This is a digital document from the collections of the Wyoming Water Resources Data System (WRDS) Library.

Transcription

1 This is a digital document from the collections of the Wyoming Water Resources Data System (WRDS) Library. For additional information about this document and the document conversion process, please contact WRDS at wrds@uwyo.edu and include the phrase Digital Documents in your subject heading. To view other documents please visit the WRDS Library online at: Mailing Address: Water Resources Data System University of Wyoming, Dept E University Avenue Laramie, WY Physical Address: Wyoming Hall, Room 249 University of Wyoming Laramie, WY Phone: (307) Fax: (307) Funding for WRDS and the creation of this electronic document was provided by the Wyoming Water Development Commission (

2 Buckskin Extension FINAL REPORT Buckskin Extension Master Plan / Gillette Regional Level II Study Woodard & Curran Stacey Hellekson, PE shellekson@woodardcurran.com Wyoming Water Development Commission / Gillette, WY September 1, 2017

3

4 Buckskin Extension FINAL REPORT Buckskin Extension Master Plan / Gillette Regional Level II Study I hereby certify that I have prepared or directly supervised the preparation of these reports and that I am a duly registered professional in the State of Wyoming. Stacey D. Hellekson P.E. Wyoming P.E. No Wyoming Water Development Commission / Gillette, WY September 1, 2017

5

6 SECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. 1. INTRODUCTION PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND SUMMARY ORGANIZATION OF REPORT SCOPING AND PROJECT MEETINGS SCOPING MEETING PROJECT MEETINGS REVIEW OF EXISTING INFORMATION SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS POTABLE WATER STUDIES INVENTORY AND EVALUATE WATER SYSTEMS SYSTEM OVERVIEW SYSTEM DETAILS WELL, STORAGE TANK AND PUMP HOUSE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM SERVICE CONNECTIONS VALVES AND FIRE HYDRANTS CREATION OF GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM HYDRAULIC MODEL SYSTEM OVERVIEW MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND DEMAND ALLOCATION DEMAND DEVELOPMENT AND DISTRIBUTION NON-REVENUE WATER FUTURE WATER DEMANDS DIURNAL DEMAND PATTERNS PEAKING FACTORS MODEL CALIBRATION MODELING DEFINITIONS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA TYPES OF MODELING ANALYSES EVALUATION CRITERIA SYSTEM RELIABILITY AND REDUNDANCY MODEL RESULTS SCENARIOS EXAMINED SUMMARY OF RESULTS EXISTING SYSTEM FUTURE SYSTEM RECOMMENDATIONS WATER SOURCE DATA COLLECTION BUCKSKIN ISD GILLETTE REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM CITY OF GILLETTE HERITAGE VILLAGE ISD Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) i Woodard & Curran _Buckskin_Master_Plan_FINAL June 2017

7 7. WATER QUALITY WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS WELL WATER QUALITY SAMPLING REVIEW ROUTINE SAMPLING RECOMMENDATIONS WELL WATER QUALITY RESULTS RECOMMENDATIONS REVIEW OF WATER RIGHTS RECOMMENDATIONS EVALUATION OF SYSTEM OPERATIONS TREATMENT, STORAGE TANK AND PUMP HOUSE WATER METERS SYSTEM COMPONENTS SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS POPULATION GROWTH AND WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS POPULATION PROJECTIONS AND SERVICE AREA EXISTING WATER DEMAND EXISTING WATER SOURCE AND FUTURE DEMAND GILLETTE REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM CONNECTION GILLETE REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM OVERVIEW PRIORITIZATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OVERALL APPROACH CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE ASSESSMENT LIKELIHOOD OF FAILURE ASSESSMENT RISK MATRIX WATER SOURCE ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVE #1 MAINTAIN EXISTING ISD WATER SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE #2 WHOLESALE CONNECTION TO GILLETTE REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE #3 ANNEXATION TO CITY OF GILLETTE ALTERNATIVE #4 CONNECT TO HERITAGE VILLAGE WATER SYSTEM SUMMARY COST ESTIMATES COST ESTIMATE OVERVIEW ALTERNATIVE #1 MAINTAIN EXISTING ISD WATER SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE #2 WHOLESALE CONNECTION TO GILLETTE REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE #3 ANNEXATION TO CITY OF GILLETTE ALTERNATIVE #4 CONNECT TO HERITAGE VILLAGE WATER SYSTEM WATER SYSTEM FINANCING EXISTING SYSTEM RATES Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) ii Woodard & Curran _Buckskin_Master_Plan_FINAL June 2017

8 14.2 FY 2018 SYSTEM BUDGET EXISTING WATER ENTERPRISE RECOMMENDATIONS GILLETTE REGIONAL WHOLESALE CUSTOMER WATER ENTERPRISE RECOMMENDATIONS EVALUATION OF FUNDING SOURCES PRIVATE BANKS WWDC WYOMING DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND PROGRAM (DWSRF) OFFICE OF STATE LANDS AND INVESTMENTS MINERAL ROYALTY GRANTS WYOMING BUSINESS COUNCIL (WBC) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS (CDBG) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE CAMPBELL COUNTY DISTRICT SUPPORT PROGRAM ANALYSIS OF FUNDING SCENARIOS SCENARIO 1 MUNICIPAL BOND SCENARIO 2 WWDC FUNDING FOR ELIGIBLE COMPONENTS/FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES SCENARIO 3 RUS LOANS ANALYSIS SCENARIO 4A BEST AVAILABLE SOURCES ANALYSIS W/O RUS FUNDING SUMMARY REFERENCES... 1 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 7.1 Table 8.1 Table 10.1 Table 12.1 Table 12.2 Table 12.3 Table 12.4 Table 12.5 Table 13.1 Table 13.2 Table 13.3 Table 14.1 Table 14.2 Table 14.3 Table 14.4 Table 14.5 Table 14.6 Table 14.7 Table 14.8 Table 14.9 Table Table TABLES Historical Demand for Entities in the Gillette Area Assumed Buckskin Water Demands Well Water Quality Test Results Buckskin ISD Water Right Gillette and Campbell County Population Data Consequence of Failure Likelihood of Failure Alternative #1 Recommendation Summary Alternative #2 Recommendation Summary Alternative #3 Recommendation Summary Alternative #1 Maintain Existing System Opinion of Probable Cost Alternative #2 GRWS Wholesale Customer Opinion of Probable Cost Alternative #3 Annex Into City of Gillette Opinion of Probable Cost Buckskin ISD Operating Expenses Buckskin ISD FY 2018 Budget Buckskin ISD Water System Finance Balance Buckskin ISD Wholesale Customer Expenses Proposed Rate Schedule and Revenue Projection Revenue Projection and Rate Modifications Summary of Funding Scenarios Scenario 1 Municipal Bond Scenario 2 WWDC Funding for Eligible Component / Funding from Other Sources Scenario 3 WWDC / DWSRF Loans Scenario 4 - WWDC Grant / DWSRF Grant / CDBG Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) iii Woodard & Curran _Buckskin_Master_Plan_FINAL June 2017

9 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Figure 5.1 Figure 5.2 Figure 5.3 Figure 11.1 Figure 12.1 Figure 12.2 FIGURES Buckskin ISD Existing Water System Confined Space Atmosphere for Buckskin Pump House Flushing Valve on Rawhide Drive Diurnal Curves Existing System Model Results Future System Model Results Regional Connection Alternatives Risk Matrix of Buckskin Recommendations Regional Connection Wholesale Customer APPENDICES Appendix A Phase II Final Report Gillette Area Water Master Plan, Section 5 Appendix B Recommendation Risk Matrix Tables Appendix C Capacity Development Worksheet Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) iv Woodard & Curran _Buckskin_Master_Plan_FINAL June 2017

10 1. INTRODUCTION The Wyoming Water Development Commission (WWDC) selected TREC, a Woodard & Curran Company (TREC) of Casper, Wyoming to complete a Level II Water Supply Master Plan Study for the Buckskin Improvement and Service District (ISD) / Gillette Regional Water System. TREC is the sole contractor for the services provided for this project with expert support and review from Woodard & Curran. The purpose of the Level II Master Plan study is to review existing information for the ISD as well as the Gillette Regional Water System (GRWS), inventory and map the existing ISD water supply system, evaluate the existing system to identify deficient components and supply constraints specific to meeting Gillette Regional water supply requirements, provide a schedule for improvements, complete a rate study, and prepare a financial plan for the recommended improvements and financing options. The project team began work following a notice-to-proceed that was received with the signed contract on June 20, The first task completed for the project was a scoping meeting with the ISD, Wyoming Water Development Office (WWDO) Project Manager (PM) and interested stakeholders on July 7, Besides this Level II Master Plan, the ISD has never been a sponsor for any studies with the WWDC Water Development Program, however, the Gillette Regional Water System has sponsored multiple studies related to water source for potable supply in the past, primarily for water source and regional master planning. On July 21, 2015, the Buckskin ISD gained approval from the Gillette City Council for a Water Service Agreement to obtain wholesale water service from the Gillette Regional Water Supply Project. This approval prompted the need to complete a Level II Study. The goal of the Master Plan Study is to provide the ISD with a comprehensive road map to be able to understand the existing water system, alternatives to provide reliable water to consumers, as well as plan for financing to execute the preferred alternative as identified in this plan. 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND SUMMARY The Buckskin ISD is located in Campbell County, in the northeast corner of Wyoming. The Buckskin ISD is located north of the primary City of Gillette (City) boundary, and although the ISD is surrounded by City incorporated areas, the district is an unincorporated island. The subdivision, titled Rawhide subdivision, was formed in The ISD was created and established in November, 1999, and currently is comprised of 16 taps serving approximately 48 consumers in the subdivision. At the time of this report, the ISD is not an activated Public Water System. The ISD provides water to the residents with one groundwater well which is chlorinated, stored in an under-ground concrete cistern and pumped to users in the system. Residents are dissatisfied with the quality of water provided by the well and complain of sulfur smells and poor taste. Many residents purchase bottled or bulk water for consumption purposes and use the system water to operate household utilities. Water usage is not metered and fees are based on a flat monthly rate and a yearly assessment fee. Due to the poor water quality and need for a reliable water source, the ISD signed a Water Service Agreement on July 21, 2015 with the Gillette Regional Water System. The water agreement initiated the process to design and construct necessary infrastructure to purchase wholesale water from the regional system. 1.2 ORGANIZATION OF REPORT This report is organized in the same order as the contract scope of work task items. As the report progresses, various information, data, or results may be provided in multiple sections for clarity and necessity. Section 1 - Introduction Section 2 - Review of Existing Information Section 3 Inventory and Evaluate Existing Water Systems Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 1-1 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

11 Section 4 Creation of a Geographic Information System Section 5 Hydraulic Model Section 6 Water Source Data Collection Section 7 Water Quality Section 8 Review of Water Rights Section 9 Evaluation of System Operations Section 10 Population Growth and Water Demand Projections Section 11 Gillette Regional Water System Connection Section 12 Prioritization of Recommendations Section 13 Cost Estimates Section 14 Water System Financing Section 15 WWDC Discretionary Task Section 16 Reports and Presentations 1.3 SCOPING AND PROJECT MEETINGS This task included a scoping meeting at the beginning of the project to further define the tasks within the contracted scope of work. This meeting was conducted in Gillette at Cathey Consulting, an accounting and administrative consultant hired by Buckskin ISD and many other districts in the Gillette region. The intent was to gain input of affected and interested stakeholders. In addition to the scoping meeting, additional in-person meetings were scheduled for this project. Meetings were conducted throughout the project schedule, based on milestone completions, to gain input and buy-in for the recommendations and intentions of the Master Plan. Additional communications were conducted with Dave Myer (WWDO PM), Mike Cole (Gillette Planning Manager), Levi Jensen (Gillette Utility Project Manager), Duaine Faucette (Water Guy), and other stakeholders for the City and the District. In addition, our team regularly attended project meetings for the Fox Ridge ISD (Dowl HKM as project consultants) to keep abreast of other regional concerns, findings and considerations for the GRWS SCOPING MEETING The project scoping meeting was held on July 7, 2016 in Gillette, WY at the Cathey Consulting office. The project team present for the Scoping Meeting included Dave Myer (WWDO), Stacey Hellekson (TREC), Jeb Bell (TREC), Kevin Becker (ISD), Bob Hellickson (ISD), Lillian Wollman (ISD), Helenanne Cathey (Cathey Consulting) as well as several residents of the district. The attendance list and detailed notes are provided in the project notebook. The following agenda was developed for the meeting: Introductions Scope of Work Tasks Schedule and Action Items Questions and Answers Below is a summary of topics discussed during the scoping meeting: Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 1-2 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

12 Dave Myer explained the roles between WWDC, the sponsor (Buckskin ISD) and TREC. TREC is contracted with WWDC, but TREC and the sponsor will be working closely together to complete the Master Plan Study. Mr. Myer will serve primarily as support throughout the project. TREC discussed each scoping item. Comments received during scoping are provided below: - Concern about the financials associated with the Master Plan. It was explained that the effort was funded by the WWDC and requires no further financial dedication from the ISD. - Residents mention that for over ten years no one has been drinking the water from the well. Color and taste issues were mentioned and some residents suspect it may be related to a gas utility installed in the area. - Hydro-excavation will be modified to the corner of Lot 15 and Lot 11 to identify pipe size, material and potential stubbed ends. One resident mentioned they knew the size was 6-inch and Blue-Brute manufacturer. - The issue of Buckskin ISD not being a documented Public Water System was brought to the attention of residents, and the master plan process may bring this to the attention of the WDEQ/EPA. Communication with the District will include to the three board members: Kevin Becker, Bob Hellickson and Lillian Wollman PROJECT MEETINGS Project meetings occurred during strategic milestones to gain an understanding of the Regional System and achieve buy-in from the ISD prior to moving forward with subsequent tasks. Below describes the meetings and topics discussed during meetings with the ISD and other stakeholders. Water Guy Operations Meeting Staff met Duaine Faucette, the Water Guy (system operator), on August 23, 2016 during field activities and interviewed Mr. Faucette regarding operations of the Buckskin ISD. Topics included flushing frequency for the lines, water quality concerns, flow rate, chlorine consumption rate, operating equipment (pumps) and leak issues. Information from this meeting is detailed in subsequent tasks below. Fox Ridge Kickoff Meeting Staff attended the Fox Ridge ISD kickoff meeting held on August 10, Mark Hines (DOWL) provided a presentation covering the tasks outlined by the WWDC Scope of Work and explained how DOWL intends to fulfill the scope. During the meeting, it was detailed that the Regional System would apply for WWDC funding for regional extension of transmission lines. Districts would apply for WWDC funding for infrastructure from the master meter connection building to the district s main point of distribution (ex., storage tank). The City of Gillette has a priority list for regional extension construction, but over the years, many ISDs have dropped from the list or have not applied for Level II studies. The current structure of how extensions are constructed depends on when a district approaches the City/Regional and requests water. Annexation of Buckskin ISD into City of Gillette On April 6, 2017, Stacey Hellekson, Jeb Bell and Dave Myer met with Mike Cole, the Planning Manager for the City of Gillette, to discuss the Buckskin ISD annexation into the City of Gillette alternative. Mr. Cole began the meeting by providing a summary of the island districts within the Gillette and the City s process for getting these areas annexed into the City. Priority is to annex larger areas before the next census prior to addressing the smaller islands. Because the Buckskin ISD has limited population and costs to annex are high, the area is designated as low priority and likely won t occur before year Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 1-3 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

13 Mr. Cole provided copies of the agreements associated with the Buckskin ISD. Four lots within Buckskin already signed individual annexation agreements with the City to tap into the City sewer system. The desire to use City sewer resulted from bad/failed septic systems. Costs for the Buckskin ISD to provide improvements, based on City standards, were estimated by the City and may exceed $2 million. City of Gillette would also require Buckskin to gain PWS designation prior to annexation. If Buckskin were to annex, their water rights would need to be changed with the State Engineer s Office (SEO) or be abandoned per applicable regulations. Discussions also identified a potential option for Buckskin to approach the Heritage Village Subdivision (adjacent to the east) to adopt Buckskin as part of their water system. If Buckskin were to annex, the City could loan funds for the required improvement and would tax the district to pay back the funds over a 15-year period. If annexed without meeting City Standards, the ISD would have two years to make improvements to meet standards. If requirements are not met, the City could create an Assessment District and charge Buckskin on the 15-year schedule noted above. Recommendations Presentation and System Findings Notice of this meeting was provided to the residents of the Buckskin ISD and the meeting was held at the Cathey Consulting office on April 6, A summary of work completed to date was presented to the ISD. Inventory and field investigation of the existing system indicate the distribution system is not looped as indicated on plat drawings. Water quality results from the well water sample were discussed and potential sources of the poor odor and taste were reviewed. Four alternatives were presented along with high level conceptual costs associated with the alternatives. The preferred alternative of connection as a wholesale customer of the GRWS was reviewed for costs and funding applications. Mr. Myer reiterated the need for a quick review period after submittal of draft report and the need for a public hearing, which is required for Level II studies. Draft Report Presentation and Public Hearing The Draft Master Plan Report was presented to members of the ISD (Kevin Becker, Lillian Wolman and Bob Hellickson), residents present (Sally Singleton and Bill Singleton) and Dave Myer on June 29, 2017 and was the public hearing for the study. Dave Myer was the public hearing officer. He initiated the meeting by outlining the State statutory requirements and role of the WWDC. In addition, the public present was asked if any public or private corporation was desirous and capable of constructing, operating and maintaining the project as part of Wyoming Statute (c). No private entity was interested. It was also the professional opinion of Woodard and Curran that no person, association or private entity could provide this service. Dave then introduced Stacey Hellekson and Jeb Bell with Woodard and Curran as the consultant for the study. Stacey presented findings of the study related to the 14 tasks outlined in the scope of work from the WWDO. Stacey indicated the preferred alternative for Buckskin ISD is to become a Public Water Supply entity recognized by the EPA and connect to the City of Gillette distribution system as a consecutive system. Preliminary modeling shows the ISD could operate off the hydraulic grade of the Gillette system thus saving money on electricity to operate booster pumps in addition to cost savings related to chemical consumption and required testing. Dave Myer asked the ISD how they wished to proceed and received a response from board members that the ISD wished to review the information before deciding a route forward. Dave indicated the public comment session was closed but written comment would be accepted for 10 days. A date for comment from WWDO and ISD board members on the draft report was set for August 1, Further discussion commenced regarding funding scenarios and the path forward for the ISD. Stacey explained the process and indicated Woodard and Curran could help with minor application proposals. She also stated that elaborate engineering reports or environmental reports would require the ISD to hire a consultant to perform the work (such as USDA Rural Development applications). The next step for the ISD is to contact Rick Kripe with the Wyoming State Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 1-4 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

14 Revolving Fund (SRF) to be placed on the Intended Use Plan (IUP) and talk with Levi Jensen to progress with a regional connection. Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 1-5 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

15

16 2. REVIEW OF EXISTING INFORMATION The project team collected and reviewed information from various sources regarding the Buckskin ISD. The Water Resources Data System at the University of Wyoming; the Gillette Regional Water System, along with various reports and documents were reviewed for information relating to Buckskin. Zoning, annexation policies, regulations, and water supply distribution maps were reviewed to characterize the ISD water system and review connection potential to the Regional System. The review of information is summarized in chronological order by date of the report document. Several reports include information for multiple regions or districts for large-scale planning purposes. Only information pertinent to the Buckskin ISD has been summarized within this task. Full copies of the reports can be found on the Water Resources Data System website: Portions of the reports are also included in the Project Notebook. 2.1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS POTABLE WATER STUDIES Report: Phase I Interim Report for Gillette Area Master Plan Gillette, WY Prepared for: WWDC Prepared by: HKM Date Completed: May 1993 Summary: The study is a compilation of past records and analyses performed by previous studies in the Gillette area with conclusions developed from the collected data. The primary goal was to develop a strategy that would utilize groundwater in an efficient manner as a supply for the area around the City of Gillette (20-mile radius from the City center and within five miles of the Madison pipeline). The study created an inventory of existing water supply systems to address source of supply, system deficiencies, expansion potential and water quality problems. The study analyzed alternative water sources including the existing Madison well field, other groundwater sources and surface water sources. The study defined the City s existing infrastructure and how the Madison, Fort Union and Fox Hill aquifers are transmitted to City, blended and distributed throughout the area. At the time of the study, there were approximately 77 water systems or subdivisions that had potential to develop water systems and were designated for examination by this study. Rawhide Subdivision (Buckskin) was identified in the study. The subdivision includes 16 occupied lots located directly northeast of City limits and within the Planning District Boundary (PDB). The subdivision included a single 70 gpm well with a 38,000-gallon tank and booster pumps to distribute water to the system. The study notes City water is available immediately adjacent to Rawhide Subdivision. The water requirements for Rawhide Subdivision were estimated to be: Average Day = 7,650 gallons per minute (gpm) and Peak Day = 19,125 gpm. The total cost to connect to the existing Regional System was estimated to be $40,200. The study proposed fire flow based on zoning: Residential areas within the PDB and one mile beyond project area = 1,500 gpm, Rural = 500 gpm, Commercial = 2,500 gpm and Industrial = 3,500 gpm. The demand for the City service area was 185 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) average day and 565 gpcd peak day with additional population and independent system demand being 150 gpcd average day and 370 gpcd peak day. The peaking factors used for the study were 2.5 for peak day/average day and 4.2 for peak hour/average day. The flow per 100 people (31 residences): Average Day = 10.4 gpm, Peak Day = 26.0 gpm and Peak Hour = 43.8 gpm. The study looked at additional groundwater from various formations and surface water from Keyhole Reservoir, Lake Desmet Reservoir and Clear Creek Reservoir (B.C.L. Reservoir) as possible municipal water supplies. Groundwater sources will continue to be aquifers from Madison, Fox Hills Sandstone-Lance and Fort Union formations. The only Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 2-1 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

17 viable surface water option of the three would be Lake Desmet, but would require extensive infrastructure including pumping stations, raw water storage and a treatment plant. The study outlines City of Gillette policy for absorbing operation and maintenance of an independent distribution system: An evaluation of the system. The evaluation should include exploratory digs, (checking depth, condition, size and materials of pipes), pressure testing, and testing of valves and hydrants. Required upgrading be done at the system's expense prior to acquisition. All connection costs to the City be paid by the system. All existing debt against the system be covered by the system. This could be handled by a Special Improvement District, a special tax assessment, a separate monthly payment by District residents to the District, or possibly a type of lease/purchase agreement with the City. Plant investment fees for the number of new users be paid by the system users to cover the current investment by the City in their core facilities. The purchase of the system by the City. The purchase price would be a depreciated price after required improvements are made. Plant investments payments would be credited against the purchase price up to the purchase price. The study outlines the inefficiencies associated with the City selling water to an independent distribution system through a master meter: Two levels of administration, O&M, billing, collection and related responsibilities are required. The small system will need to continue its Board of Directors or other method of governance and ownership. A metering set-up that can cover flows from high to low is needed. This may be simplified if very high flows such as fire flows are not metered. In that case an automatic by-pass to the meter would be needed. Either metering set-up would be relatively expensive. Cross connection protection back to the City would be needed. If the small system has its own gravity storage reservoir and wishes to maintain it, pressure reduction would probably be required. A future reduction in the number of users might make it more difficult for the small system to fulfill its responsibilities. Bacteriological and lead and copper monitoring would still be required by the system even if the City supplies the water. The study included cost estimates for recommended actions by the Regional System. The study also concluded that systems inside the PDB should transition to the Regional Water System. Status: See Phase II Final Report Gillette Area Water Master Plan Gillette, WY Report: Phase II Final Report Gillette Area Water Master Plan Gillette, WY Prepared for: WWDC Prepared by: HKM Date Completed: February 1994 Summary: The purpose of this phase of the study was to develop conceptual plans, cost estimates and an institutional operating plan for a regional water supply system in the Gillette area and to define policies, procedures, and financing necessary to implement those regional water supply and delivery systems. The study reinforced the need to regionalize Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 2-2 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

18 the water distribution systems around the City of Gillette to protect and more efficiently utilize the Fort Union and Fox Hills aquifers (a limited resource being depleted), in addition, to more easily meeting regulations of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Cost estimates from the interim report were refined and were based on required capital improvements for the Regional System including new wells, transmission pipe looping, connecting systems within the PDB and Madison pipe and wellfield improvements. The City of Gillette supplied HKM with a hydraulic model of the City water distribution system developed with Kentucky Pipes software (KYPIPES). HKM converted this model to be used with CYBERNET software, which is compatible with AutoCAD. The model ran various scenarios for proposed infrastructure under peak hour conditions and to model fire flow. The results show adequate fire flow and residual pressures for most of Gillette with the proposed transmission lines under future demand scenarios. The model assumed an average day demand of 150 gpcpd, with a peak day demand of 375 gpcpd. System improvements for future services would require expansion of water source and supply facilities as new districts are added to the regional system. This study also created an institutional operating plan to be used by the City of Gillette to maintain the Regional System. A new water service policy was adopted by Gillette City Council on September, Section 5.0 detailed the contents of the operating plan and contains very useful information for ISD who seek to join to the Regional System. The information is too extensive to efficiently summarize for the purposes of this master plan. Details of the policy can be found in Appendix A. Section 5.1, Subparts A through K contains specific standards set for connecting to the City of Gillette and Regional System. The policy created direction for the following items: Priority of providing water service to various areas and districts; Water consumption tiered system pricing; Construction cost policy; Requirements for Annexation Agreements; Backup water supply to systems; Maintenance and Operational responsibility; and Water emergency response. Status: Refer to individual ISD connection studies. Report: Fort Union Formation Aquifer Monitoring Plan and Preliminary Aquifer Management Plan Prepared for: WWDC Prepared by: Wyoming State Engineer s Office (SEO) Date Completed: November 1995 Summary: The City of Gillette and surrounding water users depend solely on groundwater as their source for water supply. Groundwater from the Fort Union Formation in the vicinity of Gillette is the dominant water source for potable use in the area. The Gillette Area Water Master Plan addresses future water supply and delivery from a regional standpoint because it is more practical for larger systems to deal with Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SWDA) standards, especially the administrative task of maintaining compliance. At the time of this study the State Engineer s Office (SEO) monitored 28 wells in the Fort Union Formation centered around Gillette to collect groundwater data to be used for future planning and water development. The data from the monitoring would be reviewed by the Fort Union Formation Aquifer Committee (Gillette Engineer, Campbell County Engineer, Groundwater Administrator of SEO and Gillette Project Coordinator of WWDC) who would recommend horizontal and vertical spacing, well construction standards, site selection, etc. to the State Engineer. The State Engineer would then apply recommendations, as Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 2-3 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

19 appropriate, to aquifer control programs, which are dynamic and have the ability to change with changing aquifer conditions. The report discusses the geologic and hydrogeologic characteristics of the Fort Union Formation and other formations in the Powder River Basin. The Fort Union Formation is composed of interbedded sandstone aquifers and claystone aquitards that results in characteristics of an apparent aquifer. Groundwater flow is dominated by horizontal, down gradient flow and vertical movement is restricted by the aquitards above the formation. Well yields can be upwards of 250 gpm in the appropriate location of the Fort Union Formation. Many of the wells in the Fort Union Formation are completed in the upper portion of the aquifer. Since the early 1970s, approximately 20,000 to 30,000 acre-feet of water was pumped from the Fort Union Aquifer from approximately 100 wells in the Gillette area. Water level data was gathered from 15 pumping wells, static wells near active well fields and static wells outside the areas where there is active pumping (13 static wells). The first observation well (an abandoned water well) was in J&J Mobile Home Court and monitoring started in December, A total of eight static observation wells were installed in 1994 as a part of this program. During the observation period and based on review of existing reports, a seemingly common trait for Fort Union wells is an initial decline at the onset of pumping then stabilization at the pumping level. The apparent steep decline at the beginning of pumping was not explained but may be due to pressure variances in the aquifer. The report states the level of the Fort Union is semi-stable and discharge rates from pumping and aquifer leaks approximately equals the recharge rate. However, the report indicates increased pumping rates through new wells may disrupt the discharge/recharge equilibrium. The groundwater management policy recommended to the State Engineer included additional permitting procedures for wells drilled in the Fort Union Formation, additional logging requirements, horizontal spacing requirements for new wells in regards to existing wells and vertical completion intervals differentiating from nearby existing wells. Status: Updated water level report completed in November, Report: Gillette Regional Master Plan Level I Study Final Report Prepared for: WWDC Prepared by: HDR Date Completed: October 2009 Summary: The City of Gillette completed a long-term water supply study in 2007, but only investigated providing service to a limited number of nearby rural water districts. The purpose of this study was to provide a regional solution to fulfill the long-term water supply needs for the growth area surrounding Gillette. The study delineated the area surrounding Gillette into two potential service categories: Probable Development Area and Possible Development Area. A GIS database developed by HDR assisted in defining the two service areas along with survey forms that were sent to potential regional water system participants in the area. The study created low, medium and high population projections for the year 2038 for the Probable Development Area. A maximum daily water demand projection the Gillette regional system was estimated at 34.2 million gallons per day (MGD) for a population of 49,302 in the year Growth was anticipated to occur southeast of the area currently developed by the City. The existing City water system is supplied from primarily two aquifer sources; the Fort Union wells within the City and Madison wells 42 miles away. The Fort Union raw water is delivered through pipeline to a central treatment facility where it is blended with Madison water. Approximately 80 percent of the Regional System is supplied by Madison wellwater. The study determined it will be necessary to obtain additional water from sources outside the Gillette area due to the limited supply and quality of the Fort Union wells. Previous studies recommended a parallel Madison pipeline be constructed to increase system capacity by an additional 13,000 gpm. Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 2-4 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

20 The study identified a total of 42 potential participants that could connect to the Regional System and be supplied with either Madison Parallel pipe water or water from the City system. The potential participants were selected based on their relative location to the City or Madison pipelines. The extent of service to be provided by the Regional System to potential participants ranged from emergency interconnect to full water service including fire protection. Routing options for the Madison parallel pipeline to the existing City water distribution system were evaluated to determine the optimal solution for the Regional System. The WWDC pushed for more alternatives for the new pipeline. This study proposed a route further south than the previous design from the 2007 study, and using pricing from the 2007 and adjusting quantities, the new cost estimate for the parallel pipe was $186 million rather than $226 million (the amount requested by the City from the Wyoming Legislature in 2007). The City of Gillette, Campbell County and WWDC determined a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA), rather than a Joint Powers Board, with the City maintaining the ownership and operation of the system would be the best solution for the system. The JPA would provide procedures to ensure equity and dispute resolution. WWDC wanted to fund this study as a joint project between the City and regional systems to potentially eliminate the need for WWDC to fund water system improvements in the future for the numerous small water systems. Status: Developed connection cost estimates for 42 ISDs. See Regional System Potential Participant Connections Final Study. Report: Regional System Potential Participant Connections Final Study Prepared for: City of Gillette Prepared by: HDR Date Completed: May 2010 Summary: The purpose of this study was to develop estimated construction costs for connecting 42 proposed ISDs to the GRWS. The service extension concepts and design for this study originated from the Gillette Regional Master Plan Level 1 Study completed for the WWDC in August The delivery of water to the 42 ISDs included expanding the GRWS with 11 new distribution systems. The City requested six special districts be added to the list of potential regional connections which were: Rozet, Wessex ISD, Grace Land ISD, Mohan Subdivision, Buckskin Meadows Subdivision and Heritage View Water and Sewer District. The information within this study was intended to help develop a regional Joint Powers Board consisting of the City of Gillette and Campbell County. The Buckskin ISD was not listed as a potential user in the Regional Connection Study. Each of the 42 potential participants in the Regional System were inventoried to determine existing infrastructure and water demands. The study also looked at the necessary infrastructure required to connect each ISD to the City of Gillette system through a network of proposed additions from the core of the City system. The potential participants were grouped into one of the proposed extensions based on proximity to the connection point. This study did not include infrastructure recommendations related to the Madison parallel pipeline and assumed the Madison pipe would be implemented according to designs set forth in the Master Plan submitted to the WWDC. The study identified different levels of service for each ISD and provided the necessary improvements required to implement that level of service within water supply constraints of the Regional System. The study identified two types of service for potential participants: Type 1 service would be connections to the Madison Pipeline and would receive only Madison well field water and Type 2 service would be connections to the Gillette water distribution system and would receive only blended water. The Type 1 service connections would be from a service line connecting to both Madison pipelines, which will reduce the number of taps to the pipeline and allow users to maintain service in the event maintenance is needed on one of the Madison pipes. This type of service requires distribution to a water storage tank. Type 2 service connections are for those participants not in the vicinity of Madison Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 2-5 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

21 pipelines and would connect to the City of Gillette water distribution system. These connections would be on larger mains to assure capacity and prevent taxing the capacity of the local Gillette service system. Although not necessary for all connections, the study assumes delivery from the City system to a water storage tank. Altitude valves are designated to ensure proper tank filling and to prevent tank overflow. The study further subcategorizes types of service in to classes of service: Class A: No water service provided by the Regional System. Class B: Shared water service with water sold from the participant s water supply to the regional system, with the capability for providing full water service without fire protection from the regional system. Class C: Emergency water interconnect only, with water supplied when participant s water supply fails. This is a short-term supply, used only until the system failure is repaired. Class D: Supplemental water connection, with water supplied to supplement participant s existing water supply either on a seasonal basis for peaking or a base load basis. Class E: Full service water connection without fire protection, with water supplied to replace participant s existing supply. Class F: Full service water connection with fire protection, with water supplied to replace participant s existing supply including fire flows. Class G: Integration into the Gillette water system, operating as part of their water distribution system. The connection of the proposed participants to the Regional System or City of Gillette will require additional infrastructure which may include waterlines, valves, storage tanks, pump stations and water quality facilities. All connections (except Class G Service) will require a master meter and will be analyzed individually for flow monitoring, pressure adjustment and chlorine adjustment requirements. The potential participant will be responsible for water quality according to SDWA requirements downstream of the master meter. A Joint Powers Agreement process will develop the phasing necessary to determine when potential participates join the Regional System, but the general approach will be to connect ISD closer to core infrastructure and then work out to the peripheral potential participants. The opinion of probable construction costs used typical details to formulate specifications and quantities and were based on Class 4 Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering International Recommended Practice. The estimates assume a one percent to 15 percent project definition with an approximate accuracy of +40 and -20 percent. Status: As each interested participant requested connection to the Regional System an individual study was completed typically as a WWDC Level II Study. Report: Peoples Improvement and Service District Gillette Regional Connections 2, Level II Study Prepared for: WWDC Prepared by: WLC Engineering, Surveying and Planning and Weston Engineering Date Completed: October 2012 Summary: WWDC contracted WLC to complete a Level II study of the Peoples Improvement and Service District (PISD) water system to better understand this system and, from a regional perspective, determine Regional System connection priorities and estimated costs for regional extensions. In 2011 the City of Gillette submitted a project to WWDC totally $60,000,000 in hopes off attaining the full 67 percent grant allotted by the WWDC for a total of $40,000,000. The remaining $20,000,000 (33.3 percent) would be local match funds through Capital Facilities Tax (CFT) dollars. The main goal of the PISD was to determine alternatives for a secondary/back-up water source in the event the current well ceases to be the water supply. Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 2-6 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

22 A hydraulic model was created for the system in addition to a GIS. The water usage analysis determined average daily demand for PISD was 136 gpcd and a peak day demand of 340 gpcd (peaking factor of 2.5). The system is adequate to provide both required flow and pressure even during peak demands, but due to the pipe size and booster pump size the system is unable to produce fire flow (minimum flow of 287 gpm and maximum of 822). The recommended alternative for PISD was to connect to the Regional System as a secondary/back-up supply. The approximate cost of the project to install a booster pump and approximately 1,300 feet of 6-inch diameter C900 DR-18 PVC pipe was $457,931. Of this total cost the study indicated the PISD would only be responsible for $27,407 due WWDC grants and CFT dollars (study states this was already established). The wholesale water rate from the Regional System to potential regional users was not established when this study was published but City personnel thought the cost would be between $4.00 and $ Status: Peoples Improvement and Service District planned on applying for funding in Report: Final Hydraulics Report Gillette Regional Water Supply Project, Phase I District Extensions Prepared for: WWDC and City of Gillette Prepared by: DOWL HKM Date Completed: January 2013 Summary: The study presents the hydraulic analysis for the Regional System Phase I District Extensions project. The Gillette West extension and Antelope Valley extension were the two pipeline projects analyzed by this study. The Gillette West extension alignment is to the southwest of Gillette while the Antelope Valley extension is to the southeast. Buckskin ISD is not in the vicinity of either of these extensions. The study used an Average Day Per Capita Usage = 179 gpcd, a Peak Day/Average Day peaking factor of 3.4 and a Peak Hour/Peak Day factor of 1.5. The number of persons per household was given as 2.6 with the US Census Bureau being the source (City of Gillette). The study determined the overall system demand for the extensions were similar to the 2010 Regional Connection Study completed by HDR. There were several alternatives for pipeline alignment and tank locations reported by the study. The study states the City of Gillette standard for pipe sizes 12-inch and smaller is DR18 PVC. An option provided in the analysis is to use DR25 pipe for portions of the pipe with lower pressures to save costs; DR25 has a pressure rating of 125 psi. A C Factor of 135 was used for the plastic pipe. The costs for Gillette West extension pipe varied between $518,000 and $558,000 (pipe only) with an additional $754,000 to $886,000 for the pump station depending on alternative. Status: City of Gillette tasked to review hydraulics and determine best route for extensions. Report: Gillette Regional Connections 1 Level II Study Bennor Estates Connection Prepared for: WWDC Prepared by: Entech, Inc. Date Completed: February 2013 Summary: The WWDC contracted Entech, Inc. to complete a Level II study of the Bennor Estates Improvement and Service District (BEISD). The BEISD received an Administrative Order (AO) from the EPA in September, 2010 due to high radium levels in the public drinking water system. The four quarterly samples of 2009 and the first three samples of 2008 indicated combined radium levels above the MCL of 5.0 pci/l. The BEISD communicated various times with the EPA to allow time extensions to the original AO to give the ISD time to evaluate alternatives. In 2001, JVA Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 2-7 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

23 Consulting Engineers of Boulder, CO performed an alternative analysis for BEISD drinking water and concluded blending water from the Regional System was the best alternative. The BEISD water system includes a well drilled into the Fort Union Aquifer with a flow rate of approximately 100 gpm, chlorination system, above ground, bolted-steel storage tank of 125,000 gal and pump station. The study included a well analysis from Weston Engineering. The study recommends nine alternatives to resolve the AO and provide the BEISD with quality water with the recommended alternative being to connect to the Regional System and become a wholesale water user. The idea of blending water from the Regional System and the existing well was discarded due to the continued operation and maintenance expenses of the existing system and capital expenditure associated with a blending vault. The connection point would require just under 500 feet of 6-inch diameter PVC and a pre-cast concrete structure to house the master meter, backflow preventer, emergency bypass, pressure reducing valve and SCADA equipment. The City would own and operate these facilities. The proposed design does not require chlorine treatment at the connection building due to the relatively small size of the BEISD system, the proposed abandonment of the existing storage tank and the fact that the Regional System must maintain chlorine residual for a longer distance beyond BEISD than the length of the BEISD piping system. The improvement costs for the recommended alternative was estimated to be $305,035. According to the study, the capital cost for the improvements would be borne solely by the City and Regional System through WWDC grants and Campbell County Capital Facilities Tax (CFT) dollars. The study also indicated the City was not intending to assess plant investment fees for the initial connection. The cost for individual users was estimated to be between $4.00 and $16.00 per 1,000 gallons based on conversations with City personnel; currently users within the City pay between $3.95 and $5.09 per 1,000 gallons. Status: Recommended alternative to connect to the Gillette Regional Water Supply as a wholesale customer. Report: Gillette Regional Connections 2 Level II Study South Fork Estates ISD Prepared for: WWDC Prepared by: WLC Date Completed: July 2013 Summary: WLC was contracted through the WWDC to complete a Level II Water Master Plan of the South Fork Estates ISD to determine feasibility to connect with the Regional System (infrastructure, costs, etc.) and perform an inventory of the existing system to identify concerns with the system. The water system includes a well, storage tank, booster pumps, chlorine disinfection equipment and 6-inch PVC water distribution pipe. The system doesn t include secondary power supply or alternative water supply. The original well for the South Fork Estates ISD was installed in For the period between 1981, when the well was completed and pumping initiated, and 2012 it was estimated the water level dropped by an average of 15 feet per year. Using this projection and assuming the pump inlet would be lowered to the deepest perforated section, the well would provide water to the ISD for approximately 27 years. The water quality of the well water is good except for radionuclides. The combined radium levels exceeded the EPA MCL multiple times over a period from February 2010 to January The study suggests the EPA may distribute an Administrative Order to the South Fork Estates ISD in regards to this exceedance. The study used historical meter data (consumption rates) to determine an average day demand (ADD) of 11.9 gpm and a peak daily demand (PDD) of 32.4 gpm, which correlates to a peaking factor of 2.7. The average per capita water use was 124 gpcd with a peak per capita usage of 338 gpcd in the month of August (highest usage month). The study determined the well supply was sufficient to provide the ISD with water into the future, from a quantity perspective only. Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 2-8 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

24 The study presented eight alternatives to solve the problems faced by the ISD. Only two of these alternatives were deemed feasible and both included connecting to the Regional System. The alternatives were to connect and solely use Regional System water and the second was to connect and blend water from the existing well. As stated in other report summaries, the regional extension would be funded through the WWDC and CFT, which would place a minimal expenditure on the part of the ISD. The study indicated the break-even cost per thousand gallons of water purchased from the Regional System was $9.70 to determine if the first or second alternative was more economical for the ISD. Status: The study recommends South Fork Estates ISD and Regional System apply for WWDC funding in October Report: Gillette Regional Connections 2 Level II Study Freedom Hills ISD Prepared for: WWDC Prepared by: WLC Date Completed: August 2013 Summary: WLC was contracted through the WWDC to complete a Level II Water Master Plan of the Freedom Hills ISD to determine feasibility to connect with the Regional System (infrastructure, costs, etc.) and perform an inventory of the existing system to identify concerns with the system. The water system includes two wells, storage tank, booster pump, chlorine disinfection equipment, 6-inch Perma-Strand water mains, 4-inch polyethylene well-lines and 2-inch low pressure polyethylene mains. The system doesn t include secondary power supply or alternative water supply. The original wells for the Freedom Hills ISD were installed in 1981 and 1982, both into the Fort Union Formation. The water quality of the well water is good except for fluoride levels. Fluoride levels exceeded the EPA secondary MCL in May 2008, March 2013 and June 2013 but has never exceeded the primary MCL of 4.0 mg/l. The study used historical meter data to determine an average day demand (ADD) of 46.4 gpm and a peak daily demand (PDD) of 84.4 gpm, which correlates to a peaking factor of 1.8. The average per capita water use was 167 gpcd with a peak per capita usage of 334 gpcd in the month of August (highest usage month). The study determined the well supply was sufficient to provide the ISD with water into the future due to all lots being developed, from a quantity perspective only. The study presented four alternatives to address the concerns of the ISD. Two of these alternatives included connecting to the Regional System. The alternatives were to connect and solely use Regional System water and the second was to connect and blend water from the existing well. As stated in other report summaries, the regional extension would be funded through the WWDC and CFT, which would place a minimal expenditure on the part of the ISD. The ISD would be responsible for the improvements downstream of the connection building (master meter, backflow preventer, etc.). Another recommendation of the study was for the ISD to install meters at each tap, install PRVs at the lower elevations of the system and install additional mainline valves for system isolation. In conjunction with this recommendation the study proposes the ISD submit to the DWSRF program to get on the Intended Use Plan and apply for funding in The funding would be used to install the meters, PRVs and mainline valves; which would not be funded in part by the WWDC. After this improvement to the ISD, the study then suggests the ISD look at costs associated with Regional Water rates to make a decision about connection to the Regional System and solely using that water or blending with existing ISD well-water. Status: The ISD will search for funding for system improvements and then determine if a regional connection is warranted to solve ISD issues. Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 2-9 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

25 Report: Gillette Regional Connections 1 Level II Study Antelope Valley Connections Prepared for: WWDC Prepared by: Entech, Inc. Date Completed: September 2013 Summary: In early 2013 the Wyoming State Legislature approved a recommendation from the WWDC to provide the City of Gillette with the state portion of the funding for the water distribution extension to the Antelope Valley area. The purpose of this Level II study is to determine the feasibility, costs and benefits associated with connecting the Antelope Valley Improvement and Service District (AVISD) and Antelope Valley Business Park Improvement and Service District (AVBPISD) to the Regional System. The AVISD is supplied by four wells drilled into the Fort Union aquifer that are located directly in or adjacent to district boundaries. The wells vary in age from 9 to 35 years old and have shown signs of increased drawdown over time. A comparison of drawdown to available water column indicated the well field could supply the Antelope Valley water demand for the next 40 years, assuming interference from adjacent Fort Union wells does not increase. Although the current quality of water meets SDWA standards (after blending from the four wells), the fluoride concentrations in the water supply are increasing over time. The hydraulic model for the AVISD system showed appropriate flow and pressure even during fire flow with few limitations. The AVBPISD system is limited by water supply from the single well and is unable to produce adequate fire flow due to inadequate storage and distribution pipe size. For AVISD, the board of directors, and producers of the study agreed on the following recommended improvements (of which WWDC would only fund supply option): 1. Connect to the Regional System as a wholesale water customer and blend existing well water with Regional System water, cost $296, Construct additional storage tank at existing tank site and extend transmission line along southern ISD boundary, cost $1,850, Construct tank to serve upper pressure zone, cost $559,840. For AVBPISD, the recommendation was to upgrade system infrastructure and connect to the Regional System thus becoming an Outside-City retail water customer. The City was amenable to this due to the ripe environment for commercial/industrial growth to the south and east of AVBPISD. The estimated cost was $381,440 but did not include the service extension from the Regional System 42-inch transmission line to the AVBPISD. In the financing portion of the study a possible funding source for the AVISD is a Campbell County District Support Grant (CCDS). Currently, the CCDS may fund $1,000 per residence per year up to $50,000 for a five-year period to special ISD. As indicated in the study, the CCDS program may fund up to $75,000 annually for connections to the Regional System that are receiving WWDC funds, with County Commissioner approval and the acceptance of proposed amendments to the program. The study showed the ISD was already receiving $27,500 per year from the CCDS. Status: The study recommends AVISD and Regional System apply for WWDC funding in October Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 2-10 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

26 Report: Gillette Regional Connection Level II Study Means First Extension Master Plan Prepared for: WWDC Prepared by: DOWL Date Completed: August 2015 Summary: DOWL was contracted through the WWDC to complete a Level II Water Master Plan of the Means First Extension Water and Sewer District (Means) to determine feasibility to connect with the Regional System (infrastructure, costs, etc.) and perform an inventory of the existing system to identify concerns with the system. The water system includes three wells, two storage tanks, a pumping station, chlorine disinfection equipment and a distribution system. The distribution includes two pressure zones: a gravity driven pressure zone and a pressure zone created by the pump station. The system does not include secondary power supply or alternative water supply, but the wells and tanks are piped individually to allow isolation for maintenance. The three wells producing water for Means are all drilled and completed in the Fort Union Formation with a production rate of 335 gpm. There was lengthy discussion in the report concerning well production and adjudicated water rights for Means. The conclusion was the wells should provide sufficient quantity of water, while still meeting SEO regulations, for Means; but the wells should be monitored on a regular basis to quantify changing aquifer conditions. The drilling of additional wells into the Fort Union Formation (within Means boundaries) should not be anticipated for a water supply due to horizontal and vertical spacing restriction set by the SEO. The water quality from the wells is good with some high Total Dissolved Solids (TDS). The study used historical meter data (consumption rates) to determine an average day demand (ADD) of 89 gpm and a peak daily demand (PDD) of 186 gpm, which correlates to a peaking factor of 2.6. The average per capita water use was 203 gpcd. The Regional System was designed to provide domestic water demands to districts and other consecutive systems but not fire flows. The Means board voted to not pursue a regional connection at the time this study was published, contradicting advisement of this study. The rate structure for purchasing water from the regional system is based on Level of Service: Level of Service A Year-round service with a fixed charge of $6.50 per connection per month and a use charge of $3.01 per 1,000 gallons. Level of Service B Intermittent service with a fixed charge of $5.00 per connection per month and a use charge of $6.03 per 1,000 gallons. The study indicates the cost per connection for LOS A would be $36.60 for 10,000 gallons consumed and $65.30 for the same amount at LOS B. The LOS B cost doesn t include a reduction in use by blending with regional water nor does it account for existing loan repayment costs, operation costs or other budget items. The study recommends Means update old water meters, add additional water meters at the discharge of the tanks and pump station, monitor Means #4 well and possibly look at rehabilitation, proceed with steps necessary for a new tank and pump/metering station, install looping components to the existing distribution system and reconsider connecting to the Regional System. Basis for connecting to Regional is a reliable water source for the future and taking advantage of funding opportunities that may not be present in the future. Status: Means to make decision to proceed with recommendations of study. Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 2-11 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

27

28 3. INVENTORY AND EVALUATE WATER SYSTEMS The purpose of this section is to provide an inventory and evaluation of the existing water system for the Buckskin ISD, and determine its ability to meet current and future water demands developed in Task 10, Population Growth and Water Demand. Specifically, this task intends to: Identify components that currently require repair or replacement; Identify components that will require repair or replacement within the next twenty (20) years; and Provide a schedule for the needed improvements. The inventory and evaluation of the water system was a combination of reviewing historical documentation, interviews and observations from the system operator (Water Guy, LLC) and residents. A detailed field survey and hydroexcavation to identify pipe location, material, size and a visual assessment of the existing potable infrastructure was completed. In addition, a hydraulic model of the existing potable water system was developed to provide greater insight into the operational pressure in the system and water age. The hydraulic modeling effort and model results are discussed further in Task 5. Prior to this study, comprehensive locations of all the system components were unknown and functional mapping did not exist. Currently, the only existing mapping of the system is the original plat, and operations personnel rely on prior knowledge passed between operators to manage the system and locate infrastructure. 3.1 SYSTEM OVERVIEW Buckskin obtains water from a well drilled into the Fort Union Formation. The groundwater is pumped to an adjacent 16,800-gallon underground, concrete cistern. Adjacent to the tank, the water is treated with liquid sodium hypochlorite and a booster pump is used to increase pressure for distribution. The distribution system consists of six-inch PVC pipe that dead ends at two locations within the ISD. The entire system is operated and maintained by the Water Guy, a contracted water system operator in Gillette. The Buckskin water system serves approximately 48 people through 16 service connections, as of September, The subdivision is completely built out with City of Gillette surrounding Buckskin on all sides. The ISD serves residential lots and one commercial lot in the southwest corner of the subdivision. Figure 3.1 shows the current Buckskin ISD water distribution system. The 1993 HKM report stated there is City water available immediately adjacent to the ISD. Projected water demands and population growth are discussed in Task SYSTEM DETAILS WELL, STORAGE TANK AND PUMP HOUSE Buckskin #1 Well (Permit number U.W ) is sited in the vacant lot east of the Latigo Street and Rawhide Drive intersection. The well provides water for the ISD and was drilled in April, 1975 to a depth of 1,035 feet into the Fort Union Formation. The water right has a priority of January 16, According to the State Engineer s Office (SEO) Statement of Completion, the casing was perforated from 925 to 990 feet, and the original depth to static water level was 480 feet. The principle water bearing formation begins at 925 feet and continues to a depth of 990 feet according to the well log. A Reda 10 horsepower (HP) pump / motor with an intake set at 609 feet was initially installed and provides up to 25 gpm to the ISD. The well permit does not stipulate a yearly maximum volume to be produced by the well and was issued prior to the Fort Union Formation Aquifer Monitoring Plan (SEO, 1995). Thus, the Buckskin #1 Well predates SEO requirements to report produced water or static water depths for the well. A search on the SEO website did not reveal any addendums to the permit that would require such reporting by the ISD. There is currently no back-up electrical supply to the well. Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 3-1 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

29 The groundwater is pumped from the well to an adjacent 16,800-gallon underground, concrete cistern. The tank is approximately 15 feet square with an estimated depth of 10 feet and unknown active capacity. Records of tank inspections or tank cleanings were not available. Murphy style hand switches are used for pressure set-points to cycle the well pump and fill the tank. There is no SCADA system for control, which is preferable for the operator. An adjacent, underground pump house with dimensions of 12 feet long by 12 feet wide by 8 feet deep is approximately 20 feet north of the well and cistern. The design of the underground pump house is not ideal and introduces a confined space entry scenario for entrants to the structure during routine maintenance and operation, as shown in Figure 3.2 below. Figure 3.2 Confined Space Atmosphere for Buckskin Pump House The pump house includes a single pump to increase pressure for distribution and equipment and instrumentation to disinfect the well water prior to distribution to the system. The groundwater is treated using sodium hypochlorite injected into the raw water stream through a Stenner 170MDC Series peristaltic metering pump. 15-gallon carboys of sodium hypochlorite are housed in the underground pump house. The meter to record water produced from the well was out of service during the site visit and throughout the master planning process. There is a single Ace 500, 5 HP pump in the building to pressurize the system. There is no backup pump for the system. Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) Buckskin Water Master Plan 3-2 Woodard & Curran September 2017

30 3.2.2 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM The Buckskin distribution system begins at the outlet of the pump house and consist of approximately 4,200 feet of 6inch PVC pipe installed in Steel pipe is located within the pump house but not included in the distribution pipe inventory. The distribution pipe is exclusively PVC and is approximately 40 years old. The operator does not recall any leaks or broken pipes nor is there record of any pipe replacement since A visual assessment of the pipe during hydro-excavation activities in August, 2016 indicate the pipe to be in good condition. TREC did not identify any studies or documentation that assessed the integrity of the existing PVC piping. An American Water Works Association study from 2012 performed an assessment of pipe longevity for various pipe materials throughout regions of the United States. The study determined that medium, small and very small PVC pipes in the West Region, which the ISD resides, have an average estimated service life of 70 years (AWWA, 2012). The average estimated service life of pipe materials depends on many variables including installation methods, soil type and operation parameters that may lengthen or shorten the longevity of the pipe. Under ideal conditions, the ISD will need to plan to replace existing PVC distribution piping within the next 40 years. The original plat for the subdivision shows the distribution pipe looping from the flushing valve in the southwest corner along the west and north sides of the subdivision boundary to the flushing valve on Rawhide Drive. However, discussions with residents of Buckskin ISD, along with limited hydro-excavation locating, revealed the loop was never constructed as shown on the plat. The absence of the looping creates two dead end nodes in the distribution system that in combination with the large distribution pipe diameter, result in water stagnation and potential water age concerns. Flushing the distribution system helps to alleviate stagnant water. A picture of the flushing valve and pipe on Rawhide Dr. is shown in Figure 3.3. Figure 3.3 Flushing Valve on Rawhide Drive Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) Buckskin Water Master Plan 3-3 Woodard & Curran September 2017

31 3.2.3 SERVICE CONNECTIONS Buckskin currently has sixteen, 3/4-inch service connections that are all active as of September Meters are not installed to record usage per service connection. Users are currently charged a flat monthly fee per connection. The lack of individual use meters and a master meter in disrepair make assessment of water loss unachievable for the system and prevents the use of meter data to identify leaks in the system. The introduction of meters into the system and a process to record water use is a recommendation of this study VALVES AND FIRE HYDRANTS A discussion with Duaine Faucett, of the Water Guy, revealed the distribution system does not contain isolation valves. Due to the small size of the system, the lack of valves does not present a significant operational concern that warrants the expenditure to retroactively install valves. The curb stops associated with individual service connections were either not identified or were difficult to locate during the field survey. A recommendation discussed in Task 12 is to improve visibility of individual user shut-off valves, in conjunction with installation of water meters, to enable operators to effectively suspend service should the requirement arise in the future. There are no fire hydrants dedicated to emergency fire protection. Although the ISD does not own fire hydrants, there are multiple fire hydrants owned and operated by the City of Gillette immediately adjacent to the ISD that could be used in emergency situations. Two flushing valves are located at the dead-end locations within the system. Operations personnel flush the two ISD owned hydrants twice per year or more frequently if deemed necessary. Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 3-4 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

32 Legend... Existing Valve - Existing 6" pipe Existing Flushing Hydrant - Existing City of Gmette 12 pipe.. I Buckskin l&s District I... City of Gillette The water distribution system shown rapresents infrastructure located during field survey activities. Additional system components should be noted during operations and maintenance activities.... =====-... -======-... i-==========================~1 ":.t FIGURE 3.1 SCA1 :, = 100' DAlE: AUGUST 2017 Existing Water System Buckskin ISD ~-. r... -t1or.11 ~.. _,,. _._..,.)1-, ,,......,_ - PROJECT#: DRAWN BY: ES i:.,.r.tiimi

33 4. CREATION OF GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM The project team developed a Geographic Information System (GIS) to include the ISD s distribution system using Environmental Systems Research Institute s (ESRI) ArcGIS platform. ArcGIS map documents (.mxd files in CD format) are provided under separate cover. Due to the limited size of the ISD, software or web-based services were determined to be unwarranted. For this report, the primary deliverables to the ISD are hard-copy maps. As the ISD moves forward with connecting to Gillette Regional, it is recommended that the ISD share the GIS data with the City of Gillette and the Water Guy for their use. Maintaining a comprehensive data set of all districts and water users can prove invaluable both for City planning and can be an asset to manage the ISD for contracted operations and maintenance. Prior to the commencement of the project, the ISD had no existing inventory of the water system in a digital format that could be used in a GIS. As such, data was created using a combination of GPS field collection and digitization based on the existing plat. The design of the GIS dataset was partially based on ESRI Water Utilities Data Model. Utilizing the ESRI file geodatabase format, thematic feature classes were created within the file geodatabase for representation of water valves, water pipes and other features. All data was collected using WGS84 coordinate system, and then converted to Wyoming State Plane East, NAD83 per WWDO requirements. Field crews conducted a GPS survey of water system components including well, flushing valves and pipe information discovered from hydro-excavation activities. GPS positional data was collected using Bad Elf brand GPS units, and attribute data was collected using doforms, a mobile data software platform. Following completion of the field survey, GPS points were then loaded into their respective feature classes. Given the unexposed, subsurface location of water lines, a complete GPS inventory of the pipe system components was not feasible. Creation of water lines was completed using ArcGIS Desktop software via manual digitization using the plat available for the ISD. Multiple third party datasets were used as base map layers in the creation of ArcGIS map documents (.mxd). Assessor parcel data provided by CCGISCOOP (with credits to Campbell County Assesor s Office) via an ESRI ArcGIS Online map service and U.S. Census Bureau TIGER data (2012) was used for road centerlines. Aerial imagery was provided by an ESRI ArcGIS Online Service layer, and is comprised of the USDA s National Aerial Imagery Program (NAIP) 2015 data. The imagery used was current as of July 23, 2015, with a resolution of one meter. The GIS, delivered in electronic format and provided in CD format under separate cover, represents the existing system as identified through site surveys and digitizing existing sketches of the system. In addition, per contract scope, large size maps of the system were provided to the ISD upon final completion of this plan. Due to the limitations of data collection and a lack of historical information, several data fields for each system component remain unpopulated and designated as null. As portions of the system are upgraded and additional information from existing systems are identified, the ISD should document found, replaced or new system components (coordinates, install date, condition, size, etc.). This information can be documented on the maps or in spreadsheet format which can be provided to external entities that are maintaining GIS databases for the ISD and City. Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 4-1 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

34

35 5. HYDRAULIC MODEL The scope of this task includes development of a hydraulic model of the existing Buckskin ISD water system along with hydraulic evaluations of proposed system improvements and connection to the Gillette Regional Water System. This section provides definitions, evaluation criteria and additional relevant information used in the creation and calibration of the Buckskin hydraulic model. 5.1 SYSTEM OVERVIEW The Buckskin ISD pumps groundwater from the Fort Union aquifer as the water source. As discussed in Task 3 and further in Task 9, there is little historical data for the Buckskin system. The depth to pump inlet is 609 feet per the original completion log, however, there are no historical readings for static water depth and the pumping rate from the well is unknown. Groundwater is pumped into an underground concrete cistern adjacent to the well with an approximate volume of 16,800 gallons. The depth of the cistern is unknown, but is assumed to be 10 feet for this study. Chlorination of the raw groundwater occurs through injection of sodium hypochlorite into the raw water stream. After discussion with the system operator, the operational controls for tank level and groundwater pump interaction are unknown. A 5-HP Ace 500 booster pump housed in an underground building adjacent to the cistern provides pressure to the distribution system. The entire Buckskin system is at the same hydraulic grade. There are approximately 48 residents with 16 active service connections at the time of this study. The ISD water distribution system consists of approximately 4,200 feet of 6-inch diameter PVC pipe installed in An overview of the existing distribution system was previously presented in Figure MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND DEMAND ALLOCATION The ISD did not have a hydraulic model for the distribution system. Bentley WaterGEMS (WaterGEMS) hydraulic modeling software was selected to build the hydraulic model. The model evaluated existing infrastructure and assessed the ability of the system to meet demand while maintaining adequate pressure under several scenarios. Fire flow was not analyzed for the existing system since fire hydrants are not currently installed in the system and the existing booster pump is known to be a limiting factor. The pump curve which was supplied by the system operator and cross-referenced with online data of an Ace 500, 5 HP pump, shows a maximum flow of 172 gpm, which is below recommended fire flow without considering residual pressure requirements. Recommendations for upgrades and improvements to the system were made based on comparing model output to recommended design guidelines, and are included in Section 5.5 and 5.6 of this report. The distribution network was digitized in GIS using the original 1974 plat for the subdivision and field hydro-excavation investigation findings. The georeferenced pipe, tank and valves were imported into the WaterGEMS model. The coordinate system used for horizontal coordinates was NAD 1983 State Plane Wyoming East FIPS 4901 Feet. Elevation data for all infrastructure was assigned in GIS and transferred to the model. The vertical datum was NAVD DEMAND DEVELOPMENT AND DISTRIBUTION Due to the lack of individual meters in the system and an out-of-service master meter, water usage data for the system was not available to populate the existing system demand in the model. Rather, Average Day Demand (ADD) and Maximum Day Demand (MDD) for the existing system were determined from averaging values published in previous master plan studies in the Gillette area, see Table 5.1. Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 5-1 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

36 Table 5.1 Historical Demand for Entities in the Gillette Area Report ADD (gpcd) MDD (gpcd) Phase I Report for Gillette Area Master Plan Gillette, WY (HKM, ) Peoples Improvement and Service District Gillette Regional Connections 2, Level II Study (WLC, 2012) Final Hydraulics Report Gillette Regional Water Supply Project, Phase I District Extensions (DOWL, 2013) Gillette Regional Connections 2 Level II Study South Fork Estates ISD (WLC, 2013) Gillette Regional Connections 2 Level II Study Freedom Hills ISD (WLC, 2013) Gillette Regional Connection Level II Study Means First Extension Master Plan (DOWL, 2015) Average The peak hour demand was calculated by multiplying the max day demand by a factor of 1.9. An hourly peaking factor of 2.0 is common in the industry, which was lowered slightly due to the size and rural setting of the ISD. The values determined by averaging historical demands in the area were evenly distributed throughout the 16 service connections. Table 5.2 provides an overview of the ADD, MDD, and Peak Hour Demands for the different scenarios simulated in the Buckskin hydraulic model. Table 5.2 Assumed Buckskin Water Demands Municipality Residential ADD (24 hours) MDD (24-hours) Peak Hour Demand (1-hour) (gpd) (gpm) (gpd) (gpm) (gpm) Existing 8, , Future (City of Gillette design standard) 9, , NON-REVENUE WATER The lack of both individual and master meter data for the system prevented a non-revenue water analysis for Buckskin. The lack of individual meters eliminates the possibility for apparent losses due to inaccurate meters or accounting errors. The only water loss for the system would be through actual losses from utility hydrant flushing and leaks in the system. The actual losses are deemed minor due to the frequency of flushing (twice per year) and absence of any reported leaks or leak repairs FUTURE WATER DEMANDS Buckskin is built-out and cannot add additional lots to the ISD boundaries; therefore, it is a reasonable assumption that future population will be the same as current conditions. Thus, no additional population was accounted for in the Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 5-2 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

37 future scenario in the model. The demand numbers for the future scenario are based on current City of Gillette design standards, since the preferred alternative of this study is for Buckskin to connect to the Regional Water System. The City design standards are ADD = 203 gpcd, MDD = 562 gpcd and Peak Hour = 812 gpcd and are reflected in Table 5.2. As with the existing condition scenario, demands were equally distributed throughout the 16 service connections DIURNAL DEMAND PATTERNS Water usage in any system varies over the course of a day; the diurnal water demand pattern reflects these demand fluctuations over a 24-hour period from midnight to midnight. In a system that is predominately residential, as is the case in Buckskin, the water demand is high during early morning hours before people go to work and school, and in the late afternoon hours after people return from work and school. The minimum demand occurs between late evening and early morning hours. Commercial demands were not used for this model, due to the minor commercial demand in Buckskin (Hladky Construction is a commercial office connected to the Buckskin system). The residential diurnal curve used in the model is illustrated in Figure 5.1. Figure 5.1 Diurnal Curves Multiplier Hour Residential PEAKING FACTORS Peaking factors are ratios of system-wide water usage that account for variations in water usage throughout the day. The Peak Hour to Average Day Ratio is the peak hourly demand divided by the average annual day demand and represents the highest instantaneous demand seen by the system under normal operating conditions (i.e. nonemergency situations). Daily usage data was not available to calculate the peaking factor for the Buckskin ISD, so the peak hour factor was estimated to be 5.1, which is the MDD multiplied by 1.9. The peak hour factor can be significantly higher than average demands due to irrigation during summer months. The peak hour demand is assumed to occur during July or August, at the peak of the irrigation season. 5.3 MODEL CALIBRATION Due to the lack of historical system operational data or system controls, model calibration based on tank cycling was not completed for this study. The pipe roughness factors and associated major pipe losses through the distribution system were not calibrated as part of this master plan study. The pipe roughness values were obtained from the WaterGEMS Engineering Library and are deemed sufficient for this study. Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 5-3 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

38 5.4 MODELING DEFINITIONS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA TYPES OF MODELING ANALYSES The water distribution system was analyzed using several types of simulations: Extended Period Simulation (EPS) this analysis is conducted to examine the water distribution system under the varying conditions of changing demand throughout the day. Diurnal curves are used to represent how different types of demand vary throughout the day. Tank levels, distribution system pressure, pipe velocities, and head loss are examined to assess the system s reliability during average day over a 96-hour period and maximum day demands over a 24-hour period. - Water Age this analysis is conducted to assess the length of time water is expected to remain in the distribution system. While water age data does not provide quantitative information about water quality in the distribution system, it is an important tool to assess storage tank turnover rates, potential for residual disinfectant loss, and disinfection byproduct formation. For example, a high relative water age or an increase in water age resulting from system modification can increase the potential to form Disinfection Byproducts (DBPs). DBPs are regulated under the Environmental Protection Agency s (EPA) Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproduct Rule (DBPR). Steady State this analysis is conducted to study system-wide pressures at a single instant of time with an assigned operating condition and a constant demand. This analysis is used to examine peak hour conditions. Fire Flow This analysis is conducted to assess the distribution system s ability to deliver fire flows under maximum day demand conditions, while maintaining a residual pressure of 20 psi. The existing system was not analyzed for fire flow due to supply, storage and booster pump limitations along with lack of fire hydrants within the ISD. Fire flow for the future system was based on requirements from City of Gillette Design Standards, since the ISD is adjacent to the City and could connect in the future, and are recommended to meet or exceed 1,500 gpm EVALUATION CRITERIA Recommended operating standards, such as those listed by the American Water Works Association (AWWA), are used to ensure that an adequate level of service is provided to all customers, at all times. These criteria were used to evaluate the results obtained from the hydraulic model. If the model indicates that an evaluation criterion is not within the recommended range, alternatives are evaluated to determine the improvements necessary to meet the standard. System Pressure The AWWA recommends a pressure range from 20 to 100 pounds per square inch (psi) under normal operating conditions. Pressures within this range should be available during all types of demand conditions and scenarios. Below the minimum allowable pressure of 20 psi, the ISD would be required to issue boil-water notices. The maximum recommended pressure is based on limitations of household appliances, such as water heaters, that can withstand up to 130 psi without the need of a pressure regulator. When evaluating the hydraulic model, a safety factor of 5 psi was applied to the results to account for unknown conditions and inaccuracies. Fire Protection Buckskin doesn t currently have any fire hydrants within the ISD boundaries, and the 5-HP booster pump and underground cistern storage physically limit the flow of the existing system. Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 5-4 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

39 Available Fire Flow The AWWA recommends that fire flows be evaluated for maximum day demands instead of average day or peak hour demands (AWWA, 2012). For the future scenario, Buckskin is recommended to provide fire flow to the proposed fire hydrant at a minimum of 1,500 gpm (for one hour) while maintaining a minimum distribution system residual pressure of 20 psi. Due to the small size of Buckskin ISD and adjacent location to City of Gillette and Heritage Village ISD, a single fire hydrant in the vacant lot near the existing pump house / groundwater well is proposed for the system. See Section 5.6 Recommendations for further discussion. The results from the future fire flow analysis are further discussed in Section 5.5 Model Results. Pipe Velocities The AWWA recommends a maximum velocity of five feet per second (fps) and a minimum of 0.1 fps at average day demand condition. Establishing a recommended range for velocities within the piping network is related to maintaining system water quality. Pipes with inadequate velocities may result in decreased water quality, low chlorine residual and/or bacterial growth. Excessive velocities may also result in decreased water quality because of scouring and are also associated with increased head loss due to pipe friction. Areas where velocities exceed five fps are examined on a case-by-case basis to determine if the condition may be allowed for shorter pipe lengths. Head loss The AWWA recommends a maximum head loss of 10 ft per 1000 ft for distribution pipes. Pipes with high head loss generally cannot deliver optimum pressures to downstream customers. These pipes may be undersized, have excessive velocities or accumulated material within the pipe that increases roughness within the pipe. Areas where head loss rates exceed the recommended standards are examined on a case-by-case basis to determine if the condition may be allowed for shorter pipe lengths SYSTEM RELIABILITY AND REDUNDANCY Due to the size and alignment of the Buckskin ISD water distribution system, looping and pipe redundancy was not evaluated to prevent customer supply outages in the event of a pipe failure. It is assumed all users in Buckskin will have interruption to service in an emergency event. From a water quality perspective, dead-ends should be avoided when possible. This will allow improvement of overall water quality by continuously moving water throughout the system and minimizing stagnant water. However, due to the small system size and relative cost to install additional piping, looping is not a recommendation and additional flushing can be implemented to reduce stagnant water. 5.5 MODEL RESULTS SCENARIOS EXAMINED The following scenarios were analyzed to identify areas of concern within Buckskin ISD water distribution system Existing Distribution System - Existing 2016 Demand Average Day 96-hr Extended Period Simulation (EPS) Water Age 14 Days - Existing 2016 Max Day 24-hr 2040 Projected Demands and System Improvements - Future 2040 Demand Average Day 96-hr Extended Period Simulation (EPS) Water Age 14 Days Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 5-5 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

40 - Future 2040 Max Day 24-hr SUMMARY OF RESULTS EXISTING SYSTEM 2040 Fire Flow (Available) Steady State Fire Flow Analysis A discussion of model results for the present-day system is provided below. Model output results for the existing system are presented in Figure 5.2. Model analysis of the existing system showed pipe size is adequate for average day, maximum day and peak hour demand (non-fire flow), pressure is within the appropriate range and water age in the tank is not of concern. However, water age remains a concern at dead-end nodes, and an increase in frequency with their flushing program should be considered to expel stagnant water from the dead-ends. System flow velocities are low and result in low frictional loss throughout the system. The existing system was not designed or installed for fire flow and is limited by pump size and small storage volume of the underground cistern FUTURE SYSTEM The future system scenario is based on a review of recommendations and alternatives with the preferred alternative being a connection to the City of Gillette distribution as a wholesale customer. The system would operate from City of Gillette hydraulic grade and the existing underground tank and pump house would be demolished. The proposed alternative to connect to the City of Gillette distribution system at the intersection of Rawhide Dr. and Kluver Rd. was modeled in WaterGEMS. Future demands are based on City of Gillette Design standards. The pressure expected at the connection point (59 psi) was determined from the pressure at the intersection of Gurley Ave. and Kluver Rd. in the City of Gillette hydraulic model (provided by the City of Gillette). The master meter building was modeled to represent reduction from 6-inch transmission pipe to 3-inch master meter and backflow preventer. The master meter was selected and sized to accurately measure ADD flows in addition to limited fire flow. Refer to Task 12, Prioritization of Recommendations for additional details on the component to connect to the Regional system. Model analysis of the future system showed pipe size is adequate for average day, maximum day and peak hour demand. Pressures modeled in the proposed system are within the recommended range of values given by the AWWA. System flow velocities are still low and result in low frictional loss throughout the system. A fire flow analysis showed the recommended value of 1,500 gpm for a one-hour duration could not be attained due to the contraction at the master meter building. However, there is limited (approximately 500 gpm) fire flow to the proposed fire hydrant that is an improvement compared to the existing system. Model output results for the future system are presented in Figure RECOMMENDATIONS The ISD of Buckskin water distribution system was modeled using Bentley WaterGEMS to analyze existing conditions and forecast future conditions. Using the model results, areas of concern were identified and recommendations developed that would provide the system long-term functionality and viability. Other than the dead-end nodes creating areas of stagnation and inability to meet fire flow, the existing system did not exhibit hydraulic constraints. The dead-end nodes will require continued flushing at the utility hydrants. A new connection to the City of Gillette distribution system is a recommendation and preferred alternative for available water sources. Modeling shows the Buckskin ISD could effectively supply their distribution system with hydraulic grade from the City system. The transmission pipe would be 6-inch PVC from the intersection of Kluver Rd and Rawhide Dr. to the master meter building at the intersection of Rawhide Dr. and Latigo St. A master meter building with appropriate equipment to measure flow from the City and prevent backflow would be required. A three-inch reduction through the Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 5-6 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

41 master meter building from transmission is assumed for this study to effectively measure ADD flows and limited fire flow. However, should the City only agree to provide MDD or Peak Hour flows the master meter size could be reduced and appropriate friction losses should be analyzed by future designs. Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 5-7 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

42

43 Legend... Existing Valve Existing Flushing Hydrant --- Existing 6" pipe ~ Existing City of Gillette 12" pipe.pl Existing System Pressure (PSI).... I I I Buckskin l&s District City of Gillette The water disb'ibution system shown represents infrastructure located during field survey activities. Additional system components should be noted during operations and maintenance activities.... ======i...-======-... ===========================::::'J ' ":,. Existing System Model Results FIGURE 5.2 SCA1 :, = 100' DAlE: AUGUST 2017 Buckskin ISD ~ - TREC>Inc r...-t1or.11 ~.._,,. _._..,.)1-, ,, ,_ PROJECT #: DRAWN BY: ES i:.,.r.tiimi

44

45 l~~~_: ~~L L ~ '.'._~_IL L ~~~_l:_~~~' j Legend ~-'-'--~----1Z:~_J :L~ J_~_i : E[J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Future System Model Results * Connection Building shall include, but is not limited to, the following instrumentation:.-:; Buckskin l&s District -- Proposed 6" PVC pipe - Existing City of Gillette 12" pipe master meter, altitude valve, chlorination equipment (as required), and backflow Buckskin ISD City of Gillette M Proposed Valve - Existing Heritage Village 6" pipe prevention. The building shall conform to standards set forth by the City of Gillette and - Existing 6" pipe 15<i Proposed Connection Building* Regional Water System JPA for connections to the regional water system. ~ - TREC>Inc. M Existing Valve r Future System Pressure (PSI) FIGURE 5.3 r...-t1or.11 ~.._,,. _._..,.)1-,.-. + Existing Flushing Hydrant... ======-... -======-... ~-'============================:5 '"':.. SCA1 :, = 100' DAlE: AUGUST ,, ,_ PROJECT #: DRAWN BY: ES i:.,.r.tiimi

46 6. WATER SOURCE DATA COLLECTION The scope of this task included identification of potential water sources for the Buckskin ISD water supply system. The study considered groundwater and existing distribution systems adjacent to Buckskin as possible sources. Water supply sources were analyzed to determine the ability to meet current and future water demand for the ISD. Springs were not identified in the area. As reported in the Gillette Area Water Master Plan, Phase II (HKM Associates, 1994) the water sources in the Gillette area are limited. At the time of the report, the most economical and viable source for municipal supply was groundwater. Refer to Section 2, Review of Existing information for additional detail regarding surface water supply and its limitations. Similar to the City of Gillette and other ISDs, the Buckskin ISD utilizes groundwater from the Fort Union formation as a water source. This task will detail the current and potential future supplies for the Buckskin ISD. 6.1 BUCKSKIN ISD Buckskin currently pumps groundwater from Buckskin #1 Well to supply potable water to residents. The well is drilled 1,035 feet into the Fort Union formation and is constructed of 4- and 6-inch steel pipe. The well is perforated with 3/8- inch round holes between depths 925 and 990 feet with no well screen installed, and the well has been appropriated an instantaneous flow of 25 gpm. The Buckskin #1 Well is approximately 40 years old and there are no records of redevelopment or maintenance activities during this period. The Gillette Wells Project Level II Feasibility Study Rehabilitation (Wester-Wetstein, 1994) states the static water level in the Fort Union Formation has dropped 350 to 400 feet within the City of Gillette. The trend of reduced static water elevation has generally continued since 1994, although less severe. Encrustation to the water bearing zone and general dewatering of the aquifer near the well may be contributing factors to the change in water quality at Buckskin #1, which is discussed further in Task 7, Water Quality. There are no records of yearly water production from the well nor are there historic static water level measurements. Without historical well records and measurements, it is difficult to determine an estimated service life for well production. As a comparison, the Gillette Regional Connections 1 Level II Study Antelope Valley ISD (Entech, 2013) estimated the four wells used to supply the Antelope Valley ISD could supply water to meet demand for approximately 40 years, and the Gillette Regional Connections 2 Level II Study South Fork Estates ISD (WLC, 2013) estimated a well life for their district of 27 years at 55 gpm production rate. It is important to note that these estimates do not directly correlate to estimate life for the Buckskin #1 well, but may give an approximate expectation for supply life. In addition, the estimations do not account for increased dewatering of the Fort Union formation as a whole which can cause increased drawdown over time. As stated above, this study is unable to assign a theoretical service life to Buckskin #1. The well currently does not produce quality water and there is great uncertainty in the ability of a redevelopment / rehabilitation process to enhance water quality. For these reasons, and due to the age of the well, the Buckskin #1 Well is not considered a viable public water supply for the Buckskin ISD now or into the future. 6.2 GILLETTE REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM The Gillette Regional Water System pumps groundwater from the Fort Union, Wasatch and Madison formations to provide water to regional customers and the City of Gillette. The Madison Parallel Pipeline conveys water from the Madison formation wells, located 42 miles northeast of Gillette, to the City for municipal supply. The Regional system is supplied by Fort Union wells within the City and additional Madison Formation wells. Nearly 80 percent of the Regional System is supplied by Madison well water. The Gillette Regional Master Plan Level I Study (HDR, 2009) projected water use of 34.2 MG for a population over 49,000 by 2038; the population as of 2014 for the City is nearly 32,000 which allows for additional growth of over 17,000 in the next 20 years. With this projection, the population of the Buckskin ISD (less than 50 people) can be accommodated with the current supply. The Regional Water System Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 6-1 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

47 Potential Participant Connections Study (HDR, 2010) identified potential regional users, but Buckskin ISD was not on the potential regional users list. However, conversations and review of demand for 16 taps indicate the additional demand to the Regional System by the Buckskin ISD is acceptable. The regional system is a viable water source for Buckskin and the ISD has a water use agreement in place indicating concurrence of the Regional System s ability to provide water. Further information regarding the infrastructure and necessary requirements to connect to the regional system are discussed in Task 11, Gillette Regional Water System, and Task 12, Prioritization of Recommendations. 6.3 CITY OF GILLETTE Although the City is technically a part of the regional system, the City of Gillette may be an additional water source for the ISD. Rather than connecting as a wholesale customer to the Regional System, the Buckskin ISD could connect directly to the City of Gillette distribution system and annex into the City. Discussions with City officials indicate the size and volume of the existing City distribution system in the vicinity of Buckskin could provide service to the 16 water users without impacting City system hydraulics or storage capacities. 6.4 HERITAGE VILLAGE ISD The concept of Heritage Village Water system being the supplier of wholesale water to Buckskin ISD was considered in this study. The Heritage Village Water and Sewer District is located adjacent to Buckskin ISD to the east and has annexed into the City of Gillette. Although they are annexed, they still maintain their own potable water supply with the option to open a valve to receive City water services when the subdivision chooses. Inquiries were made to the Heritage Village District regarding the potential for connection. The Heritage Board reviewed this request and determined it was not feasible for Buckskin to connect to their water system. The basis of this decision was due to their limited water availability from an out-of-service well. The Heritage Village s decision has precluded this as a viable alternative for this study. Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 6-2 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

48 7. WATER QUALITY The scope of this task included review of existing water quality reports to determine if the ISD s water quality complies with EPA drinking water standards. In addition, a full spectrum water quality analysis was performed on the ISD s existing water supply well to aid in determining if the existing well should be abandoned or remain in service for the Buckskin ISD. 7.1 WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS In the state of Wyoming, EPA has the primary responsibility of enforcing the 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The SDWA authorized the EPA to set national health-based standards for drinking water to protect against both naturally-occurring and man-made contaminants that may be found in drinking water. A public water system (PWS) is a system for the provision of water to the public for human consumption through pipes or other conveyances. If a system has at least fifteen service connections or regularly serves at least twenty-five individuals, it is considered a PWS. A PWS is required to submit water samples to an EPA-certified laboratory for analysis on a regular schedule specified by the EPA. Compliance with drinking water standards is mandatory under state and federal law. The ISD water source is a groundwater well located in the southeast corner of the district. Water is pumped to the surface, stored in an underground cistern, and then distributed to ISD consumers. Buckskin does not currently have a PWS designation with the EPA although the ISD has over 15 taps and serves more than 25 people. Despite this, water quality samples are being collected by the Water Guy which is limited to monthly bacteria sampling and field chlorine residuals. Water quality results are not being reported to the EPA. There are two levels of drinking water standards. The National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) set mandatory water quality standards for drinking water contaminants. Examples of contaminants regulated under this standard include organic compounds, disinfectants, heavy metals, inorganic chemicals, and microorganisms such as giardia. For each contaminant, the EPA stipulates a maximum contaminant level (MCL) which are used to protect the public human health. If a contaminant exceeds the MCL level, the PWS must act to reduce or remove the contaminant. The EPA also established National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations (NSDWRs) that set non-mandatory water quality standards for 15 contaminants. EPA does not enforce the secondary maximum contaminant levels (SMCL). They are established as guidelines to assist public water systems in managing their drinking water for aesthetic considerations (taste, color and odor). They do not present a risk to human health. A PWS may test for these standards on a voluntary basis. In addition, the Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (DBPR) is intended to further improve public health protection by reducing exposure to disinfection byproducts (DBPs) which have been shown to cause reproduction and cancer health issues (in lab testing) upon consumption. This rule applies to all PWS that add disinfectants to their drinking water at any stage of the treatment process and would be applicable to Buckskin. The system operator chlorinates the raw groundwater prior to distribution. 7.2 WELL WATER QUALITY SAMPLING Part of the scope of this task was also to collect and conduct a full spectrum water quality analysis on the ISD s existing water system. Field blanks for quality control/quality assurance were not included in the scope of work. Conversations with district members indicate they suspect the integrity of the well may be compromised by a crack in the well casing. Residents report that the well water was of good quality until approximately 2006, when the quality dramatically diminished and some residents have indicated the decline of water quality is closely tied to when a gas utility was installed in the area. The water has odor and taste issues when chlorination is low according to the Water Guy (system operator). The intent of the water analysis was to analyze the potable water nearest to the source. Sample results below do not exclude the potential of a system compromise downstream of the water sample location. Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 7-1 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

49 The water sample for this task was collected in the morning of August 23, The sample location was positioned as close to the wellhead as possible and was collected on the well bypass line that discharges onto the above-grade southeast corner of the pump vault. The water sample was collected above-stream of chlorination treatment. The sample was submitted to Energy Labs in Gillette, WY for analysis of the following parameters: Inorganic Compounds, Metals (including Lead and Copper) (SWDA); Color; Cyanide (SWDA): Alkalinity, Hardness, Total Dissolved Solids (TDS); Major Ions: Chloride, Fluoride, Sulfate; Herbicides and Pesticides; Volatile and Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SWDA); Bacteria, total coliform (SWDA); and Radionuclides. 7.3 REVIEW ROUTINE SAMPLING Water sample data collected by Water Guy were provided for the period between January, 2015 and March, Samples were analyzed for Total Coliform Bacteria and E-coli Coliform Bacteria. Samples were collected from seven different residents and from the pump house. Every result from this period indicated an absence of bacteria and the water quality is considered safe from bacteriological contaminants. Chlorine residuals range from 0.1 mg/l to 3.4 mg/l. The EPA requires that facilities that treat water maintain a chlorine residual of no more than 4 mg/l. All field tests for the Buckskin ISD are below this requirement RECOMMENDATIONS The current testing for the ISD indicates the water is safe from bacteria contamination and maintains a chlorine residual to continue disinfection. As mentioned in the Scoping Meeting, activities and this report are likely to bring regulatory attention to the need for the ISD to become activated as a PWS. Additionally, if the ISD chooses to connect to Gillette Regional or pursue public funding, the need to become a PWS will also be required. It is recommended that the ISD begin the process to becoming a PWS with EPA Region 8. In general, the process would begin by EPA providing a Basic Information Form for the ISD to fill out. This form would include general data such as number of taps, people served by the system, fees charged to users, etc. Following this form, the EPA would likely recommend the ISD becoming activated as a PWS. The next step would be to establish sampling and monitoring requirements which would vary depending on if the ISD connects to Gillette Regional or remains with their current water supply. After the system has been activated, the EPA would complete is a sanitary survey of the existing system. Findings from the survey may also require modifications to the system. If the ISD connects to Gillette Regional, the ISD would be considered a consecutive system to Gillette Regional. Since the larger system already is required to comply with SDWA regulations, the amount of testing required by the ISD would remain low (Farley WY DEQ, personal communication). However, if the ISD chooses to remain with their existing groundwater well as a source of potable water, and because their system also chlorinates, the sampling and monitoring requirements would likely be much more stringent compared to being a consecutive system to Gillette Regional. Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 7-2 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

50 Considering the additional costs of sampling and monitoring and the potential for regulatory requirements for system component upgrades, the ISD would benefit from becoming a wholesale customer and connecting to the Regional System. As soon as the ISD determines the alternative to pursue, it is recommended that a conversation begins with regulatory agencies. Contact information is provided below: Wyoming DEQ, Water Quality Division Karen Farley Water / Wastewater Northeast District Engineer Karen.farley@wyo.gov EPA Region 8 Drinking Water Program Michael Copeland Drinking Water Unit A, Wyoming Liaison Copeland.michael@epa.gov 7.4 WELL WATER QUALITY RESULTS Sample results are summarized in Table 7.1 located at the end of this section. The table also summarizes the lab reporting limits (RL), the Primary Drinking Water Standards MCL and the SDWS concentrations if applicable to each analyte. The full lab report is provided in the project notebook. Results from the sampling event show that none of the NPWDR are exceeded. Two secondary standards were exceeded and include color and iron. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) concentrations are below the SDWS MCL, although the concentration is close enough to the MCL that further discussion will be provided below. Additionally, sulfate concentrations are high enough to warrant discussion and potential recommendations since the odor of sulfur is a main complaint of the consumers. Color is a water aesthetic condition that, if water is colored, the psychological perception is that the water is not drinkable even though water samples indicate the source is safe for consumption (Water Research Foundation, 2015). Consumers expect water to be colorless and clear. Color can be contributed to a variety of sources including iron, which was found to be above the SDWS MCL. Colored drinking water can be caused by both soluble (TDS) or particulate substances. The iron concentration (0.84 mg/l) in the well sample is nearly three times higher than the SDWS MCL value of 0.3 mg/l. The EPA standard of 0.3 mg/l has been set as an adequate concentration to prevent water from having a metallic taste, rusty color, and reduce staining on plumbing. Groundwater is commonly found to have soluble ferrous iron and the Buckskin well is no exception. As mentioned above, iron can contribute to color issues in drinking water. In addition, when chlorine is added the dissolved iron becomes oxidized. The oxidized iron form then can precipitate and cause color, staining, and deposits. Since the Buckskin water source is chlorinated, it is likely iron oxidation is occurring within the system. TDS may also be a contributing factor to the color in the Buckskin source and sample results indicate the TDS concentration, 443 mg/l, is very near the SDWS MCL of 500 mg/l. The TDS limit is to help control for hardness, deposition, color, staining and a general salty taste in water with high concentrations. TDS is an aggregate of a variety of minerals in the water which strongly influence taste. High TDS water can be unsuitable for some uses as well such as cooling water, medical use, and consumption by low-sodium diet restricted individuals. The sulfate concentration in the Buckskin well sample is 52 mg/l which is below the SDWS MCL of 250 mg/l. SDWS standards for sulfate are set to avoid salty taste issues in drinking water. Sulfates occur naturally in surface and groundwater which is also the case with the Buckskin well. Although the concentration is below the SDWS, the Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 7-3 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

51 concentration is high enough to potentially be supporting sulfur reducing bacteria in the well. Sulfur reducing bacteria will create hydrogen sulfide (H 2S) which is associated with rotten egg odor complaints. High sulfides can also affect color RECOMMENDATIONS Water sample results do not indicate the existing water source is violating any of the PDWS MCL values. However, four constituents, color, TDS, sulfate and iron indicate improved treatment processes could improve the aesthetic qualities of color, odor and taste. The higher concentrations of iron and sulfide along with the presence of coliform bacteria indicate there is likely iron and sulfur reducing bacteria present within the well. Below are three options to help to improve the water quality of the Buckskin well if the ISD chooses to keep the existing water source. Recommendation #1 Conduct a down-hole video to determine well casing integrity The water sample collected from the well does not prove well casing integrity. The water collected cannot be verified to be directly from the intended aquifer and if consumers are suspicious that the well has been compromised, the only avenue to verify is to conduct a down-hole survey to document the current conditions of the well. If the well casing is compromised, then the additional recommendations below may not be applicable. Repair or identifying other water sources may be options following the down-hole survey. Recommendation #2 Well Redevelopment The ISD should consider screening for iron and sulfur reducing bacteria based on the odor complaints and positive coliforms sample results. If there is a presence of bacteria, well redevelopment can help to clean the bacteria and improve water conditions. Methods and chemicals used to clean the well will be determined based upon the type of bacteria present. Recommendation #3 Enhanced treatment Discussions with Duaine Faucett indicate the system receives a lot of chlorine to help with odor issues. Adding a significant amount of chlorine to this water is not ideal because of the high demand from organics, iron, and sulfide. The additional chlorine may potentially be exacerbating the poor water quality as mentioned earlier regarding oxidation of iron. The iron concentration alone warrants enhanced treatment of the water. There are several options, but the iron concentration is high enough that a removal process, rather than a chemical sequestrant, is likely the best option. Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 7-4 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

52 Table 7.1 Well Water Quality Test Results Analyses Result Units RL MCL SDWS Physical characteristics Color 25 cu 5 15 Alkalinity (as CaCO3) 323 mg/l 5 Major Ions, Dissolved Chloride 6 mg/l Sulfate 52 mg/l Fluoride 0.7 mg/l Antimony ND* mg/l Nitrogen (NO3+NO2 as N) ND mg/l Arsenic ND mg/l Barium 0.24 mg/l Beryllium ND mg/l Cadmium ND mg/l Calcium 16 mg/l 1 Chromium ND mg/l Copper ND mg/l Inorganic Compounds Cyanide, Total ND mg/l Iron 0.84 mg/l Magnesium 8 mg/l 1 Manganese mg/l Mercury ND mg/l Nickel ND mg/l 0.01 Selenium ND mg/l Silica 10.2 mg/l 0.2 Silver ND mg/l Thallium ND mg/l Zinc ND mg/l Non-metals Hardness as CaCO3 72 mg/l TDS (180C) 443 mg/l Gross alpha 2 pci/l 15 Gross alpha precision (±) 2.2 pci/l Gross Alpha MDC 1.6 pci/l Gross alpha - adjusted 2 pci/l 15 Gross Alpha - Adjusted Precision (±) 2.2 pci/l Gross Apha - Adjusted MDC 1.6 pci/l Radium pci/l 5 Radium 226 precision (±) 0.2 pci/l Radionuclides - Total Radium 226 MDC 0.2 pci/l Radium pci/l 5 Radium 228 precision (±) 1.8 pci/l Radium 228 MDC 0.8 pci/l Radium Radium pci/l 5 Radium Radium 228 precision (±) 1.8 pci/l Radium Radium 228 MDC 0.8 pci/l Uranium ND mg/l Uranium, activity ND pci/l Herbicides ND ug/l SOC Herbicides ND ug/l SOC Pesticides ND ug/l Volatile Organic Compounds ND ug/l Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds ND ug/l Bacteria * Non-Detect Total Coliform E-Coli Coliform Present Absent

53

54 8. REVIEW OF WATER RIGHTS The scope of this task was to review the existing water rights for the Buckskin ISD and provide them in a tabular form shown in Table 8.1 below. Water rights were reviewed to determine if the rights are adequate for the current and future needs of the ISD. As described in Task 6, the Buckskin ISD obtains groundwater from a well drilled into the Fort Union Formation. The following section describes the water right history for Buckskin with the single water right summarized in Table 8.1. The Buckskin #1 Well (Permit Number P W) is a potable water well drilled into the Fort Union Formation in March, The priority date for this permit is January 16, 1975 with a beneficial use date of May 5, The permit allows the ISD to pump 25 gpm from the well with no stipulated total annual volumetric production from the well. The permit has a status of unadjudicated, meaning the appropriate statement of completion and beneficial use paperwork was filed with the State Engineer s Office (SEO), but a location map was never received to legally adjudicate the water right. The water right was applied for by the Buckskin Club in 1975 to service 16 families in the Rawhide Subdivision. There is no documentation within the SEO e-permit system that the water right was transferred to the Buckskin ISD once formed in November, Table 8.1 Buckskin ISD Water Right Permit Number Priority Date Permit Status Facility Name Uses Location ¼ ¼ Sec-T-R P W 1/16/1975 Unadjudicated Buckskin #1 MISC_GW SW-SW-14-50N-072W Permit Yield 25 gpm 8.1 RECOMMENDATIONS If the selected alternative is to connect to the Gillette Regional Water System, the well will likely require plugging and abandonment per applicable State standards unless the well can be appropriately maintained and the water be put to beneficial use. Conversations with the City indicate water rights from other subdivisions have been transferred to the City if the existing wells are in proximity to existing blending pipelines or infrastructure. In the case of the Buckskin #1 well, the City expressed the opinion that the low volume of 25 gpm was not likely to be of interest. Therefore, abandonment of the well will be described as a subset component of the recommendation to connect to the Gillette Regional System. Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 8-1 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

55

56 9. EVALUATION OF SYSTEM OPERATIONS The scope of this task was to review the existing operations and management of the Buckskin ISD water system and provide recommendations for efficiencies and improvements. Operations, maintenance and management (OM&M) of a public water supply system are essential for the longevity and efficiency of a system. Buckskin ISD contracts the Water Guy, a local water system operations company, to perform the tasks associated with operating, maintaining and collecting water quality samples for the system. This review will be of the OM&M activities performed by the Water Guy on behalf of the Buckskin ISD. Throughout the master planning process, our team had conversations and interviews with water system operations staff to gain an understanding of how the system is managed and operated. Review and any recommendations for the management and operation of the water system were developed and broken into separate components of the system. Each section discusses the current activities as well as procedural or operational changes which may be considered to improve the OM&M for Buckskin. 9.1 TREATMENT, STORAGE TANK AND PUMP HOUSE The groundwater is treated using sodium hypochlorite injected into the raw water stream through a Stenner 170MDC Series peristaltic metering pump. A liquid carboy is housed in the underground pump house. Per the Water Guy and supplied documentation, the feed rate through the peristaltic pump is approximately 6.4 gallons per day. Chlorine residuals, chlorine feed rate, and the chlorine tank level are checked on a weekly basis. The Water Guy indicated the chlorination application rate is often higher than other systems to combat odor issues associated with the water. Additionally, the ISD consumers do not currently drink water from the system without significant filtration / treatment at the point of use. As mentioned in Task 7, Water Quality, there are several treatment alternatives that the ISD may consider if the selected alternative is to continue with their existing water source. Additional design and water quality data would need to be collected for alternate treatment options. The Water Guy uses Murphy Switches to monitor levels in the storage tank and prompt well pump operation. There is no SCADA system, which is preferable to the operator. Due to the small size of the system, and relative simple operation, this is not a concern of the study. There is no record that the tank has been inspected or cleaned of any sediment in the past twenty years. It is recommended that if the ISD continues to use their existing system as a water source that the tank be drained, cleaned and inspected by a qualified tank inspection contractor. The pump house includes a single Ace 500, 5 HP pump and associated piping to pressurize the distribution system. There is no pump or power redundancy to provide water distribution to consumers. In the event of a pump failure, the Water Guy would need to perform maintenance or install a new pump, which would result in the ISD being without water for a period. For this reason, the ISD should consider installing an additional pump for redundancy should the ISD choose to continue use of groundwater for their system. 9.2 WATER METERS The Buckskin ISD does not have individual point of use meters. The rate structure for the ISD is a flat monthly payment to Buckskin ISD. A recommendation of this study is for the ISD to install individual use meters to accurately measure usage by residents, regardless of the water source alternative selected by the ISD. Metered water usage provides a fair and equitable method of billing consumers for usage. Additional fees may be incurred for the Water Guy to collect monthly usage data. Cathey Consulting is contracted by the Buckskin ISD to perform billing and collection efforts for the utility and additional costs may be incurred for metered billing versus flat billings rates. Operational costs are discussed in more detail in Task 13, Water System Financing. Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 9-1 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

57 9.3 SYSTEM COMPONENTS The operation of the distribution system is minimal due to the small size of the system. Beyond maintenance and monitoring of the well pump, booster pump and chlorination system, additional operation activities consist of line flushing. There are no isolation valves in the system requiring exercising. There are two utility hydrants in the system, one at each of the dead-end nodes. The first flushing hydrant is located on the north end of Rawhide Dr. where the street bends to the east. The second is behind Hldaky construction along the fence line in the vacant area behind the lot at 1007 Latigo. Discussions with staff indicate that the utility hydrants are flushed two times per year, or more frequently if determined necessary by the operator. 9.4 SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS The poor quality of the water source, Buckskin Club #1 well, is the major concern for the ISD and the quality is not related to poor operations or maintenance of the system. The Water Guy is a Gillette based company that performs operations and maintenance for multiple public water systems in the Gillette area. The company is well versed in the procedures necessary to operate and maintain small, independent water systems. Overall, the Water Guy is performing operations and maintenance satisfactorily with the allotted budget and system constraints. If the ISD does not connect to the Gillette Regional System, there are several recommendations to improve the operations and maintenance of the Buckskin ISD water system including: Assess alternate treatment options to improve water quality as described in Task 7; Inspect, clean and make repairs, as needed, to existing tank; Install water meters; and Procure and install a redundant booster pump for the system. Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 9-2 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

58 10. POPULATION GROWTH AND WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS The scope of work for this task was to develop population growth and water demand projections for the Buckskin ISD water service area. Population projections are to be based on the Economic Analysis Division of the Wyoming Department of Administration and Information (EAD/DA&I) historical and projected population data POPULATION PROJECTIONS AND SERVICE AREA The Buckskin ISD limit includes an area of approximately 31 acres with an estimated population of 48 people. The ISD is completely built-out (16 parcels) with City of Gillette bordering the subdivision on all sides, as a result, population growth is considered to be stable. As a reference for growth in the area, Table 10.1 below provides the EAD/DA&I population census and projected population growth for Gillette and Campbell County. However, between July 2015 and July 2016, Campbell County experienced a negative 1.1 percent growth (DA&I, 2017b). If any change in population occurs in the ISD, it will likely be a decline. Table 10.1 Gillette and Campbell County Population Data 2010 (Census) 2015 (Projected) 2020 (Projected) 2025 (Projected) 2030 (Projected) 2040 (Projected) Gillette, WY 29,087 30,630 32,502 34,507 36,632 40,794 Campbell County 46,133 48,550 51,550 54,730 58,100 64, EXISTING WATER DEMAND As discussed in Task 3, there are no individual use meters within Buckskin nor was there a functioning master meter to account for total flow from the pump house. Therefore, an estimate was made from existing studies to form a basis for existing and future water demand on a per capita basis. Table 5.1 previously presented a summary of demand from previous studies in the Gillette Area. The approach for this study is to use the average values from previous reports which results in an ADD of 165 gpcd with a 2.7 MDD / ADD multiplier EXISTING WATER SOURCE AND FUTURE DEMAND Since there is no projected population growth for the Buckskin ISD, it is assumed the future water demand may increase and will be near the calculated demand of 165 gpcd. One recommendation is to install individual meters and maintain or replace the existing master meter, which will aid in collecting current consumption and supply for the ISD. Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 10-1 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

59

60 11. GILLETTE REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM CONNECTION The scope of this task includes development of the most suitable location, size, and alignment for the Buckskin ISD connection to the Gillette Regional Water System (GRWS or regional system), while taking into consideration additional areas that may be potentially served from the planned participant alignment or regional extension. This section provides historical information and reasoning associated with the selected alignment and size of the regional connection. Cost estimates associated with the components to connect to the GRWS are provided in Task GILLETE REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM OVERVIEW The Buckskin ISD was not identified as a potential regional participant in the Gillette Regional Participant Connections study (HDR, 2010). This omission was likely because the study looked at existing PWS entities and the Buckskin ISD is not an activated PWS (communication Mike Cole). As a result, proposed connection points for Buckskin to the GRWS were not studied. As part of this study, two possible alternatives to connect the Buckskin water distribution system to the regional water distribution system were identified (Figure 11.1): Connect to proposed Wrangler Estates transmission pipe, aligned along Gurley Ave, or Connect to City of Gillette distribution at the intersection of Rawhide Dr. and Kluver Rd. In both alternatives, the water source would be provided by the City of Gillette distribution system. The first alternative identified would be to connect to the proposed Wrangler Estates 8-inch transmission pipe that is planned to originate at the intersection of Kluver Rd. and Gurley Ave. and continue north along Gurley Ave. The Wrangler Estates transmission pipe is proposed and intended to provide a regional connection to Buckskin Meadows Subdivision and Wrangler Estates. Buckskin ISD was not identified to connect to this transmission pipe; however, due to the low demand of the Buckskin ISD it is expected there is sufficient capacity in the proposed 8-inch pipe for a Buckskin ISD connection. In alternative one, the connection would occur at the intersection of Latigo Street and Gurley Ave. The second alternative is to connect to the City of Gillette water distribution system at the intersection of Rawhide Dr. and Kluver Rd. The connection would be a new 6-inch pipe tapping into the existing 12-inch transmission main on Kluver Rd. The connection would only provide water to the Buckskin ISD. The second alternative has several advantages over the first alternative including a shorter alignment from the City distribution to the existing ISD system; the existing pump house and well site is near the tap and would be a good site for the regional master meter building; and the City distribution pipe is in place which allows for the ISD to move forward with connection without waiting on additional subdivisions to fund the Regional Water System connection along Gurley Ave. The first alternative also has the disadvantage of potentially requiring an easement or purchasing land to build the regional master meter building. The second alternative is the preferred alternative and is further described below. The transmission pipe from the City distribution pipe is sized to be 6-inch diameter PVC. The pipe is oversized for the demand of Buckskin ISD, but is sized accordingly to City standards if annexation to the City should occur in the future. The transmission pipe would reduce to 3-inch diameter pipe to obtain appropriate hydraulics for the master meter and to reduce cost of isolation valves and required principle back-flow preventer. Backflow prevention to eliminate crosscontamination between the two distribution systems is required since the ISD is a consecutive system to the City of Gillette system. The master meter building would also house regional system SCADA equipment. Due to the poor water quality of the Buckskin Club#1 well, and uncertainty of long term improvement of water quality and costs associated with repair or rehabilitation of the existing water source, it is recommended that the ISD abandon their water source and become a wholesale purchaser from the GWRA. The connection would be for year-round wholesale water service (LOS A), which would require amendment of the Water Service Agreement between the City of Gillette and Buckskin ISD. Currently, the agreement signed on July 2, 2015 only agrees to intermittent service (LOS B). In some cases, where existing wells are located near the Regional System and if the water right has a significant Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 11-1 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

61 appropriation, the City may purchase and transfer the water right to their system. However, due to the small appropriation and concern of Buckskin Club #1 well water quality, the City of Gillette has indicated they are not interested in obtaining the Buckskin Club #1 appropriation. This indicates the ISD would need to abandon and plug the Buckskin Club #1 well. The control building could be powered by both the county (Buckskin) and City electrical grid to provide redundant power. Further, since the water source is the City of Gillette and the ISD is an island within the City, the water quality and storage provided by the City system would protect Buckskin ISD. An initial assessment indicates additional disinfection or storage is not anticipated on the Buckskin side of the regional connection. Discussions with City staff indicate the proposed alternative is likely acceptable to the City of Gillette.. Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 11-2 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

62 l~~~_: ~~L L ~ '.'._~_IL L_~~~_l:_~~~' j Legend ~-'-'--~----1Z:~_J :L~ J_~_i : E[J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Regional Connection Alternatives :: i Buckskin l&s District - Proposed 6" pipe - ALERNATIVE Proposed 6" PVC pipe Buckskin ISD City of Gillette = Proposed Wrangler Estates 8" pipe (HOR, 2010) 1><1 ALTERNATIVE Proposed Valve - Existing City of Gillette 12" pipe Proposed Meter - Existing Heritage Village 6" 1><1 Proposed valve ALTERNATIVE Proposed Connection Building FIGURE ======-----=====------it=========================5'':.. SCA1 :, = 100' DAlE: AUGUST 2017 ~ - TREC>Inc. r... -t1or.11 ~.. _,,. _._..,.)1-, ,, ,_ PROJECT#: DRAWN BY: ES i:.,.r.tiimi

63 12. PRIORITIZATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS The purpose of this task is to develop and prioritize recommendations identified during the process of this study. The prioritization of recommendations task identified numerical ranks for potential improvements to the Buckskin water supply system through a methodical approach of both quantitative and qualitative criteria. Potential improvements are prioritized based on a consequence of failure, likelihood of failure, risk review and conversations with ISD board members and the system operator OVERALL APPROACH The first phase consisted of evaluating information obtained or developed during this project regarding intent of the ISD to connect to the GRWS. Information including, but not limited to, the assessment of existing inventory, on-site visual inspections, staff accounts, and results from the hydraulic model were taken into consideration. The second phase consisted of identifying several water source alternatives for the ISD which included: Maintain Buckskin ISD Existing System Connect as a Wholesale Customer to the Gillette Regional Water System Annexation by City of Gillette Connect as a Wholesale Customer to the neighboring Heritage Village water system. The third phase consisted of defining and organizing system recommendations for the alternatives based on riskbased analysis derived from accepted asset management practices. The fourth phase investigated the framework for the ISD water utility and its assets, which consists of operations and maintenance (O&M) practices to effectively maintain water supply assets, programmatic recommendations that impact organizational structures and enforcement activities, and business processes to improve efficiency and effectiveness. The elements of these phases relative to each alternative are outlined in this section. The recommendations were reviewed and quantitatively analyzed using the consequence of failure and likelihood of failure risk review described in further detail below CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE ASSESSMENT The Consequence of Failure (CoF) metric is a numerical rating ranging from one to five that indicates the magnitude of possible impacts resulting from the failure of an asset to perform as required, with five being the most significant impact. Table 12.1 provides a description of the guidelines used for assigning consequence scores. CoF considers the range of negative outcomes that could occur and considers financial and regulatory consequences through environmental and social impacts. The following factors were considered in determining the magnitude of impacts: Safety and Security Customers and Reputation (Social) Service and financial, and Environmental / regulatory 12.3 LIKELIHOOD OF FAILURE ASSESSMENT The Likelihood of Failure (LoF) metric is a numerical rating of one to five that indicates the chance that an asset will fail. Table 12.2 provides a description of the guidelines used for assigning likelihood scores. The following factors were considered based on a visual inspection include: Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 12-1 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

64 Condition Performance, and Reliability (when applicable). It is recommended that, as future performance and maintenance data is acquired, this weighted scoring method be utilized to generate a composite LoF score RISK MATRIX Based on the range of CoF and LoF scores, the possible resultant risk ranges from zero to 25, where 25 is considered very high risk. The possible asset risk scores for the recommendations provided in the Alternatives describe below are presented in a risk matrix format in Figure 12.1 below; refer to Appendix B for risk tables associated with recommendations described in the water source alternative analysis below. The risk matrix is divided into four areas that identify risk scores equal to less than five (left of green), five to ten (between green and yellow), ten to fifteen (between yellow and red), and greater than fifteen (right of red). The matrix allows for general overall risk analysis. Risk is used to prioritize asset needs, and can therefore be used as the basis for renewal planning and maintenance activities; however, additional evaluation is necessary to determine a meaningful course of action to reduce the asset risk score. Figure 12.1 Risk Matrix of Buckskin Recommendations 12.5 WATER SOURCE ALTERNATIVES The Buckskin ISD signed a water use agreement with the GRWS. Prior to connecting to the Regional System, and a scope item of this study, the existing system was reviewed to verify all existing components were compatible with a regional connection. Improvements needed prior to the connection are addressed in this study. In addition, in the interest of providing the best alternative to both the ISD, City of Gillette and the Regional Water System, alternative Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 12-2 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

65 water source options were identified. Four alternatives were identified for review in this study. Following is a brief discussion of each alternative and the components required to implement the alternative. Several items are repeated between alternatives and are recommendations regardless of the water source selection for the ISD. Risk ranking tables are provided in Appendix B for each recommendation item number ALTERNATIVE #1 MAINTAIN EXISTING ISD WATER SYSTEM This alternative would maintain the existing ISD water system. Most of this report assesses the existing system and provides recommendations for improvement. Overall the existing system has many issues including lack of water meters, aging infrastructure including the confined-space pump house and underground cistern, poor secondary water quality which prevents consumption, and the need to activate the water system as a PWS. If the ISD were to select Alternative #1, it is recommended that the following improvements be implemented: 1. Obtain a Public Water System designation 2. Complete a down-hole inspection of the well and rehabilitate/repair upon findings 3. Develop an appropriate water quality treatment process (as necessary based on results from Item #2) 4. Demolish and install an above-ground pump house 5. Demolish and install a new above-ground storage tank 6. Install individual water meters For additional information on Items 1 through 3, refer to Task 7, Water Quality. Items 4 and 5 are discussed in Task 3, Inventory and Evaluate Existing Water system. The underground pump house is a safety concern for access and can be considered a confined-space entry structure. Both the pump house and underground cistern are aged and in disrepair, and this is the primary reason for the recommendation to demolish and install new infrastructure for the pump house and tank. The Buckskin ISD water system currently does not have individual tap meters; therefore, each user pays a flat monthly fee regardless of water consumption. Listed as item 6, it is recommended the ISD install individual water meters for multiple reasons. First, individual meters allow for equitable billing based on consumption. Second, meters document consumption and inherently incentivize the conservation of water. Third, individual meters create a database for the ISD that may be used to optimize the system and assist in locating water losses in the future. Table 12.3 identifies the priority and WWDC eligibility for each of the components listed above. Based on the wide range of unknowns regarding the success of well rehabilitation, the large range of costs for various water treatment needs, cost comparisons to other alternatives and WWDC funding potential, Alternative #1 is not the preferred alternative for the ISD. Risk ranking tables are provided in Appendix B for the recommendations. Table 12.3 Alternative #1 Recommendation Summary Item Number Recommendation Description Priority 1 PWS Designation High No 2 Well Inspection and Rehabilitation High No 3 Develop Water Treatment Technology Medium No 4 Install New Above-Ground Pump House High No 5 Install New Above-Ground Storage Tank Medium Yes 6 Water Meters Low No WWDC Eligible Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 12-3 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

66 If the ISD chooses Alternative #1 as their choice, additional recommendations specific to the existing system include the following operational recommendations: Increase visibility of curb stops in the ISD; Complete a tank inspection and plan for identified maintenance needs; and Procure redundant booster pump ALTERNATIVE #2 WHOLESALE CONNECTION TO GILLETTE REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM This alternative would connect the ISD to the GRWS as a wholesale customer. The connection would occur at the intersection of Rawhide Drvie and Kluver Road as shown on Figure This is the preferred alternative connection as described in Task 11, Gillette Regional Water System Connection. From discussion with City staff, the ISD would be responsible for any infrastructure after the connection building. The regional system requires a master meter which would be installed in the connection building, proposed location near the existing pump house. Additional discussions with City staff indicate that due to the ISD proximity to the City system, re-chlorination and storage facilities would likely not be required by the ISD downstream of the master meter. If the ISD were to select Alternative #2, it is recommended that the following improvements be implemented: 1. Obtain a Public Water System designation 2. Install Transmission Piping from Regional System to master meter building 3. Install master meter building and system components (master meter, backflow prevention, isolation valves) 4. Install Transmission Piping from master meter building to existing ISD distribution system 5. Abandon Buckskin #1 Well and demolish existing pump house and cistern, and 6. Install individual water meters For additional information on Item 1, refer to Task 7, Water Quality. Recommendation. Items 2 and 3 are understood to be components funded by the Gillette Regional Water System and are requirements of the City to connect to the system. A new tank is not anticipated to be required since City storage is expected to be adequate for the ISD. Similarly, Item 4 is necessary for connection to the Regional System, but is the ISD s responsibility to fund. The ISD could apply for WWDC funding for this section of transmission pipe. As discussed in Task 11, the City does not have an interest in transferring the water right of Buckskin #1 to the Regional System. It is unlikely that the ISD will find or can fund an alternate use for the groundwater and thus abandonment of the well is recommended. Installation of meters was previously discussed in Alternative #1 and the same rational is applied to this alternative. Table 12.4 identifies the priority and WWDC eligibility for each of the components listed above. Based on GRWS funding portions of this alternative, the reduced cost of eliminating water treatment or storage, and WWDC funding potential, Alternative #2 is the preferred alternative for the ISD. Risk ranking tables are provided in Appendix B for the recommendations. Risk Ranking for Items 2 through 4 are not included since they are system components required to connect to the Regional System and CoF and LoF do not directly correlate. Instead, the priority is ranked as high since these items need full funding for Alternative #2 to be implemented. Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 12-4 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

67 Table 12.4 Alternative #2 Recommendation Summary Item Number Recommendation Description Priority WWDC Eligible 1 PWS Designation High No 2 Transmission Piping from Regional to Pump House High YES/ Gillette Regional 3 Master Meter Building and system components High YES/ Gillette Regional 4 Transmission Pipe to ISD Distribution High Yes 5 Abandon Buckskin #1 Well Low No 6 Water Meters Medium No 12.8 ALTERNATIVE #3 ANNEXATION TO CITY OF GILLETTE This alternative would complete City of Gillette annexation of Buckskin ISD. The district would dissolve and each customer would be billed through the City. During a meeting with the City of Gillette Planning Manager, the process for annexing island districts into the City was discussed by the group. This process is prioritized by the City based on larger populations being annexed first followed by smaller subdivisions within City limits. Buckskin ISD is designated as a low priority for annexation, and preliminary schedule indicates annexation of Buckskin would occur after the year Regardless of the City plan, if the ISD expressed interest to annex, the City would be amenable. As part of the island annexation plan, the City compiled a cost estimate detailing the upgrades required for the ISD to be in compliance with City standards. The improvements include: 1. Traffic upgrades (signage, traffic control) 2. Street upgrades (paving of ISD streets) 3. Sidewalk installation 4. Water upgrades (fire hydrant, water mains) 5. Sewer upgrades (manholes, sewer mains) 6. Storm water upgrades (piping, inlets) 7. Electrical (conduit, street lights, conductor, Pro Corp revenue loss) Among the upgrades listed above, the City is also required to pay electrical revenue loss for three to five years to the Powder River Energy Corporation. Currently, the extent of the above mentioned upgrades are cost prohibitive for the ISD and this alternative was not investigated further in this study. The City stipulates the required upgrades and thus no priority is given to the recommendations in Table As shown below, it is assumed storm water upgrades are not needed as storm water would be directed with curb and gutter to other collection inlets. It was noted that sidewalk requirements may be waived, but was not confirmed and remains within the summary. Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 12-5 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

68 Table 12.5 Alternative #3 Recommendation Summary Item Number Recommendation Description Priority WWDC Eligible 1 Traffic Upgrades NA No 2 Street Upgrades NA No 3 Sidewalk Installation NA No 4 Water Upgrades NA No 5 Sewer Upgrades NA No 6 Storm water Upgrades NA No 7 Electrical NA No 12.9 ALTERNATIVE #4 CONNECT TO HERITAGE VILLAGE WATER SYSTEM During discussions of alternatives, the idea to connect to Heritage Village Water system was introduced for investigation. The Heritage Village Water and Sewer District is located adjacent to Buckskin ISD to the east and is annexed into the City of Gillette. Although they are annexed, they still maintain their own potable water supply with the option to open a valve to receive City water services in the future. Inquiries were made to the Heritage Village District regarding the potential for a Buckskin wholesale connection. The Heritage Board reviewed this request and determined it was not feasible for Buckskin to connect to their water system. The basis of this decision was due to their limited water availability from an out-of-service well. The Heritage Village decision precluded this as a viable alternative for this study SUMMARY Alternative #2, Connecting as a wholesale customer is the preferred alternative and is recommended to be pursued using the prioritization ranking listed in Table This alternative has greater funding assistance potential, which should play a key role in the ISD decision process to select an economically viable alternative for long term, quality water supply. In addition, the simplification of operations and maintenance activities by connecting to the Regional System has added benefits; cost for disinfection materials and operations will be eliminated, public water system water sampling requirements will be less than maintaining the existing well; water quality will improve for the district which may create additional revenue if residents increase water usage that can be billed with proposed meters, and finally, the ISD will have a secured, reliable water source for residents. Further discussion on cost estimates for this alternative, including assumptions to be considered are provided in Task 13, Cost Estimates. Funding scenarios and recommendations for rate structure modifications are discussed for this alternative in Task 14, Water System Financing. Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 12-6 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

69 Table 12.1 Consequence of Failure CONSEQUENCE WEIGHT 5 VERY HIGH 4 HIGH 3 MODERATE 2 LOW 1 VERY LOW SAFETY & SECURITY SOCIAL - CUSTOMERS & REPUTATION SERVICE & FINANCIAL IMPACTS ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY 25% 25% 25% 25% High expectation of a serious injury, potentially lifethreatening or major security breach Major impact on stakeholders and/or serious threat to longterm reputation Complete disruption of services; direct (or indirect) costs trigger state of regional media coverage Fine, compliance order or other regulatory action likely or significant damage to the environment High expectation of a major injury, not life-threatening or security compromised Intermittent service to some customers and/or threat to reputation Partial disruption of services; direct (or indirect) costs trigger local media coverage Fine, compliance order of other regulatory action possible or localized damage to the environment Low risk of a moderate injury or security jeopardized Minor service impact and/or diminishes reputation Partial disruption of services; direct (or indirect)costs do not trigger media coverage Noncompliance possible or some damage to the environment Low risk of minor injury or security threat Contained within the facilities; workarounds making work flow difficult No disruption of services; direct (or indirect) costs do not trigger media coverage Noncompliance possible if not addressed or minimal damage to the environment No risk of injury and minor security threat In-house work item; makes facilities less efficient No impact to operations; direct (or indirect) costs do not trigger media coverage Non-compliance unlikely or minor damage to the environment

70

71 Table 12.2 Likelihood of Failure LIKELIHOOD WEIGHT 5 INOPERABLE 4 POOR 3 FAIR 2 GOOD 1 NEW 0 ABANDON VISUAL CONDITION RATING 100% Major Defect, Does Not function, Replacement, overhaul or corrective maintenance required; frequent maintenance Has had early overhaul or frequent corrective maintenance; operational attention often required, Exceeded life expectancy and/or components may need replacement (i.e. Heavy corrosion, excessive component failures), Functions poorly, not adequate for all conditions or excessive expense Age is more than 3/4 of the life expectancy, above average, maintenance performed regularly, no early overhaul, wear components may need replacement, minor leaks at major components acceptable, Functions under current conditions, experiences infrequent problems of attention to ensure proper operation Age is between 1/4 and 3/4 of life expectancy, Normal maintenance, little or no vibration, no leaks at major components, Fully functional; may experience very infrequent performance issue or attention to ensure operations Like new asset, Age is less than 1/4 of life expectancy, little of no vibration, no leaks or signs of wear, fully functional, efficiency near design levels May Vary

72

73 l~~~_: ~~L L ~ '.'._~_IL L ~~~_l:_~~~' j Legend ~-'-'--~----1Z:~_J :L~ J_~_i : E[J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Regional Connection Wholesale Customer * Connection Building shall include, but is not limited to, the following instrumentation:. :; Buckskin l&s District - Proposed 6" PVC pipe - Existing City of GiUette 12" pipe master meter, altitude valve, chlorination equipment (as required), and backflow Buckskin ISD City of Gillette H Proposed valve - Existing Heritage Village s pipe prevention. The building shall conform to standards set forth by the City of Gillette and p d c ct' B "Id" Regional Water System JPA for connections to the regional water system. - Exi s ti ng 6 pipe ropose onne ion u1 1ng H Existing Valve FIGURE Existing Flushing Hydrant... ======-... -======-... ~-'============================:5 '"':.. SCA1 :, = 100' DAlE: AUGUST 2017 ~ - TREC>Inc. r... -t1or.11 ~.. _,,. _._..,.)1-, ,, ,_ PROJECT #: DRAWN BY: ES i:.,.r.tiimi

74 13. COST ESTIMATES This task developed cost estimates for the water source alternatives described in Task 12. The cost estimates include the cost of engineering design, permitting, land acquisition, construction engineering, materials and equipment, and construction contingencies. All construction cost line items include 15 percent overhead and profit, and two percent bonding. Design engineering costs, construction engineering (10 percent) and contingency (15 percent) are included in the cost worksheets. Cost estimates are based on 2017 prices. Four water source alternatives were reviewed in this study and included 1) maintaining the existing water source, 2) connecting to the Gillette Regional Water System, 3) annexation into the City of Gillette and 4) connection to Heritage Village. Costs associated with Alternatives 1 and 2 were prepared and are described below. Costs associated with annexation to the City were provided by the City of Gillette and are not discussed further in this study. The fourth option was not viable and costs were not developed. Cost spreadsheets for Alternative #1 and #2 are provided at the end of this section based on the WWDC cost estimate format described in Section C of the WWDC/TREC Scope of Services. Task 12 provides a more detailed explanation of the prioritized recommendations. The costs provided in this section were developed using RIB MC 2 cost estimating software and checked against various local vendors for quality control. The cost estimates in this section are appropriate and representative for conceptual level design. If the District applies for Level III funding, the District and WWDC (or other funding agency) should revisits these estimates and update accordingly COST ESTIMATE OVERVIEW A brief overview of each system improvement and the cost associated is provided below ALTERNATIVE #1 MAINTAIN EXISTING ISD WATER SYSTEM As discussed in Task 12, this alternative would require significant rehabilitation of the existing well, water quality review for new treatment options, a new tank and pump house due to aging conditions of existing infrastructure and obtaining a PWS designation. In addition, water meters can be implemented concurrent with the previously mentioned items, or later as funding allows. The cost associated with this recommendation are given in Table The estimated cost to install the system components in 2017 USD is $752,472. The assumptions associated with this alternative are: The new tank will be above ground and approximately the same volume as the existing tank; Well rehabilitation efforts will effectively increase well function and potentially increase quality. It is assumed the well is in good condition and is not cracked which can be determined from a preliminary down-hole camera inspection prior to well rehabilitation; The unknown needs to improve water quality could require implementation of a variety of treatment options (chemical sequestrant, down well chlorination for iron bacteria control, ion exchange, etc.). Costs for this assume the middle range of options and final design is required to fully understand the scope and costs for this recommendation ALTERNATIVE #2 WHOLESALE CONNECTION TO GILLETTE REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM This alternative would require many of the same recommendations as Alternative #1 including obtaining a PWS designation and installing meters. In addition, this alternative also includes transmission piping from the regional system to the connection building, the connection building and system components, transmission piping from the connection Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 13-7 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

75 building to the existing ISD distribution system, and abandoning Buckskin #1 Well. It is recommended that funding be pursued to install the water meters at the same time as connecting to the Regional System. Costs associated with demolition of the existing cistern and pump station are not included in this estimate. There may be in an interest from residents to use the cistern. Demolition of these appurtenances will need to be addresses if the ISD does not use the existing infrastructure for other purposes. The cost estimate associated with connecting as a wholesale consumer to the GRWS is shown in Table In addition, a detailed spreadsheet was created describing the work activity, component cost source, quantity, unit, unit price, and any notes/assumptions that were used to generate the final estimates. This spreadsheet is included in the project notebook. The estimated cost to install that the ISD is responsible for in 2017 USD is $157,882. It is understood that the transmission piping, master meter building and components of the building will be funded by the GRWS and WWDC. Costs to be funded by the GRWS are estimated at $294, ALTERNATIVE #3 ANNEXATION TO CITY OF GILLETTE Costs associated with each City requirement to bring the ISD up to City standards were developed by the City and provided to TREC for this study. Considering the costs, short repayment time frames, and limited funding opportunities for many of the items, this alternative is not a viable option for the ISD. Costs associated with the recommendation to annex to the City is summarized in Table TREC did not complete a separate cost review for this alternative ALTERNATIVE #4 CONNECT TO HERITAGE VILLAGE WATER SYSTEM The Heritage Village Water and Sewer District decided it is not feasible for Buckskin to connect to their water system at this time. Costs for this alternative were not developed, although many of the items included in Alternative #1 and #2 would likely apply if this option became feasible in the future. Components would like include obtaining a PWS designation, abandoning Buckskin #1 Well, new connection building with master metering and backflow prevention, and water meters for each customer. Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 13-8 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

76 Table 13.1 ALTERNATIVE #1 - MAINTAIN EXISTING SYSTEM OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS Preparation of Final Design and Specifications Permitting and Mitigation Legal Fees Acquisition of Access and Rights of Way $ 29,875 $ 5,000 $ 500 $ Pre-Construction Costs $ 35,375 Cost of Project Components 1 PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM DESIGNATION $ 11,500 2 WELL INSPECT AND REHABILIATION $ 34,025 3 WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY $ 57,250 4 ABOVE-GROUND PUMP HOUSE $ 277,800 5 ABOVE-GROUND STORAGE TANK $ 130,930 6 WATER METER $ 55,370 Total Component Costs $ 566,875 Construction Engineering Costs $ 56,688 Component and Engineering Costs $ 623,563 Contingency $ 93,534 Total Construction Costs $ 717,097 Total Project Cost $ 752,472

77

78 Table 13.2 ALTERNATIVE #2 - GILLETTE REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM WHOLESALE CUSTOMER Preparation of Final Design and Specifications Permitting and Mitigation Legal Fees Acquisition of Access and Rights of Way $ 8,885 $ 5,000 $ 500 $ 3,000 Pre-Construction Costs $ 17,385 Cost of Project Components 1 PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM DESIGNATION $ 11,500 2 TRANSMISSION TO CONNECTION BLDG (GRWS) $ 3 CONNECTION BUILDING (GRWS) $ 4 TRANSMISSION TO ISD SYSTEM $ 15,370 5 ABANDON BUCKSKIN #1 WELL $ 28,825 6 WATER METER $ 55,370 Total Component Costs $ 111,065 Construction Engineering Costs $ 11,107 Component and Engineering Costs $ 122,172 Contingency $ 18,326 Total Construction Costs $ 140,497 Total Project Cost $ 157,882

79

80 Table 13.3 ALTERNATIVE #3 - ANNEX INTO CITY OF GILLETTE Preparation of Final Design and Specifications Permitting and Mitigation Legal Fees Acquisition of Access and Rights of Way $ $ $ $ Pre-Construction Costs $ 0 Cost of Project Components 1 TRAFFIC UPGRADES $ 8,135 2 STREET UPGRADES $ 901,780 3 SIDEWALK INSTALLATION $ 282,295 4 WATER UPGRADES $ 215,560 5 SEWER UPGRADES $ 170,010 6 STORM WATER UPGRADES $ 0 7 ELECTRICAL $ 54,015 Total Component Costs $ 1,631,795 Construction Engineering Costs $ 163,180 Component and Engineering Costs $ 1,794,975 Contingency $ 269,246 Total Construction Costs $ 2,064,221 Total Project Cost $ 2,064,221

81

82 14. WATER SYSTEM FINANCING This section presents an analysis for funding the proposed system improvements recommended in Section 12. The existing rate structure, expenses and revenue for fiscal year 2016 were evaluated for the Buckskin ISD. Additionally, modified rates were estimated to provide adequate revenue for an emergency fund and a major repair and replacement fund for the existing system. Following this, funding scenarios were evaluated for the recommended improvements. Changes to the rate structure were assessed to provide for implementation of the preferred alternative of connecting as a wholesale customer to the Gillette Regional Water System using four different scenarios, including: There will be no state or federal funding assistance. In this case, a scenario was developed to look at funding the recommended improvements in the near term utilizing bond through private banks in Wyoming. WWDC funded components at 67% grant and 33% loan with loans for non-eligible components from other programs. In this case, federal loans for the WWDC non-eligible components were applied. Federal loans from Rural Utility Service (RUS) or Wyoming Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) for all improvements. Grants from RUS, Wyoming DWSRF, State Lands and Investments Board, the Wyoming Business Council, and/or Campbell County District Support Program to replace part of the loan available through the Water Development Program for WWDC eligible improvements and/or all or a portion of the non-eligible improvements. These scenarios are in accordance with the project scope of work. Further details for the various scenarios are provided below. The effects of all scenarios on average monthly bills were assessed and then compared to the theoretical monthly water bill which is 2.5 percent of the annual median household income divided by 12 months, as prescribed by the AWWA EXISTING SYSTEM RATES The Buckskin ISD does not currently have individual water meters to apply a rate schedule for water usage to the residents. Rather, the ISD charges a flat rate of $75 per month for each tap. There are 16 taps in the system active as of this report. The existing income from this rate is $14,400 per year. During the ISD board meeting on April 7, 2016 it was decided that the flat water fee was not adequate to meet the annual expenses for the ISD and an annual assessment fee of $480 per lot ($40/month) was put into effect. The income from this fee is an additional $7, FY 2018 SYSTEM BUDGET The following water expenses were developed for the Buckskin ISD with information provided by Cathey Consulting including fiscal year budgets and expenses paid from May 2015 through April Table 14.1 provides a summary of averaged expenses for the ISD. Table 14.2 provides the approved budget for FY 2017/2018. Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 14-1 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

83 Operating Expense Table 14.1 Buckskin ISD Operating Expenses Average Annual Expense Administration - Cathey Consulting $ 2,820 Operations Water Guy $ 5,304 Operations - Chemicals $ 2,856 Electrical Powder River Energy $ 6,000 Miscellaneous (PO Box, Gillette News Record, Bonding, etc.) $ 879 Total Historical Expenses $ 17,859 Table 14.2 Buckskin ISD FY2018 Budget Budget Item Allocated Expense Administration Book Keeping / Secretarial $ 2,400 Postage / Mailbox $ 355 Subtotal $ 2,755 Indirect Insurance / Bonding $ 105 Operations Water Chemicals (Sodium Hydrochloride) $ 2,700 Repairs / Reserves / Maintenance $ 5,115 Utilities $ 6,100 Water Operator $ 5,304 Subtotal $ 19,220 TOTAL $ 22,080 The budget above includes funds for a reserve account but it does not include sums to cover major repair and replacement fund dollars. Additionally, it is not apparent that the water system reserves are held and accounted separately from the general cash reserve or whether these reserves may be used to fund other ISD improvements, such as road repair. For this study as outlined in the scope of work, a 1.5 percent emergency fund and a 20-year replacement fund, described in further detail below, is included in the budget. The following section evaluates the ability Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 14-2 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

84 to maintain a self-supporting water service, and evaluates the funding alternatives and resultant impact to the rate structure to pay for recommended upgrades EXISTING WATER ENTERPRISE RECOMMENDATIONS To develop an estimate to provide for a 20-year replacement cost, the existing condition of the distribution pipe was considered. However, the evaluation excluded the components of the pump house and underground tank since the preferred alternative would remove these aged components. The distribution pipe was exposed during hydroexcavation activities and the pipe appeared to be in good condition. PVC pipe has an estimated life of 70 years, but may last up to 100 years. In addition, operations report no issues of pipe breaking. The pipe is considered to be in good condition and replacement of portion or all of the 4,600 lf of pipe is not anticipated within the next 20 years. Due to the limited revenue potential for the ISD, the emergency fund is calculated at 1.5 percent of total operating expenses. The review of ISD s revenue and operating costs for the existing system show that their budget allocation is expected to match the revenue to be raised from the monthly flat water fee and annual assessment for FY When considering the 1.5 percent emergency fund, a 2.5 percent annual operations cost escalation and a 1.0 percent capital cost escalation for chemical purchases, the ISD is close to a self-sustaining water enterprise, but is in deficit of $555. Table 14.3 identifies the current and projected operating costs and revenue for the Buckskin ISD through FY2020. Table 14.3 Buckskin ISD Water System Finance Balance Current Projected Projected Projected Projected Operating Costs FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 Admin. - Book Keeping $ 2,400 $ 2,424 $ 2,448 $ 2,473 Admin. - Postage / Mailbox $ 355 $ 359 $ 362 $ 366 Indirect - Insurance / Bonding $ 105 $ 106 $ 107 $ 108 Water - Chemicals $ 2,700 $ 2,727 $ 2,754 $ 2,782 Water - Repairs $ 5,115 $ 5,166 $ 5,218 $ 5,270 Water - Utilities $ 6,100 $ 6,161 $ 6,315 $ 6,473 Water - Operator $ 5,305 $ 5,358 $ 5,492 $ 5,629 Sub-Total $ 16,965 $ 22,301 $ 22,697 $ 23,101 Emergency Fund $ 335 $ 340 $ 347 Total Projected Operating Costs $ 22,080 $ 22,635 $ 23,037 $ 23,447 Projected Revenue Flat Monthly Water Fee $ 14,400 $ 14,400 $ 14,400 $ 14,400 Annual Assessment Fee $ 7,680 $ 7,680 $ 7,680 $ 7,680 Total Projected Revenue $ 22,080 $ 22,080 $ 22,080 $ 22,080 Revenue To Be Raised $ 555 $ 957 $ 1,367 Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 14-3 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

85 Common practice for rate assessment is to increase tap fees to compensate for operating expenses and to increase water usage fees for capital improvements. The ISD does not have water meters to modify usage fees, and flat rate fees will need to increase an additional $7.25 per month for a total of $82.25 per month to maintain an emergency and repair fund and cover cost escalations over the next three years. It is anticipated that the funding process to implement the recommended alternative will take a minimum of three years, so existing financing has been projected to FY GILLETTE REGIONAL WHOLESALE CUSTOMER WATER ENTERPRISE RECOMMENDATIONS The following water enterprise budget and finance balance reflect the scenario that the ISD has implemented the recommended upgrades; are connected to the Gillette Regional; are operating as a wholesale customer; and are billing using individual water meters. Debt service, repayment and rate increases using the four funding scenarios will be applied to this Gillette Regional Water Enterprise rate structure and operating expenses. Several assumptions for this scenario have been used and include: Chemical costs are no longer incurred since supplemental disinfection treatment will not be required; Operations for pumps and disinfection will no longer be required. Sampling will be minimized, but meter reading will result in an additional service. A cost reduction of 25 percent has been assumed for future operator costs (from $442 per month to $332 per month); Water billing may add an additional fee for administration and book keeping and a 25 percent increase has been assumed for this service (from $200 per month to $250 per month); With no active pumps or aging pump-house related infrastructure to repair, it is assumed the annual water repair needs will be decreased by 70 percent (from $5,115 to approximately $1,500); Reduction of pumping and associated electrical needs combined with additional electrical for water meter operations result in an assumption that monthly electrical fees will be reduced by 50 percent (from $510 per month to $255 per month); and Usage rates and associated fees from Gillette Regional are based on an assumed volume of 4,000 gallons per tap per month. Regional base charges are $6.50 per tap per month ($1,248 for the ISD annually). Regional water usage fees are $3.01 per 1,000 gallons consumed. Table 14.4 provides details on the projected expenses for the ISD for this scenario. The assumed cost savings, compared to existing costs from Table 14.1 result a reduction of costs by nearly 30 percent. It should be stressed that negotiations with contracted services will be required and may not reflect the assumptions described above. Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 14-4 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

86 Table 14.4 Buckskin ISD Wholesale Customer Expenses Projected Projected Operating Costs FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Gillette Regional Base Charge $ 1,248 $ 1,260 $ 1,273 Gillette Regional Usage Charge $ 2,315 $ 2,338 $ 2,362 Admin. - Book Keeping $ 3,000 $ 3,030 $ 3,060 Admin. - Postage / Mailbox $ 355 $ 359 $ 362 Indirect - Insurance / Bonding $ 105 $ 106 $ 107 Water - Repairs $ 1,500 $ 1,515 $ 1,530 Water - Utilities $ 3,050 $ 3,081 $ 3,158 Water - Operator $ 3,984 $ 4,024 $ 4,124 Sub-Total $ 11,994 $ 12,114 $ 12,342 Emergency Fund $ 233 $ 236 $ 240 Total Projected Operating Costs $ 15,790 $ 15,948 $ 16,216 Revenue for the expenses below will be raised using a combination of a fixed rate and a tiered commodity rate which is based on volume of water used. Common practice for rate assessment is to increase fixed rate fees to compensate for operating expenses and to apply commodity rates for capital improvements. Portions of the Gillette Regional usage charge will be paid through usage fees. With this consideration, Table 14.5 below outlines a proposed rate structure and projected revenue. This will need to be reviewed and adjusted as actual water rate consumption data is obtained from both the individual water meters and the master meter from Gillette Regional. Revenue is based on the assumption of 4,000 gallons per tap per month with no revenue from usage over 5,000 gallons per month. Table 14.5 Proposed Rate Schedule and Revenue Projection Type Fee Count Unit Annual Revenue Fixed Rate $ taps $ 14,400 Commodity Rate 0-5,000 $ per thousand gallons $ 1,460 Above 5,000 $ Gallons $ 0 Total $ 15,860 The proposed rate schedule shown in Table 14.5 is anticipated to accommodate the costs projected during the first year of operations when the ISD is connected to the Gillette Regional system. As escalation rates increase, it is expected that annual, incremental increases to the commodity rate be implemented to match inflation. On a recurring basis, fixed rate fees should be assessed to cover operational costs without relying on usage fees. Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 14-5 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

87 Table 14.6 Revenue Projection and Rate Modifications FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 Annual Revenue Requirements $ 15,790 $ 15,948 $ 16,216 Less non-rate Revenue Streams Fixed Rate fees $ 14,400 $ 14,400 $ 14,400 Revenue Shortfall to be Covered by Commodity Rates ($ 1,390) ($ 1,548) ($ 1,816) Volumetric Rates Required to break even ($/kgal) $ 1.81 $ 2.02 $ 2.36 Average Household Usage Cost Per Year $ 87 $ 97 $ 113 Average Household Fixed Rate Cost Per Year $ 900 $ 900 $ 900 Total Average Household Cost Per Year $ 987 $ 997 $ 1,013 Percentage of MHI 1.33% 1.34% 1.37% In the table above, the average household usage cost per year is based on the assumption of each household consuming 4,000 gallons per month. The average household fixed rate cost per year is based on the monthly flat rate fee of $75. Combined, the average proposed household cost totals the sum of these two costs. The percentage of Median Household Income (MHI) is a comparison to the theoretical, or maximum affordable, water bill which is set by the EPA at 2.5 percent of the MHI divided by 12 months. Using the U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-year Estimate data, Gillette s MHI is $74,165. The rates above reflect that the projected annual cost for residents is below the theoretical water bill. Funding options and associated water rate increases for recommended improvements are provided below EVALUATION OF FUNDING SOURCES The WWDC requires the consultant to evaluate a number of different funding sources and offer adjustments in revenues necessary to accommodate the prioritized recommendations and schedules developed in Task 12 and the cost estimates developed in Task 13. To help facilitate this evaluation process the WWDC provides guidelines for completing the water system financing analysis, which are based on the following scenarios. There will be no state or federal funding assistance (Private Lending Institutions). Funding for WWDC eligible components will be in the form of a 67% grant and 33% loan, but funding for WWDC non-eligible components will only be in the form of loans from other programs. There will be federal loans from Rural Utilities Service (RUS) or the Wyoming Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program (DWSRF) to replace the loan available through the Water Development Program for both WWDC eligible and non-eligible improvements. There will be grants from RUs, the DWSRF, the State Lands and Investments Board, the Wyoming Business Council and/or the DEQ Abandoned Mine Lands Program to replace part of the loan available through the Water Development Program for WWDC eligible improvements and/or all or a portion of the non-eligible improvements. Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 14-6 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

88 The following funding sources were evaluated based on the aforementioned guidelines. Each evaluation provides a description of the funding source, typical lending practices, and the likelihood of the Buckskin ISD receiving either a grant or loan PRIVATE BANKS Private banks can be a source of funding if grants and other funding options are not available. A private bank can provide a municipal revenue bond to the ISD where revenue from rate payers are used to pay principal and interest to the bondholders over time. Revenue bonds can vary in term from twenty to thirty years with varying interest rates and origination fees. Base on discussion with regional private banks the Buckskin ISD is likely to have difficulty providing adequate revenue to repay a bond that would fund the components of connecting to the Gillette Regional Water System. The municipal revenue bond, if pursued, would most likely come in the form of a twenty-year loan with an interest rate ranging from 3.5 to 4.5 percent (personal communication, Platte Valley Bank). Interest on the bond is anticipated to be tax exempt WWDC The WWDC funding package consists of a grant loan mix. The maximum grant value is seventy-five percent (75%) for proposed Level III (Construction) projects. In order to obtain the maximum grant, the sponsors must demonstrate to the WWDC that the maximum grant is warranted due to serve financial hardship, which may be applicable for the Buckskin ISD. The typical grant value is sixty-seven percent (67%) for proposed Level III projects. In order to obtain the typical grant, the sponsors must demonstrate to the WWDC that they have taken steps or are willing to take steps to make their water supply systems financially self-supporting. Depending on the grant amount given, the remaining amount of funding can be secured through a WWDC loan. Statutory guidelines establish a minimum rate of four percent for program loans. Currently, the interest rate is four percent but may be increased by the Wyoming State Legislature. The is no origination fee associated with a WWDC loan. Depending on the community s financial situation the WWDC statues allows the payment of interest and principal be deferred up to five (5) years after substantial completion of a project. In addition, the WWDC can recommend that the accrual of interest also be deferred during the term of the payment deferral. These special conditions are granted only on a limited basis. The sponsor's method of repayment and the longevity of the sponsor s existence as a legal entity is a primary factor in determining if this deferment should be granted. In no event can the combined deferment and term of the loan exceed fifty (50) years. However, the typical loan term is twenty (20) years. Based on the Operating Criteria of the Wyoming Water Development Program, the majority of recommendations that the ISD is responsible to fund are not eligible for WWDC funding under the New Development Program. The WWDC only provided funds for the conservation, storage and distribution of major water lines. The majority of recommended improvements fall under the ineligible category of Distribution Systems. It is anticipated that the major transmission piping from the connection building to the existing distribution system would be eligible for WWDC funding. Ineligible projects listed in the Operating Criteria include: Refinancing of previously completed improvements; Wastewater projects; Recreation; Environmental Enhancement, Flood Control, Erosion Control; Hydropower projects; Distribution Systems (ex. meters); Water Treatment Facilities; Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 14-7 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

89 Subdivisions; System Maintenance; and Legal Fees, Water Rights, Engineering Fees, Audits (ex. PWS designation and well abandonment) WYOMING DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND PROGRAM (DWSRF) DWSRF is administered by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WY DEQ), the Office of State Lands and Investments (OSLI), and the WWDC. Each year, these agencies prepare an Intended Use Plan which contains a comprehensive priority list of public water systems in Wyoming that have expressed interest in the DWSRF, are planning capital improvement projects, have been identified as serious public health risks, have received notices of Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) violations, or were issued administrative orders. The Buckskin ISD is not currently listed on the 2017 Draft FY2017 Intended Use Plan. If the ISD intends to pursue funding through the SRF program, the ISD will first need to initiate the application process to get specific capital improvement projects on the Intended Use Plan (IUP). As previously stated in the summary for the WWDC funding, the ISD needs to promptly apply for the IUP as preparation to show the WWDC they are taking steps to be self-supporting and able to fund non-eligible WWDC components. The ISD would be able to be included on the FY2019 IUP. Contact information for the application process for the IUP is below: Richard Cripe, - rich.cripe@wyo.gov Phone Funding from the DWSRF is made up of a 100 percent loan at a 2.5 percent interest rate, a loan origination fee of 0.5 percent, and repayment period up to 20 years. In addition, if the applying entity complies with all Federal requirements (i.e. Davis Bacon Wages, American Steel, NEPA, and Disadvantage Business Enterprise (DBEs)) their loan principal will be eligible for 50% forgiveness. Historically, the State has been able to fund all eligible projects that apply for loan funding, and expects to be able to continue to do so during FY2018, though not all applicants will likely be able to receive the full amount of principal forgiveness for which they apply. If and when the loan application amounts exceed the funding available for loans, the State will fund projects in order of priority of those that apply. Based on our understanding of the DWSRF the Buckskin ISD has a good probability of receiving both a loan and principal forgiveness through their funding program specifically to fund the installation of water meters. Our analysis assumes that the Buckskin ISD meets the principal forgiveness requirements OFFICE OF STATE LANDS AND INVESTMENTS MINERAL ROYALTY GRANTS The Mineral Royalty Grants (MRG) program is administered by the Office of State Lands and Investments (OSLI). The State Loan and Investment Board can provide grants up to seventy-five percent of eligible projects. To qualify for the 75 percent grant the applicant must be a municipality and have a population of less than 1,300 or is located within a county where the three-year average of the local government share of state sales and use tax per capita is less than seventy percent of the statewide average. Applicants who do not meet these requirements can apply for grants of up to 50 percent of the eligible project costs. The State Loan and Investment Board use the following criteria when prioritizing funding decisions: The MRG program awards grants to: Alleviate an emergency situation which poses a direct and immediate threat to health, safety or welfare. Be needed to comply with federal or State mandate addressing public health and safety. Provide an essential public service, including water supply. Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 14-8 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

90 Second, the Board s rules set forth the following additional criteria used in awarding Mineral Royalty Grants: The extent of match committed to the project from all sources. The applicant has made a significant commitment of local resources. The applicant has matching funds from other than State grants. The project is appropriately sized in relation to the population served. The relative urgency of the project. The applicant is current on repayment obligations to the Board. The applicant plans to use Wyoming professional firms and contractors. The financial need of the applicant as determined by the Board. The percentage of the applicant s population served by the project. In addition, the Board gives priority to applicants socially or economically impacted by development of minerals leased under the Federal Mineral Leasing Act of The project must be reviewed by appropriate State Agencies and the reviews are used in formulating funding recommendations. The Mineral Royalty Grant program has no set priority list or numerical ranking of projects. If a project meets the requirements and funding is available, then funding has been traditionally recommended and approved for those projects. However, as noted in other funding source descriptions, applications for assistance often greatly exceed available appropriations. Based on discussions with the MRG program coordinator there is very intense completion for limited funds and the likelihood of the Buckskin ISD receiving grant funds has potential for the ISD is other funding cannot be identified WYOMING BUSINESS COUNCIL (WBC) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS (CDBG) The Wyoming Business Council has three grant programs providing assistance to municipalities. These three programs are the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), the Business Ready Community Program (BRC), and the Community Facilities Grant & Loan Program (CFP). Of these three programs the CDBG is the most applicable for the Buckskin ISD. The CDBG program is a federally funded pass-through grant program from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Business Council is Wyoming s designated agency for administering the program. Annual funding for the CDBG program ranges from $2.2 to $3.75 million. The CDBG program awards grants to: Improve accessibility for elderly and handicapped persons to already existing public buildings. Construction, rehabilitation, reconstruction, or installation of public infrastructure such as water and sewer lines. Development of community facilities including, but not limited to acquisition of property, construction of public works, code enforcement, rehabilitation of buildings, etc. All incorporated cities, towns and counties are eligible applicants for the CDBG program. The Buckskin ISD is not an eligible applicant. However, local governments may apply on behalf of other units of governments or special interest groups. For the purpose of this study, it is assumed that the City of Gillette is a willing partner to apply on behalf of the Buckskin ISD to connect to the regional water system. Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) 14-9 Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

91 Currently, the CDBG funds are available for up to $500,000, however, it is fairly uncommon for an entity to receive the full funding amount. Based on our understanding of the CDBG, the ISD, cooperatively with the City of Gillette, has a good likelihood of receiving grant funding through this program. This most likely would come in the form of a grant, which was estimated at a maximum of $300,000 for this analysis. This assumes that Gillette and the ISD meet all of the grant requirements UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Utilities Service (RUS) administers programs that provide much-need infrastructure or infrastructure improvements to rural communities. These include water and waste treatment, electric power and telecommunications services. All of these services play a critical role in helping to expand economic opportunities and improve the quality of life for rural residents. These investments support the nation s longterm prosperity by ensuring that rural communities have the infrastructure to compete in the global economy. The Water and Environmental Programs (WEP) provides loans, grants and loan guarantees for drinking water, sanitary sewer, solid waste and storm drainage facilities in rural areas and cities and towns of 10,000 or less. Public bodies, non-profit organizations and recognized Indian tribes may qualify for assistance. WEP also makes grants to non-profit organizations to provide technical assistance and training to help rural communities with their water, wastewater and solid waste problems. The WEP program offers a grant and loan mixture. The grants offered through the program are up to 45 percent of the total project cost. The loans have a fixed interest, with terms of 30-years for drinking water. The interest rate is based on the need for the project and the median household income of the area to be served. The current interest rate is 2.25 percent with no origination fee; loan interest rates of percent may be available for poverty communities. Rates are subject to change quarterly. Funds may be used to finance the acquisition, construction or improvement of: Drinking water sourcing, treatment, storage and distribution Sewer collection, transmission, treatment and disposal Solid waste collection, disposal and closure Storm water collection, transmission and disposal In some cases, funding may also be available for related activities such as: Legal and engineering fees Land acquisition, water and land rights, permits and equipment Start-up operations and maintenance Interest incurred during construction Purchase of existing facilities to improve service or prevent loss of service Other costs determined to be necessary for completion of the project Based on our understanding of the USDA RUS program, the Buckskin ISD has a high likelihood of receiving both grant and loan funding through their program. Our analysis assumes that the ISD meets the USDA RUS requirements and assumes a 20-year loan CAMPBELL COUNTY DISTRICT SUPPORT PROGRAM The Campbell County District Support Grant Program provides financial assistance to Improvement and Service District Boards or Water and/or Sewer District Boards. According to the Campbell County website, the funds for this program are intended for improvement projects, such as road and street improvements, water supply and distribution facilities, Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

92 wastewater collection and treatment facilities, storm water control works, etc. An ISD must meet qualifications in Chapter 5 Rules Governing the District Support Grant Program to be eligible for funds. The amount of funding on an annual basis is dependent on the type of projects and the number of lots within the district. The Administrator is willing to discuss specifics with a district on a case by case basis. The applications for funding must be filed with the County Engineer s office (Administrator of program) no less than 30 days before a regularly scheduled County Commissioner s meeting. The County Commissioners meet on the first and third Tuesday of each month and review all applications for approval of funding. In general, an ISD project directly related to a GRWS connection is eligible for 33 percent of the project cost not funded by other grant sources up to a maximum of $75,000. For non-regional water project infrastructure, up to the individual owner property line, an ISD could receive 25 percent of the project cost not funded by other sources up to $50,000. The non-regional water related projects are subject to a $1,500 per District lot grant limitation over the current 5-year period. In addition, the combined total of Regional Water connection grant awards and other eligible projects shall not exceed $100,000 per year for any District. The District Support Grant Funds are reimbursed to the District based on a pay request form submitted to the Administrator containing invoices for rendered services ANALYSIS OF FUNDING SCENARIOS Funding scenarios were analyzed in accordance with Task 14 of the scope of work. The following assumptions were utilized for all calculations: Operations Cost Escalation per year 2.5% Capital Cost Escalation rate per year 1.0% Contractual Cost Escalation rate per year 1.0% All the scenarios analyzed assume that the fix fee of $75/month will be implemented for proposed operating expenses in Table The cost for debt repayment will be made up through commodity fees. Engineering and contingencies were evenly distributed between the components of the recommendation. Revenues to be raised for debt repayments is established through a usage volume which is estimated at 4,000 gallons per month per tap. In each scenario, the calculated increase of usage fees are compared against the theoretical monthly water bill to determine in the rates are feasible and affordable. Table 14.7 provides a summary of the scenarios discussed below. FY2023 Projected Table 14.7 Summary of Funding Scenarios Scenario Average Monthly Household Base Rate Usage Fees ($/kgal) Projected Monthly Consumption Fees Projected Monthly Household Cost Theoretical Monthly Water Bill Annual Debt Payment Total Loan Amount Proposed $75.00 $1.90 $7.60 $82.60 $ $0 $0 Scenario 1 - Private Loan $75.00 $17.11 $68.44 $ $ $11,332 $153,864 Scenario 2 - WWDC/DWSRF Loans $75.00 $13.42 $53.68 $ $ $8,487 $130,739 Scenario 3-100% RUS $75.00 $13.28 $53.12 $ $ $8,487 $130,739 Scenario 4 Best Available $75.00 $2.36 $9.44 $84.44 $ $0 $0 Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

93 SCENARIO 1 MUNICIPAL BOND This analysis assumes that no state or federal funding is available for the preferred alternative components. Improvements are assumed to be constructed over a period of years beginning in 2021 with the origination fee and initial loan repayments made in the subsequent year construction activities occur. It is assumed the costs associated with the PWS designation will be funded from existing reserves and will not be a part of the private funding. Table 14.8 provides a breakdown of budget costs, revenue, capital improvement funding and associated required usage rate increases to connect to the Gillette Regional system. Under this scenario the FY 2023 projected average monthly household cost is $ with usage fees increasing to $17.11/kGal SCENARIO 2 WWDC FUNDING FOR ELIGIBLE COMPONENTS/FUNDING FROM OTHER SOURCES This scenario assumes that WWDC eligible components, which is only the transmission pipe, will be funded by the WWDC in the form of 67 percent grant and 33 percent loan. Remaining costs are assumed to be funded through a loan through the DWSRF. All construction would commence in 2021 with the origination fee initial loan payments beginning in Like Scenario 1, the PWS designation cost are assumed to be funded through existing cash reserves. Table 14.9 provides a breakdown of budget costs, revenue, and capital improvement funding and associated required usage rate increases to create a self-sustaining water system. Under this scenario, the FY 2023 projected estimated monthly fee is $ with usage fees increasing to $13.42/kGal SCENARIO 3 RUS LOANS ANALYSIS This scenario assumes that 100% of the recommendations will be funded through the USDA RUS loans with the assumption that the ISD is eligible for a lower interest rate for poverty communities. All construction would commence in 2021 with the origination fee and initial loan payments beginning in Like previous scenarios, the PWS designation cost are assumed to be funded through existing cash reserves. Table provides a breakdown of budget costs, revenue, and capital improvement funding and associated required usage rate increases to create a selfsustaining water system. Under this scenario, the FY 2023 projected estimated monthly fee is $ with usage fees increasing to $13.28/kGal SCENARIO 4A BEST AVAILABLE SOURCES ANALYSIS W/O RUS FUNDING This scenario assumes that the ISD will receive WWDC and DWSRF grants for the transmission pipe to connect to the Gillette Regional Water System. With this scenario, $5,110 would be funded by the ISD from their reserve fund. Abandoning the well and installing the water meters will be funded through a 50 percent grant through the DWSRF with the remaining cost funded through the CDBG. The PWS designation cost are assumed to be funded through existing cash reserves. Table provides a breakdown of budget costs, revenue, and capital improvement funding and associated required usage rate increases to create a self-sustaining water system. Under this scenario, the FY 2023 projected estimated monthly fee is $84.46 with usage fees increasing to $2.36/kGal SUMMARY The Buckskin ISD has limited revenue to create emergency funds for the water system let alone fund large rehabilitation efforts to maintain their existing system. As demonstrated in the previous rate scenarios, funding the preferred Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

94 alternative to connect to the Gillette Regional Water System will likely only be feasible by utilizing multiple funding sources and leveraging the grant portions of these sources. After the ISD installs water meters and established a rate structure, the revenue rates for fixed monthly and commodity fees are recommended to be evaluated annually and small increases should be implemented to create a sustainable water fund and to reduce sticker shock from large increases to the water users. Various funding sources require environmental reporting to be completed as part of the application process. Funding from the DWSRF will require an Environmental Assessment for the proposed projects. Considering that the preferred alternative is an island within the City of Gillette and previously developed, it is anticipated that efforts for the environmental assessment will consist of letter notifications to required state and federal agencies. If the agencies do not have significant issues from the notifications, it is likely the project will receive a Categorical Exclusion. Contacts, forms and guidance information for the DWSRF environmental requirements are provided below: Forms and Guidance: Contact: Richard Cripe WDEQ Cheyenne Office 200 W. 17 th St. Cheyenne, WY rich.cripe@wyo.gov Phone In addition to an Environmental Assessment requirement for DWSRF funding, the ISD will need to demonstrate their technical, financial, and managerial capabilities to provide assurance to the agency that the ISD can provide current and ongoing operations of the utility. Appendix C, provides the Capacity Assessment and Financial Worksheet for the Buckskin ISD, which must be provided to the agency prior to a construction permit being issued. The worksheet should be reviewed and updated for changes prior to submitting for funding to the DWSRF. If the ISD opts to apply for funding through the RUS, an Environmental Assessment must be completed as well as a Preliminary Engineering Report (PER) for the proposed project. The majority of information provided in this report may suffice for the PER, but additional engineering may be required (funding is also available for preliminary engineering through the RUS). The first step to initiate the RUS application is to make contact with the state representative which is listed below: Forms and Guidance: Contact: Lorraine Werner Community Programs Director Casper State Office NACS President 100 East B Street Room 1005 Casper, WY Tel Funding through the CDBG also requires an Environmental Assessment. In addition, a public hearing is required and the ISD must meet all HUD requirements Contact information is provided below: Forms and Guidance: Contact: Sandy Quinlan Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

95 CDBG Program Manager Tel It should be noted that in order to obtain WWDC funding, the ISD must also be able to provide a plan for funding the remaining portions of the project and provide the WWDC assurance in the ISD s ability to pay for the project in a timely manner. This means that other funding source applications should commence as soon as the ISD decides to pursue a project. Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

96 Table Scenario 1 - Municipal Bond Capital Improvements Funding Plan Bond Term (years) 20 Improvements 2017 Cost Year Const. Project Cost Funding Source % Loan % Grant % Rate Annual Payment Transmission Pipe to ISD Distribution System $ 30, $ 32,561 Bond 100% 0% 4.0% $ 2,396 Abandon Buckskin #1 Well $ 44, $ 46,702 Bond 100% 0% 4.0% $ 3,436 Water Meters $ 70, $ 74,602 Bond 100% 0% 4.0% $ 5,489 Operating Budget & Capital Improvement Expenditure Assumptions Operations Cost Escalation 2.5% Capital Cost Escalation Rate 1.0% Contractual Cost Escalation Rate 1.0% Projected Projected Operating Costs FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Gillette Regional Base Charge $ 1,248 $ 1,260 $ 1,273 Gillette Regional Usage Charge $ 2,315 $ 2,338 $ 2,362 Admin. - Book Keeping $ 3,000 $ 3,030 $ 3,060 Admin. - Postage / Mailbox $ 355 $ 359 $ 362 Indirect - Insurance / Bonding $ 105 $ 106 $ 107 Water - Repairs $ 1,500 $ 1,515 $ 1,530 Water - Utilities $ 3,050 $ 3,081 $ 3,158 Water - Operator $ 3,984 $ 4,024 $ 4,124 Sub-Total $ 15,557 $ 15,713 $ 15,976 Emergency Fund $ 233 $ 236 $ 240 Total Projected Operating Costs $ 15,790 $ 15,948 $ 16,216 Projected Projected Debt Service Budget FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Transmission Pipe to ISD Distribution System $ - $ 2,396 $ 2,396 Abandon Buckskin #1 Well $ - $ 3,436 $ 3,436 Water Meters $ - $ 5,489 $ 5,489 Total Proj Debt Service Budget $ - $ 11,322 $ 11,322 Annual Revenue Requirement $ 15,790 $ 27,270 $ 27,538 Projected Revenue FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 Annual Revenue Requirements $ 15,790 $ 27,270 $ 27,538 Less non-rate Revenue Streams Monthly Charges $ 14,400 $ 14,400 $ 14,400 Revenue to be raised by rates $ 1,390 $ 12,870 $ 13,138 Volumetric Rates Required (Break Even) $ 1.81 $ $ Avg Household Usage Cost / Year $ 87 $ 804 $ 821 Avg Household Base Rate Cost / Year $ 900 $ 900 $ 900 Average Household Monthly Charge $ $ $ Total Avg Household Cost Per Year $ 987 $ 1,704 $ 1,721 Percentage of MHI 1.33% 2.30% 2.32%

97

98 Table Scenario 2 - WWDC Funding for Eligible Components / Funding from Other Sources Scenario 2 - WWDC 67%/33% + DWSRF Loans Loan Term Capital Improvements Funding Plan 20 years Improvements 2017 Cost Constructio n Project Cost Funding Source % Loan % Grant % Rate Annual Payment Orig. Fee Transmission Pipe to ISD Dist. System $ 30, $32,238 WWDC 33% 67% 4.0% $783 $0.00 Abandon Buckskin #1 Well $ 44, $46,238 DWSRF 100% 0% 2.5% $2,966 $ Water Meters $ 70, $73,862 DWSRF 100% 0% 2.5% $4,738 $ Assumptions Operations Cost Escalation 2.5% Capital Cost Escalation Rate 1.0% Contractual Cost Escalation Rate 1.0% Operating Budget Projected Projected Operating Costs FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Gillette Regional Base Charge $ 1,248 $ 1,260 $ 1,273 Gillette Regional Usage Charge $ 2,315 $ 2,338 $ 2,362 Admin. - Book Keeping $ 3,000 $ 3,030 $ 3,060 Admin. - Postage / Mailbox $ 355 $ 359 $ 362 Indirect - Insurance / Bonding $ 105 $ 106 $ 107 Water - Repairs $ 1,500 $ 1,515 $ 1,530 Water - Utilities $ 3,050 $ 3,081 $ 3,158 Water - Operator $ 3,984 $ 4,024 $ 4,124 Sub-Total $ 15,557 $ 15,713 $ 15,976 Emergency Fund $ 233 $ 236 $ 240 Total Projected Operating Costs $ 15,790 $ 15,948 $ 16,216 Projected Projected Debt Service Budget FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 New Above Ground Tank $ - $ 783 $ 783 East Railway Transmission Pipe $ - $ 3,197 $ 2,966 N. Sherman Ave. Distribution Pipe $ - $ 5,107 $ 4,738 Total Proj. Debt Service Budget $ - $ 9,087 $ 8,487 Annual Revenue Requirement $ 15,790 $ 25,036 $ 24,703 Projected Revenue FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 Annual Revenue Requirements $ 15,790 $ 25,036 $ 24,703 Less non-rate Revenue Streams Monthly Charges $ 14,400 $ 14,400 $ 14,400 Revenue to be raised by rates $ 1,390 $ 10,636 $ 10,303 Volumetric Rates Required (Break Even) $ 1.81 $ $ Average Household Monthly Charge $ $ $ Total Avg Household Cost Per Year $ 987 $ 1,565 $ 1,544 Percentage of MHI 1.33% 2.11% 2.08%

99

100 Table Scenario 3 - WWDC / DWSRF Loans Capital Improvements Funding Plan Loan Term 20 years Improvements 2017 Cost Year Const. Project Cost Funding Source % Loan % Grant % Rate Annual Payment Orig. Fee Transmission Pipe to ISD Dist. System $ 30, $32,238 WWDC/DWSRF 33% 67% 2.5% $682 $0.00 Abandon Buckskin #1 Well $ 44, $46,238 DWSRF 100% 0% 2.5% $2,966 $ Water Meters $ 70, $73,862 DWSRF 100% 0% 2.5% $4,738 $ Assumptions Operations Cost Escalation 2.5% Capital Cost Escalation Rate 1.0% Contractual Cost Escalation Rate 1.0% Operating Budget Projected Projected Operating Costs FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Gillette Regional Base Charge $ 1,248 $ 1,260 $ 1,273 Gillette Regional Usage Charge $ 2,315 $ 2,338 $ 2,362 Admin. - Book Keeping $ 3,000 $ 3,030 $ 3,060 Admin. - Postage / Mailbox $ 355 $ 359 $ 362 Indirect - Insurance / Bonding $ 105 $ 106 $ 107 Water - Repairs $ 1,500 $ 1,515 $ 1,530 Water - Utilities $ 3,050 $ 3,081 $ 3,158 Water - Operator $ 3,984 $ 4,024 $ 4,124 Sub-Total $ 15,557 $ 15,713 $ 15,976 Emergency Fund $ 233 $ 236 $ 240 Total Projected Operating Costs $ 15,790 $ 15,948 $ 16,216 Projected Projected Debt Service Budget FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 New Above Ground Tank $ - $ 682 $ 682 East Railway Transmission Pipe $ - $ 3,197 $ 2,966 N. Sherman Ave. Distribution Pipe $ - $ 5,107 $ 4,738 Total Proj. Debt Service Budget $ - $ 8,987 $ 8,387 Annual Revenue Requirement $ 15,790 $ 24,935 $ 24,602 Projected Revenue FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 Annual Revenue Requirements $ 15,790 $ 24,935 $ 24,602 Less non-rate Revenue Streams Monthly Charges $ 14,400 $ 14,400 $ 14,400 Revenue to be raised by rates $ 1,390 $ 10,535 $ 10,202 Volumetric Rates Required (Break Even) $ 1.81 $ $ Average Household Monthly Charge $ $ $ Total Avg Household Cost Per Year $ 987 $ 1,558 $ 1,538 Percentage of MHI 1.33% 2.10% 2.07%

101

102 Table Scenario 3 - WWDC Grant / DWSRF Grant / CDBG Capital Improvements Funding Plan Loan Term 20 years Improvements 2017 Cost Constructio n Project Cost Funding Source % Loan % Grant % Rate Annual Payment Orig. Fee Transmission Pipe to ISD Dist. System $ 30, $32,238 WWDC/SRF 0% 100% 0.0% $0 $0.00 Abandon Buckskin #1 Well $ 44, $46,238 DWSRF/CDBG 0% 100% 0.0% $0 $0.00 Water Meters $ 70, $73,862 DWSRF/CDBG 0% 100% 0.0% $0 $0.00 Assumptions Operations Cost Escalation 2.5% Capital Cost Escalation Rate 1.0% Contractual Cost Escalation Rate 1.0% Operating Budget Projected Projected Operating Costs FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 Gillette Regional Base Charge $ 1,248 $ 1,260 $ 1,273 Gillette Regional Usage Charge $ 2,315 $ 2,338 $ 2,362 Admin. - Book Keeping $ 3,000 $ 3,030 $ 3,060 Admin. - Postage / Mailbox $ 355 $ 359 $ 362 Indirect - Insurance / Bonding $ 105 $ 106 $ 107 Water - Repairs $ 1,500 $ 1,515 $ 1,530 Water - Utilities $ 3,050 $ 3,081 $ 3,158 Water - Operator $ 3,984 $ 4,024 $ 4,124 Sub-Total $ 15,557 $ 15,713 $ 15,976 Emergency Fund $ 233 $ 236 $ 240 Total Projected Operating Costs $ 15,790 $ 15,948 $ 16,216 Projected Projected Debt Service Budget FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 New Above Ground Tank $ - $ - $ - East Railway Transmission Pipe $ - $ - $ - N. Sherman Ave. Distribution Pipe $ - $ - $ - Total Proj. Debt Service Budget $ - $ - $ - Annual Revenue Requirement $ 15,790 $ 15,948 $ 16,216 Projected Revenue FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 Annual Revenue Requirements $ 15,790 $ 15,948 $ 16,216 Less non-rate Revenue Streams Monthly Charges $ 14,400 $ 14,400 $ 14,400 Revenue to be raised by rates $ 1,390 $ 1,548 $ 1,816 Volumetric Rates Required (Break Even) $ 1.81 $ 2.02 $ 2.36 Average Household Monthly Charge $ $ $ Total Avg Household Cost Per Year $ 987 $ 997 $ 1,013 Percentage of MHI 1.33% 1.34% 1.37%

103

104 15. REFERENCES AWWA, Buried No Longer: Confronting America s Water Infrastructure Challenge Accessed April Buckskin ISD, Buckskin Improvement & Service District Budget Hearing / Regular Meeting Minutes. July 2, DOWL HKM, Final Hydraulics Report Gillette Regional Water Supply Project, Phase I District Extensions. Gillette, Wyoming. January DOWL HKM, Gillette Regional Connection Level II Study Means First Extension Master Plan. Gillette, Wyoming. August EnTech, Inc., 2013a. Gillette Regional Connections 1 Level II Study, Bennor Estates Connection. February EnTech, Inc., 2013b. Gillette Regional Connection 1 Level II Study, Antelope Valley Connections. September, Gillette, City of, Design Standards. Section 301 Design of Water Distribution Systems. HDR, Final Report Gillette Regional Master Plan Level I Study. Gillette, Wyoming. October HDR, Final Study Regional System Potential Participant Connections. Prepared for City of Gillette. May HKM Associates, Phase I Interim Report for Gillette Area Master Plan. Gillette, Wyoming. May, HKM Associates, Phase II Final Report Gillette Area Water Master Plan. Gillette, Wyoming. February Montgomery, James, Madison Well Field Well M-3 Enhancement. Consulting Engineers, Inc. May Stetson Engineering, Inc., City of Gillette Water System Evaluation City Project No. 98EN.03. Gillette, Wyoming. October, Water Research Foundation, EPA Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels: A Strategy for Drinking Water Quality and Consumer Acceptability. Web Report # Wester-Wetstein & Associates, Inc., Gillette Well Rehabilitation Study Level II. Gillette, Wyoming. October Wester-Westein & Associates, Inc Interim Report Coal Bed Methane Aquifer Storage and Retrieval Project Level II. Gillette, Wyoming. September WY DA&I, 2017a. Economic Summary: 4Q2016, Wyoming Department of Administration and Information. March WY DA&I, 2017b. Memo Most Counties Experienced Population Declines in Wyoming Department of Administration and Information. Contact: Wenlin Liu, Ph.D. Chief Economist, March ai.wyo.gov/economic-analysis WLC Engineering, Final Report, Peoples Improvement & Service District Gillette Regional Connections 2, Level II Study. October, WLC Engineering, 2013a. Gillette Regional Connections 2 Level II Study South Fork Estates ISD. July, WLC Engineering, 2013b. Gillette Regional Connection 2 Level II Study Freedom Hills ISD. August, Wyoming Water Development Office (WWDC), State of Wyoming 2011 Public Water System Survey Report. Wyoming Water Development Office (WWDC), State of Wyoming 2011 Public Water System Survey Report. Wyoming Water Development Office (WWDC), State of Wyoming 2011 Public Water System Survey Report. Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

105

106 APPENDIX A: PHASE II FINAL REPORT GILLETTE AREA WATER MASTER PLAN, SECTION 5 Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

107

108 SECTION 5.0 INSTITUTIONAL OPERATING PLAN

109 S.O INSTITUTIONAL OPERATING PLAN 5.1 CITY OF GILLE'ITE CURRENT WATER SERVICE POLICY Consistent with the Gillette Water Master Plan prepared in May, 1993, the Gillette City Council adopted a new water service policy on September 7, The new policy provides for service from the Gillette Regional System to areas and individuals outside the City of Gillette. The following policies were established governing the provision of water service by the City of Gillette: A. It is the intent and purpose of the City of Gillette to provide water service in the following order of priority. 1) Service to areas already annexed to the City. 2) Service to private or public non-city water systems already annexed to the City upon request. 3) Service to properties contiguous to the City upon execution of an Annexation Agreement. Timing of annexation is up to the City Council. 4) Service to non-contiguous properties in the PDB (Planning District Boundary) as it may be amended from time to time for which an Advance Annexation Agreement is executed. The PDB is the logical growth area of the City of Gillette. 5) Service to properties outside the PDB only if the City Council finds benefit to the City of Gillette, the service is consistent with the Gillette Area Master Plan and a Water Service Agreement has been executed. B. It is the policy of the City of Gillette that water will be priced on a tiered system based on the following: 1) 2) 3) The cost of water to annexed areas will be the rate for water measured by meter as set forth in 17-47(a) of the Gillette City Code. The cost of water to contiguous but not annexed property shall be 1.5 times the City rate provided an Annexation Agreement has been executed. Services could be master metered or individually metered. The cost of water to non-contiguous properties in the PDB for which an advance Annexation Agreement has been executed shall be 1.5 times the City rate. The service could be master metered or individually metered. 10Ml file:gillette\pllgwmpf.rpt

110 4) The cost of water to properties outside the PDB for which a Water Service Agreement has been executed shall be 1.5 times the City rate. The water service shall only be master metered. C. It is the policy of the City of Gillette that the construction and extension of water mains and service lines shall be at the sole expense of those benefitting. The City may only participate financially if the City Council finds that such participation will substantially benefit the City of Gillette in the operation of its water system. D. The City shall require that an Annexation Agreement or Advance Annexation Agreement be executed between the property owner and the City before water can be provided. In the case of a private or public non-city water system, water will not be provided unless the appropriate Annexation Agreements are executed by a majority of the property owners covering a majority of the property and a Water Service Agreement has been executed between the System and the City. E. The City will not provide "backup" or "peaking" water to any private or public non-city water system. However, temporary water service may be provided to a private or public non-city system in the event of a water system malfunction when deemed necessary by the City Administrator to protect the health and safety of the residents of the System. In all cases when temporary water service is provided under authorization by the City Administrator, the rate will be 1.5 times the City rate. No temporary water service may be made permanent without being in compliance with the applicable sections of this water policy. F. The City shall not accept any maintenance or operational responsibility for any private or public non-city water system unless the System shall agree to dedicate its system to the City of Gillette and the City agrees to accept the system. Conditions for acceptance of a water system by the City include: 1) 2) 3) 4) Construction or re-construction of the system by the System to minimum design standards acceptable to the City. The water system is transferred debt free or provision is made to pay said debt without obligation to the City. Plant Investment Fees (PIF) shall be paid in conformance with City Ordinance and must be paid by the system users for the number of new and potential users to cover the investment by the City in its existing infrastructure. Existing private or public non-city water systems may receive credits as specified in 5-67 of the Gillette City Code for oversizing or offsite improvements necessary to connect the System to the City system. Such credits shall apply against the System's plant investment fee debts. In cases where water wells or other similar improvements are to be conveyed 10M file:gillette\pligwmpf.rpt

111 to the City, a further credit may be available which could reduce the individual plant investment fees below the minimums specified in 5-67 (c) if approved by the City Council as detailed in 5-67(g) of the Gillette City Code. 5) All costs associated with system conversion, connection, and ownership transfer are borne by the System, including but not limited to, all platting and legal fees. 6) The System must be within the PDB. G. Any private or public non-city water system in the PDB for which an appropriate Annexation Agreement and Service Agreement has been executed and City water is to be provided, but where the ownership of the system will not be transferred to the City, shall only be master metered. All system maintenance and operational duties after the master meter shall remain solely the responsibility of the System. The System must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City the ability to provide for perpetual, private operation and maintenance of the private or public non-city water system. H. All individual property requests for service connections to the City water system shall be private lines and constructed to minimum City standards. An Annexation or Advance Annexation Agreement is required. I. All private or public non-city water systems connecting to the City water system, whether master metered or individually metered, shall be restricted to a limited number of users. The number of system users shall be specified in the Annexation Agreement/Service Agreement. Any increase in the number of service users beyond the maximum specified, requires approval by the City Council and the execution of an amended Annexation Agreement and/ or Service Agreement. J. The City makes no commitment to areas outside the PDB covered only by a Water Service Agreement other than to provide the agreed upon minimum quantity of water to the master meter. All quantities above the minimum may be subject to interruption at the City's discretion. K. In the event of a water emergency, as detailed in of the Gillette City Code, the City reserves the right to respond in the following order of priorities to protect the public health and safety: 1) 2) 3) in the City; in the PDB; outside the PDB. 10M filc:gillcttc\pllgwmpf.rpt

112 5.2 PROPOSED INSTITUTIONAL OPERATING PROCEDURES INSIDE PDB The Gillette Regional System presents a challenging task of management operations that is best suited for a system management approach. This approach requires the program manager to promote the program at decision maker meetings and through the publication of literature. The obvious program manager is the City of Gillette which has trained technical staff and managers knowledgeable with the system. The program manager must recognize that the Gillette Regional System differs from the existing City system. The Regional System must have a more aggressive "take charge" attitude to be successful. But, in so doing, the program manager must also be diversified in the vast arena of system needs and demands. By taking on users outside of the City there will be differing conditions and people with differing attitudes and opinions. There will be rural people and groups who want and need the water system benefits, but who do not want the City of Gillette to have control over their domicile. To overcome this, it will take time and the program manager will need to conduct educational programs tailored to achieve a cooperative effort. It is recommended that the program manager conduct periodic workshops and meetings and possibly form rural advisory committees if for no other reason, but to give people the "warm fuzzy feeling" that they are involved and have a say in what is going on. The program manager can conduct such activities so that information is disseminated and policies and rules are still rigidly enforced. The steps required for strategic management planning involve several steps: 1. Select and organize a planning team. This step is nearly complete now. The present City personnel provide the technical team members. However, an aggressive approach to managing water resources and systems inside the Planning District Boundary (PDB) takes on additional responsibilities. The PDB is a demarkation of a foreseeable planning limit which appears to be reasonable for the present time. It is adopted by the City and County, but it can be changed and should be changed from time to time for good reasons. When it comes to wise water supply management the PDB has little meaning. Well density is greater inside the PDB than outside the PDB, but aside from that factor, this planning limit should not govern the direction of ongoing groundwater monitoring and studies. Recently the Gillette Area Ground Water Management Task Force was formed as recommended in the May, 1993 Interim Report. The task force presently includes the City Engineer, County Engineer and the Wyoming State Engineer's Groundwater Division Director. 2. Select a planning process. The task force is intended to guide the on-going studies to focus on the needs of the city, county and the state. Once the task force reaches opinions or 10Ml ftle:gillette\pllgwmpf. rpt

113 conclusions, it should make recommendations to the appropriate governing body (i.e., city, county or state). 3. Develop an organizational goal. The planning team should develop a statement of its goals and define the purpose of the organization. 4. Determine mandated constraints. The planning team needs to identify all of the known constraints that govern their recommendations. Examples are the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDW A), Clean Water Act, State Department of Environmental Quality requirements, Wyoming State Engineer's requirements, Campbell County requirements and City of Gillette policy and rules. It is also important to understand the mandates generated by the water system customers. It is extremely important to develop a continuous communication with the current and future users. This can be accomplished by the dissemination of information and discussion of policies and rules. Basically, explain to the public why the planning team does things and the purpose for policies and rules and explain it over and over again as often as possible. 5. Identify strategic issues. There are a number of strategic issues that need to be assessed by the planning team. They could include groundwater supply and demand, system component conditions, water quality, monitoring, rules and regulations, financing and budgets, operations and maintenance, cooperation with other groups and individuals, and possibly other issues. To begin the process, several key issues have been addressed in this water master plan. To assist with these issues the Appendix 1 Well Inventory was completed. To follow this effort, two studies are proposed. The City of Gillette has requested funding from the WWDC for the evaluation of existing city wells and pumping systems. The City of Gillette and the Wyoming State Engineer's Office have requested funding from the WWDC for the evaluation of the developed aquifers. The primary purpose of the two studies is to determine the condition of each of the wells and the pumping equipment which presently makes up the Gillette Regional System water supply. The lift expectancy and well production will be determined. A monitoring and aquifer study of the Fort Union and Fox Hills Lance formation will be performed. The City of Gillette and the Wyoming State 10M fale:gillcttc\pijgwmpf. ipt

114 Engineer's Office have requested funding from the WWDC. The primary focus of the Task Force and these two studies is to: a. Develop an expanded groundwater monitoring program. b. Determine the capacities and condition of existing wells and pumping systems. c. Determine the current status of aquifer impacts and begin long-term aquifer evaluations. d. Provide recommended locations for new wells and establish minimum well spacing criteria. e. Recommend adoption of minimum well construction standards. (See Tables B.3, B.4, and B.5, Appendix B, Interim Report May, 1993 for typical recommended well designs.) f. Provide information to the public and foster a partnership to work toward one common goal of managing water supplies efficiently. The Task Force will be developing new information from time to time and will be recommending policy changes or additions to the City of Gillette, Campbell County, State of Wyoming, and local entities such as Districts and Subdivisions. In the development of this information the strengths and weaknesses of the plan need to be assessed. 6. Develop strategies which will accomplish the goals. The planning team needs to address existing policies and rules which provide the framework for achieving the goals. If they need to be changed, then change them to accommodate the goals. The planning team should continually assess the effectiveness of their plan, If the plan is not working then change it. One of the first planning tasks for the planning team should be to prepare a policy and procedures manual. The manual should initially include the following sections: Current policies Water rates Service fees (i.e., disconnect, connect, relocate, PIFs, etc.) Application requirements Account status policy Waterline extension policy Descriptions of the types of services Design Standards Sample forms/ agreements 10Ml flle:gillette\pllgwmpf.rpt

115 5.3 PROPOSED INSTITUTIONAL OPERATING PROCEDURES OUTSIDE PDB Outside of the PDB the planning process for water systems will probably continue as it presently exists. That is, each entity will continue to function independently. Wherever possible or practical, it is recommended that the smaller entities join together to form larger systems. Water supply wells should be constructed using the same standard as inside the PDB. Developers should meet with the Task Force and discuss their plans to drill more wells. 10Ml file: gillettc\pllgwmpf.rpt

116 APPENDIX B: RECOMMENDATION RISK MATRIX TABLES Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

117

118 Buckskin ISD Recommendation Risk Ranking Tables WELL INSPECTION AND REHABILITATION CONSEQUENCE WEIGHT VERY HIGH HIGH MODERATE (5) (4) (3) SAFETY & SECURITY 25% 3 SOCIAL - CUSTOMERS & REPUTATION 25% 5 SERVICE & FINANCIAL IMPACTS 25% 5 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY 25% 3 CoF VALUE 4.0 LoF VALUE 4 CALCULATED RISK 16 LOW (2) VERY LOW (1) INSTALL WATER METERS CONSEQUENCE WEIGHT VERY HIGH HIGH MODERATE LOW VERY LOW (5) (4) (3) (2) (1) SAFETY & SECURITY 25% 1 SOCIAL - CUSTOMERS & REPUTATION 25% 3 SERVICE & FINANCIAL IMPACTS 25% 1 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY 25% 2 CoF VALUE 1.8 LoF VALUE 4 CALCULATED RISK 7 ABANDON WELL CONSEQUENCE WEIGHT VERY HIGH HIGH MODERATE LOW VERY LOW (5) (4) (3) (2) (1) SAFETY & SECURITY 25% 2 SOCIAL - CUSTOMERS & REPUTATION 25% 1 SERVICE & FINANCIAL IMPACTS 25% 1 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY 25% 4 CoF VALUE 2.0 LoF VALUE 3 CALCULATED RISK 6 WATER TREATMENT CONSEQUENCE WEIGHT VERY HIGH HIGH MODERATE LOW VERY LOW (5) (4) (3) (2) (1) SAFETY & SECURITY 25% 2 SOCIAL - CUSTOMERS & REPUTATION 25% 5 SERVICE & FINANCIAL IMPACTS 25% 5 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY 25% 1 CoF VALUE 3.3 LoF VALUE 4 CALCULATED RISK 13 Page 1 of 2

119

120 Buckskin ISD Recommendation Risk Ranking Tables PWS STATUS CONSEQUENCE WEIGHT VERY HIGH HIGH MODERATE (5) (4) (3) SAFETY & SECURITY 25% 3 SOCIAL - CUSTOMERS & REPUTATION 25% 5 SERVICE & FINANCIAL IMPACTS 25% 5 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY 25% 5 CoF VALUE 4.5 LoF VALUE 5 CALCULATED RISK 20 LOW (2) VERY LOW (1) NEW PUMP HOUSE FOR EXISTING SYSTEM CONSEQUENCE WEIGHT VERY HIGH HIGH MODERATE LOW VERY LOW (5) (4) (3) (2) (1) SAFETY & SECURITY 25% 4 SOCIAL - CUSTOMERS & REPUTATION 25% 5 SERVICE & FINANCIAL IMPACTS 25% 5 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY 25% 1 CoF VALUE 3.8 LoF VALUE 4 CALCULATED RISK 15 NEW STORAGE TANK FOR EXISTING SYSTEM CONSEQUENCE WEIGHT VERY HIGH HIGH MODERATE LOW VERY LOW (5) (4) (3) (2) (1) SAFETY & SECURITY 25% 2 SOCIAL - CUSTOMERS & REPUTATION 25% 5 SERVICE & FINANCIAL IMPACTS 25% 3 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY 25% 1 CoF VALUE 2.8 LoF VALUE 4 CALCULATED RISK 11 GILLETTE REGIONAL CONNECTION CONSEQUENCE WEIGHT VERY HIGH HIGH MODERATE (5) (4) (3) SAFETY & SECURITY 25% 3 SOCIAL - CUSTOMERS & REPUTATION 25% 5 SERVICE & FINANCIAL IMPACTS 25% 5 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY 25% 4 CoF VALUE 4.3 LoF VALUE 4 CALCULATED RISK 17 LOW (2) VERY LOW (1) Page 2 of 2

121

122 APPENDIX C: CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT WORKSHEET Wyoming Water Development Commission ( ) Woodard & Curran Buckskin Water Master Plan September 2017

123

124 Capacity Assessment Worksheets for Public Water Systems to Demonstrate Capacity Development Department of Environmental Quality Water Quality Division August, 1999 Notes: These capacity assessment worksheets are provided to assist facilities in meeting the requirements of Section 5(b) of Chapter 22, Capacity Development Standards for Public Water Systems, but are not part of the chapter. Please complete all 5 tabs of this spreadsheet. Put your answers in the boxes with yellow background. For assistance with these worksheets please call DEQ/WQD State Revolving Fund Section at (307) Introduction Wyoming State Statute W.S (e) requires all new or modified community and noncommunity nontransient water systems commencing operations after October 1, 1999 to demonstrate Capacity Development. Capacity Development covers three areas: Technical capability - the physical infrastructure of the water system, including but not limited to the source water adequacy, infrastructure adequacy, and technical knowledge. In other words, does your treatment system work the way it is supposed to? Are you providing the safest and cleanest water possible and required by law to your customers right now, and will you be able to in the future? Managerial capability - the management structure of the water system, including but not limited to ownership accountability, staffing and organization, and effective linkages. In simpler terms, do you have a capable and trained staff? Do you have an effective management structure? Financial capability - the financial resources of the water system, including but not limited to the revenue sufficiency, credit worthiness, and fiscal controls. Basically, does your system have a budget and enough revenue coming in to cover costs, repairs, and replacements? If it is determined that your system does NOT have the required capability(s), the goal of this program is to move your system towards attaining the required capability(s). If you have questions concerning Capacity Development please call our office at (307) , and we will be happy to help. After Department of Environmental Quality/Water Quality Division (DEQ) receives these worksheets, we will be studying them and other information located in our files to make a determination whether or not your public water system has demonstrated Capacity Development. A final report will be available upon completion of the analysis. Applicant: Buckskin Improvement and Service District PWS Number: None Prepared by: Stacey Hellekson (Woodard and Curran) (include title) Associate Principal Address: PO Box 2074 City, State, Zip: Gillette, WY Telephone: Date: 22-Jun-17

125 The Managerial Portion of your System This portion applies to all new or modified community and nontransient noncommunity water systems. To be completed by individuals responsible for facility management, e.g. Public Works Director, City Engineer, Council, Board, Owner, etc. Please mark (X) the appropriate box: Yes, No, or Unknown for each question. Please try to determine the answer to every question. If a question or section does not apply to your system, please write NA next to the question or section for not applicable. If additional space is needed please attach additional sheet(s) and refer to number Operation & Maintenance Operations Staff 1. Do the persons operating your system have current water treatment plant and water distribution operator certification credentials from DEQ? If yes, list operators & classifications: Contract operations with Water Guy, LLC 2. Do your operators receive training on an ongoing basis to keep current on new developments in the field? Yes No Unknown X X Future Operational Demands 3. Does your water system obtain any regular or occasional technical assistance from outside sources, such as DEQ, your engineer, other utilities or organizations specifically dedicated to providing technical assistance? If yes, who: Yes No Unknown X Management & Administration Who's in Charge? Yes No Unknown 4. Is there a clear plan of organization and control for management and operation of the system? If yes please attach appropriate documentation. 5. Are the limits of the operators' authority clearly defined? X 6. Are all the specific functional areas of operations and management assigned? X 7. Does everyone involved in operations know who is responsible for each area? X 8. Is someone responsible for scheduling work? If yes, who: Water Guy, LLC X X Rules and Standards Yes No Unknown 9. Do you have rules governing new hook-ups? X 10. Do you have a water main extension policy? X 11. Do you have standard construction specifications to be followed? X 12. Do you have measures to assure cross-connection control and backflow prevention? X 13. Do you have policies or rules describing customer rights and responsibilities? X Regulatory Compliance Program Yes No Unknown 14. Do you have approved SDWA monitoring/reporting requirements? X 15. Do you satisfy reporting requirements? X 16. Do you know how to obtain the most recent information on regulatory requirements? X 17. Do you know how to obtain an explanation of requirements? X 18. Do you maintain bacteriological records for five years and chemical records for 10 years? X 19. Do you know what to do in the event of a violation? X

126 Emergencies Yes No Unknown 20. Do you have an Emergency Response Plan? If yes, please attach. X 21. Does everyone involved in operations know what they are to do in the event of contamination from a toxic hazardous waste spill in your source water or a main break or a tank failure? 22. Do you have a chain-of-command protocol for emergency action? X 23. Is someone responsible for emergency operations, for communications with regulators, for customer relations, for media relations? If yes, who (title): X Water Guy, LLC and Cathey Consulting X Safety 24. Do you have a safety program defining measures to be taken if someone is injured? If yes, please attach. 25. Do operators understand the risks and safety measures involved in handling water treatment chemicals? Yes No Unknown X X 26. Do you have written operating procedures for both routine and emergency system operations? If yes, please attach. 27. Are you fully aware of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) confined space (such as trenches/manholes) regulations? X X Maintenance 28. Do you have a planned maintenance management system -- a system for scheduling routine preventive maintenance? 29. Do you have a system for assuring adequate inventory of essential spare parts and back-up equipment? If yes, please describe: Yes No Unknown X X 30. Do you have relationships with contractors and equipment vendors to assure prompt priority service? X 31. Do you have records and data management systems for system operating and maintenance data, for regulatory compliance data, and for system management and administration? X Management Capability Yes No Unknown 32. Do you receive outside services and technical assistance you need? X 33. Do you have adequate legal counsel, insurance, engineering advice, technical/operations assistance and financial advice? X

127 Financial Planning Mechanisms The Financial Portion of your System This portion applies to all new or modified community and nontransient noncommunity water systems. To be completed by individuals responsible for facility finances, e.g. public works director, city engineer, clerks, council, board, owner, etc. Please mark (X) the appropriate box: Yes, No, or Unknown for each question. Please try to determine the answer to every question. If a question or section does not apply to your system, please write NA next to question or section for not applicable. 34. Do you have an annual budget? X 35. Do you have within the annual budget a separate reserve account for equipment replacement and/or capital improvement? 36. Do you have a capital budget or capital improvement plan that projects future capital investment needs some distance (at least four years) into the future? 37. Do you have a process to schedule and commit to capital projects? X 38. Does your long-term planning incorporate analysis of alternative strategies that might offer cost saving to customers, such as consolidation with other nearby systems or sharing of operations and management expenses X with other nearby systems? Yes No Unknown X X X Rates/Billing 39. Do you regularly review your rates? How often? Yes No Unknown X 40. Do you have a plan in place for periodic rate increases? X 41. Is the rate structure based on metered watered use? List water rates per 1000 gallons or attach rate schedule: X 42. Do users pay a higher rate per 1000 gallons as they use more water? X 43. Do you have procedures for billing and collection? X 44. Is your billing collection rate greater than 95%? X 45. Do you have collection procedures for delinquent accounts? X Financial Planning Mechanisms - Are they Adequate? Yes No Unknown 46. Do you have audited financial statements? X 47. Does your water system presently operate at least on a break-even basis? X 48. Does the water system keep all the water revenues (i.e., water revenue does not support other municipal departments or unrelated activities)? 49. Do you employ standardized accounting and tracking systems? X 50. Please describe accounting system(s), e.g. GAAP, manual book entry, software program HIRED CONSULTANT (CATHEY CONSULTING) X 51. Do you keep records to substantiate depreciation of fixed assets and accounting for reserve funds? X 52. Are financial management record keeping systems organized? X 53. Are controls exercised over expenditures? X 54. Are controls exercised to keep from exceeding your budget? X 55. Are there purchasing procedures? X

128 Financial Spreadsheet 56. Please complete the financial spreadsheet 5 YR. Projections Last Year Current Year Year 2 Est. Year 3 Est. Year 4 Est. Year 5 Est. 1. Beginning Cash on Hand $23, $27, $31, $31, $31, $31, Operating revenues (see 13) $22, $22, $22, $22, $22, $22, Other receipts 4. Total Available Cash (1+2+3) $45, $49, $53, $53, $53, $53, O&M and Replace. Expenses $17, $18, $22, $22, $22, $22, Debt Service $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $ Capital Improvements $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $ Other Expenses $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $ Total Cash Paid ( ) $17, $18, $22, $22, $22, $22, Next Year's Begin. Cash (4-9) $27, $31, $31, $31, $31, $31, Number of Customer Accounts Average annual Account Charge $1, $1, $1, $1, $1, $1, Operating Revenue (11X12) $22, $22, $22, $22, $22, $22,080.00

129 The Technical Portion of your System For existing water systems the technical capacity development assessment may be performed by completing the NEW WATER SYSTEM TECHNICAL CAPACITY WORKSHEET or by providing a copy of the most recent sanitary survey along with an action plan and schedule to address any deficiencies identified by the division in the sanitary survey. For new water systems the "NEW WATER SYSTEM TECHNICAL CAPACITY WORKSHEET" needs to be completed to assess technical capacity. NEW WATER SYSTEM TECHNICAL CAPACITY WORKSHEET The Technical Portion of Your System-For New Water Systems To be completed by individuals responsible for facility operation, e.g. Public works director, city engineer, council, board, owner. Please mark (X) the appropriate box: Yes, No, or Unknown for each section. Please try to determine the answer to every question. If a section or question does not apply to your system, please write NA next to the section or question for not applicable. Water Supply and Existing Demands 57. Do you know your estimated average daily demand? Amount: 58.Do you know your maximum daily demand? Amount: 59. Do you know the maximum amount of water you can deliver from your source? Amount: 60. Is your source capacity higher than your maximum daily demand? Percentage higher or lower: Yes No Unknown X X X X 61. Can you meet peak demand without pumping at peak capacity for extended periods? X 62. Do you have an Emergency Response Plan that will allow you to meet system demand during a drought or shortage, such as the loss of the largest source? If yes, please attach. X Water Demand Yes No Unknown 63. Do you know whether your system demands will be growing, declining or remaining stable over the next ten years? If yes, please indicate below whether growing, declining, or stable. X STABLE 64. Does your source have additional water available for appropriation? X 65. If you have large commercial, industrial, or irrigation users, do you know their long-term plans and understand their needs? X Purchased Water Yes No Unknown 66. If you purchase water from another system or a wholesaler, do you know their long-term plans? X 67. Do you have a contract to purchase water? If yes, with whom? Water Use Agreement in Place with Gillette Regional Water Supply, not currently using 68. Do you know the terms affecting your supply during drought conditions? X X Competing Uses of Water Yes No Unknown 69. Do you know who the other users are and do you understand their future plans? X 70. Do you fully understand your legal rights to the water? X 71. Do you have a water right? X

130 Alternative Sources Yes No Unknown 72. Are alternative water sources possibly available to you? X 73. Are you knowledgeable of the characteristics and costs of using alternative sources? X Water Source 74. Do you know the depth of your well(s)? Depth(s): 1035 ft 75. Do you know the geologic name of the aquifer system from which your water is drawn? If yes, geologic name: FORT UNION FORMATION Yes No Unknown X X Treatment - Microbiological Contamination Is your system using surface water or ground water under the influence of surface water? (If you checked "no" skip to next section - Ground Water Systems.) Yes No Unknown X Surface Water Systems Filtration Plant Condition Yes No Unknown 76. Are repair parts available? 77. Do you have redundancy (back-ups/automatic switch-overs) for all major mechanical units? If no, list units you do NOT have redundancy for: 78. Do you have on-line continuous turbidimeters on each filter? 79. Have you adopted a turbidity goal lower than the standard? 80. Do you have the capability to add coagulant before the filter? Ground Water Systems Yes No Unknown 81. Is your Ground Water Under the Influence of Surface Water? X 82. Is your water free from variations in turbidity and temperature after storm events? X Well Construction and Protection Yes No Unknown 83. Is your well(s) constructed to current Wyoming regulations? X 84. Do you have an approved wellhead/source water protection plan? X 85. Is your wellhead finished with a pitless adapter that will prevent contamination from surface water? X Disinfection Do you disinfect? (if"no", skip to the Infrastructure - Pumping section) Disinfection Yes No Unknown X Yes No Unknown 86. Do you regularly inspect and maintain your disinfection/chlorination equipment? X Type of Equipment: PERISTALTIC PUMP AND SUPPLY (CONTRACTED WATER SYSTEM OPERATOR) How often? WEEKLY

131 Disinfectant used: SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 87. Do you have back-up equipment? Type: X 88. Do you have adequate contact time following disinfection and before the first user in the distribution system? Contact time: X 89. Can you detect a chlorine residual at taps at the ends of the distribution system? Free Chlorine Residual: 0.1 to 3.4 X Disinfection By-Products Treatment for the Control of Disinfection By-Products Yes No Unknown 90. If you treat surface water, could you adopt "enhanced coagulation" in your current plant? 91. If you treat surface water, could you still meet current contact-time requirements if disinfection were not allowed before sedimentation? Infrastructure - Pumping Condition of Pumping Equipment 92. Do you routinely inspect for signs of pump/motor problems? How often: WEEKLY 93. Do you hire a qualified pump contractor to perform an inspection of all pumping equipment, identify potential problems, and perform maintenance, on an annual basis? Explain: CONTRACTED WATER SYSTEM OPERATOR Standby/Emergency Power Equipment 94. Is there sufficient standby/emergency power capacity to supply 100% of the average daily demand of the system (excluding fire demand)? 95. Are any existing standby/emergency power equipment, controls and switches tested or exercised routinely under load conditions, for at least 30 minutes at a time? 96. Has the local electric utility been made aware of the standby/emergency power provisions made by the water system, so that it can reinforce and safeguard the electrical facilities serving the water operations? Yes No Unknown X X Yes No Unknown X X X Infrastructure - Storage Storage Capacity 97. Does the system have sufficient gravity-flow (non-pumped) or emergency generator-supported pumping capability to ensure adequate distribution storage to provide safe and adequate service for up to 24 hours without power? If no, how long: Yes No Unknown X 98. Is there reserve capacity in the tank for fire protection support? Amount: X Security Measures Yes No Unknown 99. Are all openings, such as vent pipes, screened to protect against the entrance of small animals, mosquitoes, flies and other small insects? 100. Is there an entry hatch to allow access for cleaning and painting of the interior of the tank? X 101. Is your storage tank covered? X X

132 102. Is the tank and the immediate surrounding area fenced? X Control Systems Yes No Unknown 103. Is there a high/water level signal system to control the pumps? X 104. Is there an altitude valve, to preclude the tank from overflowing? X 105. Is there a drain valve or hydrant to allow for draining of the tank? X 106. Is there an approved method for draining the tank, including any required discharge permits? If yes, list Surface Water Discharge permit number: X Tank Maintenance 107. Will the tank be inspected at least every five years by a qualified tank contractor for evidence of corrosion or pitting, leakage, and structural weakness? Yes No Unknown X Infrastructure - Distribution System Maintenance Yes No Unknown 108. Will the operator routinely flush, test, and maintain the hydrants in the system? How often: X Twice per year 109. Are the locations of valves in the mains and curb stops on the service lines precisely known? X 110. Will the system keep a log of distribution system breaks to identify weak areas in the system? X 111. Are locations, size, and type of mains and service lines detailed on records in a secure area? X 112. Will all valves be exercised and lubricated periodically? X 113. Will an O&M manual be developed for the systems? X 114. Will meter pits, pressure regulating valves, altitude valves, blow-offs, and other appurtenances be maintained on a regular basis? X Water Quality in Distribution System Yes No Unknown 115. Is there a program for installing and testing backflow prevention devices where potential contamination is present? 116. Is there a program to eliminate "dead-ends" in the mains, where feasible? X X Construction Standards Yes No Unknown 117. Are there suitable rights-of-way and easements provided to the water system for expansion, maintenance, and replacement of mains and services? 118. Is there sufficient earth cover to protect the mains from frost damage or heavy loads, if driven over? X 119. Are materials of mains designed and selected to resist corrosion, electrolysis, and deterioration? X 120. Can you maintain adequate pressure in the distribution system under all conditions of flow? X 121. Are you familiar with Wyoming Water Quality Rules and Regulations Chapters 3 and 12 for construction permitting? X X

133

134 woodardcurran.com COMMITMENT & INTEGRITY DRIVE RESULTS