HomeMy WebLinkAboutG1. SP Water Divisions Annual Report
Commission Memorandum
Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
From: Lain Leoniak, Water Conservation Specialist
Brian Heaston, Senior Engineer John Alston, Water and Sewer Superintendent
Eric Campbell, Water Treatment Plant Superintendent
Craig Woolard, Director of Public Works
Subject: City of Bozeman Water Divisions Annual Report to the City
Commission
Meeting Date: February 8, 2016
Agenda Item Type: Special Presentation
Recommendation: The City of Bozeman Water Divisions’ annual programmatic accomplishments and project updates are summarized for review and discussion by the City Commission. Annual Reports and Exhibits are attached. Staff requests that the Commission
review these supporting documents and provide feedback and guidance as appropriate.
Background: The City of Bozeman Water Divisions come before the City Commission to
provide updates as to annual program accomplishments and information pertaining to the status
of various projects underway that are all intended to improve the water security and resiliency of the City of Bozeman now and in the future. Program updates include summaries of the Annual
Water Conservation Report, the Annual Water Quality Report, accomplishments from the Water
and Sewer Division, and project updates relating to the 2015 Water Facility Plan Update, the
development of a municipal groundwater supply and the preliminary engineering report of the
Lyman Creek Water Source.
2015 Water Conservation Program Report
The 2015 Water Conservation Program Report (See Attached) is the first annual report for the
City of Bozeman’s Water Conservation Program. The Report analyzes water demand data and highlights accomplishments over the last two years since the program’s inception.
131
New Water Treatment Plant Update
The City’s new Water Treatment Facility has been fully operational for almost 2 years. While
issues are common when commissioning any facility as complex as the water treatment plant,
very few issues were encountered during startup.
Since commissioning the new Water Treatment Plant, there has been a reduction in the volumes of water treated due to conservation as well as reductions in treated water turbidity as a result of
our improved treatment process. Chlorine residual concentrations in the distribution system have
been reduced while maintaining adequate disinfection residuals. All treated water quality data
has been summarized is in an improved Consumer Confidence Report which will be sent to all customers in February (See Attached). The City has met or exceeded all treated water quality standards.
Water and Sewer Department Operations
During 2015, the water and sewer department operations crew conducted 5,472 one call locate
requests, rotated 556 water meters, leak detected 251 miles of water main, flowed 569 fire hydrants, installed 92 water main taps for new water mains, and removed snow from 2,533 fire hydrants.
Water Projects
Engineering studies are underway to update the city’s water facility plan, investigate areas for
potential municipal groundwater supplies, and expand the Lyman Creek water supply system.
Update briefs are provided below for each respective project.
Water Facility Plan
Work is progressing on schedule with professional services on budget. Tasks to support the
preparation of the distribution system water model are underway and have been the primary
focus of activity on the project to-date. Comprehensive distribution system pressure and flow testing were completed last fall to acquire actual system data necessary to develop a calibrated
water model. Significant data analysis and packaging efforts have been completed by the GIS
Department to deliver to the consultant an ‘all pipes’ geodatabase that will integrate with the
water model. The model will be completed by the consultant on the InfoWater software platform
developed by Innovyze. InfoWater provides industry-leading integration with GIS which allows the city to leverage the significant investment it has made in its GIS data/asset management and
work order systems. As the distribution system is expanded and updated in GIS, new pipe
segments will seamlessly integrate into the InfoWater model. Thus, only one dataset has to be
maintained and the water model will reflect an up-to-date configuration of the distribution
system. Once calibrated and complete, the model will serve as a crucial decision support
backbone for future capital improvements planning and water systems operations.
Groundwater Investigation
Work is progressing on schedule with professional services on budget. The consultant team is
currently focusing efforts on developing a hydrogeological model of the aquifer system in the
Gallatin Valley utilizing readily available data from various sources. The Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology is putting the finishing touches on a scoping paper which identifies areas in
132
the valley with the highest potential for significant groundwater yields. A graphic depicting the
scoping areas is attached. The model and scoping areas will be used in conjunction with each
other to evaluate groundwater development scenarios.
To permit the development of new groundwater sources the City must ultimately acquire mitigation water to offset the effects of groundwater pumping on surface water sources. A
groundwater mitigation bank is being pursued by a stakeholder group - which the city is
participating in - as a successful mitigation bank could provide for flexible acquisition of
mitigation water over time as groundwater supplies are developed. City staff has participated in
a number stakeholder meetings as well as presentations to the Association of Gallatin Agricultural Irrigators (AGAI) and the MT Water Policy Interim Committee (WPIC) to advance
the concept and utility of groundwater mitigation banking. Mitigation bank stakeholders are
taking appropriate efforts to build consensus around the concept with present efforts focusing on
listening to agricultural stakeholders and identifying and understanding their concerns.
To supplement mitigation bank development, the City was awarded a $50k grant by the Montana
Department of Natural Resources which will be utilized to build additional detail into the hydrologeological model being prepared for the groundwater investigation project. This detail
can produce a higher level of model functionality and provide meaningful support for planning-
level decisions that will be necessary for the ongoing development of mitigation water supplies
in the Gallatin. A grant contract will be presented to the Commission for approval in the near
future. The work plan and scope of work for the grant funds is attached to this memo.
Lyman Creek Expansion
Work is also progressing on schedule with professional services on budget. The consultant team
has completed a preliminary characterization of the Lyman Creek aquifer system utilizing
desktop and geologic field study techniques. Lyman Creek generally originates from a karst limestone aquifer system in the Mission Canyon Limestone formation. The aquifer is believed to be recharged by annual snowmelt occurring over the southern flank of the Bridger Mountain
Range. A karst aquifer can be thought of as subterranean river moving through a network of
connected fissures and larger passages within the limestone itself. Existing diversion
infrastructure captures water where Lyman Creek first emerges from the ground at springs located on city-owned property in Lyman Canyon. Analysis of diversion records and correlated snowpack data indicate that the aquifer is likely an isolated ‘fill and spill’ system which can be
thought of simplistically as a bathtub set on an incline. The tub is filled by annual snowmelt
delivered by an underground river which then spills over the low edge of the tub at the springs.
The actual volume of the tub is unknown and is dependent upon the orientation of the tub walls themselves. To continue with this analogy, the tub walls represent the subsurface geologic boundary of the Mission Canyon Limestone formation. The boundary between Mission Canyon
and neighboring formations occur along lines of contact referred to as geologic faults. It is the
three-dimensional orientation of these subsurface fault lines that determines the potential volume
of the Mission Canyon aquifer serving the city’s Lyman water system.
Findings of the geologic field work and desktop study are informing the development of an exploratory well drilling plan. The exploratory well drilling objectives are to gather crucial
subsurface data for better understanding of fault orientations and to provide access to deeper
portions of the aquifer for yield testing and monitoring. The Integrated Water Resources Plan
133
estimates the reliable yield of the springs to be 1,790 acre-feet, but the city’s total water right is
significantly larger at 4,346 acre-feet. The potential exists for the wells to increase the annual
reliable yield somewhere between the 1,790 acre-feet current yield and the 4,346 acre-feet water
right.
Alternatives: As suggested by the Commission.
Fiscal Effects: Not included with this Presentation
Attachments:
2015 Water Conservation Program Report
2015 Water Quality Report
Work Plan For DNRC Grant Funding
Groundwater Scoping Areas
134
135
2
This page is intentionally left blank
136
3
WATER CONSERVATION SNAPSHOT FOR 2014-2015
Water demand in Bozeman declined over the last two years from 122 gpcd (gallons per capita per
day) in 2013 to 113 gpcd in 2015 despite increases in population and metered connections, and
drier than average years.1 More specifically, between 2013 and 2015, overall residential water use
declined from 74 gpcd to 71 gpcd and water use during the summer months, otherwise known as
“peak water use” declined from 164 gpcd to 152 gpcd in 2015.2 This rate of decline exceeds
historical rates of reduction in water use throughout Montana and the United States.3
The City of Bozeman’s Water Conservation Program has provided an opportunity for Bozeman
water customers to take advantage of targeted conservation and education programs and to
invest in effective efficiency initiatives.
1 Assumes same annual rate of growth of 2.8% in 2015 that occurred between 2010-2014. See e.g. United States Census Bureau available at:
http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/3008950,00 Last visited: January 16, 2016; Metered connections increased by 6.8% between
2013 and 2015 and 3.9% from 2014 to 2015.
2 Assumes peak water use between May and October.
3 See e.g. Water Sue Trends in the United States Pacific Institute (April 2015) available at: http://pacinst.org/wp-
content/uploads/sites/21/2015/04/Water-Use-Trends-Report.pdf last visited: February 1, 2016.
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
-
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Population Billions of Gallons Population & Water Use Over Time
Water Consumption (Billions of Gallons) Population (US Census Estimates)
137
4
Despite the drier than average years in 2014 and 2015, the city was able to meet peak demands
for watering during the summer months without instituting watering restrictions. It is important to
note however, that regardless of available voluntary initiatives designed to conserve water
supplies, consumption is closely associated with area weather conditions including but not limited
to precipitation and solar radiation which is commonly expressed as evapotranspiration (ET). This
rate indicates how much water has been used by landscapes or lost to the atmosphere and to be
replaced in order to maintain healthy vegetation. This correlation is evidenced by the graph below.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 Inches Precipitation Bozeman, Montana
2014-2015
Normal
2015
2014
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
May June July August September October ET (inches) Water Use Millions of Gallons Outdoor Water Use & ET
2013 2014 2015 2013 ET 2014 ET 2015 ET
138
5
In 2014-2015 the water conservation program provided:
Residential Water Conservation Customer Survey of 400 single-family residents.
Watershed specific pilot educational programs for 5 teachers and ~ 100 students in
Bozeman schools.
Professional landscape irrigation efficiency education and certification for 31 irrigation
professionals working in Bozeman and the surrounding area.
Thirty-five presentations and demonstrations to professional and government
organizations, trade shows, homeowner’s associations, neighborhood and community
groups.
Project support for a utility water loss audit that indicates water losses of ~ 14%.
Twenty landscape irrigation audits and system assessments of single-family residential
properties.
In 2014-2015 the conservation program facilitated:
$67,435.62 invested in rebates and incentives and annual savings of ~ 20 AF. This is
enough water saved each year to supply water to 85 new single family or 161 multi-family
units.
144 high efficiency toilets were rebated in 2014 and 206 in 2015.
156 high efficiency clothes washer installations in 2014 (program launched November 20,
2014) and 2015.
11 irrigation system retrofits (program launched May 1, 2015).
Over 1.1 million dollars in water savings.
Next Steps for 2016 include:
Expand indoor and outdoor rebate initiatives and bulk retrofit programs for residential and
commercial customers.
Expand water demand tracking tool capabilities.
Expand water education pilot program for Bozeman schools.
Advance projects to shift irrigation of city property from treated to raw surface water
supplies.
Develop a drought management plan.
Work with other divisions to identify opportunities to generate additional water savings.
139
6
WATER CONSERVATION IN BOZEMAN
Bozeman’s Integrated Water Resources Plan
The Integrated Water Resources Plan (IWRP) is a proactive long-range plan which resulted from
the City of Bozeman’s recognition that continued growth will occur into the future and eventually
exceed the capacity of current water supplies. The City’s existing water supply sources are finite;
thus, new supplies must be developed to meet projected future needs.
The Commission’s adoption of the IWRP, and the IWRP Implementation Plan highlights the
significant role that water conservation plays in addressing the City’s long-term water supply
needs.
Water Conservation Program
The goal of the City of Bozeman’s Water Conservation Program is to protect and enhance water
resources through conservation in order to meet the IWRP’s 50-year water planning target.
The program objectives include (i) establishing and strengthening the community’s water
conservation ethic; (ii) ensuring adequate supplies are available to meet current and future
customer demands; (iii) ensuring adequate supplies are available in time of drought for emergency
response and long term drought mitigation.
The strategies implemented to facilitate the achievement of the goal include (i) providing an
equitable distribution of water conservation benefits throughout all of the customer classes and
the community; (ii) utilizing a variety of methods to raise awareness of the value of water, ways to
conserve, and to encourage participation in initiatives; and (iii) to develop and implement
mechanisms to track and forecast demands and evaluate and modify elements of the water
conservation program as needed.
Program Evaluation
In order to determine if the Water Conservation Program is meeting the aforementioned goals,
strategies and objectives, a variety of tracking and forecasting tools are utilized to monitor
effectiveness.
A. Demand Side Management
The role of the Water Conservation Program is to balance the development of sufficient
water supplies with customer demand. Supply-side strategies emphasize meeting customer
needs in the most cost-efficient and effective manner. Demand-side strategies highlight
customer education and voluntary retrofits of end use devices with high efficiency fixtures
like toilets, clothes washers and irrigation system components.
New water conservation initiatives typically evolve from pilot projects and case studies to
ensure that they meet the goals, objectives and strategies of the program.
140
7
The City of Bozeman’s rebates are based on the cost of the water saved rather than the
direct cost of the retrofit. The Water Conservation Division will continue to assess cost per
acre foot (af) to maximize budget and staff resources.
Table 1.1 2014-2015 REBATES SUMMARY
Initiative4 Expenditure5 Water
Saved/year
(MGY)
Water
Savings
Over Life of
Components
(AF)6
Cost
per
HCF
Cost per
AF of
Water
Saved
No. of
Rebates
Issued
Residential
HE7 Toilet
Pre 1996
$37,625.00 3.913 120.1 $7.19 $313.28
301
Residential
HE Toilets
Post 1996
$2,450.00 .286 13.17 $6.39 $186.02
49
Commercial
HE Toilet
$3,395.00 .378 11.6 $6.72 $292.67 23
Single
Family HE
Clothes
Washer
$22,250.00 1.248 57.4 $13.34 $395.92
156
Single
Family HE
Irrigation
Components
$1,715.62 TBD TBD TBD TBD
11
TOTALS $67,435.62 5.825 202.3 $33.64 $1,187.89 540
4 Includes 2014 and 2015. 5 Does not include administrative costs. 6 10 years average life expectancy for HET; 15 years average life expectancy of HECW. 7 HE = High Efficiency
141
8
2014-2015 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
EDUCATION, OUTREACH, AND ENGAGEMENT
Education and outreach initiatives are a cornerstone of the City of Bozeman’s Water Conservation
program. Initiatives focus on raising awareness of the value of water in a headwaters community
like Bozeman and how to use our water resources wisely. These initiatives reach students, adults,
residents, and businesses.
Residential Water User Survey
A statistically valid survey of Bozeman residents was conducted in the fall of 2014. According to
the survey, the majority of Bozeman residents (59%) are now paying more attention to their water
use than they have in the past. A similar proportion of residents (60%) indicate that they have
changed how much water they use during the past few years.
Concerns about current or future water scarcity and the environmental impacts of water use are
the largest factors motivating these changes, but financial motivations (concerns about the cost of
water) are also an important consideration for many Bozeman residents.
Most single-family homes in Bozeman now have in ground sprinkler systems (72%). On average,
Bozeman households water landscapes 2.8 times per week during the summer season. Newer
Bozeman residents and younger residents generally water more frequently than longtime
residents and older residents. Overall, about 27 percent of Bozeman households water their
landscapes more than three days per week during the summer season. However, few residents
(6%) water their yards during the heat of the day (between 9AM and 5PM).
Additionally, forty-eight percent of respondents were unaware of any water conservation
measures they could implement to reduce water use around the home and the vast majority (80%)
were unaware of water conservation initiatives by the City of Bozeman. As this survey was
conducted prior to the launch of the Water Conservation Program, this is unsurprising and will
hopefully serve as reliable baseline data from which to assess the relative effectiveness of current
and future education and outreach programs.
Overall, the survey’s findings demonstrated the high level of water awareness among Bozeman
water customers and provided great guidance as to where to focus water conservation initiatives
to maximize budget and staff resources.
More specifically, messaging to single family residential customers focused on simple actions they
could engage in to save money and the resulting environmental benefits that come from water
conservation. Tools and information were made available on the water conservation website, in
customer mailers, good neighbor bags, at neighborhood presentations and other community
events to capitalize on those wanting to make changes in their daily water use.
142
9
Moreover, the fact that a very high percentage of residents have automatic in-ground sprinkler
systems determined the substantive elements of the outdoor rebate initiative and the selection of
the outdoor sprinkler system components that are currently available for rebate. Specifically, the
program supports rebates for weather based irrigation controllers, MSMT nozzles and rain sensors
which are components that can be easily retrofitted on existing systems and can improve outdoor
watering efficiency by thirty percent or more. Additionally, both the indoor and outdoor rebate
initiatives address customers’ concerns about costs to support those wanting to install high
efficiency fixtures. The targeted efforts that stemmed from the survey findings have generated
over 1.1 million dollars in water savings.
Going forward, subsequent surveys will facilitate a means in which to measure the effectiveness of
education, outreach and engagement initiatives in addition to guiding program development.
School Education
The Water Conservation Division in partnership with the Stormwater
Division and Project WET, developed a Bozeman specific Educator Guide
with interactive science activities that helped five area teachers educate
students in Bozeman schools about the area’s watershed and how
individual actions can impact our watershed.
The goal was to present complex concepts specifically related
to Bozeman’s watersheds, water conservation and
stormwater, to educators via lessons plans that are relevant,
accessible and create positive experiences for young learners.
The Initiative was so popular with teachers and students alike
that it is being introduced into two more area schools in 2016,
increasing the scope of this education pilot project.
Public Information Campaign
The first phase of the Water Conservation Division’s website went live early March 2015 and
includes information about the value of water, the benefits of water conservation, water resource
plans, the Bozeman survey and other water conservation resources, applications and instructions
for rebates and incentives for indoor fixtures, and a home use water calculator. It received over
19,000 hits as of December 2015.
The second phase of the website went live May 2015 and includes information about calculating
outdoor water use, DIY sprinkler system assessment and audit instructions, instructions and
applications for rebates and incentives for sprinkler system components, drought tolerant and
water smart plant lists specifically geared for Bozeman’s climates, water related news items and
much more. The second phase garnered 2,533 additional hits as of the end of August 2015 for a
total of over 21,000 hits to the website as of December 2015.
143
10
Presentations regarding Bozeman’s water supplies and ways to conserve water were given to
various organizations including the Greater Gallatin Watershed Council, Montana State University
Fall Water School, Idaho-Montana Parks and Recreation Fall Conference, the League of Women
Voters, MSU Sustainability Series, Bozeman Public Library Wonderlust Series Friday Forum,
Bozeman homeowners associations and neighborhood councils.
Various articles in local, state and national publications were written about the water conservation
program, initiatives and public outreach including, AWWA Journal, Montana Quarterly, Bozeman
Chronicle, and Bozeman Magazine.8
Local television news media ran several stories highlighting where Bozeman’s water comes from,
the need to conserve water and resources offered by the city’s water conservation division to help
customers save water.9
Indoor Residential Water Usage Public Education Campaign
Bill stuffers sent to all Bozeman water customers informing
them about the high efficiency toilet and clothes washer
rebate initiatives offered.
The utility bill was redesigned to include customer’s historical
water usage by month and how single family residential
customers compare with their neighbors.
Facts and tips for free and simple ways to save water around
the home were included in the Good Neighbor Bags distributed
to over 500 residents two times each year.
Provided free leak detection kits, aerators, shower timers, and
water to customers.
Outdoor Residential Water Usage Public Education Campaign
Ran ads in local print and online news outlets throughout the 2015 irrigation season
providing easy tips for ways to save water outside homes and business and alerting them
to new rebate initiatives for sprinkler system components that reduce water use.
8 See AWWA Journal Vol. 107 No. 8 August (2015); Montana Quarterly, (2015); available at: http://www.themontanaquarterly.com/; “Where Does
Bozeman’s Water Come From” Bozeman Magazine (December 2015);
http://bozemanmagazine.com/articles/2015/12/01/25724_where_does_bozemans_water_come_from
9 See e.g. http://bozemanmagazine.com/articles/2015/12/01/25724_where_does_bozemans_water_come_from;
http://www.nbcmontana.com/news/Recent-dry-spell-prompts-water-conservation-education-in-Bozeman/34938842;
http://www.kbzk.com/Clip/11634628/water-conservation-the-focus-for-city-official.
144
11
Ran radio ads throughout the 2015 irrigation season directing
customers to the Water Conservation Division’s website for
information and rebates to reduce outdoor watering.
Circulated bill stuffers to all Bozeman residential customers informing
them about the new rebates for sprinkler systems.
Ran slides on Channel 20 throughout the 2015 irrigation season that
directed people to the website for more information about outdoor
water saving tips and rebates.
Organized and sponsored a Certified Landscape Irrigation Auditors
Class with the Irrigation Association held in
Bozeman in March 2015. The class was for irrigation
professionals with at least two years of field
experience. It was sold out with thirty-one
attendees and a waiting list. Several staff from the
City of Bozeman Parks and Facilities Departments
attended.
Hosted the Certified Landscape Irrigation Auditor’s
Exam March 2015. Fifteen irrigation professionals
sat for the irrigation exam.
Provided twenty sprinkler system assessments and audits to
Bozeman residential customers. Assessments and audits
covered sprinkler equipment, system performance,
maintenance, and irrigation schedules.
The Water Bottle Fill Station was made available at Bogert
Farmer’s Market, Music on Main, Sweet Pea Festival of the
Arts, MSU CatWalk, and other community events throughout
the summer. The Water Bottle Fill Station encourages
residents to bring their own water bottles to community
events instead of purchasing bottled water and to appreciate
the high quality of Bozeman tap water.
In partnership with local experts, developed nine plant lists
that detail drought tolerant and watersmart shrubs, perennials and grasses that create
seasonal interest, require little or no water and are suitable for Bozeman’s climates.
Rebates and Incentives
Pursuant to the initiatives for the conservation program outlined in the IWRP and adopted by the
Bozeman City Commission and a review of Bozeman customer meter data, the first year of the
Water Conservation Program focused on voluntary rebate initiatives to encourage replacement of
fixtures with the largest water footprints in single and multi family residences.
145
12
Water consumption by customer class for 2013 shows that single family residential accounted for
38% and multi family customers 23% for a total of 61% of all water consumed. Commercial and
Industrial (CII) customers were responsible for 28% of all water consumed in 2013 while MSU
users account for ~9 % of overall
consumption.
As a result of the 2013 data of water use
by customer class, voluntary initiatives
were developed that targeted single and
multi-family and commercial water users.
Residential End Uses of Water Study10
10 Residential End Uses of Water Study available at: http://www.allianceforwaterefficiency.org/residential-end-uses-of-water-study-
1999.aspx last visited: January 22, 2016.
-
20,000,000
40,000,000
60,000,000
80,000,000
100,000,000
120,000,000
140,000,000
2013 Monthly Water Demand by Customer Categories
Single Family
Commercial/Industrial
Multi-Family
MSU
Government
146
13
High Efficiency Toilet Rebate Program
The majority of indoor water use for residential customers occurs in bathrooms. Toilets are the
largest water user inside the home and account for approximately thirty percent of total indoor
use. Retrofitting toilets saves on both water and sewer bills.
The high efficiency toilet rebate initiative was implemented July 1, 2008 and
rebooted in 2014. This rebate is designed to encourage customers to retrofit
older toilets with high efficiency models. Only WaterSense® labeled models that
use 1.28 gallons per flush (gpf) or less are eligible.11
WaterSense, a partnership program by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
seeks to protect the future of our nation's water supply by offering people a
simple way to use less water with water-efficient products, new homes, and
services. WaterSense brings together a variety of stakeholders to promote the
value of water efficiency, provide consumers with easy ways to save water, as
both a label for products and an information resource to help people use water
more efficiently, to encourage innovation in manufacturing, and to decrease
water use and reduce strain on water resources and infrastructure. Products and services that
have earned the WaterSense label have been certified to be at least 20 percent more efficient
without sacrificing performance.
11 Reflects activity through December 2015
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
2013 2014 2015
Toilets Replaced Through Rebate Initiative
Pre 1996
Post 1996
147
14
Pre-1996 toilets consume 3.5 – 10 gpf versus post 1996 toilets that require 1.6 gpf.12 The rebate
allows for $125.00 for the replacement of pre-1996 toilets and $50.00 for the replacement of post
1996 toilets, with a maximum of $250.00 per residence. Twelve hundred toilets have been
replaced through the 2015 rebate initiative that resulted in almost sixteen million gallons of water
saved through October 2015. These savings will continue for the life of the fixtures and increase
as customers continue to participate in the initiative.13
Residential High Efficiency Clothes Washer Rebate Program
12 The estimate savings conservatively use 3.5 gpf per fixture.
13 See HET Savings Table 1.2 below.
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
16,000,000
18,000,000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Gallons Estimated Water Savings: Toilet Rebate Initiative
Total Gallons Saved
148
15
Washing clothes is the second largest water user inside the home with an estimated 400 loads
per year per household. On average, approximately twenty-two percent of
residential water use goes to laundry.
The residential high efficiency clothes washer initiative was implemented
November 2014 and is designed to encourage residential customers to
retrofit traditional clothes washers that use 40-45 gallons per load with high
efficiency clothes washers that use 15-20 gallons per load. The rebate allows
for $150.00 for the replacement of a traditional clothes washer with a high
efficiency model that is CEE Tier Two14 or higher and does not use silver ion
technology, limited to one per residence.15
The Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) identifies efficiency tiers based
on energy and water use. Clothes washer efficiency is based on an integrated Modified Energy
and Water Factors. The Modified Energy Factor is a ratio that calculates the capacity of the
clothes container divided by the total clothes washer energy consumption per cycle. A higher
number indicates lower consumption and more efficient use of energy. The integrated Water
Factor is a ratio that calculates the number of gallons of water needed for each cubic foot of
laundry. A lower number indicates lower consumption and a more efficient use of water.
Based on the water factor, high-efficiency clothes washers are divided into three tiers, with
Tier 2 and 3 being the most water and energy efficient. Tier 2 and 3 clothes washers use less
than 15 gallons per load compared to typical top-loading models that use 40 or more gallons
per full load. A Tier 2 or 3 high-efficiency clothes washer can reduce water use by 85 percent.
14 Consortium for Energy Efficiency available at: http://library.cee1.org/content/qualifying-product-lists-residential-clothes-washers, last visited
November 11, 2015.
15 Silver ion technology is a nanotechnology that involves the use of particles of silver that are dispersed throughout the water and is classified as a
pesticide by the EPA.
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
2014 2015 Gallons Estimated Water Savings: Clothes Washer Initiative
149
16
As of December 30, 2015, 156 clothes washers had been rebated, resulting in 1,096,000 gallons
saved per year for the life of the fixtures. The average life span of a high efficiency clothes washer
is 15 years. The amount of water saved will continue to increase as more customers participate in
the rebate program.16
Outdoor Residential Irrigation Rebates
Residential customers (single family and multi-family) are the largest user class comprising over
74% of all accounts. Additionally, sixty percent of total water usage during the summer months
goes to residential customers. Seventy-two percent of single family households in Bozeman have
automatic in-ground sprinkler systems. If installed, operated and maintained, these systems can
reduce outdoor water use without sacrificing turf and landscape
aesthetics. However, in many instances, these systems consume
significant amounts of water.
In an effort to provide resources and support for Bozeman water
customers wishing to reduce outdoor water usage while preserving
the quality of their outdoor landscapes, the Water Conservation
Division launched two outdoor sprinkler system initiatives in May
2015.
The first initiative is a residential irrigation product rebate initiative
in which customers could receive rebates on select high efficiency
sprinkler system components. Rebates were offered on (1)
weather based irrigation controllers (WBICs) that use local
atmospheric data like precipitation, wind and solar radiation, to
determine when and how long to water, (2) rain sensors that override
sprinkler systems to shut the system off when 1/8th “ of rain or more is detected and then resume
normal function when the sensor dries, and (3) multi-
spray multi-trajectory (MSMT) nozzles that can be
retrofitted into sprinkler spray bodies and are better
able to apply water efficiently to the intended
landscape and reduce water loss due to evaporation
and drift. Each component can reduce water use by
thirty percent or more. When used in combination,
water savings of forty percent or more can be realized.
Nineteen irrigation rebates have been preliminarily
approved and are at varying stages of completion.
Water savings data will be provided as soon as it becomes available.
The second initiative launched in May 2015 is a residential landscape irrigation sprinkler
assessment and audit service provided by the Water Conservation Division free of charge to city
16 See Table 1.1 2014-2015 Rebates Summary above.
150
17
water customers. Twenty systems were assessed and audited during the 2015 irrigation season.
Each received an evaluation of sprinkler system performance, proposed watering schedule and
other recommendations specific to each site based on soil type, microclimate, turf and landscape
type, exposure and slope in order to improve irrigation system efficiency.
For those who participated in the residential landscape sprinkler assessments, half experienced a
thirty to fifty percent reduction in water usage when compared with irrigation during the 2014
season by the same owner.
Water usage data between 2013 and 2015, indicates that water use increased slightly, by 0.15%.
However, this increase is far less than anticipated with the addition of 760 new meters during that
time period and actually reflects a 7.4% reduction in gpcd from 122 gpcd in 2013 to 113 gpcd in
2015 despite drier than average years and increases in population. The chart below illustrates
monthly water usage for single family customers during 2013 and 2015. In many instances the
2015 data demonstrates no change or reductions in monthly consumption from 2013
consumption despite 2.8% average growth rate each year. The exception occurs in June 2015,
where water usage is noticeably more than 2013. During June 2015, Bozeman received far less
precipitation than the historical average, resulting in a significant increase in outdoor watering.17
17 See Bozeman Precipitation Chart page 4 above.
-
20,000,000
40,000,000
60,000,000
80,000,000
100,000,000
120,000,000
140,000,000
Monthly Consumption for Single Family Homes
2013
2015
151
18
Bulk Retrofit Initiative
HRDC Properties Bathroom Fixture Replacement Project is a partnership
with HRDC and the City of Bozeman’s Water Conservation Division to
upgrade HRDC properties including apartments and single family homes, to
install high efficiency bathroom fixtures in all bathrooms. The apartment
retrofits were completed in December 2015 and the single family
residences will be completed in January 2016. Water usage before and after
the installations will be monitored. This makes water, energy and money
savings available to families in need who might not otherwise be able to
participate in the city’s fixture rebate initiatives and helps the Water
Conservation Division on the path to achieving water conservation goals.
After meeting with the developer and project management team for Stoneridge Apartments
affordable housing project to discuss water conservation strategies, the team agreed to make the
complex an Enterprise Green Communities Project that will incorporate high efficiency fixtures in
all units and commons areas as part of the certification for the Enterprise Green Communities
2011 Program. The Water Conservation Division has offered assistance to the team in the form of
educational materials about the benefits of water conservation and bulk rebates on various high
efficiency fixtures.
Utility Management
N. 7th Ave. Drought Tolerant and Native Plant Pilot Project
Data from the drought tolerant pilot project installed in July 2014
demonstrates that the shrubs, perennials and grasses planted in
the two medians along N. 7th Avenue require 86% less water than
Bozeman’s medians planted with turf grass. This also results in a
23% reduction in the monthly water bill and creates an attractive,
yet water smart landscape feature for one of Bozeman’s primary
entryway corridors. The N. 7th Avenue medians highlight the
beauty of Southwest Montana’s native landscapes, provide
examples of drought tolerant plants that would thrive in any
Bozeman garden and are described in greater detail on the Water
Conservation Division’s website.
COB MSU Native Grasses Project
In an effort to identify various native grass cultivars that can thrive with little or no supplemental
irrigation after establishment, no fertilizer and infrequent mowing, the Water Conservation and
Streets Divisions partnered with Montana State University to study how various native grasses
perform under extreme landscape conditions in two medians in order to develop protocols for use
throughout the city.
152
19
The project advances the outdoor water savings objectives of
the Water Conservation Program by reducing the amount of
traditional landscapes that require regular and frequent
supplemental irrigation.
Additionally, it provides the development community with
viable drought tolerant alternatives to consider when
designing landscapes and determining water requirements for
a project.
Professor of Plant Sciences at MSU, Tracy Dougher, is the lead researcher. Dr. Dougher brings over
two decades of experience to the project and specializes in the study of native grasses for
turfgrass applications for the Intermountain West and their water requirements.
Utility Water Loss Audit
In order to quantify utility system water losses and identify sectors attributable for the losses, the
Water Conservation Division partnered with Public Works, Water and Sewer and Water Treatment
Plant Divisions to provide project support for contracted services to conduct a utility water loss
audit. The findings of the audit indicate that system losses are approximately 14%. The audit
identified specific areas in which to focus current and future efforts to reduce system loss and
methods to employ in order to reduce system inefficiencies.
Sunset Hills Cemetery and Lindley Park Irrigation Project
In an effort to generate additional supplies of water through demand side
management, the Water Conservation Division partnered with the Parks and
Recreation Division to contract for services to generate a preliminary
engineering report that will examine alternatives available to the City of
Bozeman to utilize an existing irrigation right decreed to irrigate Sunset Hills
Cemetery and Lindley Park and cease irrigation of said lands using treated
water supplies.
Alternatives for ditch diversion and delivery and irrigation system
improvements will be provided to increase existing system
efficiencies.
The project advances the outdoor water savings objectives of the
Water Conservation Program by reducing the amount of treated
water used to irrigate city lands and improving irrigation system
efficiencies to maximize utilization of available water resources.
153
20
Moreover, it generates additional drinking water supplies to accommodate growth, mitigate
drought and improve aquatic habitats.
Drought Management Plan
On December 28, 2015, the City Commission consented to enter into a Professional Services
Agreement with the engineering firm of Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc.
(AE2S), to develop a Drought Management Plan for the city in the interests of public health and
safety to mitigate and respond to drought events.
There is growing evidence that climate change is causing longer and more frequent droughts in
some areas including Southwest Montana.
Drought directly impacts the City of Bozeman’s ability
to deliver water and increases the risk of wildfire in key locations within the city’s watershed. As
the city continues to grow, the utility must build resiliency to drought through proactive and
comprehensive drought planning in advance of a crisis.
The city’s Integrated Water Resources Plan recommends drought contingency planning as a
component of the Water Conservation Program and includes some suggested drought response
actions. The Plan recognizes that water conservation and drought management combine to
insure the availability of firm yields to cover indoor water demands during a drought emergency.
Research shows that planning for drought is far more cost effective than emergency response.
Taking steps ahead of time to prevent known impacts from a drought emergency is far less
expensive than measures taken in the midst of a drought. Moreover, post- drought relief is
costly and may not reach the people most in need of assistance.
Water Conservation Technician
Effective December 30, 2015, a water conservation technician has joined the Water Conservation
Division. Of fifty-seven applicants for the position, the chosen candidate is a graduate of MSU and
brings water conservation education experience to the position. Primary duties include expanding
the scope of education and outreach initiatives and administering rebate initiatives to support the
city’s water conservation goals.
Parks Irrigation Systems Improvements and Upgrades
The Water Conservation Division has been working closely with the Parks and Recreation
Department to assess the efficiency of existing irrigation systems, develop protocols for new parks
and research various options for central irrigation system control options. These efforts are on-
going and will be largely driven by the progress on the Sports Complex, Story Mill Park and Sunset
Hills and Lindley Park projects.
154
21
NEXT STEPS
For the FY 2016-2017, The City of Bozeman Water Conservation Division plans to offer the same
resources and initiatives that were offered in FY 2014-2015 but with goals to expand and
accelerate visibility and participation. New initiatives will continue to be evaluated to determine
which projects will best meet the goals of the Water Conservation Program in the future.
The Water Conservation Division will increase public outreach, engagement and partnerships with
the community and will work closely with other city divisions to implement the IWRP and related
master planning efforts. As a part of all of these endeavors, the Water Conservation Division will
continue to evaluate the resources needed to successfully manage and implement the Water
Conservation Program policies and objectives.
155
www.bozeman.net 1
2015 Water Quality Report
January 1, 2015 - December 31, 2015
www.bozeman.net156
2 City of Bozeman - 2015 Water Quality Report www.bozeman.net 3
Middle Creek and Middle Creek Reservoir
Water from Middle Creek flows into Middle Creek Reservoir
(Hyalite Reservoir) where it is stored. The water then flows down
Hyalite Creek to the intake and carried by pipeline to the water
treatment plant.
Sourdough Creek (Bozeman Creek)
Creek water is drawn from the watershed in Sourdough Canyon.
No storage reservoir exists here since the breaching of Mystic Lake
Dam in 1985. From the intake on Sourdough Creek, the water is
carried by pipeline to the water treatment plant where it is mixed
with Middle Creek water.
Sourdough Canyon Water Treatment Plant
In March 2014, a new 22 million gallon per day (MGD)
microfiltration membrane filtration plant with robust
pretreatment began treating water from Sourdough and Middle
Creek. It replaced a 15 MGD direct filtration multimedia plant.
The City is now better able to meet increased service demands and
The City of Bozeman is Pleased to Present our 2015 Water Quality Report(also called the Consumer Confidence Report)
We are proud to report that Bozeman’s drinking water meets, or
exceeds, all established federal and state water quality standards.
The City of Bozeman Water Treatment Plant had zero violations
in 2015.
The report informs you about the quality of drinking water and
services delivered to residents each day. It contains a list of all
detected contaminants found in Bozeman’s drinking water and
information on the water sources. If you have any questions
regarding this brochure, please call the City of Bozeman Water
Treatment Plant Superintendent at 406-994-0501. This report is
also available at the City of Bozeman website, www.bozeman.net/
waterquality.
If you are a landlord or property manager, or know someone
who is not billed directly, please share this report with your
tenants and friends.
The City of Bozeman encourages all citizens to become active
in protecting our water sources and to participate in the
decisions affecting Bozeman’s drinking water. The Bozeman City
Commission meets Monday evenings at 6 p.m. at City Hall at
121 North Rouse Avenue.
Where Does Your Water Come From? And How Is It Treated?
The City of Bozeman drinking water is collected from two
mountain ranges, and is treated in one of two water treatment
plants. These facilities treat raw water supplied by Middle Creek,
Middle Creek Reservoir (Hyalite Reservoir), Sourdough Creek,
and Lyman Creek. All Middle Creek and Sourdough Creek water
is treated at the water treatment plant located on Sourdough
Canyon Road South of Bozeman. Lyman Creek water is treated at
a plant northeast of town.
INTERSTATE 9
0
H
W
Y
EVA HT91 SFRONTA
G
E
R
D
JACK
R
A
B
B
I
T
L
N
EV
A
D
R
3
S DR DOOWNOTTOCBRIDGERCANYONRD
GOOCH HILL RD SPRINGHILL RD SQUAWCREEKRD
HUFFINE LN
DURSTON RD
BLACKWOOD RD
TRAILCREEKRD
JACKSONCREEKRD DR NOSLENAIRPORT RD
VERRD
STUCKY RD
GALLATINRD
JOHNSON RD
E VALLEY CENTER RD DR HGUODRUOSW MAIN ST
KELLYCANYONRD
E BASELINE RD
MCILHATTANRD
EVA HT7 NWOODCHUCKRD
BOZEMANHILLRD
DR Y
E
L
N
A
M
PORTNELLRD DR TTEKCUP REPRAHSTUBLARRDDRYCREEKRDBEASLEYCREEKRD
MOFFITGULCHRD
E CAMERON BRIDGE RD DR SILLE TROFE MAIN ST DR BBUT DR SREDNEREGNILOBNORRIS RD DR YTTAEBHYALITECANYONRD
COBB HILL RD
BRIDGER DR
AMSTERDAMRD
GLASGOWRD
SCHOOLGULCHRD
COTTONWOODCANYONRD N19THAVE DR EKALAASKAFRONTAGERD
W MADISON AVE MARTINEZSPRINGRD
N WEAVE
R S
T
SKYLINELN
ARNOLD ST
NCENEYRD
ROCKY CREEK R
D
LAKE DR EVA ESUOR N
CANYONVIEWRD DR LLIH YROTS
SPRINGHILL LN
QUIN
N
C
R
E
E
K
R
D
MOSS BRIDGE RD
E MADISON AVE RD NIATNUOM ELBATSOUR
D
O
UG
H
R
D
EVA HT7 NINTERS
T
A
T
E
9
0
H
W
Y
JOHNSON RD
FRONTAGE RD
SQUAWCREEKRD DR NITALLAGFRONTA
G
E
RD EVA DR3 SBozeman CreekWatershed
Hyalite Creek
Watershed
Lyman SpringRecharge Area
Bozeman
Bozeman CreekWatershed
Hyalite Creek
Watershed
Lyman SpringRecharge Area
Bozeman
Bozeman Watershed
157
4 City of Bozeman - 2015 Water Quality Report www.bozeman.net 5
comply with the Environmental Protection Agency and
Montana Department of Environmental Quality regulations.
(See Sourdough Creek Treatment Process).
The membrane filtration plant consists of grit removal,
flocculation and sedimentation to remove larger contaminants.
The water then goes through 300 micron strainers to remove
more contaminants. Membranes then filter the water through
0.1 micron pores of the membrane fibers. As final steps in the
treatment process, sodium hypochlorite is added for disinfection,
sodium hydroxide is added for pH adjustment and corrosion
control, and fluoride is added for cavity prevention.
(See Sourdough Creek Treatment Process).
Raw water can vary during the year. It is affected by spring
runoff, rainstorms, accidental spills, and landslides. The water
treatment facility has capability to treat these varying conditions,
thus provides a very high quality of drinking water to Bozeman
consistently.
Lyman Creek
Located in the southern foothills of the Bridger Mountains, this
source is a fully enclosed spring and is classified as a groundwater
source. The quality of this water varies little throughout the year.
The water is captured underground and flows to the treatment
plant via a pipeline.
Lyman Creek Water Treatment Plant
The water is treated with sodium hypochlorite for disinfection,
is stored in a 5 million gallon tank, and fluoride is added as it
leaves the tank for cavity prevention. (See Lyman Creek
Treatment Process).
Sourdough Creek Treatment Process
Water from Bozeman Creek and Hyalite Creek are mixed together then enter the plant.
Filtrate Conduit and Distribution System
The treatment process starts with grit removal and addition of a flocculant. This combines with suspended particles to form “floc”. It is mixed at progressively slower speeds.
The flocculated suspended particles and chemical settle out in the sedimentation basin. Inclined plate settlers speed up the settling process. The sludge that is formed is pumped to the solids handling processes.
The water is then pumped through strainers to remove particles and goes to the membranes.
The membranes have 6,350 fibers in each module and 124 modules in each rack. Each fiber has pores in them with a nominal pore size of 0.1 microns.
Chlorine is added for disinfection, sodium hydroxide is added for pH adjustment, and fluoride is added prior to going to the distribution system.
Lyman Creek Treatment Process
Treated water is stored for use.
Distribution system
Fluoride is added for cavity prevention.
Chlorine is added for disinfection.
158
6 City of Bozeman - 2015 Water Quality Report www.bozeman.net 7
Action Level (AL): The concentration of a contaminant which, if exceeded, triggers treatment, or other requirements, which a water system must follow. Ninety percent of samples must be at, or below, this level. Lead and copper are measured at the 90th percentile.
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL): The highest level of a contaminant allowed in drinking water. MCLs are set as close to the MCLGs as feasible, using the best available treatment technology.
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG): The level of contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a margin of safety.
Maximum Residual Disinfection Level (MRDL): The highest level of disinfectant allowed in drinking water. There is convincing evidence that addition of a disinfectant is necessary for control of microbial contaminants (4.0 mg/l).
Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal (MRDLG): The level of a drinking water disinfectant
below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MRDLG’s do not reflect the benefits of the use of disinfectants to control microbial contamination (4.0 mg/l).
Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU): Level of turbidity in filtered water.
ppm: parts per million
ppb: parts per billion
pCi/L: Picocuries per liter (a measure of radioactivity).
Treatment Technique (TT): Required process intended to reduce the level of contaminant in drinking water.
Running Annual Average (RRA): Average of the results for the most recent four quarters.
Locational Running Annual Average (LRAA): Average of the results for a location for the most recent four quarters.
UCMR3: Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule #3. Sampled at each WTP entry point (EP) to the system and in the distribution system Maximum Residence Time (MRT) for each source.
Listed in the tables on the following pages are all the contaminants detected in Bozeman’s drinking water after treatment during the 2015 calendar year. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the State of Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) require monitoring of over 80 contaminants. There is also additional information frequently requested in the Additional Water Quality Information Tables.
2015 Test Results
Definitions
Source Water Assessment
Bozeman’s watersheds are devoid of significant potential sources
of contamination. The exception is the transportation corridor
along Hyalite Creek, which has a very high susceptibility to
contamination by transportation of chemicals, including vehicle
fluids, on Hyalite Road.
The City of Bozeman’s Source Water Delineation and Assessment
Report is available for viewing at the Bozeman Public Library.
The Sourdough (Bozeman) Creek and Middle (Hyalite) Creek
watersheds are very highly recreated areas. Cross country
skiers, ice climbers, mountain bikers, hikers, dog walkers,
fishermen, and rock climbers all use the watersheds on an almost
daily basis.
What Are Water Contaminates?
The sources of drinking water for tap water and bottled water
include rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, reservoirs, springs, and
groundwater. As water travels over the surface of the land or
through the ground, it dissolves naturally occurring minerals
and, in some cases, radioactive material. Water can also pick up
substances resulting from animal or human activity. Contaminants
that may be present in water prior to treatment include:
-Microbial contaminants such as viruses and bacteria that
can come from sewage treatment plants, septic systems,
agricultural operations, wildlife, and domestic animals.
-Inorganic contaminants such as salts and metals, which
can be naturally occurring or result from urban storm
runoff, industrial or domestic wastewater discharges, oil
and gas production, mining, or farming.
-Pesticides and herbicides that may come from a variety of
sources, such as agriculture, urban storm water runoff,
and residential uses.
-Organic chemical contaminants including synthetic and
volatile organic compounds, which are by-products of
industrial processes and petroleum production. These
contaminants may also come from gas stations, urban
storm water runoff, and septic systems.
-Radioactive contaminants that can be naturally
occurring or be the result of oil and gas production
and mining activities.
159
8 City of Bozeman - 2015 Water Quality Report www.bozeman.net 9
2015 Sourdough Test Results
SYSTEM LOCATION MIN MAX
DETECTED LEVEL OR AVERAGE UNITS MCL AL MCLG TYPICAL CONTAMINANT SOURCE
Trihalomethanes (THMs)80 By-product of drinking water chlorination
DBP1 9.40 9.40 9.40 ppb
DBP2 2.70 2.70 2.70 ppb
DBP3 5.60 14.00 10.28 ppb
DBP4 19.00 33.00 25.50 ppb
Haloacetic Acids (HAA5s)60 By-product of drinking water chlorination
DBP1 8.40 8.40 8.40 ppb
DBP2 0.90 0.90 0.90 ppb
DBP3 5.00 12.00 8.63 ppb
DBP4 13.00 24.00 17.00 ppb
Lead**Zero Sites exceeded A.L.
4.0 (90th percentile)ppb 15 0 Erosion of natural deposits; corrosion of household plumbing systems
Copper**Zero Sites exceeded A.L.
0.081 (90th percentile)ppm 1.3 1.3 Erosion of natural deposits; corrosion of household plumbing systems
Total Coliform 0 positive samples <5% of samples/mo 0 Naturally present in the environment
SOURDOUGH
Native Fluoride Plant Influent 0.02 0.40 0.19 ppm 4 4 Erosion of natural deposits
1st Service Fluoride 0.06 1.05 0.60 ppm 4 4 Erosion of natural deposits; water additive which promotes strong teeth
Turbidity ***Plant Effluent 0.011 0.058 0.058 NTU TT= 1 NTU TT= 95% < 0.15 NTU Natural result of soil runoff
EP Chlorate*Entry Point 502 26.8 49.7 38.2 ppb Results from disinfection with sodium hypochlorite
EP Chromium-6* Entry Point 502 0.10 0.12 0.11 ppb Total Cr = 100 Naturally occurring or from industrial activities
EP Strontium*Entry Point 502 66.0 78.1 73.2 ppb Naturally occurring in the environment
EP Vanadium*Entry Point 502 0.36 0.73 0.53 ppb Naturally occurring in the environment
MRT Chlorate*Max. Residence Time 502 25.6 50.5 38.0 ppb Results from disinfection with sodium hypochlorite
MRT Chromium-6* Max. Residence Time 502 0.09 0.14 0.12 ppb Total Cr = 100 Naturally occurring or from industrial activities
MRT Strontium*Max. Residence Time 502 65.0 78.6 71.9 ppb Naturally occurring in the environment
MRT Vanadium*Max. Residence Time 502 0.35 0.78 0.53 ppb Naturally occurring in the environment
ADDITIONAL WATER QUALITY INFORMATION
Alkalinity Plant Effluent 54.40 98.80 78.02 ppm NA
Chloride Plant Effluent 0.10 20.00 10.07 ppm 250
Free Chlorine Plant Effluent 0.79 1.60 1.10 ppm 4 (MRDL)
Calcium Hardness Plant Effluent 40.80 73.00 57.28 ppm NA
Calcium Plant Effluent 16.32 29.20 22.91 ppm NA
Magnesium Hardness Plant Effluent 17.60 40.80 28.99 ppm NA
Magnesium Plant Effluent 4.30 9.96 7.08 ppm NA
Total Hardness Plant Effluent 63.20 100.80 86.27 ppm NA
Total Hardness (Grains)Plant Effluent 3.69 5.89 5.04 Grains NA
pH Plant Effluent 7.74 8.56 8.28 SU 6.5-8.5 (SMCL)
Sodium Plant Effluent 2.28 19.90 6.56 ppm 20
Sulfate Plant Effluent 1.00 24.00 4.79 ppm 250
Iron Plant Effluent 0.000 0.030 0.011 ppm 0.3
Total Dissolved Solids Plant Effluent 76.30 113.30 96.02 ppm 500
Dissolved Oxygen Plant Effluent 3.70 12.00 9.86 ppm NA
Aluminum Plant Effluent 0.000 0.316 0.021 ppm 0.20
Manganese Plant Effluent 0.000 0.800 0.195 ppm 0.05
UV254 (Organics)Plant Effluent 90.60 102.30 96.38 %T NA
* Last collected in 2014 per EPA requirements
**Lead has not been detected in Bozeman’s source water. This sampling was done in July of 2015 in accordance with EPA regulations. Lead and Copper are regulated over the entire distribution system (not by source), so these results were not repeated for the Lyman source. If present, elevated levels of lead can cause serious health problems, especially for pregnant women and young children. Lead in drinking water is primarily from materials and components associated with service lines and home plumbing. The City of Bozeman is responsible for providing high-quality drinking water, but cannot control the variety of materials used in plumbing components. When your water has been sitting for several hours, you can minimize the potential for lead exposure by flushing your tap for 30 seconds to 2 minutes before using water for drinking or cooking. If you are concerned about lead in your water, you may wish to have your water tested. Information on lead in drinking water, testing methods, and steps you can take to minimize exposure is available from the Safe Drinking Water Hotline (1-800-426-4791) or at www.epa.gov/safewater/lead.
***Turbidity has no health effects. However, turbidity can interfere with disinfection and provide a medium for microbial growth. The City of Bozeman’s filtered water must be less than, or equal to 0.15 NTU in at least 95% of monthly measurements, and it can never exceed 1 NTU. The single highest measurement was 0.058 NTU. Bozeman’s average daily turbidity was 0.014 NTU.
160
10 City of Bozeman - 2015 Water Quality Report www.bozeman.net 11
2015 Lyman Creek Test Results
LOCATION MIN MAX
DETECTED LEVEL OR AVERAGE UNITS MCL AL MCLG TYPICAL CONTAMINANT SOURCE
LYMAN CREEK
Nitrate + Nitrite Entry Point 504 0.16 ppm Nitrate -10 ppm Nitrite - 1 ppm 10 ppm 1ppm Runoff from fertilizer use; leaching from septic tanks; sewage; erosion of natural deposits
Fluoride Entry Point 504 0.13 1.17 0.69 ppm 4 ppm 4 ppm Erosion of natural deposits; water additive which promotes strong teeth
Radium*** (Combined 226/228)Entry Point 504 0.8 (+/-0.4) pCi/L 5 pCi/L 0 pCi/L Erosion of natural deposits
Gross Alpha***Entry Point 504 2.0 (+/-1.4)pCi/L 15 pCi/L 0 pCi/L Erosion of natural deposits
UCMR3
EP Chlorate*Entry Point 504 103.7 ppb Results from disinfection with sodium hypochlorite
EP Chromium-6* Entry Point 504 0.088 ppb Total Cr = 100 ppb Naturally occuring or from industrial activities
EP Molybdemum* Entry Point 504 1.01 ppb Naturally occuring in the environment
EP Strontium*Entry Point 504 94.7 ppb Naturally occuring in the environment
EP Vanadium*Entry Point 504 0.369 ppb Naturally occuring in the environment
MRT Chlorate*Max. Residence Time 504 103.1 ppb Results from disinfection with sodium hypochlorite
MRT Chromium-6* Max. Residence Time 504 0.093 ppb Total Cr = 100 ppb Naturally occuring or from industrial activities
MRT Molybdemum* Max. Residence Time 504 1.04 ppb Naturally occuring in the environment
MRT Strontium*Max. Residence Time 504 95.3 ppb Naturally occuring in the environment
MRT Vanadium*Max. Residence Time 504 0.382 ppb Naturally occuring in the environment
ADDITIONAL WATER QUALITY INFORMATION
Alkalinity Plant Effluent 109.00 151.00 129.58 ppm NA
Chloride Plant Effluent 5.00 25.00 10.47 ppm 250
Free Chlorine Plant Effluent 0.78 1.15 1.05 ppm 4 (MRDL)4 ppm
Calcium Hardness Plant Effluent 95.00 104.00 100.42 ppm NA
Calcium Plant Effluent 38.00 41.60 40.17 ppm NA
Magnesium Hardness Plant Effluent 59.00 77.00 65.27 ppm NA
Magnesium Plant Effluent 14.41 18.80 15.94 ppm NA
Total Hardness Plant Effluent 159.20 172.00 165.68 ppm NA
Total Hardness (Grains)Plant Effluent 9.30 10.05 9.68 Grains NA
pH Plant Effluent 7.44 8.11 7.87 SU 6.5-8.5 (SMCL)
Sodium Plant Effluent 0.89 10.30 3.22 ppm 20
Sulfate Plant Effluent 1.50 31.00 16.96 ppm 250
Iron Plant Effluent 0.01 0.07 0.02 ppm 0.3
Total Dissolved Solids Plant Effluent 159.90 168.30 163.96 ppm 500
Turbidity (in NTU)Plant Effluent 0.03 0.12 0.06 NTU <1.0
Dissolved Oxygen Plant Effluent 7.70 9.60 8.53 ppm NA
Aluminum Plant Effluent 0.000 0.010 0.003 ppm 0.20
Manganese Plant Effluent 0.010 0.400 0.168 ppm 0.05
UV254 (Organics)Plant Effluent 99.800 101.400 100.108 %T NA
***last collected in 2010 per EPA regulations* Last collected in 2014 per EPA requirements
161
12 City of Bozeman - 2015 Water Quality Reportwww.bozeman.net
Water and Your Health
All drinking water, including bottled water, may reasonably be
expected to contain at least small amounts of some contaminants.
The presence of contaminants does not necessarily indicate that
water poses a health risk. Some people may be more vulnerable
to contaminants in drinking water than the public in general.
Immunocompromised persons, such as persons with cancer
undergoing chemotherapy, persons who have undergone organ
transplants, people with HIV-AIDS or other immune system
disorders, some elderly, and infants can be particularly at risk of
infections from contaminants. These people should seek advice
about drinking water from their health care providers.
More information about contaminants and potential health
effects, or to receive a copy of the EPA and the US Center for
Disease Control guidelines on appropriate means to lessen
the risk of infection by Cryptosporidium and microbiological
contaminants, can be obtained by calling the Environmental
Protection Agency’s Safe Drinking Water Hotline at
800-426-4791.
For More Information
Eric Campbell, Superintendent
City of Bozeman - Public Works, Water Treatment Plant
406-994-0501 · reservoir@bozeman.net
www.bozeman.net
162
Page 1 of 5
WORK PLAN FOR DNRC GRANT FUNDING
Groundwater Model Refinement to Support Future Groundwater Right Applications, Mitigation
Changes, and the Formation of a Water Bank in the Gallatin Valley
January 2016
1. INTRODUCTION
In planning for its future water supply needs, the City of Bozeman (COB) has determined that it will need
additional supply to meet its projected 2062 demand, and is considering developing a groundwater
supply system to meet a significant portion of those needs. As part of the planning process, COB is
performing an investigation of groundwater resources within the Gallatin Valley for potential future
municipal use. The goal of the project is to identify locations where groundwater quantity is likely
sufficient to supply relatively high capacity wells and to rank these locations based on additional criteria
including: water quality and infrastructure considerations, and the mitigation strategies that would be
required to permit new groundwater sources in the different areas. COB understands that in order to
permit new supply wells, any net depletion to surface water must be offset through mitigation, such
that demands by senior water users are satisfied and adverse effects to current beneficial uses are
prevented. COB is considering several mitigation strategies for potential new water supplies, including
the potential for acquiring mitigation water through an established water bank.
COB has been involved in meeting with the various stakeholders involved in efforts to create a water
bank for portions of the Gallatin Valley. These stakeholders include: Association of Gallatin Agricultural
Irrigators, Trout Unlimited, The Nature Conservancy, DNRC, Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks, and
Montana Aquatic Resources Services (MARS). The goal of developing a water bank would be to market
water for the purpose of mitigating new water right permits in the valley.
COB is developing a numerical groundwater flow model of the Gallatin Valley to serve as a water supply
planning tool. Initially the model will be used to evaluate relative differences, in terms of sustainable
yield and predicted impacts to existing groundwater and surface water users, among candidate well
sites. This model will also be used to evaluate general mitigation strategies of candidate sites.
DNRC funding would be used to improve the numerical groundwater flow model’s usability as a planning
tool. The objective of this work is to build additional detail into the groundwater flow model being
developed by COB in order to enhance the predictive capabilities of the model, with specific respect to
the timing and location of stream depletion/accretion resulting from proposed permits/changes in
select locations in the Gallatin Valley. With this additional temporal and spatial detail, the model would
be a lasting and more suitable tool for use in evaluating permits and changes for mitigation brought to
DNRC by applicants in the Gallatin Valley, including any future Water Bank.
163
Page 2 of 5
2. SCOPE OF WORK
COB developed a scope of work to guide the next phase of their water planning process. The following
work tasks were developed to meet project objectives:
Task 01: Build Additional Temporal Detail into Model
The objective of this task will be to incorporate transient information into the groundwater model to
account for seasonal hydrogeologic changes and allow the model to be used to examine the timing of
simulated drawdown effects and stream depletion/accretion.
The model being developed currently for the COB is intended to be a preliminary screening tool for
siting new water supply wells and evaluate general mitigation strategies. The initial model development
will not be capable of simulating some of the specific conditions that must be examined as part of
applications for new groundwater permits and associated mitigation strategies. Therefore, the current
model will need to be modified in order to simulate the specific conditions required as part of these
permitting processes. In order to adequately simulate the timing and location of surface water
depletions associated with proposed new groundwater diversions, transient conditions such as seasonal
changes in stream/canal stage and flow, irrigation-related consumptive use, and irrigation water return
flows, will be incorporated into the model. Transient data such as seasonal changes in groundwater
elevations and river gain/loss will be used to calibrate the model.
Existing surface water flow data will be compiled and examined to identify representative data for the
model. The data identified through this process will be incorporated into the model by breaking the
steady-state model into transient time steps (likely by month), using the available data to modify model
boundary conditions and properties (e.g. rivers, streams, and recharge) to vary with time.
Transient calibration targets will also be developed using the data discussed above. For example,
MBMG and the Gallatin Local Water Quality District measure and record water levels in a network of
wells located throughout the Gallatin Valley on a daily, weekly or monthly basis. These data will be used
to create groundwater hydrographs, which will establish transient groundwater elevation (head) targets
throughout the model domain. Aquifer test results from tests performed at various locations in the
Valley may also be used for calibration of the model in specific areas in order to provide additional detail
on a site scale. By simulating these aquifer tests and comparing simulated drawdown to observed
drawdown, the ability of the model to predict potential effects of proposed new wells on water levels in
nearby existing wells will be enhanced. Once calibrated to transient targets, the groundwater model will
be capable of predicting the temporal effects on surface water from proposed groundwater diversion
and from potential mitigation strategies, including aquifer recharge.
Task 02: Build Additional Spatial Detail into Model
In order to more accurately predict the impacts of proposed permits and changes, the groundwater
model will likely need to incorporate additional detail with respect to the distribution of aquifer
properties and the locations of smaller surface water features such as second order streams and
irrigation canals. Water right information will be evaluated to determine what specific sources of supply
164
Page 3 of 5
are most utilized and which are most likely to be affected by the development of new groundwater
resources in the Valley. This information, in combination with an evaluation of where changes to
current water-use practices are most likely to occur will be used to determine where model refinement
should be focused.
Model properties to be assigned in the steady-state model being developed for COB include the number
of model layers and associated elevations, aquifer properties (hydraulic conductivity), and recharge.
Model layer elevations/thicknesses and hydraulic conductivity’s have been assigned based on the
geology of the study area, taking into account spatial and vertical distribution of hydraulic conductivity
described in previous investigations and information obtained from MBMG.
A review of publicly available information will be completed to identify site-specific hydrogeologic
studies that may contain information regarding aquifer properties and recharge to groundwater. More
detailed information regarding the spatial variability of aquifer properties such as hydraulic conductivity
and storage in the Gallatin Valley. Aquifer storage properties have not been assigned in the current
model because it is a steady-state model which does not require storage coefficients. Storage
coefficient estimates identified will be used to assign storage coefficients to all of the water-bearing
zones represented in the model.
Task 03: Specific Steps toward Establishing a Water Bank
Additional model development and simulations will be performed specifically aimed at advancing the
establishment of a Water Bank in the Gallatin Valley.
Depending on the resources available following the establishment of a calibrated transient groundwater
flow model, this model may be used to run a number of scenarios aimed at producing sets of depletion
and accretion results that can be used by potential water right applicant and the Water Bank as a
planning tool to understand what type of mitigation would be required to offset depletion associated
with a certain proposed groundwater diversion. Similar to the concept of developing Stream Depletion
Factors, these results would provide planning level information that could be used by the Water Bank or
other applicant considering specific permit application and/or mitigation plans. For example, an
applicant considering the installation of a new water supply well in a certain location could get an
understanding of what surface water source or sources would likely be affected by the new well, where
the surface water depletion is likely to occur, and what the month-to-month timing of the depletion
would be. Other model results would allow the applicant to understand whether or not, for example,
the infiltration of a seasonally-available irrigation water right in another part of the Valley would likely
be sufficient to offset the anticipated depletion, with respect to volume, location and timing.
Model results will then be used to begin the process of developing a more specific planning tool for
water banking through the development of unit response functions within the model domain. Response
functions are analytical expressions, graphs, or coefficients that describe the relative response of the
aquifer system at a given location to a unit stress at a second location. Response functions are derived
to express temporal relationships between cause and effect at specific points within the aquifer and are
developed through simulation (Johnson and Cosgrove 1998). Because the response is expressed in
165
Page 4 of 5
relative terms, it may be scaled to any magnitude of stress desired. The functions may express transient
or steady-state response of the system to the stress. The development and use of response functions
require that response is proportional to the magnitude of the stress; consequently, the governing
equations must be approximately linear. Responses may be in terms of aquifer water level change
(drawdown), changes in head-dependent flux (capture), change in storage, or changes in groundwater
flow velocity.
There are several ways in which response functions may be applied. They may be used to 1)
conceptualize and visualize the manner in which pumping or recharge effects propagate through an
aquifer, 2) quantify how aquifer pumping or recharge impacts groundwater levels or stream flows, or 3)
provide mathematical expressions or matrices to incorporate into more comprehensive water models or
optimization schemes. These applications can be accommodated without performing specific predictive
modeling scenarios. Response functions can aid in visualization and conceptualization of pumping and
recharge effects because the response is assumed to be proportional to the stress. This relationship
allows a generic presentation of cause and effect relationships.
Quantification of impacts from individual pumping or recharge activities may be required in adjudication
of water rights or development of mitigation plans. Johnson et al (1993) evaluated the depletion of
springs from the Snake River Plain aquifer by generating response functions for 18 selected stress
locations on the eastern Snake River Plain. The impacts of groundwater use on spring discharge and flow
of the Snake River can be approximately assessed for any location on the Plain by using response
functions from the nearest location. Similar information could be used to establish mitigation
requirements for groundwater pumping in the Gallatin Valley.
The various stakeholders currently involved in establishing a Gallatin Valley Water Bank will be
consulted to identify parcels/areas that have been proposed as aquifer recharge sites. A few test-case
response functions will be developed for these areas, with the understanding that complete
development of this planning tool would require additional time and funding. Potential sites could
include: properties where engineered infiltration galleries are proposed; surface water features such as
pits, ponds, streams, or ditches; and, wetlands.
Task 04: Groundwater Modeling Report
A technical report that includes all data, analyses, and findings from the work completed during this
project, including all hydrogeologic modeling files, will be prepared at the conclusion of the project.
The report will include all text, figures, tables, appendices and documentation of analyses used to
present a sound basis for the conclusions and recommendations provided. The report will discuss
findings, major issues encountered, data gaps, anticipated challenges, and provide guidance for next
steps to be taken in the planning and permitting processes, and for future model refinement and use.
The report will also be furnished electronically in a searchable PDF format.
166
Page 5 of 5
3. ESTIMATED COST OF THE WORK
The total estimated cost for this Scope of Services is $ 50,000. A detailed cost summary for each task is
provided under separate cover as Attachment A.
4. PROJECT SCHEDULE
A schedule of specific tasks to complete the project is provided under separate cover as Attachment B.
5. REFERENCES
Johnson, G.S., C.W. Bishop, J.M. Hubbell, J.G. Lucas, 1993. Simulation of Impacts of Snake River Plain
Aquifer Water Use on Flow in the Snake River. Idaho Water Resources Research Institute,
University of Idaho, Moscow, ID, 56 p.
Gary S. Johnson, G.S, D.M. Cosgrove, and J. Spinazola, 1998. Use of MODFLOW for Development of
Response Functions. University of Idaho, Idaho Water Resources Research Institute, Idaho Falls,
Idaho, 7 p. Presented At: Modflow '98, Golden, Co., October 48, 1998.
167
TASK ITEMRATETOTALTask 1: Build Additional Temporal Detail into ModelLaborData Collection42 hrs $100 $4,200Data Review10 hrs $135 $1,350Model Refinement40 hrs $135 $5,400GIS/Database Technical Support16 hrs $110$1,760Model Review8 hrs $175$1,400Task 1: Subtotal $14,110Task 2: Build Additional Spatial Detail into ModelLaborData Collection42 hrs $100 $4,200Data Review20 hrs $135 $2,700Model Refinement40 hrs $135 $5,400GIS/Database Technical Support12 hrs $110$1,320Model Review8 hrs $175$1,400Task 2: Subtotal $15,020Task 3: Additional Refinement/Simulation to Support Water BankLaborData Collection42 hrs $100 $4,200Data Review10 hrs $135 $1,350Model Refinement50 hrs $135 $6,750GIS/Database Technical Support12 hrs $110$1,320Model Review8 hrs $175$1,400Task 3: Subtotal $15,020Task 4: Prepare Groundwater Modeling ReportLaborPrepare Technical Report24 hrs $135$3,240GIS/Database Technical Support11 hrs $110$1,210Report Review8 hrs $175$1,400Task D Subtotal $5,850TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS $50,000UNITJanuary 2016Groundwater Model Refinement to Support Future Groundwater Right Applications, Mitigation Changes, and the Formation of a Water Bank in the Gallatin ValleyProposed Cost BreakdownGallatin Valley, MontanaATTACHMENT APage 1 of 1168
AugSepOctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJunJul1 Build Additional Temporal Detail into Model2 Build Additional Spatial Detail into Model3 Additional Refinement/Simulation to Support Water Bank4 Prepare Groundwater Modeling ReportTaskTask DescriptionATTACHMENT BGroundwater Model Refinement to Support Future Groundwater Right Applications, Mitigation Changes, and the Formation of a Water Bank in the Gallatin ValleyGallatin Valley, MontanaProposed Project ScheduleJanuary 201620172016Page 1 of 1169
Model –Groundwater Scoping AreasScoping AreasA‐Gallatin Front Range DeepB‐Gallatin GatewayCSouthBelgradeC‐South BelgradeD‐East Belgrade‐Bridger Front DeepENorth BelgradeFBaker Creek‐Stage CoachRoadCoach Road170