
3.0
3.2
November
0.8
1.3
1.6
1.1
2.5
2.9
December
0.9
1.6
1.9
1.2
3.0
3.4
January
0.9
1.6
2.0
1.3
2.9
3.7
February
0.7
1.5
1.9
1.0
2.7
3.5
March
0.8
1.5
1.8
1.1
2.7
3.3
April
0.6
1.2
1.8
0.9
2.2
3.3
May
0.7
1.3
1.6
1.0
2.4
3.0
June
1.1
1.9
2.0
1.6
3.5
3.6
July
1.4
2.2
2.7
1.9
4.1
5.0
August
1.3
2.4
2.9
1.9
4.5
5.4
September
1.4
2.1
2.5
2,0
3.9
4.6
Annual
1.1
1.7
1.9
1.5
3.1
3.5
TABLE 6
Monthly and Annual Precipitation Adjustments for Selected GCMs
FIRMYIELDCLIMATECHANGETM _FINAL -V6 /[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR]
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
Precipitation (percent change)
2042
2062
Month
81 25th
A1Fl 50th
A1Fl 75th
81 25th
AIR 50th
AIR 75th
October
-0.4
3.4
10.4
-0.4
3.4
10.4
November
0.3
5.2
8.9
0.3
5.2
8.9
December
1.4
6.4
10.3
1.4
6.4
10.3
January
-0.8
2.1
7.9
-0.8
2.1
7.9
February
0.0
5.2
10.4
0.0
5.2
10.4
March
2.4
7.8
9.9
2.4
7.8
9.9
April
3.5
7.7
11.8
3.5
7.7
11.8
May
-1.4
1.8
3.4
-1.4
1.8
3.4
June
-6.3
-5.8
-0.1
-6.3
-5.8
-0.1
July
-8.6
-9.4
-0.7
-8.6
-9.4
-0.7
August
-13.0
-10.5
0.9
-13.0
-10.5
0.9
September
-9.6
-8.2
-2.5
-9.6
-8.2
-2.5
Annual
-1.2
-0.6
2.2
-1.2
-0.6
2.2
FIRMYIELDCLIMATECHANGETM _FINAL -V6 /[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR]
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
CLIMATE CHANGE ADJUSTMENTS TO FIRM YIELD AND DEMAND FOR BOZEMAN, MT
Climate Change Adjustments to Firm Yield
Because the baseline for the SimCLIM climate change calculations is 1990, a 30 -year period from 1967 to 1997
was selected for analysis of change in stream flow due to climate change. Of this 30 -year period, low flow water
years of 1972, 1986, 1987, 1988, and 1994 were selected for scaling firm yield. Based on Thornthwaite model
results for 1967 to 1997, the three water years with lowest total annual flow were 1972, 1987, and 1988. The
three water years with lowest peak monthly flow were 1986, 1987, and 1994. The combination of these two data
sets results in the selected set for firm yield scaling. Figures 8a through 8e show baseline and A1Fl — 50% climate
change adjusted model results for the five selected dry years. These figures illustrate the general reduction in
peak stream flows as well as the trend of higher than baseline flows occurring earlier in the year.
Dry Year, Water Year 1972
70
70
Dry Year, Water Year 1986
60 60
50 ?50
3 3
40 -Z 40
a 30 0 30
f � i
w 20 y 20
10 - 10�. -_
0
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
— Baseline —2042 2062
Dry Year, Water Year 1987
70
0 -
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
— Baseline —2042 2062
70
60 60
50 50
o
� 40 Z 40
0 30 0 30
i F
A 20 S 20
f
10 10
0
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
— Baseline —2042 2062
Dry Year, Water Year 1994
70
60
50
3
r 40
n 30
i
20
10
u
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Ju Aug Sep Oct
-- Baseline —2042 2062
Dry Year, Water Year 1988
0
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
— Baseline —2042 2062
Figures 8a -e. Thornthwaite modeled stream flow for the baseline, and with climate adjusted to 2042 and 2062 using the
SimCLIM A1FI 50th percentile results. Analysis completed for five dry years nearest the 1990 climate baseline: 1972, 1986,
1987, 1988, and 1994.
Monthly stream flow was averaged for each of the dry years to create a year -long hydrograph from which to
evaluate change in firm yield. This synthetic dry -year hydrograph was created for the baseline condition
(representing a dry year flow with climate from 1990) and for three model scenarios (B1— 25th percentile, AIR —
50th percentile, and AIR — 75th percentile) representing bounds of uncertainty for each of the study years of 2042
12 FI RMYI ELDCLIMATECHANGETM _FINAL -V6 /[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR]
COPYRIGHT [INSERT DATE SET BY SYSTEM] BY [CH2M HILL ENTITY] • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
CLIMATE CHANGE ADJUSTMENTS TO FIRM YIELD AND DEMAND FOR BOZEMAN, MT
and 2062. Figure 9 shows the baseline synthetic dry -year hydrograph, the A1F1 501h percentile dry year
hydrograph for both 2042 and 2062, and the range of streamflows in 2062 bounded by the 13125 th percentile and
AM 75th percentile climate scenarios.
60
50
u 40
3
0
LL
L 30
c
0
2
C_
of ii 20
2
10
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
2062 - AIFI 75% to 13125% — Baseline - - 2042 - A1F1 50% — • 2062 - A1F1 50%
Figure 9. Modeled dry year hydrographs for various climate change scenarios, using projected flow data from modeled dry
years: 1972, 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1994.
Firm Yield Results
The ratio of monthly streamflow between 1990 and 2042, and 1990 and 2062 using the A1FI 50th percentile
scenario, as shown in Figure 11, was used as the basis for scaling the existing firm yield to the 2042 firm yield and
2062 firm yield. Linear interpolation was used between the 1990 baseline and 2042 to determine an incremental
increase up to the 2042 percent change. Linear interpolation was also used to increase from the 2042 percent
change up to the 2062 percent change. Table 7 shows the results of the linear interpolation, divided into three
periods: SimCLIM Baseline (1990) to 2012, 2012 to 2042, and 2042 to 2062. The value in each column represents
the projected percent change for that period.
The values shown in Table 7 were applied to Bozeman Creek and Middle Creek, the two river sources considered
in the Bozeman Integrated Water Resources Plan to create climate- adjusted firm yields for 2012, the beginning of
the planning period for the Bozeman Integrated Water Resources Plan, as well as the 30 -year and 50 -year
planning horizon. The resulting adjusted values are shown in Table 8.. Analysis of the overall climate- adjusted
water supply portfolio indicates that the supply is limited by water rights or Hyalite Reservoir operations rather
than hydrology for all months except March - June. Therefore the total available volume of water during these
months does not reflect the projected hydrologic supply.
FIRMYIELDCLIMATECHANGETM _FINAL -V6 /[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR] 13
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
CLIMATE CHANGE ADJUSTMENTS TO FIRM YIELD AND DEMAND FOR BOZEMAN, MT
Table 7
Firm Yield Adjustment Factors
FIRMYIELDCLIMATECHANGETM _FINAL -V6 /[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR]
COPYRIGHT [INSERT DATE SET BY SYSTEM] BY [CH2M HILL ENTITY] • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
Percent Change
Month
SimCLIM
Baseline (1990)
to 2012
2012 to 2042
2042 to 2062
January
-5%
-8%
-12%
February
-5%
-8%
-12%
March
goo
11%
29%
April
11%
15%
5%
May
-4%
-5%
-7%
June
-5%
-6%
-79'0
July
-5%
-7%
-9%
August
-6%
-7%
-9%
September
-7%
-9%
-11%
October
-4%
-6%
-12%
November
-6%
-8%
-12%
December
-6%
-8%
-12%
FIRMYIELDCLIMATECHANGETM _FINAL -V6 /[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR]
COPYRIGHT [INSERT DATE SET BY SYSTEM] BY [CH2M HILL ENTITY] • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
CLIMATE CHANGE ADJUSTMENTS TO FIRM YIELD AND DEMAND FOR BOZEMAN, MT
Table 8
Climate Adjusted Firm Yield
Climate Change Adjustments to Demand
The Thornthwaite hydrologic model calculates potential evapotranspiration (PET) as an intermediary step in
calculating runoff and provides monthly values for each timestep of the model period. PET results from the
calibrated Thornthwaite model were used to estimate climate change effects on baseline demand rates. Climate
change effects were limited to effects on irrigation demand. Other behavioral changes in response to increased
temperature and decreased precipitation (such as increased use of air conditioners or more frequent filling of
private pools) were not considered.
The Thornthwaite model results indicate an increase in PET for every month of the year. However, urban irrigation
demands are only expected to increase during the active growing season after freezes have stopped occurring,
and are not expected to exactly mimic water demands in the natural environment. The Montana State University
(MSU) agricultural extension service provides a climatological data summary which states that the average
growing season for the City of Bozeman is 120 days, based on the average number of frost -free days per year for
the period 1991 -2000. According to frost freeze data provided by the extension service, spring freezes end in late
May and fall freezes begin in mid - September.
Monthly baseline demand rates were provided by AE2S based on analysis of historical records provided by the
City of Bozeman. Increases in temperature and decreases in precipitation in the spring and fall months as
projected in the GCM simulations can reasonably be expected to extend the growing season into April and
October. The percent change in PET between 1990 and 2042 was used to adjust the baseline demand for each
FIRMYIELDCLIMATECHANGETM _FINAL -V6 /[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR] 15
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
Un- Adjusted
Hydrologic Firm
Yield (AC -FT)
Climate Adjusted Flow at
Beginning of Planning Period
(2012) (AC -FT)
30 -Year Planning Horizon
(2042) Flow (AC -FT)
50 -Year Planning Horizon
(2062) Flow (AC -FT)
Basin
S
M
s
M
S
M
S
M
Jan
307
20
19
18
17
16
13
12
Feb
278
20
20
19
17
16
13
12
Mar
307
20
22
24
26
29
36
45
Apr
297
10
11
13
14
16
17
18
May
384
7
7
6
6
6
5
5
Jun
335
11
10
10
9
8
8
7
Jul
307
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
Aug
307
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
Sep
297
11
10
9
9
8
7
6
Oct
307
20
20
19
17
16
14
13
Nov
297
20
19
18
17
16
13
12
Dec
307
20
19
18
17
16
13
12
Total Annual
Volume (MG)
3733
165
161
158
1 153
149
144
142
S = Sourdough; M = Middle
Climate Change Adjustments to Demand
The Thornthwaite hydrologic model calculates potential evapotranspiration (PET) as an intermediary step in
calculating runoff and provides monthly values for each timestep of the model period. PET results from the
calibrated Thornthwaite model were used to estimate climate change effects on baseline demand rates. Climate
change effects were limited to effects on irrigation demand. Other behavioral changes in response to increased
temperature and decreased precipitation (such as increased use of air conditioners or more frequent filling of
private pools) were not considered.
The Thornthwaite model results indicate an increase in PET for every month of the year. However, urban irrigation
demands are only expected to increase during the active growing season after freezes have stopped occurring,
and are not expected to exactly mimic water demands in the natural environment. The Montana State University
(MSU) agricultural extension service provides a climatological data summary which states that the average
growing season for the City of Bozeman is 120 days, based on the average number of frost -free days per year for
the period 1991 -2000. According to frost freeze data provided by the extension service, spring freezes end in late
May and fall freezes begin in mid - September.
Monthly baseline demand rates were provided by AE2S based on analysis of historical records provided by the
City of Bozeman. Increases in temperature and decreases in precipitation in the spring and fall months as
projected in the GCM simulations can reasonably be expected to extend the growing season into April and
October. The percent change in PET between 1990 and 2042 was used to adjust the baseline demand for each
FIRMYIELDCLIMATECHANGETM _FINAL -V6 /[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR] 15
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
CLIMATE CHANGE ADJUSTMENTS TO FIRM YIELD AND DEMAND FOR BOZEMAN. MT
month. Linear interpolation was used between the 1990 baseline and 2042 to determine an incremental annual
increase up to the 2042 percent change. Linear interpolation was also used to determine an incremental annual
increase from 2042 to 2062.
Half of the projected 2042 percent change was applied to baseline demand rates to estimate increased demand in
April and October in 2042; the total projected 2042 percent change was used to increase May- September
demands. The total projected 2062 percent change was used for all months (April — October) to estimate
increased demands in 2062.
Baseline demand rates, adjustment factors through 2042 and 2062, and the resulting increased demand rates for
each month of the extended growing season in 2042 and 2062 are summarized in Table 9.
TABLE 9.
Climate Adjusted Demand based on PET
Month
Baseline
Demand Rate
(gpcd)
Demand
Increase
through 2042
Demand
Increase 2042-
2062
Adjusted
Demand Rate
2042 (gpcd)
Adjusted
Demand Rate
2062 (gpcd)
April
109
2%
11%
112
124
May
166
5%
8%
174
188
June
204
7%
12%
218
244
July
308
9%
14%
335
382
August
298
9%
16%
326
378
September
222
8%
13%
240
271
October
129
3%
16%
133
154
Assumptions, Limitations and Recommendations
The following assumptions and limitations should be considered when using the data presented in this
memorandum. The analysis summarized in this memorandum is high level and based on simplified methods.
Recommendations for more robust analysis are included below.
• Climate Change
o A medium climate response was assumed for all climate change analysis
o Other than A1F1 and 61, only the median set of monthly results from an ensemble of 21 -GCMs
was considered. For A1FI and 61, the 75th percentile and 25th percentile (respectively) of the 21-
GCM ensemble were also considered. Using this limited set of GCM simulations tends to exclude
outliers. Use of the median emphasizes the central tendency of the 21 -GCM ensemble.
Additional consideration of a fuller range of possible futures is recommended. This would include
the use of data in the hydrologic model of more than the three scenarios included here (A1F1 75th
percentile, A1F1 50th percentile, and 13125 th percentile)
o The change in temperature and precipitation considered is that for the City of Bozeman. Actual
changes may vary spatially across the Sourdough Creek basin.
o Future analysis should include a representation of changes to temperature and precipitation
spatially distributed across the entire Sourdough Creek basin. Downscaled GCM results in
SimCLIM are available at a 1 -km grid cell resolution. Use of spatially distributed climate will
require a spatially distributed hydrologic model.
o Linear interpolation was used to develop an estimate of incremental annual change between the
SimCLIM baseline and each of the planning horizons. In the absence of a recent -year complete set
16 FIRMYIELDCLI MATECHANGETM -FINAL -V6 /[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR]
COPYRIGHT [INSERT DATE SET BY SYSTEM] BY [CH2M HILL ENTITY] • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
CLIMATE CHANGE ADJUSTMENTS TO FIRM YIELD AND DEMAND FOR BOZEMAN, MT
of stream gage data, temperature and precipitation data, the correlation between the three
cannot be verified.
o Verification of the climate change predictions could be achieved in the future with a thorough
monitoring program for each of the four sources of water considered.
• Thornthwaite Model
o The Thornthwaite Model is a very simple hydrologic model, and does not account for many of the
complex hydrologic processes- especially those present in snowmelt- dominated watersheds.
Additional analysis should consider using a more robust hydrologic model that better accounts for
the complex physical processes that affect snowmelt and runoff in the Sourdough Creek basin.
Such a model should account for changes in infiltration rates due to the freeze and thaw of soils,
effects of soil type on infiltration, effect of vegetation type on evapotranspiration, spatially
distributed differences in precipitation, temperature and snowmelt, the effect of hill aspect on
snow melt, and other more complex processes.
o Calibration of the Thornthwaite Model is limited to the 10 -year calibration period, and is
imperfect. As noted above, relationships between snow, snowmelt, and streamflow are complex,
and may be sensitive to the rough model calibration parameters. Future analysis should consider
calibration to a longer period of time, and focus on more than just dry year hydrology.
o Because the climate change analysis focuses on the change in hydrology affecting firm yield, and
not the gross magnitude of flows in Sourdough Creek, we believe the use of a simple hydrologic
model is appropriate for high level discussion of effects of climate change. Model bias that
creates consistently high or low flows is present in both the base and climate change scenarios,
and should not affect the difference between scenarios.
• Firm Yield
o The specific method used to develop the original Firm Yield is unknown. It is assumed that
monthly values were developed using dry year hydrology for Sourdough Creek and summer
reductions in Middle Creek; the specific "dry" years are not known.
o The hydrology of each of the four basins may not be representative of Sourdough Creek dry years
(1972, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1994).
o That the firm yield is adjusted by the same ratio as that between the average dry year flows and
the average dry year flows projected using climate adjusted precipitation and temperature is a
gross assumption.
o Firm yield for Lyman Creek and Hyalite Reservoir would require a more thorough hydrologic
dataset extending multiple years. At the present time, only operational usage is available, which
has never been limited due to hydrologic conditions of both sources. To assess true firm yield
conditions, hydrologic flow monitoring is recommended.
o Future analysis should confirm the methods used to develop the original firm yield, and consider
using the same and /or an improved method using adjusted climate inputs.
FIRMYIELDCLIMATECHANGETM _FINAL -V6 /[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR] 17
COPYRIGHT 2013 BY CH2M HILL, INC. • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
CLIMATE CHANGE ADJUSTMENTS TO FIRM YIELD AND DEMAND FOR BOZEMAN, MT
References
CH2M HILL. 2011. Best Management Practices for Incorporating Climate Change Information in Water Resources
Planning. July 2011.
Horizon Systems. 2006. National Hydrography Dataset Plus. Prestaged Region 10UV01_01. http://www.horizon -
systems.com /nhdplus /. Accessed May 4, 2012.
McCabe, G.J., and Markstrom, S.L., 2007, A monthly water - balance model driven by a graphical user interface:
U.S. Geological Survey Open -File report 2007 -1088, 6 p.
http: // wwwbrr. cr. usgs. gov / projects /SW_MoWS /software /thorn_s /thorn.shtmi
Montana State University Extension Service. 2006. Climatological Data Annual and Growing Season Precipitation
and Frost Free Days, Montana, USA.
http : / /www.mtmaster ,gardener.org / documents/ Climatolopical%20 ° /*20Data.pdf. Accessed June 12, 2012.
United States Geologic Survey. 2012a. National Elevation Dataset 1 aresecond. http: / /ned.usgs.gov /. Accessed
May 4, 2012.
United States Geologic Survey. 2012b. National Hydrography Dataset Medium Resolution. Prestaged Subregion
1002. http: / /nhd.usgs.gov /. Accessed May 4, 2012.
18 FIRMYIELDCLI MATECHANGETM _FINAL -V6 /[INSERT DOCUMENT LOCATOR]
COPYRIGHT [INSERT DATE SET BY SYSTEM] BY [CH2M HILL ENTITY] • COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
APPENDIX B
City of Bozeman 2012 Water
Conservation Plan
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
To: Brian Heaston, PE, City of Bozeman
From: Judel Buls, PE AE2S, Inc.
Mark Anderson, PE, CH2M HILL
Re: City of Bozeman 2012 Water Conservation Plan
Date: July 18, 2013
BACKGROUND
J", f7E2S CH2MHILL.
The City of Bozeman secured Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. (AE2S) to complete an
Integrated Water Resources Plan (IWRP), Task 4 of which consists of an update to the City of Bozeman Water
Conservation Plan, completed in 2002. The purpose of the IWRP is to explore, evaluate, and prioritize the range
of alternatives available to address anticipated water supply challenges for the City of Bozeman. The IWRP will
focus on four categories of water demand and supply projects, including water conservation, water rights
management, water reuse, and new water supply development.
The scope of the 2012 Water Conservation Plan includes:
• Identification of water conservation measures (including those in the 2002 Water Conservation Plan and
others that may be appropriate for consideration as well) that could have an impact on the City of
Bozeman water usage patterns. Areas that will be explored include:
• Public Education Programs
• System Efficiency (Unaccounted for Water Reduction /Leak Reduction Programs)
• Residential Water Conservation Measures
• Commercial Water Conservation Measures
• Large User /Industrial Water Conservation Measures
• Government /City Water Conservation Measures
• Conducting a screening level evaluation of water conservation measures with a Commission appointed
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) for the City of Bozeman to pursue in the future.
• Use of a water demand and supply model (developed as an outcome of other Task efforts associated with
the IWRP) to determine viable ranges of achievable water conservation reductions over time. These
achievable levels will be associated with monthly water usages.
• Development of a matrix of water conservation measure impacts based on 5 gpcd increments of
reduction and the impact this would have on supply management, revenue generation, and an
anticipated cost of accomplishing these reductions in $ /acre -feet. Due to a modification of the original
scope that involves the use of a computer model to calculate measure impacts and cost, this information
is presented as an estimate of potential reductions that could be achieved given the level of water
conservation targeted for implementation.
• Prioritization of water conservation measures with a City commission appointed Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) that are most likely to accomplish water demand reductions for the City.
City of Bozeman, MT. IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page 1
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM P,.REZS CH2MHILL®
• Proposal of a series of water conservation measure pilot studies that can be used to measure achievable
water conservation in the Bozeman Community over time.
• Proposal of a threshold where water conservation would cross into drought contingency planning
(voluntary measures versus mandatory restrictions, respectively).
• A table of possible drought contingency levels will be proposed, including a 3- tiered, 4- tiered, and
5- tiered drought contingency plan.
• A review of drought contingency plans from other communities similar in size to the City of
Bozeman will be completed.
• A summary of information regarding trigger conditions, enforceability, and structure of the plans
will be provided.
This technical memorandum will summarize the outcomes of the Water Conservation Plan, including
recommendations for implementing the plan, updating the plan, considering drought contingency planning, and
incorporating water conservation as a long -term system management strategy for the City of Bozeman.
2002 Water Conservation Plan
The City of Bozeman completed its first Water Conservation Plan in 2002 with Aquacraft, Inc. Water Engineering
and Management, Boulder, Colorado. The original plan included an overview of the existing Bozeman water
system, a review of water demands (based on year 2000), and development of a number of different possible
conservation approaches, with a recommendation of Scenario B, involving:
• Reduction of Single Family Home Water Use from an estimated 70 gpcd to 40 gpcd and Multi - Family
Home Water Use from 45 gpcd to 40 gpcd through the implementation of indoor technology installation
(faucets, toilets, showers, and washing machines).
• Upgrading of 5 percent of existing homes per year to new technologies.
• 25 percent reduction in bathroom uses in commercial and public accounts, with all new customers and 5
percent of existing customers complying per year with requirements, including waterless urinals, dual
flush toilets, and metered faucets being considered.
The success of the proposed Scenario B was based on the following assumptions:
• No change in baseline for Montana State University beyond compliance with Energy Policy Act
requirements and basic new plumbing fixture installation.
• An assumption of a planning population of 46,600 people in 2020.
The results of the proposed plan were:
• Savings of 948 acre -ft, 11.9 percent of the baseline water demands (30- years).
• A conservation scenario that considered both indoor and outdoor conservation measures and
incorporated more aggressive conservation at Montana State University (MSU) was proposed, which
increased savings up to 1,424 acre -ft after full implementation (30- years), or 16 percent reduction in
demands.
• A cost - benefit analysis was completed that considered only the cost of implementing building codes and
policy, including staff time to administer the program. No rebate incentives were included in the analysis.
All but the residential only indoor and outdoor conservation program showed a cost benefit (more money
was saved by the City in terms of not operating treatment facilities than would be required to implement
a conservation program based on the previously noted assumptions).
City of Bozeman, MT. IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page 2
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM t�,AE2S CH2MHILL®
• It was recommended that the City initiate a residential only indoor conservation program as the lowest
cost program for the highest value of return.
• The plan suggested that water supply challenges were not an issue in the City of Bozeman and the
incentive to complete a water conservation program were purely economical.
Water Conservation in the Citv of Bozeman since the 2002 Water Conservation Plan
Since the completion of the plan, the following water conservation practices and policy changes have been
implemented in the City of Bozeman, none of which were directly related to the recommendations of the 2002
Water Conservation Plan, but have likely impacted water use in the City of Bozeman (the degree of which has not
been directly measured):
1) The City of Bozeman experienced considerable growth, some of which came through annexation and
much of which was associated with the construction of new development. That new development was
required to meet Uniform Building Code standards, which, over time, have incorporated more water
efficient requirements for indoor water use.
2) The planning department implemented an outdoor landscaping policy requiring that developers meet a
minimum number of points for their landscaping plan before approval of the development by the City.
Higher points are awarded for drought tolerant and water efficient plantings, making it easier for
developers to achieve approval.
3) In 2008, the City of Bozeman initiated a toilet rebate program. The rebate program presently provides
$125 for pre -1996 toilets and $50 for post- 1996 toilet replacements with a maximum of two rebates per
household. As of December 2012, 1,455 toilets have been replaced by the program, with 91% being for
pre -1996 toilets. The program requires toilets with a rating of 1.28 gallons per flush (gpf) or better be
installed. The total replacement above, equates to approximately 981 households. Although the 2002
Water Conservation Plan recommended indoor conservation, the mechanism for accomplishing this was
through mandatory policy changes as opposed to incentivized rebate programs. This water conservation
plan will provide information on the advantages and disadvantages of each. A table providing details of
the current program's estimated impact on water use to date is provided at the end of this section.
4) In 2008, the City of Bozeman implemented an inclining rate structure for its water utility. The modified
rate structure looks as follows:
a. The City's 2012 base rate for water is $19.42, which includes up to 200 CF.
b. From 200 to 700 CF, the rate is $2.38 per HCF.
c. From 800 to 1,500 CF, the rate is $2.56 HCF.
d. Over 1,500 CF, the rate is $3.02 per HCF.
5) The City of Bozeman has had a "cash -in -lieu" program since 1984 that requires a developer to relinquish
water rights equivalent to the amount necessary to serve a developed area of land via the City of
Bozeman water supply. If water rights cannot be supplied (or the developer does not want to relinquish
them), a payment in a pre- determined amount can be paid to the City so that the City may purchase the
water rights, as appropriate. In 2008, the "cash -in -lieu" program was modified to significantly increase
the cost per acre -ft to $6,000. While this program does not directly result in a decrease in water demand,
it is anticipated that it will have implications and could be the driver behind several water conservation
approaches and efforts in the future.
6) Montana State has been actively reducing water demands, primarily related to its irrigation needs, but
also associated with technology upgrades on heating and cooling systems, residence halls and food
courts, and installation of efficient water fixtures with new and remodeled construction.
City of Bozeman, MT. IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page 3
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Table 1: Existing Toilet Rebate Program Estimated Reductions in Water Use
FlE�S CH2MHILL ,,
ASSUMPTIONS AND INPUTS
2.11 Ppl Per Household (2010 Census)
1455 # Toilets Replaced (December 2012 Program Review)
1330 # Rebate Toilets Pre 1996
125 # Rebate Toilets Post 1996
981 Households Participating In Rebate Program
$ 2.38 $ /Hcf (2012 Water Rate — Residential)
748 Gal /HCF
31 Days in Month
$ 160.00
Cost Per HE Unit + Installation
$ 125.00
Rebate Toilets Pre 1996
$ 50.00
Rebate Toilets Post 1996
4
Average Uses Per Capita Per Day
1.28
HE gpf
3.5
Old Gallons
PROGRAM ESTIMATED IMPACTS ON WATER USE
2.06
Gal /Day Savings for Each Flush (Average of All Replaced Toilets)
17,023
Gal /Day Savings for All Toilets
0.439
11.70
Residential gpcd (Spread Across Entire Community) Savings Based on Toilets
Replaced
Gal /Day /Toilet
527.7
Monthly Gallons Saved /Household
0.7
Monthly HCF Saved /Household
$ 1.68
Monthly Savings Per SF Residential Account
$ 20.15
Annual Savings Per SF Residential Account
7.9
Customer Estimated Payback in Years without Rebate
1.7
Customer Estimated Payback in Years with Rebate
6,213,458
Gallons Saved Per Year Based on Toilets Replaced To Date
19.07
Acre Feet Saved Based On Toilets Replaced
$ 172,500
$ 9,046
Cost of Rebate Program To Date
Cost Per Acre -Foot
The information in Table 1 is highly dependent on the number of average uses per capita per day of the installed
toilet. For planning purposes, this value was selected as 4 average uses per capita per day due to the following
reasons:
1) The toilets were only replaced in single family residential homes and as a result are only used when those
residents are home. This community comprises a higher percentage of working residents with children in
school, which shifts a portion of the resident's water use out of the home for long hours in a day.
2) The number of toilets replaced would be commensurate with a maximum rebate value of $250.
City of Bozeman, MT. IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page 4
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ,�',.RE2S CH2MHILL®
3) Average values ranged from 4 to 13 flushes per day per person in various study efforts. The table was
calculated at a range of possible conditions within this range. However, without verification, City Staff felt
most comfortable assuming a lower savings. Most estimates ranged from 4 to 7 flushes per day per
person in a literature search. Some variability in projecting the success of the program forward was built
into development of planning targets later in this report to acknowledge the possibility of doing better.
However, 4 flushes per day per person seemed the most justifiable and conservative value given that no
data has been collected to suggest otherwise.
City of Bozeman Water Use 2000 to 2010
Task 6 of the IWRP encompasses a comprehensive characterization of water use across the City of Bozeman for
the period of 2000 to 2010. A more detailed discussion of the outcome of this effort is provided as an appendix to
the deliverable document for the IWRP. Pertinent information to water conservation planning is summarized
herein, including:
• Water demand baseline planning criteria
• Water demand baseline planning criteria broken down by month, by seasonal requirements, and by
indoor and outdoor use:
• System -wide Water Use
• System -wide Water Use without MSU
• By Service Sector
• Water demand baseline planning criteria broken down by the following service sectors:
• Residential (Single Family and Multi Family are combined for this evaluation) Indoor
• Residential (Single Family and Multi Family are combined for this evaluation) Outdoor
• Commercial Indoor
o Commercial Outdoor
• Largest 8 Commercial (Note that the accounts change on an annual basis, but this general reflects
the largest hotels and Bozeman Deaconess Hospital)
• Montana State University (MSU)
• Industrial
• Government
• Unaccounted for Water
• Water Treatment Plant Efficiency Factor
Baseline Plannin¢ Criteria
System -wide Water Use
The IWRP process involved a statistical analysis of the water use from 2000 to 2010 to determine whether there
were trends in water use that are occurring. The analysis involved fitting the data to a bell curve, identifying
average monthly water use information, and then determining a standard deviation at various "service levels ". A
service level can best be explained as a measure of the variability in the data set that will capture a prescribed
percentage of possible water demands that could be experienced. For datasets where there is more variability, a
larger standard deviation results and a more conservative planning value is selected.
Service levels ranging from one standard deviation to 3 standard deviations (68% to 99.8 %) were considered. The
period of 2000 to 2010 demonstrated a steady decline in indoor water use, followed by a leveling off from 2005 to
2010. As a result, data from 2005 to 2010 was used as the basis for water supply planning associated with indoor
water uses. Outdoor water use, however, did not demonstrate any discernible trends during the study period. As
a result, the entire dataset was used for outdoor months and standard deviations were greater.
City of Bozeman, MT. IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page 5
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM RE-5 CH2111VIHILL,
The result of the baseline planning effort was the selection of a 95 percent service level for planning purposes.
Per capita average annual use rates varied between 165 and 180 gpcd in the planning analysis, depending on
what period was considered of the 50 -year planning horizon. Monthly values varied between 106 and308 gpcd
due to seasonal fluctuations in water use. The City has two separate water supply sources with different factors of
efficiency since one system has treatment and the other does not. A factor of 95 percent, which is consistent
with the design criteria for the new membrane treatment facility on the Sourdough /Middle Creek Supply was
used for the entire water supply. A water loss factor associated with the raw water delivery system for the Lyman
Creek system has never been calculated. The 95 percent efficiency factor should more than account for any water
losses in the raw water pipeline, storage tank, and transmission pipeline of disinfected water supply from this
source.
For conservation planning purposes, the planning demand was also broken down to consider winter versus
summer water use and also indoor versus outdoor water use. Figure 1 provides a pie chart of the breakdown in
total gallons per year and overall percentage of winter versus summer water use (winter months include October
to April). Table 2 provides an overall breakdown of indoor and outdoor water use by month.
For conservation planning purposes, the above information was then broken down by service sector. Special
consideration was given to MSU as the University has worked diligently over the study period to reduce water
demands for both indoor and outdoor uses, with particular regard to the development of a dedicated landscape
irrigation system and updates to institutional heating and cooling systems.
Figure 1: Overall Breakdown of Annual Water Use based on Indoor and Outdoor Water Use
Outdoor
727 MG,
31%
Indoor
1612 MG,
69%
City of Bozeman, MT. IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page 6
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ,t*aRE2S CHZMHILL®
Table 2: Overall Breakdown of Indoor and Outdoor Water Use by Month
MONTH
Indoor Water
Indoor Water Use
Outdoor Water Use
Outdoor Water
•. cd)*
(MG)
Use (gpcd
January
128
106
February
121
112
March
131
109
April
126
109
May
139
116
60
50
June
136
117
101
87
July
142
118
229
190
August
146
122
212
176
September
134
115
125
107
October
155
129
November
128
110
December
127
106
TOTAL
1612
727
AVERAGE
114
122
*Note: The indoor and outdoor water use (gpcd) values are calculated by dividing the total volume of water
delivered from the sources to the community by the estimated population for that given time period.
MSU
A historical review of MSU water demands demonstrates a downward trend for both indoor and outdoor water
use over the study period. During this same timeframe, enrollment at the University was relatively consistent at
around 14,000 students a year. The following three figures demonstrate:
• Figure 2: Annual MSU Water Use from 2000 to 2010.
• Figure 3: Monthly Outdoor Water Use from May through September from 2000 to 2010.
• Figure 4: Winter and Summer Water Use Trends (gpcd) from 2000 to 2010.
The information in Figure 3 was normalized to the 2000 population of 27,800 people. The reason for this is that
MSU enrollment has been somewhat steady during the last decade while the population of the City of Bozeman
has grown considerably. The get a true representation of how the gallons per capita per day were impacted by
MSU improvements, normalizing the data to a set population was necessary. Note that when applying true
population data over that time, the per capita demands required for MSU are even less than shown because there
is more people in the City of Bozeman to share essentially the same population of water use for the University.
Growth in the City of Bozeman without growth at the University results in a natural reduction in per capita
demands over time that is significant.
City of Bozeman, MT. 1WRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page 7
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Figure 2: Annual MSU Water Use from 2000 to 2010
240,000,000
230,000,000
220,000,000
210,000,000
200,000,000
190,000,000
180,000,000
170,000,000
160,000,000
150,000,000 —
2000
FIE-5 CH2MHILL®
MSU has seen a 27%
Reduction in Water Usage
from 2000 to 2010
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
—* —Total MSU Gallons per Year
Figure 3: Monthly Outdoor Water Use from May through September from 2000 to 2010
30,000,000
25,000,000
20,000,000
c
M
15,000,000
(D
10,000,000
5,000,000
Every Month Shows a Continuously
Declining Trend in Summer Month over
Study Period
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
May June % July August September
City of Bozeman, MT: IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page 8
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Figure 4: Winter and Summer Water Use Trends (gpcd) from 2000 to 2010
0 30.00
0
28.00
N
26.00
x 24.00
I1
�. 22.00
M
G _
CU c 20.00
CL v
M Q- 18.00
CL
M 16.00
L
a 14.00
0 12.00
l9 10.00 1-
1998
HE-ZS CH2MHILL®
Winter Use has dropped by 18%
Summer Use has dropped by 39%
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Summer Winter
2012
In addition to a review of historical data, correspondence with MSU personnel in August of 2012 indicated the
following:
• MSU is releasing a Strategic Plan (September 2012) Targeting growth to 16,000 Students by 2019 (a 2
percent per year growth in University Enrollment)
• MSU is working with Family Housing to move Outdoor Irrigation Demands at the Family Housing complex
to the nonpotable irrigation system; however, an additional 100 ac -ft of water rights to be incorporated
into the University irrigation pond will likely need to be acquired.
• MSU continues to upgrade heating and cooling systems across the campus.
• MSU is working with an energy efficiency consultant to put updates in place that will have impacts on
water use and has also initiated work on a residence hall and food court water reduction plan. This effort
needs more work, but is evidence of a continued commitment to reducing water use campus wide.
• Facility personnel believe that sustaining a net zero footprint for water provided by the City of Bozeman,
despite growth projections, could be achieved through the 2019 campus planning period. If growth
continues at this rate beyond that, additional water may be required.
• While irrigation water to serve family housing would still be necessary from somewhere in the Gallatin
Basin, it would not necessarily need to be purchased from the City of Bozeman and be treated by the
City's water treatment plant in the future.
• Sustainable university growth at a rate of 2 percent per year through the planning horizon was utilized as
an upper level of growth potential for MSU. Comparative water use at a gpcd consistent with today's
water use by MSU was calculated. The outcome resulted in approximately 500 acre -ft additional water
needs for MSU through the planning horizon.
While MSU may be able to further reduce water demands on campus despite the targeted enrollment goals, an
assumption was made for the City's conservation planning effort that MSU water use could increase by up to 500
acre -ft throughout the planning period.
City of Bozeman, MT. IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page 9
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM H CH2MHILL®
Service Sectors
A historical analysis of the other service sectors also resulted in the following planning assumptions:
1) Unaccounted for water was fairly consistent across a typical year and could not be attributed to any
specific seasonal condition. As a result, it was assumed that Unaccounted for Water is a part of Indoor
Water Use.
2) Industrial water use was an extremely small portion of the City of Bozeman water use and is also
consistent throughout the year. Industrial water use was therefore considered Indoor Water Use.
Table 3 provides a breakdown of water demands on a monthly basis for each service sector, using a planning
value of 173 gpcd. Table 3 does not provide a breakdown of outdoor water use for Government and Top 8
commercial users as they are a very small fraction of the overall water use across the system. Later sections of
the conservation plan consider these fractions in more detail and apply a fractional responsibility to these areas
for water reduction goals. MSU also has an outdoor water use component, but due to reasons noted above, it
was not broken out separately for this analysis. This analysis also considers the fraction of water use related to
water losses at the treatment plant, which will drop proportionally as water use across the City decreases. Table
3 provides the foundation for applying water reduction goals to each service sector for planning purposes of the
IWRP. Figures 5 and 6 provide an annual snapshot of water use by sector for planning purposes.
A summary of the current conditions for the City of Bozeman based on the historical analysis and other
considerations that may impact water use in the future include:
• In 1989, the City of Bozeman Average Annual Demand was 191 gpcd.
• In 1993, the City of Bozeman Average Annual Demand was 211 gpcd, the 20 -year peak annual demand.
• In the year 2000, the City of Bozeman Average Annual Demand was 163 gpcd.
• In the year 2010, the City of Bozeman Average Annual demand was 134 gpcd.
• The 20 -year minimum annual demand happened in 2009, at 127 gpcd.
• A 30 percent reduction in water use has occurred from 1989 to 2010.
City of Bozeman, MT. IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page 10
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
,' ; FIEFS CH2MHILL®
Table 3: Service Sector Breakdown of Monthly Planning Demand for the City of Bozeman
Supply
WTP
Unacc.
Top 8
Based
Month
Efficiency
MSU for
Res. Res. Comm. Comm.
Ind. Comm. Govt.
Indoor Indoor
Demand
Losses
(gpcd) Water
Outdoor Outdoor
(gpcd) (Hotels) (gpcd)
(173 gpcd)
(gpcd)
(gpcd)
(gpcd) (gpcd) (gpcd) (gpcd) (gpcd)
January
112
6
10
21
1
6
3
43
75
22
February
118
6
10
23
1
7
2
45
25%
23
March
114
6
10
22
1
7
3
43
23
April
114
6
10
23
1
7
2
43
23
May
174
9
13
23
1
9
6
45
31
24
June
214
11
15
25
1
11
7
47
53
25
July
324
16
20
24
1
17
13
47
116
25
August
314
16
20
26
1
16
11
49
108
26
September
234
12
16
23
1
12
9
46
65
24
October
135
7
12
27
1
8
3
51
27
November
116
6
10
22
1
7
3
44
23
December 111 6 10 22 1 6 2 42 22
12
21
46
42
26
Average
173
9
13
23
1
9
5
45
75
24
29
Total
100%
5%
8%
14%
1%
5%
4%
25%
18%
14%
7%
Figure 5: Indoor Planning Demand Breakdown by Service Sector
21% 23.9 GPCD
City of Bozeman, MT: IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page 11
Indoor (113.9 GPCD ALL YEAR)
Residential
21% 23.4 GPCD
Commercial
2% 2.8 GPCD
1% 1.2 GPCD�
Top 8 Commercial
MSU
9% 10.3 GPCD
Industry
Government
6% 6.8 GPCD
Unaccounted for Water
21% 23.9 GPCD
City of Bozeman, MT: IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page 11
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM CH211VIIHILL
Figure 6: Outdoor Planning Demand Breakdown by Service Sector
Outdoor 122 GPCD
5% (May to September)
5% \ Residential
5%
Commercial
24%29.3 Top 8 Commercial
GPCD 61° %74.4
GPCD MSU
Government
• An 18 percent reduction in water use has occurred from 2000 to 2010.
• A 40 percent reduction in water use has occurred from 1993 to 2009 (max. year to min. year).
• Summer variability in water use caused planning values to be significantly higher than the water use that
has occurred in the last five years. This suggests that external conditions (climate, economy, etc.) may be
impacting water use and a harsher climate year or a better economy may result in increases in water use
that the City of Bozeman should be prepared for whether a conservation program is in place or not.
• A conservation plan was completed in 2002 that was largely unimplemented.
• A toilet rebate program was implemented in 2008.
• The existing WTP is highly inefficient, but a new facility is being constructed that will be significantly more
efficient, particularly during high water quality periods throughout the year. Although the system was
designed with a 95 percent efficiency factor, some times of the year may be less efficient while others
times of the year will be more efficient. Highly turbid periods (spring runoff and summer storm events)
will be the most difficult to treat with the new membrane system, resulting in lower plant efficiencies.
• Utility rates have increased significantly in the City of Bozeman since 2000 due to the need for
constructing a new WWTP and also a need for a new WTP. These rate increases may have had some
impact on the reduction of water use over the last 10 and 20 -year periods.
• There has been tremendous development and annexation occurring over the last 10- years. These have
impacted the way that water is used by implementing new technologies and also sharing water associated
with larger users over a larger population base.
• Montana State is making a concerted effort to reduce water use of the City's potable water supply.
• Outdoor water use only accounts for around 31 percent of the total use.
• Unaccounted for water may account for around 11 to 12 percent of the water demand on an annual basis.
However, monthly swings in the data were significant and from a planning perspective, this variability in
the data set resulted in a planning value for unaccounted for water of 14 percent. System information to
target unaccounted for water in the City of Bozeman water distribution system is not available.
• The City of Bozeman is very active in pursuing system leaks and diligently maintains a robust metering
system, which is continuing to improve with the installation of Automatic Meter Reading technology that
reports through a telemetry system every 4- hours. Full implementation of this system will take some
time and may not capture the entire Bozeman water distribution system in the future. However, it will
provide much better monitoring throughout much of the City when complete.
• The City of Bozeman Water Department is preparing to hire a Water Conservation Specialist.
City of Bozeman, MT. IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page 12
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 4-,,AES 0H2MHILL®
Water Supply
The IWRP Report provides a comprehensive discussion of the City of Bozeman Water Supply, including a review of
sources, an update to the City's firm yield, and the application of climate change impacts through the year 2062 (a
50 -year planning horizon). The IWRP concluded:
• Within the 30 -year and 50 -year planning horizons, the City of Bozeman will exceed its water supply at
current baseline planning demands.
• At a baseline planning demand of 173 gpcd (Supply) and 165 gpcd (Treated Water), the climate adjusted
supply can serve up to a population of approximately 57,600 people.
• Climate impacts will reduce firm yield and increase demand over the 50 -year planning period.
• Population projections have been established for planning purposes at two different thresholds as part of
the IWRP Study effort:
0 85,725 people through 2062 using a growth factor of 2 percent per year through 2042, followed
by 1 percent per year through 2062.
0 139,900 people through 2062 using a growth factor of 3 percent per year through 2042, followed
by 2 percent per year through 2062.
The 2005 Water Facility Plan considered a growth rate of 5 percent per year based on the significant development
activity experienced by the City of Bozeman at that time. The recent economic recession and reduction in
development activity suggests that the population projections included in the 2005 Water Facility Plan could
potentially overestimate future community growth for Bozeman, and revised projections were necessary to
complete the IWRP. As an alternative projection methodology, it was assumed that periods of growth could vary
substantially in the future, with periods of high growth followed by periods of relatively low growth. Ultimately,
the actual rate of growth will reflect the compounded average of community development activity when applied
over an extended planning horizon of 30 to 50 years.
As a reasonable alternative, a range of relatively modest growth rates, as defined above, were presented to the
City for consideration. The City approved the range of population projections based on past historical data
indicating that the City of Bozeman has experienced an average population growth rate of approximately 2.07
percent over the 50 -year period of time from 1960 through 2010. The use of growth rates that are more
consistent with what has been experienced over the past 50 years was generally accepted as reasonable scenarios
of growth that the City could experience over an extended period and more accurately reflect a cyclical pattern of
community growth moving forward.
Based on the above information, a range of conditions termed a water balance gap have been identified. By
2042, the City of Bozeman may need to develop anywhere from 2,260 to 6,660 acre -ft. By 2062, the City of
Bozeman may need to develop anywhere from 6,840 to 17,750 acre -ft. Closing this gap could be accomplished
either by developing or purchasing new water supplies or through demand reduction. This information is
summarized in Table 4.
BENCHMARKING EVALUATION
A considerable benchmarking effort was completed by both AE2S and CH21VI HILL of communities across the US.
Water conservation programs and successful achievement of water demand reductions were evaluated with the
goal of determining reasonable planning goals for the City of Bozeman. Identifying demand reduction strategies
most likely to help the City accomplish these goals was also a priority of the survey.
City of Bozeman, MT. IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page 13
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM _� RE2S CHZMHILLe
Table 4: Range of Water Supply Planning Targets for Various Planning Conditions
Climate Adjusted Firm Yield Supply
Climate Adjusted Water Demand (gpcd)
MSU Demand Reservation (acre -ft)
Moderate Population Projection
Climate Adjusted Water Demand (acre -ft)
Water Balance Gap (Supply versus Demand)
Corresponding Demand Reduction
High Population Projection
Climate Adjusted Water Demand (acre -ft)
Water Balance Gap (Supply versus Demand)
Corresponding Demand Reduction
2042
11,240 acre -ft
165 gpcd
500 ac -ft
70,256
13,500 acre -ft
2,260 acre -ft
22 gpcd
94,144
17,900 acre -ft
6,660 acre -ft
63 gpcd
2062
10,950 acre -ft
180 gpcd
500 ac -ft
85,725
17,790 acre -ft
6,840 acre -ft
71 gpcd
139,900
28,700 acre -ft
17,750 acre -ft
113 gpcd
Water providers and communities initiate programs to increase water use efficiency (water conservation) for a
variety of reasons. For example, programs may be a result of regulatory requirements, water supply shortages,
and infrastructure with limited peaking capacity or as part of a community ethic to incorporate sustainable water
resource approaches into their utility management systems. Publically available data were used from water
providers the project team deemed similar to the City of Bozeman based on demographics, location, and data
availability. The project team discovered few "aggressive" conservation programs in Montana and the
surrounding states; therefore, communities of similar size that were not in water - scarce regions were selected.
Some of which are in the early stages and some of which have been actively investing in conservation programs
for decades.
Where information was available, the drivers and goals for water conservation are provided, conservation
measures implemented in the community were listed, and information on water use and gallons per capita per
day (gpcd) is provided. For conservation planning purposes, it is estimated that Bozeman's water use is 173 gpcd
of supply. The American Water Works Association conducted a survey of various utilities across the country. The
range of overall per capita water use in the survey was 97 to 274 gallons per capita per day (gpcd); the national
average per capita water use is 160 gpcd (AWWA), 2001). At the planning level, Bozeman is slightly above the
national average. Actual recent usage is below the national average.
While gpcd is one way to measure water use intensity and efficiency within a system and useful as a measure to
track efficient use of water with a growing population, it is not the only standard. For example, in Georgia's
Water Conservation Plan, water use intensity for commercial and industrial users is evaluated based on water
used per unit of production or activity (e.g., gallons per square foot of carpet or per hotel bed) (Georgia, 2010).
Another way to gauge water use efficiency is to look at average use versus peak use, especially in situations in
which peak use results from discretionary uses such as outdoor watering. Evaluating peak to average water use
ratios is another way to assess water usage. Generally, peak usage represents discretionary outdoor water use
that could present an opportunity for water demand reductions. As with gpcd comparisons, however, other
factors could contribute to a water system's peak use such as large seasonal populations relative to the
permanent population or seasonal variation in manufacturing outputs. Whatever metric is selected to measure
water use efficiency, it tends to be most useful when used to track an individual water system's changing water
consumption over time with consideration given to changes in external forces (e.g., weather or general economic
conditions) as well as changes to the customer base such as gains or losses of high -water using industries (BBC,
2012).
Conservation efforts that were studied as comparable communities to the City of Bozeman for planning purposes
spanned the Arid Western US with highlighted communities including the following list and Table 5:
City of Bozeman, MT. IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page 14
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
• The State of Utah
• St. George, UT
• Park City, UT
• The State of California
0 20 x 20 Conservation Plan
o California Urban Conservation Council
• The State of Colorado
• Colorado Water Conservation Board
• Colorado Springs, CO
• The State of Oregon — Bend
• The State of Montana
• Helena, MT
• Billings, MT
• The State of Texas — San Antonio
Table 5: Water Customer And Utility Profile For Benchmarked Water Providers
AE7S CH2111lVIIIHILLo
City/ Water 2010
Annual Peak to
Residential Customers
Provider Population
Water Use Average
(7,178 af)
(estimated
MG (Acre- Ratio
Percent of gpcd Outdoor
annual growth
feet)
total Use
rate) "
(42,965 af)
customer (% of
Bozeman, MT
37,285(2%)
2339 MG
2.25
(7,178 af)
Boise, ID
205,671 (2.2 %)
14,000 MG
240,000 (total
(42,965 af)
served by
United Water)
Town of Cary,
135,249 (3.2 %)
5,146 MG
1.53
NC
Claremont, CA
34,926 (0.6 %)
Not available
Not
available
Denver, CO
600,008 (3.3 %)
(234,000 af)
Not
(1.3 million—
available
total served)
Longmont, CO3
86,270 (1.7 %)
5,909 MG
Not
(18,134 af)
available
Waukesha, WI 70,718 (0.2 %)
base annual)
87% 77 31%
Not available
65% 58
Not available 143
48% 80.6
54% 104.5
Comments
Residential gpcd includes
residential indoor and
outdoor water use
United Water serves Boise
and surrounding area.
30%
50% Gpcd calculated using aver
cons of 11,100 per residence
& 2.58 people /household
Residential gpcd derived
from 168 total gpcd
1.28 58.3% 40 31%
Wichita, KS 382,368 (0.05 18,158 MG 1.26 85 65 35%
%) (55,725 af)
430,000 (total
served)
City of Bozeman, MT: IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum
gpcd based on rolling
average 2000- 2007; raw
water canal system provides
outdoor water
Residential use includes
single - family and multi-
family
Data derived from Cost of
Service Study; gpcd for
inside city limits customers
only
Page 15
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM '�wE� CH2MHILL�;
Many of the water providers identified have adopted detailed integrated water supply plans or water
conservation plans. For other providers, such plans were not identified. To some degree, the reasons, or drivers,
contributing to the providers' conservation efforts provide a foundation for understanding the level of investment
in the program. For example, a city that is water -short or investing in expensive additional supplies or
infrastructure to meet peak demands has an incentive to invest in water conservation, which can be a lower cost
option to meet demands. Other cities responded to permit requirements or court mandates specifying water use
or water efficiency requirements. Still others have implemented conservation programs for a variety of reasons,
such as part of sustainability plans, environmental awareness programs or because it is the "right thing" to do.
Where possible, the conservation drivers for the benchmarked cities are presented in Table 6.
Table 6: Drivers For Water Conservation In Benchmarked Cities
City/ Water Provider Conservation Goal Planning Year Driver for Conservation Comments
Program
Bozeman, MT
2002
Growing population, need
for additional water supply,
makes good business sense
at certain levels.
Boise, ID
None Identified
Town of Cary, NC
No numeric goal, but
On -going
Reduce operating costs; delay
they are focused on
infrastructure expansion and
reducing peak and
need for new supplies
overall gpcd
Claremont, CA
20% by 2020
State law
Denver, CO
22% from pre-
2006
Growing population; costs of
drought levels by
alternative supplies;
2016 (165 gpcd)
permit /court requirement in
1980's
Longmont, CO
10% by 2025
2008
Part of integrated water
supply portfolio
Waukesha, WI
1% per year
2012
Right thing to do; Future
infrastructure needs; Great
Lakes Permit
Wichita, KS
15%
1993
Part of integrated water
supply portfolio
2002 plan suggests
conservation of 1,400 acre -feet
per year
2012 Conservation Plan outlines
numerous new conservation
measures over next 5 years
Just as the reasons for implementing a water conservation programs vary among utilities and cities, the measures
to increase water use efficiency also vary. Across the country most conservation programs begin with a
foundation of information and education provided through a website, speaker's bureau, newsletters, social media
such as Twitter and similar methods. Financial incentives including rate structures and rebates for fixture,
appliance and landscape replacements or retrofits are often implemented. A third strategy often incorporated
into conservation programs includes ordinances establishing standards for water -using fixtures or activities such
as irrigation systems, water times or frequency, standards for new construction and other policies or regulations.
Table 7 provides an overview of conservation measures in place at the benchmarked communities.
A presentation was provided summarizing relevant information at the Technical Advisory Committee meeting #2,
in August of 2012 for systems and programs listed above. Conclusions drawn from this benchmarking effort
pertaining to conservation planning for the City of Bozeman include:
City of Bozeman, MT. IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page 16
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
RE,S CH2MHILL®
• In general, water demands are going down nationally due to water conservation practices related to
updated plumbing codes, new development, and conservation education and program development.
• In general, the cost of implementing conservation programs is perceived to be less than developing new
water supplies, particularly when water supplies are scarce.
• Water conservation programs have been accused of reducing revenue, with an unintended consequence
of requiring rate increases.
• State legislation and regional water supply development tend to drive Conservation Program
development.
• Program development and management can be more costly than originally intended with fewer impacts
than predicted. Selecting measurable water reduction strategies has become a goal of many conservation
programs that have been completed in recent years.
• Program outcomes are still primarily predictive. Relatively few programs have implemented measurable
programs or effective monitoring approaches.
• A programmatic shift towards measuring outcomes of conservation programs is happening. This is
necessary to know the true impact and cost of these programs as the reported information varies
considerably based on cost inputs, who's paying for what, and the overall imposition using less water has
on the community as a whole.
• It is generally reasonable to plan for around 1 to 2 percent per year water conservation.
• Water conservation could be inevitable whether concerted programs are established or not. As homes
and commercial entities update plumbing fixtures and address high energy uses, water conservation
typically follows. As utility bills increase, consumers become more aware of their uses and find ways to be
more efficient. Balancing these inevitable conditions against conditions that are intentionally impacted
may only serve to achieve water use reduction faster with the same overall future outcome regardless of
program implementation.
• A Conservation program needs to be continually reviewed and updated. The most successful programs
appear to be based on establishment of goals for a 10 -year timeframe, with a 5 -year review of progress
towards goal achievement.
• Pilot study programs, public education, and retaining a Conservation Program Coordinator are critical to
implementing a successful conservation program.
City of Bozeman, MT. IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page 17
_J
J
52
N
`4J
i
0
z
Q
cc
c0
C
W
J
Q
U
z
2
V
W
C
O
mm
2 a,
lu
c N
O m
U W
aJ
L
0
c
v
W y
N w
m
&A r-
2
c
O
3+ u c
M
W a' E
L c
7 m C
C
. m m
io c
O
N u 3
3 aJ �
c E
E c
O
U
a1
12
O
d
C
m
C
Y
E
O L
G1 �'
C
_ O
�00 E
C
v 00
'M c
e ai n=
E
c
0
N m
w E
� o
a
v
0
z
a
0
v
c
O
z
ar
a N
c
m w
c 3
o ai
E e
O
O w
c n
Y
a
c
0
v
O
z
ca C
y
E o E
{Q
pia•
3
u°
..
M
O
u n
� v E
c
m
O
C L
.. d
a E
o
c
v
a
pin E
>
Q
70
U0
V O C j
O O
�.
U
C
(U
>
cu
a
a,
C
O
Z
O
O
C
m
c
QJ
N
00 N
2 0
w U
c
N a)
m V
v Lu
z w
a
O
aJ
0
z
1/1 O
ar
Y `1
V
O O_
-Z al
bn Y
c M U
3 c
m m
ar y c
u m a
3 `o
aci
c E
°
V a, E
T
N -
w
a) `J >
a
Y C vO
J E v
C
U N �
C a� O
cu al T
L m 3
w o! m
L a 3 m °
n0 O 0 m .?
2 H w b0 00
�n
C
y
E o E
on to
O 4J O
U
Z
u°
..
M
v m
O N w
v 3 v
u n
� v E
c
m
3
C L
. aJ
Y
Y v 3 m
v
o
m a C a
U
3 3 0 cL
EE
E -0 n
c
3
m
d0
V O C j
O O
a
F
C T
o s v
N
n-E E a "
nm
Y
u+O
o + L m al
N w
m m u o O
E
E °c° o v
c c v
a
m .2 L
t c o°�' a-m° 3
v .am-° v
m
3 ._ c
o ._ w
C
U N �
C a� O
cu al T
L m 3
w o! m
L a 3 m °
n0 O 0 m .?
2 H w b0 00
�n
C
y
U
Z
u°
..
M
m
v
o
�+
U
E
cu
N
ai
c
3
H
m
m
F
Y
a1 a u
aJ 7 aJ m N C a) O
u v c c a o
c L O O f` 7 C bn h0
C V 3 7? E 00
00 b0 m m w m
O �0+ O O c
aJ a0+ L W C 7 C V
2
O 3 m
d V m 0 7
m ,L_ a 0 or 0= u N a1
Y >i m v7i vOi m a O v?i
a
O
al
C
O
z
v
L
o c
a 0
10 o n
Y H O w
m C C
a 8 O ar L N m
a Y >
ai o E
-0 m 3
N N 0
O
Y
p c au n y
0 E E O
c o> a v v
U
w= n E E o
'u m 7 m
w c E u aai
W m w
7 > al
Lh0 C >i Z• O N
= m 0 a ° E
N .m
40
O c v
a E
m v oa c E
>
O
E w
(u 5L
N N C m
W L
H w C 0u `J
al
L
U O
c U
.v a
u c
w m N
W y al
L W N
m m
r 3
u
0
E
`l
U
V
v E
c 3 m C
c „ o
O C y
-O V U
� a c E
41 m E
N C
am O -2 O
in u 3 o a
C
° E E C
w 0 v
v N N al
a m
Y
M 7 L m
2 O E
N
v
0 m
o c 0
L m aJ
E
CU cu CL
s
c u .E m
0
w u o 3 0
a Y
-c ^ E m .E' 3 E
t-°1 oa 0 -0
O L w O 4= c j
o., N ++ V O m O-
> 7 ar
w u w ai v m o0
Y C O C C
m V m C V 1�+ ILi1
N 4-- .0 .O m 3 a1 m
W o u E° E 3
W
t — c
m ON al
E • °- =3
N ai m
W Y
w -0 Y m
N C e C 3
°c v E E n E v
or-E---:3
a
w 0u m v 2 2 vui m
N u
L e
m v
3 u
N �
aJ W +
u =
0
u
a,
>
W
c0
V4
0!
Of
a°
J
J_
T
2
N
I
U
m
� 1
i
Z
Q
O
2
W
J
a
Z
V
`W
I--
C
O
m
SU
N N
C
O N
u �
v
L
O
C
E E
(v
N m
M,
2
C
O C
l+ U O
OL L mE
W a E
v
m c
C
N N
ja C
N '� .2
3 W N
E e
O
u
ca =
a
O '= 0
O C y
p ii E
Q V
0
O
O
9
C
la
C
v
z
ar
m
3 ;
« a`
(J
Y aJ
alC U
ar m
C
y�
O
C
Y �
+p+ L C
C
o
0
3 " o
Y N
Y
E >
L `1 N vi
N 7 Y d
> a
N
N
C N w w H
u O
C v ICO
Y aJ
alC U
C
C E C C
C m
- N
c 0 u LE C v
C fE
c Fw � w
o O E
o m
c
v
°'
o a,
w � v o '�
v o p
U N 'O [L O'
M v
> N
v to
Y
C) ai
n c Y^
0 c v
v m c m 0
•-
Y M 'M Y' o
E E v
c
m O. d N O Y
x
v v x
fa � U
a�
w K 0 3
2i O c
Z
T N
a
U
C
0 7 Y
C
O
a Y
C `
Y VN1 C Y
Y
m
Ec c
aY' n E 3
3
v
(U O
Y N
N N
L N v
N
O
+N+
Y
Y
C
v E
-1 m
ra
z m
al O
L
O C
O
N L
O yY. +1
�
(6
> -0 Y
O al
N N
7
E f0
Z
3
ai
u
O
>
c
v
3
v a)
3 E
F° v
w
H n
Y
Y N cu
al Y
bu
U
O L
N
al
O
�=
c
tLo
C_
`M
fa
t E
U p
fa
E N
N
m
w
O 'N
•�
Lm
c
t
O`
N n
L M C
OD L M
C
7 Y
_
p
v
S n
Z m
O
v
u N
-0
a) C
a v
Y c m
°;
3 o m aci
C u v
x 'a ,v, c .E
p m ,� o
m
- v
p 4- c E
'O v 3
N v ro
m
U
C
T3 O 'O w m
C N
+N+ U N C
C
7 O C L N
f0
-0
O N
C ` E
N Y
J O C C
C a c o
m
Y U
N N O
m E c 'o
N aJ Q L
E
o m
''
E
Z v
N O N 3
E r
'i-� C
U N C U C u
�a 3 3
Y
C
a) •--•
C h
N ,_ al N �_
"O 7 7 O N
N
aJ al �
b,D .N
v v ar o m
a
o
O
w #c v w v o
E
v o o ar
lz x O Z> a'
VI
u
J w C O U
LL L 3
N
O
v 0
O C
N
T
N o 0
p
L
y
C aJ
N Y C t U
C ry Y
N N
td al x al u T
+N
O N �a
u
v
E -O c
m v v
'a
U,
t v
cu
m u I CL
v t
-
x
o - N m n u u
o` v
m
raa
2°
u° v v v o
on 3 w
o
o
++
v
Y
C
O
L
N
L
C
O
0
C
al
-se
Y
U
C
a)
J
m
JO
H
}a}�
VI
a°
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ,"yAEZS CH2MHILL®
CONSERVATION SCENARIO PLANNING
Upon finalization of the historical data analysis and benchmarking approach, the project team acquired the
Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE) Conservation Tracking Tool (version 2.0) and populated the tool to develop a
hypothetical portfolio of potential conservation measures the City could implement over the next 10 years for
three potential water conservation scenarios, including a Low, Medium, and High. Numerous assumptions were
made to develop the portfolio at this stage of planning, so the tool is able to provide planning level /order of
magnitude costs and water savings estimates.
For each scenario, assumptions were made with respect to participation rates, number of retrofits, etc. The
assumptions led to "inputs" for various measures into the tool. For each scenario, the assumptions and variables
are presented. Also for each scenario, a table is provided to show assumptions or savings factors in the tool for
various measures. For the "behavior based" savings, CH2M HILL developed some savings estimates. Note that
system efficiency (City -wide infrastructure projects that could decrease the rate of water loss) were added to the
results of the AWE Modeling Tool and CH2M HILL effort in a later step. The following tables outline the inputs and
assumptions used to generate the results of the AWE Modeling Tool conservation development effort.
Table 8 provides the inputs to the tool that were used throughout all of the scenarios to estimate savings. It also
summarizes some basic financial assumptions used to project the cost of implementing the various conservation
measures that were evaluated through the 10 -year conservation planning horizon.
Tables 9 through 24 provide the additional assumptions, mathematical translations, and outcomes that were
made under each of the low, medium, and high scenarios. The first table in each set of tables provides a summary
of the assumptions that the project team made regarding the participation in each of the conservation measures
that were considered. The next table includes a translation into the number of accounts that have begun using
the measure. And the final table provides the results of each measure.
It should be noted that the proposed Conservation Program assumes a 10 -year program implementation timeline.
However, the planning horizon for this project extends to 30- or 50- years. The methodology used to project the
impacts of a low, medium, or high conservation plan through the complete planning horizon is discussed in
subsequent sections of this technical document.
City of Bozeman, MT. IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page 20
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Table 8: General Bozeman Assumptions Input into AWE Tracking Tool
J R -5 CH2MHILL,>
Service Area Population 38,786 45,444 55,396 67,528 76,077
Service Area Population in 1990 22,660 2.66% 2.10% 1.73% 1.16%
Peak - Season Start Date ('month /day')
1 -May
Peak - Season End Date ('month /day')
30 -Sep
Nominal Interest Rate
4.00%
Inflation Rate
3.00%
Year in which to Denominate Costs & Benefits
2012
Persons Per Household — SF (2010 Census)
2.3
Persons Per Household — MF (2010 Census)
1.9
Full Bathrooms Per Household — SF
1.70
Half Bathrooms Per Household — SF
0.60
Full Bathrooms Per Household — MF
1.80
Half Bathrooms Per Household — MF
0.20
SF Housing Units Built before 1992
(City of Bozeman Records)
3,880
MF Housing Units Built before 1992
(City of Bozeman Records)
7,198
Reference ET (inches /yr)
Ave. Annual Rainfall (inches /vrl
40.75
19.30
Table 9: Low Scenario — Assumptions (Inputs)
Measure /Activity
Participation/ Market Penetration Assumptions
Assumed replacement of toilets in 10% of single family homes, 1
Residential HE Toilets, SF divided evenly across 10 years. l
Table 10: Estimated Accounts that are Using Measure by Year — Low Scenario
Measure /Activity 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Residential HE Toilets, SF 80 j 90 1 90 90 I 90 I 90 I 90 90 90 90
City of Bozeman, MT. IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page 21
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Table 11: AWE Tool or CH2M HILL Water Savings Estimate — Low Scenario
Measure /Activity Savings Factor
FHE,S CH2MHILL®
Residential HE Toilets, SF
Water saved: 4,072 gallons /year /unit
Assumed a 3% decrease in use based on an increased education /public
Increased Education*
outreach program.
Residential HE Toilets, MF
Includes water savings from activity implementation that is not attributable
Residential Surveys, SF
solely to the program action because it would have occurred anyway due to
Passive Conservation
code requirements or program free - riders.
*Savings for this measure was defined by CH2M HILL based on literature and /or best professional
judgment
Table 12: Medium Scenario — Assumptions (Inputs) — Medium Scenario
Measure /Activity
Participation/ Market Penetration Assumptions
City of Bozeman, MT. IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page 22
Assumed replacement in approximately 70% of homes built
prior to 1992 that had not previously participated in toilet
Residential HE Toilets, SF
retrofit program
Residential HE Toilets, MF
Assumed replacement in 35% of homes built prior to 1992
Residential Surveys, SF
Assumed two per month.
Assumed approximately one per month, as these are more
Residential Surveys, MF
involved.
Assumed these would be given to residents or installed at the
Residential LF Showerhead, SF
time a survey is conducted.
Assumed these would be given to residents or installed at the
Residential LF Showerhead, MF
time a survey is conducted.
Residential HE Washer, SF
Assumed a total replacement in 50% of homes.
Assumed approximately 2 facilities per year, 5 machines per
Residential HE Washer, MF
facility.
Assumed replacement in approximately 2% of households per
year, with a 2 year "ramp up" time period. This was assumed to
be a combination of turf replacement, irrigation system
Residential Turf Replacement
replacement, or similar measures.
Assumed 5 urinals per property, 10 properties per year, with a 1
CII 1/2 Gallon Urinal
year "ramp up" time period.
Assumed 15 toilets per property, 10 properties per year, with a
CII Tank -Type HE Toilet
1 year "ramp up" time period.
CII Laundromat
Assumed a total of 15 washing machines would be replaced.
Assumed replacement in a total of 2 facilities per year
CII Dishwasher
beginning in year 4.
Assumed replacement in a total of 2 facilities per year
CII Spray Rinse Valve
beginning in year 4.
City of Bozeman, MT. IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page 22
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Table 13: Estimated Accounts that are Using Measure by Year — Medium Scenario
i RErS CH2MHILLe
Measure/ Activity 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Residential HE Toilets, SF
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
Residential HE Toilets, MF
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
Residential Surveys, SF
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
Residential Surveys, MF
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Residential LF Showerhead SF
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
Residential LF Showerhead MF
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Residential HE Washer, SF
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
Residential HE Washer, MF
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Residential Turf Replacement
5
50
100
100
100
100
100
100
CII 1/2 Gallon Urinal
30
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
CII Tank -Type HE Toilet
90
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
CII Laundromat
3
3
3
3
3
CII Dishwasher
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
CII Spray Rinse Valve
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Table 14: AWE Tool or CH2M HILL Water Savings Estimate — Medium Scenario
Measure /Activity Savings Factor
Residential HE Toilets, SF
Water saved: 4072 gal /year /unit
Residential HE Toilets, MF
Water saved: 4,613 gal /year /unit.
Residential Surveys, SF
Water saved: 12,373.0 gallons /year /household
Residential Surveys, MF
Water saved: 4,015.0 gallons /year /household
Residential LF Showerhead, SF
Water saved: 2,062.3 gallons /year /unit
Residential LF Showerhead, MF
Water saved: 1,898.0 gallons /year /unit
Residential HE Washer, SF
Water saved: 7,043.3 gallons /year /household
Residential HE Washer, MF
Water saved: 25,310.0 gallons /year /household
Residential Turf Replacement
Water saved: 40,261.2 gallons /year /household
CII 1/2 Gallon Urinal
Water saved: 6,206.0 gallons /year /unit
CII Tank -Type HE Toilet
Water saved: 11,426.1 gallons /year /unit
CII Laundromat
Water saved: 50,000.0 gallons /year /unit
CII Dishwasher
Water saved: 57,757.0 gallons /year /unit
CII Spray Rinse Valve
Water saved: 28,285.0 gallons /year /unit
Public Information*
Assumed a 3% decrease in use based on increased ed. /public outreach.
Pricing Mods/ Water Budgets*
Assumed a 3% decrease in use due to inverted pricing structure.
Watering restrictions
( !_twice /week)*
Assumed a 3% decrease in use based on implementation of a sprinkling
ordinance that limits days a facility may be watered to no more than 2.
Passive Conservation
Includes water savings from activity implementation not attributable
solely to the program action because it would have occurred anyway
due to code requirements or program free - riders.
*Savings for these measures were defined by CH2M HILL based on literature and /or best professional
judgment
City of Bozeman, MT. IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page 23
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Table 15: High Scenario — Assumptions (Inputs)
Measure /Activity
J"4 RES CH2MHILL®
Participation/ Market Penetration Assumptions
City of Bozeman, MT. IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page 24
Assumed a total replacement of 67% (2/3) more than the medium
scenario (would include home built post- 1992), evenly dispersed
Residential HE Toilets, SF
over 10 years.
Assumed replacement in 70% of homes built prior to 1992. 10%
would receive rebates (this activity), 50% would benefit from direct
Residential HE Toilets, MF
installation (below).
Residential Surveys, SF
Assumed approximately 10 per month conducted.
Residential Surveys, MF
Assumed 5 per month conducted.
Assumed these would be distributed or installed alongside HE toilet
Residential LF Showerhead, SF
rebates.
Assumed these would be distributed or installed alongside HE toilet
Residential LF Showerhead, MF
rebates.
Residential HE Washer, SF
Assumed replacement in 50% of homes.
Residential HE Washer, MF
Assumed replacement in 50% of homes.
Residential Turf Replacement
Assumed replacement in approximately 25% of homes.
CII 1/2 Gallon Urinal
Assumed replacement in 50% of commercial entities.
CII Tank -Type HE Toilet
Assumed replacement in 50% of commercial entities.
Based on literature, assumed a 40% water savings over traditional
units and 225 washing machines available to be replaced. Assumed
CII Laundromat
100% replacement.
Based on literature, assumed a 30% water savings over traditional
CII Dishwasher
units, which equated to 130 units.
Based on literature, assumed a 30% water savings over traditional
CII Spray Rinse Valve
units, which equated to 130 units.
Assumed 20% of commercial accounts would be considered large
Large Land. Turf Replacement
landscapes that could be replaced.
Assumed replacement in 70% of homes built prior to 1992. 10%
Residential HE Toilet Direct Install,
would receive rebates (above), 50% would benefit from direct
MF
installation (this activity).
Assumed 22 hotels with an average of 75 rooms each, replacement
Hotel HE Toilet Direct Install
in 3 hotels per month starting in 4th quarter of 2015, ending in 2016.
City of Bozeman, MT. IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page 24
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Table 16: Estimated Accounts that are Using Measure by Year — High Scenario
j 4 REzS CH2MHILL®
Measure /Activity 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Residential HE Toilets, SF
332
332
332
332
332
332
332
332
332
332
Residential HE Toilets,
MF
540
540
Residential Surveys, SF
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Residential Surveys, MF
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Residential LF
Showerhead,SF
592
592
592
592
592
1 592
592
1 592
592
592
Residential LF
Showerhead, MF
385
385
Residential HE Washer,
SF
400
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
500
Residential HE Washer,
MF
300
400
400
450
450
450
450
450
450
Residential Turf
Replacement
100
300
300
300
300
300
300
300
CII 1/2 Gallon Urinal
50
50
50
50
75
75
75
75
CII Tank -Type HE Toilet
50
50
50
50
75
75
75
75
CII Laundromat
50
150
25
CII Dishwasher
30
50
50
CII Spray Rinse Valve
30
50
50
Large Land. Turf
Replacement
30
30
30
30
40
40
Residential HE Toilet
Direct Install, MF
990
990
990
990
Hotel HE Toilet Direct
Install
675
975
City of Bozeman, MT: IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page 25
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Table 17: AWE Tool or CH2M HILL Savings Estimate — High Scenario
Measure /Activity Savings Factor
J", AEzS CH2MHILL®
Residential HE Toilets, SF
Water saved: 9,541.2 gallons /year /unit
Residential HE Toilets, MF
Water saved: 14,363.4 gallons /year /unit
Residential Surveys, SF
Water saved: 12,373.0 gallons /year /household
Residential Surveys, MF
Water saved: 4,015.0 gallons /year /household
Residential LF Showerhead, SF
Water saved: 2,062.3 gallons /year /unit
Residential LF Showerhead, MF
Water saved: 1,898.0 gallons /year /unit
Residential HE Washer, SF
Water saved: 7,043.3 gallons /year /household
Residential HE Washer, MF
Water saved: 25,310.0 gallons /year /household
Residential Turf Replacement
Water saved: 40,261.2 gallons /year /household
CII 1/2 Gallon Urinal
Water saved: 6,206.0 gallons /year /unit
CII Tank -Type HE Toilet
Water saved: 11,426.1 gallons /year /unit
CII Laundromat
Water saved: 50,000.0 gallons /year /unit
CII Dishwasher
Water saved: 57,757.0 gallons /year /unit
CII Spray Rinse Valve
Water saved: 28,285.0 gallons /year /unit
Large Land. Turf Replacement
Water saved: 811,933.2 gallons /year /facility
Residential HE Toilet Direct
Install, MF
Water saved: 14,363.4 gallons /year /unit
Hotel HE Toilet Direct Install
Water saved: 14,363.4 gallons /year /unit
Public Information*
Assumed a 3% decrease in use based on an increased
education /public outreach program.
Pricing Modifications/ Water
Budgets*
Assumed a 3% decrease in use based on an inverted pricing
structure.
Watering restrictions
( !_twice /week)*
Assumed a 3% decrease in use based on implementation of a
sprinkling ordinance that limits days a facility may be watered to
no more than 2.
Passive Conservation
Includes water savings from activity implementation that is not
attributable solely to the program action because it would have
occurred anyway due to code requirements or program free -
riders.
*Savings for these measures were defined by CH2M HILL based on literature and /or best professional
judgment
City of Bozeman, MT: IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page 26
N
N
O
N
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
C1
® O
J N
J_
00
O
N
rI
h
O
cc N N
1i
>> Q)
i7 U
co
O _O
N O
C N
7
C
C r
(D O
U N
a)
O_
O
T
O
co N
7
O
z
a
O
cW
i
J
Q
v
z
U
w
co
d
H
O
N
O
O
-
-
L
r
C C)
O 0)
N
C
N
T
O
LO
O
O
CD
LO L
LO a)
m
r
T
N
co
06 N
r- LO
O)
L
r
CO
LO
a) O
N'
d
N
N
CMD
6%
693-
6%
6%
LO O_
O
N
LO N
C13
O
O
O
O
O
6R
C
co
CD
O
N
00 T
U)
C)
r-
O
O
�
+'
L
CD
m
C6 vi
O
N
L
M
CD
Ln
O
T
N
T
Lo
Cn CO
C
O
r
N
N
CO-
E
T
CM T
N
}
6%
64
6%
CD
6f}
ca
a)
00
CD
LO O
�
c
C?
O
T
LO
O
O
O
O
r
LO
a+
U
00
co
i
00
LO
N f-
04
N
LO
O
f�
p
LO
T
T r-
CO It
O
p-
N
d
N
N
CD
N
LO
O
S
N
c
a)
M
O
O
M
n
1�
COD
C1
L
OO
O
O
00
N
-p
U
O
M
N
Ln
O
C
LO
T
N Cl)
N 't
N
}
6%
6%
6cJ
6F}
�O
>
N
I-
N T
—
U
M
M
O
O
O
O
co
M
N
N
a)
p
O
CO
CD
LO
r M
It
LO
O
m
R
O
It
co 0000
N
d
r
N
N
LO
O_
_ N
0)
}
T
N CO
.n
._
}
69
69
69
H}
x
w
O (n
0
N
LO
co
O
CD
't
co
O) E
C O
Ln
O
LO
m
r�
CD LO
r
O
ti
It
O
O
O
O
O
O
i
a
cz
1 -p
ui
ui
O T
O
0)
M
r
LO
0
L
ca O
T
M
L
N
}
6R
6N9
�
�
Q
Q
H 7
c�
cu
+� co
a)
U
O
N Q)
I�
N
N N
Cp
CND
O
O
w
6F}
Q CO)
M
Cn
I- O
O
Cl
LO
N
O
Ln
00
co
(�
x
O
a) O E Q)
t ' a)
a)
U
N
�
T
ffl
N
6R
N
E9
LO
Eg
Q
Q
co
+ a)
r
r N
Q
EM Q O O
O
cz
O C
Ln lll CL cn
N
N co
p
r
N
i
LU
N
r
O
O
N
N
E
i�
O C
CO)
r-
co
cz
co
}
N
N
Ln
_�
j O
co
00
M LO
�
6F}
bg
6F}
69
N
CD
5 C
N
>-
co
O
N
U
cn
U Q
E
`i
T
N M CD T aC) a) C
Ln
CA
O
In
O
O
LO
�
-=
O
L
+:
U 'E
cD
a) a) C
N
Y
T
N
00 r-
C (D
_O
O
m
T
m
Ln
CD
C
C
0) p -O O
LO
N
L[)
00 CD
O
N
}
CU
E
O U
> -0
CU
co
LO m
U
6F}
V3,
69
6%
E
CV +'
C
V/
a)
O
O
O
O
W
N
"O
:3
()
O N CO U
N •> O O
`
O
m
m
M
_
i
co
O
O
co
m
cz
O N
W
C\j
cli
C
O
(�
O
N
O
C
Ln
�
O
U
a)
}
r
r
c CD
�
N
N
LO
C
V N O
cn
O
O
J
i
o
M
N
N
lU
—
o
+ 0O
O c 0)
a c
O
F–
o m
cn
co
o
H
o
0
CL
vi a�i a) zz
c
O
T
O
cn
U mo
w
a)
w
O a) O p
�c
U
N
w
cn a)
O.
c�
a)
°
w
QQ��
LL
(n
a) LU
C
w
U
a)
H°�o�
� O -0
cD a)
_0
a)
cn a) :3
CD
L
N
C
a) U cn
Q
L
N
Y
O
U
Cn
a)
c co C i
N
yN.
a)
O
o
c.) p i
O
j C
U a)
O
O p N
C
L4
N
_
O
H
+--
m
co
Z
a N
O
t0
d
_
O
H
c
O
bg
CU
Q
N
O
N
N
N O
w
�cn
0) cz
�M�
E
w
�a
N-
Co +.
p
cz cz
O
E
a�
>�
��M cz
C
cv
�U
C
a�ia�i°;
w
ca
o�M
0
oC��
a�i
a i
E
6 i
cu
CCo. cu
C
(n
O
p
C
(ll lb
J L
m
:
� "
a�i
'v)
co i uNi
>1
O �
u)
in
a) E c a)
L11
�
i
ov)OO o
c
(
rCV 3
H
w
CL
LL d
Hr U
N
M
zw0U �
n
N
cu
Oh
a°
N
N
O
N
T
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
CA
T
O
N
J CD
O
N
� O
N N
D
z
a
It
O
2
W
2
J
a
V
z
V
W
p M M W r 0 M M T M t P� M M N f\ Ct O O
4 m M O .- O M 6 O I-� M T N T N 6 6 fZ M
m N M Cb M CD N N N O
r M M M
T
M Ln CD r r N LO T I- M r U) C) qt qt qt 00 O
M q-J- OD O qt r- LC) CD N LO N II, t r O N Ul LO Cj q
i N T M O r 6 Cb CD co CD 4 r N r M Cb 00 M M
N M CD M LC? T T N I,-
Q ,- M Cl) N
T
M T CD T N f- CD q�l- N OM LO LO I- r- M M M Um) CD
M M O ICT LO qt LO "JM N M q-d- q 00 CD co c7 CV 00
L M M OM O r o I- L6 CD Lo M T T O LL) T r T N
T N LO N LO T T C") LO
r M M N
T
f\ O r- CD r M T 00 CD (D M O LO N M I- LO Ln M 1-
LO I- O t MIt t CD 00 C'7 N qt qt CD O T r CSI rl.,
i I-� 4 M O r 0 CD 4 M 4 d• r O N. N N
T N qT N M O O N CD
r M M T
r
Ca O qt CD r It LO O 00 T M� CD CD N M
I- LO LO r
O N O g T M qt 00 LC) qql, M T O LO u') T T N O
L6 N Ch O r b L6 M� C") o0 T T O 00 I� � M N
N N N O
T
Lc) O O CD r LO M N r M W M P T M M M W LL)
L UC N O M N M T Tql: M 00 I, M T M M p M
d N T M O O O� M M N T O O O m C) C) M ui
> r N N W
O CD M CD CD CO d CO O N N 00 LO 1- N t t I-
L O T W M I- N N M M LO qt M M T M M M LO
O T N O O O M N CD r Cp O O O� cj� T
> T N N C)
cv) O N N O I- r- CD LO N Il- CD M O O f- tq9t 00
L LO CD N M M r r M W LCD T N O O 1- M M C 5 C)
N � O N O O O N TM: O O M O 0 0 M�� 0
r N N N
N O 00 q-t N 00 N 00 00 O O O O O O M LO Ln M
L O O CD N C'7 T O f- 0 0 0 0 0 0 f- tqq m �
m L6 I, T O O O r 0 0 0 6 0 6 0 m T T U.) C6
> N N LO
r-
r O dm T N M CD O O O O O O O O M 00 00 r-
y LO LO M T T O O O O O O O O O M M M N
} C CD
N M N A L
O O O O O O O O O C) C) C) N
r N N CND
co
O
Cn
CL)
M
LL LL O (U
U) m 3
7 "O W LL O
N
CD LL W Lti cz fA E 3U
y LL L t i i V Q) vi
m O N O N " C
N L L w O C C 0
� •o •o _ o o cts
H H > > (n (n t _ • . L a) o )
W W W W W W� O O CA 0 .v .O N
22(q(/JJJ22t— p QED S E E" cn
Cn 0
cz co ctf co (� (� (Lf (� >• O N L O N O
OS H � o
C C C C C C C C C C7 1 C co c U
O
0) 0) a) N N N N N a) — — — — — O •C cd
�oco��oCO�oCO�o�vvvvv����
O
ca
C
(D
C)
C/)
O
J
E
O
O
N
O
L
L
c
N
N
C
O
U
N
0
z
00
N
of
O►
a°
N
cz w
o
N
C
O
C LD
T
a) N
C
O
O
CL)
Q T
U) O
CV N
(1]
M
U) T
N
D
z
a
It
O
2
W
2
J
a
V
z
V
W
p M M W r 0 M M T M t P� M M N f\ Ct O O
4 m M O .- O M 6 O I-� M T N T N 6 6 fZ M
m N M Cb M CD N N N O
r M M M
T
M Ln CD r r N LO T I- M r U) C) qt qt qt 00 O
M q-J- OD O qt r- LC) CD N LO N II, t r O N Ul LO Cj q
i N T M O r 6 Cb CD co CD 4 r N r M Cb 00 M M
N M CD M LC? T T N I,-
Q ,- M Cl) N
T
M T CD T N f- CD q�l- N OM LO LO I- r- M M M Um) CD
M M O ICT LO qt LO "JM N M q-d- q 00 CD co c7 CV 00
L M M OM O r o I- L6 CD Lo M T T O LL) T r T N
T N LO N LO T T C") LO
r M M N
T
f\ O r- CD r M T 00 CD (D M O LO N M I- LO Ln M 1-
LO I- O t MIt t CD 00 C'7 N qt qt CD O T r CSI rl.,
i I-� 4 M O r 0 CD 4 M 4 d• r O N. N N
T N qT N M O O N CD
r M M T
r
Ca O qt CD r It LO O 00 T M� CD CD N M
I- LO LO r
O N O g T M qt 00 LC) qql, M T O LO u') T T N O
L6 N Ch O r b L6 M� C") o0 T T O 00 I� � M N
N N N O
T
Lc) O O CD r LO M N r M W M P T M M M W LL)
L UC N O M N M T Tql: M 00 I, M T M M p M
d N T M O O O� M M N T O O O m C) C) M ui
> r N N W
O CD M CD CD CO d CO O N N 00 LO 1- N t t I-
L O T W M I- N N M M LO qt M M T M M M LO
O T N O O O M N CD r Cp O O O� cj� T
> T N N C)
cv) O N N O I- r- CD LO N Il- CD M O O f- tq9t 00
L LO CD N M M r r M W LCD T N O O 1- M M C 5 C)
N � O N O O O N TM: O O M O 0 0 M�� 0
r N N N
N O 00 q-t N 00 N 00 00 O O O O O O M LO Ln M
L O O CD N C'7 T O f- 0 0 0 0 0 0 f- tqq m �
m L6 I, T O O O r 0 0 0 6 0 6 0 m T T U.) C6
> N N LO
r-
r O dm T N M CD O O O O O O O O M 00 00 r-
y LO LO M T T O O O O O O O O O M M M N
} C CD
N M N A L
O O O O O O O O O C) C) C) N
r N N CND
co
O
Cn
CL)
M
LL LL O (U
U) m 3
7 "O W LL O
N
CD LL W Lti cz fA E 3U
y LL L t i i V Q) vi
m O N O N " C
N L L w O C C 0
� •o •o _ o o cts
H H > > (n (n t _ • . L a) o )
W W W W W W� O O CA 0 .v .O N
22(q(/JJJ22t— p QED S E E" cn
Cn 0
cz co ctf co (� (� (Lf (� >• O N L O N O
OS H � o
C C C C C C C C C C7 1 C co c U
O
0) 0) a) N N N N N a) — — — — — O •C cd
�oco��oCO�oCO�o�vvvvv����
O
ca
C
(D
C)
C/)
O
J
E
O
O
N
O
L
L
c
N
N
C
O
U
N
0
z
00
N
of
O►
a°
N
N
O
N
T
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
Cn
T
O
N
J
J_ aD
2 O
N
v O
N
nq
c
� �
O
N
1
LO
O
N
co
C
a)
C �
O N
cz
CA CMi
C T-
o O
r'i N
O
Z
a
O
2
W
J
a
V
Z
2
U
W
O w N It N N t\ m N m M L-- O M M O O L- n
T M M (D N O (D M L,- N M Vy M O O O M r-
LO m O M N ER It m CD N M CD I�t LO O Ll_ co
L 07 C7 M I�i O O O N Vy M O L17 L.
(ti Cl) Q? Vf M M I- &4 N O N 00
63 t» vH Vy 6s GPI a ta
M 'Id- to N CD Ln m M 'It N M O O O O Cl)
CD L- N M M (D t N N 0� 6% M O O co
L (D � M M CA O M M CO r (D CO LO O m
N O N C --;i CD m M N V� M O (D
ea 613
m L- m co Co Cl) M Ll O N co O It O O O LP)
a0 co OD OD Cl) m (D CD OD Cl) O O EA co 00 O O CO
L 0 LO M CD Ki CD (D r L(7 O LO Cl) LO O It
m N k3 is N 4, M 00 M N Vy N O P.
CO 6% Ef} N N M Q3- N O O Ln
69 16�
N It CF LO d M I;t N CD LO O M O O
ti � 000 CD - VY N LO LO CD 000 CO d M O O O
L O 00 Nuy N Ni M n CD r N O N O O
UY� Eti 6a r ta� En UY N LO
� Ff3 EA vi
r t N n M O r 00 N (D N LO M 00 O O
ODD M r- LO r ta M O CO CD ODD ONO M M M � O �
L
� M N N Ea ffl CD CD L6 N 6cL� (5
Ea fa EH fh E� E!} U). Eh H3 f 61Y ' ffl
LO N N. M O It 00 M M '�t OD n M OD O O N
CC) N I-t m N LO M 00 00 OD r- 00 It O O't
L M N CD LO Eh LO N (D O L- N CO CO O O O
(C OD CD N 69 U), r -Ici N (D I;i N V9. O M
Qi N co UY r ka r N CO 69 UY N O co
6a 6a
CO N CD CO M CD Lo t O d LO M 00 O O O
Cl) r- M CD CD LO LO CD O N CD � l(7 Cl) O O r
L r r LO In 6% N r � CO Ll- N N CO Lo O N
06 Ln N E9, e9 -q V Ln M N Ey O O O
>. � 664 � 6% � � H3 H} fa � (9 N I-t
6% Q3-
00 00 CD It M n CO N m CO O O O O r-
,d- M It (D Ln N It M to (,9 H3 O O co
L CO U) UY M O CO r- (D N O O (D
1,: .0 N 61) Ea O .:i L1i m 7 O O O
} VY � bg ea E H3 H) Eta N M
UY Vy
N M M m O m co m LO O O O O O O O O
N LO Cl) LO LO O N fi? K3 613 Hi Vy K} O O n
L U) I�t Lr) H} m M LO O 00
lc CD M N 69 E13- O M m l!')
d N M 6% EA N N
Efi H) 09 fA N
EA EH
T O M M LO LO N O O O O O O O O O O r-
L 00 Lo CO It - U) LO 61Y E9 6g Ei) FA 6% e9, 6% O O O
iC Ln N N 6% 16% M O O
ai N co vi O 00
VY H} H3
6a 613-
CZ - O
O
5,F U
a) cz
a) a
0) ( rn
� LL CD 0
CL
C
70 -0 LL LL a) U Q cc
LL LL (0 (d +� L CL
L L O a) > VI C `1
a) N vi vi 3 N U) a cd F- > rn N O O
>, >, O O ccoo (� C C C� O
cn C4 ` _ m 2.
W W LL � LU W : _ N CA W 0— '� _0
22CnCn -i-iZ: o aE� _C �= N
c� N N N c0 c0
C C C C C C C C C Y " cu .0 U
C C L a)
N
d 0
U3
-0 C/) a)
N M m M N N N N N T U
a a a m a a a a a— = � A W
m m m oc m m m m m U U U U U m m CL LL
CN
N
W
a1
CL°
J_
V
W
cc
1�
7
D
Z
Q
O
2
w
J
Q
V
Z
U
w
N
N
O
N
T
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
r
O
N
co
O
N
O
N
O
N
Lo
T
O
N
O
N
T
O
N
r T (D O T O O CD M N M N 't M r LO M f- lqt It 0 0
r N CD I- It O N T M M M M M O N M LO r� 00 r� r- O T
N W 6 n 4 M r w 4 N N 6 6 fZ r
M It r N O r� r r M N T It r- r- O N N N
d N N r r Cl) Cl) r-
N
O (D O O O co O O N t M (D Ln co I- t t 00 O
O)
It CO r- I O N M N FZ O O L() O N n LO f- N LO Ln Ch O
n n N N 00 (O 4 O d' O 4 d• M r M .4 N O M 00 O N
00 It T r 00 N N r cM N r M r r- r M M N LLf
>- N
r- (D O T M 0 Ln O r, n N It 00 LO M M O CO LO It
Co N (D f- It 00 N It N (D (D N LO O N O LO r- CD Cl) co CV N
N N N N (D (O M Lo I- (D N 4 co r 0 4 N LL) r r r Lo
RJ r ct r r f- N O r C'7 N r 0 r- r- LO M M
N N r r M Cl) M
N
Ln (D O O 00 O N I N OD 'q CD LLB M N LO U) OD M
f� O CO N I n N (D co O N (D Lo T O N LC) n O r N
00 r- N N It (D N O O Lo O d (D ' N N r- 0
CD It D O (O N N N L O O �
r N a)
M O O O N LO (D N N O O LO M N LL) LO T O
M (D � Id: (D N M M Lq 00 O L() M (O Ln L(� pl� Lq r CV O
00 N N N N CD r LO M Cl) N It LC) N O It N 00 N N M Ln
ca Lf) r r LO LLB N Cl) N N It O O N O
a) r r r r r N N 0D
T
(D O O r- O O (D (D M O O LO N C") O 00 OD LO N
LA CO CD f- It In N O M t 00 N (D O O f- O N r M M O 00
L 00 I� N N O b (D N Lei 0 0 6 4 O CV Ln O O O O
It It T T It N 00 M
N M n I' O O — o
r r r N N (D
� r
d' 00 (D N M I N N�� O Lq (D O O O N C O Oo0 C9 � N
rl: r
L M N N 00 (D O LO O r M r- O O O r- N M co O
R C•M T M 00 It 00 r- T 00 00 r r
N N r
(D T N O O O L() N (D LO LL) O O O O LLB r- It qt co 00
M T (D N CD M N t Cl (M O N O O O O (D r- r- L!') LO Cl) CO
L O I, O r (D (D 0') 'q N O r 0 0 0 0 Cl) O 00 N r- O O
R N r LO T It N co N r- r (D
N N O
M M O O M 0 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 O O M M LO O qt
N (D M M N N (D M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O n It It 00 T
A- O I- (D rqd, (D 00 Ch 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O LO r LO LO
R T Iq (V r N N LO
N O O qt O LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 00 00 co
r N 00 00 N r r CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O N
O M Cl) O N M O 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 O O N 6 6 00
a) N r N N P-
LL
C/) C: 0
LLB cocoa �� E _ aa))a) ~
m a)
ui vi i a`) a) a) cz 0
i a) a) c/ c 3 (ten (ten Q m � ? m a) (D w cn o
3 o o >, >. O O co cz a) c W o c o c m
22cnc/) 22H c 6- E c 2 ~ E cn
O c
c c c c c c c c c C7 Y c t cz J CIS
c� c� m
0 0 0 0 0 0 a) a) a) N c (_n L CD 2 _ a) >
70 _0 _0 _0 a _0 :O _0 _ cd Co Q- a) -0 — 0 c U (n
N N Cn CD (n N N N U T ~_ J �_ %n Q) ' CD -0 -0 — cn
a o 0 0 C�ol:M M Ir o U U U U U -j� = m aa-m� a
O
0
0
z
O
M
O)
O)
O
IX
O
J_
V
t '9
1�
7
O
Z
Q
O
2
W
J
a
U
Z
2
U
w
H
N
N
O
N
T
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
co
r
O
N
ti
O
N
(O
O
N
lri
O
N
r
O
N
M
O
N
M
a
a�
a
a
Cl)
O
I-
N
O
N N CD I- O
O O O M
O O
O
O
N
(D
r
(-
r-
6f3
(D
P-
Cl)
O
M
N
63
O CO M Lf) Ln
M Il- M Cl)
63 63
b9 O
Cl)
60,
ffi
O
CO
O
O
(O
Cl
L
LO
N
N
4 c) Lo O
O
CD
O
n
CM
(D
�
6%
b9
ffi
M N M 6S M•
�
�
M
O
N
6} 64 63
63
60-
�
CD
co
O
LO
'Ir
(O
O
I- LO N CD N
O O
O LO
O
O
O
O
O
'It
61i
M
O
CO
6i
r- N � O L1
f!} 63
61i co
b4
63
O
O
L
r��
M It
v
O
n
LO
0000
-
Em
� Cl)
(DD
�
�
I--
O
6)-
It
M
O
O
M
O
O
69
3
N n O M N
� O Cf) O
O M
bi Cl)
P-
O Cl)
O
63
O
6,
O
O
O
O
Z,
N
L
LO
O
00
r
(D M M h O
M
LO O
O
O
0
N
N
Cl)
N
(D O (A N O
Cl)
(A It
LO
O
NO
LO
69
63
N (D 'It
0
64
O
0
6).
69
63 64 t4 Ef? EA
63
�
63
�
N
O
't
O
6i
It
00
O
(A
N
't
O
Efl
P, r W 00
00 N M O I-
O
ff) M
It O
N It
O
69
O
63
O
O
O
O
ff)
O
(D
CD
O
m n CD LO 1-t
I�t
N N
O
O
L
1-7
�
�
O
O
69 N
O
N
D �t —
T (fl E}
(O
bi
V9,
C,)
LO
M
Ln
Cl
63,
M
N
00
N
00
O
63
U3 6a �
LO O CD (D
O (D CD �
LO N
It N
U
CO I;t
r- N
O
CD
O
CA
O
O
O
O
N
m
(p
Lf)
M
Ln
O
'I OD r O O
C M
M r
N
O
O
L
(A
r
M
(a
Ef}
M 00 OD (O r
r M It N
r LO
M
LO N
64 0
Cl)
Cl)
�
O
O
T
69
ffi H3 l) 69 6}
69 6%
N
M-
U)
CO
CV
O
O
M
00
O
I- a) It It Cl)
O O
O M
(D
O
O
O
fH
O
LL)
L
66-
C
n
�
N
CA
6%
N It 00 W
D) O O O Ln
'It to
M
ff) N
(�
Cl)
r
63
O
C
O
C
m
r?
00
"�T
r
M
6%
ff)
LO M 00 CD r
r M M N
'-T
(D
W
O
N
Nt
O
O
T
Ef3
69 6 - 6i 63 6'i
fi)
M•
Cl)
Efl
Cl)
N
O
O
O
64
N
O
I`
r-
M
CO
O
63
Ln 00 t M
LO r- M N Ln
N O
N ff3
O O
6 P 63
rl
n
Cl)
O
O
O
O
O
N
LO
Il
(D
M
oc
Ln Ln r M N
00
N
OO
C
O
L
(�
(O
O
M
N (O M LO r
O
Lf)
O
O
64
6,
69
64
r CD N N
M 63 69
N
64
Cn
N
M
N
It
64
O
Cl)
LO
00
O
6).
00
00
I-
'-T
O
6%
6t 63
M Cl) (O (-
(� N 00 N
O O
(a EA
O O
63 6}
69
rl
I-
ff3
N
(D
O
O
6S
O
O
;;
Cl)
('7
M
M
N
M
N � N Ln CA
(O
'
C
O
(Cl
L
m
LO
O
Cl)
O CO It O
(D
LO
O
O
LO
63
fiT
G O O N
co
M
It
O
N
63
I�
r
69
O
M
It
69 6% 6i � �
N 0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
6N h?
O
64
O
69
O
64
O
n
N
N
O
(O
Il-
O
00
r
(D
I,
(D
oo
I- (D 6% 63 6i
00 I`
6% H)
63 6k
63
63
O
n
O
o
LO
O
V
7
�
O
M
63
_
bi
N
63
14 T
�
00
Cl)
O
r
ID
669i
69
N
63
}
LO
It
LO
C\l
LO
00
O
O
60-
O O O O O
69 64 6% 64 69.
O O
60- 63
O O
63 ff ,
O
H}
O
61)
O
Ef3
O
00
O
r
(It
LO
O
n
co
O
L
N
M
CY)
M
r
N
co
O
n
d
�
fh
b3
EfT
Ef3
6%
C)
63
LL
b}
N
U)
C
0
O
LL
-0 "O
LL LL (D
O U
(�
L
i
E
U)
t
a)
U
co
O
co
LL
i
(/j
u
O N CL N H
O a)
U
a)
C 0
N O C)
O
L
_O
O
_O
.0
N
N
L
w cu a)
•C W
� O
`
C O
'r- O ca
U)
~
~
i
�
2
�
�
LA,I
LU
�
\,
s
�
0
2
«
�
0
s
w
2
«
Q
z
_
Q
w
R
§
ca
%
�
E
r
�
�
$
%
cn
0
%
«
0
2
§
2
cri
CL
E
3
�
04
2
�
�
v
§ E
2 /2 •-
CD
E c
m o
CL .E k
CD cu
E �
m R CZ
2 k 7
E
2 E CL o
k. �
E
0
�U)
2 2 CL
Ek
b % :
- \ % 0
CU 2caca
k-2
_o S
/ ° (D U)
06 /
o c 2 .0)
CL .§ §
C-0
�@ c�
C:)
0
o @:
2 2 a %
C) .§ 2 >,
§� (�
L) § §
k §�/
E
cD - 0
CL a7 E:
§ CO
> -c o »
§ cn / k
&ka /
m a ° m
2 S
�a)
U)
z .5 -
k k�CD
«2&¥
Q
k
D
R
CD
0
2
r: 0
cz E
aCU
70
%CL CD
2 % E
§ 6 �
£4 �
N
&
a
C)
¥
(D
E
LO
CO
cu
7
&m
co
\
o%
o�
0
2
¥
q
CO
cn
co
7
C)
2
\
b
§
�
m
6s
-
0)
C)
«
7
CD
3m
/
2
2 a
0
Cl)
/
«
EC.)
2g
\EE
.� �� • �
b §
§
U)
«2
- /
LO
M
§ &
't
�
/
CL
07
C6
o
r-
CL LL
¢ b
-/ m
@ » «°
Cn G
/>-
ca
ca
0 C6
CO
LO
�
(D
It
r-
cn
c o cz
.c $
/ §*
¢
E
:
�
CD
-j
2
T
v
§ E
2 /2 •-
CD
E c
m o
CL .E k
CD cu
E �
m R CZ
2 k 7
E
2 E CL o
k. �
E
0
�U)
2 2 CL
Ek
b % :
- \ % 0
CU 2caca
k-2
_o S
/ ° (D U)
06 /
o c 2 .0)
CL .§ §
C-0
�@ c�
C:)
0
o @:
2 2 a %
C) .§ 2 >,
§� (�
L) § §
k §�/
E
cD - 0
CL a7 E:
§ CO
> -c o »
§ cn / k
&ka /
m a ° m
2 S
�a)
U)
z .5 -
k k�CD
«2&¥
Q
k
D
R
CD
0
2
r: 0
cz E
aCU
70
%CL CD
2 % E
§ 6 �
£4 �
N
&
a
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM P,,FIEzS CFI2MHILL®
Once the AWE Tracking Tool analysis was complete, the technical team made an effort to break the
above information down into the following categories:
1) Retrofits Impacting Existing Accounts
2) Measures Impacting General Water Use Behavior for the Entire Population
3) Additionally, although not included in the above AWE Tracking Tool effort, the technical team
considered system efficiency improvements as following:
a. A reduction from 15.9% to 12% unaccounted for water due to current practices and
spending the City has already incorporated into its Capital Plan was assumed as an
addition to the Low Scenario.
b. A reduction from 15.9% to 10% unaccounted for water due to the addition of a hydraulic
model calibration and pressure optimization project to the current capital plan was
assumed as an addition to the Medium Scenario.
A reduction from 15.9% to 5% unaccounted for water due to the addition of a hydraulic
model calibration and pressure optimization project, plus $100,000 per year added budget
for system efficiency projects, increasing by $25,000 a year through the 10 year program
was assumed as an addition to the High Scenario.
Because the proposed planning horizon for this project is 30 -years and 50- years, the proposed
conservation program was extrapolated into future years using the following methodology:
1) All new growth associated with the low scenario could be required to develop according to
improved development standards for water conservation. It was assumed that as a maximum
condition, water demands achieved as part of the medium water conservation scenario could be
achieved for new development.
2) All new growth associated with the medium and high scenarios could be required to develop
according to improved development standards for water conservation to accomplish demand
reduction equivalent to the amount predicted by the high conservation scenario.
Based on the above considerations, Tables 25 through 28 present information associated with
Conservation Program accomplishments at Medium and High Growth projections through the planning
horizons. Costs have also been developed assuming that infrastructure improvement costs for system
efficiency would continue through the planning horizon, staff positions would be retained, and
educational budgets would be maintained. Costs estimated beyond the 10 -year conservation program
horizon were indexed at 3% per year. The costs that are shown are cumulative, according to each
planning horizon.
Some considerations to be applied to this analysis include:
• The costs proposed are considered Level 5 cost estimates and as a result, it could be appropriate
to apply as much as a 30 to 50 percent contingency factor to the costs for further alternative
analysis.
• The City of Bozeman may choose not to impose more stringent standards of water conservation
for new construction as suggested herein. In this case, the achievable water demands projected
into the future could be significantly less than those proposed in this analysis.
• Due to the length of the planning horizon (50- years), it is not impossible that dramatic
improvements to technology could occur during the planning horizon that could have significant
impacts on the way that water is used for a community. The technical team recommends that the
City of Bozeman extract appropriate planning values from this effort that will provide for a range
of planning conditions to consider in the future.
City of Bozeman, MT. IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page 33
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
� _j HF�S CH2MHILL®
Table 25: Moderate Growth Reductions in Acre Feet Due to Conservation Program
Implementation at 2042 and 2062 Planning Horizons
Item Description
2015
2025
2042
i.
Moderate Growth Population
Projections
41,160
49,190
70,256
85,725
Water Demands (gpcd)
173
173
165
180
Annual Water Demands Pre-
Conservation No MSU (acre -ft)
7,977
9,533
12,986
17,286
Annual MSU Growth Demand
(acre -ft)
167
500
500
TOTAL
7,977
9,700
13,486
17,786
Low Conservation Retrofit
Reduction (acre -ft)
11
11
11
_
City Efficiency Reduction (15.9% to
12 %) (acre -ft)
372
506
674
_
Low Conservation Non - Retrofit and
Future Development Reduction
442
1,175
1,602
(acre -ft)
Low Conservation Reduction
825
1,692
2,287
Medium Conservation Retrofit
Reduction (acre -ft)
216
216
216
City Efficiency Reduction (15.9% to
10 %) (acre -ft)
562
766
1,020
Medium Conservation Non - Retrofit
and Future Development Reduction
1,093
2,965
4,173
(acre -ft)
Medium Conservation Reduction
1,871
3,947
5,408
High Conservation Retrofit
Reduction (acre -ft)
1,618
1,618
1,618
City Efficiency Reduction (15.9% to
5 %) (acre -ft)
1,039
1,415
1,884
High Conservation Non - Retrofit and
Future Development Reduction
1,093
2,965
4,172
(acre -ft)
High Conservation Reduction
3,750
5,999
7,674
City of Bozeman, MT. IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page 34
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
�E CH21IVIIHILL,;
Table 26: Estimated Opinion of Probable Cost in $ /Acre -ft to Implement Low, Medium, and High
Conservation for Moderate Population Growth Projections
I-
Low Conservation
Reduction
Medium
Conservation
Retrofit Reduction
(acre -ft)
City Efficiency
Reduction (15.9%
to 10 %) (acre -ft)
Medium
Conservation
Non - Retrofit and
Future
Development
Reduction (acre -
ft)
Medium
Conservation
Reduction
High Conservation
Retrofit Reduction
(acre -ft)
City Efficiency
Reduction (15.9%
to 5 %) (acre -ft)
High Conservation
Non - Retrofit and
Future
Development
Reduction (acre -
ft)
High
Conservation
Reduction
$594,550 $1,791,438 $4,234,132 $721 $1,059 $1,851
$1,500,000 $2,479,271 $4,477,840 $2,667 $3,236 $4,391
$4,187,377 $23,635,805 $42,511,175 $2,238 $5,988 $7,861
$2,375,000 $7,072,516 $23,881,662 $2,286 $4,997 $12,675
$16,126,116 $30,815,188 $60,793,716 $4,300 $5,137 $7,922
City of Bozeman, MT: 1WRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page 35
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM j _j ,s CH2MHILL
Table 27: High Growth Reductions in Acre Feet Due to Conservation Program Implementation
at 2042 and 2062 Planning Horizons
Item Description
2015
2025
2042
2062
High Growth Population
Projections
42,383
55,300
94,144
139,900
Water Demands (gpcd)
173
173
165
180
Annual Water Demands Pre-
Conservation No MSU (acre -ft)
8,214
10,717
17,401
28,209
Annual MSU Growth Demand
(acre -ft)
167
500
500
TOTAL
8,214
10,884
17,901
28,709
Low Conservation Retrofit
Reduction (acre -ft)
0.0
11
11
11
City Efficiency Reduction (15.9% to
12 %) (acre -ft)
418
679
1,100
Low Conservation Non - Retrofit and
Future Development Reduction
442
1,590
2,657
(acre -ft)
Low Conservation Reduction
871
2,279
3,768
Medium Conservation Retrofit
Reduction (acre -ft)
0.0
216
216
216
City Efficiency Reduction (15.9% to
10 %) (acre -ft)
632
1,027
1,664
Medium Conservation Non - Retrofit
and Future Development Reduction
1,093
4,101
7,162
(acre -ft)
Medium Conservation Reduction
1,941
5,343
9,042
High Conservation Retrofit
Reduction (acre -ft)
0.0
1,618
1,618
1,618
City Efficiency Reduction (15.9% to
5 %) (acre -ft)
1,168
1,897
3,075
High Conservation Non - Retrofit and
Future Development Reduction
1,093
4,101
7,162
(acre -ft)
High Conservation Reduction
3,879
7,615
11,854
City of Bozeman, MT. IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page 36
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
FAE� CH2MHILL®
Table 28: Estimated Opinion of Probable Cost in $ /Acre -ft to Implement Low, Medium, and High
Conservation for Moderate Population Growth Projections
is
Low Conservation
Reduction
Medium
Conservation
Retrofit Reduction
(acre -ft)
City Efficiency
Reduction (1S.9%
to 10 %) (acre -ft)
Medium
Conservation
Non - Retrofit and
Future
Development
Reduction (acre -
feet)
Medium
Conservation
Reduction
High Conservation
Retrofit Reduction
(acre -ft)
City Efficiency
Reduction (15.9%
to 5 %) (acre -ft)
High Conservation
Non - Retrofit and
Future
Development
Reduction (acre -
ft)
High
Conservation
Reduction
$594,550 $1,791,438 $4,234,132 $683 $786 $1,124
$1,500,000 $2,479,271 $4,477,840 $2,372 $2,415 $2,690
$4,187,377 $23,635,805 $42,511,175 $2,157 $4,424 $4,702
$2,375,000 $7,072,516 $23,881,662 $2,033 $3,729 $7,767
$16,126,116 $30,815,188 $60,793,716 $4,157 $4,047 $5,128
City of Bozeman, MT: IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page 37
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLANNING
J", AE,S CH2MHILL®
The concept of drought contingency planning involves considering water use management
approaches that are not applicable on a primarily voluntary daily basis like water conservation,
but instead, considers the application of more stringent, mandatory water restrictions when
certain triggers are experienced that could impact the sustainability of the City's firm yield water
supply. A preliminary effort to consider how development of a drought contingency plan might
be considered by the City of Bozeman that aligns with the three proposed conservation
scenarios was completed. The following recommendations are proposed:
• A drought management plan for the City of Bozeman should be based on three tiers of
triggers, including:
o Drought Advisory - Tier 1
■ 80% of Planning Demand at Climate Adjusted and Conservation
Adjusted.
■ U.S. Drought Monitor at D1 Drought- Moderate or more intense.
■ Flows in Sourdough and Middle Creek at 120% or less of low monthly for
7 consecutive days. Flows need monitoring, and a flow of 5 cfs will be
assumed as low for both.
• Weather forecast for 2 week period projecting no rain.
• Goal: Level off at 80% of planning condition based on Climate Adjusted
projection and Conservation and maintain condition or improve.
o Drought Warning - Tier 2
• Continued increase in water demands over ensuing 2 week period.
• Weather forecast for the following 2 weeks with no rain.
• Continued or worsening of Drought Monitor intensity.
• OR the following occurs in conjunction with Trigger #1 and separate from
#2 and #3
• Water Supply Flows drop to Firm Yield.
■ Goal: Level off at 80% of planning condition based on Climate Adjusted
projection and Conservation and maintain condition or improve. Note:
assumed a target of 132.8 gpcd and Firm Yield of 10,950 acre -feet would
be sufficient for 73,703 people.
o Drought Emergency - Tier 3
■ Continued increase of demands
■ Continued weather forecast with no rain
• Continued or worsening of Drought Monitor intensity
• Water Supply Flows drop below Firm Yield
• Goal: All outdoor use restricted, Water demand goal of 99 gpcd for
73,703 people will require 8,173 acre -feet of supply.
City of Bozeman, MT. IWRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page 38
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
J., HIES CIH2MHILLe
As a comparison to the above drought management plan criteria, the firm yield, as it compares
to indoor and outdoor water use is shown in Table 29. Note that without conservation
considered, there is only one instance where the available firm yield would adequately cover
indoor water needs in the event of a drought emergency, which is in Year 2042 under a
moderate growth scenario. In all other cases, indoor water use reduction would be necessary to
keep water use under the available firm yield in a drought emergency. As an alternative, indoor
water conservation would be necessary to permanently reduce the indoor water use to make it
possible for current supplies to cover indoor water use even in a drought emergency, where
outdoor water use is completely restricted.
Table 29: Comparison of Disaggregated (Indoor and Outdoor) Climate Adjusted Water
Demands without Conservation to Available Water Supplies in a Drought Emergency
Moderate Growth 2042 Planning Horizon, Population = 70,256 (No Conservation)
11,240 9,175 2,065 4,699 2,634
Moderate Growth 2062 Planning Horizon, Population = 85,725 (No Conservation)
10,950 10,963 -13 7,200 7,213
High Growth 2042 Planning Horizon, Population = 94,144 (No Conservation)
11,240 12,294 -1,054 6,296 7,350
High Growth 2062 Planning Horizon, Population = 139,900 (No Conservation)
10,950 17,892 -6,942 11,750 18,692
City of Bozeman, MT. 1WRP Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum Page 39
APPENDIX C
Technical Summaries of
Alternatives
"k*
Alternative Screening Criteria
10 CH2MHILL
PJ A 4aw
City of Bozeman, MT
Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives
7.
` -4 2 of C �y� Iu 1 Irurir"W a Flu"•ruiruUlu IvuirUr Meuse
LEGAL /WATER RIGHTS RANKING
This alternative involves utilization of effluent from the Bozeman Water Reclamation
jL —L& 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.
-4
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 cone. 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.
WATER
} CH2M111LL R,C"T
vi '4. (� OLUi1ONS
Think Big. Go Beyond. INC.
• Water Reuse options in this alternative include turf applications at
local golf courses and a possible north -side development.
t• 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 I AM 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
11
• 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
sianificantly 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,
JAfAM
}�`�► CN2ro t III...t. 81,947 TIONS
NC.
JThink Big. Go Beyond_ T
esr�- `max
t
. •4 • . �C1 2C
`Q�N CO• MJOf%
City of Bozeman, MT
Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives
LEGAL /WATER RIGHTS RANKING
s utilization of effluent from the Bozeman Water Reclamation
et water use by customers of the City of Bozeman and /or by
tin Valley that may have an interest in effluent in exchange for a
S held by that entity. Water reuse is a common approach in water
nd is becoming more popular across the US, including within the
,me instances, however, the Montana Department of Natural
ition (DNRC) may require an application for a new water right
I, making Water Reuse subject to the same legal conditions as any
vent Alternative being considered.
• 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 IUI — 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 IUI 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.
WAM
FJW. 9 III_l.. ,O OLUTIONS
Think Big Go Beyond I
• Additional water rights that could be leased /acquired include:
.
• MSU Irrigation Shares ( -0.5 MGD for Planning
TECHNICAL CRITERIA Purposes).
• Valley View Golf Course (EMP Reported Groundwater
right of 675 gpm, likely seasonal, but reuse need of only
186,000 gpd).
• Local parks already irrigated with groundwater rights
owned by City, which could go through change of use to
municipal right.
• 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.
• EMP estimates a potential future use of 1.2 MGD.
• Further study evaluation ofEMP study to better quantify
opportunities and optimize to increase water supplies is
necessary. Residential reuse should be evaluated as well.
I poll
• 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):
• $5M for filters and disinfection for Class A effluent and
effluent storage ponds
• $2M for pumping system
• $9.9M for trunk line infrastructure.
• Dual pipe system for residential reuse not calculated.
• 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 +
C C� �i- 1 ?�4/if -TILL ' '� ►�OHT
jklkB � l�0UJ1IONS
Think Big Go Beyond NC.
C 8ft-Ir •..: �,�
Ar iL
City of Bozeman, MT
Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives
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.
• 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.
10, Handout all reuse technical criteria provided with IUI 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.
ATER
CH2MI-1ILL TRIG O tmONs
TNC.
Think Big Go Beyond 1
LECONOMIC CRITERIA
• Blending could occur in a pretreatment facility where all the
sources are brought together at a specified blending ratio to
satisfy public health and safety concerns and regulatory
requirements.
• Reuse for potable supply may be less costly than reuse for
non - potable supply due to the ability to use more 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.
Environmental Criteria is the same as those noted for IU1
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 IUl 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.
WATER
CH2MI11LL IOIr1
J AE25 OLUTIONS
N`'
Think Big. Go Beyond
FB °? City of Bozeman, MT
Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives
1114 Northside and Southside Non-Potable and '
.1863 ,
Water Remse
y
-� LEGAL /WATER RIGHTS RANKING
(Ar This alternative involves utilization of effluent from the Bozeman Water Reclamation Facility
(B WRF) 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.
.• 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.
10, Handout 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.
WATER
}�N CIA2 VII !II_L DIatrr,
J A !�
01 NC, NS
Think Big Go Beyond. "�►JTN(„
• 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.
W�
J A �H2nni nu- " 04!T unoNs
Think Big. Go B� � NC.
Ar
ll
City of Bozeman, MT
Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives
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.
• 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.
WAM
GLUTTONS
NC.
Think' Think Big Go Beyond. 111
i �t
K
•'�Q
100
ll
City of Bozeman, MT
Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives
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.
• 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.
WAM
GLUTTONS
NC.
Think' Think Big Go Beyond. 111
• 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 IU 1 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.
WATER
yk� A�' %d CIF 2241 IILL 8101 Ns
J T
Think Big, Go Beyond. NC. 1
1,14
t����1Sg3 00 �,��
City of Bozeman, MT
Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives
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.
• 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 IUl 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.
WATER
IONT
?G@ I I f Ll OLLMONS
Think Big Go dryond. NC.
• 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 L
of an identified industrial entity at this point in time.
An Industrial partner would need to be identified to provic
an economic evaluation of this alternative.
AXAM
40 CH2M1 tILL V T la 1IfIONs
Think i� Beyond.
FB °z City of Bozeman, MT
o ...�
Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives
Reuse
��N GO• t�0
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
i Supply Development Alternative being considered. 3"
• 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.
WATER
}�w c CH2MI TILL 101
rI J AGE OLLMONS
Think Big Go Beyond. NC.
I
11
• 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):
• $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)
• — $7M to reconstruct IP Beds
• 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.
WXTM
1O OLLMONs
Think Big Go Beyond
q �NC.
Is
BOZ City of Bozeman, MT
Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives
WSD1 Sourdough Reservoir
�V CO..
LEGAL /WATER RIGHTS RANKING
47 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. I
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
0 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.
WATER
AS' CH2MOLL R 1,0Z
r _ OLUTfONS
Think Big. Go Beyond. I
n
NC.
• 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
•
MIT
• Feasibility Level Engineering Screening Completed for
Sites I and 3 in the 1999 Feasibility Study:
o It is believed no "fatal flaws" existing environmentally
to prevent construction.
• agapetus eaddisfly concerns.
• Field surveys necessary of populace of variety of
mammals and plant species.
• Class III Inventory will be required.
• 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 l 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.
WATER
% c W if:Jl h >6J�I MA- D[ 11T
J J FIE (� 01 NC.
NS
,ZS JTNC.
Think Big. Go Beyond. j
�2 City of Bozeman, MT
Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives
N
IEr►AI / \A /ATED DI^LITCI DALIVILI^
**, 4
Would require pumping and piping infrastructure to
deliver to the Gallatin Valley.
Could be a full replacement option of water supply if
developed strategically.
Am
CH2nRHILL ' ' §iT
OLUT[ONS
Think Big. Go Beyond. TNC.
0
• Pipeline and Pump Stations Through Open Corridor and
Constructrable Terrain (60 miles to Reservoir).
• Arsenic Concentrations in Reservoir of 22 to 31 ppb.
Upstream concentrations vary.
• Helena Missouri WTP Treats Arsenic acceptably to
drinking water standards.
• Membrane treatment processes would need to be evaluated
and optimized for source water change.
• Provides total replacement supply
• Available volume meets and exceeds 30- and 50 -year
planning criteria.
• May Provide Low Flow Augmentation Opportunity
• Full Replacement of Supply in Dry Years could leave
natural flows in local creeks and streams and rivers.
• Could recharge local groundwater supplies
• EA was completed for Helena Water Supply and Irrigation
District Water Contracts.
• Permitting and Easements with land owners and water
crossings, MDOT/ other agencies.
• Supply must be pumped from source.
• Very Climate Resilient Supply.
• Construction along developed corridors, no forested areas,
possibly waterfowl habitats /fisheries crossings, with
ultimate project underground.
• Customer Service for Water Supply Met.
• Water Supply can be treated to meet public health and
safety.
• Large water supply will allow for minimal water supply
impacts on quality of life.
• Will not limit future economic development or growth.
• Water Marketing could be a component of project.
• Regional initiative could provide water for a broad context
of issues impacting entire Gallatin Valley
• $1 /ac -ft /year of reserved supply for O &M of reservoir.
• $28 /ac -ft /year for actual diversions (minimum contract of
—500 ac -ft /year).
• —$40,000 /yr for full 26,000 ac -ft base, $28 /ac -ft /yr use.
• 36 -inch Pipeline and Appurtenances $1.5 million/mile.
• Pumping Infrastructure and Raw Water Intake.
• Annual O &M on Pipeline and Pumping Costs.
• Bureau of Reclamation Rural Water Supply Program.
• State /Federal /Local Cost Share Opportunities.
• Phasing Strategies.
• Regional Partnerships and Economies of Scale.
• Could solve water supply issues for well beyond planning
period with proposed infrastructure.
WATER
CI-A� HILL OLLMONS
Think Big. Go beyond.
ql_ NC.
fB °z City of Bozeman, MT
Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives
WSD2B Canyon Ferry Import
IC/'!AI /IAIATCO 121r%UTC DAAIVIAI^
. • http: // www .usbr.gov /o /mtao /canyonfer!y
•
htip://www.usbi-.gov/gp/i-ntao/canyoiifei.ry/contract r
enewals /fea.pdf
• 83,156 AF /yr estimated to Helena Valley Irrigation
District
• 7,496 AF /yr estimated diverted to Toston Valley
Irrigation District (upstream of Reservoir 16 miles)
• 11,300 AF /yr allocated to City of Helena for
Municipal Needs
• Water Quality issues include typical surface water quality
concerns.
• Natural Background Arsenic concentration due to influent
from Yellowstone area.
• Firm Yield of Reservoir could supply City of Bozeman
water needs for many years
• Resilient supply to catastrophic events outside of a dam
failure.
• Would require pumping and piping infrastructure to
deliver to the Gallatin Valley.
• Could be a full replacement option of water supply if
developed strategically.
WATER
LUnONS
J TNC.
Think Big. Go Beyond. 1
10--
• Pipeline and Pump Stations Through Open Corridor and
Constructable Terrain (30 miles to Confluence).
• Arsenic Concentrations should be evaluated.
• Helena Missouri WTP Treats Arsenic acceptably to
drinking water standards with Reservoir water.
• Membrane treatment processes would need to be evaluated
and optimized for source water change.
• Provides total replacement supply.
• Available volume meets and exceeds 30- and 50 -year
planning criteria.
• TVID divertswater 16 miles upstream of reservoir.
• May Provide Low Flow Augmentation Opportunity
• Full Replacement of Supply in Dry Years could leave
natural flows in local creeks and streams and rivers.
• Could recharge local groundwater supplies
• EA was completed for Helena Water Supply and Irrigation
District Water Contracts.
• Permitting and Easements with land owners and water
crossings, MDOT/ other agencies.
• Supply must be pumped from source.
• Very Climate Resilient Supply.
• Construction along developed corridors, no forested areas,
possibly waterfowl habitats /fisheries crossings, with
ultimate project underground.
• Customer Service for Water Supply Met.
• Water Supply can be treated to meet public health and
safety.
• Large water supply will allow for minimal water supply
impacts on quality of life.
• Will not limit future economic development or growth.
• Water Marketing could be a component of project.
• Regional initiative could provide water for a broad context
of issues impacting entire Gallatin Valley
• $1 /ac -ft /year of reserved supply for O &M of reservoir.
• $28 /ac -ft /year for actual diversions (minimum contract of
—500 ac -ft /year).
• — $40,000 /yr for full 26,000 ac -ft base, $28 /ac -ft /yr use.
• 36 -inch Pipeline and Appurtenances $1.5 million/mile.
• Pumping Infrastructure and Raw Water Intake.
• Annual O &M on Pipeline and Pumping Costs.
• Bureau of Reclamation Rural Water Supply Program.
• State /Federal /Local Cost Share Opportunities.
• Phasing Strategies.
• Regional Partnerships and Economies of Scale.
• Could solve water supply issues for well beyond planning
period with proposed infrastructure.
WATM
Rio U►,oNs
NC.
Think Big. Go Beyond
I
g °% City of Bozeman, MT
Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives
,co
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 ig
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.
• 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.
r�
FIF
I h.n Il:y C,o 9i•jn 0 I4C
® 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.
01
�, Il�t
A�SCHIM114!.L
fhlnk Hry lin Bryond _LNI—Lill W-
City of Bozeman, MT
Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives
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
4L 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.
bnl:���
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.
WM
Rt 1
J AEzS (� ONC.
',
Think Big. Go Beyond. ,� TNC.
• 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.
j WATER
} C CH2nnHILI- Ia
(� LU'
Or10NS
Think Big. Go Beyond. 1
City of Bozeman, MT
z, Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives
............. WSD3C Gallatin Gateway Subarea Groundwater
/yCO.ht
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
bp
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.
WARM
J AEzS
CH2WHILL RIGI!j nONS
NC.
Think Big. Go Beyond. T
® 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.
�J
• 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.
�c WATER
0. AW. 1 ifLL_ I�t[�'/OLUMNS
Think Big. Go Beyond. i
i
City of Bozeman, MT
Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives
LEGAL /WATER RIGHTS RANKING
The Yellowstone River is an open basin and as such, new water right applications can be
a 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.
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.
Upon
A
A.
I lank U.q iSa dry—:,
co.
City of Bozeman, MT
Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives
LEGAL /WATER RIGHTS RANKING
The Yellowstone River is an open basin and as such, new water right applications can be
a 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.
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.
Upon
A
A.
I lank U.q iSa dry—:,
• 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.
XAAkTa
N AEzS )N5
WC
I hln� W9 G. Llryorr:] Ic
J
City of Bozeman, MT
Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives
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 44
information, system leakage losses (if transferred via canal), etc.
Mi
• 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:
Pre
WAM
ice ��nni ni.i. R�a►rr
AEzS �. (� OLUnONS
Think Big. Go Beyond. INC.
1880
Total
At Firm
Drainage
(Ac -ft)
(Ac -ft)
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
WAM
ice ��nni ni.i. R�a►rr
AEzS �. (� OLUnONS
Think Big. Go Beyond. INC.
ECONOMIC CRITERIA
• 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.
this solution could support a regional project,
s own.
attained via this type of alternative could be a
)f a solution if they could be used as
,ater for groundwater alternatives.
i FI iE S
W�
CH2M tIL.L LN-SO
INC. NS
TNC.
r,N CO. 0
City of Bozeman, MT
Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives
LEGAL /WATER RIGHTS RANKING
• 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
I points, but water treatment would be required to meet
drinking water standards anyway. The type of treatment
or impacts to treatment cost could increase.
• 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
MW studied and documented, including various sub -
alternatives and many of the conversations and
coordination has already been initiated by -Salar Project
representatives.
• Other impoundments could be possible-with other canal
companies, but - interest has not been expressed.
WATER
n f0
T '1 OL NC
T
Think Big. Go Beyond. 1
® • 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_(51000 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,sup-ply 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 viewed favorably by the
public. is
• 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 modified/revised. . . _ - . ... . .
+CI12[VlI TILL I§ULMONs
J Q
Think Big. Go Beyond `4_ INC.
fB °z City of Bozeman, MT
%.It Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives
�r;188 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.
Similar to WSDI, 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.
WATER SUPPLY PLANNING • Current Planning Documents Propose a 6,000 ac -ft Dam
• , 0 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.
WA"
}� G3t�l ii!_L OLLMONS
J , AEzS �.
Think Big Go Beyond INC.
• 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
challenaina.
• 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.
WAAMR7}
1j -01- Q OILLMONS
Think Big Go Beyond `�_ INC.
40,.
��� •.•,1883,,: ••�,'��
City of Bozeman, MT
Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives
http: // dnrc. mt. gov /wrd /water _proj /factsheets /middlecreek_fact
sheet.pdf
0 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.
WATER
FIE, RIO
NT
J W (� OLUTIONS
NC.
Think Big. Go Beyond _►JT
® 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.
I.
ECONOMIC CRITERIA
• 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.
WAM Q
RIPE 70N9
T� Big. Go Beyond q� TNC.
��� '•.,•1883 ,,.: '�,SC.
City of Bozeman, MT
Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives
. http:// dnrc. mt. gov/ wrd/ watei- proi /factsheets/middlecreek fact
sheet.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.
PF If this water is not stored in Hyalite, it will eventually be
stored in Canyon Ferry Reservoir.
WA7R
FI OLUI70NS
Think Big Go Beyond. 1
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
j,
some concern that increasing the dam structure again would not be approved by
11
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.
. http:// dnrc. mt. gov/ wrd/ watei- proi /factsheets/middlecreek fact
sheet.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.
PF If this water is not stored in Hyalite, it will eventually be
stored in Canyon Ferry Reservoir.
WA7R
FI OLUI70NS
Think Big Go Beyond. 1
• 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.
WATER
i AEc CHI 9 491_.!. 1 �DMr,
zS n 01 U[70NS
NC.
Think Big Go Beyond
City of Bozeman, MT
Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives
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. A
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.
WATER
AHMtifLL. �oo.unoNs
TNC.
Think Big. Go Beyond. 1
1
J
• 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.
WATER
J ra"2P AF iILL IaHT
(� OUJ770NS
NC.
Think Big. Go Beyond. "t'� ►_.JI
sofa °?� City of Bozeman, MT
Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives
7 4:I1 r ?C
�r7T•.�83,to�'SC' OSI Non-Potable rI d i P i
�'v GO• r
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
IMLthis concept have not been well defined.
- 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.
WAM
CH2nR1111.L lalrr
A 4W (7 o1LVn0NS
Think Big. Go Beyond. q'" ► INC.
• 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:
• Moderate Growth Demand: From 12,041 ac -ft to 10,754 ac -ft.
• 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:
• Moderate Growth Demand: From 15,941 ac -ft to 13,300 ac -ft.
• 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.
6 • 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.
W,Mt
} A�. 1 IC! L n IQ ()LU770NS
J `1 TNC.
Think Big, Go Beyond. 1
FB °?F City of Bozeman, MT
o..........
Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives
� .1883 • ' �e
OS2 Lyman Creek Expansion
LEGAL WATER RIGHTS RANKING
t This alternawive in ., � ri
I P Ct eak. The Cal
g �s tunes of the ye
Creel;. The 0
nfrastruc:tttre tpre�rs" i5
consuueted, it could t3chiea
could apply tour a change of use assoc hued with this right to transfer it to a location w1 .
could be consolidated with other rigfts the City owns to olititni= the manner in vtich
infrastructure is con ,tructed for future water supplies. The amount of water left after a change
of use applicatimi is liImly to be less thin the currently held right..
• 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
j 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 a challenge to collect in the winter due to
accessibility issues. Telemetry and a robust metering system
could improve data collection.
• Additional withdrawal points in the City's water right would
allow access to creek flows; but surface water treatment would
be required.
• Installation of a pumping system at the spring or another
ground water location or relocating the reservoir lower in the
watershed may also increase access to available supply.
WATER
CH2MFIILLtOHr
J A W (� OLUTION9
Think Big. Go Beyond. INC.
• 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 halt' of the City's water needs during summer months.
• The 2,550 ae -ft could meet dte 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 2155- 0 -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.
I
• This alternative may have a limited impact on TMDLs only due
to the fact that using more water in Lyman creek translates to less
water flowing into the East Gallatin River.
• East Gallatin River in- stream flows could be impacted.
• Permitting challenges are minor.
• Operational experience suggests this right is less than the firm
yield of the supply. More robust flow monitoring is
recommended to verify and address future climate impacts.
• Evidence suggests it does demonstrate decreased flows during dry
years.
• The spring is currently a very low carbon footprint supply and is
a natural delivery system with very high quality water.
• Limited impacts on the environment are anticipated due to the
existing system being in place already.
• 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. ; 77 - „-„
r
WATEP
:�►, A 'd �r�a:�t�rtt tit_t_ 1° o tmor,s
Think Big Go Beyond � INC.
City of Bozeman, MT
Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives
;O��Q 1 i Water Conservation Approach
CO• �
LEGAL WATER RIGHTS RANKING
— - This tlterriative ins -)lees encouraging the Cite of Boz=an comn uni", to r
The Low Watzr Conservation Approach encourages the continual.ion of the
program, assuming an additional IVI of accoulits could be switched to high e
toilets, the City adds to its education program budget and begins doing some '
of v.-ater savin- efforts in the communii` ,and relies on a one of its current staff iris er
talre on the role of part -tune conservatirm specialist (estimated at sbout 25��7 of its time).
;rote that this option was developed using the Alliance for Water Efficiency Conse.rvlatioft
Tracking Tool. it should ba noted that from a legal perspective, there are no impli .at.iwis:of
water conservation as it partains to Nvater rights. It is also intended to be a sustainable
practice and carries wide - spread benefits that could 'impact the City utility wide.
• 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.
• Pilotstudy 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
;nd of the 10 - -year period. - At a 2025 population (assuming
)rogram begins in 2015), this reduces water demands by
and drops the climate adjusted baseline planning demand
59 gpcd.
J A � CH2MMILL
Think Big. Go Beyond-
W"'�
OLUTIONS
INC.
• 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. -
WATER
J A %d �l 12Mt TILL t0 OLLMONS
`NC.
Think Big Go Beyond I
Hof B °% City of Bozeman, MT
Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives
OS4 Medium i i Approach
LEGAL WATER RIGHTS RANKING
This alternative involves encouraging the
4 The Nlediuttn Water Cousenation Approael► developed
g �.s and assumed a typical percentage of households and co ;or proposed ct�nservation measures. It covered indoor and conservation, pricing
modificatiorts, education, and assunied up to two full time conservation program specialists
over the course of the program. Note that this option was developed using the Alliance for
later Efficiency Conservation Traclain- Tool. It should be noted that from a legal
perspective, there am no implications of ,vnter conservation as it pertains to %eater rights. it
is also intended to be a sustainable pa'act,ice and carries wide- spread benefits that could
impact the City utility Nvide.
I
• 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. -
,r
n
�CC cc CH2MIiILL �IOtrr
W C OLUTIONS
Think Big. Go Beyond. '1� INC.
• 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 i
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 nixed. In sonic,
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.
a
P # 1I
LL
- l_L.
Think Big Go Beyond
qW
WATER
IOHT
OUfr10N3
INC.
Im
City of Bozeman, MT
Integrated Water Resources Plan Alternatives
• uss High Water Lonservation Approach
LEGAL WATER RIGHTS RANKING
lie City of Bozeman comn;tt use.
'n!i developed a Full list of Con and
t p of households and conimerciai ement the
proposed cons ' n measures. It also expanded outdoor conservation to include a large
land turf :' t program, It assumes the City of Bozeman Would employ up to three
full time Non program specialists over the course of the program. Note that this
option vvas 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 waler rights. It is also intended to be a sustainable practice and
carries :vide- spread benefits that could impact the City utility wide.
2002 Water Conservation Plan
BACKGROUND INFORMATION Water Conservation Plan Technical Memorandum developed as
AND REFERENCES 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.
WATER
A CH2MNILL tap UT[oNS
Think Big. Go Beyond. �'�_ INC.
• 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 tneasures can be mixed. In some
cases, not enough effort is placed on conservation to obtain
support for the concept as a benefit to tite 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 comnuutity 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.. vi ll.U'ciy.aot.be_.suppurt 'ed.by_ .
all of the community: --
• Water conservation markers g components ccoidd tic ncorporatcd�
into this alternative.
• Water rates would likely increase under this alternative.
• The increased flexibility may be tempered by restrictivc 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. ;
:rf•-�r�: r ia:t -fir• tq"�rsr, F: !: i �•�• ��, r_-sz�tzr stitkr�:f !.�. �� 1a:lwt:�fl:: j��ist''�
WAR
}k C ! �I TILL DtOttT
J , A�.7 (�
01 NC.
0NS
b L� TNC.
Think gig Go Beyond. 1
SCREENING LEVEL q1— Water Rights Legal Assessment
Green Project Meets Water Rights Laws, Developable Resource
Yellow Project Does not meet Water Rights Laws, but may be Possible to Change
Red Project — Does not meet Water Rights Laws, and is Unlikely or Impossible to Change
Note: Green Projects Move Forward, Yellow Projects May Move Forward, Fed Projects Eliminate
SCREENING LEVEL A2' Qualitative Criteria
Note: Criteria Above a Certain Threshold will be Moved into Conceptual Cost Development
TAC TECHNICALTEAM
Categories of Evaluation Criteria
Weight %
score
Technical Criteria
Environmental Criteria
Social Criteria
Regulations and Drinking Water Quality Impacts
Existing Infrastructure Compatibility
Economic Criteria
Water Ruse
Total (must equal 100 %)
100%
Water Supply Redundancy
Technical Criteria
Weight %)
Score
Constructability
Regulations and Drinking Water Quality Impacts
Existing Infrastructure Compatibility
Water Ruse
Water Supply Redundancy
Meets 30 -Year Planning Horizon Targets
Meets 50 -Year Planning Horizon Targets
Total (must equal 100 %)
100%
Environmental Criteria
Weight ( %)
Score
Clean Water Act Compliance (TMDLs)
In- stream Flow Maintenance
Permitting, Environmental Impact Statements, and Easements
Climate Impacts Resiliency
Energy Requirements
General Environmental Impacts (Wildlife, Forested Areas)
Total (must equal 100 %)
100%
Social
Weight %)
Score
Customer Service Satisfaction
Public Health and Safety
Quality of Life Impacts
Overall Public Support
Economic Development and Growth
Total (must equal 100 %)
100%
Economic
Weight ( %)
Score
Magnitude of Capital Investment per Acre -ft of Developable Water Supply
Relative Operation and Maintenance Costs
Eligibility for Outside Funding
Economy of Scale Impacts
Delay of Infrastructure to Encourage Growth to Pay for Growth
Total (must equal 100 %)
100%
SCREENING LEVEL #3 — Cost Analysis
Conceptual Capital Costs
Conceptual O &M Costs
Life Cycle Costs
$ /Acre -Foot Cost
SCORING APPROACH:
The TAC and Technical Team will independently apply points to each of the ranking categories noted above so that a project that receives full
points in every category for each heading (Technical, Social, Environmental, and Economic) would receive 100 points. The TAC and Technical
Team will develop two scoring approaches independent of the other. To facilitate this process, the Technical Team has already developed a
draft of its scoring approach and will work with the TAC during TAC Meeting #1 to verify the scoring categories and moderate the development
of the TAC scoring approach. The Technical Team scoring approach will be finalized with the finalization of the ranking criteria to meet the
objectives of the scoring process.
Once the scoring approach is established, each of the alternatives to be considered will have up to the score for each category applied based on
each individual evaluator's best judgment. The individual scores will then go into a spreadsheet and be totaled to identify the projects that have
the highest qualitative score of the alternatives considered. This process has successfully been applied in other Integrated Water Resources
Planning efforts to capture the intrinsic differences between the experiences, exposure, and priorities of a broad spectrum of professionals
tasked with long- range, big picture, planning efforts.
The following descriptions of each scoring category are provided to assist in standardizing the interpretations of each of the categories listed
above. Note that alternatives should be scored as they relate to each other. In cases where alternatives qualitatively address the ranking
category in the same way, the same scores can be applied. However, every attempt should be made to do a comparative analysis of the
alternatives to be considered.
Constructability
To receive points for constructability, the evaluator should consider the process of physically constructing an alternative. For example:
• Would the construction site for the project have accessibility issues?
• Are the site conditions where the alternative will be located unknown, challenging, or dangerous?
• Does the alternative require specialized and unique construction strategies that may be difficult and costly to bring to Montana?
• Are there barriers to construction, such as natural features (mountains, rivers, lakes, wetlands, etc.)
• Would there be any timing /seasonal issues that could make constructing an alternative more challenging?
• Will alternative construction involve construction related inconveniences to the public?
Any of the above types of considerations, or others that are similar in nature to the construction of an alternative should result in a reduction in
total allowable points for this category.
Regulations and Drinking Water Quality Impacts
To receive points for this category, the evaluator should consider the following:
• Is the proposed water supply consistent with current water supplies for which treatment processes are already in place to treat the
water to existing potable drinking water regulations?
• Can treatment processes be constructed to treat the proposed water source to existing potable drinking water regulations?
• Are there regulatory issues with the water supply that will result in regulatory issues in the future and may have public health impacts If
implemented prior to regulations being put into place (endocrine disruptors, human health standards for nitrates, cytotoxins (algae) by-
products, high organic carbon or organic matter, requiring unique disinfection strategies with byproducts that could be regulated more
stringently in the future, etc.).
Higher points should be given to alternatives where water quality is known and regulations can thoroughly be addressed now, with the flexibility
to address them into the future as they change.
Existine Infrastructure Comoatibility
This category will require that that evaluator consider whether the proposed alternative optimizes use of existing infrastructure. For example:
• Does the proposed solution allow for full utilization of the City of Bozeman WTP that is under construction? The facility is being
constructed to a peak capacity of 22 mgd and consists of membrane treatment technologies designed to water quality standards
associated with Bozeman Creek, Middle Creek, and Hyalite Reservoir.
• Is there infrastructure already in place to deliver water to the distribution system and serve the different zones of the system
effectively?
• Can new infrastructure be constructed to complement the existing infrastructure? If so, rank the alternatives in term of general
feasibility of the infrastructure necessary as they compare to each other.
Water Ruse
Does the proposed solution involve a water reuse component, particularly one associated with effluent from the Bozeman Water
Reclamation Facility?
• Does the proposed project assist in compliance with the City's Wastewater Permit?
• Is the proposed solution acceptable to the general public?
• Does the solution provide a non - potable water supply to another water rights hold that could then contract its water right to the
City for drinking water purposes?
Water Supply Redundancy
A redundant water supply should not only be considered in terms of overall quantity of water from one source (i.e. the source has twice the
water in reserve than necessary to serve the community in dry year), but more appropriately:
• Are the supplies developed in two (or more) distinct water sources that have different responses to climate conditions, different delivery
mechanisms to the system, different treatment needs, and can effectively replace the other in the event of an emergency (i.e. fire in the
Bozeman Creek /Hyalite Watershed, contamination of the water supply, slope failure in Bozeman Creek resulting in temporary loss of the
stream, failure of the treatment process equipment, prolonged drought, etc )?
Meets 30 -Year Planning Horizon Targets
Does this Alternative provide enough water supply to meet water demand and population targets that have been established for this study
effort in the 30 -Year Planning Horizon? If not, could it be combined with other alternatives to accomplish this objective?
Meets 50 -Year Planning Horizon Tareets
Does this Alternative provide enough water supply to meet water demand and population targets that have been established for this study
effort in the 30 -Year Planning Horizon? If not, could it be combined with other alternatives to accomplish this objective?
Clean Water Act Compliance ITMDLs)
Does this alternative have components that can assist in watershed water quality improvements, particularly as they relate to various TMDLs
(Nutrient, Sediment, and E.Coli) in the Lower Gallatin Watershed? Examples include:
• Wastewater Reuse to prevent discharge of wastewater into the East Gallatin River during Seasonal Permitted Conditions
• Application of reuse water in a manner that reduces the use of chemical fertilizer applications
• Reduction of direct stormwater discharge to local streams
• Provision of augmentation flows to increase low flow conditions in areas of the watershed where water quality impairments could be a
challenge (i.e. an out -of -basin import project or impoundment constructed with additional capacity to maintain minimum stream flows
at a healthy level could be an example. While this would not offset water supplies, it may be possible to put existing or new water
supplies to use under different conditions either on a temporary or permanent basis to achieve this type of compliance objective in the
future).
In- Stream Flows
Does the proposed project have the potential to compromise in- stream flows during low flow conditions? Does the proposed project have the
potential to add flexibility in mitigating instream flow issues during low flow conditions?
Permitting. Environmental Impact Statements. and Easements
Does the proposed alternative require an extensive permitting, environmental clearance, and easement development process? If so, does the
extent of this effort carry risk that the alternative may not be viable or carry with it, the possibility of legal action against the City? If a permit or
easement cannot be developed for an alternative, or environmental issues result in a need to modify the alternative, can the alternative be
modified to address the concern?
Climate Resiliency
Is the proposed alternative capable of sustaining reasonable service levels with regard to the potential range of long -term climate impacts? If
so, can it also withstand temporary and harsher climate conditions such as drought? Is the water supply able to return to normal conditions
relatively quickly after drought events?
Energy Reauirements
Does the raw water supply delivery system associated with the proposed alternative require extensive pumping and energy requirements? Will
new treatment processes be required that could involve increased mechanical treatment and energy requirements to meet drinking water
regulatory requirements? Could the new water supply be used to generate energy?
General Environmental Impacts (Forests. Wildlife. Water Quality, etc.)
Does the project have the potential to have a significant impact on local forested areas, fish and wildlife, historical and cultural resources, and
water quality?
Customer Service Satisfaction
Will the proposed solution result in acceptable levels of customer satisfaction with regard to aesthetics, water quality and quantity, and cost?
How will it compare to the service levels that customers are accustomed to, today?
Public Health and Safety
Outside of regulatory requirements and potable drinking water quality (which were addressed in previous categories), does the proposed
alternative present any public health and safety concerns? For example, a reservoir above the City could pose some flood risk if a breach were
to occur. Operator safety in maintaining and managing an alternative could be considered in this category as well.
Quality of Life Impacts
Would the water supply alternative carry any impacts that could increase or decrease the quality of life for the City of Bozeman. In the case of
an impoundment, could it be used for recreational activities, or does it limit or eliminate recreational activities? Could it be used to sustain a
recreational activity that may use large amounts of water (i.e. golf course or park irrigation)? Does developing a large, imported water supply
encourage growth that impairs quality of life in Bozeman, or does it allow for structured growth that will continue to attract people to the area
that will enhance the quality of life of those in Bozeman? While there are many ways that this category could be scored, it should be scored
relative to the other alternatives evaluated, to the greatest extent possible
Overall Public Su000rt
Does the proposed alternative seem consistent with public sentiment from past water supply planning efforts in regards to what a final project
should consider? Does it feel like a project that the City of Bozeman community would generally support, fund, and advocate for in the future.
Economic Develooment and Growth
Does the proposed alternative include components that will hinder Economic Development and Growth in any way? For example, would the
proposed alternative improve or sustain recreational opportunities based on use of our local water supply resources? Would the alternative
allow for flexible and appropriate Economic Development and Growth in the City of Bozeman? Would moratoriums on certain types of service
sectors be a possibility under certain conditions? If the baseline planning conditions set forth in this study effort are no longer applicable due to
unanticipated growth, increased water use, climate, or natural disaster, does the proposed alternative provide flexibility to adapt? Is the
alternative easily expandable to allow for large water using industries to locate to the Bozeman area, if desired? Can it accommodate
unpredictable swings in growth, both through expansion to serve new growth and overall cost considerations to minimize the pressures of
building large infrastructure projects for future populations that don't develop as planned? Can it be combined with other solutions to delay the
project until constructing the project is necessary without sacrificing service levels?
Magnitude of Capital Investment per Acre -ft of Developable Water Supply
Although cost information is not available for all alternatives at this level of the alternatives evaluation, the goal of this category is to provide
relative consideration for each alternative as they compare to each other. In general, ranges of developable acre -ft for each alternative are
provided in the alternative information. The goal of this category is to consider levels of investment versus the amount of water and flexibility
that could be developed. For example, the Sourdough Creek Reservoir Project has included cost estimates of $50 to $70 million dollars for a
possible 6,000 ac -ft of water supply While the alternative evaluation will place some risk on the potential for 6,000 ac -ft (there is some concern
regarding the potential of securing the full amount, or any of the 6,000 ac -ft due to water rights law in Montana), in the event that this project
could be completed, this results in a range of $8,333/ac -ft to $11,666 /ac -ft. Likewise, the current cash in -lieu program charges developers
$6,000 /ac -ft or the relinquishment of water rights equal to what is necessary to serve the development so that new water rights could be
purchased. Likewise, a large development project, such as an import project, may run well over $100 million (perhaps even $200 million)
dollars, but result in the development of 30,000 acre -ft, for a relative cost per ac -ft of much less than the alternatives.
Relative Operation and Maintenance IO &Ml Costs
While detailed O &M costs have not been developed at this time, the evaluator should consider whether extensive O &M will be required for
various alternatives. Will new treatment be necessary? Will pumping be necessary? Will additional staff be required?
Eligibility for Outside Fundin
Would the proposed alternative be eligible for funding assistance to offset the rate impacts of the project to the City of Bozeman rate payers?
Projects that involve regional approaches and address water issues across service sectors (service sectors being municipal, industrial,
agricultural, and natural) could be projects that would be eligible for federal and possibly even special State grant funding. The Red River Valley
Water Supply Project in North Dakota imports water from the Missouri River to the Red River and is funded through a cost share of 1 /3'a federal,
1/3`" state, and 1 /3 rd local funding. The local portion is allocated based on water reserved from the project by each community participating.
Other examples of regional funding programs could be discussed, such as the Rocky Bay's /North Central Montana Regional Water System
Project, the Lewis and Clark Regional Water System Project (South Dakota), the Western Area Water Supply Project (WAWSP), in Northwestern
North Dakota, etc. While some of these projects have unique circumstances that may not make their strategies directly applicable to a regional
project in the Gallatin Valley, these projects are coordinated with the Bureau of Reclamation and funding for both collaborative planning efforts
and future projects has been available in the past, is available now, and could be developed in the future. The extent of outside funding would
need to be further explored, but some alternatives considered as part of this study effort could be eligible for funding, where others will
primarily be the City of Bozeman's responsibility to fund.
Economv of Scale Imoacts
A project that can be constructed to serve a larger population base now and in the future will result in economy of scale benefits. The evaluator
should consider the population that could be served by each alternative in relationship to the cost of constructing and operating the system.
Although one project may be more expensive up front, if it can serve a larger population over the long -term, a cost /benefit analysis may result in
the more costly alternative in the future.
Delav of Infrastructure to Encourage Growth to Pav for Growth
This ranking category will mostly be associated with alternatives that involve phasing, organizational mechanisms, or temporary solutions that
allow for the delay of infrastructure construction until the population is in place to support the project. Not all alternatives will receive scores in
this category.
APPENDIX D
City of Bozeman Integrated
Water Resources Plan
Portfolio Analysis Model
yi 10 CH2MHILL
DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM CH2MHILL@
City of Bozeman Integrated Water Resource Plan - Portfolio Analysis
Model
PREPARED FOR: AE2S, City of Bozeman
PREPARED BY: Emily Callaway
Mark Anderson
DATE: July 18, 2013
Introduction
This technical memorandum describes the portfolio analysis conducted by CH2M HILL in support of the City of
Bozeman's Integrated Water Resource Plan.
CH2M HILL's Voyage TM model, a dynamic water balance simulation tool built in the commercial ExtendSim
software, was selected as the appropriate mechanism for conducting portfolio analysis. The customized model
was built to represent the expected demands, possible conservation programs, current and future supplies for
Bozeman. Further description of the demand projections, conservation program options and firm yield from
current supplies is provided elsewhere in the project report.
Objectives
There are four objectives for the portfolio modeling exercise:
1. Evaluate supply and demand seasonality to produce a monthly water balance over the planning
period;
2. Estimate lifecycle costs for each portfolio
3. Estimate timing of required expansions or new supplies and associated capital costs;
4. Develop recommendations for the best value portfolio to meet Bozeman's long term objectives.
Water Supply Portfolio Analysis
Portfolio Summary
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), city staff, and consultant team identified 13 portfolios to be evaluated
with the dynamic simulation model. These Portfolios reflect various combinations of demand projections,
conservation programs, and water supply alternatives.
Water Supply Alternatives Comprising the Portfolios
Seven new water supply alternatives are included in the portfolios. A brief description of the infrastructure or
other requirements included in each alternative is provided in Table 1.
TABLE 1. NEW WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES
Alternative Name Description
Sourdough Creek Impoundment
Confluence Import from Canyon Ferry
Groundwater in Gallatin Gateway subarea
BOZEMAN_ IWRPMODEL. TM. V6
Construct new storage impoundment(s) on Sourdough Creek, convey to
existing water treatment plant.
Construct new treatment facility and 42" pipeline to convey treated water to
Bozeman distribution system.
Drill new groundwater wells, pump water to existing treatment plant.
Includes some operational storage.
CITY OF BOZEMAN INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE PLAN - PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS MODEL
TABLE 1. NEW WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES
Alternative Name
Description
Agricultural impoundment
Construct new impoundment to supply non - potable quality water for
agricultural irrigation.
Purchase of Shares from Hyalite
Purchase additional water rights from Hyalite reservoir. Ice protection for
withdrawal during winter months included.
Non - Potable Irrigation water
Construct non - potable water distribution system in new developments.
Lyman Creek expansion
Expand treatment capacity of existing Lyman treatment plant by constructing
Impoundment
new raw water intake, conveying raw water to a new 10 million gallon
concrete storage reservoir, adding a new chlorine and fluoride injection
facility, and a new parallel pipeline to connect to the distribution system.
Additional shares from Hyalite, the agricultural impoundment, Gallatin groundwater and Sourdough Creek storage
are all new raw water sources that were assumed to be treated at the Sourdough Water Treatment Plant.
Portfolios requiring more than 22 mgd of water from the Sourdough Plant will trigger expansion of that facility to
the maximum capacity of 36 mgd for which it is designed.
Initial Portfolio Contributions based on Annual Water Balance
New portfolios were initially developed based on an annual water balance designed to meet 2062 demands. The
proposed annual volume of water contributed by each new supply and conservation is summarized in Table 2.
Shaded columns indicate portfolios to meet high growth demands.
TABLE 2. INITIAL PORTFOLIO CONTRIBUTIONS BASED ON ANNUAL WATER BALANCE (YEAR 2062)
Alternative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Acre-Feet of Water from Each Alternative
Sourdough Creek
Impoundment
6,000
Import from
Canyon Ferry
20,000
Groundwater in
13,714
9,062
6,179
Gallatin Gateway
Agricultural
impoundment
2,700
2
2.700
Purchase Shares
from Hyalite
1,765
1,792
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
650
Non - Potable
Irrigation water
4,000
4,000
Lyman Creek
3,165
3,165
3,165
3.165
3,165
expansion
Low Conservation
2,770
4,806
4,806
2,770
Medium
Conservation
5,908
10,108
10,108
3,058
5,908
5,908
High
8,218
12,991
Conservation
Total Portfolio
7,700
7,700
8,868
23,420
19,170
19,170
19,170
19,923
7,708
9,258
9,723
7,815
9,285
BOZEMAN- IWRPMODEL_TM_ V6
CITY OF BOZEMAN INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE PLAN - PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS MODEL
Planning Period and Model Time Step
The modelling exercise evaluates portfolio performance over a 52 year planning period starting in 2010 and
terminating in 2062.
The model evaluates supplies, demands, and costs on a monthly time step.
Evaluation Process
The model was first used to check whether each portfolio, as described in Table 2, would work on a monthly basis
after seasonality of conservation measures, supplies, and demands were taken into consideration. The model
calls on existing supplies to fulfil demands (after accounting for reduced demand due to conservation). Unmet
demands are then filled by new supplies according to each portfolio.
The amount of water called for from each new supply was then adjusted to provide adequate water to balance
each portfolio on a monthly basis. These adjustments were made based on assumptions about operational
constraints and end -uses of water from a given source. Hyalite reservoir, the agricultural impoundment,
Sourdough Creek impoundments, and Gallatin Gateway groundwater were all assumed to have full operational
flexibility to withdraw as much water as needed in a given month (up to an annual maximum) to meet demands.
The Lyman system was assumed to have no operational flexibility due to the presence of ice instead of flowing
water in winter and shoulder months, as experienced in recent years.
Net present value lifecycle costs for each balanced portfolio were then determined and used to calculate dollars
per acre -foot of new water supply delivered in 2062 for each portfolio. These costs were graphed against the
benefit scores determined by the TAC. The cost /benefit graph was used to identify which of the portfolios provide
the highest value and to develop a recommendation for a diverse and resilient portfolio that could adapt over
time to actual growth, demand, and supply variability.
Lifecycle Cost
Lifecycle costs include capital cost and operating cost for each new supply component of a portfolio, including the
water conservation program. Details about specific components of the lifecycle costs included for each new water
supply are provided in the Cost Basis section of this memorandum.
Costs for new supplies are not incurred until water from that supply is required to meet demands. Costs for the
conservation program were calculated on an annual basis and were assumed to begin in 2013. Annual costs vary
over the ten -year program implementation period as the individual conservation measures are implemented, and
then continue at a constant rate to reflect the cost of personnel and public information materials through the
duration of the planning period. Further detail about the conservation program costs are provided elsewhere in
the project report
Lifecycle costs were converted to net present value in 2012 dollars to provide an apples -to- apples basis for
comparing the portfolios using a discount rate of 1.5 percent per year.
Benefit Score
Overall benefit scores based on scores provided by individual members of the TAC were used in the portfolio
evaluation process. Scores from individual members were combined into one score representing the entire
committee. Discussion of the evaluation criteria, weighting, and scoring process is provided elsewhere in this
report. The overall benefit score for each Portfolio used in the evaluation process is summarized in the
Cost /Benefit comparison section of this memorandum. Aggregate scores for portfolios were water volume -
weighted by contributing supply alternative.
Model Inputs and Assumptions
The following sections describe the data inputs and assumptions used in the simulation model.
BOZEMAN_ iWRPMODEL_ TM V6
CITY OF BOZEMAN INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE PLAN - PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS MODEL
Existing Supplies
The City of Bozeman currently draws water from four sources: Hyalite Reservoir, Lyman Creek, Sourdough Creek,
and Middle Creek (aka Hyalite Creek). For purposes of determining unmet demand which must be supplied by
new water sources, each existing source was considered to have a firm yield — a maximum amount of water that
could be supplied by that source in a given month. An update to the City's previous Firm Yield analysis provided in
its 1997 Water Facility Plan was undertaken as part of the Integrated Water Resource Plan. Part of this update
included adjusting expected future firm yield from Middle Creek and Sourdough Creek to account for climate
change effects to hydrology. Although the Lyman system may in fact respond to reduced precipitation, it was
assumed that Hyalite and Lyman are unaffected by climate change in the future. Discussion of the firm yield
update is provided in a previous section of the project report. Climate adjusted values were used in the portfolio
analysis.
Firm Yield
Monthly firm yield values used in the model for each individual supply are summarized in Table 3. Total firm yield
values for climate- adjusted supplies (Middle and Sourdough Creek) and the total value are reported for the
beginning of the model simulation period (2010), the mid -term planning horizon (2042), and at the end of the
planning period (2062) to show the decrease in firm yield over time due to climate change adjustment.
TABLE 3. FIRM YIELD OF INDIVIDUAL EXISTING SUPPLIES (AC -FT)
Month
Hyalite
Reservoir'
Lyman
Creek
2010
Middle Creek
2042
2062
2010
Sourdough Creek
2042
2062
January
0
91
186
171
150
290
267
235
February
0
87
168
154
136
266
245
216
March
0
83
212
236
304
332
369
475
April
0
72
106
122
128
331
381
400
May
26'
106
50
48
45
369
351
326
June
1,200
180
83
78
72
319
299
278
July
1,200
312
18
17
15
291
271
246
August
1,204
313
18
17
15
290
270
246
September
917
226
94
85
76
278
253
225
October
0
142
187
176
155
294
276
243
November
0
95
180
165
145
282
259
228
December
0
83
186
171
150
290
267
235
Notes:
1. May firm yield for Hyalite Reservoir was assumed to equal the demand unmet by other supplies for 2012
TABLE 4. TOTAL FIRM YIELD EXISTING SUPPLIES
4 BOZEMAN IWRPMODEL TM V6
Total Firm Yield
Month
2010
2042
2062
January
567
529
476
February
521
486
438
March
627
687
862
4 BOZEMAN IWRPMODEL TM V6
CITY OF BOZEMAN INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE PLAN - PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS MODEL
TABLE 4. TOTAL FIRM YIELD EXISTING SUPPLIES
(AC -FT)
Month
2010
Total Firm Yield
2042 2062
April
509
575
600
May
552
531
503
June
1,781
1,757
1,731
July
1,821
1,800
1,774
August
1,825
1,804
1,778
September
1,515
1,481
1,444
October
623
595
540
November
556
519
468
December
559
521
468
Seasonality
Seasonality of the existing supplies is reflected in the values reported in Table 4. High values in summer reflect
current operations of Hyalite Reservoir which is drawn upon to fulfil peak demands.
Demand
The model portfolios reflect either medium or high growth and a 95% service level based on average historical
water use. Demands were adjusted from historical trends to account for increases in irrigation demands resulting
from global climate model predictions of warmer temperatures in earlier months and reduced precipitation over
the course of the year. Climate- adjusted demands used in the model for each growth scenario are summarized in
Table 5. Monthly demands are reported for the beginning of the model simulation period (2010), the mid -term
planning horizon (2042), and at the end of the planning period (2062).
TABLE 5. TOTAL DEMAND FOR MEDIUM AND HIGH GROWTH SCENARIOS (AC -FT)
Seasonality
BOZEMAN_ IWRPMODEL_ TM_ V6
Medium Growth
High Growth
Month
2010
2042
2062
2010
2042
2062
January
378
667
803
378
877
1,278
February
397
698
840
397
917
1,336
March
386
681
819
386
894
1,304
April
385
689
919
385
904
1,460
May
588
1,121
1,463
588
1,485
2,356
June
722
1,382
1,861
722
1,823
2,981
July
1,093
2,169
2,988
1,093
2,878
4,819
August
1,057
2,093
2,931
1,057
2,774
4,723
September
787
1,540
2,100
787
2,040
3,380
October
456
835
1,165
456
1,099
1,859
November
389
681
818
389
892
1,297
December
375
667
803
375
878
1,283
Seasonality
BOZEMAN_ IWRPMODEL_ TM_ V6
CITY OF BOZEMAN INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE PLAN - PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS MODEL
Seasonality of demands is reflected in the values reported in Table 5, showing higher use in summer months due
to irrigation demands, and lower use in winter months when there is no irrigation occurring.
Conservation Reduction
Conservation Scenarios and Gross Conservation Reduction
The City has developed low, medium, and high conservation scenarios as described in a previous section of the
project report. Each of the scenarios includes several individual conservation measures that will be phased in over
a ten year implementation period. Conservation measures will continue to be practiced over the course of the
planning period; therefore the conservation reduction to demand will grow in proportion to population (and the
associated demand) growth.
The gross annual conservation reduction for each conservation scenario for both medium and high growth is
provided in Table 6. Conservation reduction values are reported in acre -feet for the end of the conservation
program implementation period (2023), the mid -term planning horizon (2042), and at the end of the planning
period (2062).
TABLE 6. GROSS CONSERVATION REDUCTION (AC -FT)
Conservation
Medium Growth
High Growth
Scenario 2023
2042
2062
2023
2042
2062
Low 715
2,013
2,770
726
2,838
4,806
Medium 1,622
4,282
5,908
1,618
5,921
10,108
High 3,250
6,369
8,218
3,233
8,240
12,991
Seasonality of Conservation Measures
Three of the conservation measures included in the medium and high conservation scenarios directly impact
irrigation uses and will therefore only provide effective conservation during the summer irrigation months. The
measures considered to directly impact irrigation uses are turf reduction (residential and commercial), pricing
modifications, and watering restrictions. These outdoor measures result in a seasonal fluctuation to the overall
conservation reduction, with more water being conserved in summer months. These measures are not included in
the low conservation scenario and therefore there is no seasonal difference in conservation reduction for the low
scenario.
The proportion of overall conservation made up by the outdoor measures decreases over time as more indoor
measures are implemented. For the medium growth scenario, outdoor measures account for approximately 79
percent of the total conservation reduction at the beginning of the conservation program, decreasing to
approximately 56 percent toward the end of the implementation period. For the high growth scenario, outdoor
measures comprise approximately 75 percent of the conservation reduction at the beginning of the
implementation period, decreasing to about 50 percent at the end. The seasonal fraction is assumed to remain
constant after the 10 -year implementation period. The fraction of the total conservation reduction contributed by
outdoor measures is shown in Figure 1.
BOZEMAN_IWRPMODE1__TM_V6
0.9
n 0.8
v
0.7
Q
r-
.2 0.6
u
3
= 0.5
c r-
o t
v 0.4
v
c 0.3
U
O
C 0.2
O
u
LT 0.1
0
ti� tip` tih ti� ti� ti� ti� ti� tit ti� ti� ti� PI
,LO ,ti0 ,y0 ,y0 ,ti0 ,y0 ,ti0 ,ti0 ,LO ,ti0 ,LO ,ti0 ,LO
CITY OF BOZEMAN INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE PLAN - PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS MODEL
Medium Conservation High Conservation
Figure 1. Fraction of Conservation Reduction contributed by Outdoor Measures
Net Conservation Reduction
The net conservation reduction is the amount of water conserved in a given month after accounting for
seasonality of the conservation measures. The monthly net conservation reduction for each conservation
scenario, for both medium and high growth, is summarized in Table 7. Net conservation reductions are reported
for the end of the planning period (2062) and are provided on a monthly basis to illustrate the variability in the
medium and high conservation scenarios due to outdoor measures. The low conservation scenario does not
include outdoor measures and therefore the monthly values do not vary; each month is assumed to have 1 /12th
the total annual conservation reduction.
TABLE 7. NET CONSERVATION REDUCTION
BOZEMAN-IWRPMODEL_TM_V6
Net Conservation Reduction in 2062 -
Medium Growth (ac -ft)
Net Conservation Reduction in 2062 -
High Growth (ac -ft)
Low
Medium
High
Low
Medium
High
Month
Conservation
Conservation
Conservation
Conservation Conservation Conservation
January
231
217
338
400
371
535
February
231
217
338
400
371
535
March
231
217
338
400
371
535
April
231
557
766
400
952
1,210
May
231
557
766
400
952
1,210
June
231
705
953
400
1,207
1,506
BOZEMAN-IWRPMODEL_TM_V6
CITY OF BOZEMAN INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE PLAN -
PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS MODEL
TABLE 7. NET CONSERVATION REDUCTION
Net Conservation Reduction in
2062 -
Net Conservation Reduction in 2062 -
Medium Growth (ac -ft)
High Growth (ac -ft)
Low
Medium
High
Low
Medium
High
Month
Conservation
Conservation
Conservation
Conservation Conservation Conservation
July
231
1,129
1,485
400
1,931
2,348
August
231
1,003
1,328
400
1,717
2,099
September
231
656
891
400
1,123
1,409
October
231
217
338
400
371
535
November
231
217
338
400
371
535
December
231
217
338
400
371
535
TOTAL
2,770
5,908
8,218
4,806
10,108
12,991
Cost Basis
Lifecycle costs over the 50 -year planning period for the various portfolios were estimated using the information
contained in Tables 8, 9 and 10. Table 8 provides costs for conservation, Table 9 provides detail for the capital cost
components and Table 10 provides details about the operations and maintenance costs. Cost information was
collected from a number of sources. It was not possible to fully equalize cost assumptions across source data, so
certain inconsistencies exist. In some cases, costs developed for a specific project type and size were scaled
linearly to a different capacity. It is understood that this is a significant assumption and further refinement of
costs for recommended alternatives is strongly advised. In general, cost estimates at a conceptual level have
accepted accuracy of -50% to +100% of the stated value. In that context, comparative cost estimates should be
interpreted based on general ranking and order -of- magnitude values. Comparative costs only attempt to capture
the major differentiating elements between alternatives, rather than the full cost of implementation. Net present
value provides comparative data, excluding inflation, material shortages, or other factors that would affect the
actual dollar cost at the time of expenditure.
TABLE 8. CONSERVATION COST BASIS
Conservation Scenario Cost ($ /AF saved)
Low $620
Medium $1,560
High $1,750
8 BOZEMAN_IWRPMODEL_TM_VG
Ln
cn
Q
m
H
cn
O
U
J
F-
a
U
a)
O
Z
C
m
c
0
E
O
C
0
(D
O
U)
C
fn a)
t�
� c �
a`) m I-o
N
� m
L
7
IL
CD C
C_ d —
00
E
a)OV_
(L TC m
C C N�
`y me
c
c Co
� O .2
LUUQ
LL
Q
a
N
O
U
CL
m
U
m
O
H
T
U
m
LL
N
C
m
x
LU
CL
CL
7
U)
m
Z
cc
m
E
N
O
m
O
U
O
N
00
O
Q C
C C
O Y
U
Cmn
7 7
E <n
OC
U N
mm
LU I-
a)
7
U
c
CD
0
Z
O
O
�O
CD
m
T
E
0
N
Qi
m
L
!n
f0 �
oZ
'}•' a)
Q cr
�o
\
c \°)
O
O
c
°
a)
x
N
0� 0 °
c
C
N O
00
aOd
m°
a
m
U V a
o m
a)- N L
0 m
O U N L
°
a
0 0
E
U
C N
LL .+-T'
UCy E
Nm OU
m�
0M0L)
m�
LL "-
c O
Via)—
mO)
U
Qn
m-0 m
m�mC
cu
mm
co
mmcm
.-.
Q c
Na
°v)
E
B E
O U
O O
Cm
N
N
:3,0
2 a)
(D0-CO
C N d
O
U LL
a E O) U L
N a m C L
U E c
c Z' a) (0
_
E C
C a) f0
O E
U
T C .=
U) c C
N H
0 C L
CEO
CY)
UO(n :t:: 03
OOmm
pO0m
Oa
Op'�E
EYO)
N U U a) 0
m
N C-10 a)
1010
N C
�
ma)>
a C'a
O) N
M N
p nj
C
a) M V) '
m O c0
o O) 10
c_
0
0) 0
__
C O V
c = m
°° =O O
E O
°
E C U>
U
Y
U
j U C
Y
U
7 U C
>,O
0_)C O
_ C
°
Nj
°
C�
m .� f0 L
-0 "c6V
�
wccE
(n
wccE
° a
y
�r.;;m
O) .p+
Ec =0 cr
E
mF L
x� 3
d 0' 7
U
LL0V 7
U �° m e
a)��
CU m N
3^ 3m
N a) Co
N E_..
e ui=
M m
0. N a) c O)
�mm
p 7 Ca
0-5
v p j f`0
a>iv'O
69
a) ON a) m
E m c a)
�p
Or:
E(a .0
U)i p;a.o
-0
o,°� -.c E
'a UO
o °.c E
° o S
aJa a)
B-12., m`
o mm
� E•E
� M
m r� a
E L)= E
E L)= E
O �'a
0- 2 am
o. N m
°
- a >'•f0 O
CI N'o C
N -0 C
a) a)
O N ° a)
fc0 m N
m
E m
°'V LL
a)
m 0 o
E -0 a
m 0 O
E -0 a
Y m U
cD E a
C= C 0.-.
cU0 o
a 0 0
N.
}?
m 3 N m U
N „N, 7 E
N
)n N 7 E
4)
N
U
�t C LL
.9 .2:,
L U °
CD
N
N U 0� 0
°� °m
CO LL N E
°m MQm
mLL N E
$m 6<-0
a)a
C oZ
c 0 m a
2 20 ° m
y E•O
o oa
c°iin
C 0
(D �
V-0 N E N
m
(n 0-0
p U\
o O O N
N° C
o
0co 01 \.
O
J.N. C
JN°m
OZ °
J
JN°m
O w O
-2 w a)Y
O U-
m
v) U y
U0ma)
p_
m�
�O
�"Oyoo
mC) N
2U mE
Cma'
2U mE
Cm(D
o' c�
(n �•�0-
(nn00mp
U(n E)n ca
�ac�aEi
pNU
c a
Na)O
ECD
!-` 7ti O N_0
g60 E
NO,m
gco E
N m
oam
aE °
_m °may
m E NOS
m
w T� a
0 C
U O
a) U) M; OM a)
m fn N fA 3
2 0 rn ,v_i
U a0 Lu
2 o O rn .N
U a0 Lu -Z
p� OLL
N E U Q
O m CO Lr C
H O L)
O C N N
U 0 3 w
�o
\
c \°)
\
corn
0
m
a)
x
()
a
°0O C
Nr
a)
a
\
-.E
=L_
00
0
°a E
0
O
c .
0 3,3 T
o
a m
c
c
0
'
0
c
�
v
2 v R �' w
ocm
> >
C
m
�
m
73
0. 0 0 3 c
C
E a)
C
E ate)
C
� >'N V E
O O
7
cn a)
O
:3,0
2 a)
O
=_ m
0 0 0 p d
Z Z
Q c
Z
Q c
Z
Z2.0 U)
�o
\
c \°)
\
corn
0
m
m
x
0O C
N�
°0O C
Nr
00 0
\
o
00
0a. E
°a E
N
O
ma's
C m
0
a)Y O N
a
(D -?5 O N
a
(n
'0
UY-0
C
7
N c T
U Co U
m E c�
U Co U
m E c p)
m
0)
m m
3 E�
--
3 o c
3 o c
c
o c
a m
or'rn
o o'c
(U
o o•m
co coo C,
v
Z'c
E. \
C
\ N C m
C
(D
\ N •C m
C 0)
v
0
(D
\ C
��(D
C
C
c
o' 0 0 �
C
op O O C 0)
C
0 0 C
°
O)
O C
O)
F O C
W a U N
N U U a) 0
N U U a) 0
C
M a)
N U N
J
W
O
2
IL
3
f
W
m
0
0
O
0
O
O 4-
00 0
m
W
00
d
m
N
O
N
0
(n
%D
m
06
c
0
N
c
m
a
a)
C
a)
0)
m
w
E
°
C
C
°
m
0
E
aa))
O1
E
°
Z
U
co
o
m
a
N
m
C7
x
LL
O)
m
0)
W
0
c
C
c
0
0
U
m
m
0
U
d
"0
.
E
C
7
C
7
Z
Q
C7
U
in
in
J
W
O
2
IL
3
f
W
m
N (n a) c
O m a w ac) c_ w ac) c Q) NU O rn0 (a ac;
a) N
E; En 0\ (D m dm U N m dm U N_N O)m O-a) m� f�0
io w �LL � c �� � a c ��•C E c ca o !o-
co CD CL
(v Q m}a °U mco °� m° Em «�- a�NCO•
.S m N vi C: O a) 0 2 N a� C O C
m 0 3 �M ='D �m•�� m N u NpLL a�E a
«m. N O (n OOE�O OOEV O N� E� CU °�C�01J
O o E 0` vL E vvr E N d U) O 0(D o m°
4) y C U N a) a) 'C U N a) O n N N^ O a) Y N_ 2
Z m E O� (n L m L N m T.. fa «, N— O-L L'.
m Y m N m LL c N m LL c Z` O J O (tea N LL 3:79 (
> O O — y • a O
C (A O (n O = 7 Y J .0 f0 w 3
_ E m- ap3�on x03.00- � .0 m °mY >° vZ
O M aj O U (p d 7 V �a d 7 a) C in Cl) C N> ° >-
0 O '-° m� NONCNj Comte :i mc°i �c2 °�Umaci =Q
C o0 N 0=.2 m C 0=2 m C N C L N U O O y E L
O °) c 0 E T5 u ai c m E •C5 o ai c m fO - L)i N C L) N a, 3
O C 0).E- U m a) ,C U m C LL O N }' a) O m N
v n� EY C: cni m c °= E 'yin c °� E (D L E ° a) m aEimo0o 36.2 m:
a a) N is O° m E is O L) _N m E m O m a) -° m V 0 E
v m L) E E N C:
W c m E E m•cinN Ev cNN N c- oc -0 .Y «E=
`o_c a) �aoE - 5a0EWY ocr o�`oa ccmUm °c)
Um (p �Q cn Nm ~ -0p0 N ~ -0NO0 yY Nyn COOLEOm'
7 7 (D.0 4) U m p m U c U m `o m U c V m U 7 m N m 0 N (Nn °
E(n 3 J.N c m J.N. C E �^ N O E O�Q N
E c' N d E J p f�a a) m L J O w ° m s c c m U .+_T• 0 >O a) O
c ° QO min = U c CD (D m = U C � � m 0 � � 0 aa)) C � � a_ c o
—� (v -0 CD g�.oUO ��oUO� m �Em �m D 0Qo
E N L O C O = O UO N m C = O UO N m C a c J O- N Cc O y ° N
LU HZ 0 U a— o m U n— o m O -2 O U U— ou m
U) j E
o EN
as U ti a a) m CM
NN Via) (p Nmv
C U Efl m LL T
ca �°' Q o?co�'
CL ny LL 00 LL LL OO n4) E T>
C LL LL N Q LL Q LL E >� O .,,, t0
oz Q m Q Q v> \ Q \ ": < V UN c12
\J \ (n O \ (n ^ \mm N
C O M N an N N (n
N
�m 6 E» E» V) 40 40 i
Vl
ca O
U
N
C V
O C
W
� C
a�
O 'm
2
T
U
f0
LL
N
C
f0
M
X
W
M
M
7
3
d
Z
�I
H
J�
W
O
f
a
3
Z
a
W
N
O
m
Results
Portfolio Contributions based on Monthly Water Balance
Year 2062 contributions to the total portfolio from each new supply, based on a monthly rather than annual water
balance, are shown in Table 10. Water conserved is also shown in Table 11, along with the total annual volume for
2062.
TABLE 11. NEW WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION PORTFOLIO CONTRIBUTIONS BASED ON MONTHLY WATER BALANCE (YEAR 2062)
Alternative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Acre -Feet of Water from Each Alternative
Sourdough Creek
Impoundment
3,371
Import from
10,994
Canyon Ferry
Groundwater in
10,994
6,505
4,282
Gallatin Gateway
Agricultural
1,025
1,137
impoundment
Purchase Shares
from Hyalite
2,641
1,416
456
643
643
545
2,379
390
428
1,758
543
Non - Potable
1,113
1,689
Irrigation water
Lyman Creek
1,125
2,590
988
2,699
2,086
expansion
Low Conservation
2,770
4,806
4,806
1
2,770
Medium
Conservation
5,908
10,108
10,108
3,060
5,908
5,908
High
8,218
12,991
Conservation
Total Portfolio
6,536
7,324
8,674
16,443
16,443
1 16,613
17,273
16,613
1 6,552
1 7,323
1 7,323
6,146
6,536
Due to the irrigation -based seasonality affecting water conservation measures and the degree to which non -
potable irrigation can offset overall demand, the amount of water actually needed from certain supplies may vary
significantly from the amount identified in the original portfolios presented in Table 2 based on the annual water
balance.
Cost Summary & Ranking
Results of the cost analysis for each portfolio are provided in Table 12, ranked in order from lowest to highest
total lifecycle cost. High growth portfolios are indicated by shaded rows. Individual components of the total
lifecycle cost (capital cost, operations and maintenance cost, and cost of the conservation program) are shown in
addition to the overall lifecycle cost for each portfolio. All costs are presented in net present value 2012 dollars,
expressed in millions.
BOZEMAN _ IWRPMODEL._TM_V6 12
CITY OF BOZEMAN INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE PLAN - PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS MODEL
TABLE 12. NET PRESENT VALUE PORTFOLIO LIFECYCLE COST SUMMARY (MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
Portfolio
Description
Capital Cost
Operations
&
Maintenance
Cost
Conservation
Program
Cost
Total
Lifecycle
Cost
2
Hyalite shares, Medium Conservation
2
77
6
85
3
Hyalite shares, High Conservation
1
74
10
85
9
Hyalite, NP Irrigation, Medium Conservation (3058)
5
81
2
88
10
Ag Impoundment, Hyalite Shares, Medium Conservation
11
77
6
93
11
Hyalite shares, Lyman, Medium Conservation
18
77
6
101
1
Hyalite shares, Lyman, Low Conservation
19
81
2
101
12
Hyalite, Non - potable Irrigation, Lyman, Low Conservation
26
86
0
111
6
Gallatin groundwater, Medium Conservation
12
86
14
113
7
Gallatin groundwater, High Conservation
12
80
23
114
13
Ag Impoundment, Hyalite shares, Lyman, Low Conservation
36
81
2
118
5
Gallatin groundwater, Hyalite shares, Low Conservation
24
95
4
123
8
Sourdough Impoundment, Hyalite, Lyman, Mad Conservation
60
82
14
157
4
Canyon Ferry, Hyalite, Low Conservation
188
105
4
296
Notes:
1.
Shaded rows indicate high growth scenario
Cost/Benefit Comparison
Benefit scores developed by the TAC for each portfolio are provided in Table 13. These scores reflect weighting of
the individual alternatives by the relative contribution each alternative contributes to the portfolio.
TABLE 13. BENEFIT SCORES FOR EACH PORTFOLIO
Portfolio
Description
Score
1
Hyalite shares, Lyman, Low Conservation
2.9
2
Hyalite shares, Medium Conservation
3.1
3
Hyalite shares, High Conservation
2.1
4
Canyon Ferry, Hyalite, Low Conservation
1
5
Gallatin groundwater, Hyalite shares, Low Conservation
1.7
6
Gallatin groundwater, Medium Conservation
1.8
7
Gallatin groundwater, High Conservation
1.6
8
Sourdough Impoundment, Hyalite, Lyman, Med Conservation
1.9
9
Hyalite, NP Irrigation, Medium Conservation (3058)
2.2
10
Ag Impoundment, Hyalite Shares, Medium Conservation
2
BOZEMAN_IWRPMODEL_TM_V6 13
CITY OF BOZEMAN INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE PLAN - PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS MODEL
TABLE 13. BENEFIT SCORES FOR EACH PORTFOLIO
Portfolio Description Score
11 Hyalite shares, Lyman, Medium Conservation 2.4
12 Hyalite, Non - potable Irrigation, Lyman, Low Conservation 2.2
13 Ag Impoundment, Hyalite shares, Lyman, Low Conservation 1.9
Lifecycle costs for each portfolio, as provided in Table 12, were converted to a unit cost per acre -foot of water
delivered by the portfolio in 2062. Water conserved through the conservation program was included in the total
volume of water delivered. Conversion of the total lifecycle cost to unit cost allows for direct comparison of the
portfolios, regardless of growth scenario.
Total lifecycle costs, total annual volume of water delivered in 2062 (including conservation), and the resulting
unit cost per acre -foot for each portfolio are provided in Table 14. The portfolios are ranked from lowest unit cost
to highest unit cost. Portfolios designed for high growth scenarios are indicated by the shaded rows. Unit costs
have been rounded to the nearest $100. In general, economy of scale, especially for water treatment operations,
makes the high - growth scenarios cost less on a per unit delivered basis.
TABLE 14. UNIT COST ($ /AC -FT) FOR WATER DELIVERED IN 2062
Portfolio
Description
Total
Lifecycle
Cost
($Millions)
Annual
Volume of
Water
Delivered in
2062 (ac -ft)
Unit Cost
($ /ac -ft)
7
Gallatin groundwater, High Conservation
114
17,273
$6,600
6
Gallatin groundwater, Medium Conservation
113
16,613
$6,800
5
Gallatin groundwater, Hyalite shares, Low Conservation
123
16,443
$7,500
8
Sourdough Impoundment, Hyalite, Lyman, Mad Conservation
157
16,613
$9,400
3
Hyalite shares, High Conservation
85
8,674
$9,800
2
Hyalite shares, Medium Conservation
85
7,324
$11,600
10
Ag Impoundment, Hyalite Shares, Medium Conservation
93
7,324
$12,700
9
Hyalite, NP Irrigation, Medium Conservation (3058)
88
6,552
$13,400
11
Hyalite shares, Lyman, Medium Conservation
101
7,324
$13,800
1
Hyalite shares, Lyman, Low Conservation
101
6,536
$15,500
4
Canyon Ferry, Hyalite, Low Conservation
296
16,443
$18,000
13
Ag Impoundment, Hyalite shares, Lyman, Low Conservation
118
6,536
$18,100
12
Hyalite, Non - potable Irrigation, Lyman, No Conservation
111
6,146
$18,100
Notes:
1. Shaded rows indicate high growth scenario
Unit costs were plotted against both the TAC benefit score to demonstrate the relative value of each portfolio,
where value is defined as achieving the highest benefit for the lowest unit cost. Following this definition,
portfolios falling the lowest and furthest to the right of the graph provide the highest value. The cost /benefit
graph is shown in Figure 2;shaded ovals indicate high growth.
14 BOZEMAN.. IWRPMODEL_TM_.V6
$20,000
$18,000
$16,000
v $14,000
p $12,000
ILL
a $10,000
L
$8,000
v1
O
v $6,000
,_ $4,000
J
$2,000
OF BOZEMAN INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE PLAN - PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS
P4 P13 + P12
P9
P11
P10
P1
* P2 -
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
TAC Benefit Score
Figure 2. Cost /Benefit Comparison of Portfolios, based on TAC Benefit Scores.
Sensitivity Analysis
3.5
Cost Sensitivity
Several of the portfolios rely on new shares from Hyalite reservoir as a key component of new water supply. New
shares from Hyalite are a particularly flexible resource as very little infrastructure is required to allow withdrawal
of water at time of the year (some ice protection has been recommended by city staff to prevent operational
disruptions in winter months). Because very little infrastructure is required, new shares can be implemented
relatively quickly to fill near term gaps in the supply /demand balance. Given the importance of new shares from
Hyalite to the overall water portfolio, cost sensitivity analysis was conducted to see how the overall value rankings
of each of the portfolios would change if both the capital and operating costs of new shares were twice as much
as assumed initially. Increasing the capital cost of new shares from $6,000 /ac -ft to $12,000 /ac -ft and doubling the
annual operations and maintenance costs from $35 /ac -ft to $70 /ac -ft resulted in a 3.7 percent increase in overall
lifecycle costs for portfolio 1, the portfolio most heavily dependent on new shares from Hyalite. The relative value
ranking of portfolios remained unchanged from the initial analysis. This analysis demonstrated that new shares
from Hyalite are a relatively cost - effective means of supplying new water.
Recommendations
Recognizing the uncertainty associated with growth projections and reliance on behaviour change to achieve high
levels of water conservation to reduce overall demand, the TAC and technical team developed a fourteenth
portfolio recommendation that is flexible enough to allow for realization of either the medium or high growth
scenario and a realistically achievable level of conservation.
BOZEMAN- IWRPMODEL_ TIM _V6 15
CITY OF BOZEMAN INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE PLAN - PORTFOLIO
This recommended portfolio relies on a suite of new supplies that can be implemented in phases as the City
evaluates growth and conservation program effectiveness. Contributions to the fourteenth portfolio, based on
the high growth scenario, are provided in Table 15. Capacity selected for each contributing element was based on
conservative assumptions about the likely contribution of each. In most cases, it may be possible to develop more
supply from each individual source.
TABLE 15. RECOMMENDED PORTFOLIO COMPONENTS AND ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS BASED ON HIGH
GROWTH PROJECTION
Portfolio 14 was scored using the TAC scores for individual portfolio components (as discussed in a previous
section of the project report). The composite TAC score for this portfolio is 2.05. The cost - benefit relationship
scores for all the portfolios, based on the TAC scores, are shown in Figure 3. As shown on Figure 3, portfolio 14
provides a high value portfolio relative to the other high growth scenarios. While the unit cost is marginally higher
than three of the other high - growth portfolios, portfolio 14 offers a more diverse and flexible water supply
portfolio; diversity and flexibility make the portfolio more resilient to changing conditions and uncertainty in the
future. These positive attributes are reflected in the higher benefit score.
16 BOZEMAN IWRPMODEL TM V6
Contribution to High Growth Annual
Portfolio Component
Water Balance in 2062 (ac -ft)
Conservation
4,500
New shares from Hyalite
650
Lyman system expansion
3,165
Non - potable irrigation
1,200
Sourdough Creek impoundments
915
Groundwater from Gallatin Gateway subarea
5,810
Total Annual Supply
16,240
Costs for Portfolio 14 are summarized in Table 16.
TABLE 16. NET PRESENT VALUE RECOMMENDED PORTFOLIO LIFECYCLE COST SUMMARY (MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)
Annual
Volume
Conser-
of
Operation vation Total
Water
Unit
Capital & Maint. Program Lifecycle
in 2062
Cost
Portfolio Description
Cost Cost Cost Cost
(ac -ft)
($ /ac -ft)
Hyalite shares, Lyman expansion, Non - potable
14 irrigtation, Sourdough Impoundments, Gallatin
50 93 4 147
16,240
$9,100
Gateway groundwater, medium /low conservation
Portfolio 14 was scored using the TAC scores for individual portfolio components (as discussed in a previous
section of the project report). The composite TAC score for this portfolio is 2.05. The cost - benefit relationship
scores for all the portfolios, based on the TAC scores, are shown in Figure 3. As shown on Figure 3, portfolio 14
provides a high value portfolio relative to the other high growth scenarios. While the unit cost is marginally higher
than three of the other high - growth portfolios, portfolio 14 offers a more diverse and flexible water supply
portfolio; diversity and flexibility make the portfolio more resilient to changing conditions and uncertainty in the
future. These positive attributes are reflected in the higher benefit score.
16 BOZEMAN IWRPMODEL TM V6
CITY OF BOZEMAN INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE PLAN - PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS MODEL
$20,000
$18,000
$16,000
2 $14,000
p $12,000
+W
U.
a $10,000
P1.4
$8,000
0
v $6,000
U
U
,T $4,000
J
$2,000
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
TAC Benefit Score
Figure 3. Cost - Benefit Relationship of Recommended Portfolio (Portfolio 14)
Implementation
The recommended portfolio would rely on conservation and new shares from Hyalite in the early years. Based on
the assumed monthly availability of each supply, the water balance model indicates that additional water from
other new water supplies required when May demands are approximately 610 ac -ft (6.5 mgd).
Based on evaportranspiration rates for grass and assuming that 40 percent of residential areas are landscaped,
approximately 1,500 acres of new development will be required to consume the 1,200 AF of water proposed for
non - potable irrigation. The amount of water supplied by other sources can be increased if the rate of
development in the non - potable irrigation area does not keep pace with growing demands in other areas of the
city. Portfolio development assumed that the non - potable system would be brought on -line in 100 ac -ft
increments (corresponding to a development of approximately 125 acres).
Groundwater from the Gallatin Gateway subarea was considered a "relief valve" for purposes of balancing the
fourteenth portfolio. Gallatin groundwater could be implemented relatively early in order to allow an evaluation
period in which reliable groundwater yield could be assessed. If the groundwater yield proves to be less than
called for by the portfolio, additional contributions from Hyalite could be added to compensate.
Costs for new water rights purchase were included where those costs were known, but additional costs may be
incurred for water rights acquisition from various sources. These costs will need to be taken into consideration as
they become clearer and the City decides the order in which to implement new supplies.
Conclusion
The portfolio development and analysis process has resulted in a recommended portfolio that provides the City of
Bozeman with a flexible, resilient water resource management strategy. Input from the TAC and technical team
BOZEMAN- IWRPMODEL_TM_V6 17
CITY OF BOZEMAN INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE PLAN - PORTFOLIO ANAL
were used to make the analysis as robust as possible given the available information. The cost analysis provides
an order of magnitude cost comparison between the portfolios, while the cost /benefit assessment reflects the
values of the community for which the strategy is devised. The recommended portfolio is a high -value solution
that delivers maximal benefits for a competitive cost. Both the order in which new supplies are implemented and
the degree to which each new supply is utilised can be can be adapted by City managers to future conditions as
those conditions unfold.
18 BOZEMAN_IWRPMODEL TM_V6