The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2022 Water System Facilities Plan 2022-09-09 C 'Ity of T Falls Water System Facilities Plan September 2022 CITY OF TWINFALLS -0 Z, v StcRv�NG Project No. 60-19-087 Prepared by (rJ-U-B 'k BROCKWAY 7-00111V M ENGINEERING J-U-B ENGINEERS, INC. BROCKWAY ENGINEERING 2114 Village Park Avenue, Suite 100 2016 Washington Street North Twin Falls, Idaho 83301 Twin Falls, Idaho 83301 208-733-2414 208-736-8543 This page was intentionally left blank for correct double-sided printing. C 'Ity of T Falls Water System Facilities Plan September 2022 .SNONAL E :Gi11'J1L z EN q�M HA OF S G. BR Project No. 60-19-087 Prepared by fiEUB- I I BROC K W A Y • ENGINEERING J_U_R ENGINEERS, INC. BROCKWAY ENGINEERING 2114 Village Park Avenue, Suite 100 2016 Washington Street North Twin Falls, Idaho 83301 Twin Falls, Idaho 83301 208-733-2414 208-736-8543 This page was intentionally left blank for correct double-sided printing. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVESUMMARY................................................................................................................1 ES.1 REPORT OVERVIEW...............................................................................................................................1 ES.2 EXISTING WATER SYSTEM SUMMARY....................................................................................................1 ES.3 POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT GROWTH PROJECTIONS SUMMARY.................................................2 ES.4 WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND EVALUATION SUMMARY........................................................................2 ES.5 EVALUATION OF EXISTING WATER SYSTEM SUMMARY..........................................................................3 ES.6 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY.......................................................................................4 ES.7 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND ALTERNATIVE SELECTION SUMMARY.............................................5 1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................6 1.1 PURPOSE, NEED,AND PLAN FOR STUDY.................................................................................................6 1.2 REPORT ORGANIZATION........................................................................................................................7 1.3 PROJECT RESPONSIBILITY.......................................................................................................................7 2 EXISTING WATER SYSTEM ............................................................................................8 2.1 PLANNING AREA....................................................................................................................................8 2.2 EXISTING WATER FACILITIES...................................................................................................................8 2.2.1 Summary..............................................................................................................................8 2.2.2 Supply Wells..........................................................................................................................8 2.2.3 Chlorination Systems...........................................................................................................13 2.2.4 Storage Tanks.....................................................................................................................13 2.2.5 Booster Pump Stations........................................................................................................13 2.2.6 Pressure Zones....................................................................................................................14 2.2.7 Distribution System.............................................................................................................14 2.2.8 Back-Up Power Systems......................................................................................................15 2.2.9 SCADA System.....................................................................................................................17 2.3 EXISTING WATER SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION........................................................................................17 2.3.1 Water Rights.......................................................................................................................17 2.3.2 Surface and Groundwater Administration and Water Calls..................................................20 2.3.3 Groundwater Quality Rule...................................................................................................20 2.3.4 Existing User Charge Rate and System Budget.....................................................................20 2.3.5 IDEQ Sanitary Survey...........................................................................................................21 2.3.6 Consumer Confidence Report..............................................................................................21 2.3.7 Cross-Connection Control....................................................................................................21 2.3.8 Source Water/Wellhead Protection Program.......................................................................21 2.3.9 Source Water Assessment...................................................................................................21 2.3.10 Municipal Classification and Operator Certification .............................................................21 3 GROWTH PROJECTIONS..............................................................................................22 3.1 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT............................................................................................................22 3.2 HISTORICAL POPULATION GROWTH.....................................................................................................22 3.3 PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH .....................................................................................................23 3.3.1 Residential Growth..............................................................................................................23 3.3.2 Industrial Growth................................................................................................................24 4 WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND...................................................................................27 4.1 EXISTING WATER SUPPLY.....................................................................................................................27 4.1.1 Blue Lakes Wells..................................................................................................................27 4.1.2 South Wells.........................................................................................................................39 4.1.3 Hankins Wells.....................................................................................................................42 4.1.4 Total Water Supply Availability from All Sources..................................................................42 4.2 EXISTING WATER DEMAND..................................................................................................................43 4.3 FUTURE SUPPLY AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS......................................................................................48 4.3.1 Assumptions.......................................................................................................................48 City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan i 4.3.2 Supply and Demand Projections..........................................................................................48 5 EVALUATION OF EXISTING WATER SYSTEM ...............................................................52 5.1 SUPPLY WELLS.....................................................................................................................................52 5.1.1 Condition of Existing Supply Wells.......................................................................................52 5.1.2 Capacity of Existing Supply Wells.........................................................................................52 5.1.3 Water Rights of Existing Supply Wells..................................................................................52 5.1.4 Water Quality of Existing Supply..........................................................................................55 5.2 STORAGE TANKS..................................................................................................................................57 5.2.1 Storage Capacity.................................................................................................................57 5.2.2 Condition of Storage Tanks..................................................................................................58 5.3 BOOSTER PUMP STATIONS...................................................................................................................63 5.3.1 Capacity of Booster Pump Stations......................................................................................63 5.3.2 Condition of Booster Pump Stations.....................................................................................64 5.4 CHLORINATION SYSTEMS.....................................................................................................................64 5.5 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ........................................................................................................................65 5.5.1 Capacity of Distribution System...........................................................................................65 5.5.2 Condition of Distribution System..........................................................................................67 5.6 PRESSURE ZONES.................................................................................................................................68 5.7 BACK-UP POWER SYSTEMS..................................................................................................................68 5.8 WATER ADMINISTRATION....................................................................................................................76 5.8.1 Operators........................................................................................................................... 76 5.8.2 Ordinances.......................................................................................................................... 76 5.8.3 Maintenance Improvement Budget..................................................................................... 76 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS.............................................................................77 6.1 PRIMARY ALTERNATIVE........................................................................................................................77 6.1.1 Water Supply...................................................................................................................... 77 6.1.2 Storage............................................................................................................................... 78 6.1.3 Booster Pump Stations........................................................................................................ 79 6.1.4 Pressure Zones....................................................................................................................80 6.1.5 Distribution System.............................................................................................................84 6.1.6 Backup Power.....................................................................................................................92 6.1.7 Chlorination Systems...........................................................................................................92 6.1.8 Control System and Operation.............................................................................................92 6.1.9 Annual System Maintenance and Replacement....................................................................93 6.1.10 Drought Resiliency..............................................................................................................94 6.1.11 Summary............................................................................................................................99 6.2 "NO ACTION" ALTERNATIVE...............................................................................................................100 6.2.1 Water Supply.................................................................................................................... 100 6.2.2 Storage............................................................................................................................. 100 6.2.3 Booster Pump Stations......................................................................................................100 6.2.4 Pressure Zones..................................................................................................................101 6.2.5 Distribution System...........................................................................................................101 6.2.6 Backup Power...................................................................................................................101 6.2.7 Chlorination Systems.........................................................................................................101 6.2.8 Control System and Operation........................................................................................... 101 6.2.9 Annual System Maintenance and Replacement.................................................................. 102 6.2.10 Summary..........................................................................................................................102 7 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN.................................................................................103 7.1 TIMELINE AND BUDGET ALTERNATIVES..............................................................................................103 7.1.1 CIP Budget Alternatives:Common Features and Use as a Decision-Making Tool.................112 7.1.2 CIP Budget Alternative#1:South Well 5 and Harrison Tank Priority...................................112 7.1.3 CIP Budget Alternative#2:Canyon Springs Station Priority................................................113 City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan ii 7.1.4 CIP Budget Alternative#3:Accelerated Priorities...............................................................113 7.2 SELECTION OF BUDGET ALTERNATIVE................................................................................................113 7.3 MONTHLY USER RATE ANALYSIS.........................................................................................................114 7.4 PROJECT FINANCING..........................................................................................................................114 7.5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS..................................................................................................115 7.6 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION......................................................................................................................115 7.7 ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................................................................115 7.8 LIMITATIONS OF REPORT AND MODEL...............................................................................................117 APPENDICES APPENDIX A ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES A.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS A.1.1 Physiography, Topography, Geology, and Soils A.1.2 Surface and Groundwater Hydrology A.1.3 Fauna, Flora, and Natural Communities A.1.4 Land Use and Development A.1.5 Public Utilities A.1.6 Cultural Resources A.1.7 Flood Plains and Wetlands A.1.8 Wild and Scenic Rivers A.1.9 Public Health Considerations A.1.10 Prime Agricultural Land A.1.11 Proximity to Sole Source Aquifer A.1.12 Energy Production and Consumption A.1.13 Precipitation, Temperature, and Prevailing Winds A.1.14 Air Quality and Noise A.1.15 Economic and Social Profile A.1.16 Environmental Justice A.2 APPENDIX A FIGURES APPENDIX B EXISTING SYSTEM FACILITIES AND OPERATION B.1 DESCRIPTION OF WATER SUPPLY WELLS B.1.1 Blue Lakes Wells B.1.2 South Wells B.1.3 Hankins Wells B.2 DESCRIPTION OF WATER STORAGE TANKS B.2.1 Harrison Tank B.2.2 South Tanks B.2.3 Hankins Tank B.2.4 Eldridge Tank B.3 DESCRIPTION OF BOOSTER STATIONS B.3.1 Canyon Springs Pump Station B.3.2 Harrison Pump Station B.3.3 Blending Pump Station B.3.4 Hankins Pump Station B.3.5 Wills Pump Station B.3.6 Eldridge Pump Station B.4 DESCRIPTION OF PRESSURE ZONES B.4.1 High Level Pressure Zone B.4.2 Low Level Pressure Zone(South) B.4.3 Low Level Pressure Zone(North) City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan iii B.4.4 South Pressure Zones(North and South) B.4.5 Hankins Pressure Zone B.4.6 Eldridge Pressure Zone B.5 DISINFECTION SYSTEM AND OPERATION B.5.1 Blue Lakes Wells B.5.2 South Wells B.5.3 Hankins Wells B.5.4 System Operation Notes B.6 WATER QUALITY DATA B.7 BOOSTER PUMP CURVES B.8 WELL DRILLING LOGS AND PUMP CURVES APPENDIX C WATER SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION C.1 WATER ADMINISTRATION BACKGROUND INFORMATION C.1.1 Aquifer Decline and Water Calls C.1.2 IGWUA/SWC Settlement and Groundwater Recharge C.2 WATER SYSTEM BUDGET C.3 SANITARY SURVEY C.4 CROSS CONNECTION ORDINANCE APPENDIX D BACKGROUND MODELING INFORMATION D.1 SUPPLY AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS D.1.1 Blue Lakes Spring Recharge—Model Simulation D.2 HYDRAULIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT D.2.1 Existing Model D.2.2 Committed Model D.2.3 Master Plan Model D.3 ISRB FIREFLOW RESULTS APPENDIX E COSTS City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1—Water System Improvements During 2016-2020 ...................................................................6 Table 2-1—Existing Water Supply Summary............................................................................................8 Table 2-2—Existing Disinfection System Summary................................................................................. 13 Table 2-3—Existing Water Storage Tanks Summary............................................................................... 13 Table 2-4—Existing Booster Pump Stations Summary............................................................................ 14 Table 2-5—Existing Distribution System Pipe Summary......................................................................... 15 Table 2-6—Existing Back-up Power Systems Summary ..........................................................................15 Table 2-7—Existing Water System Set-Points ........................................................................................17 Table 2-8—Blue Lakes Spring and Alpheus Creek Water Rights..............................................................17 Table 2-9—Blue Lakes System Water Right Distribution ........................................................................ 18 Table 2-10—South Wells Water Rights Distribution............................................................................... 19 Table 2-11—Existing User Rate Fee Structure........................................................................................21 Table 2-12—Operator Certification Summary........................................................................................21 Table 3-1—Historical Population Growth...............................................................................................23 Table 3-2—Projected Population Growth Results ..................................................................................23 Table 3-3—Average Day Demand of Future Industrial Users by Pressure Zone......................................24 Table 4-1—Exceedance levels for low flow at Blue Lakes Spring............................................................35 Table 4-2—Net weekly inflow to lower lake after diversion at City wells during week of max pumping..37 Table 4-3—Twin Falls Water Demand (2001-2020)................................................................................45 Table 4-4—Existing Water Demand from Large Users (2020).................................................................46 Table 4-5—Existing Water Demand.......................................................................................................47 Table 4-6—Supply and Demand Projection Assumptions.......................................................................48 Table 4-7—Future Demand Projections.................................................................................................48 Table 5-1—PFAS Test Results ................................................................................................................57 Table 5-2—Capacity of Booster Pump Stations......................................................................................63 Table 5-3—Condition of Booster Pump Stations....................................................................................64 Table 5-4—Chlorination System Evaluation...........................................................................................64 Table5-5—Model Scenarios..................................................................................................................65 Table 5-6—Distribution System Pressure and Fireflow Evaluation .........................................................66 Table 6-1—Water Rights Deficiencies....................................................................................................77 Table 6-2—City Pressure Zone Abbreviations ........................................................................................81 Table 6-3—Pipe Priority Improvements.................................................................................................84 Table 6-4—Future Backup Power Locations and Requirements .............................................................92 Table 6-5—Annual Distribution and Pump Replacement Budget ...........................................................93 Table 6-6—Twin Falls Vulnerabilities and Mitigation Projects................................................................96 Table 7-1—CIP Summary Sheet...........................................................................................................104 Table 7-2—CIP Budget Alternative#1 Summary..................................................................................106 Table 7-3—CIP Budget Alternative#1 Project Timeline........................................................................107 Table 7-4—CIP Budget Alternative#2 Summary..................................................................................108 Table 7-5—CIP Budget Alternative#2 Project Timeline........................................................................109 Table 7-6—CIP Budget Alternative#3 Summary..................................................................................110 Table 7-7—CIP Budget Alternative#3 Project Timeline........................................................................111 Table 7-8—Increase in Monthly Charge Rate for a 10,000-Gallon Tyical User.......................................114 City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan v LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1—Water Service Planning Area ................................................................................................9 Figure 2-2—Existing Water Supply System............................................................................................. 10 Figure 2-3—Existing Water System Hydraulic Profile .............................................................................11 Figure 2-4—Water Source Elevation and System Pressure.....................................................................12 Figure 2-5—Existing Water Distribution System..................................................................................... 16 Figure 2-6—Blue Lakes System Water Right Distribution....................................................................... 18 Figure 3-1—Twin Falls Population Growth.............................................................................................22 Figure 3-2—20-Year Industrial Growth Projections................................................................................25 Figure 3-3—Build-Out Industrial Growth Projections.............................................................................26 Figure 4-1—Blue Lakes System Hydrologic Schematic............................................................................27 Figure 4-2—Blue Lakes Spring Discharge (1950—2020).........................................................................29 Figure 4-3—Blue Lakes Spring Correlation to the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) ........................30 Figure 4-4—Blue Lakes Spring Discharge (1990—2020).........................................................................31 Figure 4-5—Blue Lakes Water Supply and Twin Falls City Pumping........................................................32 Figure 4-6—Simulated Response of Conservation Efforts to Blue Lakes Spring ......................................34 Figure 4-7—Blue Lakes Maximum Allowed Pumping Rate Based on Water Right Priority Constraints....36 Figure 4-8—Lower Lake Level at 15-minute Intervals.............................................................................38 Figure 4-9—South Well Field Production Trends (2012 omitted) ...........................................................39 Figure 4-10—South Well Peak Capacity Trend.......................................................................................40 Figure 4-11—Depth to Water in Well 10S 17E 33BBA1 ..........................................................................41 Figure 4-12—Total Water Supply Capacity Simulation with Projected 30-yr Decline (2003-2020)*.........42 Figure 4-13—System-Wide Water Demand (2008-2020) .......................................................................43 Figure 4-14—Significant Events Affecting Twin Falls Water Demand......................................................44 Figure 4-15—Water Demand by Source (2008-2020).............................................................................46 Figure 4-16—Water Supply Projection (2021-2041)...............................................................................49 Figure 4-17—Water Demand Projection (2021-2041)............................................................................50 Figure 4-18—Water Demand Projection by User...................................................................................51 Figure 5-1—Evaluation of Existing System .............................................................................................53 Figure 5-2—Water Supply Projection (2021-2041).................................................................................54 Figure 5-3—South Wells Arsenic Concentration.....................................................................................55 Figure 5-4—Hankins Wells Arsenic Concentrations................................................................................56 Figure 5-5—Blended Water Arsenic Concentrations..............................................................................56 Figure 5-6—Hankins/Eldridge Tank Storage Capacity.............................................................................59 Figure 5-7—South Tanks Storage Capacity.............................................................................................60 Figure 5-8—Harrison Tank Storage Capacity..........................................................................................61 Figure 5-9—Existing System: Peak Hour Demand...................................................................................69 Figure 5-10—Existing System: Winter Demand......................................................................................70 Figure 5-11—Existing System: Available Fireflow...................................................................................71 Figure 5-12—Committed System: Peak Hour Demand...........................................................................72 Figure 5-13—Committed System: Winter Demand ................................................................................73 Figure 5-14—Committed System: Available Fireflow.............................................................................74 Figure 5-15—Existing Pressure Zones Evaluation...................................................................................75 Figure 6-1—Future Pressure Zone Boundaries.......................................................................................82 Figure 6-2—Overview of All Improvements...........................................................................................87 Figure 6-3—Pressure Zone Adjustments................................................................................................88 Figure 6-4—Priority 1 Pipe Improvements.............................................................................................89 City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan vi Figure 6-5—Priority 2 Pipe Improvements.............................................................................................90 Figure 6-6—Priority 3 &4 Pipe Improvements.......................................................................................91 Figure 6-7—Twin Falls County Drought Conditions (2000 to present) ....................................................94 Figure 6-8—Idaho State Drought Conditions (August 2021)...................................................................95 Figure 6-9—Risk Assessment Matrix......................................................................................................97 City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan vii List of Acronyms, Definitions, and Units To assist the City in effectively using this report as a guide for the future development of their water system, several terms and abbreviations are defined. DEFINITIONS Average Day Demand (ADD)—Demand that would exist if the total water used for one year were applied at a uniform rate throughout the year. Maximum Day Demand (MDD) — Demand that would exist if the most water used in any one day was applied at a uniform 24-hour rate. Peak Hour Demand (PHD)—Highest demand averaged over one hour that occurs in a given year. Existing Model — Existing system modeled to represent 2020 operating conditions in order to meet City service levels, IDAPA regulation pressures, and pressure zone needs. Includes demand for all existing customers. The Existing Model was also prepared to calibrate the model and understand flow use and allocation based on 2020 flow rates. Committed Model—Used to model future growth with flows that roughly correspond to a 20-year growth rate. Model demands in addition to existing model demands account for vacant areas in city limits, commitments to developments that are under construction or have started the will-serve process, anticipated top users, and anticipated likely areas of growth as reported by the City. Build Out Model— Maximizes capacity of existing infrastructure and provides conceptual layout for new service areas within water service boundary. In addition to the 20-year model, provides demand for areas beyond City limits extending to the water service boundary and includes demands for additional anticipated top users. Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) — From IDAPA 58.01.08 Section 003-42, an EDU is defined as "A unit of measure that standardizes all land use types (housing, retail, office, etc.) to the level of demand created by a single-family detached housing unit within a water system." UNITS cfs-Cubic feet per second. gpm-Gallons per minute. gpd -Gallons per day. gpcd -Gallons per capita per day(gallons per day per person). gpad -Gallons per acre per day hgl- Hydraulic grade line (ft.) MG- Million Gallons MGD- Million gallons per day. ppd- Pounds per day psi- Pounds per square inch. ABREVIATIONS MDL—Method Detection Limit MCL—Maximum Contaminant Level ESPA—Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer PI—Pressurized Irrigation IDWR—Idaho Department of Water Resources IDEA—Idaho Department of Environmental Quality IGWA—Idaho Ground Water Association ISRB—Idaho Surveying and Rating Bureau, Inc. RAFN—Reasonably Anticipated Future Needs City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan viii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES.1 REPORT OVERVIEW The last comprehensive water system facilities plan for the City of Twin Falls(City)was completed in 2016'. The City has experienced significant growth and infrastructure improvements since completion of the 2016 report. The City authorized J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc. (JUB) to develop a new Water System Facilities Plan, with major goals as follows: GOAL 1: Update the existing water system components and infrastructure descriptions and capacities, water quality data, and existing and projected water supply and demand. GOAL 2: Update the hydraulic distribution system model to assess conditions for flow scenarios during existing, committed, and master plan demands. GOAL 3: Evaluate and plan for the water supply, storage, pumping, and distribution systems. GOAL 4: Develop capital and annual costs for improvement alternatives. GOAL 5:Select preferred improvement alternatives and establish a comprehensive Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)for phasing and implementation of the alternatives. This report is organized into seven chapters. The following sections provide a brief summary of each chapter of the 2022 Water System Facilities Plan (2022 Plan): • Chapter 1 introduces the subject matter and provides context • Chapter 2 details the system planning area and the existing water system in two main categories: system facilities and system administration. • Chapter 3 discusses the future conditions of the planning area and describes population growth. • Chapter 4 details the anticipated trends to future water supply and demand. • Chapter 5 contains the evaluation of the existing facilities during existing and future demand conditions. It also contains the hydraulic model development and analysis. • Chapter 6 presents the required improvements to address deficiencies discovered in Chapter 5 using a "Primary' alternative, with a "No Action" alternative for contrast. • Chapter 7 presents the capital improvement plan and three "budget alternatives"for sequencing and funding each improvement.This chapter also discusses the selection of the preferred budget alternative and presents a project financing scenario. It also contains additional recommendations and limitations of the report and model. ES.2 EXISTING WATER SYSTEM SUMMARY The existing water system data was compiled from multiple sources, including previous modeling files, record drawings, hardcopy City maps,field verification,operations staff,and the 2016 report. In summary, the system consists of ten supply wells, six storage tanks, six booster pump stations, three chlorine disinfection systems, a 318-mile distribution network, seven pressure zones, a few back-up generators, and a control system. i J-U-B Engineers, Inc. (2016), City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 1 ES.3 POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT GROWTH PROJECTIONS SUMMARY The study area for the 2022 Plan corresponds to the most recent Area of Impact boundary and utility service boundary depicted in the 2016 Twin Falls Comprehensive Plan'and shown in Figure 2-1.The 2016 Comprehensive Plan is the guiding document for land use in the 2022 Plan. Within the Comprehensive Plan, areas designated as residential land used a future density that ranged from 2 to 10 dwelling units (DU)per acre.As conservative measure,a value of 6 DU per acre was assigned for future residential areas. Further details regarding land use development are provided in Appendix D.2, while future anticipated industrial water demand is given in Figure 3-2 and Figure 3-3. Recent and historical growth rates provide context that can help the City plan the timing of water improvements needed to serve future growth. Based on historical growth rates, the City elected to use a 1.8%annual growth rate for population growth projections.Typical industrial growth has a relatively small impact on the water system due to low unit demands. However, a few large industries with high water demands can significantly affect the system.There has been a recent trend in large industries developing in the City, which is anticipated to continue. ES.4 WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND EVALUATION SUMMARY The City's most critical supply source lies across the Snake River Canyon at the Blue Lakes Spring, which draws groundwater from the Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer(ESPA).The hydrology of this system is complex and there are many water rights associated with this point of diversion. There are two users with water rights that are senior to the City,and aquifer levels have historically been declining,which puts the City in the vulnerable position. For this reason, an aquifer supply trend analysis was performed for this location and found that despite recent water recharge efforts,the long-term trendline of the aquifer supply is still declining.This analysis also revealed how much the South Wells can be expected to decline over the next 30 years. Evaluation of the water demand revealed unique conditions within the City of Twin Falls. Due to heavy water conservation efforts and a transition to Pressure Irrigation systems fed by local canal companies, the Maximum Day water demand has reached its lowest point in over 20 years. The change is best illustrated by evaluating per-capita demands over the last 20 years, as seen below in Figure ES-1. 900 800 700 600 CU aEi 500 0 400 300 Y 200 Q v 100 v a 0 0<0 1-f - 4i 0 �° �O yl yL ,� by ti� 11 1� yoi ti0 �o yo do yo tioo - do yo ,yo yo ,yo - yo �o Figure ES-1—City of Twin Falls Per-Capita Max Day Demand (2000-2020) Z City of Twin Falls Comprehensive Plan (2016). City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 2 Maximum Day and Peak Hour demands put the most strain on a water system, and due to trends of decline,the City's water system has fared well in terms of condition and capacity.The collective results of the water supply analysis were compared to the water demand analysis and used to evaluate how much of a supply deficiency the City may experience at some point in the future,which was used to recommend improvements in Chapter 6. Despite trends of declining water demand, water demand was projected to increase over the next 20 years. Residential demands were projected to rise gradually after accounting for continued declines in per-capita usage, while specific demands that are anticipated from new or existing industrial users in certain years will add demand in "steps" as shown below in Figure ES-2. The increase in demand without these expected large additions from industrial users is shown for comparison. 35 24%of Twin Falls County Projected Demand in Exceptional Drought, 75%in Extreme Drought , 30.7 Water Conservation , Ordinance Passed , 17 PI Stations brought ; Increase from Industrial User Q online by 2008 ; 28.47 C Increase from Industrial User C , , C M E 25 Population Growth al Rate Peaked Projected Increase without Industrial Growth X 23.2 fC0 , C , , , i , Energy Policy Act Passed in 1992 ; Steady Increase Due to PI User Population Growth& Twin Falls Per-Capita Usage Decreases 38GPCD 1992-2020 ; Efficiency Improvements for Non-PI Users A � A , 15 N M u1 N (n 14 M u, r. m N cn u, N (n N M u, n (n N O O O O O N N N N N M M M M M a O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Figure ES-2—Historic Water Demand Versus Projected Water Demand ES.5 EVALUATION OF EXISTING WATER SYSTEM SUMMARY A hydraulic water model was used to evaluate the existing water system in three growth conditions: existing, committed (anticipated developments within 20 years with no improvements),and full build-out of the Study Area (also known as the "Master Plan"). Further details regarding each growth condition and demand scenario (the "test configurations") can be found in Table 5-5 and Section 5.5. Each test configuration was designed to evaluate a specific set of criteria. For example, deficiencies discovered during existing demands would likely have a higher priority for improvements than would items falling under committed conditions. Further details regarding the model parameters can be found in Appendix D.2. A brief summary of the evaluation of the existing water system is presented in Table ES-3. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 3 Table ES-3 Water System Evaluation Summary Overall Capacity I ❑ I ❑ Water Supply Redundancy ❑ I ❑ Condition 0--I ❑ I Chlorination 0 I 0 I Water Meters 0 I 0 I Backup Power 0 I 0 I Pipe Size 0 I 0 I Pressure f 0 I 0 I Distribution System Fireflow I 0 I p I Condition ❑ I 0 I Overall Capacity ❑ 0 Booster Station Redundancy ❑ I ❑ I Condition I ❑ ❑ Storage Capacity f I] 0 Condition I ❑ ❑ CategoryWater Administration Annual Maintenance Budget/User Rates ❑ I ❑ I Water Quality 0 I 0 Flow Rate Water Rights I] I El Priority Date 0 I 0 I Licenses and Ordinances 0 0 KEY: IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED 0 None I ❑ Recommended I 0 Required I ES.6 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS SUMMARY Based on the results of the existing water system evaluation in Chapter 5, several improvements are recommended over the planning period. Chapter 6 provides an overview of the recommended improvements and a "primary' alternative for addressing the deficiencies in the existing water system. A "No Action"alternative is provided for contrast and to describe the harm that could potentially be caused by not constructing certain recommended improvements. Since infrastructure life cycles vary significantly, booster pump stations and disinfection systems were sized at 20-year demands while water rights,supply wells, storage tanks, and distribution pipes were sized at master plan demands. An additional section on drought resiliency describes the City's vulnerabilities to drought and how projects recommended within and outside of this Water Facilities Plan could mitigate those vulnerabilities.Additional recommendations are made for water conservation. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 4 ES.7 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND ALTERNATIVE SELECTION SUMMARY The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) summary sheet of the improvements recommended in Chapter 6 is provided in Table 7-1. This CIP is centered around two 10-year periods over the next 20 years, as well as an "As Needed"category;this summary sheet was created with the intention to remain flexible in its use. Three 10-year budget alternatives are presented in Chapter 7 that compare the City's projected revenue and expenditures to the capital improvements recommended over the next 10 years. The first two alternatives were created for the purpose of illustrating how the City may fund and complete the most critical improvements without a debt service, while the third illustrates how much of a debt may be accrued if implementation was to be accelerated. In reality, implementation of many of the projects may be limited by staff or funding availability, and only a few are critical enough that they are recommended to occur by a specific year.The budget alternatives were created for the City as a decision-making tool so that they can easily alter the project implementation schedule and see the effects on their budget and cash reserves. The City selected budget alternative #1 as their preferred alternative, which focuses on constructing the Harrison Storage Tank and South Well 5 before the Canyon Springs Pump Station. This alternative also addresses all Priority 1 distribution improvements but delays these projects in order to accrue funding for the storage tank and pump station. Chapter 7 also illustrates the effect of raising user rates to fund the recommended improvements and provides some additional explanation for project financing,environmental impacts, and the limitations of the report and hydraulic model. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 5 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE, NEED,AND PLAN FOR STUDY The City of Twin Falls(City)owns and operates a water supply,storage,and distribution system that serves a population of approximately 51,807 people. In September 2016, J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc. (J-U-B) completed a Water System Facilities Plan for the City that evaluated the water system and outlined recommendations for improvements necessary to provide a reliable system to meet the residential, commercial, industrial, irrigation and fire protection needs of the community. The Facilities Plan also addressed improvements to comply with the arsenic drinking water standard set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)in January 2001. During and after the 2016 Facilities Plan,the City constructed several improvements to their water system between 2016 and 2020. A list of the improvements identified in the previous Facilities Plan and completed by the City are given in Table 1-1. Table 1-1—Water System Improvements During 2016-2020 CITY OF WATER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 2016 FACILITIES PLAN IMPROVEMENTS Supply Cost Storage Cost Blue Lakes Wells-Pump Replacements $0.9 Million New Harrison Tank- Land Acquisition $1 Million Source Development-Test Wells drilled $0.1 Million Pump Stations South Well#5-Bore Hole drilled $0.3 Million Wills Pump Station-New Building&Pumps $4.2 Million Transmission/Distribution Harrison Pump Station-Inspection Replacements/Repairs Service Eastland Ave(Orchard to Highland) Water Meter Replacements $0.35 Million/yr Diamond Ave(E of Washington) Sprinkler System Backflow Prevention Tracking 3rd Ave W Back-up Power Martin and Bracken St Alley Blue Lakes Wells-New Generator City Hall/Historic Ballroom Area South Well#3-Wills PS Generator Relocated to SW3 Rock Creek Pipeline Leak Repair Disinfection Ongoing maintenance in Seal Coat Zones Canyon Springs Pump Station-New Chlorination System New Additions Water Administration Orchard&Madrona(N to Osterloh) Water Rights-Negotiations with Protestors New Wills PS Transmission Pipeline(E 3600 N) Water Rights-Acquisitions Pursued Cheney Dr Distribution Classification-Upgraded to Class IV Ownership Acceptance of Subdivision Pipes Hankins Pressure Zone Realignment Project-Under Design PI Conversion Arsenic Bond-Payment>90%Completed Perinne Point Area Water User Rates-Restructured South Hills Area Idaho Power Incentives Pursued Grandview Area The City anticipates continued residential,commercial,and industrial development and desires to provide a reliable water system to support this growth. Furthermore, the City continues to expect seasonal fluctuations and long-term declines in their existing groundwater supplies and would like to investigate the long-term viability of their water supply. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 6 As a result of these recent changes to their water system infrastructure and their concerns regarding water supply and demand,the City authorized J-U-B to prepare this update to their Water System Facilities Plan. This Facilities Plan analyzes the City's existing water system and identifies potential improvements to address their short- and long-term community water system needs. The ultimate goal of this report is to create a comprehensive guide that will assist the City with long-term strategic and financial planning and support their ability to remain adaptable to anticipated as well as unforeseen future challenges.This Facilities Plan is generally prepared in accordance with most provisions of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEA) Water Pollution Control State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) program requirements and with State regulations (IDAPA 58.01.08.502). 1.2 REPORT ORGANIZATION The report is organized into seven chapters, including: • Chapter 1 — Introduction • Chapter 2 — Existing Water System o An overview of the existing water system components, operations, water quality, protective programs, and water rights. • Chapter 3 — Growth Projections o An assessment of historical trends in population, land use, and water demand, as well as a projection of future conditions based on these trends. • Chapter 4— Water Supply and Demand o A detailed analysis of past, present, and future water supply and demand • Chapter 5 — Evaluation of Existing Water System o An evaluation of the existing the water system facilities with respect to existing and 20- year demands • Chapter 6 — Recommended Improvements o A presentation of recommended improvements based on the projected demand to the system over the study period and known deficiencies; planning level opinions of probable cost are provided. • Chapter 7 — Capital Improvement Plan o A summary of the conclusions from this Facilities Plan,a suggested implementation time frame, possible financing scenarios, and other relevant information. A further breakdown on the Facilities Plan organization is provided in the Table of Contents. A table of acronyms and definitions is provided at the beginning of this document. 1.3 PROJECT RESPONSIBILITY The City regularly updates their Facilities Plan in order to responsibly take care of their water system and prepare for future growth and maintenance issues. The City has dedicated staff from their public works and engineering departments to assist in planning, designing, and implementing necessary water system improvements. J-U-B, who is has over 60 years of experience in water system planning, design, bidding, and construction, and has the resources to assist the city with their water infrastructure plans. Following the screening and selection of improvements,the City will evaluate what steps to take regarding funding or financing improvements to their system. The City has ample experience in obtaining financial resources to complete necessary water system improvements, and all prior debt obligations have been responsibly handled. Potential funding sources for future projects may include State and Federal grants and/or loan funding, private funding, development fees, and/or City cash reserves. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 7 2 EXISTING WATER SYSTEM 2.1 PLANNING AREA This Facilities Plan is based on a specific planning area,which represents the geographical area for which the City intends to provide water service at ultimate build-out and corresponds to the impact area boundary depicted in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan. Figure 2-1 shows the planning area,the existing city utility service area, and the existing corporate city limits for Twin Falls. Additional items regarding the existing environmental conditions in the planning area are provided in Appendix A. 2.2 EXISTING WATER FACILITIES 2.2.1 Summary The City's existing water system consists of ten supply wells, six storage tanks, six booster pump stations, three chlorine disinfection systems, a distribution network, back-up power supplies, and a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system. The existing water system is shown in Figure 2-2. Further details regarding the water system facilities and administration items can be found in Appendix B and Appendix C, respectively. 2.2.2 Supply Wells Drinking water for domestic, commercial, and industrial purposes is currently supplied to the City by ten groundwater' wells. Chlorine is injected into the water produced from each well using on-site sodium hypochlorite generation systems prior to storage. Table 2-1 summarizes general information about each of the wells. Figure 2-3 illustrates the hydraulic profile of the water system components and Figure 2-4 summarizes supply well depth, average water table depth, ground elevation, and distribution system pressure at the hydraulic grade line. Well logs and pump curves can be found in Appendix B. Table 2-1—Existing Water Supply Summary ProductionPotential Well Seasonal Casing MotorSize Pump Rates FIOWS2 Blue Lakes#14 72 125 hp(4) 26.1 —33.91 26.1 —33.9 South Well#1 16 and 20 200 hp 1.0—2.6 South Well#2 16 and 20 75 hp 1.0—1.0 South Well#3 20 350 hp 0.25—2.4 South Well#4 18 and 20 250 hp 0.74—3.6 4.10—8.6 Hankins Well#1 12 and 16 75 hp 0.08—0.7 Hankins Well#2 12 and 16 40 hp 0.01 —0.3 0.1 —0.5 1. Limitations are based on water right structure.See Chapter 4 for detailed analysis. 2. Varying seasonal aquifer levels will affect combined pumping rates. 'The term "groundwater" represents typical usage; Named entities may use the atypical term "Ground Water' City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 8 � IIIII w + M i�l■ Y i _ '::::: ■ I• ��" IIIIIIIJ:IIII■CII=?� ■�IINII ��" "V �i�■ Ilmn un�`'11i � _ •�i�'11111Niiu� r _. ■ Ir I==�■ ■ z ■I:::c M M ■E" ■11MEMO:11■■Elm, ��■ ■■�? �GII« ■■■M z z z M R z z z z �� ■� IIM M ; _ _ _ _ _ _ = i" ;III i i i Z i ' = ly , �� .II 'III ��■�iIIL��ii"Illi■oiM ■�IIIINN Legend 1�M4EE:w City Utility Service Boundary M z z z Mile Roads i z z z z z z z z z z z z z z Railroads City Limits Parcels Figure 2- 1 0 7,000 - - - - Study Area 1 inch = 7,000 Fee Go M N O ti I % N n 2 �� ~ BLUE LAKES WELLS W ` `` > ` 0 zoft` CANYON SPRINGS BOOSTER STATION LE NE O G v! _ Lu a W Q F 3 p' W FALLS HARRISON STORAGE TANK___ HARRISON HIGH/LOW LEVEL BOOSTER STATION Y BLENDING BOOSTER STATION a z 5 ADDISON " Y a x HANKINS STORAGE TANKS �;HANKINS ANKINS WELL#2 SOUTH PARK YIMBERLY WELL#1 ' HANKINS BOOSTER STATION ELDRIDGE STORAGE TANK ELDRIDGE BOOSTER STATION ORCHARD TO HANKINS/ELDRIDGE TANKS I SOUTH STORAGE TANKS FUTURE SOUTH WELL#5� WILLS BOOSTER STATION Legend 3600 OwAs 2016 Comprehensive Plan Boundary SOUTH WELL#4 -EE:0 City Utility Service Boundary SOUTH WELL!#3 SOUTH WELL#,1 SOUTH WELL!#2 I Supply Pipes -Mile Roads a *' Booster Stations r Tanks �i • Wells Parcels Qj Existing Pressure Zones Low Level N 0 v Low Level S _T High Level V Hankins ii Eldridge c 4 South N p South S Airport c 0 Ed �JUB , 0 7,000 z / ' 1 inch = 7,000 Feet 3: J•U•B ENGINEERS,INC. 1`'MIN FALL'' m Water System Network — Hydraulic Profile e� WATER 3 3900 D ►�� _ �� ® FACILITIES -I ' FJ MASTER PLAN 0 3550 D �• iii ♦ �`�� 1 (S) 1 • • �Lf��nn �n 1 ��♦ v HMO � 1 EL 11 ►I4 � H 1 5 FIGURE 2-3 1 ae/ 1 (N); EXISTING WATER x 3750 G^ ® '--- 3700 • V ►I' HYDRAULIC PROFILE 3650 ►I' 3600 o • 0 v 3550 • DISTRIBUTION 3500 ••••>ELECTRICAL ® WELL 3450 ® TANK 3400 D BLUE n n E LAIM) ■ PUMP STATION £ UISNJ LS WLSc�I PRESSURE ZONE n 3350 GENERATOR 3 n 3300 V DISINFECTION PRESSURE LL 3250 �• ►I� REGULATING VALV 3 • FLOW METER 460 a^ ��M � L� 3200 l�G=N if OK OOJUEW ELE .(FT) 1 1- 1 1- 1 1- 1 1- 1- 1 �- �- . . . . . . . . . . . . .ton 01 Blue Lakes Well#1 06 Canyon Booster Station 11 Low Level Pressure Zone(North) 16 South Well#1 21 Wills Booster Generator 26 Hankins Tank#1 31 Eldridge Pressure Zone 02 Blue Lakes Well#2 07 Harrison Tank 12 Harrison Blending Station 17 South Well#2 22 South Pressure Zone(South) 27 Hankins Tank#2 32 Eldridge Booster Station /J.0 BI 03 Blue Lakes Well#3 08 Harrison Booster Station 13 Blending Station Generator 18 South Well#3 23 South Pressure Zone(North) 28 Hankins Booster Station 33 Eldridge Tank .3 04 Blue Lakes Well#4 09 High Level Pressure Zone 14 South Tank#1 19 South Well#4 24 Hankins Well#1 29 Hankins Booster Generator J•V•G ENGINEERS,INC. 05 Blue Lakes Generator 10 Low Level Pressure Zone(South) 15 South Tank#2 20 Wills Booster Station 25 Hankins Well#2 30 Hankins Pressure Zone 4,200 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4,103 4,103 4,103 4,103 ...........................................................................-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.F............-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•-•T-- ------------- ------------- .......................................................................................................................................... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 WILLS BOOSTERS 1 1 1 STATION(73 PSI) 1 SYSTEM 1 1 1 1 (SOUTH WELLS#1-4) 1 1 1 ' PRESSURE 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4,000 ........................................................................1.....i-73•PS4j................................L.........1.......................................................L.........1.......................................................L.........1.......................................................L...............................8;9.7.7.....................................................3;977........................... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 --------------1 --------------1 i 1 3,934 1 1 3,930 ' 1 ' 1 1 ' HANKINS BOOSTER 3,911 1 1 ' 3,912 i i 3,911 i 1 STATION(80 PSI) 1 --------------I ' :(HANKINS WELLS#1-2) 1 1 3 900 1....................................................... ......... ......... ......... ......... I................................................................I..... 1 ;..... GROUND :.......................................................1 ; 1 1 1 SURFACE 1 1 1 1 j HARRISON HIGH 1 LEVEL BOOSTER 1 3,800 33,800 1 ' 1 ' 1........SI�1I10111.(98.P..S1}........ - 1 3,792 ' 1 3 789 ' 3,800 1 ......... 3,780 ......... .................................................................L.........I.......................►...............................L..... 1 1 - - - ------------ i 3,730 3,730 c 1 3,700 3,fi8a...................E......... — ....— ' I w ------------- I ' 3,600 I ' I ' i - CANYON SPRINGS � ———--- ' BOOSTER � `"`"-----f f ------------- ------------- 3,310 I � I � I I ' I ' I � I 3,300 ......... ......... ......... ------�- ......... ..... STRATA ROCK BELOW WELL 3,200 Blue Lakes Wells South Well#1 South Well#2 South Well#3 South Well#4 Hankins Well#1 Hankins Well#2 CITY OF WATER SYSTEM l(JUB I FACILITIES PLAN F 4eRv190 J•U-B ENGINEERS, INC. 2.2.3 Chlorination Systems The City provides chlorine disinfection of the water produced by the supply wells prior to storage. On-site sodium hypochlorite generation systems are used at the Blue Lakes,South,and Hankins Wells.A summary of the existing disinfection systems is shown in Table 2-2. Table 2-2—Existing Disinfection System Summary Day Tank On-Site Size Capacity Concentration Concentration Volume' Blue Lakes 4,800 200 0.80% 0.5 5.7 South Wells 1,600 100 0.80% 0.5 10 Hankins Wells 1,000 30 0.80% 0.5 2 'Contact volume=Storage Tank Capacity+Transmission Line Capacity(from Canyon Springs to Harrison Pump Stations) 2.2.4 Storage Tanks The City operates six storage tanks that provide water for flow equalization, fire flow, and emergency water demands (see Figure 2-2). Table 2-3 summarizes general information about each of the existing storage tanks. Table 2-3—Existing Water Storage Tanks Summary StorageInside Nominal Diameter Height Storage Tank Date Material (ft) (ft) Volume(MG) Source Distribution High Level PZ1 Harrison Tank 1966 Concrete 160 33.25 5 Blue Lakes Wells Low Level PZ North/South Blending with South Wells South Tank#1 1939 Concrete 208 20 5 South Wells 1-4, High Level PZ Blending Line South PZ North/South South Tank#2 1999 Concrete 210 21 5 Hankins/Eldridge PZ Hankins Tank#1 1999 Concrete 120 25 2 Hankins Wells, Hankins PZ South Tanks Hankins Tank#2 2015 Concrete 193 24.5 5 Hankins Wells, Hankins PZ South Tanks Eldridge Tank 1987 Steel 81.2 19 0.736 South Tanks Eldridge PZ Total Storage Volume 22.736 1. PZ=Pressure Zone 2.2.5 Booster Pump Stations The existing water system currently contains six booster pump stations (see Figure 2-2). The pump stations take water from the wells and/or storage tanks and discharge it through dedicated transmission mains to other storage tanks or to the distribution system for consumption. The City typically targets pressures in the distribution system of 60 to 85 pounds per square inch(psi)and 40 to 100 psi at maximum day and peak hour demands, respectively. Table 2-4 summarizes the existing booster pump stations. Additional information on the booster pump curves can be found in Appendix B. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 13 Table 2-4—Existing Booster Pump Stations Summary Station& Number of Operating Point Operating Pumps&Size Firm CapaCity2 Rated .. Pressure (#), hp Flow .p .. g. Canyon Springs (1)500 Based on new Blue Lakes pumps 3 (Varies) (3) 1,000 and Testing Report(2009) 19,000 24,800 Harrison Low Level (2)300 7,200 161 83 @ 70 psi 7,200 14,400 Harrison High Level (1)250 3,350 226 83 @ 98 psis (3)450 6,100 226 82 15,550 21,650 Blending (4)250 2,550 303 83.1 (Varies) 8,200 10,300 (1)75 1,300 185 81 Hankins (1)75 1,300 185 81 @ 80 psi (1) 125 2,320 185 84 (3) 150 2,400 185 84 8,800-9,4004 11,500 Wills (2)40 600 179 80.5 @ 73 psi (3) 125 1,800 205 81.4 5,450 7,550 (1)50 850 173 73.5 Eldridge (1)75 1,600 173 87.9 @ 75 psi (1) 150 3,250 173 86 2,450 5,700 1. The Canyon Springs pumps and new Blue Lake Wells pumps combination can provide approximately 19,000 gpm with(3)Blue Lakes Wells pumps and(2) 1000 hp and(1)500 hp Canyon Springs pumps in operation. 2. Listed capacities are for new condition pumps at typical tank water levels and are within 5-10%of the existing capacities depending on tank water levels and the combination of pumps in operation."Firm capacity"assumes that the largest pump is out of service. 3. Maximum capacity with all pumps online;actual pumping from Blue Lakes wells will be limited to the maximum water right flow rate of 23,550 gpm. 4. Capacity varies due to different set-point pressures used throughout a given year. 5. Current pressure may be higher due to existing low pressures at the south end of the pressure zone that will eventually be fixed with a pressure zone change. 2.2.6 Pressure Zones The City distribution system is separated into seven pressure zones following the general topographic elevation gradient from south to north towards the Snake River.As distribution system pressures increase when moving from higher to lower elevations, pressure reducing valves placed along the boundary act to reduce system pressures. Existing pressure zones are shown in Figure 2-2. 2.2.7 Distribution System According to the City, there are about 18,000 metered connections to the existing water system. These connections are fed by a water distribution and transmission network which contains approximately 318 miles of pipe (see Table 2-5). Generally,the system consists of larger mains on mile and half mile roads as well as looped networks of pipe. Eight-inch and larger mains perform the function of delivering flow from the points of supply throughout the system. Six-inch and smaller pipes typically deliver water from the larger distribution mains to the users.The grid is configured so that flow is generally provided to any point in the system from two or more directions to stabilize system pressure, minimize friction loss,and prevent extreme low pressures and stagnant conditions. Up until 2011, the City maintained a policy of only allowing cast or ductile iron pipe to be used in the distribution system. Since 2011,they have allowed PVC pipe to be installed as well. A map of the water distribution system is shown in Figure 2-5. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 14 Table 2-5—Existing Distribution and Transmission Pipe Summary Total Length by Size' Pipe Proportion 1.5 592 0.04% 2 815 0.05% 4 122,445 7.30% 6 679,476 40.53% 8 361,441 21.56% 10 91,789 5.47% 12 218,259 13.02% 14 21,691 1.29% 16 34,713 2.07% 18 20,778 1.24% 20 22,847 1.36% 24 42,891 2.56% 30 46,051 2.75% 36 12,056 0.72% 42 822 0.05% Total(feet) 1,676,665 100% Total(miles) 317.6 1. This table is generated from the modeled distribution pipes and supply lines and does not account for all hydrant connections,dead-end pipes,service lines,or abandoned pipes. 2.2.8 Back-Up Power Systems There are back-up generators at several of the wells and booster pump stations. Generator sizes and locations are given below in Table 2-6. Table 2-6—Existing Back-up Power Systems Summary Nq tBooster an on S rin s - Blue Lakes 350 Harrison High Level - South Well#1 - Harrison Low Level - South Well#2 - Harrison Blending 1,000 South Well#3 300 Eldridge - South Well#4 - Hankins 900, Hankins Well#1 9001 Wills 800 Hankins Well#2 - 1. Combined generator City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 15 r _ '1!^I�■'1 11 -III I��I �I ■�1.� AIL_ " _��11��11 II 1�1 I■■f11_I I�'�",'I�■�_�_�_�_ h I Wo IR Low Level S "Low Level N High Level Hankins lam. Lwl�n=,_t• —�,�� I III IjEldridge South N Airport " Distribution Pi•- 1 � _ r^ Y� Diameter<4 1= Nr [ � " fir- 11�1:�;-'��•� " " II . 1 14 16 18 12 24 30 Figure 2-5 I 5,000 _____ Existing Distribution Pipes I inch = 5,000 -- 2.2.9 SCADA System The City has a SCADA system to monitor, control, alarm, log, and trend miscellaneous parameters (such as flows, pressures, etc.) within their water system. Each of the pump stations, tanks, and wells are connected to the SCADA system, with well pumping activity controlled by the water level in specific storage tanks. Current set-points for each of these system components are shown in Table 2-7. Table 2-7-Existing Water System Set-Points T Set-Points' Item Controlled By On Off Blue Lakes Wells Canyon Springs Pump Station Suction Pressure -60 psi(varies) Canyon Springs Booster 1 28.5 ft 29.5 ft Canyon Springs Booster 2 26.0 ft 29.0 ft Harrison Tank Level Canyon Springs Booster 3 25.0 ft 28.5 ft Canyon Springs Booster 4 15.0 ft 23.5 ft South Well 1 18.5 ft 18.9 ft South Well 2 18.5 ft 18.9 ft South Well 3 South Tank Level 18.5 ft 18.9 ft South Well 4 18.6 ft 19.0 ft Hankins Well 1 21.5 ft 22.0 ft Hankins Well 2 Hankins Tank Level 21.5 ft 22.0 ft Harrison High Level Booster High Level PZ Pressure&South Tank Level 98 psi Harrison Low Level Booster Low Level PZ Pressure 70 psi Harrison Blending Booster South Well Flow Varies, pressure at 120 psi Hankins Booster Hankins PZ Pressure 80 psi Eldridge Booster Eldridge PZ Pressure 75 psi Wills Booster South PZ(South)Pressure 73 psi 1. Represents set-point pressures under ideal circumstances;actual set-points currently used by operators may differ slightly due to changes in the extent of service for a particular pressure zone as new customers are brought online. 2.3 EXISTING WATER SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION 2.3.1 Water Rights 2.3.1.1 Blue Lakes Wells Water Rights Several water rights have been perfected in the Blue Lakes system. The City of Twin Falls holds two groundwater rights totaling 52.47 cubic feet per second (CFS; 33.9 MGD), as listed in Table 2-8. Table 2-8-Blue Lakes Spring and Alpheus Creek Water Rights 36-2603A 4/17/1964 45.0 29.1 Decreed 36-2646 3/29/1966 7.47 4.83 Decreed The distribution of water rights In the Blue Lakes system is shown in Table 2-9 and Figure 2-6. The City of Twin Falls is the most upstream diverter from the Blue Lakes Spring system, with wells diverting at the spring head. The spring water that is not diverted into the City system flows through the two Blue Lakes and then underground to several springs in the Alpheus Complex. These springs combine to form Alpheus City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 17 Creek, from which the remaining water rights are diverted. Because of the underground connection, a delay of 1 to 2 days occurs between changes in pumping from the City wells and a corresponding change in Alpheus Creek. However, because the delay is relatively small, the entire system is administered as a single source by the Watermaster. Table 2-9-Blue Lakes System Water Right Distribution Right Cumulative Location Priority Date cfs mgdcfs mgd Blue Lakes Country Club(BLCC) 5/26/1949 1.2 0.8 1.2 0.8 Idaho Ground Water Users Association(IGWUA) 5/29/1958 99.8 64.5 101 65.3 City of Twin Falls 4/17/1964 45 29.1 146 94.4 State of Idaho/Dedicated to BLTF call 4/17/1964 10 6.5 156 100.8 City of Twin Falls 3/29/1966 7.5 4.8 163.5 105.7 State of Idaho/Subordinated to City of T.F. Subordinated to City 1966-03-29 15.3 9.9 178.8 115.6 Idaho Ground Water Users Association(IGWUA) 11/17/1971 45 29.1 223.8 144.7 McCollum Enterprises LLC 4/24/1972 6 3.9 229.8 148.5 Blue Lakes Trout Farm, Inc.(BLTF) 12/28/1973 52.23 33.8 282.0 182.3 McCollum Enterprises LLC 3/1/1987 0.46 0.3 282.5 182.6 Blue Lakes Country Club(BLCC) 7/19/1991 0.7 0.5 283.2 183.0 BLCC 1991 McCollum 1987 0.7 cfs BLCC 1949 0.46 cfs 1.2 cfs BLTF 1973 52.23 cfs IGWUA 1958 99.8 cfs McCollum 1972 6 cfs IGWUA 1971 45 cfs State of Idaho/ Subordinated to City of T.F. 15.3 cfs City of Twin Falls 1966 City of Twin Falls 1964 7.5 cfs State of Idaho/Dedicated 45 cfs to BLTF call 196410 cfs TWIN INL! R WATER SYSTEM (J-UB IEIBROCKYYAY _ FACILITIES PLAN ENGINEERING J•U•B ENGINEERS,INC. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 18 There are 11 water rights on Blue Lakes and/or Alpheus Creek,the earliest priority being a small right with a 1949 priority date belonging to Blue Lakes Country Club. Next in line is the Blue Lakes Trout Farm right owned by the Idaho Ground Water Association (IGWA).This right allows 99.8 cfs for fish propagation and is senior to the City of Twin Falls 1964 right.A 25.3 cfs water right formerly held by Pristine Springs shares the April 17, 1964 priority with the City of Twin Falls. In 2007,the State of Idaho purchased Pristine Springs in its entirety, including the water right. The City of Twin Falls and the State entered into an agreement by which 15.3 cfs of the 25.3 cfs water right will be held in trust for the benefit of the City of Twin Falls, and the remaining 10 cfs will be dedicated to satisfying the water call on groundwater pumpers made by Blue Lakes Trout Farm.The agreement specifies that 15.3 cfs will be subordinated to the City's March 29, 1966 water right, thereby removing the potential for curtailment due to infringement on the Pristine water right. This arrangement does not provide any additional pumping authority beyond 52.47 cfs of existing water rights but will allow the City to divert up to this maximum when the total water supply is 15.3 cfs lower as compared to the original water right structure. Referring to Table 2-9, the total required water supply in the Blue Lakes system to fill all of Twin Falls water rights is 163.5 cfs.There is an unmeasured gain in discharge from the springs to Alpheus Creek(the "bypass flow") of about 30 cfs on average (varying from approximately 20 to 40 cfs; see Section 4.1.1.2). This means that approximately 133.5 cfs must be available at the spring source to supply all of the City's water rights.The natural inflow at Blue Lakes Spring dropped below this level almost every year from 2004 to 2016 and has fallen as low as 113 cfs, according to the USGS reported flow (see Figure 4-2).The spring inflow has rebounded greatly since 2018 due to groundwater recharge efforts, with a low flow of about 150 cfs in 2019 and about 158 cfs in 2020. With the creation of Water District 130, a Watermaster has been appointed to administer rights in the district, including those on Alpheus Creek. The Watermaster has developed a mechanism by which rights within Blue Lakes Springs and Alpheus Creek may be curtailed based on the total available water supply as calculated above based on the discharge measurement at the Blue Lakes Trout Company weir. This weir provides the most accurate measurement of the total water supply in the system. 2.3.1.2 South Wells Water Rights Existing water rights appurtenant to the South Wells are summarized in Table 2-10. Table 2-10—South Wells Water Rights Distribution Diversion Rate � Right No. Priority Date US IVIGD Status Wells 47-2361 1 12/11/1961 2.33 1.5 Decreed Well#1 47-2373 4/24/1963 6.25 4.0 Decreed Well#2 47-8389A 10/31/1995 7.0 4.5 License Wells#1 -#4 47-8389B 10/31/1995 14.0 9.0 Permit I Protested Wells#1 -#4 Unprotested diversion rate: 15.58 10.1 Permit 47-8389 was originally protested by the College of Southern Idaho, who subsequently agreed to withdraw its protest on 7.0 cfs of the water right and retain its protest on the remaining 14.0 cfs.The right was split into A and B parts to reflect this agreement. Part A was ultimately licensed by the Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) in June 2009 for the full 7.0 cfs. The diversion rate of 15.58 cfs allowed by the water rights in place is adequate to supply the existing peak well yield. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 19 2.3.1.3 Hankins Wells Water Rights One water right permit (47-8406) is applicable to the two Hankins wells, allowing 6.0 cfs for municipal purposes. This permit was licensed in March 2012. The allowable 6.0 cfs is more than adequate to cover the peak yield of the Hankins Wells. 2.3.1.4 Sunnybrook Springs Water Rights Pursuant to the agreement executed in 2007 between the City of Twin Falls and the State of Idaho, the City was authorized to investigate and potentially develop Sunnybrook Spring as a municipal water source. A hydrologic investigation, including a pumping test and preliminary feasibility of a spring collection system was completed in 2010. An application for a water right permit was submitted to IDWR in March 2008. The application requests an appropriation of 41.9 cfs for municipal purposes, to be collected from the Sunnybrook Spring source and pumped to the City system. The application was advertised and protested by Clear Springs Foods, Inc., Blue Lakes Country Club, Inc., and Blue Lakes Trout, Inc. Subsequent to the advertisement, IGWUA purchased Blue Lakes Trout and inherited the protest of the application. A stipulation to resolve the protests was filed; however, IDWR found the stipulation to be unacceptable and still considers the application protested. Further, IDWR has stated that additional information is required to address questions regarding potential consumptive use of the water,the source and quantity of water,and issues regarding reasonably anticipated future needs (RAFN). 2.3.2 Surface and Groundwater Administration and Water Calls The State of Idaho has adopted the prior appropriation doctrine for water rights. The basic tenet of this doctrine is"first in time,first in right", meaning that earlier priority rights(both surface and groundwater) are protected from injury caused by use byjunior priority water rights.The administration of water rights is authorized by the State by the creation of Water Districts and appointment of Watermasters within each district. Additionally, in 1994 the State adopted the "Rules for Conjunctive Management of Ground Water Resources"to govern the administration of areas having a common groundwater supply. Under the prior appropriation doctrine, if a senior water right holder perceives that their water right is being injured by use of a junior water right or if the senior water right holder believes their water right is not being delivered in accordance with the law, they can initiate a "delivery call". A "delivery call" is defined by Rule 10.04 of the Conjunctive Management Rules as "a request from the holder of a water right for administration of water rights under the prior appropriation doctrine". Several "delivery calls" have been made over the past 10 years that could potentially impact the City's Blue Lakes water rights. A more detailed discussion of these water calls and their resolution can be found in Appendix C.1.1. 2.3.3 Ground Water Quality Rule The Ground Water Quality Rule applies to public water systems that use groundwater. It requires periodic sanitary surveys and source water monitoring to ensure source water is not contaminated. Because the City has provided compliance monitoring demonstrating at least 99.99 percent (4-log) inactivation of viruses and have no total coliform positive samples in the distribution system, they are not required to disinfect. However,the City voluntarily provides chlorination to prevent bacterial contamination. 2.3.4 Existing User Charge Rate and System Budget There are currently approximately 17,700 metered connections in the water system.The existing monthly user rates are shown below in Table 2-11.The base fee is a fixed monthly rate of$20.33 for the first 2,000 gallons of water, with additional fees for every 1,000 gallons of water used beyond that amount. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 20 Table 2-11—Existing User Rate Fee Structure Gallons Supplied Additional Charge per 000 gallons Base Rate(up to 2,000) $20.33 3,000 to 150,000 $1.97 151,000to 10,000,000 $0.90 10,000,000 and above $0.65 User rates and connection fees provide a revenue source for the operation and maintenance of the water system. The water system budget is managed in five categories: Water Supply, Pressurized Irrigation, Water Distribution, Utility Services, and Water Transfers. This budget includes operation and maintenance, personnel, capital, and overhead expense subcategories. The summarized balance sheets for the period from 2016 to 2020 are included in Appendix C.2. 2.3.5 IDEQ Sanitary Survey The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) conducted a sanitary survey of the City water system in 2018. Overall results of the Sanitary Survey indicate that the City's system is in compliance with the regulations for public drinking water systems. A copy of the most recent Sanitary Survey, including IDEQ recommendations, is included in Appendix C.3. 2.3.6 Consumer Confidence Report The City's most recent Consumer Confidence Report can be found on their website: http://www.tfid.org/ 2.3.7 Cross-Connection Control The City currently has a cross-connection control ordinance (see Appendix C.4) in place to protect the quality of their water supply. As part of the cross-connection control program, backflow prevention devices are required on potential sources of contamination (i.e., service connections, irrigation lines). 2.3.8 Source Water/Wellhead Protection Program City personnel have reviewed and updated the Source Water Protection Plan to comply with the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. 2.3.9 Source Water Assessment In June 2001, a Source Water Assessment was completed to comply with the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996.The most recent plan was written in 2002. 2.3.10 Municipal Classification and Operator Certification The City is considered a Class IV distribution system and does not have a treatment classification. A summary of the City's Operator Certifications for drinking water distribution are located in Table 2-12. Table 2-12—Operator Certification Summary Operator Certification Classifications(Total Personnel) Water Distribution DWD4 DWD3 DWD2 DWD1 Count of Licenses 5 6 6 4 1.As of 9/6/2022 City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 21 3 GROWTH PROJECTIONS 3.1 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT According to the City's Comprehensive Plan (2016), "...future land uses and patterns should be efficient and sustainable; should support a multimodal transportation network; should provide more mixed use developments;should provide housing choices so that families may age in place;should minimize conflicts between incompatible uses; and should integrate new development with existing and planned infrastructure while preserving the character of Twin Falls.". Key decisions affecting the growth of the City's water facilities were based on these general goals and discussions with City staff. These decisions included the amount of infill versus new development, the change in per capita demand overtime, future land uses, and other related assumptions (Section 4.3.1). 3.2 HISTORICAL POPULATION GROWTH Figure 3-1 shows population data recorded by the U.S. Census Bureau over the past 80 years, as well as several different projected growth scenarios.A decline in growth rates over the past 15 years has resulted in a linear growth trend beginning around 2006, which is evident from the best fit logistic curve shown in this figure. 140,000 Peak Growth Rate I 2.0% 120,000 I I I Logistic I j 100,000 I I C Exponential Growth Linear Growth j 80,000 4.0 I � I Q I a 60,000 1 I I I Recorded Population 1 —Predicted Population(Logistic) 40,000 Predicted Population(2%) —Predicted Population(1.8%) —Predicted Population(1.6%) 20,000 1 —Predicted Population(1.38%) I I 1940 Census(Lower Boundary Condition) (11,851 People) I 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 'TWIN FM1.1� { WATER SYSTEM (JUB I ` FACILITIES PLAN . . � J-U-B ENGINEERS,INC. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 22 The recorded population values shown in Figure 3-1 are presented in Table 3-1 below, along with the compound annual growth rate (CAGR; constant rate, variable return) for each ten-year period over the past 80 years. Overall, the CAGR from 1940 to 2020 was approximately 1.86 percent. The linear growth rate (variable rate, constant return)for the most recent ten-year period was approximately 1.74 percent. Table 3-1—Historical Population Growth CompoundYear Population' Growt�;A 1940 11,851 - 1950 17,600 4.03% 1960 20,126 1.35% 1970 21,914 0.85% 1980 26,209 1.81% 1990 27,591 0.52% 2000 34,469 2.25% 2010 44,125 2.50% 2020 51,807 1.62% 1. Data from U.S.Census Bureau. 2. CAGR(constant annual rate,variable return)_(Pt/Po)^(1/(t—to))—1 3.3 PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH 3.3.1 Residential Growth Population projections were developed for the 20- and 50-year planning period to provide the basis for forecasting water demands and for evaluating the need for future water system facilities. Due to the recent change in growth trends shown in Figure 3-1, five different growth scenarios were presented to the City for consideration: 1) Logistic—A variable, descending annual growth rate following the logistic curve in Figure 3-1 2) Constant 2%—A constant annual growth rate of 2%, as in the previous Water Facilities Plan 3) Constant 1.8%—The current annual rate according to the best fit logistic curve 4) Constant 1.6%—Slightly less than the current annual rate according to the best fit logistic curve 5) Constant 1.38%—Matching the growth rate presented in the 2016 Comprehensive Plan The results of these five growth scenarios are summarized in Table 3-2. Based on discussions with the City regarding historical growth, land use, and development patterns in the area, the City selected an annual growth rate of 1.8%as the most reasonable estimate of population growth for planning purposes. Table 3-2—Projected Population Growth Results PredictedYear Predicted Predicted Predicted Predicted Population Population(2%) Population(1.8%) Population(1.6%) Population(1.38%) .. 2041 78,522 75,351 72,303 69,085 72,842 2071 142,232 128,689 116,404 104,221 98,966 City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 23 3.3.2 Industrial Growth Over the past few decades, the City has experienced consistent growth in industrial demand. A few industries have recently constructed facilities while several others are considering Twin Falls as a potential development site.The City anticipates that this trend will persist into the future and that they will continue to welcome new industrial users. In general,the industries that have recently constructed facilities or expressed a desire to develop in the area have been facilities with higher water demands than a typical light-commercial or light-industrial facility. As a result, this Facilities Plan includes an additional maximum day water demand for future industrial developments beyond the normal residential and commercial growth demands. Based on discussions with the City, the general location and average day water demand of future industrial users was determined for the 20-year(committed) planning period and the full build-out planning period;these demands are shown in Figure 3-2 and Figure 3-3, respectively. As shown in Figure 3-2, it is anticipated that the average day demand from industries will increase by approximately 1.0 MGD in the next 5 years, and then by an additional 1.3 MGD in the following 15 years. By the time the City grows to the full build-out of the impact area, an additional 13.0 MGD of water demand is expected to be added by new industrial users. The actual location and demand of each future industrial user may vary from these projections and will need to be re-evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Table 3-3—Average Day Demand of Future Industrial Users by Pressure Zone Pressure Zone Average Day Demand (MGD) t .. Low Level Pressure Zone(North) - Low Level PZ(South) - 2.0 High Level PZ 0.5 1.5 Hankins PZ 1.3 3.0 Eldridge PZ - 1.0 South PZ(North) 0.5 4.5 South PZ(South) - 1.0 Totals 2.3 13.0 1. 20-Year projected industrial demand includes an additional 1.2 MGD(location independent)as a"drought buffer" 2. Master plan demands are in addition to 20-Year projected demands City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 24 ©2016 Comprehensive Plan Boundary ©City Utility Service Boundary -Mile Roads Railroads f Low Level Pressure♦ Zone(North) • n LLPZN POLE LINE Low Level Pressure Zone(South) FALLS LLPZS WE 0I0IIIII 11N7UNN_911 ADDISON High Level Pressure Zone H LPZ 0.5 MGD Hankins SOUTH PARK Pressure Zone HPZ KIMBERLY 1.3 MGD 0.5 MGD Eldridge South Pressure Pressure Zone ORCHARD. Zone(North) EPZ SPZN � {{ LI M� 11,04l Pressure ° Y z z 3600 , Zone(South) F = SPZS a W 3 _ z d�o U) Y 3 i`� N. *Values represent expected flows from any potential future industrial user and do not imply limitation **Exact location of demand is arbitrary; expected flow can be served anywhere within a given pressure zone ***1.2 MGD-of-additional■demand.(not shownlabove) is included in 20-Year Projections as a "drought buffer" 0 5,000 1 inch = 5,000 Feet J•U•B ENGINEERS,INC. ©2016 Comprehensive Plan Boundary ©City Utility Service Boundary -Mile Roads Railroads f Low Level Pressure♦ Zone(North) • - LLPZN POLE LINE Low Level Pressure Zone(South) FALLS LLPZS �I�IIII� '-IN-1 -1 AMDDISON High Level Pressure Zone H LPZ 1 MGD Hankins SOUTH PARK 0.5 MGD Pressure Zone i HPZ KIMBERLYI 1 2.5 MGD t I Eldridge Pressure Zone South Pressure EPZ 1.5 MGD ORCHARD . 2 MGD Zone(North) I SPZN 1 MGD Z �l 1 South Pressure IZ z 3600 , Zone(South) 1 MGD I� _ SPZS lQ W 3 _ z d�o UA Y Z •� = Fg 3 i`>t N. *Values represent expected flows from any potential future industrial user and do not imply limitation **Exact location of demand is arbitrary; expected flow can be served anywher"e within a given pressure zone ***1.2 MGD-of-additional-demand., of shownlabove) is included in 20-Year Projections as a "drought buffer" 0 5,000 1 inch - 5,000 Feet J•U•B ENGINEERS,INC. 1 a S 7 , M- 4 WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND 4.1 EXISTING WATER SUPPLY 4.1.1 Blue Lakes Wells 4.1.1.1 Blue Lakes Springs Hydrology and Measurements Inflow to the Blue Lakes system occurs at the Blue Lakes Spring, located at the northern end of Upper Blue Lake. Water issuing from this spring is groundwater from the Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer (ESPA) and exhibits both seasonal fluctuations and long-term trends. The hydrology of the Blue Lakes system is complex (see Figure 4-1). Extensive testing and analysis of the Lower Lake weir performance has been performed from 1995 through the present, including dye testing, topographic surveys, controlled pumping tests,development of a numerical hydrologic model of the entire Blue Lakes system,and various analytical evaluations of the hydraulics of the lake level control weir and the effect of spring inflow on weir performance.This work has resulted in a reasonably accurate picture of the hydrology and hydraulics of the Blue Lakes system. N WELL PUMPS GROUNDWATER LOWL4 BLUL WEIR �INFLOW LAKE HEIR UPPER BLUE LAKE LOWER BLUE USGS GAUGE / LAKE: ®O FICE SINK AREAS TWIN FALLS SUPPLY PIPELINE \ ROADSIDE CREEK \\ \ \ GROUNDWATER \ FI OW GROUND WATER \ \ BYPASS FLOW \ 2040 CFS-I- BLUE LAKES TROUT INLET 0 0 RINGS 'uPNEUS CREEK O QW BLUE LAKES COUNTRY CLUB PUMP TO CITY OF TWIN FALLS MC:COLLUM SYSTEM DIVERS ON BROCKWAY ENGINEERING,PLLC ALR 4-5-2004 1 CGB 6.22-2016 WIN t'' (U B BROCKWAY WATER SYSTEM - �, •' , ENGINEERING FACILITIES PLAN JUB ENGINEERS INC. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 27 The Blue Lakes Spring is located at the upper end of the Upper Blue Lake.A portion of the spring discharge is intercepted by the City's four wells just prior to the water issuing into the lake. The water flows through the lake and past the discharge gauging station located between the two lakes. At this location, the Blue Lakes spring discharge has historically been measured by a rated section maintained by the U.S.Geological Survey (USGS) from 1950 through 2008 and by the Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) since 2008. In order to obtain greater accuracy and stability of the discharge measurement, the City of Twin Falls installed a concrete broad-crested weir in the channel between the lakes and equipped it with a water level recorder connected to the City's SCADA system. This installation has been operational since July 2012. At the southern end of the lower lake,the City constructed a different type of weir in 1994 for the purpose of water level control.This structure is a rock weir designed to stabilize water levels in the lower lake given the varying discharges caused by changes in pumping rates from the wells. Water flowing over this weir sinks in various locations downstream of the weir. If the discharge is sufficiently large, some of the water emerges in a channel known as the "Roadside Creek" and flows on the surface for a few hundred feet before sinking again. The lower lake has a large hole in the talus at the bottom of the lake known as the"orifice."Approximately one-fourth to one-third of the flow entering the lower lake exits via the orifice. The bottom of the lower lake near the weir also has several crevices through which water flows into the talus. Underwater lining performed in the early 2000s appears to have reduce the crevice flows considerably; however, no effort has been made to regulate the flow through the orifice. Regardless of where it sinks or enters the talus, the water emerges from Alpheus Springs and forms Alpheus Creek. No water flows on the surface to Alpheus Creek. Near this location,the Blue Lakes Country Club pumps water from the creek for irrigation under a water right allowing a 1.2 cfs diversion rate, a very small fraction of the total flow.A small amount of water is also diverted from Alpheus Creek by McCollum Enterprises for transport across the Snake River for use on the golf course and for fish propagation. All water remaining in Alpheus Creek downstream of the Blue Lakes Country Club flows through the Blue Lakes Trout system. Until 2012,the discharge was measured by a 15-foot concrete broad-crest weir.Since that time, the discharge has been measured in a pipeline with an ultrasonic flow meter. Accuracy of the ultrasonic meter is expected to be greater than 98%, significantly better than the broad-crested weir which was subject to moss build-up. The hydraulic connection between the lake system and the Alpheus Creek system is direct, but not immediate. Based on previous pumping tests and hydrologic modeling,the time lag between pumping at the wells and response at the Blue Lakes Trout weir is on the order of 1 day, with full equilibrium likely requiring 2 to 3 days. One important characteristic of the Blue Lakes system is that some of the groundwater in the ESPA bypasses the spring and emerges directly in Alpheus Creek. The magnitude of the bypass flow has been difficult to quantify due to the gauging uncertainties described above. A better quantification has been made using data from the new broad-crested weir, and the bypass flow appears to range from roughly 20 to 40 cfs.Whatever the magnitude,this flow is reflected in the flow measurement at the Blue Lakes Trout pipeline and is relied upon by the Watermaster in administering the water rights in the entire system according to priority. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 28 4.1.1.2 Historic Patterns and Influences Figure 4-2 shows daily discharge at Blue Lakes Spring from 1950 to December 31, 2020. The discharge exhibits strong seasonality, typically peaking in October or November each year in response to irrigation recharge occurring during the season, and reaching a low point in May or June, prior to the time when the effect of irrigation recharge begins to be seen in the spring. Variability occurs primarily from: 1. Recharge of surface water on the plain occurs each year due to canal seepage and incidental irrigation recharge.The magnitude of this recharge varies seasonally, being zero during the non- irrigation season and typically reaching a peak during July and August. 2. Depletion from groundwater pumping for irrigation on the plain varies seasonally according to crop irrigation water requirements and contributes to the seasonal fluctuations in all springs issuing from the aquifer. 3. Long-term downward trends in the Blue Lakes Spring discharge have occurred and continue to occur primarily due to: a. Climatic effects (extended drought and wet periods). b. Changes in irrigation practices on the northside involving increased irrigation efficiencies, primarily from conversion to sprinkler irrigation, which have resulted in decreased surface water recharge to the ESPA. c. Pumping of groundwater for irrigation and other purposes on the plain, which accelerated during the 1950s through the 1970s. 260 250 240 Red line=365-day centered moving average 230 220 210 m 200 `m r 1 0 18090 o 170 Long-term exponentia trend line 1950-preseir 4 160 150 1950-30/16/200&USGS published dailyvalues 140 USGS corrected the 1995-2003 data for City of Twin Falls well pumping as follows: 1995-9/30/00:Regression with Box Canyon Spring(by USGS) 4/1/01-10/16/08:New City meters,average daily flow 130 30/17/2008-7/12/2012:Regression with Box Canyon and Briggs Spring(by Brockway) 120 7/13/2012-present:New Blue Lakes weir+City pumping(City SCADA record,calcs by Brockway) 110 1/1/1950 1/1/1960 1/1/1970 1/1/1980 1/1/1990 1/1/2000 1/1/2010 1/1/2020 l �ENE WATER SYSTEM I ( J-U-B I M BROCKWAY FACILITIES PLAN ENGINEERING ME" M W.. 1• ,,, 0 1I J-U B ENGINEERS,INC. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 29 A significant decline has occurred in the spring discharge since 1950. The lowest discharges on record occurred from 2010 through 2016. Most of the decline is due to decreases in irrigation recharge and increases in groundwater pumping as described above. The relationship between discharge from Blue Lakes spring and drought or wet conditions on the Eastern Snake River Plain is very weak. For example, Figure 4-3 illustrates the lagged correlations between monthly discharge at Blue Lakes Spring and monthly Palmer Drought Severity Index(PDSI)as calculated by the Western Regional Climate Center for the period of record 1950-1920. The maximum correlation using the PDSI for the entire Upper Snake basin is only 0.15,corresponding to a lag of three years which agrees with general observation of spring response time. For the Central Plains climate division (a smaller area centered around the Jerome-Shoshone area), the maximum correlation is 0.11 with a lag of two years. Climate Division: Central Plains —Hydrologic Unit: Upper Snake 0.1000 0.1500 y 0.1000 v G) O 0.0500 0 m d 0 0.0000 u -0.0500 \ -0.1000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Lag(years) WATER SYSTEM ('J-U-B BROCKWAY FACILITIES PLAN ENGINEERING - J•U•B ENGINEERS,INC. It is concluded that only a small fraction of the variation in monthly discharge is explained by general water supply conditions in the basin. Similar results are obtained when applying the same analysis to annual values. Still, drought or wet periods, though not the primary influence, can influence flow conditions especially when the periods are prolonged. Examples would be the downward trends from 1987 to 1994 and from 2000 to 2006. The second conclusion is that water supply conditions in the basin have the greatest effect on Blue Lakes Spring discharge from 20 to 50 months after the conditions occur; as a general rule, drought or wet water supply conditions on the Eastern Snake River Plain are realized in the spring discharge about the third year after their occurrence. Finally,the rebound observed since 2016 is not adequately explained by the relatively wet conditions prevailing from 2016 through 2019,indicating City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 30 that some other environmental factor must be having a significant influence.The restoration actions taken by Idaho Ground Water Users Association (IGWUA) and the State of Idaho are most likely the cause. Stabilization of the spring flow occurred in 2006, leading to 11 years with nearly the same annual average flow. The lowest flow on record, 113 cfs, was observed in 2015 and 2017 (See Figure 4-4), but a pronounced upward trend has occurred since then, with increases in average annual flows every year from 2017 through 2020. Annual average flow in 2020 was 174 cfs, compared to 136 cfs in 2016 and is the highest since 1999. Periods with stable or increasing flows have been observed numerous times since 1950, but the overall downward trend always resumed after the recovery period (for example, 1983-1987 and 1994-1998). The difference now is the settlement between the Surface Water Coalition (SWC) and the IGWUA(See Appendix C.1.2),as well as the major efforts by IGWUA and the State of Idaho to recharge the ESPA. 200 190 Red line=365-day c ntered moving iverage 180 170 N 09 30 arexponential 160 'c tr end foreca t T c 150 W 00 R � 140 120 110 100 1/1/1990 1/1/1995 1/1/2000 1/1/2005 1/1/2010 1/1/2015 1/1/2020 1/1/2025 1/1/2030 1/1/2035 VV2040 VV2045 1/1/2050 TWIN r WATER SYSTEM I I ('J u'B �BROCKWAY {� 7� FACILITIES PLAN ® ENGINEERING 1 J U-B ENGINEERS,INC. The above analyses are encouraging, but not sufficient to conclusively confirm that the downward trend has completely ceased. Prudent and conservative water supply planning dictates that some degree of continued decline should be assumed. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 31 4.1.1.3 Blue Lakes Total Water Supply and Forecast Decline With the hydrology of the system in view,the total water supply in the Blue Lakes system can be calculated as follows: Total water supply = Blue Lakes Trout weir discharge + City well pumping + Blue Lakes Country Club diversion (assumed to be 1.2 cfs) Because of the time lag described above,the total water supply is best determined by using multi-day or weekly averages rather than instantaneous or even daily average values. Figure 4-5 shows the total water supply calculated as described above for the period 2003-2020 on a weekly average basis. Total supply cannot be calculated for historic periods prior to 2003 since the record for Blue Lakes Trout flow is sporadic or not available.The period 2003-2020 includes high, low, and moderate years with no significant overall trend and is therefore a good representative baseline period for water supply planning. -Total Blue Lakes water supply 220.0 _BL Trout(Alpheus Creek) 80 -City Pumping from Blue Lakes(right scale) Total Blue Lakes Water Supply=BL Trout Weir+City Pumping+BLCC(1.2cfs) 200.0 70 60 180.0 50 160.0 12 u 40 140.0 30 Lowest water supply on 120.0 record=142 cfs 20 100.0 10 80.0 0 14 14d' 1��Oro 1\�01 1\�0� 1�1\O� 1\�10 1\�11 ti�41ry 1\�1'b 1\�1a 1\�1h 1��\1� 101'1 1\�16 1��1oi 1\�,ti0 1\�ti1 JTW- { WATER SYSTEM FACILITIES PLAN �. � ENGINUMG AY J-U-B ENGINEERS,INC. The average total water supply for the representative period is 170 cfs, but the critical measure of water supply availability is the low point of total supply each year, because the low point typically occurs in late spring or early summer,just as the pumping demand from the Blue Lakes wells is increasing. The lowest observed total water supply was 142 cfs in 2016.The previous low total supply used for planning had been 151 cfs as observed in 2013.The low point in total supply has increased 20 cfs to 162 cfs in 2020. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 32 As shown in Figure 4-2, the Blue Lakes Spring average discharge declined by approximately 95 cfs or 41% from 1950 through 2016. As discussed above, this decline was primarily due to a combination of groundwater pumping and reduction of irrigation recharge due to implementation of higher-efficiency irrigation methods. Future water supply in the Blue Lakes system depends on many factors, both controlled and uncontrolled, and it is not possible to forecast with high accuracy. For the purposes of developing a reasonably conservative water supply projection for the City of Twin Falls diversion from the spring,two offsetting factors must be considered: ■ The negative impacts of groundwater pumping and loss of irrigation recharge have not reached complete equilibrium. IDWR has said that the ESPA model indicates that a residual of perhaps 10 to 15% of the total effect is yet to be seen over the next decades, although this statement is controversial within the water resources technical community. ■ The pumping reduction efforts required by the SWC/ IGWUA agreement and the enhancement of aquifer recharge programs by the State of Idaho have increased the ESPA water budget by approximately 554,000 acre-feet/year.The average annual decline in aquifer storage prior to the SWC / IGWUA agreement was about 500,000 acre-feet per year. Net mitigation efforts will be superimposed on the residual negative impacts of groundwater pumping. If the net mitigation continues to exceed 500,000 acre-feet/year, it is highly likely that long-term aquifer stabilization will be achieved. However, the success of the mitigation efforts is strongly dependent on water supply conditions in the Upper Snake basin: recharge cannot occur if the water is not physically available. Each of these effects will impact the amount of water issuing from Blue Lakes Spring,as well as the bypass flow which does not issue at the springhead but emerges at Alpheus Spring and passes through the Blue Lakes Trout pipeline. Two approaches were utilized to forecast the potential future declines in spring discharge, assuming a 30- year design period. First, a statistical approach involving an exponential regression trendline, and ESPA modeling to estimate the potential effects of aquifer restoration efforts. Approach#1—Exponential Decay An exponential curve was fitted to the daily spring flow data and projected forward 30 years to the year 2051.The curve fits the data well and appears to model the exponential decay apparent in the data. Only the most recent 30-year period was used to fit the curve, which results in a downward trendline, but less steep than if the entire dataset had been used (Figure 4-4).The value of the fitted curve after 30 years is 120 cfs, or a 22 cfs decline from the current trendline value of 142 cfs. This does not include the groundwater flow bypassing the springhead,which is only measured at the Blue Lakes Trout pipeline(the Blue Lakes trout pipeline record is not adequate for long-term trend analysis because systematic records are only available from about 2003 to the present). However, it appears that this "bypass flow" is much less dependent on aquifer conditions, which is to be expected since the springhead is at a high elevation and thus heavily dependent on the water table elevation in the aquifer. The weakness of the exponential fit approach is that the recent rebound is not accounted for; the trendline is about the same without or without it.Thus,the trendline should be viewed as an estimate of the natural recession of the aquifer absent of restoration efforts,which may be an unrealistic assumption. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 33 Approach#2—Aquifer Restoration Efforts As described in Appendix C.1.2, major aquifer restoration efforts have been implemented in accordance with the agreement between IGWUA and SWC in 2015. The efforts have included managed aquifer recharge occurring from October through April, and reductions of groundwater pumping during the irrigation season.The effect of these efforts on Blue Lakes Spring discharge was estimated using the ESPA model version 2.2. This model is the latest calibrated version of the aquifer model developed by IDWR and the Idaho Water Resources Research Institute. This version of the model includes individual, calibrated model cells representing spring discharges, one of which is Blue Lakes Spring. Several implementations of the model are available. Forthis analysis the"flat plane"implementation with a monthly time step was used. Stresses on the model include recharge volumes and pumping reduction volumes. Model cells representing recharge sites (including canal seepage) were obtained from IDWR's hydrology division.The model was run until equilibrium was reached,which occurs in less than 20 years. The results of the model are depicted in Figure 4-6, showing the predicted increase in discharge at Blue Lakes Spring due to the recharge and pumping reductions. • - _ r;-thar g� Pumping Reducticn 15 m O 3 0 10 c I ' 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Elapsed Time(years) Fulls WATER SYSTEM a. • • Ci B BROCKWAY FACILITIES PLAN ENGINEERING J•U•B ENGINEERS,INC. The initial response time is very rapid, with about 5 cfs appearing within one year. The total response at equilibrium is predicted to be 20.0 cfs,with seasonal variations in the response of+/-2.5 cfs.This modeling can also be used to evaluate the recent observed response in the spring discharge. The model predicts a seasonal average response of about 16.5 cfs after 5 years of the mitigation efforts,whereas the observed seasonal average response has been 35 to 40 cfs. This would suggest that less than half of the observed response has been due to the aquifer restoration efforts, and the remainder is likely due to water supply conditions. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 34 Still, the restoration efforts appear to be having a significant and meaningful effect on Blue Lakes Spring that could mostly compensate for potential residual declines due to past aquifer pumping. If the restoration efforts continue,the positive effect on spring discharge would be superimposed on the long- term recession line projected forward (i.e. the exponential curve in Figure 4-4). Therefore, for planning purposes it may be assumed that the 30-year exponential trendline average of 120 cfs will be offset by an increase of 20 cfs due to the aquifer restoration efforts, leading to an average spring flow of 140 cfs or only 2 cfs less than the current trendline average. By this measurement, the restoration efforts may essentially stabilize the long-term average discharge. Nevertheless, it is recommended to plan conservatively in terms of potential future declines in the Blue Lakes Spring discharge. Groundwater modeling is inherently inaccurate, and there is no guarantee that restoration efforts will continue unabated for 30 years. Extended drought may limitthe ability to recharge, as well as directly affecting the spring discharge directly. For planning purposes, a 30-year decline of 10 cfs in spring flow appears to be a reasonable estimate, as this represents a conservative scenario where recharge efforts fail to completely halt continued declines. This same 10 cfs decline would occur in the total water supply,assuming that the bypass flow that does not issue from the spring is relatively constant. With this decline,the planning period mean total water supply would be 160 cfs. 4.1.1.4 Variability in Blue Lakes Water Supply It is important to note that the above analysis applies only to the average long-term trendline. Even if the long-term average were known with certainty, estimates of the future water supply must take into account the fact that fluctuations will occur around the trendline.This is especially true since the negative excursions from the mean often last several years and will take place during drought periods,which often coincide with the highest irrigation demand on the City system. There are two factors that must be considered when evaluating this variability: 1) variability of the annual average water supply around the long-term trendline; and 2) the variability within a year due to seasonal effects, leading to an annual low point that must be designed for. The variability about the long-term trendline was evaluated by analyzing the detrended dataset, formed by subtracting the total water supply from the trendline. This data closely follows a normal distribution with a mean of 0.3, a standard deviation of 10.6 cfs, and a skew coefficient of 0.37. Using the normal distribution as a model, the low period of annual flow can be characterized statistically according to exceedance levels. For example, the 10% level is defined such that there is a 10% probability that the mean will fall below the level. Once a certain exceedance level is selected, the value can be added or subtracted from the best estimate of the mean total water supply 30 years forward (160 cfs). The results of this analysis are shown in Table 4-1. Table 4-1—Exceedance levels for low flow at Blue Lakes Spring supplyExceedance Level Annual flow Estimated mean Seasonal low flow Estimated seasonal N deviation from water .. i trend(cfs) years forward(cfs) mean(ds) years forward(ds) 5% -17 143 -17 126 10% -13 147 -16 131 25% -7 153 -14 139 50% 0 160 -13 147 A reasonably conservative discharge for planning purposes is the 10%exceedance level, corresponding to an annual mean water supply in the Blue Lakes system of 147 cfs and a seasonal low of 131 cfs. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 35 4.1.1.5 Blue Lakes Water Supply Availability Taking into account the above factors (i.e. current natural flow situation, projected declines, fluctuations around the long-term trendline, and the regulation of the Blue Lakes system according to water right priority),the actual water supply availability for pumping at the Blue Lakes wells was evaluated.The water supply availability was defined as the maximum amount that the City could pump at any given time and was calculated for the representative period 2003 to 2020. This period is assumed to reasonably reflect "current conditions" and covers a range of variations in the water supply including both high and low water supply years. 2016 was the worst year of record in terms of total water supply in the system, but the period also contains high years such as 2007 and 2008.The maximum amount that could be pumped from the Blue Lakes wells was limited by the following assumptions: ■ Water rights are administered by the watermaster based on total Blue Lakes water supply with the watermaster's curtailment algorithm, according to the water right structure in place after the 2007 agreement with the State of Idaho (subordination of 15.3 cfs of the Pristine Spring water right). ■ The lower lake level fluctuation is not assumed to be a factor. ■ The well production is limited by the total water right 52.47 cfs, regardless of the total supply. Using the above assumptions,the maximum water supply that would have been available from 2003-2020 on a weekly average basis is illustrated in Figure 4-7. • Actual Daily Pumping -Maximum allowed pumping-water supply decline of 10cfs -Maximum allowed pumping-no decline 60 _T � 7 50 Tr 40 t INi 30 • • 6 V � �• � � � • � � Lo =260. s � • 20 : I< .• 0 tf + 1\�oe WATER SYSTEM - • � <` FACILITIES PLAN ENGINEERING J U-B ENGINEERS,INC. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 36 The water supply availability calculations were made for both current conditions(green line in Figure 4-7) and after applying the projected 30-year decline in water supply to the 2003-2020 data (red line in Figure 4-7). Under current water supply conditions,the full 52.47 cfs water right could have been pumped at all times from 2003-2009 except for a short period in 2003. However,the lower water supply prevailing from 2010 to 2018 limited the available pumping and the lowest availability was 34 cfs in 2016.At no point did the available capacity drop below the actual pumping demand. With the projected 30-year decline in water supply, curtailment of the 52.47 cfs allocation would have occurred every year except 2009, with the lowest available pumping being 26 cfs in 2016. 4.1.1.6 Lower Lake Level One of the factors that has potentially limited the pumping availability at Blue Lakes has been the effect of the pumping on water levels in the Lower Lake. Water pumped by the wells is intercepted at the spring head and does not enter the lake system.As a result, significant drawdown of the lake levels, primarily in the Lower Lake, were observed and the City agreed to construct a level control weir at the lower end of the Lower Lake. The weir was constructed in 1994 and upgrades to the weir were made 1998 and the early 2000s.The weir stabilized lake levels to a large extent, but continuing declines in the natural spring inflow degraded its performance. Because of the complex hydraulics of the lake system, chiefly the presence of the orifice in the bottom of the Lower Lake, the ability of the weir to adequately control the lake level is highly dependent on net inflow to the lake system, which is equal to natural spring discharge minus pumping from the wells. Net weekly average inflow during the critical period of maximum well pumping demand is shown in Table 4-2. Table 4-2-Net weekly inflow to lower lake after diversion at City wells during week of max pumping Spring City Purnpin Net Inflow to Discharge(cfs)[ (cfs) g Lake(cfs) W19970P711=511997 164 27.0 137.0 1998 7/22/1998 170 28.8 141.2 1999 7/19/1999 174 30.2 143.8 2000 6/29/2000 175 24.9 150.1 2001 6/25/2001 156 19.5 136.5 2002 7/14/2002 148 17.8 130.2 2003 7/18/2003 146 28.9 117.1 2004 5/5/2004 132 19.3 112.7 2005 7/30/2005 152 23.1 128.9 2006 7/22/2006 126 23.0 103.0 2007 6/23/2007 127 25.5 101.5 2008 5/10/2008 124 20.0 104.0 2009 7/21/2009 126 21.6 104.4 2010 7/14/2010 120 23.3 96.7 2011 7/13/2011 120 20.6 99.4 2012 7/10/2012 129 28.7 100.3 2013 7/1/2013 135 23.9 111.1 2014 7/26/2014 135 26.5 108.5 2015 6/27/2015 125 22.0 103.0 2016 7/23/2016 141 23.0 118.0 2017 7/1/2017 145 22.9 122.1 2018 7/21/2018 160 22.7 137.3 2019 6/15/2019 162 20.8 141.2 2020 8/l/2020 166 21.4 144.6 City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 37 Prior to 2012, it had been determined that once the net inflow(spring discharge minus city well pumping) dropped below approximately 138 cfs, water ceased to flow over the weir and the weir performance degraded markedly.This occurred because of the presence of other major sources of outflow from Lower Lake, including the "orifice" and other cracks in the basalt bed of the lake. In 2012, the City continued its efforts to stabilize the lake level by sealing major fissures identified in the lakebed. Initial reconnaissance using dive teams and dye tracer testing identified areas with concentrated seepage. These areas were then sealed by filling them with cobble and gravel and topping them with a membrane liner covered with sand.This effort has been successful at stabilizing the lake levels. Figure 4-8 shows water levels collected by the lower lake transducer at 15-minute intervals since 2016.The level has been stable to within +/-0.5 feet with an average gauge height of 2.00 feet which is about 0.25 feet above the top of the rock weir. This performance meets the objectives of the City and no further work is warranted for lake stabilization. 3 2.8 2.6 2.4 r 2.2 pD L U1 2 d Y J 1.8 O1 3 0 J 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 1/1/2016 1/1/2017 1/1/2018 1/1/2019 1/2/2020 1/1/2021 TvINrM►.IS{ WATER SYSTEM NUB B BROCKWAY FACILITIES PLAN 7 ® ENGINEERING J•U•0 ENGINEERS,INC. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 38 4.1.2 South Wells The City owns and operates four groundwater wells near the South Tanks, known as the South Wells. For the most recent five-year period of January 2016 through December 2020, these wells produced 54%of the total City water demand. The highest percentage supplied by the wells on a weekly average basis is typically 75% in December or January when the Blue Lakes supply is rarely used.The water supply for the wells is the Twin Falls southside tract aquifer, a relatively productive fractured basalt aquifer extending from Salmon Falls Creek to the Murtaugh Lake area. The yield of the south wells has extremely high seasonal variability,with the maximum yield typically being more than twice the minimum yield during the year (Figure 4-9). This behavior is a result of a hydrogeologic condition in which water is being drawn primarily from an upper, highly productive fractured basalt strata, underlain by strata which are much less productive. The seasonal fluctuation in the water table is approximately 15 feet from the high point to the low point, and the low water table elevation is approximately equal to the bottom of the upper productive layer. If the water table is at or near the low point, the yield of the well is dramatically reduced. This condition was confirmed during pumping tests after the drilling of Well#3 and Well#4.The aquifer water level generally peaks in July and reaches a low point in March just before the irrigation season commences. —South well field-weekly flow ■ Annual peak —Linear(South well field-weekly flaw) ——Exponential trend-peak 16.0 14.0 120 10.0 IP ij 8.0 lot 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 1/1/2003 1/1/2008 1/1/2013 1/1/2018 1/2/2023 1/2/2028 1/2/2033 1/2/2038 1/3/2043 1/3/2048 TwffinS WATER SYSTEM J'u'B BROCKWAY FACILITIES PLAN . . ENGINEERING J-U-B ENGINEERS,INC. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 39 Because of the above hydrogeologic condition, the well yields are sensitive to long-term declines in the water table, which are occurring due to changes in irrigation practices similar to those which have occurred to a larger degree on the northside tract. For example, if the ambient aquifer water level declines 15 feet,the maximum well yield will be reduced to approximately the present seasonal low point. Seasonal and long-term trends in the south well field capacity were determined based on daily pumping records for Well #1 (which is an indicator well with the longest record, 1990 — 2020) and for all wells combined (for 2000—2020).The wells are equipped with variable-speed drives, so the recorded pumping rate fluctuates considerably and may not reflect the actual well capacity. An estimate was made of the maximum well capacity at any time by examining plots of the daily data and developing an approximate envelope of maximum pumping rates. This analysis indicates that there is no trend in the weekly total pumping from the south well field, but that there is a long-term trend in the seasonal maximum well field capacity(Figure 4-9). This is consistent with the observed behavior of the wells as described above, coupled with a general decline in ambient groundwater levels. Figure 4-10 shows the seasonal maximum weekly capacity at Well #1 and for the total well field. Since 2000,the total well field capacity has declined 28%to 11.7 cfs from 16.2 cfs.An exponential fit to the data suggests a further decline to 7.5 cfs after 30 years at a rate of-1.4% per year. Similar patterns have been observed in the Well#1 seasonal maximum capacity. ♦ South Well 1 ■ All South Wells Expon.(South Well 1) Expon.(Ail South Wells) 18.0 16.0 ■ 14.0 12.0 ■ Y=2.3215E+13e-1.404'E-0 10.0 U. • u • 8.0 ♦ • 6.0 4.0 • • 2.0 _ 0.0 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Year WATER SYSTEM ('J-U-B ', M]BROCKWAY.FACILITIES PLAN �. . . . / ENGINEERING J-U B ENGINEERS,INC. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 40 Very little decline has occurred over at least the past seven years and potentially longer if Well #1 is considered as an indicator.This could indicate that groundwater levels have begun to stabilize after many years of reduction of irrigation infiltration due to conversion to sprinkler systems on the Twin Falls tract. Groundwater levels in an unused domestic well (Well 10S 17E 33BBA1) near Well#1 have been measured since 1997 by the City of Twin Falls and IDWR (Figure 4-11). This data shows a trend that is slightly downward but not statistically significant. No other monitoring well data exists that could be used to evaluate longer-term trends. The monitoring well data and the recent stabilization of maximum seasonal capacity would mitigate against using the long-term exponential trend in Figure 4-10 to forecast a 30-year supply. Rather than a decline of 1.4%per year, a rate of 1.0%per year would be reasonable for planning purposes.This equates to an overall decline of 26%over the next 30 years. 125 130 135 a+ v 140 v 3 145 +0+ ... t C 150 C 155 160 165 o\ti�ti o\ti�ti o\ti�ti o\ti�ti o\ti�ti o\ti�ti o\ti�ti o\ti�ti o\,��ti o\ti�ti o\ti�ti o\,��ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti T•„ ".Z (UB BROCKWAY a WATER SYSTEM Ar-*4i, FACILITIES PLAN 1 : : ENGINEERING ;.^ J•U•B ENGINEERS,INC. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 41 4.1.3 Hankins Wells Currently,the City owns and operates two groundwater wells in the area of the Hankins Booster Station, known as the Hankins Wells.The water supply for these wells is also the Twin Falls southside tract aquifer, but the aquifer in this vicinity is significantly less productive compared to the south well area. During certain times of the year the wells are not active. During the most recent five-year period of 2016 through 2020 these wells contributed only 0.8% of the total supply, and a maximum of 6% of the total summer peak demand in 2016. Usage has been declining and the wells have essentially been offline since 2019. For planning,the Hankins wells are assumed to be offline except for emergency purposes. 4.1.4 Total Water Supply Availability from All Sources Based on the above analyses, including the projected 30-year declines, the water supply patterns for the representative period 2003-2020 are shown in Figure 4-12. During moderate to high water supply periods, the total water supply is estimated to range seasonally from about 65 to 82 cfs. During extended drought periods such as 2013-2016,the water supply will drop to a low of 48 cfs.The recent recovery of Blue Lakes is reflected in this chart, but the total water supply is still no higher than it was at the beginning of the representative period. —Blue lakes available with current WR structure —Hankins Wells —South Wells —Total all sources 80 *Hankins Wells offline,10 cfs decline in Blue Lakes Wells,26%decline in South Well field totalyield 70 60 fin50 all _n v 40 IV, 30 20 10 0 1\1\O3 1\4 1ti��1\o� 1\1\�e 1\�a� 1\�0� y\�oA 1\�10 1\�11 1\�1ti 1\1\1� 1\1\1a I I NFMIS WATER SYSTEM I ('J U-B I BROMY FACILITIES PLAN -� ENGINEERING � I J•U-B ENGINEERS,INC. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 42 4.2 EXISTING WATER DEMAND The City measures and records flows from each of their existing supply wells and booster stations at 15- minute intervals. Due to data collection issues at the booster stations, demand was approximated from the supply well flow data. Figure 4-13 shows the 24-hour and 30-day running averages of the total system- wide water demand based on the well flow data from January 2008 through December 2020. As shown in the figure, there are seasonal and daily diurnal variations in the water demand over the course of a typical year. Demands are considerably higher in the summer due to irrigation and higher in-house water uses during warm weather conditions (e.g., washing clothes, additional bathing, etc.). The data in Figure 4-13 also indicate that peak demands appear to have declined over the past 12 years, with the highest value during this period being observed in 2008. This decline in peak demands is likely due to several systemic and environmental factors. Figure 4-14 identifies several significant events over the last few decades that have contributed to this decline. In 1992, the Energy Policy Act was approved with bipartisan support,which set national standards for new consumer products to have a higher degree of water efficiency. Since this legislation was passed, per capita demands have fallen by as much as 50% in certain areas of the country due to more efficient plumbing fixtures and home appliances, with some experts predicting that demands could decline even further. 35 Total Demand(24-Hr Avg) —Total Demand(30-d Avg) 30 Y8.6 —Max Day Demand 27.3 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.5 25.1 25.1 24.9 25.1 25.4 25 23.6 23.2 C7 .a 20 c <a E a) G L 15 I 10 11 — I 5 1 0 CO T O N M Y'9 10 I� W O O O O N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N �vinvraia ' WATER SYSTEM - ( J•U•B FACILITIES PLAN J•U-B ENGINEERS,INC. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 43 **Energy Policy Act Passed in 1992** —Avg.Winter Demand —Avg.Daily Demand —Maximum Day Demand "Pi station updates and installations 7 PI Stations brought online 2000-2001 for new users not shown(no impacts) 8 PI Stations 30 brought online Rock Creek pipe 30.7 leak fixed 2 Large PI Stations brought online 23.2 _ 24%of Twin Falls County in Chobani Industrial 20 Exceptional Drought,75%in User brought online Perrine Point PI Station (C� Extreme Drought brought online C v Q. 15.0 Q- 7 f� 12.7 10 7.6 8.2 South Wells#1&2 Flow Meters Replaced Blue Lakes Wells Flow City Ordinance for Water Conservation(7-8-14)Passed Meters Replaced '2001-2002 estimated 0 (Blue Lakesdata inaccurate O O O N O N O O O c•I N m R N w n co c i O O O O O O s-1 e-0 rl rl rl rl e-0 rl rl rl N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N TWIN I" WATER SYSTEM I (J•U•B I >` FACILITIES PLAN J•U•B ENGINEERS,INC. Figure 4-14 shows that the average winter demand in the City of Twin Falls, which better encapsulates per capita demands without irrigation, has stayed relatively constant since 2000 despite population growth. This can be largely attributed to the effects of the Energy Policy Act, but also to increased user payment rates and the repair of major and minor leaks in the distribution system (such as the Rock Creek pipe fixed in 2018). More importantly,the maximum day demand declined by about 7.5 MGD from 2003 to 2020 despite population growth due to several major changes at the local scale during this time. The first major change was the implementation of secondary canal water pressure irrigation (PI)systems in new developments, which removed a large amount of demand from the City's potable water system due to irrigation needs. In addition, the City also passed an ordinance in 2004 (7-8-14) that set minimum standards for water conservation in the operation of City facilities, increased public awareness of the water supply, and encouraged the community to conserve water in a number of ways. Since this time, housing has also become slightly denser and the trend of "xeriscaping" (the removal of grass lawns requiring irrigation or the transition to a lawn with drought-tolerant plants and features) has become more popular, both of which have reduced the area of land in the City requiring irrigation. Beyond these changes, the maximum day demand in 2003 is believed to be inflated due to the occurrence of an "exceptional" drought, which is rated as the worst category by the U.S. Drought Monitor. Table 4-3 lists the data displayed in Figure 4-14 along with the per-capita Maximum Day Demand (MDD) in each year, which illustrates how the above changes have decreased the peak demands from individual users over time. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 44 Table 4-3-Twin Falls Water Demand(2001-2020) Year Avg.Winter Demand Avg.Day Demand Max Day Demand Population Per-Capita Max Day Demand .. 2001 8.3 13.7 28.8 35,213 817 2002 7.9 13.0 27.3 35,935 760 2003 8.2 15.0 30.7 37,036 830 2004 7.6 13.3 29.0 37,923 765 2005 6.5 11.9 29.9 38,977 766 2006 7.5 12.9 27.1 40,382 670 2007 7.1 13.9 29.1 41,579 701 2008 7.0 13.5 28.6 42,580 671 2009 6.8 12.1 26.2 43,428 603 2010 7.0 12.2 27.3 44,125 618 2011 7.3 11.9 26.3 44,846 587 2012 7.7 13.4 26.2 45,086 580 2013 8.2 13.1 25.1 45,854 548 2014 7.5 12.6 26.5 46,490 570 2015 7.8 12.6 25.1 47,298 531 2016 8.1 13.0 24.9 48,292 516 2017 8.5 12.9 25.1 49,327 509 2018 8.0 12.7 25.4 49,782 511 2019 8.0 11.9 23.6 50,330 469 2020 7.6 12.7 23.2 51,807 448 Figure 4-15 summarizes the 30-day average flows from each of the well fields within the City from 2008 to 2020. The City has historically pumped as much water as possible from the South Wells and Hankins Wells, particularly during the winter months. This is primarily because it requires less power and is more economical to pump water from these wells than out of the Snake River Canyon from the Blue Lakes Wells. However, more Blue Lakes Well water is currently required during the summer months to meet peak water demands. Additionally, more Blue Lakes Well water is currently being pumped (as reflected in the 2012-2020 data) for blending with the South Well water for arsenic compliance purposes. The Hankins Wells are currently not being consistently utilized due to their low production rate. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 45 30 -Total Demand(30-d Avg) Blue Lakes(30-d Avg) -South Wells(30-d Avg) 25 Hankins Wells(30-d Avg) 20 A A c ev E 15 G G� ev 10 5 0 O CDO N M IIY 10 I` CO M N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N TWIN FA1.1� WATER SYSTEM 1 ( J•U•B ' FACILITIES PLAN 1 1: 1 1 � J•U•B ENGINEERS,INC. Table 4-4-Existing Water Demand from Large Users (2020) AverageDay Maximum Day Peak Hour Maximum Day Peak Hour DemandUser Demand Demand (MGD) 1 1 Ameripride 0.063 0.089 0.38 1.42 6.12 Chobanil 1 1 1 - - Clif Bar' 0.265 0.265 0.265 - - College of Southern Idaho(CSI) 0.079 0.18 0.65 2.25 8.32 ConAgra 1.79 2.23 3.53 1.25 1.98 Cummins Family Produce 0.00086 0.0049 0.029 5.62 33.21 Dart Container Corp.(Formerly Solo Cup) 0.0079 0.029 0.041 3.63 5.19 Glanbia 0.41 0.52 1.23 1.28 3.03 Henningsen Cold Storage 0.027 0.049 0.078 1.83 2.89 Independent Meat 0.21 0.27 0.39 1.27 1.85 St. Lukes Hospital 0.12 0.26 0.46 2.22 3.89 WestRock(Formerly Longview Fibre) 0.016 0.022 0.10 1.34 6.03 Total 3.98 4.91 8.16 1.24 2.05 1. Chobani and Clif Bar are permitted users and the City maintains a constant capacity for each users'permitted flow rate;the combined flow of these two users differed by less than 2%from their combined permitted rate on the day of maximum demand(8/512020). 2. Existing Maximum Day Demand for large users was assumed to be each users'demand on the day of maximum demand for the entire City(8/5/2020). 3. Existing Peak Hour Demand for large users was assumed to be each users'maximum 60-minute running average at any point of the year. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 46 A detailed analysis of the existing water demand for individual classes of users was conducted in order to understand and forecast water demands more accurately: Industrial User Demands Large industrial water users can have a significant influence on overall system water demands. Water meter data from 2020 were evaluated for several industrial water users within the City. The data was somewhat variable in terms of availability and frequency(e.g.,some of the data was available on an hourly basis, while some was reported on a monthly basis; some of the data was reported sporadically; etc.). A summary of the 2020 water demands for several of the top water users is shown in Table 4-4. Domestic Demands with Secondary Pressure Irrigation (PI) The City adopted an ordinance in 1999 requiring all new developments to adopt a secondary PI system that uses canal water for irrigation. This has effectively reduced the demand on the potable water system during the irrigation season for developments constructed after 1999. The total water demand from domestic users that have a secondary PI system was estimated by identifying the water meters within each PI zone of the City and summing their demand values. Per capita demands were estimated by taking the total water demand from these meters and dividing it by the estimated PI population. The PI population was estimated by multiplying the total number of water meters among all PI zones by an occupancy rate of 94.5% and by the average number of persons per household (2.7 people/household according to the 2020 Census results). Domestic Demands without Secondary Pressure Irrigation The total water demand for domestic users without a secondary PI system was estimated by subtracting the water demand of industrial users and domestic users with secondary PI systems from the total system water demand. Per capita demands were estimated by dividing the total water demand from these meters by the population of users without PI systems (determined by subtracting the estimated PI population from the total City population) A summary of the existing water demands is provided in Table 4-5. Table 4-5—Existing Water Demand Maximum D. Average Day Maximum D, Day Peak Hour Demand Demand Demand Demand Peaking Peaking .. Factor Industrial Users 3.98 4.91 8.16 95 1.24 2.05 Domestic with PI 1.31 1.48 2.23 130 1.13 1.70 Domestic without PI 9.19 17.09 23.65 423 1.86 2.57 Total 14.49 23.49 34.04 453 1.62 2.35 1. Based on a 2020 population of 51,807 people. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 47 4.3 FUTURE SUPPLY AND DEMAND PROJECTIONS 4.3.1 Assumptions Supply and demand projections were carried out for the 20-year planning period to evaluate the existing water system and to identify urgently needed improvements. Demands were also estimated for full build- out of the impact area to identify the City's Reasonably Anticipated Future Needs (RAFN)for water rights planning. Based on discussions with the City,several key assumptions were used for these projections and are described in Table 4-6. Table 4-6—Supply and Demand Projection Assumptions Supply • Blue Lakes Wells • Population growth will occur at a rate of 1.8%per year. — Spring flow will decline by approximately 6.5 MGD(10 . 95%of new population growth will have PI systems,while cfs)over 30 years 5%will not have PI systems(infill growth only). — The agreement with BLCC will be satisfied with the . The maximum day per capita demand of all domestic roadside stream project and the City's ability to pump users will decrease linearly by 15%over the next 20 years, their full water right will not be impeded and then will remain static thereafter. — Reductions in the City and State water rights will be on . Maximum day domestic demands with and without PI a pro-rata basis if the available spring flows decrease to systems were forecast by multiplying each respective a level that requires curtailment projected population by the variable maximum day per — Total well production is limited to the existing water right capita demand described above. Future average day and • South Wells peak hour demands were estimated by multiplying future — Well production will decline by approximately 1%per maximum day demand by the appropriate peaking factor year over 30 years of each user from the year 2020. — Water rights do not limit production . Existing industrial demand was projected to increase by • Hankins Wells 1.0 MGD in 2022, by 0.5 MGD(total,steadily distributed) — Aquifer production will remain at current minimal value for the remaining 20-Year planning period, and then by a . 2020 supply data was used as the basis for supply per capita demand of 85 GPCD thereafter. projections. • As shown in Figure 3-2, new industrial average day demands of 1.5 MGD and 1.2 MGD will be included in years 2027 and 2041,respectively(maximum day and peak hour peaking factors of 1.25 and 1.5 were applied to the average day demands,respectively).The latter 1.2 MGD accounts for new industry growth occurring earlier than expected from Figure 3-3 or additional demand due to drought. 4.3.2 Supply and Demand Projections Figure 4-16 through Figure 4-18 summarize the supply and demand projections over the 20-year planning period.Table 4-7 summarizes the 20-year and full build-out demand projections for RAFN planning. Table 4-7—Future Demand Projections Average Day Demand Maximum Day AverageDay Per-Capita Maximum Day Peakin Projection Demand Demand t r 20-Year 19.2 28.5 255 1.48 Full Build-Out 54.8 71.3 250 1.30 City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 48 45 40 35 30 0 c� a 25 CL Cn L 20 Blue Lakes Wells 15 South Wells Hankins Wells Total Supply 10 5 0 O C N M �.['� CO ti C70 O7 O N M l-f'� CO ti C70 O7 O V M CV N CV CV GV CV CV N CV N M M CM M M M CM M M CM "CT _r -:*- I:*- O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CV N N CV CV CV CV CV CV N CV N CV CV CV CV N N CV N CV fV CV CV WATER SYSTEM ( J•V-B I FACILITIES PLAN J•U•B ENGINEERS,INC. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 49 ,v h � � +v h +� M h M N h +� M +� +� w +� M +� 30 25 0 t� 20 c R E in 15 R 0 ac R 10 5 0 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 ■New Industry 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 3.4 3.4 ■Existing Industry 4.91 5.91 5.94 5.97 5.99 6.02 6.05 6.07 6.10 6.12 6.15 6.18 6.20 6.23 6.26 6.28 6.31 6.33 6.36 6.39 6.41 ■Domestic w/PI 1.59 1.69 1.80 1.90 2.01 2.11 2.22 2.33 2.43 2.54 2.65 2.75 2.86 2.97 3.08 3.19 3.30 3.41 3.52 3.63 3.74 ■Domestic w/o P 1 16.99 16.88 16.78 16.68 16.58 16.47 16.37 16.27 16.17 16.07 15.96 15.86 15.76 15.66 15.56 15.46 15.35 15.25 15.15 15.05 14.95 ■Total Demand 23.49 24.49 24.52 24.55 24.58 124.61 126.51 126.54 126.57 126.60 1 26.64 26.67 26.70 26.73 26.77 26.80 26.84 26.87 26.90 28.44 28.47 Twin tMi.y � WATER SYSTEM ( J•U•B 1 FACILITIES PLAN 77� J-U-B ENGINEERS,INC. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 51 5 EVALUATION OF EXISTING WATER SYSTEM The existing water supply, storage, pumping, disinfection, distribution, and back-up power facilities were evaluated based on their reported condition and for their capacity to meet the existing,20-year,and build- out demand conditions as defined in the list of definitions. Figure 5-1 summarizes this evaluation for the existing and 20-year time frames. Refer to the following sections for additional information. 5.1 SUPPLY WELLS 5.1.1 Condition of Existing Supply Wells 5.1.1.1 Blue Lakes Wells The City replaced all four of the Blue Lakes well pumps in 2015 with 125 hp units. The City also installed variable frequency drives (VFDs) on these pumps for greater operational flexibility and for the ability to match the Canyon Springs Pump Station flows.Thus,these pumps are in excellent condition and the wells themselves continue to have reliable productivity. 5.1.1.2 South Wells The City reports that the South Wells and their pumps are in relatively good condition. Due to seasonal fluctuations in aquifer levels (see Chapter 4), groundwater elevations often decrease below the productive layer. This generally occurs in the late spring and early summer prior to the irrigation season and can significantly reduce well yields. On occasion,entrained air is observed in the water produced from South Well#3 during this time, limiting its use. 5.1.1.3 Hankins Wells The City reports that the Hankins Well pumps are in relatively good condition. However, decreasing aquifer levels has rendered the wells very unproductive and has limited their usefulness. 5.1.2 Capacity of Existing Supply Wells Figure 5-2 compares the projected water supply to the projected maximum day water demand over the 20-year planning period based on the assumptions presented in Chapter 4. Even with the seasonal fluctuations in the South Wells, no supply from the Hankins Wells, and the water right limitations of the Blue Lakes Wells,the City is not projected to exceed their current total water supply in the next 20 years. This is due to several factors that have reduced demand in the past few years, as noted in Section 4.2. However, it is anticipated that the City will eventually experience a deficit in their available water supply due to decreasing aquifer levels and a growing population if additional supply sources are not acquired. It is recommended that the City maintain a 4 to 5 MGD buffer of excess supply to account for potential fluctuations in water demands.As such, it would be prudent to begin planning for a water supply shortage as soon as possible. 5.1.3 Water Rights of Existing Supply Wells As discussed in Chapter 4, there are current water rights protests on the South Wells. These protests should be resolved to bolsterthe City's ability to pump their full existing water rights and well as to address their RAFN. The total unprotected water rights are 47.9 MGD (74.1 cfs). While this is adequate to meet the 20-year maximum day demand (28.5 MGD), it is insufficient to meet the maximum day demand at full-build out of the Area of Impact (71.3 MGD). This is especially true with the loss of water rights in the Blue Lakes system (13.2 MGD) due to potential curtailment to senior water right holders. As a result,the City will need to continue exploring new water right options. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 52 )`WIN FALI.�' Water System — Evaluation of Existing System seH,nN� WATER • II�� • • ®- FACILITIES •� ♦ S • �J MASTER PLAN aG°JG3�°30�00�l ; HL I ---I �--- I® n I EL 1 III I H 1 J fj 3 • 1 N); ® FIGURE 5-1 - ^ WATER SYSTEM x ((�� nn(n� (ILLff�� 1 1: • ® c�J0V�UlI • •� . OF EXISTING SYSTEM -, III ................... 1 (N) I 'I' `o 1. V F MOM �• B fl fl2 �M22 DISTRIBUTION 2 I1V if UISIJ LS WLSe�J '.1 )ELECTRICAL QODZUE Q Existing 1 ® WELL ID Name aiConditions Conditions Generator TANK LLi 06 Canyon L PUMPSTATION E ■ PRESSURE ZONE N O8 Harrison HighSUPPLY WELLS STORAGE TANKS 1WJIf x Level y GENERATOR Backu 1 Name Existing 1 08 Harrison Low 440 DISINFECTION 1 0 Disinfection Generator Conditions Conditions Level II' PRESSURE REGULATING VALVE 01-04 Blue Lakes r 07 Harrison 32 Eldridge • FLOW METER 16-19 South 15 South 12 Harrison ■ DEFICIENT Blending POTENTIAL 33 Eldridge 24-25 Hankins DEFICIENCY 26 Hankins 1z Q 20 Wills 19 b .0 27 . ADEQUATE Maximum Day Demand -23.5 "28.5 E Hankins � � L /� (mgd) l J'U� J•U•B ENGINEERS,INC. 3 *Evaluation of each component is based on either condition or capacity and is shaded according to degree of deficiency;see corresponding section in Chapter 5 for full details 50 40 v N N \v N 30 lift -A 20 W 10 0 CL CL 0 EXCESS Cn DEFICIT -10 Max Supply -20 Max Day Demand Supply Excess/Deficit -30 O N C�'M — LC' cfl f` 00 67 CDC" M ::I- LC' c0 ti co O O C'V CM C14 N C 4 C 4 CV CV fV CV N CV CM M Cn CM CM CM CM CIO M M � � � O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O CD O O O CD N N C'V N N N fV N CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CIT OF I WIN F7►US WATER SYSTEM I I (J•V� FACILITIES PLAN J•U•B ENGINEERS,INC. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 54 5.1.4 Water Quality of Existing Supply 5.1.4.1 General Water Quality Water quality records for the City's wells are available from 1997 to 2017. After this period, the City stopped taking samples at individual wells, but continued to take samples at each pump station manifold. A summary of the comprehensive water quality results for each well is provided in Appendix 13.6. For most supply sources, arsenic is the only primary inorganic chemical (IOC) that has exceeded the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL). Iron, manganese, total dissolved solids, and aluminum are all secondary IOCs that have exceeded their respective MCL at some point in the aforementioned time period. 5.1.4.2 Arsenic The South Wells and Hankins Wells produce raw water with arsenic concentrations greater than the drinking water standard of 10 parts per billion set by the EPA in January 2001 (see Figure 5-3 and Figure 5-4). As a result, the City constructed several infrastructure improvements from 2009 through 2013 to blend Blue Lakes water with South Well and Hankins Well water.The blending strategy involves mixing a water source (e.g., Blue Lakes water) that has arsenic levels less than the drinking water standard with a source that has arsenic levels higher than the standard (e.g., South Well and Hankins Well water) to produce a blended supply with arsenic concentrations below the standard.As illustrated in Figure 5-5,the blended water from the South Wells and Hankins Wells now consistently and reliably meets the arsenic standard. 20 18 I Q I I 16 J • A, ., 14 :♦ i► b G c 12 . ■ • 11311 • = 10 ♦ • ♦ ♦� to ♦ • i * ♦w ♦ ■ v 8 • ♦ 1 • y 6 SW#1 Data Point SW#1 RAA Q 4 o SW#2 Data Point SW#2 RAA 0 SW#3 Data Point SW#3 RAA 2 ♦ SW#4 Data Point SW#4 RAA MCL 0 O N M � LO CO I- W O O M CO I'- O O O O O O O C? O i 1 U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0- TWIN I" { WATER SYSTEM (J'u'B FACILITIES PLAN J-U-B ENGINEERS,INC. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 55 22 20 18 16 14 CO 12 10 00 El )19.) FACILITIES PLAN J-U-B ENGINEERS,INC. 10 El 0 m South Well Blended Water * Hankins Well Blended Water —Arsenic MCL ,it, WATER SYSTEM ( JUB FACILITIES PLAN City ofTwin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 56 5.1.4.3 PFAS The toxicity and ambient presence of emergent contaminants is being actively researched by academic professionals across the globe and is being reviewed by both national and international government agencies to inform future water quality regulations. Constituents currently being debated for active regulation include perchlorate, pharmaceuticals, nitrosamines, chromium (VI), and per-/polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). PFAS chemicals contain highly stable carbon-fluoride chemical bonds that are highly resistant to degradation and can uniquely repel both lipid-based and water-based liquids, making them useful in the production of nonstick cookware, stain resistant fabrics, fire extinguishing foams, and many everyday personal care products. As such, researchers have found that these chemicals can be classified as Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPS)that are ubiquitous in most environments around the globe. Over 10,000 PFAS chemicals have been synthesized and can be found in the environment; two PFAS chemicals in particular are the most well-studied: Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS). The EPA has set a drinking water health advisory limit for these two constituents at 70 parts per trillion, combined (70 ng/L, or 0.07 µg/L). IDEA received federal grant funds in 2020 for PFAS water sampling and selected several public water systems throughout Idaho as recipients. Twin Falls participated in this round of PFAS sampling and yielded the results shown below in Table 5-1. Out of 250 tests for various PFAS chemicals, eight tested above the method detection limit. The constituents were neither PFOA nor PFOS, and as such, do not fall under the scope of the EPA's PFAS health advisory limit. Table 5-1—PFAS Test Results Location • • Date Concentration(ng/L) HANKINS#2 PERFLUOROBUTANOIC ACID(PFBA) 03-Jun-21 0.896 HANKINS#1 PERFLUOROBUTANOIC ACID(PFBA) 03-Jun-21 0.796 SOUTH WELL#1 PERFLUOROBUTANESULFONIC ACID(PFBS) 20-Jul-21 0.713 SOUTH WELL#2 PERFLUOROBUTANESULFONIC ACID(PFBS) 20-Jul-21 0.686 SOUTH WELL#4 PERFLUOROBUTANOIC ACID(PFBA) 20-Jul-21 0.857 SOUTH WELL#2 PERFLUOROBUTANOIC ACID(PFBA) 20-Jul-21 0.912 SOUTH WELL#1 PERFLUOROBUTANOIC ACID(PFBA) 20-Jul-21 0.762 SOUTH WELL#3 PERFLUOROBUTANOIC ACID(PFBA) 20-Jul-21 0.822 A—Only shows the tests for which a result was obtained out of 250 samples among all locations. 5.2 STORAGE TANKS 5.2.1 Storage Capacity Three criteria are normally considered when evaluating the required storage capacity for a community, the sum of which equates to the desired usable storage volume to be provided: • Fire Protection Storage—The storage volume required for fire protection is estimated based on fireflow recommendations established by the Idaho Surveying and Rating Bureau, Inc. (ISRB) and City requirements. The fire demand for the South and Harrison Tanks has been set to 4 hours at 6,500 gpm, while the fire demand for the Hankins and Eldridge Tank combination is 4 hours at 4,500 gpm. These fireflow recommendations are assumed to remain constant throughout the planning period. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 57 • Equalization Storage— Equalization storage compensates for the difference between the water systems' source pumping capacity and its maximum day demands (MDD). In systems where the source pumping capacity exceeds the MDD by 75%or more, equalization storage is not required. The City's storage facilities were evaluated for maximum resiliency by assuming that the source pumping capacity is equal to or less than the MDD (maximizing the equalization storage volume required at each location). • Emergency Storage—Emergency storage, or standby storage, is based on a policy decision by the City regarding the flow rate and duration of flow to be provided during an emergency. For planning purposes, the City has elected to provide eight hours of maximum day demand. A localized storage capacity analysis was completed for each of the existing tanks comparing the required storage volume versus the projected maximum day demand to be distributed from the tanks over the planning period. The Hankins and Eldridge Tanks were combined for the evaluation. A summary of the storage capacity evaluation is shown in Figure 5-6 through Figure 5-8. As shown in the figures, the existing South and Hankins Tanks have adequate capacity to meet the local storage requirements for water distributed from these reservoirs. However, the Harrison Tank does not provide sufficient storage at any time over the 20-year planning period.The excess storage from the South Tanks can be used to augment storage in the Harrison Tank during an emergency by sending water through the 30-inch blending transmission main. However, even using this approach,the Harrison Tank is still undersized throughout the planning period. As a result, additional storage is recommended at this location in order to increase the resiliency of the City's water system in areas served by the Harrison Tank. 5.2.2 Condition of Storage Tanks 5.2.2.1 Harrison Tank The Harrison Tank was constructed in 1966 and is approaching 60 years of age. An inspection and condition analysis of the reservoir conducted in 2010(EHM Engineers)found the following: • The concrete dome shell has several annular cracks and locations where the concrete has spalled. Organic growth is present at various locations, indicating the presence of moisture. • The radius of the dome roof flattens at about two-thirds in height between the rim and apex. In some areas, the dome elevation was found to be approximately 6-inches lower than the design elevation.The rise of the dome is also about 4-inches greater than the design. • The safe buckling snow or live load of the dome was estimated to be 5 pounds per square foot (psf). The International Building Code (IBC) requires a minimum roof live load of 20 psf for maintenance workers and 10 psf for 50-year ground snow load. The City requires a minimum design roof snow load of 25 psf for habitable buildings. • The tank walls have horizontal cracks which typically occur one-half to three-quarters up the height of the wall. Some of these cracks have signs of moisture. • Some of the protective coating on the roof and walls is beginning to fail. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 58 14 12 ^ 10 M C7 O 8 E 3 O 6 tvD M O a-0 H 4 2 0 wwwudduu U 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 6.0 6.1 6.2 2021 Maximum Day Demand (MGD) 2041 ■ Fire Protection (MG) Equalization (MG) Emergency(MG) QExisting(MG) C ITV OF TWIN 11 { WATER SYSTEM (J•U•B 1 FACILITIES PLAN J-U-B ENGINEERS,INC. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 59 14 12 10 M dA E O 8 E O O O 6 dA M O a-+ N 4 2 0 8.6 8.7 8.7 8.8 8.8 8.9 8.9 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.1 9.2 9.2 9.3 9.3 9.4 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 2021 Maximum Day Demand (MGD) 2041 ■Fire Protection (MG) Equalization (MG) Emergency(MG) Existing(MG) TIN N7►F - � WATER SYSTEM J•u•B 7° FACILITIES PLAN a` J-U-B ENGINEERS,INC. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 60 14 12 10 Cu0 E Qj 8 E _3 O O 6 4A M L O N 4 2 0 . 11.1 11.2 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.6 11.7 11.8 11.9 12.0 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.4 12.5 12.6 12.7 2021 Maximum Day Demand (MGD) 2041 ■Fire Protection (MG) Equalization (MG) ■ Emergency(MG) QExisting(MG) CITY OF 'f WIN FMJA WATER SYSTEM (r J•U•B I o� FACILITIES PLAN J-U-B ENGINEERS,INC. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 61 A subsequent visual inspection and review of the 2010 analysis was completed in 2011 by J-U-B. At the time, J-U-B recommended that the City verify the thickness of the concrete dome and compressive strength of the dome concrete. The City reports that this task was accomplished and that the roof deflection was continually monitored for several years thereafter. Due to no significant change in the roof deflection over the course of the monitoring period,the City discontinued their monitoring efforts. The City routinely inspects and cleans this tank approximately every 5 years. Any deficiencies identified during the inspection are addressed. It is recommended that the City continue this practice and consider hiring a licensed structural engineer to perform another structural evaluation in the next 5 to 10 years. 5.2.2.2 South Tanks South Tank#1 (eastern tank)was originally constructed in 1939. It underwent upgrades in 1967 to repair the walls and construct a dome roof. An inspection and condition analysis of this tank in 2010 by EHM Engineers found the following: • Approximately 90 feet of cracking,spalling,and/or fracturing of the concrete dome edge ring was observed. In some areas, the pre-stressed wires were exposed, rusted, broken, and/or loose, resulting in corrosion and minor loss of strength in the wires. The analysis included recommendations for covering and protecting the pre-stressing wires. • The radius of the dome roof flattens for a length greater than 30 feet at about mid-height between the rim and apex. In this area, the dome elevation was found to be approximately 4-inches lower than the design elevation. • Damage to the dome edge ring and flattening of the roof is likely the result of creep in the concrete dome, creating a differential movement between the tank wall and edge ring. • Minor cracking was observed in the dome shell. • The safe buckling snow or live load of the dome was estimated to be 15 psf. The IBC requires a minimum roof live load of 20 psf for maintenance workers and 10 psf for 50-year ground snow load.The City requires a minimum design roof snow load of 25 psf for habitable buildings. South Tank #1 also has some decorative pilasters that are spalling and deteriorating in some areas. In addition, the outlet pipe was reported in poor condition when uncovered during a repair several years ago. South Tank #2 (western tank) was constructed in 1999 and the City reports that this tank is in relatively good condition with no known structural concerns.The City routinely inspects and cleans these tanks approximately every 5 years. Any deficiencies identified during the inspection are addressed. It is recommended the City continue this practice and consider hiring a licensed structural engineer to perform another structural evaluation in the next 5 to 15 years. 5.2.2.3 Hankins Tanks Hankins Tank#1(northern tank)was constructed in 1999,while Hankins Tank#2 was constructed in 2015. The City reports that both tanks are in relatively good condition with no known structural concerns. The City routinely inspects and cleans this tank approximately every 5 years.Any deficiencies identified during the inspection are addressed. It is recommended the City continue this practice. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 62 5.3 BOOSTER PUMP STATIONS 5.3.1 Capacity of Booster Pump Stations The firm capacity of the existing booster stations (the capacity with the largest pump out of service) was compared to the maximum day demands plus required fireflows anticipated at existing and 20-year conditions (see Table 5-2). Overall, the firm capacity of each booster station except Eldridge appears to be adequate for existing peak demands. Four out of seven stations are capable of meeting 20-Year peak demands, with the exception being the Hankins, Wills, and Eldridge booster stations. Each of these stations may take on additional demand due to pressure zone changes and due to both residential and industrial growth in this time frame.Although the Eldridge booster station is incapable of meeting existing and committed demands with its firm capacity,the Eldridge pressure zone can be served via the Hankins booster station in an emergency. In the next 20 years it is recommended that another pump be added to the Eldridge and Wills booster stations, and that another Hankins pump station be constructed to serve the expanded Hankins pressure zones. Table 5-2—Capacity of Booster Pump Stations Rated Firm Existing Conditions 20-Year Conditions Capacity Capacity Peak Demarl Adequate Peak Demarl Adequate Booster Station .. .. .. .. Capacity? Suppiy Pump Station Canyon 24,800 4 19,000 12,250 16,550 Springs 9 ly- Harrison 10,300 8,200 4,550 7,950 Blending Distribution Pump Station Harrison Low 14,400 7,200 4,900 5 ?/ 5,300 5 Level Harrison High 21,650 15,550 10,600 12,400 Level 9,10 Hankins 11,500 8,800-9,400 6,000-8,500 6 7,500-10,000 6 Wills 7,550 5,450 5,200 7 �/ 5,9007 Eldridge 5,700 2,450 5,200 8 5,3008 1. Reported capacity within±5%of actual capacity depending on tank water levels and combination of pumps in operation.Firm capacity assumes the largest pump is out of service. 2. Value based on maximum day demand plus needed fireflow unless otherwise noted. 3. Based on a comparison of the peak demand to the firm capacity of the pump station. 4. Actual capacity will be limited to the maximum flow rate allowed by the Blue Lakes water rights(23,550 gpm). 5. Value based on the peak hour demand.It is assumed that fireflow will be provided through the Harrison High Level pumps and pressure zone.Excess flow beyond the firm capacity could also potentially be provided through the Harrison High Level pumps and pressure zone. 6. With the proposed pressure zone changes,demands may rise and the system pressure may be adjusted,which would change the capacity of the pumps. Number shown represents the range of capacity available from the existing to the new system pressure.A minimum fireflow of at least 4,000 gpm will be planned for during the pressure zone improvement design. 7. A minimum fireflow of 4,000 gpm will be provided from the Wills station. 8. Of the 4,500 gpm required fireflow,it is estimated that approximately 2,000 gpm will be provided by the Hankins and High Level Pressure Zones. 9. Higher flow is needed from Canyon Springs and Harrison High Level when Harrison High Level pumps at a higher pressure. 10. The High Level Pressure Zone has a 6,500 gpm fireflow.It is assumed that the Harrison High Level station can provide up to this amount. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 63 5.3.2 Condition of Booster Pump Stations The general condition of the booster pump stations was summarized based on discussions with City staff and site visits.The overall condition of each station is summarized in Table 5-3. Table 5-3—Condition of Booster Pump Stations Booster Station Condition • Pumps installed in 1968 and beyond useful service life Canyon Springs Fair . Pumps likely worn and operating inefficiently • Operators report increased maintenance over the past few years Harrison Blending Excellent • Pump station constructed in 2011 • Pump station constructed 50+years ago Harrison Fair • Pumps reported to be adequate for existing conditions but are expected to need replacement in the 20-year planning period Hankins Excellent • Pump station constructed in 1999 • Two new pumps installed in 2013 Eldridge Good • Pump station is reported to be in good condition Does not have adequate redundant pumping capabilities Wills Excellent • Pump station rebuilt in 2015 • Five new pumps installed in 2015 5.4 CHLORINATION SYSTEMS The City chlorinates the water from each set of supply wells by utilizing on-site sodium hypochlorite generators, which were recently upgraded to remedy the limitations identified in the previous Water Facilities Plan. The capacity of the existing systems in place for each set of supply wells was evaluated based on day tank size,generator capacity, and contact time during the peak hour demand in the existing and 20-year growth scenarios (see Table 5-4). Based on this evaluation, each chlorination system will be able to provide adequate generator capacity and contact time prior to distribution (during peak hour demands) throughout the 20-year planning period. However, the day tank for the Blue Lakes Wells is slightly undersized and does not have enough capacity to last for a full three days under existing conditions. Under 20-year conditions, it is unable to last for a full two days.This is not considered a critical issue in terms of the City's ability to provide service for its customers, but it may result in additional operational costs for the City over time due to increased maintenance. Since each system has been recently upgraded,the City reports that each of these systems is in good condition. Table 5-4—Chlorination System Evaluation GeneratorDay Tank Capacity Scenario Source Cycles Contact Time Days? Needed � Existing Adequate? >15 Min? Blue Lakes No 123 200 Yes Yes Existing South Wells Yes 51 100 Yes Yes Hankins Wells Yes 7 30 Yes Yes Blue Lakes No 194 200 Yes Yes Committed South Wells Yes 55 100 Yes Yes Hankins Wells Yes 7 30 Yes Yes City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 64 5.5 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM A hydraulic water model was used to assess the capacity of the distribution system for three growth scenarios: existing, committed, and master plan (refer to Table 5-5). Table 5-5—Model Scenarios Scenario Purpose Scope Includes demand for all areas that have an Provide a snapshot of existing demands existing connection to the water Existing Evaluate pressure and fireflow for all distribution system existing distribution pipes Includes demands for existing top users at their peak flows Identify existing system capacity and Includes demand for vacant areas within deficiencies at committed demands city limits, commitments to developments Committed Identify potential flow and pressure that have started the will-serve process, issues as land develops within or near and anticipated industrial users (20-year City limits period) In addition to committed demands, Master Plan Identifies ideal pipe locations and includes demand for areas beyond the City (or Build- diameters to serve the entire study area limits extending to the study area boundary Out) while satisfying all evaluation criteria Includes demands from top industrial users 5.5.1 Capacity of Distribution System 5.5.1.1 Evaluation Summary A hydraulic analysis was performed to assess the distribution system for hydraulic bottlenecks causing large pressure losses and restricted fireflow, as well as to identify lower elevation areas with pressures exceeding safe operating levels. The system was tested in three growth scenarios (Existing, Committed, and Master Plan)and five demand scenarios(average winter-day,average-day,maximum-day, maximum- day plus fireflow, and peak-hour), totaling 15 different test configurations that were used in this analysis. The average winter-day results provide a snapshot of the water system during the period of lowest demand,which effectively results in the highest pressures that the system will experience in a given year. The peak hour results, in contrast,will show the water system during the period of highest demand,which will produce the lowest pressures observed in the water system in a given year (with the exception of fireflow scenarios). Deficiencies in the system (i.e., low/high pressure, high headloss, high velocity, low fireflow) are identified from the Existing and Committed model results, while improvements to remedy these deficiencies are identified from the Master Plan growth scenario. In each test configuration, the distribution system was evaluated against the following criteria: System Pressures: • >40 psi and< 100 psi at peak hour demand • Target service level of 60 to 80 psi Fireflow(at Maximum Day Demands): • Domestic> 1,000 gpm • Commercial > 1,500 gpm • > ISRB rating (see Appendix D.3) City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 65 The results of the distribution system analysis for the Existing and Committed growth scenarios are summarized in Table 5-6 and presented in Figure 5-9 through Figure 5-14. Refer to Table 6-2 for the abbreviations of each pressure zone name. Table 5-6—Distribution System Pressure and Fireflow Evaluation Growth Demand 0 . . . Pressure(Fair) U7TT717-7[c ... Scenario � .. I . II . I .I . :I II . .I :1 . Winter Avg. 4.7 0 58 191 982 1404 Existing Peak Hour 35.25 0 4 374 716 1541 Max Day+ 23.5 59 Nodes<1,000 gpm 111 Nodes 1,000-1,500 gpm 2,425 Nodes > 1,500 Fireflow +FF 13 Nodes < ISRB Rated Criteria gpm Winter Avg. 5.7 0 54 223 1,048 1674 Committed Peak Hour 42.7 0 4 483 690 1822 Max Day+ 28.5 57 Nodes< 1,000 gpm 101 Nodes 1,000-1,500 gpm 2,445 Nodes > 1,500 Fireflow +FF 12 Nodes < ISRB Rated Criteria gpm 5.5.1.2 Existing Model Results Static pressures in a given water system are almost entirely the result of pressure zone boundaries relative to the elevations served within a given area. The water pressure (also known as the "head") for each pressure zone is typically maintained at a constant level with booster pumps, and since elevation decreases in the northward direction in the Twin Falls area,the static pressure will increase locally as one travels northward in a given pressure zone (and vice-versa as one travels southward). As seen in Figure 5-9 and Figure 5-10, the existing system currently experiences high pressures along the northern boundary of four pressure zones: High Level, Low Level (South), South (North), and South (South). Although there are no excessively low pressures under 40 psi in the existing system during peak hour demand (the worst-case scenario for low pressure areas),there are a few areas that are approaching low pressure:the southern boundary of the High Level, Low Level (North), and Hankins pressure zones. As shown in Table 5-6 and Figure 5-9, the existing system performs quite well during peak hour demand and only four nodes exceed the evaluation pressure limits. In this scenario, about 58%of the nodes in the system produced "good" water pressure (60-80 psi), 27% showed fairly high pressures (80-100 psi), and about 14% showed fairly low pressures (40-60 psi). Since this is the period of highest demand, low pressure nodes would be expected to outnumber high pressure nodes, but this is not the case since the Twin Falls water system is currently configured to provide service to large pressure zones that are generally not well aligned with the elevation contours of the area. This means that certain pump stations must boost their water pressure to a high enough head to be able to provide adequate service to customers who would otherwise have pressure below 40 psi on the southern end of the pressure zone, which results in a large number of customers with high pressures in the northern region of those pressure zones. If a system is not configured ideally, high pressures can be inexpensively dealt with by local plumbers at the service point, but boosting low pressures requires considerably more effort and expense and is better accomplished at the system level with dedicated pump stations. As seen in Table 5-6 and Figure 5-10,the existing system has a considerable number of nodes that exceed the evaluation pressure limits during average winter demand (the worst-case scenario for high pressure areas). About 2% of all nodes in the existing system experience pressures above 100 psi during this time of the year.The majority of these high-pressure nodes are located in the northern region of the High Level Pressure Zone (HLPZ) in the center of the City, which spans a wide elevation range. This issue will be City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 66 resolved with a future pressure zone realignment project in this area of the City, which will incorporate these high-pressure nodes into the southern region of the Low Level Pressure Zone—South (LLPZS).After this project takes place,the pressure head setpoint for the LLPZS is anticipated to be lowered, which will alleviate some of the high-pressure nodes found in its northern region. Overall, about 53% of the nodes in this scenario receive good water pressure, 37%receive fairly high pressure, and about 7% receive fairly low pressure. About 7% of the nodes in the existing system failed to receive "good" fireflow (greater than 1,500 gpm) in the fireflow analysis.As seen in Figure 5-11,the majority of the nodes that failed to meet the minimum fireflow criteria (greater than 1,000 gpm) are situated within the HLPZ or towards the edges of the utility service boundary. Fireflow issues in the HLPZ are mostly the result of dead-end pipes, older four-inch water mains, and generally undersized pipes. Fireflow restrictions in the Hankins, Low Level (North), and South (South) pressure zones are, to a larger extent, due to inadequate looping. Of the 48 locations with an especially large fireflow requirement as identified by the ISRB (fireflow needs equal to or greater than 3,000 gpm), 13 of these locations do not have sufficient capacity(see Appendix D.3).The majority of these deficient ISRB locations are located in the HLPZ, as well as in the Low Level (North) and Eldridge pressure zones. Improved looping and upgrades to a minimum pipe diameter size of 8 inches are anticipated to remedy most, if not all, of the fireflow deficiencies identified in this analysis. 5.5.1.3 Committed Model Results The committed system was modeled with all existing and anticipated developments in the 20-year planning horizon (without any infrastructure improvements) and generally matches the 20-year population projections.This increase in demand generally decreased the number of existing nodes at high pressures and increased the number of existing nodes at lower pressures, while the relative proportion of nodes with good pressure during peak hour demand increased slightly to about 61%. This can also be seen from a comparison of Figure 5-9 to Figure 5-12 (peak hour results for the Existing and Committed scenarios, respectively), which shows less high pressure nodes on the northern boundaries of each pressure zone in the Committed scenario but more low pressure nodes along their southern boundaries. Similarly, the Committed system winter demand results in Figure 5-13 show slightly less high pressure nodes and slightly more low pressure nodes than the Existing system winter demand results seen in Figure 5-10, due mostly to an increase in demand. The Committed system fireflow analysis was performed for the existing system with all anticipated developments in the 20-year planning horizon, similar to the pressure analysis, although only the nodes for the existing system were evaluated for comparative purposes (see Figure 5-14). The number of nodes that failed to meet minimum fireflow criteria decreased to 57, although they are not all identical. Some of the failed nodes from the existing system analysis received improved fireflow in the committed system analysis due to additional looping(not shown in Figure 5-14),while some that originally met the minimum fireflow criteria failed in the committed analysis due to increased demands. In both cases, the commonality among all nodes that failed to meet minimum fireflow criteria was their close proximity to water mains under 8 inches in diameter and/or their location at the edge of the utility service boundary (i.e.,their distance from looped lines). 5.5.2 Condition of Distribution System A detailed assessment of the condition of the distribution system was not completed due to a lack of available information. Where available, condition was inferred by pipe age and by maintenance reports from the City. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 67 5.6 PRESSURE ZONES Typical pressure zones can generally be defined to allow a pressure differential of approximately 70 feet of elevation head (30 psi)across the zone. For example, maintaining typical pressures between 55 and 85 psi will satisfy most customers and provide a safety factor between the lower and upper regulatory boundaries of 40 psi and 100 psi at peak hour flows, respectively. If the elevation head across the pressure zone is more or less than 70 feet(^30 psi),some areas may experience unacceptably high or low pressures. Figure 5-15 compares the City's existing pressure zones to elevation contours at 70-foot intervals. As shown,the existing pressure zone boundaries are not well aligned with the 70-foot contours in some areas and certain areas of each zone experience excessively high or low pressures.This issue is most pronounced for the HLPZ,which is located in the center of the City and serves the largest area out of all pressure zones. As noted in Section 5.5, most pressure-related deficiencies throughout the water system can be traced back to pressure zone boundary alignment issues. Although it becomes increasingly difficult to adjust these boundaries as a water system becomes more complex, it is recommended that the City places a high priority on pressure zone improvements and realignment projects since they will have consequences for most aspects of the distribution system.With careful planning,pressure zone boundary improvements could simultaneously fix existing deficiencies, prevent future capacity or pressure-related issues, and provide the City with opportunities for industrial or commercial growth. 5.7 BACK-UP POWER SYSTEMS As shown in Table 2-6, back-up power generators are currently available for the Harrison Blending Booster Station, Wills Booster Station, Hankins Booster Station, Hankins Well # 1, South Well #3, and the Blue Lakes Wells.The City reports that all of these units appear to be in relatively good condition. If the capacity of the existing booster stations is expanded in the future,the City should investigate the sizing of the back- up generators and provide parallel units, if necessary. It is also recommended that back-up power be provided for the remaining booster stations and wells,in particular for the Canyon Springs Booster Station due to its key role in water supply. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 68 M N j• �• N �`•• ••• •r ti + = z '� z z • • • •r • - ••1••i••• •• 000 FALLS N f•q r l• ••• ._. z z z z z Xq-)(• WPressure Zi�ne oil Hankins - • • • M • ii �� •� :•� • ••i �•• HPZKIMBERLY • .� : aap:•••tc•N i ram' ••: z z z South Pressure �� ""� t • •i •�• a *� r ar+c a. � A. . ..• . . ••»..•.•• : . . .:, a !i►•� •ne(North) • • ••• z 2016 Comp. Pla BoundarySPZN • . • I �•�►i : • • • • t :• f. • • ••• • : • �j M i Mile Roadsr • • • •'. z z z z z Railroads ��•�� ••q••r N onez Existing Pipesf• • , • • NEPZ Diameter •• •••••x•(i••i : zR Am c N 1 �• •. i Ill •• •i••�:�.•� 4 z z : z z z ■ I It z z z z z z 1Existing • �N M N — M Junctions M Peak Hour Pressure N '1 psi r M • 41 psi z z R z z z z _ M • psi N N + N • : 11 psiM N • >100 psi N M Figure 5-9 0 _ 5,000 Existing System: Peak Hour Demand 1 inch 5,000 -- N N j• :• " (�•• ••• •r ti Z z N i�i ••:: • •� •..! z z N �i •i'�• ��ii•••'% N� l•:�i log a t .01 • !t•)),t• r 110 • • N •�� •1• 4 • ••0 •:• N �'•� I • N »•• • ••••••, • •, • �• :• • c• •� ••• • ••FALLS �•a . •• N N • •—.••,.�••••�c•u",�1 :•.ppi•••.•-••—vl� •lam�•)♦c�•!c••-•••—tq•:• �,"z z z z z .ter •�� • �•tN�•• Q> � • ar•�1 •� ••• •'�• � ••••»•�- N 1 t•••)•/•••�•J••!••t••Ni•)Jt••� •c•) • •a••u»tS ••••••••ii:•:�'•• N N «.) oIl�IIICI111111««0Pressure Zin MNI N Hank ins iv •- 1 a• HPZ �• :•: • ••: �•• 1 r' • N •••, ♦♦♦� • ••• • N N- ' •r� • � � • •i •��•• a •,•• • i�i •• � KIMBERLY too I • outh Pressure • i•»i'«i•• ' ' • i • Zone(North) I�� • • • • • �•• ••••• r z 2016 Comp. Plan Boundary 4 ORCHARD • • 1 • I •••! r • SPZN �••• • •• • : • r Mile Roads • • • i �� • EldriDiameter (in) Railroads Existing Pipes N• • �. I N •• a•••••xc: • N 1 �• •. i C.LrC�J N •• •i••�:�.•� 4 z z . . z z . I z z ac z z z z 1Existing • �M N N — N Junctions N DemandWinter Pressur N '1 psi r N • 41 psi R z z z z _ N • psi M M + M • 11 psi N N • >100 psi M N Figure 5- 10 0 _ 5,000 Existing System : Winter Demand "' -- N �`•• • ��y z N •�ri •� •,,,! z z ••ai !1•t!•� • ♦ •• •••• i a t y z� • • • • • I • • N •••�I �• •. • • • • �� aqi�J) IiM• • •••„ . J��L •� ``} I]lI • •t, •• N I I••� r ••••I• .�•-�•»•. -.•—•i• r- -Vic•••—• •— Ms z z z z Hankins Pressure Zine KIMBERLY IN ••i ��a• •�_ _ • •N(•u••r�• rr • • •„ at• n�� • • ram• •••i. • • i � z z N N • ••��•• •• • ��• • .•�•� a •••• . i2 •• M . � �e •t� • �� I II 2016 Comp. Plan Boundary City Utility Service Boundary N N- �I d•((F •�1' � • • �� • • • • • Eldrid•,Mile • Roadsti ��•v i i••••• Zone,essure Railroads • �� i•! i• •• •Q N Existing Pipes ••• • N Diameter (in) t• 3-��•�,•• 4 z z . z zI z z z z z z z 1 •• �N N r 1 N ExistingJunctionsN Available • r N 111 •• z z z z zM R z z z z _ • 111 11 •• • 11 11 •• N N • 11 •• M N N Figure 5- 11 0 _ 000 Existing System: Available Fireflow at _ 1 inch— -__ Max Day Demand N M I• i' 1 Low Level Press re 7 Zone(North) LLPZN N �yi••i•�-' t c��• ••• •. r z • ••. i �V . 1 •.• • • . a t N • • • • • •�»� C�•�) � E -- • • �•.• t •• • iu) i,s`�� • • • • • 00 20 Zbne • •L4rALL_, •J •. •• .�• ••••••) • • • LLPZS • • •. i (• •� i•• • f• IN •• M i ii2i•'T � � u• �(•• �i•�(p�•••f•-••—vI� •li•i��wi•�c•••—•-•—�•••-•-i_ Nz M • •• ••••• • q<• .. i I • • •5 V� (•;(. •• • • )♦fir • • •• •• •• N ADDISON High Level Pressure Zone .tit •• flf • ••• f• t IN M �► `a.x. '�Yr,'w' �•' �t t• • vet•• r.•: q�.'i• a.Y .f•, N N aa.... it 41► �+�.� I • • •ne(Nor • • • • •• • .. ••••. •. Mile Roads • M Railroadsone r••�� •�t�••. _ Committed Pipes 4 •• •.� :fH • p• Diameter •••tct.(V i•i LXAlly ��N �• •. C.I.rC�J N 1 •iNi(.'i•��• c••• �, z z : . z z • � z z z z z z z 1Committed Junctions •i •i t� �N M • — N • )_ak Hour Pressure N N N N N • 41 psi z z z + — M M N • psi M M + • : 11 psiM N • >100 psi N M M Figure 5- 12 0 _ 5,000 Committed System: Peak Hour 1 inch— -__ Demand M M I• :• 1 c�•• ••• •. r z N •��• ••:: • • 1.! 1• • • •r i • •.�• • � . i�Ali � •� • •r 1✓ • + M • i• ••^• •a•:a••.• ••)��•))N •ice •� $0 : •'. 0 M .. .. •.. ... N -" •• • ••••••. • • •••• K� �• • • • ••� • � ••• ♦ • .• v •N•.r I • •j .•ice+ M . ••• ••••• • • • ♦4 N •�••w• via Now lrs i41 � • MR, 0000 w••i•• : • • • ••• : :.• S•• • • • z 2016 Comp. Plan Boundary SPZN • • • i i :x: • • • •••• • •� • Mile Roads a. Eldri • • .Ij CEP2 Committed Pipes . Railroads ressure.Zone • iq• ai� - N ., • Diameter .••tcfV:•i LXAlly a �IN ■ I z to z to t[ t[ to >10 Committed Junctions ••• • Winter • Demand Pressure N N N N M '1 psi r�l M • 41 psi z z M N • psi M + • : 11 psiM N • >100 psi N M Figure 5- 13 0 _ 5,000 Committed System: Winter Deman -- t � y \+ M M •ri •••• i iii•••• a � � • �� 1"t��-s = s t • •_•••) ••• •• i• • •• • l _ • IM •••�••�!• • �• •tit ••i �•• • �• I 11y� M " " •) •��•� SIN • M 00 FF •/� z z z z z 2016 Comp.Plan Boundary :"Al . i•i. •�� ai •• •� " Mile •...Railroads • �•i••i •• ��^ I M "- •i•i••••NIa•�: • M Committed Pipes M t• •1�•j� yj z : z z 11 z z z z z z z " 11 Diameter (in) EN 1 t -Y M ". + t A M 1 at M ♦ z M Committed Junctions Available • r z • z z z • z z z � I..z __ M 111 .• M + M � M • 111 11 .• • • 11 11 .• M 11 gpm M M Figure 5-14 0 5,000 Committed System: Available Fireflow l 1 inch---__ at Max Day Demand Elevation Contours •� Major Roads a 2016 Comp. Plan Boundary City Utility Service Boundary 1 Low Level Pressure Zone(North) LLPZN b 6.3 ,60 PO MiLINE Low Level Pressure ' Zone(South) LLPZS FALLS High Level3�3p PressureEZone ADDISON H LPZ Hankins Pressure Zone HPZ SOUTH PARK KIMBERLY South P`essure Eldridge Zone th)V Pressure Zone ortc AH RD SPZN EPZ 3$�� 1 I 1 z Y z x 3600 South Pressure = m Zone,(South) — ——— —— SPZS z W LU ~ Y 'moo z 5 LU z W I Opp % r 0 6,000 l(JUB - 1 inch 6,000 Feet J•U•B ENGINEERS,INC. 5.8 WATER ADMINISTRATION 5.8.1 Operators With substantial changes over the last few years, the operators have done a tremendous job taking care of the Twin Falls water system. Proper licensing is in place to meet state requirements. Depending on how much replacement work the City intends to construct themselves versus how much they hire, additional operators could be needed as the City continues to grow. Additional operators could also be needed if capital improvement budgets increase to cover typical maintenance expenses based on a 100-year replacement life for pipes. 5.8.2 Ordinances Proper ordinances appear to be in place to meet state requirements. The City is continuing to revise, update, and improve their ordinances over time in order to better manage their infrastructure. 5.8.3 Maintenance Improvement Budget Based on the adopted budget for 2022 (see Appendix C.2) and an assessment of the total value of the City's existing distribution system (see Appendix E),the City has not allocated enough capital funds to the water distribution department to replace their pipes on a 100-year replacement schedule. Current budgets for pipe replacement are beyond a 500-year replacement schedule, which is well past the expected life of most pipes. Additionally, some of the City's booster pump stations are operating beyond their typical service life and budgets for major rehabilitation or replacement of these stations will be needed.These regular maintenance needs are in addition to any large expenditures for new infrastructure and should be carefully considered by the City. Based on the preceding evaluations, the City's infrastructure needs for the next 20 years were identified and planning level cost estimates were developed (see Chapter 6). Detailed plans for financing and implementing these projects in a manner that the City is favorable to(minimizing debt, increasing rates, etc.) will be presented in Chapter 7. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 76 6 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS Based on the results of the existing water system evaluation in Chapter 5, several improvements are recommended over the 20-year planning period. This chapter will provide an overview of the necessary improvements for addressing deficiencies in the existing water system. 6.1 PRIMARY ALTERNATIVE Several meetings with City staff were held in order to identify the appropriate improvements for the City's water system. The purpose of these meetings was to investigate further details of the City's deficient water system components, discuss the City's priorities for capital improvements versus assessment and/or maintenance, determine the City's financial capabilities, and to screen the various options for improvements. The following recommended improvements are the result of this screening process and were developed with the intention to remain useful to the City as a guide for future decision-making. 6.1.1 Water Supply Although the City appears to have a sufficient water supply for the 20-year planning period, the western U.S. has recently experienced severe droughts, sharp increases in the cost of water rights, and large uncertainties in long-term water supply trends. In light of these facts, it is recommended that the City continue to pursue the acquisition of water rights for the full build-out of their Planning Area, which will occur beyond the 40-year planning horizon typically used for large infrastructure planning. By doing so, the City will have the opportunity to build their water system for maximum resiliency and avoid future reactionary measures that could cost considerably more than current water rights. As described in Section 2.3.1, the City currently has a number of water rights that total approximately 88 cfs. However, a current water right protest limits the diversion rate for the South Wells to 15.58 cfs, and as noted in Section 4.1.1.5, fluctuations in the Blue Lakes water supply could limit the City's available diversion rate from the Blue Lakes wells to as little as 26 cfs. Assuming that no action is taken to resolve this protest, bolster the Blue Lakes water rights, or acquire new rights, the minimum diversion rate that could theoretically be available to the City would be 47.58 cfs. Although population is difficult to determine accurately beyond a certain point, the full build-out demand of the Planning Area was estimated to about 110 cfs (or 71.3 MGD) based on the unit demands developed in Section 4.3, current land use patterns, and expected industrial growth. As summarized in Table 6-1, this means that the City could experience a water rights deficiency of about 28 to 68 cfs (or about 18 to 44 MGD) at full build-out. Table 6-1-Water Rights Deficiencies Total • 1 Sourceiversion Rate: Maximum Total Water Right Diversion Rate: Minimum CFS 1 CFS MGD Blue Lakes 52.47 33.91 26.00 16.81 South Wells 29.58 19.12 15.58 10.07 Hankins Wells 6.00 3.88 6.00 3.88 Total Available Supply 88.05 56.91 47.58 30.75 SupplyParameter 1-ficit-Best Case Supply Deficit CFS 1 CFS MGD Full Build-Out Demand 110.31 71.3 110.31 71.3 Safety Buffer 5.72 3.7 5.72 3.7 Total Supply Need 116.03 75.0 116.03 75.0 Total Deficit 27.98 18.09 68.45 44.25 City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 77 In order to address their water rights deficiency, it is recommended that the City pursue the below action items with the ultimate goal of acquiring a total water right diversion rate of 116 CFS(or 75.0 MGD),which includes a small safety buffer: • Blue Lakes Water Rights. Pursue opportunities to bolster the existing water rights in the Blue Lakes system by means of agreements with other water rights holders and IDWR. • Purchase Existing Wells and Water Rights. Identify and consider testing and purchasing additional wells, coupled with accompanying water rights as such opportunities arise. • Test, Explore, and Develop New Wells. The supply from the existing South Wells will start to become a limiting factor for meeting demands from the South Tanks. Ongoing testing, exploration,and/or development of new wells in the south and east portions of the planning area could potentially help offset the declining aquifer levels and reduced pumping rates. • Resolve Existing Water Rights Issues. Continue to resolve current water right protests on the South Wells and Sunnybrook Spring water rights. • Aquifer Water Level Monitoring. Install water table monitoring systems within the South and Hankins Wells to better predict seasonal and long-term trends in water levels.Additional sites for monitoring aquifer levels may include the Morrison well or other wells north of the Snake River. • Aquifer Recharge. Investigate aquifer recharge opportunities to help stabilize groundwater levels and well yields and to provide permanent mitigation for additional water rights. Due to the wide array of options available to the City to supplement their water supply, general costs for the acquisition of a new water right were not estimated. However, a general cost has been included in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for working towards water right resolutions and exploring the above action items. In the 20-year planning period, it is anticipated that the South Wells protest will be resolved and that some form of agreement will be established for the Blue Lakes system that may allow the City to effectively receive a higher diversion rate. Currently, the supply from the South Wells is not sufficient to provide the City with maximum resiliency, and it is recommended that future source development be focused on expanding this well system. From an operations perspective, the City reports that it is five times more expensive to pump water from the Blue Lakes wells than from the South Wells due to their location on the other side of the Snake River canyon. The City is also heavily dependent on the Blue Lakes wells for their water supply, and additional South Wells would mitigate the considerable risk associated with a failure of the Blue Lakes wells, the Canyon Springs pump station,or the transmission pipeline.The City has already found a highly productive location for South Well#5, but it is unable to be established as a new source until the City's current water rights protest is resolved. Ultimately, the City is working towards an arrangement with IDWR that will allow them to pump their full diversion rate for the Hankins and South Wells from any Point of Diversion (POD) in either system. 6.1.2 Storage As noted in Section 5.2.1, the Harrison Tank does not have enough capacity to serve existing demands and it is recommended that storage at this location be expanded. In anticipation for this improvement, the City has already purchased land for the new tank in close proximity to the existing Harrison Tank. A newly constructed storage tank was assumed to have a reliable service life of 80 years, and thus, the new tank was sized based on the full build-out demand of the three northernmost pressure zones to which it provides service. Based on these demands and the need to have extra storage for risk mitigation,the new tank is proposed to be 10 million gallons. A 30-inch diameter transmission main that connects the tanks is also recommended for installation and has been included in the cost estimate for the new tank. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 78 Additionally, the City should consider acquiring approximately 10 to 15 acres (minimum) of land near the existing South Tanks for future storage beyond the 20-year planning period. This region has experienced relatively fast growth and is anticipated to become heavily developed, which will severely limit the availability and affordability of future land purchases in this area.As a result of this expected growth, long- term storage demands from the South Tanks could require an additional 10 to 15 million gallons more than is currently provided. Ideally, any land purchases should be adjacent to or near the existing tanks in order to minimize the cost of transmission mains. The City should also consider addressing some of the minor issues on the exterior of South Tank #1 as listed in Section 5.2.2.2, as well as the more pressing issue of the deteriorating tank outlet.A cost for this assessment and repair has been included in the CIP. 6.1.3 Booster Pump Stations 6.1.3.1 Canyon Springs Pump Station The Canyon Springs Pump Station requires improvements due to condition and capacity restrictions. If the existing building is retrofitted (as assumed for the cost estimate provided in Appendix E), major upgrades to the electrical and HVAC systems will be needed, as well as a new power feed and a transformer from Idaho Power. It is anticipated that new improvements will bring the firm capacity of the station to 24,800 gpm by replacing the existing pumps with four 1,250 hp pumps (three duty, one standby). The City may also choose to replace the 36-inch transmission main currently delivering water from this station to the Harrison Tank if it is determined to have a high risk of failure,either as part of this project or as a separate project. Similarly, if the supply lines from the Blue Lakes wells are determined to have an unacceptable risk of failure, the City may also choose to install a new transmission main under the Snake River via Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD). A cost estimate was developed for each of these options but only recommended as an improvement in the "as needed" category. If an entirely new building is anticipated to be constructed, it is recommended that the City purchase a minimum of approximately 5 acres on which to locate the new pump station. 6.1.3.2 Blending Pump Station The Blending Pump Station is in good condition but could potentially require improvements if it is relied upon to transfer water to the South Tanks for water supply purposes. The original design for this station took into account that the 250 hp pumps could be upsized to 350 hp pumps at some point in the future. Upsizing the pumps to 350 hp each could increase the station capacity to 13,000 to 14,000 gpm. However, this report assumes the pump station will be relied upon only for water quality (blending) purposes. Therefore, it is assumed the station will have sufficient firm capacity. 6.1.3.3 Wills Pump Station The City pursued the improvements recommended for the Wills Pump Station from the 2016 Facilities Plan and built a new building that houses three 125 hp pumps and two 40 hp pumps.These improvements represent the first phase of upgrades in the ultimate plan to increase the firm capacity of this station to a level that will allow for service to both South Pressure Zones (North and South) and the new Rock Creek Pressure Zone. Currently,the five existing pumps provide a firm capacity of 5,450 gpm,which is adequate to meet existing plus will-serve demands. In the 20-year planning period, it is anticipated that the City will experience particularly fast growth in the South Pressure Zones and that future planned pumping and distribution upgrades for this station will be triggered. In particular, this includes the installation of a new 125 hp pump, which will fill the remaining room left in this station. Beyond the 20-year planning period, it is expected that the two 40 hp pumps will eventually be upsized. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 79 6.1.3.4 Eldridge Pump Station This pump station and its pumps are in adequate condition to last throughout the 20-year planning period. However, this station currently only has the ability to meet existing and committed demands with the rated capacity of the pumps, allowing for no redundancy. It is recommended that redundant capacity be provided at this station by installing an additional 125 to 150 hp pump,or by reconfiguring all of the pump sizes in the pump station. Due to the relatively low risk of failure at this station compared to the Canyon Springs Station, it is not considered necessary to upgrade the Eldridge Pump Station until after the 10- year benchmark of the current 20-year planning period. The priority of this upgrade will be even further reduced after the Hankins Pressure Zone split is completed because the existing Hankins Pump Station will then be able to provide redundant pumping capabilities to the Eldridge Pressure Zone. 6.1.3.5 Existing Harrison Pump Station Although the pumps at the Harrison station were assumed to be in poor condition based on age, recent inspections by City staff have revealed that they are performing quite well. In addition, the sharp decline in existing and 20-year demands due to the reasons listed in Section 4.2 have greatly reduced the expected burden on this station. Based on this assessment, the pumps at the Harrison Pump Station are recommended to be replaced sometime after the 10-year mark in the current 20-year planning period. It is estimated that the existing pumps would be replaced with four 500 to 600 hp pumps to provide sufficient firm capacity to meet 40-year demands. In addition, the cost estimate provided in Appendix E for improvements to this station includes major electrical/control system upgrades. 6.1.3.6 Hankins Pump Station As shown in Table 5-2, the Hankins Pump Station has adequate capacity to meet the existing demands, but not the committed demands. Recent growth in the Hankins Pressure Zone (HPZ) has accelerated the need to split this zone in two and install a new pump station. The new pump station will be designed to serve the new HPZ (South), while the existing station will be configured to serve the new HPZ (North). In the future, additional supply will be needed for these zones and pump stations. Assuming water to these zones will be provided from the Blue Lakes wells,a study will need to be performed to assess whether the existing Harrison pumps can be configured to transmit water to the HPZ stations or if an entirely new pump station will be needed for that purpose. In the latter scenario, it is likely that a new pump station would be built near the new Harrison Storage Tank along with a 24-inch transmission main to the Hankins Storage Tanks, which would provide the City with ample flexibility for routing water to this region. 6.1.4 Pressure Zones As shown in Figure 5-15, the current pressure zone boundaries do not align as well as they could with the elevation gradients across the City, which causes certain areas to experience unacceptably high or low pressures during certain periods of the year. Additionally, growth in specific areas of the City has accelerated the need to perform several pressure zone splits and boundary adjustments in order to better serve the demands of a given pressure zone. The Low Line Canal is considered the most southern boundary and highest elevation point in the water service area. Using the elevation contour along the Low Line Canal as a control elevation, 70-foot elevation contours were developed for the City and used to design the future pressure zone boundaries at full build-out of the Planning Area. The future pressure zone boundaries are shown in Figure 6-1 along with the approximate location of control valves that may be necessary depending on how the system is ultimately configured. As discussed in Section 5.6, improvements to the pressure zone boundaries are a high priority due to the cascading effects they have on other parts of the water system, and it is important to study these changes closely to assess whether multiple objectives can be accomplished in a single project.Within the 20-year planning period, pressure zone realignment projects have been proposed that will affect the boundary of every City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 80 zone except for the Eldridge Pressure Zone and Low Level Pressure Zone (North). For clarity and brevity, the abbreviation of each pressure zone is given below in Table 6-2 and clearly labeled both in Figure 5-15 and in Figure 6-1. Table 6-2—City Pressure Zone Abbreviations Status Abbreviation Full Name LLPZN Low Level Pressure Zone(North) LLPZS Low Level Pressure Zone(South) HLPZ High Level Pressure Zone Existing HPZ Hankins Pressure Zone EPZ Eldridge Pressure Zone SPZN South Pressure Zone(North) SPZS South Pressure Zone(South) HPZN Hankins Pressure Zone(North) Future HPZS Hankins Pressure Zone(South) RPZ Rock Creek Pressure Zone The following is a general list of conceptual changes that have been or still need to be investigated for the given pressure zone(s), with each change reflected in Figure 6-1: • Splitting the Hankins Pressure Zone into two pressure zones.This project is recommended as part of the Priority 1 distribution improvements and generally involves splitting the HPZ into a northern and southern region that is divided by the 3800-foot elevation contour. As mentioned in Section 6.1.3.6, it is anticipated that a new pump station will eventually be required to serve HPZS.This split will allow regulation pressures to be met for the whole service area, reduce operating costs for the existing pump station, and provide more flexibility for future service area changes. • Splitting off part of the High Level Pressure Zone into Hankins Pressure Zone (North).Storage,source water, and booster station pressure are generally considered adequate in the HPZ to handle this change. The area to be split from the HLPZ can generally be described as the southernmost % to % mile between Blue Lakes Blvd and Hankins Rd.This boundary adjustment will occur as part of the HPZ Split project and will contribute to the creation of the new HPZN. While the HLPZ still crosses nearly two sets of 70-foot contours from near Glanbia in the south to the Harrison Tank in the north, the worst low-pressure problems are addressed by splitting off the area discussed above. • Splitting off part of the High Level Pressure Zone into the Low Level Pressure Zone (South). Due to excessively high pressures along the northwest boundary of the HLPZ, a small area will need to be ceded to LLPZS. This comprises the northernmost % to % mile of the HLPZ from Washington St to about % mile west of Grandview Blvd. This improvement is recommended based on the results obtained from the hydraulic model, but it has not yet been fully studied or developed into a formal project with costs in the 20-year planning horizon. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 81 tt� Valves — Elevation Contours Existing Major Roads Q Future 2016 Comp. Plan Boundary Future(Optional) E— City Utility Service Boundary • Low Level Pressure Q Zone(North) LLPZN .S9O b 3660 • PO XiLINE Low Level Pressure ' 1 Zone(South) 1 LLPZS 1 FALLS i I High Level 1 Pressure Zone H LPZ ADDISON Hankins-Pressure Zone(North) HPZN SOUTH PARK KIMBERLY Rock Cheek Pressure Zone RPZ O Eldridge Pressure Zone Hankins Pressure I p oRCHaRD EPZ 3800 Zone(South) 1 HPZS r--- r-- z South Pressure a South Pressure x 3600 1 Zone (North) Zone,(South) ——SPZLU SPZS W c z �• g c v z = z v a W LE �V H e - �O lc C CJ N 0 6,000 • . • m • . 1 inch = 6,000 Feet J•U•B ENGINEERS,INC. • South Pressure Zone boundary adjustments. The boundary line between the SPZN and SPZS is currently near the existing control valves and lies about% mile south of Orchard Dr. The number of control valves could be reduced,additional area could be supplied,and high pressures problems could be better addressed if this boundary is moved south by another % mile (to Pheasant Rd). Existing water mains located along Pheasant Rd are already in place for this boundary adjustment to work, and only about% mile of additional piping will be required. Likewise,the northern boundary of SPZN should also be moved% mile south,which places this zone entirely between the 3800-foot and 3870- foot elevation contours. East of Blue Lakes Blvd, about 50% of the area currently designated as SPZS lies between these two contours,which should be absorbed into SPZN as a result of this improvement. This project is currently designated as a Priority 1 distribution improvement and is anticipated to take place in two phases, with the first phase to be implemented in the next 1-3 years and the second phase to be implemented when triggered by additional development(expected in about 10 years). • New Rock Creek Pressure Zone.As a result of the second phase of SPZ boundary adjustments, a new pressure zone could be created on the west side of the City near Rock Creek in order to serve new developments and existing domestic users in this area. This specific region, which lies mostly west of Blue Lakes Blvd and is bounded by the 3800-foot and 3730-foot elevation contours, could experience considerable growth in the next 20 years. If this growth occurs more rapidly than anticipated, the City's water system will need additional piping and PRVs in order to deliver water to this area at regulation pressures, which will drive the need for an entirely new pressure zone. This new pressure zone has been created in the hydraulic model and was briefly studied for the purpose of completing the Committed and Full Build-Out growth scenarios, although further evaluation will be required as development takes place. In summary, realigning the pressure zones to 70-foot contours will provide numerous benefits to both customers and the City: pump station pressures and operating costs can be reduced, regulation service pressures can be more reliably provided, and planning efforts can be guided more accurately. There are currently two pressure zone-related projects proposed for the City focusing on the Hankins and South Pressure Zones, with each recommended as a Priority 1 distribution improvement. It is anticipated that each of these projects will be completed by about the 10-year mark of the current 20-year planning period, with the second phase of the SPZ boundary adjustments taking place shortly after this mark. At least one additional pressure zone-related improvement will need to be studied and pursued by the City, either concurrently or sequentially depending on development trends,which would modify the LLPZS and pump station or PRV pressure setpoints. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 83 6.1.5 Distribution System The hydraulic water model was used to identify and prioritize the distribution system improvements needed over the 20-year planning period and beyond. While some of the identified deficiencies will self- correct as additional development occurs and water main improvements are constructed, others may require improvements independent of development. Figure 6-2 provides an overview of all proposed distribution improvements, with more detail given in Figure 6-3 through Figure 6-6. Priority descriptions are summarized in Table 6-3. Table 6-3—Pipe Priority Improvements PurposePriority Description-General Priority 1 Pipes . Resolve low pressure deficiencies under existing and committed demands • Resolve most critical fireflow deficiencies under existing and committed demands • Replace old 4-inch mains in groups in accordance with the seal coat maintenance schedule • Replace line in Kimberly Road in conjunction with ITD's road improvement. Priority 2 Pipes . Upsize critical pipes to meet required Idaho Surveying and Rating Bureau, Inc.(ISRB)fireflow needs • Upsize remaining 4-inch and smaller pipes throughout the City to a minimum of 8 inches or larger . Resolve least critical pressure and fireflow deficiencies • Update pipes in the FilerMashington intersection in conjunction with proposed intersection project. Priority 3 Pipes . 8-to 12-inch pipes that could be needed to accommodate future development . Eliminate dead ends by looping them back into other pipes Priority 4 Pipes . 14-inch and larger distribution pipes that could be needed to accommodate future development • Transmission pipes that could be needed at full buildout of the service area 6.1.5.1 Pressure Zone Adjustments The proposed pressure zone boundary adjustments are considered a subset of the Priority 1 distribution improvements due to their impact on the rest of the system. Figure 6-3 shows the changes which need to occur in order to carry out each pressure zone boundary adjustment currently being studied.The HPZ split is recommended to be implemented as soon as possible and will require just over one mile of additional piping, as well as at least two new PRVs. The first phase of the SPZ adjustment is anticipated to be completed soon after the HPZ split, with the next phase to be implemented when triggered by development in the new Rock Creek Pressure Zone. In total,about one and a half miles of additional piping and two new PRVs will be needed for this improvement, although the first phase will only require about mile of pipe and a single PRV. For each of these adjustments to work, several control valves will need to be closed or opened in order to create or eliminate isolation between distribution pipes, respectively.The general locations of these control valves are shown in Figure 6-3, and their specific locations will be described in detail in the Preliminary Engineering Reports completed for these projects. 6.1.5.2 Priority 1 Pipe Improvements Priority 1 pipe improvements were identified based on the criteria given in Table 6-3 and grouped into individual projects based on the City's maintenance schedule.The City's distribution system is divided into eight zones for seal coat maintenance, and City staff maintain a goal of completing one zone per year. Figure 6-4 shows seven groups of Priority 1 pipes,the maintenance zone they belong to, and the years in which each zone will receive maintenance. Due to staff shortages and an abundance of maintenance duties, this system was developed in order to provide City staff with more guidance for when and where their efforts should be concentrated. These seven projects are intended to be completed on a flexible timeline as staff and funds become available and at the discretion of the Water Superintendent. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 84 6.1.5.3 Priority 2 Pipe Improvements Priority 2 pipe improvements were identified based on the criteria given in Table 6-3 and grouped into four cost estimates, each focused on one or two of the City's maintenance zones. Essentially, this set of improvements focuses on resolving all remaining pressure and fireflow deficiencies not addressed with the Priority 1 pipes, and they are organized by maintenance zone to remain consistent with the guidance for Priority 1 pipe improvements. Priority 2 pipe improvements and the maintenance zone they belong to can be seen in Figure 6-5. Priority 2 pipe improvements are intended to be completed at the discretion of the Water Superintendent and in no particular order or timeline. If a certain amount of Priority 1 pipe improvements are planned for and completed everyyear at regular intervals, nearby Priority 2 pipes could be reviewed in the early stages of planning and included in the yearly maintenance projects as surplus funds and staff become available. It is understood that many additional pipes could be added to the Priority 2 pipe improvements if the City performed a full condition assessment of their distribution system. In particular, any pipes revealed to contain lead fittings should be considered for a Priority 2 pipe and service line replacement. However,the goal of this planning document is to make recommendations for improvements based on currently available information, and it will remain the duty of the Water Superintendent to identify future deficiencies and keep records of priority pipe improvements up to date. For further discussion regarding lead pipes, see Section 6.1.5.7. 6.1.5.4 Priority 3&4 Pipe Improvements Priority 3 and 4 pipe improvements were selected by identifying capacity restrictions at full build-out of the service area. In general,this approach assumes 12-inch pipes on the mile roads, 10-inch pipes on the half-mile and quarter mile roads, and 8-inch minimum pipes in all other areas. This will result in a robust network that generally provides adequate fireflow. Priority 3 pipes are 8-to 12-inch diameter distribution pipes(upsized from existing as well as newly added) that will be needed as demand increases throughout the City. Priority 4 pipes serve an identical purpose, although they are comprised of larger water mains (14-inches and larger) that may be needed for distribution ortransmission.Each set is displayed together in Figure 6-6 below. Due to the fact that certain proposed pipes correspond to specific infrastructure improvements that have alternative options, not every proposed pipe shown in Figure 6-6 is anticipated to be completed.The locations of dead-end pipes are also included in this figure for reference, which should be tied back into existing water mains where possible. Priority 3 and 4 pipe improvements are intended to be completed at the discretion of the Water Superintendent and in no particular order or timeline. Priority 3 and 4 pipes (as well as dead-end pipes) are intended to be reviewed in the early stages of yearly maintenance planning and included in maintenance projects as surplus funds and staff become available. Because of the inherent uncertainty in long-term forecasting, a cost estimate was not developed for all Priority 3 and 4 pipe improvements. However, costs were estimated for the most important transmission and distribution improvements from this category and included in the "As Needed"category of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 85 6.1.5.5 "As Needed"Improvements The "As Needed" improvements include regular maintenance items as well as improvements that may be triggered by unexpected failure, sudden classification as high risk, or development. For example, meter replacements, pipe leak detection, and exploratory well drilling are all regular maintenance items that are expected to be completed on regular intervals, and thus, are not appropriate to list alongside other improvements in specific years. Important distribution/transmission pipes which have been included in this category and received a cost estimate include:the 36-inch transmission main from the Canyon Springs Pump Station to the top of the Canyon rim; a 36-inch redundant supply pipe drilled underneath Snake River;a 24-inch transmission main from the Harrison Tanks to the Hankins Tanks;and a 20-inch distribution pipe running westward from the Wills Booster Pump Station. Some of these pipes could be financed through development, while others will remain the sole responsibility of the City to implement as they deem necessary. 6.1.5.6 Water Meters The City is currently in the process of phasing out existing water meters that require manual readings with meters that have wireless capabilities. The advantages of wireless meters include more efficient data collection and a reduction in the problems associated with manual record retrieval (i.e., weather conditions, staffing, etc.). A certain number of meters are replaced annually with the City's existing maintenance budget, and the annual cost of these replacements are included in the"As Needed"ongoing maintenance items listed on the CIP. In addition to improved metering devices at the point of delivery, there are other meters that could be installed throughout the distribution network to more precisely measure the water being delivered to a given pressure zone. For more accurate future evaluations of the water system, it is recommended that the City install flow meters on the PRVs that are currently delivering water to the LLPZS and LLPZN. 6.1.5.7 Lead Due to the consistent use of ductile and cast-iron pipes throughout the City prior to 2011, there are a number of lead joints and fittings that exist throughout the City's distribution system. Numerous water quality tests have provided assurance that these components are not adversely impacting the distribution system, as lead concentrations remain within the safety limits set by the EPA. However, if the City considers adding a surface water supply source at any point in the future, there is a risk associated with surface water causing the deterioration of these components and the release of lead into the distribution system. Where possible, it is recommended that the City locate and replace pipes and service lines that contain lead appurtenances.These improvements should be categorized as Priority 2 pipe improvements and given the same level of consideration. If external funding becomes available for these improvements, their priority could be elevated, but corrective actions are expected to be limited by staff availability. In this event, the Water Superintendent will be relied upon for the final prioritization of all City water projects based on available funds, available staff, and relative risks. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 86 Dead . Project-Specific Fi• • Diameter Sizo : z Railroads RoadsMile 2016 Comp.Plan Boundary Existing PipesI ? DiameterI M� /tom �. s ♦ r * t + M >10 Pipe Improvements Zone (South)n Priority 1LJ.C� LLPPriority 3 �17 ��■■�r- M Priority 4 Will.�� ■� ��■�J �South PZ SplitC�71L'�� ■III Ilk — ____ ■ 'M �- 11•� _ 1- , ICI �r�� „ . .• all I�� II� � _ M � ICI M /d M IEldriqp M. M M M M ��•yy��--yy�� - -�M �� . • M ONLx.IJ1.y • M " M — M " I M � M s t M Figure 6-2 0 4,000 — — ii Overview of All Improvements -- 2016 Comp. Plan Boundary City Utility Service Boundary Mile Roads Valves O Existing FALLS O Future : '�, 12 Future (Optional) �'`` �n�L PZ Split Changes --_- - Close Valves/ Create Isolation 0 Open Valves/ Eliminate Isolation ar PZ Split Proposed Pipes 8 *� Hankins PZ Split $ ADDISON South PZ Split - Milli prr,,n KIMBERLY 12 8� 12 6o80O8 10 1ti2 8 ORCHARD x Q m a —'00 ————— 1 O � Z Jill 3600 Ing Z r c Z III W °z dw_� 40i .3 QY H � Q a LU a 3 m W ��uB � � - • 0 3,000 ;_W�� 7_=--oo' D A. - — - 1 inch = 3,000 Feet j.U.9[NGINIZn,INC. Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 Zone 7 Zone 8 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 -'F i I ADDISON ri Noma R A - KIMBERLY Mile Roads Railroads B \ Existing Pipes Diameter (in) i I� >10 I � Pipe Improvements Diameter (in) o 8 z 12 a ORCHARD 3 0 2,000 1 inch - 2,000 Feet J•U•B ENGINEERS,INC. �� - � Zone • i ��•� Zone 4 —'- - -- '.1�r� 20" pipes) Rig! 680 feet of pipe d MIN 11 --- `�. .� �• � i I I Zon - . r .L� _ Mile Roads Pipe Improvements Railroads Existing Pipes Diameter (in) 11 i �I rr -� 111 . r • . , Figure 6-5 0 3,000 Priority 2 Pipe Improvements -- M T M M M M M -00 ADDISON % 1I IMHigh Lew Zone IL' 1 2016 M= _ Comp.Plan BoundaryI Mile Roads Railroads • . " II ��.� �■ 0 Dead Ends Existing Pipes ■ D r • • , ■ . . . - M 0 M PriorityPipes Diameter (in) M err 10 12 + M M f f Priorityi PipesDiameter (in) f-z Y ♦ ♦ I - A/ M M M � 14 " _ 16 18 M z z z z z a zco Zone(South M 0 " M M24 M -36 -42 AV r f 4K Figure 6-6 0 _ 5,000 Priority 3 & 4 Pipe Improvements I incl 5,000 -- 6.1.6 Backup Power Installing backup power generators for well pumps and booster pump stations allows operation during emergency and/or power outage situations. Backup power for the Canyon Springs Pump Station is considered to be especially critical since it is used to supply a significant portion the City's water. Therefore, a backup power generator is highly recommended to be installed at the Canyon Springs Pump Station at some point in the next 10 years. Backup power is also recommended at the South Wells (currently only available at South Well#3), Harrison Pump Station (currently only available at the blending station), and the Eldridge Pump Station. Due to the limited flow capacity during peak use, backup power at Hankins Well #2 is not recommended.Table 6-4 describes the backup power locations and sizes. Table 6-4—Future Backup Power Locations and Requirements Location Cumulative Pump Size(hp) Canyon Springs Pump Station 3,750 Harrison Booster Station 1,450 Eldridge Booster Station 275 South Wells 625 6.1.7 Chlorination Systems Based on the evaluation in Section 5.4, the existing chlorination systems at each location have sufficient capacity for pumping the peak existing and committed demands. However, it is recommended that the day tank for the Blue Lakes system be upsized to approximately 6,000 gallons in order to keep up with the demands.This is anticipated to be paid for with the City's existing maintenance budget and a cost estimate was not deemed necessary for this Facilities Plan. 6.1.8 Control System and Operation Control system updates will occur with each of the improvements discussed in the report. Overall system SCADA updates have been completed recently and should continue to be budgeted for on regular intervals. To keep pressures within regulation limits and for efficient system operation, the following system settings are recommended starting points.Some of the proposed adjustments could be completed immediately,while others are explicitly noted that they should only be completed after the recommended improvements are made to the pressure zone boundaries. Summer peak operation: • Adjust Harrison Pump Station pressure to around 92 psi to keep system pressure less than 100 psi.This should not happen until after the Hankins Pressure Zone is split. • The City currently operates the Wills Pump Station at 65 psi. With growth in the east side of town,the pressure will need to be raised to at least 73 psi to keep the system pressure above 40 psi for the service area. This should not happen until after the adjustments to the South Pressure Zones are made in order to keep the system pressure below 100 psi. • Adjust Eldridge Pump Station pressure to around 70-72 psi or more to achieve proper fireflow. • Adjust Hankins Pump Station pressure to around 75-80 psi or to keep pressure around 60 psi near Clif Bar until the new Hankins Pump Station is built; at which point, the old Hankins pressure zone will be split into two pressure zones each being fed by either the old or new pump station. The new Hankins Pressure Zone (North) will have pressure lowered down to 60-70 psi; Hankins Pressure Zone (South)will have its pressure setpoint at 70-80 psi. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 92 Winter operation was not evaluated extensively. However, the following generalities should be considered: • Harrison Pump Station is only used for cycling water through Harrison Tank and associated connecting pipes. High Level Pressure Zone flows are primarily provided by the South Tanks. • Reduce Wills Pump Station pressure to approximately 60-70 psi to avoid high pressures and reduce operating costs. • Reduce Eldridge Pump Station pressure to reduce operating costs, but verify pressures near Independent Meat are still adequate for their operation. • Reduce Hankins Pump Station pressure to avoid high pressure near Addison Avenue and Hankins Road, but verify pressures near Clif Bar are approximately 60 psi. 6.1.9 Annual System Maintenance and Replacement A significant portion of the existing distribution system is relatively old and will need to be replaced and/or rehabilitated. The timeline for replacement is dependent on the age, material, and condition of the existing pipe. An age, condition, and risk and consequence of failure assessment was not completed as part of this plan. However, the City is planning to purchase equipment that is capable of assessing pipes in-situ and will soon begin concerted efforts to identify pipes that are in need of replacement. In the meantime, the priority improvements focus on many of the pipes known to be deficient in the system. See Section 6.1.5 for details on specific projects to complete over the next decade. Likewise, many of the existing pumps and associated electrical/control systems within the existing pump stations and wells are relatively old and will need to be replaced and/or rehabilitated. Table 6-5 displays the baseline values for budgeting the replacement of existing distribution and pumping components (including engineering and contingency). The cost shown for annual distribution maintenance reflects a replacement of the entire distribution system over the course of 100 years (about 3.2 miles per year), assuming: 1. Pipes will be replaced with open trenching 2. At least a half lane of roadway will be replaced 3. Replacements will be minimum of 8 inches in diameter 4. 30%of the length could require rock removal This does not include the additional cost of upsizing certain pipes for future growth. Additionally, costs may also be higher for pipeline replacement in very deep trenches or alleyways, for areas with a large amount of utility conflicts,or any other unforeseen circumstances.Additional cost savings may be possible in some locations by utilizing trenchless construction methods and will be considered where appropriate during design. For the pump stations and wells, it was assumed that pumps have a reliable service life of about 40 years and that upon replacement, all electrical/control system components would also be replaced. Table 6-5—Annual Distribution and Pump Replacement Budget ComponentTotal Value Replacement Life Annual Replacement Distribution System $560M 100 $5.6M Pump StationslWells $22.5M 40 $0.55M City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 93 As part of the City's annual maintenance duties, hydrants, gate valves and control valves should be exercised to ensure proper operation. In particular,control valves should be forced to operate by isolating flow from only the upstream side. This is particularly important for valves intended for fireflow between pressure zones (e.g., High Level and Eldridge pressure zones). Other miscellaneous duties include meter replacements and leak detection, which are highly important for accurate billing and planning efforts. 6.1.10 Drought Resiliency Many communities are becoming more concerned with water supply and demand due to impacts from drought and climate change. Southern Idaho and Twin Falls are considered vulnerable to adverse effects from these events due to the relatively dry regional climate. The following sections discuss some of the drought monitoring,vulnerabilities, and mitigation steps that the City can implement. 6.1.10.1 Drought Monitoring The City is able to monitor droughts from the National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS), which tracks historical and current drought conditions. As shown in Figure 6-7 below, Twin Falls County has been in numerous droughts over the last 20+years. Figure 6-7—Twin Falls County Drought Conditions(2000 to present) 100 90 — 80 — 70 60 v m 50 0 U v Q 40 30 20 10 0 ��ti -VIP _f ti°°h _0o -01 _f _f ti°tip te 1P 1P -le l a ti°5h rp 1P 10tip 11�* 11�Q, 10,11 1°1 Valu- # Abnormaly Dry —Moderate ■Severe ■Extreme ■Exceptional + — The maximum day demand for the City of Twin Falls was calibrated to the first week of August 2020. As seen in Figure 6-8 below, a large portion of Idaho experienced an Exceptional Drought in August 2021, which is the worst category.This is especially problematic because Twin Falls gets its water from mountain City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 94 snowmelt in Idaho and Wyoming, which contributes to the Snake River Plain Aquifer each year. The City of Twin Falls has recognized this as a potential issue since the early 2000's, and in 2004, the City created a community task force to monitor and encourage water conservation efforts, which became the genesis for water master planning.The City continues to track water supply levels and look at additional impacts due to drought, including decreased water supply and increased demand from drought. Figure 6-8-Idaho State Drought Conditions(August 2021) U.S. Drought Monitor August 3, 2021 Idaho (Released Thursday,Aug.5,2021) Valid 8 a.m.EDT Drought Conditions(PercentArea) None DO-D4 D1-D4 O2-D4 Current 0.00 100.00 100.00 87.23 58.45 21.15 Last Week 0.00 100.00 100.00 87.88 58.89 15 776 0r-27-202r 3 Months Ago 1169 88.31 47.36 10.23 0.85 0.00 05-0+-2021 Start of CalendarYear 37.41 62.59 20.67 4.24 0.77 0.00 r2-29-2020 Start of Mter Year 29.22 70.78 17.04 4.43 0.96 0.00 09-29-2020 OneYearAgo 71.29 28.71 8.53 237 0.00 0.00 0a0+-2020 Intensity: _ None -D2 Severe Drought + 0 DO Abnormally Dry -D3 Extreme Drought 0 D1 Moderate Drought -D4 Exceptional Drought The Drought Monitor focuses on broad-scale conditions. Local conditions may vary.For more information on the Drought Monitor,go to https.Ildfoughtmonitor.uni.edu/About.aspx Author: Richard Tinker CPC/N OAA/N W S/N C EP USDA � Jel .,Y•�.. % droughtmonitor.unl.edu 6.1.10.2 Drought Vulnerabilities and Mitigation As noted above, the model was calibrated based on the water demand during the driest month in 2020, which did not even reach the level of a moderate drought.Table 6-6 below lists the specific vulnerabilities faced by the City of Twin Falls and some corresponding projects that have been proposed both within and outside of this Water Facilities Plan for mitigating the vulnerability. The risk level for each vulnerability was determined based on the perceived likelihood of occurrence and the resulting impact, as shown in the Risk Assessment Matrix in Figure 6-9. Based on this evaluation,the highest priority Drought Mitigation Actions include the construction or acquisition of: 1. The Harrison Storage Tank 2. The Canyon Springs Pump Station &Standby Generator 3. Additional South Wells 4. Priority 1 Pipe Improvements 5. Additional Water Rights City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 95 Table 6-6—Twin Falls Vulnerabilities and Mitigation Projects • . . . .. Risk 71nstall n Projects: New South Wells,Acquire and ater Rights.Assess and modify existing south wells. Decreasing and10 up power atwells and pump stations,expecially Inadequate Long- Canyon Springs.Additional pipeline and pump station to 1 Term Water Supply Very Likely Critical High Hankins to provide supply that will be needed there. and Rights Other Potential Projects:Aquifer Recharge and other Updstream Acquifer Measures b bolster water supply; Additional Water Right Finding and Acuiring Master Plan Project: Purchase Leak Detection Equipment Replace Priority 1 and 2 pipes that are older.Older South Tank and Outlet Projects.Complete Canyon Springs Pump Station and generator project Consider Aging investigation/replacemenUredundancy for the Blue lakes to 2 Infrastructracture Likely Signficant High Harrison Tank pipeline. Other Potential Projects:Replace Priority 3 pipes that are older.Replace other ongoing pipes in the older part of downtown.Use Leak detection to further identity problem pipes. Master Plan Project: Provide New Harrison Storage, Acquire South Storage Land to prepare for additional storage. 3 Inadequate Storage Likely Signficant High Other Potential Projects:Gage water use in the South and at Hankins to determine when new tanks are needed then. Consider other storage in the Snake River Canyon. Master Plan Project: Provide New Harrison Tank,Replace Priority 1 and 2 pipelines which all have deficientfireflow. Complete Pressure Zone Improvements b increase fire flow as 4 Inadequate Fireflow Likely Crisis High needed. Other Potential Projects:Replace Priority 3 pipes that are older and would be more likely to fail during high fire flow demands.Investigate and add additional hydrants as needed. Master Plan Project: Provide SCADA for new well,and tank projects 5 SCADA Failure Very Likely Signficant High Potential Non-Master Plan Projects:Complete PI plan projects that include additional SCADA and flow monitoring. Provide fiber optic to Canyon. Excessive Outdoor Potential Non-Master Plan Projects:Consider retrotitof 6 Potable Water Very Likely Critical High existing public areas for TFCC irrigation water and PI project Consumption plan implementation as well as public education. Source Potential Non-Master Plan Projects:Expand security 7 Contamination/ Unlikely Critical Moderate system atwells with cameras and other means.Install chlorine System Security residual monitoring equipment throughout Lack of Public Potential Non-Master Plan Projects:Track and update 8 Awareness and Very Likely Signficant Hi!Ifbr master plan as needed.Create drought contigency plan. Include a public awareness campaign and possible water rates Education drought updates. Master Plan Project: Provide New Harrison Storage, Acquire South Storage.Add new South Wells. 9 Reduced Future Very Likely Marginal Low Snow Pack Other Potential Projects:Create drought contigency plan. Include a public awareness campaign and possible water rates for drought updates. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 96 Figure 6-9—Risk Assessment Matrix Risk Level a� k Y Low Moderate 0 Likely Low Moderate w 0 M unlikely Low Low Moderate Moderate 0 0 s Y u i k ly Low Low Low Low J Negligible Marginal Significant Critical Crisis Impact or Consequence of Occurrence 6.1.10.3 Water Conservation Often, water conservation implies consuming less water. Lower water consumption by existing users provides water savings, but when combined with efficient management of existing infrastructure, savings are compounded. The following sections discuss general conservation strategies for the water supply, including the benefits of water meter maintenance and testing and mitigation of water losses in the distribution system. Meter Testing Proper testing and maintenance of water meters should be conducted according to priority: 1. Master meters: Located at the supply sources and downstream of booster pump stations, these meters represent the highest priority in meter testing and maintenance. They determine how much water is produced or sold and should be tested once a year. More frequent testing should be completed for high volume meters greater than 5,000 gpm. 2. Industrial and commercial meters: The most expensive water lost through the system is not necessarily always through leaks, but in lost revenue at a retail rate due to faulty or inaccurate meters. Leaks are only lost cost to produce the water.As such,these large meters are the second highest priority for testing and maintenance in the system. For example, a six-inch meter will provide as much water as approximately 50 residential meters. Commercial and industrial meters should be tested at least annually to ensure accuracy is maintained. 3. High-use residential meters: These are the third priority because it is likely infeasible to test all residential meters. By focusing on the highest users, due to either multiple occupancy or large irrigation demand, testing will provide the greatest return. Assuming a 5 percent loss due to innacurate residential meters at a rate of$25 per month, and 16,000 residential meters,the City loses approximately$240,000 annually in revenue. 4. Non-revenue meters or non-metered sources: Even if a source is owned by the City and does not provide revenue, it should be metered to account for all water consumed. Some examples of typical non-metered sources include city parks, median strips, golf courses, and city buildings. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 97 Water Loss Control and Mitigation Strategies Water loss control deals not only with identifying leaks from the system and repairing damaged pipes but encompasses a wide array of management and technical strategies for dealing with any loss to the system (i.e., management data,water, pressure,etc.).A water loss control program should consider the following components: • Record keeping • Water audit/balance • Data transfer audit—billing, data error analysis • Economic analysis • Metering—location, validation, replacement, reading interval • Additional system monitoring through SCADA • Leakage management program—leak detection, locating, repair, rehabilitate • Pressure management Adjustments in Monthly Water Rates One of the most effective ways to reduce demand for water is to establish rates that escalate as water use increases. Adjusting water rates must balance revenue management, resource efficiency, and fiscal sustainability. Often, water rate and sales forecasting models are used to determine the effect a rate change will have on revenue, and should consider customer consumption variability, demand response, drought pricing, and long-term fiscal sustainability. Another strategy includes adopting a full-cost pricing approach to water, ensuring rates match the full cost of delivering water to the customers. This strategy ensures the financial health of the water system through a sufficient and stable source of funds. It also provides information to customers. Asking customers to pay the full cost of services helps them recognize the value of their water service and to be more mindful of their water use. Consumer Efficiency Consumer efficiency can also reduce water use when water-efficient products and practices are employed (i.e., turning off fixtures when not in use, using washing machines only when full, etc.). Public outreach and education can aid in the adoption of water-efficient practices. Additionally, utilities often offer rebates for water-efficient products such as low-flow fixtures. In areas of the City that use potable water for irrigation,offering rebates and expertise for xeriscaping and low water use native plants will lower water consumption.Some management practices could include no- cost irrigation surveys for landscape areas half-acre or larger,water savings incentives for custom projects that reduce water use, permanent art in lieu of landscaping, on-site retention of site water, penalties for watering streets, and providing reduced-cost turf-removal, weather-based sprinkler controllers, high- efficiency nozzles, soil moisture sensors, and rain barrels. These types of conservation may provide the highest return on investment when peak irrigation demands coincide with lowest water availability. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 98 6.1.11 Summary In summary,the two most critical improvements for the existing system that the City is recommended to implement in the 20-year planning period are the Canyon Springs Pump Station and the Harrison Storage Tank.They are each anticipated to cost over$10,000,000 and will therefore dictate when and how many other improvements can be made in this time frame. All other improvements recommended in the next 10 years are considered to have a low risk and could be delayed without causing any major complications. The first limiting factor in completing these improvements will be available funds.The City has the ability to finance a large portion of the necessary improvements without a debt service, but it would require large user rate increases on an annual basis and careful planning. The second limiting factor will be available laborers, which has historically limited the City's ability to accomplish certain "in-house" maintenance and improvement goals. The most critical items that the City should accomplish in order to build a reliable, cost effective, and efficient water system for future conditions will be the pressure zone realignment projects,the purchase of land in specific areas,and the immediate acquisition of more water rights. These latter items will each require a great deal of study and two out of the three have a high degree of uncertainty associated with the cost, and thus, are recommended to be pursued immediately. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 99 6.2 "NO ACTION"ALTERNATIVE This alternative is provided for comparison to the primary alternative in order to illustrate the harm that could be caused by not implementing critical improvements to the City's water system. 6.2.1 Water Supply Although the City currently has enough water supply to last throughout the 20-year planning period, the consequences of not taking immediate actions to supplement the water supply will eventually become apparent. The first consequence will be the loss of funds that could be allocated to other necessary improvements. For example, until current water rights protests are resolved, and additional South Wells are drilled,the City will continue to pay high operating costs to pump Blue Lakes water across the canyon. With regard to the acquisition of new water rights, it is expected that the cost of water rights could increase by as much as 700% over the next few decades as has been observed for certain counties in Colorado that have experienced severe, prolonged drought.Therefore,the City could end up paying much higher costs for a water right in the future versus the present. The second consequence of not expanding the water supply will be decreased system resiliency. By not locating or developing new water sources, the City will remain vulnerable in the event of a failure to the Blue Lakes well system. This event could quickly cause damage to the City's economy and public health and is easily avoidable.The third consequence is a loss of opportunity for industrial and economic growth. A lack of available supply will severely limit the City's abilityto accept new industrial users or approve new residential developments, which could cause lasting impacts to the City's economic growth. 6.2.2 Storage Without expanding storage at the Harrison location, the City will continue to lack emergency storage for the three northernmost pressure zones (LLPZN, LLPZS, HLPZ). Due to the increasing age of the existing Harrison Storage Tank, the risk of a failure at this location will also continue to increase along with maintenance costs. Not expanding storage at this location will also leave the City vulnerable to disrupted operations; if a major repair becomes necessary, there will be no redundant storage capable of serving the City's three northernmost pressure zones and the water system could have to be shut down for an extended period of time. On the opposite end of the City, if land is not purchased soon for the future South Tank, the City could end up having to pay substantially higher costs in the future to install several miles of transmission piping or to purchase land in close proximity to the existing tanks that is in high demand. 6.2.3 Booster Pump Stations Under existing conditions,the City's booster pump stations have enough capacity to reliably serve existing customers. However, certain stations are currently operating at high pressure setpoints due to the overextended boundaries of the pressure zone they serve, which is reducing the effective service life of those pumps and creating higher operating costs for the City.The Canyon Springs station is considered to be in poor condition and serves a critical role in the City's water system;if this station is not reconstructed or rehabilitated at some point in the next 20 years, it could eventually fail and cause the City's water system to shut down for an extended period of time. Although the Harrison station pumps were recently reported to be in fair condition, they are also expected to need replacement in the next 20 years, and a failure to do so could result in increased maintenance. If a redundant pump is not installed at the Eldridge Pump Station, it will remain vulnerable to a disruption in service from a failed pump. Under the committed growth scenario presented in Section 5.3.1,the Hankins Pump Station will not have enough capacity to reliably serve the HPZ. The HPZ split project is driven by the increased water demand City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 100 from industrial users in this region; if the HPZ split does not get completed and the new Hankins Pump Station is not built,the City will be forced to deny additional water to these industrial users and deny the approval of new residential developments in the HPZ.This would be expected to have adverse impacts on the City's economic growth. 6.2.4 Pressure Zones If the recommended pressure zone improvements are not completed within the next 20 years,the City's residents, water system, and water budget could experience negative impacts. Without improvements, certain residents at the boundaries of overextended pressure zones will continue to experience excessively high or low water pressures, and new residential developments in growing areas of the City could be delayed. New and existing industries that are important to the local economy could also face difficulties with obtaining water,and the potential economic growth associated with these users could be stunted or delayed. Any delay in adding new users will also be a delay in acquiring new revenue for the water budget. As mentioned previously, certain booster pump stations are operating at high pressure setpoints due to an overextended service area; this infrastructure will continue to be strained and operating costs will remain relatively high until certain pressure zone boundaries are adjusted. 6.2.5 Distribution System Without improvements,the City's water distribution system will continue to degrade and cause problems for both residents and the City. Older and undersized water mains that lie mostly within the center of the City will continue to cause pressure and fireflow deficiencies and would be expected to break more frequently over time. This could cost the City increasingly large sums of money to pay for repairs, which will also spread the maintenance workforce thinner and cause other improvements to be delayed due to a lack of available funds and/or laborers. In addition, any existing lead fittings will continue to age and deteriorate, which could eventually present a risk to public health. 6.2.6 Backup Power Several locations throughout the City are lacking backup power, leaving the City vulnerable to disruptions in service.Without further improvements,the City will continue to carry the risks associated with a failure at each of these locations. In the event that the Canyon Springs pump station experiences a power outage, the system deficiency could be mitigated by pumping from the South Wells (or vice-versa)—since neither location currently has backup power, the City would be forced to rely upon their storage capacity, which would not be able to supply water for a full day of operation. 6.2.7 Chlorination Systems The City's chlorination systems are in good condition and have sufficient capacity to provide clean drinking water throughout the 20-year planning period. If no improvements were made to these systems in the next 20 years, no negative impacts are expected to occur. However, since the day tank for the Blue Lakes wells is slightly undersized, slightly increased maintenance and operating costs are expected to persist until a larger tank can be installed. 6.2.8 Control System and Operation Improvements to the control and operation of the City's water system are simple adjustments that are expected to occur in tandem with Pressure Zone improvements. If the proposed pressure zone improvements are not constructed, the water system controls cannot be adjusted because it will reduce the quality of service to existing users. The existing control scheme provides the best possible service to all users, but it is not considered to be operating at peak efficiency. If this control scheme was kept in place, the City will continue to pay high operating costs and could reduce the effective service life of certain pumps that are operating at high pressure setpoints. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 101 6.2.9 Annual System Maintenance and Replacement If annual maintenance efforts are not improved upon in any way, it is anticipated that the City will fall behind in terms of replacing old infrastructure, which could cause problems for the City in several other areas. The existing main line replacement budget is beyond a 500-year replacement schedule, and the failure to consistently replace a certain quantity of pipes each year could lead to increased maintenance due to breaks, a strained maintenance workforce and budget, decreased supply due to leaks, and poor water service quality for existing users. 6.2.10 Summary The selection of the "No Action" alternative could cause major or relatively minor consequences for the City, depending on the type of infrastructure.With regard to the booster pump stations, not constructing certain improvements could leave existing stations vulnerable to failure and could lead to a system-wide capacity restriction, potentially causing large amounts of economic damage. Improvements to backup power, distribution, and chlorination, however, are less critical and are not expected to harm operations in a significant way. Improvements to the water supply and storage systems are considered ideal for mitigating specific risks that cannot easily be resolved and are highly necessary for expanding the City's economy. A failure to complete these improvements in a timely manner will eventually constrict City growth, cost the City comparably larger sums of money, and leave the City's water system vulnerable to operational issues. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 102 7 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN The results of this Water System Facilities Plan indicate that the City generally complies with a majority of water quality and water system regulations and level of service requirements. However, there are a few areas of concern regarding water supply, storage, and distribution under existing and future demand conditions. There are specific, costly improvements that the City must complete in the next 20 years in order to maintain an adequate water system and there are no major infrastructure additions that need to be compared against alternative actions. Thus, only one alternative is outlined in the preceding chapter for addressing these concerns. However, this alternative was created to be flexible in order to remain useful to the City regardless of whether it is strictly adhered to. This chapter presents three timelines for the completion of the primary alternative, each focused on a different priority and each with a flexible finance plan that will be made available to the City as a decision-making tool. None of the recommended projects will adversely affect disadvantaged communities and it is expected that the general community will collectively benefit from improvements to the City's water facilities. The City will need to confirm that the property necessary for completing certain projects is physically and legally attainable based on their research and discussion with property owners. Based on the improvements recommended in the primary alternative, a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and opinion of probable costs in 2022 dollars for the 20-year planning period is presented below in Table 7-1.The improvements are split into four general categories: 1. Existing Capacity Issues — Existing infrastructure that needs to be enlarged and that the City is responsible for maintaining or replacing (included in the total cost of the Capital Improvement Plan). 2. Resiliency/Redundancy Issues—Existing infrastructure that needs to be replaced due to age but not enlarged, redundant and emergency infrastructure that reduces risk, and items which need to be resolved as soon as possible to avoid rising costs (included in the total cost of the Capital Improvement Plan). 3. Growth/Sustainability Issues— Infrastructure that will be built due to, and in conjunction with, new developments or large industries, and that the City may not be responsible for funding (not included in the total cost of the Capital Improvement Plan). 4. Condition / Maintenance — Projects that should be accomplished by the City on an annual or regular basis in order to maintain an adequate water system and that the City should be able to accomplish with the existing maintenance budget (not included in the total cost of the Capital Improvement Plan). 7.1 TIMELINE AND BUDGET ALTERNATIVES Implementation of the proposed projects is a function of regulatory approval, public acceptance,funding, employment, and constructability. It is anticipated that the City will be able to obtain the necessary regulatory approval and permits for construction and operation of the proposed water system improvements. Due to the large capital cost associated with the proposed projects, a public education and outreach effort may be desirable. Three timeline and budget alternatives were drafted under the assumption that the City will have an adequate labor workforce to complete the proposed projects and that no specific project will face delays due to complications with constructability. The first two alternatives also assume that the City will be able to fund each project with cash reserves and user rate increases (no debt accrual), while the third assumes that there will be a debt service. In contrast to the CIP summary sheet in Table 7-1, these alternatives reflect future worth costs. The summary and project timeline of each budget alternative is presented below in Table 7-2 through Table 7-7. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 103 CITY OF TWIN FALLS Capital Cost&Implementation Time Frame' WATER SYSTEM FACILITIES PLAN -TABLE 7-1 I I yrs 10-20 yrs As Needed CIP SUMMARY SHEET Storage 10 Million Gallon Storage Tank&36"Transmission $14,016,000 Distribution PRV Flow Meters&SCADA Upgrade 2 $100,000 Pipeline Flow/Pressure Testing 2 $25,000 Priority 1 Distribution Improvements Hankins Pressure Zone Split $3,564,000 South Pressure Zone(N)Boundary Adjustments $552,480 $2,900,520 Priority 1A Distribution(Bickel Area-Phase 1)2 $2,000,000 Priority 1 B Distribution(Locust St)' $4,400,000 Priority 1C Distribution(Moreland Ave) $1,949,000 Priority 1D Distribution(Elm St N) $1,011,000 Priority 1E Distribution(Buchanan St) $1,041,000 Priority 1 F Distribution(Borah&4th Ave W) $2,277,000 Priority 1 G Distribution(Kimberly Rd) $2,065,000 Supply South Wells South Well#5&24"Transmission Main $2,771,000 South Well#6&20"Transmission Main $3,985,000 South Well#7&16"Transmission Main $2,525,000 Drill/Test New Wells 2 $250,000 Assess and Modify South Well Pumps 2 $100,000 Acquire and Resolve Water Rights 2 $200,000 Storage Land for additional South Storage Tank 2 $2,000,000 Pump Stations Eldridge Pump Station-Upgrade $401,000 Canyon Springs Pump Station Improvements 4 $11,784,000 Back-Up Power Canyon Springs Pump Station-Standby Generators $4,876,000 Harrison Pump Station-Standby Generator $1,231,000 Eldridge Pump Station-Standby Generator $260,000 South Wells-Standby Generators $225,000 $301,000 Transmission/Distribution 36"Pipe(Canyon Springs PS to Top of Canyon) $4,837,000 36"Redundant Supply Pipe(Snake Rive Bore) $3,408,000 Opinion of Probable . . :I $13,880,520 $8,495,000 Pump Stations Wills Pump Station-Upgrade $549,000 New Hankins Pump Station $7,170,000 Transmission/Distribution 24"Pipe(Harrison Tank to Hankins Tank) $12,592,000 Priority 3 Distribution Improvements 5 TBD 20"Pipe(Westward From Wills PS along 3600 N) $1,753,000 1. All costs in 2022 dollars;implementation time frame is approximate and may be adjusted by the City as needed 2. Based on a preliminary estimate;a more detailed analysis/appraisal process is required 3. Cost prepared by others for the City 4. Total cost includes$2M for a new transformer from Idaho Power Company 5.Full cost estimate not prepared due to uncertainty in final design&implementation time frame I I I I --•-• On-Going Annual Pump Station/Well Maintenance $562,500 Harrison Pump Station-Pump Replacement $4,865,000 On-Going Annual Distribution Maintenance $5,615,000 Perform Leak Detection $30,000 Meter Replacements $350,000 Priority 2 Distribution Improvements Priority Distribution(Zone 1) $7,049,000 Priority 2 Distribution(Zones 2&8) $5,168,000 Priority 2 Distribution(Zones 3&4) $8,478,000 Priority 2 Distribution(Zones 6&7) $6,047,000 South Tank#1 &Outlet Pipe Investigation 2 $50,000 Table 7-2-CIP Budget Alternative#1:South Well 5&Harrison Tank Priority(Future Worth Costs) Beginning Reserves 12,000,000 Fiscal Year 22-23 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 29-30 30-31 31-32 Revenue with Rate Increases As Shown 2%Inc.+Pop.Growth 13,182,470 13,631,891 14,097,047 14,578,492 15,076,799 15,592,562 16,126,396 16,678,936 17,250,843 17,842,799 3%Inc.+Pop.Growth 13,182,470 13,763,716 14,371,008 15,005,519 15,668,477 16,361,165 17,084,925 17,841,157 18,631,327 19,456,967 4%Inc.+Pop.Growth 13,182,470 13,895,541 14,647,604 15,440,804 16,277,401 17,159,784 18,090,469 19,072,114 20,107,524 21,199,656 Variable:Up to 5% Inc.+Pop.Growth 13,182,470 14,027,365 14,926,837 15,884,426 16,903,904 17,989,287 19,144,855 20,375,163 21,685,066 23,079,732 [2% Inc.+Pop.Growth Rate] - 3.409% 3.412% 3.415% 3.418% 3.421% 3.424% 3.426% 3.429% 3.431% Variable:Additional Rate Increase] - 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% Expenditures: Personnel 3,398,291 3,644,824 3,820,366 4,006,171 4,202,982 4,411,604 4,632,914 4,867,860 5,117,476 5,382,885 M&O 2,725,660 2,805,930 2,888,608 2,973,766 3,061,479 3,151,824 3,244,878 3,340,725 3,439,447 3,541,130 Debt 843,500 845,250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transfers 1,332,012 1,372,345 1,413,900 1,456,713 1,500,822 1,546,267 1,593,088 1,641,326 1,691,026 1,742,230 Total 8,299,464 8,668,350 8,122,874 8,436,650 8,765,283 9,109,695 9,470,880 9,849,911 10,247,948 10,666,245 Capital(see Capital tab) 8,901,351 2,477,683 4,987,034 16,482,293 6,163,979 7,878,355 6,059,580 6,563,615 5,955,445 27,444,565 Total Expenditures 17,200,814 11,146,033 13,109,908 24,918,944 14,929,263 16,988,050 15,530,459 16,413,526 16,203,393 38,110,810 Revenues Over/Under Expenditures 2%+Pop.Growth Scenario (4,018,345) 2,485,859 987,139 (10,340,451) 147,537 (1,395,488) 595,936 265,410 1,047,450 (20,268,010) 3%+Pop.Growth Scenario 4,018,345 2,617,683 1,261,099 9,913,425 739,215 626,885 1,554,465 1,427,631 2,427,934 18,653,843 4%+Pop.Growth Scenario (4,018,345) 2,749,508 1,537,696 (9,478,140) 1,348,139 171,733 2,560,009 2,658,588 3,904,130 (16,911,154) Variable:Up to 5%+Pop.Growth Scenario 4,018,345 2,881,333 1,816,929 9,034,517 1,974,642 1,001,237 3,614,395 3,961,637 5,481,672 15,031,078 Cumulative Cash 2%+Pop.Growth Scenario 7,981,655 10,467,514 11,454,653 1,114,202 1,261,738 (133,750)1 462,186 727,597 1,775,047 (18,492,964) 3%+Pop.Growth Scenario 7,981,655 10,599,339 11,860,438 1,947,013 2,686,227 2,059,343 3,613,808 5,041,439 7,469,373 11,184,470) 4%+Pop.Growth Scenario 7,981,655 10,731,163 12,268,859 2,790,719 4,138,858 4,310,591 6,870,601 9,529,189 13,433,320 (3,477,834) Variable:Up to 5%+Pop.Growth Scenario 7,981,655 10,862,988 12,679,917 3,645,399 5,620,041 6,621,278 10,235,673 14,197,311 19,678,983 4,647,905 Table 7-3-CIP Budget Alternative#1:South Well 5&Harrison Tank Priority(Future Worth Costs) Fiscal Year 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 203031 2031-32 [Inflation Year] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Project WS Tanklnspections/Cleaning $ 15,000 Vehicles/Equipment/Other-Outer Years $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 Hankins Pressure Zone Split $ 3,564,000 South Pressure Zone Split-Phase 1 $ 586,126 Land for South Storage Tank $ 200,000 $ 2,149,294 South Well#5 $ 2,771,000 10 Million Gallon Storage Tank&36"Pipe Begin Engin. $ 14,436,480 Acquire and Resolve Water Rights $ 25,000 $ 175,000 Pipeline Flow&Pressure Testing $ 25,000 Canyon Springs Pump Station Improvements $ 405,746 Begin Prelimin Begin Design $ 20,489,699 South Wells Standby Generators $ 240,570 PRV Flow Meters&SCADA Upgrade $ 100,000 Assess&Modify South Well Pumps $ 100,000 $ 3,629,000 $ 475,000 $ 3,111,570 $ 14,436,480 $ 1,341,872 $ 2,499,294 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 20,839,699 WD Mainline Replacement $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Misc.Improvements& Condition Assessment $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Priority 1 Improvements $ 2,006,808 $ 2,585,012 $ 3,165,563 $ 3,048,530 $ 2,933,986 $ 3,022,005 Priority 2 Improvements $ 425,067 $ 437,819 $ 450,954 Additional WD Expenses $ 1,323,351 $ 524,683 $ 581,964 $ 397,373 $ 750,844 $ 731,684 $ 745,043 $ 758,869 $ 773,180 $ 787,991 $ 1,923,351 $ 1,124,683 $ 1,181,964 $ 997,373 $ 3,357,652 $ 3,916,696 $ 4,510,605 $ 4,832,466 $ 4,744,984 $ 4,860,950 C/P Number for First&Second Year Projects PI Acquire Land(CIP 11,13,14,17) $ 2,242,000 Admin,Pipe,Measure(CIP 1-3,1/3 of 6,9,12) $ 300,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 Perrine Improvements(CIP 4) $ 107,000 Measurement Devices(CIP 2/3 of 5) $ 50,000 $ 25,000 Pumps and Service Area(CIP 8) $ 300,000 Orchard Drainage Improvements(CIP 15) $ 200,000 Hillcrest Drainage Improvements(CIP 16) $ 150,000 Ensign Drainage Invest.&Pipe(CIP 18&19) $ 440,000 Perrine/Bosero Pipe(CIP 20) $ 238,000 Future PI CIP Master Plan Costs $ 543,500 $ 873,440 $ 1,314,455 $ 1,312,365 $ 1,048,974 $ 1,231,149 $ 710,461 $ 1,593,917 Misc and Irrigation Piping not in CIP $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 3,349,000 $ 878,000 $ 693,500 $ 1,048,440 $ 1,464,455 $ 1,462,365 $ 1,198,974 $ 1,381,149 $ 860,461 $ 1,743,917 Total Capital Costs $ 8,901,351 $ 2,477,683 $ 4,987,034 $ 16,482,293 $ 6,163,979 $ 7,878,355 $ 6,059,580 $ 6,563,615 $ 5,955,445 $ 27,444,565 Table 7-4-CIP Budget Alternative#2:Can on Springs Station Priority Future Worth Costs Beginning Reserves 12,000,000 Fiscal Year 22-23 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 29-30 30-31 31-32 Revenue with Rate Increases As Shown 2%Inc.+Pop.Growth 13,182,470 13,631,891 14,097,047 14,578,492 15,076,799 15,592,562 16,126,396 16,678,936 17,250,843 17,842,799 3%Inc.+Pop.Growth 13,182,470 13,763,716 14,371,008 15,005,519 15,668,477 16,361,165 17,084,925 17,841,157 18,631,327 19,456,967 4%Inc.+Pop.Growth 13,182,470 13,895,541 14,647,604 15,440,804 16,277,401 17,159,784 18,090,469 19,072,114 20,107,524 21,199,656 Variable: Up to 5% Inc.+Pop.Growth 13,182,470 14,027,365 14,926,837 15,884,426 16,903,904 17,989,287 19,144,855 20,375,163 21,685,066 23,079,732 2% Inc.+Pop.Growth Rate] - 3.409% 3.412% 3.415% 3.418% 3.421% 3.424% 3.426% 3.429% 3.431% [Variable:Additional Rate Increase] - 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% Expenditures: Personnel 3,398,291 3,644,824 3,820,366 4,006,171 4,202,982 4,411,604 4,632,914 4,867,860 5,117,476 5,382,885 M&O 2,725,660 2,805,930 2,888,608 2,973,766 3,061,479 3,151,824 3,244,878 3,340,725 3,439,447 3,541,130 Debt 843,500 845,250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transfers 1,332,012 1,372,345 1,413,900 1,456,713 1,500,822 1,546,267 1,593,088 1,641,326 1,691,026 1,742,230 Total 8,299,464 8,668,350 8,122,874 8,436,650 8,765,283 9,109,695 9,470,880 9,849,911 10,247,948 10,666,245 Capital see Capital tab 9,341,921 2,277,683 1,975,464 19,205,613 7,611,861 8,982,065 6,059,580 6,286,330 5,875,842 24,110,787 Total Expenditures 17,641,384 10,946,033 10,098,338 27,642,264 16,377,144 18,091,760 15,530,459 16,136,241 16,123,790 34,777,032 Revenues Over/Under Expenditures 2%+Pop. Growth Scenario 4,458,915) 2,685,859 3,998,709 (13,063,771) (1,300,345) (2,499,198) 595,936 542,695 1,127,054 (16,934,232 3%+Pop. Growth Scenario 4,458,915) 2,817,683 4,272,669 (12,636,745) (708,667) (1,730,595 1,554,465 1,704,916 2,507,537 (15,320,065 4%+Pop. Growth Scenario 4,458,915 2,949,508 4,549,266 12,201,460 99,743 (931,977) 2,560,009 2,935,873 3,983,734 13,577,376 Variable: Up to 5%+Pop. Growth Scenario 4,458,915 3,081,333 4,828,499 11,757,837 526,760 102,473 3,614,395 4,238,922 5,561,276 11,697,300 Cumulative Cash 2%+Pop. Growth Scenario 7,541,085 10,226,944 14,225,653 1,161,882 (138,464) (2,637,662) (2,041,725) (1,499,030) (371,977) (17,306,209) 3%+Pop. Growth Scenario 7,541,085 10,358,769 14,631,438 1,994,693 1,286,026 (444,569) 1,109,896 2,814,812 5,322,350 (9,997,715) 4%+Pop. Growth Scenario 7,541,085 10,490,593 15,039,859 2,838,399 2,738,656 1,806,679 4,366,689 7,302,562 11,286,296 (2,291,079) Variable: Up to 5%+Pop. Growth Scenario 7,541,085 10,622,418 15,450,917 3,693,079 4,219,839 4,117,366 7,731,762 11,970,684 17,531,960 5,834,660 Table 7-5-CIP Budget Alternative#2:Canyon Springs Station Priority(Future Worth Costs) Fiscal Year 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 203132 [Inflation Year] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Project WS Tanklnspections/Cleaning $ 15,000 Vehicles/Equipment/Other-Outer Years $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 Hankins Pressure Zone Split $ 3,564,000 South Pressure Zone Split-Phase 1 $ 603,710 Land for South Storage Tank $ 200,000 $ 2,149,294 South Well#5 $ 2,939,754 10 Million Gallon Storage Tank&36"Pipe Begin Eng $ 17,237,912 Acquire and Resolve Water Rights $ 25,000 $ 175,000 Pipeline Flow&Pressure Testing $ 25,000 Canyon Springs Pump Station Improvements Begin Prelimin Begin Design $ 17,159,800 South Wells Standby Generators $ 240,570 PRV Flow Meters&SCADA Upgrade $ 100,000 Assess&Modify South Well Pumps $ 100,000 $ 4,069,570 $ 275,000 $ 100,000 $ 17,159,800 $ 3,289,754 $ 3,103,004 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 17,587,912 WD Mainline Replacement $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Misc.Improvements& Condition Assessment $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Priority 1 Improvements $ 1,506,808 $ 3,085,012 $ 3,165,563 $ 2,848,530 $ 2,933,986 $ 3,022,005 Priority 2 Improvements $ 347,782 $ 358,216 $ 368,962 Additional WD Expenses $ 1,323,351 $ 524,683 $ 581,964 $ 397,373 $ 750,844 $ 731,684 $ 745,043 $ 758,869 $ 773,180 $ 787,991 $ 1,923,351 $ 1,124,683 $ 1,181,964 $ 997,373 $ 2,857,652 $ 4,416,696 $ 4,510,605 $ 4,555,181 $ 4,665,381 $ 4,778,958 CIP Number for First&Second Year Projects PI Acquire Land(CIP 11,13,14,17) $ 2,242,000 Admin,Pipe,Measure(CIP 1-3,1/3 of 6,9,12) $ 300,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 Perrine Improvements(CIP 4) $ 107,000 Measurement Devices(CIP 2/3 of 5) $ 50,000 $ 25,000 Pumps and Service Area(CIP 8) $ 300,000 Orchard Drainage Improvements(CIP 15) $ 200,000 Hillcrest Drainage Improvements(CIP 16) $ 150,000 Ensign Drainage Invest.&Pipe(CIP 18&19) $ 440,000 Perrine/Bosero Pipe(CIP 20) $ 238,000 Future PI CIP Master Plan Costs $ 543,500 $ 873,440 $ 1,314,455 $ 1,312,365 $ 1,048,974 $ 1,231,149 $ 710,461 $ 1,593,917 Misc:Irrigation piping(not from CIP) $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 3,349,000 $ 878,000 $ 693,500 $ 1,048,440 $ 1,464,455 $ 1,462,365 $ 1,198,974 $ 1,381,149 $ 860,461 $ 1,743,917 Total Capital Costs $ 9,341,921 $ 2,277,683 $ 1,975,464 $ 19,205,613 $ 7,611,861 $ 8,982,065 $ 6,059,580 $ 6,286,330 $ 5,875,842 $ 24,110,787 Table 7-6-CIP Budget Alternative#3:Accelerated Priorities(Future Worth Costs) Beginning Reserves 12,000,000 Fiscal Year 22-23 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27 27-28 28-29 29-30 30-31 31-32 Revenue with Rate Increases As Shown 2%Inc.+Pop.Growth 13,182,470 13,631,891 14,097,047 14,578,492 15,076,799 15,592,562 16,126,396 16,678,936 17,250,843 17,842,799 3%Inc.+Pop.Growth 13,182,470 13,763,716 14,371,008 15,005,519 15,668,477 16,361,165 17,084,925 17,841,157 18,631,327 19,456,967 4%Inc.+Pop.Growth 13,182,470 13,895,541 14,647,604 15,440,804 16,277,401 17,159,784 18,090,469 19,072,114 20,107,524 21,199,656 Variable:Up to 5% Inc.+Pop.Growth 13,182,470 14,027,365 14,926,837 15,884,426 16,903,904 17,989,287 19,144,855 20,375,163 21,685,066 23,079,732 [2% Inc.+Pop.Growth Rate] - 3.409% 3.412% 3.415% 3.418% 3.421% 3.424% 3.426% 3.429% 3.431% [Variable:Additional Rate Increase] - 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% Expenditures: Personnel 3,398,291 3,644,824 3,820,366 4,006,171 4,202,982 4,411,604 4,632,914 4,867,860 5,117,476 5,382,885 M&O 2,725,660 2,805,930 2,888,608 2,973,766 3,061,479 3,151,824 3,244,878 3,340,725 3,439,447 3,541,130 Debt 843,500 845,250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transfers 1,332,012 1,372,345 1,413,900 1,456,713 1,500,822 1,546,267 1,593,088 1,641,326 1,691,026 1,742,230 Total 8,299,464 8,668,350 8,122,874 8,436,650 8,765,283 9,109,695 9,470,880 9,849,911 10,247,948 10,666,245 Capital(see Capital tab) 12,090,521 19,794,763 9,695,064 22,242,671 6,293,469 12,157,867 8,913,688 9,290,280 8,969,910 10,059,765 Total Expenditures 20,389,984 28,463,113 17,817,938 30,679,322 15,058,752 21,267,561 18,384,568 19,140,191 19,217,858 20,726,010 Revenues Over/Under Expenditures 2%+Pop.Growth Scenario (7,207,515) (14,831,221) (3,720,891) (16,100,829) 18,047 (5,674,999) (2,258,172) (2,461,254) (1,967,015) (2,883,210) 3%+Pop.Growth Scenario 7,207,515 14,699,397 3,446,931 15,673,803 609,725 4,906,396 1,299,643 1,299,034 586,531 1,269,043 4%+Pop.Growth Scenario (7,207,515) (14,567,572) (3,170,334) (15,238,518) 1,218,649 (4,107,778) (294,099) (68,076) 889,666 473,646 Variable:Up to 5%+Pop.Growth Scenario 7,207,515 14,435,747 2,891,101 (14,794,895) 1,845,152 3,278,274 760,287 1,234,973 2,467,208 2,353,722 Cumulative Cash 2%+Pop.Growth Scenario 4,792,485 (10,038,736) (13,759,627) (29,860,456) (29,842,409) (35,517,409) (37,775,581) (40,236,835) (42,203,850) (45,087,060) 3%+Pop.Growth Scenario 4,792,485 9,906,911 13,353,842 29,027,645 28,417,920 33,324,316 34,623,959 35,922,993 36,509,524 37,778,566 4%+Pop.Growth Scenario 4,792,485 (9,775,087) (12,945,421) (28,183,939) (26,965,290) (31,073,068) (31,367,167) (31,435,243) (30,545,577) (30,071,931) Variable:Up to 5%+Pop.Growth Scenario 4,792,485 9,643,262 12,534,363 27,329,259 25,484,107 28,762,381 28,002,094 26,767,121 24,299,914 21,946,191 Table 7-7-CIP Budget Alternative#3:Accelerated Priorities(Future Worth Costs) Fiscal Year 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 2029-30 2030-31 203132 [Inflation Year] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Project WS Tanklnspections/Cleaning $ 15,000 Vehicles/Equipment/Other-Outer Years $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 Hankins Pressure Zone Split $ 3,564,000 South Pressure Zone Split-Phase 1/2 $ 552,480 $ 3,169,477 Land for South Storage Tank $ 2,000,000 South Well#5 $ 2,771,000 10 Million Gallon Storage Tank&36"Pipe Begin Eng $ 14,016,000 Acquire and Resolve Water Rights $ 25,000 $ 175,000 Pipeline Flow&Pressure Testing $ 25,000 Canyon Springs Pump Station Improvements Begin Prelimin Begin Design $ 17,159,800 South Wells Standby Generators $ 240,570 PRV Flow Meters&SCADA Upgrade $ 100,000 Assess&Modify South Well Pumps $ 100,000 $ 3,869,570 $ 14,843,480 $ 4,871,000 $ 17,159,800 $ 350,000 $ 3,519,477 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 WD Mainline Replacement $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Misc.Improvements& Condition Assessment $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Priority 1 Improvements $ 2,948,600 $ 2,948,600 $ 2,948,600 $ 3,037,058 $ 3,128,170 Priority 2 Improvements $ 5,844,341 $ 6,019,671 $ 6,200,261 $ 6,386,269 $ 6,577,857 Additional WD Expenses $ 1,323,351 $ 524,683 $ 581,964 $ 397,373 $ 750,844 $ 731,684 $ 745,043 $ 758,869 $ 773,180 $ 787,991 $ 4,871,951 $ 4,073,283 $ 4,130,564 $ 4,034,431 $ 4,479,014 $ 7,176,025 $ 7,364,714 $ 7,559,131 $ 7,759,449 $ 7,965,848 CIP Number for First&Second Year Projects PI Acquire Land(CIP 11,13,14,17) $ 2,242,000 Admin,Pipe,Measure(CIP 1-3,1/3 of 6,9,12) $ 300,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 Perrine Improvements(CIP 4) $ 107,000 Measurement Devices(CIP 2/3 of 5) $ 50,000 $ 25,000 Pumps and Service Area(CIP 8) $ 300,000 Orchard Drainage Improvements(CIP 15) $ 200,000 Hillcrest Drainage Improvements(CIP 16) $ 150,000 Ensign Drainage Invest.&Pipe(CIP 18&19) $ 440,000 Perrine/Bosero Pipe(CIP 20) $ 238,000 Future PI CIP Master Plan Costs $ 543,500 $ 873,440 $ 1,314,455 $ 1,312,365 $ 1,048,974 $ 1,231,149 $ 710,461 $ 1,593,917 Misc:Irrigation piping(not from CIP) $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 3,349,000 $ 878,000 $ 693,500 $ 1,048,440 $ 1,464,455 $ 1,462,365 $ 1,198,974 $ 1,381,149 $ 860,461 $ 1,743,917 Total Capital Costs $ 12,090,521 $ 19,794,763 $ 9,695,064 $ 22,242,671 $ 6,293,469 $ 12,157,867 $ 8,913,688 $ 9,290,280 $ 8,969,910 $ 10,059,765 7.1.1 CIP Budget Alternatives: Common Features and Use as a Decision-Making Tool The City's water budget can be generally split into three categories:Water Supply(WS),Water Distribution (WD), and Pressure Irrigation (PI). Each of the three budget alternatives is identical with respect to the timeline for PI projects, which are highly dependent on land purchases in the next fiscal year. Many PI projects have a specific schedule that must be adhered to for logistical reasons, and for the purpose of this facilities plan, they are considered "built-in" costs that will not be rearranged. The City may choose to accelerate or delay certain PI projects due to funding availability. Other miscellaneous capital costs from each category that are not associated with the recommended improvements of this facilities plan were obtained from the City and built into each budget alternative for comprehensive planning purposes. Alternatives #1 and #2 each place large infrastructure projects as the highest priority at the expense of smaller WD projects, and thus,they are identical with respect to the WD project timeline. Each proposes beginning the Priority 1 pipe improvements in the fiscal year that ends in 2027, allowing them to be completed by the end of the 10-year planning period, while Priority 2 pipe improvements are scheduled to begin towards the end of the 10-year period. The summary table for each alternative is arranged by fiscal year and compares annual revenue from different scenarios to cash reserves and total expenditures.The City usually considers increasing the water user rates by 2%each year and anticipates at least 1.4%of revenue growth from population growth—this represents the base scenario. Three other revenue scenarios are presented in the summary table for a 3%, 4%, and 5% annual rate increase, which is the maximum amount that the rate can be increased annually without public approval. Based on each alternative's project timeline, the corresponding over/under and cumulative cash reserves are calculated for each revenue scenario.This will allow the City to see exactly what year certain projects need to be implemented and how much to raise rates in order to not go into debt. For added utility in the spreadsheet that will be presented to the City,the final revenue scenario was created to be a "variable" rate increase scenario where one can simply change the rate increase for any given year to see the effect that it has on the over/under and cumulative cash. To summarize,there are two ways to adjust this spreadsheet and use it as a decision-making tool: 1. Copy/paste projects in the project timeline to different years(inflation will be auto calculated) 2. Test different rate increases in the variable rate increase revenue scenario No matter what alternative one starts with, there are several different configurations that could be explored in order to observe the changes to the over/under and cumulative cash. However, the first two alternatives were carefully created in order to avoid as much debt as possible, and there are limited arrangements which make this possible.The City is encouraged to test different project timelines and rate increase scenarios until an ideal arrangement is discovered that the City can reasonably accomplish, and it is not required for all items to be completed in the next 10 years. It is not problematic if certain small projects need to be delayed for any number of reasons, but caution should be used when rearranging larger projects. It is recommended that the City: 1. Select a budget alternative 2. Configure the spreadsheet in a way that is ideal for current operations 3. Review and update the spreadsheet at least once a year in order to track completed projects and accurately plan for future improvements or funding acquisition. 7.1.2 CIP Budget Alternative#1: South Well 5 and Harrison Tank Priority This budget alternative focuses on improving the City's water supply and storage systems. Specifically, this alternative has two projects that are proposed to be completed as soon as possible: the Harrison Storage Tank and South Well 5. Ideally, South Well 5 could be constructed first in order to provide City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 112 additional supply directly to the distribution system during the construction of the Harrison Storage Tank. In this arrangement, it is anticipated that both projects could be completed by the fiscal year ending in 2026. Together with standby generators added to the remaining south wells, these improvements will adequately mitigate the risk associated with a failure at one of the booster pump stations and provide service flexibility in the event that a pump station needs to be shut down for maintenance or improvements. Essentially,these upgrades will prepare the City for constructing the new Canyon Springs Pump Station at the end of the 10-year planning period. Since Canyon Springs is currently in poor condition,this alternative comes with the recommendation that the pumps at this station be rehabilitated as soon as feasibly possible to maintain reliable service until such time that the station can be upgraded. 7.1.3 CIP Budget Alternative#2: Canyon Springs Station Priority This alternative focuses on the Canyon Springs Pump Station as the highest priority and proposes to begin the engineering for this project in the next fiscal year. This takes care of the City's most important piece of infrastructure and eliminates the additional cost from having to rehabilitate the Canyon Springs pumps. Due to the complicated nature of this project, it is not anticipated to be completed until the fiscal year ending in 2026 even if design begins immediately. Since the water supply and storage systems are placed at a lower priority,this alternative proposes adding standby generators at each of the South Wells in the next fiscal year as a small form of risk mitigation during the Canyon Springs project. South Well 5 is proposed to be implemented the year after Canyon Springs is completed, with the Harrison Tank then proposed at the end of the 10-year planning period. Once Canyon Springs is completed,the City will have a robust water delivery system, but the delays to improving the water supply and storage facilities could put the City in a strained operational status. 7.1.4 CIP Budget Alternative#3:Accelerated Priorities This alternative proposes that each project be completed in the year that it is most needed, without any delays and with the assistance of external funding and laborers. It is proposed that the design for both the Harrison Tank and the Canyon Springs Station begin immediately, allowing them to be completed in the fiscal years ending in 2024 and 2026, respectively. It is also proposed that generators be added to the remaining south wells in the first fiscal year and that South Well 5 is constructed by the end of 2025. In contrast to the above alternatives, this option also schedules all Priority 1 pipe improvements to be completed in the first five years and all Priority 2 pipes for the next five years. If funding is made available to the City for replacing distribution components with lead fittings, these improvements will need to be accelerated in order to utilize the available funds and this WD project timeline could feasibly fit into budget alternative#1 or#2. 7.2 SELECTION OF BUDGET ALTERNATIVE Several meetings were held with City staff in order to identify the budget alternative that is most preferrable to them.To assist with the selection, an informal ranking of risks and benefits associated with each option was presented to the City and discussed at length. Based on the results of these discussions, the City identified Budget Alternative #1 as the most preferred option. The main reasons behind this decision were numerous and included:the easier constructability of the Harrison Storage Tank versus the Canyon Springs Pump Station,the higher strain on the workforce due to operational issues resulting from inadequate storage, the recent acquisition of land specifically for the new tank, and the City's current focus on resolving many other supply and storage-related deficiencies, among other reasons. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 113 7.3 MONTHLY USER RATE ANALYSIS Due to the flexible nature of the budget alternatives and the lack of any agency requirements to complete specific projects by a certain year, increases to user charge rates were estimated on a general basis. The City's existing user rate fee structure can be seen in Table 2-11,which shows a base rate of$20.33 for any amount of water use up to 2,000 gallons and then a variable rate of$1.97 for every 1,000 gallons beyond that amount, up to 150,000 gallons. For the purpose of illustration and to remain consistent with the budget alternatives,the user rate analysis was performed by calculating the future user rate for a 10,000- gallon typical user in each of the four revenue scenarios(annual rate increase of 2%, 3%,4%,and 5%).The results of this analysis can be seen below in Table 7-8. Table 7-8-Increase in Monthly Charge Rate for a 10,000-Gallon Tyical User .. . . Existing Unit Cost($/Gal) $20.33/$1.97 Existing Total Cost($/10k Gal) $36.09 10-Year Unit Cost($/Gal) $24.78/$2.40 $27.32/$2.65 $30.09/$2.92 $33.12/$3.21 10-Year Total Cost($/10k Gal) $43.99 $48.50 $53.42 $58.79 20-Year Unit Cost($/Gal) $30.21 /$2.93 $36.72/$3.56 $44.55/$4.32 $53.94/$5.23 20-Year Total Cost($/10k Gal) $53.63 $65.18 $79.08 $95.76 This analysis was performed with the understanding that the City would not like to go into debt and may finance all recommended improvements through user fees and cash reserves. Therefore, a debt service for budget alternative #3 was not estimated. Essentially, these results illustrate the possible changes to monthly charge rates based on the goals of the Water Department. No matter what projects the City decides to do, or when, the budget alternative spreadsheet will allow the City to identify how much to raise user rates in order to meet their goals for over/under expenditures. The above analysis shows the resulting costs to individual users if the proposed rate increases are applied on an annual basis at the same rate every year. Budget Alternatives #1 and #2 propose the same improvements, and therefore, have identical Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs. In general, it is anticipated that the construction of South Well 5 will actually decrease overall water system costs by reducing the pumping required from Canyon Springs. 7.4 PROJECT FINANCING The City may consider financing the proposed improvements through cash reserves, monthly user rate increases, a bond election, state and federal loans and grants (e.g., IDEQ State Revolving Fund, Department of Labor Community Development Block Grant, etc.), and/or assessments of fees to new developments. However, it is entirely possible to fund the recommended improvements and complete them in stages without outside funding or a debt service if the system is maintained properly, if one of the proposed budget alternatives is utilized effectively, and if the Water Department funds are not misallocated. Given the City's historic ability to complete projects without outside funding sources, this may be the most likely outcome. In general, some outside funding sources may have additional requirements to qualify for their use, such as completion of an environmental document in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), inclusion of prevailing wages, and/or incorporation of American Iron and Steel provisions. These requirements may increase costs and should be considered further during preliminary design. If the City City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 114 decides to pursue this route, qualified financial professionals should be consulted for additional guidance on what type of funding is best suited for the community. 7.5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS Depending on the final location of the recommended improvements, moderate environmental impacts from construction activities may occur. However, many of the proposed improvements are generally in existing road right-of-ways or other disturbed areas and are not anticipated to have a significant environmental impact. Air quality may be impacted during construction due to dust and exhaust emissions from construction equipment, which may produce some minor air pollution. Debris created by construction should not be burned and instead should be transported to a disposal area to avoid further air pollution.The impacts of construction dust can be mitigated by ceasing activity during exceptionally windy conditions and using watering equipment. Open trenches, electrical utilities, and heavy equipment may present health and safety hazards during construction.These hazards may be mitigated by educating project personnel about the applicable health and safety regulations and by establishing safe operating procedures. Traffic control may also present a safety hazard since traffic patterns are altered for construction purposes. It is anticipated that impacts on agricultural lands, cultural resources, wetlands, plants, or wildlife from the improvements will be minimal to moderate, as the proposed alignment crosses the Snake River. If properly designed, operated, and maintained,the proposed improvements should have minimal impacts on the soil, groundwater, and surface water. The primary locations of most improvements are at sites where there are existing structures or streets. There is a possibility that some of the improvements will be constructed in areas where trees and vegetation have been planted and the area has been landscaped. In all areas where construction of the proposed improvements take place, an effort will be required to reconstruct, replant, and landscape the area to its former condition. 7.6 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Results of the 2022 Facilities Plan will be presented to the City Council for their consideration and a public meeting may be held to present the results to the public if the City decides to seek additional input. 7.7 ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS Overall, the existing water system has adequate capacity to meet existing demands. However, upgrades will be required to meet demands and replace large, aging infrastructure under the Committed and Master Plan conditions, as indicated in the CIP. This Facilities Plan provides the City with a planning tool to guide the expansion of the water system within the utility service area over the 20-year planning period. The following recommendations will help ensure that the City is able to provide service to the entire future water service area and that the Facilities Plan is implemented as intended.They will also help improve the data quality available for future updates to this plan. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 115 1. CIP Implementation — Follow and implement the recommendations in the CIP. In addition, consider the following: a. Source and Supply — Perform aquifer level monitoring to track current trends and well performance. Secure water rights for the full buildout of the impact area as described in Section 6.1.1. b. Land purchase—In areas of existing or proposed tanks, purchase sufficient land to satisfy storage requirements well beyond the 20-year plan to ensure that as the City builds out, land/space requirements do not become a limiting factor. 2. On-Call Modeling—Provide modeling for new developments to ensure master plan assumptions are followed and improvements are adequately implemented. 3. Existing system replacement — Establish an adequate annual budget for on-going maintenance and to replace and/or rehabilitate the existing distribution system, booster pumps, and well pumps based on a realistic expected life cycle for these systems. 4. Risk assessment — To stretch the City's limited annual maintenance budget, the City could implement a risk-based approach to evaluate when and where system failures are most likely to occur ("likelihood of failure") and what the consequence of failure would be if it occurred. This could be recorded in GIS, in an online map, or with other media to prioritize planning and to determine where funding and inspection efforts should be focused. 5. Perform a water audit—Continue to track water production and consumption rates and perform a water audit of the system to identify the amount of loss and location in the system. Reconcile discrepancies in the flow record, identify areas highest areas of loss or inaccuracy, and include recommendations for future changes in updates to the facilities plan. a. Customer meter count and accuracy—The City should continue maintaining a database of the number of active customer water meters,verify metering accuracy when possible. In addition, the number of un-metered connections (i.e., parks) should be limited and verified when possible. 6. Implement water conservation measures —The City should consider which water conservation measures discussed in Chapter 6 are most appropriate for their conditions and implement them when possible. 7. Annual Record Drawing Updates — Record drawings provided by developers to the City should be used to update the model and GIS on a yearly basis including the following data: source, date of source, date entered, datum, new hydrant locations, pipe material and diameter, and abandoned facilities.This information can be entered into GIS by the City or others.The updated GIS shapefiles should then be transferred yearly to update the modeling files. Infrastructure previously considered proposed will then be updated to existing infrastructure within the model. 8. GIS or Online Mapping—The City may want to consider GIS and/or online mapping of their water distribution system. This will likely require additional resources and staffing to develop, operate, and maintain the system. Additional considerations regarding GIS or online mapping: a. Record drawings should be linked in an online map to where the drawing applies. b. Online mapping can be used to show where ongoing improvement projects are occurring across the city. c. Online mapping can make existing infrastructure information available to the City staff and other authorized users d. Online mapping can keep track of existing maintenance activities across the City. e. Online mapping can be used to document the sources for information that are used to update the system information, such as survey, record drawing,field check, etc. f. Several fields should be added to the GIS to document the year of construction, pipe material and diameter, elevations based on drawings with associated datum, sources of information for pipeline, and entry date of the information. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 116 g. Align customer water meter readings with spatial location of meters to facilitate future model calibration efforts. Provide fields to include meter ID (corresponding to flow record), meter size, use type (i.e., residential, commercial, industrial), date installed, and date maintained. 9. Update the Facilities Plan — Changes to the existing water system are expected to occur as the City continues to grow over the next decade. Updates to the Facilities Plan and model should be considered if major assumptions change, comprehensive plans or service boundaries change, additional system data has been acquired, and improvement projects are implemented. Facilities Plans should generally be updated approximately every five to ten years. 7.8 LIMITATIONS OF REPORT AND MODEL This report documents the assumptions used to prepare a hydraulic model and recommend Master Plan pipe and infrastructure sizes. If the assumptions change or are found to be wrong, then the hydraulic model will need to be updated to align with the best and most recent data and information available. Exact pipe location is not typically portrayed in the model. Junction elevations are limited to the data sources available within a certain area.As pressure results are a function of elevation and demand, results are limited in part to the accuracy of the elevation data. If any data sources used are found to be in error, these records will need to be updated in the model. In particular, record drawings and previous model files were used as a source for most of the data. On occasion record drawings may no longer reflect current conditions. City of Twin Falls Water System Facilities Plan 117 This page was intentionally left blank for correct double-sided printing. 118 Appendix A Environmental Resources This page was intentionally left blank for correct double-sided printing. 120 A.1 Existing Conditions A.1.1 Physiography, Topography, Geology, and Soils The City of Twin Falls is located in south central Idaho in the north central section of Twin Falls County (see Figure A-1). The city falls mainly within Township 10 South, Range 17 East, B.M. It is situated approximately 130 miles southeast of Boise, 113 miles west of Pocatello, and 220 miles north of Salt Lake City, UT. Currently, Twin Falls is the largest city in the region and eighth largest in the state. The City is situated south of Interstate 84 with access from U.S. Highway 30 and U.S. Highway 93. Historically an agricultural center, an influx of food processing centers has resulted in agricultural related industry and economic growth. The topography of the Twin Falls planning area is depicted on the topographic map shown in Figure A-2. As shown on the map, the City is bound on the north by the Snake River and steep bluffs, on the south by the Twin Falls Canal Company Low Line Canal and Magic Valley Regional Airport, on the west by Rock Creek and agricultural lands, and on the east by agricultural lands. Within the planning area for the Facilities Plan,the ground surface generally slopes from southeast to northwest towards the Snake River Canyon and the elevation ranges from approximately 3,960(near the airport) to 3,590 (near the canyon) feet above mean sea level. The regional geology in the vicinity of Twin Falls is depicted on the Geologic Map of the Twin Falls Quadrangle (Idaho Geological Survey, 2012;see Figure A-3).The geology generally consists of quaternary basalts of the Hansen Butte (Qhan), Stricker Butte (Qstr), Hub Butte (Thub), and Berger Butte (Tbrg) overlying older rhyolitic flows that are several hundred feet thick. A Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey map of the planning area is shown in Figure A-4 along with a legend for the soil map units. Table A-1 lists each map unit given in the figure and summarizes various characteristics of the specific soil type. Most of the soil types in the Twin Falls area are primarily suitable for cropland, hayland, rangeland, and pasture. A.1.2 Surface and Groundwater Hydrology The planning area encompasses a portion of the Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer (ESPA) north of the Snake River and the Twin Falls—Southside Tract Aquifer south of the river. Both aquifers are comprised of quaternary basalt flows of varying thickness,with sedimentary interbeds consisting primarily of silt and clay, with minor gravel depositions. Water occurrence and movement in the aquifers occurs within fracture zones in the basalt flows. The aquifer is underlain by rhyolitic formations at depths of 500 to 1,000 feet below ground. On the Southside, the rhyolite aquifer is an artesian geothermal system, fed from deep percolation primarily occurring within the South Hills. The geothermal system is a protected resource and is not being contemplated for development by the City. 121 Table A-1—NRCS Soil Characteristics Potential Soil I Available map Depth Drainage Water Rooting jUnit Description Class Class Permeability Capacity 6 Antelope Springs 0 4% Very Deep Well Slow 7-8 in. >60 in. Slow loam Drained 10 Bahem silt loam 14% Very Deep Well Moderate 10-11 in. >60 in. Slow Drained 11 Bahem silt loam 4-8% Very Deep Well Moderate 10-11 in. >60 in. Medium Drained 67 Minidoka silt loam 0-2% Moderately Well Moderate 3.5-8 in. 20-40 in. Slow Deep Drained 68 Minidoka silt loam 24% Moderately Well Moderate 3.5-8 in. 20-40 in. Slow Deep Drained 69 Minveno silt loam 0-2% Shallow Well Moderate 2-4 in. 10-20 in. Slow Drained 70 Minveno silt loam 2-8% Shallow Well Moderate 2-4 in. 10-20 in. Medium Drained 86 Portneuf silt loam 0 2% Very Deep Well Moderately 10.5-11.5Drained Slow in. >60 in. Slow 87 Portneuf silt loam 2 4% Very Deep Well Moderately 10.5-11.5 Drained Slow in. >60 in. Slow Rock outcrop- Very Shallow to Well Moderately 108 Xerorthents Steep Very Deep Drained Slow 7-11 in. >60 in. Rapid complex 123 Sluka silt loam 14% Moderately Well Moderate 3-6 in. 20-40 in. Medium Deep Drained 136 Trevino silt loam 0-2% Shallow Well Moderate 2.5-4 in. 10-20 in. Slow Drained 137 Trevino silt loam 2-8% Very Deep Excessively Rapid 3-6 in. >60 in. Very Drained Slow 138 Trevino-Rock 2-20% Shallow Well Moderate 2.5-4 in. 10-20 in. Medium outcrop complex Drained Data obtained from NRCS Soils Report of Jerome County and Part of Twin Falls County,Idaho(USGS). Groundwater flow within the ESPA is generally toward the west and southwest, emerging primarily as various discrete springs from Milner to King Hill and as distributed reach gains to the Snake River. Aquifer hydraulic conductivity in the ESPA in the vicinity of the study area is generally high, with estimates exceeding 1,000 ft/day based on pumping test data and calibrated values for the groundwater model developed by the State of Idaho and the Idaho Water Resource Research Institute. Depths to water generally range from 100 to 300 feet below ground. Groundwater flow in the Southside Tract Aquifer is generally northward toward the river,emerging within the river typically as distributed reach gains; although, a few discrete springs exist along Rock Creek and in the Shoshone Falls area. Hydraulic conductivity and well productivity on the south side is generally lower and less uniform than within the ESPA. Based on the calibrated groundwater model developed by the University of Idaho, hydraulic conductivity ranges from 4 to 75 ft/day. Depths to water vary widely by location on the tract,from less than 30 feet to greater than 400 feet in the southern areas. Recharge to both aquifers occurs primarily from deep percolation from cropland irrigated with surface water. Other inputs include precipitation, tributary basin underflow, and seepage from streams and 122 canals. Outflow from the aquifers occur via groundwater pumping, reach gain to streams and the Snake River, sub-surface irrigation returns, and natural evapotranspiration in riparian areas. Seasonal fluctuations in water levels occur in response to natural forcing but are primarily due to the seasonal nature of irrigation recharge, groundwater pumping, and climatic changes. Seasonal fluctuations may range from a few feet to greater than 30 feet. Surface water occurrence throughout the study area consists of the Snake River and associated springs and seeps; continuous streams such as Rock Creek and the Perrine Coulee; seasonal irrigation canals, ditches, and sediment settling ponds;and numerous named and unnamed perennial streams. Most of the natural drainages are also utilized during the irrigation season as irrigation delivery conveyances. Other man-made surface water features include irrigation storage reservoirs such as Murtaugh Lake, Salmon Falls Reservoir, and other minor impoundments. A.1.3 Fauna, Flora, and Natural Communities Plants and animals in Twin Falls are typical of those found in south central Idaho. Vegetation consists of a variety of trees, shrubs, and grasses. Trees common to the area include evergreen, birch, maple, locust, poplar, Russian olive, and willows. The dominant vegetation in the area is sagebrush, fescue, and wheatgrass. Common upland game birds in the area include pheasants, partridge, quail, and sage grouse. Waterfowl such as geese and ducks are often found concentrated along the Snake River and other drainage ways. Raptors such as hawks, eagles, and owls are also found in the area. Animals common to the area include squirrels, rock chuck, fox, skunks, and coyote. Big game habitat generally does not exist because of the significant human population and soil cultivation in the area. However, deer have been sighted in the area on occasion. Fish common to the area include trout, bass, sturgeon, blue gill, and walleye. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act for Twin Falls County include the Snake River physa (endangered), Bliss Rapids snail (threatened), Columbia spotted frog (candidate), greater sage-grouse (candidate), and yellow billed cuckoo(candidate). A.1.4 Land Use and Development The City currently covers approximately 17 square miles and oversees an Area of Impact that is approximately 31 square miles. Figure and Table summarize the ultimate land use designations within the City limits and Area of Impact at full buildout of the Area of Impact. Residential land use consists primarily of single-family dwelling units located throughout the community. Older and more compact residences are located near the Downtown area, while newer and larger single- family lots and homes developed a part of suburban subdivisions are situated on the outer edges of the city.There are also multi-family residential dwelling units scattered throughout the community. Commercial areas are primarily located in the Downtown area, along the canyon rim, and along the major arterials (i.e., Blue Lake Boulevard, Kimberly Road, Addison Avenue, Pole Line Road, etc.). Commercial land uses generally include small commercial centers, individual businesses, retail, wholesale, services, professional offices, and light manufacturing. 123 Table A-2—Twin Falls Existing Land Use Summary Land Use Acres Percent Agriculture 5,283 16.9 Airport 2,813 9.0 College of Southern Idaho 455 1.5 Commercial 556 1.8 Downtown 676 2.2 Industrial 3,321 10.6 Mixed Used 1,358 4.3 Neighborhood Commercial 976 3.1 Open Space 2,895 9.2 Rural Residential 3,126 10.0 Town Neighborhood 9,844 31.4 Total 31,303 100.0 1.Taken from the City of Twin Falls GIs shapefile for future land use. Industrial areas are predominantly situated along the railroad tracks, along the U.S. Highway 30 and 93 corridors, the South Park area, along Addison Avenue west of the City, and adjacent to Rock Creek. Industrial land uses generally consist of warehousing, agri-business, food processing, general manufacturing, and industrial business parks. Agricultural and vacant land accounts for nearly one-half of the area within the planning area.Agricultural parcels are located primarily along the undeveloped City limits and within the Area of Impact. Vacant areas, on the other hand, tend to be located within the City limits. The Joslin Field-Magic Valley Regional Airport is located on the southern boundary of the planning area. The airport currently provides private and limited commercial air service. A.1.5 Public Utilities The City is serviced by a full complement of public utilities and services. These services are intended for residents of Twin Falls and the surrounding counties. Some of the public utilities and services offered within the area include: • Water, Sewer and Streets • Fire and Police Protection • Public Library • Communication Systems • Post Office • Power/Electric Services • Cable Television • Solid Waste Disposal • Health Care Facilities • Public Schools • Meeting and Lodging Facilities • Airport/Transportation Services • Recreational Facilities • Government Cross-Connection and Backflow Protection Programs 124 A.1.6 Cultural Resources Some of the first inhabitants of the Twin Falls area were Native Americans,including northern and western Shoshone and Blackfoot tribes. Wilson Price Hunt and Robert Stuart both led expeditions through the Twin Falls area in the early 1800's. The primary route taken by Robert Stuart was the beginnings of the Oregon Trail,which crosses Rock Creek south of Twin Falls.Gold was discovered in the Snake River Canyon in the 1860's and several mining camps were established. The first permanent settlements reported in the area included a rail station at Rock Creek in 1864 and a small community near Shoshone Falls in 1884. Several agricultural operations were located in the Snake River Canyon but use of the surrounding lands for farming was difficult due to an inadequate water delivery system. As a result, Stanley B. Milner and I.B. Perrine formed the Twin Falls Land and Water Company in 1902 to build an irrigation canal system for the area. They obtained financing under the provisions of the Carey Act of 1894 and enlisted the Buhl- Kimberly Corporation to construct Milner Dam near Murtaugh, as well as the associated canal system. Construction of the dam and canals was completed in 1905, making irrigation of the dry lands outside the Snake River Canyon practical for the first time. During construction of the canals and sale of the land for farming, it became apparent that a town should be established. In 1904, S.A. Bickel platted the City, and lots were sold from $50 to $100 per lot. The City was named for the nearby waterfalls in the Snake River Canyon known as Twin Falls. In 1907, the City became the county seat for Twin Falls County. By 1910,the population of the City had grown to over 5,000 people.Since then,the community has continued to grow and is now the major economic center in south central Idaho. The Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) of the Idaho State Historical Society was consulted regarding cultural resources in the Twin Falls area.The following locations are listed on SHPO's National Register of Historic Places in Idaho for the City: • James Alvis House • Bickel School • Idaho Power Substation • Lincoln School • Lincoln Street Electric Streetlights • Robert McCollum House • Burton Morse House • D. H. Peck House • Pleasant View School • Walter Priebe House • Harvey C. Smith House • Stricker Store and Homesite • Twin Falls Bank&Trust Co. Building • Twin Falls Canal Company Building • Twin Falls City Part Historic District • Twin Falls Milling & Elevator Co. Warehouse • Twin Falls Warehouse Historic District • Twin Falls Downtown Historic District • Twin Falls Original Town Site Residential Historic District Native American tribes with historical ties to the Twin Falls area include the Shoshone-Paiute Tribe and Shoshone-Bannock Tribe. A.1.7 Flood Plains and Wetlands A Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year flood zone map for the planning area is shown in Figure A-6. As shown in the figure, areas designated as 100-year flood zone areas are primarily located adjacent to the Snake River, Rock Creek and Perrine Coulee. However, there are other smaller 125 sections of the City that fall within 100-year flood zone areas.The FEMA flood zone map does not address 25- and 50-year flood zones. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wetlands Inventory provides mapping of wetlands across the United States. Figure summarizes the predominant wetland types in the Twin Falls area. A.1.8 Wild and Scenic Rivers The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, as promulgated by Congress in 1968, states that"...certain selected rivers of the Nation which, with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational,geological,fish and wildlife, historical,cultural,or other similar values, shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations." No surface waters within the Twin Falls planning area are currently classified as wild and/or scenic under this Act. A.1.9 Public Health Considerations In general,there are minimal public health issues related to the City's water system. Raw water produced from the South Wells and Hankins Wells have background arsenic concentrations higher than the drinking water standard. However, the City constructed water system improvements from 2009 through 2013 to blend water from the Blue Lakes Wells that has arsenic concentrations lower than the standard with the South and Hankins Well water. This results in a blended water supply that meets the arsenic standard. Occasionally, other water quality parameters (i.e.,TDS, iron, etc.) are measured at concentrations higher than their secondary drinking water standards.There are no known Unreasonable Risks to Human Health associated with the water system. A.1.10 Prime Agricultural Land As defined by the 1978 EPA Policy to Protect Environmentally Significant Agricultural Lands, prime farmland has the "best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber and oilseed crops and is available for these uses". According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), soils within the Twin Falls area that are considered prime farmland, if irrigated, include: Bahem silt loam (10 and 11), Minidoka silt loam (67 and 68), Portneuf silt loam (86 and 87) and Sluka silt loam (123). A.1.11 Proximity to Sole Source Aquifer The Sole Source Aquifer program was established under Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974.The program allows individuals and organizations to petition the EPA to designate aquifers as the "sole or principal" source of drinking water for an area. To meet the sole source criteria, an aquifer must supply at least 50 percent of the drinking water consumed in the area overlying the aquifer. The EPA guidelines also stipulate that these areas can have no alternative drinking water source(s) that could physically, legally,and economically supply all those who depend upon the aquiferfor drinking water. EPA Region X has designated the ESPA as a sole source aquifer. A.1.12 Energy Production and Consumption A majority of the population in the planning area consumes energy in the form of electricity, natural gas, propane, and/or fuel oil. A few residents may also use wood or pellet stoves for heating purposes. There are no known energy producing facilities within the planning area. However, there are several hydroelectric power plants located on the Snake River and other irrigation drainages within the valley. 126 A.1.13 Precipitation, Temperature, and Prevailing Winds Twin Falls has a semi-arid climate typical of southern Idaho.Table A-3 summarizes historical temperature, precipitation and evaporation data for the planning area. Table A-3-Monthly Climatic Data .--1 "F36.9 29.3 21.8 9.1 1.20 1.4 0.45 February 42.2 33.5 24.8 9.4 0.81 0.8 0.68 March 52.6 41.6 30.7 9.6 1.11 0.2 1.35 April 59.1 47 34.8 9.6 1.16 0.1 4.05 May 68.0 55.4 42.7 8.9 1.44 0 5.40 June 77.0 63 49 8.6 0.75 0 6.30 July 86.8 70.8 54.8 7.9 0.24 0 8.55 August 85.5 69.2 52.9 7.6 0.35 0 8.10 September 75.9 60.4 44.9 8 0.49 0 4.95 October 62.7 49.1 35.5 8.4 0.84 0.1 2.70 November 48.3 37.9 27.4 9 0.97 0.9 1.80 December 37.1 29.2 21.4 9 1.44 1.8 0.68 Monthly Avg. 61.0 48.9 36.7 8.8 0.87 0.44 3.75 Total - - - 9.6 5.3 45.01 1. Data for temperature and rainfall represent U.S. Climate Normals(1991-2020)for the Twin Falls 6 E observation station, determined by NOAA NCEI (https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/us-cli mate-normals/#dataset=normals-month ly&timefra me=30&location=l D&station=U SCO0109303) 2. Data for snowfall and wind speed were derived from NASA's MERRA-2 retrospective weather model and were obtained from Weather Spark (https://weatherspark.com/y/2315/Average-Weather-in-Twin-Falls-Idaho-U nited-States-Year-Round#Sections-Summary). 3. Average evaporation calculated based on"Monthly Shallow Pond Evaporation in Idaho', 1992, Lolnau, Kpordze and Craine,ASAE Paper PNW 92-111 (Region 1,IDEQ Guidance for Reclamation and Reuse of Municipal and Industrial Wastewater,Figure 4-2). Winter weather is characterized by alternating high and low pressure systems that bring associated clear or inclement conditions. January is historically the coldest month, while July is historically the warmest month. Most of the annual precipitation falls as snow during the winter months. Summer weather is normally dry with warm to hot temperatures.The warm summer temperatures combine with low relative humidity to produce an annual evaporation rate of approximately 45 inches.The prevailing wind direction in the area is from the west to southwest, and the average wind speed is approximately 5 to 7 mph. Tornadoes and funnel clouds are rare, as are destructive force winds. A.1.14 Air Quality and Noise EPA has developed standards for monitoring and protecting air quality. IDEQ is responsible for implementing, monitoring and enforcing the air quality standards within Idaho. An area that exceeds the air quality standards is considered to be a "non-attainment area" (NAA) for a particular component, or total air quality. In addition, some regions may be listed as areas of concern, or maintenance areas. The Twin Falls planning area is currently not located within a NAA or maintenance area. Residents generally feel that air quality is excellent and cite this as one of the area's quality of life factors. Twin Falls is well removed from any major urbanized areas and there are very few sources of pollution in 127 the immediate vicinity. Local automobile emissions, agricultural activities, light commercial and industrial processing are the primary contributors to air quality degradation. Additionally, high levels of particulate matter may be experienced during certain weather events, during certain times of the agricultural season due to farming practices. Noise in Twin Falls is generally limited to normal traffic, commercial and industrial activities, agricultural practices, railroads, and the airport. A.1.15 Economic and Social Profile Twin Falls is the regional economic and social hub for south central Idaho. The area's economy is based primarily on the agricultural, food processing, retail, service, and light manufacturing industries. The City also has the typical commercial amenities and services of a medium-sized city (e.g., grocery stores, restaurants, service stations, etc.). The downtown area for the City has many historic sites with small shops and food areas. Tourism is another important component of the economy. Tourists come to Twin Falls due to the historical, cultural, recreational, and athletic amenities, as well as several of the natural features in the area such as Shoshone Falls and the Snake River.The river provides for various recreational opportunities that support the local economy, including boating, fishing, swimming, and water-skiing. Other recreational activities available within the area include biking, camping, and hiking. According to U.S. Census Bureau, there were 51,807 people and 20,439 households in the City of Twin Falls in 2020. For a total land area of 18.16 square miles,the population density was 2,853 inhabitants per square mile. The population was predominantly Caucasian (78.1%) and female (51.3%), with a median resident age of about 33.3 years. The most recent estimate by the American Community Survey shows that the average income for a household in the city was$64,694 and that approximately 14.8%of people were below the poverty level in 2019,which was set at$25,750 for a family of four in that year.A summary of the key social and economic characteristics for Twin Falls is summarized in Table A-4. 128 Table A-4—Social and Economic Profile Parameter Population Total 51,807 - Male 25,230 48.7% Female 26,577 51.3% Age Distribution Under 5 Years 3,879 7.5% 5-14 Years 8,283 16.0% 15-24 Years 6,625 12.8% 25-34 Years 8,438 16.3% 35-44 Years 6,418 12.4% 45-54 Years 5,640 10.9% 55-64 Years 5,381 10.4% 65 Years and Over 7,143 13.8% Median Age 33.3 - Race and Ethnicity Caucasian 40,468 78.1% African American 928 1.8% American Indian and Alaska Native 575 1.1% Asian 1,279 2.5% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 189 0.4% Other 3,551 6.9% Multi-Race 4,817 9.3% Hispanic Ethnicity 8,975 17.3% Non-Hispanic Ethnicity 42,832 82.7% *Education Attainment Some High School, No Diploma 4,488 12.6% High School Graduate 10,131 28.5% Some College, No Degree 9,788 27.5% Associate Degree 4,671 13.1% Bachelor's Degree 3,983 11.2% Graduate Degree 2,512 7.1% Housing Total Households 20,439 - Average Household Size 2.60 - Vacant Housing Units 1,139 5.6% Owner Occupied Housing Units 12,140 59.4% Renter Occupied Housing Units 7,160 35.0% Source: U.S.Census Bureau; Decennial Census,2020,&American Community Survey,2019 estimates *In reference to population over 18 years of age(35,572 people) A.1.16 Environmental Justice It appears that no disadvantaged group will be adversely affected by water system improvements. Additionally, it is not expected that any specific population segment will benefit from water system improvements. However,the community in general will reap some benefits. 129 Wendell = O M z rn 3 2 Jerome j Twin-Falls BOB BARTON HWN f�� STATE yPVY�S w Q � 4 Eden CN Hazelton h y30 Filer =�r Twin Fallsr ' I—A D ON � I J Kimberly E 37 ,., 1 ,�'jj��i �.. Hansen \ V 41 0 \ 00 Murtaugh a n 0 M O O Cities Railroads ——— City Limits Hollister Major Roads Rivers&Streams V County Boundaries a I 2016 Comp. Plan Boundary —— City Utility Service Boundary V M 0 30,000 w CA z 1 inch - 30,000 Feet J•Y•Y[NWN[[Rf,INC. 130 . k f 1 M � � M M ��a M I M M M I \ " �r _ I"z z z z M M M � aM \ M o z M �" � ■ " z z i[ z z z 1 M " • ago " / M z z M M M M " City Utility Service Boundary 2016 Comp. Plan Boundary M M z z z z z z z z z zElevation Contours Streams i Canals MI MMileRoads M " Railroads Figure A-2 0 — 6,000 Topographic Map 1 inch = 6000 -- Ocp +; +1 + + � + ' + + + + u81Orb �+ a {' ' + + +Q ( + + + + + + + + + ' + + Qt +� + C Orb, + + + + �+;� + + + a + + + !MQ IA�ERLINE + + + + + % + + + Qwb; + + + +i + + + bo t_ }F t t S + + s+ + + r`i + + + + + + o � tI`� + s T �' Qab� 79 ��- + + + + + rb+ + + + + + QTbu t Tbo + ab \ r - gTbu� +;o + + E + + + 9 t m pv + + + + +r i u 1 r + + + + + ' S 71 l 0 +� + '`+ + + + + for Q m + + QT + + + + + bu + + + Tbu u l a + + � �QTbu am han Tshr Oh a r 'fin 7brg Qt abg shr� + Qam Tbu t Qt Thub a_ �1 ios Pe .Q�t Qo OamQt , ;� Qt � � TshrOTbu r L S� I* . QTt Qam '', ! + + + ;+ 6 + >>AP> str + + + f � Q n ' Thub Thu �._.� f--.- ` �" ' 1128a Qas r Twi , 1 4o Qas Qstr , 3b ; �760 i Qas cri € 3_ Fo - ! 31 Ostr anol 31 . 4 t;213 1 Qh CITY OF 'I`-WIN FALLS 1 rt' WATER SYSTEM . CJ-U-B F� FACILITIES PLAN ' SeR�'" J•U•B ENGINEERS, INC. J ♦ J • doe,� dip ` 1♦`I POLE LINE ♦t ♦I 1 1 1 • I I FALLS 1 4m 4m 1 I- 1 I i1ADDISON 1 1 1 1 SOUTH PARK i 1 IMBERLY 1 1 � 1 1 1 1 2016 Comp. Plan Boundary 17 1 I City Utility Service Boundary 18 1ORCHARD 1 1 Mile Roads _ 25 1 t Railroads 3 � 1 Y Soil Map Unit 3342 1 I z 10 13600 1 1� 43 1 107 3 Z m�----� -- - 44 W W 0 108 - > ,ice a a 1 58 w 1 11 6 • fA a m w 1 122 3 123 0 60 — — — C 124 67 1 1 129 0 68 1 % 13 0 69 70 � 132 1 1 �•�1 W71 0 136 ---------d 83 r 1 0 137 84 138 0 86 o 19 0 87 5 1 1 0 88 CAM 0 6,000 1 inch = 6,000 Feet J•U•B ENGINEERS,INC. 133 City Utility Service Boundary 0 College of Southern Idaho 2016 Comp. Plan Boundary - Commercial 1 Streams&Canals - Downtown Mile Roads - Industrial Railroads - Mixed Use ♦ Comprehensive Plan 0 Neighborhood Commercial - Open Space Zone 0 Rural Residential Agriculture 0 Town Neighborhood - Airport POLE LINE ♦ �/ 1 t 1 1 1 ' FALLS 1 1 1 Ir—'1 1 DDISON II�� 1 II A 1 SOUTH PARK �I ORCHARD 1 1 1 1 �a - 1 3600 x1 I 1 W LU F- Y Z c z 5 Q W r� �J U�B 0 6,000 1 inch = 6,000 Feet J•U•B ENGINEERS,INC. 134 F.1 — mm L — — — — — — — - - - - - - - - - MEN .. .. ME I M M . ■��••♦♦♦• .. .. .. .. .. ■. .. .. . o .. .. .. ■■ ■■ .. .. .. . . ■■`��♦�♦� .. .. .. .. .. .. . . ■■ ■■ ■■ �: is ■■ ■■ ■■ • fir■■■■■■■ ■■� �■■■■■■■■■��■ ■ii■■■■■■ on ■■■■■■■■■ �� ■ ■■■■■■Ij, ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ �■■■■■■ ■�� ■ ■■■■■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ij ■�� ■■■■■■■■■■ ■■ ■ ■■■■■■ ■■ i■ ■■ ■II■■■■■ ■■■■■■■ ■■ ■■■■I ■■■■■■■■■■ ■. .. .. ■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■ �: ■11■/ . ■■■■■■■■■■ �� i■ ■■ ■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■�� II i ■■■■■■■■■■ �� M, MM ■■■■■■■■ \■■■■■■ ■� ■■ i . ■■■■■■■■■■ ■. .. �- �� ■ ■. �� .. ■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■ II ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ \�■��■�� 11111� �■ ■■ i II II■■■■■■I■■■■ ■11111■`�- ■■ ■ II ■■r Flood Hazard Zones Zone Type ■■� 1%Annual Chance ■■■ Flood Area of 1■1IlRegulatory Undetermined WO W Flood Hazard 0.2%Annual Chance Flood Hazard . ■��■ Future Conditions - ■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■� 1�1 1%Annual Chance Flood Hazard .III■■■■■ �� G►■ .►��■�►� ► ■i�■ ■■■i with Reduced Due to Levee Figure A-6 FEMA Flood _ 0� 01 7-7�- SCALE IN FEET Zone Map - Panel 01 J-U-B ENGINEERS, INC. I AIM- M m � MMMO MM i ilson TFCo Parcels ly 1■■■■■r �o`�� .��e�� — � � — ' -=='►� �1■■■ Legend ■■■o■■■Ti■■■■■■■■ Flood 0 Zone Type Hazard Zones 1%Annual Chance ' �� ■ Flood Hazard 1 ERegulatory IFloodway I . E Special Floodway Area of ... Undetermined Flood Hazard .2%Annual ,Chance Flood Future■ Hazard Conditions Flood Hazard MArea with Reduced Risk Due to Levee Figure A-6 00 FEMA Flood Zone Map - Panel 02 J-U-B ENGINEERS, INC. E 0, �5 06 07 i • 09 m 11 13 Legend 1 r s �r _ .. Parcels Flood Hazard Zones Flood Hazard I■' ! ■ Zone Type ORe gu ay Area f Undetermined Flood Hazard I� ■` 1i��1�i��i i �v t■■I� Em WINChance Flood �� 0.2%Annual 1 �j ♦ NOON■ ■■ �� Hazard mom NONE 11■NONE■■ ■■ Flood Hazard Future Conditions ♦ s NOON■■■ ■�,� 1%Annual Chance MArea with Reduced Ord I Risk Due to Levee Figure A-600 _ FEMA Flood Zone Map - Panel 03 J-U-113 ENGINEERS, INC. 01 62~ 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 i i i I �11�11 f{j' Legend TFCo_Parcels r••j Flood Hazard Zones Zone Type MEMO..•►�� =1%Annual Chance ♦ Flood Hazard M Regulatory Floodway MSpecial Floodway Area of Undetermined /•.=n=•.=u=.Imam Flood Hazard 0.2%Annual Chance Flood •• ��'•�..�•••�• Hazard Future Conditions 01%Annual Chance Flood Hazard ��. I Area with Reduced ,�•�n�u�y Risk Due to Levee ITY OF TWIN FALLS • A, � y . (-J,U,B 4 5 0 1,000 y„ • • • FQ 7Q - SCALE IN FEET 0 F SFRv,Nv 1? • • • I J•U•B ENGINEERS, INC. 138 -IN \ 11111■■■■■■■�■ �!■\�� I I 1 4 ■ ■■■IIIIIIIi ■■� Mill m Ross ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ��11111�■�� ■ .Lj■■ ��■■■■■■■■0■■■■ 11111111111111111111111 ■■■ ■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■ ■_ _� IIIIIII ■�■�■�■w �■E■■■■■■■■■■ __ _ _ ■�■■■11■ � ■ ■■■ ■■■ ■■■ __ == == � Fes' ' _..��■ �ii ii is �� ■ � L �■ _ 1 �1■■ 0■■■ ■■■ . N1■ �� I I ■■��■■■■1 =_.ii�i■ �� ■i ii i� i■■11 S I Ili■11'�■1 ■. .� �; ��%i ■■11 ■■■■■■■■■■■MINI �■ ■■■■■■■IIIIIII ■I■1 ►,��■ • ■■■■■■■■■■■ iiiiiiiiimillin l■ ■■■■■■■■�■■■■■ ��111■ ■ ■ III■ NINO ■■■■■■■■■■■ ■ ■■I■■■1■!■ monsoon L� ■ ■ ■■■■■■■■■■■ ■111111111■■■ ■■■■I■■i�: ■■■■■■■ �� i r.1: i ■0000■■■o■■ ■■■■1111111■ ■■■■mom=mum ��Illlp ■o I p _ o■■I WIMM i Off �'� ■��. �1 111:■i i � �Illi III■1 -- -- ' I�r111111111 ■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■-� —— —— - 1111111111111 ■ �Cpp � , ■■*■,■= r -I■■ 1■1111111111 -- ■■pill, ,TFCo Parcels Flood Hazard Zones Zone Type l�l�l!� 1 111� Legend 1%Annual Chance Flood Hazard giRegulatory Floodway D 0 Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard 0.2%Annual 1'�1111 . � ■ .■ Flood Hazard Future Conditions 1%Annual Chance ■. �►�� Flood Hazard MArea with i Reduced Risk Due to Levee Figure A-6 00 FEMA Flood Zone Map - Panel 05 J-U-B ENGINEERS, INC. It■ ■■ F. ■� ■■ ■■ ■ ■� ■mm■ ■■ ■ I .. ■■ ■■ ■ no 011 ��■ ■ iiiii ■■ i i ■ oil 11111■ .■■■■■GCa■1 IIIII� ��1■■1■■■ ; `71 _ III■■11 ■ - II 111■■ _ ail ■■ ■■ ■: ■11�■ -� ` r .. 1■ ■■ ` � __ IN 1111111111 ■ �:: �■■IIIIIIII■■■ ■■■ ■■■►■■■■■■■ � `•� �11■1■■If MIL • - �1= i11�■■■■■�■■��■ �■ =!I�■■ 111111■ IIIIIIII = 1 _ • ••• •,►I: :�•: •• :_ � ■■ ■■ IIIIIIII ■1� � �1 ■■ ■•■J ��II III ■II 01111 ■ ■■■ ill. ■11 �' ' IIII ■11 ■■ yr ■■I II ■IIIIIII — 11 IIIIIIII ■■■1� ■ ■- ■_ \■■ ■■ —_ ■ ___ �■■■ __ _ _ IIIIIIII - ■_ _� __ �— ___ —� ■ _ ■ _— .- __ �_� �� _� .- � �■ ■ IIIIIIII IIIII■ I.�_ ■■ _� ■ ■■ _� ■ d■ __ ■■ ■� �. ��= p ' 11111111�111111111111 ■Ip �� ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■` _■ p p ■■�■ ■�■■ pp p� �� ---�— _ IIIIIIIII:I ■� _■■ -- -- -- -- -- -- -- �- -■ ■■ �� ■ In NINE Illlllllil ■_ p� .� __ �■ �� ■ __ _� �■ TFCo Parcels ■1■III CIIIIIIII�I ■■ i C ■■ _ p■ p p III■■ __ p ILegend Flood Hazard Zones Zone Type ■� •_ MEE M _ _ __ __ _ __ _■ __ __ ____ �___ M■■ Flood Hazard .� __ _. __ __ ■_ _ _�. _ __ _ _ _■ _ ME ORegulatory no i-0 _■■ __ ■■■ Floodway ■ _ _■ I•_ __ i_ __ __ __ �M __ E_ _� �� ■■ • .•. __ __ __ -_ __ �_ __ __ . I '■ _ ME __ ____ __ _ __ Area of 011__ __ __ __ __ __ _� __ __ Undetermined ■1` �J ■■ — — �■Ii11: 11111 __ :1■ ■■ ■■ ■■ Flood Hazard 0.2%Annual ■ 1111� _ Chance III ■IIIIIIIII� ��I ��I��I �I� ` ��I �I�� ' I� �� I �I �I I FloodHazard Future Conditions 1%Annual Chance Flood Hazard I iill�lr:i�1� i��'��•�i��i �i��i��0��i��..��i��i��i��i��i :1� IIII 1�1■ ■��ii��i��i �� i��i��i ��i��i��i��ii�i . MArea with Reduced Risk Due to - - Figure A-6 FEMA Flood _ 01 7_7� SCALE IN FEET Zone Map - Panel 06 J-U-113 ENGINEERS, INC. -■■mm �� \ �� A■ IIIII �■■■■■■■ ■■■ �= �, �■■��■■■■■■fir■ ■■■� ■■ � I F. ■ IIIII■ ■� .■ ■. ■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■��r �` ,a _ . , �■■ ■■■ ■■ .. ■ ■ ■■ ■■ ■■ �■ ■fir■ ■ • ■�+1 1 . 1 1 i ii ■i i■ ■■■■■■■ ■■■■■� ■► �i i�■■ /�� IIIII �11 ■■■ �■ ■■■■■■■ ■IIIII ■��11�/r■ r��.■■■■■■ ■■ mill■ ■ IIIII► ♦r■■/ \ MN MINI■ ' ..■■■■►■ IIIII■ IIIII■■ IIIII■■ ■� �■ \■.�■ MI■■■�■ ■■■■■■��■■■■■ IIIII■■ ■■ 1■ ■■ ■■ ■■1� ■: NONE ■ MNINt ► ■■■■INN ■■■■■■ IIIII■■ :■ :: ■■ ■■i 0 IIIII■ '�''•`jT�� IIIII■■ ■■■■■■ ■ O■111 Emma t■tC�� IN III■■ ■■■�♦�� :■ ■i�■ ■■��■fir■..■■ ■Era`s■■1■ ■��♦♦i■ ■■ IIIII ■■■■ ■■■■ `71 ■■■� ■■■■■r�■IIIII ��11�■■■■■■■■�■■■■ ■■ L■■ ■■■■■NONE ■■ ��I ■■ ■■■■ ■ —■_ •IIIII ■ ■■■'�� ■■ ■111111: ■11 � ��■ ■ ■■ �■ ■loss ■■■■■■■ 11111�111■■■■■ ■�'� ��I■�� ilir iiiri� ■ !. .. .� IIIII==■■■■ -. �r j . I ■■ ■■ ■i IIIII �■ ■■MEN ■� - -■ � ► ••_ _ ■/ ■■ ■■ ■■ IIIII �. .. .; j��i� .■ �■i ■► �� :� �� ♦ ■ � 1111111111 ►1 �� / .� � ■ �� IIIIIIIII 111 ��i��il■ iii MENEM ■■■■■■� j� � �" i I■11111111 �� ■�� ■■■�■■� ��11„■� 11■11111111 • • �� •■■■ ■■IIIII■ ■i ■:��:�■ 11►�� ■ ■� �. ■. .� ■■■■■r■■■■I� ■■ ■� ■■\ �� . .� �� ■■ ■� IIIII✓ �� ■■ ■ ► MEN IN I lliiiilil ■■ ■ i♦� MEN NINE MEMO PAP ♦ ♦ �� ME IN 11 .i ■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ . ■■ram I■1■ ■■■� �■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ .�I 1 ��- ■C ■� ►�II��111111■■ ■i EIIIIIIII■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■�■ 1 ■ ■ -- -■ ��Illllllllllu� �■ ■E■■Ir t ■■■■■■■■■■■■■1■ �■ ■■ ■■ ■.\■ ■ C!� �'-�1, ■IIIII■ III ♦. ■ ��M■ ■■■■■�� ■ �111111■ EIS �■ ■■ ■��%I■■ ■ , ■L■ ■■■■■I�► -■ \ ■ ■■ p _ Ilk . Legend MEN ■— ■■ ■ = i� M MIME ■■♦♦♦♦� TFCo Parcels Zone Type ■ _IIIII �- MI �� — . . MI■ ■� Flood Hazard Zones II ■ ■ ■111111�� 111�� II�1 �1■■ ■IIIII■ MI■ ��♦♦ ♦1 1 IIIII■■ ■111 ��11■ ■ ■ 111111■i� , MI■ .■►♦♦♦♦� 1 ��. `!::I I■'■MIME■ ■I��\ �: ��i��♦� Chance Flood Hazard .III■ ■ . -�.��i .��i1�� Regulatory Floodway Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard IlCh ■111111■ ,■■■1■I■ I�II'I� ��_ ��III.1�1�111�. :: ■ .I •I , - Flood Hazard 11111111■■ ■��■III — 1111111111 !!milli �■■ 11111111111 1111111111 ■:■: , Future Conditions ■11■■111 1■■111111 ■� ; 11111111111 1111111111 ==■■■ Chance 1 1111111111 ■1111111! j ■IIIII■ ■■111111 ■■■ ��Illllr�■■ �1Flood Hazard 1 IIIII■■11 ��Illl�l Illlf ,�11111111 ■11111111 ��j��1 ■ rea Risk Dwith Reduced ue to Levee �IIIIII �1 ��■1111_, _IIIIIII ■��iii�:■I` ■ e_ _ Figure A-600 FEMA Flood _ 7-7�- SCALE IN FEET _= Zone Map - Panel 07 J-U-B ENGINEERS, INC. jj 01 62 03 04 i 05 06 07 08 i 09 10 11 12 1 �n�ua..ar I 13 14 15 =16 JN Z Pft-L-S �, z EMEH I L4j Legend TFCo Parcels Flood Hazard Zones Zone Type 1%Annual Chance Flood Hazard Regulatory Floodway Special Floodway ZArea of i Y Undetermined Flood Hazard Z FFT 0.2%Annual ADDISON __ Chance Flood Hazard Future Conditions 1%Annual Chance Flood Hazard Area with Reduced Risk Due to Levee CITY OF • A, • TWIN FALLS �j"� Ak • • • (u-B �ns5 0 1,000 C 41 SCALE IN FEET o � F sFRY1Nv°� • I • J•U•B ENGINEERS, INC. 142 01 62~ 03 04 05 06 07 08 EA 09 10 11 12 15 16 W G Z� OC t7 r PARK .....�� !......... i i 1 Legend TFCo Parcels Flood Hazard Zones Zone Type =1%Annual Chance Flood Hazard M Regulatory Floodway W M Special Floodway Area of Z Undetermined Q Flood Hazard 0.2%Annual Chance Flood Hazard II Future Conditions II 01%Annual Chance Flood Hazard II I,,Area with Reduced Risk Due to Levee ,_.._.._.._.._.._ORCHARD.: ITY OF TWIN FALLS • A, � y� . J,�,B � �ns�00 4 y„ • • • FQ 7Q� - SCALE IN FEET 0 F SFRv,Nv'� • • • I J•U•B ENGINEERS, INC. 143 111�11 \ ♦ II�r I� � � �- .� 1 I, ♦j I♦ ,�IQ, I♦ I�I I, �� i� �♦i♦i♦�♦♦i,''�♦♦♦♦i��♦i ♦��i�♦♦ice°♦�p��, ♦ _ - ` ,/ /`,♦•♦,�•�Illll�i„i�l� I i ,, ,• j�ill�,II♦�I,,♦I �j�� ,I - + `,��,♦ �♦ ♦, � ♦ ♦♦�♦ ♦��♦ ��♦i♦♦ii ♦ii♦ii i� it� 00 �allIng � , ,♦♦j♦v', �, ♦♦♦i��,♦♦i�♦♦♦i�♦♦� ♦♦♦♦i♦ �. �I■■ bbb ■ ♦ , -- -- - Elm -- -- -- -- _ MEME =-1 -- -- -- -- ■111111■�■1■1■111� -- -- -■ p= ■■III■■1■■■IIIIIIIIII � _ _ _- __ ■- -- 71111 1■ -1111111 -■ __ _ ��■■■ -■ -- - -- ■ • ■- ■�I -- ■1111111■ MELegend - - -- -- - TFCo Parcels iii Flood Hazard Zones Zone Type 1%Annual Chance Flood Hazard ORegulatory Floodway Area of Undetermined ■■■■■■■■ ■■■� A � ■111111\��i1■■■■ ,Flood Hazard ONE �IIIII��■.....�. . ... Hazard -111111111111:: :: Chance Flood Future Conditions -- -- - Chance Flood Hazard MArea with Reduced Risk Due to Levee Figure A-6 00 FEMA Flood Zone Map - Panel 10 J-U-113 ENGINEERS, INC. : ■■ �I 1� 1111111111 1111= �■■■■■ IIIIIIIr ■■I��I� ■■■ ■ • -- -■ 111111111111 ��■■■ ■■ ■ - -! I� � � �- ■ �_ _ � ■ _■ ■11■ IIIIII1� �� ■�■i1 �'■ ■i � 4 ��II 1111■ 111111111111 ■■■ ■■■i 111111� -- � -■ �� F. IIIIIIIIIIIII: __ __ ■ � "�1111 ■■■G�: -� 1111111111111� :1111111111 � �NMI �••�� -�1� ■ � � � � 111111111■11. 111111111 ■■�I� ■I��■111■�� ■111■■ ■■'1� 1;1111111111 1� � 1111 ■■;■�:l 11111111111 ■II.. ■L 11111111111111 � � =_ � ��■■:■■ �� - -- -- ■ ��■ �� fJ1111■1111111111■ ■■■la■� : :■ ■ � jlr -■ ■, ■■ ■ - -- -- ■■■■■■■111111■11111 �.i��t ��■■■loin ■■■■■■■■■■■■ - ■■■ ■■■■■ ■■ __ ��_ I�■ IN IM MEN Legend i i =i ■v,■�I ■ ■r I■1�11� _ 1 ' 111i �■■ 1 I� �111 ■ 1 ■ ■■ ■I`I■I■■ t. 1 ■� �� ■1111 � � 1 ■ ` — Flood Hazard Zones � ■ : ■■ TFCo Parcels T* :milli 1�■ : '■1 ■11 Flood Hazard 11Zone Type 1 ' 11 ORegulatory Floodway =■ �� Area■ -. Flood . ■ 0.2%Annual �!�IIII11111■ 1■� �� --� 1■1 Conditions MArea with� � ■ 1%Annual Chance Reduced Risk Due to Levee Figure A-600 _ FEMA Flood Zone Map - Panel 11 J-U-113 ENGINEERS, INC. moll moll ■II�■� �: ■■■■■■■MINI ■ ■�■�■ ■■ ■�i� �� ■■■■soonson ■■■ Q I ■■ ■■ ■■ �I1�� ■IIIIIInnnn■ � MEN TFCo Parcels I ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■■■■■ ■IIIIIIIIIIi � i i1 r`r■ � ■nnnnl 1I ... . I I I ■ Flood Hazard Zones Flood1%Annual Chance Ch Hazard Floodway Floodway FloodX Area of Undetermined 441 Hazard FloodChance Future LHazard Conditions Flood1%Annual Chance Hazard ReducedMArea with Risk Due to Levee Figure A-600 _ FEMA Flood 7-7�- SCALE IN FEET Zone Map - Panel 12 J-U-B ENGINEERS, INC. 01 62~ F03 04 F05 06 07 08 LLI j 09 10 11 12 0 Z / 13 14 15 16 C� room LIE 1 1 1 CD 1 C14 N=ui u 3600 no= 0 was i W � Legend j TFCo_Parcels Flood Hazard Zones Z ��..�..�..�..� Zone Type j 1%Annual Chance Flood Hazard 1giRegulatory Floodway Special Floodway Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard 0.2%Annual Chance Flood Hazard Future Conditions 1%Annual Chance Flood Hazard \ Area with Reduced Risk Due to Levee ITY OF TWIN FALL � A, 0 . • , • CJ,� �ns�00 as SCALE IN FEET F SeRv N�°� • • J•U•B ENGINEERS, INC. 147 F. MM 4. ■■■■■■■■■■ IINI� ��■iliiWi'i��i11 � I� �� ire - _ ,��,_ � .�■ Iln %� mmn � ■��IIIIIIII■ .. pD��ir�miii�Ilu= ■ ■� ■111111■ �1111111■ IIII� � p■ ■11■III■ ■■■ .. .. .. i ME ■ • �. �. .. . . ■1111111■■ ■ • •• •• •• •• � ■111111111■ ■ ■��III■� ■ ■■ ■■ �illilli�ii i In 600 Legent ■ ■111111111111 ■■ ■■ � � `■ ■ iiiii � � � i■�i � � � ■ ■ ■ i ■ i • TFt. —Parcels i . azard Zones iZon-Type f'Yo Annual Chance ♦ ... Hazard oodway ESpecial Floodway UndeterminedArea of F�I... Hazard Chance ■ ♦ — Flood Conditions1 Y.Annual Chance ... Hazard - MAr Zisk Due to Levee a with Reduced Figure A-6 00 FEMA Flood Zone Map - Panel 14 J-U-113 ENGINEERS, INC. LL .. .._.._.:_::_. ♦ '�-� -�.�...ORCHARD _------..-..-K 01 02 03 04 ��•�'' 05 06 07 08 �''••�..�•'�/'� 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 0 0 M 3600 3600 - ILegend r TFCo Parcels Flood Hazard Zones Zone Type 1%Annual Chance Flood Hazard Regulatory Floodway Special Floodway Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard 0 M 0.2%Annual Chance Flood Hazard Future Conditions 1%Annual Chance Flood Hazard Area with Reduced Risk Due to Levee ITY OF TWIN FALL • A, 0 Ak • • • (J-� 5 0 1,000 C as SCALE IN FEET F SeRv N�°� • • • J•U•B ENGINEERS, INC. 149 ORCHARD -A 3700 01 " 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 0 0 N M Legend TFCo_Parcels Flood Hazard Zones Zone Type =1%Annual Chance Flood Hazard M Regulatory Floodway MSpecial Floodway Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard 0.2%Annual Chance Flood Hazard Future Conditions 01%Annual Chance Flood Hazard I,,Area with Reduced Risk Due to Levee ITY OF TWIN FALLS • A, • y . �J,U,B 5 0 1,000 , • • • FQ 7Q - SCALE IN FEET 0 F SFRv,Nv'� • • • • J•U•B ENGINEERS, INC. 150 City Utility Service Boundary \fit 2016 Comp. Plan Boundary Mile Roads Railroads � • • Wetlands ke •• Freshwater Pond Freshwater Emergent wetland = y N ~1� N Freshwater • e• •Wetland • N ' i ] E LINE IN KIMBERLY 1 `_` II Il I • N N 1 N N N N IN CM = = 1I �•� � f� Pill nN j N 1 r + N i jl N N N N N N N = y �I • i u re A-7 1 6,000 USFWS Wetlands Ma -- This page was intentionally left blank for correct double-sided printing. 152 Appendix B Existing System Facilities and Operation This page was intentionally left blank for correct double-sided printing. 154 B.1 Description of Water Supply Wells B.1.1 Blue Lakes Wells The Blue Lakes Wells consists of four shallow wells constructed in 1994 that are located in the canyon on the north side of the Snake River above Blue Lakes.The 18-foot deep dug wells consist of 6-foot diameter reinforced concrete manhole sections, with the bottom eight feet of the manhole being perforated. The City replaced the original pumps with four 125 hp vertical turbine pumps to transmit the water across the Snake River to the Canyon Springs Pump Station,which in turn pumps the water to the Harrison Tank.The Blue Lakes Wells are controlled in conjunction with the Canyon Springs Pump Station,with additional well pumps turning on when the suction pressure at the Canyon Springs Pump Station reaches an operator adjustable set point. Variable frequency drives (VFDs) are available on each of the well pumps to better match flows at the Canyon Springs Pump Station. B.1.2 South Wells South Well #1, also known as the "Reservoir Well", was constructed in 1962 and is located in the Skylane Mobile Home Park. The well, pump, motor, pump panel, and piping are enclosed in a metal-frame building. South Well #2, also known as the "Filter Plant Well", was constructed in 1961 and is located adjacent to the old City water sand filter treatment plant on the 3600 North Road.The well, pump, motor pump panel, and piping are enclosed in a metal-frame building. South Well#3 was constructed in 1997 and is located at the south side of the South Tanks.The well, pump, motor, pump panel, and piping are enclosed in a metal-frame building. South Well #4 was constructed in 1999 and is located west of the South Tanks on Highway 74. The well, pump, motor, pump panel, and piping are enclosed in a concrete masonry unit(CMU) building. Water from each of the South Wells is discharged together into a single transmission main prior to passing through a static mixer where it is blended with Blue Lakes Well water from the Blending Pump Station. The blended water is then discharged to the South Tanks. Each of the South Well pumps is controlled by the water level in the South Tanks and by the operators as needed to meet demand. Additionally, the pump speeds in South Wells#3 and #4 are controlled by pressure transducers that monitor water levels in their respective wells.The pump speeds are adjusted to maximize production. B.1.3 Hankins Wells Hankins Well #1 was drilled in 1997 and developed in 1999. The well, pump, motor, pump panel, and piping are enclosed inside the Hankins Pump Station. Water is pumped by a 75-hp variable speed pump directly into the tank. Hankins Well No. 2 was drilled and developed in 1999 and is located north of the Hankins Pump Station on Hankins Road. The well, pump, motor, pump panel, and piping are enclosed in a CMU building. Water is pumped by a 40-hp variable speed pump directly into the tank. The well pumps are controlled by the water level in the Hankins Tanks and by flows through the 24-inch main from the South Tanks for arsenic compliance through blending. Water from the Hankins Wells is blended with the South Tank water by spray diffusion and tank mixing through a Tideflex check valve. 155 B.2 Description of Water Storage Tanks B.2.1 Harrison Tank The Harrison Tank is a 5 million gallon ground level reservoir located at Falls Avenue and Harrison Street. The concrete tank has a domed roof and was constructed in 1966. Water is supplied to the tank from the Blue Lakes Wells by way of the Canyon Springs Pump Station. Water is distributed from the tank to the High Level and Low Level pressure zones through the Harrison Pump Station and to the South Storage Tanks for blending with the South Wells through the Blending Pump Station. B.2.2 South Tanks The South Storage Tanks consist of two 5 million gallon, ground level, concrete reservoirs located at the northwest corner of Washington Street South and 3600 North Road (Highway 74).The easterly tank(Tank #1) was constructed in 1939 and the westerly tank (Tank#2) was constructed in 1999. The tanks provide water to the High Level Pressure Zone through a 30-inch gravity main,to the South Pressure Zone through the Wills Pump Station, and to the Hankins and Eldridge Storage Tanks and Pressure Zones through a 24- inch gravity main. B.2.3 Hankins Tank Hankins Tank #1 is a 2 million gallon, partially buried, concrete reservoir constructed in 1999. Hankins Tank #2 is a 5-million gallon, partially buried, concrete reservoir constructed in 2015. Both tanks are located south of the intersection of Kimberly Road and Hankins Road. Water is supplied to the tanks from the Hankins Wells and a 24-inch gravity transmission main from the South Storage Tanks, which is controlled with a pressure reducing/flow control valve. The tanks provide water to the Hankins Pressure Zone by means of the Hankins Pump Station. B.2.4 Eldridge Tank The Southeast Industrial Park(Eldridge)Storage Tank was constructed in 1987 and is located northeast of the intersection of Eastland Drive South and Eldridge Avenue. The tank does not have an independent water source, but fills from the 24-inch gravity transmission main from the south storage tanks.The tank supplies water to the Eldridge Pressure Zone through the Eldridge Pump Station. B.3 Description of Booster Stations B.3.1 Canyon Springs Pump Station The Canyon Springs Pump Station is located in the canyon on the south side of the Snake River adjacent to the Canyon Springs Golf Course. Blue Lakes Well water is discharged to the pump station, which subsequently pumps the water out of the Snake River Canyon to the Harrison Storage Tank. The pump station is controlled by the water level in the Harrison Tank. The pump station consists of three 1,000-hp vertical turbine pumps and one 500-hp pump, all originally installed in 1968. This station is not equipped with variable frequency drives. 156 B.3.2 Harrison Pump Station The Harrison Pump Station is the primary supply of water to the distribution system and is located adjacent to the Harrison Tank on the corner of Falls Avenue and Harrison Street. There are six booster pumps in the station: • Two of the pumps are 300-hp variable speed pumps that supply water to the Low Level Pressure Zones at a constant discharge pressure of 70 psi. • The remaining four pumps include one 250-hp pump and three 450-hp pumps.These pumps are controlled by the water level in the South Tanks and by pressure in the High Level Pressure Zone. The output pressure of the high level pumps is based on a curve which is a function of the water level in the South Tanks, but typically varies between 95 and 100 psi. A VFD is available for whichever pump is acting as the lead pump. The water supply operating staff can monitor and control all pumps in the system from the Harrison Pump Station and remotely through their computers. B.3.3 Blending Pump Station The Blending Pump Station was constructed adjacent to the Harrison Pump Station and Tank in 2011.This pump station is used to deliver water from the Harrison Tank to the South Tanks to blend Blue Lakes water with South Well water for arsenic compliance. It consists of four identical 250-hp vertical turbine canned pumps, each with VFDs. The pump station is controlled by the flow from the South Wells. Two of the pumps can also be used to distribute water to the Harrison High Level Pressure Zone if the Harrison Pump Station is taken off-line. B.3.4 Hankins Pump Station The Hankins Pump Station was originally constructed in 1999 and recently upgraded in 2013. It is located along Hankins Road and Marie Avenue and provides water to the Hankins Pressure Zone through the Hankins Tank. The vertical turbine, canned pumps are controlled by pressure in the Hankins Pressure Zone. Because the Hankins Pressure Zone has a high possibilityto experience growth,the Hankins Pressure Zone will likely need split into two zones and a new pump station may be needed. If a zone split occurs, some of the area currently being served by the High-Level Pressure Zone could be moved to the Hankins Pressure Zone. B.3.5 Wills Pump Station The Wills Pump Station is located adjacent to the South Storage Tanks. The pump station is controlled by the pressure in South Pressure Zones, and the pumps are operated by a VFD. B.3.6 Eldridge Pump Station The Eldridge Pump Station was constructed in 1987 to provide water to the Eldridge Pressure Zone through the Eldridge Tanks.The pump station is controlled by pressure in the Eldridge Pressure Zone.The 75-hp pump was installed in 2004 to replace a 10-hp pump that was moved to the airport. 157 BA Description of Pressure Zones 13.4.1 High Level Pressure Zone The High Level Zone comprises the largest portion of the distribution system and encompasses the central core of the City.Water is supplied to the High Level Zone through the Harrison Pump Station and a gravity feed from the South Storage Tanks via a 30-inch distribution main. Water in the High Level Zone can be used to fill the Eldridge Tank and Hankins Tank if the 24-inch gravity transmission main from the South Tanks is not available. 13.4.2 Low Level Pressure Zone (South) The Low Level Zone (South) is located at the north end of the City from approximately Falls Avenue to the Snake River Canyon.The Low Level Zone (South) is separated from the High Level Zone by a series of four pressure reducing valves located on Grandview Drive North, on Sparks Street, at the Harrison Pump Station, and on Eastland Drive North. An additional pressure reducing valve is proposed at Carriage Lane. The High Level and Low Level pressure zones are also connected at several other locations, but are normally kept separated by closed gate valves. Water is supplied to the Low Level Zone (South) through the four pressure reducing valves and the low level pumps in Harrison Pump Station. 13.4.3 Low Level Pressure Zone (North) As development has expanded northwest of the Low Level Zone (South),an additional pressure zone was required to maintain reasonable pressures. This Low Level Zone (North) is currently separated from the Low Level Zone (South) along Pole Line Road with three pressure reducing valves near Harrison Street, at Washington Street, and at Park View Drive. An additional pressure reducing valve is proposed at Grandview Drive.Water is supplied to the Low Level Zone(North)through these pressure reducing valves. No other pipes with closed gate valves connect the two sections of the Low Level Zones. 13.4.4 South Pressure Zones (North and South) The South Zone (North) and South Zone (South) are separate pressure zones fed by the Wills Pump Station. These pressure zones currently serve the south end of town from Park Avenue to the Low Line Canal. The area is split into two separate zones that are divided by a pressure reducing valve located at Washington Street and El Camino Avenue.This zone separation generally follows El Camino to the east of Washington Street. West of Washington Street, the pressure zone is located north of the Labor Camp. Additional pressure reducing valves are proposed along Harrison Street, Kenyon Road, and Blue Lakes Boulevard as development continues.The South Zone (North) and High Level Zone are also connected at several other locations, but are normally kept separated by closed gate valves. 13.4.5 Hankins Pressure Zone The Hankins Pressure Zone was created in 1999 to provide a higher pressure to the historically low pressure area in the southeast part of the City. The pressure is increased through the Hankins Pump Station booster pumps. This zone is connected to the High Level Pressure Zone by pressure sustaining/pressure relief valves at two locations. The first is located on Elizabeth Boulevard west of the O'Leary Way intersection. The second is located on Carriage Lane south of the Addison Avenue intersection. The Hankins Pressure Zone is also connected to the Eldridge Pressure Zone by means of a pressure reducing/pressure sustaining valve that can flow either direction. 158 B.4.6 Eldridge Pressure Zone The Eldridge Pressure Zone was created in 1987 to provide a higher pressure to the industrial park area than could be supplied by the surrounding distribution system. This zone is connected to the High Level Zone by pressure reducing valves at two locations.The first valve is located on Eastland Drive South near the intersection of Wright Avenue.The second valve is located on Locust Street South north of the Eldridge Avenue intersection.The Eldridge Pressure Zone is also connected to the Hankins Pressure Zone by means of a pressure reducing/pressure sustaining valve that can flow either direction. B.5 Disinfection System and Operation B.5.1 Blue Lakes Wells Disinfection of the Blue Lakes Well water is accomplished via chlorination facilities located in the Canyon Springs Pump Station. The City recently replaced their chlorine gas system with an on-site sodium hypochlorite generation system that consists of a single 200 pound per day (ppd) on-site generator unit, a water softener and salt brine tank,two 2,400 gallon day tanks,two metering pumps,and a control panel with touch/read screen. Sodium hypochlorite from the day tanks is injected into the water lines from the Blue Lakes Wells prior to being pumped to the Harrison Tank. B.5.2 South Wells An on-site sodium hypochlorite generation system located adjacent to South Well #3 provides chlorine for disinfection of the water produced from each of the South Wells prior to it entering the storage tanks. The chlorination system includes one 100 ppd on-site generator unit, water softener and salt brine tank, a 1,600 gallon day tank, three metering pumps, and a control panel with touch/read screen. Sodium hypochlorite from the day tank is injected into the water lines from the South Wells at three separate injections points prior to discharging to the South Storage Tanks. B.5.3 Hankins Wells An on-site mixed oxidant generation system located in the Hankins Pump Station provides chlorine disinfection of the water produced from each Hankins Well prior to it entering the storage tank. The disinfection system consists of one 30 ppd on-site generator unit, a twin cylinder water softener and salt brine tank, a 1,000 gallon day tank, three metering pumps and a control panel with touch/read screen. Sodium hypochlorite from the day tank is injected into the water lines from the Hankins Wells prior to the Hankins Tank. B.5.4 System Operation Notes The city was consulted regarding their existing disinfection systems. A few key notes are provided for reference. • While no day tank cycling target is currently used,good design practice suggests 3-5 days between cycles. • In managing residual concentrations, the City has developed the following locations and target residual concentrations: o Harrison tank 0.45—0.5 mg/L o At any tap: 0.3 mg/L o Eldridge Tank (system residual indicator): 0.3 mg/L 159 • During winter months,when demand is lower and system residence time is higher,the City targets a slightly higher residual concentration. • The City has also developed a dead-end line flushing program to reduce the effects of potential stagnant water in the system. • Consistent with the disinfection system evaluation,during peak summer demand,the City reports that Canyon Springs (Blue Lake Wells) chlorine generation cannot keep up with well production (e.g.,the day tanks never fill completely). 160 6.6 Water Quality Data Seethe following link for a comprehensive collection of all water quality data obtained by IDEQ from the City of Twin Falls (PWS #5420058). A summary of the results obtained from each currently active well during the period from 1997 to 2015 is presented in the following tables. http://dww.deg.idaho.gov/IDPDWW/JSP/WaterSVstemDetail.isp?tinwsys is number=2312&tinwsys st code=ID& wsnumber=ID5420058 161 Parameter Units Blue pl—Sou Hankins Hankins Lakesl t�:M 7n- 1 2 Primary IOCs ---------------------------------------------Exceedance of MCL ----------------------------- Antimony mg/L No No No No No No No Arsenic mg/L No 2015 2015 2015 2015 2015 2012 Barium mg/L No No No No No No No Beryllium mg/L No No No No No No No Cadmium mg/L No No No No No No No Chromium mg/L No No No No No No No Mercury mg/L No No No No No No No Nickel mg/L - - - - - - - Selenium mg/L No No No No No No No Thallium mg/L No No No No No No No Fluoride mg/L No No No No No No No Secondary IOCs Chloride mg/L No No No No No No No Color mg/L No No No No No No No Total Sulfide mg/L - - - - - - Iron mg/L No 2015 No 2004 No No 2012 Manganese mg/L No No No No No No 2001 Odor mg/L No No No No No No No Surfactants mg/L - - - - - - Dissolved Solids mg/L No 2003 2006 2010 2006 2011 2015 Zinc mg/L No No No No No No No Silver mg/L No No No No No No No Aluminum mg/L 2011 2011 2011 No 2011 2011 No Alkalinity(as mg/L - - - -CaCO3) Ammonia(as N) mg/L - - - Calcium mg/L - - - Hardness(as mg/L - - - CaCOs Magnesium mg/L - - pH No No No No No No No Potassium mg/L - - - - Silica(as SiO2) mg/L - - - - Lead mg/L No No No No No No No Copper mg/L No No No No No No No Conductivity US/Cm - - - - - - Langlier Index - - - Sulfate mg/L No No No No No No No Sodium mg/L - - Turbidity NTU - - SOCs ug/L - VOCs ug/L Nitrate mg/L No No No No No No No Nitrite mg/L No 2010 No No No No No 162 BLUE LAKES WELLS I WATER QUALITY DATA Summary Statistics MCL Exceeds Date Parameter Units No. Average Min Max MCL? Violil Primary IOCs Antimony mg/L 17 0.004 0.001 0.005 0.006 No Arsenic mg/L 17 0.004 0.001 0.005 0.010 No Barium mg/L 17 0.223 0.07 0.5 2.0 No Beryllium mg/L 17 0.001 0.0005 0.001 0.004 No Cadmium mg/L 17 0.001 0.0005 0.001 0.005 No Chromium mg/L 15 0.006 0.001 0.014 0.1 No Mercury mg/L 17 0.001 0.0001 0.002 0.002 No Nickel mg/L 17 0.014 0.001 0.05 - - Selenium mg/L 17 0.004 0.001 0.005 0.05 No Thallium mg/L 17 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.002 No Fluoride mg/L 17 0.509 0.1 2 4.0 A,2.0 B No Secondary IOCs Chloride mg/L 17 44.7 33 56.9 250 No Color mg/L 0 ND ND ND 15 No Total Sulfide mg/L 5 0.0 0.01 0.01 - - Iron mg/L 17 0.1 0.01 0.2 0.3 No Manganese mg/L 17 0.0 0.001 0.05 0.05 No Odor mg/L 1 1.3 1.3 1.3 3.0 No Surfactants mg/L 12 0.1 0.01 0.1 - - Dissolved Solids mg/L 16 351.9 294 450 500 No Zinc mg/L 17 0.0 0.002 0.05 5.0 No Silver mg/L 17 0.0 0.001 0.05 0.10 No Aluminum mg/L 16 0.1 0.00459 0.47 0.2 Yes 1/11/2011 Alkalinity(as mg/L 16 153.8 45 190 - - CaCOs Ammonia(as N) mg/L 15 0.1 0.05 0.06 - - Calcium mg/L 17 59.0 51.8 84 - - Hardness(as mg/L 17 232.1 177 336 - - CaCO3 Magnesium mg/L 17 21.4 17.6 29 - - pH 13 7.7 7 8 6.5-8.5 No Potassium mg/L 17 6.9 6 11.5 - - Silica(as SiO2) mg/L 14 33.7 17 53.2 - - Lead mg/L 14 0.0 0.001 0.015 0.015 c No Copper mg/L 17 0.1 0.001 0.1 1.3 c, 1.0 B No Conductivity us/cm 13 636.3 552 894 - Langlier Index 12 0.2 -0.62 0.91 - - Sulfate mg/L 16 59.0 35 76 250 No Sodium mg/L 17 36.8 31.6 45 - Turbidity NTU 2 1.0 1 1 - SOCs ug/L 0 ND ND ND - VOCs ug/L 0 ND ND ND - Nitrate mg/L 10 2.1 1.94 2.39 10 No Nitrite mg/L 9 0.1 0.002 0.2 1 No ND-Non Detect A-Primary MCL B-Secondard MCL C-Action Level. 163 SOUTH WATER QUALITY DATA Summary Statistics MCL Exceeds Date of Parameter Units No. Average Min Max MCL? Violation Primary IOCs Antimony mg/L 16 0.004 0.001 0.005 0.006 No Arsenic mg/L 17 0.012 0.005 0.015 0.010 Yes 8/24/2015 Barium mg/L 17 0.254 0.03 0.5 2.0 No Beryllium mg/L 17 0.001 0.0005 0.001 0.004 No Cadmium mg/L 17 0.001 0.0005 0.001 0.005 No Chromium mg/L 17 0.006 0.001 0.018 0.1 No Mercury mg/L 17 0.001 0.0001 0.002 0.002 No Nickel mg/L 17 0.011 0.001 0.05 - - Selenium mg/L 17 0.003 0.001 0.005 0.05 No Thallium mg/L 17 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.002 No Fluoride mg/L 16 0.807 0.4 0.97 4.0 A,2.0 B No Secondary IOCs Chloride mg/L 17 31.5 25.9 40.5 250 No Color mg/L 0 ND ND ND 15 No Total Sulfide mg/L 5 0.01 0.01 0.01 - - Iron mg/L 17 0.10 0.01 0.7 0.3 Yes 8/24/2015 Manganese mg/L 17 0.00 0.001 0.05 0.05 No Odor mg/L 0 ND ND ND 3.0 No Surfactants mg/L 12 0.10 0.01 0.1 - - Dissolved Solids mg/L 16 413 308 554 500 Yes 1/27/2003 Zinc mg/L 17 0 0.0013 0.05 5.0 No Silver mg/L 17 0.00 0.001 0.05 0.10 No Aluminum mg/L 15 0.1 0.01 0.46 0.2 Yes 1/11/2011 Alkalinity(as CaCO3 mg�L 16 211 92 263 - - Ammonia(as N) mg/L 15 0.10 0.05 0.1 - - Calcium mg/L 17 60.4 53.2 80 - - Hardness(as CaCO3 mg�L 17 277 190 383 - - Magnesium mg/L 17 32.8 28.5 42 - - pH 13 7.6 7 7.84 6.5-8.5 No Potassium mg/L 17 4.2 3 6.2 - - Silica(as SiO2) mg/L 14 41.1 22 58 - - Lead mg/L 15 0.004 0.001 0.0062 0.015 C No Copper mg/L 17 0.1 0.001 0.1 1.3 c, 1.0 B No Conductivity us/cm 13 717 624 850 - - Langlier Index 12 0.200 -0.749 1.25 - - Sulfate mg/L 16 81.7 61.2 107 250 No Sodium mg/L 17 46.5 35 60 - - Turbidity NTU 3 1.0 1.0 1.0 - - SOCs ug/L 0 ND ND ND - - VOCs ug/L 0 ND ND ND - - Nitrate mg/L 10 2.200 1.6 2.88 1 Yes 1/12/2010 Nitrite mg/L 9 0.050 1 0.002 0.2 1 No ND-Non Detect A-Primary MCL B-Secondard MCL C-Action Level. 164 SOUTH WATER QUALITY DATA Summary Statistics MCL Exceeds Date of Parameter Units No. Average Min Max MCL? Violation Primary IOCs Antimony mg/L 17 0.004 0.001 0.005 0.006 No Arsenic mg/L 17 0.012 0.005 0.014 0.010 Yes 8/24/2015 Barium mg/L 17 0.252 0.0277 0.5 2.0 No Beryllium mg/L 17 0.001 0.0005 0.001 0.004 No Cadmium mg/L 17 0.001 0.0005 0.001 0.005 No Chromium mg/L 17 0.007 0.001 0.021 0.1 No Mercury mg/L 17 0.001 0.0001 0.002 0.002 No Nickel mg/L 17 0.013 0.001 0.06 - - Selenium mg/L 17 0.004 0.001 0.005 0.05 No Thallium mg/L 17 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.002 No Fluoride mg/L 17 0.796 0.4 1.13 4.0 A,2.0 B No Secondary IOCs Chloride mg/L 17 35.8 24 46.2 250 No Color mg/L 3 ND ND ND 15 No Total Sulfide mg/L 8 0.01 0.01 0.01 - - Iron mg/L 15 0.10 0.01 0.2 0.3 No Manganese mg/L 17 0.00 0.00114 0.05 0.05 No Odor mg/L 0 ND ND ND 3.0 No Surfactants mg/L 12 0.00 0.01 0.01 - - Dissolved Solids mg/L 16 449 340 590 500 Yes 1/23/2006 Zinc mg/L 17 0 0.001 0.05 5.0 No Silver mg/L 17 0.00 0.001 0.05 0.10 No Aluminum mg/L 16 0.1 0.00651 0.48 0.2 Yes 1/11/2011 Alkalinity(as CaCO3 mg�L 16 229 98 282 - - Ammonia(as N) mg/L 15 0.10 0.05 0.22 - - Calcium mg/L 17 63.8 48.3 90 - - Hardness(as CaCO3 mg�L 17 304 200 426 - - Magnesium mg/L 17 35.5 30.5 46 - - pH 13 7.7 7 7.95 6.5-8.5 No Potassium mg/L 17 4.7 4 7 - - Silica(as SiO2) mg/L 14 45.0 21 65 - - Lead mg/L 15 0.004 0.001 0.005 0.015 C No Copper mg/L 17 0.1 0.001 0.1 1.3 c, 1.0 B No Conductivity us/cm 13 764 644 844 - - Langlier Index 12 0.400 -0.4 1.24 - - Sulfate mg/L 16 97.9 67.1 128 250 No Sodium mg/L 17 58.6 44 77 - - Turbidity NTU 3 1.0 1.0 1.0 - - SOCs ug/L 0 ND ND ND - - VOCs ug/L 0 ND ND ND - - Nitrate mg/L 10 2.9 2.17 3.52 10 No Nitrite mg/L 9 0.100 0.002 0.2 1 No ND-Non Detect A-Primary MCL B-Secondard MCL C-Action Level. 165 SOUTH WATER QUALITY DATA Summary Statistics MCL Exceeds Date Parameter Units No. Average Min Max MCL? Violil Primary IOCs Antimony mg/L 15 0.004 0.001 0.005 0.006 No Arsenic mg/L 15 0.012 0.005 0.018 0.010 Yes 8/24/2015 Barium mg/L 15 0.283 0.03 0.5 2.0 No Beryllium mg/L 15 0.001 0.0005 0.001 0.004 No Cadmium mg/L 15 0.001 0.0005 0.001 0.005 No Chromium mg/L 15 0.007 0.001 0.021 0.1 No Mercury mg/L 15 0.001 0.0001 0.002 0.002 No Nickel mg/L 15 0.015 0.001 0.05 - - Selenium mg/L 15 0.004 0.001 0.005 0.05 No Thallium mg/L 15 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.002 No Fluoride mg/L 15 0.716 0.08 1.1 4.0 A,2.0 B No Secondary IOCs Chloride mg/L 15 44.5 26.8 73.8 250 No Color mg/L 0 ND ND ND 15 No Total Sulfide mg/L 4 0.01 0.01 0.01 - - Iron mg/L 15 0.20 0.01 1.4 0.3 Yes 1/27/2004 Manganese mg/L 15 0.00 0.001 0.05 0.05 No Odor mg/L 0 ND ND ND 3.0 No Surfactants mg/L 11 0.00 0.01 0.1 - - Dissolved Solids mg/L 15 481 388 650 500 Yes 1/12/2010 Zinc mg/L 15 0 0.005 0.05 5.0 No Silver mg/L 15 0.00 0.001 0.05 0.10 No Aluminum mg/L 15 0.1 0.01 0.2 0.2 No Alkalinity(as CaCO3 mg/L 15 254 160 291 - - Ammonia(as N) mg/L 14 0.10 0.05 0.2 - - Calcium mg/L 15 67.0 58 86.2 - - Hardness(as CaCO3 mg/L 15 316 265 363 - - Magnesium mg/L 15 37.3 31.2 42 - - pH 12 7.6 7 7.97 6.5-8.5 No Potassium mg/L 15 4.8 4 6.3 - - Silica(as SiO2) mg/L 12 44.6 21 55 - - Lead mg/L 13 0.009 0.001 0.068 0.015 c No Copper mg/L 15 0.1 0.00318 0.489 1.3 c, 1.0 B No Conductivity us/cm 12 852 707 997 - Langlier Index 11 0.400 -0.34 1.13 - - Sulfate mg/L 15 111.8 67 152 250 No Sodium mg/L 15 66.1 40 82.2 - Turbidity NTU 3 3.0 1.0 6.9 - SOCs ug/L 0 ND ND ND - VOCs ug/L 0 ND ND ND - Nitrate mg/L 9 3.800 3.15 4.59 10 No Nitrite mg/L 8 0.063 1 0.002 0.25 1 No ND-Non Detect A-Primary MCL B-Secondard MCL C-Action Level. 166 SOUTH WATER QUALITY DATA Summary Statistics MCL Exceeds Date of Parameter Units No. Average Min Max MCL? Violation Primary IOCs Antimony mg/L 14 0.004 0.001 0.005 0.006 No Arsenic mg/L 14 0.012 0.01 0.014 0.010 Yes 8/24/2015 Barium mg/L 14 0.234 0.03 0.5 2.0 No Beryllium mg/L 14 0.001 0.0005 0.001 0.004 No Cadmium mg/L 14 0.001 0.0005 0.001 0.005 No Chromium mg/L 14 0.007 0.001 0.018 0.1 No Mercury mg/L 14 0.001 0.0001 0.002 0.002 No Nickel mg/L 14 0.016 0.001 0.05 - - Selenium mg/L 14 0.003 0.001 0.005 0.05 No Thallium mg/L 14 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.002 No Fluoride mg/L 14 0.717 0.07 0.996 4.0 A,2.0 B No Secondary IOCs Chloride mg/L 14 40.1 29.3 52.1 250 No Color mg/L 0 ND ND ND 15 No Total Sulfide mg/L 3 0.01 0.01 0.01 - - Iron mg/L 14 0.10 0.0113 0.2 0.3 No Manganese mg/L 14 0.00 0.001 0.05 0.05 No Odor mg/L 1 1.20 1.2 1.2 3.0 No Surfactants mg/L 12 0.00 0.01 0.1 - - Dissolved Solids mg/L 14 470 340 589 500 Yes 1/23/2006 Zinc mg/L 14 0 0.002 0.05 5.0 No Silver mg/L 14 0.00 0.001 0.05 0.10 No Aluminum mg/L 13 0.1 0.00914 0.47 0.2 Yes 1/11/2011 Alkalinity(as CaCO3 mg�L 14 255 175 277 - - Ammonia(as N) mg/L 14 0.10 0.05 0.05 - - Calcium mg/L 14 65.1 57.2 85 - - Hardness(as CaCO3 mg�L 14 306 196 414 - - Magnesium mg/L 14 37.4 31 46 - - pH 13 7.6 7 8.06 6.5-8.5 No Potassium mg/L 14 4.5 3.8 6.5 - - Silica(as SiO2) mg/L 13 44.5 23 65 - - Lead mg/L 14 0.004 0.001 0.005 0.015 C No Copper mg/L 14 0.1 0.002 0.1 1.3 c, 1.0 B No Conductivity us/cm 13 797 691 885 - - Langlier Index 12 0.400 -0.44 1.16 - - Sulfate mg/L 14 95.6 68.3 138 250 No Sodium mg/L 14 62.1 45 82 - - Turbidity NTU 3 1.0 1.0 1.0 - - SOCs ug/L 0 ND ND ND - - VOCs ug/L 0 ND ND ND - - Nitrate mg/L 8 3.1 2.52 3.75 10 No Nitrite mg/L 8 0.100 0.002 0.2 1 No ND-Non Detect A-Primary MCL B-Secondard MCL C-Action Level. 167 ExceedsWATER QUALITY DATA Summary Statistics MCL Date of Parameter Units • Average Min Max MCL? Violation Primary IOCs Antimony mg/L 14 0.004 0.001 0.005 0.006 No Arsenic mg/L 14 0.012 0.01 0.017 0.010 Yes 8/24/2015 Barium mg/L 14 0.236 0.03 0.5 2 No Beryllium mg/L 14 0.001 0.0005 0.001 0.004 No Cadmium mg/L 14 0.001 0.0005 0.001 0.005 No Chromium mg/L 14 0.008 0.001 0.021 0.1 No Mercury mg/L 14 0.001 0.0001 0.001 0.002 No Nickel mg/L 14 0.013 0.001 0.06 - - Selenium mg/L 14 0.003 0.001 0.005 0.05 No Thallium mg/L 14 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.002 No Fluoride mg/L 13 0.665 0.3 0.9 4.0 A,2.0 B No Secondary IOCs Chloride mg/L 14 58.0 34.2 84 250 No Color mg/L 12 ND ND ND 15 No Total Sulfide mg/L 8 ND ND ND - - Iron mg/L 14 0.10 0.01 0.3 0.3 No Manganese mg/L 14 0.00 0.001 0.05 0.05 No Odor mg/L 9 ND ND ND 3 No Surfactants mg/L 12 0.00 0.01 0.1 - - Dissolved Solids mg/L 14 578 461 723 500 Yes 1/11/2011 Zinc mg/L 14 0 0.007 0.05 5 No Silver mg/L 14 0.00 0.001 0.05 0.10 No Aluminum mg/L 14 0.1 0.00432 0.66 0.2 Yes 1/11/2011 Alkalinity(as CaCO3 mg�L 14 266 113 318 - - Ammonia(as N) mg/L 14 0.10 0.05 0.05 - - Calcium mg/L 14 86.5 72.8 115 - - Hardness(as CaCO3 mg�L 14 391 273 530 - - Magnesium mg/L 14 43.4 37 55 - - pH 13 7.6 7 7.95 6.5-8.5 No Potassium mg/L 14 4.7 4 7 - - Silica(as SiO2) mg/L 13 43.9 20 61 - - Lead mg/L 14 0.004 0.001 0.005 0.015 C No Copper mg/L 14 0.1 0.0016 0.1 1.3 c, 1.0 B No Conductivity us/cm 13 937 540 1130 - - Langlier Index 12 0.400 -0.636 1.33 - - Sulfate mg/L 14 140.6 91.7 231 250 No Sodium mg/L 14 67.3 45 97 - - Turbidity NTU 4 1.1 1.0 1.5 - - SOCs ug/L 7 ND ND ND - - VOCs ug/L 7 ND ND ND - - Nitrate mg/L 2 5.000 4.94 4.97 10 No Nitrite mg/L 2 0.200 0.2 0.2 1 No ND-Non Detect A-Primary MCL B-Secondard MCL C-Action Level. 168 ExceedsWATER QUALITY DATA Summary Statistics MCL Date of Parameter Units • Average Min Max MCL? Violation Primary IOCs Antimony mg/L 13 0.004 0.001 0.005 0.006 No Arsenic mg/L 13 0.008 0.006 0.0141 0.010 Yes 21712012 Barium mg/L 13 0.214 0.001 0.5 2 No Beryllium mg/L 13 0.001 0.0005 0.001 0.004 No Cadmium mg/L 13 0.001 0.0005 0.001 0.005 No Chromium mg/L 13 0.008 0.001 0.021 0.1 No Mercury mg/L 13 0.001 0.0001 0.002 0.002 No Nickel mg/L 13 0.009 0.001 0.05 - - Selenium mg/L 13 0.004 0.001 0.005 0.05 No Thallium mg/L 13 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.002 No Fluoride mg/L 12 0.542 0.2 0.8 4.0 A,2.0 B No Secondary IOCs Chloride mg/L 13 61.9 16 84.1 250 No Color mg/L 12 ND ND ND 15 No Total Sulfide mg/L 8 ND ND ND - - Iron mg/L 13 0.20 0.01 0.79 0.3 Yes 21712012 Manganese mg/L 13 0.00 0.00107 0.051 0.05 Yes 2/20/2001 Odor mg/L 9 1.20 1.2 1.2 3 No Surfactants mg/L 11 0.00 0.01 0.2 - - Dissolved Solids mg/L 13 583 330 756 500 Yes 8/24/2015 Zinc mg/L 13 0 0.006 0.05 5 No Silver mg/L 13 0.00 0.001 0.05 0.10 No Aluminum mg/L 13 0.1 0.01 0.2 0.05-0.2 No Alkalinity(as CaCO3 mg�L 13 238 161 298 - - Ammonia(as N) mg/L 12 0.10 0.05 0.73 - - Calcium mg/L 13 86.3 57.7 122 - - Hardness(as CaCO3 mg�L 13 370 255 532 - - Magnesium mg/L 12 38.3 28.2 52 - - pH 12 7.6 7 7.97 6.5-8.5 No Potassium mg/L 13 5.5 4.79 8.6 - - Silica(as SiO2) mg/L 12 44.6 24 66 - - Lead mg/L 13 0.004 0.001 0.005 0.015 C No Copper mg/L 13 0.1 0.00229 0.1 1.3 c, 1.0 B No Conductivity us/cm 12 952 670 1073 - - Langlier Index 11 0.400 -1.02 1.05 - - Sulfate mg/L 13 148.5 67.3 216 250 No Sodium mg/L 13 76.5 40.9 100 - - Turbidity NTU 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 - - SOCs ug/L 6 ND ND ND - - VOCs ug/L 6 ND ND ND - - Nitrate mg/L 2 5.100 5.08 5.19 10 No Nitrite mg/L 2 0.200 0.2 0.2 1 No ND-Non Detect A-Primary MCL B-Secondard MCL C-Action Level. 169 B.7 Booster Pump Curves Table B-1—Booster pump curve design data Operatingin Station& Number of Design Conditionsmd Pressure Size(hp) D Control D Manu.&Type Pump Curve&Trim (gpm) �Head(ft)� Eff.(%) Canyon Springs (1)500 Constant Johnston EC-0247(11.625 in) 3,300 425 84 (3)1,000 Constant Johnston EC-0613(18.5 in.) 6,750 538 83.5 Harrison Low (2)300 A Variables Johnston EC-0613(17.5in.) 8,000 110 80 LevelA Harrison (1)250 B Variable c Johnston EC-2528(13 in.) 4,000 200 84.5 High LevelB (3)450 B Variable c Johnston EC-0613(18.5in.) 7,500 200 84 Blending (4)250 Variable Flo-Way 14FKH(9.59 in) 2,550 303 83.1 Hankins (1)75 Variable Ingorsoll-Dresser EC-1693(7.96 in.) 1,200 205 84 (1)75 Variable Ingorsoll-Dresser EC-1693(7.96 in.) 1,200 205 84 (1) 125 Constant Ingorsoll-Dresser EC-2377(11.52 in.) 2,000 205 84 (3) 150 Variable c Flowserve EC-2377(11.58 in.) 2,320 188 84 Wills (2)40 Variable Flowserve 10EMM-5 EC-2369(7.38 in.) 600 179 80.5 (3)125 Variable Flowserve 12ENH-4 EC-1390(9.375 in.) 1,800 205 81.4 Eldridge (1)50 Variable Aurora 2PC-117373A(13.75 in.) 800 180 73 (1)75 Variable Paco RC-2439(13.2 in.) 1,200 190 83 (1)150 Constant Aurora 2PC-117397A(14.25 in.) 2,500 200 84 A. Discharges to Low Level Pressure Zone B. Discharges to High Level Pressure Zone C.Horizontal,end suction pump D.All vertical turbine pumps except as noted. 170 3,36)0 r--Pf-k Lj 2,S- FT D�T R, _T P1 P e p IMPELLER PART 110. 30710 THRUST CONS.'"T 22.0 Pum?Slim DwA. ERN NO. 50385 16 IMPELLER PATTERN 6-7 LB.riz/STAGE -1,- •• c 4..r It. 7 .0 7= "1 ^ HE 0 r 7 M1 W.. ... ... ....... 7.175 .......1 if 150 0 150 d' 125 100 14 1 .......... A, 75 7 50 7 .Fn J ......... % n 12T 12 . ..... ....... ....... .... 100 75 50 350 17*41�W-7 67-1 -,• 1K.10Aw.%HC9 MASCO ON MULTISTAGE T9ZTff U 5 0.4..ix,js PEn MINUTE ,mr-4 CLCAN COLDWAT911 8P 64 10 ......-__ 16 HA F17 7 0 roe I&TAG&M—TIMT MLA--9rF -1 EH� 0.98 Johnston Pump Company 1�14.110—aAo.zg Y,11-c 01- FQ-.III) G.:e. Ca i 1!;:.-n DATE 8—7 1 —Y-1 02 7 PIP PELLER PART NO. a 14 STALL °ivn PUMP SHAFT DIAW 2!�' INCHES xir16�PELLER PAITERN NO, LB Fr- 37 -- I SUBMERGENCE REQ'D OVER BOTTOM OF BELL TO PREVENT VORTEXES 16u 14P,34 20 7— lei 160 -2 IV" Ti 140 . ..... .. .77 _5 ........... ... r 7 7 too • 171 ',�•'<:- i... ..r-.. +L•7') -i T '.�•: •Ott:r.tI :`7 ,I vT.a[ - � .:+• •�. 7'' '.�:18s _ 1 :33 -x!1�i3 :;i _ �'',!. ! i -^ ii'_..i<'• •^ter: .:'_T'i'�G.L <.:'Il.Y'.: '"li:jJJ: :. ...j!1y31'ai.'{c'.7.,!'}A r..I»..__. •'.^�'^. •,• .. . 1 •• _ .« • _... .yam 1 .1=. .: .;. :I.;...^ - ..=.t.i.•� ! „. •1 h•ITJ '!L — _—•r• - .....— .i. .t �......:�y.� .. —� ...._ _ . ter.tom.,•+..... _ 1r-�t-`•�-.__i•�-I' _h•-- _r. .r77. 10 -•_=�,r;;_::'f:. -1:__ _11..E _ �+':::'�."77:3V• � .:�. .�►'... 50 '-_�=- =f" :.: --:�=-.c:•":�,=�_- �'=r• ::.:.i:. �-r __ice' -:.;�:�{ :tom " �>= - .�:.t.:—__T _�� :ice:'_;_:��: ': - :1� - a: =F��;:: _ - �;. •�:' :ta: :;� 0 . -'�' :j: •t•rOwr.MCt u.tD Or ruLTar.cr 7[vL' U f GALLON!PER MINUTE' IV Y.IwO CI[..COLD.+.TLII.►G. 1O t .u+1 n.oe rvin.lT ruD.cc.w e 24D C TI,•.IrL.,,r. 1180 w►r Johnston Pump Company irnLL[w-.+orct .owl_c.n,w ...... ..--rD .t.. '. Glendora,California 91740 COATED cu..t trccT,•o 11 -21-72 MALLILMLo Ito• L.Ec-0613 THRUST CONSTANT 54 PUMP SHAFT DIAM. • n. Iv Ir• IMPELLER PART N0. 5016 2 n.0 C.A. t.,T IMPELLER•PATTERN N0. SO I5- WR-, 44•6 LB.FT=/STAGE ' n = BOTTOM 7.1 140 130 .... - _ fit:=:: j.:: 1 120 -- 0 90 70 60 _ - _ :�. -- _t- ... - 300 100 7. L= �':.— --:.jam - �i: _ -}: , - _ -IT---DL.a•: .I: :t: �� :�. RNOi.r.rLL..9LD ow rULTILT.Z2 7t LTt US GALLONS PER MINUTE �� ryr•IrL"".COLD�ATLA V O. I O 2 4 EC Tuwa+t qt J •e•1 L1.Ot rrLTIPIT rcAO.L/I■T 0.99 Johnston PTun P Company 0..,,wOti Ir.Lll.11 ©'T....r°"'^'"' •"' •T 1 00 Glendora,Califomia.91740 COATED,+o 8- 9-9-79-1 LLTALUw[DILs C-0445 172 y: •-1[I1 Ul�umh Mai !N Ilpia� �l�l IIN "�.� :;._ . i iMpnuinuirii rnr il� �i9pa in �p IN 11 1MONSOONS ,�.�I:��•��'I�IIIIII'In�ill II I ■ ��i�Ni'! � III � IIII 011 NIII I I it Il�lll II! �I II III Mill 111111111 IINIIII 11 I ins � n Samoa ii u'"'ii'e"i�i�s'r'ry"idnu I��IIII� III II �I_ _NN�l-- -11 HIP OR II will!UL, � r� ST amp NO. ' hl r ! IIII itNAPELLEOPAIIEANNO... 74434 N I k l : 1 IrUffT 1 l dl III •.. . ■ III III IIII I.Idllll Illfl Illligl! IIII III f dil I i ill! illlf I N I !IIII Rd 1 fill!!! llllllllllld fll . A� pro ■. lIIIINIIdlI !l! i liilff IIII s� �rerrrr lilr....�.�lroil oil, ��IINNIII I llud, ��II � � IIII :��,l� ��r�� Cr�;`r �� • .•. � � r«'��n1�r�A1 III . •. _.��r� __ illllli�l I Illllflll Ili! I IUIIIIIEr�i��l��+�,. ,,..�- : :, • � � !II �I:�II.:::��r�rE��er Irr��sr�i�� Illl��r � ,. IA �� be !_ �I �::II.:lIllll� Illillll! � �Iillllllrl.��e N! ■ ,: '1 r . 1 �mlel�r.r ._!11 Il �,�� ll II I ■ r!-wrR�ttOiiii"�-- r��tl��,��rl�.. � dlll 1�1� r1�liYrrr�a� _ li�'. tr ► ., :!I I �IIlII III Ili ;rib a�,,� ;� � ■ IIII!!! ��ilrre�rir�ttr�rrll,trRr.�►'��III �., , rrrr� f .��1 1 1 ■ r. a - '!�'i��■roll�rw• _.�i�•�rlrl�t .:�l��s�.er•� !��!'/:� !■� �IIIIE !Il ill! IIII i ililll '"rr�,.C��lil�;• ..i��;eil�;a ;��,,;�,,,:■;��. I oilll I f�«ir • � IIIII II I IIII IIIII d Illlllf � _.■ ■�r6M°`-�5�"��=��:::�°�':��• `�IIIlllllrll! I IIIIII ! I■ ifI��II I��i�lr.! Ill! ililll !IIIIII I IIIIIII ! I IIIII IIIIlII III IIIIII � � I.IIIIIII dlldil IIIIII � IIlilil;llll III Illil IIIII I ■ . ■ r ■ lilillllllllllflfllllllllllllllllllll,��Irrr �� a rr � e IIIIIlI�lIIIIIII IIIII !IIII I! � .. r , frlill�I Ill�llllr illllll Plill .ter ■ ■■ ■•� . eel ai9ile p!I!IIEi3111l1 aoerrr:�..__ 1 lr ,1ppi t=eel�e.. C! a �=C...._ ! le_■ r■r�rr■■r■■■■■rrt■�r.■nNelion::: ■ llli�iz1111'rel�_9._.aa1a1l�irrrrtE■� e.11eee{�G.iCIIO i■■■ w■rrrr■r■ww■■■rrrr■ �1��'.•!_" ..■r■ran■rlllliiQi/InIGL'll!'1�!!!�!!�M�•!1lINe�• wrr■■■w■■r■.rrr■rrW6M:F:. ---. .rseerrerlllll� III .�• . ■��rltrE��.■■��a�■r..■.g■t.■■■r■rr�■■rt■.■■■rrr�ri.::::w:��r■rM��iry�Iviiii Blamed �l=�irr■r■rr Of i�i :oii��alda�iii�!��C�` HIM E� $t� ■ !r 16rp�1■ 1�� r eiE ■i■C �::: l� 1=��'ii:: tC�QR �'� C II �i■� r■C Il �ta ■ 14 ` C C e1C1 a1 1 1 ■ ■■ ■ .■■■ rR■C1��,■ � GC�r� . _:��. :��'11$ I� .�r 1 c!.t • .� :9'rJIr! ! ■■: �Illif i■I■■�10� ■■■r�.l�i �■■r■■r■rl7rrr■■r■■i1T1 ■ • �1r■■iii��i II�i1rC�i��■�■011aNl� C�1tCli • �i II sar�.M i �ll� fi I�"ii' l i of fle I - i p��j N��4u111tYUngl Y Iltl �� illip- k liallf��'I'''''' . II I �{ 1 ��HIln� 1 _i I.1 � ■ a IIII ...,yll.... . ..�.. !q!n ..:l.: . ..: : ...... �., .�,,... _I�IIIIpIIINII��ll II� n m mnl Johmtoi MRASUMM Wei. )way-Fresno Main Office 62 6960101 PCMulti-Speed Performance Pump performance.Adjusted for construction,viscosity,static lift to discharge nozzle centerline,friction and power losses of lineshaft and thrust bearings. The duty point represents the head at the discharge nozzle centerline. 320 240 — — —i a I 1710 3 160 — 0 o_ 80 0 600 —MCSF 100 540 90 480 80 420 0 70 360 — --- 60 0 T 300 50 v {IIII- � 240 i 40 w 180 — 17 b 30 120 IBM 20 1400 60 10 1200 10 895 0 0 50 17 0 Vx: 25 o_ z 0 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2.500 3,000 3,500 4,000 Flow-USgpm Customer :Davidson Sales&Engineering Pump Type :14FKH Quote number 146581 Address ;2441 S 3850 W#B,Salt Lake City,Utah 84120-8200 #of Stages :4 Customer PO# Location Quantity :4 CO# Project :City of Twin Falls Water Improvement Flow :2.550.0 USgpm Item# 002 revl -C069601 Tag Head :303.0 ft JOL# Bowl/Pump Speed :1,790 rpm Serial# Eff(bowl/pump) :84.44/83.10 % Fluid Density :0.998/0,998 SG Drawing# Power(bowl/pump) :234/234 hp Viscosity :1.00 cP Drawn By NPSH required :23.80 ft I Impeller Trim :9.59 In I Last Modified :11 Feb 2011 11:27 AM The head and power may be different than that shown in accordance with Hydraulic Institute/API 610 Standards Copyright®2009,Weir Floway,Inc.All Rights Reserved Additional Notes: Weir Floway-Fresno Main Office Quote No. 146581 11 Feb 2011 11:27 AM Customer LAyne Pumps Ingersoll-Dresser Pumps VendorItem number 75HP Booster Pumps Based on curve no. EC-1693 Service :75HP Booster Pumps Number of stages 4 - - 111Capacity111 USgpm Specificgravity 1.00 Save date Head 1 I I ft Pump speed I rpm I 1 !!!��!!!!�lNN!lN��__ �Y 'EMI.• •• !Y -l��l�l�!!•!NlJ,N�MNY •I lYYI�YN!!!vY!_N�' l��!!!�!YlNMN��J•! WINE �!!N!lN�lwl� �wl��!!!�!1•YNNN��!! UMMM YN�lNI1,Y 1 sNl+•-- !N!lNNI•!!!N�lSl�l !lN��!! !�� lNlINNNN�!>•!w!!!!�!!l��ls/��Y! A!!�!!!!!!w!!N!!�!�!N MYl�!!!t•!�!!�N!!✓Y • !MEN �0010 !!!!N!lINNNN�__NI��N!!_�_!_!_Ni��Y! 1 N!!1•!�!!i_N !!N!!!!!!�!!!�l WINE !!!!!!�lwNNN!!!lNYs!!!�!!! WEW �iil7♦! !!!!!lN�IwNN!!lNl��!!!�!liNliw�e!!! !!!N!!r�lwNNN�!!!!•!•�!!!�!l1,N�lN�Y>!!a! � ��7®�lNNNN�!N!�!!i•�!Y!�!!Y!•!!!N�lMlY �Jlw�l�lN!!!� !�N!♦!t!!rNllN�w!!Y NOW��1��lw!!M!!w� �'�!lYNYlN�Nt•�YY !!!!ems//w!��NwN�AI�!•!!!!�!!_�NllN�w!!! :1 !!lN�I�!•!�! '��_ �il��!li�l�l�!!� YIN�w!!Y :1 - — !YMliilN�� l��l�� • alive NlIEIEENS0010ll��l�INN!!N!Y)!!!Y �!!lI fi N! !!!>r �!!!� Y!!M!♦!1♦N!!i!Y ��l�-rrA!l�M��!!Y�l�v�MN!!Y!N • Mmn �lYNli►A�YN!!w!!!!�! .411 E- !�>•ll�atir� / !!Y!/�!M!�lwNNN�MlS��!!Y�►��N��w� 1 �!!/I!!N!�lwN NNE N!!��!�!�!!1•N!!i� 1 =Y!!!Y!lY�I�iNNw�N�I��!!!)•�IYSNI�! 1 1 1 11 :11 11 •r •11 • Customer Layne Pumps Ingersoll-Dresser Pumps . _ NumberItem number :125HP Booster Based on curve no. 'ISC4, M Service :125HP Booster . Vendor - _ - I I 1 CapacityI I I I Save date March 7,1999 Head 205.00 ft Pump speed :1775 rpm MXWS ARE APPROXIMATE-PLOAP IS ED FOR ONE SET OF CMMIOPG. •1 iiii�iiw iw�liiiwii�it_wNr■iiiiiN� ■iwii iaiiiiiw�iiisi iipiiiir��l�ir�i i�:. •. ■irr�ii iiiiiNiiwrliwiiii _ �-� ■��.n��N OiMiNirma it♦iiiiwi E iERiiiiiiiiii�i�� :1 ��iii�� ■�iNN!•iiw! M •�ii�wiwwwiiiiiwir�iN�iiiiii iwas, �_iiiiiiii!•iwiiiiiiiiN�liiiiiiii�ir�i s�■iiiiiiiai�ii iiiiiiNiiiiNii� �11 11 w�iiiiiai ii�iiww MMi�N iiii iN it�i�iNwNiiiNiMiiiiiilril• iiOi waiiwi iiiiMiiiiN .I iiia•ii�i �il�iMii�•iii�iiiiiiiiiNiiiii 1 iiiiiiiiia■tNir�iiiii�r i�wiiii�iiiii INw�_N_ 1 •---- iiiiiiiiiii i• _ MI.1•i :1 ` ��NiNiiiiiiil�isi)•�i��i�.�� ■ ■��iiiiwiiiiiiiii`iNwiiiiiiiii Miii�iips_ Nwiii`��iNNiir•iMii iiii •1 ii==i��=`i ��ii�.�ii>�iil♦iiiiiiNiiiNii �i- ilMiiii►Iii�ai)• iiii.I� �i ii�iiwii iiiiiiiiiiitifi!•iN�iiiii�. i.�—C iiNiiiirNi riiiii irr�i Iwill�l�iiirr�w iiiNii!•iii •1 .�1iiii�i�■i'�—iiiiiirl�ii ��ii�'�iiiiiMiii 1 ._ iiii!•iiM�i� i�� i�iiNN ' 1 _IT, _ ,�i —�— �=iwiiiiii�ii\ii\��ii♦ii Nl•ii�I`i�iw� iiiiiiii\ iiiiiiiiwii�iiNii�p iiiiiiNNAiiNii__`��1 _i•�i_iN7•i iiNiii�iMii�p` �i� � 1 1 i• iiiiiiiiwiiwiii�=�wiiii�_J=i��N� 1 iiii_iiii_iNi_iNiiilii♦Jii♦i��ii �iiiiiia♦ 1 1 iiiiiiiiiil♦wiiiii • p•o / / , Customer •WESTERN Pump size&type 15EMM FLOW".ERVE on curve no. EC-23T7 Service Potable water Number of stages 2 Vendor reference 57149 Version 1 Date May 1 - 1 1 USgpm Specific111 CURVES ARE APPROMMATE,PUMP M GUARAWTEEO FOR ONE SE7r OF CONDITJONS.rAPACrrY,HEAD,AND EFFICIENCY, Bowl perforroance shown below Is correcled for rnaterials,Viscosity and construction. Head 188.0oft Pump speed 1775 rpm CL 100 -•a G"ra ��r.rrr:ririi� ■r ■ a ■ �� m��i ;��t=,r,� ■�r■ ■■t�■ rtr rr rr4: r . rarrrr rrr r �i r'E E� � ■"�r�■aF/r rra�r�. r 0 so . ....�. . . rrr .�Errrrr.rrrE/ rrr /�'i� rrrC ra � �■ �■rr� ■■ rrr r ■r rrr E ■rr■rar 350 250 1158 in d Tr N, IT —7-1 100 ■rsrr ra�rr■ A/ /// � !'/•////I��ia/- -� '//�i/=��/EEC. mr— —7ia�.— _ 150 ��a � 6-/ssi 80 60 LLJ 50 7— . , 1 Soo 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3SG0 .• Capacity CopyrightBowl head of 191 22 it corresponds Yvith 188.0 ft head at discharge flange adjusted for eleVation and friction losses. O 2009 wig� ,.==_.o. �■■. .■. g ■■■u■I�1�. ■M a_ � ■■ ■■�� 1�■■■■■ ..�' ■r . . all �'. 020 E. ■•■ ,r.C'�I■■,, ti■■■r� �r■■�. ■■ , r^�i■■ ■ oil ■ Mid.-all nil/� 1■■ : �■ ► ►NIe. N:`/■■��i�►�■ I■ t�■■■ 351 III a - ■ 1 11 1■�I�iliie' �� ■`�1�►'�►�/■b�./ �1nC■■��■■ MINES a ■r•E..,�/��I�G►�� ;■■■M■■ � '� _. , _ •.IBC . .■;now ,I�...��.,■■ 1■■ ■■■ MEN No ENO moon ■■■■ON ME M ME ■■■■■■■■■■ ,�a�i■■e�■r■■N■u■■■■■■ ME ■.w■■WE■ ■ IN■■ IMM 11 ■■ . . . .. . N■■Mir,■■/MNNMINE ■■■■■■■� M■ ■■■E■I ■MMM■ :,...: . „ ■■.■�.m. ,. ..■■■.■■■■■ IN ON MEN ■. ■■ No No haw ER LF! ME ev . ■■■■■ 1A go - No ■ Irk /as ► /NO, �j. �■�► ■■ `.il �1■ ■■NII■■ CElf.�.■��r. ■� ��■� OEM DAMP-as No on No 0 SEES a ..■M■■■M■■/O ..... ■ 110 .� ■ lid ■■■�■■■■■��■■�■■■C■■■■ ■ML�j■t�l■.■■;OMEN AURORA PUMPS ;, 1-2()C),�� '7�5 AP s A/o- rVY"P_ 02/26/2004 08:38 FAX 503 241 0399 PACO PUMPS 11002 PACO Pumps PACO Select ver:6.04 10/16/03 PUMP DATA SHEET Selection file: (untitled) Curve: RC-2439 PACO Pump Company Catalog: WTR_PMP.CIP v 5.3 Design Point Flow:1200 US gpm Fluid:Water Temperature:60°F Head:190 ft SG: 1 Pump; SPLIT CASE-1600 Size:6015-910 Viscosity: 1.122 cP Speed: 1780 rpm Dia: 13.2 in Vapor pressure:0.2568 psla Atm pressure:14,7 psia Llmite: Temperature:210°F Sphere size:--ui Pressure:300 psi9 Power:•--bhp NP8Ha;--it Specific Speed: Ns:— Nss:-- piping, System:-- Suction;---in Dimensions, Suction:6 in Dlscharge:5 it, Discharge:---in Motor:125 hp Speed:1800 Frame:444T NEMA Standard TEFC Enclosure sized for Max Power on Design Curve r Data Point-- ft �� - %eff Flow: 1200 US gpm 400 - 90 Head;180 ft 320 -- - - so Eff:83% 15„ Power:69.2 bhp 240 70 NPSHr 11.4 ft -Design Curve- 160 - 60 Shutoff Head.201 ft 80 9" ___ 50 Shutoff dP:87.3 psi Min Flow: - US gpm 0 _ --- 40 BEP:871/9 off N - — — C 1634 US gpmP - - - S NOL Pwr:101 bhp H _ - Q 2213 US gpm r 160 b -Max Curve- - h 60 P Max Pwr:151 bhp 2438 US gpm US gpm 400 Boo 1200 1600 2000 240U 2800 3200 3000 --PERFORMANCE EVALUATION— Flow Speed Head Pump Pow®rr NPSHr Motor Motor Hrs/yr Cast US gpm rpm ft %eff bhp ft %off kW /kWh 1440 1780 103 86 77.4 13.8 1200 1780 190 83 69.2 11.4 9ao 1780 195 77 61.1 10.0 720 1780 19U 67 5•1 10 480 Flow Rate Is Out of Range for this Pump 181 ONE SON mom on a a am ma ■■■■ ■ ■I . ■Ii '■■■■■ ■■■■ :. ... NNE No ■■■■■■■■ ■�,,■NIA■ ■i ,■tas!\ �■/�■�C/:: ■■■■��■■■ m1 low a a III ■.r i2 11\\I ■■� 1 :�*��1011■ I\■■�►.!7\■■Nl�1■1 loan mom M■C■ ■ ■ii� �':�•..r►:�■\■■II■►►■IIMLql ►■�� i: ■►'�■■■■►`■�� 17.7 ■■■r ii�_��lIIIAI■ ��=■L. qZ.\MEN am Wan ■\�■'..,■■►�■�...// R.P. . ■MEN_■■�■ /., 1�.. l�ii�•fl�■�7`. •Oblmfh!�.■I►..ri�■e�� ..■■■a SON ■■■MONO■■■ CN ■'�■Mon■■��■■■■�..■■■■a�iC■■■■' . ��C.. .... CC. C .■■.� ••C�C:.::�C ■ . .C..■ .�■... .■■C �.■...�■. .. �.. .. .. ..■. ...■..... . ..�.. MENEM .■ONE■■■■.�� ■ '::CC �: ':: MEMO_�...� 8 ��. . ... C...ON ■■C. :. . . Emom ONION • 5.N.1lt ��iCic�1■ = NONE��N■■NEW A■N■■■■�1 `m■1.��■�■►.:� . �/■■N■■MINE■■r NO son 1 ■ A.. =.'.'!`IA>! �/ . i■■� !■■■■"RIANXIMME I' so ■■Mar► /■■ANNE a owl C...■C mill 91FI; OIL /mIra■ ■ Miqr N■r► ■■ ■■■■ ■■■�A 11 U IMP P, ..■CA EMEME ONE molomon On MEN '"MEMIR Sao N� MEMO ■MSEEN "do M► „i■■C■■ I■M1 .■'C■N^�N■�■NBC■. •■■ONCI■■r .■■or .... .. ■■ ..�..� . ■■■\. �... ■■A ....- .: M■ ■■.■.■ .. .■■ . .■■■■■■■. ..I Wills Pump Station owmow . FLOWSERVEWITNESSED N%8_.,,® PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS Pump# 1 TEST NUMBER: 10EMMAD10 BOWL SIZE/TYPE: 10EM DATE: 9/21/2016 BOWL MATERIAL: CL 30 Cast Iron ID2013 TESTED BY: GARY LESPREANCE IMPELLER TYPE/DIA.: M 7.42 TESTED FOR: Delc ester IMPELLER MATERIAL: C903 ID2210 WITNESSED BY: ��PC IMPELLER SETTING: 0.0833 SERIAL NUMBER: 160ONSH02259-1 IMPELLER BACKFILE 0.06 x 0.09 X 1.25 S.O. NUMBER: SH02259 IMPELLER FINISH POLISH CUSTOMER MOTOR HP: 40 NUMBER OF STAGES: 5 TEST MOTOR: 40HP @ 1800 DESIGN FLOW,GPM: 600 FLOW MEASUREMENT 6"MAG DESIGN HEAD, FEET: 179 PRESSURE TRANSDUCER 300 DESIGN EFFICIENCY, %: 80.5 GPM TDH EFF. HP %of design 600 197.75 81.06 36.96 110.5%1 head 660 179 79.20 1 37.65 109.9% flow DATA CORRECTED TO 1775 RPM AND 1.00 S.G. PUMP FLOW HEAD EFF. POWER HEAD/STAGE POWER/STAGE (GPM) (FT.) (%) (HP) (FT.) (HP) 0 291.5 0.0 25.10 58.3 5.02 250 267.4 56.9 29.63 53.5 5.93 351 249.3 70.4 31.37 49.9 6.27 489 226.3 80.0 34.92 45.3 6.98 541 215.0 81.4 36.09 43.0 7.22 567 207.0 81.3 36.44 41.4 7.29 603 197.0 81.0 37.00 39.4 7.40 631 187.6 80.3 37.21 37.5 7.44 662 178.4 79.1 37.68 35.7 7.54 714 161.1 76.4 38.04 32.2 7.61 780 140.2 72.7 37.99 28.0 7.60 832 121.1 67.4 37.75 24.2 7.55 903 92.6 56.8 37.13 18.5 7.43 967 62.0 42.0 36.05 12.4 7.21 's W. . 4 c�a WOLF DRD � r . qi OF ''a//ee�aeji6° W N C) N T 3 CO Total Head, ft -3 o � v O @ -O C O O N N W W P P Cn n CD Cn D N Ul O C n O Cn O C31 O Cn O O G@ O CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD o 2 O CC] _....... ... .......,. ..........- C7 ........ ........ _......:...._. ...........:.......:. ............................................................................................... .............................................. _............. -4 ......... ............... _.. .._...._. _. _ (D (p fA ........................:_. ................................................................:......:...... ... .......-. ... �-+ -ll -. N O � O _. - --- _......_............. .- N N ........ ..... - --..._..... - - - _... _. - _ _....._ - - -- - - (D _:......................... . ...... _0 C7 O _..................._..........._. _.__......... .,......,..........., ............ ...... ....... ...... . ...................._............_........,__....... : -.......--. .................--... __.._ .. - -- ----.. O C O • U) --- - --._ _. ....... .........._._.... _.._.. _ - ..._. C . .. ...:............._..... _. . ................................: .... ............._............., ......................... m m O D 00 o C) � m --- ......................:..... ............... _:......... _. m _ m M I c� ... -.., — m z _. _........... .. ..... .. .. ....... n.................. ... ._...__.. _....._............_. __ _... 0 0 0 0 N W (n O -4 W O O O O O O O O O O C) cn _0 O ,� m MEfficiency % ±;(. ��Of Ess�pA,;`., .. ok T V > (D CO ® Power ; E-6299 . I. CD 4!r8 4 +I Wills Pump Station F`OW$E RV 1° WITNESSED PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS Pump# 2 TEST NUMBER: 10EMMAD11 BOWL SIZE/TYPE: 10EM DATE: 9/21/2016 BOWL MATERIAL: CL 30 Cast Iron ID2013 TESTED BY: GARY LESPREANCE IMPELLER TYPE/DIA.: M 7.42 TESTED FOR: Delco Western IMPELLER MATERIAL_: C903 ID2210 WITNESSED BY: , .h/��)P"F, IMPELLER SETTING: 0.0833 SERIAL NUMBER: 1609NSH0225 -2 IMPELLER BACKFILE 0.06 x 0.09 X 1.25 S.O. NUMBER: SH02259 IMPELLER FINISH POLISH CUSTOMER MOTOR HP: 40 NUMBER OF STAGES: 5 TEST MOTOR: 40HP @ 1800 DESIGN FLOW, GPM: 600 FLOW MEASUREMENT 6"MAG DESIGN HEAD, FEET: 179 PRESSURE TRANSDUCER 300 DESIGN EFFICIENCY, %: 80.5 GPM TDH EFF. HP %of design 600 197.94 81.02 37.01 110.6% head 660 179 78.95 37.79 110.1% flow DATA CORRECTED TO 1775 RPM AND 1.00 S.G. PUMP FLOW HEAD EFF. POWER HEAD/STAGE POWER/STAGE (GPM) (FT.) (%) (HP) (FT.) (HP) 0 291.4 0.0 25.21 58.3 5.04 248 267.3 56.7 29.54 53.5 5.91 359 247.4 71.9 31.20 49.5 6.24 486 227.2 79.9 34.91 45.4 6.98 541 216.0 81.7 36.16 43.2 7.23 567 208.4 81.3 36.67 41.7 7.33 603 197.0 81.0 37.04 39.4 7.41 632 188.6 80.5 37.42 37.7 7.48 656 180.1 79.1 37.76 36.0 7.55 716 163.3 77.2 38.24 32.7 7.65 778 143.2 73.4 38.32 28.6 7.66 844 119.4 66.8 38.10 23.9 7.62 899 96.2 58.1 37.58 19.2 7.52 970 62.5 42.0 36.44 12.5 7.29 E. S14 , A& S� eW i WOLFORO -6299 �. r 185 T (D (D C: T. � LT 3 LO ET Total Head, ft (D c:� 4-t C:) Oj C 0 0 1 -A. CD U) Z) CD:3 CA 0 (-n C) Cn 0 Cn 0 CD D 0 O O C) CD (D 0 C) 0 C) CD 0 C) 3 ... ................................................................................... ...... .......... ................ ......................................... ........................................................................ ................ ........... ............ ............ .... .................. CD ...................... ................. ........................ .............. ...................................... ... ...................................................................................................................... (D CO .................... ........................L 1................................ .... ...................... .................................. ........................ ......... U) ......... . .. .. ......................... -TI 71- N) CD CD C) ............. ......................... .................. .................... W ........... ...................... .................... . ...................................... ........... (D ........................................ ......................... ..........................................................-- .............................................................................. ......................... ..................................... ...... ...... ............ .................. . . .......T.- ...'...................... ........................... ............ ................ CD CD CD .... ................................. .................... ......................... .. ........... 7 .............. ................. ........... ..................... .......... ............................................ ......... ....................... .......... .................... ...................... ................ .......... ................. ............. ................ ............................................. .... ....... ..................... G) CD C CD ............ .................... ................... .... ..... ......................................................... ...................... )................... ............. Cf) C) C: ......................................... ...... ................. .............. .................... . ......................... .................. . ......................... ............................ ................ ...... .......................................... . ...................... ................ ........... ................ CO rn CD CD m-n ..................................... ..... ............. ............. ..................... 71 ................................ ............................ ............ ................ .......... ...... ..................... m z ............... .................................... ........ ... ........................................................... ............... ......................... ....................... ............. ...................... .................. ............................................ L---j CD O CD CD N-) CA) --4 00 Q0 CD C) 0 CD CD O 0 0 CD CD CD _0 0 C) M (D(D ....... M C)- M Efficiency % (D < STEVEN > C/) cc W ORD 7 z CD C:)Power -o ItVl, N) 4�- G) -4 M CD CD CD 299 FLOWSERVE Wills Pump Station PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS Pump# 1 TEST NUMBER: 12ENHAD25 BOWL SIZE/TYPE: 12EN DATE: 10/3/2016 BOWL MATERIAL: CL 30 Cast Iron ID2013 TESTED BY: GARY LESPREANCE IMPELLER TYPE/DIA.: H 9.56 TESTED FOR: De Western IMPELLER MATERIAL: C903ID2210 WITNESSED BY: =b Pt;r- IMPELLER SETTING: 0.0833 SERIAL NUMBER: 1609NSH0226 -1 NUMBER OF STAGES: 4 S.O. NUMBER: SH02260 DESIGN FLOW,GPM: 1800 CUSTOMER MOTOR HP: 125 DESIGN HEAD, FEET: 205 TEST MOTOR: 125HP @ 1800 THRUST CONSTANT: 11 DATA CORRECTED TO 1770 RPM AND 1.00 S.G. PUMP FLOW HEAD EFF. POWER HEAD/STAGE POWER/STAGE (GPM) (FT.) N (HP) (FT.) (HP) 0 366.5 0.0 108.93 91.6 27.23 370 313.6 30.2 97.05 78.4 24.26 739 285.0 52.9 100.47 71.2 25.12 1080 255.3 66.9 104.09 63.8 26.02 1445 249.8 78.3 116.42 62.4 29.11 1626 236.5 80.3 120.95 59.1 30.24 1711 230.1 81.2 122.40 57.5 30.60 1807 219.4 81.3 123.05 54.8 30.76 1897 207.5 80.6 123.30 51.9 30.83 1980 196.0 79.7 123.01 49.0 30.75 2155 169.1 75.0 122.67 42.3 30.67 2355 90.0 49.4 108.27 22.5 27.07 7 eF ` wpLFORD L O z O E LO cn JBMOd N z 00 > Q P % Aoua101 � w _0 W •••....,,,•, p a) m N +. , O O O O O O O O O O o r- O c0 t` (D U') d' M N O O LO O W i N � U - W ..... _... ,. ... LL _. _.__ ........._. .. .,;..,,, :... .. ... LL W CD CD i N _..,.. . uj ......... .... -i �_._.. .... O 0 o.. ......... Q W a- _ _........ , _ _, i C/) a O O : ........_..................... .......;..... ........_..... .........-....._..._..i.....p....._.»..._:......T. .l...... _ ..........__ ."_ T L6 O ,-' O O U r- i O (� U ..........._............:................................ - -- ... CD - i ' i ._. . .... ... ....... .. _—..... O O LO ........ :_.. ....---L_..._......... ........—._.._._ _...... '. ..............1........... Lo O N _......_........... ............._...._................_.............._.. ...............;................_.......... ................ .......,.. ........ ............ C.) .... _ ... O Q O2cu c :- n O r O CD CD CD O O O O CDO C� O It d' M O N O LO O � v U) a) v o O U O co O-Aw JET fit L v C O N 00 11 PeOH Ielol a_ Im U m 188 FLOWSERVE Wills Pump Station Nftwm.i PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS Pump# 2 TEST NUMBER: 12ENHAD26 BOWL SIZE/TYPE: 12EN DATE: 10/3/2016 BOWL MATERIAL: CL 30 Cast Iron ID2013 TESTED BY: GARY LESPREANCE IMPELLER TYPE/DIA.: H 9.56 TESTED FOR: Delco Western IMPELLER MATERIAL: C903 ID2210 WITNESSED BY: �wl Ae- IMPELLER SETTING: 0.0833 SERIAL NUMBER: 1 09NSH02260-2 NUMBER OF STAGES: 4 S.O. NUMBER: SH02260 DESIGN FLOW, GPM: 1800 CUSTOMER MOTOR HP: 125 DESIGN HEAD, FEET: 205 TEST MOTOR: 125HP @ 1800 THRUST CONSTANT: 11 DATA CORRECTED TO 1770 RPM AND 1.00 S.G. PUMP FLOW HEAD EFF. POWER HEAD/STAGE POWER/STAGE (GPM) (FT.) N (HP) (FT.) (HP) 0 355.1 0.0 107.68 88.8 26.92 378 311.7 30.6 97.30 77.9 24.32 726 284.5 52.3 99.76 71.1 24.94 1078 256.5 66.7 104.74 64.1 26.18 1435 250.5 77.9 116.53 62.6 29.13 1677 231.8 81.0 121.22 57.9 30.30 1719 227.5 80.9 122.12 56.9 30.53 1815 218.0 81.7 122.29 54.5 30.57 1889 208.8 80.9 123.12 52.2 30.78 1995 195.8 80.0 123.26 48.9 30.82 2174 171.9 76.8 122.87 43.0 30.72 2368 125.2 63.8 117.39 31.3 29.35 SIEVEN W. AC , '-" wot-FORD j; L E- 299 . e 189 a i 1 66Z9-� N z � � CO t� N w ~ N (� ,, n. JE)M0C N z ❑ ur "M N 3A 31.S (D Q ,b �s o a ,: • % AOUS10i�3 -� Lu C) N m N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U) 00 I` c0 LO d' cM N 0 0 O LO N W � U ..........__....... Z W .... ..._.......- ....... ................. ......... ..... ... ...:...... U _._........... .. . .... .. . . ....... ......... W w w p ....... Q ...... O N __.._....., _......._............._............ Q w _...................................... ...._......_. ...........,....._..............._._.__.......................,................... _ D_ ...... .._....,..... .__._.........._... ._._................_................._...................._..._.;_ ... ..... . .. .... __... Cam/) °- 0 0 LO _...... -.-- ....... : ___......_.............................._.__ ...:......_..... ............... .....,.._ I .................._............................i......1........_._..:......:....._ ...4..._6..... 0 : I O T. I -.... .__.......,....__.. ........-- .... U ..... .... .. I O _.-. _................_............... _ N o ................. ... ......... .... ....._....._........ LL LO_..__..............................................._.......:..................__... O o........... --.................._......... U _ .............._...._... ............_.._......................._.... ........ ... , cn C E OFo 0 :E L N c O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 10 LO d� CD LO CD N NO r- o O 0) C � U � 00 N J co a� a� a N 0 U m 190 40"10•� Wills Pump Station FLOWSERVE N*4= •® PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS Pump# 3 TEST NUMBER: 12ENHAD27 BOWL SIZE/TYPE: 12EN DATE: 10/4/2016 BOWL MATERIAL: CL 30 Cast Iron ID2013 TESTED BY: GARY LESPREANCE IMPELLER TYPE/DIA.: H 9.56 TESTED FOR: Delco Western IMPELLER MATERIAL: C903 ID2210 WITNESSED BY: iy,��.C,1.'t" IMPELLER SETTING: 0.0833 SERIAL NUMBER: 1609NSH0226 -3 NUMBER OF STAGES: 4 S.O. NUMBER: SH02260 DESIGN FLOW, GPM: 1800 CUSTOMER MOTOR HP: 125 DESIGN HEAD, FEET: 205 TEST MOTOR: 125HP @ 1800 THRUST CONSTANT: 11 DATA CORRECTED TO 1770 RPM AND 1.00 S.G. PUMP FLOW HEAD EFF. POWER HEAD/STAGE POWER/STAGE (GPM) (FT.) N (HP) (FT.) (HP) 0 362.4 0.0 109.46 90.6 27.36 354 317.0 28.7 98.72 79.2 24.68 753 284.0 53.7 100.56 71.0 25.14 1105 252.6 67.5 104.45 63.2 26.11 1448 248.8 77.9 116.76 62.2 29.19 1633 235.6 80.2 121.10 58.9 30.28 1722 226.6 81.0 121.73 56.7 30.43 1808 218.1 81.4 122.40 54.5 30.60 1910 205.7 80.9 122.72 51.4 30.68 1990 194.3 79.6 122.63 48.6 30.66 2160 167.2 74.8 121.94 41.8 30.49 QF E S�'rA,••••01 aw I• WEAN W. wog ORD ,99 r '••. ��f�' NEB` . 191 ', Q ,A%r �6 � '•'� w ti E N' i Lf) LO LO Cq 4 Chi® J2MOCJ Z m Q '.A 0 'o O r m co CD CD CD ti co LO CD CD d0' M O N O O ~ O LO .............._................._....:............,.....................................................:......................................................,,.,..,,,.,.......„..,.,,:_......,,,... _................. N W ® _z W .................. ......... _ U :. . ......... ............. ................ ._._...._.. ...._..__._.._.... .... . ... ..... .;. __. . ....... LL O W w o LU ..............................................._.. _ ......... .--...... N 0 -A Lu 2i ... ...................... ......................... .......................... _._..._....._.....:..._.._:._.........V._._.........:..__...._-,.__ .. I 5 . V ................-..._................................. ..1..............................._..._........... ...........-..._............ .. /� __ .. ._ CL ,_.._ _ O ....... ..... .. ...................... ... ....._._................__....._.__......_.................._.. ......_......._......y......._..._-.......V•._......_._... : .. : i I O Co O U _._......_.__..._..._..._...-_._..... -. .._ .... - - ....:..7.... .......... ............;..........................:............................ ....:-........_....._:_........a.___...:......__.... . .... i ..... .......... ..... ^(� LO LL I , I :.............................................................................._............. . ... ...... ... ..._ ... ,. - _. ....._...._. _.......... ........................... Lo OCV UN_ _ ..... ............. _ ....:......,.. ................ fA (� w O 75 ca cM c CD O O O O O O O O CD "p C� OD LO CD LO oD LON LO O In °� C A a) U $ O D a- U O -Q *k �, O N 11 PaaH lalol F co Y 192 B.8 Well Drilling Logs and Pump Curves 193 rc�l��n u. venron, urming untractor -Ml MTAUGIi,. IDAI•IO RALPH DENTON J Telephone HEmlock 2-2969 DRILL PkECORD Diilledfor ..... C.I ..Q�...A-1N--FALLS..................................................................................... SHERNAN COUCH RICHARD 13OUR14 Drilledby.... ........... .. ............................__...........................................Helper ...................... .......... Water struck at....I 43...................._... ft.Stands at....134........................Mole started ....AUC3......16-Ee2. Completed ....1.962 Casing used 4.1...f.t.,..8ftl&ize ..Yp...tny-—V6-"QAWA........184...ft;j...5...i.Rjj......................... ..... Size From To Formation 0 8 topsoil and clay A 14 gray lava solid 14 16 brown lava loose 16 46 brown Iava soIid i 46 49 crevice loose on one side' 49 55 'brown Iava solid 55 62 brown lava hard 62 71 brown lava solid 71 77 brown lava broken 77 84 brown lava hard 84 88 brown lava loose 88 93 . brown lava solid 93 104 gray lava solid 104 108 gray lava loose 108 116 gray lava solid 116 128 brown lava solid 128 136 c l ray and boulders 136 172 red and gray lava cinders loose 172 181 broken lava, cinders and water talc 1811 192 red and gray lava fIrm 192 205 brown and gray lava solid 2-05 213 brown and gray lava hard 213 218 brown and gray cinders loose L. 218 252 brawn lava hard 252 288 gray basalt very hard >: 283 291 read and gray c i nders 291 318 brown lava firm 318 367 brown lava solid cracks and crevices 367 370- brown lava firm with some clay and talc 370 392 gray lava and clay seams 392 422 gray lava hard clay seams some water talc 422 437 red clay and boulders 437 455 brown and gray lava solid 455 473 gray shale 473 504 gray lava firm 504 510 brown lava 510 514 black lava firm 514 524 gray lava hard 524 533 gray lava clay ceams 533 547 tanclay rock and shale 547 568 gray lava solid 568 534 blue clap and boulders shale 584 593 brown sandstone hard 593 613 geay lava hard 613 630 brown and dray shale with sma! I broken rock 194 . -...... .•�. rre)1 rvo _County'I•wl11 r;•a I Is r Locate well in section Address Day i~1 Falls _ T(In ho JGIJ�� Ulf`( p� Driller Mark (Iray ITP11 T)ri11 ing NW 1/4 NE)/4 Address Ki mharl Filter Pliant ??ell Well location-7/4-1/4 Sec , T N/S, R E/W Size of drilled hole 1 n tt SW IA SE I/4 total depth of welF 568 f t. Give depth to standing water from the ground13016tt Water temp 59 oFahr. On "Pumping Test" delivery was1200 g.p.m. or cf.s.'Drawdown'was 40 feet. Size of pump and motor used to make test—l�� ha I a _ 3Q0- TT 'a ni pgp� Length of time of test 8 —hours minutes.;; If flowing well, give flow c.f.s. or,_.,_g.p.m, 'and of shut off pressure If flowing well, described control works (TYPE AND SIZE OF VALVE, ETC.) Water will be used for T411 i c±i.,l1a1 _Weight of casing per lineal Foot Thickness of casing 1 tt Casing material S - -1 (STEEL, CONCRETE, WOOD, ETC.) Diameter, length and location of casing._2Dtt t^tt Q to g t F11 (CASING 12"�IN.DIAMETER OR LESS. GIVE INSIDE DIAMETER; CASING OVER 12" IN DIAMETER. GIVE OUTSIDE DIAMETER) CASING RECORD t Diem. From To Length -Remarks—seals, , grouting, etc. Casing Feet Feet it Number and size of perforations _loca!ed feet to feet from ground Date of commencement of well —Dole of completion of well 9/13/61 195 From To Feet Feet J Type- of Material a Z ; o �? ■ 0 Top Gnil l a Qa /L Pr -- 84 r Gind lava—hraltpn.' 919 ?Is rrlzy 1 a3za T-T ::�.. •i.' . 127 ^r-,rl terra nrra G -2 P' n 1 n mod. rr R'n-)l a t.ra l-ar bPariiig''•'' nF) 171 PPri rinrlPrG ty :,.. 171 198 'Prnzm l aya 98 223 Red .Lava (wa-her l ') 7 , 223 L?73 Gray ba"i It Fars 2 3 233 T?pr1 lava, rater (I _ 20 33 r 7n5 P111f`l- l�y 901i'fj•:' s'' If more space is`.requtred u:• She•t No. 2 ' WELL DR}�J:,Y•4is:::'ti��:!.t.:..: . . I:LER'S STATEMENT ij' ?r' -fit h`►, '4 its. This well was drilled under my supervision and the* aboveUformction Is-fru• 'and correct to the bust of my know- ledga and belief. -SIgn7F it c ��4 Jones License No u Dated l �1 19 'r State Contractors License I`io. 2040 196 Y Well Driller�sg -rc r:ral We 1 Dr �w�2 Well Loco flonFi rem plant WELL LOG -- p O O eY qY From To Y� <i Feet Feet Type of. Material a . s . 3� r 40 e 47 Shale 34 563 0 ; a pflack lava fi-rm3 408— lava zLn8 418 C d ^ 4241 CI av i d a 4,11 . _ A ,141, 448 ovm lava ,1,-18 460 Grey -r a age Brown lava f i rM d^ Fl rr v basalt ver-,r firm a QT,,m clay P, r l- naVp zr l 1�- .529 .5 2 9, 539 ,t p 539 544 3-rey basalt fir 44 ('rev ?r. Z•71� 555 500 Clav and .ravel (t. 560 6 . 568 r. S 1 97 /95 � . / IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF 195. .= WATER RESOURCES I Office Use Only WELL W L DRILLERS REPORT Inspected by / ,/e I' #J Use Typewriter or Ballpoint Pen TWp Rge Sec (A W e59916 1/4 1/4 1/4 1. DRILLING PERMIT NO. '-�' -L'Op`� Other IDWR No. !_/_ � -'-�+y Q 11. WELL TESTS: Lat: Long: : ❑Pump ❑ Bailer ❑AIr 0 Flowing Artesian 2. OWNER: - YieldgaUmlrL Drawdown Pump tgLotrol Name a OD r Address City -t.t Sta Zp / Water Temp. �d; t) 0 Bottom hole tamp,�� 3. LOCATION OF WELL by legal description: Water Duality test or comments: Sketch map location must agree with written location. Depth first Water Encountered " 12. LITHOLOGIC LOG: (Describe repairs or abandonment) water Bore T'^rP• oto _ North❑ Or South 4ff' Da From To Remarks:Lithology,Water Quality 8 Temp6raturo Y N E Rge./— East F or West ❑ 71 Sec.J9— 1/4,5-!E—1/45& 1/4 / t7 ettoa parer �� . Got Y Lot Coutnty _7iirr r,0 s Long: / �nn r �Add ��6 - � lGiw at f�"l name of mad♦oi•Jnu to Road a L 7Tr^ City r C/r Lt. elk._ Sub.Name � ok, '7 4. USE: ❑ Domestic Municipal ❑Monitor 0 Irrigation U Thermal [J Injection ❑Other 5. TYPE OF WORK check all that apply (Replacement etc.) S / k� X New Well ❑ Modrty ❑ Abandonment J Other 6. DRILL METHOD r ❑Air Rotary V Cable ❑ Mud Rotary ❑ Other 7. SEALING PROCEDURES .K SEAUFILTER PACK AMOUNT METHOD Materiel From To sacks or Pounds o s Was drive shoe used?0Y A N Shoe Depths) Was drive shoe seal tested? ❑Y 1v1G How? 8. CASING/LINER: 7` Diameter From To cau a Materiel Casing Liner Welded Threaded I i /�" 7 )c ❑ )a U ❑ n ❑ ❑ r, ❑ n ❑ :2 Length of Headpipe Length of Tailpipe 9. PERFORATIONS/SCREENS p El Perforationsa — r7 E / :..,1 L� 9 '3.� r F p Screen�,S c n yp� ` ' o plated Depth 1 U (Measurable) m4r ": n AY 1 g to:Started Completed Casing Liner ❑ a w��rR��►ment '� 13. DRILLER'S CERTIFICATION ertif that all minimum well construction standards were complied with at C ❑ the time the rlg was removed. 10. STATIC WATER LEVEL OR ARTESIAN PRESSURE: Finn Name Finn Node -1�29 ft.below ground Artesian pressure_lb. Firm Official Depth flow encountered ft. Describe ac ass port or and Date control devices: fit "O Supervisor or Operator Date (Sign once H Firm OfWal&Operator) FORWARD WHITE COPY TO WATER RESOURCES 198 500r� f XLC, IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES X@s, Office Use Only WELL DRILLERS REPORT Inspected by Use Typewriter or Ballpoint Pen 5J�`� TWp Rge Sec 3 1/4 1/4 1/4 1. DRILLING PERMIT NO. --c - - 000 11. WELL TESTS: Lat: Long: Other IDWR No. LI Pump u Bailer i-,j Air rl Flowing Artesian 2. OWNER: Yield gaurnin. Drawdown Pumping Leval Time Name Address City slate—zip— Water Temp. Bottom hole temp. 3. LOCATION OF WELL by legal description: Water quality test or comments: Sketch map location muss agree with written location. Depth first Water Encountered N 12. LITHOLOGIC LOG: (Describe repairs or abandonment) water Bore Twp. North❑ or South� Dia From Remarks: do Temperature To Rarks:Llthology,Water Ouallty Temperature Y N Jb _ w e Rge._[_-7 East R or _ West 17 tf Sec. _, 114 S 1/4 SE 1/4 Gov't Lot County Tw ii`i�Ct1l.i""r23-4 Lat: Long: Address of Well Site city (oNe at ka4 nur�or road a oLnanc.to FloeO or lanErrulk) Lt. Blk. Sub.Name Cl9 r 4. USE: � ❑ Domestic ❑Municipal Q Monitor ❑Irrigation 0 X ❑Thermal ❑ Injection ❑Other G 5.TYPE OF WORK check all that apply (Replacement etc.) r X 0 New Well ❑ Modify ❑ Abandonment J Other IL 6. DRILL METHOD ❑Air Rotary ❑Cable ❑ Mud Rotary ❑ Other V.2,3WX 1 7. SEALING PROCEDURES r K' SFJWFILTER PACK AMOUNT METHOD 1C3 S1 O Material From To Sacke or Pounds v Was drive shoe used?n Y ❑N Shoe Depth(s) I F I \� `" Was drlve shoe seal tested? CY C_N How? '--' 8. CASING/LINER: — -olemeler From To Oau a Maredal Casing Uner Welded Threaded --Vff ❑ 0 ❑ 01 AD irtment of ''':i i�r ❑ U r u Length of Headpipe Length of Tailpipe 9. PERFORATIONS/SCREENS J"�!MdD IJ Perforations Method p Screens Screen Type mt3 o ai epth�� I (Measurable) Date:Started — ' y 7 Completed From To SIo[Slza Nurneer D'umrtrer MaleriN Casing L•ner ❑ ❑ 13. DRILLER'S CERTIFICATION a U I/We certify that all minimum well construction standards were complied with at ❑ C the time the rig was removed. Firm Name r ( Firm No 10. STATIC WATER LEVEL OR ARTESIAN PRESSURE; `—ft. �� below ground Artesian pressure Ib. Firm Official �l Date Depth flow encountered ft. Describe access port or and control devices:, Supervisor or Operator 7 (Sign o. a Firm Official 6 Operator) FORWARD WHITE COPY TO WATER RESOURCES 199 Form 238-7 S O GJ _"x (( ip 1 11/97 J. IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES OlficeUseOnry WELL DRILLER'S REPORT�Su '4 d` Inspectedby 1.WELL TAG NO. D O82 TWp Rge--Sec DRILLING PERMIT No. 47 - 99-5 - 0114 - 1 1/4 1/4 1/4 Other IDWR No. 47--08 10' 11• WELL TESTS: Lae Long; ❑Pump ❑ Bailer p Air ❑ Flowing Artcslan 2: OWNER: Yield gatJtnle. Deawdown Pumping L.vd Tlm. Name City of Twin Falls Address P.0 Box 1907 Gty_ Twin Falls State ID zip 83303 Water Temp. Bottom hob temp. 3. LOCATION OF WELL -by legal descrlption: Water Quality test or comments: Sketch map location must agree with written location. Depth first Water Encounter N 12. LITHOLOGIC LOG: (Describe repair* or abandonment) water Bore Twp._ 10 North❑ or South ® We. Front To Remarks: Llthology. Water Quality a Temperature y N w E Age. __�7 East ® a West ❑ 26 0 6 Topsoil x Sec. 29 1 SE 1/4 SW 1/4 SE 1/4 6 24 Gra lava X Gov't Lot CouATy 'I�rin Fa111s 24 60 Brown lava X Let Long: 19 60 108 Brown lava s X Address of Well Site 108 114 Brown ash x BIJY 7 1500' W Washington City Twin Falls 1 a broken lava<. •t�.aa na.+.or ro.0.5.�.v It Rd or tremvT X 3 18 Fir brown lava x Lt• Blk. Sub. Name 1 Soft brown lava & talc x MAgagi• Valley y Ranch 0 a la a x 4. USE: 2 lava x ❑Domestic CA Municipal ❑Monitor ❑Irrigation 2 2 own dstone Gavin x ❑Thermal ❑Injection ❑Other_ — ray lava x 5. TYPE OF WORK check all that apply (Replacement ett) B New Weli ❑ Modify ❑ Abandonment ❑ Other 6.DRILL METHOD ®Air Rotary ❑Cable ❑ Mud Rotary ❑Other 7. SEALING PROCEDURES SEALlFILTER PACK AMOUNT METHOD M.Ierl.l Froe To sac" of Pounds Bentonite Gel 0 60 53 S Pum ed Was drhro shoe used? ❑Y Z 'N Shoe Dapth(s) Was drive shoe seal tested? ❑ YM N How? 8. CASING/LINER: Dl.m.l.r From To GAO a Material Casing Liner welded Threaded 2011 +2 60 1137 Steel ®, ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Rep Length of Headplpe 2 ft. Length of Tailpipe V 9. PERFORATIONS/SCREENS •ter Resou�,- Perforations Medval Screens Screen Type _ Completed Depth 355 ft. (Measurable) Fron Date: Started 7-14-99 Completed 7-28-99 To Sbl Size Nume.f ID41.ela Material Cuing Liner ❑ ❑ 13. DRILLER'S CERTIFICATION ❑ ❑ Me certify that a1 minimum wel construction Standards were compiled with at ❑ ❑ the time the rig was removed. 10. STATIC WATER LEVEL OR ARTESIAN PRESSURE: Cony Name Elsing Drilling _Firm No 31 119 ft. below ground Artesian pressure lb. Firm Official Depth flow encountered ft. Describe access port or and Date 8__ _12�99 control devices: Driller or opera Date 8-12-99 (Sign ones i Frm Cadall Cp.r.wq FORWARD WHITE COPY TO WATER RESOURCES 200 �3e-7 ' IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES r Office Use Only f�ia, 9! WELL DRILLER'S REPO Inspected� Tspectedbye Sec ` ,e// # / Use Typewriter or Ballpoint Pon b p 9 (�(/ (( ( 1/4 1/4 1/4 1. DRILLING PERMIT NO. 47 - 97 -S - 0086 - 000 11. WELL TESTS: Lar. Long: Other IDWR No. 47-08406� ❑Pump ❑ Bailer ❑Alr ❑ Flowing Artesian 2. OWNER: Yield gW.lmin. Drawdown Pumping Level Time Name Twin Falls City of Address P.O. Box 1907 C,ry Twin Falls State ID Zlp 83303 Water Temp. Bottom hole temp. 3. LOCATION OF WELL by legal description: Water Ouallty test or comments: Sketch map location mW.agree with written location. Depth first Water Encountered N 12. LITHOLOGIC LOG: (Describe repairs or abandonment) Water sore From To Remarks:Lithol Twp. 1-0 _ North❑ or South @} Die. ogy,water duality a Tamperatun r N w E Rge. 17 East Z or West ❑ 19 0 32 To soil x sec. 14 114 SE 1/4 SE 114 32 50 Gray basalt x •0 re, x Gov't Lot Count,y Twin 'Eg�ls 15 50 60 Gray basalt x Lat: Long: 60 67 Brown basalt x S Address of Well Site 67 78 Fractured gray basalt, Kimberly Rd/3200 E Rd. City Twin Falls water talc x iOmu,wmn,moa.oaa.r?aWc.wRo,O alaMirark) 78 108 Grav basalt x Lt• Blk. Sub.Name 108 115 Fractured aray basalt, water talc x 4. USE: 115 139 Gray basalt x C Domestic X Municipal n Monitor _Irrigation 139 150 Red & brown ash x C Thermal ❑ Injection 0 Other 150 163 Gray basalt, gravel x S. TYPE OF WORK check all that apply (Replacement etc.) 1.63 176 Soft brown basalt, water IX New Well C Modify C Abandonment C Other talc x 6. DRILL METHOD 176 250 Fractured gray basalt x ' Air Rotary ❑Cable ❑ Mud Rotary ❑Other 250 505 Solid gray lava x 7.SEALING PROCEDURES SEAL/FILTER PACK AMOUNT METHOD Material From To 5acke or Pounds Bentonite 0 50 1 Slurry Cu.Yd. Pumped Was drive shoe used?u Y M N Shoe Depths) in Was drive shoe seal tested? rJY ®N How? S. CASING/LINER: Diameter From To Gauge Meterlal Casing Liner welded Threaded R 16" +3 50 375 Steel w ❑ a ❑ le artment o a er esou . ❑ 0 o Southern Region Length of Headpipe Length of Tallplpe n ' 9. PERFORATIONS/SCREENS C Perforations Method ' ❑ Screens Screen Type Completed Depth 505 ft. (Measuraole) Date:Started 6-16-97 —completed 6-19-97 From TO Slot Slze Number iDiameler Materbl Cae�ng Liner p ❑ 13. DRILLER'S CERTIFICATION ❑ I/We certify that all minimum well construction standards were complied with at -- ❑ the time the rig was removed. sing Drilling 10.STATIC WATER LEVEL OR ARTESIAN PRESSURE: Firm Name El Firm No. 31 � L , 61 ft.below ground Artesian pressure lb. Firm Official ui�ii,.-lca0 (�az_ r__Date 6-23-97 Depth flow encountered—ft. Describe access port or and control devices: Supervisor or Operator I f—HO Date 6-23-97 (Sign once ,,m D c `r FORWARD WHITE COPY TO WATER RESOURCES 201 Ccb k/�S -664 /i( �02 FO"" '� IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES t 1/97 Office Use Only WELL PRILLER'S REPORT Inspectedby D-0000035 95-7u01 TWp 1/4 R011G4 E— I-WELLTAGNO. DRILLING PERMIT N0. 47 _ 99. S. 0035 - 000 11. WELL TESTS: Lat. Other IDWR No. 47-08406 ❑Pump q Bailer —[]Air ❑ Flowing Artesian 2, OWNER: Southeast Municipal Yield al./pia. DraMdowe Pumping Lml Time Name City of Twin Falls Well #3 address P.O. Box 1907 city Twin Falls state ID ap 83301 Water Temp. Bottom hale temp. 3. LOCATION OF WELL by legal descrlptlon: Water Quality lest or comment, Sketch map location must agree with written location. Depth fird Water Encountw 12. LITHOLOOIC LOG: (Describe repairs or abandonment) water Bore Twp. From To^ 10 North❑ or South IB Dig. Remarks: Lllholop, Wale# Quality A Temperature tr N Or E Rge. 17 East ® or West ❑ 20' 0 8 To soi. Sec. 14 1/4 SE 114 SE t/4 8 12 and a x x x Gov't Lot CounTy 'Min Fa'�"l""A 12 34 Sand y clay Let Long: 34 6 Rrnkpn lava s ' Address of Wall Site 3200 E mi N of Kimberly Rdtty Twin Falls 15" 8 93 R ish brown token lava x Lt. Blk. Sub. Name li a —lava x 13 ed i rown lava x 4. USE: ❑Domestic ®Municipal ❑ x Monitor ❑Irrigation _ x ❑Thermal ❑Injection ❑Other S. TYPE OF WORK check ag that apply (Replacement etc.) x ® New Well ❑ Modify ❑ Abandonment ❑ Other 74 203 Broken black lava x 6.DRILL METHOD o wn lava x CRAlr Rotary ❑Cade ❑ Mud Rotary ❑omar H lava x 7. SEALING PROCEDURES SEAUFILTER PACK AMOUNT METHOD Malarial Frow Ta seen of Pounds Bentonite Gel 65 S Pumped _ D Was drive ehwe used? QY 3 N Shoo Dsplh(s) Was drive shoe seal tested? Cl Y3 N How? ,l C 8. CASING/LINER: D4meter From To Gau a Malarial Casing Liner Welded Thfanded E ACP1,Mart Ol`VB;et Iia;oCrces - 16" +1 62 375 Steel t7t ❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Length of Heedpipe Length of Tailpipe 9. PERFORATIONS/SCREENS Perforsdons Melted Screens Screen Type lot Size e: Started 3-30-99 Completed 4-1-99 mpleted Depth 365 ft. (Measurable) Da From To Blot Number Dhnetor Malarial Casing Liner ❑ ❑ 13. DRILLER'S CERTIFICATION ❑ ❑ VW/cw*that at minimum well construction standards wan complied❑ ❑ Cte time IN rig was removed. with at 10. STATIC WATER LEVEL OR ARTESIAN PRESSURE: Comparry Name Elsing Drilling Firm No. 31 62 ft. below ground Artesian pressure Ib. Firm 014dal Date 4-21-99 Depth flow encountered ft. Describe access port or and y� control devices: DrOa or pperafG� 4-21-99 (SIM ofa s%Fna FORWARD WHITE COPY TO WATER RESOURCES 202 PEUQMPSS /HYDRAULIC PERFORMANCE WARRANTY Bowl Performance Test PUMP: 24HXB Test No.: 7088844B6P GUARANTEED PER HYDRAULIC INSTITUTE STANDARDS AT CUSTOMER: ROBERTSON SUPPLY INC STAGES: 1 Shop Order: 7088844 RATED POINT ONLY AND IS CONTINGENT ON: I NO.1: 98836643 Serial No.: 7088844E 1.PROPER NPSH OR SUBMERGENCE AVAILABLE_ REMARKS: N NO.2: N/A Rated Flow: 7850.00 GPM 2.PROPER AND ADEQUATE FLOW TO PUMP SUCTION. P 3.CLEAR WATER FREE OF GAS,AIR.AND ABRASIVE E NO.3: N/A Rated Head: 60.00 FT MATTER BY: JASON TRIMMER L 4.IMPELLER WITH PROPER LATERAL ADJUSTMENT DIA.1: (1)014.1x15.45 Speed: 1180 RPM 5.TDH INCLUDES VELOCITY HEAD AT DISCHARGE REVIEWED: E DIA.2: N/A Spec.Gravity: 1.000 DATE: 4/2/2015 R DIA.3: N/A Test Tolerance: 1B Head Eff. -- - - -- -- --- -- - --- FT Rio --+- ---- 'sr:J1:ESSdQ,,_ - -- ------ -- ----------- --- -- -------------- ' ----- -'�1( I --- - EFFICIEMCY 130 80 ... ----- -- —------ -------------------_---------- - ------ ---------------------------- �, HEAD +K. 70 50 -- - - - --- - - ---------- - ----- _ _ --- -- 4-2- 50 40 - ..•. ------- ------------- - HP 30 30 -- --- - --------- - 200 10 20 - - - 150 POWER - 100 10 -- - - - --- ------ -------------- - - 50 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 Capacity: GPM Each Capacity Increment Equals: 100 GPM 203 PEERLESS PERFORMANCE TEST OF CENTRIFUGAL PUMP PUMP TEST DATA PUMP DATA TEST EQUIPMENT DATA ELEVATIONS Test Type: Bowl Performance Test Pump Type: Vertical Flow Line: 16 inch Discharge Gauge to Floor(In):47.88 Test Witness: Pump Model: 24HXB-1 STG,L6 Flow Meter Type: 16IN MAG Floor to Water(in): 16.00 Test No.: 7088844B6P Impeller 1 Number: 98836643.00 Discharge Gauge: ISOPSIG LP Discharge Height(in): N/A Test Date: 4/2/2015 Impeller 2 Number: N/A Suction Gauge: NONE NPSH Suction Height(in): N/A Tester:JASON TRIMMER Impeller 3 Number: N/A Speed sensor:Tachometer Kit,QC892-1 Test Z(in): 63.88 Test Standard: 1B Impeller 1 Dia.(in): 1-14.1 x 15.45 Test Column ID/L(in): 12/60.375 Shop Order No.: 7088844 Impeller 2 Dia.(in): N/A Line-Shaft`Tube Dia.(in): 1.5 LOSSES ADDED Serial No.: 7088844E Impeller 3 Dia.(in): N/A Suction Pipe Diameter N/A Additional Power Loss(HP): 0.00 Customer:ROBERTSON SUPPLY INC Impeller 1 Filing: Fig.4 to 0.01 Dynamometer Size/Load Cell: Small/750LBF LC Bowl Head Loss(FT): 0.00 Project Name.: N/A Impeller 2 Filing: N/A kW Meter: KWM480S at Flow(GPM): 0.00 Design Flow Rate(GPM): 7850.00 Impeller 3 Filing: N/A Test Motor HP-RPM:Job Design Head(FT):60.00 Imp. 1,2,3 Polish 50RA,N/A,N/A Atmospheric Pressure(in Hg): 29.04 REMARKS Design Speed: 1180 Lateral Setting(in): 0.000 Water Temperature ff): 63.10 Design Spec.Gravity SG: 1.00 Top Bowl PartNo.: 00 Specific Gravity SG: 1.00 Guaranteed Efficiency:83.00 Std.Bowl PartNo.:0.00 Vapor Pressure:0.285 Report Type: Bowl Performance Bowl Shaft Diameter(in): 1.9375 NPSHA:38.45 Power measured by: Dynamometer Bowl length(in): 0.0 Submergence(in): 70.00 TEST READINGS BOWL CHARACTERISTICS at RATEDSPEED Curve Flow Rate Discharge Q Pressure pD Suction Pressure Test Speed nT Dynamometer Pump Speed Flow Rate Q Number (GPM) p5(PSIg) (RPM) Force(Ibf) (RPM) (GPM) TDH(FT) Power(HP) Efficiency(%) 1 0.00 22.73 0.00 898 181.26 1180 0.00 99.79 93.60 0.00 1 969.46 22.73 0.00 897 231.74 1180 1275.32 100.27 119.96 26.91 1 1675.29 21.02 0.00 896 239.94 1180 2206.30 94.07 124.49 42.09 1 2493.74 17.64 0.00 896 223.46 1180 3284.17 81.38 115.93 58.20 1 3377.22 15.05 0.00 897 227.79 1180 4442.73 72.09 117.92 68.57 1 5123.49 13.67 0.00 896 270.73 1180 6747.46 70.29 140.48 85.23 1 5678.87 11.76 0.00 896 274.35 1180 7478.87 64.09 142.36 8S.00 1 5899.80 11.03 0.00 896 272.14 1180 7769.82 61.76 141.21 85.79 1 5954.43 10.63 0.00 896 272.41 1180 7841.77 60.34 141.35 84.51 1 6014.35 10.52 0.00 896 272.29 1180 7920.68 60.08 141.29 85.03 1 6234.33 9.69 0.00 896 272.37 1180 8210.39 57.37 141.33 84.14 1 6559.88 8.32 0.00 896 269.53 1180 8639.13 52.89 139.85 82.48 1 6858.48 7.21 0.00 896 267.02 1180 9032.37 49.39 138.55 81.29 204 PEERESS llliMD HYDRAULIC PERFORMANCE WARRANTY Bowl Performance Test PUMP: 24HXB Test No.: 7088844CIP GUARANTEED PER HYDRAULIC INSTITUTE STANDARDS AT CUSTOMER: RATED POINT ONLY AND IS R08ERTSON SUPPLY INC STAGES: 1 Shop Order: 7088844 CONTINGENT ON. t NO.1: 98836643 Serial No.: 7088844C I.PROPER NPSH OR SUBMERGENCE AVAILABLE. REMARKS: N 2 PROPER AND ADEQUATE FLOW TO PUMP SUCTION. p NO,2: N/A MATTER. Rated Flow: 7850.00 GPM 3.CLEAR WATER FREE OF GAS.AIR.AND ABRASIVE E NO,3: N/A Rated Head: 60.00 FT<•TDH TDHIMPELLER WITH PROPER LATERAL ADJUSTMENT BY: JASON TRIMMER L DIA.1 (1)O 14.1x15.45 Speed: 1180 RPM S. INCLUDES VELOCITY HEAD AT DISCHARGE REVIEWED: L DIA.2: N/A E Spec.Gravity: 1.000 DATE: 4/2/2015 R DIA.3: N/A Test Tolerance: 18 Head Eff. FT ---- ---------------------- EFFICIENCY130 80 P ......��`o ----- --- ---- 110 70 -- - --- ---- --------- -40 � f 90 60 -- -— - 70 50 ------- - ...--- - ------ --,.�—�_�_ HEAD , ---- -_ _ - --------- - y-1'-20/v' 50 40 -- --- --- 30 30 - -- - -- -- 200 10 20 - 150 POWER 10 - -- ----- ------- --- 10D 0 0 1000 2000 30DO 4000 5000 60DO 7000 8000 9000 10000 50 Capacity: GPM Each Capacity Increment Equals: 100 GPM 205 Q�EERLESS PERFORMANCE TEST OF CENTRIFUGAL PUMP TEST DATA PUMP DATA TEST EQUIPMENT DATA ELEVATIONS Test Type: Bowl Performance Test Pump Type:Vertical Flow Line: 16 inch Discharge Gauge to Floor(in):47.88 Test Witness: Pump Model: 24HXB-1 STG,L6 Flow Meter Type: 16IN MAG Floor to Water(in): 16.00 Test No.: 7088844C1P Impeller 1 Number: 988366,43.00 Discharge Gauge: 150PSIG LP Discharge Height(in): N/A Test Date:4/2/2015 Impeller 2 Number: N/A Suction Gauge: NONE NPSH Suction Height(in): N/A Tester:JASON TRIMMER Impeller 3 Number: N/A Speed sensor:Tachometer Kit,QC892-1 Test Z(in):63.88 Test Standard: 1B Impeller 1 Dia.(in): 1-14.1 x 15.45 Test Column ID/L(in): 12/60.375 Shop Order No.: 7088844 impeller 2 Dia.(in): N/A Line-Shaft(Tube Dia.(in): 1.5 LOSSES ADDED Serial No.: 7088844C Impeller 3 Dia.(in): N/A Suction Pipe Diameter N/A Additional Power Loss(HP): S j 0.00 Customer: ROBERTSON SUPPLY INC Impeller 1 Filing: Fig.4 to 0.01 Dynamometer Size/Load Cell:Small/750LBF LC Bowl Head Loss(FT): 0.00 Project Name.: N/A Impeller 2 Filing: N/A kW Meter: KWM480S at Flow(GPM): 0.00 Design Flow Rate(GPM): 7850.00 Impeller 3 Filing: N/A Test Motor HP-RPM:Job Design Head(FT):60.00 Imp.1,2,3 Polish SORA,N/A,N/A Atmospheric Pressure(in Hg): 29.03 REMARKS Design Speed: 1180 Lateral Setting(in): 0.000 Water Temperature(OF):63.10 Design Spec.Gravity SG: 1.00 Top Bowl PartNo.:0 0 Specific Gravity SG: 1.00 Guaranteed Efficiency:83.00 Std.Bowl PartNo.:0.00 Vapor Pressure:0.285 Report Type: Bowl Performance Bowl Shaft Diameter(in): 1.9375 NPSHA:38.60 Power measured by: Dynamometer Bowl length(in): 0.0 Submergence(in): 72.00 TEST READINGS BOWL CHARACTERISTICS at RATEDSPEED Curve Flow Rate isc arge Q Pressure pD Sucton Pressure Test Speed nT Dynamometer Pump Speed Flow Rate Q Number {GPM) p5(PSIg) (RPM) Force(lbf) (RPM) (GPM) TDH(FT) Power(HP) Efficiency(%) 1 0.00 23.45 0.00 899 189.72 1180 0.00 102.44 97.30 0.00 1 964.88 23.32 0.00 899 231.72 1180 1266.48 102.18 118.97 27.46 1 1705.58 21.62 0.00 898 243.17 1180 2241.19 96.07 125.15 43.43 1 2496.94 17.94 0.00 899 224.93 1180 3277.41 82.05 115.46 58.80 1 3413.46 15.38 0.00 899 228.45 1180 4480.41 73.15 117.28 70.55 1 5151.87 13.80 0.00 898 275.06 1180 6769.72 70.59 141.64 85.18 1 5562.28 12.34 0.00 898 277.02 1180 7309.02 65.82 142.65 85.14 1 5871.51 11.20 0.00 895 276.66 1180 7741.22 62.51 143.42 85.17 1 5989.71 10.83 0.00 896 276.61 1180 7888.23 61.22 143.08 85.21 1 6090.39 10.40 0.00 896 277.09 1180 8020.82 59.79 143.32 84.48 1 6269.52 9.78 0.00 901 276.97 1180 8210.91 57.21 141.68 83.70 1 6589.54 8.48 0.00 901 276.33 1180 8630.03 53.03 141.35 81.73 1 6904.18 7.20 1 0.00 896 271.89 1180 9092.56 49.50 1 140.62 80.81 1 6953.06 6.90 0.00 897 270.33 1180 9146.72 48.38 139.50 80.09 206 RffR[fSS RUMP Bowl Performance Test PUMP: 24HXB Test No.: 7088844A4P HYDRAULIC PERFORMANCE WARRANTY GUARANTEED PER HYDRAULIC INSTITUTE STANDARDS AT CUSTOMER: STAGES: 1 Shop Order: 7088844 RATED POINT ONLY AND IS ROBERTSON SUPPLY INC CONTINGENT ON: 1 NO.1: 98836643 Serial No.: 7088844A 1.PROPER NPSH OR SUBMERGENCE AVAILABLE. REMARKS: P NO.2: N/A Rated Flow: 7850.00 GPM 2.PROPER AND ADEQUATE FLOW TO PUMP SUCTION. 3.CLEAR WATER FREE OF GAS,AIR,AND ABRASIVE E NO.3: N/A Rated Head: 60.00 FT MATTER. BY: JASON TRIMMER L DIA.1: (1)@ 14.1x15.45 Speed: 1180 RPM 4.IMPELLER WITH PROPER LATERAL ADJUSTMENT 5.TDH INCLUDES VELOCITY HEAD AT DISCHARGE REVIEWED: E DIA.2: N/A Spec.Gravity: 1.000 DATE: 4/6/2015 R DIA.3: N/A Test Tolerance: 1B Head Eff. ---- --------- ESSI� � Fr Rio - ---------- ------------- --------------- -- ---- ---- EFFICIENCY �� G 130 80 - --- ------------- -=- - - -------------- - -- --- -=- - —-- ---- -- No.22977 ,k y L'-2 110 70 - -- --------------- -------------- --- ----- ------- ------ Gptr" +�T CHANT R�OF CA1 90 60 - ---- - ---------- ---------------- HEAD 70 50 -- ---------------- ----- —------ 50 40 - - ------ ------ -- ------ ---- HP 200 30 30 ------- ----=------ - -- - --------- I 150 10 20 - ------------------- - ------- POWER —� 10 _._ .._ _. -- ---- -- - ----------_----- -- ------- -- - ----------- ----- - 100 0 50 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 Capacity: GPM Each Capacity Increment Equals: 100 GPM 207 <PEEERLESS PERFORMANCE TEST OF CENTRIFUGAL PUMP MP TEST DATA PUMP DATA TEST EQUIPMENT DATA ELEVATIONS Test Type: Bowl Performance Test Pump Type:Vertical Flow Line: 16 inch Discharge Gauge to Floor(in): 47.88 Test Witness: Pump Model: 24HXB-1 STG,L6 Flow Meter Type: 16IN MAG Floor to Water(in): 6.25 Test No.: 7088844A4P Impeller 1 Number: 98836643.00 Discharge Gauge: 150PSIG LP Discharge Height(in): N/A Test Date: 4/6/2015 Impeller 2 Number: N/A Suction Gauge: NONE NPSH Suction Height(in): N/A Tester:JASON TRIMMER Impeller 3 Number: N/A Speed sensor:Tachometer Kit,QC892-1 Test Z(in): 54.13 Test Standard: 1B Impeller 1 Dia.(in): 1-14.1 x 15.45 Test Column ID/L(in): 12/60.375 Shop Order No.: 7088844 Impeller 2 Dia.(in): N/A Line-Shaft/Tube Dia.(in): 1.5 LOSSES ADDED Serial No.: 7088844A Impeller 3 Dia.(in): N/A Suction Pipe Diameter N/A Additional Power Loss(HP): 0.00 Customer: ROBERTSON SUPPLY INC Impeller 1 Filing: Fig.4 to 0.01 Dynamometer Size/Load Cell: Small/750LBF LC Bowl Head Loss(FT): 0.00 Project Name.: N/A Impeller 2 Filing: N/A kW Meter: KWM480S at Flow(GPM): 0.00 Design Flow Rate(GPM): 7850.00 Impeller 3 Filing: N/A Test Motor HP-RPM:Job Design Head(FT): 60.00 Imp.1,2,3 Polish 50RA,N/A,N/A Atmospheric Pressure(in Hg): 29.28 REMARKS Design Speed: 1180 Lateral Setting(in): 0.000 Water Temperature(°F): 62.82 Design Spec.Gravity SG: 1.00 Top Bowl PartNo.: 00 Specific Gravity SG: 1.00 Guaranteed Efficiency: 83.00 Std.Bowl PartNo.: 0.00 Vapor Pressure: 0.283 Report Type: Bowl Performance Bowl Shaft Diameter(in): 1.9375 NPSHA: 38.89 Power measured by: Dynamometer Bowl length(in): 0.0 Submergence(in): 72.00 TEST READINGS BOWL CHARACTERISTICS at RATEDSPEED Curve Flow Rate Q Discharge Suction Pressure Test Speed nT Dynamometer Pump Speed Flow Rate Q Number (GPM) Pressure pD PS(PSIg) (RPM) Force(lbf) (RPM) (GPM) TDH(FT) Power(HP) Efficiency(%) 1 0.00 23.15 0.00 898 191.16 1180 0.00 100.08 98.04 0.00 1 661.50 23.04 0.00 897 221.03 1180 870.20 99.96 113.73 19.31 1 1705.27 21.42 0.00 897 244.64 1180 2243.27 94.08 125.96 42.30 1 2356.27 18.44 0.00 897 224.23 1180 3099.66 82.84 115.39 56.18 1 3495.00 15.08 0.00 897 228.20 1180 4597.66 71.00 117.44 70.17 1 5442.88 13.02 0.00 896 275.01 1180 7168.08 67.09 142.01 85.49 1 5830.56 11.48 0.00 896 275.24 1180 7678.63 61.99 142.13 84.55 1 5943.98 11.06 0.00 896 276AS 1180 7828.00 60.61 142.76 83.91 1 6016.68 10.86 0.00 896 275.65 1180 7923.75 60.01 142.34 84.33 1 6436.49 9.01 0.00 897 273.20 1180 8467.18 53.74 140.76 81.60 1 6872.38 7.24 0.00 897 270.58 1180 9040.59 48.04 139.40 78.65 208 Rffp[fSS PUMP HYDRAULIC PERFORMANCE WARRANTY Bowl Performance Test PUMP: 24HXB Test No.: 7088844D1P GUARANTEED PER HYDRAULIC INSTITUTE STANDARDS AT CUSTOMER: ROBERTSON SUPPLY INC STAGES: 1 Shop Order: 7088844 RATED POINT ONLY AND IS CONTINGENT ON: i NO.1: 98836643 Serial No.: 7088844D 1.PROPER NPSH OR SUBMERGENCE AVAILABLE. REMARKS: M NO.2: N/A Rated Flow: 7850.00 GPM 2.PROPER AND ADEQUATE FLOW TO PUMP SUCTION. P 3.CLEAR WATER FREE OF GAS,AIR,AND ABRASIVE E NO.3: N/A Rated Head: 60.00 FT HAMPER' 1 BY: JASON TRIMMER L DIA. : (1)@ 14.1x15.45 S 4.IMPELLER WITH PROPER LATERAL ADJUSTMENT peed: 1180 RPM 5.TDH INCLUDES VELOCITY HEAD AT DISCHARGE REVIEWED: a DIA.2: N/A Spec.Gravity: 1.000 DATE: 4/6/2015 R DIA.3: N/A Test Tolerance: 1B Head Eff. FT % ® ►U R ( -\ 1 �y --- --- —- -- -- —-- -- f EFFICIENCY C19 i 130 80 --- - -------- - -- --- ---J- -----� --1 — - - -- �'I No.23977, --- - Sj�FCHAN\GA t 90 60 — - --------- — _. . '9 OF CAI HEAD 70 50 - ----------------- - 50 40 ------ ---------- ---- --- HP 30 30 - -- ------ -- ----=------------ J- - ------ ---- -=---- 200 10 20 - - . : POWER: ; 10 - -- -- --- --- - -- - - __ -------- --- 10 I p __ 50 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 Capacity: GPM Each Capacity Increment Equals: 100 GPM 209 <P�EERLVSS PERFORMANCE TEST OF CENTRIFUGAL PUMP TEST DATA PUMP DATA TEST EQUIPMENT DATA ELEVATIONS Test Type: Bowl Performance Test Pump Type: Vertical Flow Line: 16 inch Discharge Gauge to Floor(in): 47.88 Test Witness: Pump Model: 24HXB-1 STG,L6 Flow Meter Type: 16IN MAG Floor to Water(in): 6.25 Test No.: 7088844D1P Impeller 1 Number: 98836643.00 Discharge Gauge: 15OPSIG LP Discharge Height(in): N/A Test Date: 4/6/2015 Impeller 2 Number: N/A Suction Gauge: NONE NPSH Suction Height(in): N/A Tester:JASON TRIMMER Impeller 3 Number: N/A Speed sensor:Tachometer Kit,QC892-1 Test Z(in): 54.13 Test Standard: 1B Impeller 1 Dia.(in): 1-14.1 x 15.45 Test Column ID/L(in): 12/60.375 Shop Order No.: 7088844 Impeller 2 Dia.(in): N/A Line-Shaft/Tube Dia.(in): 1.5 LOSSES ADDED Serial No.: 7088844D Impeller 3 Dia.(in): N/A Suction Pipe Diameter N/A Additional Power Loss(HP): 0.00 Customer: ROBERTSON SUPPLY INC Impeller 1 Filing: Fig.4 to 0.01 Dynamometer Size/Load Cell: Small/750LBF LC Bowl Head Loss(FT): 0.00 Project Name.: N/A Impeller 2 Filing: N/A kW Meter: KWM480S at Flow(GPM): 0.00 Design Flow Rate(GPM): 7850.00 Impeller 3 Filing: N/A Test Motor HP-RPM:Job Design Head(FT): 60.00 Imp. 1,2,3 Polish SORA,N/A,N/A Atmospheric Pressure(in Hg): 29.29 REMARKS Design Speed: 1180 Lateral Setting(in): 0.000 Water Temperature ff): 62.81 Design Spec.Gravity SG: 1.00 Tap Bowl PartNo.: 00 Specific Gravity SG: 1.00 Guaranteed Efficiency: 83.00 Std.Bowl PartNo.: 0.00 Vapor Pressure: 0.283 Report Type: Bowl Performance Bowl Shaft Diameter(in): 1.9375 NPSHA: 38.90 Power measured by: Dynamometer Bowl length(in): 0.0 Submergence(in): 72.00 TEST READINGS BOWL CHARACTERISTICS at RATEDSPEED Curve Flow Rate Q Discharge Suction Pressure Test Speed nT Dynamometer Pump Speed Flow Rate Q o ) Number (GPM) Pressure pD PS(PSIg) (RPM) Force(lbo (RPM) (GPM) TDH(FT) Power(HP) Efficiency(/o 1 0.00 22.86 0.00 897 179.02 1180 0.00 99.12 91.96 0.00 1 955.81 22.70 0.00 897 226.94 1180 1257.36 98.74 116.79 26.84 1 1680.95 21.03 0.00 896 236.80 1180 2213.75 92.73 122.17 42.42 1 2476.57 17.75 0.00 897 218.46 1180 3257.91 80.22 112.40 58.70 1 3408.09 14.98 0.00 897 223.84 1180 4483.33 70.48 115.19 69.25 1 5133.47 13.63 0.00 896 266.54 1180 6760.60 68.75 137.61 85.26 1 5538.39 12.23 0.00 896 269.03 1180 7293.87 64.17 138.90 85.06 1 5784.97 11.28 0.00 896 269.93 1180 7618.59 61.04 139.38 84.24 1 5948.54 10.66 0.00 896 268.64 1180 7834.01 59.02 138.70 84.15 1 6197.90 9.66 0.00 896 268.56 1180 8162.42 55.74 138.67 82.83 1 6390.23 8.84 0.00 896 266.33 1180 8415.71 53.05 137.50 81.96 1 6901.06 6.90 0.00 896 261.52 1180 9088.45 46.91 135.01 79.72 210 CONSTANTTHRUST 1 ■/■nn■n ■//E/■■r'/■r■r■/MI■■/MI■H//■/EMI■■■MI■/■■■■■■O!MI■/E■r/■■■■■/■■t■t■■/t/■//1/■■■■■��rw■■■ IMIanN/■nN■r MI■■■■■■/■N■■n ■n■E■nr■////N■/■oN■MI■■n■■rE■■■■N■■EEE/N■/Ew■■Ns,�r■■■E■r 1�■■■■■■■■//0■■/■/■■■■■//nl� ■w■■/rrr/■■ 1■■Nr/ En>tr■■■■■/■■n/niiiiii ■■■■■w■■■■■■■■/■1, .- • //A■■■■//■■■■■■/■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ r/r■/0■//■■■■/■■■■/■■■■■r/■N/■■� an ■!ro■/r//■■■■Masor/■r/■■/■/!■r■■■■■■■=ii:::::rn■/r■r/■■//■■■..-u■■■/t■•- �./■■■■on w■■■//■ /■//fon rw■■r■wwww■■■■■r�/■w //!/■MIN■■■■■ ■■■■:■�■■■■■■■■ mono ■■■■■■w■■w■w■■■Ie!\��\ • air NOO/■rE■/■Eson■MI///■MI/MIFF/r/■ ■■■■■■C:1:N �:.=i.._ !q■■//////■■/■/■■■■■■■N■■MIN ■■■w■E■■■■/i■■■■■■■■■■■■■!:•■■■■■■■■■ Y■f7■NA■.:r+■■■■■■w■■■■■Yon ,. /■w■■rwr■Grp■�%\%��%%��i��riY%ii■-■■w■■ • ■■/■w■�s rw■ 1 rL7u■s/■ir.■:ter■■w■H�l�r■ ..��■■■rw■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■wr■■■RON ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■w■■.■■■■■■■■■■ //!glNENn/r■i--;v �w-- ■r/N■r■/■r..■■e77■■■■w■■■■■w■■■■■■■r■■■/■■wa NOR ■■■■■■■■■/ ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ww■■■■■iirw■■.�■■0■0■��..�_ .r��• � :i■■..:_. �■w■ww■■w■wwww■■■■■ r■■■w■ww■■w■w/■■■/w■■■■/■■■■■///■■ �- �.- rplp-z■■■� \��d■i:ll■■■■w■■■■■w■■■■ ■p■!■■■■■■■■■■■N■■■■■■■■w■■■■■■■G�■G�■i�!`■■wp��.w■■■.:�� - ■ ■w■e..•■w■■w■w■■■ ■■■■/■■■■■■■■■■■■ was■w■■■w■■■w■■■■w■■■■■www■■�riil■■.• -_.■w•�.:•rw«�1■■■■w■■■■■ ' ---..fff.fR.fRrf.ffrffR.RRRni RfRRfff..fffRr.fR.f.f......fR.f-�;ds■\:'■=,/■■'�'•1�■�+\■■ ■■//!■■■//■■■■■■■■■■ ■w/■■■■■n■/■■MIMEN ■■rN■■■ .■■��1■w i■w■■-:.:�G■■.■.::�■■■ N w■tam ■N■��■■�■■■■ ■■■w ■�■■��■■/-i■■■�■■■■■■■ ....:■■■■�■■1�■1�.�■■:'� ON=I�C ' • .........■ir■wwwwww�iiw■:■ • .............. .�..��w�w ��.■/1■■!■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■N■■■■■■■■r■■ ■ ■■■■■ ■■ww■■■■■w■ _ ■■ww�ir ■■ ■ ■ ■rNr■■/E■■■N■■■■w■■■■N ■ ■/■■ �e=/■/�■■■■■■■■■EE/■■■/r■■N■■oao■■■w■■■nw ■■■■■■w■■■■■■■■■■ LST is■w■■w■■...............=.C..... ■ww ......:::::::::: :: : :: ::::::::: To nnaA nGa PER MINUM sM /n■■■/■■w■■■/■■■■/■■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■/En■■■r■■N■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■w■■■w■■/w■■■■■ ■n■■■■■■■n■■■■■■■_■■■_ ■■■■=■■■■1�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/■■■■■■■■■ ■■■■ • ■...w.w' :C��■ 386e��a...��...w.._�:.■t.:GGG: ......___�....... ■ C■.■..■. ■.. �iG■■r■■■■■w■w .■■N■ww■i■■■....■ .. tas3■■ ■/■■■/■■� �_•!G ■fiG�.■w■tiiigr�l�C■■.r- ■■www�G■■■rr■w■■ / ■.. ---- --_ ..e■aoaQa"�89BIA�01� ■■..._ ..■.---...■■....: ■■/�-rw■rii0.00.■ �•-•`.■■■�G�r.��■E:G■■MIN■■■■■ ■■■/■■r/■■r■■■■■■ ■■■■■l:s.002M Y111a�1111U11GiGOA all 0Aa0:a00'Mli��.� . .��._��G...■.■.... .t■■/r■t.■w■■.... area■■/r!■■ENEIiGIi�■■■ mil G -.■■w■r:G■■■■ ■■■■■wr■■■■w■■■■rl■wwww■w■wwwww■■■w■■■ • • aail� ■■■■'■■:: ' : 0a::: ■ ■ ■■■■■■■■a//■/■■■■■//■■■t■■1■■■■■tN■N■■■■/■■■EN■ a::..33.�.3.....3393 9 paa9a 8�33:/..�..�:r=��■'■a MEN...■.■1■■rESHumN■...■■... ..■. ■. ' . . 3MI■■E■■EE■1■■MINE■■■■■■■■■■■/■E■ ■�■■■■■■!N■■■■■■■■■■■■w■■lrNE■■ ■/■■ ■w■■■■■■■■■■■w■■■■MI■■■■■■w■1■■■■■■w■■■■■■■■■■■■■ /:/ ■r/li''iUf N/rN r� ■■ ■■■■■/■■E■E/■■■■�E■!■■■■■Nt,,■■■wwwww■■w■■w■■■■■■ ia�.:......:.:a::::�=�a:: .�� ::aa -a ::...Ei......../„e.,■...■., E:/■■■/■/■r■■M■NN■■E■■■N■■■■■■■■■■/■■■■rEN■■■■ _ U AOrrAOCS MUL"pLy H:FT JOhnSton .. Glendora, • 91740 FAIRBANKS, MORSE & CO. v, cu v -/Pump & Hydroulk Division :. TURBINE PUMP FIELD PERFORMANCE �;;> ;••• �... ;. 1:: .. .... ... :�:'' is .I: ..... 00 !. , J :.' I I ~ ' :i' .. : ...l. �• t :I - .. - - - • 7. —71 1: I, — 1r::.. — .. 3 - I: . .. _ :t - -- !__ _ :.: TS I } -:�::' X. I' r~ . fir' o «s,r.� _ a U. S. 3ALLONS PER MINUTE fl.o 'wad I. "waw000d for rho r1 of a.nif me — +waffawon eppmalm-alm. r,. fllD CUSTOMER: E--5C!Z/7YIiaA—IJQ.P--, _rw N ALLi 7' IFORMANCE Aeaw ..hmis allowenco 44 for ky. drowk oad «oiaafaw 60 In now cofwon• &half - and w b w « 016ew Ipwm od abow. � STAGE .f� FIGURE ai — I2+ CoP A'- bad o amu aacy owrowroac on cow. OPER9 . � .+ of RPM WITH 2 Sb FK.;T wm ~ �� rWAtg OF�Z X/ COLUMN AND SHAFT. s .. . d.«, fnoai c►na .or clod ..hr of • _L.ca_ D IS ARG'' umpampaw of aw to oac d U "or"" F. DRAWN BY. —..-J�t .. . ._ _ DATIc FORM NO.AMX 100.39 212 I I I III �ry • � ` u III �ul • I�lr II III oil . . � ! Hill- Head � fulr m I II u ul IIII I u u l II I I I I Illlli ullfuitillillluuliuullllulll sl! �falii ilk , _ ulll i I lu I Ill1llllllllftulli!! pac ty Curveu 1ltl��ullf�ltflsfs �� Illlllll!!!Illllllulll �—� � �� . �' I� �lltlf Ilulllill'.Ifllull . uliilll�lltl� wig �n I �. Is s lifs,11;6fs3.t:sfp ttt� "•u lUUlu lU s�llrr,...._II...Nrl�ss�l:�,: I!ll� filullll� `I1I r _ quislIItltltlttut�; n • •••7iItillHiii:i��I f�SieA:;c:gjligicI iti1i.�I lIIu�Il�itiltap�Ir,N�sun9.1 I:�ssrass:aa�.al:.`� Illllll!lfiffflfffit=f6fff ififff#iffff!•I�! . ullllllul��i�f uufu�lfl�l�l I • I ulfll!(111lf�lf!��!�� 1!� �� ~� u1udlliK101[ADuan�l�fl I OWN��4�[fllll� Ill ttl�f�ilf�l�f � ' fitIIu111111�1 . .. ,► . ,�a I�uI�(}Ifll�� MIN PERFORNLANCE PER STAGE VERTICAL TURBINE M • c • . Size • CURVE data m•I.■■■■W Y OirOtl/rtW anaOMOr00■artr tat■■tlrr dltr■W■■Ytl MINK■1 1 sW's1i.aKN dE��aWarWMalaMYatsilaYlame■I..E anER■.aM ols arOYOr1Y■■tlalNtltr■tr■atOaala!1■KNEEN! � •1 _v>,rW■EEWat/■t■rt.aNEdWtfarOaYa■®SO"vaorm■tt.� t.tL 1 QWO W■f1�W■.alYsa.MMr■■■■ffalWisWtEIrW1■YE■aWYaaM YalQmm 1 1 .Yt■M■171f.1W W1f W r■rrt///1WNINYra■.ME ==1■�I.Y■tlfdattt�.l ut■1 _ Qr■Oa■►=t®aaa taIN■ta■trttdt.a■.taININa■av WlNt.dplraa■tf QY m■t v��■®la YaEaatlM.W.YOt oYKlaMalOKO t�s■Y 01■mM1tQ�'amM=Ktlta■ta7INtrOt■m•■t■>a ttYl.srt®tm■ttt�taW - Y.Y.�r1■OY.��Wr■Y■■l alOsaOt MYKrWarl lrm KtlW■ui1.001■Wltr ■■W■ W■1 W\d AN■AV thatOYNYSMtl■raa■tfW.aa OWES.■■■Oail■a',tIN■W Y/��rfr��y 1 �MittW u1♦�alitsll\trio W YaassitlMatME W■■K.WOK Wtm msMds/aal ail■as rr EEINMW a■tr ■atilltYWa��tttW ttti/tlaY/IN■■■im MttEl.INo i�YS■EO attl a■OO tSatl■tttl Otti ■rfrluY��t�■A•�Y��aa_��rrlaSamoaaat urn tMSO tasZltatWKafO♦t1110 tts suW.INW! MSOra■alYE1�Ys.OtrttrY.stalllrr/�a■f�aOWWOaa/aa■WOaWMtN■■tl,WYm WSEWIta■SrrwvtaarrtA�rt/l■taYI /t7�ltam Yd■� a■i®Wr®Wvam Wi■E■W YWap►Wrllalrt�Mir YY■ 1 .V� WMYMWt■Yta WasMKa.WEmYMmM►�arsIN.tOMa..r�� Yda■OW m■1WarSQaI WY■llit■Yd S M ESs1EYYSW■ W dt■MltrrltM�f■ �■ a�Ytia■.OWWaa/tlW/tWa.oaWa■a ■YtMYar■atrlHMWf■IO��M/rtt■MYYt■/��6�■L1 oaarS■W aSM/ta■1. WIOQ wY YO■QIOOQI/ill■tMlrarfr�VMEMYa1MI.a/,wM►�_ : / �MYam"E1 taYWlaM No W Yt1M■Sta ■O■Y■tEaYYEERERt■■tO1S�aOp►.tlWIW.�. J iaYMltrlWlt.i■rN.YYWYW 1 -■WraraW Masa M MrrOaMrrikeme /iMarM•�a Ems :- �ErW.WeWa.aI W■dM■WtW■vil■ - stsssrslYYssrOratrarlrstsssMEOMOWK.—_ rYO■aWr� �tltr■QI normal MWErsssY OWMSsIr.Y■■■SlsaarrsaMan a sommMOrE►--•p��raMYq�A`■ ItlaamEYslrMfaa arasa QtIMQYsalEOs■■Orlsrfsrasfsasafl�lssy��a�-a tOISM�WIar®■rW■MMMa wYKaY■■WltE1S W.■■■■Yat"Man aWaL WW1■Y.e•.`i■WIO■KSa.tO.K■aaSNtMOYY QMMMra=EassOa■sMf■afl.alsl.arrow aaMlr m�rV�/\araN■■W1aslKWlydlWl■MftraMm ■Wl.■■■WYKs.t■■K■■■WrSWM■■l Ott■W■W■■►_A.KK■■W/' .•V�ItY►•Mam .... urt■adW.■tt■■pi/ Ystau Wlrsl■■.SrSlOiafaO.sttrrK W■SmMKESW v.-�rMrs.rsr.'arINla■dMdllrtlEROl■■■wa YMi11■1sOOR = rYrOS■■Er MEMtlas■■Y■rrKYKtsWOMstI =_r\�r■apr►NaYatataa■■W Y W■Wr■r wE==■W■Yttt■■Y1■/YtiM.1tS/YW■W .INMt\1sY&OEM tta mYtYa YrY■INra �- WYamatK■NOWSREOtt■/aatWEarar.KwE`L an maim sdtaa■Wm atvt/ta KEOau■/./OlsarllM■tOrssOlM1■.1tstINOssSlltMu■ssQ.■OW■O■\.Iltln afYlaWt■WNNHYW • ms■■■■KINK.sI■tK■.WtWSMs/rOEIOER....s/■t■.rE■WEa■s OOsdra�7s.�• KWKY QYaOOaWtMEMO OsNYKY■. NRSM■atr■■t■■■at■■■raYa■■sMEWMt1daWa\�lrimMtlm Etta ma mmatNa Wr.tiEt■S.MWSERt■■WtlYWtttt.YW YY■■tW KaKI■YO■■i0' �t>itttt�tittt■�tttitiKEt MW■IrE■W■aOsat■/OO.■■■.sE/1IN■■.mm■■.OamaKWaW MMMEOIa�ma.e■aMlW■W.a dKERaYt OtKO/M.Y/Walt■/■aE■■OYSIYa■W■Kite/t.1K.■.M /atWYWmYYI�NtY■a■a MYtsSs■■OKa■■Y■K■Y.t■.t■r■NOW■W■/■.t.N.1t.WalalOW Wart►MW1tMmMa■tYYM■t■■ttallt _alad.aINWQ■tWMr■attK.tKYWIN■aW..■ttttaWNW■.Wa WNW1■■■/rM■/a..1.ESY.YEasWSISER■Wtl K■MtiW rasaYstrsW■■rM'OsaasOYlittOYW YKaESSiMMlar.alr®■ERY dSiK ME an �NNN�NN�■NNN 0/NNNNNNNNNi WWEE■aa�■OMUM n aE0—.. �Kta■■ariK t��Y�at Mpi Ya■mt■iK Y1./�WY Qlrs■■MSMrsslMOliW sflrs/rrrsY■NrOI■lYa■SOardts YOSIWWMYOSIa mt■War■, WYSIN1tM a■Y■■1Wt E1.Ot.K■IIOMa■■rlM.■SEN E.tl Was YrOK®fOrS Y.NQO ammi W■tta WYQrWirERO ar r■KOas■O■KrMNtMIN.sasH EYWOsNaa■1iWK■tl0 Otto KINSSIO MW/.WSMttt00�at0 0 WOi�tKENO tttaa KINatttat.INttl ■atWOW■.NW Ess■■Wa.rf.a1■t■■■..■O.■/■■W.aW■■aE■KSW 1a■S■tWYNm YINMr■aOKaa Yta Ea.l■m■■t■K■tK W t■t..r■■tl.■ONEttt..W W SE.tI W N.mtott■■NaM WaW®■YIINW MYYK■W trm a1W■l■MER W■lEM■lKr■r1r.MMrll■■llttrM.lrWl.lrWtrttrQoo W da■K■■ofis mrt.ltWSYE.Mam KErWK W■rasa W■KtrY■Y.Y tW tt■YY■Wtr.tW mtl.rtaOtrt MiY■ttm WOR■Ya EROI YaN.YY �Oa■Yr■mmatl1OWaYslttlmattlaatOOMaIO■YOKOrMdta MSovtattM 460 ■■WSaYaSEEM W smKN�s1Y.s■NNNNstrOHENNKNNNNN.NNNtNN■NNN�N.Ns WEWt.NNANERaNNNnm■ffSt/E■iOW■SOS■O KEENER EMa W QMINSKWt■.NYS t.■■I.a.t.tl■sM1rM■■lrrssWMNOM.ESM IW W W.sstlrs KKMWS M■m WY.tYK 1 Wti KEia W.l■mt W rS W ER.OMYEM■Y W.sEt101■W!W OOO.aIf Yrtl/.INa.mW®KW■YttltERan QaKMaOtaasYlaYras W W at.tlW Ea■M■a..SWrasa000.ltlMa WNW■1®mtIN at0■INaMa1a ouiaW■■Y/.■Ow■ERs■t.■rM.trtltaO.■■Yra.lr11a0OslEOMtltl Yal■i/a■Warts./OYKM■■stl■aa■ aa■rYrsHlssMaltERrtumNtrrNNrfsasNNr■tlsass.srisllstNNE REM.t■NNWYNEINNN:- :MV aEttlitii.Np tENNNNifNNNNNN>:NNN■■NNNNNNNNNN�NNNNENROON■ERrWM.ErmastSOsWWaaaO■aa.atlKrW - SaO1Y■Y.O■.s1■l■MrE■t Yttr ERtaaOMlM■/s wsl Or- mlda■daOtfWllsaa QE■sOYssEW.MSE■E■El■■ c=EmssWHMMrWrot OWIKa°� Y■7■WOEs.v■dYtltN/r.Wa u■Y a/11 Wrlr■ERM W Y/tMarl■WOSEt--rt1W■■M1lraMaiM OERl■NNNIS■drstaa♦t:.E EmraERmatE■ .iMrl W aim■t W..MrQtS WYstlOERaMMM OSW Ym rmr YE■/prlr.ta■ saWSrQsrsratmaYtlrKO■EERKEEMENER MOr1®Oassl.■rMa000MaW aasE��rammataa YMERaSOs/Y■HtO■tOMOt■1QW.tMOa.a.r/aal.WaWWWWER■.■■mWaa■ttseNW WMa■aEa Od p 1 a/EOWSMM..WEOS■YWaWrtl■tltllEtt..Kira Mrl.rW.sYWaWOS'aKlda a.ESa■1■EMtdKOsa • W Yr10■Yr■trrtrrl..rM SMs■MafOa.s■m1W aNMYa■■NO alatta♦saal__aH aw "a "a" BONNErrOsaraslrM■WMrtlWir■1Er.mW.iataOrWt.slKSrOMtIrER •►�WaK■maEm"a "aOIW.rda■ERN■Eaawmmu !.Oastl.iaMstmtEO.r.M.tlma Was■■■Sl��as Y■K■Wr■lsK■■sOlstlMaOYat■sa�lmaO.artstl/.=1M■m■■@tK Wldld .lsllH.O"tom'�OOaW■1Slt■■.O■OINK■aWWasas MASON ssSEs■W■am Y.M■E®.WSY■d • "mum" MASON �taYYaarlalp/1 tml■ERY.lsElraOaY■K■W WYMEERYOYY■Wa■NEIt aMINrsEW 0711f�- �� Yf■1/.■sO Ql.saQMast■rssMWa.rINrWr.WMltr.r0■M MYOs�_L M.lE0a0 Q•HmWls/.WISOOMERYm o O■SY■EEsa■UN:KOsrrrta■..a■sttMmaaall. Of•IfWa E.m.= KmssSstn■■M ::0= Y'aM■■.SrW■..sWK■KsaWsrrl■OOrrSoo■lrlvfs..WW\ta� Ir■mH■ERW■m■Mil■■tWEI■EatE■WO .��YY.Y/■EtYER■t.YWY.aOY■E.saa.WYtttit.r.�fYdOatlMIO MORE am Yra • ama.■..fats Kt OrstlaWINOrss�tatOtt■Milt a a W.OaammaEWWd®EWmmN ma QOEWIYNWY■ttN.t.//Et■■WXmwt smfrERal Samoa KNM..Wtaul■■W WWl■Y/■W■W.S■■■.■■■1 asltrMM.r.M.trMNaaa W asrrlYMMr sal■aslrlrMK■Ms1MM1rYMEOrr/■Wrf■rdsitrisYrr W■IIESY Wa ftom WKW Wt■tWESN■.a.Y■/O■.WW■Y■t■EtSO/atr E.tt/■MaOM>WY W■■■m■mama _rtt Wi■�W W IYaE■MWYYW itY_W YWa■■■lEt WY®■tom-Y11EE1m�W� Wt�1taO Yai sunUo/rrrE�NrrK■slY.f./a.WUEr■--m■.r■EE:rdj.aa®.ars.W/Kl®NOOasalsrdlt rlEOSEaElasa SOMO■E" aMEt M■EMEYY.OK■■O..tt■■aYWr■a■aOmtMtK■t OtY■/.YdtY WK■t1W aKWYrma QtlrYMMratY.ERW..t■�.oH .■WYYWa■Mm mY.aO.rNt ■WaM■t1ttarYWrlatt.N■YY■dtl.YalO■MvWKMruO■M■t■■o/M■■WrWYsYs.WvOWmmtta.0 EWWYvYMERHMYrm■rW.WaYH WN..r1saaWEa OiO■SlWMWO■■aKalMu■QWKWsWatlt1M—O-aN Wro tlM EEMKW■ mW W ■r A tfaEWuMm=NEYMs■ YO .Or1 Y ■msY■�N ■■aEROmN YSERssrrsfs.OI ERW OnWO:YW.atK.a■OmaWmYWdpYrrdptWrd.t WYr ■ Wt■a■WtMY.■a■■t■1111 YMY■taaWtt■■Y■■YWtWYttKERt■Y1YKYt/talt.W W■Watt■■/lt1ER.■ QKrttsst.pta W MEN Mom Y1Ef■Yl■■KrYYOt Olty Os■M1d1IN.W s■sOs■■■WIN..YOias■s EWM■E W YlOr1YlYYW W rsYMYaMOI stlrrmYYHrrms Wls arYrrssllQwsaiO smsaOrs/ssS t®tYlttr•EIYMiI WaYllYltt W�Itsi Yttt.aW�YtdYtttYYttYatYYto_tOOW rtr/ 1 111 111 111 111 111 .111 111 • :0 • 1 IN. 12.14 �1 L 1• • ■ • 1 ® I �I� •- Pump Tech Co. H2Optimize ver: 5.0 Project: City of Twin Falls 3 by: Todd Hendricks File: (untitled) PUMP DATA SHEET April 30, 1997 CURVE: 9PC-119463 V L60 v. 1:1 TYPE - SPEED: VERT.TURBINE - 1800 VERTI-LINE Catalog: PUMP FLUID Water tmp: 60 °F Size: 16FHM - 4 stages SG: 1 Speed: 1770 rpm -So vsc: 1.122 cP Imp dia: 12.6875 in / // 3 vapor: 0.2568 psi p Max Temperature: - OF r� `( atm: 14.7 psi Max Pressure: - psi NPSHa: - ft Max Sphere Size: - in PIPING Pressure:ressure: - psi Specific Speed Ns: - Suction elev: - ft Suction Nss: - size: - in Suction size: - in Discharge size: - in Discharge size: - in DESIGN POINT Flow: 4700 gpm ft I %eff Head: 241 ft 720 13.2 a DATA POINT sao Flow: 4700 gpm 0 Head: 245 ft 560 \ Eff. 83 % / 70 Power: 350 bhp 480 NPSHr: 22.4 ft \ DESIGN CURVE 400 a Shutoff Head: 572 ft —� 320 n b Pressure: 248 psig p h Min Flow: - gprn 2ao s BEP: 84 %eff @ 4310 3 h p Max: 364 bhp @ 3923 160 MAX DIAMETER 40 400 Max: 451 bhp @ 4310 80 1-0 200 gpm 800 16U0 2400 3200 4000 4800 5600 6400 7200 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Flow Speed Head Pump Power NPSHr Motor Power Hrs/yr Cost 9Pm rpm ft %eff bhp ft %eff kW 5640 1770 152 75 289 23.7 4700 1770 245 83 350 22.4 3760 1770 306 81 358 22.0 2820 1770 341 75 324 22.0 1880 1770 403 64 299 22.0 215 MERICAN TURBINE , 0 Number of Sta es Re uircd: Performance Curves 140 (per stage - standard construction) March '98 'b I I 50v� IB ; t 120 � , i � 25 . 4: i i I , CD 75 cl 100 1 180 i I r I ;82 i r i CL ! I 84 Efficiency, % 4 I ' 82:60 ' 1 1 I - r I I I j 82.5 : ! I cr i i ; 10 O= ° 60 � I � i I I i � I i I � I � i 3 40 0 CD ° I ; i ; ( I ! ' a� 0 ° 800 1600 2400 3200 4000 Cr Capacity, U.s..g.p.m. 3000 216 �-Ul4arw;i VITA IN NMI 0 1 M 'm IN IN NONNI ON NO, 0 0 Is I ON 2111 1 01 mom on an 0 IN - 11 on low M 1 0 0 SRI- col I M"I'l 11 Re E ON 11 ob irk q M1 ON 24 0 IN so 101 6. MIEN 0 mug-% 3 m IMM IN MEN 0 no 1§10 NNIEW ON M 0 0 0 VAN OEM 0 IN ; NO limb; obi. 6A 0 0 0 I0 n 101 u I'm's MEN 0 IN ..III 11=110 BIN Customer Item number I-Dres"r Naps �- t LL PEW 1500.0 USW= Specific gravit*o Save date March 8, 1999 Head ; 125.00 ft Pump speed 1770 rpm !�a��lii�aa�a�l�ila�i•��i��i� man �laa�a�..�.��•�■��iai��al�a___ aai�� `la�lal�ala�la�a!■�l��al��i��ii�i�� • !_•��r■a��aal�aa�aa��li��l��a�l�r 1 ��a�■�al�lil�!la�l��l�la��l�■■��l�l��!laal�l�■ala�a>_l�l�a�aa�l��ai■i�lai�i■■� ��!l��lail�l�lal��•!ala��•�lii!!�� 1 •al�aaaa�!!!al�a�!!arlaai��laa�!l�� •!��l�laial�ala�l�■!�i . 1 �l��l��lr��!la��aia��!!i�•l��a•�i�� 1 �l�iii ala�lr-.��aial��■■�aia■�i�a�� !!��■al��l�lal�l��r---------=ate �a��l�!l�aila■�l��a��l��ai��i�i�! 1 ' • !!!ice�l��!�!!i!l�l�a��l��l�i�� 1 � ■ •�ir�- iliili_i-i-i�iiiiliiiiaiii i��i�►�a•s�i��ii i!il��l��aiiiliiii 1 ��■ �--.qm��i�iii i�iiiliilaiii 1 EWA -i- �►�aaaiia�aiai�•.��i��!!i��i� 1 1 11 . 11 • 11 LAYNE PUMPS, INC. Goulds Pump Selection Software ver. 5.07 Project: CITY OF T.FJSE MUNICIPAL WELL#2 File: (untitled) by: LAYNE PUMPS, INC. June 1, 1999 PUMP DATA SHEET !Nate. E3142-1 Goulds Turbine 60 Hz Catalog:VTURB60 v. 1.2 TYPE-SPEED:VERTTURBINE- 1800 FLUID Water tmp:60 OF PUMP Size: 11CLQ-4 stages SG: 1 f( -� vsc: 1.122 cP Speed: 1770 rpm �I u��ry S vapor. 0.2568 psi Imp dia:7.75 in atm: 14.7 psi Max Temperature: - OF NPSHa:-ft Max Pressure: 380 psi Max Sphere Size:0.68 in PIPING Pressure: - psi Specific Speed Ns: 2320 Suction elev: - ft Suction Nss:- size: - in Discharge size: - in Suction size: 8 in Discharge size: 6 in Max Lateral=.75". 8" Disch dia also avail.Thrust K Factor-7.9 LBS/FT(11.7 KG/N DESIGN POINT Flow: 680 gpm ft %eff Head: 196.4 ft w0 OG DATA POINT 320 8.13" An Flow: 680 gpm Head: 198 ft 280 70 Eff: 85.5% Power. 39.8 bhp 240 NPSHr. 8.2 ft 200 6.63" b DESIGN CURVE Shutoff Head: 290 ft n b 160 h Pressure: 126 psi P Min Flow: - gpm g 120 .;s. !. ,, --- -- s p ��. s h BEP: 85.7%eff @ 659 ` Max: 41.7 bhp @ 860 2G 1 80 MAX DIAMETER Max: 48.1 bhp @ 950 40 In _ 40 gpm 200 400 60o Boo 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Flow Speed Head Pump Power NPSHr Motor Power Hrs/yr Cost gpm rpm ft %eff bhp ft %eff kW 816 1770 168 83.3 41.5 9.4 680 1770 198 85.5 39.8 8.2 544 1770 223 84.5 36.3 7.3 408 1770 243 76.7 32.7 7.0 272 1770 257 57.5 30.7 7.0 219 This page was intentionally left blank for correct double-sided printing. 220 Appendix C Water System Administration This page was intentionally left blank for correct double-sided printing. 222 CA Water Administration Background Information C.1.1 Aquifer Decline and Water Calls Blue Lakes Spring, from which up to 80 percent of the City of Twin Falls water supply is derived, issues from the Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer (ESPA) through a series of basalt flows. The ESPA is a large basalt aquifer underlying about 10,000 square miles primarily north of the Snake River from Hagerman on the west to Ashton in the north east. This aquifer is defined by the State of Idaho as an area having a common groundwater supply, indicating that the aquifer is considered hydraulically interconnected throughout and is administered under the conjunctive management rules adopted by the State to manage groundwater and surface water. Recharge to the aquifer averages about 7.5 million acre-feet annually which includes incidental recharge associated with surface water irrigation (3.4 million acre-feet); precipitation (2.2 million acre-feet); underflow from tributary valleys (1.0 million acre-feet); and seepage losses from the Snake River and tributaries (0.9 million acre-feet). Large springs issuing from the aquifer, of which Blue Lakes is a major one, constitute the majority of the outflow from the aquifer. About 4.0 million acre-feet flow annually from springs in the Milner-King Hill reach of the Snake River (primarily Thousand Springs) and 1.8 million acre-feet from springs in the Blackfoot-Minidoka reach.Approximately 2.1 million acre-feet per year are consumptively used(pumped) from the aquifer for irrigation. Spring flows and groundwater levels in the aquifer increased from the early 1900's through about 1950 due to increased diversions for irrigation from the Snake River and tributaries. After 1950, spring flows began to decline with the advent of groundwater pumping for irrigation; better water management of surface water diversions; conversions to sprinkler irrigation; and, recently, drought conditions. Water rights were sought by individuals and granted by the State for use of spring flow for fish production, municipal, and irrigation throughout this period. Also, groundwater rights were granted for irrigation, municipal, domestic and commercial uses. The result has been that spring flows have been declining and earlier priority water rights have been impacted. Since the State of Idaho has adopted the prior appropriation doctrine for water rights, the basic tenet of which is "first in time, first in right", the earlier priority rights (both surface and ground water) are protected from injury caused by use by junior priority water rights. The administration of water rights is authorized by the State by the creation of Water Districts and appointment of Watermasters within each district. The western part of the ESPA, which includes the Blue Lakes springs, is designated as Water District 130. In 1992, a moratorium was instituted by the State to essentially stop all future appropriation of groundwater or surface water in the Snake River basin for consumptive purposes. This was followed on October 17, 1994 by the adoption of the"Rules for Conjunctive Management of Ground Water Resources" to govern the administration of areas having a common groundwater supply. If a senior water right holder perceives that his water right is being injured by use of a junior water right or if the senior water right holder believes his water right is not being delivered in accordance with the law, he can initiate a "delivery call". A "delivery call" is defined by Rule 10.04 of the Conjunctive Management Rules as"A request from the holder of a water rightfor administration of water rights under the prior appropriation doctrine". 223 Spring users in the Thousand Springs area were the first to initiate "delivery calls" requesting administration and delivery of their water rights. These calls all allege that junior groundwater pumpers are and have been diverting water that should be flowing from their respective springs and are injuring their water rights. The first major spring user to issue a delivery call on September 23, 2003 was Rangen, Inc. a major fish producer on Billingsley Creek near Hagerman.Subsequently,calls have been made by various spring users. In 2005 the following calls for water delivery were submitted. ■ Billingsley Creek Ranch Water Call —March 16, 2005 ■ Blue Lakes Trout Company Water Call—March 22, 2005 ■ Clear Springs Food -Snake River Farm Water Call—May 2, 2005 ■ Clear Springs Food Crystal Springs Farm Water Call—May 2, 2005 ■ John W.Jones Water Call—May 10, 2005 Subsequently,the Surface Water Coalition(SWC)filed similar water calls alleging impacts on surface water supply in the Snake River. The SWC is a coalition of surface water users primarily comprised of canal companies.The groundwater users organized as a group known as Idaho Groundwater Users Association (IGWUA)to act in concert in response to the water calls. Various decisions have been rendered and hearings have been held relative to these water calls.A hearing by the Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) on the Rangen call was held in November 2013 and the decision by the hearing officer is pending.The Clear Springs Foods call hearing has been held and was appealed and an order on the Clear Springs Food Crystal Springs call has been appealed. However,these appeals have been withdrawn because IGWUA purchased several fish hatcheries and established an agreement with Clear Springs Foods, Inc. which resulted in the withdrawal of these cases. As of 2020, all calls have been resolved by administrative decision,judicial decision, or settlement.Two settlements are of particular interest to the City of Twin Falls water supply: The Blue Lakes Trout settlement and the SWC/IGWUA settlement. Of specific importance to the City of Twin Falls is the delivery call by Blue Lakes Trout Company, which is the senior water right holder on Alpheus Creek(fed by Blue Lakes Spring).The Blue Lakes Trout Company call,made by the former owner of the facility,alleges that Blue Lakes Trout Farm, Inc. is entitled to delivery of 197.06 cfs from Alpheus Creek and further states that Blue Lakes Trout Farm as of (March 2005) was receiving only 137.7 cfs and that the low point in flow occurred in 2003 at which time the Blue Lakes Trout Farm was receiving 111 cfs. The request further demanded "...that you (Director of IDWR) direct the Watermaster for Water District 130 to administer water rights in the Water district as required by Idaho Code §42-607 in order to supply Blue Lakes' prior rights."This is the required response by a water user to perceived water right shortage or injury. An order was issued on May 19, 2005 by the Director of IDWR addressing the Blue Lakes Trout Farm, Inc. call. The order essentially found that the flows available to Blue Lakes Trout Farm under water right 36- 07427 (12/28/73 priority for 52.23 cfs) had been injured by junior groundwater pumping, but the earlier rights had not been injured. Using the groundwater model for the Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer (ESPAM 1.1),the Director determined which groundwater rights with specific priorities within the ESPA would be required to be curtailed in order to effect an increase in spring flows to offset the decline. The Director further ordered that notices be sent to all holders of groundwater rights in Water District 130 with priority dates later than December 28, 1973 could be subject to curtailment. The order exempted diminimus domestic, diminimus stock water, and all non-consumptive groundwater rights. Curtailment of well 224 pumping was not required if an acceptable mitigation plan was submitted prior to May 30, 2005. On July 6, 2005, IGWA submitted a revised mitigation plan to retire groundwater irrigated acres and achieve the required increase in spring flow as determined by the groundwater model. The revised mitigation plan was accepted by the Director but was protested by Clear Lakes Trout Farm. IGWA never developed nor did the Director ever approve the implementation of an acceptable mitigation plan for the Blue Lakes Trout Farm water call. The Director determined and ordered that mitigation of injury to the Blue Lakes Trout Farm water rights would require 10 cfs of additional water in Alpheus Creek and determined that curtailment of junior groundwater pumping for water rights within the ESPA junior to December 28, 1973 would be required unless an adequate mitigation plan was developed and implemented by the ground water users. In response to this Order, the State negotiated purchase of the Pristine Springs Trout Farm and the accompanying Alpheus Creek water right for fish production of 25.3 cfs.The City of Twin Falls participated financially in this purchase which resulted in the City receiving 15.3 cfs of the 25.3 cfs water right and the remaining 10 cfs was designated for mitigation of the injury to the Blue Lakes Trout Farm water right.This water right, with a priority equal to the Twin Falls City junior priority water right, effectively allows the City to pump its full water rights of 52.47 cfs without impinging on other senior water rights if the springs are, in fact, discharging an adequate flow to satisfy all users. Mitigation of impacts to the Blue Lakes Trout Farm available flows under their junior right is beneficial to the City of Twin Falls in that, if successful, it maintains flows in Alpheus Creek to satisfy the rights of the City. If, however, Blue Lakes Spring flows decrease further to impact even more junior rights,the City's rights can be in jeopardy. The Director, in determining whether or not Blue Lakes Trout Farm rights were injured, based the finding on current use by the City which has not been using its full water right of 52 cfs. If,during the recent years, the City had been pumping its full water right,the injury to Blue Lakes Trout Farm junior water right would have been significantly greater. The City should therefore be vigilant in following the Blue Lakes Spring discharge trends and take an active part in efforts to enhance the flows and restore the ESPA water levels. C.1.2 IGWUA/ SWC Settlement and Groundwater Recharge After many years of legal procedures, a comprehensive agreement between IGWUA and SWC was executed on June 30, 2015.The most important components of the settlement include ■ A commitment by IGWUA to acquire storage in the Upper Snake to directly satisfy water deficiencies and to support recharge efforts. ■ A commitment by IGWUA to reduce groundwater pumping aquifer-wide by 240,000 ac-ft per year, or approximately 13%. ■ Groundwater to surface water conversions ("soft conversions") of approximately 80,000 ac-ft. ■ Implementation of mandatory groundwater diversion measurement and monitoring. ■ Establishment of specific numerical groundwater level target increases for 2020, 2023, and 2026. Although not a party to the Agreement, the State of Idaho committed to ramping up its recharge efforts through increased funding of infrastructure and water acquisition. The legislature has allocated funding and directed the Idaho Water Resources Board to develop recharge infrastructure that can put 250,000 acre-feet per year into the aquifer,subject to water availability.The State also agreed to fund and support cloud seeding efforts that had been pioneered largely by Idaho Power to increase annual basin yield from the Upper Snake watersheds. Actual recharge achieved since 2009 is shown in Table . 225 Table C-1—Flow Recharge Volumes to the Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer T i�� Volume(acre-feet) 72011-2012 2010 79,894 2011 61,588 143,839 2012-2013 32,435 2013-2014 3,867 2014-2015 69,201 2015-2016 66,897 2016-2017 317,714 2017-2018 474,839 2018-2019 310,132 2019-2020 447,956 Average 2016-2020 387,660 The goal of the Comprehensive Aquifer Management Plan (CAMP) approved by the State in 2009 is to provide 600,000 acre-feet of net aquifer mitigation per year(i.e.an increase in the water budget) primarily through a combination of recharge, voluntary curtailment, and the CREP program. Due to the pumping reduction efforts required by the SWC / IGWUA agreement and the enhancement of aquifer recharge programs by the State of Idaho, the ESPA water budget has increased approximately 554,000 acre- feet/year.The average annual decline in aquifer storage prior to the SWC/IGWUA agreement was about 500,000 acre-feet per year; therefore a continuing net mitigation at this level should be sufficient to largely reverse aquifer decline. Water supply conditions, however, will likely preclude meeting this goal every year. The settlement agreement and the State of Idaho efforts,though not directly benefiting Blue Lake Spring or the City of Twin Falls, are historic milestones in aquifer restoration efforts that have been discussed and partially implemented for at least 30 years and are likely contributing into the significant increases in spring flow observed since 2015. 226 C.2 Water System Budget 227 Expenditure by Category - Water Supply FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2020 Actual Actual Actual Budgeted Proposed Change FTE 4 4 4 4 4 0 Expenditure Category Personnel $309,012 $333,905 $355,710 $374,926 $394,964 5.34% M& O $1,200,170 $1,204,579 $1,198,624 $1,331,215 $1,279,050 -3.92% Capital $2,053,497 $2,234,936 $1,164,421 $1,055,000 $1,038,000 -1.61% Debt 1 $2,810,6251 $2,819,0941 $2,749,4031 $2,911,2061 $2,747,722 -5.62% Transfers 1 $2,4501 $2,5581 $2,6461 $2,8471 $2,9351 3.08% Subtotall $6,375,7551 $6,595,0721 $5,470,8051 $5,675,1941 $5,462,671 -3.74% Expenditure by Category $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $0 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 ■Personnel ■M&O Capital ■Transfers Debt Comments: • The decrease in M&O includes reductions for Water Testing and Electric. • Capital: $400,000- Hankins Pressure Zone Expansion $300,000-Well#5 Piping $150,000- New Airport Well $150,000-Water Master Plan Addendum $ 38,000- Utility Service Vehicle 228 Expenditure by Category- Pressurized Irrigation FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2020 Actual Actual Actual Budgeted Proposed Change FTE Expenditure Category Personnel $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% M&0 $270,978 $295,112 $300,853 $348,450 $330,786 -5.07% Capital $158,345 $415,465 $13,118 $750,000 $50,000 -93.33% Transfer $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Subtotal $429,3241 $710,5771 $313,9711 $1,098,4501 $380,786 -65.33% Expenditure by Category $800,000 $700,000 $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 $0 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 ■Personnel ■M&0 Capital ■Transfer Comments: • Capital: $50,000-SCADA 229 Expenditure by Category- Water Distribution FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2020 Actual Actual Actual Budgeted Proposed Change FTE 15 15 15 16 16 0 Expenditure Category Personnel $1,014,391 $1,105,857 $1,171,400 $1,269,972 $1,306,452 2.87% M&O $807,104 $744,098 $1,093,362 $1,036,981 $973,880 -6.09% Capital $816,780 $647,225 $536,850 $447,000 $924,941 106.92% Transfer 1 $75,551 1 $78,896 1 $81,625 1 $87,837 1 $90,541 1 3.08% Subtotall $2,713,8261 $2,576,0761 $2,883,2381 $2,841,7901 $3,295,814 15.98% Expenditure by Category $1,400,000 $1,200,000 $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $0 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 ■Personnel ■M&O Capital ■Transfer Comments: • Capital: $332,615- Meter Replacement $250,000- Mainline Replacement $140,000- F-650 Line Truck $ 50,000- F-250 Truck and Utility Bed $ 48,000- F-550 Dump Truck $ 27,945 -ADA Ramp Replacement $ 23,333 -Orbital Screening Plant/Debris Separator $ 20,000- Parking Lot Maint./Stormwater Retention $ 13,748- Pictometry $ 8,500- Boring Tool $ 7,000-Target Saw $ 3,800-Compactors (Handheld) 230 Expenditure by Category - Utility Services FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2020 Actual Actual Actual Budgeted Proposed Change FTE 8.75 8.75 8.75 8.75 9 0.25 Expenditure Category Personnel $533,447 $567,277 $604,352 $643,992 $660,618 2.58% M&O $195,003 $199,917 $210,098 $273,000 $279,550 2.40% Capital $24,216 $0 $12,066 $0 $8,379 ***** Transfer $9,6281 $10,0541 $10,4021 $11,1931 $11,538 3.08% Subtotal $762,2941 $777,2491 $836,9181 $928,1861 $960,085 3.44% Expenditure by Category $700,000 $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 $0 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 ■Personnel ■M&0 Capital ■Transfer Comments: • The increase in Personnel includes addition of.25 FTE for a Utility Services Representative. • The increase in M&O includes funds for Relay Inveractive Voice Response (IVR) software. 231 Water Transfers FY 2011 FY 2011 FY 2018 FY 2011 FY 2020 FY 2020 Actual Actual Actual Budgeted Proposed Change Transfer to: General $768,304 $805,854 $861,074 $904,685 $931,073 2.92% Street $89,464 $89,858 $91,700 $95,800 $97,716 2.00% Insurance $61,274 $63,750 $66,189 $68,175 $70,593 3.55% PE:S:u:b::t $60,922 $73,537 $76,479 $81,631 $75,951 -6.96%otal I $979,964 $1,032,9981 $1,095,4411 $1,150,2911 $1,175,3331 2.18% Expenditure by Category $1,000,000 $800,000 $600,000 $400,000 $200,000 $0 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 ■General ■Street ■Insurance ■Shop 232 C.3 Sanitary Survey 233 0311312018 City of Twin Falls PWS#ID5420058 RE: Enhanced Sanitary Survey conducted on 03/06/2018 You will find a list of the significant deficiencies, deficiencies and recommended improvements for your system summarized below. In order to address all significant deficiencies, follow steps 1, 2 & 3. Step 1: After reviewing the significant deficiencies listed below, please call our office to identify a corrective action plan for each significant deficiency within 30 days of receiving this written notification. During that call, please be prepared to provide a"Planned Completion Date" for each item. Step 2: Complete the planned action(s) by the agreed upon date. Step 3: Enter an"Actual Completion Date", Initials, identify the "Corrective action taken', and sign that each corrective action has been corrected by the agreed upon date and that the corrective action meets the requirements pursuant to IDAPA 58.01.08. Please send a copy of the corrective action taken to the regulating agency. Significant Def ciencies Groundwater Source: #27: The well casing for South Well I is not screened with a 24 mesh and is not terminated downward at least 18 inches above the final ground surface, as required by IDAPA 58.01.08.511.05. Planned Completion Date: Actual Completion Date: Initials JAI . Corrective action taken: Storage: #20: For the ground-level or aartially buried or below-ground storage structure at Hankins Storage I one or more of the overflows are not screened with non-corrodible 24 mesh screen or an expanded metal screen within the pipe plus a weighted flapper valve or check,as required by IDAPA 58.01.08.544.06.b.i. Planned Completion Date: _3" N d Actual Completion Date: 3-1 j-1 f , Initials -01 Corrective action taken: #22: All of the vents for ground-level or partially buried or below-ground storage structure at Hankins Storage 1 are not covered with 24 mesh non-corrodible screen to exclude potential contamination,as required by IDAPA 58.01.08.544.08.d. Planned Completion Date: 3^Y'd Actual Completion Date: Initials .-??! Corrective action taken: I 234 #20: For the ground-level or partially buried or below-ground storage structure at South Wells Storage 2 one or more of the overflows are not screened with non-corrodible 24 mesh screen or an expanded metal screen within the pipe plus a weighted flapper valve or check,as required by IDAPA 58.01.08.544.06.b.i. Planned Completion Date: -F-/q Actual Completion Date: 3'l9'1 S , Initials Corrective action taken: #22: All of the vents for ground-level or partially_buried or_below-ground storage structure at South Wells Storage 2 do not have a vent that is covered with 24 mesh non-corrodible screen to exclude potential contamination, as required by IDAPA 58.01.08.544.08.d. Planned Completion Date: 3"F 1 , Actual Completion Date: Initials ' Corrective action taken: #20: For the ground-level or partially_buried or below-ground storage structure Eldridge Storage one or more of the overflows are not screened with non-corrodible 24 mesh screen or an expanded metal screen within the pipe plus a weighted flapper valve or check,as required by IDAPA 58.01.08.544.06.b.i. Planned Completion Date: 3-3-a Actual Completion Date: .Initials Corrective action taken: Pumping: #6: There is no air release-vacuum relief valve placed between the vertical turbine pump and the check valve at South Weil 2 &4, with exhaust/relief piping terminating in a down-turned position at least 18 inches above the floor and covered with a 24 mesh corrosion resistant screen,as required by IDAPA 58.01.08.511.02.d. Planned Completion Date: 3" ? /f Actual Completion Date: 3"�'J8 , Initials Corrective action taken: 1 certify, to the best of my knowledge that all significant deficiencies have been corrected by the agreed upon date and that the corrre/ctivve' action meet the requirements pursuant to IDAPA 58.01.08. Signature: Date: Deficiencies Groundwater Source: #30: (Deficiency)-The discharge pipe for Hankins Well l does not provide a sample tap that is of the smooth-nosed type without interior or exterior threads,and therefore is not in accordance with IDAPA 58.01.08.51 1.01. (Action Required) 930: (Defciency)-The discharge pipe for Hankins Well 2 does not provide a sample tap that is properly located,or the sample tap that is used to collect bacteria samples is not of the smooth-nosed type without interior or exterior threads and/or is a mixing facet and or is of the petcock type and/or has a screen and/or has an aerator,and therefore is not in accordance with IDAPA 58.01.08.511.01. (Action Required) #30: (Deficiency)-The discharge pipe for South Well I does not provide a sample tap that is of the smooth-nosed type without interior or exterior threads,and therefore is not in accordance with IDAPA 58.01.08.511.01.(Action Required) 2 235 #30: (Deficiency)- The discharge pipe for South Well 2 does not provide a sample tap that is of the smooth-nosed type without interior or exterior threads, and therefore is not in accordance with IDAPA 58.01.08.511.01. (Action Required) #32: A pressure gauge is not provided on all discharge piping for South Well I,as required by IDAPA 58.01.08.511.03. (No action required at this time) #32: A pressure gauge is not provided on all discharge piping for South Well 2or the existing pressure gauge is not properly maintained and working, as required by IDAPA 58.01.08.511.03. (No action required at this time) #32: A pressure gauge is not provided on all discharge piping for South Well 3or the existing pressure gauge is not properly maintained and working, as required by IDAPA 58.01.08.511.03.(No action required at this time) #3: South Well I does not meet the minimum setback distance of 50 ft. from the nearest property line, as required by IDAPA 58.01.08.512. (No action required at this time) #4: South Well I does not meet the minimum setback distance of 50 ft. from a potential source of contamination, as required by IDAPA 58.01.08.900.01. (No action required at this time) #3: South Well 2 does not meet the minimum setback distance of 50 ft. from the nearest property line, as required by IDAPA 58.01.08.512. (No action required at this time) #4: South Well 2 does not meet the minimum setback distance of 50 ft. from a potential source of contamination, as required by IDAPA 58.01.08.900.01. (No action required at this time) Distribution: #19: It is known that cross connections exist at the public water system,and therefore is not in accordance with IDAPA 58.01.08.552.06.a-e(Community Water Systems)or IDAPA 58.01.08.552.07 (Non-Community Water Systems). DEQ recognizes that an approved CCCP is in place and the City of Twin Falls is conducting appropriate responses to cross connection issues as the ordinance continues to evolve. DEQ recommends that the City of Twin continue to evaluate and address any issues as necessary and with appropriate measures. Pumping: #4: (Delciencyl- There is not a functioning standard pressure gauge installed on the discharge line at South Well 3, as required by IDAPA 58.01.08.541.03.c. for water pumps or IDAPA 58.01.08.511.03 for well pumps. The next time the discharge line is replaced or material modifications to the system occur,a standard pressure gauge shall be installed. (No action required at this time) #9: (Derciencyl-(Community PWSs Only)There is no auxiliary power on-site for South Well pumps as required by IDAPA 58.01.08.501.07. According to the operator,the power outages experienced by the system are of minimal frequency and duration that auxiliary power will not be required. The need for auxiliary power on-site will be reevaluated every time an ESS is conducted.(No action required at this time) #9: (Delciencyl-(Community PWSs Only)There is no auxiliary power on-site for Canyon Springs Booster pumps as required by IDAPA 58.01.08.501.07. According to the operator, the power outages experienced by the system are of minimal frequency and duration that auxiliary power will not be required.The need for auxiliary power on-site will be reevaluated every time an ESS is conducted. (No action required at this time) Treatment Applications: #17: Where more than one(1)chemical is stored or handled at Hankins and South Well pump house,tanks are not clearly labeled to identify the chemical they contain,as required by IDAPA 58.01.08.531.01.d. #20: Chemical shipping containers are not fully labeled to include evidence of ANSUNSF certification where applicable, as required by IDAPA 58.01.08.531.03. Disinfection: #6: A smooth nosed sample tap is not provided before and after treatment at Hankins, as required by IDAPA 58.01.08.501.09. 3 236 This system will be in substantial compliance with regulations if the significant deficiencies of this survey are corrected. Thank you for your time and cooperation in the completion of this survey. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at the IDEQ Twin falls Regional Office at (208)-736-2190 or via email at Aaron.Trevino@deq.idaho.gov Sincerely, Aaron Trevino Regional Drinking Water Program Coordinator Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Enclosures: Enhanced Sanitary Survey Inspection Form Photo Log and Photos 237 State of Idaho Public Water System Enhanced Sanitary Surve WATER SYSTEM INVENTORY INFORMATION SURVEY DATE PWS# 3/6/201 B (mm/dd/yyyj) 5420058 Name of Public Water System. At of Ground Water Sources 7 #of Storage Facilities Total Twin Falls, City of #of Surface water Sources Storage(gal) Date of Last Survey: Health District: ❑ N/A DEQ Region: [ N/A county: 05/22/2013 Twin Falls Number of Service Connections. Residential Population. �t It>s Water Purchased From. N(A Water Sold To N/A 16592 46000 ❑ Approved PWS#: PWS# ❑ Disapproved Name Name: Combined Sources? Seasonal Operation Owner Type, Legal Entity. Water System Classification: Q Yes ❑ No System Classification. Dates: ✓ NIA Local Govemment Agency El Community water System If yes• ❑ Well Field Distribution Date Open [� Manifold/Spring Box DST3 Govemment ❑ N Transient ient Nommunit -N Sources Combined: Treatment ❑ NIA Date Closed ❑ Transient Noncommunity NC DBP2 Responsible Charge Operator(DO): ❑ No DO L N/A-Ider0y Operator for GW-NC PWS) Legal Owner's Name: F) Mr. ❑ Ms. Robert Bohlin ] Mr, ❑ Ms. City of Twin Falls Property Licensed? ❑� Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A-GW-NC License Type, DWD4 ❑ N/A Mailing Address Mailing Address License Number DWD4-14811 PO Box 1907 PO Box 1907 Expiration Date 3/21/2019 City,State, Zip Code Telephone City,State, Zip Code Telephone I Twin Falls, Idaho 83303 Day: 208-736-2278 Twin Falls, Idaho 83303 Day 208-736-2278 Night: Night: Fax: E-mail rbohlin tfid.or Fax: E-mail trace tfid.or Substitute Responsible Charge Operator(OP): —] No OP N/A for GW-NC PINS E] Mr. ❑ Ms. Ran Baumann Individuals present during inspection Properly Licensed? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A-GW-NC License Type DWD4 ❑ N/A Name Ran Baumann Title Operator Mailing Address License Number DWD4-14982 lName Brian Reed Title DEQ Engineer PO Box 1907 Expiration Date 7/28/2018 Name. Aaron Trevino Title DEQ Coord. City,State, Zip Code Telephone Twin Falls, Idaho 83303 Day 208-736-2278 Physical location of the PWS(Township,Range,Section) Night 208-308-7252 City of Twin Falls E-mail rbaumann tfid.ar Fax Samples taken at the time of survey by inspector? Survey performed by Agency: ❑ Yes Q No Name Brain Reed (] IDEQ If yes,what: Title P.E Technical Engineer ❑ health Dept. N/A Phone#: 208 736-2190 ❑ Other. yes no n/a unk note General Information Sanitary Survey Index 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1. Have previously required Significant Deficiencies been addressed? Modules used: El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Does the system owner have a written sample siting plan that is representative of LJ General Information 1 water throughout the distribution system? Q Well Source 7 ❑' ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 3.Are TCR/RTCR monitoring samples being taken in accordance with the sample ❑ Spring Source 0 siting plan? i] Storage 4 C ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 4. Have material modifications been made to the PWS since the last ESS? ❑ Hydropneumatic Tanks 0 El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 5. If yes,were plans and specs submitted to and approved by DEQ? ❑� Distribution 1 ❑ El ❑ ❑ ❑ 6. Are there any known Issues or problems with equipment or operation of the PWS 0 Pumping 7 that could negatively effect the quality of the water produced?(if yes,comment) 0 Financial Capacity 1 Comments: 1 Managerial Capacity 1 Jeff Melana was present for the ESS both days []Treatment Application 3 [�]Disinfection 3 ❑Gas Cl2 ❑ Notes Photo Log1 Total Modules 29 Page _ Of IDED Enhanced Sanitary Survey 7115/15 General Information 238 WELL SOURCE - PGA SURVEY DATE PWS# A separate sources form must be filled out for each well associated to the PWS 3/6/2018 (mm/d ) 5420058 Tag#: I lCommon Name of Source Source associated with a Is this Source Treated? El Yes No E0007835 Hankins Well#1 ❑ wellfield Treatment Objective ❑ N/A Physical Location Manifold 2591 Murray Ave. Disinfection Treatment Types: LJ N/A (Identify Treatment Train in Comments) Is there a well log for the well source? ., Yes LJ No N/A Unk Sodium H pochlodte Pump Capacity(GPM) Casing Size(In) Date Dnlled Well Depth(Ft) Casing Depth(Ft) Grout Depth(Ft) Static Water Depth(Ft) 1000 ❑ Unk 16 ❑ link 6i19119o5 L Unk 1505 ❑ Unk 150 ❑ Unk 50 ❑ Unk ❑' Unk Is the Casing Screened? Screen Depth(Ft): N/A LJ Unk Is the Casing Perforated? Perforation Depth(Ft): N/A ❑ Yes ❑ No F.-,] Unk From: ❑ Yes ❑ No U Unk From: ❑ Unk ❑ N/A To: ❑ N/A To: Latitude(Decimal) 42 Deg 33' 6 6423" El Verified as accurate Longitude(Decimal) 114 Deg 25' 14 2927" ❑ verified as accurate All Sources COMMENTS: 1 This source is (Please indicate question number) 0 Active ❑ Proposed ❑ Inactive ❑ Emergency( Unplanned use) es no n!a unk note WELL INFORMATION LJ L LJ L 2 Is the well an a separate lot?(applicable if constructed after 1111177) ❑ Significant ❑ Deficiency Yes no nra unk note Are the following minimum distances from the PWS well being met? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. Nearest property line ........ .50 Ft ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ 4 Any potential source of contamination 50 Ft (add comment) ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ 5 Livestock .......... ..... . .50 Ft Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 6. Canals,streams,ditches,lakes,ponds and tanks used to store nonpotable substances.. .50 Ft Q ❑ ❑ 7 Storm water facilities disposing storm water originating off the well lot ........ .... ..50 Ft 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 8. Class A Municipal Reclaimed Wastewater Pressure distribution line.....................................50 Ft. Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 9. ravi wastewater line............................. .... ...50 Ft. a ❑ ❑ ❑ 10 Pressure wastewater fine...................................100 Ft fO ❑ ❑ ❑ 11. Septic tank.......................................................100 Ft ❑' ❑ ❑ ❑ 12. Drainfield field...................................................100 Ft a ❑ ❑ ❑ 13. Seepage pit.....................................................100 Ft ❑ ❑ F . 14, Privies................................................. . ....100 Ft a ❑ ❑ ❑ 15. Absorption module-large soil absorption system....150-300 Ft Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 16. Municipal or industrial wastewater treatment plant....500 Ft ❑Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 17. Biosolids application site......................... .....1000 Ft ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ 18. Reclamation and reuse of municipal and industrial wastewater sites.................................. ....Permit specific Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 19. Are frost free hydrants placed a minimum of five(5)feet away from #20 Paint can viewed at time of the well?(N/A if protected by AV6) inspection within wellhouse. Operator ' 20. Are pesticides,herbicides,fertilizers,portable containers of petroleum removed at time of inspection. products,or other toxic or hazardous materials stored on the well lot? ❑ ❑� ❑ ❑ 21. Are pesticides,herbicides,or fertilizers applied to the well tot without prior approval from the Department? ❑ ❑� ❑ ❑ 22. Is the well in a pit? If yes,Dale constructed ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 23. Was the well that is located in a pit installed after 11/5164? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 24. If pit was installed prior to 1115/64-Has DEQ granted an exception and does the pit have water tight construction of pit walls and floor,a floor drain and an acceptable pit cover? ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 25. Is the well protected from unauthorized entry?(Recommended) Page Of IDEQ Enhanced Sanitary Survey-7115115 Groundwater Source 239 Common Name SURVEY DATE PWS# WELL SOURCES -PG.2 Hankins Well#1 3/6/2018 (mm/ddiy)w) 5420058 yes no rda unk note WELL INFORMATION(cost.! COMMENTS: M Li Lj Li Li 26 Does the casing extend a minimum of 18 inches above the final ground (Please indicate question number) ] Significant ❑ Deficiency surface or 12 inches above the pump house floor? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 27 Is the well vented with the open end of the vent screened with a 24 mesh and terminated downward at least 18 inches above the final ground surface or 12 inches above the pump house floor? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 28 Is the well provided with an approved cap that prevents surface water entry? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 29 Is the well cased and sealed in such a manner that surface water �—f cannot enter the well? II ❑✓ Ll �. n 3o Is there a smooth nosed sample tap provided on the well discharge pipe #30 Sample taps have threads on prior to treatment? them DEQ recommends that these 31 Is an instantaneous and totalizing flow meter equipped with nonvolatile be replaced with smooth nosed ❑ unlrecessaril memory installed on the pump distribution line of the well and is it Sample taps maintained and working properly? 1 27476720 gallons ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 32 Is a pressure gauge provided on all discharge piping and is-1 maintained and working properly? F-7ps1, tzJ U Lit U LJ 33 Can the well be pumped to waste at the design capacity of the well via Significant Deficiency I an approved air gap at a location prior to the first service connection without depressurizing the distnb0on system? yes no rda unk note PUMP HOUSE(Only pump houses that contain a ground water source) [] ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 34 Is the source located in a pump house? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 35 Is the pump house kept clean and in good repair? ❑' ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 36 Is the pump house protected from unauthorized personnel? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 37 Does the pump house have adequate lighting throughout? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 38 Are all threaded hose bibs installed in the pump house equipped with an appropriate backflow prevention device? 39 is adequate ventilation prov ded in the pump house for dssipation of ] Signifir and ❑ Deficiency excess heat and moisture from the equipment? 40 Is adequate heating provided in the pump house to prov ded safe and ] Significant n Deficiency efficient operation of equipment to prevent freezing? 41 Is the pump house protected from flooding have adequate drainage, and is the ground surface graded so as to lead surface water away from the pump house?(Unless otherwise approved by the Department) ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 42 Is the sump for pump house floor dra-ns closer than 30 feet from the we'I? Page Of IDEO-Enhanced Sanitary Survey 7/15/15 Groundwater Source 240 WELL SOURCE - PGA SURVEY DATE PWS# A separate sources form must be filled out for each well associated to the PWS. 3/6/2018 {mm/d ) 5420058 Tag#: Common Name of Source: Source associated with a Is this Source Treated? F1 Yes No E0007836 Hankins Well#2 ❑ wellfield Treatment Objective: ❑ N/A Physical Location: E] Manifold 367 Hankins Rd. Disinfection Treatment Types: N/A (identify Treatment Train in Comments) Is there a well log for the well source? Yes LJ No LJ N/A U Unk Sodium H pochlonte Pump Capacity(GPM) Casing Size(in) Date Drilled: Well Depth(Ft) Casing Depth(Ft) Grout Depth(Ft) Static Water Depth(Ft) 400 ❑ Unk 16 ❑ Unk q/2S/1999 ❑ Unk 385 ❑ Unk 62 ❑ Unk 62 E Unk 62 ❑ UnF Is the Casing Screened? Screen Depth(Ft): N/A LJ Unk Is the Casing Perforated? Perforation Depth(Ft): 0 N/P ❑ Yes ❑ No Q Unk From: ❑ Yes ❑ No 0 Unk From: ❑ UnE ❑ N/A To: ❑ N/A To Latitude(Decimal): 42 Deg 33'6.6423" Verified as accurate Longitude(Decimal): 114 Deg 25' 14.2927" ❑ Verified as accurate All Sources COMMENTS: 1. This source is; (Please ind sate question number) Active ❑ Proposed ❑ Inactive ❑ Emergency(Unplanned use) yea no rda Unk note WELL INFORMATION L i 2. Is the well on a separate lot?(applicable if constructed after 1111177) ❑ Significant ❑ Deficiency Yes no nra unk note Are the following minimum distances from the PWS well being met? a ❑ ❑ 0 3. Nearest property line..........................................50 Ft. 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 4. Any potential source of contamination...................50 Ft.(add comment) ❑' ❑ ❑ ❑ 5. Livestock........................................................50 Ft. ❑' ❑ ❑ ❑ 6. Canals,streams,ditches,lakes,ponds and tanks used to store nonpotable substances..........-60 Ft. ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ 7. Storm water facilities disposing storm water originating off the well lot...................................50 Ft, Q ❑ ❑ ❑ B. Class A Municipal Reclaimed Wastewater Pressure distribution line....................................50 Ft. Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 9. Gravi wastewater line_ .................I.................50 Ft. Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 10. Pressure wastewater line...................................100 Ft. 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 11. -Septic tank.............. ..................................100 Ft. 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 12. -Drainfield field...................................................100 Ft 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 13. -Seepage pit............. _ ...................................100 Ft. Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 14. -Privies.................... ......... .........100 Ft. .. . ❑1 ❑ ❑ ❑ 15. -Absorption module-large soil absorption system....150-300 Ft Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 16. -Municipal or industrial wastewater treatment plant....500 Ft. Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 17. -Biosolids application site. ......... . .........1000 Ft. Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 18. Reclamation and reuse of municipal and,nclustrial wastewater sites..... ......... .........Permit specific Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 19. Are frost free hydrants placed a minimum of five(5)feet away from the well?(N/A if protected by A VB) ❑ ❑ ❑ 20. Are pesticides,herbicides,fertilizers,portable containers of petroleum products,or other toxic or hazardous materials stored on the well lot? ❑ ❑ ❑ 21. Are pesticides,herbicides,or fertilizers applied to the well lot without prior approval from the Department? ❑ ❑� ❑ ❑ 22. Is the well in a pit? If yes Date constructed ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 23. Was the well that is located in a pit installed after 11/5/64? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 24. If pit was installed prior to 11/5164—Has DEO granted an exception and does the pit have water tight construction of pit walls and floor,a floor drain and an acceptable pit covert Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 25. Is the well protected from unauthorized entry?(Recommended) Page Of IDEO-Enhanced Sanitary Survey-7115115 Groundwater Source 241 Common Name SURVEY DATE PWS# VELL SOURCES -PG.2 Hankins Well#2 3/612018 1 (mm/d&yyy) 5420058 yes no rva unk note WELL INFORMATION(cant.) COMMENTS: J 26. Does the casing extend a minimum of 18 inches above the final ground (Please indicate question number) ] Significant ❑ Deficiency surface or 12 inches above the pump house floor? ❑ 27. Is the well vented with the open end of the vent screened with a 24 mesh and terminated downward at least 18 inches above the final ground surface or 12 inches above the pump house floor? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 28 Is the well provided with an approved cap that prevents surface water entry? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 29 Is the wel;cased and sealed in such a manner that surface water cannot enter the well? ❑ n ❑ ❑ 30 Is there a smooth nosed sample tap provided on the well discharge pipe #30 Sample taps have threads on prior to treatment? them DEQ recommends that these 31 Is an instantaneous and totalizing flow meter equipped with nonvolatile be replaced with smooth nosed L Unnecessarl memory mstal'ed on the pump distribution line of the well and is it sample taps maintained and working properly? 188538191 gallons Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 32 Is a pressure gauge provided on a:l discharge piping and is it maintained and working property? psi. 33 Can the well be pumped to waste at the design capacity of the well via Significant 1 1 Deficiency an approved air gap at a location prior to the first service connection without depressurizing the distribution system? yes no We unk note PUMP HOUSE(Onfy pump houses that contain a ground water source,, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 34 Is the source located in a pump house? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 35 Is the pump house kept clean and in good repair? a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 36 Is the pump house protected from unauthorized personnel? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 37 Does the pump house have adequate lighting throughout? a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 38 Are all threaded hose b bs installed in the pump house equipped with an appropriate backflow prevention device? 39 Is adequate ventilation provided in the pump house for diss pation of ] Significant ❑ Deficiency excess heat and moisture from the equipment? 40 Is adequate heating provided in the pump house to provided safe and ] S!gnificant ❑ Deficiency efficient operation of equ pmenl to prevent freezing? f U Ll U Lj 41 Is the pump house protected from Roo-ding,have adequate drainage and is the ground surface graded so as to lead surface water away from the pump house?(Unless otherwise approved by the Department) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 42 Is the sump for pump house floor drains closer than 30 feet from the well? Page Of IDEA Enhanced Sanitary Survey 7/15/15 Groundwater Source 242 WELL SOURCE - PGA SURVEY DATE PWS# A separate sources form must be filled out for each well associated to the PWS 3/6/2018 (mm/d ) 5420058 Tag#: Common Name of Source Source associated with a Is this Source Treated? M YesM o E0006718 E0006719,E0006720,E00D6721 Blue Lake Wells#1, 2,3,4 ❑ wellfield Treatment Objective i ' N,A Physical Location « Q Manifold Blue Lakes Country Club Drive(Jerome Co.) Disinfection Treatment Types LJ N/A (identify Treatment Train in Comments) Is there a well Iciq for the well source? , Yes No N/A Unk Sodium H pochlorite Pump Capacity(GPM) Casing Size(In) Date Drilled Well Depth(Ft) Casing Depth(FI) Grout Depth(Ft) Static Water Depth(Ft) 6500 ❑ Unk Q Unk 6/16/1905 Unk 18 El Q Unk ❑✓ Unk 5 ❑ Unt Is the Casing Screened? Screen Depth(Ft) N/A Unk Is the Casing Perforated? Perforation Depth(Ft): � N/f ❑ Yes Q No ❑ Unk From ❑ Yes ❑ No Li Unk From ❑ Unl ❑ N/A To: [] N/A To Latitude(Decimal): 42 Deg 33' 55.63" LJ Verified as accurate Longitude(Decimal): 114 Deg 25' 54.51" ❑ Verified as accurate All Sources COMMENTS: 1. This source is: (Please indicate question number) Q Active "— Proposed ❑ Inactive _ Emergency(Unplanned use} es no nta unk note WELL INFORMATION 2. Is the well on a separate lot?(applicable if constructed after 1111177) ❑ Significant ❑ Deficiency yes no n1a unk note Are the following minimum distances from the PWS well being met? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. -Nearest property line ...................................50 Ft Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 4. -Any potential source of contamination, .................50 Ft (add comment) Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 5. -Livestock... .................50 Ft Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 6. -Canals,streams,ditches,lakes ponds and tanks used to store nonpotable substances............50 Ft. Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 7. -Storm water facilities disposing storm water originating off the well lot .................50 Ft. Q ❑ ❑ ❑ B. -Class A Municipal Reclaimed Wastewater Pressure distribution line.......... ........................50 Ft Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 9. Gravity wastewater line............. .50 Ft. Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 10. Pressure wastewater line......... ..................... .100 Ft. Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 11. Septic tank................................................ ...100 Ft. Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 12. Drainfield field...................................................100 Ft. Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 13. Seepage pit......................................................100 Ft. Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 14. Privies.................................. .........._....100 Ft. Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 15. Absorption module-large soil absorption system....150-300 Ft Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 16. Municipal or industrial wastewater treatment plant...500 Ft. Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 17. Biosolids application site.....................................1000 Ft. Q 18, -Reclamation and reuse of municipal and Industrial wastewater sites.................... ........... ...Permit specific Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 19. Are frost free hydrants placed a minimum of five(5)feet away from the well?(N/A if protected by AV8) ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 20. Are pesticides,herbicides,fertilizers,portable containers of petroleum products,or other toxic or hazardous materials stored on the well lot? ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 21. Are pesticides,herbicides,or fertilizers applied to the well lot without prior approval from the Department? ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 22. Is the well in a pit? If yes,Date constructed: ❑I ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 23. Was the well that is located in a pit installed after 11/5164? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 24. If pit was installed prior to 11/5164—Has DEQ granted an exception and does the pit have water tight construction of pit walls and floor,a floor drain and an acceptable pit cover? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 25. Is the well protected from unauthorized entry?(Recommended) Page Of IDEA Enhanced Sanitary Survey-7115115 Groundwater Source 243 Common Name SURVEY DATE PWS# JELL SOURCES -PG.2 lue Lake Wells#1 21,4 3/6/2018 (mm/dd/yyyy) 5420058 des no nra unk note WELL INFORMATION(cont) COMMENTS: I./I Ll I , 26 Does the casing extend a minimum of 18 inches above the final ground (Please indicate question number) ] Significant El Deficiency surface or 12 inches above the pump house floor? QF1 ✓ 27 Is the well vented with the open end of the vent screened with a 24 mesh #27 Well has no vent at time of and terminated downward at least 18 inches above the final ground surface inspection Wells are very shallow, or 12 inches above the pump house floor? and do not require venting 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 28 Is the well provided with an approved cap that prevents surface water entry? a ❑ ❑ ❑ 29 Is the well cased and sea led in such a manner that surface water cannot enter the well? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 30 Is there a smooth nosed sample tap provided on the well discharge pipe prior to treatment? 31 Is an instantaneous and tota!izing flow meter equipped with nonvolatile ❑ Unnecessa memory installed on the pump distribution line of the well and is t #31 Totalizer located at canyon ma ntained and working properly? gallons facility Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 32 is a pressure gauge provided onon0discharge piping and is it maintained and working properly? psi ✓ 133 Can the welt be pumped to waste at the design capacity of the well via Significant Deficiency an approved air gap at a location prior to the first service connection without depressurizing the distribution system? #33 Can be pumped to waste at canyon No connection in between yes no rvs unk note PUMP HOUSE(Only pump houses that contain a ground water source) locations ❑ ❑ ❑✓ ❑ ❑ 34 Is the source located in a pump house? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 35 Is the pump house kept clean and Lin good repay? ❑ ❑ ❑✓ ❑ ❑ 36 Is the pump house protected from unaulhonzed personnel? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 37 Does the pump house have adequate lighting throughout? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 38 Ate all threaded hose b bs installed n the pump house equipped with an appropriate backflow prevention device? ✓ LJ LJ 39. Is adequate ventilat on provided In the pump house for dissipation of ] Significant ❑ Deficiency excess heat and mo sture from the equipment? 40. Is adequate heat ng provided in the pump house to provided safe and ] Significant ❑ Deficiency efficient operation of equipment to prevent freezing? ✓ 41 Is the pump house protected from flooding have adequate drainage and is the ground surface graded so as to lead surface water away from the pump house?(Unless otherwise approved by the Department) ❑ ❑ [] ❑ ❑ 42 Is the sump for pump house floor drains closer than 30 feet from the wef? Page Of IDEQ Enhanced Sanitary Survey 7115f15 Groundwater Source 244 WELL SOURCE - PGA SURVEY DATE PWS# A separate sources form must be filled out for each well associated to the PWS 3/6/2018 (mm/d ) 542005B Tag# Common Name of Source Source associated with a Is this Source Treated? Yes No E0006723 South Well#1 200HP ❑ wellfield Treatment Objective- i N/A Physical Location: Manifold 3603 N. 2900 E. Disinfection Treatment Types: N/A (identify Treatment Train in Comments) Is there a well log for the well source? Yes Lj No Lj N/A Lj Unk Sodium H pochlorite Pump Capacity(GPM) Casing Size(In) Date Drilled: Well Depth(Ft) Casing Depth(Ft) Grout Depth(Ft) Static Water Depth(FI) 4000 ❑ Unk 16 ❑ Unk 511511905 ❑ Unk 630 ❑ Unk 1184 ❑ Unk Q Unk ❑ Unl Is the Casing Screened? Screen Depth(Ft) - N/A U Unk Is the Casing Perforated? Perforation Depth(Ft) Nip ❑ Yes ❑ No Q Unk From: ❑ Yes ❑ No L Unk From Unt ❑ N/A To: ❑ N/A To Latitude(Decimal) 42 Deg 31'7 02" D Verified as accurate Longitude(Decimal) 114 Deg 28'26 18" 0 Verified as accurate All Sources COMMENTS: 1 This source is: (Please indicate question number) Q Active ❑ Proposed ❑ Inactive ❑ Emergency(Unplanned use) es no Na unk note WELL INFORMATION 2 Is the well on a separate lot?(applicable if constructed after 11/1/77) ❑ Significant ❑ Defidenty yes no Na unk note Are the following minimum distances from the PWS well being met? ✓ ✓ 3. Nearest property line ........ ...........50 Ft #3 well was installed prior to rule. ✓ ✓ 4 Any potential source of contamination .......50 Ft (add comment) ❑ ❑ ❑ 5 -Livestock ......... ....__...50 Ft Q Grandfathcrcd in. Downgraded to dc(ICency ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ 6 Canals streams,ditches,lakes,ponds and tanks used to stare nonpotable substances.. .........50 Ft #4 Possible that chemicals or pesiticidcs ❑' ❑ ❑ ❑ 7, Storm water facilities disposing storm water may be used within SOft. Sec note on originating off the well lot.... ...........50 Ft. #3.Downgraded to deficency Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 8. Class A Municipal Reclaimed Wastewater Pressure distribution line.................... .........50 Ft. ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ 9. Gravi wastewater line .-....................... ........50 Ft. ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ 10. Pressure wastewater line .....................I .......100 Ft. Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 11. Septic tank ..........Io0 Ft. ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ 12. Drainfield field.................................. ... .........100 Ft. o ❑ ❑ ❑ 13. Seepage pit............I.. .........100 Ft. ................. o a ❑ ❑ 14. Privies .........100 Ft. ..... .......... Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 15. Absorption module-large soil absorption system....150-300 Ft Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 16. Municipal or.ndustrial wastewater treatment plant....500 Ft. Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 17. Biosohds application site. ...... .......... ... ..........1000 Fl. [� ❑ ❑ ❑ 18. Reclamation and reuse of municipal and industrial wastewater sites....... . ...... ........... .. ............Permit specific Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 19. Are frost free hydrants placed a m:nimum of five(5)feet away from the well?(N/A if protected by A VB; ❑ ❑' ❑ ❑ 20. Are pesticides,herbicides,fertilizers portable containers of petroleum products or other toxic or hazardous materials stored on the well lot? ❑ P1 ❑ ❑ 21. Are pesticides,herbicides,or fertilzers applied to the well lot without prior approval from the Department? ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 22. Is the well in a pit? If yes Date constructed ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 23, Was the well that is located in a pit installed after 11/5/64? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 24, If pit was installed prior to 11/5164—Has DEC granted an exception and does the pit have water light construction of pit walls and floor,a floor drain and an acceptable pit cover? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 25 s the well protected from unauthorized entry?(Recommended) Page Of IDEO- Enhanced Sanitary Survey-7115115 Groundwater Source 245 Common Name SURVEY DATE PWS# TELL SOURCES-PG.2 South Well#1 200HP 3/6/2018 (mm/d&ym) 5420058 les no n/a unk note WELL INFORMATION fcontt) COMMENTS: 26 Does the casing extend a minimum of 18 inches above the final ground (Please indicate question number) Significant ❑ Deficiency surface or 12 inches above the pump house floor? 27 Is the well vented with the open end of the vent screened with a 24 mesh and terminated downward at least 18 inches above the final ground surface or 12 inches above the pump house floor? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 28. Is the well provided with an approved cap that prevents surface water entry? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 29. Is the well cased and sealed in such a manner that surface water cannot enter the well? �'M- n rl ❑ 30 Is there a smooth nosed sample tap provided on the well discharge pipe #30 Sample taps have threads on prior to treatment? them DEQ recommends that these 31 Is an instantaneous and totalizing flow meter equipped with nonvolatile be replaced with smooth nosed Unnecessa memory installed on the pump distribution line of the well and is it sample taps maintained and working properly? Ogallons 32 Is a pressure gauge provided on all discharge piping and is it maintained and working properly? psi. #32 No pressure guage at time of 133 Can the well be pumped to waste at the design capacity of the well via inspection however there is a low Significant 7 Deficiency an approved air gap at a location prior to the first service connection without level cut off installed and is only a depressurizing the distribution system? deficiency yes no nra unk note PUMP HOUSE(Only pump houses that contain a ground water source) ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 34 Is the source located in a pump house? ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ 35 Is the pump house kept clean and in good repair? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 36 Is the pump house protected from unauthorized personnel? Q �] ❑ ❑ ❑ 37 Does the pump house have adequate lighting throughout? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 38 Are all threaded hose to bs installed in the pump house equipped with an appropriate backflow prevention device? 39 Is adequate ventilation provided in the pump house for dissipation of Significant ❑ Deficiency excess heat and moisture from the equipment? 40 Is adequate heating provided in the pump house to provided safe and ] Significant ❑ Deficiency efficient operation of equipment to prevent freezing? 41 Is the pump house protected from flooding,have adequate drainage, and is the ground surface graded so as to lead surface water away from the pump house?(Unless otherwise approved by the Department) ❑ ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ 42. Is the sump for pump house floor drains closer than 30 feet from the well? Page Of IDEA Enhanced Sanitary Survey-7/15/15 Groundwater Source 246 WELL SOURCE - PGA SURVEY DATE PWS# A separate sources form must be filled out for each well associated to the PWS 3/6/2018 (mm/ ) 5420058 Tag#: Common Name of Source: Source associated with a: Is this Source Treated? F3 Yesn No E00076722 ISOuth Well#2 75HP ❑ wellfteld Treatment Objective ❑ N/A Physical Location: Manifold 3600 N.2935 E. Disinfection Treatment Types L N/A (Identify Treatment Train in Comments) Is there a well log for the well source? LJ Yes U No LJ N/A L Unk Sodium H pochlorite Pump Capacity(GPM) Casing Size(In) Date Drilled: Well Depth(Ft) Casing Depth(Fl) Grout Depth(Ft) Static Water Depth(Ft) 1200 ❑ Unk 20 ❑ Unk 5/14/1905 ❑ Unk 568 ❑ Unk 0 Unk [r) Unk I ❑� Unk Is the Casing Screened? Screen Depth(Ft): Q N/A LJ Unk Is the Casing Perforated? Perforation Depth(Ft): N/A ❑ Yes ❑ No Q Unk From: ❑ Yes ❑ No E] Unk From ❑ Unk ❑ N/A To: N/A ITO. Latitude(Decimal): 42 Deg 31' 10.22" Verified as accurate Longitude(Decimal): 114 Deg 28' 35.16" J Verified as accurate All Sources COMMENTS: 1. This source is: (Please indicate question number) [] Active ❑ Proposed ❑ inactive {�'; Emergency(Unplanned use} es no n/a unk note WELL INFORMATION 2. Is the well on a separate lot?(applicable if constructed alter 11/1/77) ❑ Significant ❑ Deficiency Yes no n/a unk note Are the following minimum distances from the PWS well being met? 3. -Nearest property line..........................................50 Ft. #3 Property adjacent to well house is 4. -Any potential source of contamination...................50 Ft.(add comment) within 50 feet.Downgraded to deficency [] ❑ ❑ ❑ 5. -Livestock........................................................50 Ft. #4 DEQ recommends that Operators 21/1 ❑ ❑ [3 6. -Canals,streams,ditches,lakes,ponds and tanks used to store nonpotahle substances............50 Ft. maintain good relationship with adjacent 0 E] E] ❑ 7. -Storm water facilities disposing storm water properl owner and request that properety originating off the well lot...................................50 Ft. owner move potential sources of 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 8. -Class A Municipal Reclaimed Wastewater contamination away from fence line. Pressure distribution line.....................................50 Ft. Downgraded to delcency. ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ 9. -Gravi wastewater line.....................................50 Ft. ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ 10. -Pressure wastewater line...................................100 Ft. 121 ❑ ❑ ❑ 11. -Septic tank.......................................................100 Ft. 0 Cl ❑ ❑ 12. -Drainfield field..............---....—........................100 Ft. E 13. -Seepage pit......................................................100 Ft. ❑' ❑ ❑ ❑ 14. -Privies............................................................100 Ft. Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 15. -Absorption module-large soil absorption system....150-300 Ft. Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 16. -Municipal or industrial wastewater treatment plant....500 Ft. Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 17. -Biosolids application site.....................................1000 Ft. Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 18. -Reclamation and reuse of municipal and industrial wastewater sites..............................................Permit specific Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 19. Are frost free hydrants placed a minimum of five(5)feet away from the well?(WA if protected by AVB) ❑ ❑ ❑� ❑� 20, Are pesticides,herbicides,fertilizers,portable containers of petroleum products,or other toxic or hazardous materials stored on the well lot? 420 Barrels located next to fence on ❑ ❑ 21. Are pesticides,herbicides,or fertilizers applied to the well lot without prior adjacent property have unknown approval from the Department? contents. ❑ ❑� ❑ ❑ 22. Is the well in a pit? If yes,Date constructed: ❑ ❑ ❑� ❑ ❑ 23, Was the well that is located in a pit installed after 11/5/64? ❑ ❑ ❑� ❑ ❑ 24. If pit was installed prior to 1115164-Has DEQ granted an exception and does the pit have water tight construction of pit walls and floor,a floor drain and an acceptable pit cover? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 25. Is the well protected from unauthorized entry?(Recommended) Page Of IDEA-Enhanced Sanitary Survey-7116/15 Groundwater Source 247 Common Name SURVEY DATE PWS# WELL SOURCES -PG.2 South Well#2 75HP 3/6/2018 (mm/dd/yyyy) 5420058 yes no nra unk note WELL INFORMATION(cont) COMMENTS: 26 Does the casing extend a minimum of 18 inches above the anal ground (Please indicate question number) Significant ❑ Deficiency surface or 12 inches above the pump house ftoor? ❑ n 27 Is the well vented with the open end of the vent screened with a 24 mesh #27 Well does not appear to have and terminated downward at least 18 inches above the Tina'ground surface any vent. DEQ recommends that if or 12 inches above the pump house floor? vent is installed it is installed with 24 Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 28. Is the well provided with an approved cap that prevents surface water entry? mesh covering and terminated Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 29 Is the well cased and sealed in such a manner that surface water downward. cannot enter the well? 'I .1�1. 1 ❑ 30 Is there a smooth nosed sample tap provided on the well discharge pipe #30 Sample taps have threads on prior to treatment? them DEQ recommends that these Lj Lj Li Li Li 31 Is an instantaneous and totalizing(low meter equipped with nonvolame be replaced with smooth nosed Unnecessa memory installed on the pump distribution line of the well and is it sample taps. maintained and work ng properly? 433.13 gallons ✓ ✓ 32 Is a pressure gauge provided on all discharge piping and is it maintained #32 No pressure guage at time of and working properly? psi. inspection however there is a low ✓ 133 Can the we'l be pumped to waste at the design capacity of the well via level cut off installed and is only a Significant Deficiency an approved air gap at a location prior to the first service connection without deficiency. depressurizing the dstribution system? yes no ril urk note PUMP HOUSE(Only pump houses that contain a ground water source) ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 34 Is the source located in a pump house? ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 35 Is the pump house kept clean and in good repair? ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 36 Is the pump house protected from unauthorized personnel? ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 37 Does the pump house have adequate lighting throughout? ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 38 Are all threaded hose bibs installed in the pump house equipped with an approprate backfiow prevention device? 39 Is adequate ventilal on provided in the pump house for dissipation of ] Significant ❑ Deficiency excess heat and moisture from the equipment? ✓ Lj L Lj Lj 40 Is adequate heating provided in the pump house to provided safe and ] Significant ❑ Deficiency efficient operation of equipment to prevent freezing? Lj Lj 41 is the pump house protected from flooding have adequate drainage, and is the ground surface graded so as to lead surface water away from the pump house?(Unless otherwise approved by the Department) ❑ ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ 42 Is the sump for pump house floor drains closer than 30 feet from the it Page Of IDEQ Enhanced Sanitary Survey 7/15115 Groundwater Source 248 WELL SOURCE - PGA SURVEY DATE PWS# A separate sources form must be filled out for each well associated to the PWS 3/6/2016 mmldoyyy) 5420058 Tag#: Common Name of Source Source associated with a: Is this Source Treated? M YesFJ No E0007899 South Well#3 ❑ Wellfield Treatment Objective ❑ N/A Physical Location: 0 Manifold 3600 N 2935 E. Disinfection Treatment Types: LJ N/A (identify Treatment Train in Comments) Is there a well log for the well source? Yes LJ No LJ N/A LJ Unk Sodium H pochlorite Pump Capacity(GPM) Casing Size(In) Date Drilled; Well Depth(Ft) Casing Depth(Ft) Grout Depth(Ft) Static Water Depth(Ft) 650 ❑ Unk 20 ❑ Unk 6/19/1905 ❑ Unk 402 El Unk 155 ❑ Unk 55 ❑ Unk ❑✓ Unl Is the Casing Screened? Screen Depth(Ft) N/A L Unk Is the Casing Perforated? Perforation Depth(Ft): NIP ❑ Yes ❑ No Q Unk From: ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑' Unk From ❑ UnI ❑ N/A To: ❑ N/A To Latitude(Decimal): 42 Deg 31' 14.9809" Verified as accurate Longitude(Decimal): 114 Deg 28'47.3865" ❑ Vertfied as accurate All Sources COMMENTS: 1. This source is: (Please indicate question number) ❑� Active ❑ Proposed ❑ Inactive ❑ Emergency(Unplanned use Yes no nia unk note WELL INFORMATION U 2. Is the well on a separate lot?(applicable if constructed after 1111177) ❑ Significant ❑ Deficiency Yes no n1a unk note Are the following minimum distances from the PWS well being met? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. Nearest property line._........... ....... ........50 Ft Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 4. Any potential source of contamination ................ 50 Ft (add comment) ❑' ❑ ❑ ❑ 5. Livestock........ ............. ....... ... ...50 Ft ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ 5. -Canals,streams ditches,lakes,ponds and tanks used to store nonpotable substances—........50 Ft. C ❑ ❑ ❑ 7. Storm water facilities disposing storm water originating off the well lot...... ......50 Ft 71. ❑ ❑ ❑ 8. -Class A Municipal Reclaimed Wastewater Pressure distribution line.—. .... ........50 Ft. ❑ ❑ ❑ 9. -Gravi wastewater line ......50 Ft. Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 10. -Pressure wastewater Ime. .... _. .....100 Ft. 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ I t. -Septic tank............... ...... ........100 Ft. 121 ❑ ❑ ❑ 12. -Dralnneld field...................................................100 Ft. 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 13. -Seepage pit.....................................................10o Ft. 121 ❑ ❑ ❑ 14. -Privies....................... . .... . 1. ..........100Ft. ❑., ❑ ❑ ❑ 15. -Absorption module-large soil absorption system....150-300 Ft. 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 16. -Municipal or industrial wastewater treatment plant....500 Ft. 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 17. -Biosolids application site_................ .... ._..........1000 Ft. El ❑ ❑ ❑ la. -Reclamation and reuse of municipal and industrial wastewater sites..............................._.............Permit specific Cl ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 19. Are frost free hydrarits placed a mittimum of five(5)feet away from the well?(iV/A tf profecfed by AVB) ❑ ❑� ❑ ❑ 20. Are pesticides,herbicides,fertilizers,portable conta ners of petroleum products,or other toxic or hazardous materials stored on the well lot? ❑ ❑ ❑ 21. Are pesticides,herbicides,or fertilizers applied to the well lot without prior approval from the Department? ❑ ❑Q ❑ ❑ 22. Is the well in a pit? If yes,Date constructed- ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 23, Was the well that is located in a pit installed after 11/5164? ❑ ❑ 2] ❑ ❑ 24, If pit was installed prior to 11/5/64—Has DEQ granted an exception and does the pit have water fight construction of pit walls and floor,a floor drain and an acceptable pit cover? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 25 Is the well protected from unauthorized entry?(Recommended) Page Of IDEO-Enhanced Sanitary Survey-7115115 Groundwater Source 249 Common Name SURVEY DATE PWS# WELL SOURCES-PG.2 South Well#3 3/6/2018 fmm/dd/yyyy) F 5420058 yes no nla unk note WELL INFORMATION(cost.) COMMENTS: 26 Does the casing extend a minimum of 18 inches above the final ground (Please indicate question number) ] Significant ❑ Deficiency surface or 12 inches above the pump house floor? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ Q 27 Is the well vented with the open end of the vent screened with a 24 mesh #27 Well vent has capp on it at time and terminated downward at least 18 inches above the final ground surface of inspection. or 12 inches above the pump house floor? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 28 Is the well provided with an approved cap that prevents surface water entry? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 29 Is the well cased and sealed in such a manner that surface water cannot enter the well? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 30. Is there a smooth nosed sample tap provided on the well discharge pipe prior to treatment? 31. Is an instantaneous and totalizing flow meter equipped with nonvolatile ❑ unnecessa memory installed on the pump distribution line of the well and is it maintained and working properly? 2321.25 gallons 32 Is a pressure gauge provided on all discharge piping and is it maintained #32 No pressure guage at time of and working properly? psi inspection however there is a low ]33 Can the well be pumped to waste at the design capacity of the well via level cut off installed and is only a Significant ❑ Deficiency an approved air gap at a location prior to the first service connection without deficiency depressurizing the distribution system? yes no rVa unk note PUMP HOUSE(Only pump houses that contain a ground water source ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 34 Is the source located in a pump house? [1 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 35 Is the pump house kept clean and in good repair? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 36 Is the pump house protected from unaulhonzed personnel? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 37 Does the pump house have adequate lighting throughout? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 38 Are all threaded hose bibs installed in the pump house equipped with an appropriate backflow prevention device? 39 is adequate ventilation provided in the pump house for dissipation of Significant ❑ Defic envy excess heat and moisture from the equipment? 40 Is adequate heating provided in the pump house to provided safe and ] Significant ❑ Deficiency efficient operation of equipment to prevent freezing? 41 is the pump house protected from flooding have adequate dra page and is the ground surface graded so as to lead surface water away from the pump house?(Unless otherwise approved by the Department) ❑ ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ 42 Is the sump for pump house floor drains closer than 30 feet from the well? Page Of DEO Enhanced Sanitary Survey 7/15/15 Groundwater Source 250 WELL SOURCE - PGA SURVEY DATE PWS# A separate sources form must be filled out for each welt associated to the PWS. 3/6/2018 (mm/dd/yyyy) 5420058 Tag#: Common Name of Source Source associated with a Is this Source Treated? Yes F1No E0007889 South Well#4 ❑ Wellfield Treatment Objective N/A Physical Location. [Q Manifold Yellow Rose Ave. Disinfection Treatment Types N/A (identify Treatment Train in Comments) Is there a well log for the well source? 12J Yes LJ No LJ N/A LJ Unk Sodium H pochlorite Pump Capacity(GPM) Casing Size(In) Date Drilled, Well Depth(Ft) Casing Depth(Ft) Grout Depth(Ft) Static Water Depth(FI) 3500 ❑ Unk 20 ❑ Unk 6/2111905 ❑ Unk 400 ❑ Unk 60 ❑ Unk 60 ❑ Unk ❑ Unk Is the Casing Screened? Screen Depth(Ft): N/A LJ Unk is the Casing Perforated? Perforation Depth(Ft): N/A ❑ Yes ❑ No 0 Unk From ❑ Yes [J No E] Unk From Unk ❑ N/A To: ❑ N/A To Latitude(Decimal): 42 Deg 31' 14.5093" 0 Verified as accurate Longitude(Decimal): 114 Deg 29'4,0271" Verified as accurate All Sources COMMENTS- 1. This source is: (Please indicate question number) ❑� Active ❑ proposed ❑ Inactive ❑ Emergency(Unplanned use) Yes no nta Unk note WELL INFORMATION 2. Is the well on a separate lot?(applicable if constructed after 1111177) ❑ Significant ❑ Deficlenty Yes no nla unk note Are the following minimum distances from the PWS well being met? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. -Nearest property line..........................................50 Ft Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 4. -Any potential source of contamination.......... ...-.50 Ft.(add comment) El ❑ ❑ ❑ 5. -Livestock............... .... .............. . .. . ..50 Ft. Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 6. -Canals,streams,ditches,lakes,ponds and tanks used to store nonpotable substances....... ..50 Ft ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ 7. -Storm water facilities disposing storm water originating off the well lot.... ............... . . .........50 Ft Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 8. -Class A Municipal Reclaimed Wastewater Pressure distribution line .. . ...... ......... ............50 Ft. ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ 9. -Gravi wastewater line .................................50 Ft. 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 10. Pressure wastewater line........................ .........100 Ft. ❑D ❑ ❑ ❑ 11. -Septic tank.......................................................100 Ft. ❑D ❑ ❑ ❑ 12, Drainfield field..................................................100 Ft. ❑- ❑ ❑ ❑ 13. Seepage pit............... ...................................100 Ft. 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 14. Privies..................... ............ ........ ............100 Ft. ❑r ❑ ❑ ❑ 15. Absorption module-large soil absorption system....150-300 Ft ❑' ❑ ❑ ❑ 16. Municipal or industrial wastewater treatment plant...500 Ft. ❑ ❑ ❑ 17. -Biosolids application site... ........ ...........1000 Ft ❑r ❑ ❑ ❑ 18. -Reclamation and reuse of municipal and industrial wastewater sites........- .......... - . ...........Permit specific ❑r ❑ ❑ ❑ [] 19. Are frost free hydrants placed a m nimum of five(5)feet away from the well?(N/A if protected by A VB) ❑ ❑� ❑ ❑ 20. Are pesticides,herbicides,fertilizers,portable containers of petroleum products,or other toxic or hazardous materials stored on the well lot? ❑ ❑ ❑ 21. Are pesticides,herbicides,or fertilizers applied to the well lot without prior approval from the Department? ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 22. Is the well in a pit? If yes,Date constructed ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 23. Was the well that is located in a pit installed after 1115/64? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 24. If pit was installed prior to 11/5/64-Has DEQ granted an exception and does the pit have water tight construction of pit walls and Floor,a floor drain and an acceptable pit cover? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 25. is the well protected from unauthorized entry?(Recommended) Page Of IDEQ-Enhanced Sanitary Survey-7115115 Groundwater Source 251 Common Name SURVEY DATE PWS# VELL SOURCES-PG.2 South Well#4 3/6/2018 (mm/ddty)yy) 5420058 yes no We unk note WELL INFORMATION faont) COMMENTS: III Li Li Li Li 26 Does the casing extend a minimum of 18 inches above the final ground (Please indicate question number) ] Significant Deficiency surface or 12 inches above the pump house floor? Q ❑ ❑ [j ❑ 27 Is the well vented with the open end of the vent screened with a 24 mesh and terminated downward at least 18 inches above the final ground surface or 12 inches above the pump house floor? ❑Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 28. Is the well provided with an approved cap that prevents surface water entry? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 29 Is the well cased and sealed in such a manner that surface water cannot enter the well? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 30 Is there a smooth nosed sample tap provided on the well discharge pipe prior to treatment? 31 Is an instantaneous and totalizing Bow meter equipped with nonvolatile ❑ Unnecessa memory installed on the pump distribution line of the well and is it maintained and working properly? 998598367 gallons _�� ❑ '� ❑ ❑ 32, Is a pressure gauge provided on all discharge piping and is it maintained and working properly? 10 psi 133 Can the well be pumped to waste at the design capacity of the well via ] Significant F] Deficiency an approved air gap at a locat.on prior to the rrsl service connection without depressurizing the distribution system? yes no rva unk note PUMP HOUSE{Only pump houses that contain a ground water source) Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 34 Is the source located in a pump house? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 35 Is the pump house kept clean and in good repair? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 36 Is the pump house protected from unauthorized personnel? ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 37 Does the pump house have adequate lighting throughout? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 38 Are all threaded hose bibs installed in the pump house equipped with an DEQ recommends that backflow appropriate backflow prevention device? device on PI system inside wellhouse 39 Is adequate ventilation provided in the pump house for dissipation of records are reviewed to ensure Significant ❑ Deficiency excess heat and moisture from the equipment? propert testing has occurred. Tag 40 Is adequate heal ng provided in the pump house to provided safe and indicated last inspection in 2016 at Significant ❑ Deficiency efficient operation of equipment to prevent freezing? time of inspection 41 Is the pump house protected from flooding,have adequate drainage and is the ground surface graded so as to lead surface water away from the pump house?(Unless othermse approved by the Department) ❑ Q ❑. ❑ ❑ 42 Is the sump for pump house Boor drains closer than 30 feet from the well? Page Of DEQ-Enhanced Sanitary Survey 7115115 Groundwater Source 252 STORAGE SURVEY DATE PWS# A separate storage form must be filled out for each storage unit in the PWS. 3/5/2018 mnVdd,1yyyy) F5420058 Storage Structure Name. Storage Structure ID#: COMMENTS: Harrison Storage (Please indicate question number) Physical Location. Date inservice: Unk 889 Harrison Volume(gal). Unk _ 5 million SS�Ld _Iy{C Construction Lj Above-Ground lyps of material: u� Reservoir/Tank ❑ Ground-Level Plastic ❑ Wood ❑ Standplpe U Partially Buried ❑ Fiberglass ❑ Metal ❑ Below-Ground Q Concrete ❑ Naturally Contained Total Days Supply(This structure): I Date Last Inspected: Unk Cleaned: Link 3 days ❑ Unk 2016 2016 How is the water level measured? Unk - SCADA yes no rva unk note ALL STORAGE STRUCTURES ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ 1 Is the storage structure safely accessible to the inspector? ❑ ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Is the PWS storage tank located within 500 feet of any municipal or Industrial wastewater treatment plant or any land which is spray irrigated with wastewater or used for sludge disposal? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. Are any of the storage structure drains directly connected to a sewer or storm drain? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑✓ 4- Is an overflow provided that discharges to daylight in a way that will preclude the #4/#5 Harrioson Storage possibility of backflow to the reservoir and,where practical,provided with an expanded tank does not have an metal screen installed within the pipe that will exclude rodents and deter vandalism? ❑ ❑ ❑� ❑ Q 5. Are overflows brought down to an elevation between 12 and 24 inches above overflow located on property the receiving surface?(2X the diameter of the discharge pipe above a basin nm) 17 1:1 ❑ ❑ ❑ 6 Do overflows discharge over a drainage inlet structure or splash plate?(storm or sanitary) C ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 7 Is the storage structure secure from unauthorized access? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ B Does the storage reservoir have a watertight roof or cover and is it sloped to facilitate drainage? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 9 Is the storage water protected from contamination? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 10 Is the storage structure structurally sound? ❑ ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ 11. Could vegetation in the area potentially impact the storage structure?(Recommended) ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 12. Is the storage structure designed so that it can be isolated from the distribution system without necessitating loss of pressure in the distribution system? ❑ ❑r ❑ ❑ ❑ 13. Is leakage evident at time of inspection? ❑ ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ 14. Is the storage structure interior coaling or liner peeling or cracked? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 15 Is the storage structure used to store finished water? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 16 Are access manhole openings for the storage structure 4 inches or greater above the surface of the roof,with a cover 2 Inches overlapping,water tight,hinged and locked? ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 17 Are all vents extended 12 inches above the roof and constructed to exclude potential sources of contaminabon7(The overflow pipe shall not be considered a vent) #16 did not confirm this at yes no nra unk note ABOVE GROUND STORAGE time of inspection ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 18 Do all vents open downward and are they fitted with a 24 mesh non-corrodible screen? yes no We unk note GROUND-LEVEL PARTIALLY BURIED or BELOW-GROUND STORAGE ❑' ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 Does the overflow for the storage structure have a vertical section of pipe at least 2 pipe diameters in length? ❑Z ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 20, Is the overflow for the storage structure provided with either a 24 mesh non-corrodible screen installed within the pipe when practical,or an expanded metal screen installed within the pipe plus a weighted flapper or check? ❑' ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 21. Is the area surrounding the storage structure graded in a manner that will prevent surface water from standing within 50 feet of it? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 22. Are all vents for the storage structure open downward with the opening at least 24 inches above the roof or the ground level and covered with 24 mesh non-corrodible screen to exclude potential contamination? yes no ota unk note PARTIALLY BURIED OR BELOW-GROUND STORAGE ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 23. Are"ALL"manholes elevated 24 inches above the surface of the roof or the ground level,which ever is higher? ❑ ❑ 2 ❑ ❑ 24. Is there a minimum distance of 50 feet between the storage structure and any non-potable main,standing water,or other possible source of contamination? Page Of IDEA-Enhanced Sanitary Survey 7/15/15 Storage 253 STO"GE SURVEY DATE PWS# A separate storage form must be filled out for each storage unit in the PWS. 3/6/2018 (mrrvdd y yy F 5420058 Storage Structure Name: Storage Structure tD#, COMMENTS: Hankins Storage (Please indicate question number) Physical Location: Date in service Unk 2591 Murray Ave. Volume(oal1: Unk 2.5 Million SSLT P Tye QOqt(wction; 7, Above-Ground Tyrip of Material: Reservoir/Tank ❑ Ground-Level Plastic ❑ Wood ❑ Standpipe 0 Partially Burled ❑ Fiberglass ❑ Metal ❑ Below-Ground I Q Concrete ❑ Naturally Contained Total Days Supply(This structure); Date Last: Inspected: J Link Cleaned. L' Unk .2 days ❑ Unk� 2015 12015 How is the water evel measured? I Link SCADA yes no Na unk note ALL STORAGE STRUCTURES ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1. Is the storage structure safely accessible to the inspector? ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Z Is the PWS storage tank located within 500 feet of any municipal or Industrial wastewater treatment plant or any land which is spray irrigated with wastewater or used for sludge disposal? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. Are any of the storage structure drains directly connected to a sewer or storm drain? C ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 4. Is an overflow provided that discharges to daylight in a way that will preclude the possibility of backflow to the reservoir and,where practical,provided with an expanded metal screen installed within the pipe that will exclude rodents and deter vandalism? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 5, Are overflows brought down to an elevation between 12 and 24 inches above the receiving surface?(2X the diameter of the discharge pipe above a basin nm) ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 6. Do overflows discharge over a drainage inlet structure or splash plate?(storm or sanitary) ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 7. Is the storage structure secure from unauthorized access? ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 8. Does the storage reservoir have a watertight roof or cover and is it Sloped to facilitate drainage? ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 9, Is the storage water protected from contamination? ❑' ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 10. is the storage structure structurally sound? ❑ ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ 11. Could vegetation in the area potentially impact the storage structure?(Recommended) Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 12. Is the storage structure designed so that it can be isolated from the distribution system without necessitating loss of pressure in the distribution system? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 13. Is leakage evident at time of Inspection? u ❑ ❑Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 14. Is the storage structure interior coating or liner peeling or cracked? ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 15. Is the storage structure used to store finished water? ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 16. Are access manhole openings for the storage structure 4 inches or greater above the surface of the roof,with a cover 2 inches overlapping,water tight,hinged and locked? C ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 17. Are all vents extended 12 inches above the roof and constructed to exclude potenbal sources of contamination?(The overflow pipe shall not be considered a vent) yes no We unk note ABOVE GROUND STORAGE ❑ ❑ ❑� ❑ ❑ 18. Do all vents open downward and are they fitted with a 24 mesh non-corrodible screen? Yes no n/a unk note GROUND-LEVEL PARTIALLY BURIED or BELOW-GROUND STORAGE #20 Screen currently ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 19. Does the overflow for the storage structure have a vertical section of pipe at installed is too large of a least 2 pipe diameters in length? mesh size. 20. Is the overflow for the storage structure provided with either a 24 mesh non-corrodible screen installed within the pipe when practical,or an expanded metal screen instated within the pipe plus a weighted flapper or check? ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 21. is the area surrounding the storage structure graded in a manner that will prevent surface water from standing within 50 feet of it? 22. Are all vents for the storage structure open downward with the opening at least 24 inches above the roof or the ground level and covered with 24 mesh non-corrodible screen to exclude potential contamination? yes no Na unk note PARTIALLY BURIED OR BELOW-GROUND STORAGE ❑� ❑ ❑ i❑ ❑ 23. Are"ALL"manholes elevated 24 inches above the surface of the roof or the ground level,which ever is higher? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 24. Is there a minimum distance of 50 feet between the storage structure and any non-potable main,standing water,or other possible source of contamination? Page Of IDEQ-Enhanced Sanitary Survey-7/15/15 Storage 254 STORAGE SURVEY DATE PWS# A separate storage form must be filled out for each storage unit in the PWS 3/6/2018 (mnt/dd/yyyy) F5420058 Storage Structure Name. Storage_Structure ID# COMMENT57 Hankins Storage#2 (Please indicate question number) Physical Location. Date in service. U Unk 2591 Murray Ave. 2016 Volume laall. Unk 5 million St ype Construction. TT Above-Ground T=Qf matenal. Reservoir/Tank ❑ Ground-Level ❑ Plastic ❑ Wood ❑ Standpipe Q Partially Burled L Fberg:ass ❑ Metal ❑ Below-Ground ❑ concrete ❑ Naturally Contained Total Days Supply(This structure): Date Last: Inspected. Unk Cleaned: U Unk .2 days ❑ Unk New Storage How is the water level measured? Unk SCADA yes no rVa unk note ALL STORAGE STRUCTURES Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1. Is the storage structure safely accessible to the inspector? ❑ ❑' ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Is the PWS storage tank located within 500 feel of any municipal or Industrial wastewater treatment plant or any land which is spray irrigated with wastewater or used for sludge disposal? ❑ ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. Are any of the storage structure drains directly connected to a sewer or storm drain? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 4. Is an overflow provided that discharges to day.ight in a way that will preclude the possibility of backflow to the reservoir and.where practical provided with an expanded metal screen installed within the pipe that will exclude rodents and deter vandalism? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 5. Are overflows brought down to an elevation between 12 and 24 inches above the receiving surface?(2X the diameter of the discharge pipe above a basin rim) ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 6. Do overflows discharge over a drainage in et structure or splash plate?(storm or sanitary) Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 7. Is the storage structure secure from unauthorized access? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 8. Does the storage reservoir have a watertight roof or cover and is it sloped to facilitate drainage? ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 9. Is the storage water protected from contamination? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 10. Is the storage structure structurally sound? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 11. Could vegetation in the area potentially impact the storage structure?(Recommended) C ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 12. Is the storage structure designed so that it can be isolated from the distribution system without necessitating loss of pressure in the distribution system? ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 13. is leakage evident at time of inspection? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 14. Is the storage structure interior coating or liner peeling or cracked? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 15. Is the storage structure used to store finished water? ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 16. Are access manhole openings for the storage structure 4 inches or greater above the surface of the roof,with a cover 2 inches overlapping,water light,hinged and locked? ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 17. Are all vents extended 12 inches above the roof and constructed to exclude potential sources of contamination?(The overflow pipe shall not be considered a vent) yes no n/a unk note ABOVE GROUND STORAGE ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 18. Do all vents open downward and are they fitted with a 24 mesh non-corrodible screen? yes no nra unk note GROUND-LEVEL PARTIALLY BURIED or BELOW-GROUND STORAGE ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 19. Does the overflow for the storage structure have a vertical section of pipe at least 2 pipe diameters in length? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 20. Is the overflow for the storage structure provided with either a 24 mesh non-corrodible screen installed within the pipe when practical,or an expanded metal screen installed within the pipe plus a weighted flapper or check? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 21. Is the area surrounding the storage structure graded in a manner that will prevent surface water from standing within 50 feet of it? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 22. Are all vents for the storage structure open downward with the opening at feast 24 inches above the roof or the ground level and covered with 24 mesh non-corrodible screen to exclude potential contamination? yes no n1a unk note PARTIALLY BURIED OR BELOW-GROUND STORAGE ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 23. Are-ALL"manholes elevated 24 inches above the surface of the roof or the ground level,which ever is higher? ❑.r ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 24. Is there a minimum distance of 50 feet between the storage structure and any non-potable main,standing water,or other possible source of contamination? Page Of IDEO-Enhanced Sanitary Survey-7/15/15 Storage 255 STORAGE SURVEY DATE PWS# A separate storage form must be filled out for each storage unit in the PWS. 3/6/2018 (mm/d_y;yy) Fi420058 Storage Structure Name: Storage Structure ID#. COMMENTS: South Wells Storage (Please indicate question number) Physical Location Date in service. ✓ Unk 3600 N 2900 E Volume(gall Unk f 10 m!llion Gallons Stnmeiza Construction: Above-Ground Type of material. ✓ Reservoir/Tank ❑ Ground Level 0 Plastic ❑ Wood ❑ Standpipe Q Partially Buried ❑ Fiberglass ❑ Metal ❑ Below GroundConcrete ❑ Naturally Contained Total Days Supply(This structure); E�Un:k astInspected: Unk Cleaned: ' Unk 5 days ❑ Unk 2016 2016 How is the water level measured? SCADA yes no nfa unk note ALL STORAGE STRUCTURES ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1. Is the storage structure safely accessible to the inspector? r iu ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Is the PWS storage tank located within 500 feet of any municipal or Industrial wastewater treatment plant or any land which is spray irrigated with wastewater or used for sludge disposal? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. Are any of the storage structure drains directly connected to a sewer or storm drain? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 4. Is an overflow provided that discharges to daylight in a way that"nil preclude the possibility of backflow to the reservoir and where practical,provided with an expanded metal screen installed within the pipe that will exclude rodents and deter vandalism? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 5. Are overflows brought down to an elevation between 12 and 24 inches above the receiving surface?(2X the diameter of the discharge pipe above a basin rim) ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 6. Do overflows discharge over a drainage inlet structure or splash plate?(storm or sanitary) ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 7. Is the storage structure secure from unauthorized access? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 8 Does the storage reservoir have a watertight roof or cover and is it sloped to facilitate drainage? ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 9. Is the storage water protected from contamination? ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 10. Is the storage structure structurally sound? ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 11. Could vegetation in the area potentially impact the storage structure?(Recommended) Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 12. Is the storage structure designed so that it can be isolated from the distribution system without necessitating loss of pressure in the distribution system? ❑ ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ 13. Is leakage evident at time of inspection? #20/#22 Screen Mesh on ❑ ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ 14. Is the storage structure interior coating or liner peeling or cracked? vents and overflow is too ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 15. Is the storage structure used to store finished water? large of a size. ❑' ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 16. Are access manhole openings for the storage structure 4 inches or greater above the surface of the roof,with a cover 2 inches overlapping,water tight,hinged and locked? ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 17. Are all vents extended 12 inches above the roof and constructed to exclude potential sources of contamination?(The overflow pipe shall not be considered a vent) Yes no nta unk note ABOVE GROUND STORAGE ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 18. Do all vents open downward and are they fitted with a 24 mesh non-corrodible screen? yes no nra unk note GROUND-LEVEL PARTIALLY BURIED or BELOW-GROUND STORAGE ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 19. Does the overflow for the storage structure have a vertical section of pipe at #23 Manhole opening is less least 2 pipe diameters in length? than 24inches but the ✓ 20. Is the overflow for the storage structure provided with either a 24 mesh non-corrodible manholes met rule screen installed within the pipe when practical,or an expanded metal screen installed requirements when it was within the pipe plus a weighted flapper or check? last built ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 21. Is the area surrounding the storage structure graded in a manner that will prevent surface water from standing within 50 feet of it? ✓ 22. Are all vents for the storage structure open downward with the opening at least 24 inches above the roof or the ground level and covered with 24 mesh non-corrodible screen to exclude potential contamination? yes no rVa unk note PARTIALLY BURIED OR BELOW-GROUND STORAGE ❑ ❑ C ❑ ❑ 23. Are"ALL"manholes elevated 24 inches above the surface of the roof or the ground level,which ever is higher? P] ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 24. Is there a minimum distance of 50 feet between the storage structure and any non-potable main,standing water,or other possible source of contamination? Page Of IDEQ-Enhanced Sanitary Survey-7/15/15 Storage 256 STORAGE SURVEY DATE PWS# A separate storage form must be filled out for each storage unit in the PWS 3/6/2018 (mm/ddiyyyy) 5420058 Storage Structure Name: Storage Structure ID#: COMMENTS: Eldridge Storage (Please indicate question number) Physical Location. Date in service Unk 2287 Eldridge Volume foal). H Unk 393,000 St rage I=, Gonstrudion: Above-Ground vial: Reservoir/Tank ❑ Ground-Level Plastic ❑ Wood ❑ Standpipe ❑ Partially Buried ❑ Fiberglass Q Metal ❑ Below-Ground ❑ Concrete ❑ Naturally Contained Total Days Supply(This structure); I"Unk Inspected: Unk Cleaned: Unk 2 days ❑ Unk201$ 12016 How is the water level measured? SCADA yes no nra unk note ALL STORAGE STRUCTURES ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1 Is the storage structure safely accessible to the inspector? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Is the PWS storage tank located within 500 feet of any municipal or Industrial wastewater treatment plant or any land which is spray irrigated with wastewater or used for sludge disposal? ❑ ❑' ❑ ❑ ❑ 3- Are any of the storage structure drains directly connected to a sewer or storm drain? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑! 4 Is an overflow provided that discharges to daylight in a way that will preclude the possibility of backflow to the reservoir and,where practical,provided with an expanded metal screen installed within the pipe that will exclude rodents and deter vandalism? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 5 Are overflows brought down to an elevation between 12 and 24 inches above the receiving surface?(2X the diameter of the discharge pipe above a basin nm) 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 6 Do overflows discharge over a drainage inlet structure or splash plate?(storm or sanitary) Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 7 Is the storage structure secure from unauthorized access? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 8. Does the storage reservoir have a watertight roof or cover and is it sloped to facilitate drainage? ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 9. Is the storage water protected from contamination? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 10 Is the storage structure structurally sound? ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 11. Could vegetation in the area potentially impact the storage structure?(Recommended) Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 12. Is the storage structure designed so that it can be isolated from the distribution system without necessitating loss of pressure in the distribution system? ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 13 Is leakage evident at time of inspection? ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 14 Is the storage structure interior coating or liner peeling or cracked? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 15. Is the storage structure used to store finished water? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 16 Are access manhole openings for the storage structure 4 inches or greater above the surface of the roof,with a cover 2 inches overlapping,water tight,hinged and locked? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 17 Are all vents extended 12 inches above the roof and constructed to exclude potential sources of contamination?(The overflow pipe shall not be considered a vent) yes no n/a unk note ABOVE GROUND STORAGE ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 18. Do all vents open downward and are they fitted with a 24 mesh non-corrodible screen? yes no Na unk now GROUND-LEVEL,PARTIALLY BURIED or BELOW-GROUND STORAGE a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 Does the overflow for the storage structure have a vertical section of pipe at least 2 pipe diameters in length? 20 Is the overflow for the storage structure provided with either a 24 mesh non-corrodible #20 Screen size is too large screen installed within the pipe when practical,or an expanded metal screen installed within the pipe plus a weighted flapper or check? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 21. Is the area surrounding the storage structure graded in a manner that will prevent surface water from standing within 50 feet of it? ❑ ❑ ❑� ❑ 0 22, Are all vents for the storage structure open downward with the opening at least #22 No vents located on 24 inches above the roof or the ground level and covered with 24 mesh non-corrodible Tank screen to exclude potential contamination? yes no n/a unk now PARTIALLY BURIED OR BELOW-GROUND STORAGE ❑ ❑ ❑� ❑ ❑ 23, Are"ALL"manholes elevated 24 inches above the surface of the roof or the ground level,which ever is higher? ❑ ❑ ❑' ❑ ❑ 24 Is there a minimum distance of 50 feet between the storage structure and any non-potable main,standing water,or other possible source of contamination? Page Of IDEQ-Enhanced Sanitary Survey 7115/15 Storage 257 DISTRIBUTION SURVEY DATE PWS# One form for all distribution systems in the PWS 3/6/2018 mm/d( d/yyy ) 5420058 What are water lines made of: COMMENTS: Material(s): ❑ Unk Sizes : 7 Unk (Please indicate the question number) 4"-42" #19 Multiple failed devices tha El Steel HDPE(black)❑ Asbestos/Cement are still in use. Twin Falls has 0 PVC 0 Ductile Iron ❑ Copper approved plan and is working ❑ other: towards compliance with the How manv services are metered? Number of Fire Hydrants: ordinance. DEQ recommends that City continue to keep 16592 out of 16592 12,300 CCCP active and continue to yes no rya unk note DISTRIBUTION make appropriate desicions ❑ ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1. Have there been any interruptions in sery ce during the past year?(including concerning CCCP as necessar pressure loss) as the program evolves. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ p ( p ) p p Downgraded to a deficency_ 2. If a loss of pressure occurred <20 s� . did the PWS provide public notice and disinfect the system?(Reminder) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. Is the PWS able to maintain a minimum pressure of twenty(20)psi throughout the distribution system(including fire flow) or forty(40)psi for PWSs constructed after 7/111985(excluding fire flow) dunng max mum hourly demand conditions? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 4. Was the pressure observed at a service connection? 5. If yes. psi Location yes no n1a unk note Time ❑ A.M.❑ P.M. C n ❑ ❑ r1j 6. Do all water mains that provide fire flow have a d ameter of at least 6 inches? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 7. Are valves exercised regularly?(Recommended) If yes,how often? 5 years ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 8. Is there a leak detection program?(Recommended) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 9. Does the system have leaking water mains that need to be repaired or replaced? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 10. Is a water conservation program in effect?(Recommended) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 11. Is an adequate map of the distribution system maintained?(Recommended) Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 12. Does the system flush all main lines annually?(Recommended) 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 13. Are all dead end water mains equipped with a means to flush? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 14. If yes are the deadends flushed at least semiannua ly? ❑ F,_1 ❑ ❑ ❑ 15. Are there any distribution matenas used that should not be,n contact with the drinking water? If yes explain in comments section Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 16. Is the system adequately protected from freezing? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 17. Is there a cross connection control program that complies with the Rules and is it being implemented? (Community PWSs Only) ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 18 Is the operator trained in cross connection control?(Recommended) 19 Are there any known unprotected cross connections or were any unprotected cross connections observed during the course of the survey? ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 20 if a separate non-potable imgation system is provided for the consumer, are all mains, hydrants, and appurtenances easily identifed as non-potable? (Purple Tape or other)(Recommended) yes no nla unk note Air/Vacuum Relief Valves-Placed at high points in water mains ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 21. Are all automatic air relief valves equipped with a means of backflow protection? Page Of IDEQ-Enhanced Sanitary Survey-7/15/15 Distribution 258 PUMPING - PG. 1 SURVEY DATE PWS# One form for all Pumps. 1 3/6/2018 1(mm/dd/yyyy) 5420058 PUMPS,PUMPHOUSES,AND CONTROLS Pump 113#: Ph sical Location: Type of Pump: Brand: Model Horsepower- Purpose 1 Harrison Booster Vertical Turbine 5K628XC577A 250 Booster 2 Harrison Booster HL4 Vertical Turbine 5K6328XC172A 450 Booster 3 Harrison Booster HL2 Vertical Turbine 5K632BXC172A 450 Booster 4 Harrison Booster HL2 Vertical Turbine 5M633CXC7A 450 Booster 5 Harrison Booster Vertical Turbine 5M633CXC7A 450 Booster 6 Harrison Booster Vertical Turbine 5K6328Xc172A 300 Booster 1 Harrison Blending Station Vertical Turbine GE 5KS447DAE6420 250 Blending 2 Harrison Blending Station Vertical Turbine GE 5KS4470AE6420 250 Blending 3 Harrison Blending Station Vertical Turbine GE 5KS4470AE6420 250 Blending 4 Harrison Blending Station Vertical Turbine GE 5KS4470AE6420 250 Blending COMMENTS: yes no n/a unk note ALL PUMPS (Please indicate the question number) ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 1. Does the pump(s)cycle excessively?(Recommended) Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Are all pumps provided with readily available spare parts and tools? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. Does the system have an approved method to prevent excessive pressure development? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 4 Is a standard pressure gauge installed and functioning on the discharge line? yes no n1a unk note WELL PUMPS ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 0 5 Is there an accessible check valve installed in the discharge line of each well between the pump and the shut-off valve? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 6 If the system has a vertical turbine motor driven pump(s), is an air release-vacuum relief valve located upstream from the check valve,with exhaust/relief piping terminating in a down-tumed position at least 18 inches above the floor and covered with a 24 mesh corrosion resistant screen? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 7 If the pump(s)is"oil lubricated", is the oil NSF approved and suitable for human consumption? Yes no n/a unk note WATER PUMPS (not welt pumps) 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 8 is an accessible check valve on the discharge side between the pump and the shut-off valve? yes no n/a unk note AUXILIARY POWER 9 is there auxiliary power on-site?(Community PWSs Only) ❑ Significant ❑ Deficiency 10 Is auxiliary power tested?(Recommended) ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 11. If a diesel or gasoline fueled engine is used on the well lot,is the fuel tank and connecting piping double walled? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 12. Is the fuel tank above ground? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 13 Is a certified operator present during the filling of the fuel tank? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 14 If the engine is in the well house, is the engine exhaust directly discharged outside the well house? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 15. Is a spill containment structure surrounding all fuel tanks adequate? (Secondary containment-110%fuel tank volume) Community Systems Only Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 16. (Community Systems built or substantially modified after 4115107 only) Is on-site power or standby storage provided so water can be treated and supplied to pressurize the entire distribution system during a power outage for a minimum of 8 hours? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 17. (Community Systems built or substantially modified alter 4/15(07 only) If standby power is provided, is there a minimum of 8 hours of fuel stored and located on site? Page Of IDEA-Enhanced Sanitary Survey-7/15/15 Pumping 259 SURVEY DATE PWS# LUMPING - PG. 2 3/6/2018 (mr►✓dd/yyyy) 5420058 COMMENTS: yes no nra unk note BOOSTER PUMPS (Please indicate the question number) 18 Is an instantaneous and totalizing flow meter installed where the booster Unnecessa pump is directly connected to the distribution system? 19 Are all in-line booster pumps supplied with an automatic cutoff that activates when intake pressure is less than or equal to 5 psi? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 20 Is the booster pump located on a suction line that is directly connected to any storage reservoir? ❑Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 If yes,are all booster pumps protected by an automatic cutoff to prevent pump damage and avoid excessive reservoir drawdown? yes nn nla rink nntP PUMP HOUSE(Only pump houses that 4ort9 contain a ground watersource) 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 22 Is the pump house kept clean and in good repair? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 23 Is the pump house protected from unauthorized personnel? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 24 Does the pump house have adequate lighting throughout? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 25 Are all non-sample taps installed in the pump house equipped with an appropriate backflow prevention device? 26 is adequate ventilation provided in the pump house for dissipation of ] Significant Defidency excess heat and moisture from the equipment? 27 Is adequate heating provided in the pump house to provided safe and ] Significant Deficiency efficient operation of equipment(prevent moisture buildup and/or freezing)? III Li Lj Li Li 28 Is the pump house protected from flooding have adequate drainage and is the ground surface graded so as to lead surface water away from the pump house?(Unless otherwise approved by the Department) ❑ ❑ [] ❑ ❑ 29 Is the sump for pump house floor drains closer than 30 feet from the well? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 30 Is the floor drain connected to sewer,storm drains chlorination room drains,or any other source of contamination?(Unless otherwise approved by the Department) Page Of IDEQ-Enhanced Sanitary Survey-7/15/15 Pumping 260 PUMPING - PG. 1 SURVEY DATE PWS# One form for all Pumps 3/6/2018 (mmlddyyyy) 5420058 PUMPS,PUMPHOUSES,AND CONTROLS Pump ID#: Physical Location Type of Pump Brandy Model Horsepower Purpose 1 Wills Booster Vertical Turbine US Motors 16701089-100 40 Booster 2 Wills Booster Vertical Turbine US Motors 16701088-100 125 Booster 3 Wills Booster Vertical Turbine US Motors 16701088-100 125 Booster 4 Wills Booster Vertical Turbine US Motors 16701088-100 125 Booster 5 Wills Booster Vertical Turbine US Motors 16701089-100 40 Booster COMMENTS: yes no nla unk note ALL PUMPS (Please indicate the question number) ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 1. Does the pump(s)cycle excessively?(Recommended) Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Are all pumps provided with readily available spare parts and tools? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 3 Does the system have an approved method to prevent excessive pressure development? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 4. Is a standard pressure gauge installed and functioning on the discharge line? yes no n/a unk note WELL PUMPS E] ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 5 Is there an accessible check valve installed in the discharge line of each well between the pump and the shut-off valve? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 6 If the system has a vertical turbine motor driven pump(s),is an air release-vacuum relief valve located upstream from the check valve,with exhaust/relief piping terminating in a down-tumed position at least 18 inches above the floor and covered with a 24 mesh corrosion resistant screen? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 7 if the pump(s)is"oil lubricated",is the oil NSF approved and suitable for human consumption? yes no We unk note WATER PUMPS (not well pumps) 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 8. Is an accessible check valve on the discharge side between the pump and the shut-off valve? es no We unk note AUXILIARY POWER 9 Is there auxiliary power on-site?(Community PWSs Only) Significant ❑ Deficiency 10 Is auxiliary power tested?(Recommended) a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 11. If a diesel or gasoline fueled engine is used on the well lot,is the fuel tank and connecting piping double walled? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 12 Is the fuel tank above ground? ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 13 Is a certified operator present during the filling of the fuel tank? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 14 If the engine is in the well house,is the engine exhaust directly discharged outside the well house? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 15. Is a spill containment structure surrounding all fuel tanks adequate? (Secondary containment-110%fuel tank volume) Community Systems Only 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 16. (Community Systems built or substantially modified after 4115107 only) Is on-site power or standby storage provided so water can be treated and supplied to pressurize the entire distribution system during a power outage for a minimum of 8 hours? ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 17 (Community Systems built or substantially modified after 4/15/07 only) If standby power is provided,is there a minimum of 8 hours of fuel stored and located on site? Page Of IDEA-Enhanced Sanitary Survey-7115/15 Pumping 261 SURVEY DATE PWS# 'UMPING - PG. 2 3I612018 (mm/dd/yyyy)r 5420058 COMMENTS: yes no nra unk note BOOSTER PUMPS (Please indicate the question number) ✓ LJ LJ U LJ 18 Is an instantaneous and totalizing Flow meter installed where the booster Unnecessa pump is directly connected to the distribution system? ✓ Ll LJ LJ 19 Are all in-line booster pumps supplied with an automatic cutoff that activates when intake pressure is less than or equal to 5 psi? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 20 Is the booster pump located on a suction line that is directly connected to any storage reservoir? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 If yes,are all booster pumps protected by an automatic cutoff to prevent pump damage and avoid excessive reservoir drawdown? yes no nra unk note PUMP HOUSE(Only pump houses that don't contain a ground watersource) 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 22 Is the pump house kept clean and in good repair? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 23 Is the pump house protected from unauthorized personnel? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 24 Does the pump house have adequate lighting throughout? ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 25 Are all non-sample taps installed to the pump house equipped with an appropriate backFlow prevention device? ✓ L L L L 26 Is adequate ventilation provided in the pump house for dissipation of ] Significant ❑ Deficiency excess heat and moisture from the equipment? 27 Is adequate heating provided in the pump house to provided safe and Significant ❑ Deficiency efficient operation of equipment(prevent moisture buildup and/or freezing)? 28 Is the pump house protected from flooding,have adequate drainage and is the ground surface graded so as to read surface water away from the pump house?(Unless otherwise approved by the Department) ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 29 Is the sump for pump house floor drams closer than 30 feet from the well? ❑ ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ 30 is the floor drain connected to sewer storm drams,chlorination room drams or any other source of contamination?(Unless otherwise approved by the Department) Page Of _ IDEQ Enhanced Sanitary Survey 7115115 Pumping 262 PUMPING - PG. 1 SURVEY DATE PWS# One form for all Pumps 3/6/2018 1(mrWda ryyy)F 5420058 PUMPS,PUMPHOUSES,AND CONTROLS Pump ID#: Physical Location: Type of Pump: Brand: Model Horsepower Purpose 1 Eldridge Booster Vertical Turbine U.S. Motors C52725-808 50 Booster 2 Eldridge Booster Vertical Turbine Baldor C0401140194 75 Booster 3 Eldridge Booster Centrifical U.S. Motors PO4PD57D47SR-1 150 Booster COMMENTS: yes no n1a unk note ALL PUMPS (Please indicate the question number' ❑ ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1. Does the pump(s)cycle excessively?(Recommended) 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Are all pumps provided with readily available spare parts and tools? ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. Does the system have an approved method to prevent excessive pressure development? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 4 Is a standard pressure gauge installed and functioning on the discharge line? yes no nla unk note WELL PUMPS Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 5. Is there an accessible check valve installed in the discharge line of each well between the pump and the shut-off valve? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 5 If the system has a vertical turbine motor driven pump(s), is an air release-vacuum relief valve located upstream from the check valve,with exhaust/relief piping terminating in a down-turned position at least 18 inches above the floor and covered with a 24 mesh corrosion resistant screen? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 7 If the pump(s)is"oil lubricated", is the oil NSF approved and suitable for human consumption? yea no n1a unk note WATER PUMPS (not well pumps) ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 8. Is an accessible check valve on the discharge side between the pump and the shut-off valve? yes no n/a unk note AUXILIARY POWER ✓ J 9 Is there auxiliary #9 City of Twin Falls has power on-site?(Community PWSs Only) mobile generators that they ca ❑ Significant ❑ Deficiency bring over should an issue ✓ 10. Is auxiliary power tested?(Recommended) arise. ❑ [] Q ❑ ❑ 11. If a diesel or gasoline fueled engine is used on the well lot; is the fuel tank and connecting piping double walled? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 12 Is the fuel tank above ground? ❑ ❑ ✓❑ ❑ ❑ 13. is a certified operator present during the filling of the fuel tank? ❑ ❑ ❑✓ ❑ ❑ 14. If the engine is in the well house,is the engine exhaust directly discharged outside the well house? ❑ ❑ ❑✓ ❑ ❑ 15. Is a spill containment structure surrounding all fuel tanks adequate? (Secondary containment- 110%fuel tank volume) Community Systems Only ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 16 (Community Systems built or substantially modified after 4115107 only) Is on-site power or standby storage provided so water can be treated and supplied to pressurize the entire distribution system during a power outage for a minimum of 8 hours? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 17 (Community Systems built or substantially modified after4115107 only) If standby power is provided, is there a minimum of 8 hours of fuel stored and located on site? Page Of IDEA-Enhanced Sanitary Survey-7/15/15 Pumping 263 SURVEY DATE PWS# 'UMPING - PG. 2 3/6/2018 (mm/dd/yyyy) 5420058 COMMENTS: yes no nla unk note BOOSTER PUMPS (Please indicate the question number) 18 Is an instantaneous and totalizing flow meter installed where the booster ❑ Unnecessa pump is directly connected to the distribution system? 19 Are all in-line booster pumps suppled with an automatic cutoff that activates when intake pressure is less than or equal to 5 psi? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 20 Is the booster pump located on a suction line that is directly connected to any storage reservoir? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 If yes,are all booster pumps protected by an automatic cutoff to prevent pump damage and avoid excessive reservoir drawdown? yes no n/a unk nnte PUMP HOUSE(Only pump houses that don't contain a ground water source) Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 22 Is the pump house kept clean and in good repair? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 23 Is the pump house protected from unauthorized personnel? ❑Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 24 Does the pump house have adequate lighting throughout? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 25 Are all non-sample taps installed in the pump house equipped with an appropriate backflow prevention device? 26 Is adequate ventilation provided in the pump house for dissipation of ] Significant L Deficiency excess heat and moisture from the equipment? 27 Is adequate heating provided in the pump house to provided safe and ] Significant ❑ Deficiency efficient operation of equipment(prevent moisture buildup and(orfreezing)? 28 Is the pump house protected from flooding have adequate drainage and is the ground surface graded so as to lead surface water away from the pump house?(Unless otherwise approved by the Department) ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 29 Is the sump for pump house floor drains closer than 30 feet from the well? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 30 Is the floor drain connected to sewer storm drains,chlorination room drains or any other source of contamination?(Unless otherwise approved by the Department) Page Of IDEA -Enhanced Sanitary Survey-7115/15 Pumping 264 PUMPING - PG. 1 SURVEY DATE PWS# One form for all Pumps 3/6/2018 (mm/ddtyyyy) 5420058 PUMPS,PUMPHOUSES,AND CONTROLS Pump ID#: Physical Location: Type of Pump: Brand: Model_ Horsepower- Purpose Hankins Well#1 Vertical Turbine General Electric 5KS36DTBW5022R 75 Well Hankins Well#2 Vertical Turbine U.S Electric S331A 40 Well BP1 Hankins Booster Vertical Turbine General Electric SKS365DT646020P 75 Booster BP2 Hankins Booster Vertical Turbine General Electric 5KS44DT6454P 125 Booster BP3 Hankins Booster Vertical Turbine Nidec 7322-REM 150 Booster BP4 Hankins Booster Vertical Turbine GE/Ingersoll 5KS3650T646020P 75 Booster BP5 Hankins Booster Vertical Turbine Nidec 7322-REM 150 Booster BP6 Hankins Booster Vertical Turbine Nidec 7322-REM 150 Booster COMMENTS: yes no n/a unk note ALL PUMPS (Please indicate the question number) ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 1. Does the pump(s)cycle excessively?(Recommended) Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Are all pumps provided with readily available spare parts and tools? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 3 Does the system have an approved method to prevent excessive pressure development? ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 4 Is a standard pressure gauge installed and functioning on the discharge line? yes no nra unk note WELL PUMPS Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 5 Is there an accessible check valve installed in the discharge line of each well between the pump and the shut-off valve? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 6 If the system has a vertical turbine motor driven pump(s), is an air release-vacuum relief valve located upstream from the check valve,with exhaust/relief piping terminating in a down-turned position at least 18 inches above the floor and covered with a 24 mesh corrosion resistant screen? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 7 If the pump(s)is"oil lubricated",is the oil NSF approved and suitable for human consumption? yes no nla unk note WATER PUMPS (not weUpumps) [] ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 8 Is an accessible check valve on the discharge side between the pump and the shut-off valve? yes no nla unk note AUXILIARY POWER 9 Is there auxiliary power on-site?(Community PWSs Only) ❑ significant ❑ Deficiency 10. Is auxiliary power tested?(Recommended) Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 11, If a diesel or gasoline fueled engine is used on the well lot, is the fuel lank and connecting piping double walled? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 12 Is the fuel tank above ground? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 13. Is a certified operator present during the filling of the fuel tank? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 14. If the engine is in the well house, is the engine exhaust directly discharged outside the well house? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 15 Is a spill containment structure surrounding all fuel tanks adequate? (Secondary containment- 110%fuel tank volume) Community Systems Only Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 16, (Community Systems built or substantially modified after 4115107 only) Is on-site power or standby storage provided so water can be treated and supplied to pressurize the entire distribution system during a power outage for a minimum of 8 hours? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 17 (Community Systems built or substantially modified after 4115107 only) If standby power is provided. is there a minimum of 8 hours of fuel stored and located on site? Page Of IDEQ-Enhanced Sanitary Survey-7/15/15 Pumping 265 SURVEY DATE PWS# LUMPING - PG. 2 1 3/6/2018 (mm/dd/yyyy) 5420058 COMMENTS: yes no nra unk note BOOSTER PUMPS (Please indicate the question number) 18 Is an instantaneous and totalizing flow meter installed where the booster Unnecessa pump is direct:y connected to the distribution system? 19 Are all in-line booster pumps supplied wrath an automatic cutoff that activates when intake pressure is less than or equal to 5 psi? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 20 Is the booster pump located on a suction line that is directly connected to any storage reservoir? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 If yes,are all booster pumps protected by an automatic cutoff to prevent pump damage and avoid excessive reservoir drawdown? yec nn nra «nk note PUMP HOUSE(Only pump houses that don't contain a ground water source) 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 22 Is the pump house kept clean and in good repair? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 23 Is the pump house protected from unauthorized personnel? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 24 Does the pump house have adequate lighting throughout? [] ❑ [1 ❑ ❑ 25 Are all non-sample taps installed in the pump house equipped with an appropriate backflow prevention device? 26 Is adequate ventilation provided in the pump house for dissipation of Sign ficant [] Deficiency excess heat and moisture from the equipment? 27 Is adequate heating provided in the pump house to provided safe and Significant Deficiency efficient operation of equipment(prevent moisture buildup and/or freezing)? #28 Basement area may need to be 28 Is the pump house protected from flooding have adequate drainage pumped if flooding did occur and floor and is the ground surface graded so as to lead surface water away from hatch was not watertight sealed the pump house?(Unless otherwise approved by the Department) ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 29 Is the sump for pump house floor drains closer than 30 feet from the well? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 30 is the floor drain connected to sewer storm drains,chlorination room drains or any other source of contamination?(Unless otherwise approved by the Department) Page Of IDEQ-Enhanced Sanitary Survey-7115/15 Pumping 266 PUMPING - PG. 1 SURVEY DATE PWS# One form for all Pumps 3/6/201 B (mm/ddyyyy) 5420058 PUMPS,PUMPHOUSES,AND CONTROLS Pump ID#. Physical Location- Type of Pump: Brand, Model Horsepower Purpose South Well#1 Vertical Turbine US Electrical Motor AA68A 200 Booster South Well#2 Vertical Turbine Fairbanks-Morse F405010 75 Booster South Well#3 Vertical Turbine US Electrical Motor CF08 350 Booster South Well#4 Vertical Turbine General Electric 5K447DT6034 250 Booster 1 South Well#3 Positive Displacement General Electric 5K549MN4583A 0.5 Chlorinator 2 South Well#3 Positive Displacement General Electric 5KS49MN4583A 0.5 Chlorinator 3 South Well#3 Positive Displacement General Electric 5K549MN4583A 0.5 Chlorinator COMMENTS: yes no nla unk note ALL PUMPS (Please indicate the question number) ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 1. Does the pump(s)cycle excessively?(Recommended) Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Are aii pumps provided with readily available spare parts and tools? [� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 3 Does the system have an approved method to prevent excessive pressure development? II II II II II 4. Is a standard pressure gauge installed and functioning on the discharge line? #4 South Well did not have pressure guage at time of yes no rva unk note WELL PUMPS inspection. Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 5 Is there an accessible check valve installed in the discharge line of each well between the pump and the shut-off valve? ✓ ✓ 6. If the system has a vertical turbine motor driven pump(s),is an air #6 South Well 2 &4 release-vacuum relief valve located upstream from the check valve with exhaust/relief piping is not exhaust/relief piping terminating in a dawn-tumed position at least 18 inches downturned. above the floor and covered with a 24 mesh corrosion resistant screen? ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 7. If the pump(s)is"oil lubricated",is the oil NSF approved and suitable for human consumption? yes no nla unk note WATER PUMPS (not well pumps) ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ B Is an accessible check valve on the discharge side between the pump and the shut-off valve? oesno n/a unk note AUXILIARY POWER 9. Is there auxiliary power on-site?(Community PWSs Only) #9 South Wells does not havE nificant ✓ Defiden_ry deticated auxiliary power, ✓ 10. Is auxiliary power tested?(Recommended) however a generator can be ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 11. If a diesel or gasoline fueled engine is used on the well lot; is the fuel tank relocated to power pump if and connecting piping double walled? need arises ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 12. Is the fuel tank above ground? ❑ ❑ C ❑ ❑ 13. Is a certified operator present during the filling of the fuel tank? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 14. If the engine is in the well house,is the engine exhaust directly discharged outside the well house? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 15. Is a spill containment structure surrounding all fuel tanks adequate? (Secondary containment-110%fuel tank volume) Community Systems Only ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 16. (Community Systems built or substantially modified after 4/15/07 only) Is on-site power or standby storage provided so water can be treated and supplied to pressurize the entire distribution system during a power outage for a minimum of 8 hours? ❑ ❑ ❑✓ ❑ ❑ 17. (Community Systems built or substantially modified after 4115107 only) If standby power is provided,is there a minimum of 8 hours of fuel stored and located on site? Page Of IDEQ-Enhanced Sanitary Survey-V15/15 Pumping 267 SURVEY DATE PWS# 'UMPING - PG. 2 3/6/2018 (mm/ddlyyyy) 542005E COMMENTS' yes no nia unk note BOOSTER PUMPS (Please indicate the question number) 18 Is an instantaneous and totalizing flow meter installed where the booster Unnecessa pump is directly connected to the distribution system? 19 Are all in-line booster pumps suppi.ed with an automatic cutoff that activates when intake pressure is less than or equal to 5 psi? ❑' ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 20 Is the booster pump located on a suction line that is directly connected to any storage reservoir? [] ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 If yes,are all booster pumps protected by an automatic cutoff to prevent pump damage and avoid excessive reservoirdrawdown? yes no n/a unk note PUMP HOUSE(Only pump houses that don't contarn a ground water source) 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 22. Is the pump house kept c'ean and in good repair? [] ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 23 Is the pump house protected from unauthorized personnel? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 24 Does the pump house have adequate lighting throughout? ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 25 Are all non sample taps installed in the pump house equipped with an appropriate backflow,prevention device? 26 Is adequate ventilation provided in the pump house for dissipation of Significant Deficiency excess heat and moisture from the equipment? 27 Is adequate heating provided in the pump house to provided safe and Significant Deficiency efficient operation of equipment(prevent moisture buildup and(or freezing)? 28 Is the pump house protected from flooding have adequate drainage and is the ground surface graded so as to lead surface water away from the pump house?(Unless otherwise approved by the Department) ❑ ❑Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 29 Is the sump for pump house floor drains closer than 30 feet from the well? ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 30 Is the floor drain connected to sewer storm drains,chlorination room drains,or any other source of contamination?(Unless otherwise approve by the Department) Page Of 1DEQ-Enhanced Sanitary Survey-7115/15 Pumping 268 PUMPING -PG. 1 SURVEY DATE PWS# One form for all Pumps. 3/6/2018 (mm/dd/yyyyll r 5420058 PUMPS,PUMPHOUSES,AND CONTROLS Pump ID# Physical Location: Type of Pump, Brand. Model Horsepower Purpose: 1 Canyon Springs Booster Station Vertical Turbine US Electrical Motor 5K6328XC171A 500 Booster 2 Canyon Springs Booster Station Vertical Turbine US Electrical Motor 5K6339XC48A 1000 Booster 3 Canyon Springs Booster Station Vertical Turbine US Electrical Motor 5K6339XC48A 1000 Booster 4 Canyon Springs Booster Station Vertical Turbine US Electrical Motor 5K6339XC48A 1000 Booster 5 Canyon Springs Booster Station Vertical Turbine US Electrical Motor 5K6339XC48A 1000 Spare Canyon Springs Booster Station Positive Displacement Marathon 56C 1 Chlorinator Canyon Springs Booster Station Positive Displacement Marathon 56C 1 Chlorinator COMMENTS: yes no n/a unk note ALL PUMPS (Please indcate the question number) ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 1. Does the pump(s)cycle excessively?(Recommended) Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Are all pumps provided with readily available spare parts and tools? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. Does the system have an approved method to prevent excessive pressure development? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 4. Is a standard pressure gauge installed and functioning on the discharge line? yes no nla unk note WELL PUMPS a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 5. Is there an accessible check valve installed in the discharge line of each well between the pump and the shut-off valve? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ a 6. If the system has a vertical turbine motor driven pump(s),is an air #6 Air Relief located on release-vacuum relief valve located upstream from the check valve,with Canyon Rim site. No exhaustirelief piping terminating in a down-tumed position at least 18 inches connections inbetween above the floor and covered with a 24 mesh corrosion resistant screen? locations ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 7. if the pump(s)is"oil lubricated",is the oil NSF approved and suitable for human consumption? yes no nla unk note WATER PUMPS (not well pumps) Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 8 is an accessible check valve on the discharge side between the pump and the shut-off valve? yes no nla unk note AUXILIARY POWER M. 9 Is there auxiliary power on-site?(Community PWSs Only) #9 City of Twin Falls has Significant Tde.,g mobile generator that can be 10 Is auxiliary power tested?(Recommended) used if need arises. ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 11 If a diesel or gasoline fueled engine is used on the well lot;is the fuel tank and connecting piping double walled? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 12, Is the fuel tank above ground? ❑ ❑ ❑✓ ❑ ❑ 13 Is a certified operator present during the filling of the fuel tank? ❑ ❑ 14, If the engine is in the well house, is the engine exhaust directly discharged outside the well house? ❑ ❑ ❑� ❑ ❑ 15 Is a spill containment structure surrounding all fuel tanks adequate? (Secondary containment- 110%fief tank volume) Community Systems Oniy ❑ ❑ ❑� ❑ ❑ 16. (Community Systems built or substantially modified after 4115107 only) Is on-site power or standby storage provided so water can be treated and supplied to pressurize the entire distribution system during a power outage for a minimum of 8 hours? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 17 (Community Systems built or substantially modified after 4/15/07 only) If standby power is provided, is there a minimum of 8 hours of fuel stored and located on site? Page Of IDEQ-Enhanced Sanitary Survey-7/15/15 Pumping 269 SURVEY DATE PWS# }UMPING - PG.2 3/6/2018 (mm/d0yyy) 5420058 COMMENTS: yes no wa unk note BOOSTER PUMPS (Please indicate the question number) 18. Is an instantaneous and totalizing flow meter installed where the booster Unnecessa pump is directly connected to the distribution system? 19 Are all in-line booster pumps supplied with an automatic cutoff that activates when intake pressure is less than or equal to 5 psi? ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 20 Is the booster pump located on a suction line that is directly connected to any storage reservoir? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 21. If yes,are all booster pumps protected by an automatic cutoff to prevent pump damage and avoid excessive reservoir drawdown? yes no n1a unk note PUMP HOUSE(Only pump houses that dorttLt_contain a ground water source) Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 22 Is the pump house kept clean and in good repair? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 23. Is the pump house protected from unauthorized personnel? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 24. Does the pump house have adequate lighting throughout? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 25. Are all non-sample taps installed in the pump house equipped with an .appropriate backflow prevention device? 26 Is adequate ventilatEon provided in the pump house for dissipation of ] Significant ❑ Deficiency excess heat and moisture from the equipment? 27 Is adequate heating provided in the pump house to prov ded safe and ] Significant ❑ Deficiency efficient operation of equipment(prevent moisture buildup and/or freezing)? 2B. Is the pump house protected from flooding have adequate drainage and is the ground surface graded so as to lead surface water away from the pump houses!Unless otherwise approved by the Department) ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 29 Is the sump for pump house floor drains closer than 30 feet from the well? ❑ Q [� ❑ ❑ 30 is the floor drain connected to sewer storm drains chlorination room drains or any other source of contamination?(Unless otherwise approved by the Department) IDEA Enhanced Sanitary Survey-7/15/15 Pumping 270 PUMPING - PG. I SURVEY DATE PWS# One form for all Pumps. 3/6/2018 (mm/ddyyyy) 5420058 PUMPS,PUMPHOUSES,AND CONTROLS Pump ID# Physical Location. Type of Pump Brand Model: Horsepower Purpose 1 Blue Lakes Vertical Turbine General Electric 5KS447DAE7421 150 Distribution 2 Blue Lakes Vertical Turbine General Electric 5KS447DAE7421 150 Distribution 3 Blue Lakes Vertical Turbine General Electric 5KS447DAE7421 150 Distribution 4 Blue Lakes Vertical Turbine General Electric 5KS447DAE7421 150 Distribution COMMENTS: yes no n/a unk note ALL PUMPS (Please indicate the question number) ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 1. Does the pump(s)cycle excessively?(Recommended) Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Are all pumps provided with readily available spare parts and tools? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. Does the system have an approved method to prevent excessive pressure development? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 4. Is a standard pressure gauge installed and functioning on the discharge line? yes no nra unk note WELL PUMPS 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 5. Is there an accessible check valve installed in the discharge line of each well between the pump and the shut-off valve? ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 6. If the system has a vertical turbine motor driven pump(s),is an air release-vacuum relief valve located upstream from the check valve,with exhaust/relief piping terminating in a down-turned position at least 18 inches above the floor and covered with a 24 mesh corrosion resistant screen? ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 7. If the pump(s)is'oil lubricated",is the oil NSF approved and suitable for human consumption? yes no nla unk note WATER PUMPS (not well pumps) ❑ ❑ a o ❑ 8 Is an accessible check valve on the discharge side between the pump and the shut-off valve? yes no Na unk note AUXILIARY POWER - 1 9. Is there auxiliary power on-site?(Community PWSs Only) ❑ significant: ❑ Deficiency 10_ Is auxiliary power tested?(Recommended) Q ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 11. If a diesel or gasoline fueled engine is used on the well lot;is the fuel tank and connecting piping double walled? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 12 Is the fuel tank above ground? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 13 Is a certified operator present during the filling of the fuel tank? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 14. If the engine is in the well house,is the engine exhaust directly discharged outside the well house? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 15. Is a spill containment structure surrounding all fuel tanks adequate? (Secondary containment-110%fuel tank volume) Community Systems Only Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 16. (Community Systems built or substantially modified after 4115107 only) Is on-site power or standby storage provided so water can be treated and supplied to pressurize the entire distribution system during a power outage for a minimum of 8 hours? ❑' ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 17. (Community Systems built or substantially modified after 4/15/07 only) If standby power is provided,is there a minimum of 8 hours of fuel stored and located on site? Page Of 1DEQ-Enhanced Sanitary Survey-7/15/15 Pumping 271 SURVEY DATE PWS# rUMPING - PG. 2 3/6/2018 (mm/dWyyyy) 5420058 COMMENTS: yes no Nat unk note BOOSTER PUMPS (Please indicate the question number) 18 Is an instantaneous and totalizing flow meter installed where the booster #18 Located at Canyon Unnecessaryl pump is directly connected to the distribution system? 19 Are all to-line booster pumps supplied with an automatic cutoff that activates when intake pressure is less than or equal to 5 psi? ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 20 Is the booster pump located on a suction line that is directly connected to any storage reservoir? 7 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 If yes,are all booster pumps protected by an automatic cutoff to prevent pump damage and avoid excessive reservoir drawdown? yes no nta unk note PUMP HOUSE(Only pump houses that don't contain a groundwater source) ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 22 Is the pump house kept clean and in good repair? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 23 Is the pump house protected from unauthorized personnel? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 24 Does the pump house have adequate lighting throughout? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 25 Are all non-sample taps installed in the pump house equipped with an appropriate backf:ow prevention device? 26 Is adequate ventilation provided in the pump house for dissipation of Significant LJ Deficiency excess heat and moisture from the equipment? 27 Is adequate heating provided in the pump house to provided safe and S gnifirant ❑ Deficiency efficient operation of equipment(prevent moisture buildup and/or freezing)? 28 Is the pump house protected from flooding have adequate drainage. and is the ground surface graded so as to lead surface water away from the pump house?(Unless otherwise approved by the Department) ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ 29 Is the sump for pump nouse floor drains closer than 30 feet from the well? ❑ ❑ [] ❑ ❑ 30 Is the floor drain connected to sewer storm drains chlorination room drains or any other source of contamination?(Unless otherwise approved by the Department) Page Of IDEA -Enhanced Sanitary Survey-7/15/15 Pumping 272 SURVEY DATE PWS# FINANCIAL CAPACITY 3/6/2018 (mm/dd/yyyy) 5420058 yes no n!a unk note FINANCIAL CAPACITY COMMENTS: Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1. Is the PWS current with the payment of drinking water fees? (Please indicate the question number) Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Does the PWS charge a drinking water fee to the user? If yes,what is the fee: S 110.53 w1tr/11.15 Arsenic ❑ ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. Is the PWS in the business of selling water? #3 Note: ��-If no, Identify why in the comments section and mark "NIA"on questions 4-19, ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 4. Does the PWS provide and use an annual budget?(Recommended) ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 5. If applicable,is the PWS fund separate from the waste water/sewer utility fund?(Recommended) ❑ ❑ a ❑ ❑ & Do water system revenues exceed expenditures? (Recommended) ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 7. Are controls established to prevent expenditures from exceeding revenues? ❑ ❑ ❑J ❑ ❑ B. Has an independent financial audit been completed?(Recommended) ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 9. If yes,is a copy of the most recent balance sheet for the water system available? (Recommended) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 10. Does the water system include a cash budget within its annual budget for cash flow? (Recommended) ❑ ❑ ❑� ❑ ❑ 11. Does the water system management review the user fee, user charge, or rate system at least annually? (Recommended) 12. When was the last user fee, user charge,or rate system adjustment? yes no n/a unk note mm/dd/yyyy ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 13. Does the water system management review financial reports at least monthly? (Recommended) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 14. Does the PWS provide and use a capital budget? (Recommended) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 15. Has this PWS produced and does it currently utilize a capital improvements plan? (Recommended) 16. If yes,when was the capital improvements budget produced? mm/dd/yyyy ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 17. Has the capital improvement budget been updated in the last 18 months? (Recommended) ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 18. Does the water system budget provide funding for depreciation of existing plant in service and/or for the funding of reserves for system replacement? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 19. Are there sufficient funds for training personnel? Page Of 1DEQ-Enhanced Sanitary Survey-7/15/15 Financial Capacity 273 SURVEY DATE PWS# MANAGERIAL CAPACITY F 03/06/2018 (mrn/ddlyyyy) 5420058 yes no n/a unk note MANAGERIAL CAPACITY COMMENTS: ❑., ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1. Is a properly licensed operator available at all times?(N/A for GW-NC PWS) (Please indicate the question number, Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Does this PWS have a governing body or board of directors? If no,please indicate ❑ Sole Proprietorship ❑ Partnership ❑ Limited Liability Corp. Q Other: Council 3. How often does the board meet? ❑ N/A Q weekly ❑ semi-annually ❑ never ❑ monthly ❑ annually ❑ unknown ❑ bimonthly ❑ as necessary ❑ other yes no n/a unk note Are the following records maintained onsite or located near by? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 4, - Bacteriological Analysis-5 years retention. F ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 5. - Chemical Analysis-10 years retention. Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 6. - Records of actions taken to correct violations-3 years retention. Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 7. - Copies of reports,summaries or communication related to sanitary surveys-10 years retention. Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 8, - Reports concerning variances or exemptions-5 years retention. Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 9. Copies of public notices issued-3 years retention. Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 10. Daily free chlorine residuals(required disinfection)-i year retention. Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 11. Does the system owner have an Asset Management Plan?(Recommended) 12. Is an operation and maintenance manual(s)provided for the PWS and ❑ Significant❑ Recommend does it include;water system specific operations plans;maintenance 0 12 City Works information and checklists,and manufacturer's product information,etc? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 13. Is there a clear plan of organization and control among the people responsible for management and operations of the water system?(Recommended) yes no n/a unk note Are any samples of the following parameters past due? ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 14, Coliform ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 15, Nitrates ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 16, Nitrites ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 17. Lead and Copper ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 18. IOCs ❑ Q ❑ [] ❑ 19. VOCs ❑ ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ 20. SOCs ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 21. Disinfection Byproducts ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 22. Radionuclide Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 23, Is a written total coliform rule(TCR)sample site plan available for review? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 24. Does the(TCR)sample site plan meet the minimum requirements? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 25. Does the system have a sufficient supply of approved sampling yes no nra unk note bottles properly stored? (Recommended) Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 26, Does the PWS provide stairways,ladders and handrails where needed? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 27, Are treads of non-slip material provided where needed? ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 28. Is a health concem produced from inadequately protected electrical wiring? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 29. Does the system have any confined spaces? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 30. If yes,are protocols followed for confined spare entry?(Recommended) ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 31. Are there any unused subsurface water storage tanks that need to be abandoned? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 32. Are there any water supply wells that are no longer being used that yes no n/a unk note need to be abandoned? 33, Does the system utilize SCADA? Page Of IDEA-Enhanced Sanitary Survey-7/15115 Managerial Capacity 274 TREATMENT APPLICATION $ CONTROL Survey Date PWS# A separate fort must be filled out for each Treatment Application in the PWS 3/6/2018 (mrn/dd/yyyy) 5420058 Purpose of Treatment Treatment Facility Location Date Online J Unk Treated Water(GPD) ❑ Unl Disinfection ��2951 MurrayAve Identify one process in the treatment train for inspection N/A ❑ Sedimentation Basin❑ Fiitrabon❑ Blending❑ Owdabon❑ Ion Exchange ❑ Aerabon Reverse Osmosis ❑ Sequestration by Polyphosphates ❑ Detention Basin ❑ Chemical Coagulation ❑ Softening Q Disinfection (Complete Disinfection Mod.) ❑ Sequestration by Sodium Silicates Sources Treated by Facility (fag*) Equipment Manufacturer Model# Hankins#1 and#2 Microclor 20 Chemical Trade Name Chemical Manufacturer NSF/ANSI certified? Sodium Chloride Western Family [] Yes❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Un ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Un ❑ Yes❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Un yes no n/a unk note WASTE HANDLING and DISPOSAL Comments. ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 1. Are provisions made for proper disposal of water treatment plant waste such (Please indicate the question number) as sanitary,laboratory,clarification sludge softening sludge iron sludge filter backwash water,brines and treatment media? Q ❑ 2. If yes,how are wastes being disposed of?(Ident•ty in comments) yes no n/a unk note SAMPLE TAPS Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 3. Are sampling taps provided prior to and after each form of treatment? (Sample tap must be of the smooth-nosed type if sample is for bacteriological analysis) ❑ N/A 4-23 CHEMICAL APPLICATION If no chemical applied,questions 4-23 are n/a yes no nla unk note ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 4. Are spare parts available for all chemical feeders to replace parts which are subject to frequent wear and damage? ❑., 5. Are the feeders manually or automatically controlled? ❑ Manual ❑ Automatic ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 6. For chemical app.ication control systems,is the chemical feeder controlled by a flow sensing device so that injection of the chemicals wd not continue when the flow of water stops? ❑' ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 7, Are chemical feed rates proportional to flow? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 8. Are provisions made for measuring the quantities of chemicals used? ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 9. Is cross-connection control provided on the service water lines that discharge to the solution tanks? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 10. is cross-connection control provided so that liquid chemical solutions cannot be siphoned through solution feeders into the water supply? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 11. Is the chemical feed equipment readily accessible for servicing,repair,and observation of operation? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 12. Is space provided for convenient/efficient storage 8 handling of chemicals?(Recommended) ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ 13. Are chemicals that are incompatible stored or handled together? ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 14. Are chemical solution tanks kept covered? ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 15. Are chemical solution tank overflow pipes,when provided,turned downward with the end screened?(Recommended) ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 16. Do chemical solution tank overflow pipes,when provided,have free fall discharge?(Recommended) MALILIKE 17. Where more than one(1)chemical is stored or handled,are tanks and #17 DEQ recommends placing pipelines clearly labeled to identify the chemical they contain? label on Sodium hypoChlorite Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 18, Are floor surfaces smooth and impervious,slip-proof and well drained?(Recommended) tank. Downgraded to ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 19, Are vents from feeders, storage facilities and equipment exhaust discharged deficiency to the outside atmosphere above grade and remote from air intakes? 20, Are chemical shipping containers fully labeled to include chemical name, purity,concentration,supplier name and address,and evidence of ANSI/NSF certification? #20 City of Twin Falls to check ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 21. Are acids and caustics kept in closed corrosion-resistant shipping containers on salt NSF certification or storage units? downgraded to deficiency Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 22. Are at least one pair of rubber gloves a dust respirator of a type certified by NIOSH for toxic dusts,an apron or other protective clothing and goggles or #22 Kept at Harrison and face mask provided for each operator as required by the reviewing authority? brought with operators when Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 23. Is a deluge shower and/or eyewashing device installed where strong acids working on systems and alkalis are used or stored? Page Of IDEQ-Enhanced Sanitary Survey- 7/15115 Treatment Applicatic 275 Important the"Treatment Application" module also needs to be filled out for each facility that utilizes disinfection DISINFECTION -Systems Using Only Ground Water Survey Date PWS# A separate form must be filled out for each disinfection unit in the PWS. 3/6/2018 (mm/dd/yyyy) 5420058 Treatment Facility Name. Treatment Facility Location: Date Online: Unk Treated Water(GPD) Unk Hankins Chlorination 2591 MurrayAve. Select all disinfection types used: ❑ Gas c12 ❑ UV Light❑ Sodium Hypochlorite Calcium Hypochlorite Miox Ozone E Chlorine Dioxide Other yes no n/a unk note DISINFECTION Comments Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1. Is disinfection used on a voluntary basis to prevent bacterial (Please indicate the question number) contamination of the distribution system? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Any interruptions in disinfection in the past year? If yes, comment. ❑ ED ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. Have any changes been made to this treatment facility since the last ESS? r] ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 4. If yes,were plans and specs submitted to DEQ? Date approved ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 5 Does the system have a means of measuring the residual disinfectant concentrations of free chlorine, combined chlorine(chloramines),and/or chlorine dioxide? 6. Is a smooth nosed sample tap provided before and after treatment? #6 DEQ recommends using ❑ ❑ ❑ 7. Is a chlorine residual being recorded when all compliance total coliform smooth nosed sample taps samples are being taken? when sampling for bacterial Downgraded to deficiency Yes no n/a unk nntP VOLUNTARY CHLORINATION ❑ ❑ ❑ . 8 Is a measurable free chlorine residual maintained throughout the distribution system?(Recommended) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 4. Is the free chlorine residual being measured daily?(Recommended) ❑✓ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 10 Is an automatic proportioning chlorinator being used where the rate of flow or chlorine demand is not reasonably constant? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 11. Is the analysis for free chlorine residual being made at a frequency that is sufficient to detect variations in chlorine demand or changes in water Now? yes no n/a unk note REQUIRED DISINFECTION ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 12 Is the free chlorine residual being measured daily at a location prior to the first service connection? ❑ ❑ ❑✓ ❑ ❑ 13. Is the daily free chlorine residual being recorded and kept on file for a minimum of 1 year? ❑ ❑ ❑� ❑ ❑ 14. Is a detectable chlorine residual maintained throughout the distribution system? ❑ ❑ 2 ❑ ❑ 15 Is an automatic proportioning chlorinator being used where the rate of flow or chlorine demand is not reasonably constant? ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 16 Where chlorination is required for protection of the supply, is there standby equipment of sufficient capacity available to replace the largest unit? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 17 If primary disinfection is accomplished using ozone or some other chemical that does not provide a residual disinfectant, is chlorine added to provide a residual disinfectant? Page Of IDEA-Enhanced Sanitary Survey-7/15/15 Disinfection 276 TREATMENT APPLICATION & CONTROL Survey Date PWS# A separate form must be filled out for each Treatment Application in the PWS 3/6/2018 (mmlddlyyyy) 5420058 Purpose of Treatment: Treatment Facility Location Date Online: ❑ Unk Treated Water(GPD) _ Un Disinfection 3600 N 2935 E Identify one process in the treatment train for inspection N/A ❑ Sedimentation Basin❑ Filtration❑ Blending❑ Oxidabon❑ Ion Exchange Aeration _ Reverse Osmosis ❑ Sequestration by Polyphosphates ❑ Detention Basin ❑ Chemical Coagulation ❑ Softening 0 Disinfection(Complete Disinfection Mod.) ❑ Sequestration by Sodium Silicates Sources Treated by Facility (Tag*) Equipment Manufacturer Model#- South Wells #1 2 3 and 4 SevemTrent-Chlortec CT-75 Chemical Trade Name Chemical Manufacturer NSF/ANSI certified? Sodium Chloride Westem Family [] Ye-_ ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Un ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Un ❑ Yes❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Un yes no nra unk note WASTE HANDLING and DISPOSAL. Comments. ❑ ❑ ❑' ❑ ❑ 1. Are provisions made for proper disposal of water treatment plant waste such (Please indicate the question number) as sanitary,laboratory,clarification sludge,softening sludge,iron sludge,filter backwash water,brines and treatment media? ❑ ❑ 2. If yes,how are wastes being disposed of?(Identify in comments) yes no n!a unk note SAMPLE TAPS ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 3. Are sampling taps provided prior to and after each form of treatment? (Sample tap must be of the smooth-nosed type if sample is for bacteriological analysis) ❑ N/A 4-23 CHEMICAL APPLICATION If no chemical applied,questions 4-23 are n/a yes no n!a unk note 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 4. Are spare parts available for all chemical feeders to replace parts which are subject to frequent wear and damage? Q 5. Are the feeders manually or automatically controlled? ❑ Manual [j Automatic ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 6. For chemical application control systems,is the chemical feeder controlled by a flow sensing device so that injection of the chemicals will not continue when the(low of water stops? ❑r ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 7. Are chemical feed rates proportional to flow? ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 8. Are provisions made for measuring the quantities of chemicals used? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 9. Is cross-connection control provided on the service water lines that discharge to the solution tanks? ❑' ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 10. Is cross-connection control provided so that liquid chemical solutions cannot be siphoned through solution feeders into the water supply? [� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 11. Is the chemical feed equipment readily accessible for servicing, repair,and observation of operation? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 12. Is space provided for convenientlefficaent storage&handling of chemicals?(Recommended) ❑ P/1 ❑ ❑ ❑ 13. Are chemicals that are incompatible stored or handled together? ❑' ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 14. Are chemical solution tanks kept covered? ❑ ❑� ❑ ❑ Q 15. Are chemical solution tank overflow pipes,when provided,turned downward #15 Overflow screen was with the end screened?(Recommended) damaged and replaced at time ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 16. Do chemical solution tank overflow pipes when provided, have free of inspection fall discharge?(Recommended) 17. Where more than one(1)chem.cal is stored or handled are tanks and #17 DEQ recommends that pipelines clearly labeled to identify the chemical they contain? new tank be labeled Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 18. Are floor surfaces smooth and impervious slip proof and we I drained?(Recommended) Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 19. Are vents from feeders storage fatal ties and equipment exhaust discharged to the outside atmosphere above grade and remote from air intakes? ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 20. Are Chem cal shipping containers fully labeled to include chemical name purity,concentration, supplier name and address,and evidence of ANSIINSF certification? i❑ ❑ ❑✓ ❑ ❑ 21. Are acids and caustics kept in closed corrosion resistant shipp ng containers or storage units? ❑/I ❑ ❑ ❑ 22. Are at feast one pair of rubber gloves a dust respirator of a type certified by #22 Located at Harrison and NIOSH for toxic dusts,an apron or other protective clothing and goggles or brought with Operators face mask provided for each operator as required by the reviewing authority? [I'` ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 23. Is a deluge shower and/or eyewashing device installed where strong acids and alkal s are used or stored? Page of IDEA-Enhanced Sanitary Survey-7115/15 Treatment Applicatio 277 Important. the"Treatment Application"module also needs to be filled out for each facility that utilizes disinfection DISINFECTION -Systems Using Only Ground Water Survey Date PWS# A separate form must be filled out for each disinfection unit in the PWS 3/6/2018 (mm/ddiyyyy) 5a20058 Treatment Facility Name: Treatment Facility Location: Date Online: 0 Unk Treated Water(GPD) Unk South Wells 3600 N 2935 E Select all disinfection types used: I won. - ❑ Gas c12 ❑ UV Light C Sodium Hypochlorite Calcium Hypochlohte Miox Ll Ozone L Chlorine Dioxide n Other yes no n/a unk note DISINFECTION Comments ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1 Is disinfection used on a voluntary basis to prevent bacterial (Please indicate the question number) contamination of the distribution system? ❑ ❑' ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Any interruptions in disinfection in the past year? If yes,comment. 0 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. Have any changes been made to this treatment facility since the last ESS? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 4. If yes,were plans and specs submitted to DEQ? Date approved Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 5 Does the system have a means of measuring the residual disinfectant concentrations of free chlorine, combined chlorine(chloramines), and/or chlorine dioxide? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Q 6 Is a smooth nosed sample tap provided before and after treatment? #6 actually sampled at South Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 7 Is a chlorine residual being recorded when all compliance total coliform Well 3 samples are being taken? yPa no We Link note VOLUNTARY CHLORINATION Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ e Is a measurable free chlorine residual maintained throughout the distribution system?(Recommended) Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 9. Is the free chlorine residual being measured daily?(Recommended) Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 10 Is an automatic proportioning chlorinator being used where the rate of flow or chlorine demand is not reasonably constant? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 11 Is the analysis for free chlorine residual being made at a frequency that is sufficient to detect variations in chlorine demand or changes in water flow? Yes no nra unk note REQUIRED DISINFECTION ❑ ❑ ❑� ❑ ❑ 12 Is the free chlorine residual being measured daily at a location prior to the first service connection? ❑ ❑ ❑� ❑ ❑ 13 Is the daily free chlorine residual being recorded and kept on file for a minimum of 1 year? ❑ ❑ ❑� ❑ ❑ 14 Is a detectable chlorine residual maintained throughout the distribution system? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 15, Is an automatic proportioning chlorinator being used where the rate of flow or chlorine demand is not reasonably constant? ❑ ❑ ❑� ❑ ❑ 16 Where chlorination is required for protection of the supply,is there standby equipment of sufficient capacity available to replace the largest unit? ❑ ❑ ❑� ❑ ❑ 17. If primary disinfection is accomplished using ozone or some other chemical that does not provide a residual disinfectant,is chlorine added to provide a residual disinfectant? Page Of 1050-Enhanced Sanitary Survey-7/15115 Disinfection 278 TREATMENT APPLICATION & CONTROL Survey Date PWS# A separate form must be filled out for each Treatment Application in the PWS 3/6/2018 (mrn1ddiyyyy) 5420058 Purpose of Treatment Treatment Facility Location Date Online Unk Treated Water(GPD) Un Disinfection Canyon Springs Rd Identify one process in the treatment train for inspection N/A ❑ Sedimentation Basin Fitration❑ Blending❑ Oxidation Ion Exchange — Aeration 71 Reverse Osmosis ❑ Sequestradon by Polyphosphates ❑ Detention Basin Chemical Coagulation ❑ Softening 0 Disinfection(Complete Disinfection Mod.) ❑ Sequestration by Sodium Silicates Sources Treated by Facility (Tag#) Equipment Manufacturer Model# Blue Lakes #1, 2 3 and 4 MicroOdoc Chemical Trade Name Chemical Manufacturer NSF/ANSI certified? Sodium Chloride Western Family Q Yes❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Un ❑ Yes❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Un ❑ Yes❑ No ❑ N/A ❑ Un yes no We unk note WASTE HANDLING and DISPOSAL Comments ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1. Are provisions made for proper disposal of water treatment plant waste such (Please indicate the question number) as sanitary,laboratory,clarification sludge softening sludge iron sludge filter backwash water,brines and treatment media? 0 ❑ 2. It yes,how are wastes being disposed of?(Identify in comments) yes no n!a unk note SAMPLE TAPS E ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. Are sampling taps provided prior to and after each form of treatment? (Sample tap must be of the smooth nosed type if sample is for bacteriological analysis) ❑ N/A 4-23 cHiEMICAL APPLICATION If no chemical applied,questions 4-23 are n/a yes no n!a unk note ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 4. Are spare parts available for all chemical feeders to replace parts which are subject to frequent wear and damage? ❑ 5. Are the feeders manually or automatical'y controlled? ❑ Manual ❑ Automatic ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 6. For chemical application control systems is the chemical feeder controlled by a flow sensing device so that injection of the chemicals will not continue when the flow of water stops? 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 7. Are chemical feed rates proportional to flow? ED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 8, Are provisions made for measuring the quantities of chemicals used? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 9. Is cross connection control provided on the service water lines that discharge to the solution tanks? Q ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 10. Is cross-connection control provided so that liquid chemical solutions cannot be siphoned through solution feeders into the water supply? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 11. Is the Chem Cal teed equipment readily accessible for servicing repair and observation of operation? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 12. Is space provided for convenienUeffcient storage&handling of Chem ica Is?(Recommended) ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 13, Are chemicals that are incompatible stored or handled together? ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 14. Are Chem cal solution tanks kept covered? ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 15. Are chemical solution tank overflow pipes,when provided,turned downward with the end screened?(Recommended) ❑' ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 16. Do chemical solution tank overflow pipes when provided have free fall discharge?(Recommended) ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 17. Where mare than one(1)chemical is stored or handled are tanks and pipelines clearly labeled to identify the chemical they contain? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 18. Are floor surfaces smooth and impervious slip-proof and well drained?;Recommended) 7 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 19. Are vents from feeders storage facilities and equipment exhaust discharged to the outside atmosphere above grade and remote from air intakes? ❑' ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 20. Are chemical shipping containers fully labeled to include chemicar name purity concentration supplier name and address and evidence of ANSUNSF certification? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 21. Are acids and caustics kept in closed corrosion-res.slant shipping containers or storage units? ❑' ❑ ❑ ❑ C 22. Are at least one pair of rubber gloves, a dust respirator of a type certified by #22 Kept at Harrison and NIOSH for toxic dusts an apron or other protective clothing and goggles or brought with Operators face mask provided for each operator as required by the revewing authority? C ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 23 is a deluge shower and/or eyewashing device installed where strong acids and alkalis are used or stored? IDEA-Enhanced Sanitary Survey-7/15115 age Of Treatment Application 279 Important: the 'Treatment Application" module also needs to be filled out for each facility that utilizes disinfection DISINFECTION - Systems Using Only Ground Water Survey Date PWS# A separate form must be filled out for each disinfection unit in the PWS. 3/6/2018 (mm/dWyyyy) 5420058 Treatment Facility Name: Treatment Facility Location: Dale Online: Unk Treated Water(GPD) Unk Canyon Springs Chlonnation Can on Springs Rd. Select all disinfection types used: ❑ Gas dZ ❑ UV Light ❑ Sodium Hypochloritej ❑ Calcium Hypochlorite ❑ Miox ❑ Ozone ❑ Chlorine Dioxide ❑ Other yes no n/a unk note DISINFECTION Comments: ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 1 Is disinfection used on a voluntary basis to prevent bacterial (Please indicate the question number) contamination of the distribution system? ❑� ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Any interruptions in disinfection in the past year? If yes,comment. ❑' ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. Have any changes been made to this treatment facility since the last ESS? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 4. If yes,were plans and specs submitted to DEQ? Date approved: ❑' ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 5 Does the system have a means of measuring the residual disinfectant concentrations of free chlorine,combined chlorine(chloramines),and/or chlorine dioxide? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ Q 6. Is a smooth nosed sample tap provided before and after treatment? #6 Samples are collected at El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 7. Is a chlorine residual being recorded when all compliance total coliform other areas Direct line to samples are being taken? sampling locations withough any connections yes no n/a unk nnte VOLUNTARY CHLORINATION F ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 8 Is a measurable free chlorine residual maintained throughout the distribution system?(Recommended) 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 9 Is the free chlorine residual being measured daily?(Recommended) 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 10, Is an automatic proportioning chlorinator being used where the rate of flow or chlorine demand is not reasonably constant? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 11. Is the analysis for free chlorine residual being made at a frequency that is sufficient to detect variations in chlorine demand or changes in water flow? yes no nra unk note REQUIRED DISINFECTION ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 12. Is the free chlorine residual being measured daily at a location prior to the first service connection? ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 13. Is the daily free chlorine residual being recorded and kept on file for a minimum of 1 year? ❑ ❑ ❑✓ ❑ ❑ 14. Is a detectable chlorine residual maintained throughout the distribution system? ❑ ❑ ❑✓ ❑ ❑ 15 Is an automatic proportioning chlorinator being used where the rate of flow or chlorine demand is not reasonably constant? ❑ ❑ D ❑ ❑ 16. Where chlorination is required for protection of the supply,is there standby equipment of sufficient capacity available to replace the largest unit? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 17. If primary disinfection is accomplished using ozone or some other chemical that does not provide a residual disinfectant,is chlorine added to provide a residual disinfectant? Page Of IDEQ-Enhanced Sanitary Survey-7/15/15 Disinfection 280 State of Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Photo Lop Name of Facility: Inspection Date PWS# Twin Falls,City of 3/6/2018 (mrWddiyyyy) 5420058 Camera Type Camera Brand: Camera Model: Camera—ID [Ij Digital ir I 35mm L other: I hone 6 I hone 6 Direction: Photos Date: By: (initials) (N,S,E,W,etc.) File Name: Description: 1 3/6/2018 AT Hankins Well#1 Threaded sample tap 2 3/6/2018 AT "Zoomed in 3 3/6/2018 AT Hankins threaded sample tap before distribution 4 3/6/2018 AT ^zoomed out 5 3/6/2018 AT Hankins threaded sample tap on distribution below BP7 6 3/6/2018 AT " zoomed in 7 3/6/2018 AT "zoomed out 8 3/6/2018 AT Salt bag located at Hankins-NSF certification not eveident 9 3/6/2018 AT Hankins storage#1 vents mesh screen too large of size 10 3/6/2018 AT Hankins storage#1 overflows -mesh screen too large of size 11 3/6/2018 AT Hankins storage#1 overflow2 mesh screen too large of size 12 3/6/2018 AT Hankins storage#1 overflow3 mesh screen too large of size 13 3/6/2018 AT "zoomed out 14 3/6/2018 AT Hankins Well#2 threaded sample tap 15 3/6/2018 AT Eldridge Storage overflow vent-mesh screen too large of size 16 3/6/2018 AT Wills Storage tank vents- mesh screens too large of a size 17 3/7/2018 AT South Well 01 No vent 18 3/7/2018 AT South Well#1 threaded sample tap 19 3/7/2018 AT South Well#1 no pressure guage 20 3/7/2018 AT South We l#2 Adjacent property with barrels located next to fence 21 3/7/2018 AT South Well#2 threaded sample tap 22 3/7/2018 AT South Well#2 no pressure guage 23 3/7/2018 AT South Well#2 Exhaust vent not downtumed The photographers signature below signifies that the images rdenhfied on this photo log have not been tampered with and ame!epresentative of what was seen in the field Photographer(s)Signature(s) Date Page Of IDEQ-Enhanced Sanitary Survey-7/15115 Photo Log 281 Photo Log of City of Twin Falls ESS conducted on 03/06/2018 i , o r� l r r� J I 'r� t 1 Photo I-1 lankms Well 1 threaded sample tap Photo 2-Hankins Well I threaded sample tap zoomed in E F Photo 3-Hankins Well I louse I threaded sample tap Photo 4 -Hankins Well House I threaded sample tap zoomed out just before distribution Just before distribution J Photo 5-Hankins Well Ilouse I Photo 6 Hankins Well I louse I Photo 7-Hankins Well House I threaded sample tap after BPI zoomed out threaded sample tap alter BPI threaded sample tap after BPI zoomed in 282 EXTRA COARSE water softener SALT ► K40MIla.tkW W"Mu Photo 8 Sall bags located at Ilank-ins Well House I treatment room no NSI Certifcalion evident at time ofinspection %�fj�! 1 �/ 1/ 111111/ /1�11// j1//� Photo 9 1 lankins Storage#1 Vcnts screen cover w Photos 10-13 l lank ins Storage#1 Overflow 1,2 and 3 mesh screens �_ a . Photo 14 1 lanknls Well 2 threaded sample tap. 283 T r�\\`\NX- ti� Ilk Photo IS Eldridge Overflow mesh screen f _ r ,'1 Photo 16- Wills Storage vents mesh screen f Photo 17 South Well I vent. Photo 18-South Well 1 threaded sample tap. Photo 19-South Well t lacking pressure gauge Ira J 1� w t � I Photo 19 -South Well 2 adjacent Photo 20-South Well 2 threaded Photo 21 South Well 2 lacking Photo 22-South Well 2 exhaust vent property Sample tap. pressure gauge 284 CA Cross Connection Ordinance 285 CHAPTER 9 CROSS CONNECTION CONTROL SECTION: 7-9-1: Definitions 7-9-2:Water Supply Protection 7-9-3: Duty To Install And Inspect Annually 7-9-4: New Construction 7-9-5: Installation Required 7-9-6: Existing Equipment 7-9-7: Repair And Maintenance Of Equipment 7-9-8:Access For Inspection 7-9-9: Certified Backflow Technician 7-9-10: Notification Of Public 7-9-11: Records 7-9-12:Violations 7-9-1: DEFINITIONS: BACK PRESSURE:A pressure, higher than the supply pressure, caused by a pump, elevated tank, boiler, or any other means that may cause backflow. BACK SIPHONAGE: The flowing back of used water or other liquids, mixtures or substances into the distribution pipes of a potable water supply system from any source other than the intended source, caused by the reduction of pressure in the potable water supply system. BACKFLOW: The reversal of the normal flow of water in a potable water distribution system as a result of cross connection. BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE OR ASSEMBLY: A device, assembly or means designed to prevent backflow. See plumbing code, as adopted for specifications of such devices or assemblies. CROSS CONNECTION:Any actual or potential connection between a potable water system and any other source or system through which it is possible to introduce into the public drinking water system any used water, industrial fluid, gas or substance other than the intended potable water. (Ord. 2638, 12-27-1999; amd. Ord. 2671, 10-30-2000; Ord. 3072, 6-2- 2014) 7-9-2: WATER SUPPLY PROTECTION: No water service connection to any premises shall be installed or maintained by the city or any other water utility, unless the water supplying the premises is protected as required by state and city laws and regulations.Atmospheric and pressure vacuum breakers must be approved by the International Association Of Plumbing And Mechanical Officials. It shall be the responsibility of the owner of occupiable premises to effect installation and inspections as required herein, and to immediately give notice to the supplier water utility of any deficiencies of his/her water system in that regard. (Ord. 2671, 10- 30-2000) 7-9-3: DUTY TO INSTALL AND INSPECT ANNUALLY: It shall be the responsibility of the owner of property where water is consumed to purchase, install, test and maintain backflow prevention devices or assemblies commensurate with the degree of hazard wherever it will be possible for used, unclean, polluted or contaminated water, mixtures, or substances to enter any portion of his/her potable water system, and to otherwise control cross connections. Such owner shall have certified inspections and operational tests made at least once a year at the owner's own expense. Where the city deems the hazard to be great, the city may require the owner to have such inspections and tests at a more frequent interval as prescribed by the city.All such tests shall be made according to the standards set forth by the state of Idaho department of environmental quality (DEQ). Test reports will be made in triplicate, with copies going to the owner, the city water department and one retained by the inspector for their records. (Ord. 2671, 10- 30-2000) 7-9-4: NEW CONSTRUCTION: The building official of the city and the state plumbing inspector will review all plans and inspect new construction to ensure that unprotected cross connections are not an integral part of the owner's water system. If a cross connection cannot be eliminated, protection will be required. Installation of an air gap or other approved backflow prevention device or assembly, in accordance with the plumbing code, Idaho Code 37-2102, IDAPA 58.01.08, table 900.02, and the current edition of the "Accepted Procedures And Practice In Cross Connection Control Manual - Pacific Northwest Section Of American Water Works Association (AWWA)", as adopted. Water vacating the drinking water supply must do so by means of an approved air gap or mechanical backflow prevention device or assembly as required by said code. The owner shall provide th9 building official with verification of a certified test of the backflow prevention device or assembly before a certificate of occupancy is issued. (Ord. 2719, 4-15-2002; amd. Ord. 3072, 6-2-2014) 7-9-5: INSTALLATION REQUIRED: Whenever the city deems that a service connection's water usage contributes a sufficient hazard to the water supply and a property owner has not made appropriate installation, the installation of an approved backflow prevention device or assembly shall be required on the lateral service line of the owner's water system, at or near the property line, or immediately inside the building being served, but before the first branch line leading off the lateral service line in any event. The type of protective device or assembly required shall comply with local and state requirements. The owner shall provide the city water department with a certified test of such backflow prevention devices or assemblies within ten (10)working days after their initial installation in order to determine their adequacy. (Ord. 2638, 12-27-1999) 7-9-6: EXISTING EQUIPMENT: All backflow prevention assemblies existing, which do not meet the requirements hereof shall nonetheless be required to comply with the requirements of this chapter. Backflow prevention assemblies that are deemed by the building official or the water department to be nonetheless adequate for the purposes intended, in which event compliance with any particular provision hereof may be waived in writing by the city. Such previously existing assemblies shall be subject in any event to the periodic inspection and testing. Whenever an existing assembly is moved to another location, or requires more than minimum maintenance, or where it is determined to constitute a hazard to health, the unit shall be replaced by an approved backflow prevention device or assembly meeting the requirements of this chapter. (Ord. 2638, 12-27-1999) 7-9-7: REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT: The maintenance, including necessary repairs, of all backflow prevention devices or assemblies and cross connection control devices required by this chapter shall be the responsibility of the owner of property where an assembly or device is installed, and failure to adequately maintain any required equipment shall be a violation hereof. All installations and repairs of such equipment shall be effected by a certified journeyman plumber or other agent of the owner, provided he/she is a certified backflow technician. (Ord. 2638, 12-27-1999) 7-9-8: ACCESS FOR INSPECTION: All water systems shall be open for inspection at all reasonable times by authorized representatives of the city water department in order to determine whether cross connections or other structural or sanitary hazards including violations of this chapter exist. In order to make such determination, the inspection shall include access to above ceiling areas, pits, paneled interior areas, or their locations where cross connections might exist. The owner and any occupant shall be responsible to provide a route of access across the property for inspection purposes that is free from litter, overgrowth, the threat of a vicious animal, or other hindrance that may be detrimental to the safety of the inspector or obstructive to his/her ease of access. (Ord. 2638, 12-27-1999) 7-9-9: CERTIFIED BACKFLOW TECHNICIAN: All tests of backflow prevention devices or assemblies shall be conducted by a certified backflow technician who will be responsible for the competence and accuracy of all tests and reports. Such technician shall be responsible for the following: (A) Assure that acceptable testing equipment and procedures are used for the testing, repairing or overhauling of backflow prevention devices or assemblies. (B) Make report of such testing and/or repair within required times to the owner and the city water department on a form approved for such use by the city water department. (C) Include in all reports a list of any materials or replacement parts used. (D) Assure that replacement parts are equal in quality to original parts and that any testing, repair or replacement does not change the design or operational characteristics of the assembly. (E) Maintain his/her license in current condition and his/her testing equipment in proper operating condition. (F) Be equipped with, and competent to use, all necessary tools, gauges, and other equipment necessary to properly test and maintain backflow prevention devices or assemblies. (Ord. 2638, 12-27-1999) (G) Tag each double check valve, pressure vacuum breaker, reduced pressure backflow assembly or other backflow prevention device or assembly showing the serial number, date tested, and by whom, together with the technician's license number. (H) Inspect high hazard air gap assemblies. (Ord. 2671, 10-30-2000) (1) Comply with all OSHA standards on confined spaces, including procedures for entering such spaces and required safety equipment. (Ord. 2719, 4-15-2002) 7-9-10: NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC: Although failure of a consumer to be aware of this chapter shall be no defense to violation hereof, the water department shall use reasonable means to notify its customers of the hazards of cross connections and the need for annual inspection of backflow prevention devices or assemblies. (Ord. 2638, 12-27-1999) 7-9-11: RECORDS: The water department shall keep records of cross connection hazards and the condition of backflow prevention devices or assemblies, including those records required by state and federal agencies. (Ord. 2638, 12-27-1999) 287 7-9-12: VIOLATIONS: Service of water to a consumer on property found to be in violation of this chapter should be discontinued by the city after written notice of the violation to both the owner and consumer, if different. A violation exists if: (A) Backflow prevention assemblies required by this chapter for control of cross connections that are not installed, tested, or maintained, as required herein. (B) It is found that a backflow prevention assembly has been removed or bypassed. (C) An unprotected cross connection exists on the premises. (D) The periodic system inspection required herein has not been conducted. (E) A false report or false information is provided to the city by or on behalf of the owner or consumer, with regard to the cross connection or backflow prevention assembly. Where written notification of a deficiency is provided by the city, and the owner fails to take the required corrective action within ten (10)days after the date of mailing such notice, the city shall immediately discontinue water service unless the city, at the request of the owner, authorizes a longer time for completion. Water service will not be restored until all existing conditions or defects are corrected. In the event that there exists a noncompliance with state or local law or other circumstances, which poses a significant health hazard, the city may immediately discontinue water service until compliance is attained or the significant health hazard is removed. (Ord. 2638, 12-27-1999) 288 Appendix D Background Modeling Information This page was intentionally left blank for correct double-sided printing. 290 D.1 Supply and Demand Projections D.1.1 Blue Lakes Spring Recharge - Model Simulation As described in Appendix C.1.2, major aquifer restoration efforts have been implemented in accordance with the agreement between IGWUA and SWC in 2015. The efforts have included managed aquifer recharge occurring from October through April, and reductions of groundwater pumping during the irrigation season.The effect of these efforts on Blue Lakes Spring discharge was estimated using the ESPA model version 2.2. This model is the latest calibrated version of the aquifer model developed by IDWR and the Idaho Water Resources Research Institute. This version of the model includes individual, calibrated model cells representing spring discharges, one of which is Blue Lakes Spring. Several implementations of the model are available. For this analysis the"flat plane"implementation with a monthly time step was used. Stresses on the model include recharge volumes and pumping reduction volumes. Model cells representing recharge sites (including canal seepage) were obtained from IDWR's hydrology division.The simulated response of both pumping reduction and average recharge for 20 years to the Blue Lakes Spring cell is shown in Figure 4-6. The extent to which the recharge and pumping reduction volumes achieved in 2016-2020 will continue for the 30-year planning period is not known. However, in view of the signed agreement and the State of Idaho's solid commitments in terms of infrastructure funding and manpower, it appears likely that continuation of the past four years efforts is not an unreasonable assumption. Therefore, long-term monthly recharge volumes for each site were assumed to be the average monthly amounts for 2016-2017 season through the 2019-2020 season.Table D-1 shows the amounts used in the model for the four major recharge sites or areas. By far, the Milepost 31 site receives the greatest recharge volume. This site is an area of very high-permeability basalt flows, located 15 miles east of Jerome along the Milner-Gooding Canal Its location is well-situated to benefit the Blue Lakes Spring. Table D-1-2016-2020 Average monthly recharge volumes used for ESPA modeling GoodingMilner- Northside Aberdeen Idaho Great Fremont Month MP31 Area October 1,537 0 1,214 0 0 0 0 512 November 7,237 4,645 8,667 0 562 3,179 2,903 1,509 December 5,884 2,373 6,155 0 7 798 2,296 1,491 January 12,348 3,450 8,144 0 0 595 786 1,736 February 25,553 5,124 9,782 63 231 1,031 4,562 2,028 March 36,390 17,496 15,489 4,544 2,872 16,233 18,844 9,062 April 27,682 10,779 9,934 5,516 3,796 22,432 18,868 4,623 May 11,753 1,318 2,908 998 1,008 1,098 2,650 1,178 June 3,694 0 0 0 125 42 1,827 994 July 99 0 0 0 0 0 87 0 Total 132,178 45,184 62,293 11,121 8,601 45,408 52,824 23,131 Grand Total(All Sites): 380,740 291 Pumping reductions compared to the 2010-2014 baseline period were obtained from Water Well Consultants, the hydrographer for most of the groundwater districts comprising IGWUA. Based on the same argument that aquifer restoration efforts are likely to continue,the average pumping reduction for 2017-2019 was assumed to continue for each district.2016 was omitted from the average since reductions were relatively small that year as it was the first year after the agreement was signed. 2020 data has not yet been fully compiled and finalized. Total pumping reductions were 287,300 ac-ft in 2017, 265,500 ac- ft in 2018, and 319,400 ac-ft in 2019, for an average of 290,700 ac-ft. Pumping reductions are only tracked and compiled for entire irrigation seasons.To obtain monthly values for modeling purposes, the irrigation season volume reduction was shaped according to monthly evapotranspiration for alfalfa at the Aberdeen Experiment station.Table D-2 shows the resulting monthly and total reductions by district used in the model. It was further assumed that within each district, the pumping reduction is uniformly distributed across the irrigated area. Table D-2 - 2017-2019 average monthly pumping reductions (ac-ft) used for ESPA modeling. Average annual volume calculated from 2017-2020 records. Monthly values derived from ET-Idaho data for reference alfalfa at American Falls. Aberdeen- Bonneville- Carey Jefferson- Fremont- Magic North Month American Bingham Jefferson Valley Clark Madison Valley Snake Falls April 3,412 4,785 2,304 510 7,139 4,909 4,852 4,800 May 4,372 6,133 2,952 654 9,148 6,291 6,218 6,151 June 5,070 7,111 3,423 758 10,608 7,294 7,210 7,132 July 5,662 7,942 3,823 847 11,847 8,146 8,052 7,965 August 5,252 7,366 3,546 785 10,989 7,556 7,469 7,388 September 3,892 5,459 2,628 582 8,143 5,599 5,535 5,475 October 2,666 3,739 1,800 399 5,578 3,835 3,791 3,750 Total 30,326 42,535 20,475 4,536 63,452 43,631 43,127 42,660 Grand Total(All Districts): 290,742 D.2 Hydraulic Model Development The hydraulic model used in this analysis was created in InfoWater Pro v3.0. For the Existing Model, unit demands were derived from an analysis of existing water meters and assigned to specific land parcels, which were organized by pressure zone, irrigation demand (potable or secondary), and land use (i.e. residential, commercial; see Figure D-1). Committed and build-out conditions were developed by assigning unit demands to undeveloped parcels in the remaining "infill" and "new-growth" areas within the city limits and planning area boundary using zoning conditions from the City's Comprehensive Plan (See Figure D-2 and D-3). Tables D-3 through D-6 summarize all existing data in a tabular format with future land acres all shown in Table D-6. Once the unit demands were assigned to parcels accordingly,the total parcel demand was calculated based on acreage for commercial/industrial entities and then based on the number and density of dwelling units for residences.Total demands were then calibrated for each pressure zone based on the maximum day demand recorded at each booster station in the year 2020. Demands were then loaded into the model by allocating each parcel's total demand to the nearest junction in the model. Final Calibration values were targeted to August 5, 2020, which used 23.2 MGD, and then brought forward to the current year for a final value of 23.5 MGD.These are shown in Tables 13- 7 and D-8 with the planned flow rate also shown for future Committed and Build-Out Area of Impact. 292 �Ipi r;o J . �I1= i . �I La POLE-LINE ■ ' L^.r ———————————— gym„ f�i FALLS ir' \l11 Ill . ■ P19 MR II L',J =11 ' IIIIIIYIIY�IIN�� ■�I� �= +ADDISON I ,! '-�i. `IINIIIIIIIIYIIIIIIIIIIIIIII lilll�illl �� HIP11111111111111111111 NUMN ®`©mea``�boa®a , ■__: — `''a�``aa IIIIIII�� Irlll�l■T■ SOUTH PARK r�� I�YII � � � 11'111Hill 6j KIMBERLY IIIIII —`ON —Ijl - 1, .. a r L_ •+ ORCHARD L� — ■ 1� ■ I to 3600 _I■■ 1 z t W W o g a 1 i W W 1 n H J Z a m CIO Comprehensive Plan Boundary Industrial 3 City Utility Service Boundary Laundromat ♦ — Mile Roads Office t Railroads Public -- City Limits RV Park o Assisted Living Residential-High 0 Car Wash Residential-Low Church Residential-Medium v MCommercial Restaurant 3 Golf Park School ~o Hospital To User p p 4 Hotel V 0 6,000 LU -j �� - U- 1 Inch - 6,000 Feet J•10-9 KNOIN■[R■,INC. 91 293 a N N O T v � m o _ - �� II LJ POLE LINE 'M I L �rL L_►�� I I FALLS4p i1I lr`JI r I L ri I ADDISON I J j r— I i' SOUTH PARK Ir�t I KIMBERLY I I ■ ORCHARD ' I I I I �I I t) I I 1 li I"I t-- I y LAN LLI � I 3 I zi v, W —I 0 W � ►+ F Y� Z LU F J W ' �I —— City Utility Service Boundary Composite Commercial N2016 Comp. Plan Boundary Composite Residential Mile Roads Industrial v + Railroads Park—Golf --- City Limits Residential - Low Airport Residential - Medium Buildout Industrial Restaurant 0 Church School Commercial v 0 6,000 (JUB 10 1 inch = 6,000 Feet J-09[NGNn",INC. 294 I I.n ` J v I m POLE LINE I � � l 1- `� 1 I .■ - , J i DDISON ■ SOUTH PARK ❑ 1 KIMBERLY I r o I I J ❑ ORCHARD I I I I I I ` � z I �C z = 1 � ©2016 Comprehensive Plan Boundary -Composite Commercial City Utility Service Boundary -Composite Residential Qj — Mile Roads - Industrial + Railroads 0 Park—Golf -- City Limits - Residential-Low U � Airport Residential-Medium Buildout Industrial - Restaurant ~ Church -School 0 C Commercial 0 6,000 J z 1 inch = 6,000 Feet J•11.0 KNOW[[,INC. ' 295 Table D-3-Existing Maximum Day Demand Calibrated to August 5, 2020 for City Wide Flow Plan-Area Existing -T EX_PrsZone (Multiple Items) .T Landuse (All) Row Labels - Average of Unit_GPAD Sum of Total_GPD A m eri p ri de 89,322 89,322 Assisted-Living No 3,265 38,899 Assisted-Living PI-I` 174 3,387 Car-Wash No PI 7,027 39,159 Car-Wash PI-NP 30,321 77,454 C h o ba n i 500,000 1,000,000 Church No PI 1,191 126,893 Church PI-NP 26 1,138 Clif Bar 265,000 265,000 Commercial No PI 960 688,756 Commercial PI-NP 809 75,510 Con-Agra 185,951 2,217,587 C SI 44,305 177,221 Cummins 970 4,852 Glanbia Downtown 2,733 980 Henningsen 12,336 49,343 Hospital 43,280 259,680 Hotel No PI 4,618 168,854 Hotel PI-NP 6,647 88,996 Independent-Meat 53,518 267,588 Industrial No PI 2,379 1,739,011 Kapstone 10,950 21,899 Laundromat No PI 4,697 6,613 Office No PI 2,826 379,334 Office PI-NP 451 16,027 Park-Golf No PI 222 11,313 Park-Golf PI-NP 22 6,467 Public No PI 2,085 68,292 Residential - High N 206 418,329 Residential - High P 103 30,680 Residential - Low N, 986 10,621,725 Residential - Low PI 261 1,010,065 Residential - Mediui 527 1,053,830 Residential - Mediui 190 58,851 Restaurant No PI 4,235 204,052 Restaurant PI-NP 1,904 20,548 RV-Park No PI 488 3,956 School No PI 529 29,931 School PI-NP 14 3,576 Temple PI-NP 303 1,549 Top User 32,247 1,606,199 Glanbia 518,421 518,421 Solo Cup 28,712 28,712 Grand Total 1,220 23,500,000 296 Table D-4-Existing Dwelling Units Used for Model Plan-Area Existing T EX_PrsZone (Multiple Items) T Landuse (Multiple Items) T Row Labels - Sum of ResDU Existing PI 4,429 No PI Planned 15,641 PI Potable 166 Private PI 108 Grand Total 20,344 Table D-5-Existing Permitted or Large Flows Plan-Area Existing r Landuse (Multiple Items) r Row Labels___L1Average of Unit_GPAD Sum of Total_GPD A m eri p ri d e 89,322 89,322 C h o ba n i 500,000 1,000,000 Clif Bar 265,000 265,000 Commercial No PI 994 1,355 Con-Agra 185,951 2,217,587 C SI 44,305 177,221 Cummins 970 4,852 Glanbia Downtown 2,733 980 Henningsen 12,336 49,343 Hospital 43,280 259,680 Independent-Meat 53,518 267,588 Kapstone 10,950 21,899 Residential - Mediui 450 13,049 Top User 32,247 1,606,199 Glanbia 518,421 518,421 Solo Cup 28,712 28,712 Grand Total 64,063 6,521,210 Table D-6-Existing and Future Areas and Flows Landuse (All) Row Labels -T Sum of Total_GPD Sum of Area-Acres Area of Impact 8,923,929 8,314 Existing 23,500,000 8,005 Future 27,768,630 6,580 Future 2 6,170,250 2,689 Proposed 4,972,679 1,208 Grand Total 71,335,487 26,795 Where • Area of Impact includes all parcels not in Existing, Proposed, Future, or Future 2. • Existing includes all parcels with existing flows • Future includes all parcels in areas of the 2016 Comp. plan utility boundary not Ex. or Proposed. • Future 2 includes all parcels in the 2009 Comp. plan utility boundary except Ex., Proposed, or in the 2016 Utility Boundary. • Proposed includes all parcels that are Committed or Proposed. 297 Table D-7-Existing Supply Flow Calibration and Future Model System Results Max D. Day Demand•N Existing Committed Build-Out ZONE Harrison High Level 3700to4100 4500to4900 7,900 HLPZ 8,600 9,200 South Tanks to High Level Pressure Zone 5100 to 4800 5300to 4900 9,000 Harrison Low Level 3,600 3,800 5,200 LLPZS 3200, 3,600 LLPSN 600 800 Hankins Booster 2,000 3,500 12,900 HPZ 2,000 3,500 Eldridge Booster 700 800 1,800 EPZ 700 800 Wills Booster 1,200 1,900 12,600 SPZN 300 800 SPZS 900 1,000 TOTAL 16,400 19,800 49,400 Total Demand 16,313 19,766 49,377 Max Day Flow(gpm) SUPPLY PIPE OR Build-Out From Blue Lakes and Canyon Springs in Snake River Canyon Canyon Springs and Blue Lakes Demand 12,250 16,550 1 23,450 Limited to max Blue Lakes right. Blue Lakes Well Capacity' 23,450 20,450 23,450 A water right problem to resolve. Canyon Springs Firm Capacity 19,000 19,000 19,000 A firm capacity problem Other Source Need(possibly from Canyon)' N/A N/A 14,940 Additional source/right is needed. To South Tanks from South Wells and Harrison Blending(South Tanks provides water to HLPZ,SPZN,SPZS,RPZ,HPZ,and EPZ) All South Tank Demand water from tanks 4 9,000 11,500 36,300 36,300,and 12,100values will be be Harrison Blending(Uncapped) 4,550 7,850 12,100 lower by-7,700 and 1/3*7,700 due to Harrison Blending(Ars.Capped at 1/3 South) 3,000 3,833 12,100 Hankins/Eldridge Pipe capacity limit. Harrison Blending Capacity 8,200 8,200 8,200 Larger pumps may need to be installed. South Wells Capacity' 4,450 3,650 3,650 Even less capacity with aquifer lowering. Other South or East Well Need 1,550 4,017 24,200 New wells needed. Total of all South and Hankins Water Rights 24,700 gpm(35.58 cfs)with all protested. Resolve protested right. To Hankins and Eldridge Pressure Zones from South Tanks Hankins Eldridge Tanks Receiving Demand 2,700 4,300 14,700 Demand may be even higher. Hankins/Eldridge Pipe(To Eldridge Tank) 700 800 1,800 Hankins/Eldridge Pipe(To Hankins Tanks) 2,000 3,500 5,200 Hankins/Eldridge Pipe(From South Tanks) 2,700 4,300 7,000 This is insufficient for Hankins Hankins/Eldridge Pipe Capacity 7,000 7,000 7,000 Pipe capacity isn't enough. Other Source to Hankins(possibly Harrison)' N/A N/A 12,640 Possibly from Harrison and Canyon Hankins Wells Emergency Emergency Emergency Some small use with new ars.free H2O Notes 1.South Wells and Blue Lakes Well Capacity the week of 6/23/21(Existing)and 6/19/41(Committed) 2.Includes a 10%buffer on total flow. 3.Based on higher Harrision High Level flow that occurs with higher pressure from the High Level Pumps. 4.Based on higher South Tank flow that occurs with lower pressure from the High Level Pumps. 5.Values in red are deficient. 298 Table D-8-Existing Distribution Flow Calibration and Future Model System Results Max Day Flow(gpm) Peak Hour Flow(gpm) DISTRIBUTION PUMP STATION Existing Committed Build-Out Existing Committed Build-Out To High Level Pressure Zone from Harrison High Level Pumps Harrison High Level Demand' 4,100 4,900 7,900 7,300 1 8,400 20,300 Harrsion Fire Flow Planned 6,500 6,500 6,500 N/A for peak hour flows Harrison High Level Total Demand 10,600 11,400 14,400 7,300 8,400 20,300 Harrision High Level Capacity(Present) 15,500 15,500 To Low Level Pressure Zones from Harrison Low Level Pumps Harrision Low Level Need 3,600 3,800 5,200 4,900 5,300 7,200 Harrsion Fire Flow Planned Assumed to be provided through HLPZ N/A for peak hour flows Harrison High Level Total Need 3,600 3,800 5,200 4,900 5,300 7,200 Harrision High Level Capacity(Present) 1 7,200 To South Pressure Zones from Wills Booster Pumps Wills Booster Demand 1,200 1,900 12,600 1,800 2,800 21,300 Wills Booster Fire Flow Planned 4,000 4,000 4,000 N/A for peak hourflows Wills Total Demand 5,200 5,900 16,600 1,800 2,800 21,300 Wills Capacity(Present) 5,450 5,450 5,450 5,450 To Hankins Pressure Zone(s)from Hankins Booster Pumps Hankins Booster Demand 2,000 3,500 12,900 3,000 5,300 19,300 Additional Demand with Zone ChangeS2 2,500 2,500 N/A 3,750 1 3,750 3,750 Hankins Booster Fire Flow Planned 4,000 4,000 4,000 N/A for peak hourflows Hankins Total Demand 8,500 10,000 16,900 1 6,750 1 9,050 1 23,050 Hankins Capacity(Present) 8,800to 9,400 8,800to 9,400 1 8,800to 9,4001 8,800to 9,400 To Eldridge Pressure Zone from Eldridge Booster Pumps Eldridge Booster Demand 1 700 1 800 1,800 1,063 1 1,238 2,656 Eldridge Booster Fire Flow Planned 4,500 4,500 4,500 N/A for peak hourflows Eldridge Total Demand 5,200 5,300 6,300 1,063 1,238 2,656 Eldridge Capacity(Present) 2,450 2,450 2,450 Notes 1.Based on higher Harrision High Level flow that occurs with higher pressure from the High Level Pumps. 2.Flow out of South Tanks and Harrison will be equivalently lowered. 3.Values in red are deficient. D.2.1 Existing Model The Existing Model was built using the City's previous modeling files, record drawings, and other known changes to the existing system.The Existing Model's primary purposes are to: • Provide a snapshot of current system anticipated demands. • Identify infrastructure capacity, pressure, and fireflow issues at existing demands. • Calibrate unit water demands and other model parameters for use in the Committed Model and Master Plan Model. The Existing Model consists of three layers:the System Layer,the Flow Demand Layer,and the Operational Settings layer. Each layer includes multiple parameters and corresponding assumptions that characterize the area and system being modeled.The assumptions are based on J-U-B's previous modeling experience, record drawing data, component information,flow meter analysis, characteristics of the physical system, 299 similar studies done in the region, and general and historical knowledge gained through work with the City.The Existing Model is representative of the City's water system and flows as of December 2020. Existing Model System Layer The Existing Model System Layer consists of the physical components, including tanks, booster stations, water mains, key pressure and flow control valves, closed valves, and junctions in the water system. Junctions are used where pipes generally intersect or to identify intermediate locations along a pipe such as where a hydrant may exist or where a large user may connect to the system. Each pipe and junction is assigned to its corresponding pressure zone. Wells, supply booster stations, and water supply pipes are not included in the Existing Model. Isolation valves, fittings, service lines, and hydrants are generally not included in the model except for closed valves modeled as closed pipes. Existing Pipes and Valves The City did not have updated GIS records that were used for this model, but did have gridmaps, previous model files, and record drawings. Elevations were based upon previous modeling elevations that are generally developed from USGS contours and surveys for new developments. Due to the historical development of the model,elevation datums are not considered consistent throughout the model. Datum is now being tracked for all future developments. The system layer contains the best information available for pipe sizes and lengths, but plan locations within a roadway and actual pipe depths are not considered completely accurate. However, the information available on pipe sizes and general right-of-way or easement area was generally considered sufficient for modeling purposes. This information is developed within the model software files and not separate GIS layers, but the GIS layers corresponding to the pipe sizes and approximate right-of-way area were made available to the City. Wells, Storage Tanks, and Booster Stations Wells were not entered into the Existing Model as part of this Facilities Plan but could be included as part of future work. Record drawings for booster pump stations and storage tank sizes were used for input in the model. Pressure to the system is modeled by either gravity tanks, pumps modeled as pressure tanks with flow control valves, or booster pumps at distribution locations. Pumps with VFDs are accounted for as either pressure modeled tanks or using the VFD features of the model. Pump curves from original design charts were used where booster pumps are modeled. It is not known to what degree the pumps are operating on their original pump curves. Based on historical precedent and model idiosyncrasies, not all pump stations were modeled directly as pumps within the Existing Model, and instead were modeled as pressure tanks. In these cases, flow control valves are used for modeling purposes to limit flow from a station. Existing Model Flow Demand Layer The Existing Model is a parcel and top user-based model. For all but the top water users, each parcel is assigned a specific land use type and corresponding maximum daily demand, pressure zone, and applicable irrigation demand (potable or secondary). Peak monthly summer water meter data was used initially to assign demand throughout the City to particular land use types for calibration. For users with monthly demands less than 10,000 gpd, different land use types corresponding to meter data, acreage size, pressure zones, and secondary irrigation were 300 used to refine maximum daily flows. Users with monthly demands greater than 10,000 gpd were assigned directly into the model based on their monthly meter data and calibrated within each pressure zone. Average and peak hour factors are used to change the maximum daily demands within the model to correspond with demands typical of different times of the day and season. Uses at particular times throughout the day or week were not developed with this model but could be developed with diurnal curves according to land use or user type in future planning efforts. Existing Model Operational Settings Layer Operational values and control valve settings for tank and booster stations were initially set based on input from the City,as well as subsequent calibration adjustments.The Existing Model is set up as a steady state model to understand pressure and flows under maximum day demands, peak hour demands or winter and average day demands. Changes in demands are made with global multiplying factors. The model software can also run a dynamic model, but the existing model has not yet been setup with diurnal curves. A dynamic model can help the City better understand short-term fluctuations and water quality concerns and could be completed with future efforts. D.2.2 Committed Model The Committed Model includes everything that the City has committed to serve, or is considering serving, based on known developments. This does not guarantee or imply a will-serve will be granted. It includes estimated demands for all existing customers, developments that have begun the subdividing process, and assumes infill of remaining vacant areas in the existing City limits.The Committed Model also includes anticipated industrial demands over the next 20 years. The Committed Model is a tool to estimate the capacity in the existing water system,taking into account developments proposed in or near the City.The Committed Model's primary purposes are to: • Show the remaining, uncommitted capacity in the system. • Identify distribution system capacity and deficiencies at committed demands. • Identify potential fireflow and pressure issues as land develops in areas already within or near the City limits. If a new development seeks approval, the associated demands are typically added to the Committed Model to check for capacity. The model results will indicate if there is sufficient capacity in the system infrastructure to meet pressure and fireflow needs. Due to the additive nature of the demands associated with new developments, the Committed Model typically represents what the City has committed to or plans to serve based on the date of the last development request. Committed Model System Layer The Committed Model uses the same system layer as the Existing Model, plus the proposed Master Plan water mains in the areas where Committed demands are allocated and specific water mains for anticipated developments. Committed Model Demand Layer Demands were added to the Existing Model Demand Layer from three areas: 1. Infill or development of areas already within the City limits were assigned demands according to the current land use and zoning and associated unit demands within a particular pressure zone. Secondary irrigation was assigned for areas in known or planned pressure irrigation districts. 301 2. Demands from known developments outside the City were added based on current land use and unit demands.The known developments were reviewed and provided by the City for inclusion in the model. Future developments are assumed to implement pressure irrigation systems. 3. The 20-year projected demands from both existing and new industrial top users. A summary of the unit demands (specific to land uses taken from the Comprehensive Plan) used in the committed model is shown in Table D-9. Table D-9—Land Use Unit Demands Comprehensive Plan Unit Demand ... . C-1,C-B, OS,OT Commercial 1,760 M-1, M-2 Industrial 1,470 R-1 VAR R-2 Based on Land area R-4 Residential-High=>5 DU 1 R-6 Residential-Medium=2-4 DU 117 720 R-6-MHO-1 Residential-Low2= 1 DU SUI 1. Residential unit demand varies by pressure zone,pressure irrigation usage,and land area;values for each residential category are averaged between users with and without pressurized irrigation;typical residential-low(with PI)=274 GPD/Dwelling Unit(DU) 2. Subdivided at 6lots per acre for all proposed and future areas not otherwise designated. D.2.3 Master Plan Model The Master Plan Model represents the ultimate build-out of the water/sewer service area. The Master Plan Model is a tool to guide growth and expansion of the water system and identify potential future deficiencies in the current water system.The Master Plan Model's primary purposes are to: • Identify future water supply needs based on demand projections. • Identify general locations needed for future storage tank and booster pump stations based on demand allocation. • Provide the size and approximate location for master planned water mains 10 inches and larger diameter. • Identify potential capacity issues that may arise in the existing water system as the City develops new areas and builds out the study area. • Develop a base model to use in evaluating future water system scenarios. Master Plan Model System Laver The Master Plan System Layer consists of the physical components including tanks, booster stations,water mains, key pressure and flow control valves, closed valves, and junctions in the water system required to serve the entire study area.The Master Plan System Layer starts with the Committed Model System Layer and adds new and replacement water mains, as well as additional booster station capacity, if necessary. The Master Plan water mains were laid out generally assuming: • Current and future right-of-way is expected to be along section lines, quarter section lines, and extensions of existing roads. • 10-inch water mains will be constructed along the quarter section lines. • 12-inch water mains will be constructed along the section lines. 302 • Water mains larger than 10-inch or 12-inch water mains are needed at some key locations, generally from booster stations. • Looping will occur for all water mains. • Depending on where future water source are located, an additional large water main (-42 inches) from either the South Tanks or from the pumps feeding the Harrison High Level Pressure Zone will be needed. Master Plan Model Land Use and Demand Layer The remaining land within the study area not already included in the Existing and Committed Model scenarios was added to the Master Plan Model and assigned a land use type generally following the 2016 Comprehensive Plan. Demands were added based on the land use and unit demands. Areas included in the Existing and Committed Models were included in the Master Plan land use layer without modification. No redevelopment'was assumed for existing areas. The same residential and commercial unit demands that were used in the Committed Model were used in the Master Plan Model. In addition, the build-out and 20-year permitted industrial demands plus existing industry anticipated growth were added. 'Any development requests seeking additional demand beyond the Master Plan demand assumptions are tested in the model to verify capacity on a case-by-case basis 303 D.3 ISRB Fireflow Results Table D-10-Fireflow Evaluation Results for ISRB Locations ConAgra 856 Russet St J-3507 6,500 5,500 4,800 Q Upsize West 6"->12" TF SCHOOL DISTRICT#411 1771 Stadium Blvd J-1085 5,000 Q Q Q AMERICAN PLAZA 820840 BLUE LAKES BLVD N J-251 5,000 Q Q Q KEEGAN,INC 2570 ELDRIDGE AVE J-8008 5,000 Q Q Q YMCA OF TWIN FALLS 1751 ELIZABETH BLVD J-1299 5,000 Q Q Q CHOBANI 3450 KIMBERLY RD J-5108 3,750 Q Q Q TF SCHOOL DISTRICT#411 1615 FILER AVE EAST J-1144 5,000 Q Q Q SCHOOL DISTRICT#411 644 CASWELL AVE WEST 1-673 4,500 Q Q Q CARL LEGG 702 FAIRFIELD ST WEST J-3529 4,500 Q Q Q IN DEPENDENT MEAT 2072 ORCHARD DR J-8039 4,500 Q Q Q COMPANY CONCEPT STEEL HOMES 2356 BERYL AVE J-8018 4,000 2,500 2,500 Q 12"in Beryl WEST COAST HOTELS 1357 BLUE LAKES BLVD N J-1011 4,000 Q Q Q CENTENNIAL SQUARE 671 BLUE LAKES BLVD N J-252 4,000 Q Q Q LANDOWNERS TECH INC 621WASHINGTON ST SOUTH J-3184 4,000 3,300 2,700 Q Wills Booster and PRV: GARYOLIVER 261 ADDISON AVE WEST J-447 4,000 Q Q Q JANETAND MIKE GORRINGE 2032 HIGHLAND AVE J-8032 4,000 Q 3,900 Q Hankins PZ Split KEN FLOYD 3014TH AVE SOUTH J-522 4,000 3,600 3,600 Q 10"in Idaho KEITH SUGAR 635 5TH AVE WEST J-469 3,500 Q Q Q SMITHS FOOD KING#35 1913 ADDISON AVE EAST J-1256 3,500 Q Q Q STAN SHEPPARD/S&G PRODUCE/Falls Brand 520 LOCUST ST SOUTH J-8024 3,500 2,000 2,000 Q 110"in Eldridge Packaging DOCTORS PARK INC 560570 SHOUP AVE WEST J-421 3,500 2,800 2,800 Q 8"at Shoup x Martin HERRITTS STOCKS INC 169 MADRONA ST J-1356 3,500 3,100 3,000 Q 10"in Madrona SCHOOL DISTRICT#411 6502ND AVE NORTH J536 3,500 1,300 1,300 Q 10"in 2nd or 3rd JACK SEARS BUI LDI NG 415 421 2N D AVE SOUTH J-563 3,500 Q Q Q RANGEN 347S PARK AVE J-612 3,500 Q Q Q FIRSTASSEMBLY OF GOD 189 LOCUST ST NORTH J-1223 3,500 Q Q Q BLUE LAKES OFFICE PARK 834 FALLS AVE J-189 3,500 Q Q Q St.Lukes or ARMSTRONG 212 3RD AVE SOUTH J-3417 3,500 Q Q Q PACIFIC CORP TF LIVESTOCK COMMISSION 630 COMMERCIAL AVE. J-568 3,500 3,000 Q Q 10"in Canyon IMMANUEL LUTHERAN 2055 FILER AVE EAST J-1131 3,500 Q Q Q CHURCH GLANBIA 236 WASHINGTON STS J-617 3,000 Q 2,900 Q 12"Diamond Connecti BLACKER'SFURNITURE 2232ND AVE E J-531 3,000 Q Q Q ADDISON OFFICE SUITES 1525 ADDISON AVE EAST J-1228 3,000 Q Q Q PACIFIC SUPPLY 1641 HIGHLAND AVE J-1354 3,000 Q 2,900 Q Hankins PZ Split FRANKLIN BLDG.SUPPLY 1390 HIGHLAND AVE J-1379 3,000 Q Q Q SUPER 8 MOTEL 1260 BLUE LAKES BLVD N J-1017 3,000 Q Q Q MOUNTAIN DAIRIES 1431594TH AVE WEST J-638 3,000 Q Q Q PROFESSIONAL PLAZA 496 526 SHOUP AVE WEST 1-461 3,000 Q Q Q 1300 KIMBERLY RD 1300 KIMBERLY RD J-1367 3,000 Q Q Q BUILDING SORANCO BEAN PRODUCTS 1505 PARK AVE J-603 3,000 Q Q Q CAIN'S HOME FURNISHINGS 217 229 2ND AVE NORTH J-530 3,000 Q Q Q FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH 601 SHOSHONE ST NORTH 1-659 3,000 1,500 1,500 Q New 10"in Hansen CANYON FALLS LLC/TURF 754 780 FALLS AVE J1124 3,000 Q Q Q PLAZA MAGIC VALLEYSHOPPING 671685FILER 1-275 3,000 Q Q Q CENTER BETHELTEMPLE CHURCH 969 N HANKINS RD J-1271 3,000 2,800 Q Q Fixed w/Eastern Sun NORTH BRIDGE PLAZA 1563 FILLMORE ST J-4396 3,000 Q Q Q CHARMACTRAILERS 470S PARK AVE J-611 3,000 Q Q Q 304 Appendix E Cost Estimates This page was intentionally left blank for correct double-sided printing. 306 EA Appendix E (Cost Estimates) - Table of Contents * Costs for projects that require further analysis, are currently under development, or that were designed by engineers other than JUB are not listed (Priority 1A/113 Distribution Improvements,water rights, etc.). Based on the recommended improvements, we do not expect a significant change to operation and maintenance costs, so these are not presented. Cost Estimate Page Number Hankins Pressure Zone Split 308 South Pressure Zone (N) Boundary Adjustments 309 Priority 1C Distribution (Moreland Ave) 310 Priority 1D Distribution (Elm St N) 311 Priority 1E Distribution (Buchanan St) 312 Priority 1F Distribution (Borah &4th Ave W) 313 Priority 1G Distribution (Kimberly Rd) 314 Priority 2 Distribution (Zone 1) 315 Priority 2 Distribution (Zones 2 &8) 316 Priority 2 Distribution (Zones 3 &4) 317 Priority 2 Distribution (Zones 6 &7) 318 Canyon Springs Pump Station-Standby Generators 319 Harrison Pump Station-Standby Generator 320 Eldridge Pump Station-Standby Generator 321 South Wells-Standby Generators 322 New Hankins Pump Station 323 Canyon Springs Pump Station Improvements 324 Wills Pump Station- Upgrade 325 Eldridge Pump Station- Upgrade 326 Harrison Pump Station- Pump Replacement 327 24" Pipe (Harrison Tank to Hankins Tank) 328 36" Pipe (Canyon Springs PS to Top of Canyon) 329 36" Pipe Replacement(Top of Canyon to Harrison Tank) 330 36" Redundant Supply Pipe (Snake Rive Bore) 331 20" Pipe (Westward from Wills PS along 3600 N) 332 10 Million Gallon Storage Tank&36"Transmission 333 South Well#5 &24"Transmission Main 334 South Well#6&20"Transmission Main 335 South Well#7 & 16"Transmission Main 336 Distribution System Replacement Cost 337 307 UioMNIZFIs.IW_ 2114 Village Park Avenue Suite 100,Twin Falls,ID 83301 208.733.2414 ENGINEERS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST PROJECT: City of Twin Falls 2022 Water Master Plan Revision Date: 28-Apr-22 IMPROVEMENT: Hankins Pressure Zone Split ESTIMATED IMPROVEMENT COST: $ 3,564,000 ASSUMES: ITEM No. Description Est.Quant. Unit Unit Price Total Price 1.00 Water Main-Installed w/Bedding 1.02 8"PVC Water Main 2,840 LF $ 44.00 $ 124,960.00 1.04 12"PVC Water Main 2,830 LF $ 80.00 $ 226,400.00 1.10 30"PVC Water Main 920 LF $ 380.00 $ 349,600.00 1.14 Rock,Urban(Assume 25%of length) 1,648 LF $ 123.00 $ 202,642.50 1.16 Existing Waterline Connections 8"-14" 26 EA $ 2,500.00 $ 65,000.00 1.19 Water Testing/Commissioning 6,590 LF $ 2.50 $ 16,475.00 1.21 Remove existing watermain 665 LF $ 7.00 $ 4,655.00 2.00 Fittings 2.04 8"Fittings 20 EA $ 850.00 $ 17,000.00 2.06 12"Fittings 25 EA $ 1,375.00 $ 34,375.00 2.12 30"Fittings 6 EA $ 8,750.00 $ 52,500.00 3.00 Valves and Hydrants 3.04 8"Valve 20 EA $ 2,300.00 $ 46,000.00 3.05 10"Valve 1 EA $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400.00 3.06 12"Valve 10 EA $ 3,100.00 $ 31,000.00 3.12 30"Valve 2 EA $ 24,000.00 $ 48,000.00 3.14 Hydrant 19 EA $ 5,000.00 $ 95,000.00 3.24 12"Pressure Control Valve Vault 2 EA $ 31,000.00 $ 62,000.00 3.27 18-24"Pressure Control Valve Vault 1 EA $ 40,000.00 $ 40,000.00 4.00 Water Services 4.01 1"Water Service Pipe 1,200 LF $ 9.00 $ 10,800.00 5.00 Crossings 5.08 Sewer/StormDrain/Irrig Crossing 60 EA $ 3,750.00 $ 225,000.00 5.09 Utility Service Crossings-Urban 6,590 LF $ 2.50 $ 16,475.00 6.00 Surface Restoration 6.01 Stormwater Management 6,590 LF $ 2.50 $ 16,475.00 6.02 City-Asphalt -Full Lane Width 6,590 LF $ 55.00 $ 362,450.00 7.00 Construction Traffic Control 7.01 Typical Traffic Control-Rural 33 Day $ 248.00 $ 8,184.00 7.03 Typical Traffic Control-Flaggers 30 Day $ 700.00 $ 21,000.00 21.00 Contractor Mobilization/Demobilization 5% $ 103,919.58 22.00 Contingency 30% $ 623,517.45 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 2,806,000 23.00 Other Project Costs 23.02 Inflation 9% $ 253,000 23.03 Engineering/Construction Admin 18% $ 505,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 3,564,000 308 114[�1111141NC. 2114 Village Park Avenue Suite 100,Twin Falls,ID 83301 208.733.2414 ENGINEERS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST PROJECT: City of Twin Falls 2022 Water Master Plan Revision Date: 28-Apr-22 IMPROVEMENT: South Pressure Zone(N)Boundary Adjustments ESTIMATED IMPROVEMENT COST: $ 3,453,000 ASSUMES: ITEM No. Description Est.Quant. Unit Unit Price Total Price 1.00 Water Main-Installed w/Bedding 1.02 8"PVC Water Main 800 LF $ 44.00 $ 35,200.00 1.03 10"PVC Water Main 1,660 LF $ 52.00 $ 86,320.00 1.04 12"PVC Water Main 5,910 LF $ 80.00 $ 472,800.00 1.14 Rock,Urban(Assume 25%of length) 2,093 LF $ 123.00 $ 257,377.50 1.16 Existing Waterline Connections 8"-14" 29 EA $ 2,500.00 $ 72,500.00 1.19 Water Testing/Commissioning 8,370 LF $ 2.50 $ 20,925.00 2.00 Fittings 2.04 8"Fittings 26 EA $ 850.00 $ 22,100.00 2.05 10"Fittings 4 EA $ 1,100.00 $ 4,400.00 2.06 12"Fittings 11 EA $ 1,375.00 $ 15,125.00 3.00 Valves and Hydrants 3.04 8"Valve 20 EA $ 2,300.00 $ 46,000.00 3.05 10"Valve 3 EA $ 2,400.00 $ 7,200.00 3.06 12"Valve 6 EA $ 3,100.00 $ 18,600.00 3.14 Hydrant 10 EA $ 5,000.00 $ 50,000.00 3.24 12"Pressure Control Valve Vault 2 EA $ 31,000.00 $ 62,000.00 4.00 Water Services 4.01 1"Water Service Pipe 1,200 LF $ 9.00 $ 10,800.00 5.00 Crossings 5.08 Sewer/StormDrain/Irrig Crossing 60 EA $ 3,750.00 $ 225,000.00 5.09 Utility Service Crossings-Urban 8,370 LF $ 2.50 $ 20,925.00 6.00 Surface Restoration 6.01 Stormwater Management 8,370 LF $ 2.50 $ 20,925.00 6.02 City-Asphalt -Full Lane Width 8,370 LF $ 55.00 $ 460,350.00 7.00 Construction Traffic Control 7.01 Typical Traffic Control-Rural 34 Day $ 248.00 $ 8,432.00 7.03 Typical Traffic Control-Flaggers 30 Day $ 700.00 $ 21,000.00 21.00 Contractor Mobilization/Demobilization 5% $ 96,898.98 22.00 Contingency 30% $ 581,393.85 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 2,616,000 23.00 Other Project Costs 23.01 Davis-Bacon Wages/Buy American Iron 0% $ - 23.02 Inflation(3 years at 3%) 9% $ 235,000 23.03 Engineering/Construction Admin 18% $ 471,000 23.04 Funding/Legal/Administration/Bonding 5% $ 131,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 3,453,000 309 V'J-U_-B '1 -7 •IF6 ENGINEUM INC. 2114 Village Park Avenue Suite 100,Twin Falls,ID 83301 208.733.2414 ENGINEERS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST PROJECT: City of Twin Falls 2022 Water Master Plan Revision Date: 28-Apr-22 IMPROVEMENT: Priority 1C Distribution(Moreland Ave) ESTIMATED IMPROVEMENT COST: $ 1,949,000 ASSUMES: ITEM No. Description Est.Quant. Unit Unit Price Total Price 1.00 Water Main-Installed w/Bedding 1.02 8" PVC Water Main 6,860 LF $ 44.00 $ 301,840.00 1.14 Rock, Urban(Assume 25%of length) 1,715 LF $ 123.00 $ 210,945.00 1.16 Existing Waterline Connections 8"-14" 27 EA $ 2,500.00 $ 67,500.00 1.19 Water Testing/Commissioning 6,860 LF $ 2.50 $ 17,150.00 2.00 Fittings 2.04 8" Fittings 23 EA $ 850.00 $ 19,550.00 3.00 Valves and Hydrants 3.04 8"Valve 7 EA $ 2,300.00 $ 16,100.00 3.14 Hydrant 9 EA $ 5,000.00 $ 45,000.00 4.00 Water Services 4.01 1"Water Service Pipe 2,070 LF $ 9.00 $ 18,630.00 4.14 Water Service Asphalt Repair(6'wide x 30'long) 69 EA $ 950.00 $ 65,550.00 5.00 Crossings 5.08 Sewer/StormDrain/Irrig Crossing 7 EA $ 3,750.00 $ 26,250.00 5.09 Utility Service Crossings-Urban 6,860 LF $ 2.50 $ 17,150.00 6.00 Surface Restoration 6.01 Stormwater Management 6,860 LF $ 2.50 $ 17,150.00 6.03 City-Asphalt -Half Lane Width 6,860 LF $ 36.00 $ 246,960.00 7.00 Construction Traffic Control 7.03 Typical Traffic Control-Flaggers 34 Day $ 700.00 $ 23,800.00 21.00 Contractor Mobilization/Demobilization 5% $ 54,678.75 22.00 Contingency 30% $ 328,072.50 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 1,476,000 23.00 Other Project Costs 23.01 Davis-Bacon Wages/Buy American Iron 0% $ - 23.02 Inflation(3 years at 3%) 9% $ 133,000 23.03 Engineering/Construction Admin 18% $ 266,000 23.04 Funding/Legal/Administration/Bonding 5% $ 74,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 1,949,000 310 V'J-U_-B '1 -7 •IF6 ENGINEUM INC. 2114 Village Park Avenue Suite 100,Twin Falls,ID 83301 208.733.2414 ENGINEERS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST PROJECT: City of Twin Falls 2022 Water Master Plan Revision Date: 28-Apr-22 IMPROVEMENT: Priority 1D Distribution(Elm St N) ESTIMATED IMPROVEMENT COST: $ 1,011,000 ASSUMES: ITEM No. Description Est.Quant. Unit Unit Price Total Price 1.00 Water Main-Installed w/Bedding 1.02 8" PVC Water Main 3,530 LF $ 44.00 $ 155,320.00 1.14 Rock, Urban(Assume 25%of length) 883 LF $ 123.00 $ 108,609.00 1.16 Existing Waterline Connections 8"-14" 14 EA $ 2,500.00 $ 35,000.00 1.19 Water Testing/Commissioning 3,530 LF $ 2.50 $ 8,825.00 2.00 Fittings 2.04 8" Fittings 12 EA $ 850.00 $ 10,200.00 3.00 Valves and Hydrants 3.04 8"Valve 4 EA $ 2,300.00 $ 9,200.00 3.14 Hydrant 5 EA $ 5,000.00 $ 25,000.00 4.00 Water Services 4.01 1"Water Service Pipe 1,050 LF $ 9.00 $ 9,450.00 4.14 Water Service Asphalt Repair(6'wide x 30'long) 35 EA $ 950.00 $ 33,250.00 5.00 Crossings 5.08 Sewer/StormDrain/Irrig Crossing 4 EA $ 3,750.00 $ 15,000.00 5.09 Utility Service Crossings-Urban 3,530 LF $ 2.50 $ 8,825.00 6.00 Surface Restoration 6.01 Stormwater Management 3,530 LF $ 2.50 $ 8,825.00 6.03 City-Asphalt -Half Lane Width 3,530 LF $ 36.00 $ 127,080.00 7.00 Construction Traffic Control 7.03 Typical Traffic Control-Flaggers 18 Day $ 700.00 $ 12,600.00 21.00 Contractor Mobilization/Demobilization 5% $ 28,359.20 22.00 Contingency 30% $ 170,155.20 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 766,000 23.00 Other Project Costs 23.01 Davis-Bacon Wages/Buy American Iron 0% $ - 23.02 Inflation(3 years at 3%) 9% $ 69,000 23.03 Engineering/Construction Admin 18% $ 138,000 23.04 Funding/Legal/Administration/Bonding 5% $ 38,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 1,011,000 311 V'J-U_-B '1 -7 •IF6 ENGINEUM INC. 2114 Village Park Avenue Suite 100,Twin Falls,ID 83301 208.733.2414 ENGINEERS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST PROJECT: City of Twin Falls 2022 Water Master Plan Revision Date: 28-Apr-22 IMPROVEMENT: Priority 1E Distribution(Buchanan St) ESTIMATED IMPROVEMENT COST: $ 1,041,000 ASSUMES: ITEM No. Description Est.Quant. Unit Unit Price Total Price 1.00 Water Main-Installed w/Bedding 1.02 8" PVC Water Main 3,645 LF $ 44.00 $ 160,380.00 1.14 Rock, Urban(Assume 25%of length) 911 LF $ 123.00 $ 112,053.00 1.16 Existing Waterline Connections 8"-14" 15 EA $ 2,500.00 $ 37,500.00 1.19 Water Testing/Commissioning 3,645 LF $ 2.50 $ 9,112.50 2.00 Fittings 2.04 8" Fittings 12 EA $ 850.00 $ 10,200.00 3.00 Valves and Hydrants 3.04 8"Valve 4 EA $ 2,300.00 $ 9,200.00 3.14 Hydrant 5 EA $ 5,000.00 $ 25,000.00 4.00 Water Services 4.01 1"Water Service Pipe 1,080 LF $ 9.00 $ 9,720.00 4.14 Water Service Asphalt Repair(6'wide x 30'long) 36 EA $ 950.00 $ 34,200.00 5.00 Crossings 5.08 Sewer/StormDrain/Irrig Crossing 4 EA $ 3,750.00 $ 15,000.00 5.09 Utility Service Crossings-Urban 3,645 LF $ 2.50 $ 9,112.50 6.00 Surface Restoration 6.01 Stormwater Management 3,645 LF $ 2.50 $ 9,112.50 6.03 City-Asphalt -Half Lane Width 3,645 LF $ 36.00 $ 131,220.00 7.00 Construction Traffic Control 7.03 Typical Traffic Control-Flaggers 18 Day $ 700.00 $ 12,600.00 21.00 Contractor Mobilization/Demobilization 5% $ 29,220.53 22.00 Contingency 30% $ 175,323.15 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 789,000 23.00 Other Project Costs 23.01 Davis-Bacon Wages/Buy American Iron 0% $ - 23.02 Inflation(3 years at 3%) 9% $ 71,000 23.03 Engineering/Construction Admin 18% $ 142,000 23.04 Funding/Legal/Administration/Bonding 5% $ 39,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 1,041,000 312 V'J-U_-B '1 -7 •IF6 ENGINEUM INC. 2114 Village Park Avenue Suite 100,Twin Falls,ID 83301 208.733.2414 ENGINEERS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST PROJECT: City of Twin Falls 2022 Water Master Plan Revision Date: 28-Apr-22 IMPROVEMENT: Priority 1F Distribution(Borah&4th Ave W) ESTIMATED IMPROVEMENT COST: $ 2,277,000 ASSUMES: ITEM No. Description Est.Quant. Unit Unit Price Total Price 1.00 Water Main-Installed w/Bedding 1.02 8" PVC Water Main 8,000 LF $ 44.00 $ 352,000.00 1.14 Rock, Urban(Assume 25%of length) 2,000 LF $ 123.00 $ 246,000.00 1.16 Existing Waterline Connections 8"-14" 32 EA $ 2,500.00 $ 80,000.00 1.19 Water Testing/Commissioning 8,000 LF $ 2.50 $ 20,000.00 2.00 Fittings 2.04 8" Fittings 27 EA $ 850.00 $ 22,950.00 3.00 Valves and Hydrants 3.04 8"Valve 8 EA $ 2,300.00 $ 18,400.00 3.14 Hydrant 11 EA $ 5,000.00 $ 55,000.00 4.00 Water Services 4.01 1"Water Service Pipe 2,400 LF $ 9.00 $ 21,600.00 4.14 Water Service Asphalt Repair(6'wide x 30'long) 80 EA $ 950.00 $ 76,000.00 5.00 Crossings 5.08 Sewer/StormDrain/Irrig Crossing 8 EA $ 3,750.00 $ 30,000.00 5.09 Utility Service Crossings-Urban 8,000 LF $ 2.50 $ 20,000.00 6.00 Surface Restoration 6.01 Stormwater Management 8,000 LF $ 2.50 $ 20,000.00 6.03 City-Asphalt -Half Lane Width 8,000 LF $ 36.00 $ 288,000.00 7.00 Construction Traffic Control 7.03 Typical Traffic Control-Flaggers 40 Day $ 700.00 $ 28,000.00 21.00 Contractor Mobilization/Demobilization 5% $ 63,897.50 22.00 Contingency 30% $ 383,385.00 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 1,725,000 23.00 Other Project Costs 23.01 Davis-Bacon Wages/Buy American Iron 0% $ - 23.02 Inflation(3 years at 3%) 9% $ 155,000 23.03 Engineering/Construction Admin 18% $ 311,000 23.04 Funding/Legal/Administration/Bonding 5% $ 86,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 2,277,000 313 V'J-U_-B '1 -7 •IF6 ENGINEUM INC. 2114 Village Park Avenue Suite 100,Twin Falls,ID 83301 208.733.2414 ENGINEERS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST PROJECT: City of Twin Falls 2022 Water Master Plan Revision Date: 28-Apr-22 IMPROVEMENT: Priority 1G Distribution(Kimberly Rd) ESTIMATED IMPROVEMENT COST: $ 2,065,000 ASSUMES: ITEM No. Description Est.Quant. Unit Unit Price Total Price 1.00 Water Main-Installed w/Bedding 1.04 12" PVC Water Main 5,300 LF $ 80.00 $ 424,000.00 1.16 Existing Waterline Connections 8"-14" 12 EA $ 2,500.00 $ 30,000.00 1.19 Water Testing/Commissioning 5,300 LF $ 2.50 $ 13,250.00 2.00 Fittings 2.06 12" Fittings 18 EA $ 1,375.00 $ 24,750.00 3.00 Valves and Hydrants 3.06 12"Valve 5 EA $ 3,100.00 $ 15,500.00 3.14 Hydrant 7 EA $ 5,000.00 $ 35,000.00 3.15 Reconnect Hydrant 7 EA $ 3,450.00 $ 24,150.00 4.00 Water Services 4.01 1"Water Service Pipe 4,500 LF $ 9.00 $ 40,500.00 4.14 Water Service Asphalt Repair(6'wide x 30'long) 75 EA $ 950.00 $ 71,250.00 5.00 Crossings 5.08 Sewer/StormDrain/Irrig Crossing 5 EA $ 3,750.00 $ 18,750.00 5.09 Utility Service Crossings-Urban 5,300 LF $ 2.50 $ 13,250.00 6.00 Surface Restoration 6.01 Stormwater Management 5,300 LF $ 2.50 $ 13,250.00 6.04 ITD-Asphalt-Full Lane Width(SuperPave) 5,300 LF $ 75.00 $ 397,500.00 7.00 Construction Traffic Control 7.03 Typical Traffic Control-Flaggers 53 Day $ 700.00 $ 37,100.00 21.00 Contractor Mobilization/Demobilization 5% $ 57,912.50 22.00 Contingency 30% $ 347,475.00 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 1,564,000 23.00 Other Project Costs 23.01 Davis-Bacon Wages/Buy American Iron 0% $ - 23.02 Inflation(3 years at 3%) 9% $ 141,000 23.03 Engineering/Construction Admin 18% $ 282,000 23.04 Funding/Legal/Administration/Bonding 5% $ 78,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 2,065,000 314 YVB -U4■"NIZW INC. 2114 Village Park Avenue Suite 100,Twin Falls,ID 83301 208.733.2414 ENGINEERS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST PROJECT: City of Twin Falls 2022 Water Master Plan Revision Date: 28-Apr-22 IMPROVEMENT: Priority 2 Distribution(Zone 1) ESTIMATED IMPROVEMENT COST: $ 7,049,000 ASSUMES: ITEM No. Description Est.Quant. Unit Unit Price Total Price 1.00 Water Main-Installed w/Bedding 1.02 8" PVC Water Main 24,160 LF $ 44.00 $ 1,063,040.00 1.03 10" PVC Water Main 2,075 LF $ 52.00 $ 107,900.00 1.14 Rock, Urban(Assume 25%of length) 6,559 LF $ 123.00 $ 806,757.00 1.16 Existing Waterline Connections 8"-14" 105 EA $ 2,500.00 $ 262,500.00 1.19 Water Testing/Commissioning 26,235 LF $ 2.50 $ 65,587.50 2.00 Fittings 2.04 8" Fittings 81 EA $ 850.00 $ 68,850.00 2.05 10" Fittings 7 EA $ 1,100.00 $ 7,700.00 3.00 Valves and Hydrants 3.04 8"Valve 24 EA $ 2,300.00 $ 55,200.00 3.05 10"Valve 2 EA $ 2,400.00 $ 4,800.00 3.14 Hydrant 35 EA $ 5,000.00 $ 175,000.00 4.00 Water Services 4.01 1"Water Service Pipe 7,860 LF $ 9.00 $ 70,740.00 4.02 1.5"Water Service Pipe 262 LF $ 10.00 $ 2,620.00 5.00 Crossings 5.08 Sewer/StormDrain/Irrig Crossing 26 EA $ 3,750.00 $ 97,500.00 5.09 Utility Service Crossings-Urban 26,235 LF $ 2.50 $ 65,587.50 6.00 Surface Restoration 6.01 Stormwater Management 26,235 LF $ 2.50 $ 65,587.50 6.03 City-Asphalt -Half Lane Width 26,235 LF $ 36.00 $ 944,460.00 7.00 Construction Traffic Control 7.03 Typical Traffic Control-Flaggers 131 Day $ 700.00 $ 91,700.00 21.00 Contractor Mobilization/Demobilization 5% $ 197,776.48 22.00 Contingency 30% $ 1,186,658.85 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 5,340,000 23.00 Other Project Costs 23.01 Davis-Bacon Wages/Buy American Iron 0% $ - 23.02 Inflation(3 years at 3%) 9% $ 481,000 23.03 Engineering/Construction Admin 18% $ 961,000 23.04 Funding/Legal/Administration/Bonding 5% $ 267,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 7,049,000 315 114[�11111141NC. 2114 Village Park Avenue Suite 100,Twin Falls,ID 83301 208.733.2414 ENGINEERS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST PROJECT: City of Twin Falls 2022 Water Master Plan Revision Date: 28-Apr-22 IMPROVEMENT: Priority 2 Distribution(Zones 2&8) ESTIMATED IMPROVEMENT COST: $ 5,168,000 ASSUMES: ITEM No. Description Est.Quant. Unit Unit Price Total Price 1.00 Water Main-Installed w/Bedding 1.02 8"PVC Water Main 11,500 LF $ 44.00 $ 506,000.00 1.03 10"PVC Water Main 1,580 LF $ 52.00 $ 82,160.00 1.04 12"PVC Water Main 3,200 LF $ 80.00 $ 256,000.00 1.06 16"PVC Water Main 560 LF $ 200.00 $ 112,000.00 1.14 Rock,Urban(Assume 25%of length) 4,210 LF $ 123.00 $ 517,830.00 1.16 Existing Waterline Connections 8"-14" 67 EA $ 2,500.00 $ 167,500.00 1.19 Water Testing/Commissioning 16,840 LF $ 2.50 $ 42,100.00 2.00 Fittings 2.04 8"Fittings 38 EA $ 850.00 $ 32,300.00 2.05 10"Fittings 5 EA $ 1,100.00 $ 5,500.00 2.06 12"Fittings 11 EA $ 1,375.00 $ 15,125.00 3.00 Valves and Hydrants 3.04 8"Valve 12 EA $ 2,300.00 $ 27,600.00 3.05 10"Valve 2 EA $ 2,400.00 $ 4,800.00 3.06 12"Valve 3 EA $ 3,100.00 $ 9,300.00 3.14 Hydrant 22 EA $ 5,000.00 $ 110,000.00 4.00 Water Services 4.01 1"Water Service Pipe 4,890 LF $ 9.00 $ 44,010.00 4.14 Water Service Asphalt Repair(6'wide x 30'long) 163 EA $ 950.00 $ 154,850.00 5.00 Crossings 5.08 Sewer/StormDrain/Irrig Crossing 17 EA $ 3,750.00 $ 63,750.00 5.09 Utility Service Crossings-Urban 16,840 LF $ 2.50 $ 42,100.00 6.00 Surface Restoration 6.01 Stormwater Management 16,840 LF $ 2.50 $ 42,100.00 6.03 City-Asphalt -Half Lane Width 16,840 LF $ 36.00 $ 606,240.00 7.00 Construction Traffic Control 7.03 Typical Traffic Control-Flaggers 84 Day $ 700.00 $ 58,800.00 21.00 Contractor Mobilization/Demobilization 5% $ 145,003.25 22.00 Contingency 30% $ 870,019.50 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 3,915,000 23.00 Other Project Costs 23.01 Davis-Bacon Wages/Buy American Iron 0% $ - 23.02 Inflation(3 years at 3%) 9% $ 352,000 23.03 Engineering/Construction Admin 18% $ 705,000 23.04 Funding/Legal/Administration/Bonding 5% $ 196,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 5,168,000 316 i4m IMG 2114 Village Park Avenue Suite 100,Twin Falls,ID 83301 208.733.2414 ENGINEERS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST PROJECT: City of Twin Falls 2022 Water Master Plan Revision Date: 28-Apr-22 IMPROVEMENT: Priority 2 Distribution(Zones 3&4) ESTIMATED IMPROVEMENT COST: $ 8,478,000 ASSUMES: ITEM No. Description Est.Quant. Unit Unit Price Total Price 1.00 Water Main-Installed w/Bedding 1.02 8"PVC Water Main 26,330 LF $ 44.00 $ 1,158,520.00 1.03 10"PVC Water Main 330 LF $ 52.00 $ 17,160.00 1.04 12"PVC Water Main 1,635 LF $ 80.00 $ 130,800.00 1.06 16"PVC Water Main 75 LF $ 200.00 $ 15,000.00 1.08 20"PVC Water Main 100 LF $ 210.00 $ 21,000.00 1.14 Rock,Urban(Assume 25%of length) 7,118 LF $ 123.00 $ 875,514.00 1.16 Existing Waterline Connections 8"-14" 114 EA $ 2,500.00 $ 285,000.00 1.19 Water Testing/Commissioning 28,470 LF $ 2.50 $ 71,175.00 2.00 Fittings 2.04 8"Fittings 88 EA $ 850.00 $ 74,800.00 2.05 10"Fittings 4 EA $ 1,100.00 $ 4,400.00 2.06 12"Fittings 4 EA $ 1,375.00 $ 5,500.00 2.08 16"Fittings 2 EA $ 2,000.00 $ 4,000.00 2.10 20"Fittings 2 EA $ 3,125.00 $ 6,250.00 3.00 Valves and Hydrants 3.04 8"Valve 26 EA $ 2,300.00 $ 59,800.00 3.05 10"Valve 3 EA $ 2,400.00 $ 7,200.00 3.06 12"Valve 3 EA $ 3,100.00 $ 9,300.00 3.08 16"Valve 1 EA $ 8,500.00 $ 8,500.00 3.10 20"Valve 1 EA $ 11,000.00 $ 11,000.00 3.14 Hydrant 38 EA $ 5,000.00 $ 190,000.00 4.00 Water Services 4.01 1"Water Service Pipe 8,550 LF $ 9.00 $ 76,950.00 4.14 Water Service Asphalt Repair(6'wide x 30'long) 285 EA $ 950.00 $ 270,750.00 5.00 Crossings 5.08 Sewer/StormDrain/Irrig Crossing 28 EA $ 3,750.00 $ 105,000.00 5.09 Utility Service Crossings-Urban 28,470 LF $ 2.50 $ 71,175.00 6.00 Surface Restoration 6.01 Stormwater Management 28,470 LF $ 2.50 $ 71,175.00 6.03 City-Asphalt -Half Lane Width 26,330 LF $ 36.00 $ 947,880.00 6.04 ITD-Asphalt-Full Lane Width(SuperPave) 2,140 LF $ 75.00 $ 160,500.00 7.00 Construction Traffic Control 7.03 Typical Traffic Control-Flaggers 142 Day $ 700.00 $ 99,400.00 21.00 Contractor Mobilization/Demobilization 5% $ 237,887.45 22.00 Contingency 30% $ 1,427,324.70 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 6,423,000 23.00 Other Project Costs 23.01 Davis-Bacon Wages/Buy American Iron 0% $ - 23.02 Inflation(3 years at 3%) 9% $ 578,000 23.03 Engineering/Construction Admin 18% $ 1,156,000 23.04 Funding/Legal/Administration/Bonding 5% $ 321,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 8,478,000 317 V'J-U_-B '1 -7 •IF6 ENGINEUM INC. 2114 Village Park Avenue Suite 100,Twin Falls,ID 83301 208.733.2414 ENGINEERS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST PROJECT: City of Twin Falls 2022 Water Master Plan Revision Date: 28-Apr-22 IMPROVEMENT: Priority 2 Distribution(Zones 6&7) ESTIMATED IMPROVEMENT COST: $ 6,047,000 ASSUMES: ITEM No. Description Est.Quant. Unit Unit Price Total Price 1.00 Water Main-Installed w/Bedding 1.02 8" PVC Water Main 21,300 LF $ 44.00 $ 937,200.00 1.14 Rock, Urban(Assume 25%of length) 5,325 LF $ 123.00 $ 654,975.00 1.16 Existing Waterline Connections 8"-14" 85 EA $ 2,500.00 $ 212,500.00 1.19 Water Testing/Commissioning 21,300 LF $ 2.50 $ 53,250.00 2.00 Fittings 2.04 8" Fittings 71 EA $ 850.00 $ 60,350.00 3.00 Valves and Hydrants 3.04 8"Valve 21 EA $ 2,300.00 $ 48,300.00 3.14 Hydrant 28 EA $ 5,000.00 $ 140,000.00 4.00 Water Services 4.01 1"Water Service Pipe 6,390 LF $ 9.00 $ 57,510.00 4.14 Water Service Asphalt Repair(6'wide x 30'long) 213 EA $ 950.00 $ 202,350.00 5.00 Crossings 5.08 Sewer/StormDrain/Irrig Crossing 21 EA $ 3,750.00 $ 78,750.00 5.09 Utility Service Crossings-Urban 21,300 LF $ 2.50 $ 53,250.00 6.00 Surface Restoration 6.01 Stormwater Management 21,300 LF $ 2.50 $ 53,250.00 6.03 City-Asphalt -Half Lane Width 21,300 LF $ 36.00 $ 766,800.00 7.00 Construction Traffic Control 7.03 Typical Traffic Control-Flaggers 107 Day $ 700.00 $ 74,900.00 21.00 Contractor Mobilization/Demobilization 5% $ 169,669.25 22.00 Contingency 30% $ 1,018,015.50 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 4,581,000 23.00 Other Project Costs 23.01 Davis-Bacon Wages/Buy American Iron 0% $ - 23.02 Inflation(3 years at 3%) 9% $ 412,000 23.03 Engineering/Construction Admin 18% $ 825,000 23.04 Funding/Legal/Administration/Bonding 5% $ 229,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 6,047,000 318 MYP IFS a011��1R IIIG 2114 Village Park Avenue Suite 100,Twin Falls,ID 83301 208.733.2414 ENGINEERS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST PROJECT: City of Twin Falls 2022 Water Master Plan Revision Date: 28-Apr-22 IMPROVEMENT: Canyon Springs Pump Station-Standby Generators ESTIMATED IMPROVEMENT COST: $ 4,876,000 ITEM No. Description Est.Quant. Unit Unit Price Total Price 15.00 Backup Generator 15.01 SCADA Control Upgrade and Programming(L) 1 LS $ 36,000.00 $ 36,000.00 15.05 Standby Generator(No Transfer Switch-1250 HP) 3 EA $ 700,000.00 $ 2,100,000.00 15.12 Generator Breakers and Gear 1 EA $ 600,000.00 $ 600,000.00 21.00 Contractor Mobilization/Demobilization 5% $ 136,800.00 22.00 Contingency 30% $ 820,800.00 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 3,694,000 23.00 Other Project Costs 23.01 Davis-Bacon Wages/Buy American Iron 0% $ - 23.02 Inflation(3 years at 3%) 9% $ 332,000 23.03 Engineering/Construction Admin 18% $ 665,000 23.04 Funding/Legal/Administration/Bonding 5% $ 185,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 4,876,000 319 V'ib-B 'I -7 41,6 EN61NEUM INC. 2114 Village Park Avenue Suite 100,Twin Falls,ID 83301 208.733.2414 ENGINEERS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST PROJECT: City of Twin Falls 2022 Water Master Plan Revision Date: 28-Apr-22 IMPROVEMENT: Harrison Pump Station-Standby Generator ESTIMATED IMPROVEMENT COST: $ 1,231,000 ITEM No. Description Est.Quant. Unit Unit Price Total Price 15.00 Backup Generator 15.01 SCADA Control Upgrade and Programming(L) 1 LS $ 36,000.00 $ 36,000.00 15.04 Site and Building Work 1 LS $ 24,000.00 $ 24,000.00 15.06 Standby Generator&Transfer Switch (1450 HP) 1 EA $ 630,000.00 $ 630,000.00 21.00 Contractor Mobilization/Demobilization 5% $ 34,500.00 22.00 Contingency 30% $ 207,000.00 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 932,000 23.00 Other Project Costs 23.01 Davis-Bacon Wages/Buy American Iron 0% $ - 23.02 Inflation(3 years at 3%) 9% $ 84,000 23.03 Engineering/Construction Admin 18% $ 168,000 23.04 Funding/Legal/Administration/Bonding 5% $ 47,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 1,231,000 320 J."OICNmlft NIL 2114 Village Park Avenue Suite 100,Twin Falls,ID 83301 208.733.2414 ENGINEERS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST PROJECT: City of Twin Falls 2022 Water Master Plan Revision Date: 28-Apr-22 IMPROVEMENT: Eldridge Pump Station-Standby Generator ESTIMATED IMPROVEMENT COST: $ 260,000 ITEM No. Description Est.Quant. Unit Unit Price Total Price 15.00 Backup Generator 15.03 SCADA Control Upgrade and Programming(S) 1 LS $ 12,000.00 $ 12,000.00 15.04 Site and Building Work 1 LS $ 24,000.00 $ 24,000.00 15.07 Standby Generator&Transfer Switch(275 HP) 1 EA $ 110,000.00 $ 110,000.00 21.00 Contractor Mobilization/Demobilization 5% $ 7,300.00 22.00 Contingency 30% $ 43,800.00 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 197,000 23.00 Other Project Costs 23.01 Davis-Bacon Wages/Buy American Iron 0% $ - 23.02 Inflation(3 years at 3%) 9% $ 18,000 23.03 Engineering/Construction Admin 18% $ 35,000 23.04 Funding/Legal/Administration/Bonding 5% $ 10,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 260,000 321 J."OICNmalk NIL 2114 Village Park Avenue Suite 100,Twin Falls,ID 83301 208.733.2414 ENGINEERS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST PROJECT: City of Twin Falls 2022 Water Master Plan Revision Date: 28-Apr-22 IMPROVEMENT: South Wells-Standby Generators ESTIMATED IMPROVEMENT COST: $ 301,000 ITEM No. Description Est.Quant. Unit Unit Price Total Price 15.00 Backup Generator 15.02 SCADA Control Upgrade and Programming(M) 1 LS $ 24,000.00 $ 24,000.00 15.04 Site and Building Work 1 LS $ 24,000.00 $ 24,000.00 15.08 Standby Generator&Transfer Switch(SW 1;200 HP) 1 EA $ 85,000.00 $ 85,000.00 15.09 Standby Generator&Transfer Switch(SW 2;75 HP) 1 EA $ 36,000.00 $ 36,000.00 15.10 Standby Generator&Transfer Switch(SW 4;350 HP) 1 EA $ 135,000.00 $ 135,000.00 21.00 Contractor Mobilization/Demobilization 5% $ 8,450.00 22.00 Contingency 30% $ 50,700.00 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 228,000 23.00 Other Project Costs 23.01 Davis-Bacon Wages/Buy American Iron 0% $ - 23.02 Inflation(3 years at 3%) 9% $ 21,000 23.03 Engineering/Construction Admin 18% $ 41,000 23.04 Funding/Legal/Administration/Bonding 5% $ 11,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST 1 $ 301,000 322 lk 7� 2114 Village Park Avenue Suite 100,Twin Falls,ID 83301 208.733.2414 ENGINEERS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST PROJECT: City of Twin Falls 2022 Water Master Plan Revision Date: 28-Apr-22 IMPROVEMENT: New Hankins Pump Station ESTIMATED IMPROVEMENT COST: $ 7,170,000 ITEM No. Description Est.Quant. Unit Unit Price Total Price 6.00 Surface Restoration 6.01 Stormwater Management 1 LS $ 7,000.00 $ 7,000.00 6.12 Gravel Surface Repair 1800 SY $ 20.00 $ 36,000.00 9.00 Site Work 9.01 Site Work&Grading 1 LS $ 55,000.00 $ 55,000.00 9.02 Site Power 1 LS $ 120,000.00 $ 120,000.00 9.03 Yard Piping 1 LS $ 800,000.00 $ 800,000.00 10.00 Booster Pump Station 10.03 Pump&Motor-50 HP 2 EA $ 100,000.00 $ 200,000.00 10.04 Pump&Motor-125 HP 2 EA $ 125,000.00 $ 250,000.00 10.13 Standby Generator&Transfer Switch 1 EA $ 350,000.00 $ 350,000.00 10.19 Pumphouse Building-Structural 1 LS $ 750,000.00 $ 750,000.00 10.20 Pumphouse Building-Excavation and Rock Removal 1 LS $ 175,000.00 $ 175,000.00 10.22 Pumphouse Building-Electrical/SCADA 1 LS $ 700,000.00 $ 700,000.00 10.23 Pumphouse Building-HVAC 1 LS $ 200,000.00 $ 200,000.00 10.24 Pumphouse Building-Piping 1 LS $ 480,000.00 $ 480,000.00 10.27 Flow Meters and Misc 1 LS $ 23,600.00 $ 23,600.00 21.00 Contractor Mobilization/Demobilization 5% $ 207,330.00 22.00 Contingency 25% $ 1,036,650.00 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 5,391,000 23.00 Other Project Costs 23.02 Inflation(2 years at 5%) 10% $ 539,000 23.03 Engineering/Construction Admin 18% $ 970,000 23.04 Funding/Legal/Administration/Bonding 5% $ 270,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 7,170,000 323 lk 7� 2114 Village Park Avenue Suite 100,Twin Falls,ID 83301 208.733.2414 ENGINEERS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST PROJECT: City of Twin Falls 2022 Water Master Plan Revision Date: 28-Apr-22 IMPROVEMENT: Canyon Springs Pump Station Improvements ESTIMATED IMPROVEMENT COST: $ 11,784,000 ITEM No. Description Est.Quant. Unit Unit Price Total Price 10.00 Booster Pump Station 10.05 Vertical Turbine Pump-1250HP 4 EA $ 550,000.00 $ 2,200,000.00 10.07 Variable Frequency Drive/Soft-Starter-1250 HP 4 EA $ 600,000.00 $ 2,400,000.00 10.14 SCADA Control Upgrade and Programming(L) 1 LS $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 10.17 Electrical/Instrumentation Upgrades 1 LS $ 600,000.00 $ 600,000.00 10.18 Mechanical Piping Upgrades 1 LS $ 120,000.00 $ 120,000.00 10.23 Pumphouse Building-HVAC 1 LS $ 120,000.00 $ 120,000.00 21.00 Contractor Mobilization/Demobilization 5% $ 274,500.00 22.00 Contingency 30% $ 1,647,000.00 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 7,412,000 23.00 Other Project Costs 23.01 Davis-Bacon Wages/Buy American Iron 0% $ - 23.02 Inflation(3 years at 3%) 9% $ 667,000 23.03 Engineering/Construction Admin 18% $ 1,334,000 23.04 Funding/Legal/Administration/Bonding 5% $ 371,000 23.05 New IPCO Transformer 1 LS $ 2,000,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 11,784,000 324 lk 7� 2114 Village Park Avenue Suite 100,Twin Falls,ID 83301 208.733.2414 ENGINEERS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST PROJECT: City of Twin Falls 2022 Water Master Plan Revision Date: 28-Apr-22 IMPROVEMENT: Wills Pump Station-Upgrade ESTIMATED IMPROVEMENT COST: $ 549,000 ITEM No. Description Est.Quant. Unit Unit Price Total Price 10.00 Booster Pump Station 10.04 Pump&Motor-125 HP 1 EA $ 125,000.00 $ 125,000.00 10.16 SCADA Control Upgrade and Programming(S) 1 LS $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 10.17 Electrical/Instrumentation Upgrades 1 LS $ 125,000.00 $ 125,000.00 10.18 Pumphouse Building-Piping 1 LS $ 48,000.00 $ 48,000.00 21.00 Contractor Mobilization/Demobilization 5% $ 15,400.00 22.00 Contingency 30% $ 92,400.00 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 416,000 23.00 Other Project Costs 23.01 Davis-Bacon Wages/Buy American Iron 0% $ - 23.02 Inflation(3 years at 3%) 9% $ 37,000 23.03 Engineering/Construction Admin 18% $ 75,000 23.04 Funding/Legal/Administration/Bonding 5% $ 21,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 549,000 325 lk 7� 2114 Village Park Avenue Suite 100,Twin Falls,ID 83301 208.733.2414 ENGINEERS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST PROJECT: City of Twin Falls 2022 Water Master Plan Revision Date: 28-Apr-22 IMPROVEMENT: Eldridge Pump Station-Upgrade ESTIMATED IMPROVEMENT COST: $ 401,000 ITEM No. Description Est.Quant. Unit Unit Price Total Price 10.00 Booster Pump Station 10.04 Pump&Motor-125 HP 1 EA $ 125,000.00 $ 125,000.00 10.10 Variable Frequency Drive-125 HP 1 EA $ 42,000.00 $ 42,000.00 10.16 SCADA Control Upgrade and Programming(S) 1 LS $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 10.25 General Mechanical/Electrical Rehabilitation 1 LS $ 48,000.00 $ 48,000.00 21.00 Contractor Mobilization/Demobilization 5% $ 11,250.00 22.00 Contingency 30% $ 67,500.00 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 304,000 23.00 Other Project Costs 23.01 Davis-Bacon Wages/Buy American Iron 0% $ - 23.02 Inflation(3 years at 3%) 9% $ 27,000 23.03 Engineering/Construction Admin 18% $ 55,000 23.04 Funding/Legal/Administration/Bonding 5% $ 15,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 401,000 326 lk 7� 2114 Village Park Avenue Suite 100,Twin Falls,ID 83301 208.733.2414 ENGINEERS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST PROJECT: City of Twin Falls 2022 Water Master Plan Revision Date: 28-Apr-22 IMPROVEMENT: Harrison Pump Station-Pump Replacement ESTIMATED IMPROVEMENT COST: $ 4,865,000 ITEM No. Description Est.Quant. Unit Unit Price Total Price 10.00 Booster Pump Station 10.06 Vertical Turbine Pump-550HP 4 EA $ 425,000.00 $ 1,700,000.00 10.08 Variable Frequency Drive/Soft-Starter-550 HP 4 EA $ 125,000.00 $ 500,000.00 10.14 SCADA Control Upgrade and Programming(L) 1 LS $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 10.26 General Electrical Rehabilitation 1 LS $ 480,000.00 $ 480,000.00 21.00 Contractor Mobilization/Demobilization 5% $ 136,500.00 22.00 Contingency 30% $ 819,000.00 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 3,686,000 23.00 Other Project Costs 23.01 Davis-Bacon Wages/Buy American Iron 0% $ - 23.02 Inflation(3 years at 3%) 9% $ 332,000 23.03 Engineering/Construction Admin 18% $ 663,000 23.04 Funding/Legal/Administration/Bonding 5% $ 184,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 4,865,000 327 lk 7� 2114 Village Park Avenue Suite 100,Twin Falls,ID 83301 208.733.2414 ENGINEERS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST PROJECT: City of Twin Falls 2022 Water Master Plan Revision Date: 28-Apr-22 IMPROVEMENT: 24"Pipe(Harrison Tank to Hankins Tank) ESTIMATED IMPROVEMENT COST: $ 12,592,000 ITEM No. Description Est.Quant. Unit Unit Price Total Price 1.00 Water Main-Installed w/Bedding 1.09 24"PVC Water Main 24,000 LF $ 120.00 $ 2,880,000.00 1.14 Rock,Urban(Assume 50%of length) 12,000 LF $ 123.00 $ 1,476,000.00 1.19 Water Testing/Commissioning 24,000 LF $ 2.50 $ 60,000.00 2.00 Fittings 2.11 24"Fittings 50 EA $ 4,625.00 $ 231,250.00 3.00 Valves and Hydrants 3.11 24"Valve 10 EA $ 15,000.00 $ 150,000.00 3.14 Hydrant 10 EA $ 5,000.00 $ 50,000.00 3.19 24"Air Vacuum Combination Vault 8 EA $ 18,000.00 $ 144,000.00 5.00 Crossings 5.02 Bore-24"line-36"Casing-Soil 100 LF $ 800.00 $ 80,000.00 5.04 Bore-24" line-36"Casing-Rock 250 LF $ 1,500.00 $ 375,000.00 5.07 Irrigation Canal/Coulee Crossing 2 EA $ 30,000.00 $ 60,000.00 5.09 Utility Service Crossings-Urban 24,000 LF $ 2.50 $ 60,000.00 6.00 Surface Restoration 6.01 Stormwater Management 24,000 LF $ 2.50 $ 60,000.00 6.02 City-Asphalt -Full Lane Width 24,000 LF $ 55.00 $ 1,320,000.00 7.00 Construction Traffic Control 7.03 Typical Traffic Control-Flaggers 150 Day $ 700.00 $ 105,000.00 7.04 Traffic Control-Major Intersections 6 EA $ 2,500.00 $ 15,000.00 21.00 Contractor Mobilization/Demobilization 5% $ 353,312.50 22.00 Contingency 30% $ 2,119,875.00 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 9,539,000 23.00 Other Project Costs 23.01 Davis-Bacon Wages/Buy American Iron 0% $ - 23.02 Inflation(3 years at 3%) 9% $ 859,000 23.03 Engineering/Construction Admin 18% $ 1,717,000 23.04 Funding/Legal/Administration/Bonding 5% $ 477,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 12,592,000 328 'Uq1 2114 Village Park Avenue Suite 100,Twin Falls,ID 83301 208.733.2414 ENGINEERS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST PROJECT: City of Twin Falls 2022 Water Master Plan Revision Date: 28-Apr-22 IMPROVEMENT: 36"Pipe(Canyon Springs PS to Top of Canyon) ESTIMATED IMPROVEMENT COST: $ 4,837,000 ITEM No. Description Est.Quant. Unit Unit Price Total Price 1.00 Water Main-Installed w/Bedding 1.11 36"PVC Water Main 1,500 LF $ 420.00 $ 630,000.00 1.13 Rock,Rural(Assume 50%of length) 750 LF $ 115.00 $ 86,250.00 1.18 Existing Waterline Connections 1 LS $ 72,000.00 $ 72,000.00 1.19 Water Testing/Commissioning 1,500 LF $ 2.50 $ 3,750.00 2.00 Fittings 2.13 36"Fittings 4 EA $ 14,375.00 $ 57,500.00 3.00 Valves and Hydrants 3.13 36"Valve 2 EA $ 26,000.00 $ 52,000.00 3.20 36"Air Vacuum Combination Vault 1 EA $ 28,000.00 $ 28,000.00 3.21 36"Air Release Vault 1 EA $ 19,000.00 $ 19,000.00 3.25 36"Tilting Check Valve Station 1 EA $ 120,000.00 $ 120,000.00 5.00 Crossings 5.05 Bore-36"line-48"Casing-Rock 380 LF $ 2,400.00 $ 912,000.00 5.06 Bore-36"line-48"Casing-Rock-Vertical 300 LF $ 2,400.00 $ 720,000.00 6.00 Surface Restoration 6.01 Stormwater Management 1,500 LF $ 2.50 $ 3,750.00 6.11 Natural Surface Repair 820 LF $ 12.00 $ 9,840.00 21.00 Contractor Mobilization/Demobilization 5% $ 135,704.50 22.00 Contingency 30% $ 814,227.00 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 3,664,000 23.00 Other Project Costs 23.01 Davis-Bacon Wages/Buy American Iron 0% $ - 23.02 Inflation(3 years at 3%) 9% $ 330,000 23.03 Engineering/Construction Admin 18% $ 660,000 23.04 Funding/Legal/Administration/Bonding 5% $ 183,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 4,837,000 329 JOBOMfQllfr IND. 2114 Village Park Avenue Suite 100,Twin Falls,ID 83301 208.733.2414 ENGINEERS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST PROJECT: City of Twin Falls 2022 Water Master Plan Revision Date: 28-Apr-22 IMPROVEMENT: 36"Pipe Replacement(Top of Canyon to Harrison Tank) ESTIMATED IMPROVEMENT COST: $ 10,990,000 ITEM No. Description Est.Quant. Unit Unit Price Total Price 1.00 Water Main-Installed w/Bedding 1.11 36"PVC Water Main 10,600 LF $ 420.00 $ 4,452,000.00 1.14 Rock,Urban(Assume 30%of length) 3,180 LF $ 123.00 $ 391,140.00 1.18 Existing Waterline Connections 1 LS $ 72,000.00 $ 72,000.00 1.19 Water Testing/Commissioning 10,600 LF $ 2.50 $ 26,500.00 2.00 Fittings 2.13 36"Fittings 20 EA $ 14,375.00 $ 287,500.00 3.00 Valves and Hydrants 3.13 36"Valve 2 EA $ 26,000.00 $ 52,000.00 3.20 36"Air Vacuum Combination Vault 1 EA $ 28,000.00 $ 28,000.00 3.21 36"Air Release Vault 1 EA $ 19,000.00 $ 19,000.00 5.00 Crossings 5.08 Sewer/StormDrain/Irrig Crossing 5 EA $ 3,750.00 $ 18,750.00 5.09 Utility Service Crossings-Urban 10,600 LF $ 2.50 $ 26,500.00 5.11 Gas Crossings 10 EA $ 2,400.00 $ 24,000.00 6.00 Surface Restoration 6.01 Stormwater Management 10,600 LF $ 2.50 $ 26,500.00 6.03 City-Asphalt -Half Lane Width 10,000 LF $ 37.50 $ 375,000.00 7.00 Construction Traffic Control 7.03 Typical Traffic Control-Flaggers 150 Day $ 700.00 $ 105,000.00 7.04 Traffic Control-Major Intersections 3 EA $ 2,500.00 $ 7,500.00 20.00 Fiber Optics 20.01 Fiber Optic Conduit/Cable 12,000 LF $ 16.00 $ 192,000.00 20.02 Fiber Optic Manhole 16 EA $ 4,000.00 $ 64,000.00 21.00 Contractor Mobilization/Demobilization 5% $ 308,369.50 22.00 Contingency 30% $ 1,850,217.00 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 8,326,000 23.00 Other Project Costs 23.01 Davis-Bacon Wages/Buy American Iron 0% $ - 23.02 Inflation(3 years at 3%) 9% $ 749,000 23.03 Engineering/Construction Admin 18% $ 1,499,000 23.04 Funding/Legal/Administration/Bonding 5% $ 416,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 10,990,000 330 lk 7� 2114 Village Park Avenue Suite 100,Twin Falls,ID 83301 208.733.2414 ENGINEERS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST PROJECT: City of Twin Falls 2022 Water Master Plan Revision Date: 28-Apr-22 IMPROVEMENT: 36"Redundant Supply Pipe(Snake Rive Bore) ESTIMATED IMPROVEMENT COST: $ 3,408,000 ITEM No. Description Est.Quant. Unit Unit Price Total Price 1.00 Water Main-Installed w/Bedding 1.11 36"PVC Water Main 650 LF $ 420.00 $ 273,000.00 1.18 Existing Waterline Connections 1 LS $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00 1.19 Water Testing/Commissioning 650 LF $ 2.50 $ 1,625.00 2.00 Fittings 2.13 36"Fittings 4 EA $ 14,375.00 $ 57,500.00 3.00 Valves and Hydrants 3.13 36"Valve 2 EA $ 26,000.00 $ 52,000.00 3.20 36"Air Vacuum Combination Vault 2 EA $ 28,000.00 $ 56,000.00 4.00 Water Services 5.00 Crossings 5.05 Bore-36" line-48"Casing-Rock 600 LF $ 2,400.00 $ 1,440,000.00 6.00 Surface Restoration 6.01 Stormwater Management 1 LS $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 6.11 Natural Surface Repair 100 LF $ 12.00 $ 1,200.00 21.00 Contractor Mobilization/Demobilization 5% $ 95,616.25 22.00 Contingency 30% $ 573,697.50 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 2,582,000 23.00 Other Project Costs 23.01 Davis-Bacon Wages/Buy American Iron 0% $ - 23.02 Inflation(3 years at 3%) 9% $ 232,000 23.03 Engineering/Construction Admin 18% $ 465,000 23.04 Funding/Legal/Administration/Bonding 5% $ 129,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 3,408,000 331 lk 7� 2114 Village Park Avenue Suite 100,Twin Falls,ID 83301 208.733.2414 ENGINEERS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST PROJECT: City of Twin Falls 2022 Water Master Plan Revision Date: 28-Apr-22 IMPROVEMENT: 20"Pipe(Westward From Wills PS along 3600 N) ESTIMATED IMPROVEMENT COST: $ 1,753,000 ITEM No. Description Est.Quant. Unit Unit Price Total Price 1.00 Water Main-Installed w/Bedding 1.08 20"PVC Water Main 2,600 LF $ 210.00 $ 546,000.00 1.13 Rock,Rural(Assume 50%of length) 1,300 LF $ 115.00 $ 149,500.00 1.18 Existing Waterline Connections 2 EA $ 10,000.00 $ 20,000.00 1.19 Water Testing/Commissioning 2,600 LF $ 2.50 $ 6,500.00 2.00 Fittings 2.10 20"Fittings 14 EA $ 3,125.00 $ 43,750.00 3.00 Valves and Hydrants 3.10 20"Valve 4 EA $ 11,000.00 $ 44,000.00 3.14 Hydrant 2 EA $ 5,000.00 $ 10,000.00 3.18 20"Air Vacuum Combination Vault 1 EA $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 5.00 Crossings 5.08 Sewer/StormDrain/Irrig Crossing 1 EA $ 3,750.00 $ 3,750.00 5.10 Utility Service Crossings-Rural 2,600 LF $ 1.50 $ 3,900.00 6.00 Surface Restoration 6.01 Stormwater Management 2,600 LF $ 2.50 $ 6,500.00 6.03 City-Asphalt -Half Lane Width 2,600 LF $ 37.50 $ 97,500.00 7.00 Construction Traffic Control 7.03 Typical Traffic Control-Flaggers 50 Day $ 700.00 $ 35,000.00 7.04 Traffic Control-Major Intersections 1 EA $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 21.00 Contractor Mobilization/Demobilization 5% $ 49,195.00 22.00 Contingency 30% $ 295,170.00 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 1,328,000 23.00 Other Project Costs 23.01 Davis-Bacon Wages/Buy American Iron 0% $ - 23.02 Inflation(3 years at 3%) 9% $ 120,000 23.03 Engineering/Construction Admin 18% $ 239,000 23.04 Funding/Legal/Administration/Bonding 5% $ 66,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 1,753,000 332 lk 7� 2114 Village Park Avenue Suite 100,Twin Falls,ID 83301 208.733.2414 ENGINEERS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST PROJECT: City of Twin Falls 2022 Water Master Plan Revision Date: 28-Apr-22 IMPROVEMENT: 10 Million Gallon Storage Tank&36"Transmission ESTIMATED IMPROVEMENT COST: $ 14,016,000 ITEM No. Description Est.Quant. Unit Unit Price Total Price 1.00 Water Main-Installed w/Bedding 1.18 Existing Waterline Connections 1 LS $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00 9.00 Site Work 9.01 Site Work&Grading 1 LS $ 70,000.00 $ 70,000.00 9.02 Site Power 1 LS $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00 9.03 Yard Piping(850 ft.of 36 in.Piping) 1 LS $ 982,000.00 $ 982,000.00 9.04 Landscaping&Irrigation System 1 LS $ 12,000.00 $ 12,000.00 9.05 Chainlink Fencing 1,200 LF $ 30.00 $ 36,000.00 9.06 Chainlink Gates 2 EA $ 3,000.00 $ 6,000.00 18.00 Water Storage 18.01 Concrete Storage Tank 10,000,000 GAL $ 0.60 $ 6,000,000.00 18.03 Tank Excavation/Foundation 1 LS $ 300,000.00 $ 300,000.00 18.04 Tank Rock Removal 2,200 CY $ 120.00 $ 264,000.00 18.05 Tank Overflow Structure 1 LS $ 43,500.00 $ 43,500.00 18.06 Overflow/Drainage Piping 1 LS $ 60,000.00 $ 60,000.00 18.07 Tank Controls SCADA 1 LS $ 27,500.00 $ 27,500.00 18.08 Stormwater Management 1 LS $ 24,000.00 $ 24,000.00 19.01 On-site Sodium Hypochlorite Generator EA $ 300,000.00 $ - 19.02 Miscellanious Piping&Fittings LS $ 12,000.00 $ 20.00 Fiber Optics 20.01 Fiber Optic Conduit/Cable LF $ 16.00 $ 20.02 Fiber Optic Manhole EA $ 4,000.00 $ - 21.00 Contractor Mobilization/Demobilization 5% $ 393,250.00 22.00 Contingency 30% $ 2,359,500.00 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 10,618,000 23.00 Other Project Costs 23.01 Davis-Bacon Wages/Buy American Iron 0% $ - 23.02 Inflation(3 years at 3%) 9% $ 956,000 23.03 Engineering/Construction Admin 18% $ 1,911,000 23.04 Funding/Legal/Administration/Bonding 5% $ 531,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 14,016,000 333 B 1111 MsrmrL 2114 Village Park Avenue Suite 100,Twin Falls,ID 83301208.733.2414 ENGINEERS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST PROJECT: City of Twin Falls 2022 Water Master Plan Revision Date: 28-Apr-22 IMPROVEMENT: South Well#5&24"Transmission Main ESTIMATED IMPROVEMENT COST: $ 2,771,000 ITEM No. Description Est.Quant. Unit Unit Price Total Price 1.00 Water Main-Installed w/Bedding 1.04 12"PVC Water Main 20 LF $ 450.00 $ 9,000.00 1.06 16"PVC Water Main 1701 LF $ 200.00 $ 340,200.00 1.09 24"PVC Water Main 1208 LF $ 260.00 $ 314,080.00 1.10 30"PVC Water Main 143 LF $ 380.00 $ S4,340.00 1.13 Rock,Rural 297 LF $ 115.00 $ 34,155.00 1.18 Existing Waterline Connections 1 LS $ 24,000.00 $ 24,000.00 3.00 Valves and Hydrants 3.06 12"Valve 1 EA $ 3,100.00 $ 3,100.00 3.10 20"Valve 2 EA $ 11,000.00 $ 22,000.00 3.12 30"Valve 1 FA $ 24,000.00 $ 24,000.00 5.00 Crossings 5.07 Irrigation Canal/Coulee Crossing 1 EA $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 6.00 Surface Restoration 6.01 Stormwater Management 1 LS $ 6,500.00 $ 6,500.00 6.06 Type"P-1"Surface Restoration(Asphalt Roadway) 105 LF $ 75.00 $ 7,875.00 6.07 Type"P-2"Surface Restoration(Asphalt Roadway) 914 LF $ 100.00 $ 91,400.00 6.09 Bike Path Surface Restoration 320 LF $ 160.00 $ 51,200.00 6.10 Sod 254 LF $ 40.00 $ 10,160.00 6.11 Natural Surface Repair 1090 LF $ 12.00 $ 13,080.00 6.12 Gravel Surface Repair 354 LF $ 35.00 $ 12,390.00 6.13 Standard 3 inch Rolled Curb and Gutter 120 LF $ 50.00 $ 6,000.00 6.14 Concrete Sidewalk,5"Thickness 120 LF $ 80.00 $ 9,600.00 6.15 Remove and Reset Fence 350 LF $ 30.00 $ 10,500.00 6.16 Tree Removal/Replacement 1 LS $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 6.17 Retaining Wall Removal/Replacement 100 LF $ 65.00 $ 6,500.00 7.00 Construction Traffic Control 7.01 Construction Traffic Control 1 LS $ 40,000.00 $ 40,000.00 11.00 Well House and Pumps 11.17 Wellhouse Building-Structural 1 LS $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00 11.19 Wellhouse Building-Electrical 1 LS $ 115,000.00 $ 115,000.00 11.21 Wellhouse Building-Piping 1 LS $ 65,000.00 $ 65,000.00 11.22 Wellhouse Building-Site Work and Grading 1 LS $ 60,000.00 $ 60,000.00 11.23 Wellhouse Building-HVAC 1 LS $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 11.24 Well Site-Flow Meter Vault 1 LS $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 11.25 Wellhouse-Pump and Motor 1 LS $ 320,000.00 $ 320,000.00 11.26 Wellhouse-Backup Generator 1 LS $ 125,000.00 $ 125,000.00 11.27 Air Valve Vault 2 EA $ 16,000.00 $ 32,000.00 20.00 Fiber Optics 20.01 Fiber Optic Conduit/Cable 3192 LF $ 16.00 $ 51,072.00 20.02 Fiber Optic Manhole 5 EA $ 4,000.00 $ 20,000.00 21.00 Contractor Mobilization/Demobilization LS - $ 111,000.00 22.00 Contingency 15% $ 305,347.80 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 2,452,000 23.00 Other Project Costs 23.01 Davis-Bacon Wages/Buy American Iron 0% $ - 23.02 Inflation(2 years at 5%) 10% $ 245,000 23.03 Engineering/Construction Admin 3% $ 74,000 23.04 Funding/Legal/Administration/Bonding 0% $ - TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 2,7711000 334 �J 0� 2114 Village Park Avenue Suite 100,Twin Falls,ID 83301208.733.2414 ENGINEERS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST PROJECT: City of Twin Falls 2022 Water Master Plan Revision Date: 28-Apr-22 IMPROVEMENT: South Well#6&20"Transmission Main ESTIMATED IMPROVEMENT COST: $ 3,985,000 ITEM No. Description Est.Quant. Unit Unit Price Total Price 1.00 Water Main-Installed w/Bedding 1.08 20"PVC Water Main 4,000 LF $ 210.00 $ 840,000.00 1.13 Rock,Rural(Assume 30%of length,total) 1,200 LF $ 115.00 $ 138,000.00 1.18 Existing Waterline Connections 1 LS $ 12,000.00 $ 12,000.00 1.19 Water Testing/Commissioning 4,000 LF $ 2.50 $ 10,000.00 2.00 Fittings 2.10 20"Fittings 8 EA $ 3,125.00 $ 25,000.00 3.00 Valves and Hydrants 3.10 20"Valve 3 EA $ 11,000.00 $ 33,000.00 3.14 Hydrant 1 EA $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 3.18 20"Air Vacuum Combination Vault 1 EA $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 5.00 Crossings 5.07 Irrigation Canal/Coulee Crossing 1 EA $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00 5.08 Sewer/StormDrain/brig Crossing 2 EA $ 3,750.00 $ 7,500.00 6.00 Surface Restoration 6.01 Stormwater Management 4,000 LF $ 2.50 $ 10,000.00 6.05 HWY District-Asphalt-Full Lane Width 1,500 LF $ 61.50 $ 92,250.00 6.11 Natural Surface Repair 2,400 LF $ 12.00 $ 28,800.00 6.12 Gravel Surface Repair 100 LF $ 35.00 $ 3,500.00 7.00 Construction Traffic Control 7.03 Typical Traffic Control-Flaggers 50 Day $ 700.00 $ 35,000.00 7.04 Traffic Control-Major Intersections 2 EA $ 2,500.00 $ 5,000.00 9.00 Site Work 9.05 Chainlink Fencing 850 LF $ 30.00 $ 25,500.00 9.06 Chainlink Gates 1 EA $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 11.00 Well House and Pumps 11.05 Pump&Motor-200 HP 1 EA $ 180,000.00 $ 180,000.00 11.16 Electrical and SCADA Update 1 LS $ 22,000.00 $ 22,000.00 11.17 Wellhouse Building-Structural 1 LS $ 100,000.00 $ 300,000.00 11.19 Wellhouse Building-Electrical 1 LS $ 115,000.00 $ 115,000.00 11.21 Wellhouse Building-Piping 1 LS $ 65,000.00 $ 65,000.00 11.22 Wellhouse Building-Site Work and Grading 1 LS $ 60,000.00 $ 60,000.00 11.23 Wellhouse Building-HVAC 1 LS $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 11.24 Well Site-Flow Meter Vault 1 LS $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 11.26 Wellhouse-Backup Generator 1 LS $ 125,000.00 $ 125,000.00 11.27 Air Valve Vault 2 EA $ 16,000.00 $ 32,000.00 12.00 Well Drilling and Development 12.02 Drill Hole for 24"Temp Casing 60 LF $ 160.00 $ 9,600.00 12.04 Furnish,Install,Remove 24"Casing 60 LF $ 185.00 $ 11,100.00 12.06 Furnish&Install 20"Casing 65 LF $ 120.00 $ 7,800.00 12.07 Surface Seal 60 LF $ 110.00 $ 6,600.00 12.09 Drill 20"Open Hole 350 LF $ 135.00 $ 47,250.00 12.10 Well Development 8 HR $ 350.00 $ 2,800.00 12.11 Test Pumping&Well Monitoring 24 HR $ 350.00 $ 8,400.00 12.12 Water Quality Sampling 1 LS $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 12.13 Disinfection&Iron Bacteria Prevention 1 LS $ 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00 12.14 Well Television Inspection 1 LS $ 930.00 $ 930.00 20.00 Fiber Optics 20.01 Fiber Optic Conduit/Cable 4,000 LF $ 16.00 $ 64,000.00 20.02 Fiber Optic Manhole 4 EA $ 4,000.00 $ 16,000.00 21.00 Contractor Mobilization/Demobilization 5% $ 111,811.50 22.00 Contingency 30% $ 670,869.00 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 3,019,000 23.00 Other Project Costs 23.01 Davis-Bacon Wages/Buy American Iron 0% $ - 23.02 Inflation(3 years at 3%) 9% $ 272,000 23.03 Engineering/Construction Admin 18% $ 543,000 23.04 Funding/Legal/Administration/Bonding 5% $ 151,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 3,985,000 335 �J 0� 2114 Village Park Avenue Suite 100,Twin Falls,ID 83301208.733.2414 ENGINEERS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST PROJECT: City of Twin Falls 2022 Water Master Plan Revision Date: 28-Apr-22 IMPROVEMENT: South Well#7&16"Transmission Main ESTIMATED IMPROVEMENT COST: $ 2,525,000 ITEM No. Description Est.Quant. Unit Unit Price Total Price 1.00 Water Main-Installed w/Bedding 1.06 16"PVC Water Main 1,500 LF $ 200.00 $ 300,000.00 1.13 Rock,Rural(Assume 30%of length,total) 450 LF $ 115.00 $ 51,750.00 1.18 Existing Waterline Connections 1 LS $ 12,000.00 $ 12,000.00 1.19 Water Testing/Commissioning 1,500 LF $ 2.50 $ 3,750.00 2.00 Fittings 2.08 16"Fittings 4 EA $ 2,000.00 $ 8,000.00 3.00 Valves and Hydrants 3.08 16"Valve 2 EA $ 8,500.00 $ 17,000.00 3.14 Hydrant 1 EA $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 5.00 Crossings 5.07 Irrigation Canal/Coulee Crossing 1 EA $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00 5.08 Sewer/StormDrain/Irrig Crossing 2 EA $ 3,750.00 $ 7,500.00 6.00 Surface Restoration 6.01 Stormwater Management 1,500 LF $ 2.50 $ 3,750.00 6.05 HWY District-Asphalt-Full Lane Width 500 LF $ 61.50 $ 30,750.00 6.11 Natural Surface Repair 1,400 LF $ 12.00 $ 16,800.00 6.12 Gravel Surface Repair 100 LF $ 35.00 $ 3,500.00 7.00 Construction Traffic Control 7.03 Typical Traffic Control-Flaggers 40 Day $ 700.00 $ 28,000.00 7.04 Traffic Control-Major Intersections 1 EA $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 9.00 Site Work 9.05 Chainlink Fencing 800 LF $ 30.00 $ 24,000.00 9.06 Chainlink Gates 1 EA $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 11.00 Well House and Pumps 11.05 Pump&Motor-200 HP 1 EA $ 180,000.00 $ 180,000.00 11.16 Electrical and SCADA Update 1 LS $ 22,000.00 $ 22,000.00 11.17 Wellhouse Building-Structural 1 LS $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00 11.19 Wellhouse Building-Electrical 1 LS $ 115,000.00 $ 115,000.00 11.21 Wellhouse Building-Piping 1 LS $ 65,000.00 $ 65,000.00 11.22 Wellhouse Building-Site Work and Grading 1 LS $ 60,000.00 $ 60,000.00 11.23 Wellhouse Building-HVAC 1 LS $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 11.24 Well Site-Flow Meter Vault 1 LS $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 11.26 Wellhouse-Backup Generator 1 LS $ 125,000.00 $ 125,000.00 11.27 Air Valve Vault 2 EA $ 16,000.00 $ 32,000.00 12.00 Well Drilling and Development 12.02 Drill Hole for 24"Temp Casing 60 LF $ 160.00 $ 9,600.00 12.04 Furnish,Install,Remove 24"Casing 60 LF $ 185.00 $ 11,100.00 12.06 Furnish&Install 20"Casing 65 LF $ 120.00 $ 7,800.00 12.07 Surface Seal 60 LF $ 110.00 $ 6,600.00 12.09 Drill 20"Open Hole 350 LF $ 135.00 $ 47,250.00 12.10 Well Development 8 HR $ 350.00 $ 2,800.00 12.11 Test Pumping&Well Monitoring 24 HR $ 350.00 $ 8,400.00 12.12 Water Quality Sampling 1 LS $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 12.13 Disinfection&Iron Bacteria Prevention 1 LS $ 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00 12.14 Well Television Inspection 1 LS $ 930.00 $ 930.00 20.00 Fiber Optics 20.01 Fiber Optic Conduit/Cable 1,500 LF $ 16.00 $ 24,000.00 20.02 Fiber Optic Manhole 2 EA $ 4,000.00 $ 8,000.00 21.00 Contractor Mobilization/Demobilization 5% $ 70,849.00 22.00 Contingency 30% $ 425,094.00 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 1,913,000 23.00 Other Project Costs 23.01 Davis-Bacon Wages/Buy American Iron 0% $ - 23.02 Inflation(3 years at 3%) 9% $ 172,000 23.03 Engineering/Construction Admin 18% $ 344,000 23.04 Funding/Legal/Administration/Bonding 5% $ 96,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 2,525,000 336 J�u� u•e ENGINEERS,INC. 2114 Village Park Avenue Suite 100,Twin Falls,ID 83301 208.733.2414 ENGINEERS OPINION OF PROBABLE COST PROJECT: City of Twin Falls 2022 Water Master Plan Revision Date: 3-May-22 IMPROVEMENT: Distribution System Replacement Cost ESTIMATED IMPROVEMENT COST: $ 561,514,000 ASSUMES: All replacements 8"or larger ITEM No. Description Est.Quant. Unit Unit Price Total Price 1.00 Water Main-Installed w/Bedding 1.01 6"PVC Water Main LF $ 35.00 $ 1.02 8"PVC Water Main 1,164,769 LF $ 44.00 $ 51,249,843.33 1.03 10"PVC Water Main 91,789 LF $ 52.00 $ 4,773,026.47 1.04 12"PVC Water Main 218,259 LF $ 80.00 $ 17,460,688.11 1.05 14"PVC Water Main 21,691 LF $ 150.00 $ 3,253,659.08 1.06 16"PVC Water Main 34,713 LF $ 200.00 $ 6,942,661.94 1.07 18"PVC Water Main 20,778 LF $ 200.00 $ 4,155,569.95 1.08 20"PVC Water Main 22,847 LF $ 210.00 $ 4,797,825.77 1.09 24"PVC Water Main 42,891 LF $ 260.00 $ 11,151,537.05 1.10 30"PVC Water Main 46,051 LF $ 380.00 $ 17,499,500.61 1.11 36"PVC Water Main 12,056 LF $ 420.00 $ 5,063,317.03 1.12 42"PVC Water Main 822 LF $ 475.00 $ 390,348.71 1.13 Rock,Rural(Assume 30%of length) 502999 LF $ 115.00 $ 57,844,938.91 1.16 Existing Waterline Connections 8"-14" 1,350 EA $ 2,500.00 $ 3,375,000.00 1.17 Existing Waterline Connections 16"-24" 180 EA $ 7,500.00 $ 1,350,000.00 1.19 Water Testing/Commissioning 1,676,665 LF $ 2.50 $ 4,191,662.24 2.00 Fittings 2.04 8"Fittings 1,165 EA $ 850.00 $ 990,053.79 2.05 10"Fittings 92 EA $ 1,100.00 $ 100,967.87 2.06 12"Fittings 218 EA $ 1,375.00 $ 300,105.58 2.07 14"Fittings 22 EA $ 1,700.00 $ 36,874.80 2.08 16"Fittings 35 EA $ 2,000.00 $ 69,426.62 2.09 18"Fittings 21 EA $ 2,500.00 $ 51,944.62 2.10 20"Fittings 23 EA $ 3,125.00 $ 71,396.22 2.11 24"Fittings 43 EA $ 4,625.00 $ 198,368.69 2.12 30"Fittings 46 EA $ 8,750.00 $ 402,949.03 2.13 36"Fittings 12 EA $ 14,375.00 $ 173,298.05 2.14 42"Fittings 2 EA $ 20,000.00 $ 40,000.00 3.00 Valves and Hydrants 3.04 8"Valve 5,824 EA $ 2,300.00 $ 13,394,845.42 3.05 10"Valve 92 EA $ 2,400.00 $ 220,293.53 3.06 12"Valve 218 EA $ 3,100.00 $ 676,601.66 3.07 14"Valve 22 EA $ 3,400.00 $ 73,749.61 3.08 16"Valve 35 EA $ 8,500.00 $ 295,063.13 3.09 18"Valve 21 EA $ 10,000.00 $ 207,778.50 3.10 20"Valve 23 EA $ 11,000.00 $ 251,314.68 3.11 24"Valve 43 EA $ 15,000.00 $ 643,357.91 3.12 30"Valve 46 EA $ 24,000.00 $ 1,105,231.62 3.14 Hydrant 1,300 EA $ 5,000.00 $ 6,500,000.00 337 3.24 12"Pressure Control Valve 16 EA $ 30,000.00 $ 480,000.00 4.00 Water Services 4.01 1"Water Service Pipe 420,000 LF $ 9.00 $ 3,780,000.00 4.02 1.5"Water Service Pipe 30,000 LF $ 10.00 $ 300,000.00 4.03 2"Water Service Pipe 15,000 LF $ 12.50 $ 187,500.00 4.04 3"Water Service Pipe 15,000 LF $ 18.50 $ 277,500.00 4.05 4"Water Service Pipe 15,000 LF $ 21.00 $ 315,000.00 4.06 6"Water Service Pipe 15,000 LF $ 31.00 $ 465,000.00 4.09 1"Water Service Vault and Connection 14,000 EA $ 1,500.00 $ 21,000,000.00 4.10 2"Water Service Vault and Connection 1,000 EA $ 3,100.00 $ 3,100,000.00 4.11 3"Water Service Vault and Connection 500 EA $ 4,300.00 $ 2,150,000.00 4.12 4"Water Service Vault and Connection 500 EA $ 8,000.00 $ 4,000,000.00 4.13 6"Water Service Vault and Connection 500 EA $ 10,500.00 $ 5,250,000.00 4.14 Water Service Asphalt Repair(6'wide x 30'long) 16,500 EA $ 950.00 $ 15,675,000.00 5.00 Crossings 5.08 Sewer/StormDrain/Irrig Crossing 1,000 EA $ 3,750.00 $ 3,750,000.00 5.09 Utility Service Crossings-Urban 1,676,665 LF $ 2.50 $ 4,191,662.24 6.00 Surface Restoration 6.01 Stormwater Management 1,676,665 LF $ 2.50 $ 4,191,662.24 6.03 City-Asphalt -Half Lane Width 1,341,332 LF $ 36.00 $ 48,287,949.00 6.11 Natural Surface Repair 335,333 LF $ 12.00 $ 4,023,995.75 7.00 Construction Traffic Control 7.03 Typical Traffic Control-Flaggers 16,800 Day $ 700.00 $ 11,760,000.00 21.00 Contractor Mobilization/Demobilization 5% $ 17,624,423.49 22.00 Contingency 30% $ 105,746,540.93 ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $ 475,859,000 23.00 Other Project Costs 23.01 Davis-Bacon Wages/Buy American Iron 0% $ - 23.02 Inflation 0% $ - 23.03 Engineering/Construction Admin 18% $ 85,655,000 23.04 Funding/Legal/Administration/Bonding 0% $ - TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 561,514,000 ANNUAL REPLACEMENT COST BASED ON A 75-YEAR LIFE CYCLE $ 7,486,853 ANNUAL LENGTH OF PIPES REPLACED BASED ON A 75-YEAR LIFE CYCLE(FEET) 22,356 MONTHLY 2021 COST PER EDU FOR REPLACEMENT BASED ON A 75-YEAR LIFE CYCLE ANNUAL REPLACEMENT COST BASED ON A 100-YEAR LIFE CYCLE $ 5,615,000 ANNUAL LENGTH OF PIPES REPLACED BASED ON A 100-YEAR LIFE CYCLE(FEET) 16,767 MONTHLY 2021 COST PER EDU FOR REPLACEMENT BASED ON A 100-YEAR LIFE CYCLE ANNUAL REPLACEMENT COST BASED ON A 200-YEAR LIFE CYCLE $ 2,807,570 ANNUAL LENGTH OF PIPES REPLACED BASED ON A 200-YEAR LIFE CYCLE(FEET) 8,383 MONTHLY 2015 COST PER EDU FOR REPLACEMENT BASED ON A 200-YEAR LIFE CYCLE ANNUAL REPLACEMENT COST BASED ON A 500-YEAR LIFE CYCLE $ 1,123,028 ANNUAL LENGTH OF PIPES REPLACED BASED ON A 500-YEAR LIFE CYCLE(FEET) 3,353 MONTHLY 2015 COST PER EDU FOR REPLACEMENT BASED ON A 500-YEAR LIFE CYCLE 338