the packet - Northern Nevada Water Planning Commission

Transcription

NORTHERN NEVADA WATER PLANNING COMMISSION
("NNWPC")
AGENDA
Wednesday, August 3, 2016
1:30 p.m.
Washoe County Commission Chambers
1001 East Ninth Street
Reno, Nevada
Notes:
1.
Items on this agenda on which action may be taken are followed by the term "for possible action". Non-action
items are followed by an asterisk (*).
2.
Public comment is limited to three minutes per speaker and is allowed during the public comment periods, and
before action is taken on any action item. Comments are to be directed to the Commission as a whole. Persons
may not allocate unused time to other speakers. The public may sign-up to speak during the public comment
period or on a specific agenda item by completing a “Request to Speak” card and submitting it to the clerk.
3.
Items on this agenda may be taken out of order, combined with other agenda items for consideration, removed
from the agenda, moved to or from the Consent Items section, or delayed for discussion at any time. Arrive at the
meeting at the posted time to hear item(s) of interest.
4.
Supporting material provided to the Commission for the items on the agenda is available to members of the
public at the NNWPC offices, 1001 E. Ninth St., Reno, NV, from Jim Smitherman, Water Resources Program
Manager, (775) 954-4657, and on the NNWPC website at http://www.nnwpc.us
5.
In accordance with NRS 241.020, this agenda closes three working days prior to the meeting. We are pleased to
make reasonable accommodations for persons who are disabled and wish to attend meetings. If you require
special arrangements for the meeting, please call (775) 954-4657 no later than 24 hours prior to the meeting.
6.
In accordance with NRS 241.020, this agenda has been posted at the following locations: Reno City Hall (1 East
First Street), Sparks City Hall (431 Prater Way), Sun Valley GID (5000 Sun Valley Blvd.), Truckee Meadows
Water Authority (1355 Capital Blvd.), Washoe County Administration Building (1001 E. Ninth Street), South
Valleys Library (15650A Wedge Parkway), the NNWPC website: http://www.nnwpc.us and the State of Nevada
Website: https://notice.nv.gov
1.
Roll Call and determination of presence of a quorum. *
2.
Public Comments. * (Three-minute time limit per person.)
3.
Approval of agenda. (For Possible Action)
4.
Approval of the minutes from the June 1, 2016, meeting. (For Possible Action)
5.
Consent Items.
5.a. Review of a revised schedule for completion of the Regional Water
Management Plan (“RWMP”) 2016 update and possible recommendation to the
Western Regional Water Commission (“WRWC”) for approval – Jim Smitherman,
NNWPC Water Resources Program Manager. (For Possible Action)
5.b. Review and possible approval of a scope of work and budget, not to exceed
$12,500 per year for two years from the Regional Water Management Fund
("RWMF"), for the Nevada Landscape Association ("NLA") Certified Landscape
Technician program; and, if approved, authorize the Program Manager to execute
an agreement with the NLA for that purpose; possible direction to staff – Pamela
Bedard, NLA, and Chris Wessel, NNWPC Water Management Planner. (For
Possible Action)
Northern Nevada Water Planning Commission Agenda for August 3, 2016
5.c. Review and possible approval of a scope of work and budget, not to exceed
$20,176 from the Regional Water Management Fund (“RWMF”), for the Truckee
River Information Gateway (“TRIG”) website program upgrades and annual
maintenance and, if approved, possible recommendation to the Western Regional
Water Commission (“WRWC”) to execute an interlocal agreement with the City of
Reno for that purpose; possible direction to staff – Jim Smitherman. (For
Possible Action)
5.d. Review and possible approval of a scope of work and budget, not to exceed
(“RWMF”), for the Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency ("TMRPA")
ArcGIS Server Maintenance project; and, if approved, authorize the Program
Manager to execute an interlocal agreement with the TMRPA Regional Planning
Governing Board for that purpose; possible direction to staff – Jim Smitherman.
(For Possible Action)
6.
Report from the Regional Effluent Management Team; review and possible
approval of a proposal for a 4-year project entitled “Advanced Water Treatment
Technologies Demonstration” and budget, not to exceed $155,699 for fiscal year
2016-2017 and a total of $676,475 from the RWMF; and, if approved, possible
recommendation to the WRWC to execute an interlocal agreement with the
University of Nevada, Reno for that purpose; possible direction to staff – Jim
Smitherman. (For Possible Action)
7.
Report on the “Septic Nitrate Baseline Data and Risk Assessment Study, Phase II:
In-Depth Analysis of Prioritized Study Areas, Creation of Baseline Data Set, and
Risk Assessment”, including nitrate analysis results for groundwater samples;
discussion, possible recommendation to the Western Regional Water Commission
(“WRWC”), and possible direction to staff – Lydia Peri, Washoe County
Community Services Department. (For Possible Action)
8.
Presentation of the draft 2016 Washoe County Consensus Population Forecast;
discussion and possible recommendation to the Western Regional Water
Commission (“WRWC”) to make a determination that the draft consensus
population forecast for 2036 can be supported by the sustainable water resources
set forth in the Regional Water Management Plan (“RWMP”); and possible
direction to staff – Jeremy Smith, TMRPA and Jim Smitherman. (For Possible
Action)
9.
Presentation of regional water use and wastewater flow projections, a 20-year
analysis using various spatial growth scenarios; and possible direction to staff –
Jeremy Smith, TMRPA. (For Possible Action)
10. Report by The Nature Conservancy ("TNC") on its "Optimizing Investments in the
Truckee [River] Watershed" project, and possible direction to staff – Mickey
Hazelwood, TNC. (For Possible Action)
11. Presentation of comments received on the “Wastewater and Watershed-Based
Water Quality Planning” chapter for the 2016 Regional Water Management Plan
Northern Nevada Water Planning Commission Agenda for August 3, 2016
(“RWMP”) update; discussion and possible direction to staff – Jim Smitherman.
12. Presentation of draft “Water Purveyors” chapter for the 2016 Regional Water
Management Plan (“RWMP”) update; discussion and possible direction to staff. –
Jim Smitherman and Chris Wessel, NNWPC Water Management Planner. (For
Possible Action)
13. Discussion and possible direction to staff regarding any chapters of the Regional
Water Management Plan (“RWMP”) previously reviewed by the NNWPC in relation
to the 2016 RWMP update – Jim Smitherman. (For Possible Action)
14. Program Manager’s Report – Jim Smitherman. *
a.
Report on the status of projects and Work Plan supported by the Regional
Water Management Fund ("RWMF");
b.
Financial Report on the RWMF
15. Discussion regarding possible agenda items for the September 7, 2016 NNWPC
meeting, and other future meetings, and possible direction to staff – Jim
16. Commission comments. *
17. Staff comments. *
18. Public Comments. * (Three-minute time limit per person.)
19. Adjournment. (For Possible Action)
*Indicates a non-action item
08-03-16: NNWPC Agenda Item 4
DRAFT - MINUTES
NORTHERN NEVADA WATER PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, July 6, 2016
The regular meeting of the Northern Nevada Water Planning Commission ("NNWPC") was held
in the Washoe County Commission Chambers, 1001 East Ninth Street, Reno, Nevada and
conducted the following business:
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Flansberg at 1:34 p.m.
1.
Roll Call and Determination of Presence of a Quorum
Voting Members Present: John Flansberg, Bill Hauck, Michael DeMartini, John Enloe, John
Zimmerman, John Martini, and David Solaro.
Voting Members Absent: Danielle Henderson, Michael Drinkwater, Mickey Hazelwood, and
Darrin Price.
Non-Voting Members Present: Thomas Pyeatte.
Non-Voting Members Absent: My-Linh Nguyen, Harry Fahnestock, and Cindy Turiczek.
Staff Members Present: Jim Smitherman; Chris Wessel; Donna Fagan ; and John Rhodes, Legal
Counsel.
2.
Public Comment
Cathy Brandhorst spoke on various topics.
3.
Approval of Agenda (For Possible Action)
Agenda Item 5 will be postponed to a future meeting.
COMMISSIONER MARTINI MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS
AMENDED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ENLOE. THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY WITH SEVEN (7) MEMBERS PRESENT.
4.
Approval of Minutes from the June 1, 2016, Meeting (For Possible Action)
COMMISSIONER DE MARTINI MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE JUNE 1, 2016,
MINUTES, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ENLOE.
THE MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY WITH SEVEN (7) MEMBERS PRESENT.
5.
Report by The Nature Conservancy (“TNC”) on its “Optimizing Investments in the
Truckee River Watershed” project, and possible direction to staff – Mickey
Hazelwood, TNC. (For Possible Action)
This item was postponed to a future meeting.
6.
Presentation of comments received on the “Population Forecast and Projections of
Water Demand, Peak Day Requirements and Wastewater Flow” chapter for the
2016 Regional Water Management Plan (“RWMP”) update; discussion and possible
direction to staff – Jim Smitherman, NNWPC Water Resources Program Manager.
Jim Smitherman gave a presentation on the revisions made to this chapter. Details of the
presentation are included in the staff report.
Draft NNWPC Minutes
July 6, 2016
Page 2 of 4
Public Comment: Cathy Brandhorst spoke on various topics.
No action was taken.
7.
Presentation of comments received on the “Wastewater and Watershed-Based
Water Quality Planning” chapter for the 2016 RWMP update; discussion and
possible direction to staff – Jim Smitherman and Chris Wessel, NNWPC Water
Management Planner. (For Possible Action)
Mr. Smitherman gave a presentation on the revisions made to this chapter. Details of the
Mr. Smitherman discussed the adjudication process in response to a comment from
Commissioner DeMartini.
8.
Presentation of comments received on the “Water Conservation” chapter for the
2016 RWMP update; discussion and possible direction to staff – Chris Wessel. (For
Possible Action)
Chris Wessel gave a presentation on the revisions made to this chapter.
Details of the
Commissioner DeMartini suggested that encouraging the Truckee Meadows Water Authority
(“TMWA”) to monitor water usage data to notify customers of potential leaks would be more
effective than financing water audits.
Chairman Flansberg asked that chapters be brought to the NNWPC for final approval as they are
completed so that all of the chapters are not brought for approval at the same time.
9.
Discussion and possible direction to staff regarding any chapters of the RWMP
previously reviewed by the NNWPC in relation to the 2016 RWMP update – Jim
Commissioner Enloe asked about the anticipated schedule for a complete draft of the RWMP.
Mr. Smitherman stated that his best estimate is that they will have a complete draft in September.
The public process would then begin with the Western Regional Water Commission (“WRWC”)
and adoption of the RWMP is expected to be before the end of the calendar year.
10.
Discussion and possible approval of a Second Amendment to the Agreement with
Stantec for the update of the Regional Water Balance as part of the 2016 RWMP
update, to extend the term of the Agreement for one year at no additional cost; and,
if approved, authorize the Program Manager to execute the Amendment – Jim
Mr. Smitherman stated that this item is for an extension of the contract due to the extension in
the timeline to get the RWMP completed.
Public Comment: Cathy Brandhorst presented her thoughts on this item.
Draft NNWPC Minutes
July 6, 2016
Page 3 of 4
COMMISSIONER MARTINI MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER SOLARO. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY WITH SEVEN (7)
MEMBERS PRESENT.
11.
Discussion and possible direction to staff on whether to include a Consent Agenda
item in future NNWPC agendas, and what type of items may be contained in a
Consent Agenda – John Rhodes, Legal Counsel. (For Possible Action)
John Rhodes, Legal Counsel, led discussion regarding the possible use of a Consent Agenda
item.
Commissioner Martini stated that he requested this item and hoped it could be used to prevent
agenda items being moved up in an agenda when the public is unaware of the change.
Mr. Rhodes suggested using a Consent Agenda for regularly occurring items.
Mr. Smitherman asked the Commissioners to let him know what kinds of items they would like
to see on a Consent Agenda.
COMMISSIONER MARTINI MADE A MOTION TO DIRECT STAFF TO PRESENT A
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM AS THEY FEEL IT IS APPROPRIATE, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER ENLOE. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY WITH SEVEN (7)
MEMBERS PRESENT.
12.
Program Manager’s Report – Jim Smitherman.
a.
Report on the status of projects and Work Plan supported by the RWMF;
b.
Financial report on the RWMF; and,
c.
Report on the Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency’s (“TMRPA”)
parcel-based population and employment modeling project.
There were no questions or comments on this item.
13.
Discussion regarding possible agenda items for the August 3, 2016, NNWPC
meeting, and other future meetings, and possible direction to staff – Jim
Mr. Smitherman stated future agenda items will include:
•
A report from the Regional Effluent Team
•
Review of a scope of work and a possible interlocal agreement with UNR for some
advanced wastewater treatment work.
•
A report on the Phase 2 Septic Nitrate Study
•
A report from the Nevada Landscape Association and a funding request.
•
A report by The Nature Conservancy on Optimizing Water Investments in the Truckee
River Watershed project
•
Review of changes to several chapters of the Regional Water Management Plan
(“RWMP”) update; and any other standing items.
Draft NNWPC Minutes
July 6, 2016
Page 4 of 4
14.
Commission Comments
Chairman Flansberg welcomed the new Commissioners Hauck and Zimmerman.
15.
Staff Comments
Mr. Smitherman will bring resolutions acknowledging the service of Commissioners Erwin and
Ball at the next meeting.
16.
Public Comment
Cathy Brandhorst spoke on various topics.
17.
Adjournment (For Possible Action)
The meeting was adjourned at 2:31 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by Christine Birmingham.
Approved by:
________________________________
John Flansberg, Chairman
APPROVED BY COMMISSION IN SESSION ON __________, 2016.
8-03-16: NNWPC Agenda Item 5.a
Northern Nevada
Water Planning Commission
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
July 29, 2016
TO:
Chairman and Members, Northern Nevada Water Planning Commission (“NNWPC”)
FROM:
Jim Smitherman, NNWPC Water Resources Program Manager
SUBJECT:
Review of a revised schedule for completion of the Regional Water Management Plan
(“RWMP”) 2016 update and possible recommendation to the Western Regional Water
Commission (“WRWC”) for approval
SUMMARY
Staff proposes the revised schedule for the completion of the RWMP 2016 update. On January 20, 2016,
the WRWC approved a schedule for the completion of the RWMP 2016 update. The schedule showed
that a draft update will be presented to the NNWPC at its July 2016 meeting. For various reasons, the
schedule was not achieved, therefore staff recommends a 3-month extension to October 2016. Once the
NNWPC has reviewed and approved the draft RWMP 2016 update, a recommendation will be made to
the WRWC and the public review and adoption process will begin. Staff proposes the following, revised
schedule:
Oct. 5, 2016
Nov. 2, 2016
Nov. – Dec. 2016
Dec. 21, 2016
Present final draft RWMP 2016 update to the NNWPC for review
NNWPC public hearing and possible recommendation to the WRWC for adoption
Public review period
WRWC public hearing and possible adoption of the RWMP 2016 update
BACKGROUND
Section 50, Chapter 531, Statutes of Nevada 2007, the WRWC Act, requires that the RWMP be reviewed
by the NNWPC on a schedule established by the WRWC, which must at least provide for a review within
five years after adoption of the RWMP and at least every five years thereafter. After each review, the
NNWPC shall submit to the WRWC any proposed amendment to the RWMP or report that there are no
amendments. The 5-year review was completed as of December 2015.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the NNWPC approve the revised schedule for the completion of the RWMP 2016
update and recommend adoption to the WRWC.
JS:js
08-03-16: NNWPC Agenda Item 5.b
Northern Nevada
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
July 28, 2016
TO:
Chairman and Members, Northern Nevada Water Planning Commission
FROM:
Chris Wessel, Water Management Planner
Pam Bedard, Certified Landscape Technician Program Administrator
SUBJECT:
Review and possible approval of a scope of work and budget, not to exceed
("RWMF"), for the Nevada Landscape Association (“NLA”) Certified Landscape
Technician program; and, if approved, authorize the Program Manager to execute
an agreement with the NLA for that purpose; possible direction to staff
SUMMARY
The NLA is submitting the attached proposal to partially fund the Certified Landscape
Technician ("CLT") testing program for fiscal years 2016-2017 and 2017-2018. The testing
program has historically been funded, in part, through the RWMF. The CLT program is
described in the 2011-2030 Regional Water Management Plan, Chapter 7 -Water Conservation
Plan - Efficient Use of Water; Table 7-5 under Ongoing Measures in Addition to Base Case,
Public Education element.
BACKGROUND
The NLA brought the CLT exam to the region in 2003, through its association with the
Professional Landscape Network (formerly Associated Landscape Contractors of America), as a
way to raise the standards of the local landscape industry. The multi-module, practical exam is
administered in a number of states and internationally. The program is widely accepted by the
local industry as shown by the long list of individuals and companies that have donated time and
funding to support the program.
On December 4, 2013 the NLA sought, and the Commission approved, funding in the amount of
$25,000 to support the CLT program for fiscal years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. RWMF support
for the program began in 2005 based on a recommendation from the Regional Water Planning
Commission’s Advisory Committee on Conservation. The amount of the request is based on a
two-year budget that reflects past program expenses since 2004
FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for the CLT program was included in the RWMF budget for FY 2016-2017. Budget
authority is located in Fund 7066, Account Number 710100, (WP310103).
08-03-16: NNWPC Agenda Item 5.b
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the request for $25,000 from the RWMF to support the CLT
program in fiscal years 2016-2017 and 2017-2018, and authorization for the Program Manager to
execute a contract with the NLA for that purpose.
CW
Attachments: Nevada Landscape Association Proposal
Page 2 of 2
8-03-16: NNWPC Agenda Item 5b
Attachment
EXHIBIT “A”
Landscape Industry Certified- Technician Exam
Nevada Landscape Association
Scope of Work
The Landscape Industry Certified- Technician exam is a hands-on testing program administered
in Nevada by the Nevada Landscape Association (NLA). NLA has joined forces with the
Professional Landcare Network (PLANET) to offer the Certification exam in Nevada. The exam
was initially developed and organized by the California Landscape Contractors Association
Certification Committee, and first administered in 1983. In 1984, PLANET’s predecessor, the
Associated Landscape Contractors of America, purchased the rights to the exam and offered it to
state associations. NLA purchased the rights to administer the exam in 2002 and conducted its
first exam in 2003.
A critical component of the Certification exam is the Irrigation Module. This comprehensive
module covers plan reading, automatic controller programming (including Evapotranspiration
and water budgeting), troubleshooting and wiring, automatic and mechanical valve assembly,
proper piping selection and fitting, drip systems, sprinkler selection and adjustment and more.
Certification ensures that industry personnel understand water use and efficiency, water
conservation and proper techniques for installation and maintenance of irrigation components
with an emphasis on responsible water resource management.
Objectives:
The objectives of the Landscape Industry Certified- Technician exam are to:
1. Promote responsible resource management including water conservation. According to
Truckee Meadows Water Authority, irrigation accounts for 53% of ALL water use
from their customers.
2. Enhance and recognize proficiency in the landscape professional workforce.
3. Provide the public a means of identifying qualified landscape professionals.
Project Evaluation:
Post-exam critique with Certification Committee and review of PLANET Test Evaluator report.
Deliverables:
Prepare and deliver post-exam reports to Northern Nevada Water Planning Commission
(NNWPC) by September 30, 2016. NLA will provide the NNWPC with a report and budget
accounting for the 2016 Certification exam, and projections for the 2017 exam. This would
include budget figures and give detail on what NNWPC Funds were used for and the number of
candidates that tested, retested, passed or failed. A list of committee members, judges and
sponsors will also be included for each test.
-1-
Attachment
2016 - 2017 Exam Timeline and Activities:
December 2015
Prepare 2016 brochure and test application. Register test dates with Truckee Meadows
Community College (TMCC), our test site, and PLANET.
January 2016 – Training Seminars every Saturday
Classroom seminar to help potential Candidates prepare for the written portions of the exam.
Practice test will allow potential Candidates to familiarize themselves with the hands- on exam
components. Administer written exams.
February 25- NLA Conference and Trade Show / Written Test
Administrator will present an educational seminar at the Conference outlining the values of
Certification and how to best prepare for the exam. Display booth at the Trade Show will display
promotional videos, literature and test applications.
March
Continue advertising campaign by distributing brochure and videos via email and fax. Initial
contact with test sponsors. Meet with TMCC staff to plan practice test and deliver Liability
Insurance form. Contact re-test Candidates.
April
April/ May edition of Landscape Nevada will include Certification stories as well as the brochure
and application. Promotional videos will continue via email.
May / June– Certification Test Planning
Contact and secure sponsors, judges and volunteers. Order supplies, equipment, arrange for
services (security, first aid, etc.) for test day. Continue advertising campaign.
July 30– Field Test offered
August 6 & 20– Training Seminar/ Written Test
Classroom seminar to help potential Candidates prepare for the written portions of the exam.
Practice test will allow potential Candidates to familiarize themselves with the hands- on exam
components. Administer written exams.
August 26- Test Site setup
Certification trailer, rental units, equipment and refreshment area are delivered. Judge and
Candidates Orientation held. Committee and Judges set up Hands- on testing modules to
guarantee all the proper tools and materials are available. Candidates take written exam.
-2-
Attachment
August 27– TEST DAY and test follow up
Committee arrives at 5:30 A.M., Judges 6:00 A.M. Candidate Registration begins at 6:15 A.M.
Testing begins when all Candidates are registered and Judges are ready at their problems;
normally 7:00 A.M. Testing continues through the day until Candidates have completed all of
their assigned problems. Several breaks are provided, along with refreshments and lunch. Test
Evaluation forms filled out by Candidates and Judges. Committee debriefs. Record and verify
test scores, notify candidates, mail certification cards, etc. Prepare and send report to PLANET.
Announce new Landscape Industry Certified- Technicians in association newsletter, invite to
award event. Thank sponsors, judges, volunteers and committee.
September
Debrief with Certification Committee, determine if an additional test will be offered in 2016, and
begin planning for 2017. Review budget changes, select new committee members, evaluate and
report problems that would require test revision by PLANET.
Prepare deliverables for NNWPC.
October
Administrator attends PLANET Certification Meeting.
November
New Certificates will be presented at the NLA Awards Banquet.
December
Prepare 2017 brochure and application.
-3-
Attachment
EXHIBIT “B”
Expenses/ Budget
Landscape Industry Certified- Technician Exam
Nevada Landscape Association
Northern Nevada Water Planning Commission Funds will assist with overall expenses in the following
program categories;


Module supplies will need some increase; the test site needs some repairs.
Additional training classes and a practice test, effectively doubling our costs for meals, supplies,
rentals and staff.
Income
Candidates and Study Guides
Sponsorships and Donations
NNWPC Funding
Total Income
Projected 2016
$
6,500
$
10,000
$
12,500
$
29,000
Projected 2017
$
7,000
$
10,815
$
12,500
$
30,315
Expenses
$
29,000
$
Overall Total
$
0
$
-4-
31,315
0
8-03-16: NNWPC Agenda Item 5c
Northern Nevada
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
July 28, 2016
TO:
FROM:
Jim Smitherman – Program Manager
SUBJECT:
Review and possible approval of a scope of work and budget, not to exceed
$20,176 from the Regional Water Management Fund (“RWMF”), for the Truckee
River Information Gateway (“TRIG”) website program upgrades and annual
maintenance; and, if approved, possible recommendation to the Western Regional
Water Commission (“WRWC”) to execute an interlocal agreement with the City
of Reno for that purpose; possible direction to staff
SUMMARY
The City of Reno manages TRIG through support from the RWMF in the amount of $7,500
annually, to cover the cost for website hosting and maintenance services. The version of the
website framework used to create TRIG has become "unsupported" as of February 2016, and, as
a consequence, will require upgrading. The City of Reno has retained Ecological Research
Associates (“ERA”) to develop and maintain the TRIG website, perform the required upgrades
and make significant improvements to the site. The total cost for the proposed upgrades and
maintenance for FY 2017 is $20,176.
Support for TRIG began in 2010 and, with the proposed FY2016-2017 scope of work and
budget, the cumulative cost to date will exceed the Program Manager’s $50,000 spending
authority. Staff is seeking a recommendation from the NNWPC to the WRWC to approve the
proposed FY 2016-2017 expenditure for TRIG upgrades, improvements and maintenance and to
execute an interlocal agreement with the City of Reno for that purpose.
BACKGROUND
As part of an ongoing effort to make information about the Truckee River more readily available,
the TRIG website was developed to provide web-based access to data. The Truckee Meadows
Water Reclamation Facility (“TMWRF”), the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection
(“NDEP”), and Coordinated Monitoring Program (“CMP”) partners have collected significant
quantities of data, most of which is useful to water quality experts, researchers, and concerned
protection groups. The TRIG website data portal has been serving as a repository for some of
these data, providing convenient accessibility to the data and other resources such as reports and
spreadsheets. ERA was contracted by the City of Reno to develop TRIG as a one-stop Truckee
River data warehouse and resource repository, accessible over the Internet.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for the TRIG website upgrades, improvements and maintenance was included in the
RWMF Routine Operating Expense budget in the “Website” budget category for FY 2016-2017.
8-03-16: NNWPC Agenda Item 5.c
Budget authority is located in Fund 7066, under Cost Center WP310707, Account Number
710100.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the NNWPC approve the proposed TRIG scope of work and budget for
website program upgrades and annual maintenance, and recommend that the WRWC execute an
interlocal agreement with the City of Reno for that purpose.
JS:cw
Attachments: Reno - ERA TRIG agreement
Page 2 of 2
8-03-16: NNWPC Agenda Item 5c
Attachment
Exhibit A-4
AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this
io
day of
~
, 2016, by and
between the CITY OF RENO, hereinafter referred to as "CITY" and ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH
ASSOCIATES, hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT."
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the CITY wishes to secure continuing services for Truckee River Info Gateway
("TRIG"), hereinafter referred to as "PROJECT."
NOW THEREFORE, the CITY and CONSULTANT agree as follows:
1.
Objectives.
The CONSULTANT shall serve as the CITY's consultant of record and shall give
advice to the CITY during performance of services to which this Agreement applies. All services
shall be performed by the Consultant.
2.
Basic Services.
2.1 The CONSULTANT will perform the services as part of this agreement as set
forth in Attachment A, consisting of 6 pages, which is incorporated herein by this reference as if set
forth in full herein. The services performed are for FY 16/17 (Computer upgrade w/enhancements +
maintenance) in the amount of $20,176. Further, should any term and condition in Attachment A
contradict a term of this Agreement, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall control.
2.2 The CONSULTANT will not change its Project Manager without written
approval from the CITY.
3.
CITY Responsibility.
3.1
The CITY shall designate a Project Manager to act as the CITY's
representative with respect to the work performed under this Agreement.
3.2
The CITY shall give prompt written notice to the CONSULTANT whenever
the CITY observes or otherwise becomes aware of a problem with the project.
4.
Authorization, Progress and Completion.
By execution of this Agreement, the CITY grants to the CONSULTANT specific
authorization to proceed, upon written notice, of the services as specified in Article 2 of this
Agreement. All documents and materials shall be prepared per Attachment A.
1
5.
Compensation.
5.1
Compensation for services performed as described in Article 2, for the
duration identified in Article 4 of this Agreement shall be payable per Attachment A. The charge for
services breakdown is as shown on Attachment A for a total not-to-exceed figure of$20,176.00 for
FY 16/17. This total not to exceed figure includes costs as well as fees.
5.2
Invoices for services rendered shall be submitted monthly. Payment by the
CITY will be made within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt.
6.
Special Services.
No additional services shall be performed and no additional compensation shall be
permitted without a CITY approved written "Supplemental Agreement".
This supplemental
agreement must be approved by the authorized representative. Further, such supplemental agreement
must be executed prior to the commencement or performance of any additional work.
7.
Records to be Maintained by Consultant.
7.1 The CONSULTANT shall maintain records supporting requests for payment.
Such records shall be available for inspection and audit by the CITY, and the CONSULTANT shall
provide duplicate copies of all such records upon request by the CITY.
7.2 The information, conclusions and data generated during this Agreement by
the CONSULTANT is for the exclusive use of the CITY. The CONSULTANT may not use this
information, conclusions or data for any purpose other than to further the requirements of this
Agreement. The CONSULTANT may not produce papers for professional journals or
presentations for conferences without written permission and active participation by the CITY
Project Manager.
8.
Ownership of Documents: Copyrights.
8.1 The CONSULTANT shall furnish to the CITY all field notes, reports, data,
and electronic or magnetic media, and original tracings of all drawings and plans, maps,
photographs, and other materials (including, if requested by the Director, design computations,
design sketches and review drawings) prepared pursuant to this Contract (hereinafter collectively
referred to as "Documents"). The originals of such Documents shall be and remain the property
ofthe CITY.
2
8.2 All of such Documents shall be deemed to be "works made for hire" prepared
for the CITY. The ownership of all copyrights and all rights embodied in the copyrights in or to
such Documents shall rest in the CITY when any such is subject to copyright. The
CONSULTANT agrees that it, nor any of its employees, shall have any right to copyright any of
such Documents. The CONSULTANT further agrees that neither it nor any of its employees
shall exercise any of the rights embodied in the copyrights in or to such Documents, unless
authorized to do so by the Reno City Council. The CONSULTANT shall place a conspicuous
notation upon each Document which indicates that the copyright thereto is owned by the CITY.
8.3 Should it be finally determined, by a court or to her tribunal of competent
jurisdiction, that any of such Documents is not a "works make for hire," it is agreed that the
provisions of this section shall be termed an assignment, sale, and transfer of the copyright in or
to such Documents to the CITY for the longest term allowed by law. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the CONSULTANT may retain copies of such Documents and such copies shall
remain the property ofthe CONSULTANT. The CONSULTANT shall have the right to use
such copies as it may desire, but the CONSULTANT may not sell, license, or otherwise market
such Documents.
8.4 Documents, including drawings and specification prepared by
CONSULTANT pursuant to this Contract, are not intended or represented to be suitable for reuse
by CITY or others on extensions of the services provided for the Project or any other project.
Any use of completed Documents for other projects and/or any use of uncompleted Documents
without specific written authorization from CONSULTANT will be at the CITY's sole risk
without liability or legal exposure to CONSULTANT.
9.
Skill Level of Consultant.
Service performed by CONSULTANT will be conducted in a manner consistent with
that level of care and skill ordinarily expected by members of the profession currently practicing in
this area under similar conditions. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for the professional quality
and technical accuracy of all services furnished by CONSULTANT.
10.
Insurance.
The CONSULTANT shall maintain, during the term of this Agreement, an occurrence
comprehensive general liability insurance for limits of not less than one million dollars ($1 ,000,000)
3
for bodily injury and property damages, per occurrence. As evidence of liability insurance coverage,
the CITY will accept certification of insurance issued by an authorized representative of the
insurance carrier. Coverage must be provided by an insurance company licensed to do business in
the State of Nevada with an A.M. Best Rating of A- Class VII or better.
CONSULTANT shall maintain during the term of this Agreement and for six years
after the completion of the project errors and omissions insurance, with each subsequent renewal
having a retroactive date which predates the date ofthis Agreement, in the amount of not less that
one million dollars ($1 ,000,000). As evidence of errors and omissions insurance coverage, the CITY
will accept certification of insurance by an authorized representative of the insurance carrier.
Each certificate shall contain a 30-day written notice of cancellation to the certificate
holder for any reason other than non-payment of premium and for non-payment of premium at least
10-day written notice and shall name the CITY as an additional insured, ifthe policy so allows and at
the expense of the CITY, ifthere is a cost.
11.
Indemnification.
a.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, the CONSULTANT shall defend,
indemnify and hold harmless the CITY and its officers, employees and agents (collectively
"Indemnitees") from any liabilities, damages, losses, claims, actions or proceedings, including,
without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees, that are caused by the negligence, errors, omissions,
recklessness or intentional misconduct of the CONSULTANT or the employees or agents of the
CONSULTANT in the performance of this Agreement.
b.
The CONSULTANT assumes no liability for the negligence or willful
misconduct of any indemnitee or other consultants of indemnitee.
c.
The CONSULTANT's indemnification obligations for claims involving
"Professional Liability" (claims involving acts, error, or omissions in the rendering of professional
services) and "Economic Loss Only" (claims involving economic loss which are not connected with
bodily injury or physical damage to property) shall be limited to the proportionate extent of
CONSULTANT's negligence or other breach of duty.
12.
Intellectual Property Indemnity.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall defend, protect,
hold harmless, and indemnify CITY and the CITY related parties from and against any and all
4
liability, loss, claims, demands, suits, costs, fees and expenses (including actual fees and
expenses of attorneys, expert witnesses, and other consultants), by whomsoever brought or
alleged, for infringement of patent rights, copyrights, or other intellectual property rights, except
with respect to designs, processes or products of a particular manufacturer expressly required by
CITY in writing. If CONSULTANT has reason to believe the use of a required design, process
or product is an infringement of a patent, CONSULTANT shall be responsible for such loss
unless such information is promptly given to CITY. This Indemnity Covenant shall survive the
termination of this Agreement.
13.
Taxes.
CONSULTANT shall pay any and all Federal, State and local taxes, charges, fees, or
contributions required by law to be paid with respect to CONSULTANT's performance of this
Agreement (including, without limitation, unemployment insurance, social security, and income
taxes).
14.
Independent Contractor.
The parties agree that CONSULTANT is an independent contractor and this
Agreement is entered into in conformance with the provisions ofNRS 333.700. The parties agree
that CONSULTANT is not a CITY employee and there shall be no:
a.
Withholding of income taxes by the CITY;
b.
Industrial insurance provided by the CITY;
c
Participation in group insurance plans which may be available to
employees of the CITY;
d.
Participation or contributions by either the independent contractor or
CITY to any public employees' retirement system;
e.
Accumulation of vacation leave or sick leave;
f.
Unemployment compensation coverage provided by CITY if the
requirements ofNRS 612.085 for independent contractors are met.
15.
Workmen' s Compensation Insurance.
It is understood and agreed that there shall be no Industrial Insurance coverage
provided for CONSULTANT or any Subconsultant by the CITY and in view ofNRS 616B.627
and 617.210 requiring that CONSULTANT complies with the provisions of Chapters 616A to
5
616D, inclusive and 617 ofNRS, CONSULTANT shall, before commencing work under the
provision of this Agreement, furnish to the CITY a certificate of insurance from the Worker'
Compensation Insurer certifying that the CONSULTANT and each Subconsultant have compiled
with the provisions of the Nevada Industrial Insurance Act, by providing coverage for each and
every employee, subconsultants, and independent contractors. Should the CONSULTANT be
self-insured for Industrial Insurance, the CONSULTANT shall so notify the CITY and approve
written approval of such self-insurance prior to the signing of a Contract. The CITY reserves the
right to accept or reject a self-insured CONSULTANT and to approve the amount(s) of any selfinsured retentions. The CONSULTANT agrees that the CITY is entitled to obtain additional
documentation, financial or otherwise, for review prior to entering into a Contract with the
CONSULTANT.
Upon completion of the project, the CONSULTANT shall provide the CITY with
a Final Certificate for itself and each Subconsultant which is prepared by the State of Nevada
Industrial Insurance System. If the CONSULTANT or Subconsultants are unlicensed and are a
sole proprietor, coverage for the sole proprietor must be purchased and evidence of coverage
must appear on the Certificate of Insurance and Final Certificate.
It is further understood and agreed by and between the CITY and CONSULTANT that
CONSULTANT shall procure, pay for, and maintain the above mentioned industrial insurance
coverage at the CONSULTANT's sole cost and expense.
16.
Business License.
CONSULTANT shall maintain in full force and effect throughout the term of this
Agreement a current business license from the City of Reno.
17.
Compliance with Legal Obligations.
CONSULTANT shall procure and maintain for the duration of this Agreement any
state, county, city or federal license, authorization, waiver, permit, qualification or certification
required by statute, ordinance law, or regulation to be held by CONSULTANT to provide the
services required by this Agreement. CONSULTANT is solely responsible to pay assessments,
premiums, permits and licenses required by law. Further, CONSULTANT agrees to comply with all
applicable federal and state laws including, but not limited to, the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990 and related standards, guidelines, and regulations (collectively "ADA") in providing the
6
services identified in this Agreement. It is the responsibility of CONSULTANT to address in the
performance of the services any and all access or other issues to assure compliance with the ADA.
18.
Employment Opportunity.
CONSULTANT shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for
employment because of race, creed, color national origin, sex, sexual orientation or age. Sexual
orientation means having or being perceived as having an orientation for heterosexuality,
homosexuality or bi-sexuality. Any violation of this provision by consultant shall constitute a
material breach of contract.
19.
Notices.
Any notices provided for herein shall be given in writing by certified mail, return
receipt requested, or by personal service to:
20.
CITY OF RENO:
City of Reno
John Flansberg, P.E.
Director of Public Works
If by personal service
1 East First Street. ih Floor
Reno, NV 89501
If by mail
P.O. Box 1900
Reno, NV 89505
CONSULTANT:
Ecological Research Associates
Attn. Charles R. Goldman, Ph.D.
PO Box 3845
Incline Village, NV 89450
Assignment.
This Agreement is binding on the heirs, successors, and assigns of the parties hereto.
This Agreement is not to be assigned by either party without prior written consent of the other.
21.
Integration.
This agreement represents the entire understanding of CITY and CONSULTANT as
to those matters contained herein. No prior oral or written understanding shall be of any force or
effect with respect to those matters covered hereunder. This Agreement may not be modified or
altered except by written amendment thereto signed by both parties.
7
22.
Jurisdiction.
This Agreement shall be administered and interpreted under the laws of the State of
Nevada. If any part of this Agreement is found to be in conflict with applicable laws, such part shall
be inoperative, null and void insofar as it is in conflict with said laws, but the remainder of this
Agreement shall be in full force and effect.
23.
Suspension of Work.
Either party may suspend, by written notice, all or a portion of the work under this
Agreement, in the event unforeseeable circumstances, beyond the control of either party, make
normal progress in the performance of the work impossible. The party desiring to suspend the work
must request that the work be suspended by notifying the other party, in writing, ofthe circumstances
which are interfering with normal progress of the work. The time for completion of the work shall
be extended by the number of days the work is suspended. In the event that the period of suspension
exceeds ninety (90) working days, the terms ofthis Agreement are subject to renegotiation and both
parties are granted the option to terminate work on the suspended portion of the project in
accordance to Article 24 of this Agreement.
24.
Termination of Work.
The CITY may terminate, by written notice, the work under this Agreement. The
CONSULTANT may terminate work in the event the CITY fails to perform in accordance with the
provisions of this Agreement. Termination of this Agreement is accomplished by fifteen (15)
working days prior written notice from the party initiating termination to the other. Notice ofthe
termination shall be delivered by certified mail with receipt of delivery returned to the Sender. In the
event of termination, the CONSULTANT shall perform such additional work, as is necessary for the
ordinary filing of documents, and closing shall not exceed ten percent (10%) of the total time
expended on the termination portion of the project prior to the effective date of termination. The
CONSULTANT shall be compensated for the terminated portion of the work on the basis of work
actually performed prior to the effective date of termination, plus the work required for filing and
closing. Charges for the latter work are subject to the ten percent (1 0%) limitation described in this
Article.
8
CONSULTANT expressly agrees that this Agreement shall be terminated
immediately if for any reason local, federal and/or State Legislature funding ability to satisfy this
Agreement is withdrawn, limited, or impaired.
25.
Dispute Resolution.
All claims, counterclaims, disputes and other matters in question between the CITY
and the CONSULTANT arising out of, or relating to, this contract or breach of it, unless otherwise
settled, may be mediated before initiation of a judicial action.
Unless the parties mutually agree otherwise, mediation will be in accordance with the
Construction Industry Mediation Procedures of the American Arbitration Association currently in
effect. The American Arbitration Association will not be used to administer or facilitate the process
or the selection of the mediators. Instead, the parties will attempt to mutually agree to the
appointment of one mediator. If the parties cannot agree to one mediator, each party shall select one
mediator and the two mediators will appoint a third mediator. The parties agree to split the
mediator(s) fees and expenses. Each party shall bear their own attorney's fees and other costs
incurred for the mediation.
26.
Attorneys' fees.
If either party breaches this Agreement, the prevailing party in any litigation,
including arbitration, concerning the Agreement is entitled to recover its court costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees.
27.
Severability.
If any provision contained in this Agreement is held to be unenforceable by a court of
law or equity, this Agreement shall be construed as if such provision did not exist and the
nonenforceability of such provision shall not be held to render any other provision or provisions of
this Agreement unenforceable.
28.
Due Authorization.
Each party represents that all required authorizations have been obtained to execute this
Agreement and for the compliance with each and every term hereof. Each person signing this
Agreement warrants and represents to the other party that he or she has actual authority to
execute this Agreement on behalf of the party for whom he or she is signing. A facsimile
signature on this Agreement shall be treated for all purposes as an original signature. This
9
Agreement is executed in one duplicate original for each party hereto, and is binding on a party
only when all parties have signed and received a duplicate original.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to these presents have hereunto set their hands and
seals the year and date first above written.
CITY OF RENO
__
~/
Andrew Clinger, City Manager
d;J-K~~~we_
By: Charles R. Goldman, PhD, President
{S~\Zo~
usan Ball Rothe, Deputy City Attorney
10
ATrACHMEm' A
Truckee River :Info Gateway (TRIG):
Pro·v iding data tic.h resources and portal
en·h ancements with ongoing m:aintenan·ce
Scope of Work
Submitted to:
City of Reno c
Cities Representative:
Lynell Garfield-Quails, Hydrologist
Submitted by:
POBox~
3b y )
Incline Village, NV 89452
g 9 '1 s-o
btqJi/lwww.ecolegicalresearchassboi,ateslcem.
Consultant Representative:
Charles R. Goldman, Ph.D.
1
Introduction
Over the years, the water quality and aquatic habitats of the Truckee River have been closely
monitored by the Cities of Reno and Sparks. The Truckee Meadows Water Reclamation Facility
(TMWRF), Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP), and Coordinated Monitoring
Program partners (CMP) have collected significant quantities of data, most of which need to be
accessible to water quality experts, researchers, and concerned protection groups. The Truckee
River Info Gateway (TRIG) website I data portal has been serving as a repository for some of
these data, including other resources such as reports and spreadsheets. Importantly, the version
of the website framework used to create TRIG, Drupal 6, will soon become "unsupported"
(February 24, 2016) as all development efforts in the Drupal community is now geared toward
maintaining Drupal 7 and developing enhancements to the newly released Drupal 8. We are
proposing to make significant improvements to the TRIG website, migrating the site to Drupal 8,
continuing to maintaining the site, and providing additional resources for its various audiences,
including the Truckee Meadows NPDES Stormwater permit program and local TMDL
stakeholder group.
Ecological Research Associates (ERA) built TRIG to be a one-stop, data warehouse and resource
repository on the Truckee River (and its tributaries) accessible over the Internet. The website
currently serves data and metadata for various datasets from the NDEP, TMWRF, Truckee
Meadows Storm Water Permit Coordinating Committee, Tahoe-Truckee Sanitation Agency
(TTSA), and the Truckee River Watershed Council (TRWC). There are also important
documents and resources related to the TMDL process, water quality standards review, the
coordinated monitoring program, and other planning efforts, which the cities of Reno and Sparks
have contracted TRIG for maintaining. Other resources that are available and hosted on TRIG
include a list of collection sites along with a mapping interface to the individual locations, digital
images, geographic data, bibliography of articles, and online documents and reports.
The mission of TRIG, as stated on the homepage, is to be "an invaluable resource for Truckee
River basin studies". To fully actualize this, we need to make upgrades to the website so that the
data hosted can be accessed in additional ways. Also, the website needs to become a mobile first
website, so that people can use tablets and smartphones to view the information hosted on the
site. We would also like to continue to improve participation from individuals who want to add
content to the site, and to support watershed management efforts while maximizing utilization of
resources.
2
About Ecological Research Associates (ERA)
ERA is an environmental consulting company with over 50 years of experience focused on water
related research and consulting in the Sierra Nevada, High Desert, Lake Tahoe, and Pyramid
Lake, as well as extensive resetvoir and lake consulting assignments throughout the world. ERA
was founded in 1959 by the current President, Dr. Charles R. Goldman, Emeritus Distinguished
Professor of Limnology at the University of California in Davis. The Company performs
specialized consulting and planning work on small and large lakes as well as reservoirs, rivers
and estuaries.
Summary of Tasks and Estimated Timelines
ERA will embark on several significant improvements and developments to the TRIG website.
This includes a redesign of the user interface to make access easier and more logical. Graphics
will be standardized to ensure the same look and feel throughout the online experience. Below
are a summary of taxks and an estimate of when they will be completed, although working
versions could certainly be available before these dates.
•
Upgrade TRIG from Drupal 6 to Drupal8
The framework will be upgraded and the site will be more modern in appearance and
design. The underlying technology provides more capability to add web services which
will provide other ways of accessing the data hosted. We plan to bypass Drupal 7, as
Drupal8 is currently the recommended platform to use for new sites. (Completed before
September 30, 2016)
•
Mobile-First design
The new design will support smartphones and tablets, while desktops computers will
function even more effectively. (Completed before September 30, 2016)
•
Online training guide
We will develop a short training guide which will be hosted online, providing help for
those who are going to be adding and maintaining the site's content. (Completed by
November 30, 2016)
•
Maintain existing website for the duration of this contract
Even with the new Drupal 8 framework, there will be periodic security updates and
enhancements. We'll ensure that the latest version of Drupal 8 is secured to prevent
hackers and crackers from damaging the site. Regular meetings will also help determine
some priorities for other minor enhancements. (Ongoing)
3
Proposed Objectives
Upgrade TRIG from Drupal 6 to Drupal 8
TRIG is built with the content management system (CMS), Drupal. This powerful (and popular)
open source web framework has one of the strongest communities on the web, and has many
developers and participants who help support the CMS. The current version of TRIG was
constructed using Drupal 6, and this version will no longer be supported by the community in the
near future. As the community moves on to Drupal 8, support for Drupal 6 will cease. It is
important that the site follow an upgrade path so that it can properly utilize the security features
and internal enhancements and offer the best possible experience to the end user. Now is the
time to upgrade to Drupal 8, and this is one of the primary activities of this proposal. We
estimate a total of 100 hours of work to complete the migration with additional enhancements,
including the ones listed below.
The upgrade to Drupal 8 will provide many enhancements and improvements. There are many
subtle usability improvements which make the administration of the sites easier. There are also
performance improvements as well as many security improvements. TRIG has been plagued
with spam in the past, which we have had to remove. There are new tools to help prevent spam
and automated account creation by web-hots. Other enhancements are listed below.
Mobile-First Site Design
A responsive design will be implemented for the sites theme, making it possible to navigate the
site with a smartphone and tablet more easily. Studies show that many people are using their
mobile devices to conduct business, and it is, therefore, important to have a site design which can
work on these devices. This task is linked to the task above, and will be built from the beginning
to support mobile devices.
The new design will be both elegant and more functional, improving the user interface and
"usability" for those individuals who will login and add content. The site will also become a
little easier to use, based on the improvements Drupal 8 has made from Drupal 6.
Website Maintenance
Managing a Drupal website requires that new security updates are applied to production websites
immediately. For example, when the frameworks moves from 8.0 to 8.1, it is important to apply
this change to minimize the risk of a security incident to the website. Leaving an open security
hole is an invitation to hackers and crackers. The website administrator-in this case ERA-has
a responsibility to adhere to this schedule to help prevent unwanted intrusion.
4
Beside upgrading the Drupal Core framework, there are also third party modules to support.
Third party modules provide additional functionality to a website. As there modules are updates
with security fixes and functional improvements, the site incorporates these enhancements also.
Various ways to Access Data
The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has devised a set of standards for the exchange of
information across the Internet. Implementing these open standards has a lot of advantages in
the context of the Truckee River, where various agencies and organizations hold disparate data.
Researchers can go to a single website to collect an inventory of the available data, query the
metadata for precise search results, and even access data from these sources though the portal.
We will discuss our strategy, experiences, and interim results as we collaborate in this effort.
Web Mapping of Collection Sites
The use of web mapping tools has become a standard way of accessing spatial information that
for TRIG includes location of collection sites and data (and metadata) from those sites. TRIG
has collected a fair amount of data (over 3.25 million records) since we started, and some of the
context of these data is lost without an online site map to visualize their location. The ability to
click a point on a map that links to a description, image, and available data, is very important in
understanding the ''big picture", and how these data are related in the Truckee River basin.
Backups
Ongoing backups of the web framework, the database, and the associated linked files are
essential. The backup procedure needs to be tested and there needs to be a high degree of
assurance that this procedure will work in the event of an incident, such as a disk crash, site
compromise, or natural disaster.
We will outline the website's backup and restore procedures including its fault tolerant capability.
Major improvements in this area would likely increase the overall costs of the project, as adding
redundancy to the system will increase the costs, but we will clearly document the procedure and
have discussions as to the level of fault tolerance required.
5
..
Budget
This budget is for one and a half (1.5) years of maintenance and support. Initial development to
upgrade the framework would be a one time cost, after which we would hold regular (monthly)
meetings to make additional enhancements (as budget permitting). We would maintain the site
length of this contract. Please see the tasks, amount, and payment schedule below.
Task
Programming based on approximately 80 hours of work
-
Web Hosting+ SSL Certificate I for 1.5 years
'
$15,000
$300
Ongoing Maintenance and Support I for 1.5 years
$4,800
Travel Costs (Reno, NV from Davis, CA)
$165
---- ~-
Meetmg Hours (proJected over the next 1.5 years)
~i~an-eo-u~i~.e;e_s_ .--~.~---_-_·· ~--~---~-,_~_o_ta_l~--·----··-- -·~
Amount
-·-
$1200 1
~5~
---,.------·--t:------$2_1~~.
Overhead (26%)
Grand Total
$5,711 !
- - $27,6@
Amount
Year
·-
$7,500
FY 15-16 I Start upgrade and maintenance
FY 16-17/ Complete upgrade wl enhancements+ maintenance
$20,176
..
Grand Total
.___ ..-.
.
.. -·- ···...
-
-~· · .,- ·-
, ,-: ,
.... .__
6
-·- - - ···----
$27,676
.
.
8-03-16: NNWPC Agenda Item 5.d
Northern Nevada
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
July 28, 2016
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Review and possible approval of a scope of work and budget, not to exceed $5,000 per
year for two years from the Regional Water Management Fund ("RWMF"), for the
Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency (“TMRPA”) ArcGIS Server Maintenance
project; and, if approved, authorize the Program Manager to execute an interlocal
agreement with the TMRPA Regional Planning Governing Board for that purpose;
possible direction to staff.
SUMMARY
Staff requests that the NNWPC review and approve the Scope of Work and Budget (attached “Exhibit A”)
for the proposed ArcGIS Server Maintenance project which will provide for maintenance of data sets,
GIS processing and internet-based data sharing capabilities between TMRPA, NNWPC and other
agencies. Water and wastewater GIS data sets, developed as part of the Regional Data Development and
Analytical Program and stored on the TMRPA ArcGIS server, have been used to develop projections of
regional water use and wastewater flow associated with various 20-year growth scenarios and provided
for use in the Regional Water Management Plan 2016 update. This item, if approved, will provide for
ongoing maintenance of the ArcGIS server during Fiscal Years (“FY”) 2016-2017 and 2017-2018.
BACKGROUND
The Regional Data Development and Analytical Program was completed as of June 30, 2016. TMRPA
accomplished the scope of work and finished significantly under budget, leaving an unexpended balance
of approximately $300,000.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for the TMRPA ArcGIS Server Maintenance project is included in the RWMF Routine
Operating Expense budget for FY 2016-2017. Budget authority is located in Fund 7066, under Cost
Center WP310707, Account Number 710100.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the NNWPC approve the scope of work and budget and authorize the Program
Manager to execute an interlocal agreement with the Regional Planning Governing Board for the project.
JS:js
Attachment: Scope of Work and Budget
Attachment
Exhibit A
Scope of Work and Budget
ArcGIS Server Maintenance
Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency
The Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency (TMRPA) staff and the Western Regional Water
Commission (“WRWC”) staff began working cooperatively in 2011 on the Regional Data Development
and Analytical Program. Completed as of June 30, 2016, the program developed significant geospatial
data sets for water and sewer services and facilities, which are housed on TMRPA’s ArcGIS server. These
data sets, combined with TMRPA’s GIS processing and modeling capability, provided valuable input for
the Regional Water Management Plan 2016 update, particularly projections for population, water
demands and wastewater flows. WRWC staff and TMRPA staff are interested in continued cooperation
for maintaining data sets, GIS processing and internet-based data sharing capabilities.
Current and future uses:
TMRPA has leveraged its ArcGIS Server software and architecture to serve many community needs that
benefit from the use of GIS data. The majority of this work has a direct link to water resource planning
efforts in the region, especially as this software product helps TMRPA perform spatial modeling of future
population and employment within the Truckee Meadows. Some relevant uses and products created
by TMRPA using ArcGIS Server are listed below.
•
Scenario planning efforts such as the TMRPA Housing Study, wherein the region is examining the
relative cost difference to serve new residential developments with water and sewer service
when considering 4 distinct scenarios of future residential growth in the Truckee Meadows. The
server product allows GIS data sharing over the internet with participating water and
wastewater staff members that do not typically use GIS. This, in turn, allows for collaboration
and coordination in assessing the impact of different development futures.
•
TMRPA has created several online viewers for the dissemination of planning-related GIS data
about our region. Some of these are listed below:
o Regional Plan Data Viewer – an online viewer application that allows interactive viewing
of the GIS data layers and boundaries associated with the Truckee Meadows Regional
Plan
o Approved Future Units Viewer – knowing where future residential developments are
planned/approved is a crucial component of predicting future build out. This tool allows
planners and the public alike to query proposed (and realized) housing units in active
tentative map areas and in planned unit developments.
Attachment
o
•
Regional Economic Resource Portal (RERP) – an online viewer of business point data that
allows the Economic Development Authority of Western Nevada to query business
information (e.g. number of employees) by location, name and industry type.
Publishing online map services for use in third-party applications. For example, an app on the
Regional Transportation Commission’s website utilizes an online map service from TMRPA to let
potential customers know whether or not their address falls within the ADA Paratransit service
boundary.
Technical Information:
TMRPA utilizes a suite of geographic information systems software distributed by the Environmental
Systems Research Institute (ESRI). One crucial component of this software suite is ArcGIS Server.
ArcGIS Server allows an organization to centralize GIS data in an enterprise geodatabase that can be
accessed using desktop applications such as ArcMap, but also provides the capacity to serve up
geospatial data on the internet through the use of online map services. After initial purchase, the
ArcGIS Server license requires an annual maintenance fee for technical support and for access to
new versions of the ArcGIS Server software.
Currently, TMRPA uses a four-core application server to manage and distribute data from the
TMRPA Regional Data Warehouse. ESRI charges an annual licensing fee of $5,000 for a server of this
configuration. Paying the license maintenance allows TMRPA access to the most current ArcGIS
Server software version and thus ensures that TMRPA map data and web mapping applications
remain compatible with the constantly evolving web protocols, security standards and development
environments found on today’s internet.
Furthermore, staying current with license maintenance fees will guarantee that ESRI support staff
are available to assist TMRPA in the event of technical issues which may arise around the storage,
management and distribution of important regional geospatial datasets. Additionally, staying
current with license maintenance allows TMRPA the use of several online services from ESRI such as
the creation of story maps, smartphone and tablet applications, real-time data processing and much
more.
Budget
Northern Nevada
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
July 28, 2016
TO:
FROM:
Jim Smitherman, Water Resources Program Manager
SUBJECT:
Report from the Regional Effluent Management Team; review and possible
approval of a proposal for a 4-year project entitled “Advanced Water Treatment
Technologies Demonstration” and budget, not to exceed $155,699 for fiscal year
2016-2017 and a total of $676,475 from the RWMF; and, if approved, possible
recommendation to the WRWC to execute an interlocal agreement with the
University of Nevada, Reno for that purpose; possible direction to staff.
SUMMARY
On April 4, 2016, Regional Effluent Management Team (the "Team") members presented a
PowerPoint presentation covering a number of near-term effluent management topics including a
phased feasibility program centered around a proposed Advanced Water Treatment Technologies
project to be conducted by the University of Nevada, Reno (“UNR”).
Team members will provide an updated PowerPoint presentation covering progress since April,
and present a proposal from UNR for the Advanced Water Treatment Technologies
Demonstration project (attached).
BACKGROUND
In December 2014, the Northern Nevada Water Planning Commission (“NNWPC”) directed
staff to prepare a presentation summarizing wastewater master planning in the region and
outlining a scope of work for a wastewater and effluent management master plan update. The
Team, technical staff from the City of Reno, the City of Sparks, Washoe County and the Truckee
Meadows Water Authority, have been meeting informally since April 2014 to discuss regional
effluent management issues. Working together with the Team, staff provided the requested
information and materials at the following two NNWPC meetings. In January 2015, the
NNWPC reviewed and discussed a proposed approach to regional effluent management
planning. In February 2015, the Team recommended that the NNWPC provide funding for a
project coordinator to assist the Team in working toward regionally-based solutions to several
near-term effluent management issues that were outlined in the proposal reviewed at the prior
meeting. The NNWPC approved the requested funding in an amount not to exceed $25,000. On
February 3, 2016, staff presented a brief status report on the activities of the Team and project
coordinator. On April 6, 2016, staff presented a more detailed report and recommended a time
extension and $25,000 additional funding to continue the project coordinator services through
December 2016.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for the Advanced Water Treatment Technologies Demonstration Project is included in
the RWMF professional services budget for FY 2016-2017. Budget authority is located in Fund
7066, under Cost Center WP310205, Account Number 710100.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the NNWPC accept the Team’s report, approve the UNR proposal for the
4-year project entitled “Advanced Water Treatment Technologies Demonstration” and budget,
not to exceed $155,699 for fiscal year 2016-2017 and a total of $676,475 from the RWMF; and
recommend that the WRWC execute an interlocal agreement with the UNR for that purpose.
JS:js
Attachment – UNR Project Proposal: Advanced Water Treatment Technologies Demonstration
Page 2 of 2
Attachment
PROJECT PROPOSAL
Principal Investigator: Krishna Pagilla, Ph.D., P.E.
Project Number:
1. Project Title:
Advanced Water Treatment Technologies Demonstration
2. Principal Investigator:
Krishna Pagilla, Ph.D., P.E., Professor
University of Nevada, Reno
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Phone: 775-682-1918; E-mail: [email protected]
3. Project Manager:
Jim Smitherman, Program Manager
Western Regional Water Commission
Northern Nevada Water Planning Commission
1001 E. Ninth Street, Reno, NV 89520
Phone: 775-954-4657
E-mail: [email protected]
3. Statement of Work:
See Page 2
4. Duration of the Project: August 22, 2016 to February 21, 2020
5. Specified Deliverable Items:
As described in the Statement of Work
6. Equipment:
None
7. Budget and Description: See Page 13
1 3. Statement of Work Advanced Water Treatment Technologies Demonstration A. Introduction and Background Staff from the Northern Nevada Water Planning Commission, City of Reno, City of Sparks, Truckee Meadows Water Authority, and Washoe County (Regional Team) is jointly developing a feasibility study to evaluate whether the State of Nevada’s proposed “exceptional quality” standard for recycled water offers regional long‐range water supply benefits. Exceptional quality recycled water, achieved through a series of advanced water treatment processes, is being proposed to permit the use of recycled water for groundwater augmentation. The Regional Team envisions a feasibility study occurring over the next 5 years that consists of multiple elements including cost/benefit analysis, regulatory formulation, public engagement, advanced treatment pilot testing, geotechnical investigations, and field scale treatment demonstration projects. A growing number of national and international communities have developed advanced treated recycled water projects to offer an efficient use of water resources, defer expenditures on future water importation projects, provide a local drought proof water supply, and craft a more resilient total water management strategy. Within the water sector, projects utilizing advanced treatment for recycled water are typically referred to as potable reuse projects. While the Regional Team seeks to develop a more comprehensive assessment through a demonstration‐scale groundwater replenishment project, there is no current plan to augment local potable water supplies at full scale. A panel of international water reuse experts is guiding the Regional Team’s feasibility phase activities. Independently, the advanced water treatment investigations would be conducted over the next 3 to 4 years, led by researchers at University of Nevada, Reno (UNR). UNR will develop: the technological justification for selecting the advanced water treatment systems; establish the field scale demonstration project design basis and testing plan; assist acquiring the necessary water treatment equipment; assist during the installation of the demonstration project; conduct startup of the treatment facility optimizing the treatment unit processes; perform monitoring and testing of the operating strategies, process control, and performance parameters during steady state operations; analyze data, and prepare a final report. The specific goals, tasks, and project team are described in this scope document in addition to a tentative project schedule and preliminary budget. Technological options considered for advanced treatment of recycled water to meet drinking water standards include a reverse‐osmosis (RO) based treatment train and a biological filtration based treatment train. The former has the distinct disadvantage of sidestream RO brine disposal for inland regions. Therefore, to meet the study goals, the recycled water will be further treated through a series of advanced water treatment processes, likely including biological activated carbon (BAC) filtration, advanced oxidation, UV disinfection, and soil aquifer treatment (SAT). A further review of the 2 applicability of this treatment vis‐à‐vis other alternatives will be explored during the initial stages of this project. B. Project Goals The overall goal of the project is to develop two field scale advanced recycled water treatment demonstration projects. Each demonstration project is envisioned to operate 9‐12 months. The specific goals are as follows: 1. Develop the plans for scale and sequence of technical components for the field scale demonstration project. 2. Develop operational testing plans including day‐to‐day operation, monitoring, analytical testing, data analysis and modeling, and risk management for implementation. 3. Develop potential strategies for groundwater augmentation utilizing both infiltration basins and direct injection wells. 4. Operate and collect data, conduct data analysis, and prepare full scale implementation needs report. C. Project Tasks In order to achieve the overall project goal and specific goals identified above, UNR will perform the following tasks under this project. The tasks are further outlined below to describe the scope of the study. C.1. Project Rationale and Justification for Advanced Treated Recycled Water in the Truckee Meadows a. Review current scenarios/plans of water use/reuse, water resources availability, and recycled water management in the Truckee Meadows region b. Determine the required level of treating recycled water to meet exceptional quality standards. c. Identify economic, environmental, and social benefits within the region d. Conduct triple bottom line analysis of current water management versus the future water management scenario including utilizing advanced treated recycled water meeting exceptional quality standards. e. Develop a statement of opportunity for recycled water in the region Deliverables: Produce a vision/planning document based on current scenarios and future needs documenting whether advanced treated recycled water should be implemented for sustainable water management in the Truckee Meadows region. Task Period: 4 months 3 C.2. Critical Review of Technologies that can meet Nevada DEP Regulations/ Requirements a. Review of Draft Nevada Regulations/Requirements i.
Develop comments jointly with Regional Team and Expert Panel b. Identify Potential Advanced Treatment Options I.
RO based Systems II.
BAC based Systems III.
Other Treatment Options c. Evaluate Case Studies I.
Water Research Foundation Work II.
Pilot Studies III.
Full Scale Facilities d. Identify selected alternative treatment train for demonstration project Deliverables: Produce a Tech Memo of possible alternatives and the selected alternative for a treatment train that can meet the Nevada DEP regulations/ requirements either by infiltration and/or injection into the groundwater. Task Period: 4 months C.3. Basis of Design for the Demonstration Project a. WRF Recycled Water Characteristics b. Potential Method of Drinking Water Augmentation (injection or infiltration) c. Treatment Objectives d. Design Basis of Individual Treatment Units e. Treatment Train Alternatives i.
Process units, sizing, redundancy, configuration, etc. ii.
Includes soil aquifer treatment systems developed in collaboration with hydrologists from TMWA and Washoe County. f. Identification and Selection of Commercially Available Unit Operations/Processes for the Selected Treatment Train Deliverables: Develop the document containing design basis of the demonstration project including process design of the selected train and unit selection. Detailed drawings and non‐process design will be conducted by the Regional Team with assistance from UNR. Task Period: 4 months C.4. Demonstration System Testing Plan UNR will prepare a testing plan for the project which will include the following elements: a. Different demonstration testing phase and the goal(s) and end points of each phase. b. Operating conditions of each unit and the overall treatment train under each phase c. Duration of operation in each phase 4 d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
Sampling and monitoring locations Sampling and analysis plan Data validation and QA/QC plan Reporting methodology Safety procedures Troubleshooting protocols. Deliverables: Produce a testing plan document which will serve as the operating manual for the demonstration project advanced treatment system. Task Period: 4 months C.5. Demonstration System Equipment Procurement and Installation a. Assist the regional team in procurement of equipment and auxiliary services needed for the advanced treatment train b. Assist the regional team during construction/installation of the equipment, piping, control systems, etc., and ensure all the design criteria are satisfied. c. Review and keep on file manufacturers information on maintenance, operation, and troubleshooting of equipment Deliverables: Produce a document that will record all the equipment and supplies procured, any variations to the equipment identified in the design basis document, and keep on file all manufacturers information including any standard procedures (for operation and maintenance). Task Period: 4 months C.6. Treatment System Shakedown and Startup Once the construction of the field scale demonstration system is completed, UNR team will conduct shakedown and startup. a. Coordinate with each equipment vendor and conduct startup of each unit including any manufacturer training and operational procedures during startup. b. Conduct treatment train unit process integration and startup of all units in sequence to ensure hydraulic, process, instrumentation and control, and mechanical integrity. c. Develop any additional information needed for the treatment train operation and maintenance for routine, steady state operation. Deliverables: Startup of the advanced treatment train of the demonstration system. Modify the operations and maintenance document developed during testing plan development in C.4 to include additional information needed for the operation and maintenance of the treatment train. File containing all manufacturer’s information. Task Period: 2 months 5 C.7. Steady State Operation of the Treatment Train and Data Collection a. Filtration Testing & Optimization (Granular Media, Ozone, Membrane & BAC, Advanced Oxidation (Ultraviolet and Peroxide [AOP]), and Disinfection) UNR will maintain continuous operation of a single (or parallel units) conventional filtration with granular media filter, a single membrane filter, ozone treatment unit, a single biological activated carbon (BAC) filter, and an advanced oxidation process unit. Additional treatment process, such as pretreatment, ultra‐filtration, GAC, may also be evaluated based upon the project needs. Operations should have the flexibility to load the granular medium filters to higher hydraulic loading rates. The impacts of high hydraulic loading rates on filter performance and backwash requirements will be a study objective. Multiple influent turbidity values (high and average) will be tested. UNR team will operate the demonstration system for two years after startup and optimization period, which is expected to occur during the first two months. In addition to testing for exceptional quality standards, routine water quality monitoring such as turbidity, total suspended solids (TSS), total organic carbon (TOC), pH, temperature will be conducted over the course of the testing. The use of fluorescence excitation‐emission spectroscopy (FEEM) analytical techniques for organic matter characterization will be evaluated and may be implemented during the course of the study. Additionally for BAC, the performance of BAC filter will be evaluated by monitoring the reduction and fate of additional water quality constituents such as nitrosodimethylamaine (NDMA) unregulated trace organic compounds, biodegradable ozone byproducts (e.g., aldehydes), and all other parameters identified in the testing plan. b. Ozonation Testing and Optimization It is proposed to make use of a single ozone generation system that delivers gaseous ozone feed to multiple injection and contact skids. Optimal ozone dose for each case will be determined by monitoring removal of indicator compounds and formation of byproducts such as bromate. Mitigation strategies for byproducts will be developed, if necessary. Several samples will be taken before and after the ozone unit for a number of analyses including ultra‐violet transmittance (UVT), TOC, and indicator screening analysis. Total coliform testing and miscellaneous field measurements (pH, turbidity, etc) will be conducted. On‐line monitoring of UVT and TOC may be implemented. c. Steady‐State Operations and Monitoring The demonstration units will be operated continuously to the extent practicable. UNR will oversee the demonstration system operations and monitoring for approximately two years. During the steady‐state period, the optimized ozone dosage will be maintained and the biological activity of the carbon column will be monitored regularly. During this period, UNR will perform routine monitoring and sample analyses, for which frequency and number will be described in the sampling plan. 6 Quality assurance sampling and testing will occur at the Truckee Meadows Water Reclamation Facility certified laboratory. It is expected the Regional Team will contract directly with a certified laboratory for more complex or unique analyses, such as for unregulated organic compounds, specific pathogens, and specific compounds identified under Ozone‐BAC system monitoring below. UNR will conduct the sampling for these samples and receive the results. d. Data Analysis UNR will evaluate the monitoring results and prepare a demonstration test report on the performance of the demonstration system. The report will summarize contaminant removal, system reliability, feasibility, TOC reduction, disinfection performance and byproduct formation, and long‐
term benefits to the community. e. Sampling (Throughout Demonstration Testing) Sampling will be conducted during the entire demonstration system testing from startup to completion. Under this task, UNR will conduct all of the activities outlined in the testing plan. The following preparation activities will be conducted prior to each sampling event. • Order required sample bottles and blank water from analytical laboratories. • Prepare and apply sample bottle labels. • Prepare chain‐of‐custody (COC) forms. • Obtain all necessary equipment specified in testing plan. • Provide and calibrate field meters. All samples will be collected as grab samples using clean sampling techniques as specified in the testing plan. Under this task, UNR will conduct the following activities during each sampling event. • Conduct preparation activities listed above prior to each event. • Mobilize field team of two people to collect samples per testing plan guidance. • Package collected samples in coolers with ice. • Complete COC forms. • Deliver samples to the analytical laboratory for analysis within maximum allowable holding times. Clean sampling techniques will be followed during full sampling events, which include avoiding use of sunscreen, cigarettes, fragrances, deodorants, antibacterial soaps, insect sprays and caffeinated products. f. Sampling and Analysis Plan A Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) will be included in the testing plan prior to the startup of the system. SAP will contain detailed QA/QC program, sampling procedure, sample preservation, holding times, instrumentation calibration procedure and data collection and analysis methods. At 7 the present, it is anticipated that UNR will conduct all the conventional analyses in‐house, and all the advanced analyses will be conducted by an external laboratory contracted separately by the Regional Team. UNR will conduct the sampling and sample delivery to the external lab. UNR will conduct analysis of media microbial ecology from BAC filters. Potential constituents to be monitored during Optimization and Steady‐State Operation include the following shown in Table 1: Table 1. Potential list of conventional constituents to be measured/monitored and purpose Constituent Advanced Recycled Water Purpose Treatment Sampling Location pH/Alkalinity Influent and Effluent General Characteristics Turbidity Influent and Effluent Particle Content and Removal Coliforms, Total and Fecal Influent and Effluent Disinfection Efficiency Conductivity Influent and Effluent General Characteristics Nitrogen Species and Total N Influent and Effluent General Characteristics and BAC Efficiency Phosphate and Total P Influent and Effluent General Characteristics and BAC Efficiency Dissolved Oxygen Influent and Effluent BAC Treatment Needs Dissolved Ozone Reactor and Effluent Ozone Dose Determination BOD/COD Influent and Effluent General Characteristics TOC/DOC Influent and Effluent Organic Carbon Content UV Transmittance Influent UV Transmissability for Disinfection Bromide and Bromate Influent and Effluent Disinfection Byproducts Pathogens, Contaminants of Emerging Concern and Process Monitoring Specific to Ozone‐BAC System BAC performance will be evaluated by monitoring a suite of regulated and unregulated organic compounds (e.g. CECs, TOC, AOC, THMs, HAA, Nitrosamines, Nitrosoamine precursors, DBP formation potential, SUVA, media microbial ecology). CECs monitoring will include a shortlist of indicator compounds including flame retardants (TCEP, TCPP and TDCPP), pharmaceuticals (meprobamate), contrast media (iopromide), NDMA, NDMA precursors, biodegradable organics (formaldehyde and ethyl glyoxal) and THMs (chloroform). CECs, regulated/unregulated organic 8 compounds, and pathogens will be measured by external laboratory using the samples supplied by UNR. Additional analyses as required will be conducted to meet regulatory requirements for advanced treated recycled water for infiltration and injection options. UNR is responsible for sample collection and delivery to the external lab as needed. Preliminary Sampling Plan for the Advanced Treatment Train Based on the preliminary identification of advanced treatment train for the demonstration project, the following key locations will be sampled for different analyses.  Influent to the advanced treatment train (State of Nevada Class A reclaimed water)  Treated water produced by the advanced treatment train  Intermediate points in the treatment train likely to include effluents from chemical pretreatment, filtration (membrane and/or media), ozonation, biofiltration, advanced oxidation, and disinfection The sampling frequency for routine process monitoring and unit/system performance (conventional constituent list in Table 1) will be once per week during the advanced treatment train startup and steady state operation. Furthermore, the system will be sampled and monitored for detailed performance under steady state conditions once a quarter for a week during which all parameters will be measured. This sampling campaign will collect at least 3 samples on different days within a week. A detailed sampling plan including frequency of sampling and measurement for pathogens, CECs and specific organic contaminants will be determined during the detailed sampling plan development stage. Baseline characterization of WRF treated effluent will be conducted by weekly sampling during the period of system shakedown and startup (as in C.6) for determining the level of treatment needed for different regulated and unregulated chemical parameters. Additionally, physicochemical characterization parameters such as pH, alkalinity, temperature, conductivity, turbidity, BOD/COD, TOC/DOC, Nitrogen Species (ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, and total nitrogen/organic nitrogen) and Phosphorous species will be conducted for the WRF effluent (feed to the advanced treatment train). Deliverables: Quarterly progress reports documenting the performance of the individual units and overall treatment train based on the parameters monitored and measured. Task Period: 24 months C.8. Reporting a. UNR will attend monthly update meetings of the regional team and provide verbal updates to the team about the progress of the tasks. 9 b. UNR will provide a task report for each task of the demonstration project that UNR is responsible for development and operation. For tasks lasting longer than 3 months, a quarterly progress report will be produced. c. UNR will review comments provided by the regional team and modify reports with the comments addressed within 30 days after receiving the comments. d. A final draft report and a final report will be prepared at the end of the project by UNR. e. UNR will also prepare publications and presentations for conferences and journals, with the approval of regional team. Deliverables: Progress reports, task reports, final draft report, final report, and presentations and publications. Task Period: Continuous for the duration of the project C9. Workshops and Meetings a. UNR will conduct quarterly project meetings at UNR for the regional team to discuss the progress of the demonstration project. b. UNR will conduct twice a year workshops with the independent panel to discuss project progress and receive feedback. c. UNR will conduct once a year workshop with the regional team, other utilities conducting demonstration projects, selected and invited professional community from different agencies and organizations in Nevada and the rest of the country. Deliverables: Meeting minutes and workshop proceedings that will be documented in progress and other project reports. Task Period: Continuous for the duration of the demonstration project D. Project Team UNR project team will consist of the Principal Investigator, Dr. Krishna Pagilla, PE, two PhD students (likely Vijay Sundaram and Laura Haak), Staff Research Associate, and an undergraduate student assistant. Additional faculty and staff at UNR will be used for unique and supplementary tasks as needed with approval from the Regional Team. E. Project Schedule The project schedule for UNR tasks will extend over a period of 3‐1/2 years as per the schedule developed for the overall demonstration project shown in Table below. A detailed project schedule for UNR involvement outlining the exact duration of each task described above and the respective deliverables will be developed during the first quarter of the project after the scope has been refined by the Regional Team. Furthermore, the schedule will include some task period overlapping during the early stages of the project. 10 F. Other Provisions The following items are potential tasks during the demonstration period and are not included in the scope described above. a. Simultaneous operation of two advanced treatment trains (same or different) at one site or two different sites b. Monitoring and testing of samples collected from the injection and/or infiltration sites during SAT c. Procurement of equipment from different vendors (although UNR will assist in identifying and selecting the equipment) including obtaining quotes and receiving. d. Detailed design drawings of the demonstration system (civil site, process mechanical, electrical, instrumentation, and others) e. Installation of the equipment (although UNR will assist during installation) at the demonstration site f. UNR will provide reasonable assistance to the regional team in other tasks with the overall demonstration project as needed during the overall project duration. g. UNR will provide assistance to the regional team as needed for regulatory review of the demonstration project by NDEP or other regulatory bodies during the project. h. Any additional tasks that need to be conducted will be undertaken only after approval from the regional team. 11 Table: Overall Demonstration Project Schedule (Source: Regional Team) 12 7. Budget and Description Budget. The total budget requested and specific categories are shown in the Budget Table below. No Item Year 1, $
Year 2, $
Year 3, $
Year 4, $ Total, $
A Senior Personnel 31677 32627 33606 23076 120987 B Other Personnel 52400 Student Assistants Classified Tech. Fringe Benefits 10931 60152 61957 31907 206417 13855 14270 7580 46636 D E Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 Travel Costs 4000 6000 6000 6000 22000 F Operating Costs 4400 24000 24000 3479 55879 G Tuition Costs 7308 7884 8436 4345 27973 H Indirect Costs 44983 59436 60827 31339 196584 Total 155,699
203,954
209,096
107,726 676,475
C Description.
The University of Nevada, Reno is on an 8-month academic and 4-month summer calendar schedule.
A. Senior Personnel - $120,987
Principal Investigator. $120,987. Funding is requested for 1.46 summer months salary per year
for PI, Krishna Pagilla in years 1, 2, and 3 and 1.0 month in year 4. A 3% increase in salary is
budgeted in years 2, 3, and 4. The proposed level of commitment for this proposal is appropriate
for the scope of work and is required in order to fulfill the objectives of this project within the
proposed timeframe.
B. Other Personnel - $206,416
Graduate Research Assistants. $161,495. A total budget of $161,495 is being requested for two
graduate students over the three and half years of project period. The graduate assistant salaries
have a 3% salary increase in years 2, 3, and 4.The graduate assistants will support the PI of the
project in data collection through pilot scale design, setup, and conducting experiments/operations
and analytical work, conduct data analysis, assistance in modeling and simulation, and assistance
in preparation of draft reports.
13 Classified Technician. $37,647. A salary of 1.0 month, 2.0 months, 2.0 months, and 1.0 month is
provided for Classified Technical Support (Laboratory Manager, Dr. Veronica Edirveerasingam)
in years 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the project. A 3% increase in salary is budgeted in years 2, 3, and 4.
Undergraduate Student Assistant. $7,274. An undergraduate student assistant has been budgeted
at 200 hours each year for years 1, 2, 3, and 100 hours for year 4 of the project at an hourly rate of
$10/hour in year 1. The budget requested is $7,274 for total duration of the project. A salary
increase of 3% is projected for years 2, 3, and 4. The undergraduate student assistant will assist
the graduate assistants and senior personnel of the project in major task efforts during each summer
of the project.
C. Fringe Benefits - $46,636
A total of $46,636 is requested for fringe benefits of all senior personnel and students as per UNR
rates for the three and half years of the project. Faculty salary fringe rate is at 4% (summer overload
without retirement benefits), classified technical support fringe rate is at 42%, graduate research
assistant fringe rate is 16%, and undergraduate student assistant fringe rate is at 2%.
D. Equipment
None. All field scale equipment will be acquired by the Regional Utilities participating in the
project and necessary analytical for proposed tasks is currently available at UNR.
E. Travel - $22,000
A total of $22,000 has been requested for domestic travel for project meetings and conference
travel for faculty and students. The budget requested will be for an estimated two trips in Year 1
and three trips per year in Years 2-4 ($1500/per trip) for PIs and graduate assistants, plus costs
associated with local travel for the PIs and/or graduate assistants. Year 1: ($1,500 x 2) +
$1,000/local = $4,000; Years 2-4: ($1,500 x 3) + $1,500/local = $6,000/year.
F. Operating Costs - $55,879
A total of $55,879 is requested for materials, chemicals, supplies, replacement parts and repair of
equipment and instrumentation as needed, analytical costs (at common core facilities of UNR),
and laboratory work consumables. The materials and supplies are needed for repair and
maintenance of the pilot scale demonstration facilities that will be provided by the Regional
Utilities participating in the project.
G. Tuition Costs - $27,973
A total of $27,973 is requested to provide tuition benefits to the two graduate research assistants
over the three and half years of the project. These funds support 9 credits per semester ($203 per
credit hour in year 1) per student over three and half years.
H. Indirect Costs (F&A Costs) - $196,584
Indirect costs are requested at the rate of 43.5% of the modified total direct costs. The modified
direct costs are calculated as the net total of total direct costs minus equipment and graduate student
tuition benefits. The MTDC base is $451,918.
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS REQUESTED:
$676,475
14 8-03-16: NNWPC Agenda Item 7
Northern Nevada
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
July 28, 2016
TO:
FROM:
Lydia Peri – Environmental Engineer II, Washoe County
Jim Smitherman – NNWPC Water Resources Program Manager
SUBJECT:
Report on the “Septic Nitrate Baseline Data and Risk Assessment Study, Phase II: InDepth Analysis of Prioritized Study Areas, Creation of Baseline Data Set, and Risk
Assessment”, including nitrate analysis results for groundwater samples; discussion,
possible recommendation to the Western Regional Water Commission ("WRWC"), and
possible direction to staff.
SUMMARY
At the December 6, 2006, Board of County Commissioners meeting, the Regional Water Planning
Commission (“RWPC”) reviewed its list of priority projects and directed staff to identify the evaluation of
septic tank effluent on local water quality as one of its top priorities. In response, staff developed a scope
of work outline for review and comment by the RWPC and developed a strategy to utilize Washoe
County experience and resources to develop the required data. Using input from the RWPC, staff
compiled the following elements with the assumption that initial Phase I efforts should involve collection,
review, and evaluation of existing data.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Determine effluent constituents of concern;
Identify possible sources other than septics;
Review nitrogen speciation;
Identify effects on surface water and ground water quality;
Identify areas currently served by septic systems and evaluate septic tank densities;
Compile available water quality data;
Develop a conceptual evaluation of effluent fate and transport;
Identify sensitive receptors;
Identify potential effects on human health;
Identify potential for degradation of potable water supply;
Identify potential effect on water quality standards for surface waters;
Identify possible mitigation measures, such as:
a. Sanitary Sewer connection feasibility; and
b. Septic tank management/maintenance.
On March 19, 2008, the Washoe County Community Services Department (formerly the Washoe County
Department of Water Resources) provided a presentation and discussion on the initial report for the
project titled Phase I: Prioritization of Study Areas & Assessment of Data Needs. Recommendations
from the Phase I study suggested a more comprehensive monitoring and assessment program be
implemented on the high priority areas to identify the fate and transport of the septic effluent. Following
is the outline of the Phase I study recommendations:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Collect additional water quality and water level data from domestic well owners in all Project
Areas.
Collect water quality samples from surface water bodies adjacent to and downstream of Individual
Sewage Disposal Systems.
Additional analysis of currently available data for High Priority Areas.
Perform basic mass balance modeling of High Priority Areas.
Perform basic vadose-zone modeling of High Priority Areas.
Perform a GIS-based analysis similar to that completed by the USGS in Douglas County.
Consider the potential for other sources of nitrate within High Priority Areas.
Prior to beginning the second phase of the study, the WRWC approved and funded an interim study to
identify and summarize various ways in which communities elsewhere in the United States have
developed management or mitigation solutions to septic system pollution of groundwater. At present, the
only solution employed locally to solve septic system groundwater contamination problems has been
conversion of septic systems to sanitary sewer, which, while effective, is extremely costly. The report
was completed in March, 2013 and identifies community based technical, financial and management
alternatives for mitigating contamination from septic systems. In September 2013, Washoe County and
the WRWC entered into an Interlocal Agreement for the Septic Nitrate Baseline Data and Risk
Assessment Study, Phase II: In-depth Analysis of Prioritized Study Areas, Creation of Baseline Data Set
and Risk Assessment (“Phase II study”). The Board of County Commissioners and the WRWC approved a
First Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement, effective July 1, 2015, for the continuation of the Phase II
study through June 30, 2016.
RESULTS
The project tasks developed for the Phase II study prioritized nine study areas (Mt. Rose, Ambrose,
Hidden Valley, Huffaker, Verdi, Geiger, Island 18, Mogul, and Pleasant Valley) that required a more indepth analysis to fill in data gaps originally documented in Phase I. During 2014 and 2015, groundwater
samples were collected from 173 domestic wells throughout these nine study areas. Of these 173 samples,
only 2 domestic wells recorded nitrate levels above the maximum contaminant level (“MCL”) of 10 mg/L
(Mt. Rose and Verdi).
Additional samples were collected from areas of known impact (Washoe Valley, Cold Springs and
Heppner). Prior to this project, these areas were not sampled for 10 to 20 years; therefore, an update was
necessary to determine long term trends of septic effluent impact to groundwater. 133 groundwater
samples were collected from domestic wells in these three revisited study areas. Of the 83 samples taken
from Washoe Valley, 22 were above the MCL, with the study area’s maximum nitrate level recorded at
50 mg/L. Of the 33 wells sampled in the Heppner subdivision, 5 were above the MCL, with a maximum
nitrate level of 19 mg/L. Of the 17 wells sampled in Cold Springs, none exhibited nitrate above the MCL.
Information collected from domestic well sampling has been compiled into a final report to develop a
better understanding of impacts to water sources. Contour plots depict spatial water quality within each
study area. Results of the study suggest that some areas have groundwater impacted by nitrate above the
MCL; however, because water quality data was not uniformly collected throughout the areas, results may
not be representative of uniform water quality. High nitrate concentrations found in domestic wells may
or may not affect sensitive receptors such as municipal wells and surface water sources. These data points
are simply an update to existing data sets and will be used to fill in gaps for future sampling.
On July 20, 2016, the Washoe County Community Services Department distributed approximately 5,000
informational letters to domestic well owners within, or in the vicinity of, each of the 12 study areas. The
Page 2 of 3
nitrate information letters act as a resource guide to educate homeowners on nitrate in groundwater while
providing a summary of nitrate concentrations found within their study area.
NEXT STEPS
Substantial budget authority remains following Phase II activities (approximately $91,000); therefore, it is
recommended that a contract extension or new interlocal agreement be implemented to allow for a public
outreach component to the Program. Additional outreach for Phase II study areas would include
interactive public sessions to give homeowners an opportunity to ask questions of Washoe County staff
and in order to gain a better understanding of the effects of nitrate in groundwater.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the NNWPC accept the report, recommend that the WRWC accept and approve
the report, and direct staff to develop a proposed scope of work for the recommended public outreach.
LP:cw
Page 3 of 3
Northern Nevada
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
July 28, 2016
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Presentation of the draft 2016 Washoe County Consensus Population Forecast;
discussion and possible recommendation to the Western Regional Water
Commission (“WRWC”) to make a determination that the draft consensus
population forecast for 2036 can be supported by the sustainable water resources
set forth in the Regional Water Management Plan (“RWMP”); and possible
direction to staff
SUMMARY
The Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency (“TMRPA”) has completed the draft Washoe
County Consensus Forecast 2016-2036 and submitted it to staff for comparison with the
estimated population that can be supported by the sustainable water resources as set forth in the
RWMP. Jeremy Smith of TMRPA will present the draft Consensus Forecast, which projects that
the total population in Washoe County will grow from 450,747 in 2016 to 548,159 in 2036, an
increase of 97,412 persons.
Two years ago, the WRWC found that the draft Consensus Forecast population for 2034
(563,779 persons) was less than the estimated population that can be supported by the
sustainable water resources set forth in the RWMP, and directed staff to inform Reno, Sparks,
Washoe County, and the TMRPA that the forecasted population can be supported by the
sustainable water resources as set forth in the RWMP.
A review of the draft 2016 Consensus Forecast shows that population growth projections are
reduced as compared to the version completed in 2014. The 2014 Consensus Forecast estimated
that the 2034 population would be 563,779 persons whereas the 2016 version forecasts a
population of 539,687, a decrease of 24,092 persons, for the same year, a 4.3 percent decrease.
The 2011 RWMP includes an estimate of potentially available, sustainable water resources of
approximately 183,250 acre feet per year. In 2014 however, staff reviewed the RWMP Water
Resources Baseline Table as part of the RWMP 5-year review. Nevada State Engineer records,
updated since the initial Water Resources Baseline Table was compiled, provide for an estimate
of potentially available, sustainable water resources of approximately 190,580 acre feet per year.
This new estimate will be recommended for the RWMP 2016 update, but the estimate in the
2011 RWMP is used in this comparison.
The Truckee Meadows Water Authority (“TMWA”) 2016-2035 Water Resource Plan (“WRP”)
includes a new long-range water demand projection for its projected service area. Using
TMWA’s methodology, the water demand associated with the projected 2036 Washoe County
population of 548,159 is approximately 116,000 acre feet. The same methodology shows that
the estimated population that can be supported by the identified sustainable water resources
(183,250 acre feet) is approximately 863,000 persons.
In conclusion:
• The current draft 2016 Washoe County Consensus Forecast projects a 2036 population of
548,159;
• The 2011 RWMP includes an estimate of potentially available, sustainable water
resources of approximately 183,250 acre feet per year;
• The water demand estimate to serve a population of 548,159 is approximately 116,000
acre feet per year; and,
• The estimated population that can be supported by the identified sustainable water
resources of 183,250 acre feet is approximately 863,000 persons.
By this comparison, the draft 2016 Washoe County Consensus Forecast population for 2036 is
less than the estimated population that can be supported by the sustainable water resources
identified in the RWMP.
BACKGROUND
In January 2010, the Regional Planning Governing Board (“RPGB”) adopted certain
amendments to the Truckee Meadows Regional Plan (“Regional Plan”), and the RPGB
Regulations on Procedure, identifying the Northern Nevada Water Planning Commission
("NNWPC") and the WRWC as the entities to perform a comparison of the draft Washoe County
Consensus Forecast and the estimated population that can be supported by the sustainable water
resources as set forth in the RWMP prior to the adoption of the Consensus Forecast.
In April 2014, the TMRPA assumed the responsibility for preparing and publishing the
Consensus Forecast. The RPGB Regulations on Procedure were amended at that time to reflect
this change, and to make minor adjustments to the data sources and time frames for compilation
and distribution of draft and final versions of the forecast.
According to the amended RPGB Regulations on Procedure, the NNWPC, upon receiving the
consensus forecast document, shall compare the draft population forecast with the estimated
population that can be supported by the sustainable water resources as set forth in the RWMP
and advance a recommendation for consideration to the WRWC. The WRWC will then make a
determination based on the NNWPC’s recommendation concerning the comparison described
above and inform Reno, Sparks, Washoe County, and the TMRPA as to its finding. In addition,
the RPGB Regulations on Procedure state that if the WRWC determines the draft Consensus
Forecast is less than or equal to the estimated population that can be supported by the sustainable
water resources identified in the RWMP, the WRWC will submit the draft Consensus Forecast to
Reno, Sparks, Washoe County, and the TMRPA with a finding that the forecasted population can
be supported by the sustainable water resources as set forth in the RWMP.
Page 2 of 3
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the NNWPC advance a recommendation to the WRWC to make a
determination that the draft Consensus Forecast population for 2036 is less than the estimated
population that can be supported by the sustainable water resources set forth in the RWMP.
JS:df
Attachment: Draft 2016 Washoe County Consensus Forecast
Page 3 of 3
Attachment
DRAFT - Washoe County Consensus
Forecast
2016 - 2036
September 2016
Attachment
Acknowledgments
Regional Planning Governing Board
Vaughn Hartung, Chair (Washoe County Commission)
Charlene Bybee, Vice-Chair (Sparks City Council)
Marsha Berkbigler (Washoe County Commission)
Jenny Brekhus (Reno City Council)
David Bobzien (Reno City Council)
Naomi Duerr (Reno City Council)
Paul McKenzie (Reno City Council)
Ed Lawson (Sparks City Council)
Geno Martini (Sparks City Council)
Jeanne Herman (Washoe County Commission)
Veronica Frenkel, Liaison (Washoe County School District Board of Trustees)
Regional Planning Commission
James Barnes, Chair (Washoe County)
Art Sperber, Vice-Chair (Sparks)
Sarah Chvilicek (Washoe County)
Tom Lean (Sparks)
Doug Voelz (Sparks)
Charles Reno (Reno)
Kevin Weiske (Reno)
Larry Chesney (Washoe County)
Jason Woosley (Reno)
Truckee Meadows Regional Planning
WASHOE COUNTY CONSENSUS FORECAST 2014-2034
September 2014
Page ii
Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Project Staff
Kimberly H. Robinson, Executive Director
Jeremy M. Smith, GIS Coordinator
Damien Kerwin, GIS/Planning Analyst
Lauren Barrera, Regional Planner
Participating Agencies/Commissions
Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency
City of Reno
City of Sparks
Northern Nevada Water Planning Commission
Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County
Truckee Meadows Water Authority
Washoe County
Washoe County School District
Western Regional Water Commission
Thanks To
Chad Giesinger, AICP, Senior Planner, Washoe County
Bill Thomas, Assistant City Manager, City of Reno
Armando Ornelas, City Planner, City of Sparks
Jim Rundle, Senior Planner, City of Sparks
Jim Smitherman, Northern Nevada Water Planning Commission
Aric Jensen, AICP, Director of Community Development, City of Reno
Bill Whitney, Division Director, Community Services Department, Washoe County
September 2014
Page iii
Contents
Page
Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................
ii
Introduction .................................................................................................................................
1
Population ....................................................................................................................................
4
Employment .................................................................................................................................
10
Income .........................................................................................................................................
14
Jurisdictional Splits .......................................................................................................................
18
Appendix A - “Consensus Forecasts in Planning” ........................................................................
21
Appendix B – Global Insight Forecast Methodology ....................................................................
27
Appendix C - Woods and Poole Forecast Methodology ..............................................................
43
Appendix D - Nevada State Demographer’s Forecast Methodology ...........................................
47
Appendix E - Truckee Meadows Water Authority Methodology .................................................
49
Appendix F – Calibration of Global Insight Employment Forecast ……………………………………………
54
List of Tables
1. Washoe County Consensus Forecast Summary ....................................................................
1
2. The 2015 Nevada State Demographer’s Forecast of Washoe County Population ................
2
3. Population by Forecast Source ..............................................................................................
4
4. Washoe County Population (Consensus Forecast), 2016 – 2036 ..........................................
5
5. Population and Percent Composition of Total Population by Generalized Age Groups .......
7
6. Consensus Population Forecast by 5-year Age Cohort, 2016 – 2036 ....................................
8
7. Employment and Percent Composition of Total Establishment-Based Employment by
Industry Group .......................................................................................................................
10
8. Washoe County Establishment-Based Employment 2016 – 2036 ........................................
12
9. Washoe County Total Personal Income, 2016 – 2036 ...........................................................
14
10. Washoe County Per Capita Personal Income, 2016 – 2036 ..................................................
16
11. 2015 Governor’s Certified Population Estimates ..................................................................
18
12. 2015 Jurisdictional Percent of Total Population ....................................................................
18
September 2014
Page iv
13. Growth Increment Allocation ................................................................................................
19
14. 2036 Jurisdictional Distribution of Population (of remaining growth increment) ................
20
15. Year 2036 Jurisdiction Forecasts ...........................................................................................
20
September 2014
Page v
This page intentionally left blank.
September 2014
Page vi
Attachment
Introduction
The Consensus Forecast for Washoe County uses a number of leading forecasts, which has several
advantages over using a single source for forecasting population. Not only does the consensus approach
minimize the risk of large forecast errors, but consensus forecasts consistently outperform individual
forecasts across a range of variables. The consensus approach is discussed in further detail in the article
titled “Consensus Forecasts in Planning,” found in Appendix A.
Four reputable sources of long-term forecasts for Washoe County were used: IHS Global Insight, a
national forecasting firm in Massachusetts that prepares national, state and county forecasts; Woods
and Poole, a national forecasting firm in Washington, DC, that forecasts for every county in the United
States, as well as state and national forecasts; Truckee Meadows Water Authority’s Population and
Employment Econometric Model; and the 2015 Nevada State Demographer’s Forecast.
The Washoe County Consensus Forecast 2016-2036, uses these sources and outlines the projected
population, employment and income for Washoe County through the year 2036. The forecasts in this
document are for all of Washoe County including both the cities of Reno and Sparks and the
unincorporated areas of Washoe County, including Incline Village. A summary of the consensus forecast
for Washoe County is shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Washoe County Consensus Forecast Summary
Total
Population
Total
Employment
Total Personal
Income (2009 $)*
Per Capita Income
(2009 $)*
2016
450,747
272,484
$20,301,242,000
$47,601
2021
479,393
298,024
$23,830,280,000
$54,497
2026
503,900
314,975
$26,985,326,000
$57,289
2031
526,723
330,961
$30,651,233,000
$61,525
2036
548,159
347,411
$34,666,063,500
$65,854
Year
*Note: Total Personal Income is reported in 2009 dollars to control for inflation and allow comparison across the 20-year
planning timeframe.
September 2014
Page 1
The population forecasts prepared by Global Insight, Truckee Meadows Water Authority, Woods and
Poole, and the 2015 Nevada State Demographer’s Forecast were compared for consistency and then
averaged to arrive at a consensus number. When comparable numbers were not available from each of
the four sources, only the numbers that were comparable were averaged. It is noted when less than
four sources are used. Only Woods and Poole and Global Insight provided data for Total EstablishmentBased Employment, Total Personal Income, and Per Capita Income.
Table 2
The 2015 Nevada State Demographer’s Forecast of Washoe County Population
(2016 – 2036)
Year
Population
2016
446,281
2017
452,767
2018
459,054
2019
464,898
2020
470,557
2021
475,902
2022
480,933
2023
485,594
2024
489,902
2025
493,776
2026
497,314
2027
500,564
2028
503,598
2029
506,131
2030
508,510
2031
510,788
September 2014
Page 2
2032
513,019
2033
515,176
2034
517,274
2035*
519,343
2036*
521,420
Source: Nevada State Demographer.
*Note:
The Nevada State Demographer’s Forecast is only projected to the year 2034. Therefore, to match the forecast horizon
of the other sources, the last two years of the forecast depicted above were extrapolated. The number of new persons
added for each year from 2034 to 2036 was calculated using a growth rate of 0.4%. This rate is based on the growth
reported in the last 4 years of the demographer’s forecast and was applied to this existing forecast in order to extend
the population figures from 2034 through 2036.
This space intentionally blank
September 2014
Page 3
Population
Total population in Washoe County is projected to grow from 450,747 in 2016 to 548,159 in 2036. This
represents an average annual growth rate of 1.06 percent. The highest forecasted population for 2036
was 568,151 from Woods and Poole, and the lowest forecasted population was 521,420 from the NV
State Demographer. The 2016 and 2036 forecasted population by each source is shown in Table 3. The
consensus population forecast for each year is shown in Table 4.
Table 3
Population by Forecast Source
Forecast Source
2016 Forecast
Population
2036 Population
IHS - Global Insight
456,845
554,878
Truckee Meadows Water Authority
(TMWA)
450,488
548,187
Woods and Poole
449,373
568,151
2013 State Demographer’s Forecast
446,281
521,420*
Consensus Forecast (Four Sources)
450,747
548,159
Source: Global Insight, Woods and Poole, 2015 State Demographer’s Forecast, and TMWA.
*Note:
The Nevada State Demographer Forecast is only projected to the year 2034. Therefore, to match the forecast horizon
of the other sources, the last two years of this forecast were extrapolated.
September 2014
Page 4
Table 4
Washoe County Population (Consensus Forecast), 2016 – 2036
Year
Population
2016
450,747
2017
456,844
2018
462,741
2019
468,354
2020
473,884
2021
479,393
2022
484,527
2023
489,586
2024
494,413
2025
499,261
2026
503,900
2027
508,613
2028
513,269
2029
517,789
2030
522,286
2031
526,726
2032
531,092
2033
535,412
2034
539,687
2035
543,931
2036
548,159
Source: Global Insight, Woods and Poole, TMWA, and 2013 State Demographer’s Forecast.
September 2014
Page 5
The age distribution of the population is expected to shift over the next two decades, primarily in the
working and retired age groups (Table 5). Changes of note include the continued aging of the baby
boomer population, a decrease in the working group (ages 20-64) and a marked increase in the retired
group (ages 65 and older). The percentage of population in the preschool (ages under 5) and school
(ages 5-19) groups will remain relatively flat with only slight growth (.2%) or no change (0%),
respectively. Population by cohort data is available from Global Insight and Woods and Poole.
Population by 5-year Age Cohort for 2016 - 2036 is shown in Table 6 on pages 8-9.
September 2014
Page 6
Table 5
Population and Percent Composition of Total Population by Generalized Age Groups
2014
Generalized Age Group
2034
Population
Percent of
Total
Population
Percent of
Total
Preschool (Ages 0-4)
27,784
6.1%
35,691
6.4%
School (Ages 5-19)
85,348
18.8%
105,493
18.8%
Working (Ages 20-64)
268,681
59.3%
310,860
55.4%
Retired (Ages 65 and
older)
71,296
15.7%
109,472
19.5%
Totals*
453,109
100%
561,515
100%
Source: Global Insight, and Woods and Poole.
September 2014
Page 7
Table 6
Consensus Population Forecast by 5-year Age Cohort, 2016 – 2036
Age
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
0-4
27,784
28,615
29,463
30,149
30,696
31,113
31,468
31,817
32,138
32,456
5-9
27,982
27,811
27,727
27,973
28,353
28,976
29,635
30,299
30,832
31,288
10-14
27,964
28,265
28,533
28,601
28,698
28,688
28,643
28,637
28,908
29,306
15-19
29,402
29,512
29,631
29,825
29,925
30,177
30,489
30,816
30,952
31,143
20-24
31,335
31,634
32,126
32,577
32,782
32,866
32,883
32,961
33,168
33,306
25-29
33,784
33,955
33,595
33,087
32,816
33,034
33,493
34,152
34,722
35,009
30-34
30,601
31,269
32,199
33,257
34,228
34,825
34,950
34,594
34,116
33,943
35-39
27,857
28,489
29,168
29,706
30,263
30,990
31,687
32,638
33,709
34,725
40-44
27,036
27,057
27,268
27,660
28,139
28,563
29,071
29,666
30,148
30,691
45-49
29,173
29,123
28,824
28,380
28,037
27,897
27,886
28,064
28,404
28,839
50-54
30,134
29,685
29,319
28,977
28,886
28,898
28,836
28,561
28,148
27,870
55-59
30,610
30,627
30,626
30,685
30,450
30,106
29,723
29,411
29,098
29,033
60-64
28,153
28,550
28,716
28,759
28,865
28,932
28,871
28,844
28,902
28,703
65-69
25,600
25,560
25,893
26,281
26,705
27,138
27,575
27,802
27,920
28,136
70-74
18,599
19,839
20,626
21,385
22,044
22,648
22,665
23,004
23,354
23,735
75-79
12,339
13,171
14,070
14,892
15,657
16,304
17,333
18,024
18,687
19,293
80-84
7,601
8,089
8,626
9,188
9,801
10,360
10,954
11,621
12,238
12,828
85+
7,158
7,524
7,811
8,030
8,278
8,528
8,795
9,090
9,406
9,745
Total
453,109
458,768
464,217
469,410
474,620
480,037
484,953
489,997
494,847
500,046
September 2014
Page 8
Age
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
0-4
32,752
33,064
33,370
33,668
33,977
34,286
34,582
34,876
35,159
35,429
35,691
5-9
31,620
31,975
32,334
32,697
33,059
33,421
33,776
34,119
34,448
34,777
35,104
10-14
29,902
30,584
31,261
31,828
32,312
32,691
33,070
33,459
33,849
34,237
34,622
15-19
31,185
31,227
31,268
31,606
32,045
32,707
33,463
34,222
34,840
35,364
35,767
20-24
33,569
33,995
34,456
34,733
35,038
35,176
35,235
35,283
35,674
36,169
36,908
25-29
35,064
35,107
35,222
35,494
35,690
36,044
36,514
37,027
37,317
37,620
37,719
30-34
34,275
34,891
35,666
36,367
36,747
36,921
37,032
37,179
37,470
37,672
38,015
35-39
35,353
35,574
35,308
34,937
34,873
35,296
35,971
36,796
37,529
37,912
38,071
40-44
31,376
32,091
33,063
34,179
35,219
35,880
36,094
35,825
35,456
35,401
35,857
45-49
29,205
29,708
30,293
30,789
31,331
32,056
32,776
33,752
34,866
35,899
36,581
50-54
27,716
27,737
27,939
28,311
28,764
29,150
29,656
30,238
30,740
31,294
32,012
55-59
28,972
28,882
28,558
28,116
27,789
27,654
27,646
27,819
28,148
28,542
28,858
60-64
28,413
28,136
27,924
27,710
27,721
27,786
27,788
27,552
27,202
26,962
26,841
65-69
28,292
28,386
28,510
28,742
28,713
28,539
28,352
28,238
28,128
28,219
28,287
70-74
24,113
24,530
24,743
24,881
25,088
25,212
25,274
25,358
25,544
25,488
25,351
75-79
19,853
19,947
20,307
20,685
21,071
21,432
21,806
22,000
22,119
22,301
22,449
80-84
13,337
14,170
14,759
15,328
15,839
16,273
16,372
16,673
16,981
17,285
17,599
85+
10,091
10,505
11,030
11,510
11,989
12,442
13,221
13,898
14,549
15,177
15,788
Total
505,084
510,505
516,007
521,575
527,260
532,963
538,625
544,310
550,014
555,746
561,514
Source: Global Insight and Woods and Poole.
September 2014
Page 9
Employment
According to the Woods and Poole forecast and the calibrated Global Insight forecast (see Appendix F
for information about calibration), total employment for all of Washoe County is projected to grow from
272,484 in 2016 to 347,411 in 2036. This represents an average annual growth rate of 1.26 percent.
The 2016 and 2036 forecasted employment and percent of total employment by industry group is
shown below in Table 7. To allow for consistency within employment sectors, only employment data
from the Woods and Poole forecast is used in this table as the methodologies of Woods and Poole and
Global Insight use different employment assumptions to generate industry sectors data.
Table 7
Employment and Percent Composition of Total
Total Employment by Industry Group
2016
Employment by
Industry Group
Jobs
2036
Percent of Total
Jobs
Percent of Total
Natural Resources
2,390
.91%
3,014
.89%
Construction
14,032
5.34%
19,134
5.66%
Manufacturing
12,975
4.94%
15,060
4.45%
Transportation,
Communication
and Public Utilities
15,655
5.95%
20,070
5.93%
Wholesale Trade
10,287
3.91%
13,621
4.03%
Retail Trade
27,837
10.59%
37,394
11.06%
Finance, Insurance,
& Real Estate
30,551
11.62%
38,266
11.31%
Services
119,179
45.33%
152,284
45.02%
Government
30,008
11.41%
39,381
11.64%
Totals
262,914
100%
338,224
100%
Source: Woods and Poole – Non-farm employment.
September 2014
Page 10
Note: The employment data include wage and salary workers, proprietors, private household employees, and miscellaneous
workers of full and part-time jobs. Because part-time workers are included, a person holding two part-time jobs would
be counted twice. Jobs are counted by place of work and not place of residence of the worker. Therefore, a job in the
Reno Metropolitan Area is counted in Washoe County, regardless of where the worker resides. Due to rounding, the
“Percent of Total” may not add up to 100%.
Industry sectors remain remarkably stable from 2016 to 2036 with less than .5% change projected for all
sectors. The largest growth (as a percentage of total employment) can be seen in the Retail Trade, and
in Construction sectors with .47% and .32% growth, respectively. The largest declines are in the
Manufacturing, as well as Finance, Insurance and Real estate and in Services which show -.48%, -.31%
and -.31%, respectively. The Services sector represents by far the largest percentage of total
employment in 2036 at 45.02% followed by the Government (11.64%), Finance, Insurance and Real
Estate (11.31%), and Retail Trade (11.06%) industry sectors. The largest numeric increase is in the
Services sector where 33,105 jobs are added.
The industries that represent the smallest percentage of total employment in 2036 are Natural
Resources (.89%), Wholesale Trade (4.03%), Manufacturing (4.45%), and Construction (5.66%). No
overall job losses are reported for any industry category.
The consensus total employment forecast by year is provided on the next page in Table 8.
September 2014
Page 11
Table 8
Washoe County Consensus Total Employment 2016 – 2036
Year
Employment
2016
272,484
2017
278,565
2018
283,871
2019
288,867
2020
293,907
2021
298,024
2022
302,102
2023
305,693
2024
309,005
2025
311,935
2026
314,975
2027
318,225
2028
321,388
2029
324,590
2030
327,798
2031
330,961
2032
334,231
2033
337,537
2034
340,834
2035
344,119
2036
347,411
Source: Woods and Poole and Global Insight (calibrated). For more information see Appendices B, C and F.
September 2014
Page 12
September 2014
Page 13
Income
Total personal income is expected to grow from $20,301,242,000 in 2016 to $34,666,063,500 in 2036.
This represents the total personal income received by persons from wages and salaries, other labor
income, and transfer payments less personal contributions for social insurance as adjusted for place of
residence. All personal income data are presented in 2009 dollars. This is used to measure the “real”
change in earnings and income when inflation is taken into account. The consensus forecast for total
personal income for each year is shown in Table 9.
Table 9
Washoe County Total Personal Income, 2016 –2036
Year
Total Personal Income (2009 $)
2016
$20,301,242,000
2017
$21,027,628,000
2018
$21,748,873,500
2019
$22,443,965,000
2020
$23,140,864,500
2021
$23,830,280,000
2022
$24,477,268,000
2023
$25,097,928,500
2024
$25,703,971,500
2025
$26,326,553,500
2026
$26,985,326,000
2027
$27,678,188,000
2028
$28,421,347,500
2029
$29,179,529,500
2030
$29,897,616,500
September 2014
Page 14
2031
$30,651,233,000
2032
$31,419,871,000
2033
$32,187,514,000
2034
$32,987,309,500
2035
$33,814,315,500
2036
$34,666,063,500
September 2014
Page 15
The consensus forecast for per capita personal income for each year is listed below:
Table 10
Washoe County Per Capita Personal Income, 2016 –2036
Year
Per Capita Personal Income (2009 $)
2016
$47,601
2017
$49,937
2018
$51,258
2019
$52,825
2020
$53,450
2021
$54,497
2022
$55,110
2023
$55,839
2024
$56,131
2025
$56,706
2026
$57,298
2027
$57,819
2028
$58,870
2029
$59,770
2030
$59,853
2031
$61,525
2032
$62,608
2033
$63,608
2034
$64,525
2035
$65,299
September 2014
Page 16
2036
$65,854
September 2014
Page 17
Jurisdictional Splits
Reno, Sparks and Washoe County use the Governor’s certified population estimates of 2013 as a starting
point for determining jurisdictional forecast splits for the year 2034.
Table 11
2015 Governor’s Certified Population Estimates*
Washoe County Total 2015
441,946
Reno City Total 2015
238,615
Sparks City Total 2015
93,581
Unincorporated Washoe County Total 2015
109,750
*Note: Cooperatively, Washoe County and the Nevada State Demographer prepare annual population estimates for Washoe
County for July 1 of each year.
In 2015, each jurisdiction contained the following percent of total population:
Table 12
2015 Jurisdictional Percent of Total Population
Reno Percent of Total
53.99%
Sparks Percent of Total
21.17%
Unincorporated Washoe County Percent of Total
24.83%
An analysis of historic census and estimated population figures since 1980 shows these jurisdictional
percentages have remained relatively stable over time, with little apparent impact attributable to
previous regional plans (prior to the 2012 Truckee Meadows Regional Plan Update) or conforming
jurisdiction master plans.
In this 2016 Consensus Forecast, there is a desire to reflect a potential impact of the 2012 Truckee
Meadows Regional Plan, as amended, on jurisdictional shares of population through the year 2036. The
influence of plan policies on growth and development patterns, and the possible impacts on future
settlement patterns are the subject of significant debate and reflect a different approach to forecasting
in a multi-jurisdictional environment than forecasts based on a mere reflection and continuation of
historic trends. While all forecasts reflect inherent uncertainties, especially in regions with highly
September 2014
Page 18
variable decadal growth rates, forecasts associated with regional plan policies can provide a useful
guide, over time, as to the effectiveness and need for amendment of such growth policies.
The year 2036 Washoe County Consensus Forecast of 548,159 persons exceeds the 2015 Governor’s
certified estimate of 441,946 by a growth increment of 106,213 persons.
Reno, Sparks and Washoe County have decided to allocate the growth increment of 106,213 persons in
the following manner:
Table 13
Growth Increment Allocation
25% of Growth Increment (25,553 persons) at Allocate to Centers, TOD Corridors, Emerging
Employment Centers in Reno and Sparks
Year 2036
75% of Growth Increment (79,660 persons) at Allocate based on adjusted jurisdictional shares
Year 2036
of population of 50% City of Reno, 24% City of
Sparks and 26% Unincorporated Washoe County.
The approach that allocates 25% of the growth increment to Centers, TOD Corridors and Emerging
Employment Centers recognizes that the 2012 Regional Plan policies may have increasing impact over
time. Thus, the growth increment attributed to these policies increases from 2016 to 2036 in a linear
fashion. Interpolation of jurisdictional population forecasts from 2016 to 2036 is the responsibility of
each jurisdiction and is addressed in local population master plan elements, if desired. This consensus
forecast establishes only the beginning (2015 certified estimates) and end points (allocated 2036
consensus forecast by jurisdiction) of that forecast series for each jurisdiction through the year 2036.
Analysis of the 25% population increment (25,553 persons) allocated to each jurisdiction’s Centers, TOD
Corridors and Emerging Employment Centers (EECs) yielded the following assumptions based on
corridor, center and emerging employment center land areas and density assumptions:
•
21.3% (i.e. 85.2% of 25,553) of the increment will be allocated to the City of Reno (22,623
persons);
•
3.7% (i.e. 14.8% of 25,553) of the increment will be allocated to the City of Sparks 3,930
persons).
While the City of Sparks has major emerging employment centers in its jurisdiction, it is recognized that
these EECs have lower densities than centers and corridors and that these EECs are located in or near to
Sparks’ traditional growth areas. Spark’s EECs, however, are extremely important to jobs-housing
balance and trip reduction policies.
September 2014
Page 19
Recent changes, implemented during the 2012 Regional Plan update, allow for the creation and
designation of Secondary Transit Oriented Development Corridors. Although these areas correspond
with principal transportation routes, they are typically further from core areas such as downtown Reno
and exhibit lower densities when compared to Primary Transit Corridors. Portions of the existing
Transit Oriented Development Corridors within the City of Reno were downgraded to Secondary Transit
Corridors following the adoption of the 2012 Regional Plan.
In the future, Washoe County is expected to designate at least one Secondary Transit Corridor and to
designate Infill Opportunity Areas under the policies of the 2012 Regional Plan. Under the forecast
approach of the Consensus Forecast, Washoe County may analyze the impact of these designations and
include any appropriate and related population shares in its Population Element to be submitted to the
Regional Planning Agency.
Allocation of the remaining (non-centers, corridors and EEC) growth increment (75% or 79,660 persons)
to the jurisdictions is based upon a minor modification of the historic jurisdictional distribution of
population, as follows:
Table 14
2036 Jurisdictional Distribution of Population (of remaining growth increment)
City of Reno Year 2036 Allocation
50%
39,380 persons
City of Sparks Year 2036 Allocation
24%
19,118 persons
Unincorporated Washoe County Year 2034 Allocation
26%
20,712 persons
Table 15
Year 2036 Total Jurisdiction Forecasts
Jurisdiction
2015
Certified
Estimates
Centers, Corridors
and EEC
Increment
Remaining
Increment
2036 Jurisdiction
Forecast
Reno
238,615
22,623
39,830
301,068
Sparks
93,581
3,930
19,118
116,629
Unincorporated
Washoe County
109,750
N/A
20,712
130,462
Total County
441,946
26,553
79,660
548,159
September 2014
Page 20
Appendix A – Appendices not yet fully updated, TBD prior to final adoption by RPC
September 2014
Page 21
September 2014
Page 22
September 2014
Page 23
September 2014
Page 24
September 2014
Page 25
This page intentionally left blank.
September 2014
Page 26
Appendix B
January 2014
Long-Term Forecast
Prepared by IHS ECONOMICS
Washoe County, NV
PREFACE
This analysis accompanies a forecast prepared by IHS ECONOMICS for the Washoe County Office of the
County Manager. The forecast pertains to Washoe County, which comprises the cities of Reno and
Sparks, and the unincorporated remainder of the county. Some sections of this document will refer to
the Reno-Sparks Metropolitan area, using it as an approximation of activity in Washoe County. These
sections will be clearly marked using the notation Reno MSA.
RECENT PERFORMANCE
Growth is on the upswing here. In 2012, Washoe County registered a total employment gain of just 0.5%
year-over-year (y/y), and while this was only slightly above zero, it was a welcome change from the
series of declines experienced from 2007 through 2011. Growth accelerated in 2013, and while county
employment history is not yet available, the Reno metropolitan area (MSA), which makes up the bulk of
Washoe County, posted y/y job growth of 0.9% in November 2013, continuing a trend of moderately
improving job gains that began in 2012.
The unemployment rate in the metro area is receding from the painfully high rates during the recession
that reached a peak of 14.6% in November 2010. By November of 2013, unemployment had edged
down to 9.0%, an encouraging trend, although this rate is still more than double its 2007 pre-recession
level.
Looking more closely the local economy, we can see where the recession hit the hardest, and where
future growth is likely to come from:
•
Personal Income: Personal income in Washoe County increased by 2.8% in 2011, according to
the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the latest data available. It is expected to have increased at a
similarly modest pace in 2012 and 2013, according to IHS Economics analysis, as the local
economy slowly emerged from the recession. Income gains will pick up along with employment
growth from 2014 onward.
•
Trade, Transportation, and Utilities: This sector, which is the largest in the Washoe County
economy, at 22% of total employment, saw payroll declines from 2008 through 2011. The sector
managed to turn around and squeak out a 0.2% gain in 2012 and we expect that growth
accelerated to 0.7% in 2013. Job growth in the sector will pick up over the next year and remain
strong over the medium term.
•
Tourism and Gaming: Leisure and hospitality employment, which includes jobs in
accommodation and eating and drinking establishments, is the second largest employment
September 2014
Page 27
sector in Washoe County and in the Reno MSA, accounting for 18% of total employment. This
sector saw employment growth decline during the first recession of the decade, beginning in
2001 and reaching its lowest point in 2005. Thereafter, a strong national economy and
expansion in the region’s gaming industry helped employment rebound through 2007, before
the recent recession brought growth to a halt again in 2008. A subsequent decline in 2009 was a
result of weak economic conditions and restrained consumer spending. Growth in leisure and
hospitality then essentially remained flat from 2010-2012, as still-shaky consumer confidence
sapped demand from Washoe County’s large gaming industry. Gaming revenues plunged from
$1.05 billion in 2007 to $729.9 million in 2012 as consumers pulled back their spending.
However, with the recession behind us, the leisure and hospitality sector took a sharp upward
turn in the Reno MSA in 2013, and this past year employment surged. Indeed, payrolls were up
4.2% y/y in November 2013, though job levels remain well below pre-recession highs. Gaming
revenues have also been slowing trending higher, as travel and spending begins to pick back up
across the nation in tandem with a broader recovery in the national economy.
•
Services: At the other end of the recovery spectrum, the professional and business services
sector was also hit hard by the weak economy, after having being an economic strong point for
several years, but it has yet to mount a sustained rebound. The education and health services
sector, accounting for 12% of total employment, was the only major sector that remained
healthy during the recession, thanks to largely inelastic demand for its services. Its job growth
advanced by another 1.8% y/y in November 2013.
•
Housing: The combined construction/mining employment sector in Washoe County grew by
2.5% y/y in 2012, gaining about 200 jobs in the process. While this is a much welcome
turnaround from the painful declines during the recession, it still represents only a fraction of
the jobs. Also, the construction sector is not totally out of the woods yet. Between November
2012 and November 2013, the Reno MSA construction sector contracted, with payrolls slipping
4% y/y, which suggests that Washoe will likely see a decline in total construction jobs when final
data is tallied for 2013. While these declines will be much less severe than the 2007-2010
devastation to this sector, they are an indication that construction payrolls have yet to hit
bottom. When that happens in 2014, the sector’s payrolls will be 64% below their 2006 peak.
While strong growth in construction is on the horizon over the medium-term, it will take over a
decade before construction employment levels even approach the pre-housing speculation
levels.
Manufacturing: This sector accounts for almost 6% of total employment in Washoe County, and
had flat-to-positive job growth between 2003 and 2007 – indeed, the Reno MSA is one of the
few metro areas in the nation that did not see significant declines in manufacturing through the
early years of the decade. In 2008, however, the sector felt the impacts of the recession, leading
to payroll losses that topped out in 2009, although declines continued in 2010 and 2011. Things
have been bumpy since: the sector then saw moderate gains in 2012, which will likely be
followed by modest losses in 2013 before manufacturing activity sees a sustained period of
expansion over the medium term.
September 2014
Page 28
DEMOGRAPHICS AND LABOR FORCE
The Census Bureau and IHS Economics estimated Washoe County’s population to be 430,500 residents
in 2012, up slightly from 426,000 persons in 2011. The annual population growth rate between 2011 and
2012 was 1.0%, ranking 8th out of the sixteen counties in the state. Comparatively, growth rates in the
Las Vegas metro area, in Nevada, and in the United States over the same period were 1.5%, 1.3%, and
0.7%, respectively.
Population data from the Census Bureau show that the city of Reno's population increased by 2,494
over the year, to reach a total of 231,027 as of July 1, 2012, a growth rate of 1.07%. This was consistent
with Reno’s growth in 2010-11 as well. Looking back, from April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2009, the city of Reno
experienced population growth of 20%, which placed it 49th out of the 276 areas with populations of
more than 100,000. This robust growth can mostly be attributed to the rapid expansion in the housing
market that took place during that decade. A similar expansion was happening in other parts of Nevada
as well: from April 1, 2000 and July 1, 2009, North Las Vegas City saw an increase in population of 94%
and Henderson City saw an increase of 46.1%, ranking them 3rd and 14th in the nation.
Another way of looking at population data is at the total number of households, a primary driver of
demand for housing units, infrastructure, and government services. In Washoe County, household
numbers rose from 134,700 in 2000 to 164,700 in 2010, according to American Community Survey data.
The average household size in Washoe County increased slightly from 2.55 persons in 2000 to 2.59
persons in 2010. The county is getting a little older as well – in 2000, 70.9% of the population were 21
years and older, while 10.5% were 65 years and older; by 2010, these proportions had risen to 71.8%
and 12.2%, respectively.
As Washoe County's population has grown so has its population density which increased from 54.1
persons per square mile in 2000 to 67.9 persons per square mile in 2012. This is much higher than the
state average; Nevada’s population density in 2012 was only 25.1 persons per square mile. However, the
county still trails the U.S. average by a wide margin with the national population density registering 88.8
persons per square mile.
September 2014
Page 29
Both Reno's and Nevada's unemployment rates surged during the recession, but rates have come down
markedly over the past couple years. In the Reno MSA, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was
down to 9.0% in November 2013; by comparison, the rates for Nevada and the United States were 9.2%
and 7.1%, respectively, in November. Despite these declines, the stubbornly high jobless rate and tepid
job growth has led to a decline in the Reno MSA’s total labor force over the past 35 months. The metro
area labor force slipped to a total of 219,100 persons in November 2013, a decrease of 1.9% from
November 2012. Looking at longer-trend patterns, however, labor force growth tends to be weak after a
recession. Growth slowed with the recession in 2001, and then picked up during the recovery, reaching
2.7% in 2006. Growth decelerated in the years thereafter as the economy softened again; the labor
force contracted by 0.8% in 2011, 1.3% in 2012, and is on pace for another year of decline in 2013.
INCOME AND WAGES
According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, in 2012 per capita personal income in the Reno MSA was
$43,300, the 56th highest in the United States, well above the Nevada figure of $38,200, and on par with
the U.S. ($43,700). In terms of growth rates, the Reno MSA’s 2012 per capita personal income was up
2.0% over 2011, compared to increases of 2.4% in Nevada and 3.4% for the United States. According to
the BLS, in the second quarter of 2013, the average weekly wage in Washoe County was $829, up 1.8%
from the second quarter of 2012. The average weekly wage in Clark County (Las Vegas) was similar, at
$822, while the figure for the United States was $921.
The State of Nevada has released the following average weekly wage data for industries in Washoe
County and Nevada for 2012:
Average Weekly Wages, Annual 2012
Sector
Natural Resources and Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Trade, Trans, & Utilities
Information
Financial Activities
Professional & Business Svcs
Education & Health Services
Leisure & Hospitality
Other Services
Government
Total, All Industries
Washoe
County
Nevada
$1,569
953
1,025
744
1,151
1,124
1,048
964
422
697
990
$1,483
1,002
1,019
736
1,123
1,025
1,053
950
593
629
1,006
838
840
September 2014
Page 30
ECONOMIC STRUCTURE
Washoe County's 20 largest employers are listed below (as reported by the state of Nevada for the
second quarter of 2013).
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Washoe County School District, elementary and secondary schools: 8,000 to 8,499 employees
University of Nevada-Reno, colleges and universities: 4,000 to 4,499 employees
Renown Regional Medical Center, general medical and surgical hospitals: 2,500 to 2,999 employees
Washoe County Comptroller, executive and legislative combined: 2,500 to 2,999 employees
Peppermill Hotel and Casino, casino hotels: 2,000 to 2,499 employees
International Game and Technology, misc. manufacturing: 2,000 to 2,499 employees
Silver Legacy Resort, casino hotels: 1,500 to 1,999 employees
Atlantis Casino Resort, casino hotels: 1,500 to 1,999 employees
City of Reno, executive and legislative combined: 1,000 to 1,499 employees
Eldorado Hotel and Casino, casino hotels: 1,000 to 1,499 employees
Grand Sierra Resort and Casino, casino hotels: 1,000 to 1,499 employees
St. Mary’s Hospital, general medical and surgical hospitals: 1000 to 1499 employees
Sierra Nevada Healthcare Systems, general medical and surgical hospitals: 1,000 to 1,499 employees
Circus Circus Casinos - Reno, casino hotels: 1,000 to 1,499 employees
Sparks Nugget, casino hotels: 1,000 to 1,499 employees
Truckee Meadows Community College, Junior Colleges: 1,000 to 1,499 employees
United Parcel Service, couriers: 900 to 999 employees
Integrity Staffing Solutions, temporary health services: 900 to 999 employees
West Business Solutions LLC, telemarketing bureaus: 800 to 899 employees
Harrah's Reno, casino hotels: 600 to 699 employees
Of the MSA's 20 largest employers, eight are casinos. Because of the dominant presence of the casino
industry, Washoe County has a unique economic structure compared to the U.S. economy. As
mentioned above, the leisure and hospitality sector, which includes accommodations and eating and
drinking establishments, accounted for 18% of Washoe County’s total employment in 2012, almost
double the U.S. economy’s 10%. The construction industry also used to be a major presence here, but
because of the large layoffs during the recession, the construction and mining sector accounted for only
5.0% of Washoe County’s total employment in 2012, down more than 50% from 10.8% in 2006. This
concentration is now near the U.S. average of 4.4%. It’s now about the same size as the metro’s
relatively small manufacturing sector, which accounts for 5.9% of Washoe County’s 2012 employment,
compared to 8.9% in the United States.
The following table compares employment distribution by major sector for Washoe County, Nevada; the
Mountain Census region (i.e., AZ, CO, ID, MT, NV, NM, UT, and WY); and the United States. The table
confirms the importance of the leisure and hospitality sector in both Washoe County and in Nevada, and
shows clearly how much the structure of their economies varies from the rest of the Mountain region
states and from the United States.
September 2014
Page 31
Employment by Sector, Annual 2012 (NAICS) Sector
Washoe
Nevada Mountain
County
US
Construction and Mining
4.9%
5.9%
6.5%
4.8%
Manufacturing
5.9%
3.4%
6.0%
8.9%
21.7%
19.1%
Information
1.1%
1.1%
2.0%
2.0%
Financial Activities
4.8%
4.7%
5.8%
5.8%
Professional and Business Services
13.6%
12.6%
13.4% 13.4%
Educational and Health Services
11.6%
9.3%
13.1% 15.2%
Leisure and Hospitality
18.1%
27.8%
13.1% 10.3%
3.2%
2.9%
15.2%
13.0%
Trade, Transportation, and Utilities
Other Services
Government
18.8% 19.0%
3.5%
4.0%
17.7% 16.6%
To gain even greater insight in to the local economy, IHS Economics conducted a shift-share analysis to
identify the changes in Washoe County's economic structure during the last 22 years. This change, as
measured by the distribution of private sector employment by three-digit NAICs code, was compared to
the employment changes that occurred in the United States over the same period. The purpose of the
analysis was to identify four crucial types of economic sectors, enumerated below.
Type D: Competitive Advantage and Specialized. Competitive advantage means that an individual
sector's employment growth rate in Washoe County over the last 22 years was higher than its
employment growth rate at the U.S. level over the same period. Specialized means that the same
sector's percent share of total Washoe County employment is higher than the sector's percent share of
total U.S. employment (i.e., its location quotient is >1.0). Sectors in this category are major sources of
growth in a regional economy, as they have both above-average shares of regional activity, and aboveaverage growth rates. Higher growth rates for these sectors presumably occur because of the
competitive advantages (e.g., labor costs, agglomeration effects, skilled labor, proximity to market,
lower cost of living, etc.) that attracted them into a region in the first place. Approximately 24.2% of
Washoe County’s 2012 employment, or 37,228 workers, are in sectors classified as type D. The top-five
sectors in this category, based on total employment, are:
•
•
•
•
•
Administrative and Support Services (NAICS 561)
Warehousing and Storage (NAICS 493)
Miscellaneous Manufacturing (NAICS 339)
Truck Transportation (NAICS 484)
Retail Trade – Apparel & Acc. (NAICS 448)
September 2014
Page 32
Type C: Competitive Advantage but not Specialized. This type consists of sectors whose employment
growth rate in Washoe County over the past 22 years was higher than the sector's growth rate at the
U.S. level, but also where the current shares of total county employment are less than their shares of
total U.S. employment. Economic sectors classified as Type C present targets of opportunity, as Washoe
County may have competitive advantages that enable these sectors to achieve above-average growth
rates. Approximately 38.6% of Washoe County’s employed persons in 2012 are classified as Type C. The
top-five private sectors in this category, based on total employment, are:
•
•
•
•
•
Food Services & Drinking Places (NAICS 722)
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services (NAICS 541)
Hospitals (NAICS 622)
Retail Trade – General Merchandise Stores (NAICS 452)
Retail Trade – Food & Beverage (NAICS 445)
Type B: Competitive Disadvantage but Specialized. This type is comprised of sectors whose
employment growth rates in Washoe County over the last 22 years were below their employment
growth rates at the U.S. level, but whose share of total Washoe County employment is higher than their
shares of U.S. employment. Type B sectors often comprise major parts of a region's economy, but their
boom years are in the past. Approximately 25.8% of Washoe County’s 2012 employment is classified as
Type B. The top five private sectors in this category, based on total employment, are:
•
•
•
•
•
Accommodations (NAICS 721)
Specialty Trade Contractors (NAICS 238)
Amusement, Gambling and Recreation (NAICS 713)
Social Assistance (NAICS 624)
Retail Trade – Motor Vehicle and Parts (NAICS 441)
Type A: Competitive Disadvantage and not Specialized. This type is comprised of sectors whose
employment growth rates in Washoe County over the last 22 years were below their employment
growth rates at the U.S. level and whose share of total Washoe County employment is less than their
shares of U.S. employment. Type A economic sectors make little contribution to new regional economic
growth, and sectors in this class comprised only 11.5% of Washoe County’s total employment in 2012.
The top five sectors in this class are:
•
•
•
•
•
Ambulatory Health Care Services (NAICS 621)
Credit Intermediate and Related Activities (NAICS 522)
Religious, Civic, and Professional Organizations (NAICS 813)
Retail Trade – Gasoline Stations (NAICS 447)
Securities and Other Financial Investments (NAICS 523)
September 2014
Page 33
Our IHS Economics analysis also estimated that the high-technology sector (by NAICS definition) would
be classified as Type A, accounting for 4.7% of the Reno MSA's total non-agricultural employment in
2012, below the sector’s average share of 6.2% for the United States.
Additionally, IHS Economics calculated the Hachman Index of structural diversity for the Reno MSA in
2012. The closer the index value is to 1.0, the more similar the structure of the MSA or state economy is
to the structure of the U.S. economy. In general, larger economies such as in big states or MSAs tend to
be more economically diverse and have higher index values than the economies of smaller states and
MSAs that may specialize in certain industries based on their competitive advantages. Economic
structure is measured by the distribution of an economic indicator, such as employment, income,
output, or business establishments, by NAICS code. IHS Economics used private employment at the
three-digit NAICS code level as obtained from our Business Markets Insight database.
Given its unusual dependence on the tourism and gaming industry, one would expect that Washoe
County's index of structural diversity would be low, making the structure of its economy significantly
different than the structure of the U.S. economy. Indeed, in 2012, the index of structural diversity for
Washoe County was 0.591. Similarly, the structure index value for the State of Nevada was 0.311 in
2012, the second lowest value among all the states. These results show that Washoe County's economy
is far less diverse than the nation, although it is more diverse than the state economy. As a basis of
comparison with its neighbors, the structural index value for the State of California was 0.890 in 2012,
the 15th highest value among all the states; in Utah the index was 0.902, the 8th highest in the nation;
and in Arizona the index was 0.909, the 5th highest.
REGIONAL ECONOMIC OUTLOOK
Washoe County is within the Mountain region, which continues the long, slow recovery from the
recession that it began five years ago. As measured by payroll growth, the recovery decelerated
considerably over the summer and early fall, in the region as well as nationally. The construction sector
appears to have lost jobs in recent months, as the rate of housing starts has leveled off in some areas.
Short-term measures of construction payrolls can be tricky, however, since the industry is so heavily
influenced by the weather. The region still has outpaced much of the rest of the nation in job growth
over the past year. The Mountain states continue to be an attractive destination for companies due to
their relatively low costs of doing business and ample supplies of labor.
All eight states in the region have seen job growth over the past year, with most of the states above the
national average. Nevada and Arizona continue to dig out from the blizzard of delinquencies and
foreclosures caused by the housing bust. The significant increases seen in housing prices over the past
couple of years are helping many sectors of the states’ economies, especially those dependent on
consumer spending.
The region’s ample natural resources provide many outdoor recreation opportunities, drawing skiers,
hikers, and other enthusiasts from a wide area. The national economic recovery has provided a huge
boost the region’s tourism business, helping to spur hiring in the leisure and hospitality sector. The
national parks system is a major presence in the region, which led some Mountain states to step in and
provide funding to reopen several national parks during the federal government shutdown in October.
The abundance of recreational opportunities is also cited as a factor in the region’s ability to attract
September 2014
Page 34
young workers, playing a prominent role in the development of the region’s high-tech hubs. On the
downside, the region’s robust economic growth is directly tied to robust population growth, which also
translates into increasing demands for water. Allocation of the region’s water resources is the subject of
ongoing debate among policymakers in the western states who are concerned about future water
issues, which will rapidly become present ones unless weather and usage patterns change.
The Mountain region saw economic pain spread to nearly all sectors of its economy during the
recession, and the recovery so far has been almost equally widespread. The professional and business
services sector and the trade, transportation, and utility sector, which together account for more than
one-third of the region’s total jobs, have grown consistently and have been a major source of payroll
gains. The leisure and hospitality sector accounts for 13.3% of the regional economy, the largest share
among the nine regions, and well above the national average of 10.5%. This sector has been top
performing well, up 1.9% y/y in November despite a recent downswing in the hiring pace. Nevada,
which accounts for just 12% of the Mountain region's employment, comprises a fourth of its leisure and
hospitality payrolls. In 2009, during the height of the recession, Nevada's ever important gaming
industry was hit hard by shaky consumer confidence, which kept people away from the tourist hotspots,
in addition to people cutting back on such luxuries such as eating out and travel. However, this is
working in the opposite direction now, with tourism ramping back up as consumer sentiment improves
and pent-up demand for leisure activities is attracting people back to the Mountain region. Meanwhile,
jobs in education and health services continue to expand heartily thanks to the region's fast growing
share of residents over the age of 65.
The Mountain region is made up of states that were at the forefront of the housing boom, and have thus
were affected by the bust more so than other areas. From 2007 to 2010, the region purged 340,000
construction jobs, with more than half of those losses coming from Arizona and Nevada alone. While
these deep cuts are painful, with bubbles come extremes at the top and bottom – meaning that when
the housing market recovers over the next decade there will be more room for growth because it is
starting at such a low base. The region is also home to states that are benefiting from the natural
resource boom.
Over the next five years, employment gains in the region will outpace the national average. We expect
Utah, Nevada, Arizona, and Colorado to be among the leading states nationally though 2018 in terms of
payroll employment growth rates. These employment gains will be accompanied by continuing robust
population expansion.
Between 2013 and 2018, the region will see 2.3% average annual job gains, compared with the national
average of 1.6%. The housing recovery, combined with robust development in commercial real estate
development and infrastructure, will boost average annual payroll growth in the construction sector by
7.8%, while professional and business services grow by 3.9% annually.
September 2014
Page 35
Nevada
Economy in 2014: As the recovery continues to take hold in Nevada, we expect that payroll growth will
accelerate this year, increasing 2.2%. Having a long way to go to make up for losses during the recession
and a rapidly expanding population, the state’s employment gains will outpace much of the nation in
2014, when Nevada will rank seventh in the country in total payroll growth. Service sector gains will
dominate hiring this year. Professional/business services, education/health services, and
leisure/hospitality services will add 3.0%, 2.0%, and 2.2%, respectively, to total payrolls. Retail will also
continue to heat up, with payrolls climbing an additional 6.6%. Of the nearly 25,500 new jobs that the
state labor market will create this year, almost 23,000 will come from these four sectors alone.
Construction employment will pick up slightly, adding 1.9%. The uptick in payroll growth will help to
propel the unemployment rate downward to 8.4% by the end of the year.
Economy through the Next Five Years:
Nevada took a huge hit during the Great Recession and the housing bust, but it will experience strong
growth in the coming years as it climbs back out of that massive hole. Although the influx of new
residents will not return to its pace prior to the collapse, the state will nevertheless rank fifth in the US
in terms of population growth over the next five years, at 1.4%. These two factors will drive employment
growth here, which will easily outpace the nation, increasing 2.6% on an average annual basis through
2018. This pace of payroll expansion will place Nevada first in the nation.
With the exception of mining, all sectors of the state economy will undergo expansion in the next five
years. The state’s prominent service sector will play a key role in its recovery. Professional and business
services will come roaring back to life, adding 4.3% to payrolls, on average, each year. Strong population
gains will fuel demand for education and health services, and this sector will add jobs at a 2.3% annual
pace. The all-important leisure and hospitality services segment will expand by 2.3%. Construction gains,
meanwhile, will be huge. It will add 8.1% to payrolls on average, although the current oversupply of
existing homes, the pace of hiring will not really pick up until 2015.
September 2014
Page 36
The state still has quite a long way to go before it recovers all of the jobs lost in the downturn – a deficit
of over 134,000 from its peak in 2007. Despite rapid payroll growth, we do not expect Nevada to reach
prerecession levels of employment until the end of 2017. The unemployment rate will continue to
decline, but remain elevated relative to the nation.
Housing:
Thanks to the abysmal decline in home values during and after the mortgage crisis and housing bust, the
residential real estate market in Nevada has been on a tear now that home prices have reversed course.
After turning the corner in mid-2012, year-over-year (y/y) home values have been appreciating at
double-digit rates. According to the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s purchase-only home price index,
home values here were up 25.3% y/y in the third quarter of 2013. This was the fifth straight quarter in
which gains were in the double digits. This is welcome news for a state that leads the nation in the share
of mortgages that are in negative equity. Rising values are lifting many homeowners out from
underwater mortgages, and helping stem the tide of new foreclosure activity. Nevada was one of the
hardest-hit states in the nation when it comes to foreclosures. Although the situation is on the mend, it
still ranks near the top, seventh, in terms of the share of total loans in foreclosure.
Builders broke ground on more homes in 2013 than in 2012, with starts reaching 11,400. That is still a
far cry from the pace of construction set prior to the housing bust. We expect new construction to ramp
up this year, with total starts hitting almost 19,000. Because so much excess homebuilding occurred
during the years of the housing boom, we do not expect new construction to reach those levels again
during the forecast period.
September 2014
Page 37
Las Vegas
Economy in 2014:
On the heels of 2.3% job growth in 2013, we forecast a modest acceleration to 2.6% job growth in 2014.
Strong gains in leisure and hospitality services (2.6% growth), education and health services (2.9%), and
professional and business services (4.0%) will significantly boost the metro economy this year and
represent the vast majority of gains. Professional and business services will show consistent, increasing
payroll additions and will be one of the city's fastest-growing sectors in the near and mid-term.
Education and health, which is typically a consistent source of new jobs, will continue to perform well
over the medium term. Ultimately, however, the Las Vegas economy will only go as far as the leisure
and hospitality sector can take it. Representing 33% of total employment, sustained growth in leisure
and hospitality is essential to an employment recovery in Vegas. Fortunately, increasing consumer
confidence is helping to bring tourists back to the metro and driving the strong payroll growth this year.
However, the construction sector has yet to mount a sustained recovery. Construction employment will
decline again in 2014 after meager growth in 2013, although over the medium term the sector’s
prospects look much better.
Good times are ahead. The metro will average 2.2% employment gains annually during 2014–18, a
performance well above the country's average 1.6% growth. Although employment gains in the leisure
and hospitality sector will decelerate over the coming years, the education/health services and
professional/business services segments will generate a substantial number of new jobs, averaging 2.4%
and 5.4% annual job gains, respectively, during 2014–18. The recently devastated construction sector,
meanwhile, will come roaring back to life in 2015, averaging 9.3% annual employment growth during
2015–18.
September 2014
Page 38
Housing:
The real estate downturn was a major economic blow for many metros in this past recession, and Las
Vegas was no exception. The metro's housing market has very slowly been recovering—from its prerecession peak of $295,000, the median home price plummeted 65% to less than $103,000 by the end of
2011. But signs of a bottom were finally seen in 2012, and by the third quarter of 2013 home prices
were up 29.1% from a year earlier. This left them still 16.3% lower than five years earlier, but it is a good
start. The housing boom left the metro area with an excess inventory of housing that will need to be
burned off before the market can return to a consistently positive growth trend. The metro area was a
hotspot for speculative activity, and as these investors pulled out of the market, inventory buildup
occurred. Foreclosure activity, which soared in the state, has also left many homes on the market. As a
result of the excess supply of homes, construction activity has slowed, with housing starts down
substantially.
There is something big happening in the heart of the city, however. Downtown Las Vegas, long
overshadowed by the casinos of the Strip, is the focus of a bold development plan by Zappos.com
founder Tony Hsieh. In 2010, Hsieh announced a $350-million investment in the city – with $200 million
for real estate investments; $50 million for tech startups; $50 million for arts, healthcare, and education;
and $50 million for small businesses. The plan, dubbed the Downtown Project, is intended to foster
entrepreneurship and innovation, especially in technology, and create a family-friendly live/work
community in a city generally known for seedier pursuits. Between 2010 and 2013, Hsieh wooed 60 tech
startups to the city, and in mid-2013 Zappos moved its headquarters from the Vegas suburbs to the
heart of downtown. To foster the growth of community, the project includes charter schools, new parks,
music festivals, and a health clinic that operates on a flat fee.
September 2014
Page 39
FORECAST SUMMARY
Economy in 2014:
Payroll growth in Reno remained relatively weak in 2013, following an equally soft performance the
prior year. The metro area has struggled more than most in regaining jobs lost during the Great
Recession. Key sectors including professional/business services, manufacturing, and construction/mining
slipped again in 2013, after seeing some gains in 2012. Still, some other sectors of the local economy
perked up last year. The metro’s sizable leisure and hospitality sector expanded by a promising 3.9%.
Education and health services added 1.0%. Trade/transportation/utilities, Reno’s largest sector, tacked
an additional 1.4% onto payrolls. A lackluster overall labor market performance, however, has kept
unemployment particularly high, at 9.0% in November. Job gains have nonetheless been sufficient to
reduce the jobless rate from 9.7% at the beginning of 2013. We expect that 2014 will be a better year
for the Reno area’s labor market. Employment growth will perk up to 1.8%. Retail, professional/business
services, and education/health services will lead the charge.
Reno’s long-term economic growth will be led by its services sectors. Leisure and hospitality services has
been a major employment generator in recent years and will continue to create jobs at a 2.5% pace over
the forecast period. We expect professional and business services to lead gains, adding an average of
3.6% annually to payrolls from 2014 through 2018. The education and health services sector will see
solid growth as it keeps up with a population that is progressively getting older, averaging 1.5% job gains
annually during 2014–18. The manufacturing and the trade/transportation/utilities sectors will both
produce average employment gains of 1.3% and 2.2% annually through 2018. We expect the
construction sector to come roaring back to life in 2015, boosting payrolls by 7.4% annually, on average.
September 2014
Page 40
Housing:
After taking a severe beating during the housing crisis, home prices in Reno, like the rest of the state, are
rebounding. Indeed, home values have been appreciating at double-digit year-on-year (y/y) rates since
the middle of 2012. According to data from the Federal Housing Finance Agency, prices climbed 25.4%
y/y in the third quarter of 2013. Despite only anemic growth in the local labor market, dwindling
supplies of for-sale existing homes and limited new construction are pushing values up rapidly. Housing
starts picked up in 2013, when nearly 1,700 new homes were constructed, double the pace of 2012. This
year, we expect demand to quicken the pace of new homebuilding again to more than 2,500.
LONG-TERM OUTLOOK
Table 1 shows that we forecast employment growth in Washoe County to expand by an average rate of
2.2% between 2013 and 2018, with employment growth decelerating to 0.9% annually after 2023 as the
post recession boost tapers off. The highest long-term employment growth will be seen in the service
sectors. The personal income growth rate will remain steady over the 25-year forecast horizon at about
5%, although it could rise if economic development policies are able to attract additional high-paying
jobs to the region. Finally, we forecast that real gross county-level product will grow at an annual rate of
3.2% over the next five years. By comparison, the growth rate for Nevada's real GSP during that time will
be faster at 3.6%.
Table 2 presents a special population forecast prepared by IHS Economics for 2013 through 2038. Over
the next five years, we forecast an annual population growth rate of 0.8%, which is a departure from the
2.3% annual growth rate recorded between 1990 and 2013. Over the longer term, we forecast that total
population will also grow at an annual rate of 0.8% over the next 10 years, and by 1.0% over the 25-year
period between 2013 and 2038. The fastest-growing age cohorts over the next 25 years will be the over
85 years old, 80 to 84 years old, 75 to 79 years old, and 70 to 74 years old cohorts. By contrast, annual
population growth rates in the cohorts containing working age population between the ages of 25 and
55 will be much lower, with the highest growth rates in the 45 to 49 years old, and 50 to 54 years old
cohorts.
September 2014
Page 41
As shown in Table 2, over the 25-year forecast period, we forecast that Reno's annual household growth
rate will be 1.1%, close to the population growth rate over the same period. However, between 2013
and 2018, the differential between the household and population growth rates will be greatest, with
households growing at 1.4% during this period compared to annual population growth of 0.8%. This
differential is due to the household size decreasing following the Great Recession. An improving housing
market will spur pent up demand for new units and in turn drive household growth as young adults
move out of their parent’s house, roommates disband to get their own residence, and homelessness
eases. After 2023, we forecast an average annual household growth rate of 1.1%, with the largest
growth rates occurring in the 65 years and older cohorts.
September 2014
Page 42
Appendix C
Woods and Poole Background Data
September 2014
Page 43
September 2014
Page 44
September 2014
Page 45
The remainder of the Woods and Poole technical documentation is available upon
request.
September 2014
Page 46
Appendix D
The Nevada State Demographer’s projections are developed using the Regional Economic Models,
Incorporated (REMI) model through 2034.
The REMI model is a comprehensive model that encompasses a wide range of demographic and
economic activity. It relates a region or set of regions to each other and the nation as whole. It also
comes with differing levels of industrial detail. The model is used by the Nevada Commission on
Economic Development, the Nevada Department of Administration, and the University of Nevada, Las
Vegas. The model used in producing these projections is a 17 region model with a breakdown into 23
industrial
sectors.
Documentation
about
the
model
can
be
found
at
http://www.remi.com/support/documents.shtml.
The overall linkages of the REMI model are shown in Figure 1.
September 2014
Page 47
The REMI model comes with a baseline forecast, what has come to be referred to as an out of the box
projection (see Appendix pages). The user can do things such as update employment for all sectors and
by specific sectors through what are called policy variables. For the most part, those kinds of changes
were made to the model in producing the projections. One area of concern in looking at the model was
the performance of the Population and Labor Supply Block which is illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2:
LIMITATIONS TO THE PROJECTIONS
REMI has a number of strengths. The model is under constant research and has been available for over
25 years. It has been examined and reviewed through peer-reviewed articles. The User Guide and other
information is available to anyone with a computer, that is much of the detail of their methodology is
publicly available. One of the major limitations with the model is that there is currently limited historic
data from which it is built. This is because of the change from the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
to the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) in 2001. Limited history limits the
amount of information that a model can be constructed from for portraying the area that is being
modeled. Another limit is that Nevada has a number of small counties as well as areas with limited
numbers of employees or employers in various economic sectors. This leads to missing information
through data suppression which REMI and this office has to then estimate values to substitute for that
missing information.
Also, REMI is built on federal data including the annual estimates that are done by the Census Bureau.
So any projections done within the model have to be re-based off of Nevada’s generated estimates.
September 2014
Page 48
Appendix E – needs update from TMWA 2016 water resource plan – TBD prior to final adoption
TMWA Forecast Memorandum – additional documentation should be requested from TMWA.
September 2014
Page 49
September 2014
Page 50
September 2014
Page 51
September 2014
Page 52
September 2014
Page 53
Appendix F
July 28, 2016
Calibration of Global Insight Employment Forecast
Jeremy M. Smith, GIS Coordinator - TMRPA
Background: The Global Insight Forecast is a key input to the Consensus Forecast (CF) as it provides a second
projection of job growth by sector when combined with data sourced from Woods and Poole. Local sources (e.g.
NV State Demographer) have only recently begun to publish sector-level employment forecasts and these will
likely be of great benefit in subsequent versions of the CF. Nevertheless, for this rendition of the CF we have opted
to follow historic protocols.. Historically, these two outside sources of employment information have been more
rd
closely aligned, however in this delivery from Global Insight the disparities with Woods and Poole and other 3
party employment data sources (e.g. Infogroup business points) were quite wide (c. 60k jobs).
After discussion with the NV State Demographer and staff from Global Insight it was determined that the base year
(2016) value for number of employees was principally determined using data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor and
Statistics Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (BLS). Job counts done by BLS tally only covered employees
(i.e. jobs where unemployment insurance is paid) which leads to underestimation of total employment by omitting
many job types that are not required to pay into unemployment. Some notable examples include sole
proprietorships and part-time positions. Since this CF will be used to inform traffic demand modeling and other
regional planning efforts, it is imperative that we have an accounting of all jobs. Both Woods and Poole and the
NV State Demographer retrieve base data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). The BEA uses a more
inclusive methodology, not limited to covered employment, for tallying jobs by sector and is therefore more
indicative of total jobs in the region.
Since the Consensus Forecast approach is basically an average of totals, we determined that averaging a subset of
jobs (i.e. Global Insight based on BLS) with a forecast based on all potential jobs would provide a spurious output
average. Thus, we concluded that a calibration process was required to factor up the base year estimation from
Global Insight to account for the disparity.
Methodology: In order to calibrate the Global Insight forecast we examined employee counts from both the
Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS) and Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) by sector for 2014, the most recently
available common year of reporting between the 2 sources (Table 1). Data listing employee counts by 2-digit (or
groups of 2-digit) NAICS sectors were acquired from both sources and compared by first calculating an absolute
difference and then by calculating the ratio of BLS jobs reported to those reported by BEA. The BEA counts were
consistently higher and up to 12 times greater than employee counts reported by BLS (e.g. NAICS 21 – Mining,
quarrying, and oil and gas extraction).
We then used two approaches to determine a reasonable calibration factor from the comparison of these two
datasets. Our first approach factored the BLS data sector by sector using the included NAICS designations and
factors listed in Table 1. This created a calibrated total employment value of 259,272 jobs in 2014. We then
created a calibrated value of 259,747 for year 2014 by applying a factor of 1.36 to the total employment reported
by Global Insight. The factor of 1.36 represents the ratio of total BEA employees to total BLS employees reported in
2014.
September 2014
Page 54
We opted to use the second approach because the ratio of total employment produced a calibrated value for
Global Insight employment in 2016 that was closer in numeric space to the 2015 value from both the NV State
Demographer and our Infogroup business data points. We applied the 1.36 factor to the annual projection values
from Global Insight across the 20-year CF projection horizon. We then averaged the calibrated Global Insight
employment values with the employment values reported by Woods and Poole for each year until 2036 to derive
the yearly employment values to be reported in the 2016-2036 Consensus Forecast document. Since each year
was factored by the same value we expect very little change to the employment growth rate forecasted by Global
Insight and therefore maintain its validity in the consensus forecasting approach.
Table 1. Comparison of employment counts by industry sector from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS) and
Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) for Washoe County, NV in 2014.
Washoe County, NV - North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) sectors
NAICS 11 Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting
NAICS 21 Mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction
NAICS 22 Utilities
NAICS 23 Construction
NAICS 31-33 Manufacturing
NAICS 42 Wholesale trade
NAICS 44-45 Retail trade
NAICS 48-49 Transportation and warehousing
NAICS 51 Information
NAICS 52 Finance and insurance
NAICS 53 Real estate and rental and leasing
NAICS 54 Professional and technical services
NAICS 55 Management of companies and enterprises
NAICS 56 Administrative and waste services
NAICS 61 Educational services
NAICS 62 Health care and social assistance
NAICS 71 Arts, entertainment, and recreation
NAICS 72 Accommodation and food services
NAICS 81 Other services, except public administration
BLS Employee
1
Count (2012)
BEA Employee
2
Count (2012)
Difference
Factor
114
223
109
1.96
167
2,007
1,840
12.02
415
456
41
1.10
11,293
14,273
2,980
1.26
12,107
13,227
1,120
1.09
8,914
9,903
989
1.11
21,988
26,440
4,452
1.20
10,943
12,510
1,567
1.14
2,008
2,819
811
1.40
5,592
14,835
9,243
2.65
3,536
15,130
11,594
4.28
9,670
17,137
7,467
1.77
2,739
3,088
349
1.13
14,493
18,551
4,058
1.28
1,973
3,143
1,170
1.59
21,027
24,207
3,180
1.15
5,205
8,149
2,944
1.57
29,905
31,159
1,254
1.04
5,464
13,433
7,969
2.46
September 2014
Page 55
NAICS 92 Public administration
Total
1
2
23,438
28,582
5,144
1.22
190,991
259,272
68,281
1.36
http://www.bls.gov/cew/
http://www.bea.gov/itable
For more information please contact Jeremy M. Smith at Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency
([email protected], 775-321-8390)
September 2014
Page 56
Northern Nevada
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
July 28, 2016
TO:
FROM:
Jeremy Smith, Ph.D., Truckee Meadows Regional Planning Agency (“TMRPA”)
SUBJECT:
Presentation of regional water use and wastewater flow projections, a 20-year
analysis using various spatial growth scenarios; and possible direction to staff
SUMMARY
The TMRPA has successfully implemented a scenario planning program that allows regional
water and wastewater service providers to contemplate the effects of different spatiotemporal
patterns of growth on existing and future provisioning of related services and infrastructure.
Since 2011 and as part of an interlocal agreement with the Western Regional Water Commission
(“WRWC”), TMRPA has been working to achieve this capacity through a suite of technical
programs and study. These include, but are not limited to, the Industrial Land Needs Analysis,
the Washoe County Consensus Forecast, the Population and Employment Model, and the soon to
be completed Regional Housing Study. In each of these efforts TMRPA staff have built relevant
technical capacity and validated parcel-level information about zoning and existing entitlements
for use as the input to scenario modeling.
Notably, the Regional Housing Study considers 4 distinct scenarios of future housing growth by
evaluating both the spatial and temporal aspects of that potential growth in the Truckee
Meadows. Acknowledging that the future is inherently uncertain and that the exact type and
location of future housing units will never be fully known, two scenarios with distinct spatial
patterns of development are evaluated: one based on a continuation of recent development
trends, and another that explores a slightly more compact development pattern ( i.e. somewhat
higher densities, some additional redevelopment, and a greater proportion of new units within
McCarran Boulevard when compared to the recent trends). Future population has been allocated
to these scenarios using the growth rate specified in the 2014 Washoe County Consensus
Forecast. Each of these scenarios are currently being evaluated against two criteria: 1) future
costs to provide water, wastewater, regional roads and school infrastructure, and 2) the type of
housing that will be needed based on demographic and socioeconomic trends.
Additionally, to explore potential impacts associated with successful economic development
efforts bringing faster growth to the region, the timing of population growth associated with the
scenarios has also been varied, assuming that population grows faster in the next five years
consistent with the recently completed Northern Nevada Regional Growth Study commissioned
by the Economic Development Authority of Western Nevada ("EDAWN"), (i.e., the Economic
Planning and Indicators Committee ("EPIC") study). The Consensus Forecast growth rate as
well as an extrapolated growth curve based on the EPIC report 5-year projections are displayed
out to the 20-year planning horizon in Figure 1 below. Both scenarios assume that population
will grow to 570,648 people by 2035, consistent with the 2014 Consensus Forecast. The
scenarios proposed for use in the Housing Study as well as variations that contemplate faster
growth are described below in Table 1 with further details characterized in the subsequent
paragraphs.
For each scenario detailed in Table 1 TMRPA has calculated both water demand and wastewater
generation on a parcel by parcel basis. These projections have been aggregated into 5-year sums
and can be further grouped by relevant geographies (e.g. a hydro basin or a treatment facility
service territory). To calculate water demand TMRPA utilized the water demand factors by
hydro basin published in the Truckee Meadows Water Authority (“TMWA”) 2016 to 2035
Water Resource Plan. Wastewater generation used a similar approach wherein TMWA water
demand factors were constrained to winter water use amounts (i.e. without the irrigation
component/provided by TMWA). Calculated flows have been validated against observed inflow
averages at each wastewater treatment facility.
Since these demand factors and wastewater generation calculations are spatially discrete to the
parcel level, it is possible for local and regional staff to tie the development of future residential
parcels to the construction of required infrastructure. Thus a planning-level cost estimate can be
derived for each scenario by looking at the costs to construct and maintain the identified
infrastructure needs.
Figure 1: Population Projections
TMRPA Housing Study - Two Population Growth Projections
600,000
Forecasted Population
580,000
570648
560,000
Consensus Forecast Projection
540,000
520,000
500,000
Enhanced Economic Development
Projection (B2)
492120
Linear (Consensus Forecast
Projection)
480,000
460,000
440,000
420,000
400,000
2010
Poly. (Enhanced Economic
Development Projection (B2))
442126
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
Page 2 of 3
Table 1: Scenarios
Scenario 1: Recent Trend Development Pattern
1a: Recent trends + Consensus Forecast growth rate
1b: Recent trends + accelerated growth in next five
years
Scenario 2: More Compact Development Pattern
2a: More compact development + Consensus
Forecast growth rate
2b: More compact development + accelerated
growth in next five years
Scenario 1a: Recent Trends + Consensus Forecast Growth Rate: This scenario projects
forward the pattern of development observed from the past 15 years. This pattern is typified by
detached single-family housing on relatively large lots located on the periphery of the region.
While detached single-family housing accounts for 60% of housing units in this scenario, multifamily units are also modeled. Based on recent trends, these units are located in various areas
throughout the region. This scenario also models population growth occurring at an average
annual growth rate of 1.3%, as detailed in the adopted 2014 Washoe County Consensus Forecast.
Scenario 1b: Recent Trends + Accelerated Growth Rate: This scenario is utilizes the same
development pattern described in Scenario 1a. The timing of development is accelerated over the
2015-2020 timeframe based using the 2.3% average annual growth rate which is from Scenario
B2, the highest growth rate contemplated in the EPIC Report.. After 2020, the average annual
growth rate declines until it reaches the Consensus Forecast projection for the year 2035.
Scenario 2a: More Compact Development + Consensus Forecast Growth Rate: This
scenario departs from the development trends observed over the past 15 years and models a more
compact form of development that has a greater proportion of units locating within the McCarran
ring. While a majority of new units are modeled as detached single-family homes, this scenario
also shows a shift towards denser housing including small lot single-family homes, duplexes, and
multi-family units, as well as additional redevelopment above that seen in the recent trend
scenario. This scenario further models population growth occurring at an average annual growth
rate of 1.3%, as detailed in the adopted 2014 Washoe County Consensus Forecast.
Scenario 2b: More Compact Development + Accelerated Growth Rate: This scenario is
utilizes the same development pattern described in Scenario 2a. The timing of development is
accelerated over the 2015-2020 timeframe based using the 2.3% average annual growth rate
detailed in the EPIC Report. After 2020, the average annual growth rate declines until it reaches
the Consensus Forecast projection for the year 2035.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the NNWPC accept the report regional water use and wastewater flow
projections, and provide appropriate direction to staff, if any.
JS:df
Page 3 of 3
Northern Nevada
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
July 28, 2016
TO:
FROM:
Chris Wessel, Water Management Planner,
Mickey Hazelwood, Project Manager, The Nature Conservancy ("TNC")
SUBJECT:
Report by The Nature Conservancy ("TNC") on its "Optimizing Investments in the
Truckee [River] Watershed" project, and possible direction to staff – Mickey Hazelwood
SUMMARY
The Northern Nevada Water Planning Commission (“NNWPC”), at its March 2, 2016 meeting, approved
a request from TNC dated February 11, 2016, requesting revisions to the original project budget included
in the contract with the Western Regional Water Commission ("WRWC"). At that time, the NNWPC
requested TNC provide a status update of the project. Commissioner Mickey Hazelwood will provide a
report on the project status.
BACKGROUND
TNC successfully applied through the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for a $227,700 Desert
Terminal Lakes Restoration Fund grant to fund a study entitled "Optimizing Restoration Investments in
the Truckee [River] Watershed". TNC also received approval from the Truckee River Fund on August 7,
2014, for funds to cover 40 percent of an existing TNC Project Manager position over 2 years. Grants
from the Truckee River Fund require matching funds, which TNC secured from the Regional Water
Management Fund in the amount of $57,787, through a contract with the WRWC.
CW:cw
Northern Nevada
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
July 28, 2016
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Presentation of comments received on the “Wastewater and Watershed-Based Water
Quality Planning” chapter for the 2016 Regional Water Management Plan ("RWMP")
update; discussion and possible direction to staff.
SUMMARY
Since the last presentation of this chapter to the NNWPC at the July 6, 2016 meeting, staff has
incorporated comments concerning Section 4.3, renamed “Regional Effluent Management Planning”,
provided by technical staff from the City of Reno, the City of Sparks, Washoe County, and the Truckee
Meadows Water Authority. Recommended revisions resulting from comments received are shown as
redlined edits. Staff is requesting any additional comments for this section from the Commission.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the NNWPC accept the report on comments received and proposed revisions to the
“Wastewater and Watershed-Based Water Quality Planning” chapter for the 2016 RWMP update, and, if
acceptable, approve the changes and provide direction to staff as appropriate.
JS:df
Attachment: Section 4.3 “Regional Effluent Management Planning”
Attachment
Chapter 4 – Wastewater and Watershed-Based Water Quality Planning
4.3
Regional Effluent ManagementWastewater Facility Planning
The reuse and disposal of reclaimed water from the various water reclamation facilities in the
Planning Area may eventually be constrained by one or more a number of factors, which if they
continue to be operated as independent systems. could include compliance with existing or
future water quality standards, lack of future reclaimed water customers, insufficient winter
storage and/or conveyance infrastructure. Regional water management challenges in the
Planning Area include such complex, integrated issues as:
•
Ensuring that the existing wastewater treatment plants are prepared to meet existing
nutrient limitations in the face of anticipated growth
•
Ensuring that the responsibility to meet any new water quality standards that affect
receiving waters are shared by all entities contributing to the poor water quality
•
Ensuring sustainable water supplies and infrastructure to meet the needs of existing
customers, as well asand future demands within and outside the TMSA (same as 1st
bullet)
•
Providing appropriate water quality and treatment capacity at various wastewater
treatment facilities
•
Providing for adequate reclaimed water demands, reclaimed water system capacity and
effluent disposal capacity
•
Addressing competing needs for the limited water resources available in the Planning
Area to meet commitments to water supply, water quality, instream flows and the
environment
In 2008, the NNWPC and WRWC initiated a collaborative effort among key staff from
Reno, Sparks, Washoe County, SVGID and TMWA to develop recommendations to address
effluent management issues in the Planning Area, using circumstances that existed in the North
Valleys at that time: a high growth rate, high population growth projections, planned water
importation and an abundance of undeveloped land uses and zoning. Staff concluded that, if the
region is going to spend the same amount of money for water and wastewater infrastructure,
regardless of effluent disposal or reuse methods, the region should make the investment that
maximizes the benefits provided by the available water resources.
Enhanced Nitrogen Removal Planning Study
In 2013, following an upset at TMWRF resulting in a nitrogen discharge violation, the WRWC
paid for the Enhanced Nitrogen Removal Planning Study conducted by Carollo Engineers. The
final Technical Memorandum prepared for the City of Reno identified three treatment
technologies, one of which may be selected to supplement existing nitrogen treatment at
TMWRF: enhanced coagulation; advanced oxidation; and reverse osmosis (“RO”). Additional
evaluations of enhanced nitrogen removal technologies are ongoing.
Although TMWRF operations have been smooth with no upsets since the 2013 violation,
discharge limitations for nitrogen may present significant compliance challenges as wastewater
flows and/or strength increase over time. Of the three enhanced nitrogen removal treatment
Attachment
technologies studied by Carollo, RO has the advantage of removing not only nitrogen, but
phosphorus, total dissolved solids and other compounds that may be of concern in the future.
Disadvantages include a concentrate (brine) stream generated by RO treatment consisting of
approximately 10-15 percent of the feed flow. Water reclamation facilities in coastal locations
typically use ocean discharge for concentrate disposal, but inland facilities must develop
alternative management strategies. Options for the management and disposal of reject
concentrate from the RO treatment process have not been investigated. This topic was not
within the scope of the Carollo study, which assumed deep-well injection for concentrate
disposal. Enhanced coagulation and advanced oxidation have a greater viability in this region
because there is no brine stream requiring disposal. Both technologies are relatively expensive
however, requiring significant energy and/or chemical addition.
With regional coordination and cooperation, the possible uses for reclaimed water could be
expanded to include uses such as residential landscape irrigation, groundwater recharge or
indirect potable reuse. NDEP does not permit the use of reclaimed water on residential homes
and is not currently considering a change in this position. However, the use of high quality
reclaimed water for these purposes, or others, would provide additional means of beneficially
utilizing the reclaimed water, while at the same time extending the region’s limited water
supplies.
In December 2014, the NNWPC directed staff to summarize wastewater master planning in the
Planning Area and outline a scope of work for a wastewater and effluent management master
plan update. Technical staff from the City of Reno, the City of Sparks, Washoe County and the
Truckee Meadows Water Authority had been meeting to discuss regional effluent management
issues since April 2014, and welcomed NNWPC participation. This informal group is generally
referred to as the "Regional Effluent Management Team" (the "Team”). The Team is working
toward regionally-based solutions to several near-term effluent management issues;
acknowledging that the strategies developed may form the framework for an up-to-date regional
effluent management master plan that will cover all of the Planning Area’s publicly-owned water
reclamation facilities and service areas.
The near-term effluent management issues focus on reducing the nitrogen load to the Truckee
River by maximizing the use of Truckee Meadows Water Reclamation Facility (“TMWRF”)
reclaimed water at locations away from the river in allowable quantities and during appropriate
times of the year, while maintaining a balance with Truckee River flows consistent with State
water law and TROA. A variety of alternatives and scenarios are being evaluated using
population and employment growth projections to estimate wastewater flow increases over time.
The Team is taking steps to ensure a thorough understanding of the complex implications for
effluent management scenarios before making any recommendations.
Scenarios being evaluated include:
• Developing a year-round reclaimed water demand, possibly Tahoe Reno Industrial
Center (“TRI Center”) and/or infiltration to groundwater
• Constructing an intertie pipeline, between TMWRF and Huffaker Reservoir, located at
STMWRF, allowing for seasonal storage of TMWRF effluent and greater flexibility for
reclaimed water use
• Demonstrating advanced water treatment technology consistent with proposed revisions
to State regulations concerning “exceptional quality” recycled water standards
Attachment
Water balance scenario evaluation using linear optimization programming:
Desert Research Institute (“DRI”) is using a linear optimization model to compare strategies for
distributing effluent between TMWRF and STMWRF to meet customer demands while
minimizing the nitrogen load to the Truckee River. DRI’s scope of work includes an evaluation
of strategies and constraints including:
• a proposed intertie pipeline to connect TMWRF and STMWRF/Huffaker Reservoir using
the Southeast Connector Roadway Project right of way;
• existing customer effluent demands;
• future effluent demands including potential large volume customers such as TRI Center;
• Rapid Infiltration Basin(s) (“RIB”); and
• water rights constraints
Initial findings from the evaluation include the following:
• Annualized use of effluent is beneficial for reducing nitrogen loading to river.
• Huffaker Reservoir provides a cushion in the event of a plant upset at TMWRF and offseason storage of TMWRF effluent..
• TRI Center demands were used in the model as a surrogate for other potential year
round demands such as RIBs, other large industrial uses, and/or groundwater
replenishment.
• Intertie pipeline and TRI Center could provide a firm a demand for future TMWRF and
STMWRF effluent.
• STMWRF effluent provides water with no additional return flow water rights requirement.
Ongoing DRI modeling simulations continue to refine the evaluation of the intertie pipeline, in
addition to the feasibility of various TRI Center deliveries for current and future scenarios
through 2034. The model has been updated to reflect new information, including STMWRF
effluent demand projections, seasonal TRI Center demands and the addition of a 1,400 AF
effluent storage reservoir at TRI Center.
One of the key considerations of the current evaluation involves the effluent return flow
requirement for the Truckee River. The model tracks TMWA’s groundwater and surface water
production during both drought and normal years to estimate the seasonal groundwater
component of the effluent. Taking the results from the DRI model, the Team will consider the
groundwater component, Water Quality Settlement Agreement (“WQSA”) water rights, and other
surface water resource options to ensure that the effluent return flow component is satisfied
under varying demand and hydrologic conditions, consistent with TROA operations.
The model results will provide decision makers with the technical information to consider
whether the intertie pipeline and/or a year round effluent demand to a use such as TRI Center
and/or groundwater replenishment is a sound long-term strategy for TMWRF to reduce nitrogen
loading to the Truckee River.
Exceptional Quality Reclaimed Water Feasibility Study
The Team is jointly developing a feasibility study to evaluate whether the State of
Nevada’s proposed “exceptional quality” standard for reclaimed water offers regional long-range
water supply resiliency benefits. Criteria for exceptional quality reclaimed water, achieved
through a series of advanced water treatment and natural processes, are included in proposed
draft State regulations to permit the use of reclaimed water for groundwater augmentation. The
Team envisions a 5-year feasibility study that consists of multiple elements including social,
Attachment
environmental and financial analyses, regulatory compliance, public engagement, advanced
treatment pilot testing, geotechnical investigations, and field scale treatment demonstration
projects.
A growing number of national and international communities have developed advancedtreatment reclaimed water projects as an efficient use of water resources. Projects defer
expenditures on future water importation projects, provide a local drought proof water supply,
and provide for a more resilient total water management strategy. Within the water sector,
projects using advanced treatment for reclaimed water are typically referred to as potable reuse
projects. While the Team seeks to develop a more comprehensive assessment through a
demonstration-scale groundwater replenishment project, there is no current plan to augment
local potable water supplies at full scale. A panel of international water reuse experts is guiding
the Team’s feasibility phase activities.
The advanced water treatment investigations would be conducted over the next 3 to 4 years, led
by researchers at University of Nevada, Reno (UNR). UNR will develop the technological
justification for selecting the advanced water treatment systems; establish the field scale
demonstration project design basis and testing plan; assist acquiring the necessary water
treatment equipment; assist during the installation of the demonstration project; conduct startup
of the treatment facility, optimizing the treatment unit processes; perform monitoring and testing
of the operating strategies, process control, and performance parameters during steady state
operations; analyze data, and prepare a final report.
Technological options considered for advanced treatment of reclaimed water to meet drinking
water standards include a reverse-osmosis (RO) based treatment train and a biological filtration
based treatment train. The former has the distinct disadvantage of side-stream RO brine
disposal, which is a challenge for inland regions. Therefore, to meet the study goals, the
reclaimed water will be further treated through a series of advanced water treatment and natural
processes, likely including biological activated carbon (“BAC”) filtration, advanced oxidation, UV
disinfection, and soil aquifer treatment (“SAT”). A further review of the applicability of this
treatment compared with other alternatives will be explored during the initial stages of this
project.
Advanced water treatment technology has been studied locally in the recent past. From 20082010 the City of Reno supported WateReuse Research Foundation Project 08-04 to investigate
Ozone – Biological Activated Carbon (O3-BAC) as an advanced water treatment alternative to
reverse osmosis. The results demonstrated O3-BAC as a viable method for potable reuse.
Presently, the regional agencies are supporting WateReuse Research Foundation Project 1510, which is intended to look more closely at optimal O3-BAC operating conditions. Following an
approximately 6 month project scoping and review phase that began in January 2016, it is
envisioned that pilot operation will occur over a 9-12 month period. WRRF 15-10 project is being
jointly funded by WRRF, American Water, and Stantec Consulting. The pilot unit will be located
at the South Truckee Meadows Water Reclamation Facility.
Expert Panel
A panel of international water reuse experts (the “Panel”), managed by the National Water
Research Institute (“NWRI”) with general guidance from the Team is helping to develop
feasibility phase goals and a work plan, providing critical review concerning work progress and
making regular recommendations. Jeff Mosher, NWRI Executive Director, an established
Attachment
potable water expert, is the primary point of contact. The Panel is comprised of members with
expertise in all aspects of potable reuse project implementation, including regulatory, public
heath, public engagement, advanced water treatment technologies, and groundwater
hydrogeology. Panel members are also helping to craft an opportunity statement unique to the
Truckee Meadows to help align the feasibility phase activities and more clearly articulate the
project purpose to policy makers and the community.
The Panel will be supported by an advisory committee comprised of state and local public
health, planning, regulatory, and water utility agencies. The following organizations have been
identified as likely advisory committee participants:
• Nevada Division of Environmental Protection
• Nevada State Health Division
• Northern Nevada Water Planning Commission
• City of Reno
• City of Sparks
• Truckee Meadows Water Authority
• Truckee Meadows Water Reclamation Facility
• University of Nevada Reno
• Washoe County Community Services Department
• Washoe County Health District
• Desert Research Institute
Geotechnical Investigations
A main component of the demonstration project is to physically analyze aquifer recharge
potential through either an infiltration basin and/or injection wells. Potential sites under
consideration include Stead/Lemmon Valley, Cold Springs and Bedell Flat. Classifying
hydrogeologic characteristics through groundwater modeling and borehole investigations will
assist with sizing the demonstration project advanced treatment units as well as determining the
suitability of aquifer recharge at each potential site.
High-level plans for wastewater infrastructure improvements envisioned to provide for the needs
of the Planning Area’s service providers to the year 2030 are included in two documents
completed in late 2007 and early 2008: the City of Reno and Washoe County TMSA/FSA Water,
Wastewater and Flood Management Facility Plan (ECO:LOGIC, 2007) and the City of Sparks
Conceptual Facility Master Plan (Stantec, 2008). Together these facility plans comprise the
most current comprehensive, regional planning-level compilation available and serve as
important sources of information for this chapter. Although not specifically incorporated in this
Plan, the utility providers each have facility repair and replacement programs in place to
upgrade the existing systems and maintain the integrity of the region’s existing water and
wastewater infrastructure.
4.3.1 North Valleys Planning
In 2008, the Northern Nevada Water Planning Commission and the Western Regional Water
Commission initiated a collaborative effort among key staff from Reno, Sparks, WCDWR,
SVGID and the Truckee Meadows Water Authority (“TMWA”) to develop recommended
Attachment
solutions to certain water issues in the Planning Area using current water management
circumstances in the North Valleys.
It is important to recognize that the circumstances in the North Valleys that led to this planning
effort included a relatively high growth rate, planned water importation and an abundance of
undeveloped land uses and zoning. The 2004-2025 Regional Water Plan anticipated significant
growth in the Lemmon Valley area, as a result of approved population growth forecasts and
Regional Plan designations of a Transportation Oriented Development Corridor and a Regional
Center for the Stead area.
At that time, a federal environmental impact statement (“EIS”) was in review for two proposed
projects to import approximately 11,500 af of potable water to the North Valleys from
groundwater sources further north in Washoe County. Water purveyors in Lemmon Valley
include TMWA and WCDWR with SVGID immediately to the east. Water importation facilities
were planned to terminate closest to WCDWR infrastructure. Reno and Washoe County were
evaluating build-out wastewater collection, treatment and disposal facilities from the perspective
of an integrated system within the Lemmon Valley and Stead area. Reno, planning to provide
wastewater services for new growth, was engaged in final design for RSWRF improvements to
increase treatment and disposal capacity to 2.0 MGD, with specific improvements sized to
accommodate flows up to 4.0 MGD.
Constraints on wastewater effluent discharge to Swan Lake and effluent reuse led to the
conclusion that any new potable water source brought into the Stead-Lemmon Valley area that
increased wastewater flow to the RSWRF above 2.0 MGD would require additional effluent
management techniques, such as exportation from the hydrographic basin or irrigation reuse
with significant off-season storage. One of the lower cost alternatives appeared to be
exportation of effluent from the basin, however this option brought up issues regarding efficient
use of water resources and possibly missing an opportunity to expand the total available
resources in the basin.
These water, wastewater and reclaimed water issues in the North Valleys were selected as a
representative example of significant multi-jurisdictional concerns to be addressed through a
collaborative process, referred to as the North Valleys Initiative (“NVI”). The recommended
solutions and lessons learned from this process can be applied to other similar regional water
management issues within the Planning Area.
ECO:LOGIC (2007) estimated that future wastewater flows from Stead and Lemmon Valley
could eventually reach as much as 8,000 af per year (“afa”), based on the long-term
development potential. The Swan Lake wetlands and playa can benefit from more water, and
an agreement has been reached with the Swan Lake Advisory Committee and NDEP to allow
as much as 2,240 afa to be released to the playa in the future. This is the maximum amount of
water that the wetlands and playa can accommodate. More water could disrupt the natural
wetland and playa processes and increase potential 100-year flood hazards for surrounding
properties. Other means to reuse or dispose of the reclaimed water will be needed.
Cold Springs is in a similar situation. Currently, the reclaimed water from CSWRF percolates
into the groundwater through a series of infiltration basins. The amount of water the basins can
infiltrate is limited; therefore, the disposal capacity will not be sufficient for the projected future
Attachment
flows. Because of their proximity and similarities concerning water supply and wastewater
disposal, NVI considered Stead, Lemmon Valley and Cold Springs as one planning area.
A number of alternatives for reusing and/or disposing of treated wastewater effluent have been
evaluated in the past. For instance, plans have been developed to expand the reclaimed water
distribution system in the Stead area to include existing and future commercial irrigation
demands. Future irrigation demands could require hundreds of additional af of reclaimed water
per year. Some additional reuse and disposal alternatives allowed under current NDEP
regulations and policies include:
•
•
•
•
Create beneficial year-round wetlands at the White Lake playa, similar to what has been
developed as a park and wildlife viewing area at Swan Lake
Export to Long Valley Creek in California, which could provide an outlet during the nonirrigation season or other periods when not all of the reclaimed water generated in the
area can be placed to beneficial use
Export to other areas such as Bedell Flat or Warm Springs
Considering these alternatives, the NVI team developed other options that would make
better use of the reclaimed water resource. In general, potential water resource benefits
could include water supply reliability for both municipal and domestic wells, a new
source of water to help meet water rights and water quality obligations, and more water
available for the environment.
Research of reclaimed water uses throughout the United States showed that numerous states,
including California, Arizona, Washington and Idaho, allow reclaimed water use for residential
landscape irrigation. Most notably, the award-winning community of Serrano, in El Dorado Hills,
California, has been successfully using reclaimed water to irrigate both front and back yard
landscaping throughout the development for ten years.
Citizens locally are already familiar with the reclaimed water irrigation systems in widespread
use today in the South Truckee Meadows and Sparks. These systems are used to supply
irrigation water to schools, parks and landscape medians. In Nevada however, NDEP does not
permit the use of reclaimed water for residential homes and is not officially considering a
change in this position. One reason is that Nevada’s current reclaimed water regulations do not
provide for the same level of treatment and reliability as required in states that allow residential
landscape irrigation. To allow reclaimed water use for residential irrigation, changes to the
regulations would be necessary, as would improvements at the wastewater reclamation facilities
to provide the necessary high quality water.
Another use of reclaimed water in other states is groundwater recharge. California, Arizona,
Texas and Florida are leading the way in advancing technologies and regulations to expand this
practice. Groundwater recharge is being performed for a number of reasons, such as to form a
water quality or sea water intrusion barrier, to bolster declining groundwater levels due to overpumping, and to augment potable water supplies, referred to as indirect potable reuse (“IPR”).
The Orange County Groundwater Replenishment System in California is the best example of a
large-scale reclaimed water groundwater recharge project implemented in the United States.
The following excerpt is taken from the Overview section of the Groundwater Replenishment
System website (www.gwrsystem.com):
Attachment
The Groundwater Replenishment System has evolved and changed over time as new goals,
data, regulations and facts have been identified. However, the needs and benefits of the project
have remained constant:
•
Orange County needs more reliable, high-quality water in the future to replenish the
groundwater basin, to protect the groundwater basin from seawater intrusion, and for
industrial uses.
•
The Groundwater Replenishment System decreases Orange County's reliance on
imported water from northern California and the Colorado River.
•
The Groundwater Replenishment System's locally-controlled water helps drought-proof
Orange County.
•
The Groundwater Replenishment System helps reduce mineral build up in Orange
County's groundwater by providing a new source of ultra-pure water to blend with other
sources, including imported water.
Many of these benefits, and others, could be realized locally with additional uses of reclaimed
water. Residential landscape irrigation could play a significant role in meeting future water
supply requirements. Highly treated reclaimed water could be used as an economic
development incentive to attract specialized water intensive industries to commercial and
industrial properties. Reclaimed water could be used to enhance existing wetlands, develop
new ones, and help maintain important wildlife habitat. Groundwater replenishment could also
be implemented with purified reclaimed water in a technically and environmentally sound
manner that would enhance the sustainability of the region’s water supplies.
These new uses of reclaimed water would require regional coordination and cooperation among
local governments, water and wastewater service providers, regulatory entities and other
stakeholders. With appropriate treatment, regulatory oversight and public engagement in the
decision-making process, reclaimed water resources could be used to help provide watershed
sustainability.
Reno’s Advanced Treatment Pilot Test: In addition to the NVI process, an ongoing advanced
treatment pilot study at RSWRF has been undertaken by Reno and ECO:LOGIC Engineering.
Consideration of groundwater replenishment and IPR using highly treated municipal wastewater
effluent must include demonstration of safe, reliable water quality, practicality, affordability and
public acceptance. Coastal communities such as Orange County, California utilize reverse
osmosis (“RO”), high-energy ultraviolet (“UV”) and peroxide treatment because RO brine
disposal to the ocean is available. This approach may be neither affordable nor appropriate for
many inland areas such as the Truckee Meadows.
To address the feasibility of IPR without RO, Reno developed an alternative treatment
demonstration project for public review and regulatory evaluation using either sand filtration or
membrane filtration (“MF”), ozonation (“O3”), and biologically activated carbon (“BAC”). Reno’s
pilot project successfully demonstrated the ability to produce a water quality that meets or
exceeds all drinking water regulations, and reduces many non-regulated compounds to very low
or non-detect concentrations without increasing the corrosivity of the water (ECO:LOGIC, 2009).
Compared to RO-high energy UV systems, Reno’s MF-O3-BAC process has the benefits of
multi-barrier treatment for all major categories of contaminants of concern, which provides
Attachment
additional reliability; lower capital costs; lower operation and maintenance (“O/M") costs and
simpler O/M tasks; lower energy use because of the high energy demand of RO; and eliminates
treatment and disposal of process reject water.
Regulatory Collaboration: A number of specific activities and workshops were conducted for
the benefit of NDEP and WCDHD. CH2MHill was hired to meet independently with regulators
from NDEP and WCDHD to obtain feedback regarding the implementation of expanded
reclaimed water uses. Possible changes to the existing Nevada Administrative Code (“NAC”)
and/or Nevada Revised Statutes (“NRS”), proposed public education and input programs, and
additional studies relative to health impacts and reuse options were the primary take-home
messages from these interviews.
NDEP also initiated discussions with the WCDHD concerning the potential use of reclaimed
water for residential use. Issues being discussed will be addressed through NDEP’s permitting
process of wastewater treatment facilities and include appropriate effluent limitations, treatment
reliability standards, as well as compliance points and assurances. Additionally, NDEP would
need to seek a change to NAC 445A to include higher water quality standards and treatment
requirements. Assuming regulatory changes were completed, a service provider would need to
request a modification of its permit. NDEP does not regulate, nor does it have the authority to
regulate, a residential reclaimed water program; therefore, the County or other local government
would have to be the primary regulatory agency. All of these issues will need to be resolved
prior to any future decision on residential reuse.
Cost of Service Evaluation: A planning level evaluation of the various costs of three disposal
or reuse scenarios was also conducted. The evaluation considered the cost implications of both
water supply and wastewater disposal for three scenarios. Each scenario considered RSWRF’s
next 2-MGD expansion for wastewater treatment and disposal. Scenario 1 is representative of
the current water management approach; import water to the North Valleys, use it once, treat it
and dispose of it. Discharge of the treated wastewater to Long Valley Creek was selected as a
representative disposal alternative to evaluate this scenario.
Scenario 2 represents expansion of existing reclaimed water uses by incorporating front and
back yard residential irrigation for new construction. Factors such as added costs for
wastewater treatment, dual water systems, reduced water rights, differences in potable water
distribution piping and connection fees were taken into consideration. In coordination with the
NVI team, Sparks contracted for an outside evaluation by Optimatics, Inc. to evaluate the
differences between a conventional water distribution system, and a dual water system where
residential irrigation demands were provided by reclaimed water. The evaluation generally
concluded that a dual water system costs about twice as much as a conventional system. This
result is due to the reclaimed water system requirement for a 10-hour, night-time irrigation
period, rather than spreading the demand out more evenly over a 24-hour period. The local fire
department’s requirement to provide fire flows from the potable system also prevents
downsizing the potable system.
Scenario 3 represents one potential IPR scenario, whereby treated wastewater is purified
through an advanced treatment process, and recharged to replenish the local aquifer. For cost
estimating purposes, Reno’s MF-O3-BAC pilot treatment process was utilized, and it was
assumed that the water would be recharged on Washoe County property north of the Stead
Airport, which is an area generally isolated from municipal and domestic wells.
Attachment
Conclusions: The NVI team presented the findings from this work to management and director
level staff of Reno, Sparks, Washoe County, TMWA and SVGID. Interestingly, based on the
available information, the estimated capital costs for water and wastewater service for each of
the three scenarios, including water rights, is approximately equal. After reaching this
conclusion, the general consensus from the NVI team was, if the region is going to spend the
same amount of money for water and wastewater infrastructure, regardless of which disposal or
reuse scenario is implemented, the region should make the investment that maximizes the
benefits provided by the available water resources.
An additional conclusion was that the feasibility and public perception issues associated with
implementing a groundwater recharge option using reclaimed water, impacts the
implementation of other forms of reuse. In many cases, groundwater recharge provides the
most efficient and productive use of reclaimed water resources. It can also result in higher
overall water quality for the region. Past experience in other states, however, has shown that
proposals to replenish potable water supplies using reclaimed water can meet resistance
despite the compelling benefits that groundwater recharge could provide. Groundwater
recharge does not diminish the benefits of other forms of reuse, such as the current practice of
non-potable irrigation reuse in specific areas and applications. As stated above, decisionmaking will require regional coordination and cooperation among local governments, water and
wastewater service providers, regulatory entities, other stakeholders and the public.
Much has been learned regarding the use of reclaimed water for residential irrigation and
groundwater recharge, and what will be necessary to move forward with implementation of one
or both alternatives. Many issues would need to be addressed, depending on what direction the
region wants to take in using reclaimed water to help develop and implement sustainable
solutions, such as:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Updating existing or establishing new reuse ordinances
Addressing public health protection responsibilities
Recommending and implementing new water rights policies (many potential issues, such
as reduced water rights dedication could be an outcome)
Obtaining local and state regulatory buy-in for expanded use of reclaimed water
(residential irrigation/storage options/aquifer storage and recovery (“ASR”)/IPR)
Recommending and implementing more consistent reclaimed water rate structures
(connection and O/M fees)
Addressing technical challenges (storage options, effluent management plans, crossconnection control, inspection, etc.)
Recommending administrative roles (i.e., does each utility manage their own system or
does one entity oversee the entire reclaimed system?)
Developing a community outreach program
The NVI process also resulted in a broad realization that reclaimed water is not limited to one
product or one type of use. Reclaimed water is a resource that can satisfy multiple purposes
where the water quality is tailored to the specific use. Reclaimed water can provide high quality
water for people, a healthy economy, and a healthy environment.
Attachment
4.3.2 Interconnection of Reno-Stead Water Reclamation Facility to Spanish Springs
Valley
Connecting the RSWRF to the reclaimed water system in Spanish Springs with an intertie
pipeline may provide substantial benefits to the community. Sparks has an extensive
reclaimed water system, with existing demands approaching 2,000 afa. The City is also
looking at serving additional customers, such as the West Pyramid area, which have
estimated year-round demands of 750 af. If reclaimed water from RSWRF could be used to
meet a portion of these existing and future demands, the displaced water from TMWRF
would be available to satisfy additional beneficial uses. For example, the reclaimed water
could be recharged in Spanish Springs to help replenish the local aquifer as part of a longterm groundwater management strategy. The RWPC previously determined that the
available water rights are out of balance with available groundwater resources in Spanish
Springs, and recommended that stakeholders in this basin work together to ensure a
comprehensive sustainable management plan for the basin is implemented.
The displaced water could also be used to provide additional irrigation demands in the
Truckee Meadows, such as extension of the reclaimed water system to other areas within
Sparks and Reno. The displaced water could also provide increased flows in the Truckee
River, as long as the TMWRF discharge permit conditions and wasteload allocations
(“WLAs”) are satisfied. Alternatively, an intertie pipeline could be used to convey reclaimed
water from Sparks to Stead. Operation of the pipeline in this manner could be beneficial to
help TMWRF meet discharge permit limitations, or it could provide additional reclaimed water
for aquifer storage and recovery in Lemmon Valley or other groundwater basins.
4.3.3 Interconnection of Truckee Meadows Water Reclamation Facility to South
Truckee Meadows Water Reclamation Facility
A reclaimed water intertie pipeline, which would interconnect TMWRF and STMWRF via
Huffaker Reservoir, is another alternative that has the potential to provide regional benefits.
The TMWRF supply would provide additional seasonal irrigation water to the South Truckee
Meadows that would facilitate the earlier conversion of tributary creek water currently used for
irrigation to potable supplies.
The interconnection could also provide a potential short-term solution to help TMWRF meet
discharge limitations to the Truckee River. For instance, as the TMWRF service area continues
to develop, reclaimed water in excess of the permit limit could be sent to Huffaker Reservoir. In
this case, the excess flow could be used for irrigation in the summer months and stored in the
winter months. The winter storage volume could either be used for the next year’s irrigation
season or returned to TMWRF and discharged to the Truckee River during low effluent flow
periods. An integrated water balance of existing and future TMWRF and STMWRF flows,
discharges, reclaimed water demands and storage is needed to determine the feasibility of this
alternative.
4.3.4 Decommissioning of the Gold Ranch Wastewater Treatment Facility
The Gold Ranch Wastewater Treatment Facility is a small privately-owned extended aeration
activated sludge treatment facility utilizing ON/OFF aeration. It has a rated capacity of 25,000
Attachment
gallons per day (“GPD”) and currently processes 10,000 GPD serving the Gold Ranch tourist
commercial property near the California – Nevada border. Effluent disposal is via a leach field
system.
Reno and Washoe County have taken a proactive approach in developing plans to identify
possible pollutant loading to the Truckee River within the Verdi area. A general consensus has
been to plan for facilities that will remove the major wastewater contributions from this area and
sewer to TMWRF. In 2001, Washoe County received federal grant funds and moved forward
with the extension of the Lawton/Verdi Interceptor. The Boomtown and Verdi Meadows areas
were connected to the interceptor, and their respective wastewater treatment facilities have
been decommissioned. The interceptor will also allow for removal of numerous septic systems,
and the future decommissioning of the Gold Ranch Wastewater Treatment Plant. This facility’s
discharge permit contains a condition requiring it to be abandoned when the Lawton/Verdi
Interceptor is available.
Northern Nevada
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
July 28, 2016
TO:
FROM:
Jim Smitherman – Program Manager
SUBJECT:
Presentation of draft “Water Purveyors” chapter for the 2016 Regional Water Management
Plan ("RWMP") update; discussion and possible direction to staff.
SUMMARY
Staff's initial presentation of Chapter 3 to the NNWPC for comment identified several sections of the
chapter for updating based on the Truckee Meadows Water Authority (“TMWA”) 2035 Water Resource
Plan (“WRP”), which was still in development at that time. Since then, staff has reviewed the completed
TMWA WRP and incorporated appropriate changes into the chapter. Due to the significant number of
changes, the entire chapter is attached for review. Changes to the chapter appear in redline-strikeout
format. Elements highlighted in gray or yellow are still in the process of being updated.
A major change to the chapter resulted from the consolidation of the Washoe County Department of
Water Resources and South Truckee Meadows General Improvement District with TMWA. The portions
of the chapter which required the most significant updating are identified below:
3.1.1 Truckee Meadows Water Authority. This section was modified to reflect post-consolidation
makeup of TMWA's resources and facilities.
3.3.4 Other PUC Regulated Water Systems. While not shown in Redline and Strikeout Table 3-5
Public Water Systems in Washoe County has been updated to be consistent with State and Washoe County
Health District records of public water systems in Washoe County that are privately-owned and operated.
3.5
Reclaimed Water Purveyors (Reno, Sparks and Washoe County) Various discussion elements
and reclaimed water balance tables have been, or are in the process of being, updated.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the NNWPC accept the report on review comments and proposed revisions to the
“Water Purveyors” chapter for the 2016 RWMP update, approve the changes, and provide direction to
staff as appropriate.
CW:df
Attachment: Chapter 3 showing redline-strikeout revisions
Attachment
Table of Contents
Chapter 3 – Water Purveyors and Other Water Providers ................................................... 3-3
3.1 Public Water Purveyors...................................................................................................... 3-5
3.1.1 Truckee Meadows Water Authority ............................................................................ 3-7
3.1.2 Washoe County Department of Water Resources ..... 3-Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.1.3 Sun Valley General Improvement District ................................................................ 3-14
3.1.4 South Truckee Meadows General Improvement District .......... 3-Error! Bookmark not
defined.
3.2 Public Water Purveyor Consolidation Analysis .................. 3-Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.2.1 TMWA - WCDWR Consolidation Analysis ................. 3-Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.2.2 STMGID Alternatives Analysis ................................... 3-Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.3
Other Non-Public Water Purveyors .............................................................................. 3-14
3.3.1 Utilities Inc. of Nevada.............................................................................................. 3-14
3.3.2 Sky Ranch Water Service Corp................................................................................ 3-15
3.3.3 Steamboat Springs Water Works, Inc. ....................... 3-Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.3.4 Other PUC Regulated Water Systems ..................................................................... 3-16
3.4 Domestic Wells ................................................................................................................ 3-19
3.5 Reclaimed Water Purveyors (Reno, Sparks and Washoe County) .................................. 3-19
3.5.1 TMWRF Reclaimed Water ....................................................................................... 3-20
3.5.2 Sparks Reclaimed Water Facilities
..................................................... 3-22
3.5.2 Sparks Reclaimed Water Facilities........................................................................... 3-23
3.5.3 Reno Reclaimed Water Facilities ............................................................................. 3-23
3.5.4 Washoe County Reclaimed Water Facilities ............................................................ 3-24
3.5.4 Washoe County Reclaimed Water Facilities ............................................................ 3-25
3.6 Water Rights Requirements ............................................................................................. 3-27
3.6.1 Water Rights Dedication Requirements for Municipal Service ................................. 3-27
3.6.2 Reclaimed Water Rights Requirements ................................................................... 3-29
List of Tables
Table 3-1 2009 Public Purveyor Capacities .............................................................................. 3-5 Table 3-2 2009 TMWA Truckee River Water Distribution (af) .. 3-Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 3-3 2009 WCDWR Water System Capacities ................. 3-Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 3-4 2009 Private Purveyor Capacities .......................................................................... 3-15 Table 3-5 Public Water Systems in Washoe County ................ 3-Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 3-6 2009 Reclaimed Water Usage ................................................................................ 3-20 Table 3-7 2009 TMWRF Reclaimed Water Balance ............................................................... 3-20 Table 3-8 2009 RSWRF Water Balance ................................................................................. 3-23 Table 3-9 2009 STMWRF Reclaimed Water Balance ............................................................ 3-25 Table 3-10 2009 CSWRF Water Balance ............................................................................... 3-27 Table 3-11 2009 LVWRF Water Balance ................................................................................ 3-27 List of Figures
Figure 3-1
Figure 3-2
Figure 3-3
Figure 3-4
Figure 3-5
Figure 3-6
Water Systems and Service Areas .......................................................................... 3-6
Domestic Wells ...................................................................................................... 3-18
Effluent Reuse System TMWRF – City of Sparks ................................................. 3-20
Effluent Reuse System TMWRF – City of Reno .................................................... 3-22
Effluent Reuse System RSWRF ............................................................................ 3-24
Effluent Reuse System STMWRF – Washoe County ............................................ 3-26
Chapter 3 – Water Purveyors and Other Water Providers
Purpose and Scope
This chapter describes the various water purveyors in the Planning Area, including public
purveyors, and other providers of water. In addition, a section describing reclaimed water
purveyors is included. Subjects covered in this chapter include service areas; major facilities to
treat, convey and store water; conjunctive use; aquifer recharge; aquifer storage and recovery;
water deliveries; average and peak demands; peaking capacity; and water resource dedication
policies.
Summary and Findings
The major findings of this chapter include:
There are currently two major public water purveyors within the Planning Area; the Truckee
Meadows Water Authority (“TMWA”) the Washoe County Department of Water Resources
(“WCDWR”), and the Sun Valley General Improvement District (“SVGID”), and the South
Truckee Meadows General Improvement District (“STMGID”). These four two purveyors
provide 95 percent of the municipal water service within the Planning Area.
As of December 31, 2014, TWMA and WCDWR have entered into an agreement to move
forward with consolidation of the Washoe CountyDWR water utilitiyes and the South Truckee
Meadows General Improvement District (“STMGID”), which relied on Washoe County for utility
operation and maintenance, wereas consolidated into the with TMWA. STMGID, which relieds
on WCDWR for utility operation and maintenance, is evaluating alternatives for future
operations which range from consolidation with TMWA to a standalone utility.also consolidated
with TMWA.
A small number of privately owned public utilities exist in the Planning Area, which are regulated
by the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada (“PUCN”). Numerous other small private water
systems exist which are solely regulated by the Washoe County District Health Department
(“WCDHD”). These systems are typically associated with commercial businesses which do not
have municipal water service available.
A significant number of residential parcels within the Planning Area rely on individual wells for
domestic water supply. The use of domestic wells is allowed for parcels where municipal
service is not available. A concern regarding domestic wells has been development in certain
areas where withdrawal of groundwater has resulted in the lowering of the water table. A
variety of steps have been taken to address the issue including restrictions on development of
parcels in certain hydrographic basins, which require retirement of water rights and restrictions
on subdividing existing parcels without the dedication of water rights.
There are three reclaimed water purveyors within the Planning Area; the City of Reno (“Reno”),
the City of Sparks (“Sparks”) and WCDWRWashoe County Utilities (“WCU”). Reno and Sparks
co-own the Truckee Meadows Water Reclamation Facility (“TMWRF”), which supplies
approximately 4,000 acre feet (“af”) of reclaimed water per year to the two purveyors’RenoSparks reclaimed water distribution systems. In addition, the Reno-Stead Water Reclamation
Facility (“RSWRF”) supplies approximately 500 af of reclaimed water per year to Reno’s Stead
reclaimed water system. Washoe County owns and operates the South Truckee Meadows
Water Reclamation Facility (“STMWRF”), which supplies 100 percent of its effluent,
approximately 2,300 af of reclaimed water per year, to the WCDWR WCU reclaimed water
system in the South Truckee Meadows.
Introduction
The Western Regional Water Commission (“WRWC”) Act defineds four public purveyors:
TMWA, WCDWR, SVGID, and STMGID, however following consolidation of public purveyors on
December 31, 2014, only TMWA and SVGID remain active. Various smaller private water
companies in the Planning Area serve trailer parks (approximately 1,600 units) or small
subdivisions in addition to a number of small systems that serve establishments such as parks,
motels or restaurants. Three reclaimed water utilities owned and operated by Reno, Sparks and
WCDWR WCU provide water for non-potable uses including irrigation and industrial purposes.
3.1
Public Water Purveyors
The four two public purveyors, TMWA, WCDWR, SVGID and SVGID STMGID, provide 95
percent of the municipal water in the Planning Area. Table 3-1 shows the approximate number
of services for each public purveyor, water sources, approximate 2009 water deliveries, water
demands and facility capacities where available. Figure 3-1 shows public purveyor water
service areas and the locations of some smaller water systems described in the following
sections. (Update figure with WCDWR and STMGID Service areas merged with TMWA)
Water
Purveyor
Year-End
Active
Connection*
TMWA
89,400111,73
0
Table 3-1 2009 Public Purveyor Capacities
Average
Peak
2009
Daily
Day
Water Source
Deliveries
Demand Demand*
* (afa)
* (MGD)
(MGD)
74,00086,
Truckee River
6677.8
171205.5
650
32 81 municipal
wells
45 municipal
10,000
wells TMWA
9.2
27.5
wholesale
Number
of Tanks/
Reservoirs
Total
Storage
Capacity
(MG)
4488
130.8
36
30.8
WCDWR
18,430
STMGID
3,900
9 wells
2,650
2.6
7.0
8
6.3
SVGID
6,000
TMWA wholesale
1,840
1.6
6.6
9
9.4
*
Indicates values are approximate; afa – Acre feet annually; MG – Million Gallons; MGD – Million Gallons per Day
Figure 3-1 Water Systems and Service Areas (need to Revise Figure)
3.1.1 Truckee Meadows Water Authority (TMWA Review and Update)
TMWA is the largest water purveyor in the Truckee Meadows. It currently serves more than
111,730 active services primarily located in Reno and Sparks. Water sources for this system
include the Truckee River) and 81 wells which supply approximately 86,650 afa.. TMWA also
provides wholesale water to SVGID.
Due to the expansion of TMWA’s service area following consolidation of WCDWR and STMGID,
TMWA’s evaluation of water resources and facilities expanded to include all of Lemmon Valley,
all of Spanish Springs, all of Truckee Meadows, Pleasant Valley (hydrographic basin 88), and in
those areas in Washoe Valley (hydrographic basin 89) and the Tracy Segment (hydrographic
basin 83) where small, satellite systems are located. The distribution systems located in
hydrographic basins 83, 85, 86, 87, 88 (west portion), 91 and 92 are grouped in the TRA
category since the integration of systems between these basins affords customers/development
access to Truckee River resources (mainstem and tributary water rights) and the benefits of
TROA’s drought reserves. Table 1-1 highlights resources, customers and demands in the
various planning basins included under the TRA designation.
Table 1-1. Summary of TMWA’s Customers, Resources and Usage in TRA and non-TRA
Planning Basins
|---------------------- TRA ----------------------|
Description
-------------------a--------------------A. Service Connections
1. Residential-single family
2. Residential-multi-family
3. Commercial/Industrial
4. Irrigation
5. Wholesale
6. Total Connections
B. Rights (acre feet)
1. Ground water-in basin
2
2. Ground water-importation
3
3. Surface water-converted ag rights
3
4
4. Surface water-decree , creek
5. Surface water-storage
6. Total Resources
C. Sources (acre feet)
1. Ground water-in basin extraction
2. Ground water-importation
3. Surface water-retail
4. Surface water-POSW
5. Total Sources CYE2014
TOTALS
----b----
|-----------------non-TRA ------------------|
Spanish
Springs
Truckee
Meadow
1
s
Pleasant
ValleyWest
Lemmon
Valley
Tracy
Segment
Pleasant
ValleyEast
Washoe
Valley
Honey
Lake
85
87
88
92A &
92B
83
88
89
97
----c----
----d----
----e----
----f----
----g----
----h---
----i----
----j---
103,295
5,013
6,793
3,178
1
------118,280
15,758
108
280
182
1,221
------16,328
77,613
4,714
6,194
2,750
1
------91,272
43
12
60
8,479
191
291
174
54
------1,293
------9,135
------58
------54
------140
41,620
8,000
69,717
44,843
22,250
------186,430
5,900
28,237
3,457
2,678
315
432
601
------5,900
69,717
44,843
22,250
------165,046
------3,457
------2,678
------315
------432
------671
21,233
276
57,640
4,900
-------
1,438
16,869
1,708
988
45
34
151
-------
57,640
4,900
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
84,049
1,438
79,409
1,708
988
45
34
151
276
10
5
127
6
7
------0
8,000
------8,000
276
Source: TMWA 2016 WRP
1
Includes Basin 86 -Sun Valley and Basin 91 - Truckee Canyon (Verdi).
Honey Lake water rights/resources are available to the North Valleys via the Vidler Pipeline.
3
Converted ag and decree rights are used throughout the TRA.
4
Converted creek ag rights are available for use in Basins 87 (southwest) and 88 (west portion).
5
Includes Basin 86-Sun Valley and Basin 91-Truckee Canyon (Verdi) as TMWA does not have facilities nor groundwater resources
in those areas.
6
Honey Lake is unique in that there are no customers and related distribution facilities in the basin, just well production and
transmission facilities, and is grouped in the non-TRA for convenience.
2
The remote, i.e., satellite, systems TMWA now manages as a result of the merger are found in
basins: 83 (Truckee Segment), 88-East (the area east of I-580 in Pleasant Valley), 89 (Washoe
Valley) and 97 (Honey Lake)1. These systems are grouped in the non-Truckee Resource Area
(“non-TRA”) category because the systems were developed as standalone subdivisions, which
upon recordation of a final map required sufficient resources to meet the full build-out
requirements of the development. At this time, the resources to serve these developments are
fully committed and cannot be expanded beyond the defined development area without
additional investment in facilities and viable resources. For purposes of this plan, it is assumed
that each of the satellite systems has sufficient resources and facilities dedicated to meet the
build-out of the development over the planning horizon, and it is not foreseen that Truckee River
resources are, or will be, available to these systems in the near-term. A brief summary of these
systems and the basin in which they are located is presented in Table 1-2.
Table 1-2. Summary of Satellite Systems Resources and Customers
Description
Start
year
Lots &
customer type
Dedicated
water
rights
(acre feet)
2014
Production
(acre feet)
---b---
----c----
----d----
----e----
10-commercial
2-irrigation
2-commercial
43- residential
200
18
115
27
1978
54-residential
432
34
2-commercial
2-irrigation
62-residential
4-commercial
5-irrigation
65-residential
443
98
158
53
na
na
na
1
-------------------a--------------------Basin 83: Truckee Segment
2
Truckee Canyon Water System
2000
3
Stampmill Estates
1994
4
Basin 88: Pleasant Valley-Easta
5
Sunrise Estates
6
Basin 89: Washoe Valley
7
Lightning W Estates
1997
8
Old Washoe Estates
1978
9
Basin 97: Honey Lake
2007
The TRA includes the growth prone areas of Lemmon Valley, Pleasant Valley (west portion),
Spanish Springs, and Truckee Meadows.
Water Production and Facilities
Numerous facilities are used to produce water for TMWA’s customers. Approximately 70
to 90 percent of water production is from Chalk Bluff and Glendale surface-water treatment
plants. Groundwater supply by wells typically accounts for 10 to 15 percent of total water
production during non-drought situations, but can be expanded, during drought situations, to
between 20 and 30 percent of total water production.
Chalk Bluff Water Treatment Plant (CTP)
CTP is TMWA’s largest surface water treatment plant, capable of producing
approximately 90 MGD of finished treated water. CTP was constructed in phases: Phase I
completed in 1994, Phase II completed in 1996, and Phase III completed in 2004. The CTP
treats raw water via a conventional water treatment process through settling of heavy solids,
screening, flocculation and sedimentation, filtration, and chlorination. The plant is designed for
modular expansions to an ultimate treatment capacity of 120 MGD. The next expansion of 15
MGD (nominal treatment capacity) will be accomplished primarily through the addition of
mechanical equipment, such as four additional filters and two flocculation bays, to existing
structures.
The plant sits on Chalk Bluff overlooking the Truckee River on the west side of Reno.
Untreated (raw) water is delivered to the plant by gravity via the Highland Canal or by pumps
with approximately 70 MGD capacity via the Orr Ditch Pump Station (“ODPS”). ODPS is located
south of the plant on the river and was built in conjunction with the construction of CTP and
currently has a capacity of 70 MGD in 2008. The ODPS has been used to supplement supply to
the Chalk Bluff plant at times of the year when the Highland Ditch cannot provide 100 percent of
the raw water required to keep the plant at full load (typically June-September), or when the
canal is taken out of service for scheduled maintenance or repairs. Due to ice formation for a
brief period of time in the winter months, the ditch is also sometimes taken out of service in
favor of the ODPS.
The Highland Canal has a nominal capacity of 95 MGD, and is approximately 7.3 miles
in length from the diversion dam to CTP. The ditch conveys raw water via gravity to the CTP
through a series of concrete-lined open channel sections, flumes, and siphons.
Glendale Water Treatment Plant (GTP)
GTP is the smaller of TMWA’s surface water treatment plants and is located in Sparks
just east of the Grand Sierra Resort. The plant borders the north side of the Truckee River and
diverts raw water from the river about 500 feet upstream of the plant. The plant was originally
built in 1976 and upgraded in 1996 (filtration and flocculation improvements). It employs the
same treatment processes as CTP and also is authorized to filter at the same filtration rate as
CTP. TMWA operates the plant under a District Health variance granted in 1997 that brings the
net surface treatment capacity of the plant to 33.0 MGD. Groundwater from six wells can be
pumped to GTP and treated for arsenic and blended with surface water for distribution into the
system. With the groundwater the combined output of GTP is 45 MGD.
The current capacities of the two surface water treatments plants are summarized here.
Design Capacity
Chalk Bluff
Glendale
95.0 MGD
37.5 MGD
Net Production
Capacity
90.0 MGD
33.0 MGD
Planned Capacity
120.0 MGD
45.0 MGD
Production Wells
A summary of TMWA’s production wells including the location by hydrographic basin,
the rated production capacity, the year of installation, whether a TRA or non-TRA well, whether
a TROA or non-TROA related well, rehabilitation information and the last 5-years of production
is provided in Table 3-2 .
TMWA has 81 active production wells, 68 available to meet the demand of its customers
in the TRA and 13 available for service in the non-TRA systems. Another 14 wells are
completed but require pumps to be added at a future date, 3 are used for backup purposes, 8
are offline due to water quality issues or low water yield, and 3 are used for construction water
purposes due to low water quality. Of the 68 wells in the TRA, 25 wells were part of TMWA’s
pre-merger inventory. All or a portion of the water rights and all their future production is to be
included as contributing toward the water demands to be calculated under TROA operations,
whereas the water rights and water production from all other active production wells is over and
above the total demand provided under TROA operations.
Forty-four (44) of the active production wells are in Truckee Meadows Basin 87, 8 active
production wells are in West and East Lemmon Valley Basins 92A and 92B, 8 active production
well are located in Spanish Springs Basin 85, 9 active production wells are in Pleasant Valley
Basin 88, 4 active production wells are in Washoe Valley Basin 89, 3 active production wells are
located in Tracy Segment Basin 83, and 5 active production wells are in Honey Lake Valley
Basin 97.
The majority of wells pump water directly into the distribution systems after chlorination.
However, water from 5 wells (Morrill, Kietzke, High, Mill and Corbett) undergoes air-stripping
treatment for Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) removal, and water from 6 wells (Mill, Corbett, Greg,
Terminal, Pezzi and Poplar #1) is pumped to GTP for arsenic removal. TMWA’s TRA production
wells have an overall rated capacity of approximately 147 MGD. TMWA seeks to maximize use
of surface water throughout the TRA and uses its TRA wells for summer peaking and when
needed during drought situation years, with the exception of wells in Basin 88-west and Basin
87-southwest which are necessary to meet some winter months demands. All non-TRA systems
are groundwater dependent therefore the wells operate daily year-round.
Table 3-2. Production Well Statistics
WellName
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐a‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
SpanishSprings(Basin85)
1 DesertSprings1
2 DesertSprings2
3 DesertSprings3
4 Hawkings
5 SpringCreek2
6 SpringCreek5
7 SpringCreek6
8 SpringCreek7
TruckeeMeadows(Basin87)
1 21stSt
2 ArrowCreek1
3 ArrowCreek2
4 ArrowCreek3
5 CorbettElementary
6 DelucchiLn
7 DoubleDiamond1
8 ElRanchoBlvd
9 FourthSt
10 GallettiWay
11 GlenHareWCSD
12 GregSt
13 HiddenValley3
14 HiddenValley4
15 HiddenValley5
16 HighSt
17 HolcombLn
18 HunterLakeDr
19 KietzkeLn
20 LakesideDr
21 LongleyLn
22 LongleyTreatmentPlant
23 MillSt
24 MorrillAve
25 Patriot(Huffaker)Blvd
26 Pezzi
27 Poplar#1
28 Poplar#2
29 RenoHigh
30 SierraPlaza
31 SouthVirginiaSt
32 Sparks(Nugget)Ave
33 STMGID1
34 STMGID11
35 STMGID12
36 STMGID2
37 STMGID3
38 STMGID4
39 STMGID5
40 STMGID6
41 SwopeMiddleSchool
42 TerminalWay
43 ThomasCreek
44 ViewSt
A Clean/checkwell
B Lossofproduction
C Replacepump
In‐Service
Year
‐‐‐‐‐b‐‐‐‐‐
Rated
Capacity
[MGD]
‐‐‐‐‐c‐‐‐‐‐
CumRated Date No.of Rehab TRA TROA
Capacity
Last Rehabs Reaso
Rehab
n
[MGD]
‐‐‐‐‐d‐‐‐‐‐
‐‐‐e‐‐‐
‐‐‐f‐‐‐ ‐‐‐g‐‐‐ ‐‐‐h‐‐‐ ‐‐‐i‐‐‐
1990
1963
1979
2008
1988
2000
1997
2000
0.6
0.6
1.1
4.3
0.7
1.4
2.5
2.9
0.6
1.2
2.3
6.6
7.3
8.7
11.2
14.1
1991
1995
1995
1998
1993
1972
1981
1992
1971
2000
1999
1967
1984
1985
1992
1961
1988
1995
1972
1985
2000
2005
1960
1963
1990
1974
1963
1967
1991
2002
1969
1967
1984
2000
2011
1984
1984
1981
1988
1988
1993
1961
1978
1969
2.0
0.5
1.1
0.7
2.1
0.8
0.8
1.2
2.2
2.3
1.7
2.0
1.4
1.4
0.6
2.2
1.0
3.3
3.3
0.9
2.2
3.6
2.6
2.0
1.8
1.3
2.3
2.2
3.3
2.0
1.5
0.9
1.1
0.7
1.0
0.4
0.7
0.3
1.1
2.1
0.9
1.7
0.6
2.4
2.0
2.5
3.6
4.3
6.4
7.2
8.0
9.2
11.4
13.7
15.4
17.4
18.8
20.2
20.8
23.0
24.0
27.3
30.6
31.5
33.7
37.3
39.9
41.9
43.7
45.0
47.3
49.5
52.8
54.8
56.3
57.2
58.3
59.0
60.0
60.4
61.1
61.4
62.4
64.5
65.4
67.1
67.7
70.1
2012
1
A
2012
1
A
2015
1
A
2013
1
A
2005
2013
1
1
C
A
2010
2010
3
1
A
A
2010
2014
1
2
A
A
2008
2010
1
2
A
A
2012
1
A
2015
1
A
2013
2008
2012
2
1
1
B
A
A
2009
2013
1
2
A
A
2012
2013
1
2
A
B
2011
2013
1
1
B
A
2014
2
B
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
[AF]
‐‐‐j‐‐‐
[AF]
‐‐‐k‐‐‐
[AF]
‐‐‐l‐‐‐
[AF]
‐‐‐m‐‐‐
[AF]
‐‐‐n‐‐‐
198
193
0
193
29
267
505
567
‐‐‐‐‐‐
1,953
175
166
‐
807
82
192
469
400
‐‐‐‐‐‐
2,292
106
209
218
1,112
107
353
228
384
‐‐‐‐‐‐
2,717
250
195
59
8
147
252
209
349
‐‐‐‐‐‐
1,469
223
246
114
2
142
256
0
454
‐‐‐‐‐‐
1,438
31
61
206
244
879
‐
146
102
1
‐
‐
‐
1,608
‐
177
751
‐
‐
1,075
107
123
415
668
715
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
24
‐
‐
510
364
‐
118
276
79
340
881
‐
‐
149
1,003
‐‐‐‐‐‐
11,053
165
124
262
245
470
‐
151
‐
64
162
‐
38
1,546
‐
229
950
526
‐
1,473
149
‐
409
554
907
‐
20
48
0
105
128
676
‐
424
391
‐
184
298
71
350
747
‐
25
227
163
‐‐‐‐‐‐
12,282
360
99
293
222
470
51
258
109
400
305
31
91
949
709
286
1,052
‐
61
1,457
165
632
453
578
943
172
‐
‐
250
130
‐
‐
57
600
520
365
213
258
78
359
765
15
‐
191
273
‐‐‐‐‐‐
14,222
14
89
236
199
866
‐
268
28
24
82
6
19
767
928
257
1,049
31
‐
1,377
38
191
411
1,357
895
18
52
33
‐
8
18
31
27
529
477
576
193
248
68
345
659
1
38
173
75
‐‐‐‐‐‐
12,699
184
72
259
304
459
84
199
235
352
418
260
219
1,000
639
‐
1,029
132
571
1,487
215
394
583
799
900
111
363
283
277
694
217
207
80
483
332
439
188
279
50
315
807
127
232
190
400
‐‐‐‐‐‐
16,869
TRA:productionfromthesewellcanservicetheTruckeeResourceArea
TROA:alloraportionofwaterrightsonthewellareTROAcomponents
Table 3-2. Production Well Statistics (cont)
WellName
‐‐‐‐‐b‐‐‐‐‐
Rated
Capacity
[MGD]
‐‐‐‐‐c‐‐‐‐‐
1968
2006
2005
1.6
1.7
3.2
1.6
3.3
6.5
EastLemmonValley(Basin92B)
1 LemmonValley5
2 LemmonValley6
3 LemmonValley7
4 LemmonValley8
5 LemmonValley9
1970
1998
1970
1974
1997
1.2
0.3
0.6
0.9
0.8
1.2
1.5
2.1
3.0
3.8
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
338
82
151
43
‐
‐‐‐‐‐‐
614
257
96
145
69
‐
‐‐‐‐‐‐
567
288
89
161
96
‐
‐‐‐‐‐‐
634
193
129
141
110
‐
‐‐‐‐‐‐
573
197
48
130
132
‐
‐‐‐‐‐‐
507
WestPleasantValley(Basin88)
1 MtRose3
2 MtRose5
3 MtRose6
4 StJames1
5 StJames2
6 STMGID7
7 Tessa1(East)
8 Tessa2(West)
1990
1990
2000
1995
1995
1983
2000
1999
0.4
1.0
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.2
1.2
0.9
0.4
1.4
2.2
2.7
3.3
3.5
4.7
5.6
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
102
390
289
122
151
27
350
270
‐‐‐‐‐‐
1,701
107
360
329
108
137
62
210
142
‐‐‐‐‐‐
1,455
124
374
395
74
84
36
297
354
‐‐‐‐‐‐
1,738
159
424
363
64
84
50
377
284
‐‐‐‐‐‐
1,805
86
440
372
94
68
27
506
141
‐‐‐‐‐‐
1,735
TracySegment(Basin83)
1 Stampmill1
2 Stampmill2
3 TruckeeCanyon1
1979
1979
1997
0.6
0.3
0.1
0.6
0.9
1.0
9
9
18
‐‐‐‐‐‐
36
14
14
11
‐‐‐‐‐‐
39
11
12
18
‐‐‐‐‐‐
41
13
14
17
‐‐‐‐‐‐
45
14
13
18
‐‐‐‐‐‐
45
EastPleasantValley(Basin88)
1 SunriseEstates1
1983
0.4
0.4
42
39
161
66
34
WashoeValley(Basin89)
1 LightningW1
2 LightningW2
3 LightningW3
4 OldWashoeEstates3
1994
1963
2008
1994
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.6
0.8
29
43
67
47
‐‐‐‐‐‐
187
24
0
71
45
‐‐‐‐‐‐
140
32
68
66
54
‐‐‐‐‐‐
220
32
‐
68
48
‐‐‐‐‐‐
149
35
‐
63
53
‐‐‐‐‐‐
151
HoneyLakeValley(Basin97)
1 FishSpringRanchWell1(A)
2 FishSpringRanchWell2(B)
3 FishSpringRanchWell3(C)
4 FishSpringRanchWell4(D)
5 FishSpringRanchWell5(E)
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
4.3
2.9
2.2
2.2
3.2
4.3
7.2
9.4
11.5
14.8
‐
‐
‐
‐
8
‐‐‐‐‐‐
8
‐‐‐‐‐‐
15,939
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐‐‐‐‐‐
‐
‐‐‐‐‐‐
16,964
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐‐‐‐‐‐
‐
‐‐‐‐‐‐
20,054
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐‐‐‐‐‐
‐
‐‐‐‐‐‐
16,855
35
8
66
0
167
‐‐‐‐‐‐
276
‐‐‐‐‐‐
21,507
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐a‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
WestLemmonValley(Basin92A)
1 AirGuard
2 SilverKnolls
3 SilverLake
81 <‐TotalWells
68 <‐TRA
13 <‐non‐TRA
A Clean/checkwell
B Lossofproduction
C Replacepump
In‐Service
Year
TotalCapacity(MGD):
TRACapacity(MGD):
non‐TRACapacity(MGD):
CumRated Date No.of Rehab TRA TROA
Capacity
Last Rehabs Need
[MGD]
Rehab
‐‐‐‐‐d‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐e‐‐‐ ‐‐‐f‐‐‐ ‐‐‐g‐‐‐ ‐‐‐h‐‐‐ ‐‐‐i‐‐‐
117.1
100.1
17.0
2009
2010
3
3
B
A
2014
2014
1
1
B
B
2015
1
B
25.0
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
[AF]
‐‐‐j‐‐‐
[AF]
‐‐‐k‐‐‐
[AF]
‐‐‐l‐‐‐
[AF]
‐‐‐m‐‐‐
[AF]
‐‐‐n‐‐‐
Y
Y
Y
192
116
39
‐‐‐‐‐‐
346
‐
‐
149
‐‐‐‐‐‐
149
255
65
‐
‐‐‐‐‐‐
320
18
0
32
‐‐‐‐‐‐
50
13
0
440
‐‐‐‐‐‐
454
TRA:productionfromthesewellcanservicetheTruckeeResourceArea
TROA:alloraportionofwaterrightsonthewellareTROAcomponents
3.1.3 Sun Valley General Improvement District
SVGID was formed in 1967 to provide water and wastewater services for the growing
community of Sun Valley, north of Reno. SVGID provides retail service for approximately 6,000
connections. The fully metered system is supplied with TMWA wholesale water. A January 16,
2008 amendment to the TMWA-SVGID Wholesale Agreement expanded the SVGID retail
service territory in the northwest portion of the Sun Valley hydrographic basin.
3.3
Other Non-Public Water Purveyors
Numerous privately owned and operated water utilities exist within the Planning Area. While the
majority of these small water systems are owned and operated by individuals or businesses,
and are regulated solely through the WCDHD, several fall under the oversight of the Public
Utilities Commission of Nevada (“PUC”).
Public Utilities Commission of Nevada
PUC operates under portions of enabling legislation of the Nevada Revised Statutes (“NRS”)
and Nevada Administrative Code (“NAC”), Chapter 704 and is intended to provide a means of
impartial regulation for both the utility and the customer. PUC regulates 27 water and
wastewater utilities throughout the state, serving approximately 24,000 customers in Nevada
and is responsible for ensuring that water utilities deliver clean, safe, and reliable water to their
customers at reasonable rates. The PUC‘s role is: 1) To provide for fair and impartial
regulation of public utilities; 2) To provide for the safe, economic, efficient, prudent and reliable
operation and service of public utilities; and 3) To balance the interests of customers and
shareholders of public utilities by providing customers with just and reasonable rates.
Regulation under PUC is required for all non-municipal utilities having systems which serve
more than 25 customers and have sales in excess $25,000 within any preceding 12-month
period. The three largest PUC regulated systems within the Planning Area are listed in Table 34. The table shows the approximate number of services for each private purveyor, water
sources, approximate 2014 calendar year water deliveries, water demands and facility
capacities where available.
The PUC regulates two different types of water/wastewater companies, approximately 11 nonprofit and 16 for profit companies. The non-profit companies have limited regulation. The PUC
is involved with issuing the company’s Certificate of Public Necessity and Convenience (“CPC”),
any changes to their service territory, and the Utility Environmental Act Permits (“UEPA”). The
for-profit companies are subjected to full regulation which includes all of the previous mentioned
items as well as rate regulation, rules of service (tariffs), and monitoring their standards of
service. Some of the larger for-profit companies are required to file for Commission approval
mandatory three year rate cases as well as mandatory three year resource planning
3.3.1 Utilities Inc. of Nevada
Utilities Inc. of Nevada operates the water system in the Cold Springs area of Reno and is a forprofit company. The system consists of five wells and four storage reservoirs having a total
capacity of 2,260,000 gallons.
3.3.2 Sky Ranch Water Service Corp.
Utilities Inc.. operates the Sky Ranch water system in Spanish Springs Valley. The system is a
for-profit company and consists of two wells and three storage tanks having a storage capacity
of approximately 830,000 gallons.
3.3.3 Steamboat Springs Water Works, Inc.
Steamboat Springs Water Works, Inc. operates the water system in the Steamboat Hot Springs
area south of Reno and is a for-profit company. The utility has potable water wells in close
proximity to geothermal wells used to generate electrical energy and to supply a spa. The utility
provides water to approximately 265 services with the potential to add 40 acres of undeveloped
land to its service area.
Table 3-4 2014 Private Purveyor Capacities
2014
Deliveries
* (afa)
Averag
e Daily
Deman
d*
(MGD)
Peak
Day
Demand*
(MGD)
Numb
er
of
Tanks/
Reserv
oirs
Total
Stora
ge
Capa
city
(MG)
Year-End
Active
Connection*
Water Source
Utilities Inc.
of Nevada
3,316
5 wells
2,414.86
1,400
1.25
2.69
4
Tanks
2.26
Sky Ranch
Water
Service
Corp.
576
2 wells
718.61
608
0.5
1.5
3
Tanks
0.8
Steamboat
Springs
Water
Works, Inc
265
3 wells
235.23
171
0.15
0.24
2
Tanks
0.42
Water
Purveyor
*
Water
Rights*
(afa)
Indicates values are approximate; afa – Acre feet per Annum (year); MG – Million Gallons; MGD – Million
Gallons per Day
3.3.4 Other PUC Regulated Water Systems 3-5

Verdi Meadows Utility Company, Inc. (“VMUC”) owns three wells, but only operates two
wells and serves 175 customers in the Verdi area. VMUC currently has approximately
80 afa of water rights and is a for-profit utility.

Silver Knolls Mutual Water Company (“SKMUC”) operates two wells and serves 64
customers in Lemmon Valley. SKMUC currently holds 71.667 afa of water rights and is
a non-profit company.

Rosemount Water Company (“Rosemount”) provides spring water to 26 active
connections in the Mount Rose area. Rosemount currently holds 84.31 afa of water
rights and is a for-profit company.

Verdi Mutual Water Company (“VMWC”) provides spring water to 8 active connections in
the Verdi area. VMWC currently holds 480 afa of water rights and is a non-profit
company.

Reno Technology Park (“RTP”) operates two wells and serves one large industrial
customer east of Reno near Lockwood, NV. RTP currently holds approximately
11,125.6 afa of water rights and is a non-profit company.
Public Water Systems List
In addition to those described above, numerous small, privately-owned and operated, public
water systems exist in Washoe County. These systems typically provide service to schools,
parks, multi-residential properties (such as apartment complexes and mobile home parks),
commercial businesses and special government facilities, for which municipal services were not
available at the time of development. These systems fall under the oversight of the WCDHD. A
current list of water systems that are in operation within the Planning Area appears in Table 3-5.
Table 3-5 Public Water Systems in Washoe County
4th Street Bistro
Mel’s Diner
Ace Apartments
Merry Wink Motel
Air Base Inn
Mount Rose Bowl HOA
Air Sailing Gliderport
Arrowhead Mobile Home Park
Bar M Bar
Mount Rose Water Company
Mount Rose Ski Area
NDOT Wadsworth Rest Stop
Biglieri Water System
Boomtown Hotel and Casino
Bowers Mansion County Park
Bristlecone Family Resources
Chuck’s Circle C Market
Conestoga Mobile Home Park
Crosby’s Lodge
New Washoe City County Park
North Valley Business Facility
Old Forty West Motel
Old Washoe Station
Pleasant Valley School
Reno Sahara Trailer Park
River Bend Mobile Home Park
Crystal Peak County Park
Crystal Trailer Park
Davis Creek County Park
Dutch Wife Motel
Empire Water
Foothill Trailer Park
Franktown Meadows
Gerlach GID
Gold Ranch Casino
Golden Valley County Park
Grand View Terrace Water District
Hawk’s Nest Bar
Granite Construction
J and K Hoffman
Johnny’s Little Italy Restaurant
Ke Ta Mobile Home Park
Lemmon Valley Horseman’s Park
Magic Carpet Golf
Riverbelle Properties-Cedars
Riverbelle Properties MHP
Rosemount Water Company
Silver Knolls Mutual Water Co.
Silver Spur Motel
Sky Tavern (City of Reno)
Slide Mountain Ski Area
Sutcliffe Mobile Home Park
The Lodge at Galena
Verdi Mutual Water Company
Verdi Meadows Utility Company Inc.
Verdi School
Wadsworth Mobile Home Park
Washoe Lake State Park
Washoe Lake State Park, boat ramp
Washoe Regional Shooting Range
Washoe Valley Meetinghouse Facility
Webb Mobile Home Park
Westerner Motel
Figure 3-2 Domestic Wells
3.4
Domestic Wells
Washoe County Assessor’s files indicate that there are approximately 9,170 domestic wells in
the County as of April 2010. Figure 3-2 illustrates the distribution of domestic wells within the
southern portion of the Planning Area. In a sense, domestic wells represent a special type of
private water system for which permission is granted by the State Engineer according to state
water law to owners of residential properties who do not have access to municipal service at the
time of development. The state’s definition of what constitutes domestic use is as follows:
Domestic use or domestic purposes extends to culinary and household purposes directly
related to a single-family dwelling and an accessory dwelling unit for a single-family
dwelling if provided for in an applicable local ordinance, including, without limitation, the
watering of a family garden and lawn and the watering of livestock and any other domestic
animals or household pets, if the amount of water drawn does not exceed 2 af per
year. (NRS 534.013 and NRS 534.180)
In addition to the State Engineer’s permitting requirements, the WCDHD further regulates the
construction of domestic wells within the Planning Area. The permit process requires that a
property owner with a domestic well in need of deepening or replacement located within the
service territory of a municipal service provider evaluate hook up to the municipal system. In
addition, the WCDHD requires a domestic well construction permit, which not only outlines
construction standards, but also regulates restrictions on proximity to water bodies, utility
easements, irrigation ditches, flood-irrigated fields, flood plains, septic tanks and sewers.
In the 1970s and early 1980s over-development of parcels served by domestic wells in the West
Lemmon Valley hydrographic basin became a major concern. The problem revolved around the
subdivision of large parcels without a water rights dedication requirement for domestic wells.
Eventually, this practice led to the over-allocation of groundwater. The situation prompted
passage of Washoe County Ordinance 586 (subsequently revised by Ordinance 482) in 1984,
requiring the dedication of 2.0 af of water rights for each newly subdivided parcel of land to be
served by a domestic well in Washoe County. This dedication of water rights however, does not
apply to existing parcels in the Planning Area. In addition, because of water rights overallocation in the Warm Springs Planning Area, the dedication of 2.5 af of water rights is required
for newly subdivided parcels to be served by domestic wells. Water rights dedicated from the
Warm Springs hydrographic basin will remain irrevocably tied to the hydrographic basin.
3.5
Reclaimed Water Purveyors (Reno, Sparks and Washoe County)
Reclaimed water provides both local and regional benefits. As the region grows according to its
land use plans, reclaimed water use is one means to allow the growth to be accommodated
while remaining within the treatment facility discharge permit limits. Reno, Sparks and Washoe
County are working to improve the Truckee River ecosystem. The benefits are intended to
improve the nutrient assimilative capacity of the river, which in turn may allow more flexibility in
meeting the TMWRF discharge permit requirements. Using reclaimed water provides a more
predictable way to ensure pollutant removal when compared with river discharge, but likewise
competes with water needs for in-stream flows. Truckee River water that is transferred out of
the basin for potable uses (and subsequently does not return to TMWRF as wastewater, such
as in the Stead and South Truckee Meadows areas) generally requires that 50 percent of
additional water rights be dedicated to provide for that return flow depletion.
Reclaimed water use provides a sound method of disposal and beneficial use through irrigation
and other uses. The main local benefit in the use of reclaimed water is that it conserves potable
water and provides a reliable, drought-resistant water source, even in times of restriction and
conservation. Table 3-6 summarizes the 2015 reclaimed water usage from each of the region’s
water reclamation facilities.
Table 3-6 2009 Reclaimed Water Usage
MGD
Average*
3.56
MGD
Max
Month
8.4
STMWRF Reclaimed Water
3.0
8.0
2,800
RSWRF Reclaimed Water
Total Reclaimed Water Usage
1.4
6.0
1.0
14.1
440
6,690
Facility
TMWRF Reclaimed Water
Average
AFA*
3,987
* Data collected from different meters; variation of meter values are within industry accepted tolerances
3.5.1 TMWRF Reclaimed Water
TMWRF currently supplies reclaimed water to numerous sites in Sparks, including Spanish
Springs Valley, and to Reno, including the University of Nevada, Reno (“UNR”) Farms property,
Rosewood Lakes Golf Course and Mira Loma Park. Hidden Valley Golf Course is connected to
the Reno system, but does not currently use reclaimed water. Reclaimed water is treated to
very high standards that meet both the discharge limits to the Truckee River and the standards
required for reclaimed water usage. The locations of these sites are depicted on Figures 3-3
and 3-4.
The reclaimed water delivery system consists of one main pump station and one auxiliary pump
station located at TMWRF and one transmission line with two branches. The south branch of
the pipeline serves UNR Farms property, Rosewood Lakes Golf Course and Mira Loma Park.
The north branch of the pipeline serves the users in the City of Sparks and further north in
Spanish Springs Valley. The 2015 reclaimed water balance for TMWRF is shown in Table 3-7.
Table 3-7 2015 TMWRF Reclaimed Water Balance
2015
Total Wastewater Flow
Reclaimed Water Usage
Reno / UNR Farms Reclaimed Water Usage
Sparks Reclaimed Water Usage
MGD
Average*
27.1
MGD
Max
Month
27.7
2.30
1.26
4.74
2.86
Water Returned to the Truckee River
Average
AFA*
30,310
2580
1,400
3,980
23.5
* Data collected from different meters; variation of meter values are within industry accepted tolerances
26,320
Figure 3-3 Effluent Reuse System TMWRF – City of Sparks
Figure 3-4 Effluent Reuse System TMWRF – City of Reno
3.5.2 Sparks Reclaimed Water Facilities
Sparks provides reclaimed water service to more than 34 sites within the City and further north
in unincorporated Spanish Springs Valley for irrigation and industrial uses. Specific uses
include irrigation at Wildcreek golf courses, Reed High School, Shadow Mountain Sports
Complex and numerous other parks and streetscapes. Industrial uses include Martin Marietta
Materials and various truck fill facilities. In addition to the TMWRF pump station and
transmission line, Sparks’ reclaimed water facilities include a second pump station, a 3.25 MG
storage tank near the Golden Eagle Regional Park and various distribution pipelines.
3.5.3 Reno Reclaimed Water Facilities (COR to update numbers)
RSWRF Reclaimed Water
RSWRF has an annual average flow of 1.40 MGD. During the winter and when reclaimed water
flows are in excess of irrigation demands, the reclaimed water is discharged into a natural
drainage channel that flows to the nearby Swan Lake playa. This is the primary disposal site for
RSWRF, which is permitted to discharge an average of 2.35 MGD (2,630 afa) to the playa. A
minimum of 159 million gallons per year (490 afa) is sent to the Swan Lake playa per an
agreement to sustain the existing wetlands. Under present operation, the RSWRF reuses an
average of 0.45 MGD, or about 32 percent of its total flow for irrigation primarily from March
through October. Essentially all of the reclaimed water is discharged to the Swan Lake playa
from November to February. Figure 3-5 depicts the existing reclaimed water infrastructure and
reuse sites in the Stead area.
The current RSWRF reclaimed water demands are approximately 500 afa. Uses include the
Sierra Sage Golf Course, the North Valleys Sports Complex, Mayors Park and a truck fill at the
treatment plant, which is utilized heavily for construction water and dust control. The RSWRF
reclaimed water balance for 2009 is shown in Table 3-8.
Table 3-8 2009 RSWRF Water Balance
MGD
Average
1.40
MGD
Max
Month
1.5
Stead Reclaimed Water Usage
0.45
0.45
1.1
1.1
500
Water Released to Swan Lake Wetlands
1.00
1.5
1,080
2015
AFA
1,570
Figure 3-5 Effluent Reuse System RSWRF
3.5.4 Washoe County Reclaimed Water Facilities
STMWRF Reclaimed Water (WC to update)
Existing Reclaimed Water Uses
STMWRF is one of the few water reclamation facilities in the United States that operates a zero
discharge system with 100 percent reuse. STMWRF reclaimed water meets or exceed the
State of Nevada’’s Class A designation, which permits unrestricted use of reclaimed water.
Reclaimed water is used for irrigating parks, schools, golf courses, commercial landscapes,
and thoroughfare median landscapes. Specific reuse areas include the South Meadows
Industrial Park, Double Diamond and Damonte Ranch residential areas, the Arrow Creek and
Wolf Run Golf Courses, the South Valley Regional Park, and Manogue High School, among
others. Irrigation with reclaimed water for all of these areas conserves potable water that would
otherwise be used for irrigation. Figure 3-6 depicts the existing reclaimed water infrastructure
and reuse sites in the South Truckee Meadows area.
Under current operation, surface water from Whites Creek and Thomas Creek is combined with
reclaimed water and pumped to Huffaker Reservoir to supplement the reclaimed water supply.
Seepage losses from Huffaker Reservoir have placed additional demand on STMWRF
reclaimed water supplies in past years, but will diminish in the future. Huffaker Reservoir was
constructed in 1988 and has a storage capacity of approximately 4,000 af. This reservoir was
initially constructed with a compacted soil liner but has been losing significant quantities of
stored water to seepage. In order to conserve water and to mitigate concerns from reservoir
seepage, a partial membrane liner was completed, which lined the lower portion of the reservoir
to an elevation of 4,482 ft. A second membrane lining project is planned for 2012 to line the
remainder of the reservoir up to an elevation of 4,552 ft. Following completion of these projects,
the need for supplemental water to compensate for seepage losses will diminish.
The 2015 STMWRF reclaimed water balance is shown in Table 3-9. The STMWRF reclaimed
water, creek diversions, and reclaimed water use volumes are all metered values, while the
reservoir seepage and net evaporation loss is estimated from the reservoir mass balance.
Since the reservoir net evaporation loss is estimated to be in the range of 50 afa at current
reservoir operating levels, the majority of the 530 afa loss is attributed to reservoir seepage.
Table 3-9 2009 STMWRF Reclaimed Water Balance
2015
STM Reclaimed Water System Usage
Huffaker Reservoir Seepage and Net Evaporation
Supplemental Creek Diversions
* Estimated
MGD
Average
3.0
MGD
Max
Month
3.5
3.0
8.0
0.47
8.00
Aveage
AFA
3,360
2,800
530*
2,800
6,360
Figure 3-6 Effluent Reuse System STMWRF – Washoe County
CSWRF Reclaimed Water
The Cold Springs Water Reclamation Facility (“CSWRF”) currently disposes all treated
reclaimed water to rapid infiltration basins (“RIBs”), and does not reclaim water for irrigation
purposes. However, facility improvements can be added in the future as the demand for
additional reclaimed water warrants. The 2015 reclaimed water balance for Cold Springs is
presented in Table 3-10.
Table 3-10 2009 CSWRF Water Balance
MGD
Average
0.28
2015
None at this time
0
Water disposed to RIBs
0.28
MGD
Max
Month
0.30
AFA
319
0
0.30
319
LVWRF Reclaimed Water
In addition to the reclaimed water generated from RSWRF, Washoe County owns and operates
the Lemmon Valley Water Reclamation Facility (“LVWRF”). Presently, the water from this
treatment plant is evaporated from on-site ponds, but with additional treatment, it could be
available to help meet future reclaimed water demands. Periodically, a small portion of the
water is released to Swan Lake to help manage water levels in the ponds. The 2009 reclaimed
water balance for Lemmon Valley is presented in Table 3-11.
Table 3-11 2009 LVWRF Water Balance
2015
None at this time
Water disposed to Evaporation Ponds
3.6
MGD
Average
0.20
MGD
Max
Month
0.30
0
0.20
AFA
219
0
0.30
219
Water Rights Requirements (TMWA To Review)
3.6.1 Water Rights Dedication Requirements for Municipal Service
For those purveyors (e.g., TMWA and, SVGID, and portions of WCDWR’s Spanish Springs or
Double Diamond retail areas) using Truckee River water rights for will-serve commitments,
typically TMWA’s Rule 7 is the basis of water rights required. TMWA Rule 7 requires that
applicants for any new water service dedicate sufficient water rights to meet the demand of their
development. Applicants for new service can buy water rights on the open market and dedicate
sufficient, acceptable water rights to TMWA, or the applicant can pay for a will-serve
commitment based on TMWA’s costs incurred to acquire and process the necessary water
rights. Before accepting a water right for a will-serve commitment, TMWA considers a water
right’s source, priority, quantity, dry-year supply, yield, permitability, unencumbered ownership,
and the long-term ability to provide water. In this manner, TMWA ensures that future resources
can be sustained in perpetuity. In addition, an applicant requiring irrigation service must furnish
a local government determination as to whether it can provide reclaimed water service for some
or all of the irrigation demand.
TMWA Rule 7 requires a water demand calculation using factors for the type of unit (such as
single family dwellings and lot size, mobile home parks, multi-family complexes, commercial)
and irrigation. Depending on the source of water, a multiplier is applied to compute the number
of acre-feet required for new service. TMWA Rule 7 is included as Appendix G.
In the case of Truckee River water that will be supplied for M&I service by TMWA, there are
existing agreements and facilities that provide storage capacity upstream of the Truckee
Meadows. These facilities store water when it is available, and release it as needed to satisfy
demands. The reservoirs provide a reserve for both seasonal fluctuations in demand and
annual variations between wet and dry years. TMWA uses the reservoirs in conjunction with its
groundwater resources to make up the entirety of its water supply.
In the future, TROA operation Operation of Truckee River reservoirs since the implementation of
TROA will be has been expanded, thereby which has increaseding dry year reserves. In
exchange for greater flexibility in reservoir operation, TMWA is required to dedicate 0.11 af of
water rights for each af of new demand. This dedication must be made from Truckee River
water rights. (Refer to TMWA’s 2035 Water Resource Plan for complete description of TMWA
water resources, agreements, and drought planning, see Appendix B).
The water resources for the proposed South Truckee Meadows water treatment plants differ
from TMWA surface water resources in that there is no upstream surface water storage planned
to equalize the fluctuations in seasonal tributary flow and variations in annual flow that result
from wet and dry years. This affects the amount of water that can be derived from a particular
water right (the “yield”). Another factor that affects the yield of a water right is its priority with
respect to other water rights on the same system.
Without storage, additional water rights must be dedicated for service above the normal amount
that will actually be consumed to ensure that a minimum supply can be maintained under
drought conditions. During drought conditions, the highest priority rights will receive water and
lower priority rights may not be fulfilled. During non-drought conditions, however, the additional
water that is available under these rights can be used to satisfy other needs such as aquifer
recharge, enhancement of Truckee River water quality, satisfaction of effluent return flow
requirements, etc. Because the use of tributary water rights for municipal water supply
purposes in the Truckee Meadows is a new practice, the specifics of how these rights will be
managed is an opportunity for efficient, integrated water rights use.
For non-Truckee River water rights dependent purveyors, each has water resource dedication
policies that utilize groundwater resources subject to State Engineer permits issued for those
water resources.
3.6.2 Reclaimed Water Rights Requirements
Reclaimed water rights are exchanged for will-serve commitments in a manner that differs
significantly from potable water rights dedication requirements. Reclaimed water is
appropriated by the entities that own and operate the water reclamation facilities, i.e. Reno,
Sparks and Washoe County. Parties interested in obtaining reclaimed water service from
WCDWR WCU submit an application for service in accordance with Washoe County Ordinance
1299. The County will approve or deny the application for service based on its ability to provide
service and how the reclaimed water is to be used. Similarly, Sparks enters into reclaimed
water service agreements as per Title 13.85 of the Sparks Municipal Code. Reno enters into
individual contract agreements for reclaimed water service.
Reclaimed water service customers must obtain, and operate in accordance with, a permit from
the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. Permits require the development and
approval of an effluent management plan. Service can be discontinued if reclaimed water use is
not consistent with the permit or the effluent management plan conditions.
References Cited
Truckee Meadows Water Authority, 2009, 2010 - 2030 Water Resource Plan.
Northern Nevada
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
July 28, 2016
TO:
(“NNWPC”)
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Discussion and possible direction to staff regarding any chapters of the Regional
Water Management Plan (“RWMP”) previously reviewed by the NNWPC in
relation to the 2016 RWMP update.
SUMMARY
This agenda item is intended to be one in a series of standing items, ending upon the NNWPC’s
final recommendation to the Western Regional Water Commission concerning the 2016 RWMP
update. Under this item, NNWPC members may discuss, and the NNWPC may direct staff on
the subjects of any of the RWMP chapters reviewed, since the December 2014 meeting, in
relation to the 2016 update.
JS:js
Northern Nevada Water Planning
Commission
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
July 25, 2016
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Program Manager’s Report
Attached are updated reports for items (a) and (b) for your review.
a) Report on the status of Projects and Work Plan supported by the RWMF; and
b) Financial Report on the RWMF.
8-03-16 NNWPC Agenda Item 14a
Status Report of Projects and Work Plan
Supported by the Regional Water Management Fund
1
Project Name
Financial Audit Fiscal
Year 2016
Contractor /
Provider
Schettler Macy
LLC
Target
Balance
Percent Completion
Amount Remaining Complete
Date
Notes
8,700
8,700
0%
10/1/16
Work will
commence at end of
Fiscal Year 2016
Nevada Landscape
Association (NLA)
25,000
12,500
50%
6/30/16
Work is in progress
2
Certified Landscape
Technician Program
2014-2016 FY
(DRI) Desert
Research Institute
75,000
26,810
64%
6/30/17
Work is in progress
3
Cloud Seeding Additional Precip
Monitoring Equipment
Original ILA $25,000;
Amendment $50,000
Cloud Seeding Program
for Water Year 2016
(DRI) Desert
Research Institute
100,000
29,151
71%
12/31/16
Work is in progress
Stantec
25,000
1,414
94%
12/31/16
Work is in progress
5
Effluent Management
Strategy
First Amendment to
extend time
Stantec
25,000
25,000
0%
12/31/16
6
Effluent Management
Strategy
Second Amendment
adding scope & funding
Second Amendment
executed. Work is in
progress
62,792
3,192
95%
6/30/16
Work is in progress
7
Effluent Management (DRI) Desert
Linear Programming
Research Institute
Original Contract $40,292;
Addendum to Joinder
$22,500
8
Envision Videographers of Envision
WRWC meetings
2,000
1,320
34%
9/30/16
Work is in progress
City of Reno
250,000
250,000
0%
9
Highland Canal
Improvements
Optimizing Investments in The Nature
Conservancy
10 the Truckee River
Watershed
57,787
8,122
86%
12/31/16
Work is in progress
262,500
101,474
61%
6/30/16
Work is in progress
4
Regional Storm Water
Quality Management
11 Program (Fourth
Amendment)
07/26/2016
City of Reno
1 yr from Awaiting signatures
Effective Date from Reno
on Interlocal
8-03-16 NNWPC Agenda Item 14a
Status Report of Projects and Work Plan
Supported by the Regional Water Management Fund
Project Name
Regional Storm Water
Quality Management
12 Program (Fifth
Amendment)
RWMP 2016 Update 13 Water Balance Update
Contractor /
Provider
City of Reno
25,000
20,113
20%
6/30/17
Work is in progress
150,000
91,792
39%
6/30/16
Work is in progress
3,000
2,023
33%
6/30/16
Work is in progress.
FY 17 contract done
City of Reno
(LimnoTech)
75,000
27,572
63%
6/30/16
Work is in progress
TRIG Website Support FY City of Reno
17 2015-2016
7,500
2,334
69%
6/30/16
Work is in progress
2,700,000
132,246
Septic - Phase II
14
Stantec
Target
Balance
Percent Completion
Amount Remaining Complete
Date
Notes
262,500
262,500
0%
6/30/17
Awaiting signatures
from Reno
on Interlocal
Washoe County CSD
Sosu TV Videographers of Sosu TV
15 NNWPC meetings
FY 2015-2016
TMDL Phase 1
16 Sixth Amendment
TROA - 6,700 AF water
18 rights purchase
TMWA
Washoe ET Project
Maintenance;
19 Original ILA $10,000;
Amendment $10,000
DRI (Desert
Research Institute)
20,000
5
34%
6/30/16
Work is in progress
Washoe ET weather
20 station upgrades
(DRI) Desert
Research Institute
29,050
5,663
81%
6/30/16
Work is in progress
Water Usage Review
21 Program 2015-16
First Amendment
TMWA
100,000
0
100%
6/30/16
Project complete
Regional Precipitation
22 "can" Monitoring
(DRI) Desert
Research Institute
37,989
37,989
0%
6/30/17
ILA being prepared
Water Usage Review
23 Program 2016-17
TMWA
100,000
100,000
0%
6/30/17
Work is in progress
RPGB
20,000
13,880
31%
06/30/17
Work is in progress
24
Minutes Recorder
07/26/2016
95% Open Ended Work is in progress
07/25/2016
Fund 766
Financial Report on the
Regional Water Management Fund
Report 400/ZF15
Fiscal Year 2017; Period 1
Accounts
State Grants
* INTERGOVERNMENTAL
Interest-Pooled Inv.
Plan
Budget
Actual
(Revenue &
Expenses)
PO Commit
(Remaining
PO Balance)
Actual + PO
Available
(Budget Minus
Actual + PO)
Avail%
PreCommit
(PO's
Requested)
Available
(Budget Minus
PO Requisitions)
Avail%
40,000.00-
40,000.00-
100-
40,000.00-
100-
40,000.00-
40,000.00-
100-
40,000.00-
100-
27,985.00-
27,985.00-
100-
27,985.00-
100-
1,416,677.00-
4,542.40-
4,542.40-
1,412,134.60-
100-
1,412,134.60-
100-
* MISCELLANEOUS
1,444,662.00-
4,542.40-
4,542.40-
1,440,119.60-
100-
1,440,119.60-
100-
** REVENUE
1,484,662.00-
4,542.40-
4,542.40-
1,480,119.60-
100-
1,480,119.60-
100-
58
1,010,322.52
58
Water Surcharge 1.5%
Professional Services
1,754,976.00
27,972.41
716,681.07
744,653.48
1,010,322.52
16,880.63-
129,600.00
112,719.37
399,280.63
WRWC Staff & Legal
512,000.00
104.41-
399,280.63
104.41-
Fin Consult Services
10,000.00
8,700.00
8,700.00
1,300.00
13
1,300.00
13
Pmts to O Agencies
175,000.00
132,585.53
132,585.53
42,414.47
24
42,414.47
24
Seminars and Meetings
1,000.00
1,000.00
100
1,000.00
100
Advertising
1,000.00
1,000.00
100
1,000.00
100
20,000.00
20,000.00
100
20,000.00
100
400.00
400.00
100
400.00
100
1,000.00
1,000.00
100
1,000.00
100
129,600.00
129,600.00
500.00
129,600.00
500.00
Undesignated Budget
Combined Utilities
Travel
Overhead
** EXPENDITURES
*** Total
2,604,976.00
11,091.78
987,566.60
998,658.38
1,606,317.62
62
1,606,317.62
62
1,120,314.00
6,549.38
987,566.60
994,115.98
126,198.02
11
126,198.02
11

the packet - Northern Nevada Water Planning Commission

Transcription

Similar documents

Appearance - Washoe County

The History of Greater Nevada Credit Union

gardnerville office space

Community Partnership Connection

I`m helping to end MS by participating in the 2016 Jayman BUILT MS

The Board of Directors of Qatar Fuel (WOQOD) is pleased to invite

Truckee Police Department

Organic, Energy-Efficient And Functional

5 `S` Training Program at ABV-IIITM, Gwalior on 21.07.2016