The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02 City of Bozeman and Montana State University Stormwater Management PlanGraphic: Surcharging storm sewer manhole City of Bozeman and Montana State University Stormwater Management Plan 2017 ‐ 2021 MS4 General Permit Term Updated February 28, 2020 Graphic: Stormwater treatment unit installation Blank Page Table of Contents Program Administration Section 1.0 Capital Project Program Public Education Program Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Program Construction Site Management Program Post Construction Program Good Housekeeping Program Sampling and Evaluation Program Stormwater Management Plan Updates Section 2.0 Section 3.0 Section 4.0 Section 5.0 Section 6.0 Section 7.0 Section 8.0 Section 9.0 Blank Page Section 1.0 Program Administration Graphic 1.0.2: Failed stormwater pipe Graphic 1.0.1: Street‐flooding resulting from clogged infrastructure SECTION 1.0 ‐ PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 2 Blank Page SECTION 1.0 ‐ PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 3 1.1 Introduction This Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) describes the City of Bozeman (City) and Montana State University’s (University), collectively known as the MS4, structural and administrative Best Management Practices (BMPs) engineered, implemented, maintained, and enforced to meet the following objectives:  Protect public safety  Improve water quality  Comply with environmental regulations The MS4 also refers to this SWMP as the Stormwater Master Plan. This SWMP is an iterative and evolving document with updates occurring annually. The MS4 tracks updates in SWMP Section 9.0. SWMP Section 1.0 details the following components necessary to administer the MS4’s Program, including:  Background Information  City Program Framework  University Program Framework  Stormwater Management Team  MS4 Coordination  Affiliations  Additional Regulatory Responsibilities  Annual Report  Public Comment 1.2 Background Information The MS4 is an incorporated town located in Gallatin County, Montana, and has a population of 61,953 as of 2016 (City population 45,250, University population 16,703). The MS4’s primary land‐use type is residential and commercial, with isolated industrial areas. Other notable geographical details include:  Elevation: 4820 ft.  Climate: Cold continental, with warm and dry summers, cold and dry winters  Average Temperature: 44.6 ˚F  Average Precipitation: 18.4 inches (University rain gauge) The MS4 is located at the headwaters of the Upper Missouri Watershed and possesses relatively pristine surface water quality that supports several beneficial uses, including aquatic life, drinking water, agriculture, and recreation. Numerous waterways originate within and pass through the MS4. The MS4’s most notable waterway is Bozeman Creek (aka Sourdough Creek), which originates in the Gallatin Mountains south of its jurisdictional boundary. Flowing north, Bozeman Creek enters the MS4 at its southeastern border and continues until its confluence with the E. Gallatin River. The Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) determined that Bozeman Creek has various impairments from natural and anthropogenic sources when developing its 2013 Lower Gallatin Planning Area Total Maximum Daily Load Report (TMDL). The second most notable waterway is Mandeville Creek, which is a small spring feed watercourse that originates south of Bozeman. Flowing north, Mandeville Creek enters the MS4 at its southcentral boundary and continues until its confluence with the E. Gallatin River. The Montana DEQ determined that Mandeville Creek also has various impairments from natural and anthropogenic sources when developing its TMDL. SECTION 1.0 ‐ PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 4 Numerous other perennial and intermittent spring creeks flow through the MS4 in a web of channels, irrigation ditches, and underground pipes. The Montana DEQ has not completed an assessment of these waterways; however, it is likely they receive similar impacts as the other more notable waterways. The MS4’s water resources represent a significant community value and are the backbone of its tourism, recreation, and neighboring agricultural industries. A growing threat to these invaluable resources is stormwater runoff, which occurs when rainfall and snowmelt flow over developed surfaces, such as yards, roadways, parking lots, and rooftops. Stormwater picks up pollutants before entering storm sewers, such as drains, pipes, and ditches, and eventually discharges into the MS4’s waterways. Stormwater runoff can result in property damage, public health threats, and environmental degradation if not proactively managed. Specific pollutants of concern include:  Sediment: Sourced from barren ground, construction sites, road sand, unpaved roads and trails, windblown dust, and vehicle grime, resulting in suffocated aquatic habitat and changes to stream channel morphology  Nitrogen and Phosphorous: Sourced from improper lawn fertilizer application, grass clippings, and yard debris, resulting in oxygen‐depleting algae blooms  E.coli: Sourced from substandard septic systems and pet waste, resulting in toxic conditions for the public and wildlife  Floatables: Sourced from littering, overfilled garbage cans, and unsecured loads, resulting in clogged infrastructure, impaired aesthetic value, and endangered wildlife  Oil, Grease, Metals, and Detergents: Sourced from improper vehicle maintenance, car spills, and car washing, resulting in toxic conditions for humans and wildlife  Temperature: Sourced from extensive and continuous impervious areas, resulting in harmful impacts to coldwater fisheries To counter stormwater runoff’s impact, the United States Congress established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) as a part of the Clean Water Act (CWA) in 1972 to preserve and restore the health of the United States’ Waters. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the lead organization tasked with implementing and oversight of the CWA. In Montana, the MDEQ has assumed authority, allowing for further state‐scale interpretation, enactment, and enforcement. The NDPES program regulates water pollution through a series of permits focused on point sources, such as industrial facilities, wastewater plants, and stormwater discharges. The driving permit behind the development and implementation of this SWMP is the MDEQ’s Phase 2 Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems General Discharge Permit (MS4 Permit), which requires the City and University to implement a variety of subprograms to mitigate polluted discharges to waterways. The MDEQ designates the City as a traditional permittee and the University as a non‐traditional permittee. Both parties are co‐permittees, because their storm sewers are connected, and they work together on some administrative programs. The MDEQ requires the MS4 to complete the following:  Prepare and submit individual Notices of Intent (NOI)  Receive authorizations to discharge from MDEQ by January 1, 2017  Prepare and submit individual Annual Reports  Develop, implement, and update this SWMP throughout the MS4 Permit term  Execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Also, the MDEQ requires the MS4 to administer a program that works to accomplish the following:  Educate the public (see SWMP Section 3.0) SECTION 1.0 ‐ PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 5  Engage citizens through involvement and participation (see SWMP Section 3.0)  Detect and eliminate illicit discharges (see SWMP Section 4.0)  Regulate construction sites (see SWMP Section 5.0)  Regulate stormwater facilities constructed with new development (see SWMP Section 6.0)  Prevent pollution stemming from internal facilities and operations (see SWMP Section 7.0)  Collect and analyze water quality and stormwater runoff data (see SWMP Section 8.0) The following sections of this SWMP outline the MS4’s work within each of these subprograms. 1.3 City Program Framework On June 25, 2012, the City adopted Ordinance 1831, creating a stormwater utility, providing for the collection revenue for the operation and maintenance of the City’s stormwater system. Funding was initially allocated to inventory, map, and assess the condition of the City’s storm sewer. This effort was in response to findings identified during a 2011 MDEQ MS4 Permit audit, which included one violation, 16 program deficiencies, and 23 improvement recommendations. On March 3, 2014, the City presented the results of their inventory, mapping, and assessment effort to City Commissioners. The City inventoried over ten thousand individual assets, many of which were found to be clogged, cracked, buried, or in disrepair. Also, a program administration review identified significant shortfalls. Commissioners directed the City to develop options for addressing known issues. On April 21, 2014, the City presented three levels of service, differing primarily on the timeline required to address issues and the annual funding level. Commissioners decided to implement a program that included a funding level of $1.2 million annually for operations, treatment, and deferred maintenance. On February 23, 2015, the City adopted a new level of service and a rate model to collect service fees based on individual property’s impact on the stormwater system. On December 1, 2015, the City implemented the final piece of the new rate model allowing the Stormwater Utility to be fully funded and functional for the first time in its history. The City’s utility rate model includes the following components and funding allocations:  Approximately $450,000 annually for deferred maintenance, which includes costs associated with the replacement and cleaning of storm sewer components  Approximately $550,000 annually for operations and maintenance, which includes expenses related to personnel, reoccurring system maintenance, supplies, and equipment  Approximately $200,000 annually for system enhancements, which includes costs associated with projects that provide stormwater treatment to remove pollutants before discharging to waterways The City’s rate model has three distinct guiding principles:  Flat Charge: Charged evenly across the service area. Properties with a water meter receive a flat monthly charge per meter. Properties that have impervious area, but do not have a water meter also receive a flat charge. The funding pays for deferred maintenance projects.  Variable Charge: Charged proportional to the amount of impervious area individual properties have. Impervious area does not allow water to soak into the ground during rain events creating stormwater runoff. Larger areas result in more impact on public storm sewers and waterways.  Utility Credit: Properties that have installed quantity and quality‐based stormwater infrastructure controls receive a billing credit as these properties impact the stormwater system less than those without stormwater infrastructure. SECTION 1.0 ‐ PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 6 The Stormwater, Building, Strategic Services, and Finance Divisions work collaboratively to update the stormwater utility rate model regularly as new development occurs. The workflow includes: 1. Developers submit site plans to the Building Division through electronic permit software. 2. Staff reviews and uploads site plans to a shared group folder on the City’s internal drive. 3. Strategic Services Staff checks the folder regularly, imports site plans into GIS, digitizes impervious area, and updates the polygon’s ERU attribute. 4. Finance sends water meter notice to Staff when a project is nearing completion. 5. Stormwater Staff reviews impervious area data based on the address information provided by Finance and calculates an ERU total, including percentage credit, if applicable. 6. Stormwater Staff provides Finance Staff with an ERU value and credit value. 7. Finance Staff updates software and generates a bill for customers. The MS4 tracks impervious area growth to gauge the workload associated with updating the rate model. The following data points display multi‐family and commercial impervious area added within their respective years (does not include single‐family residential properties and public right‐of‐way), including:  2017: 75 acres (86 site plans digitized)  2018: 73 acres (100 site plans digitized)  2019: 67.8 acres (98 site plans digitized)  2020: XX acres  2021: XX acres FY18 Approved Budget (July 1, 2017, through June 30, 2018)  Source: Municipal Enterprise Fund  Rate Model Type: Impervious Area  Percent Allocation: 100%  Resource Justification: Budget approval process completed June 26, 2017  Program Effectiveness: See SWMP Sections 2.6, 3.4, 4.4, 5.4, 6.4, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 8.8, and 8.9  Resource Variation: Proposed addition of one FTE (Stormwater Specialist), approved  Success Determination: See SWMP Sections 2.6, 3.4, 4.4, 5.4, 6.4, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 8.8, and 8.9  Staff: 6.5 FTEs  Budget: $1,488,360  Salaries and Benefits: $451,548  Operating Budget: $161,466  Capital: $650,000  Debt Service: $225,346  Transfers: $0.00 FY19 Approved Budget (July 1, 2018, through June 30, 2019)  Source: Municipal Enterprise Fund  Rate Model Type: Impervious Area  Percent Allocation: 100%  Resource Justification: Budget approval process completed June 25, 2018  Program Effectiveness: See SWMP Sections 2.6, 3.4, 4.4, 5.4, 6.4, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 8.8, and 8.9  Resource Variation: Proposed addition of one FTE (Project Manager), pending approval  Success Determination: See SWMP Sections 2.6, 3.4, 4.4, 5.4, 6.4, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 8.8, and 8.9 SECTION 1.0 ‐ PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 7  Staff: 6.5 FTEs  Budget: $1,444,302  Salaries and Benefits: $408,583  Operating Budget: $240,373  Capital: $635,000  Debt Service: $160,346  Transfers: $0.00 FY20 Approved Budget (July 1, 2019, through June 30, 2020)  Source: Municipal Enterprise Fund  Rate Model Type: Impervious Area  Percent Allocation: 100%  Resource Justification: Public budget approval process completed June 24, 2019  Program Effectiveness: See SWMP Sections 2.6, 3.4, 4.4, 5.4, 6.4, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 8.8, and 8.9  Resource Variation: 4% rate increase to pay for new FTE and inflation  Success Determination: See SWMP Sections 2.6, 3.4, 4.4, 5.4, 6.4, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 8.8, and 8.9  Staff: 7.5 FTEs  Budget: $1,660,521  Salaries and Benefits: $580,938  Operating Budget: $268,372  Capital: $650,000  Debt Service: $161,211  Transfers: $0.00 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 $0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 2018 2019 2020 # of Staff Annual Budget Fiscal Year Stormwater Program Budget and Staff Levels Annual Budget Dedicated Staff Graphic 1.3.1: Stormwater Program Budget and Staff Levels SECTION 1.0 ‐ PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 8 1.4 University Program Framework In the current permit cycle, the University has managed four projects of an acre or larger, which have influenced stormwater quantity and quality. Those projects are:  Norm Asbjornson Hall Construction  Over One Acre, Active, 2019 planned completion, (the SWMP remains open as we wait for final acceptance of landscape components)  Dormitory Construction  Over One Acre, Active, 2020 planned completion  American Indian Hall  Over One Acre, Active, 2021 planned completion  Montana Hall Elevator and Renovation project.  Under One Acre, Active  Romney Hall Renovation project  Under One Acre, Active, No stormwater specific work but is being staged south of the building requiring management of materials, storage, toilet facilities and tracking and remains active.  Lambert Field Renovations  Over One Acre, Active, 2019 planned completion  Rendezvous Dining Hall Construction  Over One Acre, 2019 Complete  College and 11th Treatment Unit  Under One Acre, 2019 Complete Current funding is not a line item but included in the general campus maintenance operations budget for Facilities Services. As allowable and necessary funding from Facilities Services General Operating budget are allocated to specific stormwater improvement projects. In 2019, the University devoted approximately 840 hours annually to stormwater maintenance, management, and improvements and tracks work activities and labor using a work order system. Under the general guidance of the Engineering and Utilities Manager, the Environmental Service Manager coordinates and ensures MS4 Permit compliance. 1. Current Staff:  Engineering and Utility Manager: Directional and political support (40 hours per year)  Director ‐ Facilities Services: Overall program coordination. Administers and supports environmental compliance programs; manages support personnel; identifies and advocates for infrastructure projects; conducts sampling, training, inspections, permit reviews, data collection, and reporting; manages reoccurring infrastructure maintenance, structural inspections, repairs, and replacements (300 hours/year)  Support Staff and Contracted Services: Groundskeepers, laborers, plumbers, and street sweeping (500 hours/year) SECTION 1.0 ‐ PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 9 The following representatives make up the University’s stormwater management team. Regular communication occurs, allowing for the exchange of necessary information: 1. Megan Sterl, Engineering and Utility Manager  Program Administration 2. EJ Hook, Director – Facilities Services (Primary SWMP Coordinator)  Community Outreach and Education Program  Public Involvement and Participation Program  Construction‐Site Management Program  Post‐Construction Management Program  Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Program  Project Management  Good Housekeeping Program  Training FY18 Approved Budget (July 1, 2017, through June 30, 2018)  Source: Facility Budget  Rate Model Type: Part of Facilities Services Major maintenance budget  Percent Allocation: 100%  Resource Justification: Budget approval process completed June 29, 2017  Program Effectiveness: See SWMP Sections 2.6, 3.4, 4.4, 5.4, 6.4, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 8.8, and 8.9  Resource Allocation Variation: Approx. $25,000 for College and 11th stormwater improvement project design  Success Determination: See SWMP Sections 2.6, 3.4, 4.4, 5.4, 6.4, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 8.8, and 8.9  Staff: 0.3 FTEs  Budget: $124,000  Salaries and Benefits: n/a  Operating Budget: $124,000  Capital: n/a  Debt Service: n/a  Transfers: n/a FY19 Approved Budget (July 1, 2018, through June 30, 2019)  Source: Facility Budget  Rate Model Type: Part of Facilities Services Major maintenance budget  Percent Allocation: 100%  Resource Justification: Budget approval process completed June 29, 2018  Program Effectiveness: See SWMP Sections 2.6, 3.4, 4.4, 5.4, 6.4, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 8.8, and 8.9  Resource Allocation Variation: Approx. $150,000 for College and 11th stormwater improvement project installation  Success Determination: See SWMP Sections 2.6, 3.4, 4.4, 5.4, 6.4, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 8.8, and 8.9  Staff: 0.3 FTEs  Budget: $124,000  Salaries and Benefits: n/a  Operating Budget: $124,000 SECTION 1.0 ‐ PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 10  Capital: Approx. $150,000  Debt Service: n/a  Transfers: n/a FY20 Approved Budget (July 1, 2019, through June 30, 2020)  Source: Facility Budget  Rate Model Type: Part of Facilities Services Major maintenance budget  Percent Allocation: 100%  Resource Justification: Budget approval process completed June 29, 2019  Program Effectiveness: See SWMP Sections 2.6, 3.4, 4.4, 5.4, 6.4, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 8.8, and 8.9  Resource Allocation Variation: None  Success Determination: See SWMP Sections 2.6, 3.4, 4.4, 5.4, 6.4, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 8.8, and 8.9  Staff: 0.3 FTEs  Budget: $126,500  Salaries and Benefits: n/a  Operating Budget: $126,500  Capital: Approx. $150,000  Debt Service: n/a  Transfers: n/a 1.5 Stormwater Management Team The City has three tiers of Management Teams: SWMP Team, SWMP Subject Matter Experts, and SWMP Support Divisions. Each group has varying responsibilities and communication protocols further described in this section. The SWMP Team: Meets weekly and includes the SWMP Coordinator. This team completes the majority of minimum control measure related‐work, reporting, and planning. The following positions make up the SWMP Team: 1. Stormwater Program Coordinator: SWMP Coordinator for the City and leads the SWMP Team, SWMP Subject Matter Experts, and coordination with SWMP Support Divisions. The Coordinator develops and manages the implementation of SWMP and MS4 Permit compliance activities, administers environmental compliance programs, manages personnel, prepares budgets, develops policies, coordinates infrastructure projects, and maintains rate model databases. This position’s primary permit responsibilities include:  Program Administration (SWMP Section 1.0)  Capital Project Program (SWMP Section 2.0)  Public Education Program (SWMP Section 3.0)  Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Program (SWMP Section 4.0)  Construction Site Management Program (SWMP Section 5.0)  Post Construction Program (SWMP Section 6.0)  Good Housekeeping Program (SWMP Section 7.0)  Sampling and Evaluation Program (SWMP Section 8.0)  Additional Regulatory Responsibilities (SWMP Section 1.8) SECTION 1.0 ‐ PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 11 2. Stormwater Program Specialist: Develops and implements best practice solutions related to water quality compliance monitoring, BMP effectiveness research, and data analysis. This position’s primary permit responsibilities include:  Public Education Program (SWMP Section 3.0)  Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Program (SWMP Section 4.0)  Good Housekeeping Program (SWMP Section 7.0)  Sampling and Evaluation Program (SWMP Section 8.0)  Additional Regulatory Responsibilities (SWMP Section 1.8) 3. Stormwater Program Specialist: Plans and manages stormwater conveyance, flood control, and treatment capital projects, implements the City’s stormwater facility and asset maintenance efforts, and regulates new drainage infrastructure through the oversight of development applications. This position’s primary permit responsibilities include:  Capital Project Program (SWMP Section 2.0)  Post Construction Program (SWMP Section 6.0)  Good Housekeeping Program (SWMP Section 7.0) 4. Stormwater Program Technician: Performs permit review, site inspection, and reporting tasks. This position’s primary permit responsibilities include:  Construction Site Management Program (SWMP Section 5.0) The SWMP Team tracks phone call and email questions, requests, and complaints received from the public to gauge programmatic needs and workloads. The following chart includes the totals: Correspondence Type Count 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total Resident: Flooding Inquiry or Report 7 15 22 Resident: Construction Inquiry or Report 22 19 41 Resident: Water Quality Inquiry or Report 2 2 4 Resident: Pollution Inquiry or Report 14 6 20 Resident: Basin Inquiry or Report 14 12 26 Resident: Outreach Inquiry or Report 2 12 14 Resident: Rate Model Inquiry 4 6 10 Professional: Post‐Const. Program 47 60 107 Professional: Pollution Program 4 18 22 Professional: Const. Program 112 295 407 Professional: Project Management 16 181 197 Professional: Education Program 14 57 71 Professional: Division Administration 9 36 45 Professional: Water Quality Program 11 8 19 Professional: Service or Product Solicitation 17 19 36 Referral to other division 5 6 11 Total: 300 752 1,052 SWMP Subject Matter Experts: Group meets bi‐monthly to discuss programmatic issues and needs. Interim communication occurs when situations arise, or the SWMP Team requires information. This Graphic 1.5.2: Correspondence‐tracking totals SECTION 1.0 ‐ PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 12 team completes the majority of development review and infrastructure field operations. The following positions make up the SWMP Subject Matter Experts: 1. Engineering Division: Team of three positions that review and regulate new and redevelopment projects utilizing established engineering standards. The positions include the Development Review Manager, Engineer II, and Engineer I.  Post Construction Program (SWMP Section 6.0) 2. Operations and Maintenance: Team of five positions that operate and maintain the public storm sewer network, including the inspection, maintenance, and repair of infrastructure. This group also inspects underground pipes to identify illicit discharges and illegal connections. This team includes a Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, Foreman, and two Operators.  Good Housekeeping Program (SWMP Section 7.0)  Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Program (SWMP Section 4.0) 3. Streets Division: Numerous positions that operate the City’s street sweeping, spring cleanup, and fall cleanup activities. This team includes a Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, and numerous Operators.  Good Housekeeping Program (SWMP Section 7.0) SWMP Support Divisions: Group engaged by the SWMP Team as needs arise. Support Divisions do not typically participate in reoccurring meetings unless invited to discuss a particular topic. 1. Support Divisions: Numerous municipal divisions and employees that provide support when necessary or requested. Parties include the Elected Council, Management, Legal, Strategic Services, Community Development, Parks, Fire, Police, IT, Economic Development, Solid Waste, Communication, Neighborhoods, Facilities, Sustainability, Code Compliance, Water Reclamation, Water Treatment, and Water Conservation Divisions. SECTION 1.0 ‐ PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 13 1.6 MS4 Coordination The MS4s works collaboratively on various programs, including:  Participation in monthly meetings  University payment of City stormwater fees, rate model update to occur during Q1 of each calendar year and an updated total should be in place by July 1st.  Performance tracking and reporting  Project development and implementation  Inspection forms, training, methodologies, and program documentation  Pollution event response and resolution  Stormwater treatment unit maintenance  The City removes collected debris from select University stormwater treatment units and incorporates totals into SWMP Section 8.0 annually, including: o University Field House Downstream Defender Mechanical Separation Unit Graphic 1.5.1: Organization Chart SECTION 1.0 ‐ PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 14 o 11th and College Contech CDS Mechanical Separation Unit  Water Sampling and Analysis Program  The City manages the University’s portion of this program, including purchasing equipment, collecting samples/data, analyzing results, and updating SWMP Section 8.0 for the following: o Urban Runoff Monitoring o In‐Stream Wet Weather Monitoring o Sediment Reduction Monitoring o Long‐Term Trend Monitoring  Post Construction Program  The City completes six high‐priority stormwater facility inspections on MSU property annually, and provides completed reports.  The City provides the University an updated SWMP by February 1 of each calendar year. 1.7 Affiliations The MS4 utilizes and engages with a variety of groups through informal relationships, including:  Montana Stormwater Committee (MSC): An organization formed in 2016 comprised of public and private stormwater industry representatives. The MSC provides a unified voice for state scale policy changes, rules, issues, and initiatives. The MSC meets monthly to discuss relevant topics. Their most recent accomplishment includes the development of Montana’s first American Society of Civil Engineers Stormwater Report Card, resulting in a statewide score of D.  National Municipal Stormwater Alliance (NMSA): An organization formed in 2015 comprised of stormwater industry professionals. The NMSA provides a unified voice for national scale policy changes, rules, issues, and initiatives.  Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ): A state agency tasked with the administration and enforcement of the Montana Clean Water Act. MDEQ provides compliance training, conferences, and enforcement in cases where the MS4’s resources become exhausted.  Gallatin Local Water Quality District (GLWQD): A Gallatin County public agency that conducts water quality sampling and community education.  Montana State Extension Water Quality: A University Extension agency that provides water quality sampling and community education.  Montana Water Environment Association (MWEA): A Montana organization that represents water, wastewater, and stormwater professionals. MWEA is a member of the Water Environment Federation (WEF), which has over 34,000 members worldwide. WEF is working to raise knowledge regarding stormwater infrastructure, policy, and science at the national level.  Gallatin Watershed Council (GWC): An education‐based nonprofit organization working to improve waterway health by implementing the Gallatin Watershed Restoration Plan. 1.8 Additional Regulatory Responsibilities The following MPDES permits also fall under the purview of the MS4:  General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (MTR100000): Construction projects that disturb one acre or more of land must obtain a stormwater discharge authorization from the MDEQ. The MS4 implements a Construction Management Program detailed in SWMP Section 5.0 SECTION 1.0 ‐ PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 15  Multi‐Sector General Permit for Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity (MTR000000): The MS4’s Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) and Landfill obtain authorizations to discharge stormwater from their facilities. MS4 Staff assist WRF and Landfill personnel with required inspections, BMP development, training, reporting, and records keeping.  General Permit for Construction Dewatering (MTG070000): The Water and Sewer Division completes main break repairs and preventative maintenance in high groundwater areas, both requiring dewatering activities. Pumped water is land applied whenever possible to avoid any potential impacts from this activity and the need for permit coverage.  General Permit for Disinfected Water and Hydrostatic Testing (MTG770000): The Water and Sewer Division flow hydrants to flush the water distribution pipe network and test hydrants. 1.9 Annual Report The MS4 submits an individual Annual Report Form, updated SWMP, and relevant documents to the MDEQ by March 1st each year. 1.10 Public Comments The MS4 considers and responds to all public comment related to the SWMP. To facilitate, a public comment form exists on the MS4’s website and is available year round. Also, the MS4 publically notices the SWMP after making annual updates in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle the second and third Sundays of March during each calendar year. Dates include:  2019: March 17th and 24th  2020: March 15th and 22nd The MS4 received the following comments: # Date Participant Comment MS4 Response 1 2019 Adopt‐A‐ Drain Participant I look at the City in an entirely different way now. Whenever I look at the street, I see the headwaters of a creek (In person feedback). Noted comment and will request their participation in the 2020 Adopt‐A‐Drain Program. 2 7/23/2019 Adopt‐A‐ Drain Participant I cannot believe the debris‐filled the whole bucket! You are right how much more aware I have become about the drains and my street surroundings. I even found a pair of swimming goggles near the drain, kind of weird and ironic, who was swimming in the drains!?”. Noted comment and will request their participation in the 2020 Adopt‐A‐Drain Program. 3 7/23/2019 Adopt‐A‐ Drain Participant Thank you, I will put the bucket on the front porch! And yes please share my email. And to add to the email...with this new Storm Drain awareness and understanding, I feel like I should be cleaning all the drains that I see that are filled with debris and to let others know how important it is to keep them free of debris. I have always been a big SECTION 1.0 ‐ PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 16 Thank you so much for being the architect of this great program!! One more note, the drain on the corner of 3rd and Short does look pretty congested inside not sure though. 4 9/27/2019 Adopt‐A‐ Drain Participant Of the 563.7 pounds, 563.4 was construction debris! Noted comment and will request their participation in the 2020 Adopt‐A‐Drain Program. 5 1/2/2020 Adopt‐A‐ Drain Participant Thank you for the update! Sorry I fell off the map. The last bit of debris that I removed, I accidentally threw away. I was amazed at how once you clean the drain there is not much that needs to be done until the Fall. Also the drain looked amazing after you guys cleaned the insides out. It is an amazing program! Thank you for doing it and keeping our drains clean. I look forward to doing it again this year. Noted comment and will request their participation in the 2020 Adopt‐A‐Drain Program. 6 1/3/2020 Adopt‐A‐ Drain Participant Frank! Thanks so much for the update on how much we all saved from going down the drain! I still have a full bucket of debris; what should I do with it? And should I continue cleaning my drain? Bravo to you and the others for a great experiment! Noted comment and will request their participation in the 2020 Adopt‐A‐Drain Program. 7 1/3/2020 Adopt‐A‐ Drain Participant My only feedback is that I forget to check/clean “my” drain. I’ll create reminders in my calendar. I’ll also create a reminder and post a photo and comment about my drain on NextDoor every now and then. What’s your goal for 2020? Let’s blow the lid off!! Noted comment and will request their participation in the Section 2.0 Capital Project Program Graphic 2.0.2: Permeable pavers installed at City Hall Graphic 2.0.1: Stormwater treatment unit installation SECTION 2.0 ‐ CAPITAL PROJECT PROGRAM 2 Blank Page SECTION 2.0 ‐ CAPITAL PROJECT PROGRAM 3 2.1 Introduction The MS4’s Capital Project Program works to:  Increase stormwater system capacity  Preserve the integrity of underground pipes and surface conveyances  Replace failed or failing infrastructure assets  Meet water quality requirements set by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality SWMP Section 2.0 details the following components necessary to administer the MS4’s Capital Project Program, including:  Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Action Plan  Future Projects  Ongoing or Completed Projects  Pollutant Reduction Totals  Performance Measures 2.2 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Action Plan The MS4 allocates over $650,000 per year towards the design and construction of structural and treatment infrastructure projects. From a structural standpoint, the MS4 replaces infrastructure with deficiencies, capacity limitations, and expired life cycles, focusing the majority of their work in the downtown core where miles of 100‐year old vitrified clay pipes exist. From a treatment standpoint, the MS4 implements specific projects to address 303(d) listed water quality impairments to the maximum extent practicable. For purposes of this permit term, the MS4 prioritizes the following waterways: Bozeman Creek is the highest priority because of its total stormwater discharge points, known impairments, degraded state, and the fact that it is the only waterway with a non‐zero MS4 Waste Load Allocation (WLA). According to the TMDL, Total Suspended Solids (TSS) contributions from the MS4 to Bozeman Creek require a 37% or 81 tons/year reduction. Mandeville Creek is the second‐highest priority waterway because of its total stormwater discharge points, known impairments, shared responsibilities between co‐permittees, and its degraded state. The MS4 has previously made investments to reduce loads to Mandeville Creek and plans to continue pollution reduction efforts as this MS4 General Permit term progresses. Three other impaired waterways exist that receive benefits from the MS4’s broad programmatic efforts, such as community education, pollution event response, and construction site management. These waterways include the East Gallatin River, Bridger Creek, and Rocky Creek. The MS4 targets pollutants of concern for its impaired waterbodies by taking the following project identification and development strategy: Mitigate significant impacts through industry‐standard structural treatment technologies, such as mechanical separation, confirmed to achieve 50% TSS removal through independent certification programs. This step allows the MS4 to triage the system, installing effective and maintainable treatment systems near stormwater discharge points for the MS4’s large urban drainage areas currently lacking treatment before discharge. SECTION 2.0 ‐ CAPITAL PROJECT PROGRAM 4 Develop, implement, and maintain sustainable operation and education‐based programs and initiatives, such as street sweeping, infrastructure cleaning, and community outreach, that target pollutants of concern. Collect and analyze stormwater runoff, in‐stream water quality, BMP effectiveness, and long‐term monitoring data using an array of industry‐standard gages and equipment to plan future investments and initiatives. This step allows the MS4 to monitor its pollutant reductions, impaired waterbody improvement, and investment and conduct program self‐evaluation. Enhance pollutant reductions using targeted projects, such as boulevard infiltration galleries, verified to achieve 100% TSS removal by capturing and infiltrating the water quality event. This step allows the MS4 to fine‐tune the stormwater system to optimize treatment in larger urban watersheds and treat stormwater in smaller urban watersheds not suitable for larger projects. 2.3 Future Projects The MS4 prepares a five‐year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) that outlines future infrastructure projects annually. The CIP process is open for public comment, approved by the City Commission, and incorporated into the applicable fiscal year’s budget. The MS4 accounts for the following when preparing CIPs:  Urban Waterway and Watershed Priority  Development and Land Use  Infrastructure Condition Analysis  Programmatic Goals  Available Budget  Project Coordination The MS4 maintains the following performance metrics to track Capital Project Program progress and identify future needs: Pollutant Reduction Program: Comply with the MS4’s stormwater permit and improve water quality by preventing the discharge of 91 tons of pollutants into rivers annually (Bozeman Creek: 81 tons, Mandeville Creek: 10 tons).  Benefit: Reduced permit risk, improved public safety, and a healthier environment  Driving Policy: Bronze Level of Service, approximately $200,000 per year  Risk: Permit requirements subject to change  Percent Complete: o 2017 (FY18): 25% o 2018 (FY19): 56% o 2019 (FY20): 65% o 2030 (FY31, estimated): 100% Pipe Rehabilitation Program: Replace 13.9 miles of structurally deficient and undersized historical storm sewer infrastructure throughout the downtown core.  Benefit: Reduced urban flooding and improved public safety  Driving Policy: Bronze Level of Service, approximately $450,000 per year  Risk: Increasing construction costs  Percent Complete: o 2017 (FY18): 3% o 2018 (FT19): 4% o 2019 (FY20): 34% SECTION 2.0 ‐ CAPITAL PROJECT PROGRAM 5 o 2030 (FY31, estimated): 86% Utility Operation Projects: Maintain 20% (+/‐2.5%) of city‐owned storm sewer assets annually. Totals include inlet maintenance, manhole maintenance, pipe maintenance, and pipe inspection.  Benefit: Reduced urban flooding, extended infrastructure lifecycles, and improved environmental health  Driving Policy: Bronze Level of Service  Risk: Low (adequate funding, rapid growth)  Percent Complete: o 2017 (FY18): 18.1% o 2018 (FY19): 21.6% o 2019 (FY20): 18.1% o 2030 (FY31, estimated): 14% MS4 plans to complete the following projects, including: Utility Operation Project ‐ Stormwater Facility Plan Update  ID: STUO01  Year: FY20  Budget: $150,000  Description: The project includes hiring a contractor to update the City’s Stormwater Facility Plan last revised in 2007. The City has made significant programmatic, operational, and administrative changes over the past ten years in response to evolving environmental regulations, growth, and aging infrastructure. An updated Stormwater Facility Plan will assist Staff in identifying high‐priority infrastructure deficiencies, future needs, and determine the City’s regulatory standing with stormwater permit regulations.  Alternatives Considered: Staff will continue implementing the recommendations provided in the 2007 Stormwater Facility Plan.  Advantages of Approval: An updated Stormwater Facility Plan provides Staff a framework, action plan, and third party professional oversights helping the City achieve its programmatic goals, which include complying with environmental regulations, improving waterway health, protecting public safety, and managing infrastructure.  Additional Operating Cost in the Future: None. Deferred Maintenance Project – Downtown Trunk Line Rehabilitation (Phase 1)  ID: STDM01 2 River Health Projects 13 Deferred Maintenance Projects 6 Utility Operation Projects Graphic 2.3.1: Future projects SECTION 2.0 ‐ CAPITAL PROJECT PROGRAM 6  Year: FY20  Budget: $400,000  Description: The project includes designing and rehabilitating 2,000 feet of storm sewer pipe beneath the alley located between Main Street and Mendenhall Street, and beneath North Rouse from Main Street to East Villard Street. The current pipe consists of historical materials throughout its length, including brick, vitrified clay, and concrete. The pipe is over 100 years old, is in poor structural condition (contains 42 identified deficiencies), and conveys significant stormwater flows generated from a 330‐acre urban drainage basin, making it a high priority for rehabilitation.  Alternatives Considered: None. The pipe is a critical component of the City’s public storm sewer network, and further deference will impact public safety and increase flood risk in the event of a failure. Further, internally managed spot repairs ‐ which prolong a pipe’s life – are infeasible due to the pipe’s location, depth, condition, and size.  Advantages of Approval: The project will ensure the pipe conveys stormwater as originally designed and intended. The project collaborates with the Montana Department of Transportation’s (MDT) reconstruction of North Rouse Avenue. MDT will provide a cost‐share commensurate with their contribution to the section of pipe within their right‐of‐way. Completion of FY20 conveyance projects will bring the City to 21% of its deferred maintenance goal set by the City Commission during the Stormwater Utility’s development.  Additional Operating Cost in the Future: Stormwater Personnel will complete maintenance of the pipe on a five‐year reoccurring schedule, including flushing, vacuuming, and inspection. Deferred Maintenance Project – Manley Ditch Rehabilitation  ID: STDM02  Year: FY20  Budget: $100,000  Description: The project includes designing and rehabilitating 1,500 feet of Manley Ditch located east of Manley Road. Ther ditch conveys stormwater generated from a 58‐acre urban drainage basin. The ditch includes a vegetated swale that has experienced significant degradation, resulting in a nonfunctional conveyance and obstructed railroad‐owned culvert crossing. Specific issues include sediment deposition, overgrown vegetation, an illegal bulkhead, and bank erosion.  Alternatives Considered: None. The ditch is a critical component of the City’s public storm sewer network, and further deference will impact public safety and further heighten ongoing flooding impacts. Also, the ditch’s location, length, and tight grades make an internally managed repair infeasible.  Advantages of Approval: The project will ensure the ditch conveys stormwater as originally designed and intended. Completion of FY20 conveyance projects will bring the City to 21% of its deferred maintenance goal set by the City Commission during the Stormwater Utility’s development. River Health Project – Downtown Mechanical Stormwater Treatment (Phase 3)  ID: STRH01  Year: FY21  Budget: $300,000  Description: Installation of two stormwater treatment units near the intersections of N. Rouse Ave. and E. Peach St., and N. Rouse Ave. and E. Tamarack St. SECTION 2.0 ‐ CAPITAL PROJECT PROGRAM 7  Alternatives Considered: Staff has not identified an alternative treatment approach with comparable maintenance ease, construction footprint, or pollutant removal efficiency.  Advantages of Approval: The units will collect over 20‐tons of pollutants annually from 138‐ acres. They will improve public safety, Bozeman Creek’s water quality, and DEQ permit standing.  Additional Operating Cost in the Future: Staff will complete maintenance semi‐annually using existing vacuuming equipment and drying beds. Debris will eventually be disposed at the landfill. Deferred Maintenance Project – Downtown Trunk Line Rehabilitation (Phase 2)  ID: STDM03  Year: FY21  Budget: $350,000  Description: Rehabilitation of approximately 1,500 feet of 100‐year‐old brick storm sewer pipe beneath the alley located between E. Main St. and E. Mendenhall St.  Alternatives Considered: The infrastructure is a critical component of the City’s storm sewer network. Delay will increase chances of collapse, road failure, flooding, and total replacement.  Advantages of Approval: This project is preventative and targets vulnerable infrastructure prone to failure. Completion will mitigate the risks and extend the asset’s life cycle 50‐75 years.  Additional Operating Cost in the Future: Stormwater Personnel will complete maintenance on a reoccurring schedule, including flushing, vacuuming, and inspection. Utility Operation Project – Stormwater Utility Cost of Service and Rate Study  ID: STOP02  Year: FY21  Budget: $50,000  Description: Hiring a qualified consultant to complete a cost of service and rate study. Studies are a best practice for utility management and will guide future rate adjustments.  Alternatives Considered: Maintain existing rate structure and determine adjustments annually.  Advantages of Approval: The project will result in recommendations to ensure the City’s service charges match the actual cost of utility operation.  Additional Operating Cost in the Future: None. Utility Operation Project – Street Sweeper (#01)  ID: STOP05  Year: FY21  Budget: $200,000  Description: Replacement of a mechanical street sweeper leased in 2015. The sweeper has been in operation for six years, has 3,320 hours, and 24,000 miles.  Alternatives Considered: Use the existing street sweeper, resulting in increased downtime and maintenance. Industry guidance recommends replacing municipal sweepers every five years.  Advantages of Approval: Street sweeping protects air quality, improves waterways and DEQ permit standing, and reduces slip hazards. SECTION 2.0 ‐ CAPITAL PROJECT PROGRAM 8  Additional Operating Cost in the Future: The Stormwater Division will fund operation and maintenance costs. The sweeper supplements the cleaning program led by the Streets Division. River Health Project – Downtown Mechanical Stormwater Treatment (Phase 4)  ID: STRH02  Year: FY22  Budget: $250,000  Description: Installation of two stormwater treatment units near the intersections of S. Black Ave. and E. Cleveland St., and S. Bozeman Ave. and E. Cleveland St.  Alternatives Considered: Staff has not identified an alternative treatment approach with comparable maintenance ease, construction footprint, or pollutant removal efficiency.  Advantages of Approval: The units will collect over 27‐tons of pollutants annually from 193‐ acres. They will improve public safety, Bozeman Creek’s water quality, and DEQ permit standing.  Additional Operating Cost in the Future: Staff will complete maintenance semi‐annually using existing vacuuming equipment and drying beds. Debris will eventually be disposed at the landfill. Deferred Maintenance Project – Historic Pipe Replacement Program (FY22)  ID: STDM04  Year: FY22  Budget: $315,000  Description: Rehabilitation of 2,000 feet of 100‐year‐old vitrified clay storm sewer, which has exceeded its life cycle, does not meet capacity standards, and includes many structural failures.  Alternatives Considered: The infrastructure is a critical component of the City’s storm sewer network. Delay will increase chances of collapse, road failure, and flooding.  Advantages of Approval: This project is preventative and targets pipes prone to failure and surcharging. Rehabilitation will reduce risks by addressing structural and capacity deficiencies.  Additional Operating Cost in the Future: Stormwater Personnel will complete maintenance on a reoccurring schedule, including flushing, vacuuming, and inspection. Deferred Maintenance – Annual Unplanned Pipe Rehabilitation and Drainage Projects  ID: STDM05  Year: FY22  Budget: $45,000  Description: An annual program that provides funding for the design and construction of unplanned pipe, drainage, and treatment projects.  Alternatives Considered: Use of internal crews and equipment to complete work. Staff determined the workload required would reduce capacity applied towards critical services.  Advantages of Approval: Unplanned funds allows staff to be responsive to essential needs, increasing customer service, improving system efficiency, and reducing City liability.  Additional Operating Cost in the Future: Stormwater Personnel will complete the maintenance of rehabilitated, repaired, or new infrastructure concurrently with existing public assets. Operation Support Project – Sediment Disposal Facility Asphalt Repair SECTION 2.0 ‐ CAPITAL PROJECT PROGRAM 9  ID: STOS01  Year: FY22  Budget: $50,000  Description: Preventative maintenance of the asphalt surface located at the Sediment Disposal Facility used for stormwater waste disposal generated from infrastructure operation.  Alternatives Considered: Prolong asphalt maintenance risking degradation of drivable surfaces and increased deferred expense.  Advantages of Approval: The project will ensure the facility remains operational and safe.  Additional Operating Cost in the Future: None Operation Support Project – Administrative Vehicle (#01)  ID: STOP03  Year: FY22  Budget: $35,000  Description: Replacement of staff’s 2001 Dodge Dakota. The truck has been in operation for 22 years and served numerous divisions. Significant maintenance and safety issues exist.  Alternatives Considered: The Stormwater Division has four administrative employees that share two dedicated vehicles. Not replacing would result in impacts to daily operations of the Division.  Advantages of Approval: Provides for a reliable and safe vehicle for staff to complete daily activities, such as pollution mitigation, equipment transport, flood response, and field inspections.  Additional Operating Cost in the Future: The Stormwater Division will fund operation and maintenance costs. Deferred Maintenance Project – North 9th Avenue Ditch Rehabilitation  ID: STDM06  Year: FY23  Budget: $125,000  Description: Rehabilitation of 900 feet of conveyance ditch located near N. 9th Ave. from W. Villard St. to W. Peach St., which has sediment buildup, overgrown vegetation, and bank erosion  Alternatives Considered: The infrastructure is a critical component of the City’s storm sewer network. Delay will result in an increased chance of adjacent property flooding.  Advantages of Approval: The targeted ditch is increasingly prone to backups and flooding. Rehabilitation will reduce risks by addressing structural and capacity deficiencies.  Additional Operating Cost in the Future: Stormwater Personnel will complete maintenance on a reoccurring schedule, including inspection and clearing. Deferred Maintenance Project – Historic Pipe Replacement Program (FY23)  ID: STDM07  Year: FY23  Budget: $550,000  Description: Rehabilitation of 3,000 feet of 100‐year‐old vitrified clay storm sewer, which has exceeded its life cycle, does not meet capacity standards, and includes many structural failures.  Alternatives Considered: The infrastructure is a critical component of the City’s storm sewer network. Delay will increase chances of collapse, road failure, and flooding. SECTION 2.0 ‐ CAPITAL PROJECT PROGRAM 10  Advantages of Approval: This project is preventative and targets pipes prone to failure and surcharging. Rehabilitation will reduce risks by addressing structural and capacity deficiencies.  Additional Operating Cost in the Future: Stormwater Personnel will complete maintenance on a reoccurring schedule, including flushing, vacuuming, and inspection. Deferred Maintenance – Annual Unplanned Pipe Rehabilitation and Drainage Projects  ID: STDM08  Year: FY23  Budget: $45,000  Description: An annual program that provides funding for the design and construction of various unplanned pipe, drainage, and treatment projects.  Alternatives Considered: Use of internal crews and equipment to complete work. Staff determined the workload required would reduce capacity applied towards critical services.  Advantages of Approval: Unplanned funds allows Staff to be responsive to essential needs, increasing customer service, improving system efficiency, and reducing City liability.  Additional Operating Cost in the Future: Stormwater Personnel will complete the maintenance of rehabilitated, repaired, or new infrastructure concurrently with existing public assets. Deferred Maintenance Project – Middle Creek Ditch Rehabilitation  ID: STDM09  Year: FY24  Budget: $175,000  Description: Rehabilitation of 1,500 feet of conveyance ditch located near N. 15th Ave. from W. Main St. to W. Beall St., which has sediment buildup, overgrown vegetation, and bank erosion  Alternatives Considered: The infrastructure is a critical component of the City’s storm sewer network. Delay will result in an increased chance of adjacent property flooding.  Advantages of Approval: The targeted ditch is increasingly prone to backups and flooding. Rehabilitation will reduce risks by addressing structural and capacity deficiencies.  Additional Operating Cost in the Future: Stormwater Personnel will complete maintenance on a reoccurring schedule, including inspection and clearing. Deferred Maintenance Project – Historic Pipe Replacement Program (FY24)  ID: STDM10  Year: FY24  Budget: $520,000  Description: Rehabilitation of 3,000 feet of 100‐year‐old vitrified clay storm sewer, which has exceeded its life cycle, does not meet capacity standards, and includes many structural failures.  Alternatives Considered: The infrastructure is a critical component of the City’s storm sewer network. Delay will increase chances of collapse, road failure, and flooding.  Advantages of Approval: This project is preventative and targets pipes prone to failure and surcharging. Rehabilitation will reduce risks by addressing structural and capacity deficiencies.  Additional Operating Cost in the Future: Stormwater Personnel will complete maintenance on a reoccurring schedule, including flushing, vacuuming, and inspection. Deferred Maintenance – Annual Unplanned Pipe Rehabilitation and Drainage Projects SECTION 2.0 ‐ CAPITAL PROJECT PROGRAM 11  ID: STDM11  Year: FY24  Budget: $45,000  Description: An annual program that provides funding for the design and construction of various unplanned pipe, drainage, and treatment projects.  Alternatives Considered: Use of internal crews and equipment to complete work. Staff determined the workload required would reduce capacity applied towards critical services.  Advantages of Approval: Unplanned funds allows Staff to be responsive to essential needs, increasing customer service, improving system efficiency, and reducing City liability.  Additional Operating Cost in the Future: Stormwater Personnel will complete the maintenance of rehabilitated, repaired, or new infrastructure concurrently with existing public assets. Deferred Maintenance Project – Historic Pipe Replacement Program (FY25)  ID: STDM11  Year: FY25  Budget: $455,000  Description: Rehabilitation of 2,400 feet of 100‐year‐old vitrified clay storm sewer, which has exceeded its life cycle, does not meet capacity standards, and includes many structural failures.  Alternatives Considered: The infrastructure is a critical component of the City’s storm sewer network. Delay will increase chances of collapse, road failure, and flooding.  Advantages of Approval: This project is preventative and targets pipes prone to failure and surcharging. Rehabilitation will reduce risks by addressing structural and capacity deficiencies.  Additional Operating Cost in the Future: Stormwater Personnel will complete maintenance on a reoccurring schedule, including flushing, vacuuming, and inspection. Deferred Maintenance – Annual Unplanned Pipe Rehabilitation and Drainage Projects  ID: STDM11  Year: FY25  Budget: $45,000  Description: An annual program that provides funding for the design and construction of various unplanned pipe, drainage, and treatment projects.  Alternatives Considered: Use of internal crews and equipment to complete work. Staff determined the workload required would reduce capacity applied towards critical services.  Advantages of Approval: Unplanned funds allows Staff to be responsive to essential needs, increasing customer service, improving system efficiency, and reducing City liability.  Additional Operating Cost in the Future: Stormwater Personnel will complete the maintenance of rehabilitated, repaired, or new infrastructure concurrently with existing public assets. Operation Support Project – Pipe Inspection Van (#01)  ID: STOP04  Year: FY25  Budget: $250,000  Description: Replacement of the pipe inspection van purchased in 2001 and refurbished in 2015. The vehicle’s chassis is heavily worn and the onboard computer system is aged. SECTION 2.0 ‐ CAPITAL PROJECT PROGRAM 12  Alternatives Considered: Continue using the existing vehicle, which could result in downtime and increasingly costly maintenance.  Advantages of Approval: The vehicle facilitates the City’s pipe inspection program, which identifies maintenance needs, locates structural deficiencies, and detects illegal connections.  Additional Operating Cost in the Future: The Stormwater Division will fund operation and maintenance costs. Operation Support Project – Administrative Vehicle (#02)  ID: n/a  Year: Unscheduled  Budget: $35,000  Description: Replacement of staff’s 2019 Dodge Ram.  Alternatives Considered: The Stormwater Division has four administrative employees that share two dedicated vehicles. Not replacing would result in impacts to daily operations of the Division.  Advantages of Approval: Provides for a reliable and safe vehicle for staff to complete daily activities, such as pollution mitigation, equipment transport, flood response, and field inspections.  Additional Operating Cost in the Future: The Stormwater Division will fund operation and maintenance costs. Operation Support Project – Service Vehicle (#01)  ID: n/a  Year: Unscheduled  Budget: $50,000  Description: Replacement of staff’s 2017 Ford F350 service vehicle.  Alternatives Considered: The Stormwater Division has three operations employees that share one dedicated service vehicle. Not replacing would result in negative impacts to daily operations.  Advantages of Approval: Provides for a reliable and safe vehicle for staff to complete daily activities, such as infrastructure inspection, repair, and replacement.  Additional Operating Cost in the Future: The Stormwater Division will fund operation and maintenance costs. Operation Support Project – Vacuum and Jetting Truck (#01)  ID: n/a  Year: Unscheduled  Budget: $520,000  Description: Replacement of the vacuum and jetting truck leased in 2015.  Alternatives Considered: Continue using the existing vehicle, which could result in downtime and increasingly costly maintenance.  Advantages of Approval: The vehicle performs infrastructure maintenance, pollution event cleanup, and vacuum excavation for pipe repairs.  Additional Operating Cost in the Future: The Stormwater Division will fund operation and maintenance costs. 2.4 Ongoing or Completed Projects The MS4 has or is in the process of completing the following projects: SECTION 2.0 ‐ CAPITAL PROJECT PROGRAM 13 Stormwater Treatment Project: Mechanical Separation Unit (Westridge Dr.)  Purpose: Reduced pollutant loading  Type: Mechanical separation unit  Expected Treatment Efficiency: 50% TSS Reduction  Treatment Area: ≈28 Acres  Discharge Location: Matthew Bird Creek (a tributary of Bozeman Creek)  Date of Completion: Planned for summer of 2020  Co‐Benefits: Progress towards WLA Stormwater Treatment and Infrastructure Improvement Project: N. Rouse Ave. Stormwater Upgrades (Main St. to Oak St., Phase 2, MDT)  Purpose: Flood control, reduced pollutant loading  Type: Inlets, manholes, pipes, and five mechanical treatment units  Expected Treatment Efficiency: 50% TSS Reduction  Treatment Area: ≈94 Acres  Discharge Location: Bozeman Creek  Date of Completion: Planned for summer of 2020  Co‐Benefits: Progress towards WLA Operation Support Project: Administrative Vehicle Purchase  Purpose: Transportation for Administrative Staff  Type: 2019 Dodge Ram  Expected Treatment Efficiency: n/a  Treatment Area: n/a  Discharge Location: n/a  Date of Completion: Spring 2019  Co‐Benefits: n/a Infrastructure Replacement: BMX Park Storm Improvements (E. Peach St. and N. 4th Ave.)  Purpose: Flood control  Type: 244’ of 30” RCP Pipe, three 72” manhole structures  Expected Treatment Efficiency: n/a  Treatment Area: n/a  Discharge Location: East Gallatin River  Date of Completion: Spring 2019 26 Stormwater Treatment Projects 11 Infrstructure Improvement Projects 2 Operation Support Projects 1 Planning Projects 3 River Restorations Graphic 2.4.1: Ongoing or completed projects SECTION 2.0 ‐ CAPITAL PROJECT PROGRAM 14  Co‐Benefits: n/a Stormwater Treatment Project: Mechanical Separation Unit (S. Church Ave. and E. Main St.)  Purpose: Reduced pollutant loading  Type: Contech CDS (6’ Diameter)  Expected Treatment Efficiency: 50% TSS Reduction  Treatment Area: ≈35 Acres  Discharge Location: Bozeman Creek  Date of Completion: Fall 2019  Co‐Benefits: Progress towards WLA Stormwater Treatment Project: Mechanical Separation Unit (N. Black Ave. and W. Main St.)  Purpose: Reduce sediment loads  Type: Contech CDS (6’ Diameter)  Expected Treatment Efficiency: 50% TSS Reduction  Treatment Area: ≈28 Acres  Discharge Location: Bozeman Creek  Date of Completion: Spring 2019  Co‐Benefits: Progress towards WLA Stormwater Treatment Project: Mechanical Separation Unit (N. Bozeman Ave. and W. Main St.)  Purpose: Reduce sediment loads  Type: Contech CDS (6’ Diameter)  Expected Treatment Efficiency: 50% TSS Reduction  Treatment Area: ≈29 Acres  Discharge Location: Bozeman Creek  Date of Completion: Spring 2019  Co‐Benefits: Progress towards WLA Stormwater Treatment and Infrastructure Improvement Project: N. Rouse Ave. Stormwater Upgrades (Oak St. to Story Mill Rd., Phase 1, MDT Project)  Purpose: Flood control, reduced pollutant loading  Type: Inlets, manholes, pipes, and three mechanical treatment units  Expected Treatment Efficiency: 50% TSS  Treatment Area: n/a  Discharge Location: Bozeman Creek  Date of Completion: Spring 2019  Co‐Benefits: Flood control and water quality Stormwater Treatment Project: Pilot Boulevard Infiltration Structure (E. Mason St. and S. Tracy Ave.)  Purpose: Reduce sediment loads and flood mitigation  Type: Rain Garden  Expected Treatment Efficiency: 100% TSS Reduction  Treatment Area: ≈2 Acres  Discharge Location: Matthew Bird Creek (a tributary of Bozeman Creek)  Date of Completion: Summer 2019  Co‐Benefits: Progress towards WLA and peak flow reduction SECTION 2.0 ‐ CAPITAL PROJECT PROGRAM 15 Stormwater Treatment Project: Mechanical Separation Unit (S. 11th Ave. and College St.)  Purpose: Reduce sediment loads  Type: Contech CDS (8’ Diameter)  Expected Treatment Efficiency: 50% TSS Reduction  Treatment Area: ≈60 Acres  Discharge Location: Mandeville Creek  Date of Completion: Summer 2019  Co‐Benefits: n/a Infrastructure Improvement: S. Tracy Ave. Stormwater Upgrades (E. College St. to W. Babcock St.)  Purpose: Flood control  Type: Inlets, utility holes, and 2,850 ft. of pipe  Expected Treatment Efficiency: n/a  Treatment Area: n/a  Discharge Location: Bozeman Creek  Date of Completion: Summer 2018 and 2019  Co‐Benefits: n/a Stormwater Treatment Project: Mechanical Separation Unit (N. 3rd Ave. and W. Main St.)  Purpose: Reduce sediment load to Bozeman Creek  Type: Contech CDS (6’ Diameter)  Expected Treatment Efficiency: 50% TSS Reduction  Treatment Area: ≈94 Acres  Discharge Location: Bozeman Creek  Date of Completion: Spring 2018  Co‐Benefits: Progress towards WLA Stormwater Treatment Project: Mechanical Separation Unit (N. Grand Ave. and W. Main St.)  Purpose: Reduce sediment load to Bozeman Creek  Type: Contech CDS (6’ Diameter)  Expected Treatment Efficiency: 50% TSS Reduction  Treatment Area: ≈58 Acres  Discharge Location: Bozeman Creek  Date of Completion: Spring 2018  Co‐Benefits: Progress towards WLA Stormwater Treatment Project: Mechanical Separation Unit (N. Tracy Ave. and W. Main St.)  Purpose: Reduce sediment load to Bozeman Creek  Type: Contech CDS (6’ Diameter)  Expected Treatment Efficiency: 50% TSS Reduction  Treatment Area: ≈32 Acres  Discharge Location: Bozeman Creek  Date of Completion: Spring 2018  Co‐Benefits: Progress towards WLA Stormwater Treatment Project: Permeable Streetscape Project (N. 7th Ave. and W. Peach St.)  Purpose: Pilot permeable paver use SECTION 2.0 ‐ CAPITAL PROJECT PROGRAM 16  Type: Basalite Pavers  Expected Treatment Efficiency: 100% TSS Reduction  Treatment Area: .1 Acres  Discharge Location: East Gallatin  Date of Completion: Spring 2018  Co‐Benefits: Flood control and water quality Infrastructure Replacement: Baxter Lane Stormwater Upgrades  Purpose: Improve drainage for 7th and Baxter  Type: Inlets, manholes, and mains  Expected Treatment Efficiency: n/a  Treatment Area: n/a  Discharge Location: Mandeville Creek  Date of Completion: Summer 2018  Co‐Benefits: Flood control and water quality Planning Project: Bozeman Creek Stream Gage Installation  Purpose: Data collection  Type: DNRC Stream Gage  Expected Treatment Efficiency: n/a  Treatment Area: n/a  Discharge Location: n/a  Date of Completion: Summer 2018  Co‐Benefits: Includes port for sediment monitoring device Infrastructure Replacement: East Olive Street Stormwater Upgrades  Purpose: Improve drainage for East Olive Street  Type: Inlets, manholes, and mains  Expected Treatment Efficiency: n/a  Treatment Area: n/a  Discharge Location: Bozeman Creek  Date of Completion: Fall 2017  Co‐Benefits: Flood control and water quality Treatment Project: City Hall Patio Permeable Paver Project  Purpose: LID/Green infrastructure pilot project and community education  Type: Pave Drain Permeable Pavers  Expected Treatment Efficiency: 100% TSS Reduction  Treatment Area: ≈1,000 square feet  Discharge Location: Bozeman Creek  Date of Completion: Summer 2017  Co‐Benefits: Progress towards WLA Infrastructure Replacement: Inlet Replacements  Purpose: Reduce sediment to Bozeman Creek and flood control  Type: Standard inlet with 9” sump  Expected Treatment Efficiency: Unknown  Treatment Area: 23 inlets SECTION 2.0 ‐ CAPITAL PROJECT PROGRAM 17  Discharge Location: Bozeman Creek  Date of Completion: Fall 2017  Co‐Benefits: Progress towards WLA Infrastructure Replacement: Pipe Replacements (S. Black and S. Bozeman)  Purpose: Flood control  Type: 15” SDR  Expected Treatment Efficiency: n/a  Treatment Area: 600’  Discharge Location: Bozeman Creek  Date of Completion: Fall 2017  Co‐Benefits: n/a Treatment Project: Mechanical Separation Unit Installation – N. Rouse and E. Griffin  Purpose: Reduce sediment load to Bozeman Creek  Type: Contech CDS (6’ Diameter)  Expected Treatment Efficiency: 80% TSS Reduction  Treatment Area: ≈ 14 Acres  Discharge Location: Bozeman Creek  Date of Completion: Fall 2017  Co‐Benefits: Progress towards WLA Treatment Project: Mechanical Separation Unit Installation ‐ N. Rouse and Bridger Center  Purpose: Reduce sediment load to Bozeman Creek  Type: Contech CDS (5’ Diameter)  Expected Treatment Efficiency: 80% TSS Reduction  Treatment Area: ≈12 Acres  Discharge Location: Bozeman Creek  Date of Completion: Fall 2017  Co‐Benefits: Progress towards WLA Treatment Project: Mechanical Separation Unit Installation ‐ S. Rouse and E. Olive  Purpose: Reduce sediment load to Bozeman Creek  Type: Contech CDS (5’ Diameter)  Expected Treatment Efficiency: 80% TSS Reduction  Treatment Area: ≈9 Acres  Discharge Location: Bozeman Creek  Date of Completion: Fall 2017  Co‐Benefits: Progress towards WLA Treatment Project: Mechanical Separation Unit Installation – Perkins and E. Peach  Purpose: Reduce sediment load to Bozeman Creek  Type: Contech CDS (4’ Diameter)  Expected Treatment Efficiency: 80% TSS Reduction  Treatment Area: ≈ 22 Acres  Discharge Location: Bozeman Creek  Date of Completion: Fall 2017  Co‐Benefits: Progress towards WLA SECTION 2.0 ‐ CAPITAL PROJECT PROGRAM 18 Operations Project: Stormwater Operations Disposal Facility  Purpose: Sediment dewatering and storage  Type: Asphalt pad with ecology block bays  Expected Treatment Efficiency: n/a  Treatment Area: n/a  Discharge Location: Lined wastewater pond  Date of Completion: Fall 2017  Co‐Benefits: Facilitates pollutant reduction totals Treatment Project: Mechanical Separation Unit Installation ‐ S. Rouse and E. Lincoln  Purpose: Reduce sediment load to Bozeman Creek  Type: Contech CDS (5’ Diameter)  Expected Treatment Efficiency: 80% TSS Reduction  Treatment Area: ≈32 Acres  Discharge Location: Bozeman Creek  Date of Completion: Fall 2016  Co‐Benefits: Progress towards WLA Treatment Project: Mechanical Separation Unit Installation ‐ N. 11th and W. Lamme  Purpose: Reduce sediment load to Mandeville Creek  Type: Contech CDS (4’ Diameter)  Expected Treatment Efficiency: 80% TSS Reduction  Treatment Area: ≈7 Acres  Discharge Location: Mandeville Creek  Date of Completion: Fall 2016  Co‐Benefits: Located adjacent to High School and includes educational signage Treatment Project: Mechanical Separation Unit, Underground Infiltration Basin, Wash Pad, and Paving Project – Shops Complex  Purpose: Reduce sediment load to Bozeman Creek  Type: Contech CDS (4’ Diameter), ADS StormTech, and Inlet Sumps  Expected Treatment Efficiency: 80% TSS Reduction for Mechanical Separation Unit and 100% for Underground Infiltration Basin  Treatment Area: ≈2 Acres  Discharge Location: Bozeman Creek  Date of Completion: Fall 2016  Co‐Benefits: Progress towards WLA Treatment Project: Mechanical Separation Unit Installation – N. Wallace and E. Tamarack  Purpose: Reduce sediment load to Bozeman Creek  Type: Contech CDS (8’ Diameter)  Expected Treatment Efficiency: 80% TSS  Treatment Area: ≈100 Acres  Discharge Location: Bozeman Creek  Date of Completion: November 2016  Co‐Benefits: Progress towards WLA Treatment Project: Underground Infiltration Basin – N. 7th and Baxter SECTION 2.0 ‐ CAPITAL PROJECT PROGRAM 19  Purpose: Reduce localized flooding; reduce sediment load to Mandeville Creek  Type: Perforated gravity main embedded in aggregate for storage  Expected Treatment Efficiency: 100% TSS  Treatment Area: ≈9 Acres  Discharge Location: Mandeville Creek  Date of Completion: Summer 2016  Co‐Benefits: Joint water conservation and stormwater LID pilot project Treatment Project: Underground Infiltration Basin – Plum and Avocado  Purpose: Reduce localized flooding; reduce sediment load to East Gallatin;  Type: ADS StormTech  Expected Treatment Efficiency: 100% TSS  Treatment Area: ≈14 Acres  Discharge Location: Subsurface  Date of Completion: Fall 2016  Co‐Benefits: Resolved localized flooding issue River Restoration: Backwater Slough – Story Mill Park  Purpose: Reduce sediment load in Bozeman Creek  Type: Constructed wetland  Expected Treatment Efficiency: 100% TSS  Treatment Area: Entire Bozeman Creek Watershed  Discharge Location: Bozeman Creek  Date of Completion: Summer 2015  Co‐Benefits: Nutrient uptake, flood mitigation, and wetland restoration River Restoration: Bozeman Creek Meander Construction – Bogert Park  Purpose: Stream restoration; improve streamside vegetative cover; reduce sediment load due to streambank erosion; flood control  Type: Excavated meander and pool addition; inset floodplain construction  Expected Treatment Efficiency: Unknown  Treatment Area: Entire Bozeman Creek Watershed  Discharge Location: Bozeman Creek  Date of Completion: Spring 2017  Co‐Benefits: Education, fish habitat, stream bank stabilization, and flood control River Restoration: Meander the Mandeville Construction Phase 1 – Bozeman High School  Purpose: Stream restoration; improve streamside vegetative cover; flood control  Type: Construction of meanders, riffles, and pools  Expected Treatment Efficiency: Unknown  Treatment Area: Entire Mandeville Creek Watershed  Discharge Location: Mandeville Creek  Date of Completion: 2016  Co‐Benefits: Education, fish habitat, stream bank stabilization, and flood control Treatment Project: LID Infiltration Galleries – University Field House  Purpose: Reduce sediment load to Mandeville Creek  Type: LID Infiltration Galleries SECTION 2.0 ‐ CAPITAL PROJECT PROGRAM 20  Expected Treatment Efficiency: 100% TSS Reduction  Treatment Area: 2.4 Acres  Discharge Location: Mandeville Creek  Date of Completion: 2016 Treatment Project: Mechanical Separation Unit Installation – University Field House  Purpose: Reduce sediment load to Mandeville Creek  Type: Hydro International Downstream Defender and Sediment Separator  Expected Treatment Efficiency: 80% TSS removal  Treatment Area: 3 Acres  Discharge Location: Mandeville Creek  Date of Completion: Fall 2015 Treatment Project: Underground Infiltration – Jabs and Wilson Halls  Purpose: Reduce sediment load to Mandeville Creek  Type: Underground Infiltration Gallery  Expected Treatment Efficiency: 100% TSS Reduction  Treatment Area: 3.9 Acres  Discharge Location: Subsurface  Date of Completion: 2016 Infrastructure Replacement: Gravity Main Install – 15th and Babcock  Purpose: Eliminate localized flooding issue  Type: Construction of underground stormwater main  Expected Treatment Efficiency: None  Treatment Area: None  Discharge Location: Mandeville Creek  Date of Completion: Fall 2015 Infrastructure Replacement: Wallace Street Reconstruction and Stormwater System Improvements  Purpose: Eliminate localized flooding issue and provide treatment  Type: Construction of 3,000 feet of underground stormwater mains and new inlets  Expected Treatment Efficiency: None  Treatment Area: None  Discharge Location: Bozeman Creek  Date of Completion: 2016 Infrastructure Replacement: Story Street Reconstruction and Stormwater System Improvements  Purpose: Eliminate localized flooding issue and provide treatment  Type: Construction of underground stormwater mains, new inlets, and oil/sand separators  Expected Treatment Efficiency: Unknown  Treatment Area: 10 Acres  Discharge Location: Bozeman Creek  Date of Completion: 2015 SECTION 2.0 ‐ CAPITAL PROJECT PROGRAM 21 Graphic 2.4.2: Planned and complete stormwater projects SECTION 2.0 ‐ CAPITAL PROJECT PROGRAM 22 Graphic 2.4.3: Planned and complete stormwater projects SECTION 2.0 ‐ CAPITAL PROJECT PROGRAM 23 2.5 Pollutant Reduction Totals The MS4 tracks pollutant reduction totals using a variety of data tracking mechanisms, including:  Total Suspended Solids (Sediment)  Treatment Unit Maintenance: The MS4 calculates tonnage totals by measuring the depth of sediment within each unit before cleaning. The MS4 subtracts a top of sediment depth measurement from a total depth measurement, calculates a volume of sediment (cubic feet) using dimension information for each unit, and converts the volume to tons by using an assumed sand weight ratio of .056 tons = 1 cubic foot of sand. o 2017: 22.6 Tons  Bozeman Creek Watershed: 16.3 Tons  Mandeville Creek Watershed: 5.0 Tons  East Gallatin: 1.3 Tons o 2018: 51.0 Tons  Bozeman Creek Watershed: 45.7 Tons  Mandeville Creek Watershed: 1.0 Tons  East Gallatin: 4.3 Tons o 2019: 55.3 Tons  Bozeman Creek Watershed: 44.8 Tons  Mandeville Creek Watershed: 5.8 Tons  East Gallatin: 4.7 Tons  Infrastructure Maintenance: The MS4 calculates tonnage totals by calculating the depth of sediment vacuumed out of manholes and inlets before cleaning. The MS4 multiplies the area of each assets sump by an assumed 1/2 full depth measurement, multiplies the volume by the total assets maintained for that year, and converts the volume to tons by using an assumed sand weight ratio of .056 tons = 1 cubic foot. o 2017: 164.7 Tons  City: 117.7 Tons  MSU Campus: 46.9 Tons o 2018: 145.6 Tons  City: 99.3 Tons  MSU Campus: 46.3 Tons o 2019: 159.4 Tons  City: 111.7 Tons  MSU Campus: 50.3 Tons  Street Sweeping: The MS4 calculates tonnage totals for year‐round, spring cleanup, and fall cleanup street sweeping operations. The Streets Division tracks cubic yard totals for each of the activities, which is then stored in Cityworks and reported. The MS4 converts yards to tons using an assumed weight ratio of 1.5 tons = 1 cubic yard of sand for reoccurring and spring street sweeping and converts yards to tons using an assumed weight ratio of .18 tons = 1 cubic yard of leaves for fall street sweeping. SECTION 2.0 ‐ CAPITAL PROJECT PROGRAM 24 o 2017: 6,232.0 Tons  City Citywide: 6,108.0 Tons  MSU Campus: 124.0 Tons o 2018: 6,246.0 Tons  City Citywide: 6,022.0 Tons  MSU Campus: 224.0 Tons o 2019: 5,708.0 Tons  City Citywide: 5,501.7 Tons  MSU Campus: 206.3 Tons 2.6 Performance Measures The MS4 utilizes performance measures to evaluate programmatic strategies with the goal of optimizing limited resources, increasing efficiencies, and balancing annual workloads. Stream Health Improvement: Final Grade generated by the MS4 that provides a consistent and communicable method for tracking stream health improvement and permit compliance risk. The MS4’s target level of service is to facilitate an upward trend annually, which is calculated using the methods described in SWMP Section 8.0. Results include:  2018: D Grade (60.5%)  2019: F Grade (54.0%) Community Safety and Urban Flood Risk: Tracking mechanism utilized by the MS4 that provides a consistent and communicable method for tracking community safety and urban flood risk. The MS4’s target level of service is to have zero insurance claims filed annually as a result of public storm sewer deficiencies.  2017: 0 Claims Filed  2018: 0 Claims Filed  2019: 0 Claims Filed Graphic 2.5.1: Stormwater pollutant collection totals chart Section 3.0 Public Education Program Graphic 3.0.2: Dog waste station with educational signage Graphic 3.0.1: Construction field academy SECTION 3.0 ‐ PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAM 2 Blank Page SECTION 3.0 ‐ PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAM 3 3.1 Introduction The MS4 strives to improve waterway health, protect public safety, and comply with its MS4 Permit through the education of the public by:  Passively engaging residents through the consistent supply of educational information  Actively engaging residents, providing them tools to take direct action SWMP Section 3.0 details the following components necessary to administer the MS4’s Public Education Program, including:  Protocol  Key Audiences  Ongoing Initiatives  Future Opportunities 3.2 Protocol The MS4 educates audiences on stormwater‐related issues to reduce the public’s contribution of pollutants to waterbodies using the following strategies: Passive Engagement (Education): Creation and distribution of educational messages, targeting pollutant‐generating activities and behaviors distributed via the following platforms:  Website  Utility bill inserts  Internet and radio advertisements  Brochures  Magazine articles  Educational signage  Vehicle wraps Active Engagement (Involvement and Enforcement): Customized interpersonal interactions with various audiences, targeting pollutant‐generating activities and behaviors distributed via the following activities:  Presentations  Meetings  Training  Tours  Activities  Events  Penalties 3.3 Key Audiences The MS4 targets the following audiences because they conduct activities that do not conform to best practices, such as proper erosion control, landscape maintenance, and stormwater basin maintenance. Residents  Pollutant(s): Nutrients, floatables, and sediment  Activity: Yard maintenance  Rationale: See SWMP Section 8.9  Outreach Strategy: Passive Engagement and Active Engagement  Initiatives: See SWMP Section 3.4 Construction Industry  Target Pollutant(s): TSS, floatables, oil, grease, and concrete waste  Targeted Activity: Construction SECTION 3.0 ‐ PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAM 4  Rationale: See SWMP Section 5.4  Outreach Strategy: Passive and Active Engagement  Initiatives: See SWMP Section 3.4 Youth/MSU Students  Pollutant(s): E.coli, nutrients, and sediment  Activity: Early education and class projects  Rationale: Initiation of a paradigm shift and trickle‐up impact  Outreach Strategy: Active Engagement  Initiatives: SWMP Section 3.4 Home Owner Associations (HOAs) and Property Management Companies  Pollutant(s): Nutrients, sediment, E. coli, and flood control  Activity: Stormwater basin maintenance  Rationale: SWMP Section 6.4  Outreach Strategy: Passive and Active Engagement  Initiatives: See SWMP Section 3.4 Carpet Cleaning and Restoration Companies  Pollutant(s): Wash waters  Activity: Illegal dumping/Illicit Discharge  Rationale: See SWMP Section 4.4  Outreach Strategy: Active Engagement  Initiatives: See SWMP Section 3.4 Pet Owners  Pollutant(s): E.coli  Activity: Dog waste pickup  Rationale: See SWMP Section 8.2  Outreach Strategy: Active and Passive Engagement  Initiatives: See SWMP Section 3.4 3.4 Ongoing Initiatives The MS4 completes initiatives to engage, educate, and promote sustainable behavior of its key target audiences. Ongoing initiatives include: Adopt a Storm Drain: A program that actively engages watershed champions, and supplies them with a tool to make a measurable difference in their neighborhoods by periodically cleaning and disposing debris from adopted stormwater inlets. The program also passively engages residents by creating an environment where stormwater‐related issues can be discussed and acted upon at a neighborhood level, rather than the City acting as the sole information provider. A participant in the program is subject to the following: (1) recruitment through meetings, mailers, social media, or informative videos, (2) selection of inlet through online web map application, (3) receipt of a welcome packet, including tools, educational information, and instructions, (4) engagement and troubleshooting with City Staff through email or phone, (5) incentivization through receipt of a yard sign and other rewards based on seniority, (6) completion of inlet cleaning and debris collection during the spring, summer, and fall, (7) annual reporting of debris collected to City, (8) survey allowing for a feedback mechanism, and (9) receipt of annual thank you and report. SECTION 3.0 ‐ PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAM 5  Key Audience: Residents  Targeted Pollutant(s): E.coli, nutrients, floatables, and sediment  Strategy: Active and Passive Engagement  Treatment Area: Citywide  Distribution Channels: Recruitment, training, troubleshooting, and engagement  Performance Measure: Total weight of debris collected annually o 2017: n/a o 2018: n/a o 2019: 772.7 lbs. of debris (11 residents, 21 inlets)  2019 Task(s): Implement pilot program (complete)  2019 Performance Goal: Collect 250 lbs. of debris (met)  2019 Note(s): Time intensive but effective program o 2020: TBD  2020 Task(s): Implement program, retain majority of the recruited residents, explore opportunities for expansion in 2021  2020 Performance Goal: Collect 500 lbs. of debris  2020 Note(s): TBD Adopt a Rain Garden: A program that actively engages businesses and supplies them with a tool to make a measurable difference by periodically cleaning and disposing debris from adopted rain gardens. Adopters complete trash removal, weeding, and minor sediment collection through the spring, summer, and fall. The City completes major maintenance activities semi‐annually. Gardens typically also have an educational component, such as a sign.  Key Audience: Residents via commercial businesses  Targeted Pollutant(s): E.coli, nutrients, floatables, and sediment  Strategy: Active and Passive Engagement  Treatment Area: Citywide  Distribution Channels: Recruitment, training, troubleshooting, and engagement  Performance Measure: Number of adopted rain gardens. o 2020: TBD  2020 Task(s): Implement a pilot program with one business  2020 Performance Goal: Two maintenance efforts by the adopter  2020 Note(s): TBD Educational Stormwater Video: Seven‐minute video that describes the MS4’s Program, the context for why stormwater is important, and ways residents/property owners can make a difference. Residents view the video on the City’s website or YouTube.  Key Audience: Residents  Targeted Pollutant(s): E.coli, nutrients, oil, grease, floatables, and sediment  Strategy: Passive Engagement  Treatment Area: Citywide  Distribution Channels: MS4 website and email signature attachment  Performance Measure: Total views, watch time, and average view duration tracked annually o 2017: 179 views, 12 hours watch time, and 4:02 average view duration o 2018: 502 views, 31 hours watch time, and 3:42 average view duration SECTION 3.0 ‐ PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAM 6 o 2019: 214 views, 14.1 hours watch time, and 3:57 average view duration  2019 Task(s): Maintain video (complete), add to City Channel (not complete)  2019 Performance Goal: Repeat 2018 view count +/‐5% (not met)  2019 Note(s): View drop attributed to the number of interested residents and limited distribution channels. o 2020: TBD  2020 Task(s): Maintain video, add to City Channel, promote using Facebook  2020 Performance Goal: Repeat 2019 view count +/‐5%  2020 Note(s): TBD Dog‐Waste Campaign: Campaign devoted to educating residents about the importance of dog waste collection and disposal. The campaign includes the deployment and maintenance of educational signage and dog waste stations in numerous parks and trail corridors.  Key Audience: Residents  Targeted Pollutant(s): E.coli  Strategy: Passive and Active Engagement  Treatment Area: Citywide  Distribution Channels: Strategic signage and waste stations placed in high use areas.  Performance Measure: Tonnage tracked annually by calculating the total amount of dog waste collected at all waste stations. The MS4 derives the total by multiplying the total waste station bags collected by 10 lbs., which is the assumed weight of each bag. o 2017: 19.5 Tons o 2018: 20.6 Tons o 2019: 18.2 Tons  2019 Task(s): Maintain dog waste signs (complete), add urban specific signs in four locations (not complete)  2019 Performance Goal: Repeat 2018 collection total +/‐5% (not met)  2019 Note(s): 27% drop in visits from 2018 to 2019 (37,518 visits to 27,378 visits), meaning bags likely filled up more and were replaced less often. o 2020: TBD  2020 Task(s): Maintain dog waste signs, add urban specific signs in four locations  2020 Performance Goal: Repeat 2019 collection total +/‐5%  2020 Note(s): TBD Vehicle Decal Wraps: Educational signage installed on the MS4’s Vactor truck and street sweeper that visually displays the connection between urban areas and waterways.  Key Audience: Residents  Targeted Pollutant(s): E.coli, nutrients, oil, grease, floatables, and sediment  Strategy: Passive Engagement  Treatment Area: Citywide  Distribution Channel: Vehicle use  Performance Measure: Stormwater operator hours o 2017: 4,300 hours SECTION 3.0 ‐ PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAM 7 o 2018: 5,400 hours o 2019: 4,100 hours  2019 Task(s): Maintain decals (complete)  2019 Performance Goal: Repeat operator hours +/‐5% (not met)  2019 Note(s): Staffing shortages prevalent through 2019. o 2020: TBD  2020 Task(s): Maintain decals  2020 Performance Goal: Repeat operator hours +/‐5%  2020 Note(s): TBD Website: Publically accessible website that includes a variety of information, spanning from what stormwater is, how to report a pollution event, rate model information, post‐construction design standards, and more. Address: www.bozeman.net/government/stormwater.  Key Audience: Residents, Home Owner Associations, and Contractors  Targeted Pollutant(s): E.coli, nutrients, oil, grease, floatables, and sediment  Strategy: Passive Engagement  Treatment Area: Citywide  Distribution Channels: Available to the public via the internet  Performance Measure: Total unique page views tracked by Google Analytics o 2017: 677 Views o 2018: 1,225 Views o 2019: 2,408 Views  2019 Task(s): Maintain website (complete)  2019 Performance Goal: Repeat total unique page views +/‐5% (met)  2019 Note(s): Homepage, Apply for a Construction Permit, and Contact Us were the most visited pages. o 2020: TBD  2020 Task(s): Maintain website, update News and Events periodically  2020 Performance Goal: Repeat total unique page views +/‐5%  2020 Note(s): TBD General Outreach: Information developed by the MS4 and applied in various settings focused on providing general stormwater information and soliciting public participation.  Key Audience: Residents  Targeted Pollutant(s): E.coli, nutrients, oil, grease, floatables, and sediment  Strategy: Active Engagement  Treatment Area: Entire MS4  Distribution Channels: Presentations, conferences, community events, and advertisements  Performance Measure: Total events o 2017: 10 (Green Drinks Event, MSU Class Presentations, GLWQD Board Presentation, (2) MSAWWA Conference Presentation, SWMBIA Home Show Booth, Environment Summit Community Event, Water Works Art Initiative, Gallatin Watershed Sourcebook, Breaking Ground Advertisement) SECTION 3.0 ‐ PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAM 8 o 2018: 15 (Montana DNRC Water Summit Presentation, MDEQ Stormwater Conference Presentation, MDEQ Stormwater Conference Tour, Parade of Homes Garden Tour, Gallatin College Presentation, MSU Landscape School Presentation, Stream Team Training, City Commission Emergency Ordinance Presentation, City Commission Capital and Budget Presentation, Gallatin Watershed Sourcebook Creation and Distribution, Water and Society Class Presentation, Horticulture 201 Stormwater Design Project, (2) Student‐Led Campus Cleanup Events: Loose Litter and Cigarettes, Campus Cleanup Event) o 2019: 17 (City of Bozeman Planning Board Presentation, Lives and Landscapes Article, Raccoon Facebook Post, Arbor Day Event, Mountain Outlaw Article, S. Church Traffic Calming, MSU Teacher Tour, Water School Presentation, MSU EENG 341 Class Presentation, Active Aging Week Presentation, Eagle Scout Stenciling Project, Montana Stormwater Committee Webinar, Water and Society Class Presentation, Water Hydrology Class Presentation, Hort. 201 Stormwater Design Project, Health Advancement Butt Clean Up‐Day, and Campus Clean Up Event)  2019 Task(s): Identify and pursue education opportunities (complete)  2019 Performance Goal: Complete ten events (met)  2019 Note(s): Increased MSU collaboration through new CATs Program o 2020: TBD  2020 Task(s): Identify and pursue general education opportunities  2020 Performance Goal: Complete 10 events  2020 Note(s): TBD Construction Training: Trainings that educate contractors on proper selection and use of best management practices (BMPs) and permit preperation. The MS4 holds training tailored to various education levels, construction activities, and inspection procedures. Further, the MS4 maintains a Construction Program that includes permits, processes, and materials tailored to this group, also described in SWMP Section 5.0.  Key Audience: Contractors and Engineers  Targeted Pollutant(s): Sediment, floatables, oil, grease, and concrete waste  Strategy: Active and Passive Engagement  Treatment Area: Citywide  Distribution Channels: Best Management Practices Manual, conducting annual training, and lunch and learns  Performance Measure: Annual construction‐site audit earned score (see SWMP Section 5.4) o 2017: n/a o 2018: 33% o 2019: 28%  2019 Task(s): Hold BMP 101 Introduction to Stormwater Management and 201 SWPPP Preparer and Administrator (48 participants, complete)  2019 Performance Goal: Improve the audit score by 10% (not met)  2019 Note(s): High growth rate, see SWMP Section 5.0 o 2020: TBD  2020 Task(s): Hold BMP 101 Introduction to Stormwater Management, 201 SWPPP Preparer and Administrator, and 201R SWPPP Re‐certification SECTION 3.0 ‐ PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAM 9  2020 Performance Goal: Improve the audit score by 10%  2020 Note(s): See SWMP Section 5.0 Project WET Curriculum: Class exercises taught by 4th, 5th, and 6th‐grade teachers in Bozeman School District (BSD) classrooms, educating students on stormwater‐related issues, utilizing customized, and location‐specific lesson plans and activities. The City’s Park’s Division also uses the lesson plans for their summer camps.  Key Audience: Residents  Targeted Pollutant(s): E.coli, nutrients, floatables, and sediment  Strategy: Active Engagement  Treatment Area: Entire MS4  Distribution Channel: Trainings for teachers who then present lessons to students  Performance Measure: Total student participants o 2017: 492 students o 2018: 526 students o 2019: 100 students  2019 Task(s): Coordinate use in classrooms and summer camps (complete)  2019 Performance Goal: Repeat student totals +/‐5% (not met)  2019 Note(s): Spent year incorporating into the BSD curriculum. o 2020: TBD  2020 Task(s): Coordinate use in classrooms and summer camps  2020 Performance Goal: Repeat 2018 student totals +/‐5%  2020 Note(s): TBD Post‐Construction Stormwater Control Training: Tailored outreach that educates HOA Boards and management representatives on the proper function and maintenance of stormwater basins. The MS4 maintains a Post‐Construction Program that includes processes and materials tailored to this group further described in SWMP Section 6.0.  Key Audience: Home Owner Associations and Property Management Companies  Targeted Pollutant(s): Nutrients, sediment, flood control (downstream erosion)  Strategy: Active and Passive Engagement  Treatment Area: Citywide  Distribution Channels: Participation in facility tours, board meetings, annual assemblies, and development of educational information  Performance Measure: Annual post‐construction audit earned score (see SWMP Section 6.4) o 2017: n/a o 2018: 25% o 2019: 32%  2019 Task(s): Justify FTE to run the Post Construction Program (complete)  2019 Performance Goal: Improve the audit score by 10% (not met)  2019 Note(s): Limited capacity to implement sub‐program due to other priorities. o 2020: TBD  2020 Task(s): Hire dedicated FTE, and implement an improved program SECTION 3.0 ‐ PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAM 10  2020 Performance Goal: Improve the audit score by 10%  2020 Note(s): TBD Targeted Outreach: Educate local carpet cleaning and restoration companies on proper disposal methods and potential enforcement penalties for illicit discharges to the storm sewer system.  Key Audience: Carpet Cleaning and Restoration Companies  Targeted Pollutant(s): Wash waters  Strategy: Active Engagement  Treatment Area: Entire MS4  Distribution Channels: Written and verbal correspondence  Performance Measure: Illicit discharge reports related to targeted activities o 2017: 0 o 2018: 1 o 2019: 0  2019 Task(s): Distribute a letter to owners (complete)  2019 Performance Goal: No related illicit discharges (met)  2019 Note(s): Increased engagement yielded a good result o 2020: TBD  2020 Task(s): None  2020 Performance Goal: No related illicit discharges  2020 Note(s): TBD Targeted Outreach: Educate residents on best practices related to lawn mowing and grass clippings.  Key Audience: Residents  Targeted Pollutant(s): Organics  Strategy: Passive Engagement  Treatment Area: Entire MS4  Distribution Channels: Mailer sent with a monthly utility bill.  Performance Measure: Residential sites’ Total Suspended Solids (TSS) median concentration (SWMP Section 8.4) o 2020: TBD  2020 Task(s): Distribute a mailer to residents, implement Adopt a Drain  2020 Performance Goal: Reduction over time  2020 Note(s): TBD CATs Program: Collaborative program where MSU students complete projects in support of the City’s goals. Projects typically span a semester and include a variety of lectures, workshops, presentations, and different deliverables.  Key Audience: MSU students and professors  Targeted Pollutant(s): E.coli, nutrients, oil, grease, floatables, and sediment  Strategy: Active and Passive Engagement  Treatment Area: Entire MS4  Distribution Channels: Lectures, workshops, presentations, and varying deliverables  Performance Measure: Projects completed per year. SECTION 3.0 ‐ PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAM 11 o 2020: TBD  2020 Task(s): Coordinate projects with an Engineering and Geography class  2020 Performance Goal: Complete two projects  2020 Note(s): TBD 3.5 Future Initiatives The following items represent future initiatives for the MS4: Education Video Series: Development of a multifaceted video library that would bring to life many of the concepts presented in the MS4’s static educational materials, such as how to properly fertilize, pick up dog waste, manage grass clippings, and install rain barrels. SECTION 3.0 ‐ PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAM 12 Blank Page Section 4.0 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Program Graphic 4.0.2: Illicit connection confirmation Graphic 4.0.1: Bentonite slurry spill SECTION 4.0 ‐ ILLICIT DISCHARGE DETECTION AND ELIMINATION PROGRAM 2 Blank Page SECTION 4.0 ‐ ILLICIT DISCHARGE DETECTION AND ELIMINATION PROGRAM 3 4.1 Introduction The MS4 strives to improve waterway health, protect public safety, and comply with its MS4 Permit through the identification and elimination of pollutant sources by:  Completing dry weather screening of outfalls  Inspecting the storm sewer for illegal connections (see SWMP Section 7.2)  Responding to and resolving pollution events  Enforcing municipal ordinances SWMP Section 4.0 details the following components necessary to administer the MS4’s Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Program, including:  Regulatory Framework  Response Protocol  Event Tracking  Non‐Stormwater Discharge Evaluation  Outfall Reconnaissance Inventory  Storm Sewer Infrastructure Totals 4.2 Regulatory Framework The MS4 uses Bozeman Municipal Code Section 40.04.200 as its regulatory mechanism, which states: “It shall be unlawful to discharge or cause to be discharged into the MS4 any materials, including, but not limited to, pollutants or waters containing any pollutants that cause or contribute to a violation of applicable water quality standards or that could cause the city to be in violation of its MPDES. It shall be unlawful to store, handle, or apply any pollutant in a manner that will cause exposure to rainfall or runoff and discharge to the MS4 and to state waters or waters of the United States.” 4.3 Response Protocol The MS4 uses the following Emergency Response Plan (ERP) to assess event priority, formulate a response, and, if necessary, pursue enforcement in cases where a party completes a repeat, blatant, or knowing violation of BMC: Assign event coordinator Investigate complaint to determine pollutant type and severity (site visit and correspondence) Implement one of the following responses:  Tier 1 Event o Threat: Minimal impact on public safety, infrastructure and environment o Priority: High o Team: MS4 staff o Timeline: Initiate response within 5‐days o Resolution: MS4 operations staff and/or contracted restoration firm o Pollutant Disposal: Public ‐ Disposal Facility, private ‐ varies o Reporting: Internal report o Examples: Leaking vehicles, dripping dumpster, and minor construction violations  Tier 2 Event SECTION 4.0 ‐ ILLICIT DISCHARGE DETECTION AND ELIMINATION PROGRAM 4 o Threat: Moderate impact on public safety, infrastructure, and environment o Priority: High o Team: MS4 Staff o Timeline: Initiate response within 24‐hours o Resolution: MS4 operations staff and/or contracted restoration firm o Pollutant Disposal: Public ‐ Disposal Facility, private ‐ varies o Reporting: Internal report o Examples: Carpet cleaning process water discharge, sanitary overflow, camper waste disposal, homeless camp cleanup, floor drain, and illicit sanitary connections, non‐ hazardous chemical spills, and moderate to severe construction violations  Tier 3 Event o Threat: Immediate threat to human health, infrastructure, and environment o Priority: High o Team: MS4 operations staff and emergency services o Timeline: Immediate response o Resolution: Fire, MS4 operations, and/or restoration firm o Pollutant Disposal: Public ‐ Disposal Facility, private ‐ varies o Reporting: Internal report and DEQ Notification o Example: Hazardous chemical spills Eliminate discharge If applicable, notify appropriate state and federal agencies Prepare and file an event report If applicable, assess one or more of the following penalties to the responsible party:  Informal Response: Warning issued via correspondence, email notification, or verbal notice  Formal Response: Notice of Violation and Cease and Desist Order using compliance timeline and monetary penalties based on staff time accrued and remediation costs.  Judicial Response: Civil penalties, injunctive relief, or criminal penalties using court systems 4.4 Event Tracking 2017 Events: 5  Tier 1 Event: Ellis Apartments ‐ Leaking vehicle o Event ID: 201701 o Pollutant: Oil o Local Control: Bozeman Municipal Code (report available upon request) o Resolved: Yes, owner cleaned up oil o Significant: No, less than 5‐gallons, no confirmed discharge to the storm sewer  Tier 1 Event: Crystal Bar ‐ Illicit roof drain o Event ID: 201702 o Pollutant: Wash water o Local Control: Bozeman Municipal Code (report available upon request) o Resolved: Yes, owner disconnected sink from the roof drain o Significant: Yes, over 5‐gallons, confirmed discharge to the storm sewer  Tier 2 Event: Lindley Park ‐ Homeless camp clean up SECTION 4.0 ‐ ILLICIT DISCHARGE DETECTION AND ELIMINATION PROGRAM 5 o Event ID: 201703 o Pollutant: Trash, human waste, and drug paraphernalia o Local Control: Bozeman Municipal Code (report available upon request) o Resolved: Yes, restoration firm cleaned up debris o Significant: No, less than 5‐gallons, no confirmed discharge to the storm sewer  Tier 1 Event: NAC Construction Site Fueling Spill o Event ID: 201704 o Pollutant: Diesel Fuel o Local Control: MSU Safety and Risk Management o Resolved: Yes, MSU Facility Services clean up o Significant: Yes, over 5‐gallons  Tier 1 Event: Stadium Tractor Hydraulic Oil Spill o Event ID: 201705 o Pollutant: Hydraulic Oil (<25 gallons) o Local Control: MSU Safety and Risk Management o Resolved: Yes, MSU Facility Services clean up o Significant: Yes, over 5‐gallons, no confirmed discharge to the storm sewer 2018 Events: 7  Tier 1 Event: 15th & Patrick Oil Dumping o Event ID: 201801 o Location: See map 4.2.1 o Pollutant: Used motor oil o Local Control: BMC Section 40.04.200 and system cleaning o Significant: No, less than 5‐gallons, confirmed discharge to the storm sewer  Tier 1 Event: Solid Waste Hydraulic Hose o Event ID: 201802 o Location: See map 4.2.1 o Pollutant: Hydraulic fluid o Local Control: Solid Waste and Streets spill response o Significant: No, over 5‐gallons, no confirmed discharge to the storm sewer  Tier 1 Event: Prue Clean Technologies Carpet Cleaners o Event ID: 201803 o Location: See map 4.2.1 o Pollutant: Soaps and cleaning chemicals o Local Control: BMC Section 40.04.200 o Significant: Yes, over 5‐gallons, confirmed discharge to the storm sewer  Tier 1 Event: Northwestern Energy Frac‐Out o Event ID: 201804 o Location: See map 4.2.1 o Pollutant: Bentonite slurry o Local Control: BMC Section 40.04.200 o Significant: No, over 5‐gallons, no confirmed discharge to the storm sewer SECTION 4.0 ‐ ILLICIT DISCHARGE DETECTION AND ELIMINATION PROGRAM 6  Tier 2 Event: Sanitary Sewer Overflow o Event ID: 201805 o Location: See map 4.2.1 o Pollutant: Sediment and pathogens o Local Control: Sewer Department sanitary sewer overflow response and system cleanout o Significant: Yes, over 5‐gallons, confirmed discharge to the storm sewer  Tier 1 Event: John Deer Contractor Hydraulic Hose Failure o Event ID: 201806 o Location: See map 4.2.1 o Pollutant: Hydraulic Fluid o Local Control: MSU Safety and Risk Spill Response (sorbent material, 55‐gallon drum, disposal) o Significant: No, under 5‐gallons, no confirmed discharge to the storm sewer  Tier 1 Event: Barnard Holder Snow Machine Hydraulic Hose Failure o Event ID: 201807 o Location: See map 4.2.1 o Pollutant: Hydraulic Fluid o Local Control: MSU Safety and Risk Spill Response (sorbent material, 5‐gallon buckets, disposal) o Significant: No, under 5‐gallons, no confirmed discharge to the storm sewer 2019 Events: 4  Tier 2 Event: Sobo Lofts Fire o Event ID: 201901 o Location: See map 4.2.1 o Pollutant: Ash, construction debris/chemicals, traction sand, and chlorinated water o Local Control: Emergency fire operation and system cleaning o Significant: Yes, 1.5 million gallons of water sprayed on the fire. The majority did not discharge to Mandeville Creek due to a degraded historical irrigation conveyance that ponded the flows until infiltration occurred.  Tier 1 Event: Durston Oil Spill o Event ID: 201902 o Location: See map 4.2.1 o Pollutant: Motor oil o Local Control: BMC Section 40.04.200 o Significant: No, immediate response and mitigation by MS4 Staff.  Tier 2 Event: Bogert Pool Filter Backflush o Event ID: 201903 o Location: See map 4.2.1 o Pollutant: Chlorinated water, Celatom Diatomite Filter Media, and filter debris o Local Control: BMC Section 40.04.200 SECTION 4.0 ‐ ILLICIT DISCHARGE DETECTION AND ELIMINATION PROGRAM 7 o Significant: No, immediate response and implementation of operational controls, plugged connection soon after eliminating the chance of future discharges.  Tier 1 Event: Karst Stage Oil Spill o Event ID: 201904 o Location: See map 4.2.1 o Pollutant: Motor oil o Local Control: BMC Section 40.04.200 o Significant: No, immediate response and mitigation by Karst stage staff. Illicit Discharge Events Resolved 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Tier 1 Events 4 6 2 Tier 2 Events 1 1 2 Tier 3 Events 0 0 0 Total 5 7 4 Graphic 4.4.1: Illicit discharge events SECTION 4.0 ‐ ILLICIT DISCHARGE DETECTION AND ELIMINATION PROGRAM 8 4.5 Non‐Stormwater Discharge Evaluation The MS4 evaluates the following non‐stormwater discharges to identify if they pose a waterway threat: 1. Water Line Flushing  Description: Chlorinated water resulting from Bac‐T testing and cleaning of new water lines  Associated Pollutant(s): Chlorine  Local Control(s): Construction specifications requiring contractors to contain flush water  Risk: Medium, managed as Tier 2 illicit discharge  Illicit Discharges Reported: 0 Graphic 4.4.2: Illicit discharge locations SECTION 4.0 ‐ ILLICIT DISCHARGE DETECTION AND ELIMINATION PROGRAM 9 2. Landscape Irrigation, Irrigation, Lawn Watering, and Potable Water  Description: Intermittent over‐watering or faulty sprinklers  Associated Pollutant(s): Varied depending on the source (well or potable supply)  Local Control(s): Water Conservation landscaping audits and outreach initiatives  Risk: Low, not managed as an illicit discharge  Illicit Discharges Reported: 0 3. Rising Groundwater, Springs, and Flows from Riparian Habitats  Description: Flows that enters the storm sewer system when ground and surface water levels rise above the bottom elevation of the storm drain  Associated Pollutant(s): None  Local Control(s): Prohibition of sump drains that discharge to a street or other public right‐of‐ way, a sanitary sewer line, or onto neighboring properties  Risk: Low, not managed as an illicit discharge  Illicit Discharges Reported: 0 4. Uncontaminated Groundwater Infiltration  Description: Water other than wastewater that enters a storm sewer system from the ground through such means as defective pipes, pipe joints, connections, or utility holes  Associated Pollutant(s): None  Local Control(s): Inspection of storm sewer pipe annually, and defective pipe repair  Risk: Low, not managed as an illicit discharge  Illicit Discharges Reported: 0 5. Uncontaminated Pumped Groundwater  Description: Groundwater pumped into the storm sewer system for lowering subsurface levels, particularly for construction  Associated Pollutant(s): None  Local Control(s): Discharge must originate from a well located in an undisturbed area, initial turbid first flush contained on site  Risk: Low, not managed as an illicit discharge  Illicit Discharges Reported: 0 6. Foundation Drains, Crawl Space Pumps, and Footing Drains  Description: Groundwater pumped or diverted from building foundations to the MS4.  Associated Pollutant(s): None  Local Control(s): Prohibition of sump drains that discharge to a street or other public right‐of‐ way, a sanitary sewer line, or onto neighboring properties  Risk: Low, not managed as an illicit discharge  Illicit Discharges Reported: 0 7. Air Conditioning Condensation  Description: HVAC and refrigeration condensation discharged to the MS4  Associated Pollutant(s): None  Local Control(s): Allowed  Risk: Low, not managed as an illicit discharge  Illicit Discharges Reported: 0 SECTION 4.0 ‐ ILLICIT DISCHARGE DETECTION AND ELIMINATION PROGRAM 10 8. Swimming Pool and Hot Tub Drain Water  Description: Dumping of swimming pool and hot tub drain water into the MS4  Associated Pollutant(s): Chlorine  Local Control(s): Required dechlorinating of swimming pool and hot tub discharge water  Risk: Medium, managed as Tier 2 illicit discharge  Illicit Discharges Reported: 0 9. Fire Hydrant Flushing  Description: Discharges resulting from regular fire hydrant flushing by MS4 operators  Associated Pollutant(s): Chlorine  Local Control(s): Water and Sewer Division fire hydrant flushing process  Risk: Low, not managed as an illicit discharge  Illicit Discharges Reported: 0 10. Non‐Commercial, Individual Residential, and Charity Carwashes  Description: Wash‐waters resulting from vehicle washing  Associated Pollutant(s): Soaps, oils, greases, metals, and sediment  Local Control(s): The City requires a public assembly permit for non‐commercial and charity car washes on public property. If deemed appropriate, the MS4 can utilize this process to require specific controls.  Risk: Low, not managed as an illicit discharge  Illicit Discharges Reported: 0 11. Street Wash Waters  Description: Water used to wash sidewalks, streets, parking lots, and buildings  Associated Pollutant(s): Sediment, oils, greases, and metals  Local Control(s): Allowed  Risk: Low, not managed as an illicit discharge  Illicit Discharges Reported: 0 12. Construction Dewatering  Description: Water discharged from the excavated trench, deep well point, or cofferdam  Associated Pollutant(s): Sediment  Local Control(s): MDEQ General Permit for Construction Dewatering for excavated trench and cofferdam dewatering, well points are required to be in undisturbed areas with the first turbid first‐flush contained on site, Article 4 Ch. 40 Bozeman Municipal Code, and protocols described in SWMP Section 5.0.  Risk: Medium, managed using protocols described in SWMP Section 5.0  Illicit Discharges Reported: 1 4.6 Outfall Reconnaissance Inventory (ORI) The MS4 has hundreds of storm sewer outfalls that discharge into numerous waterways and irrigation ditches within its boundary. Staff used the Draft 2016 Integrated Report available at the MDEQ’s Clean Water Act Information Center, TMDL, and City GIS databases to compile the following information: Baxter Creek  Total Outfalls: SECTION 4.0 ‐ ILLICIT DISCHARGE DETECTION AND ELIMINATION PROGRAM 11 o 2018: 14 o 2019: 18  Approved TMDL: No  Impairments: None  MS4 Waste Load Allocation: None Bozeman (aka Sourdough) Creek  Total Outfalls: o 2018: 60 o 2019: 63  Approved TMDL: Yes  Impairments: E. Coli, Total Nitrogen, Sediment, Chlorophyll‐a, and Alteration in streamside cover  MS4 Waste Load Allocation: TN = 0 lb/day; E. Coli = 0 cfu/day; sediment = 81 tons/year Bridger Creek  Total Outfalls: o 2018: 1 o 2019: 1  Approved TMDL: Yes  Impairments: Chlorophyll‐a and Nitrate/Nitrite (Nitrite + Nitrate as N)  MS4 Waste Load Allocation: N/N = 0 lbs./day East, West and Main Forks of Catron Creek  Total Outfalls: o 2018: 82 o 2019: 83  Approved TMDL: No  Impairments: None  MS4 Waste Load Allocation: None Cattail Creek  Total Outfalls: o 2018: 42 o 2019: 44  Approved TMDL: No  Impairments: None  MS4 Waste Load Allocation: None East Gallatin River  Total Outfalls: o 2018: 13 o 2019: 22 SECTION 4.0 ‐ ILLICIT DISCHARGE DETECTION AND ELIMINATION PROGRAM 12  Approved TMDL: Yes  Impairments: Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorous  MS4 Waste Load Allocation: TN = 0 lbs./day; TP = 0 lbs./day Farmers Canal  Total Outfalls: o 2018: 46 o 2019: 51  Approved TMDL: No  Impairments: None  MS4 Waste Load Allocation: N/A Figgins Creek  Total Outfalls: 23 o 2018: 23 o 2019: 22  Approved TMDL: No  Impairments: None  MS4 Waste Load Allocation: N/A Flat Creek  Total Outfalls: o 2018: 11 o 2019: 11  Approved TMDL: No  Impairments: None  MS4 Waste Load Allocation: N/A Mandeville Creek  Total Outfalls: o 2018: 48 o 2019: 53  Approved TMDL: Yes  Impairments: Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorous  MS4 Waste Load Allocation: TN = 0 lbs./day; TP = 0 lbs./day; sediment = 10 tons/year (self‐ imposed) Mathew Bird Creek  Total Outfalls: 29 o 2018: 29 o 2019: 31  Approved TMDL: No  Impairments: None  MS4 Waste Load Allocation: N/A SECTION 4.0 ‐ ILLICIT DISCHARGE DETECTION AND ELIMINATION PROGRAM 13 Maynard Border Ditch  Total Outfalls: o 2018: 16 o 2019: 13  Approved TMDL: No  Impairments: None  MS4 Waste Load Allocation: N/A Middle Creek Ditch  Total Outfalls: o 2018: 26 o 2019: 25  Approved TMDL: No  Impairments: None  MS4 Waste Load Allocation: N/A Mill Ditch  Total Outfalls: o 2018: 0 o 2019: 0  Approved TMDL: No  Impairments: None  MS4 Waste Load Allocation: N/A Nash Spring Creek  Total Outfalls: o 2018: 0 o 2019: 1  Approved TMDL: No  Impairments: None  MS4 Waste Load Allocation: N/A Rocky Creek  Total Outfalls: o 2018: 1 o 2019: 3  Approved TMDL: Yes  Impairments: Alteration in Streamside Vegetative Cover, Other Anthropogenic Substrate Alterations, Physical Substrate Habitat Alterations, and Sedimentation/Siltation  MS4 Waste Load Allocation: N/A Story Ditch  Total Outfalls: SECTION 4.0 ‐ ILLICIT DISCHARGE DETECTION AND ELIMINATION PROGRAM 14 o 2018: 10 o 2019: 10  Approved TMDL: No  Impairments: None  MS4 Waste Load Allocation: N/A West Gallatin Canal  Total Outfalls: o 2018: 31 o 2019: 30  Approved TMDL: No  Impairments: None  MS4 Waste Load Allocation: N/A Unnamed Irrigation Canals, Surface Ponds, and Tributaries  Total Outfalls: o 2018: 167 o 2019: 153  Approved TMDL: No  Impairments: None  MS4 Waste Load Allocation: N/A SECTION 4.0 ‐ ILLICIT DISCHARGE DETECTION AND ELIMINATION PROGRAM 15 Graphic 4.6.1: Storm sewer outfalls and receiving waterways SECTION 4.0 ‐ ILLICIT DISCHARGE DETECTION AND ELIMINATION PROGRAM 16 The MS4 prioritizes and inspect outfalls once during each MS4 Permit term. Further, the MS4 inspects outfalls deemed a high‐priority annually. The MS4 considers an outfall to be high‐priority if it meets the following criteria:  18” or more in diameter  Drains an urban watershed area of 25 acres or more  Dumps stormwater directly into an impaired receiving water (i.e., no stormwater basin) High‐priority outfalls include: Outfall ID: OF.G08.00035  Discharge Location: Overbrook Dr. and Langhor Ave.  Receiving Waterway: Figgins Creek  Size and Material: 30” RCP o 2019 Inspection  Date: February 1, 2019  Flow: Yes, trickle  Outfall Characterization: Unlikely (no indicators) Outfall ID: OF.F06.00090  Discharge Location: S. Bozeman Ave. and E. Cleveland St.  Receiving Waterway: Matthew Bird Creek  Size and Material: 20” Steel o 2019 Inspection  Date: July 19, 2019  Flow: No  Outfall Characterization: Unlikely (no indicators) Outfall ID: OF.F06.00089  Discharge Location: S. Black Ave. and W. Cleveland St.  Receiving Waterway: Matthew Bird Creek  Size and Material: 19” RCP o 2019 Inspection  Date: July 19, 2019  Flow: No  Outfall Characterization: Unlikely (no indicators) Outfall ID: OF.H05.00370  Discharge Location: N. 11th Ave. and W. College St.  Receiving Waterway: Mandeville Creek  Size and Material: 18” RCP o 2019 Inspection  Date: January 19, 2019  Flow: Yes, moderate  Outfall Characterization: Unlikely (no indicators) SECTION 4.0 ‐ ILLICIT DISCHARGE DETECTION AND ELIMINATION PROGRAM 17 Outfall ID: OF.H05.00384  Discharge Location: N. 11th Ave. and W. Koch St.  Receiving Waterway: Mandeville Creek  Size and Material: 12” RCP o 2019 Inspection  Date: January 31, 2019  Flow: No  Outfall Characterization: Unlikely (no indicators) Outfall ID: OF.F04.00441  Discharge Location: N. Rouse Ave. and E. Villard St.  Receiving Waterway: Bozeman Creek  Size and Material: 42” CMP o 2019 Inspection  Date: August 8, 2019  Flow: No  Outfall Characterization: Unlikely (no indicators) Outfall ID: OF.G04.00398  Discharge Location: N. 9th Ave. and W. Villard St.  Receiving Waterway: Tributary SWWW_00053  Size and Material: 24” RCP o 2019 Inspection  Date: January 19, 2019  Flow: No  Outfall Characterization: Unlikely (no indicators) Outfall ID: OF.F03.00446  Discharge Location: N. Rouse Ave. and E. Peach St.  Receiving Waterway: Bozeman Creek  Size and Material: 27” RCP o 2019 Inspection  Date: January 31, 2019  Flow: No  Outfall Characterization: Unlikely (no indicators) Outfall ID: OF.G03.00399  Discharge Location: N. 4th Ave. and W. Peach St.  Receiving Waterway: Tributary SWWW_00034  Size and Material: 30” RCP o 2019 Inspection  Date: January 31, 2019  Flow: No SECTION 4.0 ‐ ILLICIT DISCHARGE DETECTION AND ELIMINATION PROGRAM 18  Outfall Characterization: Potential (presence of two or more indicators) Outfall ID: OF.E03.00450  Discharge Location: N. Rouse Ave. and E. Tamarack St.  Receiving Waterway: Bozeman Creek  Size and Material: 36” RCP o 2019 Inspection  Date: January 31, 2019  Flow: No  Outfall Characterization: Unlikely (no indicators) Outfall ID: OF.E03.00454  Discharge Location: N. Rouse Ave. and E. Tamarack St.  Receiving Waterway: Bozeman Creek  Size and Material: 30” RCP o 2019 Inspection  Date: January 31, 2019  Flow: No  Outfall Characterization: Unlikely (no indicators) The MS4 completed the following per the Center for Watershed Protection protocol: 2017 ORI Inspection Totals  Priority Outfalls: 594  Priority Outfalls Inspected: 0 (0%)  High‐Priority Outfalls: n/a  High‐Priority Outfalls Inspected: n/a 2018 ORI Inspection Totals  Priority Outfalls: 622  Priority Outfalls Inspected: 0 (0%)  High‐Priority Outfalls: 11  High‐Priority Outfalls Inspected: 0 (0%) 2019 ORI Inspection Totals  Priority Outfalls: 634  Priority Outfalls Inspected: 108 (17.0%)  Flow: 99 No, 1 Trickle, 6 Moderate, 2 Unknown  Pollution Characterization: 104 Unlikely, 1 Potential, 1 Suspect, 2 Unknown SECTION 4.0 ‐ ILLICIT DISCHARGE DETECTION AND ELIMINATION PROGRAM 19 Graphic 4.6.2: High‐priority watersheds and outfalls SECTION 4.0 ‐ ILLICIT DISCHARGE DETECTION AND ELIMINATION PROGRAM 20 4.7 Storm Sewer Infrastructure Totals The MS4 collects and updates storm sewer data annually using GPS and GIS technology. The public can access an interactive map by visiting: https://gisweb.bozeman.net/Html5Viewer/?viewer=infrastructure 2017 Infrastructure Totals (includes public, private, MDT, and MSU assets)  Manholes: 1,484  Inlets: 3,457  Gravity Mains: 89.2 miles  Stormwater Basins: 435  Outfalls: 594  Culverts and Bridges (Gravity mains ‘Others’ ownership): 425  Public Mechanical Separation Treatment Units: 7  Public Infiltration Facilities: 3 2018 Infrastructure Totals:  Manholes: 1,574 o City of Bozeman: 999 o Montana State University: 155 o Private: 352 o Montana Dept. of Transportation: 68  Inlets: 3,579 o City of Bozeman: 2,524 o Montana State University: 207 o Private: 661 o Montana Dept. of Transportation: 187  Gravity Mains, Culverts and Bridges: 109.1 miles o City of Bozeman: 66.9 miles o Montana State University: 8.3 miles o Private/Other: 30.4 miles o Montana Dept. of Transportation: 3.5 miles  Stormwater Basins: 497 (57.6 acres)  Outfalls: 622  Public Mechanical Separation Treatment Units: 12 o City of Bozeman: 9 o Montana State University: 1 o MDT: 2  Public Infiltration Facilities: 3 o City of Bozeman: 2 o Montana State University: 1 o MDT: 0 2019 Infrastructure Totals:  Manholes: 1,782 SECTION 4.0 ‐ ILLICIT DISCHARGE DETECTION AND ELIMINATION PROGRAM 21 o City of Bozeman: 1,162 o Montana State University: 155 o Private: 398 o Montana Dept. of Transportation: 67  Inlets: 3,928 o City of Bozeman: 2,800 o Montana State University: 207 o Private: 734 o Montana Dept. of Transportation: 187  Gravity Mains, Culverts, and Bridges: 115.7 miles o City of Bozeman: 72.6 miles o Montana State University: 8.6 miles o Private/Other: 30.7 miles o Montana Dept. of Transportation: 3.8 miles  Stormwater Facilities: 591 (61.6 acres)  Outfalls: 634  Public Mechanical Separation Treatment Units: 16 o City of Bozeman: 12 o Montana State University: 2 o Montana Dept. of Transportation: 2  Public Infiltration Facilities: 4 o City of Bozeman: 3 o Montana State University: 1 o Montana Dept. of Transportation: 0 1,484 3,457 89 439 594 7 3 1,574 3,579 109 497 620 12 3 1,782 3,928 116 591 634 16 4 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 Manholes Inlets Pipes (miles) Facilities Outfalls Treat. Units Inf. Facilties Annual Totals Infrastructure Types Annual Totals vs. Infrastructure Types 2017 2018 2019 Graphic 4.7.1: Storm sewer infrastructure totals SECTION 4.0 ‐ ILLICIT DISCHARGE DETECTION AND ELIMINATION PROGRAM 22 Blank Page Section 5.0 Construction Site Management Program Graphic 5.0.2: Inlet sump clogged with construction debris Graphic 5.0.1: Compliant single‐family residential property SECTION 5.0 ‐ CONSTRUCTION SITE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2 Blank Page SECTION 5.0 ‐ CONSTRUCTION SITE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 3 5.1 Introduction The MS4 strives to improve waterway health, protect public safety, and comply with its MS4 Permit through the regulation of construction sites by: Providing educational opportunities Administering a permitting program Conduct inspections and enforce municipal and state standards SWMP Section 5.0 details the following components necessary to administer the MS4’s Construction Site Management Program, including:  Regulatory Framework  Oversight Protocol  Performance Tracking  Future Opportunities  Applicable Documents 5.2 Regulatory Framework The MS4 requires the construction industry to comply with the following regulations: Article 4 Ch. 40 of the Bozeman Municipal Code Montana Clean Water Act’s Montana Pollution Discharge Elimination System U.S. Clean Water Act National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 5.3 Oversight Protocol The MS4 implements the following protocol to manage construction activities within its jurisdiction: Hold Training (optional): Classes held regularly for construction industry professionals, including Introduction to Stormwater Management, Construction Site BMP Field Academy, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Administrator, SWPPP Administrator Re‐Certification, SWPPP Preparer, Construction Dewatering, and Compliance Evaluation Inspector. See SWMP Sec. 3.2. Conduct Pre‐Submittal Meeting (optional): Initial meeting where parties discuss minimum expectations, project details, and specific concerns. Complete Permit Review: Adequacy reviews for all permits, tracking steps using Cityworks permit software. Stage repeats until the applicant submits an adequate permit. Permits include:  MDEQ Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)  Construction Stormwater Permit: Sites Less than One (1) Acre  Construction Stormwater Permit: Single‐Family Residential Projects Inspect Site: Inspections based on the following prioritization:  Priority Site: Goal is to inspect one per week or 20% of total per year. o Complaint‐driven (internal or external); o Field observation; or o Compliance history  High‐Priority Site: Goal is to inspect per frequency outlined in the MS4 Permit. o Greater than One (1) Acre; and o Direct Discharge to Bozeman Creek SECTION 5.0 ‐ CONSTRUCTION SITE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 4 o Rain Gage: Bozeman International Airport NOAA Station Compile and send Construction Stormwater Site Inspection Form: Document includes general information, weather, prohibited discharges, and findings related to the implementation and maintenance of Best Management Practices (BMPs) and applicable permits. Two outcomes:  Proceed to next step if violations identified.  Issue a Acknowledgement of Corrective Actions Issue Notice of Violations, Cease and Desist & Abatement Order, Notice to File Abatement Lien: Documents Bozeman Municipal Code and approved permit violations, required corrective actions, schedule to remedy, and potential penalties if not resolved. Follow Up Inspection: Completed the day of the compliance timeline expiration to confirm corrective action implementation. Complete a Construction Stormwater Site Inspection Form documenting remaining violations. Two outcomes:  Close inspection and send Acknowledgement of Corrective Actions if all violations resolved  Provide verbal warning of what violations have not been resolved and notify onsite personnel, project owner, and permittee that the Building Division will issue a Stop Work Order in a determined amount of time (1‐3 days). Issue Building Division Stop Work Order: Issued if the contractor does not implement corrective actions within required timeframes, ceasing all work related to the Project’s Building Permit and planned inspections until the violator brings the site into compliance. Generate a Building Division Stop Work Order that details the violations not resolved in the appropriate timeline. The MS4 obtains the following before the Building Division issues a Stop Work Order:  Legal review and approval  Community Development review and approval  Two inspectors and Police Department support upon issuance, if necessary Stop Work Order Follow Up Inspection: Completed upon request by the contractor. Complete a Construction Stormwater Site Inspection Form documenting remaining violations. Outcomes:  Close inspection and inform Building Division to lift the Stop Work Order if contractor resolves all violations.  Provide verbal warning of what violations have not been resolved and notify onsite personnel, project owner, and permittee that a Stop Work Order will continue. Notice of Penalty: Document describing assessed penalties related to Civil Action and Criminal Charges, if pursued, including:  Civil Action: Monetary relief sought from the violator for the cost of the investigation, inspection, remediation, and bringing legal action if determined to be necessary.  Criminal Charges: Pursued when a contractor completes repeat or knowing violations, or when a Contractor ignores the Building Division’s Stop Work Order. Final Occupancy and Infrastructure Approval: Review of site conditions before completing final sign‐off of the project. Email the owner with the City’s expectations before scheduling a site visit. Inspect and complete a site inspection form documenting the site conditions. Coordinate with the owner, as necessary, to flag any issues. Outcomes include:  Sign‐off on request.  Refuse approval and state justification, re‐inspect when the owner resolves the issues. SECTION 5.0 ‐ CONSTRUCTION SITE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 5 The MS4 tracks the following annual totals: 2017 Totals:  Construction Projects: 445 o Single‐Family Residential: 350 o Less than One (1) Acre: 57 o Greater than One (1) Acre: 38  Plan Reviews: 445 o Single‐Family Residential: 350 o Less than One (1) Acre: 57 o Greater than One (1) Acre: 38  Site Inspections: 14 (3.1%) o Single‐Family Residential: 8 o Less than One (1) Acre: 0 o Greater than One (1) Acre: 11  Training Classes: 11 o Attendees: 268 2018 Totals:  Construction Projects: 355 o Single‐Family Residential: 276 o Less than One (1) Acre: 50 o Greater than One (1) Acre: 29  Plan Reviews: 355 o Single‐Family Residential: 276 o Less than One (1) Acre: 50 o Greater than One (1) Acre: 29  Site Inspections: 72 o Single‐Family Residential: 32 o Less than One (1) Acre: 17 o Greater than One (1) Acre: 23  High‐Priority Sites: 2 o East Tamarack Reconstruction Project (Knife River) o South Tracy Reconstruction Project (Omdahl Construction)  Requests for Occupancy: 28 o Less than One (1) Acre: 20 o Greater than One (1) Acre: 8  Training Classes: 4 o Attendees: 84 SECTION 5.0 ‐ CONSTRUCTION SITE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 6 2019 Totals:  Construction Projects: 372 o Single‐Family Residential: 274 o Less than One (1) Acre: 64 o Greater than One (1) Acre: 34  Plan Reviews: 372 o Single‐Family Residential: 274 o Less than One (1) Acre: 64 o Greater than One (1) Acre: 34  Site Inspections: 59 o Single‐Family Residential: 22 o Less than One (1) Acre: 16 o Greater than One (1) Acre: 15  High‐Priority Sites: 2 o Bozeman Public Safety Facility o 16 Wilson Residential Development  Requests for Occupancy: o Less than One (1) Acre: 24 o Greater than One (1) Acre: 28  Training Classes: 4 (Martel, SIME, BMP 101, and BMP 201) o Attendees: 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Sites Inspected Stormwater Permits Calendar Year Construction Site Management Workload SFR Under One Acre Over One Acre Inspections (Secondary) Graphic 5.3.1: Construction site audit score SECTION 5.0 ‐ CONSTRUCTION SITE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 7 5.4 Performance Tracking The MS4 tracks construction site compliance inspections completed across all permit types annually to gauge its workload. The MS4’s goal is to inspect 20% of construction sites per year, which does not include return site visits or final occupancy inspections. 2017: 4.2% (19 inspections/450 projects)  City: 2.4% (14 inspections/445 projects)  MSU: 100% (5 inspections/5 projects) 2018: 21.6% (78 inspections/361 projects)  City: 20.3% (72 inspections/355 projects)  MSU: 100.0% (6 inspections/6 projects) 2019: 15.9% (59 inspections/372 projects)  City: 14.2% (53 inspections/366 projects)  MSU: 100.0% (6 inspections/6 projects) The MS4 completes a Construction Site Compliance Audit in the fall, evaluating 50 random construction sites to determine their compliance with local, state, and federal stormwater regulations. The MS4 evaluates each construction site using the following criteria: Implementation: BMPs present or absent Adequacy: Appropriate type and scale of BMPs for site conditions Installation: Adequate BMP installation per industry standard specifications Maintenance: Sufficient maintenance so that BMPs are in good working order After evaluation, the MS4 grades each construction site using one of the following categories: 0‐Points: Not compliant with permit, high risk to infrastructure, public, and environment 1‐Point: Partially compliant with permit, moderate risk to infrastructure, public, and environment 2‐Points: Compliant with permit, low risk to infrastructure, public, and environment The MS4 compiles the collected data and updates the following: 2018 Audit Results:  Date(s): October 24 ‐ 26  Earned Points/Total Points: 33/100  Earned Score: 33%  Trend: None  Discussion: o Increased BMP use but many were not adequately maintained o Noncompliance was mostly contained within private sites o Increased inspection frequency is effective at increasing compliance rates 2019 Audit Results:  Date(s): October 14 ‐ 16  Earned Points/Total Points: 28/100  Earned Score: 28%  Trend: Decreasing SECTION 5.0 ‐ CONSTRUCTION SITE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 8  Discussion: o Compliance degrades back to pre‐inspection levels after Acknowledgement of Corrective Actions o Permit applicant does not always communicate the requirements to onsite workers o 64% of commercial and infrastructure sites yielded a score with moderate or low risk o 44% of residential sites yielded a score with moderate or low risk o Only three sites fully complied with regulations  Recommendations: o Increase inspection frequency to ensure compliance throughout project life o Inspect sites proportional to development ratios (i.e. residential vs. commercial vs. infrastructure) o Apply more emphasis on installation, maintenance, and records during inspections 5.5 Future Opportunities The MS4’s Construction Site Management Program requires the following to meet established goals: Inspection Optimization Software: Develop a web‐based inspection platform that will expedite documentation and communication with contractors. 5.6 Documents The MS4 utilizes the following documents, which are available upon request: Universal Documents:  Bozeman Municipal Code: Article 4 Ch. 40  City of Bozeman Best Management Practice (BMP) Manual for Construction Sites Single‐Family Residential Construction:  Construction Stormwater Permit: Single‐Family Residential Projects  Construction Stormwater Permit Review Checklist: Single Family Residential Projects 33% 28% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2018 2019 2020 2021 Earned Score Calendar Year Construction Site Complaince Audit Graphic 5.4.1: Construction site audit score SECTION 5.0 ‐ CONSTRUCTION SITE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 9  Construction Stormwater Permit Confirmation  Construction Stormwater Site Inspection Form: Sites Less than One (1) Acre Multi‐Family and Commercial Projects Less than One (1) Acre:  Construction Stormwater Permit: Sites Less than One (1) Acre  Construction Stormwater Permit Review Checklist: Sites Less than One (1) Acre  Construction Stormwater Permit Confirmation  Construction Stormwater Site Inspection Form: Sites Less than One (1) Acre  Request for Final Occupancy (RFO) Form Projects Greater than One Acre:  MDEQ Construction General Permit  MDEQ Construction General Permit Notice of Intent (NOI)  MDEQ Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)  MDEQ Construction Stormwater Permit Notice of Termination  MDEQ Construction Stormwater Permit Transfer Notification  Construction Stormwater Permit Review Checklist: Sites Greater than One (1) Acre  Construction Stormwater Site Inspection Form: Sites Greater than One (1) Acre  Request for Final Occupancy (RFO) Form SECTION 5.0 ‐ CONSTRUCTION SITE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 10 Blank Page Section 6.0 Post‐Construction Program Graphic 6.0.2: Dredged stormwater basin Graphic 6.0.1: Overgrown stormwater basin SECTION 6.0 ‐ POST‐CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM 2 Blank Page SECTION 6.0 ‐ POST‐CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM 3 6.1 Introduction The MS4 strives to improve waterway health, protect public safety, and comply with its MS4 Permit through the regulation and oversight of existing and new stormwater facilities by: Inspecting, educating, and providing maintenance solutions Enforcing development regulations SWMP Section 6.0 details the following components necessary to administer the MS4’s Post‐Construction Management Program, including:  Regulatory Framework  Oversight Protocol  Performance Tracking  Future Opportunities  Applicable Documents 6.2 Regulatory Framework The MS4’s requires new and redevelopment projects to infiltrate, evapotranspire, and/or capture for reuse the first ½ inch of rainfall and meet volume control requirements, maintaining pre‐development conditions post project completion. Project owners use an array of stormwater facilities to meet MS4 standards, including above and below ground stormwater facilities, permeable pavers, and bioretention systems. The documents regulating development include: City of Bozeman Design Standards and Specification Policy City of Bozeman Modifications to Montana Public Works Standard Specifications, 6th Edition Montana Public Works Standard Specifications, 6th Edition Montana Post‐Construction Storm Water BMP Design Guidance Manual Once constructed, the MS4 requires project owners or Home Owner Associations (HOAs) to maintain facilities in perpetuity per their Maintenance Plans submitted at the time of project approval. 6.3 Oversight Protocol The MS4 oversees maintenance efforts by implementing the following protocol: Application Review: Engineering staff review submitted plan sets, design reports, maintenance plans, and other applicable information to ensure the project complies with the MS4’s water quantity and quality requirements using standard processes and documents. Occupancy and Infrastructure Approvals: Engineering staff requires that a licensed professional certifies that the stormwater facility is installed per the approved plans. Inspection: The MS4 completes investigations at the following frequencies:  Inspect 20% of stormwater facilities annually (once every five years), ordering based on: o Complaints or by request o Field observations o Compliance history o Property ownership and access  Inspect all high priority stormwater facilities annually. High priority is based on: o Facilities that drain into an impaired waterbody; and SECTION 6.0 ‐ POST‐CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM 4 o Facilities that contain an area larger than 1,076 square feet Inspection Report: The MS4, or their consulting representative, documents the condition of stormwater facilities, identifies deficiencies, and provides the following information:  Drainage System Map  Inspection Findings  Maintenance Recommendations Training (optional): Meetings, site tours, and presentations held for owners, HOAs, and property managers after the MS4 has concluded its inspection and provided an inspection report. The following details the MS4’s high‐priority stormwater facilities: 6.4 Performance Tracking The MS4 tracks stormwater facility inspections annually to gauge its workload, with a goal of reviewing 20% per year, which does not include return visits or final occupancy inspections. Totals include: 2017: 8.7% (38 inspected/439 total)  City: 2.0% (8 inspected/409 total)  MSU: 100% (30 inspected/30 total) 2018: 9.1% (45 inspected/497 total)  City: 3.2% (15 inspected/467 total)  MSU: 100.0% (30 inspected/30 total) 2019: 12.2% (72 inspected/591 total)  City: 7.1% (40 inspected/559 total)  MSU: 100.0% (32 inspected/32 total) Graphic 6.3.1: High‐priority stormwater facilities 1 DP.H06.00026 Montana State University 3,185 GIS Data Mandeville Creek Complete Low Report Sent to Owner 2 DP.H06.00400 Montana State University 7,591 GIS Data Mandeville Creek Complete Low Report Sent to Owner 3 DP.H06.00024 Montana State University 11,829 GIS Data Mandeville Creek Complete Low Report Sent to Owner 4 DP.H06.00023 Montana State University 4,667 GIS Data Mandeville Creek Complete Low Report Sent to Owner 5 DP.H06.00028 Montana State University 1,294 GIS Data Mandeville Creek Complete Low Report Sent to Owner 6 DP.H06.00025 Montana State University 7,231 GIS Data Mandeville Creek Complete n/a Under Construction 7 DP.I51.00073 City of Bozeman ‐ WRF (#1) 10,744 GIS Data East Gallatin River Complete Low Report Filed with Owner 8 DP.I51.00075 City of Bozeman ‐ WRF (#2) 1,355 GIS Data East Gallatin River Complete Low Report Filed with Owner 9 DP.I51.00074 City of Bozeman ‐ WRF (#3) 10,314 GIS Data East Gallatin River Complete Low Report Filed with Owner 10 DP.E02.00006 City of Bozeman Vehicle Maint. 5,577 GIS Data East Gallatin River Complete Medium Work Detailed in FSWPPP 11 DP.H04.00006 Bozeman High School ‐ Private 7,188 GIS Data Mandeville Creek Complete Low Report Sent to Owner 12 DP.E01.00007 Bridger Creek Subdivision ‐ HOA 22,765 GIS Data East Gallatin River Complete Severe Report Sent to Owner 13 DP.G02.00017 Private 2,245 GIS Data Mandeville Creek Incomplete ‐ ‐ 14 DP.G02.00048 Private 3,464 GIS Data Mandeville Creek Incomplete ‐ ‐ 15 DP.H02.00001 Private 5,450 GIS Data Mandeville Creek Incomplete ‐ ‐ 16 DP.F01.00026 Private 7,354 GIS Data East Gallatin River Incomplete ‐ ‐ 17 DP.H07.00022 Private 14,775 GIS Data Mandeville Creek Incomplete ‐ ‐ 18 DP.H07.00023 Private 26,987 GIS Data Mandeville Creek Incomplete ‐ ‐ 19 DP.B05.00001 Private 3,967 GIS Data Rocky Creek Incomplete ‐ ‐ # Facility ID Owner Area (ft2) LocationWaterbody Receiving 2019 Criticality Rating Action SECTION 6.0 ‐ POST‐CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM 5 Graphic 6.4.1: Stormwater facility map SECTION 6.0 ‐ POST‐CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM 6 The MS4 completes a Stormwater Facility Compliance Audit annually, evaluating 50 random stormwater facilities to determine their condition based on the following criteria: Vegetation Management: Evidence of reoccurring cattail, grass, and woody shrub removal Clogged Entry or Exit Points: Pipe openings and outlet structures clear of accumulated debris Sediment Deposition: Facility storage capacities minimally impacted by accumulated debris Ability to Drain: No stagnant water present beyond the 48‐hour infiltration period After evaluation, the MS4 grades each stormwater facility using one of the following categories: 0‐Points: Facility is not maintained, high risk to infrastructure, public, and environment 1‐Point: Facility is partially maintained, moderate risk to infrastructure, public, and environment 2‐Points: Facility is maintained, low risk to the infrastructure, public, and environment The MS4 compiles the collected data and updates the following: 2018 Audit Results:  Date(s): October 17 and 26  Earned Points/Total Points: 25/100  Earned Score: 25%  Trend: None  Discussion: o Wal‐Mart, Safeway, and other private entities maintain their facilities more frequently, yielding an average score six times greater than HOAs. o Facilities integrated into landscapes are in better condition than those hidden. o The overwhelming majority of HOAs are ignorant of their responsibilities and do not complete maintenance regardless of previous engagement by the City. o Current design standards allow for the construction of inadequate systems. 2019 Audit Results:  Date(s): November 14 and 15  Earned Points/Total Points: 32/100  Earned Score: 32%  Trend: Increasing  Discussion: o Facilities integrated into landscapes are in better condition than those hidden. o The overwhelming majority of HOAs are ignorant of their responsibilities and do not complete maintenance. o Current design standards allow for the construction of inadequate systems. o Legal private property access is an issue that requires consideration and resolution o Average Scores: Private = 1.0 and HOA = .3 SECTION 6.0 ‐ POST‐CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM 7 6.5 Future Opportunities The MS4’s Post‐Construction Program requires the following to meet established goals: New Drainage Design Standards: In 2008, the MS4 completed a Facility Plan, which evaluated requirements, identified shortfalls, and provided recommendations for improvement. The MS4 is working to implement the changes proposed in 2008, bringing standards in line with the Facility Plan’s recommendations. Most notable changes include:  Increasing design storm from 10‐year to 25, 50, or 100‐year  Requiring detention downtown for redevelopment projects that do not exceed one acre  Aligning language to work jointly with the content of the Montana Post‐Construction Stormwater BMP Guidance Manual  Redeveloping rainfall curves to represent modern rainfall intensity and duration  Requiring in‐depth geotechnical, groundwater, and infiltration testing  Categorizing development types and specific standards as applicable  Improving maintenance plan development and documentation submittals Enforcement of Stormwater Facility Maintenace and Repair: The MS4 needs an improved policy that results in the consistent operation and maintenance of private stormwater facilities. Specific items include:  Development of an enforcement process, including the ability to establish timelines, issue penalties, and complete work at the owner’s expense.  Legal property access  Solution for defunct HOAs that lack maintenance funding 6.6 Documents The MS4 utilizes the following materials, which are available upon request: Stormwater Facility Maintenance:  Maintenance Guide  Inspection Form 25% 32% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2018 2019 2020 2021 Earned Score Calendar Year Stormwater Facility Audit Score Graph 6.4.2: Stormwater facility audit scores SECTION 6.0 ‐ POST‐CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM 8 Stormwater Facility Design and Construction:  City of Bozeman Design Standards and Specification Policy  City of Bozeman Modifications to Montana Public Works Standard Specifications, 6th Edition  Montana Public Works Standard Specifications, 6th Edition  Montana Post‐Construction Storm Water BMP Design Guidance Manual  Development Review Documents (Plan Review Checklist): Planning Division Staff Report, Engineering Review Letter, and DRC Memo Section 7.0 Good Housekeeping Program Graphic 7.0.2: Sediment management facility Graphic 7.0.1: Street sweeping debris pile SECTION 7.0 ‐ GOOD HOUSEKEEPING PROGRAM 2 Blank Page SECTION 7.0 ‐ GOOD HOUSEKEEPING PROGRAM 3 7.1 Introduction The MS4 strives to improve waterway health, protect public safety, and comply with its MS4 Permit through the responsible management of its storm sewer system, facilities, and daily work activities by: Inspecting, maintaining, and repairing public assets Mitigating stormwater pollutants through the development and implementation of Facility and Activity Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans Maintaining an environmentally conscious workforce through training SWMP Section 7.0 details the following components necessary to administer the MS4’s Good Housekeeping Program, including: Infrastructure Operation Facility Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Activity Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Training 7.2 Infrastructure Operation The MS4 inspects, maintains, and repairs its storm sewer system on an annual basis. Four parties complete activities, including the City of Bozeman (City), Montana State University (University), Montana Department of Transportation (MDT), and private owners. SWMP Section 4.0 includes quantity and asset type information broken down for each party. The University maintains infrastructure within its boundary. The City maintains City and MDT infrastructure, completing work on a five‐year cycle. To guide the work, the City uses Maintenance Boundaries (MB) that each contains 20% of the storm sewer system per the following schedule: MB 1: 2019, MB 2: 2020, MB 3: 2021, MB 4: 2022, and MB 5: 2023. Progress is shown in Graphic 7.2.1. SECTION 7.0 ‐ GOOD HOUSEKEEPING PROGRAM 4 Graphic 7.2.1: Storm Sewer Maintenance Program SECTION 7.0 ‐ GOOD HOUSEKEEPING PROGRAM 5 Multiple Divisions and Departments are responsible for conducting infrastructure operations, including: Stormwater Division Operations  Pipe inspection o Objective: 20% of the system per year o Active Season(s): Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall o Operational Area: Citywide  Pipe, inlet, and manhole cleaning o Objective: 20% of the system per year o Active Season(s): Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall o Operational Area: Citywide  Treatment unit maintenance o Objective: Clean semi‐annually o Active Season(s): Spring and Fall o Operational Area: Individual unit locations  Infiltration facility maintenance o Objective: Clean semi‐annually o Active Season(s): Spring and Fall o Operational Area: As required  Pipe, inlet, manhole repair o Objective: Prioritize based on inspection o Active Season(s): Spring, Summer, and Fall o Operational Area: Citywide Streets Department Operations  Spring debris pickup o Objective: Annually o Active Season(s): Spring o Operational Area: Citywide  Fall leaf pickup o Objective: Annually o Active Season(s): Fall o Operational Area: Citywide  Street sweeping o Objective: Annually o Active Season(s): Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall o Operational Area: Citywide Strategic Services Division  New or improved private and public infrastructure mapping and attribution o Objective: Annually SECTION 7.0 ‐ GOOD HOUSEKEEPING PROGRAM 6 o Active Season(s): Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall o Operational Area: Citywide  Ownership, life‐cycle, and maintainability GIS attribution coordination o Objective: Annually o Active Season(s): Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall o Operational Area: Citywide  Development and redevelopment impervious area digitization for rate model o Objective: Annually o Active Season(s): Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall o Operational Area: Citywide  Cityworks software management, including event layers, reports, and databases o Objective: Annually o Active Season(s): Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall o Operational Area: Citywide  Division performance optimization and database administration o Objective: Annually o Active Season(s): Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall o Operational Area: Citywide Operation Facilities  Sediment Disposal Facility o Goal: Test debris, clean bays, and haul waste to landfill annually o Operating Seasons: Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall  East Gallatin Street Sweepings Collection Area o Goal: Test debris and haul waste to landfill annually o Operating Seasons: Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall The MS4 uses the following workload metrics to track its performance: Inlets and Manholes Cleaned: Stormwater inlets and manholes serve two purposes: (1) mitigate flood risk by collecting runoff from streets, parking lots, alleyways, and other hard surfaces, and (2) treat stormwater by capturing sediment, trash, and other pollutants in their sumps.  Performance Measure: Clean 20% of public inlets and manholes annually  Calculation Type: Total assets (includes duplicate effort)  Data Source: Stormwater Operations Dashboard o 2017: 25.5% (1,051 maintained/4,117 total)  City: 20.8% (776 maintained/3,725 total)  MSU: 70.2% (275 maintained/392 total) o 2018: 24.1% (998 maintained/4,140 total)  City: 19.6% (742 maintained/3,778 total)  MSU: 70.7% (256 maintained/362 total) SECTION 7.0 ‐ GOOD HOUSEKEEPING PROGRAM 7 o 2019: 24.8% (1,072 maintained/4,323 total)  City: 21.0% (809 maintained/3,962 total)  MSU: 72.9% (263 maintained/361 total) Pipes Cleaned: Stormwater pipes serve two purposes: (1) convey stormwater collected by inlets to their point of discharge, and (2) capture sediment, trash, and other pollutants that fall out of suspension, requiring reoccurring maintenance to remain functional.  Performance Measure: Clean 20% of pipes annually  Calculation Type: Total assets (mains and laterals, includes duplicate effort)  Data Source: Stormwater Operations Dashboard o 2017: 18.0% (17.0 maintained miles/94.3 total miles)  City: 21.6% (16.7 maintained miles/77.4 total miles)  MSU: 1.8% (.3 maintained miles/16.9 total miles) o 2018: 21.3% (16.8 maintained miles/78.7 total miles)  City: 23.7% (16.7 maintained miles/70.4 total miles)  MSU: 1.2% (.1 maintained miles/8.3 total miles) o 2019: 16.9% (13.7 maintained miles/80.9 total miles)  City: 18.7% (13.6 maintained miles/72.6 total miles)  MSU: 1.2% (.1 maintained miles/8.3 total miles) Infrastructure Repairs: Infrastructure repairs or “spot repairs” serve two purposes: (1) fix known pipe failures and restrictions to ensure the adequate flow of stormwater, and (2) repair open sections of pipe where scouring of subgrade soils occur, mitigating the chance of a road failure and sediment load contribution.  Performance Measure: Pipe integrity indicator  Calculation Type: Total repairs  Data Source: Stormwater Operations Dashboard o 2017: 23 Repairs  City: 18 Repairs  MSU: 5 Repairs o 2018: 18 Repairs  City: 16 Repairs  MSU: 2 Repairs o 2019: 10 Repairs  City: 10 Repairs  MSU: 0 Repairs Stormwater Pipes Inspected: Pipe inspections serve two purposes: (1) allows staff to identify and prioritize structural and maintenance needs for underground infrastructure and (2) ensure no illicit discharges, cross‐connections, or illegal pipe connections exist.  Performance Measure: Inspect 20% of stormwater mains annually  Calculation Type: Total assets (mains and laterals, includes duplicate effort) SECTION 7.0 ‐ GOOD HOUSEKEEPING PROGRAM 8  Data Source: Infrastructure Maintenance Performance Measure o 2017: 10.4% (9.8 inspected miles/94.3 total miles)  City: 12.0% (9.3 inspected miles/77.4 total miles)  MSU: 3.0% (0.5 inspected miles/16.9 total miles) o 2018: 19.8% (15.6 inspected miles/78.7 total miles)  City: 21.6% (15.2 inspected miles/70.4 total miles)  MSU: 4.8% (0.4 inspected miles/8.3 total miles) o 2019: 15.2% (11.0 inspected miles/80.9 total miles)  City: 15.2% (11.0 inspected miles/72.6 total miles)  MSU: 0.2% (0.02 inspected miles/8.3 total miles) 7.3 Facility Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program The purpose of the MS4’s Facility Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (FSWPPP) is to mitigate stormwater pollutants generated on public facilities. To complete, the MS4 works to ensure all public facilities meet or exceed the following Facility Minimum Standards (FMS): Connect wash bays and interior floor drains to the sanitary sewer with pretreatment Store chemicals under cover and within secondary containment Prevent tracking at entries, exits, and within parking areas Stock spill kits with instructions, disposable bags, PPE, and absorbent products Perform preventative maintenance on vehicles and equipment Wash vehicles and equipment in designated locations Contain fuel tanks with secondary containment Implement BMPs for pollutants identified to exceed applicable median concentrations detailed in SWMP Section 8.2 Maintain stormwater facilities per the following frequencies:  Stormwater basins, annual vegetation and debris clearing, 10‐15 year dredging  Mechanical separators, semi‐annual vacuuming  Infiltration facilities, semi‐annual flushing  Parking and drive surfaces, as required  Inlets, manholes, and pipes, five‐year flushing, vacuuming, and inspection cycle Stabilize disturbed areas within 14‐days Update and store FSWPPP onsite to show current conditions The MS4 uses the following FSWPPP inspection protocol: Sample a minimum of two discharges and analyze the pollutants detailed in SWMP Section 8.3 Inspect site and establish baseline compliance with FMSs Review existing documents, including existing Standard Operating Guides (SOGs), safety data sheets, spill documentation, and stormwater facility record drawings Generate inspection report that documents the sampling results, including the comparison to median concentrations detailed in SWMP Section 8.2, site map, and inspection notes Meet with applicable leadership to review the inspection report Develop FSWPPP that includes:  Overview  Stormwater Team  Site Description  Impaired Waterbodies  Sampling  Pollution Identification  Site Assessment  Spill Response Plan  Training  Inspections  Infrastructure Improvements  Record Keeping and Reporting  Site Map  Corrective Action Tracking Sheet  Spill Tracking Sheet Implement FSWPPP Re‐inspect and update FSWPPP annually after implementation. The MS4 will subject the following facilities to the FSWPPP inspection protocol: Operations Staging and Storage Areas  1.1: University Shops Facility o Use: Staging, storage, and office property supporting numerous MSU divisions o Pollutants of Concern: See FSWPPP o Responsible Department: MSU Facilities Services o Responsible Position: MSU Director of Facilities Services o Control Measures: Storm conveyance infrastructure o Workflow:  Sample: Complete (2019)  Inspect: Complete (2019)  Generate Inspection Report: Complete (2019)  Meet with Facility Leadership: Complete (2019)  Develop and Implement FSWPPP: Pending (2020)  Train: Pending (2020)  Follow‐Up Inspection: Pending 2020  1.2: City Shops Complex o Use: Staging, storage, and office property supporting City Public Works divisions o Pollutants of Concern: See FSWPPP o Responsible Department: Public Works o Responsible Position: Public Works Director o Control Measures: Hydrodynamic separator, wash bay, underground infiltration gallery, double‐walled fuel tank o Workflow:  Sample: Complete (2019)  Inspect: Complete (2019)  Generate Inspection Report: Complete (2019)  Meet with Facility Leadership: Complete (2019)  Develop and implement FSWPPP: Complete (2019)  Train: Pending (2020)  Follow‐Up Inspection: Pending (2020)  1.3: Vehicle Maintenance Facility SECTION 7.0 ‐ GOOD HOUSEKEEPING PROGRAM 10 o Use: Facility that supports the storage and maintenance of equipment for all municipal operations o Pollutants of Concern: See FSWPPP o Responsible Department: Public Works o Responsible Position: Public Works Director o Control Measures: Detention basin, sand‐oil separator o Workflow:  Sample: Complete (2019)  Inspect: Complete (2019)  Generate Inspection Report: Complete (2019)  Meet with Facility Leadership: Complete (2019)  Develop and implement FSWPPP: Complete (2019)  Train: Pending (2020)  Follow‐Up Inspection: Pending (2020)  1.4: Laurel Glen Operations Facility o Use: Facility that supports the storage and maintenance of equipment for Water and Sewer municipal operations o Pollutants of Concern: TBD o Responsible Department: Public Works o Responsible Position: Public Works Director o Control Measures: TBD o Workflow:  Sample: Pending (2020)  Inspect: Pending (2020)  Generate Inspection Report: Pending (2020)  Meet with Facility Leadership: Pending (2020)  Develop and implement FSWPPP: Pending (2020)  Train: Pending (2020)  Follow‐Up Inspection: 2021 Material Storage Yards  2.1: East Gallatin Storage Area o Use: Storage area for sediment, millings, street sweepings, and other materials used during the daily operation of numerous MS4 divisions o Pollutants of Concern: TBD o Responsible Department: Public Works and Parks o Responsible Position: Public Works and Parks Directors o Control Measures: TBD o Workflow:  Sample: Pending (2020)  Inspect: Pending (2020)  Generate Inspection Report: Pending (2020)  Meet with Facility Leadership: Pending (2020)  Develop and implement FSWPPP: Pending (2020)  Train: Pending (2020) SECTION 7.0 ‐ GOOD HOUSEKEEPING PROGRAM 11  Confirm: 2021  2.2: Solid Waste Operations and Closed Landfill o Use: Minor Class IV Landfill Facility housing the Solid Waste Division and is permitted under the MDEQ’s Stormwater Industrial Permit o Pollutants of Concern: See FSWPPP o Responsible Department: Public Works o Responsible Position: Public Works Director o Control Measures: Detention basins, double walled fuel tank, rock rundown o Workflow:  Sample: Complete (2019)  Inspect: Complete (2019)  Generate Inspection Report: Complete (2019)  Meet with Facility Leadership: Complete (2019)  Develop and implement FSWPPP: Complete (2019)  Train: Complete (2019)  Follow‐Up Inspection: Pending (2020)  2.3: Snow Storage Area o Use: Location that houses snow throughout winter o Pollutants of Concern: See FSWPPP o Responsible Department: Public Works o Responsible Position: Public Works Director o Control Measures: Asphalt storage area o Workflow:  Sample: Complete (2019)  Inspect: Complete (2019)  Generate Inspection Report: Complete (2019)  Meet with Facility Leadership: Complete (2019)  Develop and implement FSWPPP: Complete (2019)  Train: Pending (2020)  Follow‐Up Inspection: Pending (2020)  2.4: University Material Storage Area o Use: Location that houses arena dirt o Pollutants of Concern: TBD o Responsible Department: MSU Facilities Services o Responsible Position: MSU Director of Facilities Services o Control Measures: TBD o Workflow:  Sample: Pending (2020)  Inspect: Pending (2020)  Generate Inspection Report: Pending (2020)  Meet with Facility Leadership: Pending (2020)  Develop and implement FSWPPP: Pending (2020)  Train: Pending (2020)  Confirm: 2021 SECTION 7.0 ‐ GOOD HOUSEKEEPING PROGRAM 12 Treatment Works  3.1: Water Treatment Plant o Use: Potable water treatment plant o Pollutants of Concern: TBD o Responsible Department: Public Works o Responsible Position: Public Works Director o Control Measures: TBD o Workflow:  Sample: Pending (2020)  Inspect: Pending (2020)  Generate Inspection Report: Pending (2020)  Meet with Facility Leadership: Pending (2020)  Develop and implement FSWPPP: Pending (2020)  Train: Pending (2020)  Confirm: 2021  3.2: Water Reclamation Facility o Use: Treatment plant regulated under the MDEQ’s Stormwater Industrial Permit o Pollutants of Concern: See FSWPPP o Responsible Department: Public Works o Responsible Position: Public Works Director o Control Measures: Onsite surface stormwater facilities o Workflow:  Sample: Complete (2019)  Inspect: Complete (2019)  Generate Inspection Report: Complete (2019)  Meet with Facility Leadership: Complete (2019)  Develop and implement FSWPPP: Complete (2019)  Train: Complete (2019)  Follow‐Up Inspection: Pending (2020) Parking Facilities  4.1: Public Parking Garage o Use: Vehicle parking o Pollutants of Concern: TBD o Responsible Department: Parking Division o Responsible Position: Parking Manager o Control Measures: TBD o Workflow:  Sample: 2021  Inspect: 2021  Generate Inspection Report: 2021  Meet with Facility Leadership: 2021  Develop and implement FSWPPP: 2021  Train: Fall/Winter 2021 SECTION 7.0 ‐ GOOD HOUSEKEEPING PROGRAM 13  Confirm: Spring 2022  4.2: University Parking Garage o Use: Vehicle parking o Pollutants of Concern: TBD o Responsible Department: University Facilities o Responsible Position: University Facilities Director o Control Measures: TBD o Workflow:  Sample: 2021  Inspect: 2021  Generate Inspection Report: 2021  Meet with Facility Leadership: 2021  Develop and implement FSWPPP: 2021  Train: Fall/Winter 2021  Confirm: Spring 2022  4.3: Public Parking Lots (4) o Use: Vehicle parking o Pollutants of Concern: TBD o Responsible Department: Parking Division o Responsible Position: Parking Manager o Control Measures: TBD o Workflow:  Sample: 2021  Inspect: 2021  Generate Inspection Report: 2021  Meet with Facility Leadership: 2021  Develop and implement FSWPPP: 2021  Train: Fall/Winter 2021  Confirm: Spring 2022  4.4: University Parking Lots (17) o Use: Vehicle parking o Pollutants of Concern: TBD o Responsible Department: University Facilities o Responsible Position: University Facilities Director o Control Measures: TBD o Workflow:  Sample: 2021  Inspect: 2021  Generate Inspection Report: 2021  Meet with Facility Leadership: 2021  Develop and implement FSWPPP: 2021  Train: Fall/Winter 2021  Confirm: Spring 2022 SECTION 7.0 ‐ GOOD HOUSEKEEPING PROGRAM 14 Public Safety Facilities  5.1: Bozeman Public Safety Facility o Use: Future location of the City’s Police, Fire, and Legal Divisions o Pollutants of Concern: See FSWPPP o Responsible Department: City Management o Responsible Position: Assistant City Manager o Control Measures: Under construction o Workflow:  Sample: Complete (2019)  Inspect: Complete (2019)  Generate Inspection Report: Complete (2019)  Meet with Facility Leadership: Complete (2019)  Develop and implement FSWPPP: Complete (2019)  Train: Complete (2019)  Follow‐Up Inspection: Pending (2020)  5.2: Fire Station #1 (34 N Rouse Ave) o Use: Emergency services o Pollutants of Concern: TBD o Responsible Department: Fire Department o Responsible Position: Fire Chief o Control Measures: TBD o Workflow:  Sample: 2022  Inspect: 2022  Generate Inspection Report: 2022  Meet with Facility Leadership: 2022  Develop and implement FSWPPP: 2022  Train: Fall/Winter 2022  Confirm: Spring 2023  5.3: Fire Station #2 (410 S 19th Ave) o Use: Emergency services o Pollutants of Concern: TBD o Responsible Department: Fire Department o Responsible Position: Fire Chief o Control Measures: TBD o Workflow:  Sample: 2022  Inspect: 2022  Generate Inspection Report: 2022  Meet with Facility Leadership: 2022  Develop and implement FSWPPP: 2022  Train: Fall/Winter 2022  Confirm: Spring 2023 SECTION 7.0 ‐ GOOD HOUSEKEEPING PROGRAM 15  5.4: Fire Station #3 (1705 Vaquero Pkwy) o Use: Emergency services o Pollutants of Concern: TBD o Responsible Department: Fire Department o Responsible Position: Fire Chief o Control Measures: TBD o Workflow:  Sample: 2022  Inspect: 2022  Generate Inspection Report: 2022  Meet with Facility Leadership: 2022  Develop and implement FSWPPP: 2022  Train: Fall/Winter 2022  Confirm: Spring 2023 Recreational Facilities  6.1: Parks and Recreation (16) o Use: Numerous parks and recreation facilities exist citywide o Pollutants of Concern: TBD o Responsible Department: Parks o Responsible Position: Parks Director o Control Measures: TBD o Workflow:  Sample: 2022  Inspect: 2022  Generate Inspection Report: 2022  Meet with Facility Leadership: 2022  Develop and implement FSWPPP: 2022  Train: Fall/Winter 2022  Confirm: Spring 2023 SECTION 7.0 ‐ GOOD HOUSEKEEPING PROGRAM 16 Graphic 7.3.1: Location of MS4 facilities SECTION 7.0 ‐ GOOD HOUSEKEEPING PROGRAM 17 The MS4 tracks workload by totaling the number of inspected facilities and comparing the total to those still requiring assessment. 2019: 32% (6/19) 2020: TBD 2012: TBD 7.4 Activity Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program The purpose of the MS4’s Activity Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (ASWPPP) is to mitigate stormwater pollutants generated from municipal operations. To complete, the MS4 works to ensure all operations meet or exceed the following Activity Minimum Standards (AMS): Protect street surfaces and inlets by deploying controls that capture, contain, and allow the collection and disposal of generated pollutants Cover or contain material stockpiles, and control run‐on Stabilize disturbed areas within 14‐days of activities Prevent tracking and the off‐site migration of debris Capture and dispose concrete waste Manage dewatering flows to remove sediment to the maximum extent practicable before entering the storm sewer system or waterways The MS4 uses the following ASWPPP inspection protocol: Inspect activity and establish baseline compliance with AMSs Review existing documents, including SOGs and safety data sheets Generate inspection report that includes inspection notes Meet with applicable leadership to review the inspection report Develop ASWPPP that includes:  Overview  Leadership  Activity Description  AMS and Pollution Assessment  Deployed BMPs and SOGs  High‐Priority Areas (if applicable)  Training Program  Inspection Frequency  Record Keeping and Reporting  Site Map (if applicable)  Corrective Action Tracking Sheet Implement ASWPPP Re‐inspect and compare compliance with AMSs and update ASWPPP one year after implementation and on a three‐year interval moving forward The MS4 will subject the following activities to the ASWPPP inspection protocol: Water and Sewer Operations  1.1: Water main breaks o Pollutants of Concern: See ASWPPP o Responsible Department: Public Works o Responsible Position: Public Works Director o Location: Citywide o Workflow: SECTION 7.0 ‐ GOOD HOUSEKEEPING PROGRAM 18  Investigate: Complete (2019)  Develop ASWPPP: Complete (2019)  Train: Pending (2020)  Confirm: Pending (2020)  1.2: Sanitary sewer overflows o Pollutants of Concern: See ASWPPP o Responsible Department: Public Works o Responsible Position: Public Works Director o Location: Citywide o Workflow:  Investigate: Complete (2019)  Develop ASWPPP: Complete (2019)  Train: Pending (2020)  Confirm: Pending (2020)  1.3: Trenching and excavation o Pollutants of Concern: TBD o Responsible Department: Public Works o Responsible Position: Public Works Director o Location: Citywide o Workflow:  Investigate: Pending (2020)  Develop ASWPPP: Pending (2020)  Train: Pending (2020)  Confirm: Pending (2020) Streets, Water, and Sewer Operations  2.1: Sidewalk and curb construction o Pollutants of Concern: TBD o Responsible Department: Public Works o Responsible Position: Public Works Director o Location: Citywide o Workflow:  Investigate: Pending (2020)  Develop ASWPPP: Pending (2020)  Train: Pending (2020)  Confirm: 2021  2.2: Curb‐cut slurry capture, collection, and disposal o Pollutants of Concern: TBD o Responsible Department: Public Works o Responsible Position: Public Works Director o Location: Citywide o Workflow:  Investigate: Pending (2020) SECTION 7.0 ‐ GOOD HOUSEKEEPING PROGRAM 19  Develop ASWPPP: Pending (2020)  Train: Pending (2020)  Confirm: 2021 Streets Operations  3.1: Roadway traction sand and chemical application rates and techniques o Pollutants of Concern: TBD o Responsible Department: Public Works o Responsible Position: Public Works Director o Location: Citywide o Workflow:  Investigate: Pending (2020)  Develop ASWPPP: Pending (2020)  Train: Pending (2020)  Confirm: 2021 Solid Waste Operations  4.1: Solid waste collection and disposal o Pollutants of Concern: TBD o Responsible Department: Public Works o Responsible Position: Public Works Director o Location: Citywide o Workflow:  Investigate: Pending (2020)  Develop ASWPPP: Pending (2020)  Train: Pending (2020)  Confirm: 2021 University Operations  5.1: Arena construction o Pollutants of Concern: TBD o Responsible Department: University o Responsible Position: University Facilities Director o Location: University Stadium Complex o Workflow:  Investigate: Pending (2020)  Develop ASWPPP: Pending (2020)  Train: Pending (2020)  Confirm: 2021 The MS4 tracks workload by totaling activities deemed complete and comparing the total to those still requiring assessment. 2019: 25% (2/8) 2020: TBD 2012: TBD SECTION 7.0 ‐ GOOD HOUSEKEEPING PROGRAM 20 7.5 Training The MS4 participates in local, state, and national trainings, conferences, and certification programs. The following lists completed efforts: Comprehensive Stormwater Training  Stormwater Program Coordinator (Kyle Mehrens) o 2017: Weekly meeting, Montana Water Environment Association Conference (April 19‐20), Bellevue StormCon Conference (August 29‐31) o 2018: Weekly meeting, Montana Stormwater Conference (May 1‐3), Denver StormCon Conference (August 13‐15) o 2019: Weekly meeting, bimonthly meeting  Stormwater Program Specialist (Frank Greenhill) o 2017: Weekly meeting, Montana Water Environment Association Conference (April 19‐20), o 2018: Weekly meeting, International Erosion Control Association Conference (February 12‐14), Montana Stormwater Conference (May 1‐3) o 2019: Weekly meeting, bimonthly meeting, BMP 101 Introduction to Stormwater Management (April 2), BMP 201 Certified SWPPP Administrator/Preparer (April 3 and 4), WQM 130 Stormwater Management for Industrial Operations (October 7)  Stormwater Program Technician (Cody Flammond ‐ 1/1/2020) o 2018: Weekly meeting, International Erosion Control Association Conference (February 12‐14), Montana Stormwater Conference (May 1‐3), Phase 1 Leadership Training (October 15‐17), Hazardous Waste Training (February 6) o 2019: Weekly meeting, bimonthly meeting, Weftech Chicago (September 21‐25), WQM 130 Stormwater Management for Industrial Operations (October 7)  Stormwater Operations Foreman (Mike Dilbeck) o 2017: Monthly meeting o 2018: Monthly meeting, Montana Stormwater Conference (May 1‐3) o 2019: Weekly Operation Meeting, Bimonthly meeting, Weftech Chicago (September 21‐25)  MSU Director, Facilities Services (EJ Hook) o 2017: Monthly meeting o 2018: Monthly meeting, Montana Stormwater Conference (May 1‐3) o 2019: Monthly meeting Stormwater Awareness Training: The MS4 trains employees to increase awareness and reduce stormwater pollutants generated from internal operations. Employees receive training every three years and new hires within the first 90 days of employment. The MS4 utilizes an online‐ based application (Proprofs) to hold interactive training for field supervisors and employees that includes the following content:  Stormwater Division Overview (7 minutes) ‐ “Stormwater in Bozeman: The Big Picture.” o A broad view of Bozeman’s stormwater system o Information about the importance of mitigating stormwater pollution SECTION 7.0 ‐ GOOD HOUSEKEEPING PROGRAM 21  Facility Operations Training Videos: “Rain Check” o Notes and FYIs o Quiz questions o Detailed Best Management Practices related to the following activities:  Good Housekeeping and Spill Prevention  Spill Control and Response  Vehicle Fueling  Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance  Vehicle and Equipment Washing  Materials Management  Waste Management  Landscaping  Participant Totals: o Stormwater Division  2017: 2 (1.5 hours)  2018: 1 (.6 hours)  2019: 0 (0) o Water, Sewer, and Storm Division  2017: 18 (11.2 hours)  2018: 7 (2.5 hours)  2019: 2 (1.4 hours) o Water Reclamation Division (annual requirement)  2017: 13 (13 hours)  2018: 15 (8.5 hours)  2019: 14 (9.1 hours) o Streets Division  2017: 0 (0 hours)  2018: 19 (12 hours)  2019: 9 (7.3 hours) o Solid Waste Division (annual requirement)  2017: 14 (8.6 hours)  2018: 17 (11.7 hours)  2019: 16 (10.9 hours) o Water Treatment Division  2017: 0 (0 hours)  2018: 10 (8.9 hours)  2019: 1 (.8 hours) o Parks Division  2017: 0 (0 hours)  2018: 0 (0 hours) SECTION 7.0 ‐ GOOD HOUSEKEEPING PROGRAM 22  2019: 14 (13.9 hours) o Fire Division  2017: 0 (0 hours)  2018: 0 (0 hours)  2019: 0 (0 hours) o Forestry Division  2017: 0 (0 hours)  2018: 0 (0 hours)  2019: 0 (0 hours) o MSU Operations  2017: 0 (0 hours)  2018: 1 (.8 hours)  2019: 2 (1.8 hours) Construction Site Management Program  Stormwater Program Specialist (Frank Greenhill) o 2017: BMP 101 Introduction to Stormwater Management Training (February 13), BMP 201 SWPPP Administrator Training (February 14‐15), BMP 202 SWPPP Preparer Training (February 22), BMP 101 Introduction to Stormwater Management Training (September 19), BMP 102 Field Academy (May 31 and June 1), BMP 201 SWPPP Administrator Training (September 20‐21), BMP 202 SWPPP Preparer Training (September 22), BMP 301 Compliance Evaluation Inspection Training (October 17 and 18) o 2018: International Erosion Control Association Conference (February 12‐14), BMP 101 Introduction to Stormwater Management Training (March 27), 201/202 SWPPP Administrator and Preparer Training (March 28‐29), BMP 100 Construction Dewatering Training (March 30), 102 BMP Field Academy (June 12) o 2019: BMP 101 Introduction to Stormwater Management (April 2), BMP 201 Certified SWPPP Administrator/Preparer (April 3 and 4),  Stormwater Program Technician (Cody Flammond – 1/1/2020) o 2018: International Erosion Control Association Conference (February 12‐14), 101 Introduction to Stormwater Management Training (March 27), 201/202 SWPPP Administrator and Preparer Training (March 28‐29), 100 Construction Dewatering Training (March 30), 102 BMP Field Academy (June 12) o 2019: n/a  MSU Director of Facilities Services (EJ Hook) o 2017: BMP 301 Compliance Evaluation Inspection Training (October 17 and 18) o 2018: n/a o 2019: n/a Post‐Construction Program  Stormwater Program Coordinator (Kyle Mehrens): SECTION 7.0 ‐ GOOD HOUSEKEEPING PROGRAM 23 o 2017: Montana Water Environment Association Conference (April 19‐20), Bellevue StormCon Conference (August 29‐31) o 2018: Montana Stormwater Conference (May 1‐3), Denver StormCon Conference (August 13‐15) o 2019: n/a  Development Review Engineer (Anna Russell P.E.): o 2018: Onboarding with Stormwater Coordinator, engineering certification credits o 2019: Engineering certification credits  Development Review Engineer (Griffin Nielsen E.I): o 2017: Onboarding with Stormwater Coordinator, engineering certification credits o 2018: Engineering certification credits o 2019: Engineering certification credits  Development Review Manager (Lance Lehigh P.E.): o 2019: Onboarding with Stormwater Coordinator, engineering certification credits FSWPPP and ASWPPP Training  See SWMP Sections 7.3 and 7.4 SECTION 7.0 ‐ GOOD HOUSEKEEPING PROGRAM 24 Blank Page Section 8.0 Sampling and Evaluation Program Graphic 8.0.2: Stormwater runoff nutrient analysis Graphic: 8.0.1: In‐stream sampling equipment SECTION 8.0 ‐ SAMPLING AND EVALUATION PROGRAM 2 Blank Page SECTION 8.0 ‐ SAMPLING AND EVALUATION PROGRAM 3 8.1 Introduction The MS4 strives to improve waterway health, protect public safety, and comply with its MS4 Permit through the collection of stormwater and waterway data points that:  Monitor stormwater and surface water quality over time  Evaluate the effectiveness of infrastructure and administrative program investments  Generate data that advises policy, capital, and operational decisions  Provide a data‐driven performance metric easily communicated to the public SWMP Section 8.0 details the following components necessary to administer the MS4’s Sampling and Evaluation Program, including:  Targeted Waterways  Regulatory Requirements  Urban Runoff Monitoring  In‐stream Wet Weather Monitoring  Sediment Reduction Monitoring  Long‐term Trend Monitoring  Evaluation  Discussion 8.2 Targeted Waterways Bozeman Creek, a.k.a. Sourdough Creek, originates in the Gallatin Mountains south of the MS4. Flowing north, Bozeman Creek enters the MS4 at E. Kagy Boulevard and continues until its confluence with the E. Gallatin River at E. Griffin Dr. The Montana DEQ determined that Bozeman Creek contained impairments from natural and anthropogenic sources when preparing the 2013 Lower Gallatin Planning Area TMDL. Bozeman Creek Impairment Information Probable Cause Probable Sources Associated Uses TMDL Alteration in stream‐side or littoral vegetative cover Agricultural grazing, crop production Aquatic Life No Chlorophyll‐a Agricultural grazing and crop production, residential districts, municipal area Primary Contact and Recreation No E.coli Septic tanks, urban runoff, storm sewers, pet waste, livestock Primary Contact and Recreation Yes Nitrogen (Total) Agricultural grazing and crop production, residential districts, municipal area Aquatic Life, Primary Contact, and Recreation Yes Sediment Natural sources, unpaved roads/trails, urban runoff, storm sewers, municipal area Aquatic Life Yes Mandeville Creek, a small spring feed watercourse, originates south of Bozeman. Flowing north, Mandeville Creek enters the MS4 at Alder Creek Dr. and continues until its confluence with the E. Gallatin River. The Montana DEQ determined Mandeville Creek contained impairments from anthropogenic sources when preparing the 2013 Lower Gallatin Planning Area TMDL. Graphic 8.2.1: Bozeman Creek Impairment Information SECTION 8.0 ‐ SAMPLING AND EVALUATION PROGRAM 4 Mandeville Creek Impairment Information Probable Cause Probable Sources Associated Uses TMDL Nitrogen (Total) Municipal point source discharges, residential districts, municipal area Aquatic Life, Primary Contact, and Recreation Yes Phosphorous (Total) Municipal point source discharges, residential districts, municipal area Aquatic Life, Primary Contact, and Recreation Yes 8.3 Regulatory Requirements The MS4 General Permit requires that the MS4 perform sampling, testing, and reporting of stormwater discharges annually, including: Monitor stormwater discharges based on residential and industrial land‐use types  See SWMP Section 8.4 Urban Runoff Monitoring Assess in‐stream water quality impacts of stormwater discharges to Bozeman and Mandeville Creeks (Self‐Monitoring Requirements: Monitoring Option 2)  See SWMP Section 8.5 In‐Stream Wet‐Weather Monitoring and SWMP Section 8.7 Long‐Term Trend Monitoring. Conduct TMDL‐related monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of best management practices (BMPs) implemented to reduce pollutant loading from the MS4 to impaired waters (TMDL Related Monitoring: Monitoring Option 2)  See SWMP Section 8.6 Sediment Reduction Monitoring Self‐evaluate results relative to long‐term medians  See SWMP Section 8.8 Evaluation For each of the monitoring requirements above, the MS4 conducts sampling, testing, and reporting of the following parameters: Total Suspended Solids (TSS), mg/L Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), mg/L Total Nitrogen (TN), mg/L Total Phosphorus (TP), mg/L Copper (Cu), mg/L Lead (Pb), mg/L Zinc (Zn), mg/L Oils and Greases, mg/L pH, standard units Estimated Flow 8.4 Urban Runoff Monitoring Introduction: The MS4 collects urban runoff samples from representative watersheds to characterize pollutant loading occurring from various land‐use types before system treatment, such as stormwater basins, sumps, infiltration galleries, and mechanical separation. In general, urban runoff pollutant Graphic 8.2.2: Mandeville Creek Impairment Information SECTION 8.0 ‐ SAMPLING AND EVALUATION PROGRAM 5 concentrations are variable and dependent on numerous environmental conditions, such as precipitation cycles, wind, tree cover, and human activities. Sites: The MS4 has a network of four monitoring locations: two within residential drainage basins and two within commercial/industrial drainage basins, including: Site: RES_01  Location: Near the intersection of S. Bozeman Ave. and E. Garfield St.  Land‐use: Residential  Drainage Basin: Seven acres  Inlet ID: I.F06.00082 Latitude: 45.667143 Longitude: ‐111.034474  Inlet ID: I.F06.00083 Latitude: 45.667143 Longitude: ‐111.034724  Parameters: TSS, COD, TP, TN, pH, Copper, Lead, Zinc, Oils and Greases, and Flow  Frequency: Two samples per year Site: IND_01  Location: Near Commercial Dr. cul‐de‐sac (west)  Land‐use: Commercial and Industrial  Drainage Basin: 10 acres  Inlet ID: I.E01.00184 Latitude: 45.703061 Longitude: ‐111.030112  Inlet ID: I.E01.00185 Latitude: 45.703164 Longitude: ‐111.030428  Parameters: TSS, COD, TP, TN, pH, Copper, Lead, Zinc, Oils and Greases, and Flow  Frequency: Two samples per year Site: RES_02  Location: MSU Campus near the intersection of S. 12th Ave. and W. Garfield St.  Land‐use: Residential  Drainage Basin: Four acres  Inlet ID: I.H06.00329 Latitude: 45.666911 Longitude: ‐111.054301  Inlet ID: I.H06.00259 Latitude: 45.666970 Longitude: ‐111.054226  Parameters: TSS, COD, TP, TN, pH, Copper, Lead, Zinc, Oils and Greases, and Flow SECTION 8.0 ‐ SAMPLING AND EVALUATION PROGRAM 6  Frequency: Two samples per year Site: IND_02  Location: MSU Campus near the intersection of S. 6th Ave. and W Garfield St.  Land‐use: Industrial  Drainage Basin: Two acres  Inlet ID: I.G06.00603 Latitude: 45.664409 Longitude: ‐111.044957  Inlet ID: I.G06.00630 Latitude: 45.664409 Longitude: ‐111.044942  Parameters: TSS, COD, TP, TN, pH, Copper, Lead, Zinc, Oils and Greases, and Flow  Frequency: Two samples per year Methods: The MS4 collects urban runoff samples from storm sewer inlets at each site using Thermo‐ Scientific Nalgene Samplers (Samplers). Before runoff events, Staff installs each Sampler at the selected inlet grate and positions it to collect the first flush of urban runoff. Once full, the Sampler closes itself prohibiting additional collection or dilution of the original sample. Analysis: The MS4 collects, transfers, packages, and ships samples to a certified laboratory, which analyzes the following parameters: Total Suspended Solids (TSS), mg/L Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), mg/L Total Nitrogen (TN), mg/L Total Phosphorus (TP), mg/L Copper (Cu), mg/L Lead (Pb), mg/L Zinc (Zn), mg/L Oils and Greases, mg/L pH, standard units Estimated Flow The MS4 estimates flow, in gallons per minute (gpm), using the Rational Formula where: Q = CiA Equation 1 Q is peak runoff rate (cfs converted to gpm) C is the runoff coefficient (C‐Factor, Bozeman Engineering Standards) i is rainfall intensity (in./hr., MSU Rain Gage) A is the drainage area (acres) Sampling Location Runoff Coefficients (C‐Factors) Location Name Primary Land Use Runoff Coefficient (C‐Factor) RES_01 Low to Medium Density Residential 0.35 RES_02 Dense Residential 0.50 IND_01 Industrial 0.80 IND_02 Industrial 0.80 Graphic 8.4.1: Sampling location runoff coefficients C‐factors SECTION 8.0 ‐ SAMPLING AND EVALUATION PROGRAM 7 Monitoring Results TSS (mg/L) Oil & Grease (mg/L) Total Nitro. (mg/L) Phosp. (mg/L) Zinc (mg/L) Lead (mg/L) Copper (mg/L) COD (mg/L) pH Flow (gpm) RES_01: 2017 (1) 203.0 2.00 6.20 0.908 0.1160 0.0052 0.0220 251.00 6.7 N/A RES_01: 2017 (2) 368.0 5.10 RL 12.00 1.230 0.1790 0.0073 0.0300 175.00 7.0 N/A RES_01: 2018 (1) 460.0 4.00 14.00 1.920 0.2720 0.0092 0.0290 708.00 6.4 55.0 RES_01: 2018 (2) 113.0 1.00 RL 2.30 0.544 0.1220 0.0033 0.0130 129.00 6.5 22.0 RES_01: 2019 (1) 5890.0 6.00 28.80 8.400 2.0200 0.1750 0.3380 3330.00 7.4 49.5 RES_01: 2019 (2) 206.0 1.00 RL 5.50 0.6800 0.2100 0.0060 0.0240 258.00 6.9 14.3 RES_01: 2020 (1) RES_01: 2020 (2) RES_01: 2021 (1) RES_01: 2021 (2) RES_01 Median 287.0 3.0 9.10 1.069 0.1945 0.0067 0.0265 254.50 6.8 35.7 RES_02: 2017 (1) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ RES_02: 2017 (2) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ RES_02: 2018 (1) 1430.0 15.00 8.40 2.030 0.6520 0.0367 0.0840 605.00 7.0 18.0 RES_02: 2018 (2) 199.0 3.00 3.40 0.457 0.2610 0.0081 0.0220 234.00 6.8 18.0 RES_02: 2019 (1) 806.0 9.00 8.60 1.930 0.5000 0.0410 0.0820 579.00 7.5 40.39 RES_02: 2019 (2) 568.0 8.00 17.50 2.060 0.7500 0.0220 0.0810 1100.00 6.8 11.7 RES_02: 2020 (1) RES_02: 2020 (2) RES_02: 2021 (1) RES_02: 2021 (2) RES_02 Median 687.0 8.50 8.50 1.980 0.5760 0.0294 0.0815 592.00 6.9 18.0 IND_01: 2017 (1) 149.0 4.00 17.30 1.380 0.5780 0.0160 0.0440 292.00 7.0 ‐ IND_01: 2017 (2) 1820.0 5.10 RL 11.68 1.320 33.3500 0.0371 0.0867 151.00 6.9 ‐ IND_01: 2018 (1) 602.0 15.00 8.50 1.890 4.7100 0.0371 0.0620 606.00 7.3 179.5 IND_01: 2018 (2) 293.0 4.00 3.40 0.588 0.1910 0.0081 0.0270 195.00 7.0 71.8 IND_01: 2019 (1) 1470.0 4.00 4.90 1.960 1.5600 0.1020 0.1620 647.00 7.6 161.6 IND_01: 2019 (2) 333.0 2.00 10.70 0.940 0.8800 0.0250 0.0700 651.00 7.2 46.7 IND_01: 2020 (1) IND_01: 2020 (2) IND_01: 2021 (1) IND_01: 2021 (2) IND_01 Median 467.5 4.00 9.60 1.350 1.2200 0.0311 0.0660 449.00 7.1 116.7 IND_02: 2017 (1) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ IND_02: 2017 (2) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ IND_02: 2018 (1) 899.0 4.00 8.80 1.600 0.5600 0.0158 0.0570 592.00 6.7 14.4 IND_02: 2018 (2) 380.0 5.00 4.40 0.737 0.2450 0.0099 0.0320 271.00 3.4 14.4 IND_02: 2019 (1) 2570.0 10.00 2.00 4.440 1.3500 0.0780 0.1760 1420.00 7.6 32.3 SECTION 8.0 ‐ SAMPLING AND EVALUATION PROGRAM 8 Evaluation: The MS4 enters monitoring results into a local spreadsheet, stores analysis reports for safe record, and analyzes the data using the following Scoring Matrix (Matrix) and protocol to interpret, evaluate, and communicate the results. The Matrix includes scores ranging from 0 to 4‐points, representing a set increase from EPA benchmarks provided in previous MS4 General Permits. For example, the TSS Benchmark is 125 mg/L. As such, the 3‐Point range is two times that amount (250), the 2‐Point range is three times that amount (375), etc. Urban Runoff Monitoring: Scoring Matrix 4‐Points 3‐Points 2‐Points 1‐Point 0‐Points TSS (mg/L) 0 – 125 126 ‐ 250 251 ‐ 375 376 ‐ 500 > 500 Oil and Grease (mg/L) 0 ‐ 10 11 ‐ 20 21 ‐ 30 31 ‐ 40 > 41 Total Nitrogen (mg/L) 0 ‐ 2.0 2.1 ‐ 4.0 4.1 ‐ 6.0 6.1 ‐ 8.0 > 8.0 Phosphorus (mg/L) 0 ‐ .41 .42 ‐ .82 .83 ‐ 1.23 1.24 ‐ 1.65 > 1.65 Zinc (mg/L) 0 ‐ .20 .21 ‐ .40 .41 ‐ .60 .61 ‐ .80 > .80 Lead (mg/L) 0 ‐ .10 .11 ‐ .20 .21‐.30 .31 ‐ .40 > .40 Copper(mg/L) 0 ‐ .04 .041 ‐ .08 .081 ‐ .12 .121 ‐ .160 > .160 COD 0 ‐ 80 81 ‐ 160 161 ‐ 240 241 – 320 > 320 PH (High End) 7.6 ‐ 9.0 9.1 ‐ 10.0 10.1 ‐ 11.0 11.1 ‐12.0 12.1 ‐ 14.0 PH (Low End) 6.0 ‐ 7.5 5.0 ‐ 5.9 4.0 ‐ 4.9 3.0 ‐ 3.9 1.0 ‐ 3.0 The MS4 relates results to the Matrix and then populate the appropriate Urban Runoff Monitoring charts with the corresponding point totals. For example, a 2018 RES_01 sample contained 135 mg/L of TSS. The MS4 assigns and populates the Urban Runoff Monitoring: RES_01 chart TSS box with 3‐points. The same approach applies to all sites and parameters. Urban Runoff Monitoring: RES_01 2018 2019 2020 2021 (1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2) TSS 1 4 0 3 Oil and Grease 4 4 4 4 Total Nitrogen 0 3 0 2 Phosphorus 0 3 0 3 Zinc 3 4 0 3 Lead 4 4 3 4 Copper 4 4 0 4 COD 0 3 0 1 PH 4 4 4 4 Event Points: 20 33 11 28 Annual Points: 53 39 Graphic 8.4.3: Urban Runoff Monitoring: Scoring Matrix Graphic 8.4.4: Urban Runoff Monitoring: RES_01 SECTION 8.0 ‐ SAMPLING AND EVALUATION PROGRAM 9 Urban Runoff Monitoring: IND_01 2018 2019 2021 2022 (1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2) TSS 0 2 0 2 Oil and Grease 3 4 4 4 Total Nitrogen 0 3 2 0 Phosphorus 0 3 0 2 Zinc 0 4 0 0 Lead 4 4 4 4 Copper 3 4 0 3 COD 0 2 0 0 PH 4 4 4 4 Event Points: 14 30 14 19 Annual Points: 44 33 Urban Runoff Monitoring: RES_02 2018 2019 2021 2022 (1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2) TSS 0 3 0 0 Oil and Grease 3 4 4 4 Total Nitrogen 0 3 0 0 Phosphorus 0 3 0 0 Zinc 1 3 2 1 Lead 1 4 4 4 Copper 2 4 2 2 COD 0 2 0 0 PH 4 4 4 4 Event Points: 11 30 16 15 Annual Points: 41 31 Urban Runoff Monitoring: IND_02 2018 2019 2021 2022 (1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2) TSS 0 1 0 2 Oil and Grease 4 4 4 4 Total Nitrogen 0 2 4 0 Phosphorus 1 3 0 1 Zinc 2 3 0 0 Lead 4 4 4 4 Copper 3 4 0 2 COD 0 1 0 0 PH 4 1 4 4 Event Points: 18 23 16 17 Annual Points: 41 33 Graphic 8.4.5: Urban Runoff Monitoring: IND_01 Graphic 8.4.7: Urban Runoff Monitoring: IND_02 Graphic 8.4.6: Urban Runoff Monitoring: RES_02 SECTION 8.0 ‐ SAMPLING AND EVALUATION PROGRAM 10 The MS4 sums the individual scores to obtain an Event Point Total, sums both Event Scores to obtain an Annual Point Total, and calculates a Final Score by transferring and summing the Annual Points in the Urban Runoff Monitoring: Results chart. Finally, the MS4 divides the Total Points by the Possible Points to calculate the Final Score and transfers the Final Score to SWMP Section 8.8. Urban Runoff Monitoring: Results 2018 2019 2021 2022 RES_01 Annual Points 53 39 IND_01 Annual Points 44 33 RES_02 Annual Points 41 31 IND_02 Annual Points 41 33 Total Points: 179 136 Possible Points: 288 288 288 288 Final Score (decimal): .62 .47 Graphic 8.4.8: Urban Runoff Monitoring: Results SECTION 8.0 ‐ SAMPLING AND EVALUATION PROGRAM 11 Graphic 8.4.9: Urban Runoff Monitoring SECTION 8.0 ‐ SAMPLING AND EVALUATION PROGRAM 12 8.5 In‐Stream Wet‐Weather Monitoring Introduction: The MS4 conducts In‐Stream Wet‐Weather Monitoring to analyze the impacts of urban runoff to Bozeman and Mandeville Creeks during wet weather. Combined, the Creeks receive urban runoff from over 1,700 acres of dense development at over 100 individual discharge points or outfalls. Non‐point source pollution sources exist upstream of the MS4 as identified in the Lower Gallatin Planning Area TMDL. This approach allows the MS4 to take sole responsibility for and mitigate the impacts stemming from urban runoff. Sites: The MS4 monitors two (2) locations on Bozeman Creek and two (2) locations on Mandeville Creek. Each Creek has one (1) station upstream and one (1) downstream of the MS4 boundary. Sample sites include: Site: UPS_01  Location: Bozeman Creek upstream of MS4, near Kagy Blvd.  Latitude: 45.657248  Longitude: ‐111.028584  Parameters: TSS, COD, TP, TN, pH, Copper, Lead, Zinc, Oils and Greases, and Flow  Frequency: Two (2) samples per year Site: DWS_01  Location: Bozeman Creek downstream of MS4, near Gold Ave.  Latitude: 45.699668  Longitude: ‐111.027347  Parameters: TSS, COD, TP, TN, pH, Copper, Lead, Zinc, Oils and Greases, and Flow  Frequency: Two (2) samples per year Site: UPS_02  Location: Mandeville Creek upstream of MS4, near Campus Blvd.  Latitude: 45.656506  Longitude: ‐111.05803  Parameters: TSS, COD, TP, TN, pH, Copper, Lead, Zinc, Oils and Greases, and Flow  Frequency: Two (2) samples per year Site: DWS_02  Location: Mandeville Creek downstream of MS4, near E. Baxter Ln.  Latitude: 45.697742  Longitude: ‐111.051959  Parameters: TSS, COD, TP, TN, pH, Copper, Lead, Zinc, Oils and Greases, and Flow  Frequency: Two (2) samples per year Methods: The MS4 collects in‐stream samples using Thermo‐Scientific Nalgene Samplers (Sampler). Before rain events, Staff mounts each Sampler to a metal post driven into the creek bed and positions it to collect a sample as soon as the water levels rise one‐half to three‐quarters of an inch. The Sampler closes itself and does not allow additional collection or dilution of the original sample once full. Analysis: The MS4 collects, transfers, packages, and ships samples to a certified laboratory, which analyzes the following parameters: Total Suspended Solids, mg/L SECTION 8.0 ‐ SAMPLING AND EVALUATION PROGRAM 13 Chemical Oxygen Demand, mg/L Total Nitrogen, mg/L Total Phosphorus, mg/L Copper, mg/L Lead, mg/L Zinc, mg/L Oils and Greases, mg/L pH, standard units The MS4 determines Bozeman Creek’s stream‐flow using real‐time data collected from the Bozeman Creek gaging station. The MS4 estimates flow for Mandeville Creek using historical data collected by Gallatin Local Water Quality District, since no permanent gauging station exists. Monitoring Results TSS (mg/L) Oil & Grease (mg/L) Total Nitro. (mg/L) Phosp. (mg/L) Zinc (mg/L) Lead (mg/L) Copper (mg/L) COD (mg/L) pH UPS_01: 2017 (1) 7.0 5.80 RL 0.41 0.085 0.0054 0.0005 0.0036 11.6 8.2 UPS_01: 2017 (2) 14.0 1.00 RL 0.50 RL 0.022 0.0100 RL 0.0010 RL 0.0050 RL 15.0 8.1 UPS_01: 2018 (1) 14.0 1.00 RL 0.50 RL 0.052 0.0100 RL 0.0010 RL 0.0050 RL 10.0 8.1 UPS_01: 2018 (2) 10.0 RL 1.00 RL 0.60 0.028 0.0090 0.003 RL 0.0020 RL 5.0 8.3 UPS_01: 2019 (1) 30.0 7.60 RL 2.79 0.147 0.0505 0.0010 RL 0.0017 9.0 7.7 UPS_01: 2019 (2) 72.0 1.00 RL 1.60 0.160 0.0300 0.0010 RL 0.0050 RL 5.0 RL 8.2 UPS_01: 2020 (1) UPS_01: 2020 (2) UPS_01: 2021 (1) UPS_01: 2021 (2) UPS_01 Median 14.0 1.00 0.55 0.068 0.0100 0.0010 0.0043 9.5 8.1 UPS_02: 2017 (1) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ UPS_02: 2017 (2) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ UPS_02: 2018 (1) 185.0 1.00 RL 3.10 0.430 0.0330 0.0027 0.0060 49.0 8.2 UPS_02: 2018 (2) 53.0 1.00 RL 0.50 RL 0.081 0.0180 0.0004 0.0020 16.0 8.1 UPS_02: 2019 (1) 10.0 6.8 RL 0.74 0.153 0.0422 0.0010 RL 0.0034 6.0 7.9 UPS_02: 2019 (2) 30.0 1.00 RL 0.80 0.144 0.0300 0.0010 RL 0.0050 RL 5.0 8.1 UPS_02: 2020 (1) UPS_02: 2020 (2) UPS_02: 2021 (1) UPS_02: 2021 (2) UPS_02: Median 41.5 1.00 0.77 0.149 0.0315 0.0010 0.0042 11.0 8.1 DWS_01: 2017 (1) 10.0 5.40 RL 0.55 0.088 0.0070 0.0006 0.0036 15.3 8.2 DWS_01: 2017 (2) 134.0 1.00 RL 1.80 0.264 0.0300 0.0060 0.0060 42.0 8.1 DWS_01: 2018 (1) 34.0 1.00 RL 0.50 RL 0.082 0.0100 RL 0.0010 RL 0.0005 RL 18.0 8.1 DWS_01: 2018 (2) 17.0 1.00 RL 0.70 0.057 0.0220 0.0007 0.0002 RL 14.0 8.3 DWS_01: 2019 (1) 100.0 7.00 3.00 0.238 0.1100 0.0021 0.0045 13.0 7.9 DWS_01: 2019 (2) 350.0 1.00 RL 3.40 0.645 0.1400 0.0140 0.0210 94.0 8.2 DWS_01: 2020 (1) DWS_01: 2020 (2) DWS_01: 2021 (1) DWS_01: 2021 (2) DWS_01: Median 67.0 1.00 1.25 0.163 0.0260 0.0016 0.0048 16.65 8.2 DWS_02: 2017 (1) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ DWS_02: 2017 (2) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ DWS_02: 2018 (1) 297.0 1.00 RL 2.80 0.368 0.0700 0.0168 0.0150 53.0 8.2 DWS_02: 2018 (2) 43.0 1.00 RL 0.80 0.102 0.0280 0.0026 0.0030 18.0 8.2 DWS_02: 2019 (1) 1180.0 6.80 3.38 1.340 0.1240 0.0222 0.0173 123.0 8.0 DWS_02: 2019 (2) 84.0 1.00 RL 2.00 0.235 0.0500 0.0040 0.0050 RL 7.0 8.3 DWS_02: 2020 (1) DWS_02: 2020 (2) SECTION 8.0 ‐ SAMPLING AND EVALUATION PROGRAM 15 Evaluation: The MS4 enters data into a local spreadsheet and stores analysis reports for a safe record upon receipt. Further, the MS4 analyzes the data using the following Scoring Matrix (Matrix) and protocol to interpret, evaluate, and communicate the results. The Matrix includes points ranging from 0 to 4‐points, which relate to the percent change of pollutants between the upstream and downstream sites. For example, a percent change of 0‐20% equals 4‐points, 21‐40% equals 3‐points, 41‐60% equals 2‐points, 61‐80% equals 1‐point, and 81‐ >100% equals 0‐points. Percent change is determined using the following formula: %  = ((Y2 – Y1) / Y1) * 100 Equation 2 For example, TSS: ((200‐150)/150) x 100 = 33.3%, resulting in a score of 3‐points. In‐Stream Wet‐Weather Monitoring: Scoring Matrix 4‐Points 3‐Points 2‐Points 1‐Point 0‐Points TSS (% ) (<0) – (20) (21) – (40) (41) – (60) (61) – (80) (81) – (>100) Oil/Grease (% ) (<0) – (20) (21) – (40) (41) – (60) (61) – (80) (81) – (>100) Total Nitrogen (% ) (<0) – (20) (21) – (40) (41) – (60) (61) – (80) (81) – (>100) Phosphorus (% ) (<0) – (20) (21) – (40) (41) – (60) (61) – (80) (81) – (>100) Zinc (% ) (<0) – (20) (21) – (40) (41) – (60) (61) – (80) (81) – (>100) Lead (% ) (<0) – (20) (21) – (40) (41) – (60) (61) – (80) (81) – (>100) Copper (% ) (<0) – (20) (21) – (40) (41) – (60) (61) – (80) (81) – (>100) COD (% ) (<0) – (20) (21) – (40) (41) – (60) (61) – (80) (81) – (>100) PH (% ) (<0) – (20) (21) – (40) (41) – (60) (61) – (80) (81) – (>100) The MS4 relates results to the Matrix and then populates the appropriate Urban Runoff Monitoring charts with the corresponding scores. For example, a 2018 Bozeman Creek UPS_01 and DWS_01 TSS percent change equaled 35%. The MS4 assigns and populates the In‐Stream Wet‐Weather Monitoring: Bozeman Creek UPS_01 and DWS_01 chart TSS box with 3‐points. The same approach applies to all sites and parameters. In‐Stream Wet‐Weather Monitoring: Bozeman Creek UPS_01 and DWS_01 2018 2019 2021 2022 (1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2) TSS 0 1 0 0 Oil and Grease 4 4 4 4 Total Nitrogen 4 4 4 0 Phosphorus 2 0 1 0 Zinc 4 0 0 0 Lead 4 0 0 0 Copper 4 4 0 0 COD 2 0 2 0 PH 4 4 4 4 Event Points: 28 17 15 8 Annual Points: 45 23 Graphic 8.5.2: In‐Stream Wet‐Weather Monitoring Scoring Matrix Graphic 8.5.3: In‐Stream Wet‐Weather Monitoring: Bozeman Creek UPS_01 and DWS_01. SECTION 8.0 ‐ SAMPLING AND EVALUATION PROGRAM 16 In‐Stream Wet‐Weather Monitoring: Mandeville Creek UPS_02 and DWS_02 2018 2019 2021 2022 (1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2) TSS 1 4 0 0 Oil and Grease 4 4 4 4 Total Nitrogen 4 2 0 0 Phosphorus 4 3 0 1 Zinc 0 2 0 1 Lead 0 0 0 0 Copper 0 2 0 0 COD 4 4 0 3 PH 4 4 4 4 Event Points: 21 25 813 Annual Points: 46 21 The MS4 sums the individual scores to obtain an Event Point Total, sums both Event Scores to obtain an Annual Point Total, and calculates a Final Score by transferring and summing the Annual Points in the In‐ Stream Wet‐Weather Monitoring: Results chart. Finally, the MS4 divides the Total Points by the Possible Points. The MS4 transfers the Final Score to SWMP Section 8.8. In‐Stream Wet‐Weather Monitoring: Results 2018 2019 2021 2022 Bozeman Creek Annual Points 45 23 Mandeville Creek Annual Points 46 21 Total Points: 91 44 Possible Points: 144 144 144 144 Final Score (decimal): .63 .31 Graphic 8.5.4: In‐Stream Wet‐Weather Monitoring: Mandeville Creek UPS_02 and DWS_02. Graphic 8.5.5: In‐Stream Wet‐Weather Monitoring: Results SECTION 8.0 ‐ SAMPLING AND EVALUATION PROGRAM 17 Graphic 8.5.6: In‐Stream Wet‐Weather Monitoring SECTION 8.0 ‐ SAMPLING AND EVALUATION PROGRAM 18 8.6 Sediment Reduction Monitoring Introduction: The MS4 conducts Sediment Reduction Monitoring to comply with the Montana DEQ’s sediment load reduction requirements detailed in the 2013 Lower Gallatin Planning Area TMDL. The MS4 tracks tons captured in BMPs detailed in SWMP Section 2.3 and SWMP Section 2.4. Bozeman Creek Sediment Waste Load Reduction Sediment Source Estimated Load Waste Load Allocation Required Load Reduction Required Load Reduction Municipal Storm Sewer 218 tons/year 137 tons/year 37% 81 tons/year **DEQ Imposed** Mandeville Creek Sediment Waste Load Reduction Sediment Source Estimated Load Waste Load Allocation Required Load Reduction Load Reduction Goal Municipal Storm Sewer None None None 10 tons/year **Self Imposed** Sites: Stormwater treatment units described in SWMP Section 2.5. Methods: Measurement process described in SWMP Section 2.5. Analysis: The MS4 analyzes the following parameter:  Total Sediment Captured (tons) Evaluation: The MS4 enters data into a local spreadsheet for safe record upon receipt. Further, the MS4 incorporates the data into the following Scoring Matrix (Matrix) to interpret, evaluate, and communicate the results. The Matrix includes scores ranging from 0 to 4‐points, which relate to total annual sediment capture. For example, a load reduction for Bozeman Creek of ≥ 81 tons equals 4‐points, 60 – 80 tons equals 3‐points, 40 – 59 tons equals 2‐points, 20 – 39 tons equals 1‐point, and 0 – 19 equals 0‐points. Sediment Reduction Monitoring: Scoring Matrix (Bozeman Creek) 4‐Points 3‐Points 2‐Points 1‐Point 0‐Points Sediment Captured (tons) ≥81 60 – 80 40 – 59 20 – 39 0 – 19 Sediment Reduction Monitoring: Scoring Matrix (Mandeville Creek) 4‐Points 3‐Points 2‐Points 1‐Point 0‐Points Sediment Captured (tons) ≥10 7.5 – 9.9 5.0 – 7.4 2.5 – 4.9 0 – 2.4 Results: The MS4 relates results to the Matrix and then populate the Sediment Reduction Monitoring: Results chart with the corresponding scores. The MS4 weighs Bozeman Creek more heavily than Mandeville Creek because of DEQ’s imposed reduction requirements.  2018 Totals: Bozeman Creek: 45.7 tons Mandeville Creek: 1.0 tons  2019 Totals: Graphic 8.6.1: 2013 Lower Gallatin Planning Area TMDL ‐ Bozeman Creek Sediment Waste Load Reduction Graphic 8.6.3: Sediment Reduction Monitoring: Scoring Matrix (Bozeman Creek) Graphic 8.6.2: 2013 Lower Gallatin Planning Area TMDL Mandeville Creek Sediment Waste Load Reduction Graphic 8.6.4: Sediment Reduction Monitoring: Scoring Matrix (Mandeville Creek) SECTION 8.0 ‐ SAMPLING AND EVALUATION PROGRAM 19 Bozeman Creek: 44.8 tons Mandeville Creek: 5.8 tons The MS4 calculates a Final Score by summing the weighted Annual Points in the Sediment Reduction Monitoring: Results chart and dividing by the Possible Points to calculate the Final Score. Finally, the MS4 transfers the Final Score to SWMP Section 8.8. Sediment Reduction Monitoring: Results 2018 2019 2021 2022 Bozeman Creek Annual Points (2) x (1.5) = 3 (2) x (1.5) = 3 Mandeville Creek Annual Points (0) x (.5) = 0 (2) x (.5) = 1 Total Points: 34 Possible Points: 888 8 Final Score (decimal): .38 .5 8.7 Long‐Term Trend Monitoring Introduction: Aquatic macroinvertebrate assemblages respond predictably to sedimentation by shifting from sediment‐intolerant to sediment‐tolerant taxa. Changes in macroinvertebrate assemblages are quantified using the Observed:Expected (O:E) ratio biological index model, which compares the observed taxa at a site with the expected taxa that would be present at a site under a variety of environmental conditions. Using the percent difference in O:E ratios between upstream and downstream sites the MS4 is able to assess stormwater discharge impacts to macroinvertebrate assemblages. A positive percent difference in O:E ratios indicate that stormwater discharges are not negatively impacting macroinvertebrate community assemblages. Conversely, negative percent differences in O:E ratios indicate that stormwater discharges are negatively impacting macroinvertebrate community assemblies. Sedimentation affects macroinvertebrates community assemblages by:  Filling interstitial voids in gravel substrate  Reducing gravel attachment sites  Altering stream morphology  Increasing stream temperature Sites: The MS4 monitors benthic macroinvertebrates on Bozeman and Mandeville Creeks at the In‐Stream Wet‐Weather Monitoring Sites (SWMP Section 8.5). Methods: Derives macroinvertebrate biological index monitoring protocols from MDEQ Sample Collection, Sorting, and Taxonomic Identification of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities Standard Operating Procedures (one sample taken per location per year). Analysis: The MS4 collects and preserves macroinvertebrate samples and then delivers to an accredited lab, which completes the analysis of the following parameters:  Taxonomic Sorting and Identification  Species Abundance  Species Diversity  Observed / Expected Ratios  Percentage of Sediment Tolerant Species Upon receiving macroinvertebrate analysis results, the MS4 enters the calculated O:E ratios in the table below and then calculates the percent change between upstream and downstream sites. Graphic 8.6.5: Sediment Reduction Monitoring: Results. SECTION 8.0 ‐ SAMPLING AND EVALUATION PROGRAM 20 Monitoring Results: UPS_01 & DWS_01 O:E Ratio: UPS_01 O:E Ratio: DWS_01 O:E Ratio (% ) 2017 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2018 0.20 0.37 +85% 2019 0.33 0.20 ‐39% 2020 2021 Median Monitoring Results: UPS_02 & DWS_02 O:E Ratio: UPS_02 O:E Ratio: DWS_02 O:E Ratio (% ) 2017 ‐ ‐ ‐ 2018 0.29 0.16 ‐45% 2019 0.29 0.25 ‐14% 2020 2021 Median Evaluation: The MS4 enters data into a local spreadsheet and stores analysis reports for a safe record upon receipt. Further, the MS4 analyzes the data using the following Scoring Matrix and protocol to interpret, evaluate, and communicate the results. The Scoring Matrix includes scores from 0 to 4‐points, which relate to percent change in O:E ratios between the upstream and downstream sites for each creek. For example, an O:E ratio percent change of 0‐(‐20%) equals 4‐points,‐ 21‐(‐40%) equals 3‐points,‐ 41‐(‐ 60%) equals 2‐ points, ‐61‐(‐80%) equals 1‐point, and >‐80% equals 0‐points. Percent change is determined using Equation 2 found in SWMP Section 8.3. For example, an upstream Bozeman Creek sample has an O:E ratio of 1.1, and the downstream sample has an O:E ratio of 0.8. The MS4 finds the difference and divides by the original to arrive at a percentage ((0.8 ‐ 1.1)/1.1) x 100 = ‐30%, resulting in a score of 3‐points. Long‐Term Trend Monitoring: Scoring Matrix 4‐Points 3‐Points 2‐Points 1‐Point 0‐Points O:E Ratio (% ) >0 – (‐20) ‐21 – (‐40) ‐41 – (‐60) ‐61 – (‐80) ‐81 – (‐100) The MS4 relates results to the Matrix and then populates the Long‐Term Trend Monitoring: Results chart with the corresponding scores, and calculates a Final Score by summing the Event Points in the Long‐Term Trend Monitoring: Results chart and dividing by the Possible Points. Finally, the MS4 transfers the Final Score to SWMP Section 8.8. Long‐Term Trend Monitoring: Results 2018 2019 2020 2021 Bozeman Creek Event Points 43 Mandeville Creek Event Points 24 Total Points: 67 Possible Points: 8 8 8 8 Final Score (decimal): .75 0.88 Graphic 8.7.4: Long‐Term Trend Monitoring: Results Graphic 8.7.3: Long‐Term Trend Monitoring: Scoring Matrix Graphic 8.7.1: UPS_01 & DWS_01 Monitoring Results Graphic 8.7.2: UPS_01 & DWS_01 Monitoring Results SECTION 8.0 ‐ SAMPLING AND EVALUATION PROGRAM 21 8.8 Evaluation The MS4 calculates a Final Grade to determine the overall effectiveness of its programs and initiatives detailed in SWMP Section 1.0 to 7.0 by transferring scores from each protocol (SWMP Sections 8.4 ‐ 8.7) to the Programmatic Evaluation: Final Points chart, and utilizes a weighted sum calculation to make the four scores comparable. Programmatic Evaluation: Final Points (2018) Final Scores Weight Weighted Total Weighted Total (%) Urban Runoff Monitoring .62 .25 .155 15.5 In‐Stream Wet‐Weather Monitoring .63 .25 .16 16.0 Sediment Reduction Monitoring .38 .25 .10 10.0 Stream Health Monitoring .75 .25 .19 19.0 Final Weighted Total (%): 60.5% Programmatic Evaluation: Final Points (2019) Final Scores Weight Weighted Total Weighted Total (%) Urban Runoff Monitoring 0.47 .25 0.1175 11.75% In‐Stream Wet‐Weather Monitoring 0.31 .25 0.0775 7.75% Sediment Reduction Monitoring 0.50 .25 0.1250 12.50% Stream Health Monitoring 0.88 .25 0.2200 22.00% Final Weighted Total (%): 54.0% Programmatic Evaluation: Final Points (2020) Final Scores Weight Weighted Total Weighted Total (%) Urban Runoff Monitoring .25 In‐Stream Wet‐Weather Monitoring .25 Sediment Reduction Monitoring .25 Stream Health Monitoring .25 Final Weighted Total (%): Programmatic Evaluation: Final Points (2021) Final Scores Weight Weighted Total Weighted Total (%) Urban Runoff Monitoring .25 In‐Stream Wet‐Weather Monitoring .25 Sediment Reduction Monitoring .25 Stream Health Monitoring .25 Final Weighted Total (%): The MS4 relates the Final Weighted Total (%) to the following equally distributed ranges (100‐percent scale) and their associated Final Grades, and populates the Stream Health Report Card with a Final Grade for the corresponding year. Graphic 8.8.1: Programmatic Evaluation: Final Points (2018) Graphic 8.8.2: Programmatic Evaluation: Final Points (2019) Graphic 8.8.3: Programmatic Evaluation: Final Points (2020) Graphic 8.8.4: Programmatic Evaluation: Final Points (2021) Final Grade A: 90% ‐ 100% Final Grade B: 80% ‐ 89% Final Grade C: 70% ‐ 79% Final Grade D: 60% ‐ 69% Final Grade F: 0% ‐ 59% Stormwater River Impact Report Card 2018 Final Grade 2019 Final Grade 2020 Final Grade 2021 Final Grade D 60.5% F 54.0% XX The MS4 utilizes its empirical knowledge, performance measures, and data to continually evaluate and optimize its programmatic workloads detailed in this SWMP. Also, the MS4 compares its Final Grades to the criteria below and, as necessary, works to implement the following improvement strategies: Grade = A: No stormwater impact on receiving waters, allowing for a continuation of administrative programs and reduction of TMDL Action Plan investment to maintain grade. Grade = B: Low stormwater impact to receiving waters, requiring continuation of administrative programs and TMDL Action Plan investment to increase grade. Grade = C: Moderate stormwater impact on receiving waters, requiring an expansion of administrative programs and continuation of TMDL Action Plan investment to increase grade. Grade = D: Significant stormwater impact on receiving waters, requiring an expansion of administrative programs and TMDL Action Plan investment to increase grade. Grade = F: Major stormwater impact on receiving waters, reassessment of administrative programs and TMDL Action Plan investment strategy required. 8.9 Discussion 2017 Result: The MS4 did not document sampling efforts using the scoring matrices described above because Staff had not developed the evaluation. Implementation begins with the first sampling event of 2018. Preliminary analysis of available 2017 data indicates that the developed evaluation methodology is effective at tracking program performance, and likely would have resulted in an F. The MS4 expects a positive trend over the MS4 Permit Term as Staff implements the content of this SWMP. 2018 Results: The MS4 received a Stormater River Impact Report Card grade of D. The MS4 has analyzed data, compiled point scores, and developed strategies to improve its grade for 2019, including:  Residential Urban Runoff Monitoring Graphic 8.8.5: Stormwater River Impact Report Card SECTION 8.0 ‐ SAMPLING AND EVALUATION PROGRAM 23 Problem Statement: Residential urban areas generally yield TSS, total nitrogen, phosphorus, and COD levels that result in suboptimal point scores. Conversely, oil, grease, zinc, lead, and copper concentrations generally result in satisfactory levels. Hypothesis: Grass clippings are primarily responsible for elevated levels of TSS, total nitrogen, phosphorus, and COD. Rationale: Elevated pollutant levels coincide directly with the growing season, providing justification for the MS4’s hypothesis. Fall samples traditionally yield optimal point scores due to growing season subsidence. Organic matter in stormwater runoff:  Increases TSS concentrations  Increases total nitrogen and phosphorus via decomposition  Increases COD via organic matter decomposition Action Plan: Increase outreach and education program described in SWMP Section 3.0 and complete capital projects described in SWMP Section 2.3.  Industrial Urban Runoff Monitoring Problem Statement: Industrial urban areas generally yield TSS, total nitrogen, phosphorus, zinc, lead, copper, and COD levels that result in suboptimal point scores. Conversely, oil and grease concentrations generally result in satisfactory levels. Hypothesis: Gravel parking lots, outdoor equipment storage, and heavy commercial traffic are primarily responsible for elevated levels of TSS, total nitrogen, phosphorus, zinc, copper, lead, and COD. Rationale: The MS4 documented these pollutant generating activities and site conditions at both industrial monitoring areas, resulting in:  Increased offsite TSS migration (TSS adsorbs and transports pollutants)  Increased nutrient levels originating from erosive landscapes  Increased metal levels from corrosion, combustion, and brake‐dust  Increase COD levels via organic and inorganic particle decomposition Action Plan: Enforce development regulations described in SWMP Section 6.0, construct capital projects described in SWMP Section 2.3, maintain good housekeeping performance levels described in SWMP Section 7.0, and implement the outreach and education program described in SWMP Section 3.0.  Instream Wet‐Weather Monitoring Problem Statement: Instream wet‐weather samples generally yield TSS, total nitrogen, phosphorus, zinc, lead, copper, and COD levels that result in suboptimal point scores. Conversely, oil and grease concentrations generally result in satisfactory levels. Hypothesis: Stormwater discharges from urban areas with a direct connection to aquatic systems negatively affect instream water quality. Rationale: Documented increases in pollutant levels between all upstream and downstream instream‐monitoring locations, resulting from developments constructed pre‐1980 lacking on‐site stormwater treatment. Action Plan: Enforce development regulations described in SWMP Section 6.0, construct capital projects described in SWMP Section 2.3 and implement administrative programs described in SWMP Sections 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, and 7.0. SECTION 8.0 ‐ SAMPLING AND EVALUATION PROGRAM 24  Sediment Reduction Monitoring Problem Statement: Remove 81 tons/year of sediment from stormwater discharges to Bozeman Creek and 10 tons/year to Mandeville Creek. Hypothesis: Achieve MDEQ and self‐imposed sediment reduction requirements by 2023. Rationale: Quantified sediment removal totals by treatment units as detailed in SWMP Section 2.5 and calculated sediment‐loading totals of 0.14 tons/acre. Action Plan: Continue TMDL Action Plan described in SWMP Section 2.2, construct capital projects described in SWMP Section 2.3, and maintain utility operations goals described in SWMP Section 7.0.  Long‐Term Trend Monitoring Problem Statement: Macroinvertebrate O:E ratios decreased in Mandeville Creek, resulting in suboptimal point scores. Conversely, macroinvertebrate O:E ratios increased in Bozeman Creek, resulting in optimal point scores. Hypothesis: Physical habitat characteristics and stream origination points impact macroinvertebrate O:E ratios in addition to stormwater discharges. Rationale:  85% improvement in Bozeman Creek O:E ratios between upstream and downstream sites.  45% reduction in Mandeville Creek O:E ratios between upstream and downstream sites. Action Plan: Continue TMDL Action Plan described in SWMP Section 2.2, construct capital projects described in SWMP Section 2.3, maintain utility operation goals described in SWMP Section 7.0, and implement administrative programs described in SWMP Sections 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, and 7.0. 2019 Results: The MS4 received a grade of F (54.0%), which is 6.5% lower than the 2018 grade. Various factors influenced this score and are further described below:  Residential Urban Runoff Monitoring Analysis:  Spring Samples: Collected on April 20, 2019. Record 2019 snowfall resulted in increased traction sand application and delayed street sweeping cycles, yielding pollutant concentrations above long‐term medians for TSS, Oil and Grease, Total Nitrogen, Total Phosphorous, Zinc, Lead, Copper, and COD.  Fall Samples: Collected on August 22, 2019. Reoccurring street sweeping and implementation of SWMP programs resulted in a reduction in the number of pollutants exceeding long‐term medians. Total Nitrogen, Total Phosphorus, Zinc, and COD concentrations were above the long‐term medians, likely resulting from organics, such as grass clippings. Action Plan: Increase outreach and education programs described in SWMP Section 3.0, maintain good housekeeping performance levels described in SWMP Section 7.0, and complete capital projects described in SWMP Section 2.3.  Industrial Urban Runoff Monitoring SECTION 8.0 ‐ SAMPLING AND EVALUATION PROGRAM 25 Analysis:  Spring Samples: Collected on April 20, 2019. Record 2019 snowfall resulted in increased traction sand application and delayed street sweeping cycles, yielding pollutant concentrations above long‐term medians for TSS, Oils and Grease, Total Phosphorous, Zinc, Lead, Copper, and COD.  Fall Samples: Collected on August 22, 2019. Reoccurring street sweeping and implementation of SWMP programs resulted in a reduction of the number of pollutants exceeding long‐term medians. Total Nitrogen, Zinc, Lead, Copper, and COD concentrations were above the long‐term medians, resulting from heavy commercial traffic, equipment storage, and historical development practices. Action Plan: Enforce development regulations described in SWMP Section 6.0, construct capital projects described in SWMP Section 2.3, maintain good housekeeping performance levels described in SWMP Section 7.0, and implement the outreach and education program described in SWMP Section 3.0.  Instream Wet‐Weather Monitoring Analysis:  Spring Samples: Collected on June 13, 2019 during a non‐typical high intensity and short duration storm (greater than 1” per hour) that resulted in suboptimal percent change scores for TSS, Total Nitrogen, Total Phosphorous, Zinc, Lead, Copper, and COD. Bozeman Creek flow at the time of collection was 63 cfs (221 cfs max daily flow). Non‐typical storms result in increased erosion and mobilization of pollutants.  Fall Samples: Collected on September 6, 2019 during low base‐flow conditions that resulted in suboptimal percent change scores for TSS, Total Nitrogen, Total Phosphorous, Zinc, Lead, Copper, and COD. Bozeman Creek flow at the time of collection was 27 cfs (38 cfs max daily flow). Action Plan: Enforce development regulations described in SWMP Section 6.0, construct capital projects described in SWMP Section 2.3, and implement administrative programs described in SWMP Sections 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, and 7.0.  Sediment Reduction Monitoring Analysis: Sediment loading within the various treated urban basins averaged .13 tons/acre, .01 tons/acre less than the previous year. Sediment collection totals increased from 46.7 in 2018 to 50.6 tons in 2019. The MS4 installed five new treatment structures in 2019, resulting in increased sediment collection totals. Action Plan: Continue TMDL Action Plan described in SWMP Section 2.2, construct capital projects described in SWMP Section 2.3, and maintain utility operations goals described in SWMP Section 7.0.  Long‐Term Trend Monitoring Analysis: Data showed a 39% decrease in Bozeman Creek and a 14% decrease in Mandeville Creek O:E ratios. Bozeman Creek’s macroinvertebrate community did not show an improvement based on the prior year’s data. Mandeville Creek’s macroinvertebrate community did improve based on the prior year’s data. More SECTION 8.0 ‐ SAMPLING AND EVALUATION PROGRAM 26 sampling events are required to show a trend in this data set, as two data points for each location are not adequate to assess stream health. O:E ratios for both Creek’s upstream sample locations are well below the reference streams benchmark and appear to be impacted by other pollution sources originating outside of MS4 limits. Action Plan: Continue TMDL Action Plan described in SWMP Section 2.2, construct capital projects described in SWMP Section 2.3, maintain utility operation goals described in SWMP Section 7.0, and implement administrative programs described in SWMP Sections 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, and 7.0. Section 9.0 Stormwater Management Plan Updates Graphic: 9.0.1: Permeable Paver Walkway Graphic 9.0.2: Boulevard Infiltration Gallery SECTION 9.0 – STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATES 2 Blank Page SECTION 9.0 – STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATES 3 9.1 Introduction The MS4 updates the information in this SWMP annually, and tracks change specific to each section. This SWMP requires changes to meet operational, regulatory, and funding adjustments that commonly occur in local government. 9.2 Program Administration (SWMP Section 1.0) January/February 2020:  Section 1.1: Updated and simplified MS4 objective language  Section 1.2: Completed minor grammar updates  Section 1.3: Removed ERU total of “$3.23” as the fee changes annually with rate increases  Section 1.3: Updated the description of the utility rate model workflow to improve clarity  Section 1.3: Updated the 2019 total impervious area and total site plan performance measure  Section 1.3: Added the FY20 Approved Budget information  Section 1.3: Added Graphic 1.3.1 to show budget and staffing changes over time  Section 1.4: Updated project information and staff hours, added FY20 Budget information  Section 1.5: Added new Stormwater Infrastructure Specialist, clarified organizational structure, added SWMP Support Divisions, removed future positions, and changed meeting frequencies  Section 1.5: Updated Graphic 1.5.1  Section 1.5: Updated Graphic 1.5.2 to include 2019 numbers, recalculated totals  Section 1.6: Added mechanical separation unit, added responsibilities related to the Post Construction Program  Section 1.7: Updated Gallatin Watershed Council’s name  Section 1.10: Updated 2019 and 2020 SWMP advertisement dates, and added public comments 9.3 Capital Project Program (SWMP Section 2.0) January/February 2020:  Section 2.1: Removed language related to specialized equipment, updated subprogram goals  Section 2.2: Added “over” before $650,000 and updated vitrified clay pipe total  Section 2.2: Completed numerous grammar updates  Section 2.3: Updated performance metrics, clarified some language, relocated completed projects and added new projects  Section 2.4: Updated Ongoing and Completed projects, clarified some names and categories  Section 2.4.2 and 2.4.3: Updated graphics  Section 2.5: Updated pollutant reduction totals  Section 2.6: Updated performance measures 9.3 Public Education Program (SWMP Section 3.0) January/February 2020:  Section 3.2: Clarified language under passive and active engagement sections  Section 3.3: Updated group to include MSU Students  Section 3.4: Clarified existing activities, added new activities, updated performance measures, added tasks, goal, and notes for each item per year  Section 3.5: Removed Adopt A Rain Garden and moved it into the ongoing initiatives section SECTION 9.0 – STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATES 4 9.4 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Program (SWMP Section 4.0) January/February 2020:  Section 4.4: Added 2019 events and updated Graphics 4.4.1 and 4.4.2  Section 4.6: Updated total outfall numbers per each waterway, updated high priority outfall information and 2019 inspection results, and updated 2019 ORI inspection totals  Section 4.7: Added 2019 infrastructure totals and updated Graphic 4.7.1 9.5 Construction Site Management Program (SWMP Section 5.0) January/February 2020:  Section 5.1: Updated #3 to include the mention of inspection  Section 5.3: Added final occupancy and infrastructure approval section  Section 5.3: Added 2019 totals and updated Graphic 5.3.1  Section 5.4: Added 2019 performance totals and audit results, updated Graphic 5.4.1  Section 5.5: Removed timeline for item #1 9.6 Post Construction Program (SWMP Section 6.0) January/February 2020:  Section 6.3: Updated Graphic 6.3.1  Section 6.4: Added 2019 performance totals, updated Graphic 6.4.1, added 2019 audit results, and updated Graphic 6.4.2 9.7 Good Housekeeping Program (SWMP Section 7.0) January/February 2020:  Section 7.2: Clarified language and added 2019 performance totals  Section 7.3: Clarified Facility Minimum Standards, updated Facility Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan protocols, updated Graphic 7.3.1, updated completion performance metric, and removed performance metric related to standard violations  Section 7.4: Clarified Activity Minimum Standards, updated Activity Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan protocols, updated completion performance metric, and removed performance metric related to standard violations  Section 7.5: Updated 2019 training activities and totals 9.8 Sampling and Evaluation Program(SWMP Section 8.0) January/February 2020:  Section 8.4: Added 2019 raw data and updated point scores  Section 8.5: Added 2019 raw data and updated point scores  Section 8.6: Added 2019 raw data and updated point scores  Section 8.7: Added 2019 raw data and updated point scores  Section 8.8: Calculated 2019 score and updated Graphic 8.8.5  Section 8.9: Added 2019 Results DWS_02: 2021 (1) DWS_02: 2021 (2) DWS_02 Median 297.0 1.00 2.8 0.368 0.0700 0.0168 0.0150 53.0 8.2 Graphic 8.5.1: Monitoring Results. RL is the minimum Reporting Limit. IND_02: 2019 (2) 301.0 3.00 10.20 1.440 0.8200 0.0260 0.1000 634.00 6.8 9.3 IND_02: 2020 (1) IND_02: 2020 (2) IND_02: 2021 (1) IND_02: 2021 (2) IND_02 Median 639.5 4.50 6.60 1.520 0.6900 0.0209 0.0785 613.00 6.8 14.4 Graphic 8.4.2: Monitoring Results. RL is the minimum Reporting Limit. 2020 Adopt‐A‐Drain Program. 8 1/10/2020 Adopt‐A‐ Drain Participant Thanks for the update – that is a lot of debris. Our only problem is that the compostable bags are hard to make stay up and open in the buckets. We are glad that compostable bags are being used – I wonder if there is some kid of giant rubber band that could be put around the bag to hold it up. Noted comment and will request their participation in the 2020 Adopt‐A‐Drain Program. Graphic 1.10.1: Public comments supporter of clean waterways and trying to do my part for the environment but actually being involved in a community program like Adopt A Drain makes it more real and more personal. Noted comment and will request their participation in the 2020 Adopt‐A‐Drain Program.