The URL can be used to link to this page

046 of 2021 - Bureau of Reclamation WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants FY 2022 /PWFNCFS Amy Fowler (Nov 30, 2021 11:43 MST) Cindy Trishman (Dec 2, 2021 18:11 MST) Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants for FY 2022 Funding Opportunity Number: R22AS00023 November 3, 2021 Applicant Project Manager Salt Lake City Corporation Stephanie Duer P.O. Box 145451 Water Conservation Program Manager 451 South State Street Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5451 P.O. Box 145528 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5528 E-Mail: stephanie.duer@slcgov.com Office Phone: 801-483-6860 Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Table of Contents Standard Form 424 Application for Federal Assistance……………………www.grants.gov Submission Standard Form 424 Budget Information…………………………………………. www.grants.gov Submission Standard Form 424D Construction Program Assurances…………………. www.grants.gov Submission SF-LLL Disclosure of Lobbying Activities……………………………………………………………..… Not Applicable Grants.Gov Certification For Lobbying…………………………………………….. www.grants.gov Submission SECTION 1: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL A. Executive Summary.…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1 B. Project Location……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1 C. Technical Project Description……………………………………………………………………………………………. 1 D. Evaluation Criteria…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 11 1. Evaluation Criteria A: Quantifiable Water Savings…………………………………………………… 11 2. Evaluation Criteria B: Renewable Energy…………………………………………………………………. 14 3. Evaluation Criteria C: Sustainability Benefits……………………………………………………………. 15 4. Evaluation Criteria D: Complementing On-Farm Irrigation Improvements……………….. 23 5. Evaluation Criteria E: Planning and Implementation………………………………………………… 23 6. Evaluation Criteria F: Collaboration…………………………………………………………………………. 28 7. Evaluation Criteria G: Additional Non-Federal Funding…………………………………………….. 32 8. Evaluation Criteria H: Nexus to Reclamation……………………………………………………………. 32 E. Performance Measures …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 32 SECTION 2: PROJECT BUDGET…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 37 A. Funding Plan and Letters of Commitment………………………………………………………………………. 37 B. Budget Proposal……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 38 C. Budget Narrative……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 39 SECTION 3: ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE……………………………… 44 SECTION 4: REQUIRED PERMITS OR APPROVALS.…………………………………………………………………… 44 SECTION 5: LETTERS OF PROJECT SUPPORT……………………………………………………………………………. 45 SECTION 6: OFFICIAL RESOLUTION…………………………………………………………………………………………. 45 APPENDICES Appendix A. Partner and Third-Party Match Commitment Letters.………………………………… 46 Appendix B. Partner and Stakeholder Support Letters…………………………………………………... 50 Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Appendix C. Construction Cost Estimate………………………………………………………………………… 57 Appendix D. United States Golf Association On-Site Visit Consulting Service Report for Rose Park Golf Course………………………………………………………………………………… 59 Appendix E. Salt Lake City Water Conservation Plan 2020………………………………………………75 Table of Tables Table 1.1: Projected Dry Year Production - Existing and Future Sources 17 Table 1.2: Estimated Project Schedule 27 Table 1.3: Anticipated Quantifiable Water Savings 33 Table 1.4: Baseline Rough Area Conversion and Anticipated Water Use Reductions 33 Table 1.5: Projected Water Savings Derived from Head-to-Head Water Delivery and Reduction of Rough Area 34 Table 1.6: Estimated Water Savings from Improved Distribution Uniformity 35 Table 1.7: Anticipated Indoor Water Savings 36 Table 2.1: Total Project Cost 38 Table 2.2: Proposed Project Budget 38 Table 2.3: Proposed Hours Devoted Tasks by Position 40 Table of Figures Figure 0. Map of Project Location 2 Figure 1. Western Wheatgrass Turf 6 Figure 2. Course Turf Reductions and Reconfigurations 10 Figure 3. Course Existing Turf Configurations 10 Figure 4. Annual Production Requirements vs. Supply (Dry Year) 18 Figure 5. Map of Geographic Location of SLC Public Utilities Service Area 24 Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 1 SECTION 1: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL A. Executive Summary Date: November 3, 2021 Applicant: Salt Lake City Corporation City: Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities County: Salt Lake County Applicant Category: Category A State: Utah Project Length of Time: 36 months Located on a Federal Facility: No Estimated Completion Date: June 2025 1. Project Summary. Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities, located in northern Utah along the Wasatch Front and near Great Salt Lake, will undertake landscape irrigation measures and indoor water conservation strategies for the Rose Park Golf Course in partnership with the Salt Lake City Golf Division. The existing simple grid irrigation system will be replaced with a head-to-head system with high efficiency nozzles that enable watering to match turf type. Turf removal will replace high- water rough areas with low- to no-water grass species. The outdoor water conservation strategies will improve the flow-dependent ecological resiliency of the Jordan River, an impaired urban water course that empties into the Great Salt Lake, which is a water body of hemispheric importance. Upgrades to high-efficiency indoor appliance and fixtures to the clubhouse and on-course restrooms will result in culinary water savings. The project is a shared priority for the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities and Salt Lake City Golf Division. Current water use is approximately 339.96 AF annually. Anticipated water savings are 188.87 acre-feet annually, a reduction of 44% below current use, which will remain in the Upper Colorado River Basin system. B. Project Location 1. Location. The Rose Park Golf Course is located in Salt Lake County, Utah within the municipal boundaries of Salt Lake City. Figure 0 shows the geographic location of the project. The project latitude is 40.7998° N and longitude is 111.9382° W. C. Technical Project Description 1. Project Summary. The Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project is a water conservation project that achieves water savings by reducing outdoor and indoor water usage. The project is a collaborative effort on the part of Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (SLC Public Utilities) and Salt Lake City Golf Division (SLC Golf). Landscape irrigations measures applied to the public 18-hole Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 2 Figure 0. Map of Project Location Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 3 course will increase irrigation system efficiencies, reduce water applied to the turf, and decrease water pumped from an impaired urban water course, which is the irrigation water source for the course. High-efficiency indoor appliance and fixture upgrades to the clubhouse and restroom facilities will provide additional water savings to a beloved public golf course. Currently, 7,284,286 square feet, or 167.22 acres, of the Rose Park Golf Course are irrigated at a rate of 24 inches per irrigation season. This represents a water demand of 108,980,488 gallons, or 334.45-acre feet (AF), of water annually for turf areas, and 4.91 AF for indoor use. Water for the course turf is pumped from the Jordan River. Water for the clubhouse and on-course restroom is culinary municipal and industrial (M&I) water supplied by SLC Public Utilities. This project anticipates reducing outdoor water use by 187.93 AF and indoor use by 0.94 AF, for a combined anticipated savings of 188.87 AF; 44.3% less than current usage. 2. Scope of Work. The project implements four water conservation strategies: 1) replacement of a current simple grid irrigation system, much of which is 63-year- old,, of an 18-hole public golf course with a new system reflecting best-practices in head-to-head irrigation system design; 2) utilization of high-efficiency multi- stream/multi-trajectory spray nozzles; 3) turf conversion to non-irrigated, no-mow, native and adaptive species blend of wheatgrasses; and 4) standardized audits of the 68-year old clubhouse kitchen and restrooms and on-course restrooms to identify, quantify, and implement fixture upgrades and/or replacements to reduce indoor water use. Professional irrigation contract services, water management and water efficiency landscape consultants, regional research specialists, and in-house expertise will be utilized to accomplish the scope of work. The scope of work includes: Task 1.0 Project Management Task 1.1 Project Team Coordination. Monthly meetings during the construction season and quarterly meetings during non-construction season are conducted to coordinate project implementation and post verification with SLC Public Utilities staff and SLC Golf staff participating on the project team. Core team members are the SLC Public Utilities Water Conservation Program Manager, SLC Golf Division Director, and SLC Golf Course Superintendent. Approach and Methods. The team meetings are used to track progress of task completion, coordinate workflow, troubleshoot and address barriers, and ensure project delivery. The SLC Public Utilities’ Water Conservation Program Manager will serve as the Project Manager responsible for facilitating project team meetings, tracking milestone Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 4 completion, and liaising between the project team and professional consultants contributing expertise to the project. Task 1.2 Compliance and Reporting. Interim performance reports and federal financial reports are submitted on a semi-annual basis. Final performance report is submitted encompassing the 36-month project period. Approach and Methods. The Project Manager prepares and submits the interim and final performance report. The Grant Manager in the SLC Finance Department completes the federal financial reports. Task 2.0 Landscape Irrigation Measures Task 2.1 Contractual and Consultant Services. Professional consulting services and construction contractors are secured for project delivery. Approach and Methods. The project team works with the SLC Engineering Division and SLC Purchasing & Contracts Management Division to secure a qualified irrigation system design consultant and professional irrigation construction contractor through design-bid-build procurement. Task 2.2 Design New Irrigation System/ Finalize Turf Reduction Plan. A new irrigation system is designed to reflect current best practices in golf course irrigation systems. The system optimizes water delivery to discreet areas based on turf species and play levels. In addition, the design will allow for adaptations to pump water from an on-site retention pond constructed in a future phase of the project. The design process will finalize the proposed 23.37 acres of turf reduction to align with players’ traffic patterns, increase out-of-play areas, allow for watering of out-of- play areas to cease. The turf reduction design will integrate data captured from a player-based global positioning system (GPS) and a scenario generation study conducted pre-grant award by SLC Golf. GPS tags issued to golfers over a three-day period capture data as they play that is used to create a heat map showing heavy traffic areas and lower traffic areas. The GPS tag data combined with data related to Surface Management, Sensor Integration, Hole Location and Advanced Weather to visually display the interactions and patterns that impact maintenance practices, resource consumption and golfer experience. Turf removal scenarios generated from the consolidated data sets will allow for cost implications overlayed with water-use reduction potential to finalize turf removal decisions, inform reseeding, guide turf management, and drive a positive impact for golfers. Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 5 Approach and Methods. A professional irrigation design consultant will design a low-water use irrigation system for the 18-hole course. Qualifications sought include knowledge of basic to complex irrigation systems along with systems used for distribution and supply and experience with the coordination and installation of systems with irrigation contractors and ability to advise on critical decisions impacting implementation. Three water management experts from the Utah State University Center for Water Efficient Landscaping (USU/CWEL) will review the irrigation system design to ensure optimal efficacy and efficiency. The United States Golf Association DEACON digital visualization platform will be utilized for the GPS data capture and scenario generation. Task 2.3 Develop Turf Management Plan. A Turf Management Plan will be developed to guide reseeding of rough areas into out-of-play areas, and long-term maintenance of altered fairway turf. The plan will identify no- or low-water grass species for turf reduction areas that have been tested to perform in climate and soil conditions similar to the Rose Park Golf Course and that will reduce competition with the turf for moisture and nutrients. For altered fairway turf, the plan will specify increased mow heights matched with the new irrigation design. Approach and Methods. Three researchers from USU/CWEL will advise the project team on introducing overseeding in out of play areas with a resilient seed blend that accommodates less maintenance, less water, and a more pleasing appearance in dry conditions. There are several established seed test plots at multiple City-operated courses to help identify a suitable seed blend. A 1:1 mix of Siberian Wheatgrass and Snake River Wheatgrass planted on an out-of-play area of the Bonneville Golf Course, Glendale Golf Course, and Rose Park Golf course. The seed mix provides a uniform 5 to 8” tall turfgrass stand. It is a very drought tolerant native and adaptive species yet open enough to find and play a golf shot and is showing promise for expanded use at the Rose Park Golf Course. This measure is consistent with conclusions contained in the United States Golf Association (USGA) On-Site Visit Consulting Service Report for Rose Park Golf Course conducted June 17, 2021. (See Figure 1 and Appendix D.) Recent research outcomes from on-site turf trials led by research geneticists at the Research Geneticist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forage and Ranch Research Laboratory will be central in guiding the Turf Management Plan. A USU/CWEL turf science expert will advise on appropriate seeding equipment purchases. Task 2.4 Removing Turf. An estimated 23.37 acres of high-water rough turf will be removed with final acres of turf removed determined from the final Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 6 design of the irrigation system and outcomes from the Deacon digital tool analysis, which will inform the Turf Reduction Plan and implementation. Figure 1. Western Wheatgrass Turf (Courtesy USGA On-Site Visit Report, June 2021) Approach and Methods. The irrigation construction contractor will remove the turf as part the new irrigation system installing and based on the design specifications. Contractor qualifications sought include knowledge of Smart Water Application Technologies, expertise installing irrigation systems to design criteria, and experience with efficient and effective application of water to cultivated landscapes of golf courses. Task 2.5 Installing High-Efficiency Nozzles. A head-to-head irrigation system that uses an estimated 1,600 high-efficiency nozzles and improves irrigation head space will be installed for the course. The new system will improve irrigation uniformity through careful evaluation of sprinkler head design, nozzle selection, head spacing, pipe size and pressure selection and will accommodate cycling irrigation sessions to ensure good infiltration and minimize runoff. The use of high-efficiency nozzles is anticipated to reduce irrigation head count by at least 20% over the current system. A new state-of-the-art, research-quality weather station was installed on the Rose Park Golf Course in fall of 2020 in partnership with SLC Golf, SLC Public Utilities, USU/CWEL, and the Utah Climate Center. The weather Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 7 station is key to determine accurate daily irrigation replacement needs and reduce over-irrigation with the new system. Approach and Methods. The irrigation construction contractor will install the high-efficiency nozzles as part of the new irrigation system. Task 2.6 Audit and Verification of New Irrigation System. A post-installation irrigation system audit, turf mapping, and site verification survey will be conducted to confirm system performance and document fairway/rough configurations for on-going site management purposes. The post- installation irrigation audit will include a visual inspection of the irrigation system, assess distribution uniformity of the high-efficiency nozzles, confirm irrigation control device operations and nozzle pressure measurements, determine precipitation rate and landscape watering needs, and establish an optimal irrigation schedule and run times. The audit results will be augmented with a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping of the turf area and a ground truthing site survey. The GIS mapping will verify the area of reseeded turf, measure low-mow and high-mow fairway turf area, and generate an updated GIS turf site map. The -site survey will distinguish between low fairway and high fairway areas, verify the exact location of irrigation heads, and confirm correct installation of the high-efficiency nozzles. Approach and Methods. USU Water Check program staff will conduct the irrigation system audit using catch cup test methods for distribution uniformity. The SLC Public Utilities GIS Programmer Analyst will conduct GIS mapping and produce the updated turf map. The Program Manager and GIS Programmer Analyst will conduct the site survey using a hand- held GPS device. Task 2.7 Altering Fairway Turf Management. Mow heights will be altered to allow the existing bluegrass/rye mix to grow to a higher blade height and support less frequent irrigation practices that reduce water use. Approach and Methods. The Project Manager, Golf Director, and Golf Course Superintendent in collaboration with USU/CWEL, and utilizing the DEACON data results will identify the most appropriate fairway areas to alter mow height as a component of the Turf Management Plan Task 2.8 Reseeding Rough Turf. Approximately 23.37 acres of removed rough-area turf will be converted to a drought tolerant native and adaptive grass seed blend specified in the Turf Management Plan that requires only periodic irrigation during peak summer months. Minimal irrigation will be applied for seedling establishment and no water will be needed after Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 8 year one. The wheatgrasses will outcompete the weeds within three years of planting. Small area re-seedings may need to occur in subsequent years. Approach and Methods. Seeds will be sourced from local vendors. SLC Golf maintenance staff will perform the reseeding using equipment specified in the Turf Management Plan. Reseeding will take place in late fall to allow the seeds to sit throughout winter and germinate in the spring, reducing the need for irrigation to promote germination due to fall and spring rains and cooler temperatures. Small areas needing re- seeding will be identified during the growing season. Task 3.0 High-Efficiency Indoor Appliances and Fixtures Task 3.1 In-Door Water Use Audit and Fixture Inspection. Inspection of existing indoor and on-course restroom fixtures and a water use audit will be conducted to identify inefficiencies and potential leaks. The audit will assess the clubhouse snack bar, kitchen, and restrooms, on-course restrooms, and any other interior water-using fixture or appliance. Approach and Methods. A professional water management consultant will conduct the fixture inspections and water use audit with assistance from the Project Manager. Results will be shared with the project team. Task 3.2 High Efficiency Appliance and Fixture Selection. High-efficiency replacement appliances and fixtures are selected based on the results of the fixture inspections and water use audit. Appliances and fixtures selected will have manufacturer specifications for low water use with U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) WaterSense certification. Approach and Methods. The project team will select high efficiency appliances and fixtures that meet that functional needs of the clubhouse kitchen, snack bar, and restrooms and on-course restrooms with reduced water use. Anticipated new appliance and fixtures include toilets, urinals, faucet aerators, and an ice machine. Task 3.3 High Efficiency Appliance and Fixture Installation. High-efficiency indoor appliances and fixtures will be installed in the clubhouse kitchen, snack bar, and restrooms and in the on-course restrooms. Approach and Methods. The qualified professional plumber will install the selected high-efficiency toilets, urinals, appliances, and faucet aerators. Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 9 Task 3.4 Post-Installation Water Use Analysis. An analysis of metered water use will be conducted to determine waters savings have occurred and will be used to continue to monitor water usage. Approach and Methods. The Project Manager will gather the metered water use data, conduct the water savings analysis, and report results. 3. Existing Conditions. The proposed project addresses existing conditions of the Rose Park Golf Course that are contributing to over-watering, diminished turf health, and impacting play experience. if. Water Use. The Rose Park Golf Course, which contains approximately 167.22 acres of irrigated area, receives on average 22 to 24 inches of water, or approximately 99 to 109 million gallons, annually through a dedicated meter. During the last two drought years, water use was reduced to less than 90 million gallons, but with great effort by the course staff, who manually shut off heads to avoid watering out-of-play areas. These methods affected course playability and appearance, which reduced player enjoyment and affected player hours. ii. Irrigation System and Nozzles. The course and its irrigation system were built in 1953 in the Rose Park suburb of Salt Lake City. The irrigation system was constructed utilizing a simple grid pattern layout that distributes water without consideration of turf type or play level. The result is that the entire golf course is irrigated to maintain the highest demand areas and grasses. The system uses approximately 1,400 Rainbird impact-driven sprinkler heads. The standard useful life-expectancy of a golf course irrigation system is 25-30 years. The course’s mainline irrigation system is 63 years old, inefficient, and prone to multiple breaks. The system is dead-ended and water volume at station level is inadequate, leading to inconsistent water volume and increased watering windows. The mainline piping is 6-inch Asbestos lined cement pipe (Transit) which is outdated and hazardous to work with. Repairs to the Tranzite pipe must be contracted out for proper techniques and disposal. Obsolete components (piping, valves, wiring and sprinklers) along with normal wear contribute to poor distribution uniformity and water efficiency. Currently, programming considerations are constrained to stay within water flow limits required to not stress piping, which is contributing to longer watering windows and ineffective watering patterns. The Front 9 has galvanized piping which is hydraulically limiting from install and susceptible to leaks, deuteration, and internal diameter reduction. The irrigation conduits are inefficient with multiple valves per station, in some cases up to 3, which includes up to 20 sprinkler heads. The project upgrade to a single valve per station will isolate hole by hole repairs without turning off the entire system. The back 9 was retrofitted in early 1980’s with Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 10 Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 11 class 200 mainline 3-inch pipe that is susceptible to breakage and overall wear. The Back 9 averages 18 waterline breaks per season, increasing operating costs and diverting man-hours from other important course projects. iii. Turf. The course contains 165 acres of irrigated turf comprised mostly of bent grass and a blue/rye grass mix. These are high-water reliant grasses. The project is an opportunity to convert 23.37 acres (14% of the total turf area) and reseed with no-water grass species. iv. Indoor Appliances and Fixtures. There are ten sink faucets, five toilets, three urinals, and one ice machine installed in the clubhouse, snack bar, and restrooms and the on-course restrooms. Four of the ten sinks have faucets replaced in 2017. The 1950’s era existing appliances and fixtures pre-date the EPA Safe Drinking Water Act fixture standards and are an opportunity to replace with high-efficiency models. 4. Before and After Project Site Maps. Figure 2 displays the turf reductions and reconfigurations that will result from the project as well as a retention pond that will be constructed in a future phase of the project to improve and enhance irrigated water quality. Figure 3 displays the existing turf type configurations and highlights the run of the Jordan River through the 18-hole golf course. D. Evaluation Criteria 1. Evaluation Criterion A—Quantifiable Water Savings i. Estimated Water Savings. 188.87 acre-feet (AF) per year is estimated in water savings as a direct result of this project. ii. Current Losses. Water loss due to turf over-watering or associated with leakage from the irrigation system or indoor fixtures is infiltrating into soil layers and returning to the Jordan River drainage basin. This supports return flows into the Jordan River, which benefits wildlife, aquatic habitat, and native plant species. iii. Documentation Supporting Estimated Water Savings. Water saving estimates are derived from acreage measures from aerial imagery, direct metered water delivery, and anticipated water savings. The water savings calculation used is: (188.87AF -339.36AF) 339.36AF x 100 = 44.34% decrease in use iv. Turf Removal Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 12 a. Method To Determine Average Annual Water Savings Estimates. Water savings have been calculated based on the current application of 24 inches of water per season being applied over 23.37 acres, the minimum rough-play area to be removed. b. Total Surface Area and Consumptive Use. 23.37 acres of turf are to be removed. These acres currently receive an average of 22 to 24 inches of water per irrigation season. c. Data Evaluated To Estimate Average Annual Turf Consumptive Use. Historical water consumption data derived from direct metered water use was evaluated to estimate annual turf consumption use per unit area. Water savings have been calculated assuming a Reference ETo of 26 inches, with a deficit of 0.8 for irrigation of greens and a 0.7 deficit for the irrigation of tees, fairways, and roughs. A weather adjustment was not used in calculating use. d. Site Audit Pre- WaterSMART WEEG Program Acceptance. A site audit will be performed in late fall 2021. e. Water Savings Verification Methods. Actual water use reductions will be determined through the analysis of dedicated meter flow data. v. High-Efficiency Nozzles a. Method To Determine Annual Water Savings Estimates. The existing 1,400 impact-driven rotor heads have an estimated Distribution Uniformity (DU) of between .55 and .65, based on make, model, and age. Existing heads also do not have built in pressure regulation, further reducing nozzle efficiency. An irrigation audit was conducted in the early 2000’s. b. Data Evaluated To Estimate Irrigated Landscape Reduce Water Demand. Historical water consumption data derived from dedicated meter reading of actual water consumption was evaluated in calculating the percent reduction in water demand per unit area of irrigated landscape. Prior to the implementation of this proposed project, SLC Public Utilities and SLC Golf in conjunction with USU/CWEL, Utah Climate Center, and SLC Golf installed a research-grade weather station on the course that will provide real-time weather and climate data to improve irrigation scheduling going forward. Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 13 c. Type and Quantity of Devices. An estimated 1,600 high-efficiency, commercial, and golf-course grade nozzles will be selected for installation based on the following criteria: 1. A minimum DU of .80 to .85; 2. Built-in pressure regulation mechanism; 3. 3-port output design to optimize water delivery efficiencies for near, medium, and long-range coverage; 4. Compatible with stainless steel risers; 5. Decoder-in-head system, and 6. Built-in flow sensor to quickly identify stuck valves. d. Device Installation. Neither a rebate nor direct-install program will support the installation of the devices. Costs for device installation are requested in this funding request. e. Pre/Post Site Audits. USU/CWEL will conduct pre- and post-irrigation system audits with support from the Project Manager. f. Water Savings Verification Method. Upon completion of the project, direct metered water use data will be used to verify actual water savings are achieved when compared to baseline. Periodic monitoring of direct metered water use data will occur to ensure that water use reductions are sustained. Another method is the post-installation irrigation system audit, which will confirm a DU of .80 to .85 and verify that nozzles are performing within stated standard through representative random tests of nozzle pressure regulation. vi. High-Efficiency Indoor Appliances and Fixtures a. Method to Determine Average Annual Water Savings Estimates. Water supplied to the Rose Park Golf Course Clubhouse and on-course restroom is delivered through two (2) dedicated meters that are read monthly. Current water use was derived by averaging three years (2016-2019) of monthly direct meter use data. Given the age of the facilities (68 years) and contained fixtures and appliances (most over 25years), it is assumed that all fixtures and appliances utilize more water than current EPA Clean Water Act standards. The anticipated water savings derived from replacing the fixtures and appliances was calculated by utilizing the baseline water reduction standard established through the EPA Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 14 WaterSense program of a minimal 20% reduction of all WaterSense labeled products below existing federal standards. b. Type and Quantity of Appliances/Fixtures. Anticipated appliance and fixture and replacements are: 1. 1-500-600 lb. capacity commercial, air-cooled ice machine 2. 3 urinals (flushometer and bowl) 3. 5 toilets (flushometer and bowl) 4. 6 to 10 faucets and/or aerators c. Method to Verify Inefficiency. An audit of the clubhouse, including restrooms, snack bar, and kitchen, and the on-course restroom, will be performed as a part of this project to determine actual fixture inefficiencies and a more accurate potential water savings. d. Device Installation. Appliance and fixture installation will involve a combination of rebate and direct-install programs operated by SLC Public Utilities and through partnership opportunities. e. Water Savings Verification Method. Actual water savings will be determined through analysis of direct meter water use upon completion of the project compared to baseline. 2. Evaluation Criterion B—Renewable Energy i. Increasing Energy Efficiency in Water Management. The project does not include explicit energy efficiency elements. The potential installation of high- efficiency faucets in the clubhouse kitchen and restrooms resulting from the proposed indoor audit might result in some energy savings related to reduced hot-water flows. The SLC Public Utilities water system is largely based on gravity flows and is inherently energy efficient compared to other systems given the high elevation of its source waters and the proximity to the service area. Successful water conservation avoids the development of new and more energy intensive sources. ii. Quantifiable Energy Savings. There are no quantifiable energy savings that will result from the project. Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 15 iii. Offsets to Climate Change Impacts. The project does not provide energy efficiency improvements on a scale to combat or offset climate change impacts. iv. Current Pumping/Reduced Pumping. Due to the current irrigation system design, the existing pump system cannot deliver needed water volumes within the allowable watering window. As a result, the system is operated nightly. The proposed head-to-head irrigation system will reduce pump times due to the ability to schedule watering based on turf type and level of play. This will result in a shortened watering window, saving pumping energy. v. Energy Savings Estimate Origin. The scope of work does not include energy savings that can be quantified. vi. Energy Required to Treat Water. The project does not include energy savings that will be quantified related to energy required to treat water. vii. Reduced Vehicle Miles Driven. The project will reduce vehicle miles driven as a function of reduction in mowing hours. The reduction in rough areas because of increasing out-of-play areas will reduce mowing time, which will result in a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Current turf mowing takes 8 hours and utilizes 15 gallons of fuel per week. A 23.37-acre reduction in rough area will save 240 hours of mowing time and 450 gallons of fuel annually. viii. Renewable Energy Components and Savings. The project does not have any renewable energy components or associated energy savings or energy production. 3. Evaluation Criterion C—Sustainability Benefits i. Enhancing Drought Resiliency. SLC Public Utilities recently announced a recommendation to move to a Drought Level Stage 2. In Stage 2, all Institutional Customers (parks, government facilities, school, and churches) are required to remain within their established water budget. If a site does not have a budget, it must limit watering to only two times per week. While there are no restrictions on homeowners and businesses, SLC Public Utilities is asking that all water customers avoid watering more than twice a week. The Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction project is an opportunity to make a sustained and significant reduction in institutional water use during drought conditions. Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 16 a. Improved Ecological Resiliency to Climate Change. The Rose Park Golf Course relies on the Jordan River as the water source for its irrigation system. The Jordan River is an urban waterway that provides critical resting areas for migratory birds and supplies water to the Great Salt Lake, which is a water body of hemispheric importance. The river is an impaired water body with a dissolved oxygen total daily maximum load (TMDL) requirement due to reduced water quality, declining inflows, and extractions; conditions exacerbated by climate change. Reducing water extractions, which this project will achieve, will reduce total suspended solids and dissolved oxygen in the river’s water column, maintain flow levels, and improve its resiliency to climate change. Continued flow of high-quality water from the Jordan River to Great Salt Lake is a regional ecological benefit as it helps keep lake elevation higher, thereby reducing the amount of lake bottom dust in the air and any dust storms. Lower nutrient levels help reduce the growth of algae, which can result in hazardous algal blooms or dissolved oxygen levels due to algae decay. b. Water Extraction Reductions. It is anticipated that the project will result in at least a 44% water use reduction at Rose Park Golf Course. This will directly result in reduced extractions from the Jordan River with beneficial ecological impacts to maintaining water temperatures and optimal water levels. c. Benefits to Species. The project will not directly benefit any specific species. However, the project will reduce extractions from the Jordan River, which will improve water quantity and quality within the river corridor and benefit wildlife, aquatic habitat, and native plant species d. Other Ecosystem Benefits. Reductions in overwatering as a function of efficiencies realized from the new irrigation system will improve turf health and reduce herbicide and fungicide chemical applications, lessening the opportunities for water run-off and non-point source pollution entering the Jordan River. The introduction of native and adaptive turf species will increase opportunities for beneficial insect population densities to increase. e. Water Management Efficiencies. The project will allow greater flexibility for golf course management as a reduction in outdoor water use for course turf irrigation. The project’s reductions in indoor water use will benefit the water provider by increasing supply resiliency. Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 17 ii. Water Sustainability Concerns. SLC Public Utilities is developing future supply sources and is relying upon successful implementation of conservation and other water supply enhancement projects to free up existing supplies for more efficient management and use. SLC Public Utilities recently completed an update of the Water Supply and Demand Master Plan 2019 (www.slc.gov/utilities/conservation), which included analysis of water supply and demand under dry-year scenarios and anticipated impacts related to climate change. Though immediate changes in climate or weather variability are addressed in the Drought and Water Shortage Contingency Plan 2019, increasing frequency or duration of these variables will affect day-to-day water demand. As such, it is important to consider the impacts of climate change not only to supply, but also on demand. a. Issues Impacting Water Sustainability. On average, 65% of SLC Public Utilities water supplies come from surface water emanating from the Wasatch Canyons located east of the city—City Creek, Emigration Creek, Parleys Creek, and Big and Little Cottonwood Canyon Creeks. Another 15% is groundwater from a series of deep wells that operate primarily during the summer months to meet peak demand within the municipal water distribution system. Table 1.1 shows existing dry year supply sources and projected future source development supplies. Table 1: Projected Dry Year Production - Existing and Future Sources Supply Category Dry Year Production 2004 (acre-ft) Future Dry Year Production – 2030 (acre-ft) SLC Surface Water Sources 42,473 43,277 Base Wells and Springs 7,353 7,353 Peaking Wells 10,547 10,547 SLC Preferred Rights in MWDSLS 22,910 42,910 New Wells 0 12,000 Additional Surface Water Development 0 3,300 Wastewater Reuse 0 5,000 Utah Lake System Water 0 4,750 Total 83,283 128,763 Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 18 A critical component of the Water Supply and Demand Master Plan 2019 was modeling of impacts to supply during dry years. Figure 4 compares the total dry year water supply, including new supplies that have not yet been developed, with SLC Public Utilities recommended supply planning demand scenario, including applicable provisions for risk. As illustrated in Figure 4, if the Figure 4. Annual Production Requirements vs. Supply (Dry Year) recommended supply planning scenario is met by the end of the planning window, current and anticipated future supplies are sufficient for long term projected system demands. However, Figure 4 also shows that there will be very little excess capacity when supply risk and recommended redundancy is considered. This means that failing to meet the conservation goals could increase risk of inadequate water supply for projected demands. The Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction project is an opportunity to address drought impacts on water supply demand by reducing outdoor and indoor water use. Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 19 b. Issues Impacting Energy Sustainability. Utah depends primarily on coal and hydropower for energy generation. Salt Lake City is committed to reducing dependance on non-renewable sources of energy through the increase development and use of solar power. c. Project Impact on Water Sustainability. The project will address drought impacts on water supply by reducing commercial indoor and landscape water use. The projected demand reductions will increase supply resiliency and help to achieve water demand levels that are below supply levels even in drier years. d. End Use of Water Conserved. Water conserved from the project’s outdoor water use reductions will remain in the Jordan River due to reduced extractions and reduced diversions. Water conserved from the project’s indoor water use reductions will remain in SLC Public Utilities’ water supply. e. Mechanisms to Use Conserved Water. No mechanisms are needed for conserved water from the project’s outdoor water use reductions to remain in the Jordan River. Water conserved from the project’s indoor water use reductions will remain in the SLC Public Utilities water supply. f. Quantity of Conserved Water. The anticipated 188.87 AF of conserved water from outdoor use reductions will remain in the Jordan River. Indoor water use reductions will be available for use throughout the SLC Public Utilities service area. iii. Other Project Benefits. The project provides benefits to combating the climate crisis facing the Colorado River Basin, improves environmental and economic injustices born by an underserved and disadvantaged community, and other water-adjacent sustainability benefits. a. Combating the Climate Crisis. The current drought in the Colorado River Basin has persisted since 2000, leading to great concerns about the long- term reliability of basin water supplies. Increasing temperatures, decreasing snowpack, changes to the volume of precipitation, and changes to runoff timing and volume across the West are projected to affect numerous aspects of water management. With drought conditions remaining unabated and the likelihood of continued population growth, the challenges of maintaining a reliable water supply and meeting future Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 20 needs are compounded. The water savings that will result from the project have a role in combating climate change impacts for the Upper Colorado River Basin. Role in Addressing Climate Change Impacts. The project addresses urban water demand by reducing 23.37 acres of irrigated turfgrass, which is one of the largest irrigated crops in the United States. It is estimated that approximately 50-65% of Utah's culinary water is used for landscape irrigation. The project supports increased supplies through indoor water use reductions, which can provide greater flexibility in driving water management improvements. In addition, the project helps combat climate change impacts to habitat, ecosystems, and recreation strategies by improving the flow-dependent ecological resiliency of the Jordan River and Great Salt Lake. Strengthening Water Supply Sustainability. The Rose Park Golf Course relies on the Jordan River, a non-potable source of water. However, water quality and source volume reliability could affect the course’s ability to remain on that supply. By reducing water demand, the probability increases that the Rose Park Golf Course can remain on this source and not have to return to the culinary water system. Renewable Energy. The project’s current scope of work does not establish or utilize a renewable energy source. Lower Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Though not calculated as part of this project, the planned reduction of fairway and rough areas by approximately 30 acres due to conversion to low-water, no- mow native and adaptive turf species will eliminate the need to mow this reseeded acreage, reducing greenhouse gas emissions. b. Disadvantaged or Underserved Communities. The project supports the environmental and economic justice goals established in Executive Orders 14008 and 13985 and the disadvantaged community priorities set forth in Section 1015 of the Cooperative Watershed Act. Executive Order 14008. The water conservation improvements for the Rose Park Golf Course are a public asset investment that will support improving the water quality of the total maximum daily load (TMDL) impaired Jordan River, which runs through the Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 21 historically disadvantaged and underserved Rose Park community. Reduced irrigation will result in less chemical application, reducing and improving the quality of water runoff from the golf course entering the Jordan River. These improvements are particularly significant for the Rose Park community, which has experienced environmental injustice impacts related to Rose Park Sludge Pit Superfund site located east of the Rose Park Golf Course. Local refineries dumped waste products in the sludge pit from the 1930s until 1957. The acidic sludge contained carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and sulfur dioxide posing a threat to groundwater and surrounding organisms. This was particularly unnerving because much of the municipal water in Rose Park comes from scattered wells. Though no contaminants were ever detected, the threat of contamination was enough cause for action. The site cleanup occurred in the 1980s and consisted of a slurry wall around and under the sludge pit to avoid groundwater contamination and a clay cap on top of the sludge pit topped with grass. Since these improvements, the contamination site has passed each five-year review by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency with the solution deemed "protective of human health and the environment" and no additional threats have been identified. Section 1015 of the Cooperative Watershed Act. The Rose Park median household income is $51,215 compared to the Utah median household income of $71,621. 23.3% of Rose Park residents live in households whose income is at or below the federal poverty threshold compared to 9.8% for Utah. 33.8% of children (age 17 and under) live in households whose income is at or below the federal poverty threshold compared to 9.6% for Utah. These economic indicators demonstrate that the Rose Park community meets the disadvantaged community definition in Section 1015 of the Cooperative Watershed Act. Executive Order 13985. The socio-economic demographics of Rose Park demonstrate that the community meets the underserved definition of Executive Order 13985. 49.5% of Rose Park’s 36,800 residents are of a non-white racial background and most of its population is of Hispanic/Latino descent. 19.7% have attained a bachelor’s degree compared to 34.0% for Utah. 28.2% of Rose Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 22 Park adults have physical, mental, or emotional disability compared to 22.7% of adults in Utah. iii. Tribal Benefits. The proposed project has no direct service or benefit to a tribe, nor does it support tribal resilience to climate change and drought impacts or gains to improved public health or economic growth opportunities. iv. Other Benefits. The project addresses water sustainability through other benefits to eco-system services enjoyed by community residents and to environmental resilience. Interstate Compacts. The project will provide no assistance to States and water users in complying with interstate compacts. Benefits to Multiple Sectors and Users. The project will benefit outdoor recreation users and municipal stewardship of environmental resources. The Rose Park Golf Course intersects with the Jordan River Parkway and the Legacy Parkway Trails, which are multi-community walking and biking path that bringing several thousand additional trail users into contact with the grounds. The introduction of 30 acres of native and adaptive low- water, non-mowed turf areas will enhance wildlife forage and habitat opportunities, which will result in an enhanced experience for outdoor enthusiasts, bird watchers, and trail users. The water efficiency benefits of the project will improve the playing experience for golfers by reducing the watering window, thereby reducing or eliminating interruptions to play as a result of excessively long watering window. The project will position the Rose Park Golf Course as a model in turf best practices, water efficiency, and sustainable landscaping for municipally owned and operated golf courses in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Benefits to Larger Sustainability Initiatives. This project supports goals outlined in the SLC Water Conservation Master Plan 2020, which establishes new conservation goals that meet or exceed the State’s newly adopted regional conservation goals. The project supports the environmental goals stated in Mayor Erin Mendenhall’s Salt Lake City 2021 Plan to position SLC as a leader on resilience and sustainability by protecting our natural systems Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 23 while addressing social inequities, advancing development, and addressing climate change. Impact on Water-Related Conflicts. There are no tensions or litigations over water in the SLC Public Utilities service area that the project would mitigate or help to prevent. 4. Evaluation Criterion D—Complementing On-Farm Irrigation Improvements i. On-Farm Efficiency Improvement Projects. The project is not associated with any on-farm efficiency improvement projects. As a municipal retail water provider, SLC Public Utilities does not provide water to agricultural customers. ii. Complements to Ongoing or Planned On-Farm Improvements. This WaterSMART project would not complement any ongoing or planned on-farm improvement. As a municipal retail water provider, SLC Public Utilities does not provide water for agricultural use. iii. On-Farm Water Conservation/Water Use Efficiency Benefits. There are no on- farm water conservation or water use efficiency benefits associated to on-farm work that will result from the project. As a municipal retail water provider, SLC Public Utilities does not provide water to agricultural customers. iv. Water Service Area Boundaries. The SLC Public Utilities service district is a 135 square mile area located in Salt Lake County, Utah. Salt Lake City, Cottonwood Heights, Holladay City, and Millcreek Township are within the SLCDPU service area. Portions of Murray City, North Salt Lake City, and South Salt Lake City receive water from SLC Public Utilities. A map of the SLC Public Utilities water service area boundary is shown in Figure 5. 5. Evaluation Criterion E—Planning and Implementation 5.1. Subcriteria E.1. Project Planning . i. Applicant Water Conservation Plan. The SLC Water Conservation Plan 2020 establishes 5-, 10,- , and 40-year water conservation goals to ensure limited water resources meet current and future needs. The plan is in accord with the State of Utah Conservation Plan Act 73-10-003200, guidelines outlined in the American Water Works Association Manual M52: Water Conservation Programs, and the State’s Regional Conservation Goals. The plan is provided in Appendix E. Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 24 Figure 5. Map of Geographic Location of SLC Public Utilities Service Area Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 25 a. Project Alignment with Plan Goals and Priorities. Increasing efforts in water conservation is a key recommendation identified in the plan to achieve the long-term goal to reduce outdoor water use to 24 inches average irrigation (14.6% of reduction from 2018 water use.) b. Project Implementation of Plan Strategies. The project implements the following Outreach, Economics, and Research and Metrics strategies identified in the SLC Water Conservation Plan 2020 for commercial, industrial, and institutional (CII) customers: Outreach • O-6 Water Check: Conduct landscape sprinkler checks • O-9 CII Conservation Plans: Encourage and publish water conservation plans Economics • E-10 CII Audits and Direct Installs: Conduct audits and provide direct installs on select CII properties Research and Metrics • R-1 Water Check: Promote and conduct landscape sprinkler check-ups • R-6 Landscape Inventory: Inventories of alternative landscapes and quantify savings • R-16 Programmatic Effectiveness: Develop methodology to measure practice impact • R-17 Projected Demand Reduction: Develop baseline and projected customer-class water demand ii. WaterSMART Basin Study. The Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study (2012) lists M&I Water Conservation as a representative option to reduce Basin water demand and resolve water supply and demand imbalances. The project is a municipal-led water conservation effort to reduce its operational water use. The anticipated water savings of 188.87 acre-feet annually will increase Basin resources to address impacts associated with the highly uncertain amount of available water and changes in water demand over the next 50 years. 5.2. Subcriteria E.2. Readiness to Proceed i. Summary of Major Tasks. A design-bid-build project delivery method will be used. Major tasks for each project phase are provide below. Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 26 Pre-Design Phase. Major tasks include issuance of a request for qualifications to secure an irrigation design consultant and the conducting a course site survey. Design Phase. Major tasks include execution of a contract for a design consultant and production of drawings and specifications in preparation for bidding. Prequalification of irrigation contractors will occur during this phase. Bid Phase. Major tasks include issuance a publicly advertised request for qualifications, review of bids received, contractor selection, and contracting with the most responsible and responsive bidder. Construction Phase. Major tasks include a Notice to Proceed to the contractor that includes all aspects of the construction process through Substantial Completion. Closeout Phase. Major tasks include generating and monitoring the completion of the Punch List in preparation for contract closeout; the production, review and acceptance of the operation and maintenance (O & M) manuals; completion of as-built drawings; and review of warranty information. ii. Permits. There are no anticipated permits that will be required for the project. iii. Engineering and Design Work. Design work performed for the project includes the consultant-led design of a head-to-head irrigation system with at least 1,600 high efficiency nozzles for an 18-hole golf course. The design will specify routing, layout, and pump placement and will calculate the system capacity and pressure optimization for standard flow head coverage. The contracted consultant will provide bidding support, construction administration, and closeout services in support of the project. SLC Engineering Division will provide overall project management and the pre- design course site survey. The Division will issue a publicly advertised request for qualifications to potential design consultants, facilitate the selection and contracting of the design consultant, manage the design consultant and their contract throughout the project. SLC Engineering Division will facilitate the selection of qualified contractors through a publicly advertised request for Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 27 qualification and facilitate the selection of pre-qualified contractors prior to bidding. Following pre-qualification, the Division will issue a publicly advertised bid package, manage the bid process, initiate, and manage the contract for construction, oversee the construction effort by the contractor, and lead the project closeout phase. iv. Policies or Administrative Actions. There are no new policies or administrative actions required to implement the project. v. Estimated Project Schedule. An estimated project schedule is provided in Table 1.2 showing major tasks, milestones, and dates. Table 1.2: Estimated Project Schedule Task Series Phase Start Date Completion Date 1.0 | Project Management July 2022 June 2025 Project Month(M): Milestone M1: Conduct Kickoff Meeting with internal project partners. M6 - M36: Interim reports submitted M36: Final reports submitted 2.0 | Landscape Irrigation Measures August 2022 June 2025 GPS Data/Scenario Report Completed Project Month(M): Milestone None Pre-Design August 2022 October 2022 Project Month(M): Milestone M2: Site survey completed M4: Design consultant selected Design November 2022 March 2023 Project Month(M): Milestone M5: Design begins M6: 40% Design Review M7: 70% Design Review M8: 100% Design Review M8: Bidder Qualification Package issued M9: Turf Management Plan completed M9: Pre-Qualification of Bidders Bid April 2023 July 2023 Project Month(M): Milestone M10: Bid Package issued M13: Notice to procced issued Construction August 2023 June 2024 Project Month(M): Milestone M14: Construction begins M15: Turf removal completed M16: Construction 50% complete M18: Nozzle installation completed Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 28 Task Series Phase Start Date Completion Date M19: Construction 100% complete M24: Substantial Completion issued Close-Out February 2024 April 2024 Project Month(M): Milestone M20: Review of O & M manuals completed M21: As-built drawings completed M22: Warranty review completed System Audit and Verification May 2024 May 2024 Project Month(M): Milestone M23: Water Check audit completed M23: GIS turf map produced M23: Site validation survey completed Fairway Turf Alteration Management June 2024 June 2024 Project Month(M): Milestone M24: Mow height alterations established Rough Turf Reseeding January 2024 June 2025 Project Month(M): Milestone M19: Seeds purchased M21: Equipment orders placed M26: Kill and till rough areas M28: Rough re-seeding M35: Seedling establishment assessed M36: Small area re-seeding identified 3.0 | High-Efficiency Indoor Appliances/Fixtures December 2022 March 2025 Project Month(M): Milestone M6: Indoor audit completed M7: Appliance/fixture product orders placed M9: Installation competed M33: Water use data analysis completed Project Complete June 2025 6. Evaluation Criterion F—Collaboration i. Promotion and Encouragement of Collaboration. The Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction project effectively mobilizes the expertise and technical knowledge of internal and external partners and leverages stakeholder support to achieve shared goals toward increasing water supply sustainability. a. Internal Partners. The project is the result of a partnership between SLC Public Utilities and SLC Golf under SLC Department of Public Lands to demonstrate water conservation planning and implementation as critical strategies to sustain short- and long-term water supplies that are under pressures from population growth trends, increasing demand, and impacts from weather variability and climate change. Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 29 SLC Public Utilities identifies in the 2020 Water Conservation Master Plan improvements to irrigation systems, changes in turf varieties, and indoor water conservation strategies as important measures to achieve necessary water use reduction goals. As a result of these priorities, SLC Public Utilities is committing 4.8% of full-time effort (FTE) by its Water Conservation Program Manager to serve as the Project Manager and 3.5% FTE by its Geographic Information Systems Programmer Analyst to support project delivery. SLC Department of Public Lands is on the frontlines of water supply impacts and its Golf Division has adopted a proactive stance to deliver only as much water as necessary. SLC Department of Public Lands is committing 6.7% FTE by the Golf Division Director and 10.2% FTE by the Course Superintendent to serve on the project team, coordinate project delivery, and ensure irrigation system changes and turf conversion reduce water use without impacting course play conditions. b. Internal Stakeholders. Support from elected officials is evidenced in the commitment by SLC Mayor Erin Mendenhall and SLC City Council of $1.8 million from a SLC Golf Division fiscal year 2020-2021 revenue surplus to the project as non-federal cost share. Mayor Mendenhall and the City Council have shared priorities toward the implementation of water use reduction strategies that will help SLC achieve its aggressive water conservation goal of reducing consumption 25% by the year 2025 from the baseline year of 2000, as measured by gallons per capita daily consumption. c. External Partners. The technical support from researchers with USDA Agricultural Research Services Forage and Ranch Research Laboratory at USU, water management experts from USU/CWEL, and Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City and Sandy stems from a shared interest in demonstrating the synergies of turf conversion and water use reduction when applied to a public golf course. A USDA Forage and Ranch Research Laboratory genetic researcher is advising on no-water grass species best suited to the Rose Park Golf Course. The Forage and Ranch Research Laboratory has a history of partnering with SLC Public Utilities and SLC Golf in low- and no-water turf trials. Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 30 USU/CWEL is conducting the post-installation audit of the new irrigation system via its Water Check program and working with SLC Golf to refine irrigation scheduling based on the upgraded irrigation system and new grass varieties. In addition, the USU/CWEL team is auditing the Rose Park Golf Course existing irrigation system in fall 2021, which will provide water use baselines. Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City and Sandy is funding the post-installation irrigation system water audit through the USU Water Check program. The District actively supports its member cities’ implementation of effective water conservation measures. d. External Stakeholders. The project has the support of the Golf Course Superintendents Association of America-Utah Chapter (GCSAA-UC), Professional Golfers’ Association – Utah Chapter (PGA-UC), United States Golf Association (USGA), and Utah Golf Association (UGA) through a shared interest in advances in irrigation system technology, irrigation components, and turf research that will allow the golf industry to conserve water, money, and resources in the face of the significant drought conditions present in Utah and the West. In recent years, U.S. golf courses have reduced their water usage by more than 20% annually by adopting new technology and through conservation efforts. e. Community Support. Rose Park Golf course is more than a place to go play golf. It is a community amenity that enhances the value of the neighborhood and quality of life. Neighbors of Rose Park Golf Course value their access to the beautiful, open green space via the Jordan River Parkway trail. The City Council in 2014 considered recommendations from an appointed Citizen Task Force and a hired financial consultant that included pairing back the Rose Park Course into a smaller “executive course” as a financial savings remedy. Rose Park and Westpointe Community Council members and residents from surrounding neighborhoods mobilized to raise awareness and took steps that successfully influenced the decision by City elected officials to make no drastic changes to the Rose Park Golf Course as a full 18-hole course. The City’s financial commitment to the project exemplifies its intention to honor the widespread community support for a beloved green space asset. ii. Significance of Collaboration/Support. The project’s collaborations across multiple sectors and fields of discipline demonstrate the value ascribed to community golf courses and the deep level of commitment to achieve sustained water use reductions. The project highlights the leveraged impact of significant Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 31 financial investment by local government; the dedication to implementing short- and long-range water and course management best practices by a publicly owned and operated golf course; support for on-the-ground water conservation improvement by a public utility with water delivery authority; expertise in the latest research of no- and low-water turf varieties from genetic researchers; and the knowledge of landscape water efficiency experts applied to golf course turf management to increase water supply sustainability. iii. Likelihood of Future Water Conservation Improvements by Other Water Users. The demonstrated water savings will provide persuasive ground truthing for public and private golf courses and parks throughout the Salt Lake Valley area for implementing similar outdoor and indoor water conservation improvements. Proper conservation and management of water is an issue that touches every sector of the golf industry, from municipal and daily-fee courses to private country clubs and resort courses. The no- and low-water grass species have applications outside of golf course use and the project demonstrates the value in replacing turf areas around SLC’s other facilities, including office buildings, medians, parkstrips, and other low-play areas. Beyond municipal facilities, demonstrating enhanced irrigation system efficiencies and water conservation improvements through turf reduction and turf-type conversion will help to influence improved practices at commercial and multi-family housing developments, further increasing opportunities to create sustainable water use reductions. The alternative turf varieties identified for the project have application to residential landscapes and may have application in future turf trade programs within the SLC Public Utilities service area. iv. Relevant Supporting Documents. SLC Public Utilities has secured letters of commitment and letters of support from partners and interested stakeholders to demonstrate the broad support of the project. a. Partner and Third-Party Match Commitments. Partner match commitment letter from SLC Department of Public Lands/SLC Golf Division and third-party match commitment letters from Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City and Sandy and USU/CWEL are provided in Appendix A. b. Partner and Stakeholder Support Letters. Letters of support from the Golf Course Superintendents Association of America-Utah Chapter, Professional Golfers’ Association – Utah Chapter, USDA Forage and Ranch Research Laboratory, United States Golf Association, and Utah Golf Association are provided in Appendix B. Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 32 7. Evaluation Criterion G— Additional Non-Federal Funding Non-Federal Funding = $1,893,851 = 51% Total Project Cost $3,685,884 8. Evaluation Criterion H— Nexus to Reclamation i. Project/Reclamation Nexus. The Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction project will accrue benefits to Reclamation projects in the Upper Colorado River System. a. Relationship with Reclamation. SLC Public Utilities is not a Reclamation contractor. b. Mode of Receiving Reclamation Water. SLC Public Utilities receives water from the Upper Colorado River System through the Provo River Project and Central Utah Project via the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy. c. Benefit to Reclamation Project Area/Activity. Water use reductions from the project will decrease the water SLC Public Utilities receives from Reclamation water and facilities in the Provo River Project and Central Utah Project through SLC Public Utilities’ wholesale water interest in the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy. Decreasing outdoor water use at the golf course will ensure that the Rose Park Golf Course remains off the culinary M&I supply, which increase resiliency of the SLC Public Utilities and Reclamation water supplies. d. Tribal Affiliation. The applicant is a municipal government and its associated public utility with water delivery authority. There are no tribal affiliations. The project will have no impact on any tribes. E. Performance Measures 1. Performance Measure A: Projects with Quantifiable Water Savings. Performance measures used to quantify actual benefits upon completion of the project are calculated from pre- and post-project estimates for each outdoor and indoor water conservation strategy. These estimates are based on actual water demand as measured through dedicated irrigation meters through which the golf course is delivered water; estimates of water savings based on existing research relating to water demand of select turf species; dedicated culinary meters through which the clubhouse and on-course restroom receives water; estimates of water savings based Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 33 on existing research relating to water demand of select turf species; and estimates of water savings from upgraded indoor fixtures based on data provided through the EPA WaterSENSE commercial product labeling program. Table 1.3 presents a summary of anticipated water savings for the four water conservation strategies based on current use projections. Table 1.3: Anticipated Quantifiable Water Savings Water Conservation Strategy Current Use (AF) Savings per measure (AF) Turf Reduction Combined current outdoor use: 334.45 46.74 Irrigation Upgrade 92.36 High Efficiency Nozzles 48.83 Indoor Fixtures 4.91 0.94 Total Current Use | Est. Savings (AF) 339.36 188.87 Performances measures to quantify water use reductions achieved through the four water conservation strategies are detailed below. i. Performance Measure A.1: Landscape Irrigation Measures. Proposed measures to quantify the three outdoor water use reduction strategies are the following: a. Landscape Irrigation Measure A.1.a: Turf Removal. The reduction in rough area turf by 23.37 acres is anticipated to realize a water savings of 46.74 AF of water per acre irrigated, each year. Pre-Project Estimations of Baseline Data. Baseline data (see Table 1.4) was generated through analysis of dedicated meter data to determine water use. Turf areas were determined through an analytic process that combined the utilization of ArcGIS Pro, aerial imagery provided by ESRI, Excel software, and ground- truthing provided by the golf course and conservation staff. Table 1.4: Baseline Rough Area Conversion and Anticipated Water Use Reductions Measure Type Measure Turf type/play use (current) Bluegrass/rye/Rough Irrigation application (current) 24 inches/annually Water applied in gallons pre-conversion (current) 15,229,096 Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 34 Post-Project Methods for Quantifying Benefits. The post- installation GIS turf mapping will verify alterations in out-of-play, rough, and fairway turf acreage. The post-installation irrigation audit will confirm that the reseeded area is outside area of irrigation system delivery, validate the acreage of converted turf, and verify that the new reseeded area no longer receives water, and has no water usage. b. Landscape Irrigation Measure A.1.b: Design and Installation of Head- to-Head Irrigation System. Golf courses are typically comprised of various turf types selected to support different levels and types of play, and these different turfs and play levels have different water need. The installation of a head-to-head irrigation system will allow for directed irrigation based on turf, play-level, and locational need, so that an entire irrigation zone is not watered to support the highest water-demand turfs (see Table 1.5.) This upgraded irrigation system will also facilitate improving Distribution Uniformity (DU) from the current .55 to .65 to a DU of .80 to .85, an improvement of at least 15%. Table 1.5: Projected Water Savings Derived from Head-to-Head Water Delivery and Reduction of Rough Area Turf/Play Area Current Water Applied (in AF) Projected Water Applied (in AF) Anticipated Savings (in AF) Fairways 49.56 11.54 38.02 Roughs 210.79 164.05 46.74 Tees 5.14 1.24 3.9 Greens 4.27 0.57 3.7 Pre-Project Estimates of Baseline Data. Dedicated water meter data indicates a water use level on the course to be from 99 to 109 million gallons of water annually. Square feet converted to non-irrigated turf 1,017,917 Acres of Land 23.37 Gallons of water reduced 15,229,096 Acre ft of water saved 46.74 Reduction as a percentage of current use 13% Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 35 Post-Project Methods for Quantifying Benefits. Construction oversight and post-construction inspections will verify that new nozzle head placement reflects specific turf varieties to optimize opportunities for water use reduction. The post-installation irrigation audit will verify that a DU rate of 80% to 85% is achieved. The post-installation GIS turf mapping will verify acreage reduction in irrigated turf areas. The dedicated meter data will be analyzed to confirm reduction in water use. c. Landscape Irrigation Measure A.1.c: Installing High-Efficiency Nozzles. The project replaces approximately 1,400 Rain Bird Sam 51 and 47 impact driven sprinkler heads with approximately 1,600 golf-rated rotor nozzles with a minimum DU of .80 to .85, pressure regulation, decoder- in-head capability; and flow-sensor capability. Improvements in DU and pressure regulation will improve system efficiency and reduce water use by improving the uniformity of water distribution across a specific area and through the reduction in water loss from over-pressurization. Estimated water savings from improved DU is a minimum of 15% improvement over traditional nozzles based on California Institute of Technology (CIT) testing outcomes. Estimates in water savings from improved pressure regulation is difficult to provide as no recent pressure test has been conducted, but improved pressure regulation will have a positive benefit. Table 1.6: Estimated Water Savings From Improved Distribution Uniformity Current DU (estimated) Planned DU Improved DU (%) Water Savings in AF .55 to .65 .80 to .85 15 to 30% 48.83 to 97.66 Pre-Project Estimations of Baseline Data. A USU Water Check audit performed in fall 2021 will inventory of the number and type of irrigation spray nozzle currently in use for baseline data. Data from this audit was not available at the time of submission and DU was estimated based on the average type, model, and age of existing irrigation nozzles. Post-Project Methods for Quantifying Benefits. A post-installation irrigation system audit will determine DU and verify system and nozzle pressure measurements. High performance nozzle installation will be confirmed and mapped through a turf mapping and ground truthing site survey conducted by SLCPU Water Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 36 conservation and GIS/IT staff. Dedicated meter data will be analyzed to confirm reduction in water use. ii. Performance Measure A.2: High-Efficiency Indoor Appliances and Fixtures. The total savings is estimated at a minimum 20% of existing usage based on EPA WaterSense Labeling program standards, which requires labeled product efficiencies to exceed current federal standards by at least 20%. Table 1.7 shows anticipated indoor water savings estimated based on anticipated savings from product upgrades compared to averaged dedicated meter data. Table 1.7: Anticipated Indoor Water Savings Facility Pre-Project Averaged Use (YRS 2016-2019) (AF) Projected average use (AF) Water Savings in AF Clubhouse 4.8 3.88 0.92 On-course Restrooms 0.11 0.09 0.02 Total Indoor Saving - - 0.94 Pre-Project Estimations of Baseline Data. Baseline indoor water use will be determined by analyzing clubhouse and on-course restroom meter data collected in the indoor water use audit and fixture inspections. Additional estimates will be achieved from comparing audit data with industry best practices and guidelines established in the EPA WaterSense at Work: Best Management Practices for Commercial and Institutional Facilities and the South Florida Water Efficiency and Self-Conducted Water Audits at Commercial and Institutional Facilities (South Florida Water Management District, July 2013). The indoor water use audit will generate reports that calculate estimated water savings based on fixture upgrades or replacement and/or adoption of best practices. This report will help to establish a baseline of anticipated water savings. Another component of these audits may be the utilization of discreet water line data loggers to enable disaggregated water use analysis throughout the facilities’ fixtures. Post-Project Methods for Quantifying Benefits. The post-installation analysis of metered water use data will determine if estimated savings have occurred when compared to baseline. Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 37 SECTION 2: PROJECT BUDGET A. Funding Plan and Letters of Commitment 1. Non-Federal Share. A $1,893,851 non-federal share is secured and committed from Salt Lake City Corporation (SLC) as the applicant and project partners. i. Applicant Contributions. $1,889,371 is committed and secured from SLC. a. Monetary. A $1,800,000 cash match is committed from a SLC Golf fiscal year 2020-2021 revenue surplus. The funds are earmarked for the proposed new irrigation system for the Rose Park Golf Course. b. Labor. $82,371 from 1,431 staff hours devoted to the project are committed from SLC Public Utilities (375 hours) and SLC Golf (1,056 hours). c. Project Costs. $7,000 is committed from SLC Public Utilities through a contract for services with a professional water management consulting firm. ii. Third Party In-Kind Costs. $4,480 from in-kind services is committed and secured from Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City & Sandy and USU/CWEL. a. Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City & Sandy. $2,000 is committed from in-kind services through the USU Water Check Program. b. USU/CWEL. $2,480 is committed from in-kind services performed by on-staff landscape water management experts. iii. Cash From Other Non-Federal Entities. There are zero dollars requested or received from other non-Federal entities for the project. iv. Pending Funding Requests. There are no pending funding requests for the project that have not yet been approved. The Reclamation Water and Energy Efficiency Grant FY 2022 is the sole funding request for the project. v. Pre-Award Costs. There are $0 projects costs to be incurred prior to an award. 2. Letters of Commitment. Third-party match commitment letters from Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City & Sandy and USU/CWEL are provided in Appendix A. Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 38 B. Budget Proposal 1. Total Project Cost. The total project cost is $3,685,884 (see Table 2.1). Table 2.1: Total Project Cost SOURCE AMOUNT Costs to be reimbursed with the requested Federal funding $1,792,033 Costs to be paid by the applicant $1,889,371 Value of third-party contributions $4,480 TOTAL PROJECT COST $3,685,884 2. Project Budget. The project budget proposal is provided in Table 2.2. Table 2.2: Proposed Project Budget BUDGET ITEM DESCRIPTION COMPUTATION QUANTITY TYPE TOTAL COST $/Unit Quantity Salaries and Wages Project Manager $37.02 303 Hour $11,106 GIS Programmer Analyst $30.79 72 Hour $2,217 Golf Director $53.56 416 Hour $22,335 Golf Course Superintendent $34.41 640 Hour $21,987 Total Salaries and Wages $57,645 Fringe Benefits Project Manager $15.51 303 Hour $4,701 GIS Programmer Analyst $46.17 72 Hour $3,324 Golf Director $21.96 416 Hour $9,135 Golf Course Superintendent $11.82 640 Hour $7,566 Total Fringe Benefits $24,726 Travel None $0 0 None $0 Total Travel $0 Equipment Tractor $50,000 1 Each $50,000 Seed spreader tractor attachment $18,620 1 Each $18,620 Total Equipment $68,620 Supplies and Materials Siberian wheatgrass seed $10 210 Pounds $2,100 Snake River wheatgrass seed $10 210 Pounds $2,100 Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 39 BUDGET ITEM DESCRIPTION COMPUTATION QUANTITY TYPE TOTAL COST $/Unit Quantity High efficiency ice machine $4,000 1 Each $4,000 High efficiency urinal $850 3 Each $2,250 High efficiency faucet aerator $20 10 Each $200 High efficiency toilet $900 5 Each $4,500 Subtotal Materials and Supplies $15,450 Contractual/Construction Design and Construction $3,502,963 1 Lump sum $3,502,963 Fixture Installation Contractor $250 20 Hours $5,000 Water Management Consultant $7,000 1 Each $7,000 Subtotal Contractual/Construction $3,514,963 Third-Party Contribution Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City & Sandy $2,000 1 Each $2,000 USU/CWEL Researcher $85 8 Hours $680 USU/CWEL Researcher/Professor $100 8 Hours $800 USU/CWEL Researcher/Professor $100 10 Hours $1,000 Total Third-Party Contribution $4,480 Other Environmental Review $0 0 None $0 Subtotal Other $0 TOTAL DIRECT COSTS $3,685,884 Indirect Costs Type of rate: None 0% 0 None $0 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS $3,685,884 C. Budget Narrative i. Salaries and Wages. $57,645 in salaries and wages represents a $0 federal request and a $57,645 non-federal cost share derived from the value of the dedication of effort by three full-time positions to the project. Labor rates and each position’s proposed hours for each task is presented in the Table 2.3. a. $11,106 is non-federal cost share for SLC Public Utilities Water Conservation Manager, Stephanie Duer, to dedicate 303 hours at a rate of $37.02 per hour or 4.8% of full-time effort (FTE) to serve as the Project Manager responsible for overseeing and troubleshooting project coordination between Golf Division, Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 40 Engineering Division, consultants, and contractors; conducting the clubhouse and on-course appliance and fixture water use audit; assisting with selecting new water-wise fixtures and appliances; liaising between the City’s fiscal grant manager in the Finance Department, and preparing and submitting the interim performance reports and the final performance report. The hourly rate is based on the position’s fiscal year 2021-2022 salary. b. $2,217 is non-federal cost share for SLC Public Utilities GIS Programmer Analyst to dedicate 72 hours at a rate of $30.79 per hour or 3.5% FTE to produce the updated GIS turf map and conduct the site verification survey. The hourly rate is based on the position’s fiscal year 2021-2022 salary. c. $22,335 is non-federal cost share for Golf Division Director to dedicate 416 hours at a rate of $53.56 per hour or 6.7% FTE to coordinate and support project delivery. The hourly rate is based on the position’s fiscal year 2021-2022 salary. d. $21,987 is non-federal cost share for Golf Division Course Superintendent to dedicate 640 hours or 10.2% FTE to coordinate and support project delivery. The hourly rate is based on the position’s fiscal year 2021-2022 salary. Table 2.3: Proposed Hours Devoted Tasks by Position Tasks Project Manager Golf Director Golf Super- intendent GIS Programmer Analyst Project Management 1.1 Team Meetings 100 140 140 0 1.2 Compliance and Reporting 40 80 40 0 Landscape Irrigation Measures 2.1 Select Contractual Services 20 70 70 0 2.2 Design/Turf Reduction Plan 4 60 60 0 2.3 Turf Management Plan 8 40 40 0 2.4 Removing Turf 0 0 20 0 2.5 Installing Nozzles 0 0 180 0 2.6 Audit and Site Verification 64 0 20 72 2.7 Altering Fairway Turf 0 0 10 0 2.8 Reseeding Rough Turf 16 0 60 0 High- Efficiency Indoor Appliances and Fixtures 3.1 Indoor Audit/Inspections 24 13 0 0 3.2 Select Appliances/ Fixtures 16 13 0 0 3.3 Install of Appliance/Fixtures 8 0 0 0 3.4 Water Use Analysis 3 0 0 0 Total Hours 303 416 640 72 Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 41 Total Federal: $0 Total Non-Federal Cost Share: $57,645 Total Salaries and Wages (Federal + Non-Federal Cost Share): $57,645 ii. Fringe Benefits. $24,726 in fringe benefits represents a $0 federal request and a $24,726 non-federal cost share derived from payments by the City to the full-time employee fringe benefits package for the four FTE positions devoting hours to manage, coordinate, and support project delivery. a. $4,701 is non-federal cost share for the Project Manager based on fiscal year 2021-2022 payments for the following benefits: i) $849 for FICA/Medicare calculated at 7.65% of $11,106 in paid wages committed as cost-share; ii) $2,052 for Utah State Pension calculated at 18.47% of $11,106 in paid wages committed as cost-share; iii) $90 for 501( c)(9) calculated at 4.8% FTE of $1,895; iv) $12 for life insurance calculated at 4.8% FTE of $259, and v) $1,698 for health insurance calculated at 4.8% of $35,315. b. $3,324 is non-federal cost share for the SLC Public Utilities GIS Programmer Analyst based on fiscal year 2021-2022 payments for the following benefits: i) $510 for FICA/Medicare calculated at 7.65% of $2,217 in paid wages committed as cost-share; ii) $1,110 for Utah State Pension calculated at 16.69% of $2,217 in paid wages committed as cost-share; iii) $66 for 501( c)(9) calculated at 3.5% FTE of $1,895; iv) $9 for life insurance calculated at 3.5% FTE of $259, and v) $1,629 for health insurance calculated at 3.5% of $47,085. c. $9,135 is non-federal cost share for the SLC Golf Director based on fiscal year 2021-2022 payments for the following benefits: i) $1,710 for FICA/Medicare calculated at 7.65% of $22,335 in paid wages committed as cost-share; ii) $4,125 for Utah State Pension calculated at 18.47% of $22,335 in paid wages committed as cost-share; iii) $126 for 501( c)(9) calculated at 6.7% FTE of $1,895; iv) $18 for life insurance calculated at 6.7% FTE of $259, and v) $3,156 for health insurance calculated at 6.7% of $47,085. d. $7,566 is non-federal cost share for the SLC Golf Superintendent based on fiscal year 2021-2022 payments for the following benefits: i) $1,683 for FICA/ Medicare calculated at 7.65% of $21,987 in paid wages committed as cost-share; ii) $4,062 for Utah State Pension calculated at 18.47% of $21,987 in paid wages committed as cost-share ; iii) $192 for 501( c)(9) calculated at 10.2% FTE of $1,895; iv) $27 for life insurance calculated at 10.2% FTE of $259, and v) $1,602 for health insurance calculated at 10.2% of $15,696. Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 42 Total Federal: $0 Total Non-Federal Cost Share: $24,726 Total Fringe Benefits (Federal + Non-Federal Cost Share): $24,726 iii. Travel. $0 in travel represents a $0 federal request and a $0 non-federal cost share. Total Federal: $0 Total Non-Federal Cost Share: $0 Total Travel (Federal + Non-Federal Cost Share): $0 iv. Equipment. $68,620 in equipment represents a $68,620 federal request and a $0 non-federal cost share for two equipment items necessary for the proposed landscape irrigation measures. $50,000 is allocated for the purchase of a tractor selected based on recommendations from USDA Forage and Ranch Research Laboratory and USU/CWEL. The purchase cost is estimated from an on-line averaged price comparison of three different vendors with comparably priced equipment. $18,620 is allocated for the purchase of a TurfCo Triwave seeder recommended by USDA Forage and Ranch Research Laboratory and USU/CWEL that is compatible with the selected tractor. The cost estimate was provided by the local distributor. Total Federal: $68,620 Total Non-Federal Cost Share: $0 Total Equipment (Federal + Non-Federal Cost Share): $68,620 v. Materials and Supplies. $15,450 in materials and supplies represents a $15,450 federal request and a $0 non-federal cost share. Costs for material and supply purchases included: i) $2,100 for 210 pounds (lbs.) of Siberian wheatgrass seed calculated at $10 per lb.; ii) $2,100 for 210 lbs. of Snake River wheatgrass seed calculated at $10 per lb.; iii) $11,250 for appliance and fixtures calculated from per item costs and item volumes listed above in Table 2.3. Seed costs are estimated from local vendor price quotes. Appliance and fixture costs were estimated from referencing product lists published on the EPA WaterSense website and cross- referencing representative product costs on manufacturer websites. Total Federal: $15,450 Total Non-Federal Cost Share: $0 Total Supplies and Materials (Federal + Non-Federal Cost Share): $15,450 vi. Contractual/Construction. $3,514,963 in contractual/construction represents a $1,707,963 federal request and a $1,807,000 non-federal cost share. Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 43 a. $3,502,963 represents a $1,702,963 federal request and a $1,800,000 non- federal cost share for an irrigation system design consultant and construction contractor for project deliverables related to Tasks 2.2 (Design New Irrigation System/Finalize Turf Reduction Plan), 2.3 (Develop Turf Management Plan), 2.4 (Removing Turf), and 2.5 (Installing High-Efficiency Nozzles). A detailed construction cost estimated is provided in Appendix C. b. $5,000 represents a $5,000 federal request and a $0 non-federal cost share for contracted professional plumbing services related to Task 3.3 (High Efficiency Appliance and Fixture Installation) calculated at $250 per hour for 20 hours [12 hours to install one ice machine, three urinals, 20 faucet aerators, and five toilets and 8 hours for any installation-associated tile repair work]. Costs are based on local rates for professional commercial plumbing services. c. $7,000 represents a $0 federal request and a $7,000 non-federal cost share for a water management consulting firm under contract with SLC Public Utilities. The firm will conduct Task 3.1 (Indoor Water Use Audit and Fixture Inspection.) Cost- share value is based on estimates of time to conduct the audit based on site size and number of fixtures. SLC Public Utilities is executing a contract with the consultant. A copy of the contract is not available at time of application submittal. Total Federal: $1,707,963 Total Non-Federal Cost Share: $1,807,000 Total Contractual/Construction (Federal + Non-Federal Cost Share): $3,514,963 vii. Third Party Contributions. $4,480 in third party contributions represents a $0 federal request and a $4,480 non-federal cost share. The non-federal cost share is committed and secured from Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City & Sandy and USU/CWEL. a. $2,000 is committed from Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City & Sandy for in-kind services through USU Water Check Program for Task 2.6 (Audit and Verification of New Irrigation System) deliverables. b. $2,480 is committed from USU/CWEL for in-kind services performed by three landscape water management experts for Tasks 2.2 (Design New Irrigation System/Finalize Turf Reduction Plan), 2.3 (Develop Turf Management Plan), 2.7 (Altering Fairway Turf Management) deliverables. Total Federal: $0 Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 44 Total Non-Federal Cost Share: $4,480 Total Other (Federal + Non-Federal Cost Share): $4,480 viii. Other. $0 in other represents a $0 federal request and a $0 non-federal cost share for environmental and regulatory compliance based on a categorically exclusion. Total Federal: $0 Total Non-Federal Cost Share: $0 Total Other (Federal + Non-Federal Cost Share): $0 ix. Indirect Cost. $0 in indirect costs represents a $0 federal request and a $0 non-federal cost share. Total Federal: $0 Total Non-Federal Cost Share: $0 Total Indirect Cost (Federal + Non-Federal Cost Share): $0 x. Total Project Cost Total Federal $1,792,033 Total Non-Federal $1,893,851 Total Project Cost (Federal + Non-Federal Cost Share): $3,685,884 SECTION 3: ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCE COMPLIANCE A. Environmental and Cultural Resources Compliance The proposed project is occurring within the footprint of an existing golf course. Site disturbance will be limited to minimal excavation necessary to replace existing irrigation lines and valve and control boxes. The project qualifies under categorical exclusion for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Clean Water Act (CWA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and it is not anticipated that there are any circumstances under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) that would necessitate a consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office. SECTION 4: REQUIRED PERMTIS OR APPROVALS A. Required Permits or Approvals There are no permits or approvals required for the project at time of application submittal. SLC Public Utilities will work Reclamation should it require additional reviews and approvals prior to award. Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 45 SECTION 5: LETTERS OF SUPPORT AND LETTERS OF PARTNERSHIP A. Letters of Support and Letters of Partnership Letters from partners and interested stakeholders are secured to demonstrate broad support of the project. Third-party match commitment letters are provided in Appendix A. Partner and stakeholder support letters are provided as Appendix B. SECTION 6: OFFICIAL RESOLUTION A. Official Resolution An official resolution adopted by the City Council will be submitted to Reclamation prior to December 3, 2021. Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 46 Appendix A. Partner and Third-Party Match Commitment Letters ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor October 20, 2021 KRISTIN RIKER Director, Public Lands Department Mr. Josh German WaterSMART Grants Program Coordinator jgerman@usbr.gov RE: Notice of Funding Opportunity No. R22AS00023 Dear Mr. German: I write to commit the financial and staff resources of the Division of Golf to ensure the success of the Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction project. The Division of Golf, as a part of the Department of Public Lands, plays a critical role in the stewardship of the parkland environment of the Rose Park Golf Course and the eco-system services it provides to the underserved neighborhood where it is located. My team has worked with the United States Golf Association and Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities to prioritize irrigation system improvements and sustainable turfgrass management practices that reduce water use and produce better playing conditions for better golf at the Rose Park Golf Course. The rise in golfing by the public during the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a significant net positive change in revenue for Salt Lake City’s public courses. We are committed to reinvesting these funds into the proposed new irrigation system and low-water grass reseeding to apply water more effectively and efficiently to the course and improve aesthetics while reducing mowed turfgrass and water usage. We look forward to partnering with the Bureau of Reclamation and Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities to help address the water availability concerns of the region through the Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction project. Sincerely, Kristin Riker Director DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC LANDS 1965 WEST 500 SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84104 www.slc.gov/parks/ PHONE 801-972-7800 FAX 801-972-7847 October 28, 2021 Mr. Josh German WaterSMART Grants Program Coordinator jgerman@usbr.gov RE: Notice of Funding Opportunity No. R22AS00023 Dear Mr. German: As Director of the Center for Water Efficient Landscaping (CWEL) at Utah State University, I write to commit the expertise and effort of three CWEL water management expert s to the non-federal match for the Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction project. CWEL is a research and outreach center designed to improve the efficient use of water for landscape irrigation. Our research demonstrates that the amount of water applied to landscapes may be reduced substantially without affecting landscape quality or consumer lifestyles. My team has worked with Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities on alternative landscape designs, advised on water management program practices, and conducted facility and system audits on Salt Lake City owned properties through the USU Water Check Program in collaboration with Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City & Sandy. In the event of a grant award, CWEL commits 26 hours on the part of three scientists/professors valued at $2,480 as a third-party non-federal match for the project. CWEL’s contribution to project delivery includes advising on the use of drought tolerant turf grasses, review of the design of a high-efficiency irrigation system to ensure water applications match turf species and use, and precipitation rates and advising on appropriate re-seeding equipment. The Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction project is an exciting oppor tunity to demonstrate the utility of the latest high-efficiency irrigation system technologies, low- to no-water turfgrass species conversions, and sustainable turfgrass management practices to reduce water use and produce better playing conditions for golf at the Rose Park Golf Course. We look forward to partnering with the Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities, and Salt Lake City Golf Division to help increase water sustainability for the Upper Colorado River Basin. Sincerely, Kelly Kopp, Ph.D. Professor and Extension Specialist Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 50 Appendix B. Partner and Stakeholder Support Letters October 28, 2021 Mr. Josh German WaterSMART Grants Program Coordinator jgerman@usbr.gov RE: Notice of Funding Opportunity No. R22AS00023 Dear Mr. German: The Professional Golfers’ Association (PGA) Utah PGA Section is pleased to represent its support for the Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction project and its efforts to use water as efficiently as possible and conserve water resources in the dry arid Utah landscape. The proposed installation of a well-designed irrigation system that applies water as efficiently as possible with little waste, the reduction of turf in out of play areas where turf is not necessary, and project’s attention to the indoor water use of the Clubhouse and the benefits of water-efficient toilets and fixtures are three best management practices promoted by the PGA to minimize golf course water use. Every drop of water counts in the western United States, and the PGA strives to support golf facilities in finding ways to manage with less water while satisfying golfers and maintaining an economically viable business. The Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction project serves as model for combining in-door and out-door water-reduction strategies on a public course. I urge you to consider our support of the project and the collaborative efforts of the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities and Department of Public Lands to conserve water use. Sincerely, Kent McComb President Jeff John Vice President Craig Norman Vice President Dustin Volk Honorary President Devin Dehlin Executive Director 779 Draper Heights Way Draper, UT 84020 www.utahpga.com 801.556.1005 United States Department of Agriculture Research, Education, and Economics Agricultural Research Service 20 October 2021 To: Stephanie Duer, Manager, SLC Water Conservation District Dear Mrs. Duer, In cooperation with Golf Course Superintendents at Rose Park, Glendale, and Bonneville golf courses, my research group has planted native and adapted wheatgrasses in out-of-bounds areas that receive little or no water throughout the summer. We first planted small, replicated research plots at each location of two grasses: Snake River wheatgrass and Siberian wheatgrass. As those small plots survived and developed, larger seedings have been tested recently. Below is shown pictures of the small plots at Glendale (left) and Rose Park (right). The difference between the surrounding cheatgrass weedy areas and the perennial wheatgrasses is shown. Our data indicates that these two species, when established, have persisted through drought without supplemental water, maintained good fall and spring color, and reduced weed growth. They can be mowed if desired but can also be un-mowed to provide structure and aesthetics. Given these data, I support your efforts for follow up research or expansion of wheatgrass plots in out-of-bound areas. Sincerely, B. Shaun Bushman Research Scientist USDA-ARS Forage and Range Research Laboratory 695 North 1100 East, Logan, UT 84322-6300 Tel. 435-797-2901 www.uga.org October 28, 2021 Mr. Josh German WaterSMART Grants Program Coordinator jgerman@usbr.gov RE: Notice of Funding Opportunity No. R22AS00023 Dear Mr. German: On behalf of the Utah Golf Association and our members, I am pleased to represent our support for the Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction project. The Utah Golf Association is the governing body of amateur golf in the state of Utah. The Rose Park Golf Course is one of our member courses. Golfing has boomed during the COVID-19 pandemic. The numbers of rounds played nationally in August were up 20.6% from the same month last year. With increased usage comes increased turf upkeep and maintenance. The proposed irrigation upgrades for the Rose Park Golf Course will improve the consistency of turfgrass conditions and sustain the putting green quality while at the same time increasing water conserved for maintaining ideal turf conditions. Please consider our support of the project in the review of Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities’ funding request. Sincerely, Jacob Miller Executive Director Utah Golf Association UTAH GOLF ASSOCIATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS Stew Walz, President Brian Hulse, Vice President Amy Mayberry, Secretary Mark Jensen, Treasurer Kurt Bernhisel, Immediate Past President Michael Bailey, Director Randy Hadfield, Director Karen Gardiner, Director Richard Church, Director Richard Urankar, Director Tina Mathieu, Director Joel Welber, Director Rick Shew, Director EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Jacob Miller 4444 South 700 East #105 Millcreek, Utah 84107 (801) 563-0400 (801) 563-0632 Fax Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 57 Appendix C. Construction Cost Estimate PROJECT FINANCIAL SUMMARY SALT LAKE CITY ENGINEERING CONTRACTOR: PROJECT MANAGER: Initial Summary by:RESIDENT PROJECT. REPRESENTATIVE: Revised Summary by:CONSULTANT: Run Date:CONSULTANT: JOB No: BUDGET: Source (See Joel or Monthly Project Status Report) Total:Engineering Percent of Allocation To date Budget Design Engineering - - Construction Engineering - - -$ - Con. Contr./Gen. Proj. Costs /Contingencies, etc. ----------- Total: Activity GENERAL PROJECT COSTS Codes Current FF&E Moving Expenses Storage Expenses Hazardous Inspection and Abatement Disaster Remediation/Cleaning Public Services Supplied Equipment Owner contracted Security and Systems IMS Requirements Card Access Systems (City Contract) Percentages Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .from ENGINEERING COSTS IFAS In House Personnel Download NOTE: In-house Preliminary Design and Studies . . . . . . . . . . 331 0.0% - - Survey for Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332 0.4% 10,017.88 - include a 50% Project Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331 0.0%- - overhead markup.Manage City Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .334 0.0%- - Manage Consultant Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . 329 2.0% 57,245.00 - Total 300 Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Manage City Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .438 0.0%- - Manage Consultant Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . 441 3.0% 85,867.50 - Inspect Construction Projects. . . . . . . . . . . . 439 0.0%- - Materials Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440 0.0%- - Total 400 Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contract Personnel (CDI, PSI, CMT, ETC.) Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0%- - LEED/Cx Services Geotechnical Engineers Constr. Management, Engr. & Insp. . . . . . .0.0%- - Materials Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0%- - Total Contract Personnel Costs . . . . . . . . . Consultant Engineering Planning & Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.0%- - Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.0% 85,867.50 - Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0%- - Contract Admin, Testing & Insp. . . . . . . . .4.0% 114,490.00 - 12.4% 353,487.88$ 0.0% Engineering Costs Less Contingencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contingency: Initial Estimate: 0% @ Bid: Engineering Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Amount Engineering Budget Over run / (Under run) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Paid % Contractor Complete CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT COSTS To Date Estimated/Actual Contract Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-$ - Contingencies: Initial Estimate: 10% @ Bid: TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . Construction Contract + General Project Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . ***From Final Pay Request PROJECTED PROJECT OVER RUN/(UNDER RUN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TBD Sean Fyfe TBD TBD Publ. Util.UDOT TOTAL Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation System - Date SAF 20-Oct-21 - PROJECT TITLE: - - BUDGET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,502,963 ALL PROJECT COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTAL PROJECT COSTS: - 2,862,250 3,148,475$ 114,490 Total Consultant Engr. Costs . . . . . . . . . . . - 200,358$ 353,488 353,488 -$ - - -$ -$ Sanitary Sewer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - 85,868 - Telephone/Cable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -$ Railroads/UDOT Matching Funds . . . . . . . . 85,868$ - - - 67,263$ - 353,488 - - -$ - 3,502,963$ - - -$ -$ - 286,225.00 3,149,475$ -$ -$ - -$ -- - - - - - -$ Estimate - - - - - -$ - - - - COSTS: Electric Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - 10,018 Land/Right-of -Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . City Purchased Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Storm Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Natural Gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . personnel costs SID Bonding/Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,000$ Percent for Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -$ -$ - - 26-Oct-21 - - - -$ -$ -$-$ -$ Total: Impact FeesGen Fund -$ - -$ Current - - -$ -$ - - - -$ - - Miscellaneous (Printing, Etc.) . . . . . . . . . . . . Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Guideline Complexity "B" -$ - Initial Costs -$ Latest Revised Engr. Costs Using Estimated - (Initial Estimate Only) - - - -$ 85,868 - -$ Final Amount Contractor To Be Paid *** G:Estimates/Master Estimate.XLS Form revised: October 21, 2009 -$ -$ -$-$ Estimate 1,000 Percentages - - - - - 57,245 Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 59 Appendix D. United States Golf Association On-Site Visit Consulting Service Report for Rose Park Golf Course Rose Park Golf Course Salt Lake City, Utah Visit date: June 17, 2021 Present: Mike Price, Golf Course Superintendent Zak Gillars, Assistant Golf Course Superintendent Seth Rissmann, Assistant Golf Course Superintendent Matt Kammeyer, Director of Golf Kelsey Chugg, Associate Director of Golf Ronnie Newren, Golf Professional Cory Isom, USGA Green Section Jordan Booth, USGA Green Section United States Golf Association Cory Isom, Agronomist | Green Section | West Region 18419 95th Avenue East | Puyallup, WA 98375 | (831) 917-3152 | cisom@usga.org Jordan Booth, Agronomist | Green Section | Southeast Region 5 McFarland Rd. | Pinehurst, NC | (804) 814-3078 | jbooth@usga.org The USGA Green Section develops and disseminates sustainable management practices that produce better playing conditions for better golf. COURSE CONSULTING SERVICE Onsite Visit Report 2 Executive Summary Thank you for the opportunity to visit the Rose Park Golf Course. The course is in a beautiful setting, surrounded by mountains. The environment provides a great backdrop to the golf course but brings its own challenges for turfgrass management. Overall, the course has varied turfgrass conditions with many challenges from aging infrastructure and poor irrigation coverage. Many topics were discussed during our time on property and this report will focus on the following items. • Labor. Rose Park has a strong management team and a small, part-time staff. In order to provide better turfgrass conditions and maintain an aging irrigation system, labor resources need to be added to the golf maintenance budget. • Irrigation system. Most of the irrigation system at Rose Park Golf Course is old, outdated and in need of replacement. Irrigation is the lifeblood of the golf course and the current system cannot provide adequate water to the turfgrass surfaces. • Water quality and availability. Jordan River water is currently being used to irrigate the golf course. This water is not ideal for producing consistently healthy turfgrass throughout an entire growing season. While elevated salts create some maintenance challenges, the larger issue is the amount of sediment in the water. Upgrading the filtering system or pursuing an alternative source of irrigation water should be high on the priority list. • Putting greens. Overall, turfgrass conditions on putting greens were acceptable at the time of our visit. Greens were smooth and firm with good turfgrass coverage. Sand topdressing programs are excellent but there is room for improvement in aeration and hand watering practices. • Tees, fairways and roughs. Turfgrass conditions on tees and fairways is good in areas with adequate irrigation coverage and poor in areas with inadequate irrigation. Salt Lake City has invested in seeding equipment, but this seed has very little chance of survival with the current irrigation system. There is an opportunity to seed drought-tolerant, low-maintenance grasses on the perimeter of the property to improve aesthetics while reducing mowed turfgrass and water usage. • Golf course maintenance facility and equipment. The work and storage space for the golf course maintenance crew is undersized and very old. New indoor and covered storage space is needed to provide adequate working conditions for the staff and to protect golf course maintenance equipment and prolong its useful life. 3 Table of Contents Labor .............................................................................................................................. 4 Observations ................................................................................................................... 4 Recommendations........................................................................................................... 4 Irrigation System ........................................................................................................... 4 Observations ................................................................................................................... 4 Recommendations........................................................................................................... 6 Water Quality and Availability ...................................................................................... 7 Observations ................................................................................................................... 7 Recommendations........................................................................................................... 7 Putting Greens .............................................................................................................. 9 Observations ................................................................................................................... 9 Recommendations......................................................................................................... 10 Tees, Fairways, and Roughs ...................................................................................... 12 Observations ................................................................................................................. 12 Recommendations......................................................................................................... 13 Equipment and Maintenance Facility ........................................................................ 14 Observations ................................................................................................................. 14 Recommendations......................................................................................................... 15 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 15 Additional Considerations .......................................................................................... 16 4 Labor Observations 1. Inadequate Staffing Consistent with trends across the country, Rose Park has experienced an increase in golf rounds in the last 18 months. Through this increase, turfgrass playing surfaces are experiencing more traffic and wear and tear. At the same time, there is need for constant repairs and upgrades to the current irrigation system. While the need for labor has increased at Rose Park, the labor market has become more expensive with fewer potential employees to choose from. In short, labor is needed yet more expensive and harder to find. For these reasons, the labor budget needs to be increased and efforts need to be made to promote opportunities and retention of current staff members. Recommendations 1. Increased Labor Budget • Increase the number of fulltime, year-round employees to improve experience and skill levels throughout the staff. • Add a fulltime, year-round irrigation technician to maintain, repair, and audit the aging irrigation and pumping system. This position will not only address specific needs but also free up Mike, Seth and Zak to focus on putting green, turfgrass and staff management. If significant capital upgrades are made to the irrigation system, an irrigation technician is very valuable to maintain this important asset. This position is a great way to promote from within the Salt Lake City Golf team for a person interested in becoming an assistant superintendent. Irrigation System Observations 1. Challenges and Opportunities Salt Lake City is an arid, windy environment with very hot conditions in the summer months. These hot, arid conditions and lack of rainfall lead to drastic loss of soil water during the summer months. Soil moisture and availability is critical to turfgrass health and survival during the heat of the summer. Irrigation system challenges and opportunities include the following: • While Salt Lake City has recently invested in a new pump system (2016) and control system (2019) at Rose Park, the inground components (pipe, valves, sprinkler heads) are old and in need of replacement. Many of these components were installed over 35 years ago and have surpassed their useful life. The design of the system is outdated and does not allow for efficient, effective irrigation. Breaks and failures to these components during overnight irrigation events cause the pumps to shut down and the system to have inadequate coverage and needed water to turfgrass systems. 5 • Currently the irrigation system cannot be run in one night. Only half of the turfgrass can be watered on any given night due to poor valve design. To be most effective, the irrigation system needs to have the ability to control each sprinkler head individually with valves in each sprinkler. This allows the golf course maintenance team to put water exactly where they need it, when they need it and maximize their pumping potential and, in turn, turfgrass quality. • The irrigation system was originally designed to water every square foot of property at Rose Park Golf Course. With water availability concerns, a new system needs to be designed to water the most important aspects of the golf course: tees, fairways and greens. This ‘up-the-middle’ approach will maximize the golf experience while minimizing water use and saving installation costs. A new system needs to have individual head control and isolation valves at each lateral line. Quick coupler valves should be installed throughout the course to provide supplemental irrigation capabilities via hose. • There is a great opportunity to install the irrigation system while the back nine is shut down to install the large, underground drainage pipe in 2023. Planning should begin immediately to be prepared for this closure. • There is an opportunity to build a retention pond between holes 14 and 15 to hold irrigation water. Adding a pond can reduce the inconsistency currently experienced by pumping directly out of the Jordan River. • The system can be designed to grow in the roughs and then be adjusted to only water tee complexes, fairways and green complexes. Drought-tolerant turfgrasses including tall fescue, fine fescue and western wheatgrass may be great options for the roughs to reduce the need for irrigation. Western wheatgrass (Fig. 1) would only be suitable for the perimeter of golf holes or around tees where golf is not played. It would greatly reduce mowing and fertilizer and eliminate the need for irrigation. Supplemental irrigation systems (Fig. 2) may be utilized to help with turfgrass establishment where necessary. The USGA can assist in turfgrass selection and recommend an irrigation design team as needed. Figure 1: Western wheatgrass provides a uniform 12-15" tall turfgrass stand. It is very drought tolerant yet open enough to find and play a golf shot. It needs to be mowed twice a year (spring and fall) and managed for weeds. These native grasses add aesthetic value, wildlife habits, and definition to Rose Park while reducing irrigated acreage, daily maintenance, and fertilizer. 6 Recommendations 1. System and Component Upgrades Evaluate opportunity, get quotes to upgrade irrigation system in 2023. Replace pipe, valves, heads, and quick coupling valves with a focus on tee complexes, green complexes and fairways. Should Jordan River water still be the sole source of irrigation water, it is imperative to upgrade the current intake pump(s) system. Hire an irrigation design firm to design the system. 2. Water Use Reduction It is recommended to evaluate drought-tolerant turfgrass varieties for the rough. It is also recommended to reduce mowed turfgrass to reduce maintenance costs and water usage. 3. Pond Look into the feasibility and cost to install a pond between holes 14 and 15 in 2023. Use the current pump to transfer water from Jordan River to the retention pond. 4. Irrigation Technician Position Add a fulltime, year-round irrigation technician to maintain, repair, and audit the aging irrigation and pumping system. When capital upgrades are made to the irrigation system, an irrigation technician is very valuable to maintain this important asset. Figure 2: Small, homemade irrigation systems can be plugged directly into quick coupling valves to help establish seed or sod. 7 Water Quality and Availability Observations 1. Water Quality Values Looking at recent water quality tests, the electrical conductivity (EC) of the irrigation water has a range of 1.3 – 1.7 dS/cm depending on the time of the year. While this water is obviously able to produce high-quality turfgrass on the greens at Rose Park, the rest of the golf course, where sand is not the predominant soil component, will see increasing salt concentrations in the rootzone. • Heavy clay soils do not readily leach salts below the rootzone. As grass plants use the pure water component of available soil moisture, salts are left behind. When this happens consistently during the irrigation season with no rain or snow events to leach those leftover salts out of the profile, salt begins to accumulate in the rootzone. • As salts accumulate in the soil, there effectively becomes a tug-of-war between the salts and the turfgrass roots for available pure water. This tug-of-war ultimately leads to plant stress and potential failure. Recommendations 1. Alternative Water Source It was reported that the local water treatment facility is due north of the property boundary. This proximity to an effluent water source for golf course irrigation could be a fantastic option for Rose Park for the following reasons. • Based on how close the course is to the source, this could be a “low-cost” connection. • Recent trends in water treatment practices have made effluent water a very good option for high-quality golf course turf. With that being said, we would still recommend evaluating water quality tests before pursuing this water source in earnest. • The messaging around utilizing effluent water to irrigate the golf course is a big deal nowadays. As drought continues to be more normal for the Salt Lake City area, water becomes a more precious resource. Using reclaimed water instead of straight river water is a net gain for the entire water district. Assuming that the treatment plant could supply 100% of the golf course’s need for irrigation water, no Jordan River water would need to be used. This would effectively increase downstream natural flow and decrease the amount of effluent water the treatment plant releases into the Jordan River. From an environmental and ecological perspective, this is a no brainer. • Sediment in the water pumped directly from the Jordan River is causing widespread turf loss on the course. As the single filter at the pump station gets clogged regularly, the pumps will fault out and no irrigation will run until the filters are cleaned. During summer heat, this cannot happen without losing turf. Effluent water will not have this sediment in it. Problem solved. 8 2. Salt Monitoring On the date of the visit, no EC readings were observed that would indicate that salt concentrations have reached damaging levels yet. However, as the season progresses, it will be worth monitoring salt levels. • We use the FieldScout Direct Soil EC Meter from Spectrum Technologies. This will provide instant and accurate salinity measurements for the soil and water. As these measurements are taken, trends can be observed and thresholds can be established for salt management. Using this EC meter will provide results in dS/cm. • The following Pace Turf Reference article shows how to convert that value to what you would see on a soil test saturated paste sample. It also provides tolerance ranges for each turf type. Once you have this information, you’ll be able to see when salt levels are approaching or passing your threshold for healthy turf growth. 3. Salt Management Unfortunately, with the heavy clay soils present at Rose Park, salt management will be a difficult undertaking should damaging levels of salt be observed. Clay soils do not drain readily. This means that excess salts are unable to move through the rootzone profile easily when extra water is applied. • Sand topdressing can be a good, albeit expensive, option for creating a “new” soil profile. As sand is consistently applied over time, the rootzone will build up to the point where most, if not all, of the turfgrass roots are in the sandy medium. As mentioned above, sandy soils are able to be leached readily when salts accumulate. The greens at Rose Park are a great example of what I’ve just described. I would recommend sand topdressing some key areas in fairways, tees, or approaches that could be evaluated over the next few years. If turf quality is dramatically better in these areas, they could serve as good sales tools for a larger sand topdressing program. 4. Sodium Management Wait, isn’t this the same thing as salt management? One would think so, but it isn’t. Not all salts are sodium. • Sodium can physically disrupt how a soil functions. Excessive sodium accumulation in the soil will tend to break down the structure of the soil. When structure breaks down, infiltration of water, air, and roots is severely restricted. • Water tests will typically report a sodium hazard as the Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR). A better, yet more complicated, way to look at a sodium hazard in irrigation water is to calculate the Adjusted Sodium Adsorption Ratio. (Adj. RNa). This calculation takes into account the effects of carbon dioxide, bicarbonate and the salinity of the water once it is in the soil. • When looking over the last two water quality tests, they list SAR Adj. at 9.75 in October of 2020 and 7.52 in June of 2021. These values would indicate a moderate risk of sodium-induced infiltration problems. However, we believe these numbers are inaccurate. 9 • According to our calculations, the last two water tests have adj. RNa values of 4.76 in October of 2020 and 3.83 in June of 2021. These values represent a relatively low risk of infiltration problems from sodium accumulation. Based on this, we would not recommend pursuing any water or soil treatment expenses directly related to a perceived sodium hazard in your current irrigation water. • Should you have insomnia yet want to learn more about water quality evaluation, I would suggest reading through Water Quality for Agriculture. This is the gold standard for evaluating water suitability for not just agriculture, but for turfgrass as well. Be advised, this is heavy reading. Take in small doses. Putting Greens Observations 1. General Condition The putting greens at Rose Park are primarily comprised of annual bluegrass (Poa annua). During our visit, the greens were generally healthy with good rooting (Fig. 3). • There were several bare areas (Fig. 4) and areas that have experienced drought stress (Fig. 5). • Weekly sand topdressing has led to consistent, smooth putting surfaces. • The putting greens were built in the 1950s and 60s with different construction methods. Figure 3: Good rooting for Poa annua greens was observed. Keep up with consistent sand topdressing. 10 Recommendations 1. Topdressing It is recommended to continue weekly sand topdressing. 2. Fertility and Plant Protectants It is recommended to continue putting green fertility and plant protectant programs. Figure 4: Areas like this provide a great opportunity to make an immediate impact with sod repair. Great attention to detail and frequent hand watering will be critical for long term success of these repairs. Figure 5: Localized dry spots from inconsistent greens construction or irrigation coverage lead to turfgrass damage and death from drought. These areas need supplemental irrigation from hand watering. 11 3. Moisture Management Continue to use moisture meter and hand water greens to supplement the irrigation system. Continue to use sprayable and pelleted wetting agents to retain moisture in the putting greens. 4. Venting Vent greens monthly during the summer to allow for water infiltration and oxygen to the roots. A new Toro® 648 aerator needs to be purchased and dedicated for Rose Park to be able to accomplish this standard best management practice. 5. Addressing Bare Areas Repair bare and damaged areas on and around greens with sod. • Provide ample irrigation and hand watering in these areas until the weather breaks and rain begins to occur more frequently. • Rope off these areas to reduce damage from golfers and mowing equipment until the new sod has fully established. Ask the pro shop to assist with communication with these repairs and traffic control (Fig.4). • As soon as these areas take root, it will be important to solid tine aerate frequently with small diameter tines. This will promote root growth through the sod layer into the underlying greens mix. 6. Aeration Perform large solid-tine (4” x 3/4”) and deep solid-tine aeration (8” x ½”) in the spring of the year following a heavy topdressing to incorporate sand into the putting green profile. • We understand that core aeration is very disruptive to play and difficult for a small staff to achieve. Solid-tine aeration is a great way to incorporate sand into the profile and provide sand channels through the thatch with minimal disruption to play. • Deep-tine aeration is a great way to move water and salt deeper into the putting green profile. If Salt Lake City golf properties do not own this machine, this process can be contracted out or this is a machine that can be shared between properties. 7. Tree Removal Remove trees around putting greens (Fig. 6) as necessary to reduce shade and root competition. 12 Tees, Fairways, and Roughs Observations 1. General Condition Turfgrass across the property was inconsistent on tees, fairways and roughs. The summertime heat and drought has occurred earlier than normal this year. 2. Irrigation Challenges The inadequate irrigation system has not provided enough water for optimal turfgrass health (Fig. 7). • Where the system provides adequate water coverage, the turfgrass is in good health (Fig. 8). • Where irrigation coverage is poor, turfgrass conditions are poor, leading to bare soil and weed infestation. • An irrigation system upgrade will eliminate 90% of the problem. Cultural practices, tree pruning and seeding of improved turfgrass varieties will make up for the remaining 10%. Figure 6: Trees behind this green are creating a poor growing environment with competition from shade and tree roots. These trees are already stressed and need to be removed so the bare areas can be repaired. 13 Recommendations 1. Irrigation Upgrades Upgrade the irrigation system to improve irrigation coverage and turfgrass quality. 2. Seeding Seed improved varieties of bluegrass into bare areas of tees, fairways, tee surrounds, green surrounds, and primary roughs in multiple directions to establish new grass stands. Seed drought tolerant turf-type or fine fescue into secondary roughs. Drill seed western wheatgrass into outer areas of the property to reduce water use and maintenance. Walkways can be maintained through these areas for disc golf or walking trails. Figure 7: Inadequate irrigation coverage leads to inconsistent turfgrass quality in tees, fairways, and roughs. Figure 8: Turfgrass quality was excellent in areas with adequate irrigation coverage. 14 3. Tees – Aeration and Topdressing Aerate and sand topdress teeing grounds as staffing allows during the growing season, ideally two to three times per year. 4. Fertility Provide adequate soil fertility to maintain turfgrass health and growth. Evaluate the impact of gypsum applications on tees and fairways to reduce impact of salts in irrigation water. Equipment and Maintenance Facility Observations 1. Equipment Salt Lake City has invested in equipment to complete projects including seeding, spraying, deep air injection, material handling, excavating and topdressing. Unfortunately, some of the mowing and transportation equipment is getting old and outdated. • The development of a long-range plan will help with equipment replacement. • Great advancements have been made in turfgrass mowing equipment and upgrades need to be made, especially for tees and greens. 2. Maintenance Facility The golf course maintenance facility is small and in need of replacement. Most equipment is stored outside, adding unnecessary wear and tear on these valuable assets. Figure 9: The current maintenance facility is small and does not provide adequate space to work or store equipment. 15 Recommendations 1. Long-range Planning Develop a long-range equipment replacement plan with the golf course maintenance management team and Director of Golf. 2. Turf Care Facility Improvements Evaluate opportunities to improve the golf course maintenance facility. Improved storage and workspace will improve staff morale and retention and improve maintenance and lifespan of equipment. 3. Equipment Purchase Purchase a Toro 648 aerator to be dedicated to Rose Park Golf Course. This equipment is needed for venting during the growing season. Shared 648s would still be beneficial during solid tine aeration in the spring. In addition, if not already owned, purchase a Wiedenmann® Terra Spike GXi or similar deep tine aerator for greens and tees. This tractor-mounted piece of equipment can be shared if necessary. Summary Overall, putting green quality was good and other turfgrass conditions were inconsistent at the time of our visit. It is evident that the staff and stakeholders at Rose Park Golf Course take great pride in their golf course. The staff works hard to provide the best possible conditions with the available resources. Small, incremental improvements can be made to increase consistency across the property but large, capital improvements to the irrigation system, facilities, and equipment are critical to long-term success. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions regarding this visit or report. Thank you for your support of the USGA Green Section. Respectfully submitted, Cory Isom, Agronomist USGA Green Section Jordan Booth, Agronomist USGA Green Section Distribution: Matt Kammeyer, Director of Golf Kelsey Chugg, Associate Director of Golf Mike Price, Golf Course Superintendent 16 Additional Considerations The USGA appreciates your support of the Course Consulting Service. Please visit the Green Section Record to access regional updates that detail agronomist observations across the region. Also, please visit the Water Resource Center to learn about golf’s use of water and how your facility can help conserve and protect our most important natural resource. USGA Green Section Record and @USGAGrnSection on Twitter If you would like to receive the USGA’s electronic publication, the Green Section Record, click here. It is free, informative and sent directly to you via email every two weeks. Also, be sure to follow us on Twitter at @USGAGrnSection for additional golf course management information, course care articles, and field observations from USGA agronomists. About the USGA Course Consulting Service As a not-for-profit agency that is free from commercial connections, the USGA Course Consulting Service is dedicated to providing impartial, expert guidance on decisions that can affect the playing quality, operational efficiency and sustainability of your course. First started in 1953, the USGA Course Consulting Service permits individual facilities to reap the benefits of on-site visits by highly skilled USGA agronomists located in Green Section offices throughout the country. For questions regarding this report or any other aspect of the USGA Course Consulting Service, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Rose Park Golf Course Irrigation Efficiency and Turf Reduction Project WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 2022 Page 75 Appendix E. Salt Lake City Water Conservation Plan 2020 SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 i TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS P LAN S UMMARY Introduction ............................................................................................. PS-1 Chapter Highlights 1, 2 and 3 .................................................................. PS-2 Chapter Highlights 4, 5 and Appendices .................................................. PS-3 C HAPTER 1: S UPPLY AND D EMAND 1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Salt Lake City Public Utilities Service Area ................................................ 1-2 1.2 Demands on the Department Water System ........................................... 1-2 1.3 SLCPU Water Supply ................................................................................. 1-4 1.3.1 Existing Sources .............................................................................. 1-5 1.3.2 Future Sources ................................................................................ 1-5 1.3.3 Total Annual Water Supply ............................................................. 1-6 1.4 Water System Risk .................................................................................... 1-7 1.5 Future Annual Production Requirements Compared to Future Demands 1-9 1.6 Recommendations .................................................................................. 1-10 C HAPTER 2: H ISTORICAL W ATER U SE 2.0 Introduction .............................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Total Water Use ........................................................................................ 2-2 2.2 Per Capita Use .......................................................................................... 2-3 2.3 System Losses ........................................................................................... 2-4 2.4 Use by Classification and Sub-Classification ............................................. 2-5 2.5 Indoor and Outdoor uses .......................................................................... 2-7 2.6 Conservation Progress to Date ............................................................... 2-12 C HAPTER 3: C ONSERVATION G OALS 3.0 Introduction .............................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Conservation Goals ................................................................................... 3-2 3.1.1 Governor’s 2001 State Wide Water Conservation Goal ................. 3-2 3.1.2 Central Utah Project Conservation Agreement (ULS Conservation Goals) ........................................................................................................ 3-2 3.1.3 Recommended State Water Strategy, July 2017 ............................ 3-2 3.1.4 Utah’s Regional M&I Water Conservation Goals, November 2019 3-2 3.1.5 Salt Lake City Water Supply and Demand Master Plan Conservation Goals ......................................................................................................... 3-4 3.1.6 Comparison of Conservation Goals ................................................ 3-4 3.2 Details of SLCPU Conservation Goals ....................................................... 3-5 3.2.1 Overall Conservation Goal .............................................................. 3-5 3.2.2 Conservation Goal by Customer Classification ............................... 3-5 3.2.3 Conservation Goals by Sub-Classification ....................................... 3-9 3.2.4 Five and Ten Year Conservation Goals ......................................... 3-11 C HAPTER 4: C ONSERVATION P ROGRAMS AND PRACTICES 4 -1 4.0 Introduction .............................................................................................. 4-1 4.1 Conservation Planning Process ................................................................. 4-2 4.1.1 Criteria ............................................................................................ 4-2 4.1.2 Evaluation ....................................................................................... 4-2 4.1.3 Resource Allocation ........................................................................ 4-2 4.1.4 Terminology .................................................................................... 4-2 4.2 Conservation by Connection .................................................................... 4-3 4.3 Socioeconomic Impacts of Conservation .................................................. 4-4 4.4 Water Conservation Programs, Practices, and Measures ........................ 4-5 4.4.1 Programs ......................................................................................... 4-5 4.4.2 Practices and Measures .................................................................. 4-6 4.4.3 Program Tables ............................................................................... 4-6 4.5 Outreach ................................................................................................... 4-8 4.5.1 Demonstration Gardens and SLCGardenwise.com ......................... 4-9 4.5.2 Public Access, Cloud-based Portals ............................................... 4-10 4.5.3 Conservation Learning Labs .......................................................... 4-10 4.5.4 Partnerships .................................................................................. 4-11 4.6 Economics ............................................................................................... 4-16 4.6.1 CII Audits and Direct Installs ......................................................... 4-17 4.6.2 Rebates ......................................................................................... 4-17 4.6.3 Rates Evaluation ........................................................................... 4-18 SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 4.7 Utility Operations ................................................................................... 4-21 4.7.1 Implement AMI Technologies ....................................................... 4-22 4.7.2 Landscape Upgrades and Maintenance ........................................ 4-22 4.7.3 Infrastructure Leak Detection and Repair..................................... 4-22 4.7.4 Landscape Best Practices for Water Resource Efficiency and Protection Manual Update ..................................................................... 4-23 4.7.5 Contract Specifications for Landscape and Irrigation Design, Installation, and Maintenance Review ................................................... 4-23 4.8 Law and Policy ........................................................................................ 4-27 4.8.1 Proposed Ordinances .................................................................... 4-27 4.9 Research and Metrics ............................................................................. 4-32 4.9.1 Conduct AWWA M36 Study .......................................................... 4-33 4.9.2 Establish Metrics, Benchmarks, and Goals for Conservation Programming .......................................................................................... 4-33 4.9.3 5 and 10 Year Proposed Water Conservation Budget .................. 4-33 4.9.4 CII Analytics ................................................................................... 4-33 4.9.5 Water Check ................................................................................. 4-34 4.9.6 WATERMAPS™ .............................................................................. 4-35 4.9.7 Additional USU/SLCPU Study and Research Collaborations ......... 4-36 4.9.7.1 Golf Course Turfgrass Study ............................................. 4-36 4.9.7.2 Alternative Turfgrass Study .............................................. 4-36 4.9.7.3 Synthetic Grass Study ....................................................... 4.37 4.9.7.4 Irrigation-Only Meter Budgets Review ............................ 4-37 C HAPTER 5: P UBLIC O UTREACH AND C OMMUNICATION 5.0 Introduction .............................................................................................. 5-1 5.1 Goals and Objective .................................................................................. 5-1 5.2 Stakeholders and Special Interests ........................................................... 5-2 5.3 Media and Social Platforms ...................................................................... 5-2 5.4 Avenues of Communication ..................................................................... 5-2 A PPENDICES A. SLCDPU Water Service Area Map ............................................................. A-2 B. MWDSLS ULS Report 2019, Table 4: Salt Lake City Water Usage and Conservation Trends ................................................................................. A-3 C. State Division of Water Resources 2018 Water Conservation Plan Checklist . .................................................................................................................. A-4 D. ANSI/AWWA G480-13 Water Conservation Program Operation and Management Standard, Fist Edition. July 2013 ........................................ A-8 E. Water Conservation Budget 2020/21 ..................................................... A-14 F. 17.16.092: Water Shortage Ordinance ................................................... A-14 G. 21A-48-055 Water Efficient Landscaping Standards .............................. A-15 H. Public Utility Advisory Committee Minutes/Water Conservation Plan Discussion ............................................................................................... A-16 I. Minutes of the 846th Meeting of the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy Board Minutes/Water Conservation Plan ................. A-17 J. Minutes of the Salt Lake City Council Formal Meeting ........................... A-20 K. Salt Lake City Council Transmittal, Minutes and Resolution .................. A-22 L. Links and References .............................................................................. A-24 M. Glossary of Terms, Abbreviations, and Acronyms .................................. A-25 SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN iii TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLES AND FIGURES T ABLES 1-1 Projected Annual Yield of SLCPU Surface Water Source .......................... 1-5 1-2 SLCPU Projected Dry Year Production Existing and Future Sources ......... 1-6 2-1 Water Sales (AF/Year) ............................................................................... 2-2 2-2 Estimated System Losses 2016-2018 ........................................................ 2-4 2-3 Total Connections ..................................................................................... 2-6 2-4 Reported Water Sales to Division of Water Rights (AF) ........................... 2-6 2-5 Updated Water Sales Data (AF) ................................................................ 2-6 2-6 Per Capita Water Use by Classification ................................................... 2-11 3-1 Long-Term Conservation Goals Expressed as Per Capita Use (gpd) ......... 3-5 3-2 Percent Reduction in Per Capita Use to Achieve Long-Term Goals .......... 3-5 3-3 Additional Conservation by Sub-Classification ....................................... 3-10 3-4 Recommended Interim Conservation Goals ........................................... 3-11 3-5 Additional Conservation Needed by Classification (AF/Year) ................. 3-11 4-1 Additional Reduction in Per Connection Use Needed (gpd/Connection)...................................................................................... 4-3 4-2 Outreach Programs ................................................................................. 4-12 4-3 Economics Programs .............................................................................. 4-19 4-4 Utility Operations ................................................................................... 4-24 4-5 Law and Policy Programs ........................................................................ 4-29 4-6 Research and Metrics Programs ............................................................. 4-38 F IGURES 1-1 Water System Service Area ...................................................................... 1-2 1-2 Demographic Factors Predictive of Demand ............................................ 1-3 1-3 Projected SLCPU Service Area Annual Production Requirements ............ 1-4 1-4 Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Supply and Demand ................. 1-7 1-5 Little Cottonwood Creek-Annual Flow Volume at LCWTP ........................ 1-8 1-6 Projected SLCPU Annual Production Requirements vs. Supply (Dry Year) with Supply Redundancy Buffers .............................................................. 1-9 2-1 Water Sales (gpd) ..................................................................................... 2-2 2-2 Salt Lake City Per Capita Water Use (gpd) ................................................ 2-3 2-3 Water Use Classifications and Sub-Classifications .................................... 2-5 2-4 Volume of Use by Classification (AF/Year) ............................................... 2-6 2-5 Volume of Use by Subclassification (AF/Year) .......................................... 2-6 2-6 Seasonal Water Use, Single Residence (2016-2018) ................................ 2-7 2-7 Location of Use by Classification .............................................................. 2-8 2-8 Percent Total Indoor Use by Classification ............................................... 2-8 2-9 Percent Total Outdoor Use by Classification ............................................ 2-8 2-10 Location of Use by Sub-Classification ....................................................... 2-9 2-11 Percentage of total Indoor Use by Sub-Classification .............................. 2-9 2-12 Percentage of total Outdoor Use by Sub-Classification ........................... 2-9 2-13 Volume of use by Location of Use and Classification ............................. 2-10 2-14 Volume of Use by Location and Sub-Classification (AF/Year)................. 2-10 2-15 Per Capita Water Use by Classification (gpd) ......................................... 2-11 2-16 Monthly Conservation, Average of All Connections ............................... 2-12 2-17 Percent Reduction Since 2001 by Classification ..................................... 2-13 2-18 Percent Reduction Since 2001 by Classification ..................................... 2-14 2-19 Volume of Conservation Since 2001 by Location of Use and Classification (AF/Year) ................................................................................................. 2-14 2-20 Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities Per Capita Peak Day Water Use (gpcd) ...................................................................................................... 2-15 3-1 Utah’s Regional M&I Water Conservation Goals ...................................... 3-3 3-2 SLCPU Service Area Conservation Trend .................................................. 3-4 3-3 Additional Conservation by Month Averaged Across all Connections…….3-6 3-4 Estimated Additional Conservation Percentage by Customer Classification ............................................................................................. 3-7 3-5 Volume of Additional Conservation Needed to Achieve Long-Term Goal by Location of Use and Group (AF/Year, Existing Customers) ...................... 3-8 3-6 Volume of Additional Conservation Needed to Achieve Long-Term Goal by Location of Use and Customer Glass (AF/Year, Existing Customers) ........ 3-9 SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN Page PS-1 PLAN SUMMARY PLAN SUMMARY I NTRODUCTION Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (Department) has completed an update of its water conservation plan (Plan). Working with Bowen Collins & Associates, Inc., the Department has prepared this Plan in accordance with the State of Utah Conservation Plan Act 73-10-32, as well as under guidelines outlined in the American Water Works Association Manual M52: Water Conservation Programs and the State’s Regional Conservation Goals. At its simplest, water conservation is the effort of learning to use less water while maintaining quality-of-life standards. There are many reasons to conserve water, and for a community, it makes sense to plan that conservation effort. Planning helps quantify water supply and assess historical demand so that conservation goals may be established that help us live within and sustain limited water resources. Planning helps ensure that water conservation programs are adequate to achieve established goals. Planning helps communicate complex issues that affect short- and long-term conservation efforts, such as climate change and growth. And finally, conservation planning can convey the need to conserve, identify tools and resources available to the community for use in their conservation efforts, and build a shared water steward ethic that motivates us all to achieve the desired, and necessary, conservation goals. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN Page PS-2 PLAN SUMMARY SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page PS-3 PLAN SUMMARY SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 1-1 SUPPLY AND DEMAND: CHAPTER ONE 1 Salt Lake City Water Supply and Demand Master Plan, Bowen Collins & Associates, February 2019 CHAPTER ONE: SUPPLY AND DEMAND 1.0 I NTRODUCTION Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (Department or SLCPU) retained Bowen Collins & Associates (BC&A) to complete a supply and demand master plan for its water system1. The purpose of that study was to compare the availability of water supplies to the existing and future demands on the system. The results of that study are meant to guide the Department’s decisions regarding supply management and development, as well as inform the Department’s decisions regarding demand management, including the establishment of conservation targets. Key elements of that study are summarized here to ensure consistency within the Department’s multiple planning processes. The details contained in this chapter are derived nearly entirely from the Salt Lake City Water Supply and Demand Master Plan, 2019 (Supply and Demand Plan), including service area, demand projections, current and future water supplies, water supply risks, and recommended actions. As summarized in the highlights to the left, future demand (without additional conservation) will outpace future supply by approximately 14 percent, owing in part to anticipated growth. A number of potential risks have been identified, though impacts from climate change bring the widest range of variables and may alter both water supply and demand projections. A number of strategies have been identified to meet this potential water supply shortfall. One strategy already in place is to plan for reserve water supplies through the use of operational and planning practices. Continued research related to climate change will improve our understanding of supply and demand impacts, lessening uncertainty. Lastly, and the subject of this plan, is to expand an already robust conservation program by improving our understanding of water use behaviors and patterns to further enhance water conservation efforts and meet newly established demand reduction goals. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 1-2 SUPPLY AND DEMAND: CHAPTER ONE 1 .1 S ALT L AKE C ITY P UBLIC U TILITIES S ERVICE A REA Salt Lake City (City) currently provides all retail water service within Salt Lake City corporate boundaries. It also provides retail service to portions of other communities on the east side of the Salt Lake Valley. This includes portions of South Salt Lake, Mill Creek, Holladay, Murray, Cottonwood Heights, and unincorporated Salt Lake County. The service area is shown in Figure 1-1 with a larger, more detailed map included in the appendix to this plan. The City service area is shown in pink. It should be noted that there are two private water providers completely surrounded by the City’s service area. The University of Utah (shown in red) and Holliday Water Company (shown in blue) have their own sources and distribute water within their respective service areas. They also purchase water from the City, with that purchased water included within this analysis. 1.2 D EMANDS ON THE W ATER S YSTEM When discussing water demand, system water volume is measured either as production or water sales. Water supply needs typically are discussed in terms of production, where water demand is assessed by analyzing water sales. Water Sales. Water sales (sometimes referred to as “water use”) refers to the amount of water metered at the point of connection to customers. This total amount is reported to the State of Utah Division of Water Rights and Central Utah Project (CUP) annually for tracking water use and conservation progress. Because of the more detailed information available regarding individual water customers, water sales are used for calculating use and reduction values in Chapters 2 and 3. Production. Evaluation of supply is based on demands on the water system expressed in terms of production requirement. The production requirement is the amount of water that must be produced at wells and treatment plants, and be purchased from wholesale providers, in order to meet the entire water supply and water storage needs of the system and our customers. Water sales do not represent the full volume of water within the system. Inherent in any system is water loss, which is the difference between produced water and authorized consumption. This water loss may be real losses (such as leakage, unmetered authorized uses such as firefighting water, and storage tank overflows) and apparent losses (such as meter inaccuracies at the point of delivery, data errors, or theft of water). F IGURE 1 -1 W ATER S YSTEM S ERVICE A REA SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 1-3 SUPPLY AND DEMAND: CHAPTER ONE As future production requirements are evaluated, there are limitations in making these projections. We cannot predict actual demand, but we can project future use by evaluating select demographic factors. This information then informs projections of total water use. Water production requirements in the service area were estimated by first developing projections for the four characteristics predictive of demand as shown in Figure 1-2: • Residential Population to predict residential indoor use; • Employment Population to predict commercial and institutional indoor use; • Industrial Area to predict industrial uses; and • Irrigated Area to predict outdoor use for all water user classifications (residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial). The water production for each characteristic was projected with respect to anticipated growth and development. The predictions of system growth are based on planning data (e.g. SLC zoning maps), regional planning data (e.g. U.S. 2010 census and Wasatch Front Regional Council growth projections), and coordination with City officials. For additional detail, please refer to the Supply and Demand Master Plan. With growth in each component projected, it is then possible to model future indoor and outdoor water use: Indoor Use. For most indoor use, it was determined that water demand could be reasonably estimated using residential population (to project residential water use) and employment projections (to project commercial and institutional water use). The only type of indoor use that did not appear to be well represented by these two parameters is industrial use. For industrial demands, water use was projected based on total developed industrial area. Outdoor Use. Outdoor use was determined by evaluating estimated total irrigatable area multiplied by historical outdoor water use. This was initially estimated to be 3.5 af/acre (or 42 inches of water per season) in 20012, but has 2 Per 2001 irrigation water use data. See Salt Lake City Water Supply and Demand Master Plan, p2-9 gradually decreased to an estimated current use of 2.84 acre-ft (34 inches of water per season)3. The final step of projecting demands is to combine the projected indoor and outdoor water demand. 3 Per recent water use data (2016-2018). See Chapter 2. Please note that these values are for water production. Actual application rate at the point of delivery (including system losses) will be 10 to 12 percent less. F IGURE 1 -2 D EMOGRAPHIC F ACTORS P REDICTIVE OF D EMAND SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 1-4 SUPPLY AND DEMAND: CHAPTER ONE The outcome of this analysis is displayed in Figure 1-3, which shows the historical and projected water production requirements in terms of annual production. This projected water production is based on expected demands if no additional conservation is achieved beyond what has been accomplished to date. Without increased levels of conservation, required production is expected to increase from 95,000 acre-ft today to about 127,200 acre-ft by the year 2060, or roughly a 34% increase in production to meet population growth over the next 40 years. 1.3 SLCPU W ATER S UPPL Y The City has a number of existing water sources and is also planning future supplies. Like nearly all water sources, the water produced is tied to precipitation. As intuition would suggest, in years with above average snow and rainfall, sources almost always produce more, and sometimes a lot more. Conversely, in dry years, sources usually produce less water. Consecutive dry years can exacerbate pressures on supplies and result in reduction in source water. This reduction can then be compounded by increased demands due to hotter and drier periods. Water demand management during times of drought is addressed in the Drought and Water Shortage Contingency Plan, which can be found on line at www.slc.gov/utilities/conservation. Available water associated with both existing and future sources for both average and dry water years is summarized in the following sections. 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 Annual Production (acre-ft)FIGURE 1-3 PROJECTED SLCPU SERVICE AREA ANNUAL PRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS Historical Production Projected Production Without Additional Conservation SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 1-5 SUPPLY AND DEMAND: CHAPTER ONE 1.3.1 EXISTING SOURCES The existing water supply comes from a number of different sources, and for planning purposes, have been grouped into three categories: Surface Water Sources. Salt Lake City and the Department hold water rights for a number of surface water sources. This includes surface water treated at the following utility-owned and operated treatment plants: Big Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant (BCWTP), Parleys Water Treatment Plant (Parleys WTP), and City Creek Water Treatment Plant (CCWTP). This category also includes portions of surface water in Little Cottonwood Creek. This water is treated at Little Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant (LCWTP), a plant owned and operated by Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy (MWDSLS). Expected yields for each source based on historic flow records, available storage, and available treatment capacity at each of the plants are summarized in Table 1-1. TABLE 1-1 PROJECTED ANNUAL YIELD OF SLCPU SURFACE WATER SOURCES Source Average Year Yield (acre-ft) Dry Year Yield (acre-ft) Comments BCWTP 22,000 18,900 Dry Year in 2015 Parleys WTP 11,200 3,100 Dry year based on firm yield of Little Dell Reservoir CCWTP 5,950 4,500 Dry Year in 2015 LCC (LCWTP) 20,350 14,320 Dry year in 2015 Total 59,500 40,820 Groundwater Sources. Salt Lake City and the Department hold water rights for a number of groundwater sources. For evaluation purposes, groundwater sources have been broken into two categories: Base Wells and Springs. The City has several springs and artesian wells that require little or no pumping. Water from these sources is used year-round. The estimated average production of these sources is 7,500 acre-ft per year. This is for both average and dry water years. Peaking Wells. All remaining ground water sources are generally used only during the summer months to meet peak demands. Annual water production from these wells will vary significantly based on needs, but has an estimated maximum of 10,400 acre-ft. Preferred Storage Rights through Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy (MWDSLS). This category of supply consists of water received through membership in MWDSLS. This includes water stored in Deer Creek and Jordanelle Reservoirs and comes in two components as follows: MWDSLS Provo River Project (PRP) Storage. The average year production of this source is 53,760 acre-ft. This is based on the full MWDSLS allotment of 61,700 acre-ft less 7,940 acre-ft of preferred storage reserved for Sandy City. Dry year production from this source has been estimated at 18,900 acre-ft. This is based on a 43.5% percent allotment from Deer Creek Reservoir as was experienced during the recent drought (2013). MWDSLS Central Utah Project (CUP) Storage. The available supply from this source is assumed to be 20,000 acre-ft in both average and dry years, which is the contractually defined amount. Utah Lake System Water. The City petitioned Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD) for Central Utah Project (CUP) water through the planned Utah Lake System (ULS). This system was completed this year and is expected to supply 3,100 acre-ft going forward. 1.3.2 FUTURE SOURCES Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR). In conjunction with Sandy City and MWDSLS, the City is currently investigating the utilization of aquifer storage and recovery. This option will utilize high spring runoff from surface water sources to be injected or infiltrated into the aquifer and documented with the State Engineer. Then, in dry years, this water would be available for extraction through wells. It is estimated that potential dry year yield of this source will be 5,900 acre-ft. This amount could be greater depending on sustained conservation efforts, as reduction in demand would reduce extraction volume. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 1-6 SUPPLY AND DEMAND: CHAPTER ONE New Well Development. Development of additional groundwater has been planned to meet future growth and estimates development of current rights could yield up to 12,000 acre-ft additional groundwater. Wastewater Reuse. Opportunities for wastewater reuse have been studied. Initial plans for wastewater reuse would produce approximately 4,200 acre-ft annually. Additional Surface Water Development. Another potential supply is development of a treatment plant to treat water from Millcreek Canyon or from other surface water sources. Based on historic flow records for Millcreek, potential yield from this source is estimated to be 3,970 acre-ft in an average year and 3,300 acre-ft in a dry year. Secondary Water. Recently, an analysis of potential opportunities for using secondary water on City properties within its service area4 was completed. While there are some limited opportunities for the use of secondary water, the analysis concluded that most of these opportunities were not viable at this time. The analysis also concluded that nearly all of the secondary water rights would be needed for other purposes in a dry year and correspondingly would not add appreciably to the reliable annual water supply of the City. A final consideration is that within the City watershed, secondary water is generally derived from the same sources as is culinary water, that is, from snow melt from the Wasatch Mountains. With this in mind, secondary water does not offer a new or discrete supply and so does not fully alleviate culinary demand burdens. 1.3.3 TOTAL ANNUAL WATER SUPPLY The total projected production of each category of supply described above is summarized in Table 1-2. For dry year conditions, annual supply is expected to increase from its existing yield of 97,620 acre-ft to a total future yield of 126,120 acre-ft. 4 Salt Lake City Secondary Water Irrigation Master Plan, Bowen Collins & Associates, February 2019. TABLE 1-2 SLCPU PROJECTED DRY YEAR PRODUCTION EXISTING AND FUTURE SOURCES Supply Category Projected Average Year Production (acre-ft)1 Projected Dry Year Production (acre-ft) Existing Surface Water Sources 59,500 40,820 Existing Groundwater Sources 7,500 17,900 Existing Storage Sources 73,760 38,900 New Wells 0 12,000 Additional Surface Water (MCWTP) 3,970 3,300 ULS 3,100 3,100 ASR2 -5,900 5,900 Reuse 4,200 4,200 Total3 146,130 126,120 1. New Wells are projected at no production in the average year not because they are not available, but because they are not needed during average (or wet) years. 2. ASR is shown to have a negative production in the average year to represent the use of excess surface water source in the spring for injection into the aquifer. Thus, it will be a new demand, represented here as a “negative” source. This activity will occur in average years to make water available for extraction in dry years. 3. Secondary water supply is not included in this table as it is already being used for other purposes or was determined to not be a viable source of water at this time. Refer to Salt Lake City Secondary Water Irrigation Master Plan. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 1-7 SUPPLY AND DEMAND: CHAPTER ONE 1.4 W ATER S YSTEM R ISK When planning for water supply, it is important to prepare for uncertainty by identifying and addressing risk and vulnerability to water supplies and within the system infrastructure. Regardless if these uncertainties take the form of extreme weather conditions, system interruptions or failures, or other events, careful analysis and planning can mitigate or ameliorate negative outcomes. Four important questions were considered when analyzing long term water supply projections in relation to mitigating risk: i. Is the historical data an appropriate indication of future source performance in the critical planning scenario (i.e. the “dry year”)? The last 30 years have been drier than the long- term measured period of record5. However, this 30-year dry period is typical of dry periods in the paleo record6. Therefore, the use of historical data (over the past 30 years) to describe future source performance appears to be an appropriate starting point. ii. Are there factors (such as climate change) that would cause water supplies to perform differently than they have in the past? There are several conceivable events that might affect future supplies in such a way that would cause future performance to be different than the historical record might suggest. These events can range from temporary supply interruptions (with causes such as sudden equipment failure, earthquake, or wildfire) to long term changes to supply performance (with causes such as climate change). 5 See Figures 4-2 and 4-3 from the Water Supply and Demand Master Plan. 6 See Figures 4-4 and 4-5 from the Water Supply and Demand Master Plan. Climate change analysis is incorporated into long-term water resource planning. Though immediate changes in climate or weather variability are addressed in the Drought and Water Shortage Contingency Plan, increasing frequency or duration of these variables will affect day-to-day water demand. As such, it is important to consider the impacts of climate change not only to supply, but also to demand as conceptually shown in Figure 1-47. The EPA Climate Change Adaptation Resource Center identifies water demand modification as one of many viable strategies for increasing water supply resilience and security in the face of climate change. 7 Climate Resilience Approaches in Salt Lake City. May 16, 2018. Laura Briefer. American Water Resources, Utah Section. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec FIGURE 1-4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON SUPPLY AND DEMAND CURRENT AVERAGE MAKEUP WATER CURRENT AVERAGE SUPPLY FUTURE AVERAGE DEMAND? FUTURE AVERAGE SUPPLY? CURRENT AVERAGE DEMAND MET SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 1-8 SUPPLY AND DEMAND: CHAPTER ONE iii. What level of system redundancy is reasonable to address possible supply interruptions, such as a source failure or outage? As part of its Water Supply and Demand Master Plan, several supply redundancy criteria have been adopted to address potential supply interruptions. This includes different levels of redundancy for single source loss and catastrophic loss of water supplies. Additional detail regarding these redundancy criteria are contained in the Water Supply and Demand Master Plan. (See Figure 1-5). iv. How can demand management and conservation proactively reduce potential impacts to supply or system as a result of risk? Demand management can be an effective tool in ameliorating future potential negative impacts related to risk and vulnerability of supply. This is the primary topic of this plan and is addressed in Chapter 4. Relative to risk, it should be noted that all practical and necessary steps are undertaken to minimize these types of risks. This includes regularly scheduled maintenance, regular inspections of key equipment, advanced asset management tracking, and rehabilitation and replacement planning. Additional discussion pertaining to risk, vulnerability, and potential mitigation can be found in the Drought and Water Shortage Contingency Plan. 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000 100,000 19121914191619181920192219241926192819301932193419361938194019421944194619481950195219541956195819601962196419661968197019721974197619781980198219841986198819901992199419961998200020022004200620082010201220142016FIGURE 1-5 LITTLE COTTONWOOD CREEK-ANNUAL FLOW VOLUME AT LCWTP Average Flow Volume SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 1-9 SUPPLY AND DEMAND: CHAPTER ONE 1.5 F UTURE A NNUAL P RODUCTION R EQUIREMENTS C OMPARED TO F UTURE D EMAND Figure 1-6 compares the total dry year water supply (including new supplies that have not yet been developed) with SLCDPU’s recommended supply planning demand scenario (including applicable provisions for risk). The scenario assumes that: • Conservation will, minimally, continue to maintain pace with recent levels and the previous State Conservation goal (25% reduction in per capita water usage by 2025) through 2025. • The new conservation goals (see Chapter 3), which meet or exceed the State’s newly adopted regional conservation goals; and • Required production will include provisions to meet both the “Single Source Loss” and “Catastrophic Loss” levels of supply risk as described in the previous section. As can be seen in Figure 1-6, as long as the recommended supply planning scenario is met by the end of the planning window, current and anticipated future supplies are sufficient for long term projected system demands. However, the figure also shows that there will be very little excess capacity when supply risk and recommended redundancy is considered. This means that failing to meet the conservation goals could results in risk of inadequate water supply for projected demands. Reviewing and reevaluating these goals to lessen risk, decrease pressure on reserved water, improve supply redundancies, and optimize changes in technology and behavior related to demand management is recommended. 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 Annual Production (acre-ft)FIGURE 1-6 PROJECTED SLCPU ANNUAL PRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS VS. SUPPLY (DRY YEAR) WITH SUPPLY REDUNDANCY BUFFERS Historical Production Recommended Supply Planning Scenario Single Source Loss Minimum Supply Limit Catastrophic Loss Minimum Supply Limit Spot Water Purchases *Volumes given are for 2060 projected supply. Storage Holdover SLC Surface Water Sources = 40,820 acre-ft Wastewater Reuse = 4,200 acre-ft MWDSLS Preferred Storage = 38,900 acre-ft New Wells = 12,000 acre-ft Additional SLC Surface Water = 3,300 acre-ft MWDSLS ULS Petition = 3,100 acre-ft Peaking Wells = 10,400 acre-ft Base Wells / Springs = 7,500 acre-ft ASR= 5,900 acre-ft SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 1-10 SUPPLY AND DEMAND: CHAPTER ONE 1.6 R ECOMMENDATIONS Based on the analysis summarized above, the following actions identified in the Water Supply and Demand Master Plan are recommended for inclusion in the SLC Water Conservation Plan: Increase Efforts in Water Conservation Programming to Achieve Short- and Long-term Goals. Water supply challenges will occur if conservation programming efforts and outcomes to achieve the recommended planning scenario goals defined in this report (see Chapter 3) are not reached. Details of the conservation program proposed to meet these goals is discussed in Chapter 4 of this plan. Protect and Manage Water Supply. The City will require all identified water supplies to accommodate future growth with adequate buffer to address reasonable risk to the water supply. This includes: • Developing an Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) program (Estimated completion time =2025) • Developing new groundwater wells (gradually added between 2026 and 2036) • Keeping options open for reuse and additional surface water development (not needed until 2045 or later) • The City should continue to monitor supplies and demands into the future and refine project timelines accordingly. Monitor Effects of Climate Change. Climate change impacts analysis should continue to remain a component of long-term water resource planning. Though immediate changes in climate or weather variability can be addressed in the Salt Lake City Drought and Water Shortage Contingency Plan (2019), increasing frequency or duration of these variables will affect day-to-day water demand. As such, it is important to consider the impacts of climate change not only on supply, but also demand. The US Environmental Protection Agency Climate Change Adaptation Resource Center identifies water demand modification as one of many viable strategies for increasing water supply resilience and security in the face of climate change. Continued monitoring of the water supply and 8 Resilient Strategies Guide for Water Utilities. US-EPA 2019 demand is recommended, modifying this plan as necessary to address changing circumstances associated with climate change. 8 Review and Reevaluate Conservation Goals. Regular review of conservation goals and outcomes will help to reduce risk, increase resiliency, and improve the ability to respond to changes in demand and supply. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 PAGE 2-1 HISTORICAL WATER USE: CHAPTER TWO CHAPTER TWO: HISTORICAL WATER USE 2.0 I NTRODUCTION Measuring water demand in terms of water production is the common practice for supply planning; however, water sales can be a more useful measurement when considering water use by connection and customer. This measurement is useful because water delivery meters are tied to specific end users. As discussed in Chapter 1, water use data reported to the State of Utah Division of Water Rights is based on water sales. The service area has been fully metered at the customer connection for nearly one hundred years. Meters are read every month and bills are issued to every water customer, including city and other government entities. This depth of metering history and data informs planning processes, and in particular, shapes the nature of water demand management and conservation planning. To analyze historical water use, we consider not only total water sales, but also general characteristics of those using the water, as well as the nature of water use patterns. Identifying types of customers and aggregating them into groups– classifications–helps us more effectively analyze water use, recognize patterns, chart trends, and anticipate future water needs based on the characteristics of our customers (user classifications) and the numbers of customers within each classification. This analysis informs planning across all aspects of the Department and is particularly useful in conservation planning. This chapter documents historical water use based on total water sales, water sales in several classifications and subclassifications, water use as expressed as gallons per capita day (gpcd) and impacts of historical water conservation. Additionally, water loss–the difference between water produced and water sold–is also discussed, as well as an overview of water conservation program impacts. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 PAGE 2-2 HISTORICAL WATER USE: CHAPTER TWO 2.1 T OTAL W ATER U SE Water sales data has been collected, analyzed, and reported water by customer classification for many years. A summary of the reported sales values is shown in Table 2-1. T ABLE 2 -1 W ATER S ALES (A CRE -F T ) Year Total Sales Reported to DWRi (AF) SLCPU Internal Sales Records (AF) 2000 89,138 99,682 2001 91,712 95,623 2002 85,306 85,306 2003 80,641 79,387 2004 78,900 78,900 2005 71,297 71,297 2006 76,645 78,406 2007 87,190 87,190 2008 75,843 75,843 2009 74,697 74,697 2010 75,755 75,755 2011 70,130 70,130 2012 83,611 83,611 2013 80,196 80,196 2014 75,300 75,300 2015 72,722 72,722 2016 75,261 80,188 2017 78,310 80,044 2018 77,867 82,393 Data Discrepancies: Two sets of data are included in Table 2-1. One is based on information contained in the database maintained by the Division of Water Rights (DWRi). The second is based on internal records kept by the Department. As can be seen Figure 2-1, the data from these two sources matches for the majority of years on record. However, there are some years where the numbers deviate slightly. The water sales data reported to DWRi has been assembled from a Department- developed data base pioneered in the 1980s and updated regularly over the years. A consequence of these updates may be changes in how data is identified and recorded, resulting in inconsistencies in historical data records. Significant improvements have been made over the last several years in how water sales are tracked by classification, resulting in a slight difference between data recently extracted from the sales database and the historical method used to extract and categorize data for reporting to DWRi. The source of these discrepancies has not yet been identified. A study is being conducted relating to data collection and reporting processes to identify the discrepancy, but it is not expected be completed in time to inform this Plan. In the meantime, because the new data is considered to be more accurate and is conservatively higher than the old data, the new data will be used for all subsequent analysis and discussion. Once the results of the data collection analysis are available, the final numbers will be revisited and updated, and the resulting assumptions and recommendations reviewed and amended as necessary. 70,000 75,000 80,000 85,000 90,000 95,000 100,000 105,000 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020Use Per Capita (gpd)FIGURE 2-1 WATER SALES (GPD) DWRi Records SLC Data SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 PAGE 2-3 HISTORICAL WATER USE: CHAPTER TWO 2.2 P ER C APITA U SE The primary way in which the State has chosen to measure water use and conservation progress is based on per capita water sales. Per capita water sales are calculated by dividing total water sales by a census-based population, a simplistic statistical analysis representing complex use characteristics. Per capita water sales for the service area over the past 18 years is shown in Figure 2-2. Consistent with the previous section, results for both DWRi records and SLC internal sales data is shown. The per capita measuring approach is commonly used by the State of Utah as it provides a uniform methodology that can be applied to the many water systems it regulates. Unfortunately, there are also a number of weaknesses associated with measuring water and conservation progress based on per capita water sales. System Losses. Basing calculations on water sales rather than water production does not capture the effect of system losses on water consumption. Consequently, elimination of leaks and other system losses has no effect on per capita water sales even though these kinds of savings are an important part of overall conservation efforts. This may also result in undervaluing water loss programing as an effective conservation tool, as this method of calculation does not account for water loss and therefore reducing water loss does not alter gallons per capita calculations. Effects of Land Use. Per capita water sales can be misleading because it does not adequately communicate the effects of density and other land use aspects on water use. For example, if a community significantly increases its population density, the amount of outdoor water use associated with each person may go down. This may result in lower per capita water sales even if the actual efficiency of water use does not improve. While this type of decrease in per capita water sales may reduce peak demand, it may not reflect overall changes in water use as a result of densification. Demand Forecasting. Frequently used to forecast future water demand, the use of per capita consumption assumes that water use increases in a predictable manner as population grows. This, however, ignores a number of national trends important to determining use levels, including but not limited to drought, 1Water Conservation Programs M52, page 41 recession, changes in demographics, changes in household or lot size, changes in commercial and industrial profiles, and improvements in technology. Additionally, assuming use increases with population ignores the role of conservation planning, education, and improvements in efficiencies related to use.1 Misinterpretation. Per capita consumption may also be misinterpreted to mean “volume of water used per person,” when in fact, it includes much more than 100 150 200 250 300 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020Use Per Capita (gpd)FIGURE 2-2 SALT LAKE CITY PER CAPITA WATER USE (GPD) DWRi Records SLC Data SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 PAGE 2-4 HISTORICAL WATER USE: CHAPTER TWO direct use by individuals. As noted above, it also includes water use from all other classifications (commercial, institutional, and industrial) averaged across the population. Comparing gallons per capita of communities with differing demographics or commercial and industrial bases can lead to misleading comparisons or characterizations of how water is actually being used. This may also affect an individual’s response to calls to conserve as they may not relate to the volume of water described in the gallons-per-capita statistic. When looking at residential use only, use per person in 2018 was only about 123 gpd (indoor and outdoor use). Adjustment for Equivalent Employment Population. While the weaknesses above are universal to all water providers, there are also some other weakness to using per capita water sales that are unique to the situations of individual water providers. One of these weaknesses is the impact of daytime employment population on water demand. Salt Lake City has a larger daytime worker population compared to other cities in Utah. Not only is the total magnitude large, but the ratio of workers to permanent population is also much larger than most other communities, even when compared to similarly sized communities across the country. This was demonstrated as an outcome of the 2000 US Census. The consequence of this larger-than-average worker population is that, in calculating per capita water sales, the standard calculation does not account for a daytime population surge of nearly 50 percent of the residential population. This in turn could result in under-projecting daytime water needs and distribution capacity. Additionally, this daytime surge may result in inflated daily per capita calculations. To account for this issue, a revised methodology has been developed which calculates per capita water sales based on a revised population number2. This revised population number includes both permanent residents and an equivalent residential population representing the higher than average worker population. This revised population has been used to generate the results in Figure 2-10. Because of these weaknesses, tracking water use and conservation on a per capita basis does not provide as complete a view of actual water use patterns as is necessary to properly analyze and evaluate water use patterns and trends for planning purposes. However, since this is the method traditionally used by the State to track water use, it will continue to be referenced here. 2 Documentation of MWDSLS Conservation Performance – ULS Supply Petition, Bowen Collins & Associates, April 28, 2006 Additional metrics will also be added where useful to help define and clarify water use and conservation within the service area. 2.3 S YSTEM L OSSES As discussed in Chapter 1, water use (as measured through sales at individual delivery points), does not encompass all of the water held or consumed in the water system. Water loss is defined as the difference between water produced and authorized consumption (such as metered water sales or fire protection). The resulting “unaccounted for” water may be apparent loss, such as theft or data analysis errors, or real losses, which consist of water lost through all types of leaks and breaks within the water infrastructure system. Understanding the nature of system loss is critical to developing effective management and mitigation strategies, with the goal of reducing system-wide losses. A comparison of water sales to metered production can identify the magnitude of water losses in the system. This is summarized in Table 2-2. T ABLE 2 -2 E STIMATED S YSTEM L OSSES 2016-2018 YEAR Sales (Acre-ft) Production (Acre-ft) System Losses (Acre-ft) System Losses (%) 2016 80,188 90,815 10,627 11.7% 2017 80,044 91,158 11,114 12.2% 2018 82,393 92,618 10,225 11.0% To verify and address system losses, several steps are being taken, including evaluation of data collection and analysis, enhancement of the leak detection program, and a planned implementation of a water loss and control audit in accordance with AWWA M363 recommendations. More details of these programs can be found in Chapter Four: Water Conservation Programs. 3American Water Works Association (AWWA). 2017. M52 Water Conservation Programs: A Planning Manual, Second Edition. Denver, Colorado. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 PAGE 2-5 HISTORICAL WATER USE: CHAPTER TWO 2.4 U SE BY C LASSIFICATION AND S UB-C LASSIFICATION To provide additional background and context for developing, evaluating, and ultimately implementing conservation measures, it is useful to understand the details of how water is used within the service area. The figures and tables contained in this section have been assembled to provide additional detail regarding the breakdown of use by customer classification. These same classifications and sub-classifications will be used in the discussion of conservation programing in Chapter 4. Customers have been organized into a number of classifications based on shared characteristics such as use patterns and costs of service. This includes both broad classifications (residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional) and more narrowly defined sub-classifications (single-family residence, triplex, hospital, restaurant, etc.). The classifications and sub-classifications used for this analysis are summarized in the corresponding graphic. Total numbers of existing connections by classification as reported to the DWRi are summarized in Table 2-3. Reported use by classification is summarized in Table 2-4 and Table 2-5. Table 2-4 includes a long-term record of use by Residential Single Residence Duplex Triplex Fourplex Commercial Business Hospital Hotel or Motel Restaurant Apartment Miscellaneous Institutional School Church Parks Government Industrial Industrial customers of all types FIGURE 2-3 WATER USE CLASSIFICATION AND SUB-CLASSIFICATION SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 PAGE 2-6 HISTORICAL WATER USE: CHAPTER TWO classification as reported to the DWRi. Table 2-5 includes records from 2016- 2018 based on improved customer classification data as discussed previously. Total use by classification and sub-classification are shown graphically in Figures 2-4 and 2-5, respectively. T ABLE 2 -3 T OTA L C ONNECTIONS YEAR Residential Commercial Industrial Institutional Total 2018 73,559 7,046 199 2,801 83,605 T ABLE 2 -4 R EPORTED W ATER S ALES TO D IVISION OF W ATER R IGHTS (ACRE -F T ) YEAR RESIDENTIAL2 COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTIONAL1 TOTAL 2005 42,625 14,841 3,018 10,785 71,269 2006 44,108 26,090 2,962 3485 76,645 2007 50,043 19,573 4,005 13,569 87,190 2008 43,096 17,683 3,432 11,632 75,843 2009 42,432 16,943 3,790 11,532 74,697 2010 43,283 17,584 3,397 11,491 75,755 2011 40,703 16,534 2,688 10,205 70,130 2012 48,611 18,813 3,331 12,856 83,611 2013 44,454 19,078 3,459 13,205 80,196 2014 42,283 18,587 3,699 10,731 75,300 2015 40,702 17,723 3,474 10,823 72,722 2016 42,695 17,858 3,527 11,181 75,261 2017 43,534 20,313 3,662 10,801 78,310 2018 44,272 18,792 3,627 11,176 77,867 1.In 2005 and 2006, a portion of SLC water use was reported under a customer class labeled as “Other”. This use has been included under the institutional classification in Table 2-4. 2. For purposes of this table and consistency with State reporting documents, apartments are included in the residential classification. However, apartments will be considered commercial for all subsequent portions of this report. T ABLE 2 -5 UPDATED W ATER S ALES D ATA (ACRE -FT) YEAR Residential Commercial1 Institutional Industrial Total 2016 35,540 31,845 6,991 5,813 80,188 2017 35,290 32,268 6,774 5,713 80,044 2018 36,737 32,944 7,224 5,488 82,393 1. Including apartments. - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INSTITUTIONAL INDUSTRIAL ALL CII FIGURE 2-4 VOLUME OF USE BY CLASSIFICATION (AF/YEAR) - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 FIGURE 2-5 VOLUME OF USE BY SUBCLASSIFICATION (AF/YEAR) SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 PAGE 2-7 HISTORICAL WATER USE: CHAPTER TWO 2.5 I NDOOR AND O UTDOOR W ATER U SE Water meters are read and recorded every month (or more factually, by a range of days approximating a month). Understanding not only how much water is used, but also when it is used helps in both supply planning and demand management. One way to evaluate water use is to consider whether the water is being used indoors or outside. As this region has a distinct winter season, some inferences can be made regarding water use based on the time of year of the use. With this in mind, it is assumed that water use which occurs in winter months (November through March) is used indoors. Water use during the months of April through October (approximating the landscape irrigation season) is a combination of outdoor and indoor use. Outdoor use, (assumed to be water primarily used to support landscapes) is therefore determined to be the volume of water use during the irrigation season, less the volume of water during the winter months. This process has shortcomings, in that other water use patterns may alter with shifts in the season, but it represents the best estimate based on available data and is accepted industry practice. Figure 2-6 illustrates this analysis within the single-family residential classification. While the reasonableness of this assumption might make sense with residential properties, it is less certain that the same assumption can be made for commercial, institutional, and industrial customers. However, to simplify the discussion of seasonal water use and for purposes of this plan, outdoor water use is water used during the non-winter months and is assumed to be used on landscapes. As installation of AMI technology (Advanced Metering Infrastructure, or smart meters), CII analysis, and WaterMAPS™ is completed, this analysis will greatly improve in accuracy. Estimates for winter and summer usage by customer classifications follow. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Monthly Use Per Connection (ccf)Outdoor Use Indoor Use FIGURE 2-6 SEASONAL WATER USE, SINGLE RESIDENCE (2016-2018) SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 PAGE 2-8 HISTORICAL WATER USE: CHAPTER TWO Water Use by Classification (Figures 2-7 through 2-9). When looking at the broader classifications, the two largest water users are the residential and commercial classifications. Residential use accounts for about half of all outdoor use and a third of all indoor use. Conversely, commercial water accounts for about half of indoor use and a third of the outdoor use. Because more water is used outdoors than indoors, residential water use is greater overall. The percentage of water used indoors and outdoors varies significantly between the various classifications. More than 75 percent of institutional water use occurs outdoors while industrial outdoor use is less than 15 percent. This makes sense, given that institutional users include parks, schools, and other sub- classifications that are responsible for and maintain outdoor public spaces. Overall, about 45 percent of the water is used indoors and 55 percent is used outdoors. 40.6% 49.7% 23.1% 86.6% 50.4% 45.1% 59.4% 50.3% 76.9% 13.4% 49.6% 54.9% RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INSTITUTIONAL INDUSTRIAL ALL NON-RESIDENTIAL TOTAL -ALL CATEGORIES FIGURE 2-7 LOCATION OF USE BY CLASSIFICATION Indoor Outdoor 35% 47% 4% 14% FIGURE 2-8 % TOTAL INDOOR USE BY CLASSIFICATION Residential Commercial Institutional Industrial 52% 34% 12%2% FIGURE 2-9 % TOTAL OUTDOOR USE BY CLASSIFICATION Residential Commercial Institutional Industrial SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 PAGE 2-9 HISTORICAL WATER USE: CHAPTER TWO Water Use by Sub-Classifications (Figures 2-10 through 2-12). Water use varies between sub-classifications. The sub-classification of single-family residence uses more water both indoors and outdoors than other sub-classifications. While the total portion of indoor water use by single-family customers is slightly more than indoor use by businesses, it is more than double the outdoor use of any other sub-classification. This may not be due to overuse but may be a result of property characteristics unique to this sub-classification. Analyzing use at this level, for instance, through programs like WaterMAPS™, can improve conservation programming design, and therefore, effectiveness. This in turn will help to assure that conservation goals are achieved in a manner that is timely, cost effective, and fair. Water use also varies within larger classifications. Residential outdoor use varies from 67 percent for single-family residential use to 34 percent for higher density properties. Among commercial users, Miscellaneous uses more water outdoors, while restaurants and hotels use more indoors. It is not unexpected that Parks has their highest percentage of use outdoors, and should not in itself be interpreted as overuse, but may indicate opportunity to conserve. 2% 4% 13% 1%4%1%1%2% 1% 14% 3%25% 29% FIGURE 2-11 % TOTAL INDOOR USE BY SUB-CLASSIFICATION Hospital Hotel or Motel Industry Restaurant School/Church Triplex Parks & Government Miscellaneous Fourplex Apartment Duplex Business Single Residence 1% 1% 2% 0% 5% 0%7% 7% 1% 6% 2% 19% 49% FIGURE 2-12 % TOTAL OUTDOOR USE BY SUB-CLASSIFICATION Hospital Hotel or Motel Industry Restaurant School/Church Triplex Parks & Government Miscellaneous Fourplex Apartment Duplex Business Single Residence 66.3% 75.1% 86.6% 75.4% 38.0% 61.8% 6.0% 21.0% 65.6% 65.8% 51.8% 51.9% 33.1% 33.7% 24.9% 13.4% 24.6% 62.0% 38.2% 94.0% 79.0% 34.4% 34.2% 48.2% 48.1% 66.9% HOSPITAL HOTEL OR MOTEL INDUSTRY RESTAURANT SCHOOL/CHURCH TRIPLEX PARKS & GOVERNMENT MISCELLANEOUS FOURPLEX APARTMENT DUPLEX BUSINESS SINGLE RESIDENCE FIGURE 2-10 LOCATION OF USE BY SUB-CLASSIFICATION Indoor Outdoor SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 2-10 HISTORICAL WATER USE: CHAPTER TWO Total Volume of Indoor and Outdoor Use (Figures 2-132 and 2-14). Figures 2-13 and 2-14 summarize indoor and outdoor water use by classification and sub- classification in terms of total volume (based on 2018 water use data). This provides some perspective on the total potential for conservation savings in each area. Consistent with previous conclusions, these figures confirm that much of the volume of water saved through conservation will need to come from single- family residences. However, the combined volume of other user types is also significant and cannot be overlooked. Detailed analysis for the commercial, industrial, and institutional classifications will ensure a clearer picture of water use patterns within these sectors. Understanding how businesses, offices, and industry use water helps identify opportunities for conservation, facilitating the development and implementation of effective demand management strategies. Commercial, industrial, and institutional customers are integral partners in the community, and helping them become better water stewards while not imperiling the economy benefits everyone. - 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INSTITUTIONAL INDUSTRIAL ALL CII FIGURE 2-13 VOLUME OF USE BY LOCATION OF USE AND CLASSIFICATION (AF/YEAR) Indoor Outdoor - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 HOSPITAL HOTEL OR MOTEL INDUSTRY RESTAURANT SCHOOL/CHURCH TRIPLEX PARKS & GOVERNMENT MISCELLANEOUS FOURPLEX APARTMENT DUPLEX BUSINESS SINGLE RESIDENCE FIGURE 2-14 VOLUME OF USE BY LOCATION AND SUB-CLASSIFICATION (AF/YEAR) Indoor Outdoor SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 2-11 HISTORICAL WATER USE: CHAPTER TWO Summary of Per Capita Use by Classification (Table 2-6 and Figure 2-15). Table 2-6 and Figure 2-15 summarize use by classification on a per capita basis as requested in the State’s guidelines for conservation plans. Results are shown for 2018 water use. It should be noted that the per capita calculation has been based on the same equivalent population as used for generating Figure 2-1. As a result, while the figure and table are consistent with previous per capita calculations and may be useful in visualizing the ratio of use between the various classifications, they should not be interpreted as an accurate calculation of per person water use on a residential basis. Additionally, the range of characteristics within the commercial and industrial classifications is far greater than those within other classifications, making evaluations of per capita use by classification dubious in value. For example, commercial classifications contain small clothing boutiques (low water users) and large, many-tabled restaurants (high water users). Oil refineries are included in the industrial classification (high water user), but so are retail shipping warehouses (low water users). Even the residential classification is diverse, including single-family homes and multistory apartments with hundreds of units. Advances in metering technology, improvements in data and records keeping, and continued CII and WaterMAPS™ analysis will refine the data and bring more relevance to this particular statistical report. T ABLE 2 -6 P ER C APITA W ATER U SE B Y C LASSIFICATION Residential4 Commercial Institutional Industrial Total Indoor 32 44 4 12 93 Outdoor 60 38 14 2 113 Total 92 83 18 14 206 4 It should be noted that values in this table are based on the State of Utah’s methodology for calculating per capita water use (use per category divided by total permanent population). As a result, calculations may appear different than those in the Historical Use and Demand chapters. For example, the reported “Residential” indoor use of 32 gpcd includes single-family household indoor use divided by the total population. The State’s methodology separates single-family residential from apartments and other multiunit housing, placing these classifications in the “Commercial” category. This can result in an underrepresentation of the actual indoor use of residential customers. For purposes of this plan, indoor use of residents (all residential indoor use divided by permanent population) is 48 gpcd, and includes single family, duplex, triplex, and multiunit customers. Residential Indoor, 32 Residential Outdoor, 60 Commercial Indoor, 44 Commercial Outdoor, 38 Institutional Indoor, 4 Institutional Outdoor, 14 Industrial Indoor, 12 Industrial Outdoor, 2 FIGURE 2-15 PER CAPITA WATER USE BY CLASSIFICATION (GPD) Total All Classifications = 206 gpd SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 2-12 HISTORICAL WATER USE: CHAPTER TWO 2.6 C ONSERVATION P ROGRESS TO D ATE Significant progress has been made in improved efficiencies and conservation over the last two decades. While detailed records are not available for 2000, detailed analysis of water use patterns for each subsequent year was conducted. To evaluate where and how water was conserved, the water use patterns from 2001 have been compared to water use patterns over the 2016-18 period. The results are shown in Figures 2-15 through 2-18. Monthly Conservation Averaged Across Connections (Figure 2-16). Figure 2-16 shows estimated indoor and outdoor water use in the service area over the course of the year for both recent (average of 2016-18) and historical (2001) water use patterns. As can be seen in the figure, the community has done an excellent job in saving water both indoors and outdoors and throughout the course of the year. This seems to indicate that the conservation program and messaging has been helpful in increasing overall awareness of the value of water, the importance of conservation, and implementing effective strategies for accomplishing sustained water use reductions. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Monthly Use Per Connection (ccf)Current Outdoor Use (2016-18) Current Indoor Use (2016-18) 2001 Total Use 2001 Indoor Use FIGURE 2-16 MONTHLY CONSERVATION, AVERAGE OF ALL CONNECTIONS SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 2-13 HISTORICAL WATER USE: CHAPTER TWO Percent Water Use Reduction by Classification (Figure 2-17). Figure 2- 17 shows the percent reductions by customer classification since 2001. These results have been calculated based on the reduction in water sales per connection. A few interesting trends can be observed in this figure: i. Conventional thinking has been that conservation will need to come primarily from outdoor water use. However, the percent savings between estimated indoor and outdoor water since 2001 is about the same. There is slightly more savings outdoors than indoors (18.0% vs. 15.4%), but the difference is less than might have been expected. ii. Commercial savings are a little less than half of the savings observed for residential customers since 2001. This does not necessarily indicate that commercial customers have not reduced water use appropriately. Further analysis is required to determine the capacity to reduce water use based on current practices and technologies. Continuing efforts to disaggregation of water use within all CII classifications will improve understanding of water use patterns and enhance programing opportunities. iii. Institutional customers have seen the largest reduction in total use of all classifications. This demonstrates the efforts of large property managers in golf, parks, and other open spaces to reduce water use. While there is always more to do, this means institutional users have taken a good first step in conserving water on its properties. iv. Industrial customers appear to be showing an increase in indoor water use since 2001. In considering this result, it should be emphasized that the values reported here are based on sales per connection. While it is possible that per-connection water use has increased since 2001, it is also possible that new industrial connections have been added since 2001, accounting for the apparent increase in average use per connection. Ideally, these results could be presented in a format that only looked at water used by industrial customers that existed in 2001 to see how their actual water use has changed. Unfortunately, the data does not exist to make this distinction. Work is on-going to clarify water use within this classification. For more detailed information, refer to Chapter 4. Industrial customers, however, had the greatest reduction in outdoor use between classifications. -30.0% -20.0% -10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% FIGURE 2-17 PERCENT REDUCTION SINCE 2001 BY CLASSIFICATION Total Indoor Outdoor SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 2-14 HISTORICAL WATER USE: CHAPTER TWO Percent of Water Use Reduction by Sub-Classification (Figure 2-18). Figure 2-18 shows the percent of water use reduction by sub-classification. This provides some additional detail regarding where reductions in per connection water use have occurred since 2001. Similar to what was observed for industrial customers in Figure 2-16, the “negative savings” observed for hospitals, hotels, and apartments are not believed to be per capita increases in water use, but a function of an increase in the number of connections or expansion in service within these sub-classifications since 2001. The conservation reported for indoor use in the miscellaneous classification may not be representative of actual savings, but a function of change in how customers in this classification are being reassigned to other classifications. As work continues in CII analysis, understanding of water use patterns and actual use reductions will improve. Volume Water Use Reduction by Classification (Figure 2-19). Figure 2-19 shows the estimated volume of water saved each year by each customer classification as a result of conservation. These results are an approximation of water volume use reductions as calculated by multiplying the percent reduction per connection by the average use per connection. As a result, it continues to reflect the same problem with industrial use as noted previously. However, it does provide some indication of the magnitude of reductions in various areas. As can be seen in Figure 2-19, use reductions outdoors accounts for slightly more than 60% of the total reduction. While the percent reduction of indoor use to outdoor use is comparatively similar (as noted previously), the larger total volume of water used outdoors results in a greater volume of conservation reductions . A similar conclusion can be made regarding residential water use reductions. About two-thirds of the total decrease in use is derived from residential customers. This is not because residential customers are saving at substantially higher rates, but simply because they, as a classification, use more water than other classifications. Research being conducted utilizing WaterMAPS, the CII Analytics Tool, and other methodologies will help to increase understanding of water use, demand reduction, and capacity to conserve across all classifications. See Chapter 4: Water Conservation Practices for program details. -5000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INSTITUTIONAL INDUSTRIAL ALL NON-RESIDENTIAL TOTAL -ALL CATEGORIES FIGURE 2-19 VOLUME OF CONSERVATION SINCE 2001 BY LOCATION OF USE AND CLASSIFICATION (ACRE-FT/YEAR) Indoor Outdoor -60.0% -40.0% -20.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% FIGURE 2-18 PERCENT REDUCTION SINCE 2001 BY CLASSIFICATION Total Indoor Outdoor SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 2-15 HISTORICAL WATER USE: CHAPTER TWO Peak Day Water Use Reduction (Figure 2-20). All of the previous figures have focused on reductions in the volume of water used annually. However, significant strides have been made in reducing peak demands. This is important because most of the water infrastructure facilities must be sized to meet peak demands. Reducing these demands translates to significant savings for the service area. In system-wide numbers, peak day demand has been reduced from 216.3 million gallons per day (mgd) to 171.0 mgd in 2018. This is a reduction of 21 percent. While this is impressive in itself, the reduction is even greater when growth is taken into account. If peak day demand is converted into a per capita value following the same procedure described for total annual demands (see description of Figure 2-1), the observed reduction increases to 31 percent. Figure 2-20 shows how the reduction in per capita peak demand has occurred over time. Water savings associated with this reduction in demand are sizable, as identified in the recently completed storage and conveyance plan When this new plan5 (using updated demand projections with conservation) is compared to the previous plan6 (based on historical demands without conservation), several projects are now able to be eliminated or decreased in size or scope because of reduced peak demands. Estimated savings associated with downsized or eliminated conveyance project resulting from recent and projected conservation exceed $20 million7. 5 Salt Lake City Water Storage and Conveyance Plan, BC&A, 2020 6 Major Conveyance Study, BC&A, January 2007 7 Based on elimination or downsizing of projects identified in the 2007 Major Conveyance Study that are no longer needed. This includes elimination of the 4500 South Transmission Main and Storage Tank (Project 3.3B), 7800 South Low Improvements (Projects 3.6A, 3.6B, 3.6C, and 3.12B), and adjustments to the size of the East-West Aqueduct (Projects 3.1A and 3.1B). 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020Peak Day Demand Per Capita (gpd)FIGURE 2-20 SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES PER CAPITA PEAK DAY WATER USE (GPCD) SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 3-1 CONSERVATION GOALS: CHAPTER THREE CHAPTER THREE: CONSERVATION GOALS 3.0 I NTRODUCTION As discussed in Chapter 1, conservation is an essential part of water resource planning to meet the future water needs of its community. The purpose of this chapter is to articulate and describe the goals for conservation that will: • Keep on track to meet its long-term water supply needs. • Facilitate efforts to increase resource and system resilience in the face of identified risks, including climate change. • Encourage the continued wise use of an important limited resource; and • Be consistent with conservation goals established by the State, Central Utah Project, Alliance for Water Efficiency, US-Environmental Protection Agency, and this plan. This chapter highlights historical and proposed goals from various sources that are relevant to current conservation planning efforts. Included are discussions of specific goals articulated in the Governor’s Water Conservation Goal, the Utah Lake System contract with the Central Utah Project, and the newly published State Regional Conservation Goals. Achievements towards programmatic goals are also discussed in this chapter, such as those outlined in the Governor’s Strategic Water Plan, American Water Works Association (AWWA) G-480 Checklist, Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE) Landscape Guidelines, and the State Division of Water Resources Water Conservation Plan Checklist. Additionally, the Appendices contain these guidelines and goals in checklist format. Central to this chapter and the contained discussions are these newly developed established conservation goals. These goals have been developed based on outcomes of the Salt Lake City Water Supply and Demand Master Plan and reflect current and future projections of both supply and demand within the service area. While not identical to the State Regional Goals, these goals meet or exceed these regional goals and are more in keeping with our own system, resources, and characteristics. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 3-2 CONSERVATION GOALS: CHAPTER THREE 3.1 C O NSERVATION G OALS 3.1.1 GOVERNOR’S 2001 STATEWIDE WATER CONSERVATION GOAL In 2001, Governor Mike Leavitt published a statewide conservation goal to reduce per capita water use by 25 percent (as compared to water use from the benchmark year of 2000). Governor Gary Herbert later enhanced that goal by reducing the timeline to be met by 2025. While the conservation goals over the years have been guided by supply and demand, as well as climate and drought concerns, the Governor’s Statewide Goal has been used as a benchmark for measuring program achievements. Additionally, the statewide goals were incorporated into the water supply plan as part of the 2007 Major Conveyance Study. As documented in Chapter 2, water users within the service area have thus far stayed significantly ahead of this goal in its efforts to reduce water use. 3.1.2 CENTRAL UTAH PROJECT CONSERVATION AGREEMENT (UTAH LAKE SYSTEM CONSERVATION GOALS) As part of its request for water from the Utah Lake System (ULS), the City has entered into an agreement (through Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy) with Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD) to achieve a minimum level of conservation. This conservation requirement specified a reduction in per capita water use (from year 2000 levels) of 12.5 percent by 2020 and 25 percent by 2050. While this is an important goal from a contractual standpoint, it has not been the driver of conservation programming goals as internal conservation goals have been more aggressive. However, achieving this goal results in avoided additional cost on water purchased through these agreements, adding to the value of the conservation programming beyond the achievement of water use reduction goals. 3.1.3 RECOMMENDED STATE WATER STRATEGY, JULY 2017 In 2013, Governor Gary Herbert convened a group of stakeholders with extensive backgrounds to form the State Water Strategy Advisory Team. Out of this process, a diverse group of water practitioners, advocates, and academics were asked to help devise a state water strategic plan. Stephanie Duer, the City’s water conservation manager participated in this process, representing both Salt Lake City specifically, but also municipal interests in general. The group examined a range of issues, including, but not limited to conservation, competing demands on water, the roles of technology and science, how law and policy affect our relationship with water, and sustainability and the environment. The outcome of this process is the Recommended State Water Strategy, published in 2017. Strategies were organized into eleven categories, with the first being the role of conservation in supporting a sustained water supply. Conservation, demand management, demand reduction, improvements in efficiencies, and the role of technology and science also appear in each of the other ten strategies. Though this strategic plan does not articulate specific goals, it does outline ideas and approaches to enhancing and building on conservation efforts. Those strategies pertaining most closely to urban demand management and conservation have been collected and organized in a list in the appendices. These strategies were tracked as part of the development of this plan and have also been integrated into day to day programming as appropriate. 3.1.4 UTAH’S REGIONAL M&I WATER CONSERVATION GOALS, NOVEMBER 2019 Over the last several years, efforts have been made to better understand how the State of Utah manages water conservation efforts in the state, including the process for identifying and assigning water use reduction goals. These efforts include a legislative audit completed in 2015 and the Recommended State Water Strategy completed in 2017 by the Governor’s Water Strategy Advisory Team (GSWAT) (see Section 3.1.3). One of the major conclusions of both documents was a need to update the State’s conservation goal to make it more regionally appropriate and relevant. One of the limitations of the historical statewide water conservation goal is that it failed to integrate the effects of regional climate, local and discrete supply, and water use pattern differences. Utah is a large state with diverse terrain, climates, populations, development patterns, and attitudes that affect what water is available and how it is used. With this in mind, the State commissioned a study to reevaluate the statewide conservation goal, and to establish water conservation goals that reflect each region’s characteristics, challenges, and opportunities as related to water. The result is Utah’s Regional M&I Water Conservation Goals. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 3-3 CONSERVATION GOALS: CHAPTER THREE The goals established in the Utah’s Regional M&I Water Conservation Goals are shown in Figure 3-11. For the Salt Lake region (consisting of Salt Lake and Tooele Counties), the new goal is to reduce per capita water use to 187 gallons per capita per day (gpcd), an additional 11% reduction from the average use in the region observed in 2015. The target timing for reaching this level of water use is 2030, but the report acknowledges that, for many of the actions recommended in the report, “these measures will require time to enact and implement”. Thus, “the State of Utah recommends a five-year flexibility period to achieve these 2030 goals”. Correspondingly, the official regional goal for the Salt Lake region is 187 gpcd by no later than 2035. While not official “goals”, the study also identifies some projected future levels of conservation. This includes achieving per capita use of 178 gpcd by 2040 (also assumed to have a five-year flexibility period) and 169 gpcd by 2065. The service area is contained in the Salt Lake Region, which also includes all of Salt Lake and Tooele Counties. 1 Utah’s Regional M&I Water Conservation Goals. Utah Division of Water Resources. November 2019. F IGURE 3 -1 U TAH ’S R EGIONAL M&I W ATER C ONSERVATION G OALS SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 3-4 CONSERVATION GOALS: CHAPTER THREE 3.1.5 SALT LAKE CITY WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND MASTER PLAN CONSERVATION GOALS As part of its water supply and demand study, a number of conservation scenarios were considered. These scenarios parallel similar scenarios developed for the State’s regional conservation goals. Ultimately, a scenario was selected (referred to as Scenario 2 in the Salt Lake City Water Supply and Demand Master Plan2) that both achieves the goal of continuing to reliably supply water for long-term needs and is slightly more aggressive than the new state regional goals. This scenario is the new conservation goal moving forward. 3.1.6 COMPARISON OF CONSERVATION GOALS Historical and proposed water conservation goals are summarized and compared in Figure 3-2. All values are shown in terms of per capita water use, based on equivalent population adjusted for employment (see Chapter 2). As shown in the figure, the proposed conservation goal for this plan is consistent with the State’s regional conservation goals and meets or exceeds all other historical goals. Included in the figure is also the observed per capita water use in the service area. From the figure, it can be seen that customers within the service area are meeting or exceeding all of its previously established goals. There has been a slight rebound in per capita water use over the last few years. Even with the excellent results achieved to date, this emphasizes the need for continued and increased efforts in the promotion of long-term conservation, including enhanced education and outreach efforts. 2 Salt Lake City Water Supply and Demand Master Plan, page 2-11 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065Per Capita Water Use (gpcd)Year FIGURE 3-2 SLCPU SERVICE AREA CONSERVATION TREND Metered Per Capita ULS Conservation Goal (12.5% reduction by Trend Line of Actual Historical State Conservation Goal (25% reduction by 2025) New SLCPU Conservation Goal per Supply and Demand Master Plan Utah's Regional Conservation Goal 187 gpcd by 2035 Future Regional Conservation Goal Projections 178 gpcd by 2045 169 gpcd by 2065 SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 3-5 CONSERVATION GOALS: CHAPTER THREE 3.2 D ETAILS OF SLCPU C ONSERVATION G OALS While an overall conservation goal is an important first step in planning, it will be difficult to turn the goal into reality unless we understand the individual components of the goal, that is, who is using the water, and how and when they are using it. The purpose of this section is to provide additional information regarding the conservation goals so that more detailed plans can be developed to achieve discreet components of the goal. 3.2.1 OVERALL CONSERVATION GOAL For the planning window of the Salt Lake City Supply and Demand Master Plan, the long-term conservation goal can be expressed in the following metrics summarized in Table 3-1 and Table 3-2. T ABLE 3 -1 LONG-TERM CONSERVATION GOALS EXPRESSED AS PER CAPITA USE (GALLONS PER DAY)3 Historical Governor’s Conservation Goal for 2018 2018 SLCPU Observed Utah’s Regional M&I Goal Long-term (2065) SLCPU Long- term Goal (2060) 234 206 169 160 T ABLE 3 -2 P ERCENT R EDUCTION IN P ER C APITA U SE T O ACHIEVE LONG-TERM GOALS State Regional Long- term Goal (2065) SLCPU Long-term Goal % Reduction from Historical Goal for 2018 SLCPU Long-term Goal % Reduction from 2018 Actual 19.5%4 31.4% 22.4% As can be seen in the tables, long-term goals exceed Utah’s Regional M&I Conservation Goals for the Salt Lake region. 3 Based on equivalent population adjusted for employment as described in Chapter 2. 3.2.2 CONSERVATION GOAL BY CUSTOMER CLASSIFICATION As a starting point, it is useful to define the water use characteristics that will need to be achieved in order to reach long-term water use reduction goals. Changes in per capita water demands may result from a number of factors, not all of which are the result of more prudent water use. For example, increases in density (and the corresponding decrease in average lot size) may significantly decrease per capita outdoor water use, even if water use patterns do not otherwise change. Economic growth and socio-economic conditions, improvements in fixture and appliance efficiency, and climate change are examples of other factors that may, for better or worse, affect demand. To better measure where savings will be derived through conservation activities, we need first understand the who and how of water use. Besides the factors mentioned above, it is also helpful to examine water use by grouping customers together that exhibit similar characteristics, demographics, or water use behaviors. For example, homeowners use water differently than do businesses, and both have water use patterns different from schools. By grouping water users into classifications with similar characteristics, we can improve water use analysis and enhance programing to achieve demand reduction. Setting conservation goals for water use reduction in specific water use areas will enhance our opportunities to successfully achieve our conservation goals. For conservation planning purposes, customers have been disaggregated into the primary classifications of residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial, which are the same classifications used in Chapter 2 to facilitate analysis of historical water use. These groups have been further divided into subclassifications (see Section 2.3). The analysis of historical use and projected future growth presented in Chapter 2 is used here to estimate how much 4 State Regional Goals measured as reduction from 2015 water use. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 3-6 CONSERVATION GOALS: CHAPTER THREE savings may come from each classification and subclassification based on the following general assumptions: • Residential indoor water use to be reduced to 50 gpcd (14.2% reduction from 2018 water use) • Outdoor water use to be reduced to 24 inches average irrigation (14.6% reduction from 2018 water use) • CII indoor reduction to be determined For Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional customers (CII), it has been assumed that outdoor conservation will occur at the same rate as in the residential classification, but indoor water use will be reduced in an amount equal to approximately 50 percent of the reduction observed in residential use.5. This is based on maintaining the same ratio of conservation between residential and non- residential classifications as observed in the past (see Chapter 2). As work continues in evaluating water use in CII sectors, enhanced understanding of disaggregated water use patterns will facilitate establishment of more meaningful goals within the CII sector. For more details, see Chapter 4. Based on these assumptions, projected conservation by classification and season of use is summarized in Figures 3-3 through 3-5. Additional Conservation Throughout the Year (Figure 3-3). Figure 3-3 shows current indoor and outdoor water use over the course of the year, as well as projected demand reductions needed to attain the planned long-term 5 The exception to this is the apartment sub-classification where it has been assumed that indoor water savings will be the same as residential. conservation goal. As seen in the figure, additional conservation is needed both indoors and outdoors, as well as throughout the course of the year. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Monthly Use Per Connection (ccf)Current Outdoor Use (2016-18) Current Indoor Use (2016-18) Total Use at Conservation Goal Indoor Use at Conservation Goal FIGURE 3-3 ADDITIONAL CONSERVATION BY MONTH AVERAGED ACROSS ALL CONNECTIONS SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 3-7 CONSERVATION GOALS: CHAPTER THREE Estimated Additional Conservation by Customer Classification (Figure 3-4). Figure 3-4 provides estimated, disaggregated conservation targets for both indoor and outdoor water use by customer classification. Target outdoor conservation on a percentage basis is identical for all groups. Indoor targets vary depending on the estimated potential conservation for each group based on historical average use by classification. Note that indoor industrial conservation is indicated as only about half of what is expected for other CII customers. This does not mean that industrial users are not expected to make the same effort to conserve water as other CII customers. An active conservation program among industrial customers is recommended and necessary. All industrial users are expected to look for ways in which they can improve their water use. The lower indoor conservation target at this writing is a recognition that there is a great deal of variability in the nature of industrial water use that makes the establishment of a single, aggregate reduction goal difficult. Further analysis is necessary to better understand water use patterns and the capacity to conserve within this and other CII sub-classifications. 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0% FIGURE 3-4 ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL PERCENTAGE BY CUSTOMER CLASSIFICATION Combined Indoor Outdoor SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 3-8 CONSERVATION GOALS: CHAPTER THREE 6Estimated Additional Conservation Per Classification by Volume (Figure 3-5). In addition to considering percent reductions, it is often useful to understand the accompanying volume of water that will need to be reduced within each classification. Figure 3-5 provides perspective in this regard. As can be seen in the figure, most of the water reduction in the service area will need to come from residential customers. This is not a conscious attempt to target these customers but simply a reflection of the size of this customer classification, its current volume of use, and the estimated capacity to conserve within this classification. Even though other customer classifications may currently appear to have lower reduction demands expressed, conservation will be needed in all areas to reach planned short- and long-term goals. Also, as understanding and evaluation of water use continues, with the accompanying analysis of the capacity to conserve, these conservation targets should be reviewed and refined. 6 Water use reduction for industrial customers will be more clearly defined as CII analysis continues. - 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INSTITUTIONAL INDUSTRIAL ALL CII TOTAL -ALL CATEGORIES FIGURE 3-5 VOLUME OF ADDITIONAL CONSERVATION NEEDED TO ACHEIVE LONG-TERM GOAL BY LOCATION OF USE AND GROUP (ACRE-FT/YEAR, EXISTING CUSTOMERS) Indoor Outdoor SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 3-9 CONSERVATION GOALS: CHAPTER THREE 3.2.3 CONSERVATION GOALS BY SUB-CLASSIFICATION As with analysis of historical water use, conservation goals may also be divided into sub-classifications, a practice helpful in the design and implementation of conservation strategies. The result is highly targeted, efficient programs. The limitation is that there is a great deal of difference between customers within the classifications, and so a stated reduction goal that is averaged for the larger classification may not align reasonably with specific water patterns of discrete customers within a classification. For example, while the residential classification generally has similar patterns between its sub-classifications, commercial and industrial classifications are very diverse, from art galleries to grocery stores and bottling plants to oil refineries. Being aware of these variabilities highlights the need for further analysis. With these caveats in mind, projected conservation by sub-classification and season of use is summarized in Table 3-3 and Figure 3-6. It should be emphasized that savings in each sub-classification are an estimate for planning purposes only. As additional information and insight is gained, modifications to these numbers will occur and it may be determined that more conservation is appropriate for some groups and less in others. These types of adjustments are expected and to be encouraged, as conservation programing is adjusted to optimize its program impacts while ensuring water use reduction “burdens” are shared equitably between all water customers. It should also be noted that total volumes contained in Table 3-3 are for existing customers only. As future customers are added, these new customers, whether residential or CII, will also need to contribute toward achieving water conservation goals. Although not a true “reduction” in water use (since they have not yet used water), future customers will contribute to reducing per capita water use as they implement the same improvements in water use efficiency as is being pursued by existing customers. When the efforts of both existing and future users are combined, the total volume of reduced water use (compared to existing water use patterns) is expected to be an additional 16,100 AF/year over the current annual reduction levels. When considering only the new reduction goal and not what has already been achieved, approximately 8,300 AF/yr. of this total is expected to come from residential customers with the remaining 7,800 AF/yr. coming from CII classifications. - 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 HOSPITAL HOTEL OR MOTEL INDUSTRY RESTAURANT SCHOOL/CHURCH TRIPLEX PARKS & MUNICIPALS MISCELLANEOUS FOURPLEX APARTMENT DUPLEX BUSINESS SINGLE RESIDENCE FIGURE 3-6 VOLUME OF ADDITIONAL CONSERVATION NEEDED TO ACHEIVE LONG- TERM GOAL BY LOCATION OF USE AND CUSTOMER CLASS (ACRE- FT/YEAR, EXISTING CUSTOMERS) Indoor Outdoor SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 3-10 CONSERVATION GOALS: CHAPTER THREE Location of Use Hospital Hotel or Motel Industry Restaurant School or Church or Charity Triplex Parks & Government Miscellaneous Fourplex Apartment Duplex Business Single Residence Total Current Annual Use (AF)7 Total 858 1,735 5,488 651 3,726 297 3,498 4,124 827 7,760 2,288 17,815 33,324 82,393 Indoor 569 1,303 4,753 491 1,415 184 211 864 543 5,110 1,186 9,250 11,024 36,902 Outdoor 289 433 735 160 2,311 114 3,287 3,260 284 2,650 1,102 8,566 22,300 45,491 Daily Use Per Connection (gpd) Total 22,523 11,560 24,745 1,991 6,547 511 4,972 5,296 690 4,722 457 2,517 445 884 Indoor 14,928 8,678 21,431 1,502 2,486 316 300 1,110 453 3,110 237 1,307 147 396 Outdoor 7,596 2,881 3,314 489 4,061 195 4,673 4,187 237 1,613 220 1,210 297 488 Goal for Future Annual Use (AF) Total 772 1,571 5,197 590 3,278 255 3,001 3,580 709 6,648 1,959 15,847 28,499 71,904 Indoor 525 1,202 4,569 453 1,305 158 194 797 466 4,385 1,018 8,533 9,460 33,065 Outdoor 247 369 628 137 1,973 97 2,807 2,783 243 2,263 941 7,313 19,039 38,839 Required Reduction in Annual Use (AF) Total 86 164 291 61 447 43 497 543 119 1,113 329 1,969 4,825 10,488 Indoor 44 101 184 38 110 26 16 67 77 725 168 716 1,564 3,837 Outdoor 42 63 107 23 338 17 481 477 42 388 161 1,252 3,261 6,651 % Savings Total 10.1% 9.5% 5.3% 9.4% 12.0% 14.4% 14.2% 13.2% 14.3% 14.3% 14.4% 11.0% 14.5% 12.7% Indoor 7.7% 7.7% 3.9% 7.7% 7.7% 14.2% 7.7% 7.7% 14.2% 14.2% 14.2% 7.7% 14.2% 10.4% Outdoor 14.6% 14.6% 14.6% 14.6% 14.6% 14.6% 14.6% 14.6% 14.6% 14.6% 14.6% 14.6% 14.6% 14.6% Savings Per Connection (gpd) Total 2,266 1,093 1,314 188 786 73 706 698 99 677 66 278 64 112 Indoor 1,156 672 830 116 192 45 23 86 64 441 34 101 21 41 Outdoor 1,111 421 485 72 594 29 683 612 35 236 32 177 43 71 7 For the purposes of this table, all volumes are shown for existing customers only. As future users join the system, it is assumed that they will use water at the same reduced level as identified in the conservation goals. T ABLE 3 -3 A DDITIONAL C ONSERVATION B Y S UB-C LASSIFICATION SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN Page 3-11 CONSERVATION GOALS: CHAPTER THREE 3.2.4 FIVE- AND TEN-YEAR CONSERVATION GOALS As noted previously, current goals are ahead of the Governor’s Water Conservation Goals and ULS Goals. With this in mind, it is not enough to meet the new Regional goals; more aggressive goals will be important–both to keep pace with long-term supply plans and to model good water resource stewardship. Correspondingly, this conservation plan has identified 5- and 10- year conservation goals as summarized in Table 3-4. These goals follow the overall structure of the regional goals8 but are more aggressive to account for conservation reductions already achieved and the need to both sustain those achievements and meet additional water use reductions. To assist Department personnel in identifying and implementing the practices and programming needed to meet these goals, Table 3-6 provides the estimated water use reduction need of the various classifications. This table calculates the needed reduction in total volume required to reach the goals, along with disaggregation of how this reduction might be divided between indoor and outdoor use. While it is not necessary to achieve the exact mix of conservation shown in this table, and it is certain that these volumes will need to be revised over time as more information is collected, this table provides staff with a starting point to estimate how and where conservation efforts should be initially focused. 8 Utah’s Regional M&I Water Conservation Goals for the Salt Lake Region indicates that just over half of the long-term goal should be achieved in the next ten years (234 gpcd to 201 gpcd [2030 Goal] vs. 169 gpcd [2065 long-term TABLE 3-4 RECOMMENDED INTERIM CONSERVATION GOALS 2018 5-year 10-year Long-Term Per Capita Use 206 192 183 160 Percent Reduction Per Capita - 6.9% 11.3% 22.3% Percent Reduction Indoors - 3.2% 5.3% 10.4% Percent Reduction Outdoors - 4.5% 7.4% 14.6% Percent Reduction Total Use - 3.9% 6.5% 12.7% TABLE 3-5 ADDITIONAL CONSERVATION NEEDED BY CLASSIFICATION (ACRE-FT/YEAR) Classification Location 5-Year 10-Year Long-term Residential Indoors 867 1,431 2,818 Outdoors 1,644 2,712 5,342 Total 2,511 4,143 8,160 Commercial Indoors 799 1,318 2,596 Outdoors 1,061 1,750 3,447 Total 1,859 3,068 6,043 Institutional Indoors 59 98 193 Outdoors 387 638 1,257 Total 446 736 1,450 Industrial Indoors 87 143 282 Outdoors 51 84 165 Total 138 227 447 All Classifications Indoors 1,812 2,990 5,890 Outdoors 3,142 5,184 10,210 Total 4,954 8,174 16,100 projection]). This same ratio has been assumed for the 10-year goal, adjusted to account both the lower initial starting point and more aggressive goal. The 5- year goal has been similarly interpolated. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 4-1 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR CHAPTER FOUR: CONSERVATION PROGRAMS, PRACTICES, AND MEASURES 4.0 I NTRODUCTION Few resources are as critical to a community’s health, well-being, or economy as water. Over the duration of its history, the City has protected its water resources, from the critical watersheds, through urban riparian corridors, in the stormwater system, and, of course, by practicing and promoting the wise and efficient use of water. This plan not only reflects that history of conservation, it demonstrates the continued commitment to lead through example. With reliance on research, science, and experience, and in partnership with the community, academicians, and stakeholders, the City strives to achieve sustainable reductions in water use in order to ensure a reliable and secure water supply today and for the future. Critical first steps in developing effective programing are to understand how much water there will be, who are the customers and how they have used water, and what does future water use look like in order to ensure a sustained supply and fair access. Chapters One, Two, and Three address these questions, respectively. This chapter describes the programming that will help maintain a sustainable, reliable supply. Programs, practices, and measures need to consider short- and long-term conservation goals and improve water efficiency or reduce water waste while maintaining quality-of-life standards. Programs must be relevant to how water is used or wasted, present meaningful opportunities for engagement, and be equitable in reach and access. Foremost, conservation programming must move attitudes, behaviors, practices, and actions in such a manner as to facilitate meaningful, measurable, and sustained conservation. This chapter focuses on the programs initiated or proposed that meet the above criteria and support and facilitate short- and long-term water use reductions that will help to meet the conservation goals outlined in Chapter 3. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 4-2 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.1 C ONSERVATION P LANNING P ROCESS There are many manuals, texts, and papers describing methods for successful conservation planning and programming and this planning process has been informed and benefitted from those resources. The first steps of assessing supply and demand, evaluating historical use, and establishing water use reduction goals systemwide as well as by customer classification have been described in previous chapters. This chapter addresses the discussion of program selection criteria, description of programs, and summary of evaluation processes. Though these steps are identified here linearly, the process is fluid and iterative, reflecting both the nature and dynamics of planning processes. 4.1.1 CRITERIA The criteria for program selection are simple; programming should: • Help to reduce water use or water waste, • Enhance water stewardship ethos, • Have community and political support, • Be equitable and fair, and • Provide a cost-benefit to the City and its rate payers. Though not all programs exhibit all of these criteria, all programs have most of these criteria. 4.1.2 EVALUATION Program evaluation is not as straightforward as identifying a quantity of water saved. Some programs, such as outreach, may be difficult to measure in terms of gallons saved, but they bring a high degree of community benefit and add to our understanding of water. Research and metrics, on the other hand, by its very nature present ample opportunity for measuring program outcomes, either through gallons saved or participants reached. Every effort was made to identify some method of measurement and provide a benchmark or metric to facilitate program evaluation; these measures are provided in Tables 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, and 4-6. Other methods for evaluation include industry best practices or regulatory frameworks for plan development. The appendices include checklists that informed the development of this plan and against which it is compared. • EPA WaterSense Program • ANSI/AWWA G480 Conservation Program Operations and Management • Utah DWRe Water Conservation Master Plan Checklist • State of Utah Regional Goals 4.1.3 RESOURCE ALLOCATION A necessary step in this process is the establishment of fiscal and staffing resource budgets. Fiscal year 2020/21 allocations for specific program measures are included in this plan and are included in program measure focuses where available and listed in Tables 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6. More extensive future budget planning is a component of the Research and Metrics Program. Combined program budget allocation for the 2020/21 fiscal year is approximately $680,000. This does not include program measure funds derived from partnerships, grants, or other sources. 4.1.4 TERMINOLOGY Within this chapter and throughout the plan are various terms used to express conservation planning, goal setting, and program development. Some terms used extensively in this chapter follow: Water conservation. Those practices, techniques, and technologies that reduce water consumption, water loss, and water waste, or improve the efficiency of water use. Practice. An action or system that is beneficial, empirically proven, cost- effective, and widely accepted in the professional community. Measure. A device, incentive, or technology targeted at a particular type of end user or water use that, when implemented, will save water. Program. A set of conservation practices and measures planned to be implemented together. For a more extensive glossary, please refer to the Appendices. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 4-3 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.2 C ONSERVATION BY C ONNECTION To identify the water conservation goals expressed in this plan, projections of future reliable water supply coupled with the optimal strategy to plan to not use every drop (reserved water) were analyzed through the lens of historical water use patterns and future predicted growth. These goals are expressed in terms of millions of gallons and acre feet by classifications and subclassifications. While these expressions meet the language of various standards for conservation planning, they hardly meet the intent, which is to derive meaningful, actionable goals to guide and measure conservation programs and outcomes for actual water users. It is this level of conservation goal setting that is attempted here. Using population and economic growth indicators data, connections, and historical use by classification and sub-classification, along with future supply and demand projections, we derive water use reduction goals within classifications by connection as summarized in Table 4-1. TABLE 4-1 ADDITIONAL REDUCTION IN PER CONNECTION USE NEEDED (GPD/CONNECTION) There are limitations to these calculations. As mentioned previously in earlier chapters, while the customers in some classifications are relatively uniform in use characteristics (residential), others are much more diverse (commercial and industrial). Even within the residential classifications, there are distinctions in use patterns. The differences in water use patterns between single-family homes and multi-family units, small urban and large suburban lots, owners and renters, are examples of the complexity of this task. Another limitation is that the assumption of future use based on historical practice does not account for innovations in technology that will inevitably change how water is used or measured. Installation of Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) will greatly enhance our understanding of water use and waste at the connection-level, but we do not yet fully know how the utility of this technology will impact use as an influencer of behavior. Assumptions made regarding landscapeable area and irrigation requirements described in Chapter 2 (see Figure 1-2) depended on data from the year 2000. But we know from observation, turf studies conducted by the Center for Landscape Efficiency (CWEL), as well as initials findings derived from WaterMAPS™ that those estimates are likely too unnecessarily generous. As research continues, we will gain insights into the capacity to conserve in landscapes, and thus inform that area of programing and also future planning scenarios. The limitations become more obvious when CII classifications are evaluated. Landscape nurseries, laundromats, and breweries are all classified as Commercial, though it is apparent they would have vastly different water use profiles as well as different needs when addressing conservation. Industries range from shipping warehouses with little water demand to oil refineries, much greater consumers of water by comparison. The CII Analytics project, as well as AMI will greatly enhance understanding of water use by discreet commercial and industrial profiles. Collaboration with Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE), US-EPA Water Sense, and other conservation programs throughout the region and country will help identify benchmarks and standards by which to evaluate these classifications and develop meaningful programming. Even with these limitations, the value of moving towards goals of this nature should not be ignored or overlooked. As understanding of water use patterns is deepened, these initial estimates for water use reduction will be refined and made even more relevant. Classification Location 5-Year 10-Year Long-term Residential Indoors 7 11 22 Outdoors 13 22 43 Total 20 33 65 Commercial Indoors 52 86 169 Outdoors 69 114 224 Total 121 200 393 Institutional Indoors 30 50 99 Outdoors 198 327 643 Total 228 377 742 Industrial Indoors 0 0 0 Outdoors 149 246 485 Total 149 246 485 SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 4-4 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.3 S OCIOECONOMIC I MPACTS OF C ONSERVATION Effective conservation programming considers the characteristics of the customers using water, both as individuals and within user classifications. While it is commonplace to consider characteristics such as “single-family residence”, “apartment”, or “restaurant”, less common is the integration of demographics and socioeconomic characteristics into the analytical and programing framework. According to Beecher, et al1, neglecting the unintended effects of conservation programming on socioeconomic groups can result in unexpected analytical, practical, and political consequences, which may undermine desired program outcomes and have negative impacts on some customer groups. As conservation programming is developed, understanding the relationship between water use and socioeconomic and other demographic characteristics enhances program outcomes while ensuring that the end user has the tools and support necessary to make good choices regarding water use. Additionally, this understanding also helps to identify potential barriers to participation, improving overall program design, reducing unintended consequences, and increasing participation. Conservation programing can be an effective tool to mitigate the impact of inevitable price increases across all user classifications and socioeconomic characteristics. Helping customers understand their relationship with water and providing meaningful and actionable tools and knowledge to make better choices helps customers manage water costs while also reducing their water footprint. The service area is a diverse community in both its characteristics and its water needs. Understanding, and being responsive to this diversity helps to build positive relationships and ensure we meet our long-term goals of a resilient water supply. Income, household composition, housing, language and ethnicity, education, and special needs are all important characteristics that may affect water use. Businesses, too, have characteristics that need to be identified and analyzed so that programing builds partnerships and increases participation. 1 Beecher, Janice A., Thomas Chesnutt, David Pekelney. Socioeconomic Impacts of Water Conservation. AWWA Research Foundation and American Water Works Association. 2001. To be successful and sustainable, everyone—every person, business, industry, school, church, government agency—needs to be engaged in reducing water demand and protecting our water resources. Effective programing should facilitate water demand reduction across all sectors and user classifications, without placing the burden for conservation on one group, or excluding any group. Striving for equity and fairness in program implementation, whether through well-thought-out pricing structures, availability of product and behavioral incentives, or access to educational materials and classes will help to remove barriers to participation, improve program reach, and avoid unintended consequences that limit access or unfairly shift the burden of conservation. In addressing these variables, conservation programming can: • Improve affordability for customers; • Enhance customer relationships; • Respond to environmental justice concerns; • Manage risk and uncertainty of water supplies; • Achieve efficiency gains; and • Reduce water utility revenue losses. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 4-5 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.4 W ATER C ONSERVATION P ROGRAMS , P RACTICES , AND M EASURES Water conservation is a critical component of water resource management and should not be viewed as a temporary measure or as a public relations tool. Effective water conservation can sustain and extend water supplies; alleviate infrastructure capacity issues; mitigate impacts to supply and demand due to weather and climate variability; address affordability; and foster a sense of community-shared stewardship. To achieve this, conservation programming needs to provide the necessary tools to achieve and sustain these effects, and therefore, needs to fully address the how, who, when, and where of water use. At the core of this conservation plan are the programs, practices, and measures encouraged, supported, and funded through the water conservation program. For conservation programming to achieve and sustain the necessary water use reductions, it needs to address the diverse nature of water use within the service area. To ensure programming reflects the complexity of the water infrastructure and the diversity of end users, practices have been organized into five program focuses: Outreach, Economics, Utility Operations, Law and Policy, and Research and Metrics. Within each of these programs is a selection of practices and measures that meet the criteria identified on page 4.2. Some, like lawn watering guides and Water Check, has been active since the conservation program was created in June 2001. Other practices, such as WaterMAPS™ and the CII analytics tool, are recent and still in development. There are also practices new to the program planned for the coming years, including rebates and commercial audits. Though the practices are varied, they all meet the criteria of providing targeted, meaningful, and equitable programing that will facilitate meeting and sustaining short- and long-term water conservation goals. 4.4.1 PROGRAMS The water conservation program is comprised of dozens of practices and measures organized into one of five programs: Outreach. Education, information, and community engagement are how we inform and encourage the adoption of practices, behaviors, and technologies that reduce water use and water waste. Sometimes considered “soft” practices, due in part to the difficulty of isolating and quantifying practice outcomes and effectiveness, none the less, these practices are typically simple to enact and have limited barriers to customer participation. This program focuses on conveying information and engaging in community dialogue that facilitates the meeting of conservation goals. And though difficult to measure, they are informed by the outcomes of the Research & Metrics program, and so are based in actionable science. Economic. The price of water is an important mechanism through which to convey the value of water. Though, to clarify, it is not merely the rate at which water is charged, but also the other information that is conveyed in a water bill. Even more fundamentally, that meters are read, and bills are generated and SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 4-6 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR provided in a timely manner also help to inform the customer and convey the value of this limited resource. There are other ways, too that economics can play a role in water conservation. Illustrating avoided costs can also be an incentive to reduce water use, whether it is the avoided costs associated with water use in a higher tier, or the avoided costs of not having to develop new sources of water. More direct incentives, in the form of rebates, can also help to reduce water use and offer the added benefit of potentially providing measurable outcomes. Utility Operations. To be a leader in water conservation, it is not enough to have a plan, but to integrate that plan into daily operations, maintenance, and capital programs. This program focuses on identifying and implementing opportunities to integrate conservation best practices into all aspects of department functions. From landscape management to construction of stormwater wetlands and street-side biofiltration; water supply planning to distribution system operations, conservation can and does support broader Department functions. Law & Policy. Salt Lake City has landscape code provisions that proactively encourage the implementation of best practices in landscapes; periodic review of these provisions ensures that the City continues to meet the intension of these provisions. Currently lacking are codes that clearly state water use prohibitions. Though codes exist that allow the regulation of water use, the codes as currently written to not clearly address water waste, so review will facilitate addressing this lack. There are also codes that support a variety of planning processes, including conservation and drought planning. City policy can also support conservation efforts by addressing the adoption of actions internally to City departments and divisions which support conservation. A review of City codes and policies that support conservation is planned over the next several years. Research & Metrics. Fundamental to the implementation and effectiveness of conservation programming is the adoption of programs that provide the necessary outcomes. Science, research, and analytics are at the core of conservation programming, ensuring that all other programs and practices have a basis in knowledge, research, and science. 4.4.2 PRACTICES AND MEASURES Within each program is a selection of practices and measures designed to facilitate the achievement of short- and long-term water conservation goals. These practices and measures are directed at specific end users to address various types of water use. They are designed to be implemented alone or in combination and all meet one or more of the identified criteria. For practice and measure details, see the corresponding practice tables. 4.4.3 PROGRAM TABLES Each practice and measure are listed in one of the following tables (Tables 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6), with select practices receiving more detailed coverage in section focuses. Within the tables, practices are generally described by title, target audience, practice timeline, project cost, metric or measurement, and partnership. Number (No.). Each practice is assigned a number within its initiative. This is useful when identifying practices relevant to specific documents, grant applications and similar circumstances where space constrains limit the full title of description of a practice. Practice Title. The name of the practice, which is sometimes broadly descriptive, as in the case of “Brochures,” and sometimes specific to a single practice, such as in WaterMAPS™. Effort has been made to keep the names descriptive and brief. Classification. Not all practices are for every customer. This column organizes and identifies practices by classification. These classifications correspond to the classifications described and used throughout this plan. They include Residential (Res), Industrial (Ind), Commercial (Com), and Institutional (Inst). (See Figure 2- 2). Brief Description. Generally, an expansion on the practice title or a broader, though short, description. Practice Timeline. Timeline details may range from a single event, for instance, the development of a study or plan, to ongoing practices such as meter replacement or monthly billing. “Active” column indicators include “√’ (Active), “ID” (In Development), TBD (To Be Determined), or NA (Not Applicable or Not Active). Implementation indicates when the practice was active or is planned to be active. Cost/Funding. Costs mostly reflect current budget allocations or future planned allocation estimates. Costs over the practice lifetime have not been calculated, unless noted. In some cases, funding has been provided in the form of grants, SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 4-7 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR memorandum of understanding, or as a component of partnership, which have been noted accordingly. The development of recommended five- and ten-year budgets is a component of the Research and Metrics program and is currently underway. Reach/Metrics. Measuring practice effectiveness helps determine if resources (staff time or budget) are being allocated in a manner that supports program goals or allocated sufficiently to ensure practice success. Some of these measures are soft, such as the number of visitors to a garden, brochures mailed, website visits; some are hard, as in Water Checks performed, metered reduction, or commercial audits completed. Not all programs should be measured by the same metric; for one thing, that isn’t practical or pragmatic. A demonstration garden may serve multiple purposes but how do you measure how much water has been saved due to its existence? How much water is saved when schoolrooms are visited, or when phone calls are answered? This is where the measurement of reach helps to inform practice evaluation: how many visitors, how many classrooms, how many brochures. These practices bring value, even if the measure of success is knowing the reach, as they have value in the relationships built, the assistance provided, and opportunity for inspiration. Partnerships. The City has been fully vested in conservation programing since 2001 and much has been accomplished due to the commitment and hard work of staff. But success not been achieved alone. Partnerships have been instrumental to the ongoing success of the conservation program and will continue in importance as work towards achieving current and future water use reduction goals continues. Some partnerships are more singular and tied to specific practices, such as the contract with Tracy Aviary and its nature study classes. Other partnerships revolve around funding, particularly grants, as is the case of drought planning and the Bureau of Reclamation. A few new partnerships are in the works, as planning progresses with CUWCD and DWRe pertaining to CII studies. Some partnerships, such as the one with Utah State University (USU), have relevance beyond the scope of specific practices, informing conservation efforts across the reach of programing and providing invaluable collaboration. However, the most valued partner is the community; the people, businesses, industry, and institutions served who do the work of saving water every day. Savings. Ideally, every conservation practice or measure has demonstratable water savings. This is, however, difficult to assess for most practices. Improvements in metering technology and the integration of GIS/IT technologies in conservation programing will improve this moving ahead. In the meantime, where possible, historical and projected water savings have been provided. Not every practice can be described with all these details, but every effort has been made to provide as much detail as possible within these pages. Where details are either not available or not relevant, it has been so indicted. For instance, some programs have no direct cost, such as developing internal City department conservation plans. In other cases, practice metrics may be difficult to determine; how, for instance, do we measure the impact of a garden or brochure? Within each program there are summaries of select practices and measures, intended to offer more detail, including timeline, budget, and desired outcomes. These select practices represent current and proposed programming that is reflective of short- and long-term conservation goals, as well as the needs and interests of water customers across all classifications. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 4-8 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.5 O UTREACH Education and public outreach are a necessary component of successful conservation programing. Though the types of programing vary, they share the common attributes of informing and educating customers of the needs and benefits of conservation; the risks to the community and environment in not conserving; and actions to take to achieve water conservation goals. Outreach initiatives are characterized as being customer-focused, low-input programs with an emphasis on education and information to motivate changes by either adopting or abandoning general or specific practices. These initiatives are thought of as “soft programs,” in that they depend on behavioral changes and not changes to fixtures or infrastructure. Programs can generally be organized by those designed to change behavior or to encourage the adoption of new methodologies and techniques. Outreach also includes education and messaging campaigns, designed to provide actionable, proven techniques and methods for reducing water use. Such campaigns include “Never Waste,” “Rain On/Sprinklers Off,” and “7 Gallon Challenge,” to name a few. Outreach practices also create opportunities for reciprocal, iterative dialogue, leading to community engagement and acceptance, critical for program success and the achievement of short- and long-term conservation goals. It is in classroom settings, community gatherings, and social media that we, as practitioners, can hear and learn from the customers for whom these programs are designed, to make programming accessible, meaningful, and actionable. Outreach isn’t “just talk.” The Water Check program provides site-specific guidance to assist property managers or homeowners in improving irrigation efficiency. WaterMAPS delivers relatable and actionable information to property owners to enhance understanding of the relationship between landscape characteristics and water need. Providing actionable information commercial, industrial, and institutional customers will enhance engagement by those sectors in conservation efforts and deliver meaningful results in demand reduction. Residential leak detection programs inform homeowners of indoor water loss, while delivering messages of the importance of managing all water use and waste. Learning labs offer education, advice, and guidance in improving landscape practices, leak detection and repair, and other areas of conservation. Following are details of select conservation programs which reflect short- and long- term goals as outlined in Chapter 3 and address community feedback on existing programming. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 4-9 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.5.1 DEMONSTRATION GARDENS AND SLCGARDENWISE.COM [0-3, 0-4, 0-5] Timeline: 2005 to present 2021 Budget: Partners: Greater Avenues Community Council, TreeUtah Reach: Across all customer classifications Savings: NA While it may be difficult to measure the worth of public gardens, water conservation gardens bring value to conservation programming as well as to the neighborhoods where gardens reside. Offering information, education, and inspiration of best practices in landscaping methods and plant selection, demonstration gardens provide self-directed as well as led experiences. These spaces also create opportunities for volunteering, bringing value to the program and making learning a hands-on experience. Demonstration gardens also create opportunities to bring value to neighborhoods by providing beautiful and sustainably managed landscapes to enjoy and inspire. For example, the 900 South Stormwater Wetland and Demonstration Garden is located along a former stormdrain ditch and abandoned railroad corridor. The conversion of this space into a stormwater wetland and conservation demonstration garden created multiple values for the City and the neighborhood. The Greater Avenues Conservation Garden sits on what was once an abandoned lot in the Avenues neighborhood. Its location adjacent to urban-wildland interface areas presented an opportunity to demonstrate not only water-wise techniques, but also how site sensitive landscaping can support wildlife and community aesthetic values. And lest there is concern that a formerly un- watered site is now receiving previously undelivered resources; Greater Avenues Garden has not been irrigated for over seven growing seasons. As enjoyable as actual demonstration gardens can be, weather or other impediments may discourage visitors. Learning opportunities may also be limited as it is impossible to include every plant or incorporate multiple design concepts. Slcgardenwise.com provides an alternative visitor experience, offering examples of water-wise gardens from throughout the service area. Virtual tours, landscape solutions, and an extensive and locally developed plant database makes slcgardenwise the next best thing to actual garden tours. Future focus for the demonstration gardens and slcgardenwise is to upgrade landscape features and irrigation systems, update learning materials, and create on-site learning opportunities. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 4-10 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.5.2 PUBLIC ACCESS, CLOUD-BASED PORTALS [0-17] Timeline: 2021 Budget: TBD Partners: Utah State University, EWIG Reach: Residential and CII customers Savings: NA Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI), Water Checks, WaterMAPS, and CII Analytics are providing data that not only informs conservation programming but offers opportunities to provide timely and actionable information directly to water customers. Older methods of communicating information, such as brochures and even web-based communication, are giving way to up-to-the- moment, customer-targeted information via cloud-based communications applications. Water Checks, a well-established, proven program has benefitted from recent technological updates. With funds received through Extension Water Innovation Grants (EWIG), USU, conservation programming, and Department GIS/IT staff, Water Check reporting added cloud-based reporting, messaging, and mapping capabilities. Water Check participants now receive GIS-generated irrigation zone maps with site details, online reports, tips, and support via direct messaging. This portal will also support efforts to promote other conservation programing, as well as to facilitate pre-qualification and post-verification of program measure implementation, where appropriate. Outdoor water use plays a significant role in current demand and future water use reductions. WaterMAPS, a USU-developed program, helps identify our capacity to conserve in the landscape. Getting this information to the customer requires a cloud-based communications system. Homeowners and landscapes are not the only customers with the capacity to conserve. Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional customers (CII) are also an important part of our water conservation strategy. While these customers’ water use profiles can be more complex than that of residential users, they have the same need for timely, meaningful, and actionable information. Improving the depth and range of information to CII customers will enhance engagement in conservation programing and increase opportunities to successfully achieve stated conservation goals. 4.5.3 CONSERVATION LEARNING LABS [0-14] Timeline: 2022 Budget: TBD Partners: USU/CWEL, UofU Lifelong Learning, EPA-WaterSense Reach: Residential Savings: NA Research indicates that Utah residents, including those within the service area, believe in the need for, and are committed to water conservation. What is lacking is not the will, but the knowledge of the best, most effective ways to reduce water use. Homeowners want to know how best to water to support conservation while sustaining a landscape. They have questions: how to select plants, plan the landscape, or convert sprinklers to drip. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 4-11 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR Homeowners also have questions about water efficiency indoors, and ask about toilets, the best way to wash dishes, and how to find and repair leaks? In short, customers have a lot of questions. We have answers. Improving access to solid, up-to-date information and strategies to help homeowners make sensible, sustainable choices will help achieve current and long-term water use reduction goals. Lectures, hands-on labs, and how-to webinars offer up-close and personal opportunities to convey useful and relevant information. This program will focus on maximizing existing resources to deliver high-quality learning experiences focused on water conservation. Partnerships with USU/CWEL, University of Utah’s Lifelong Learning, and US-EPA WaterSense will ensure quality instruction and content. Conservation education must be an essential, if not always quantifiable, part of any conservation plan. As noted in the State of Utah Regional Water Conservation Goal Report2, “When projecting future water use and conservation potential, it is important to understand that water users’ choices regarding water use will be influenced by a complicated combination of factors…” Thus, even though specific water savings may not be directly attributable to a given conservation program or practice, conservation education and outreach through learning labs and other educational venues is a necessary component of the “combination of policies” that must be in place to motivate and facilitate the ultimate conservation action. Covid-19 has presented challenges to this program, but opportunities exist and will be explored that utilize web- and cloud-based meeting and learning mediums, including on-line classes, YouTube videos, and other meeting venues. 2 Regional Water Conservation Goal Report, Hansen Allen & Luce and Bowen Collins & Associates, November 2019, p. 16 4.5.4 PARTNERSHIPS [PROGRAM WIDE] Timeline: Ongoing Budget: TBD Partners: USU/CWEL, UofU Lifelong Learning, EPA-WaterSense, AWE Reach: Utility-wide Savings: NA Collaborations and partnerships are integral to conservation program success. Building on these relationships, as well as developing new partnerships will help to ensure continued success and the achievement of newly stated conservation goals. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 4-12 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR Table 4-2 OUTREACH No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Active Implementation To Date Projected O-1 Brochures √ √ √ √ Develop and distribute brochures relating to water conservation and best practices √ 2001 - ongoing $10,000 per mailing/service area Quantities mailed. Spikes in visits to related websites NA NA NA O-2 Water Stewardship Calendar √ √ √ 12-month calendar with information and tips covering a variety of water issues. √ 2007 - ongoing $30,000 for 25,000 copies. Distributed to SLC schools, SL City and County Libraries NA NA NA 0-3 Demonstration Gardens √ √ √ √ Design and construct demonstration gardens throughout service area √ 2001 - ongoing $5,000 from GACC for Greater Aves Garden TBD Greater Avenues Community Council (GACC) NA NA 0-4 SLCTV 17 GardenWise √ √ √ √ Develop and distribute water conservation- focused programming for SLC TV17 √ 2001 - ongoing NC Site visits and other web metrics SLC-IMS NA NA O-5 SLC Gardenwise: Virtual Water Conservation Garden tours √ √ √ √ Develop virtual garden tours on web site, include plant data bases, design tips, watering/maintena nce guidance. Incorporates several past program initiatives. √ 6/2014 (SLC Gardenwise) $25,000 + annual licensing fee Site visits Bureau of Reclamation; GardenSoft, Inc. NA NA ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined – C - Completed SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 4-13 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR Table 4-2 OUTREACH No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Active Implementation To Date Projected O-6 Water Check √ √ √ √ Promote and conduct lawn sprinkler check-ups for residential, commercial, and institutional properties √ (S) Estab. 1988; Partnered with USU 2007. Ongoing. $60,000 provided by MWDSLS annually. SLCDPU funds additional components, including APP, portal, and GIS capability ($45,000) Map and track use. MWDSL&S 557 AF 47,000 gallons per residential participant annually O-7 SLC Landscape BMPs: Design, Planting and Maintenance Guide √ √ √ √ Develop guide to support best practices in landscape design, implementation, and maintenance to support conservation, stormwater protection, and riparian corridor health. √ 10/1/2011 (see E-8) Part of in-kind contribution for BoR Grant TBD SLC Code Enforcement; Northern Colorado Water District; Green Industries of Colorado (GreenCO); UNLA NA NA O-8 Commercial and Industrial Certification √ Develop and implement a water- wise certification program for commercial and institutional water customers ID 2021, in conjunction with CII Tool and CII audits/direct installs TBA Map and track use TBA NA NA O-9 CII Conservation Plans √ Encourage and publish water conservation plans ID 2021, in conjunction with CII Tool, CII, audits/direct installs, Water Check, and WaterMAPS NC Map and track use NA NA TBD ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined – C - Completed SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 4-14 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR Table 4-2 OUTREACH No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Active Implementation To Date Projected 0-10 Classroom Programs √ √ Develop package programs and activities to facilitate classroom learning focused on water conservation √ Ongoing NC Tabulate students served Tracy Aviary NA NA O-11 Landscape Assessment and Check-ups √ Provide residential landscape assessments to enhance water efficiencies ID Some landscape assessment is included in Water Check. Expansion contingent on staff capacity. TBA Map and track use TBA NA DBA O-12 Private Garden Project √ √ √ √ Promote institutional, commercial, and residential properties to be water-wise demonstrations ID Dependent on staff capacity NC Map with public access TBD NA NA O-13 Residential Leak Detection and Repair √ Provide low or no- cost leak detection and repair to qualifying households ID TBD TBD Map and track use TBD NA Ave. 490 gallons/ person/ year 480 AF/year for utility O-14 Learning Labs √ √ √ √ Workshops on water conservation techniques and strategies √ Summer 2020 NC tabulate UofU Lifelong Learning, WCG, USU NA NA ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined – C - Completed SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 4-15 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR Table 4-2 OUTREACH No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Active Implementation To Date Projected O-15 CitySourced App √ √ √ √ Mobile app allowing users to submit notifications of observed water waste and other water issues √ 20## - Ongoing NC - Program supported thru GIS/IT functions Map locations receiving notifications; chart trends; design proactive measures to address recurrent issues NA NA NA O-16 WaterMAPS √ √ √ √ Outreach focused on WaterMAPS outcomes √ Summer 2020 $100,000 Customer response; target survey; track use USU/CWEL; EWIG grant NA TBD O-17 Cloud-based Public Portals √ √ √ √ Provide cloud- based, secure access of water use analytics to customers across sectors TBD In development TBD Visitors; customer response TBD NA NA ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined – C - Completed SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 4-16 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4 .6 E CONOMIC S Economic initiatives are focused on pricing, rebates, and other programs that offer financial incentives to customer participation or offer services that provide economic value to customers. These programs encourage changes in behavior or upgrades to fixtures, while generating opportunities to measure program effectiveness by monitoring and analyzing water use pre- and post-product or fixture installation, or before and after changes in pricing signals. The targeted nature of these programs will also assist in the challenges of meeting specific, short- and long-term conservation goals. Financial incentives may either be built around avoided costs, such as inclining tiered rates leading to larger bills for more water use; or they may encourage improvements to landscapes or indoor fixtures through product or service discounts or rebates. All conservation incentives should be designed and implemented in such a way as to help to achieve water use reduction goals in a manner that is transparent, cost-effective, and fair, all while ensuring that such programs do not place any undue burdens or create unintended costs for some customers. When creating programs with financial incentives, there are several key issues to keep in mind, whether the signal is a carrot or a stick. If using pricing signals, they need to reflect the cost of water and all that it takes to acquire, treat, and deliver that water; the structure should provide some level of revenue stability; and rates should be fairly and equitably set so as to encourage appropriate use while also making essential water affordable. It is important to note that billing messages may be as important as the bill itself in driving and reducing demand. Rebates and cost-sharing may help reduce water use by encouraging customers to use improved technologies, install better fixtures, renovate landscapes, or otherwise change behavior. As with pricing signals, product or service rebates and cost-shares should provide incentives for a range of customer classifications, help achieve meaningful and sustainable use reductions, demonstrate measurable outcomes, and be equitable. According to a recent Alliance for Water Efficiency (AWE) study, the most effective and efficacious rebate programs are targeted to specific user classifications or uses (residential or commercial, indoor or outdoor); and have clearly stated pre-qualifications and post-evaluation components. This is to ensure that the rebate provided achieves the desired goal for both customer and utility. When used appropriately, incentive pricing and rebates can be highly targeted tools for achieving short- and long-term water use reductions goals while providing value and benefits to customers. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 4-17 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.6.1 CII AUDITS AND DIRECT INSTALLS [E-10] Timeline: 2020 (proposed) Budget: Phase I $95,000 Partners: CUWCD Reach: CII Savings: TBD Though conservation practices have historically focused on outdoor single- family residential water use, that use reflects roughly one-fourth of all use. Though comprising only 12 percent of water connections, CII water use (both indoors and out) accounts for more than half of all metered water sales. With this in mind, programing in the CII sector has increased to include enhanced analytics, identification of sector-specific water use standards, and establishment of preliminary water use reduction goals. One way to assist select CII customers in reducing water use is to identify inefficient practices or fixtures and to incentivize changes. This project proposes audits of select CII accounts including assessment of water use records and trends, review of standard practices, and inventory and measurement audits of appliances and fixtures. Phase I of this project will focus on small hotels and motels, restaurants, and public and assisted housing. Sites have been selected through water use analytics, identifying properties that show higher than average water use within each sector. After conducting initial assessments, recommendations will be made for fixture, appliance, and practice changes. Some fixture and appliance practices may provide incentives or rebates through matched funding. Besides directly assisting participating CII customers in reducing water waste and overall water use, this project will provide invaluable data regarding common practices within specific CII sectors, as well as building relationships between CII customers and conservation program staff. 4.6.2 REBATES [E-4, E-6, E-7, E-8] Timeline: 2021 Budget: 2020/21 $25,000 (proposed) Partners: CUWCD Reach: Residential Savings: TBD Customers within the service area have done a remarkable job reducing water use. Since 2001 and the beginning of the water conservation program, total water use has reduced nearly 28%, and residential household use has reduced by 29%. As good as these numbers are, there is still more to do as indicated in the Water Supply and Demand Study. To sustain future supplies and with within our water means, residential water users will need to reduce an additional 14% indoors, and as much as a third of our outdoor use. Up to now, conservation has been achieved primarily through voluntary actions as home and property owners adopt better practices or make improvements to homes and landscapes. To meet new water conservation goals and to support homeowners in their efforts, a series of pilot rebate programs have been proposed. Irrigation spray heads, rain sensors, lawn trades, and low-flow fixtures are being considered. Additionally, this program will also work to increase consumer awareness of existing rebates available through partnership with Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUP). Recently published studies by the AWE indicate that program success depends on proper customer vetting, prequalification, and post-engagement verification. WaterMAPS and Water Check programs are well suited to provide the necessary quality control measures to ensure rebate program effectiveness. Not all customers have issues with outdoor watering, but rather, need to manage general use or bill amounts. Rebate programs focused on leak detection and repair, and fixture replacement will help qualifying households reduce water use and waste, and reduce their water bills, keeping essential indoor water use affordable. Directed at both indoor and outdoor water use, these programs should help customers achieve greater levels of efficiency and reduce waste. Following water use of participating households will provide greater insight into residential water use patterns, which will inform future programs, and building relationships within the community will further enhance conservation efforts. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 4-18 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.6.3 RATES EVALUATION [E-2] Timeline: TBD Budget: TBD Partners: NA Reach: Residential, Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Savings: NA Incentives are typically thought of as programs that offer discounts or cash back on water conservation fixtures or technologies. Incentives can also deliver messages regarding avoided costs associated with changes in water use behavior. Water rates are an example of incentives based on the value of avoiding unnecessary water use or water waste, thus creating an opportunity to spend less money on water. Water, sewer, and stormwater rates are regularly evaluated to determine if the rates are adequate to sustain the functions of each of the utilities, and if rates distribute the costs to customers in a manner that is fair, legal, and reflects goals to protect and sustain limited resources. A tiered rate structure was adopted in 2003 and rate studies have subsequently been conducted several times since then. Increasing tiered structures reward reasonable water use and charge more as more water is used. Customers can avoid higher rates by being mindful of wasteful practices, identifying and repairing leaks, and through thoughtful landscape management. Water bills can provide valuable information to customers not only of the cost of the water used, but also the value of efforts to use less. These principles apply to homeowners, businesses, industries, and institutions alike. Periodically re-evaluating the format and information provided on bills will ensure that we continue to deliver messages consistent with conservation program goals. Another consideration is to determine how best to convey this same information to those customers who do not receive paper bills, such as those who pay with auto-payment or who pay on-line. This is also a challenge to deliver these messages to those water users who do not receive any bill, such as renters. The Water Demand and Supply Study has helped to establish water use reduction goals needed to achieve long-term conservation efforts to support future water supply levels. Future rate studies will need to take these newly established goals into account to ensure capital, operating, and maintenance costs can be met while water use declines. Particularly, an evaluation of irrigation-only budgets will need to be conducted in order to ensure continued synergy with short- and long-term water use reduction goals. Related to this issue is the need to better understand how other utility rates and bills affect water affordability. The City also provides sewer, stormwater, and street lighting utilities within Salt Lake City boundaries. Customers also have other utility costs unassociated with the City that need to be taken into account when considering issues relating to utility affordability. Awareness of the relationship of these expenses helps inform rate evaluations, ensuring that adequate revenue is generated while still being mindful of affordability, equity, and fairness. Communicating conservation goals to customers will enhance understanding and acceptance of future rate changes. Understanding how water is used and what changes are needed will support fair and equitable rates. Current and on-going analysis in landscape, residential, and CII water use will inform and enhance this process. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 4-19 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR Table 4-3 ECONOMICS No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Active Implementation To Date Projected E-1 Irrigation Meters and Budgets √ √ √ √ Establish budgets for accounts with dedicated irrigation- only meters √ 2003 NA Map and track use. Map eligible sites not currently using irrigation meters; chart potential savings/budget impacts NA NA NA E-2 Rate Structuring √ √ √ √ Utilize a rate structure to encourage responsible use of water √ 2003 NA Track water use through various tiers over time. NA NA NA E-3 Volumetric and loading Sewer Charge √ √ √ √ Base sewer rates on metered winter water usage √ 2000 NA Track use and discharge over time NA NA TBD E-4 Rebate: Irrigation Rain Sensors √ √ √ √ Incentivize installation of irrigation rain sensors through rebates ID 2020 Pilot: $10,000 Pre-quality/verify through Water Check; Map locations; track/compare use USU Water Check NA TBD E-5 Rain barrels √ Provide for purchase rain barrels to homeowners √ 2015 $15,000/215 barrels + shipping Map barrel locations. Track water use. Can we identify locations of barrels purchased elsewhere? NA TBD TBD E-6 Rebate: HE Irrigation Spray Heads √ √ Incentivize installation of high- efficiency irrigation spray heads through rebates ID 2020 Pilot: $10,000 Pre-quality/verify through Water Check; Map locations; track/compare use USU Water Check NA TBD ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined C – Completed SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 4-20 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR Table 4-3 ECONOMICS No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Active Implementation To Date Projected E-7 Rebate: Turf Trades √ √ √ √ Incentivize utilization of low-water, low- input turf grasses, either as seed or sod, in new landscape or as retrofits. ID 2020 Pilot: $5,000 Track water use USU Water Check; TWCA NA 2.3 AF per acre of turf conversion E-8 Rebate: Pressure Regulators √ Incentivize installation of pressure regulation devises to improve indoor and outdoor efficiency and enhance product/appliance wear. ID 2021 TBD Track water use TBD NA TBD E-9 Residential Leak Detection and Repair √ √ Provide low or no- cost leak detection and repair to qualifying households; fixture replacement. ID TBD TBD Map and track use TBD NA 490 gallons/ person/ year 480 AF/year for utility E-10 CII Audits and direct installs √ Conduct audits and provide direct- installs on select CII properties. ID 2020 Pilot: $200,000 Track water use CUWCD: $50,000 DWRe $50,000 NA TBD ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined C – Completed SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 4-21 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.7 U TILITY O PERATIONS The City is committed to be a leader in water conservation. With that in mind, these initiatives represent adopted actions and practices that will help ensure infrastructure is built and maintained in a manner which optimizes water efficiency, minimizes or eliminates waste, and demonstrates best practices. Salt Lake City has been fully metered since the 1920s, making it one of the earliest and longest running metered water systems in the Western United States. Historically, meters have been read monthly (or more technically, each meter is read roughly every 28 to 31 days), and from those readings’ bills are generated and mailed. Until recently, meter technology has not changed a great deal; Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) profoundly changes both when and the how of meter reading. Utilizing long-range radio systems, AMIs record and report water use more accurately and with much greater frequency than has been possible. Utilizing this new technology, water use can be monitored in increments as small as 15-minute intervals. Work has begun to replace all of meters (roughly 92,000) with AMIs. Outdoor water use, specifically, landscape water use and waste, is an important component of managing and reducing our water footprint. While it may seem that conservation and landscape programs focus on single-family residential customers, every landscape can be more efficient. Last year, a comprehensive audit of Department landscaped properties was conducted, with the intent to develop a strategy to increase outdoor water use efficiency. This program aims to reduce water use and greenhouse gas emissions while demonstrating best practices. The Residential End Uses of Water3 estimated that an average of 12 percent of residential indoor water use is lost to leaks. This water loss can account for as much as 10,000 gallons per year. Imagine then, how much water is lost within an entire water system. According to the Salt Lake City Supply and Demand Master Plan, water loss within the water infrastructure system is estimated to be between 10 to 12 percent, an amount over 11,000 AF of water annually. Implementation is planned for conducting water system audit modeled after 3Footnote: DeOreo, William, Peter Mayer, Benedykt Dziegielewski, Jack Kiefer. Residential End Uses of Water 2016. Water research foundation. Denver, Co AWWA-M36 methodologies to identify the volume of water loss, determine what proportion of this water is apparent or real loss, and identify appropriate steps and practices to address this loss. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 4-22 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.7.1 IMPLEMENT AMI TECHNOLOGIES [U-7, U-9] Timeline: 2020 Budget: TBD Partners: NA Reach: Utility-wide Savings: TBD Utilization of water meters, coupled with regular readings and billing statements, helps to manage water supplies and convey specific and critical information to water users. Water users can then use this information to make good decisions regarding future water use. Since the 1920’s, water use has been metered, read, and billed throughout the service area. Outside of the computerization of meter and billing data functions, this practice has seen little change over its history. Though this process might have been adequate, it did present shortcomings for conservation programming. Receiving regular meter billing data helps inform customers, but it is a snapshot of past behavior and lacks immediacy. The development of advanced metering infrastructure technologies (AMI) has revolutionized this process. Currently, residential and CII mechanical meters are being replaced with AMI technology. This will provide daily information to water managers and water customers, enhancing resource management response and improving customer understanding of water use. AMI technologies are providing live-time water use data, improving leak detection, and enhancing understanding of water use patterns, all of which is informing current and future water conservation programs. 4.7.2 LANDSCAPE UPGRADES AND MAINTENANCE [U-2, U-10, U-11] Timeline: 2020 Budget: $95,000 (proposed annually) Partners: NA Reach: Utility-wide Savings: 480 AF/year for upgrades to City properties including Parks and Golf properties Approximately 55 percent of water use within the service area is used to maintain landscapes, and landscape and irrigation design, installation, and maintenance affect water use. Improving site management helps to reduce water waste. With this in mind, a comprehensive practice has been established for landscape and irrigation design and management that addresses existing properties and to-be-developed properties. For newly developed properties, staff engineers and consultants work with water conservation staff on site design, ensuring that best practices are followed, and new landscapes are efficient, sustainable, and attractive. Existing properties are also a component of this program. Properties have been catalogued and are being evaluated for irrigation and landscape characteristics, maintenance histories, as well as water use. After completing the WaterMAPS™ assessments, landscapes will be classified and prioritized for improvements, including irrigation and landscape improvements. In the meantime, water conservation staff are working closely with the stormwater and distribution divisions to enhance site management, ensuring reduction in water use and other inputs. Additional to proposed and planned landscape upgrades, conservation and stormwater staff are collaborating to develop specifications and guidelines for implementation of biofiltration and other Low Impact Design (LID) infrastructure. The purpose will be to facilitate the construction of biofiltration retention and other green infrastructure in order to improve and protect stormwater quality. The synergistic collaboration between stormwater and conservation programing will ensure that future LIDs support both stormwater and conservation goals. 4.7.3 INFRASTRUCTURE LEAK DETECTION AND REPAIR [U-3] Timeline: 2020 Budget: TBD Partners: NA Reach: Utility-wide Savings: 1,450 AF/year This assumes that system losses can be reduced from 12% to 9% (see R-19) and that 50 percent of the saved system losses come from leak detection and repair. An outcome of conducting the Salt Lake City Water Supply and Demand Master Plan was an initial assessment of estimated water loss within the infrastructure system. In anticipation of conducting the AWWA M36 water audit, a robust leak detection and repair program has begun. Use of state-of-the-art technologies to identify leaks, coupled with innovations in data reporting and workflow SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 4-23 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR improvements has increased the number of leaks identified while reducing repair response times. 4.7.4 LANDSCAPE BEST PRACTICES FOR WATER RESOURCE EFFICIENCY AND PROTECTION MANUAL UPDATE [U-2, O-7] Timeline: 2020/21 Budget: NA Partners: varied Reach: Utility-wide Savings: NA The SLC Landscape BMPs for Water Resource Efficiency and Protection was first published in 2011 and written in partnership with several Salt Lake City departments and divisions, including Parks, Urban Forestry, Planning, and Zoning Enforcement. Subject experts from USU/CWEL, University of Utah, Westminster College, and industry experts were also consulted. In 2014, the BMPs were identified in Salt Lake City’s ordinance (21A.48.055: Water Efficient Landscaping) as a reference document for commercial landscape specifications, as well as for general guidelines for efficient and low-impact landscapes. Beginning in 2020, guided by conservation and stormwater staff, will conduct a review. 4.7.5 CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS FOR LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION DESIGN, INSTALLATION, AND MAINTENANCE REVIEW [U-2, O-7] Timeline: 2020/21 Budget: NA Partners: Internal Reach: Utility-wide Savings: NA A normal component of doing business is the inclusion in contracts of specifications which ensure that capital projects and the subsequent management and maintenance of those projects is carried out in a manner consistent with accepted best practices. Some of these capital projects are built to support stormwater protection, riparian corridor management, and water conservation demonstration programs. New specifications to address conservation best practices are proposed to ensure these facilities be designed, constructed, and maintained in a manner consistent with long-term ethos of resource protection and stewardship. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 4-24 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR Table 4-4 UTILITY OPERATIONS No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Active Implementation To Date Projected U-1 Customer Use Change Notification √ √ √ √ Notify customers when water usage exceeds winter usage by 20 percent. √ Currently only applied to commercial and industrial customers. NA Map. Compare addresses to home age, frequency of notification. Can we reduce this number? NA NA TBD U-2 Landscape Upgrades √ Inventory and assess Utility properties for water efficiencies and make necessary upgrades. √ Recommendations of practice scope to be derived from updated Supply and Demand Study, and WaterMAPS Analysis. Varies Map utility locations, water usage. Assess landscape change potential, ROI. NA NA 480 AF/year (Including Parks and Golf) U-3 Leak Detection and Repair √ Implement program to ensure enhanced distribution system efficiencies; identify and repair system leaks in a timely manner. √ Utility participated AWWA study to develop industry metrics in 2003. NA Mapped through CityWorks. Can we quantify water savings? NA NA 1,450 AF/year U-4 Monthly meter reading and billing √ √ √ √ Provide timely and accurate information to customer to increase awareness of water use. √ 1928 NA Track use NA NA NA ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined C - Completed SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 4-25 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR Table 4-4 UTILITY OPERATIONS No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Active Implementation To Date Projected U-5 Public Utility Advisory Committee √ Standing citizen committee to advise in conservation policy and programming. √ 1930’s NA Board support and engagement in programing. NA NA NA U-6 SLC Dept/Div Conservation and Drought Plans √ Encourage and publish water conservation plans from City Departments and Divisions. √ Some completed as part of 2014 Water Conservation Master Plan Update; planned for 2019 WCMP update. 2019: $75,000 + in-kind match Track response and use levels during drought per drought plan guidelines. 2019 Update funded through Bureau of Reclamation Grant for $75,000 NA NA U-7 Universal metering and meter replacement √ √ √ √ Each account is metered and meter replacement program in place. √ 2000s Cost Varies Map meter replacement locations? Map different types of meters? Measure pre/post change usage. NA 900 AF for every 1% of lost accuracy recovered 900 AF for every 1% of lost accuracy recovered U-8 Water Re-use Study √ Study feasibility of water re-use pilot project. C Study completed in 2015 - See study outcome recommendati ons. NA NA U-9 Advanced Meter Technologies √ √ √ √ Adopt new technologies that allow for instant reading of meters while facilitating data analysis √ Utility implementing AMI installation for residential and CII customers. Cost Varies Map locations; meter use analysis. NA NA TBD ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined C - Completed SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 4-26 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR Table 4-4 UTILITY OPERATIONS No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Active Implementation To Date Projected U-10 Landscape Specifications √ √ Update landscape and irrigation specifications for inclusion in SLCPDU construction projects. ID 2020/21 TBD TBD NA NA NA U-11 Landscape Maintenance √ Implement BMPs for maintaining SLCDPU properties to enhance conservation and sustainability. √ Contract implemented 2019 Varies Track water use on sites. NA NA NA U-12 EPA WaterSense Partnership √ Become a partner in EPA WaterSense. √ 2020 NA NA US-EPA NA NA U-13 AWWA/AWE Program Certification √ Submit documentation for review and scoring of conservation program. √ 2020 NA NA AWWA, AWE NA NA ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined C - Completed SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 4-27 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.8 L AW AND P OLICY Since the inception of the conservation program, the City has depended predominantly on volunteer engagement to achieve its water use reduction goals. There are examples of ordinances and policies that support conservation, including landscape codes and the billing rate structure. In order to achieve the next level of goals, there are ordinances and policies that would support further conservation by codifying some best practices and addressing egregious water waste. 4.8.1 PROPOSED ORDINANCES [LP-4, LP-7, LP-8] Timeline: 2020 Budget: NA Partners: NA Reach: Utility-wide Savings: NA Squandered Water Ordinance [LP-8] Even before the creation of the water conservation program, water customers acted promptly and appropriately to calls for temporary reductions in water use. As a result of this long history, the conservation program has come to depend on this volunteer spirit to facilitate our initial water use reductions. However, after nearly twenty years, not everyone is part of the solution. Usually, when asked to change or correct a behavior, requests are positively received; sometimes it is not. Sometimes, property owners insist on watering daily; an absentee owner won’t repair a leaking swamp cooler; or a remote corporate office isn’t concerned with the broken and geysering spray head at a grocery store, miles, or states away. This disregard for a limited and valued resource is the definition of squandering and is why it may be time to consider such an ordinance. Clarification of Irrigation-only Meter Ordinance In 2003, a seasonal tiered rate structure was adopted as a means to enhance the message of the value of water and to ensure that those who use the most water pay the most for that water. Along with establishing rates for residential and CII customers, irrigation-only meter accounts were also established. These meters are intended to service outdoor water use during irrigation season months. Each account receives site-specific, monthly water budgets based on landscapeable area and modified evapotranspiration equations. Staying in budget means water is charged in the second tier, identified as reasonable outdoor use. Occasionally, a property owner or manager doesn’t turn off their irrigation system and the irrigation-only meter continues to be used. Owing to vague language in the rate ordinance, this un-authorized winter use of irrigation-only meters has been billed in the first tier, as is all other winter water use. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 4-28 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR Evaluation of Irrigation-only Meter Budgets [LP-12] As mentioned above, irrigation-only meters and budgets were established in 2003 to encourage responsible outdoor water use while maintaining landscape health, support efforts to sustain water supplies for necessary and beneficial uses, and to help achieve both overall water use reduction as well as reduction of peak water demand. These budgets, developed in conjunction with Utah State University Plants, Soils, and Climate Department, consider irrigated area, reference evapotranspiration, and irrigation efficiencies of 60 percent. Since then, through continued research, understanding of actual turf water need has grown, an adequate science exists to indicate that it is time to review and reassess these budgets. It is now better understood how use plays a role in turf water demand and have newer and better forms of turf that require less water. Additionally, better technology helps deliver water more efficiently. Given the new goals as outlined in the Water Supply and Demand Study and articulated in Chapter 3 of this plan, it is important to align irrigation-only budgets with current science and long-term outdoor water reduction goals. Evaluation of Seasonal Rates An inclining tier rate structure is utilized to recover cost of service, encourage appropriate use, and maintain reasonable priced water for the most essential uses. Tiered rates are only used April through October; all winter water use is charged in the lowest tier. Given the findings of the Supply and Demand Study, with its accompanying recommendations on both indoor and outdoor water use reductions, an evaluation of this practice should be conducted. Maintaining fair and equitable rates will still remain a priority. Review Existing Landscape Ordinances and Policies Salt Lake City’s Code 21A.48.055: Water Efficient Landscaping establishes best practices to help reduce water waste in landscapes and park strips. Reviewed periodically over the years, given new understanding of landscape water need and improved technologies, it is an appropriate time to review and evaluate these codes to ensure appropriate alignment with newly established outdoor water use reduction goals. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 4-29 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR Table 4-5 LAW AND POLICY No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Active Implementation To Date Projected LP-1 Graywater √ √ √ √ Research issues regarding Graywater use and establish appropriate policy. √ Initial research completed 2017 NA Is there a way to identify where graywater is being used? USU NA NA LP-2 Irrigation Audit Policy √ √ Develop and adopt an ordinance requiring Irrigation Audits on all new commercial and institutional properties, and accounts which exceed target or set CCF. √ 7/2014 Can be compelled through Landscape Ord NA Number of audits and report outcomes NA NA NA LP-3 Irrigation Efficiency Standards √ √ √ Develop and adopt Irrigation Efficiency Standards for all commercial and institutional properties. C 7/2014 Landscape Ord/new construction NA NA NA NA NA LP-4 Landscape Ordinance √ √ √ √ Amend existing landscape code to accommodate and encourage water- wise landscaping in front yards. C 2014 NA NA NA NA NA ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined C – Completed SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 4-30 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR Table 4-5 LAW AND POLICY No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Active Implementation To Date Projected LP-5 Parkstrip Code √ √ √ √ Develop and adopt ordinance to accommodate and encourage non- traditional, lower water plantings. C Adopted 2004 (currently in review) NA NA NA NA NA LP-6 Rainwater Harvesting √ Research issues relating to rainwater harvesting and support appropriate legislation. C Adopted by State 2010 (SB 32) Initial investment of $14,000. Barrels sold at cost sustains program. Track water use of known participating households. NA NA NA LP-7 Rain Sensor Ordinance and Policy √ √ Require all properties with automated outdoor sprinkler systems to be fitted with rain sensors. C A component of 2014 water efficient landscape code NA NA NA NA NA LP-8 Squandered Water Ordinance √ √ √ √ Develop and adopt ordinance prohibiting the squandering of water. ID TBD NA NA NA NA TBD LP-9 Sub-surface or Low- impact Irrigation for Small Areas √ √ Require sub-surface or low-impact irrigation on medians, parkstrips, and in parking lots. C Landscape code prohibits standard irrigation in these areas NA NA NA NA NA ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined C – Completed SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 4-31 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR Table 4-5 LAW AND POLICY No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Active Implementation To Date Projected LP-10 Water Shortage Contingency Plan √ √ √ √ Identify specific calls for action during water shortages and emergencies. √ 2003; update planned $75,000 WaterSmart grant with $78,000 in- kind match. See Plan for monitoring details. Funded through grant from Bureau of Reclamation NA NA LP-11 Irrigation- only Meters √ √ √ Review existing policy and make recommendations. √ Review existing policy NA Map: locations, meters that exceed target/frequenc y by user class; potential sites not currently metered NA NA NA LP-12 Sub- metering on New Multi- Family Dwelling Units √ Explore requiring all new multi-family dwelling units to be sub-metered and address metering in mixed use development ID TBD TBD Identify and map submeters NA NA NA LP-13 Alternative Water Sources Use Recommen- dations √ Establish guideline for implementation pertaining to alternative water sources, including secondary water C Study on secondary water sources for park sites was completed 2018. $62,500 See study NA NA NA ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined C – Completed SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 4-32 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.9 R ESEARCH AND M ETRICS Successful conservation programs require an understanding of the community served, including the relationship of the end water user to their water use. Continuing research helps to identify the ways in which water is used; how it may be over- or misused; and the best means for altering behavior or practices to improve use efficiencies and reduce or eliminate waste. It is also crucial to understand program efficacy and effectiveness. In this regard, identifying meaningful benchmarks and metrics is key to program evaluation, review, and improvement. The value of research and establishment of metrics should not be underestimated; the Governor’s Strategic Water Master Plan devotes an entire chapter to the role of science and technology in enhancing our understanding as well as to develop practical and actionable steps to meet our future water needs. According to the strategic plan, science, technology, and innovation are crucial components of meeting water needs, now and in the future. Fortunately, conservation staff have developed collaborative and cooperative relationships with many academic institutions and professional organizations that offer opportunities to extend knowledge, build understanding, and devise meaningful strategies to move towards water conservation goals. Internally, the water conservation program works with team members from GIS/IT, finance, billing, metering, and engineering to identify areas of study and meaningful benchmarks. For example, through the Water Check program, we know that, while residential property owners tend to apply nearly twice as much water as is necessary to support lawns, commercial and institutional users may irrigate three to four times as much as needed. Though the overall footprint of landscaped area of non-residential property is less than that of residential property, this represents a great opportunity to reduce water waste, given the degree of overwatering. Applying WaterMAPS™ to commercial and institutional properties will help to quantify the potential water savings, while surveys and focus groups will identify how best to capture that savings. Research into emerging technologies and practices will continue as a critical component of effective conservation programing in order to achieve newly established water use reduction goals. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 4-33 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.9.1 CONDUCT AWWA M36 STUDY [R-19] Timeline: 2020 Budget: $125,000 (proposed) Partners: NA Reach: all Savings: 2,900 AF (900 million gallons) per year if system losses are reduced to 9%. Note that these savings are not associated with the audit alone, but with the actions taken to eliminate system loss as a result of the audit. Currently, a leak detection program and water data analysis programs are underway. In addition to these programs, a water loss and control study be conducted in keeping with the AWWA Manual of Water Supply Practices: M36 Water Audits and Loss Control Program. This comprehensive study will facilitate improvements in water resource management, optimize revenue recovery while promoting equity among rate payers, minimize distribution system interruptions, enhance system integrity, and reduce water waste through identification of metering and system losses. Over the last five years, system losses have averaged approximately 12 percent. While it is not reasonable to expect zero system losses, it is believed that system losses could be reduced to somewhere between 8 to 10 percent with proactive leak detection and repair. Thus, potential water savings could be estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of gallons per year. 4.9.2 ESTABLISH METRICS, BENCHMARKS, AND GOALS FOR CONSERVATION PROGRAMING [R-1, O-6] Timeline: On-going Budget: TBD Partners: Reach: all Savings: TBD Over the lifetime of the conservation program, 16,000 acre-feet of water have been saved annually. Establishing metrics, benchmarks, goals, and potential water savings for conservation programing will facilitate understanding how those savings were achieved, and how best to sustain and enhance those savings. Not all metrics and benchmarks will be identical; for instance, the impact of a brochure or demonstration garden cannot be measured in the same manner as would the effectiveness of rain sensor rebates or Water Checks. Reliance on industry best practices, research by AWE, US-EPS, and AWWA, as well as efforts by other conservation programs to identify benchmarks and metrics will facilitate this program measure. 4.9.3 5- AND 10-YEAR PROPOSED WATER CONSERVATION BUDGET Timeline: 2020/21 Budget: NA Partners: Internal Reach: Utility-wide Savings: NA Continued program continuity and success depends on the ability to plan ahead. The establishment of 5- and 10-year budget proposals will facilitate program planning, support partnership arrangements, and optimize grant opportunities. Past budget and program performance, future stakeholder and partnership opportunities, outside conservation program examples, and AWE and AWWA program estimate costs will be consulted in establishing proposed budgets. 4.9.4 CII ANALYTICS Timeline: 2017-2022 Budget: $135,000 Partners: NA Reach: CII Savings: TBD The service area is comprised of a diverse customer base, from suburban residential properties to high-density urban core dwellings, and from art spaces to tattoo parlors, health food stores to hospitals, model toy stores to airports, and gas stations to oil refineries. While our residential base is rich in its diversity, understanding water demand, use patterns, and barriers to behavioral change seem straightforward when compared to the diversity and complexity of our CII customers. Conservation staff began working on CII analytics in earnest in 2015. Since that time and working with a team of consultants, we have developed a method for gathering, analyzing, and assessing water use within the CII sector. With tools developed by Radian Inc., we can now begin to develop realistic water efficiency targets for commercial, industrial, and institutional (CII) clients through better understanding of demand patterns, specific CII sector analysis, and comparisons to newly developing national standards data. Through this process advanced SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 4-34 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR and automated reporting queries, automatic updates for consumption, weather, GIS, and AMI data with usage and other predefined alerts have been developed to provide valuable information to conservation program staff. By integrating existing commercial billing data and established NAICS codes with external data sources including GIS, AMI, and weather, a clearer picture of water demand emerges. This in turn helps support water use reduction efforts in the CII sector in a meaningful, actionable way. CII customers comprise roughly 12 percent of the connections within the service area, and their total water demand accounts for half of water use. In order to more fully integrate CII customers with conservation planning, it is necessary to understand how water is used in order to drive sustainable conservation within this sector to achieve long-term water reduction goals while still maintaining a vibrant, healthy economy. 4.9.5 WATER CHECK [R-1, O-6] Timeline: On-going Budget: $10,000 (proposed) Partners: USU, MWDSLS, Sandy City Reach: Residential, CII Savings: 577AF To Date Landscape irrigation accounts for almost 25% of water use within the service area. Understanding how water is used and communicating better practices to home and property owners supports long-term water use reduction goals. The Water Check irrigation audit program was created in 1999 and is provided by Utah State University and the Center for Water Efficient Landscaping, with financial and technical support from department conservation staff and Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy (MWDSLS). Typical Water Check participants know they have a problem but don’t know what to do about it. The Water Check program provides recommended site- specific irrigation schedules as well as irrigation system and landscape action items to help increase their landscape irrigation efficiency. By comparing pre and post water check water usage, we know that having a water check typically results in a 30% reduction in water use in subsequent years. It’s important to note that audits need to be done regularly to maintain efficiency. GIS technology has been integrated with the Water Check application for enhanced data accuracy including use area, asset location, attributes (nozzle spray pattern, etc.), and condition (broken, tilted, etc.). A further benefit is that property owners now receive, along with an electronic report, a site map indicating location, zone, and condition of spray heads. Water Check will also be incorporated into future landscape incentive programs. Studies indicate landscape program success depends on pre-qualification and post-verification to ensure landscape interventions are appropriately implemented. Water Check will assist in providing those functions, ensuring that program goals for incentives are met. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 4-35 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.9.6 WATERMAPS™ [R-5, O-16] Timeline: 2018-2022 Budget: $95,000 Partners: USU/CWEL, EWIG Reach: Utility-wide Savings: TBD WaterMAPS is a collaboration between the WaterMAPS™ team in USU’s Center for Water Efficient Landscaping (CWEL) and the Water Conservation Program of SLCDPU. WaterMAPS provides SLCDPU with technical assistance and science- based analysis to locate and quantify additional landscape water conservation potential so it can determine when, where, and how to deliver current and future outdoor-focused water conservation programs. Besides providing detailed information on outdoor water use to customers, this project will help to effectively utilize existing programs such as Water Check and optimize implementation of new programs such as landscape incentives. How much water conservation potential exists within the landscapes of the service area and how is that potential savings captured? What tools are most effective with any given group of water users to eliminate waste, increase efficiency, and reduce use? The answers to these questions will enable SLCDPU to prioritize delivery of future outdoor water conservation programs and help the community to be adaptive and responsive in its relationship with water in order to create a more sustainable water supply now and for the future. However, we do not know how much water is actually being wasted on existing landscapes. Analysis of city meter data can provide clues as to watering practices, but the question remains: How much irrigation water currently being applied is not necessary to support existing urban landscapes? Application of USU Water Management Analysis and Planning Software (WaterMAPS™) addresses this specific information need. WaterMAPS™ is a custom software application that has been developed by an interdisciplinary team of USU researchers for the purpose of promoting urban landscape water conservation (visit watermaps.usu.edu). WaterMAPS™ integrates water meter data with property records, weather data, and landscape classifications into one database, then enables different time-step calculations of site-specific Landscape Irrigation Ratios (LIRs) that compare landscape water use to landscape water need. The LIRs represent an efficiency standard, with values under 1 indicating efficient use and increasingly higher numbers indicating “capacity to conserve” (or water waste). Various patterns in how LIRs change over time can signal the need for delivery or refinement of conservation messaging and programming. In this project, several different innovations will be implemented in the application of WaterMAPS™ to help SLCDPU meet the challenge of refining and focusing outdoor water conservation programs in the future. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 4-36 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.9.7 ADDITIONAL USU/SLCPU STUDY AND RESEARCH COLLABORATIONS Timeline: 2020 Budget: TBD Partners: USU/CWEL, USDA-FRRL, EWIG, SLC-Golf Reach: Utility-wide Savings: TBD 4.9.7.1 GOLF COURSE TURFGRASS STUDY Timeline: 2018-2022 Budget: $45,000 Partners: USU/CWEL Reach: CII Savings: 30-80% Reduction In 2018, conservation programs began working collaboratively with Salt Lake City Golf (SLC-Golf); Utah State University Department of Plants, Soils, & Climate (USU/CWEL); and the United States Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service Forage and Range Research Laboratory (USDA-FRRL) to find solutions that reduce water demand and eliminate water waste while supporting the golf division in enhancing long-term sustainability of its courses by managing fiscal impacts of increasing water costs, all while supporting playability and economic viability of City courses. Conservation staff, SLC-Golf, USU/CWEL, and USDA-FRRL devised field-based research in the areas of drought tolerant grass research, soil surfactant application, water conditioning evaluations, and soil temperature measurement. Outcomes from these studies will not only provide actionable information for SLC-Golf but is already influencing landscape management decisions at department sites and is helping to inform incentive and rebate program planning. This study has been recommended for an additional two-year extension. 4.9.7.2 ALTERNATIVE TURFGRASS STUDY Timeline: 2020-2023 Budget: $10,000 (proposed) Partners: USU/CWEL Reach: Utility-wide Savings: 1.67 AF/43,500SF Outdoor water use has been an important focus of water conservation efforts locally and statewide over the last twenty years, and in the center of this focus sits Kentucky Blue grass. Over the last fifteen years, USU has conducted field studies of Poa species (blue grass), as well as other grass species and varieties with the intent of identifying alternative turfs to traditional lawn grass. The outcome of these studies has been the identification of turfs requiring fewer inputs while still delivering on the aesthetic and environmental qualities that make lawns so compelling a landscape choice. Conservation staff propose to work with USU and other partners to increase the use of these turf grasses within the service area as well as regionally, through a number of strategies. These will include turf demonstration areas, installation of these turfs on department properties, development of educational and promotional materials, collaboration with seed and sod growers, and consideration for inclusion in incentive programming. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 4-37 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR 4.9.7.3 SYNTHETIC GRASS STUDY Timeline: 2021 Budget: $25,000 (proposed) Partners: USU/CWEL Reach: All Savings: NA It is commendable that we strive to identify new ways to reduce water use and eliminate water waste. As part of this search for solutions, however, it is also important that impacts to other areas of environmental concern are incorporated into decision making. It is also important that as best as possible, unintended consequences are also considered. Synthetic grass has been presented as a solution to reducing water use in landscapes. When lifecycle water use is calculated, this premise seems more tenuous. Research provides information regarding impacts to human health, urban heat island effect, and water quality. USU, working with conservation staff, conducted a metastudy on research pertaining to artificial turf, with a desire to identify any potential negative impacts to soil health, surrounding landscape health, surrounding landscape water demand, and insect populations. Study outcome indicates there is little or no scientific research pertaining to these questions. As a result, a collaborative research study is being designed and proposed to conduct field and modeling studies to measure impacts, if any, of synthetic turf on landscape, soil, and beneficial insect health. 4.9.7.4 IRRIGATION-ONLY METER BUDGETS REVIEW Timeline: 2021 Budget: $4,000 Partners: USU/CWEL Reach: utility-wide Savings: TBD In 2003, a seasonally tiered rate structure was adopted. A component of those rates was the establishment of rates specific for those properties with meters that serviced only outdoor, landscape water needs. Those accounts are referred to as Irrigation-Only Meter Accounts. In conjunction with USU, budgets based on square footage of landscaped area and evapotranspiration were established for each property with irrigation-only meters. Improvements in best practices, irrigation system technologies (including irrigation controllers and sensors), and turfgrass may allow for revisions of established budgets without negatively effecting landscapes. Additionally, new conservation goals articulated in the Salt Lake City Water Supply and Demand Plan indicate a greater level of outdoor water conservation is necessary to achieve short- and long-term water use reduction goals. Accordingly, a review of the landscape water budgets is in order. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 4-38 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR Table 4-6 RESEARCH AND METRICS No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Active Implementation To Date Projected R-1 Water Check √ √ √ √ Promote and conduct lawn sprinkler check-ups for residential, commercial, and institutional properties √ (S) Estab. 1988; Partnered with USU 2007. Ongoing. $60,000 provided by MWDSLS annually. SLCDPU funds additional components, including APP, portal, and GIS capability ($45,000) Map and track use. MWDSL&S, USU/CWEL 47,000 gallons per participating residential customer annually R-2 EPA Residential Study √ Measure and evaluate water efficiency in newly constructed homes. √ Completed 20114 $20,000/ $360,000 grant and partners Map participating households. EPA Grant; Aquacraft, Inc., 8 participant cities NA NA R-3 Irrigation Controller Study √ √ √ Test and evaluate weather-based irrigation controllers. √ On-going (USU) NA Study outcomes inform recommend- dations USU/CWEL NA NA R-4 Irrigation Intervention Study √ Investigate impediments and barriers for homeowners in correcting irrigation system defects. √ Initial studies conducted 5/2015, 2018 Funded in FY2013-14 cons. budget; matched by USU NA USU NA NA ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined C – Completed 4 DeOreo, William, and Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities. Analysis of Water Use in New Single-Family Homes. Boulder Co. January 2011 SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 4-39 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR Table 4-6 RESEARCH AND METRICS No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Active Implementation To Date Projected R-5 WaterMAPS √ √ √ √ Utilize technology developed by USU to analyze potential water-use savings in landscape settings. √ Phase1: Study began August 201#. Phase 2: begin implementing WaterMAPS software over service area. Phase 1: $49,000; Phase 2: $50,000 with EWIG match grant Monitor LIR by parcel, sector USU/CWEL; EWIG NA TBD R-6 Landscape Inventory √ √ √ √ Inventory alternative landscapes and quantify savings. √ 2019 NA Identify, map, measure, compare USU, SL Co Master Gardeners, community citizen scientists NA TBD R-7 Residential Plumbing Fixtures Inventory √ √ √ Inventory upgrades in plumbing fixtures and calculate quantity of remaining, older fixtures. TBD TBD TBD Compare water use between sites; refer to End Water Use Study TBD NA TBD R-8 Water Softener Study √ √ √ √ Research effects on water softener use on waste stream quality and impacts on water re-use water quality. TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD NA TBD ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined C – Completed SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 4-40 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR Table 4-6 RESEARCH AND METRICS No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Active Implementation To Date Projected R-9 Supply and Demand Master Plan √ Analyze the impacts of conservation on the assumptions pertaining to storage and capacity. √ Component of 20219 Water Conservation Master Plan and Storage and Conveyance Master Plan SLCPU Engineering - Consultant: Bowen Collins NA Since 2007 projected peak demand 270 MGD; current projection 200 MGD R-10 Climate Change, and Resiliency √ √ √ √ Review existing research on climate change; evaluate impacts of conservation on risk reduction and mitigation. √ Study currently being conducted - - NA NA R-11 Secondary Water Irrigation Master Plan √ √ √ √ Study availability, quality, and opportunity to use non-culinary water sources. C 2019 Water Resources Division budget and SLC Public Services Map locations using non- culinary water: by customer class and water source. SLC Public Services Consultant: Bowen Collins NA NA R-12 Commercial and Industrial Water Demand Study √ Evaluate C&I was use patterns and water-use reduction innovations. √ 2015 - Ongoing Phase 1 & 2: funded $10,000 each budget cycle 2015/16 and 2016/17 Phase 3 & 4: $50,000 funded in 2017/18 Analysis and monitor CII water use sector, account - NA TBD ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined C – Completed SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 4-41 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR Table 4-6 RESEARCH AND METRICS No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Active Implementation To Date Projected R-13 Behavior and Policy Study √ Conduct studies linking consumer behavior and policy development. C completed 2017/18: Can we map participant locations? USU Consumer study and iUtah study. NA NA R-14 Incentives √ √ √ √ Study incentive programs; investigate. ID Proposed for 2020 NA Survey/audit to determine reach/interest/ product. Map and track use. USU/CWEL, AWE, US- EPA, IA NA TBD R-15 Turf Study √ √ √ √ Turf bluegrass and alternative turfs to identify best qualities/applicatio ns. √ 2017/18; Golf Turf Study completed summer 2019 – recommend contract extension. Mapping begun Fall 2019. $50,000 Comparative water use Funded $25,000 in 2017/18 budget, with $25,000 match from USU. USDA- FRR NA TBD R-16 Program Effec- tiveness √ √ √ √ Where appropriate, develop methodology to measure practice impact. ID 2020-21 TBD varies USU/CWEL NA NA R-17 Projected Demand Reduction √ √ √ √ Develop baseline and projected customer-class water demand. C Water Supply and Demand Master Plan Study (2019) SLCPU Engineering WaterMAPS, CII tool Consultant: Bowen Collins - 16,100 AF/ Annually ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined C – Completed SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 4-42 CONSERVATION PRACTICES: CHAPTER FOUR Table 4-6 RESEARCH AND METRICS No. Practice Classification Brief Description Practice Timeline Cost/Funding Reach/Metric Partnership Savings Res Ind Com Inst Active Implementation To Date Projected R-18 Artificial Turf Study √ √ √ √ Study impacts of artificial turf on landscape water need and soil health √ Metastudy completed 2019; field study proposed TBD - USU/CWEL NA NA R-19 Water Loss Control Study √ Complete loss audit based on AWWA M36 standards and implement findings. ID Scheduled for FY 2021 $69,000 Track percentage loss after implementation of plan components. NA - 2,900 AF/year ID - In Development NA - Not Applicable NC - No Cost TBD - To Be Determined C – Completed SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 5-1 PUBLIC OUTREACH AND COMMUNICATION PLAN: CHAPTER FIVE CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC OUTREACH AND COMMUNICATION PLAN 5 .0 I NTRODUCTION The purpose of this communications and outreach plan (COP) is twofold: first, to solicit feedback and comment from customers and stakeholders during plan development; and second, provide a process that will be used to inform those groups when implemented. This outline is intended to provide general steps to follow during the public outreach phases of the project. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting restrictions on public gatherings and closures of public buildings, modifications will be made to traditional engagement methods such as community meetings, open houses, and tabling at public events. Every effort will be made to use online and cloud-based platforms for public meetings. Recognizing that not all members of the community have equal access to the internet, we will utilize more traditional options at community centers, libraries, and other public venues if available. 5 .1 G OALS AND O BJECTIVES To ensure the achievement of the desired outcomes, the goals of the COP are to: • Create meaningful opportunities for community feedback during the development of the water conservation plan; • Identify various stakeholders within the community and ensure that as many groups as possible are represented within the planning process directly, and that the voices of those not directly represented are heard; • Facilitate the transfer of technical information and materials to the community to both inform and encourage engagement; • To ensure that community responses, questions, and concerns regarding the plan are relayed in a timely manner; • Be seen as credible and accountable during the planning process; and, • Gain support within the community of adoption of the plan. SALT LAKE CITY WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 2020 Page 5-2 PUBLIC OUTREACH AND COMMUNICATION PLAN: CHAPTER FIVE 5 .2 S TAKEHOLDERS AND S PECIAL I NTEREST S Though in the truest sense, all customers are stakeholders, there are groups with specific insights or concerns whose interests may be directly affected by this plan. Some are internal to the City, such as the Golf and Parks and Public Lands Divisions. Others are external, such as property management companies, trade organizations, and citizen and environmental advocacy groups. Meetings with stakeholders have offered insights into a variety of topics and helped to inform program decisions. Continuing this dialogue will strengthen this plan and help to ensure that conservation goals are met. Additionally, meetings with the following groups will also be scheduled: • Public Utility Advisory Committee • Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy • SLC Mayor’s Office • Salt Lake City Council • Partner cities 5 .3 M EDIA AND S OCIAL P LATFORMS Though open houses, public meetings, and other traditional venues for community dialogue still bring value, social media has become an integral part of regular communication between government agencies and the public. With this in mind, the Project Manager will work closely with the SLCPU communications team to optimize opportunities for dialogue regarding the plan. News Releases. SLCPU will coordinate with the SLC Mayor’s Office to release press announcements timed for milestones related to the WCMP. These milestones could include completion of initial plan draft, web-based sites to facilitate review and submittal of comments, and announcements of public hearings. slc.gov/utilities/water-conservation-plan-2020 Materials related to the Plan will be maintained on the Water Conservation Page. Documents and materials will be posted as developed but will still be in draft form until adopted. Processes will be established to allow for comment. Links to this site will be placed on various City websites, including Sustainability, Watershed, and the Utility main page. The project manager will also reach out to the City Council and Mayor’s Offices of all the participating cities to link to the conservation page. Blogs. The project manager will facilitate developing content to post on a variety of blogs, including the SLC Sustainability blog. These blogs can be factual and technical, but also should share the narrative of the process, the value of participation, and actions after adoption and implementation. www.facebook.com/slcpu. The SLCPU Facebook page will be used to direct the community to meetings, community events (including Community Council Meetings), the website, and other venues. Plan-related stories will be posted twice per month. Frequency will be evaluated as the process progresses. A live Townhall meeting will be hosted by the City, with the recorded meeting posted to the Plan web page. twitter.com/slcpu. The SLCDPU twitter feed will be used to direct followers to events, blogs, or as direct calls for action. Plan-related tweets will be shared twice per month. Frequency will be evaluated as the process progresses. Instagram.com/slcpu. This vehicle is especially adapted to photos, graphic information, and interaction with the community. Posts could include a Q and A approach to encourage direct interaction from the public about specific parts of the plan. www.youtube.com/user/SLCtvmedia. Utilize Salt Lake City TV media site is well suited to provide news regarding the plan process. This medium will help to provide videos relating to “how-to’s” for specific programs. Other Media Outlets. The project manager will reach out to community outlets, such as the SL Chamber “Building Utah” podcast, local community radio stations, and other news outlets to develop story opportunities that will reach a variety of community. 5 .4 A VENUES OF C OMMUNICATION Comments on the process, technical materials, and drafts will be received via email, phone, letter, social media responses. Communications will be monitored, collected, and shared with SLCPU for consideration, inclusion, or for response. The Project Manager will be established as contact. SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN Page A-1 APPENDICES SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN Page A-2 APPENDICES A. PUBLIC UTILITIES SERIVCE AREA SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN Page A-3 APPENDICES B. MWDSLS ULS REPORT 2019, TABLE 4: SALT LAKE CITY WATER USAGE AND CONSERVATION TRENDS TABLE 4 - SALT LAKE CITY WATER USAGE AND CONSERVATION TRENDS DOCUMENTATION OF CONSERVATION PERFORMANCE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE & SANDY Year Without Consideration of Worker Population Population Adjusted Based on Worker Population Relative to WFRC Average ULS Goal (gpcd) State Goal (gpcd) Population Annual Metered Sales (gallons) Per Capita Use (gpcd) Population Employment Average Employment Based on Population Worker Population Above Averages Total Equivalent Population Annual Metered Sales (gallons) Per Capita Use (gpcd) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 287,431 287,405 287,379 287,353 287,327 287,300 288,445 289,765 290,671 291,312 291,953 309,664 310,387 310,516 311,066 312,281 316,028 319,820 323,658 32,479,397,940 31,156,592,852 27,795,222,972 25,866,715,160 25,709,610,476 23,230,740,000 25,546,829,220 28,409,000,000 24,713,538,800 24,339,970,111 24,684,871,280 22,851,774,007 27,244,926,535 26,132,150,545 24,536,287,605 23,694,971,212 24,524,178,919 25,515,449,124 25,371,120,280 310 297 265 247 245 222 243 269 233 229 232 202 240 231 216 208 213 219 215 287,431 287,405 287,379 287,353 287,327 287,300 288,445 289,765 290,671 291,312 291,953 309,664 310,387 310,516 311,066 312,281 316,028 319,820 323,658 255,161 259,575 264,066 268,634 275,242 280,500 283,762 285,060 285,951 286,582 287,213 283,183 283,844 284,292 284,740 286,633 290,072 293,553 297,076 148,889 148,876 148,862 148,849 148,835 148,821 149,415 150,098 150,568 150,900 151,232 160,406 160,780 160,847 161,132 151,144 152,958 154,793 156,651 106,272 110,699 115,204 119,785 126,407 131,679 134,348 134,962 135,383 135,682 135,981 122,777 123,064 123,444 123,608 135,489 137,115 138,760 140,425 312,192 313,198 314,221 315,263 316,780 317,981 319,748 321,211 322,215 322,926 323,637 338,271 339,061 339,279 339,867 343,850 347,976 352,152 356,377 32,479,397,940 31,156,592,852 27,795,222,972 25,866,715,160 25,709,610,476 23,230,740,000 25,546,829,220 28,409,000,000 24,713,538,800 24,339,970,111 24,684,871,280 22,851,774,007 27,244,926,535 26,132,150,545 24,536,287,605 23,694,971,212 24,524,178,919 25,515,449,124 25,371,120,280 285 273 242 225 222 200 219 242 210 207 209 185 220 211 198 189 193 199 195 285 283 281 280 278 276 274 273 271 269 267 265 264 262 260 258 257 255 253 285 282 279 276 274 271 268 265 262 259 257 254 251 248 245 242 239 237 234 SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN Page A-4 APPENDICES C. STATE DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 2018 WATER CONSERVATION PLAN CHECKLIST State Div of Water Resources 2018 Water Conservation Plan Checklist Section Requirement Documentation System Profile 1 Population, Serive Area, Existing Water Users 1.1 Provide map of current service area. Page 1-2 and Appendix B 1.2 List number of M&I water connections, categorized by type: (Residential/Domestic, Commercial, Institutional, Industrial, Unmetered) Table 2-3 2 Supply 2.1 Chart current water supply, categorized by source (Wells, Springs, Surface, Purchased, Exchanged) Section 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 2.2 Describe when applicable, occurrences of groundwater depletion, aquifer recharge (artificial and natural) and storage and recovery practices. No groundwater deletion has occurred. Aquifer Recharge and Recovery program discussed on page 1-5 and 1-6. 2.3 Provide comparison graph, which includes a) reliable supply through 2050, b) current water use projections and c) efficient use. Figure 1-4 SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN Page A-5 APPENDICES State Div of Water Resources 2018 Water Conservation Plan Checklist Section Requirement Documentation 2.4 If after reaching conservation targets, use exceeds supply, list future water sources and cost projections. Not applicable. Please see the SLC Water Supply and Demand Master Plan. 3 Water Measurement and Billing 3.1 List current water measurement methods and practices. (percent of metered connections by type, reading frequency, calibration schedule, new development laws & replacement schedule) 1) 100% of connections are metered; 2) Meters are read roughly every 30 days; 3) Solid-state multijet and ultrasonic meters are sealed in factory and calibrated to AWWA Standards and not calibrated in field. Flow tests may be conductyed in field. when meters do not perform to AWWA standards they are replaced ; Non-AMI meters 1.5" and up are field tested at a rate of appox 1000 meters per year. 4) All new connections are required to be metered per code; 5) All 3/4" and 1" meters within SLCPU service area are scheduled to be replaced with AMI within next 6 years.Larger meters are replaced as needed, though 85% of 1.5" meters and up are OMNI C1 or OMNI F2. 3.2 List water (by volume: Acre-Feet or M Gallons) and revenue losses and the control practices implemented to minimize both. If utilizing the AWWA Free Water Audit Software© please list water audit validity grade. See Table 2-2 Current system loss is estimated to be 11% of production volume, or 10,225 AF. Implementation of M36 is a proposed pratice, see Table 4-35 and Table 4-6. 3.3 List current tiered pricing structure(s). (UT S.B. 28 2016) http://www.slcdocs.com/utilities/PDF%20Files/UtilityRates/Waterrates webCurrent.pdf 4 Water Use 4.1 Gather 2005-current records of potable and non-potable water use by sector and service area population. Please check for accuracy and consistency with what is submitted to Water Rights at: www.waterrights.utah.gov/wateruse/WaterUseList.asp Table 2-1 and Table 2-4. SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN Page A-6 APPENDICES State Div of Water Resources 2018 Water Conservation Plan Checklist Section Requirement Documentation 4.2 List current total potable and non-potable water deliveries by volume (please specify volume: Acre-Feet or M Gallons) categorized by type: (Residential/Domestic, Commercial, Institutional, Industrial, Wholesale and Un-metered). Table 2-1 and Table 2-4. 4.3 Chart current per capita water use in gallons per capita per day (GPCD) by type and use: (Total water deliveries/365/Total service area population=GPCD). Table 2-6 and Figure 2-14. 4.4 Graph your water efficiency progress: Take 2005-today, total potable and non-potable water use by sector and population records and go to www.conservewater.utah.gov/compliance.html for a Conservation Goal Calculator and Graph. Then input data and produce graph for WCP. Figure 2-1 Conservation Practices 5 Conservation Practices 5.1 Provide update on ongoing practices and list and detail all ongoing and new conservation practices. When implementing new practices provide costs, partnerships and implementation timeline. (BMP options at www.conservewater.utah.gov/compliance.html) See Chapter 4, Tables 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6 5.2 Provide names and contact information for those responsible for meeting efficiency goals. (i.e. Administrative staff, conservation coordinator(s), conservation committee members, Mayor, town council and/or board members.) Stephanie Duer, SLCPU Water Conservation Program Manager stephanie.duer@slcgov.com 801.483.6860 SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN Page A-7 APPENDICES State Div of Water Resources 2018 Water Conservation Plan Checklist Section Requirement Documentation 5.3 Share evaluation of existing water conservation best management effectiveness Over the past 18 years of active program implementation, SLCPU has seen a 27.7% reduction in total water use; 31% reduction in peak demand (see Chapter 2 Highlights). Achievements have exceeded goals set by Gov's Office and CUP Contract. 5.4 List new Best Management Practice(s) and implementation plan(s). See Tables 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6. 5.5 List and detail all Conservation Public Awareness practices implemented. See Table 4-2 5.6 List and detail all Education/Training practices implemented. See Table 4-2 5.7 List and detail all Rebates/Incentives/Rewards currently implemented. See Table 4-3 5.8 List and detail conservation Ordinances & Standards currently implemented. See Table 4-5 5.9 List Reviews or Updates to City Codes/Requirements pertaining to Water Waste Prohibition, Model Landscape Ordinance, Water Shortage Plan, Climate Resiliency Plan See Table 4-5 5.10 After receiving approval from DWRe to move forward with Public/Board/Council Adoption. Provide City Council Resolution/Adoption signatures and meeting minutes. See Appendices J SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN Page A-8 APPENDICES D. ANSI/AWWA G480-13 WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT STANDARD, FIRST EDITION. JULY 1, 2013 Section Requirement Documentation To Do Date Completed 4.1 Regulatory Requirements 4.1.1 Demonstrate meet or exceed applicable regulatory requirements for jurisdiction: 1) Utah Water Conservation Plan Act 73.10.32: Submit Water Conservation Plan to State DWRe every five years 2) Utah Governor’s Conservation Goal (non-mandatory): reduce water use by 25% from baseline year 2001 (Exceeded) 3) CUP Conservation Goal (Exceeded) 1) Have submitted Water Conservation Master Plans (WCMP) as required and to standards 2) have consistently exceeded State-wide conservation goals (see 2020 WCMP Chapter 3, Figure 3-2 ) 3) Have consistently exceeded ULS Contractual Conservation Goal (see 2020 WCMP Chapter 3, Figure 3-2) 1) 2020 Water Conservation Master Plan in process 1) 1999, 2004, 2009, 2014 2) on-going 3) on-going 4.2 Top Level Organizational Functions 4.2.1 Staff for conservation initiatives 4.2.1 Assign dedicated water conservation coordinator Provide job description of staff person assigned duties (5.1.1) June, 2001 4.2.2 Water conservation planning 4.2.2 Create, implement, and maintain a water conservation plan www.slc.gov/utilities/conservation/2020conservation plan 2020 Plan Update to be completed by Oct 2020 1999, 2004, 2009, 2014 Plan guided by AWWA M52 – AWWA Water Conservation Programs – a Planning Manual or some other guidance Refer to this list and corresponding referencing. SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN Page A-9 APPENDICES Section Requirement Documentation To Do Date Completed Plan must: 1. Address water conservation across all relevant customer categories See 2020 WCMP Chapter 3, and in particular Table 3- 3. See Chapter 4, Tables 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6. See 2020 Water Conservation Master Plan To be completed and adopted Fall 2020 Plan should include: 1. Clearly defined and measurable program performance goals 2. A suite of benchmarks that can be used to assess progress in implementation of the program 3. A supply assessment 4. Water conservation strategy 5. Water conservation goals 6. Plan evaluation 7. Ongoing plan maintenance See 2020 WCMP A. Chapter 3, B. Chapter 3, Table 3-3 C. Chapter 2 D. Chapter 4, Tables 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6 E. Chapter 3 F. Chapter 4 G. Chapter 4 Ongoing with each Plan implementation 4.2.3 Water conservation in integrated resources planning 4.2.3 Treat conservation equally to other water supply options LINK to APPROPRIATE docs: Water Conservation participated in or led development of the 2019 Major Conveyance Study, Supply and Demand Study, Water Resources Data Study, 2019 Drought Plan (Water Shortage Contingency Plan) These studies were updated or completed in 2018- 19; engagement in implementation is ongoing Where appropriate, include water made available through conservation as part of the supply portfolio when conducting supply and demand forecasting analyses See SLC Water Supply and Demand Master Plan, and 2020 WCMP Chapter 2, Figure 1-5 SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN Page A-10 APPENDICES Section Requirement Documentation To Do Date Completed 4.2.4 Public information and education program 4.2.4 Develop or incorporate into existing programs information efforts aimed at: • raising awareness • fostering a culture of conservation and behavior change www.slc.gov/utilities/conservation On-going Components of program should include: • Effectively communicating the value of water • Information on methods and opportunities for reducing consumption • Deliver consistent and persistent messages See 2020 SLC Water Conservation Master Plan, Chapter 5. Fall 2020 4.2.5 Water waste ordinance 4.2.5 Develop or support creation, implementation, and maintenance of an enforceable water waste ordinance See 2020 WCMP, Chapter 4, Section 4.7.1, and Appendix ## Proposed in 2020 Water Conservation Master Plan. 4.3 Internal Utility Actions and Requirements 4.3.1 Metering Practices 4.3.1 Implement metering practices that promote conservation, including metering of: • All water sources • All service connections Salt Lake City has been fully metered on the user side since the 1920s. Monthly billing to all of its customers commenced shortly after. Computerized billing began in the 1970s. Bills are now available as mailing or electronically. Most source waters are metered at treatment locations; improvements to source metering is subject of Water Resources Data Study and Program RFP in process to meet Water Resources study recommendations; program implementation expected to take 12 to 16 months. Varies; see documentation. SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN Page A-11 APPENDICES Section Requirement Documentation To Do Date Completed 4.3.1.1 Universal metering Move towards implementing universal metering of all service (private and public) connections Metering completed in 1920s. Currently converting to AMI technology. Remaining AMI conversion expected to take 4 to 6 years On-going for AMI implementation Establish goal to meter 100 percent of all service connections SLCPU has been fully metered since 1920’s. 1920s 4.3.1.2 Source water metering Implement metering of all sources including: • Groundwater • Surface water • Reclaimed water Water sources are metered; improved system metering and data collection is subject of Water Resources Data project, currently underway. Proposed for FY2021 4.3.2 Rate structures 4.3.2 Use a nonpromotional water rate that provides incentive for customers to reduce water use http://www.slcdocs.com/utilities/PDF%20Files/Utility Rates/WaterrateswebCurrent.pdf 2003 4.3.3 Billing practices 4.3.3 Bill customers based on metered use http://www.slcdocs.com/utilities/PDF%20Files/Utility Rates/WaterrateswebCurrent.pdf 1920’s 4.3.3.1 Billing frequency Bill at least bi-monthly Billing occurs on monthly basis (see above attachment) http://www.slcdocs.com/utilities/PDF%20Files/Utility Rates/WaterrateswebCurrent.pdf 1920’s 4.3.3.2 Reporting Consumption Clearly indicate units for consumption See Attachment *** 2003 SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN Page A-12 APPENDICES Section Requirement Documentation To Do Date Completed 4.3.4 Landscape efficiency program 4.3.4 Establish a program to improve and maintain water efficient landscapes and irrigation (See Chapter 4 for program details) Many programs support landscape water efficiency, including: Water Check WaterMAPS SLC Landscape Best Practices Manual Landscape Code 21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers 4.3.4.1 Design, installation, and maintenance practices Develop program intended to maximize water efficiency through proper design, installation, and maintenance of new and existing landscapes and irrigation systems. Programs may include: • Audits • Financial incentives • Design information • Ordinances • Development standards • Education • Examples of how to properly design and operate irrigation systems Water Check WaterMAPS SLC Waterwise 21A.48 Landscaping and Buffers, parkstrip and front yard codes SLC Landscape Best Practices Manual Learning Labs Rebates FY 2021 4.3.4.2 Irrigation scheduling • Encourage customers to water based upon plant needs • Discourage customers from overwatering or watering during the times of day when water loss to evaporation and wind drift is greatest Plant and Hydrozone list SLC Gardenwise Code 21A.48 Landscapes and Buffers, hydrozoning Lawn watering guide Water Checks Water Waste ordinance 2021 4.3.4.3 Landscape water budgets • Where appropriate, implement landscape water budgets to address water use and encourage efficiency See Attachment: Irrigation-Only Meters and Rates 2003 SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN Page A-13 APPENDICES Section Requirement Documentation To Do Date Completed 4.3.5 Distribution system and pressure management 4.3.5.1 Water utility audit Conduct an annual audit of the system using AWWA/IWA Water Audit Method, including AWWA Water Audit Reporting Worksheet M36 Study to be completed FY2021 FY2021 4.3.5.2 Water loss control program Develop a water loss control program Leak detection and repair program 4.4 External Policy Requirements 4.4.1 Water efficiency in building codes and standards 4.4.1 Encourage: • adoption of water efficient codes and standards • adoption at both state and local level Provide evidence that water efficiency is addressed in local building codes for new buildings. (5.1.8) 21A.48 Landscapes and Buffers 4.4.2 Promote water efficient products and services 4.4.2 Promote the use and maintenance of water efficient: • Products • Practices • Services Water Stewardship Calendar Water Check program CUP Rebates partner 4.5 Wholesale Agency Requirements 4.5 Directly implement: • 4.1 Regulatory Requirements • 4.2.4 Public Information and Education Program • 4.3 Internal Utility Actions and Requirements Water Conservation Master Plan completed in accordance with State requirements. Plan includes a communications and public engagement component (Chapter 5 of Plan). See Chapter 4, Utility Programs section of Conservation Master plan for utility actions. May provide: • Regional coordination on conservation issues and program • Technical assistance to their retail agencies Note how met. May manage conservation activities that are more effectively implemented on a regional scale Note how met. SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN Page A-14 APPENDICES E. WATER CONSERVATION BUDGET 2020/21 F. 17.16.092: WATER SHORTAGE ORDINANCE A. Declaration Of Policy: Given the prevailing semiarid climate of the region, the limited water resources available to Salt Lake City, and the vitally important role an adequate supply of municipal and industrial (M&I) water plays in maintaining a healthy and safe environment in the community, it is hereby declared to be the policy of Salt Lake City that, during times of water shortage caused by drought, facilities failure or any other condition or event, M&I water usage within the city's water service area shall be managed, regulated, prioritized and restricted in such a manner as to prevent the wasteful or unreasonable use of water, and to preserve at all times an adequate supply of M&I water for essential uses. B. Water Shortage Contingency Plan: The director of the department of public utilities shall cause to be prepared and implemented a water shortage contingency plan (the "plan"). Such plan may be included as part of, or prepared separately from, the water conservation master plan provided for in section 73-10-32, Utah Code Annotated, and shall be revised from time to time as conditions and circumstances warrant. The plan shall, among other things: 1) establish graduated stages of water shortage severity, and 2) establish appropriate M&I water use restriction response measures for each stage. The plan shall include guidelines and criteria for determining the appropriate stage to be implemented under various water supply, delivery, and demand conditions. Each plan stage of water shortage, and the accompanying use restrictions, shall be implemented by declaration of the mayor, upon the advice and recommendation of the director pursuant to the plan guidelines. C. Compliance: Compliance with the water use restriction response measures called for under any applicable plan stage may be either recommended or mandatory, as specified in the plan. The plan may not provide for mandatory restrictions on residential or commercial customers until either: 1) the projected water supply from all sources is sixty percent (60%) or less of the average annual water supply, or 2) the director otherwise determines that, in the exercise of his or her best professional judgment, the city is unable to meet anticipated essential water needs without implementing such mandatory measures. D. Enforcement: The director shall enforce compliance with all mandatory response measures set forth in the plan through the imposition and collection of civil fines, as provided in section 17.16.792 of this chapter. Nothing herein or in section 17.16.792 of this chapter shall prevent the city from exercising any other available means, either in law or equity, of enforcing compliance with the plan. E. Plan Nonexclusive: The creation and implementation of the plan shall be in addition to, and not exclusive of, any other steps taken by the city from time to time to conserve water or manage limited water supplies, including mayoral proclamations issued pursuant to section 17.16.080 of this chapter. (Ord. 50-03 § 1, 2003) SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN Page A-15 APPENDICES G. 21A-48-055 WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPING STANDARDS A. Submittal Requirements: In addition to the submittal requirements set forth in section 21A.48.030, "Landscape Plan", of this chapter the applicant shall complete any additional submittal requirements identified in the "Salt Lake City Landscape BMPs For Water Resource Efficiency And Protection". The landscape submittal packet shall be prepared by a licensed landscaped architect, licensed civil engineer, licensed architect, certified irrigation professional, or other landscape professional appropriately licensed or recognized by the state of Utah or Salt Lake City. It shall contain the submittal information listed in the "Salt Lake City Landscape BMPs For Water Resource Efficiency And Protection" unless specifically waived in writing by the zoning administrator in consultation with the public utilities department director. B. Review Procedures: The following review procedures shall be followed for all landscaping plans and irrigation systems subject to this section: 1. Landscaping plans shall be submitted concurrently with a development application. 2. Backflow prevention plans shall be reviewed by the public utilities department. C. Standards: All developments subject to this section shall comply with the following standards: 1. Required Plants: All landscapes in developments subject to this section shall use plants identified in the "Salt Lake City Plant List And Hydrozone Schedule" or plants identified as being water wise or low water plants in other guides approved by the public utilities department as listed in the "Salt Lake City Landscape BMPs For Water Resource Efficiency And Protection". 2. Plant Substitutions: Landscaping shall be installed consistent with the approved planting plans, but plant substitutions may be made provided that the substituted plants are from the same hydrozone and of similar plant type (grass for grass, tree for tree, etc.) as the plant originally specified in the approved landscape plan. 3. Hydrozones: All landscape plans shall identify and indicate each plant, and all plants shall be grouped into appropriate hydrozones as listed in the "Salt Lake City Plant List And Hydrozone Schedule" and as described in the "Salt Lake City Landscape BMPs For Water Resource Efficiency And Protection". Mixing plants from different hydrozones and with different water demands is strongly discouraged. Landscape areas with a mix of plants from different hydrozones shall be designated on landscape submittals as being of the hydrozone of the highest water demand plant within that irrigation zone. 4. Water Budget: All developments with a total landscaped area greater than one-half (1/2) acre must install an irrigation meter at the expense of the applicant and shall be assigned a tier 2 water target by the public utilities department. 5. Small Landscaped Areas: To prevent overspray and water waste, landscaped areas eight feet (8') or smaller in any perimeter dimension, including, but not limited to, park strips, parking lot islands, and landscaped areas separated by walkways from other landscaped areas, shall only be irrigated with a system designed to prevent overspray. 6. Soil Amendment/Preparation: Where appropriate, the use of organic soil amendments or additives, such as aged compost, are encouraged. See the "Salt Lake City Landscape BMPs For Water Resource Efficiency And Protection" for more information. 7. Mulch: Where mulch is required or allowed in a landscape plan by this section, it shall be installed and maintained at a minimum depth of three inches to four inches (3" - 4"). Fiber barriers and plastic sheeting that are not porous to air and water are prohibited. 8. Preservation Of Existing Specimen Trees: All specimen trees located within a landscape plan area shall be protected as provided in section 21A.48.135, "Private Lands Tree Preservation", of this chapter. 9. Water Features: Unless it is a natural water body or stream, recirculating systems shall be used for all water features such as fountains, ponds, reflecting pools, and other similar water features. 10. Irrigation Systems: Irrigation systems shall be designed, installed, and maintained to work efficiently, as defined in the "Salt Lake City Landscape BMPs For Water Resource Efficiency And Protection". 11. Backflow Prevention: Backflow prevention assemblies shall be designed and installed according to the standards as outlined in the "Salt Lake City Landscape BMPs For Water Resource Efficiency And Protection". (Ord. 16- 16, 2016) SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN Page A-16 APPENDICES H. PUBLIC UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES/WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DISCUSSION Salt Lake City Public Utilities Advisory Committee Minutes September 24, 2020 Draft Water Conservation Plan Update Tamara Prue and Stephanie Duer Water Conservation Manager Stephanie Duer gave a presentation for the 2020 Water Conservation Plan. A copy of that presentation is attached. The 2020 Water Conservation Plan encompasses Supply and Demand; Historical Use; Conservation Goals; Conservation Programs, Practices and Measures and Public Outreach and Communication. Ted Wilson asked about projected climate change and storage capacity and how close science is to helping us in that direction. Stephanie responded that there is a lot of research being conducted to assess the impact of climate change on landscape demands and behavior of how people perceive the need for more water. Laura Briefer responded that there is a risk of decreased snow-pack and that it is being watched very carefully. Keith Larson added that estimates on increased water demand are not refined and we have made an assumption of a 10-20 percent increase in demand. Kent Moore asked whether the per capita data and savings of acre feet of water includes growth of the city. Stephanie responded yes. Director’s Report – Laura Briefer Laura Briefer introduced Tammy Wambeam as our new GIS/IT Administrator, who took over from Nick Kryger who moved on to a new position within the City. Pandemic Response: Salt Lake City has now moved into the Yellow Phase. There has been no change in Public Utilities’ response yet. Public Utilities will begin temperature checks in the future. There is a roadmap of what response will be as we go forward. Meeting adjourned at 9:34 a.m. Next Meeting will be held on October 22nd at 8:00 am. SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN Page A-17 APPENDICES I. MINUTES OF THE 846TH MEETING OF THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE & SANDY BOARD OF TRUSTEES Monday, August 10, 2020 at 4:30 p.m. Electrnoically via Zoom Conferenc. The following trustees attended the board meeting electronically: Tom Godfrey-Chair Donald Y. Milne-Vice Chair Patricia Comarell-Secretary Cindy Cromer-Trustee Joan Degiorgio-Trustee John S. Kirkham-Trustee John H. Mabey, Jr.-Trustee The following staff and guests participated electronically: Mike DeVries, General Manager Annalee Munsey, Assistant General Manager Wayne Winsor, Assistant General Manager/Engineering & Maintenance Manager Shawn Draney, Snow Christensen & Martineau Ryan Nicholes, IT Manager Cláudia Bauleth, Laboratory Manager Matthew Tietje, Operations Manager Josh Croft, Accountant Breana Jackson, Executive Assistant Tom Ward, Sandy City Public Utilities Abi Holt, Sandy City Public Utilities Tamara Prue, Salt Lake City Public Utilities Stephanie Duer, Salt Lake City Public Utilities Jesse Stewart, Salt Lake City Public Utilities Jeff Budge, Provo River Water Users Association Brad Jorgensen, Provo River Water Users Association Keith Denos, Provo River Water Users Association Christine Finlinson, Central Utah Water Conservancy District Mike Wilson, CRS Engineers Steve Van Maren, Sandy City resident Closed Session Agenda 1. Purchase or sale of real property 2. Pending or reasonably imminent litigation Work Session Agenda 1. Salt Lake City Water Conservation Plan 2. Other Board Meeting Agenda 1. Call to order 2. Public comment 3. Consider approval of Resolution 1905 supporting the Deer Creek Intake Project 4. Engineering Committee report a. Consider authorizing staff and counsel to negotiate a counteroffer with Todd Sorensen b. Consider approval of flow meter procurement c. Reporting items 5. Consider approval of Board Meeting minutes dated June 22, 2020 6. Consider acceptance of financial reports 7. Reporting/Scheduling items a. Water supply and demand update b. Semi-annual deposits and investments report c. Quarterly check register d. Electronic payments e. Credit card expenditures 8. Other business 9. Items to be discussed at future meetings 10. Adjourn SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN Page A-18 APPENDICES Closed Session Legal counsel deemed it appropriate to go into closed session to discuss purchase or sale of real property and pending or reasonably imminent litigation. Mr. Milne motioned to go into closed session; Ms. Comarell seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. All board members were present. The following staff participated in the closed session: Ms. Munsey, Mr. DeVries, Mr. Winsor, Mr. Nicholes, Ms. Jackson, and Mr. Draney. Mr. Milne motioned to go out of closed session; Ms. Cromer seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. Work Session During the April 7, 2020 Environmental Committee, Ms. Degiorgio reported that the committee heard a presentation on Salt Lake City’s Conservation Plan and felt it would be beneficial for the full board to hear. Ms. Munsey introduced Ms. Stephanie Duer, Water Conservation Manager at Salt Lake City Public Utilities. Ms. Duer discussed the water conservation plan which is derived from a recent supply and demand study with Bowen, Collins & Associates as well as information from other planning documents. Based on the plan, she recommended increasing conservation efforts to meet projected future demand. Board Meeting Call to order At 4:34 p.m. the Chair called the meeting to order and welcomed board members, staff and visitors. Public comment The Chair invited public comments and no comments were made. Consider approval of Resolution 1905 supporting the Deer Creek Intake Project Mr. DeVries and Mr. Draney described the edits made to the resolution. The resolution supports the Provo River Water Users Association’s application for WIFIA (Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act) financing for the Deer Creek Raw Water Intake project. Mr. Kirkham motioned to approve Resolution 1905 supporting the Deer Creek Raw Water Intake Project. Mr. Milne seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously. Consider authorizing staff and counsel to negotiate a counteroffer with Todd Sorensen Todd Sorensen Location: 1650 E 200 S, Pleasant Grove Corridor: Tract 220, 221 (1890s Act Easement) At its October 21, 2019 meeting, the board offered to withdraw a portion of the Salt Lake Aqueduct right-of-way encumbered by the Mr. Todd Sorensen’s home in exchange for monetary consideration and in compliance with legal requirements. Mr. Sorensen counteroffered the proposal by letter on April 2, 2020. The Engineering Committee discussed this on July 28, 2020 and recommended that the board allow staff and counsel to negotiate an easement revision agreement that defines easement use restrictions. Mr. Milne motioned to authorize staff and legal counsel to negotiate a counteroffer with Todd Sorensen. Mr. Mabey seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously. Consider approval of flow meter procurement During the July 28, 2020 Engineering Committee meeting, the committee discussed the flow meter purchase and recommended approval of this procurement by the full board. The fiscal year 2021 budget for flow meter procurement is $108,000.00. Mr. Devries welcomed questions from the board. Mr. Kirkham motioned to approve the purchase of five ultrasonic flow meter consoles and associated transducers, cables, connectors, installation, and shipping from Flow Meter Services for $105,540.00. Ms. Degiorgio seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously. Reporting items Mr. DeVries referred the board to the capital project reports in the board packet. No comments were made. SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN Page A-19 APPENDICES Consider approval of Board Meeting minutes dated June 22, 2020 Ms. Degiorgio mentioned some instances of her name being misspelled and requested those be corrected. Ms. Degiorgio motioned to approve the Board Meeting minutes dated June 22, 2020 with the corrections. Ms. Comarell seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously. Consider acceptance of financial reports As part of the year end process, it is anticipated that additional changes will be made to the June financials. Mr. DeVries explained any corrections for the June financials will be completed before given to the auditor. Mr. Kirkham motioned to accept the financial reports for May and June of 2020. Mr. Milne seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously. Reporting/scheduling items Mr. Tietje provided the board with a water supply and demand update. He explained how the District attempted to prolong starting the pumps at Point of the Mountain as long as possible. Mr. DeVries described how the pumps are operated during non-peak times which allows for increased energy cost savings. Mr. Tietje then discussed the biological growth discovered in June in the Raw Water Reservoir at Point of the Mountain. This can blanket the filter media and cause a change in pH. Since being emptied and cleaned, the reservoir has been placed back in service and the growth has not reoccurred. Mr. DeVries noted that the semi-annual deposits and investments report, quarterly check register, electronic payments, and credit card expenditures reports had been submitted to the Finance Committee for their review. Other business Mr. Milne mentioned the September board meeting had originally been scheduled as a tour for the board. The board agreed to cancel the September tour and proceed with a 3:30 PM start for that month’s meeting. The board expressed thanks to the staff for their work during these challenging times. Items to be discussed at future meetings No other items were discussed. Adjourn At 5:06 p.m. the board meeting adjourned. Tom Godfrey, Chair _______ Patricia Comarell, Secretary SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN Page A-20 APPENDICES J. MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL FORMAL MEETING SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN Page A-21 APPENDICES SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN Page A-22 APPENDICES K. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL, MINUTES, AND RESOLUTION SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN Page A-23 APPENDICES SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN Page A-24 APPENDICES L. LINKS AND REFERENCES Alliance for Water Efficiency. Landscape Transformation: Assessment of Water Utility Programs and Market Readiness Evaluation. Chicago, Alliance for Water Efficiency. 2019 Alliance for Water Efficiency. Landscape Transformation Study2018 Analytics Report: Chicago, Alliance for Water Efficiency. 2018 Alliance for Water Efficiency. State-Level Water Loss Laws in the United States. Chicago, Alliance for Water Efficiency. 2019 Alliance for Water Efficiency. Sustainable Landscapes: A Utility Program Guide. Chicago, Alliance for Water Efficiency. 2019 Alliance for Water Efficiency. The Water Efficiency and Conservation State Scorecard: An Assessment of Laws. Chicago, Alliance for Water Efficiency. 2017. American Water Works Association. Evaluating Urban Water Conservation Programs: A Procedures Manual. American Water Works Association. 1993. American Water Works Association. M1 Principles of Water Rates, Fees, and Charges. Sixth Addition. Denver, American Water Works Association. 2012 American Water Works Association. M36 Water Audits and Loss Control Programs. Third Addition. Denver, American Water Works Association. 2009. American Water Works Association. M52 Water Conservation Programs: A Planning Manual. Second Addition. Denver, American Water Works Association. 2017. American Water Works Association. Water Conservation-Oriented Rates: Strategies to Extend Supply, Promote Equity, and Meet Minimum Flow Levels. Denver, American Water Works Association. 2005. American Water Works Association Research Foundation. Effectiveness of Residential Water Conservation Price and Nonprice Programs. Denver, AWWA Research Foundation and American Water Works Association. 1998. American Water Works Association Research Foundation. Impacts of Demand Reduction on Water Utilities. Denver, American research Foundation and American Water Works Association. 1996. American Water Works Association Research Foundation. Public Involvement Impact Strategies: A Manager’s Handbook. Denver, AWWA Research Foundation and American Water Works Association. 1995. American Water Works Association Research Foundation. Residential End Uses of Water. Denver, AWWA Research Foundation and American Water Works Association. 1999. Beecher, Janice A., Thomas Chesnutt, David Pekelney. Socioeconomic Impacts of Water Conservation. AWWA Research Foundation and American Water Works Association. 2001. DeOreo, William, Peter Mayer, Benedykt Dziegielewski, Jack Kiefer. Residential End Uses of Water. Water Research Foundation. Denver, Co. 2016. Recommended State Water Strategy. Salt Lake City, Governor’s Water Strategy Advisory Team. 2017. Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities. Salt Lake City Secondary Water Irrigation Master Plan. Bowen Collins & Associates, Inc. 2019. Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities. Salt Lake City Storage and Conveyance Plan. Bowen Collins & Associates, Inc. 2020. Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (2019). Salt Lake City Water Supply and Demand Master Plan. Bowen Collins & Associates, Inc. 2019. Salt Lake City Drought and Water Shortage Contingency Plan www.slc.gov/utilities/conservation/droughtplan State of Utah. Regional Water Conservation Goal Report. Hansen Allen & Luce, Bowen Collins & Associates, Inc. 2019. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Water Conservation Plan Guidelines. USEPA- 832-D-98-001. Washington, D.C. 1998 US Environmental Protection Agency. Resilient Strategies Guide for Water Utilities. 2019. Utah Code73-10-31: Water Conservation Plan Required https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title73/Chapter10/73-10-S32.html Vickers, Amy. Handbook of Water Use and Conservation. Amherst, Waterplow Press. 2001. SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN Page A-25 APPENDICES M. GLOSSARY OF TERMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND ACRONYMS Acre Feet (af): A measurement to describe a volume of water; One acre-foot is the amount of water which would cover one acre of land to a depth of one foot; 325,851 gallons. Action Plan: A more detailed, analytical course of action to implement programs, initiatives, or measures outlined in the Master Plan to achieve specific objectives, typically including information relating to time-lines for implementation, evaluative measures, and costs relating to staffing and/or materials; a component of the Annual Report. Annual Report: This report will provide an evaluative update on existing programs, as well as outlining new conservation initiatives for the coming year, providing initiative timelines, estimated costs, participating groups, and responsible parties. ASR: Aquifer Storage and Recovery BCWTP Big Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant Best Management Practice (BMP): For the purposes of Salt Lake City, a BMP is defined as a policy, program, practice, rule, regulation, or ordinance, or the use of devices, equipment, or facilities that meets either of the following criteria: • An established and generally accepted practice among water suppliers that results in the more efficient use of water; or • A practice for which sufficient data are available to indicate that significant conservation or conservation related benefits can be achieved; that the practice is technically and economically reasonable and not environmentally or socially unacceptable; and that the practice is not otherwise unreasonable for most water suppliers to carry out CAP: Water Conservation Action Plan; these are plans submitted by City Divisions and community stakeholders and reflect commitments of actions and goals towards achieving further water conservation. CCF: one hundred cubic feet; a unit of volume equivalent to 748 gallons of water and is the standard of measure used by the Department for billing purposes. CCWTP City Creek Water Treatment Plant Conservation: A set of strategies to solve the dilemma of providing water to people, both through supply and demand management; wise, efficient use of water by suppliers and customers. CUP: Central Utah Project CUWCD: Central Utah Water Conservancy District Demand Management: Methods to encourage customers to reduce water demand, whether through a change in behavior, the implementation of water-saving technologies, or through the reduction or elimination of waste. Evaluation: An overall determination of a conservation program or measure’s effectiveness in achieving an articulated objective. GPCD Gallons per capita per day; a unit of measure typically used to express the average number of gallons of water used by the average person each day in a water system. The calculation is made by dividing the total gallons of water used each day within a water system by the total number of people identified as residing within that water system. This calculation does not account for nor describe the industrial or commercial base within a community, nor does it account for individuals using water within the system, but not counted as residing within the system delivery area, such as commuters. Goals: General statements of purpose for a measure or program; goals should compliment and reinforce other community and Utility goals. Gray Water: wastewater generated in the household or at a place of work, excluding toilet wastes (black water), and including wastewater from bathroom sinks, baths, showers, laundry facilities, dishwashers, assuming there is no fecal material present. JVWTP via Jordan Aqueduct Jordan Valley Water Treatment Plant via Jordan Aqueduct LCWTP Little Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Major Conveyance Study: A study conducted by Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities to provide a report on existing and future supplies; major conveyances and storage facilities; and demand projections. SALT LAKE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN Page A-26 APPENDICES Master Plan: A conceptual framework to show direction of intent. Measure: A device, incentive, or technology targeted at a particular type of end user or water use that, when implemented, will save water Metrics: a systematic method of measurement or comparison; in relationship to the Water conservation Master Plan, a method to assess program need and effectiveness mg Million gallons mgd Million gallons a day Monitoring: An ongoing process to assess results of an effort; steps in the process might include identifying what will be measured, what assumptions will be held, what estimates are agreed on, and what measuring tools will be used. Multi-family Residential: A planning term used to describe a building where two or more families live in separate units under one common roof; for example, duplexes, apartments houses, townhouses, and condominiums. Parleys WTP Parleys Water Treatment Plant POMWTP via POMA Point of the Mountain Water Treatment Plant via Point of the Mountain Aqueduct Practice: An action or system that is beneficial, empirically proven, cost-effective, and widely accepted in the professional community. Program: A set of conservation practices and measures planned to be implemented together and intended to support water conservation efforts. Project: Systemized efforts to achieve an objective. Projected savings: An estimate of the amount of water which will be conserved because suppliers and/or customers are implementing certain practices. Public Utilities: Refers to the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities Retrofit: An umbrella term that refers to the modification of something; in the case of water conservation, retrofit refers to modifications to plumping fixtures or processes to increase efficiencies. Supply Management: Methods by which a utility maximizes the use of available untreated water. Sustainability: A decision-making concept describing development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. ULS: Utah Lake system Unaccounted-for water: A term used to describe the various ways water is difficult or impossible to measure due to such issues as the evaporation of water in canals and reservoirs, under-registering of water through aging meters, leaks, fire suppression, and hydrant flushing. Watershed: The major canyons of the Wasatch Mountain Range (the Wasatch Canyons), and their drainages that are a critical source of water for the communities served by the Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities. WCMP: Water Conservation Master Plan Resolution 46 of 2021 - Bureau of Reclamation WaterSMART Water and Energy Efficiency Grants FY 2022 Final Audit Report 2021-12-03 Created:2021-11-18 By:Thais Stewart (thais.stewart@slcgov.com) Status:Signed Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAA2jyQNnBXeYyrsuFUZRxFnqzKsGr5BzyE "Resolution 46 of 2021 - Bureau of Reclamation WaterSMART Water and Energy Efficiency Grants FY 2022" History Document created by Thais Stewart (thais.stewart@slcgov.com) 2021-11-18 - 4:10:51 PM GMT Document emailed to Jaysen Oldroyd (jaysen.oldroyd@slcgov.com) for signature 2021-11-18 - 4:12:19 PM GMT Email viewed by Jaysen Oldroyd (jaysen.oldroyd@slcgov.com) 2021-11-18 - 4:47:23 PM GMT Document e-signed by Jaysen Oldroyd (jaysen.oldroyd@slcgov.com) Signature Date: 2021-11-18 - 4:47:44 PM GMT - Time Source: server Document emailed to Amy Fowler (amy.fowler@slcgov.com) for signature 2021-11-18 - 4:47:46 PM GMT Email viewed by Amy Fowler (amy.fowler@slcgov.com) 2021-11-18 - 7:45:01 PM GMT Email viewed by Amy Fowler (amy.fowler@slcgov.com) 2021-11-30 - 6:43:42 PM GMT Document e-signed by Amy Fowler (amy.fowler@slcgov.com) Signature Date: 2021-11-30 - 6:43:50 PM GMT - Time Source: server Document emailed to Cindy Trishman (cindy.trishman@slcgov.com) for signature 2021-11-30 - 6:43:52 PM GMT Cindy Trishman (cindy.trishman@slcgov.com) uploaded the following supporting documents: File Attachment 1 2021-12-03 - 1:11:09 AM GMT Document e-signed by Cindy Trishman (cindy.trishman@slcgov.com) Signature Date: 2021-12-03 - 1:11:09 AM GMT - Time Source: server Agreement completed. 2021-12-03 - 1:11:09 AM GMT