HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem #2 Water Facilities Planning StudyCITY OF
CHUBBUCK
Water Facility Planning Study
City Council Work Session
January 15, 2025
GROWING POSSIBILITIES ►
Purpose nf Study
■ Assess the condition of the municipal water
supply, storage, and distribution systems
■ Identify possible drinking water related
deficiencies faced by the community
■ Develop solutions to resolve identified
issues and help the community reach its
goals
■ Provide a plan for improvement, if required,
that includes timing and implementation
guidelines
KELLER �
CHUBBUCK A S S 0 C I A T E S
10800
Summarized Deficiencies
■ Slightly higher water usage compared to
Idaho average
■ Chubbuck 5 yr average 196 gpcd*
■ Idaho average 186 gpcd*
■ 1.7% of fire hydrants unable to meet fire
flow requirements
■ City meets current supply, storage, and
distribution requirements per state code.
■ City is growing and will need to be
proactive to stay within State of Idaho
requirements for supply, storage, and
distribution to meet the growing
demand
* Gallons per capita per day (gpcd)
_��Id--\ KELLER
CHUBBUCK ASSOCIATES
10040
Existing System
71; rL
CHUBBUCK
1 0 R H fl
Legend
BPS
Wells
TwM
Pipe Size
Unkown
4"
6"
8"
10,
12'
14'
16"
18"
20-
22"
-24-
- State Highways
KELLER
A S S 0 C I A T E S
Pn- pulatin n Prn-jectin n
■ Assuming a 2.5% growth
50,000
50,000
C 40,000
0
r�
7Ei 30,000
CL
0
a
20,000
10,000
0
1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 2070
Year
Historical Population 2.5% Growth - Main City Bench Zone
Z64-�O'cL KELLER
CHUBBUCK ASSOCIATES
10 R M U
Water Demand
■ The City's maximum day demand is below the firm capacity and the current storage capacity
can meet the peak hourly demand
14,000
12,000
10,000
Q
8,000
M 6,000
rl 1 1 1
I
12, 000, 000
10, 500, 000 . m
9,000,000 ❑
7,500,000 E
n
0
6,000,000 0
u
4,500,000
3,000,000 c
1,500,000 E
u
0
-j -j -j -j -j -j -j -j -j -j -j -j -j -j -j �j 55 j
I I I I I I
I tI �0.I I I 0.I .I�0. I I I 6 I
8. 9. I1d�ooQ 000009900 oQ 00000oo0 o0 oI 9 0. 0I I00.I 0
Ir
.0.
0947 999 9 47 % 4 47 A47 oo
System Demand (gpm) Bench Zone Demand (gpm)
Firm Capacity ($,020 gpm) Max Day Demand (5,887 gpm)
Cummulative Consumption (gal)
KELLER �
CHUBBUCK A S S 0 C I A T E S
1DAAfl
Water Storage at Pnpulatin-n 17,000
■ Chubbuck meets the current needs of the City with around 17% excess capacity
. r.
Storagemc.! t'�%j
(gal.)
73'
Operational Storage
465,750
Use 15% t❑ keep water
in tanks from stagnation
Total Storage
3,125,000
% of Tota i
i s%
Peaking Storage
682,581
Used to meet peak
demand hour with all
firm pumps running
Peak Demand -f=irm Cap.
Fire Storage
1,440,000
RK Motels LLC
Fire Demand (gpm)
6,000
Duration (hrs.)
4
Emergency Standby Storage
0
Backup power provided
at Wells #3, #4, #5, and
#6 to meet ADD
ADD (gpm)
2320
Duration
8
Total
21F5911331
17.08% Excess Capacity
��110CHUBBl1CK KELLER A S S 0 C I A T E S
1OAAfl
Water Sura a at Pn- pulatin-n 20,000
■ When the population approaches 18,500 people the current storage will be at capacity
■ At approx. 21,500 people, current water supply will not be sufficient to meet max. daily demand
-StorageComponent
f
Operational Storage
468,750
Use 15% to keep water in
tanks from stagnation
Total Storage
3,125,000
% of Total
15%
Peaking Storage
1,826,543
Used to meet peak
demand hour with all firm
pumps running
Peak Demand - Firm Cap.
Fire Storage
1,440,000
RK Motels LLC
Fire Demand (gpm)
61000
Duration (hrs.)
4
Emergency Standby Storage
0
Backup power provided at
Wells #4, #5, and #6 to
meet ADD
ADD (gpm)
2893
Duration
8
Total
31735,293
19.53% Under Capacity
Z64-�O'cL KELLER
CHUBBUCK ASSOCIATES
10 R H U
Fire Flew Results r�+f 2021
■ 1.7% of fire hydrants did not meet fire flow during maximum day demands
w
I-44"YKELLER
CHUBBUCK A S S 0 C I A T E S
10800
'A\ i T
SUPPLY
FIRE FLOW
IMPROVEMENTS
OTHER
IMPROVEMENTS
Am
■ No Action
■ Water Conservation
■ Leak Detection Service
■ New Well #7 Construction
■ New Well #8 Construction
■ New Well #9 Developer
Construction
■ 8,190 ft of waterline to be replaced or placed to meet all fire flow demands
■ Decommission Well #1 w'
■ 1977 1.5 MG Tank Roof Repair
■ Bench Booster Station Improvements
0 Demolish Steel Tanks and Increase Storaae at Tank Hill Farm
Suggested Projects
Existing water rights are suttiuenk
until population o€37,009 unless �•
per capita water use Continues - Y
to increase.
City should continue practice of
obtaining additional rights with
additional annexations.
.L � %• N
f- � �■ -Slphnn Rd.Ce
Fi ` - .tea j WiRR1J
CL
,••-^ Chubbuck Rd. _
*'
wee ��} � bemmnlisajnailVeY i1 ��
I -
Miles �„�
0 0.25 6.5 1
.......
Legend
Wells
Existing Q
401". .
Population 16,0DD
Population 30,000
0 i
Booster Stations
Existing ❑
••-„-'•_
Population 16,0DD Q
�11
Populatlan 25,DO0
r b'°'b.,,,
Population 30,DW
_
Tanks
Existing Q
Population 16,000 i3
..__-.._
Population 25,OW
15 MG Developer Ta
Population 30,DDD f
Transmission Improvements
_
Population 16,DDD
..-
Population 20,000
4-`
Population 25,006
papulation 30,0DD
Fire Improvements
......M
!
Fire Improvement
i
-
Failed Fire Flow ■
Other Improvements
Well •
Booster Station
Tank
Approximate City Limit i . h
USA Major Roads —
2022 Existing System
KELLER �
CHUBBUCK ASSOCIATES
loam
Imprn-ved Fire Flew
Y f>
E
Y
L°P
e, — " F
s
am Miles
E 7 025 6.5 1
p P
W
Tyhee Rd. G
-116,110 IN
6MLnmi 1.
G
Siphon Rd-
�A
Legend
I BPS
Wells
1 Tanks
Well 5 1, Meets
FFD
Fail
J Pass
Water Main Lines
TAA250 FT Range
'r
State Highways
KELLER lo
CHYIIBBYCK ASSOCIATES
ioouIj
Capital Imprn-vement Plan
Priority Description
(Well #7 Complex & Transmission Lines) Total Priority 1 Improvements
(Transmission Lines) Total Priority 2 Improvements
tion ••• • •••
(Hill Tank & Transmission Lines) Total Priority 3 Improvements
(Well #8, Well #9 & Transmission Lines) Total Priority 4 Improvements
(Distribution Lines) Total Fire Flow Improvements
(Rehabilitate Tanks & Bench Boaster Improvements) Total Other Improvements
TOTAL COST OF WATER IMPROVEMENTS
Opinion of Cost*
$13,805,000
$5,326,000
$5,658,000
$13,619,000
$2,266,000
$3,068,000
$43,742,000
*NOT INCLUDING $1.6M IN ANNUAL REPLACEMENT
*CITY HAS ADOPTED A WATER RATE STUDY THAT WAS COMPLETED IN MAY OF 2022 TO FUND PRIORITY 1 IMPROVEMENTS
*All costs are in 2024 Dollars. Costs include approximate engineering and planning contingencies. The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of
probable cost at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, market conditions, or bidding
strategies. Actual construction costs may vary.
■ Colter Hollingshead, PE
chollingshead@kellerassociates.com
■ Garrett Thompson, EI
gthompson@kellerassociates.com
kel lerassociates.com 1 (208) 238-2146 1 Pocatello, ID
/6Z'tKELLER
CHUBBUCK A S S 0 C I A T E S
1AAXO
CHUBBUCK, IDAHO
WATER FACILITIES PLANNING STUDY
CITY OF CHUBBUCK, IDAHO
FINAL CITY REVIEW
January 2025
PROJECT NO. 222190-000
PREPARED BY:
KELLER
ASSOCIATESCHUBBUCK
305 N. 3rd Ave.
Pocatello, ID 83201
(T) 208 238 2146
PREPARED FOR:
1aC---3e-\ -
I D A H 0
290 East Linden Ave.
Chubbuck,ID 83202
(T) 208 237 2430
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS...............................................................................................................................................I
LISTOF TABLES.....................................................................................................................................................IV
LISTOF FIGURES.....................................................................................................................................................V
AUTHORIZATION...................................................................................................................................................1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...........................................................................................................................................2
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................4
1.1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................4
1.2 SCOPE.............................................................................................................................................................5
1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION.....................................................................................................................................5
1.4 PROJECT PURPOSE & NEED.................................................................................................................................6
1.5 ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................................................................6
1.6 DEFINITION OF TERMS........................................................................................................................................7
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT PLANNING......................................................................................................................9
2.1 PROPOSED PROJECT PLANNING AREA IDENTIFICATION..............................................................................................9
2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES PRESENT...............................................................................................................10
2.2.1 Physiography, Topography, Geology, and soils.....................................................................................10
2.2.2 Ground Water Hydrology.......................................................................................................................11
2.2.3 Surface Water Hydrology.......................................................................................................................11
2.2.4 Fauna, Flora, and Natural Communities................................................................................................12
2.2.5 Zoning, Land Use, and Development.....................................................................................................12
2.2.6 Cultural Resources (Historical & Archaeological)...................................................................................12
2.2.7 Utility Use...............................................................................................................................................12
2.2.8 Floodploins/Wetlands............................................................................................................................12
2.2.9 Wild & Scenic Rivers...............................................................................................................................13
2.2.10 Public Health & Water Quality Considerations......................................................................................13
2.2.11 Important Farmlands Protection...........................................................................................................13
2.2.12 Proximity to a Sole Source Aquifer.........................................................................................................14
2.2.13 Climate...................................................................................................................................................14
2.2.14 Air Quality & Noise.................................................................................................................................15
2.3 SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE/POPULATION STATISTICS..............................................................................................15
CHAPTER 3 EXISTING FACILITIES CONDITION & EVALUATION.......................................................................25
3.1 SYSTEM HISTORY............................................................................................................................................25
3.2 WATER RESOURCES ANALYSIS...........................................................................................................................25
3.2.1 Water Production and Consumption.....................................................................................................26
3.2.2 Existing Water Demand.........................................................................................................................27
3.2.3 Water Rights..........................................................................................................................................29
3.3 WATER QUALITY AND CAPACITY.........................................................................................................................29
3.3.1 Water Quality Criteria............................................................................................................................29
3.3.2 Water Quality Monitoring Program.......................................................................................................32
3.3.3 Groundwater Quality and Capacity.......................................................................................................34
3.4 WELL SYSTEM................................................................................................................................................35
3.4.1 Well#1...................................................................................................................................................35
3.4.2 Well#2...................................................................................................................................................36
3.4.3 Well#3...................................................................................................................................................37
222190-000 ' . • -
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
3.4.4
Well#4...................................................................................................................................................37
3.4.5
Well#5...................................................................................................................................................38
3.4.6
Well#6...................................................................................................................................................38
REGIONALIZATION ALTERNATIVE........................................................................................................................63
3.4.7
Well System Summary...........................................................................................................................39
5.4
3.5
STORAGE SYSTEM............................................................................................................................................39
3.5.1
Hill Tank Farm Storage...........................................................................................................................39
No Action Alternative..............................................................................64
3.5.2
Complex #6 Storage...............................................................................................................................40
Water Supply Alternative 2 —
3.5.3
Storage System Summary......................................................................................................................41
5.4.3
3.6
BOOSTER STATIONS.........................................................................................................................................41
3.6.1
Bench Booster Station............................................................................................................................41
New Well #7 Construction.......................................................................66
3.6.2
Hiline Booster Station............................................................................................................................42
Water Supply Alternative 5 —
3.6.3
Complex #6 Booster Station...................................................................................................................43
5.4.6
3.6.4
Booster Station Summary......................................................................................................................44
3.7
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM.....................................................................................................................................44
3.7.1
Distribution System Criteria...................................................................................................................44
Water Storage Alternative 1—
3.7.2
Existing Distribution Lines......................................................................................................................45
5.5.2
3.7.3
Fire Protection Requirements................................................................................................................46
3.7.4
Distribution System Hydraulic Analysis..................................................................................................48
— East Bench Developer Storage..............................................................68
3.7.5
Maximum Day Demand plus Fire Flow Demand (MDD + FFD)..............................................................50
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
3.7.6
Peak Hour Demand................................................................................................................................50
5.6.1
3.7.7
Pressures During Low Demands.............................................................................................................52
5.6.2
3.8
SYSTEM OPERATION........................................................................................................................................52
3.9
FINANCIAL STATUS OF EXISTING FACILITIES...........................................................................................................53
3.10
WATER/ENERGY AUDITS..................................................................................................................................53
CHAPTER 4 NEED FOR PROJECT.....................................................................................................................
57
4.1
PUBLIC HEALTH..............................................................................................................................................57
4.2
EXISTING INFASTRUCTURE.................................................................................................................................57
4.2.1
Estimated System Losses.......................................................................................................................57
4.2.2
Fire Flow Conditions...............................................................................................................................57
4.2.3
Storage Evaluation.................................................................................................................................57
4.3
FUTURE WATER DEMAND.................................................................................................................................59
4.4
COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS..........................................................................................61
CHAPTER 5 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS............................................................................................................ 63
5.1
SANITARY SURVEY...........................................................................................................................................63
5.2
NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE.................................................................................................................................63
5.3
REGIONALIZATION ALTERNATIVE........................................................................................................................63
5.4
WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES..........................................................................................................................64
5.4.1
Water Supply Alternative 1—
No Action Alternative..............................................................................64
5.4.2
Water Supply Alternative 2 —
Water Conservation................................................................................64
5.4.3
Water Supply Alternative 3 —
Leak Detection Service............................................................................65
5.4.4
Water Supply Alternative 4 —
New Well #7 Construction.......................................................................66
5.4.5
Water Supply Alternative 5 —
New Well #8 Construction.......................................................................66
5.4.6
Water Supply Alternative 6 —
New Well #9 Developer Construction.....................................................67
5.5
WATER STORAGE ALTERNATIVES........................................................................................................................67
5.5.1
Water Storage Alternative 1—
No Action Alternative............................................................................67
5.5.2
Water Storage Alternative 2
— Main Zone Additional Storage..............................................................67
5.5.3
Water Storage Alternative 3
— East Bench Developer Storage..............................................................68
5.6
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
......................................................................................................69
5.6.1
Distribution Alternative 1 — No Action Alternative................................................................................69
5.6.2
Distribution Alternative 2 — Distribution System Phased Improvements...............................................69
222190-000 0
City of Chubbuck
Water Facilities Planning Study
KELLER
5.7 OTHER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS........................................................................................................................73
5.7.1 Decommission Well#1...........................................................................................................................73
5.7.2 19771.5 MG Tank Roof Repair..............................................................................................................74
5.7.3 Bench Booster Station Improvements....................................................................................................74
5.7.4 Demolish Steel Tanks and Increase Storage at Tank Hill Farm..............................................................74
5.8 SYSTEM CLASSIFICATION, STAFFING, & OPERATOR LICENSURE.................................................................................75
5.8.1 Public Participation................................................................................................................................76
CHAPTER 6 IMPLEMENTATION & FUNDING ANALYSIS..................................................................................79
6.1
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT..............................................................................................................................79
6.2
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES & PRIORITY RANKING..................................................................................................79
6.2.1
Priority Rankings....................................................................................................................................79
6.3
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN...........................................................................................................................80
6.4
SYSTEM OPERATION & MAINTENANCE................................................................................................................84
6.5
FUNDING ANALYSIS.........................................................................................................................................84
6.6
RATE ANALYSIS...............................................................................................................................................85
6.7
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND SCHEDULE.........................................................................................................86
REFERENCES......................................................................................................................................................... 88
APPENDIX A: COMMUNITY REFERENCE INFORMATION.........................................................................................A
APPENDIX B: WATER RIGHTS.................................................................................................................................B
APPENDIX C: WATER QUALITY DATA AND REFERENCE INFORMATION..................................................................0
APPENDIX D: HYDRAULIC MODELING.................................................................................................................... E
APPENDIX E: CITY FINANCIAL INFORMATION....................................................................................................... D
APPENDIXF: SANITARY SURVEY............................................................................................................................ F
APPENDIX G: ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATES....................................................................................................... G
APPENDIX H: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION................................................................................................................... H
222190-000
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Chubbuck Area Soils.................................................................................................10
Table 2-2 Typical Soil Profiles for Chubbuck, Idaho..................................................................11
Table 2-3 Climate Data for Pocatello, Idaho..............................................................................15
Table 2-4 Projected Population at 2.5% Annual Growth............................................................16
Table 2-5 Historical & Projected Population of Chubbuck.........................................................17
Table 3-1 Existing Demands Summary.....................................................................................28
Table3-2 Water Rights.............................................................................................................29
Table 3-3 Monitoring Requirements..........................................................................................33
Table 3-4 Existing Well Capacities............................................................................................39
Table 3-5 Existing Storage Capacities......................................................................................41
Table 3-6 Existing Booster Station Capacities...........................................................................44
Table 3-7 Chubbuck Distribution System Pipe Size Summary..................................................46
Table 3-8 Typical Fire Protection Requirements........................................................................47
Table 3-9 ISRB Fire Flow Requirements...................................................................................48
Table 3-10 Fire Hydrant Calibration Results..............................................................................49
Table 4-1 2023 Existing Recommended Storage Volumes (17,000 Population)......................58
Table 4-2 Current and Projected Water Demands for Chubbuck...............................................59
Table 4-3 Recommended Storage Volumes (20,000 Population)............................................60
Table 4-4 Recommended Storage Volumes (21,500 Population)...........................................60
Table 4-5 Recommended Storage Volumes (27,000 Population)...........................................61
Table 5-1 Water Conservation Program Potential Water Savings in 2063 .................................65
Table 5-2 Distribution Phase I Upgrades...................................................................................70
Table 5-3 Distribution Phase II Upgrades..................................................................................71
Table 5-4 Distribution Phase III Upgrades.................................................................................71
Table 5-5 Distribution Phase IV Upgrades................................................................................72
Table 5-6 Distribution Fire Flow Improvements.........................................................................73
Table 5-7 Idaho DEQ Distribution System Classification...........................................................75
Table 6-1 Capital Improvement Plan.........................................................................................82
Table 6-2 Funding Scenarios for Priority I Improvements..........................................................86
Table 6-3 Preliminary Project Schedule — Priority I Improvements............................................86
222190-000
Pa e
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure2-1 Vicinity Map.............................................................................................................. 9
Figure 2-2 Historical & Projected Population of Chubbuck Idaho...............................................17
Figure 2-3 The City of Chubbuck Proposed Project Planning Area...........................................18
Figure 2-4 Proposed Project Planning Area Soil Map................................................................19
Figure 2-5 Proposed Project Planning Area 100 -Year Flood Map.............................................20
Figure 2-6 Proposed Project Planning Area Wetlands Map.......................................................21
Figure 2-7 City of Chubbuck Zoning..........................................................................................22
Figure 2-8 City of Chubbuck Land Use.....................................................................................23
Figure 2-9 Administrative Boundaries for Areas with Sensitive Air Quality................................24
Figure 3-1 Chubbuck Annual Water Usage...............................................................................26
Figure 3-2 Chubbuck Monthly Water Consumption (January 2018 — December 2022) .............27
Figure 3-3 Diurnal Curve (July 7', 2021)...................................................................................28
Figure 3-4 Lower Portneuf Aquifer Water Balance....................................................................35
Figure3-5 Well#1.....................................................................................................................36
Figure3-6 Well#2.....................................................................................................................37
Figure3-7 Well#3.....................................................................................................................37
Figure3-8 Well#4.....................................................................................................................38
Figure3-9 Well#5.....................................................................................................................38
Figure3-10 Well#6...................................................................................................................39
Figure 3-11 Hill Tank Farm Storage..........................................................................................40
Figure 3-12 Complex #6 Storage Tank.....................................................................................40
Figure 3-13 Bench Booster Station...........................................................................................42
Figure 3-14 Hiline Booster Station.............................................................................................43
Figure 3-15 Complex #6 Booster Station...................................................................................44
Figure 3-16 Modeling Peak Hour Demands (Entire System).....................................................51
Figure 3-17 Modeling Peak Hour Demands (Northern Half)......................................................51
Figure 3-18 Modeling Peak Hour Demands (Southern Half)......................................................52
Figure 3-19 Chubbuck Water Distribution System.....................................................................54
Figure 3-20 Chubbuck Distribution Pipe Materials.....................................................................55
Figure3-21 Fire Flow................................................................................................................56
Figure 5-1 Proposed Distribution Improvements.......................................................................77
Figure 5-2 Fire Hydrant Improvements......................................................................................78
Figure 6-1 Capital Improvements Plan......................................................................................87
222190-000
Page v
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
AUTHORIZATION
In September 2022, the City of Chubbuck (potable water system (PWS) No. ID6030008)
contracted with Keller Associates, Inc. to complete a Water Facility Planning Study (WFPS) in
accordance with IDAPA 58.01.22 to evaluate the City's water supply and distribution system and
develop a plan to meet future system demands. The study was funded by a 50/50 grant through
the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (Grant # DWG -282-2023-33).
222190-000 ' . • -
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
The purpose of this Water Facility Planning Study (WFPS) is to assess the condition of the
Chubbuck municipal water supply, storage, and distribution systems capacity and their ability to
meet requirements as outlined by IDAPA 58.01.08. The current condition of each component of
the City's water system has been considered individually and specific deficiencies are identified
for further consideration.
This study evaluates alternatives and identifies improvements to overcome water supply, storage,
and distribution system deficiencies and address any violations of State or Federal requirements.
Implementation of these recommendations will help the City meet current and future needs.
System Summary
The City of Chubbuck provides water for approximately 4,882 residential, commercial, and
business connections. Chubbuck's drinking water is sourced from five deep wells, extracting
groundwater from the Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer. This vital resource is distributed through
an extensive network of approximately 86 miles of pipes. The distribution system comprises 6 -
inch to 12 -inch lateral lines, supported by sixteen -inch to twenty -four -inch transmission lines. To
provide consistent pressure and meet peak demands, Chubbuck's infrastructure includes four
storage tanks with a total capacity of approximately 3.1 million gallons, complemented by three
booster stations.
The present annual average day demand stands at 3.3 million gallons per day (MGD) or
approximately 2,320 gallons per minute (gpm), with a maximum annual average use of 209
gallons per capita per day (gpcd). Looking ahead for planning and design considerations, the 20 -
year projected average day demand, assuming a consistent 209 gpcd as detailed in Chapter 4,
is estimated at 5.7 MGD or approximately 3,982 gpm.
System Deficiencies and Need for Action
Deficiencies and issues throughout the water system reported by the key City personnel and
observed through the course of this study are summarized below:
The City has about 1.7% of fire hydrants unable to meet fire flow demand. The majority
of these hydrants are at dead end locations. Notably, Chubbuck Elementary School fire
flow requirement is currently unable to be met in accordance with IDAPA 58.01.552.01
The City currently has sufficient supply but within the study period more source supply
will be needed to meet the maximum daily demand of the system as the population
increases.
The City currently has sufficient storage in accordance with IDAPA 58.01.08.003 but
within the next 5 years (near population 20,000) additional storage will be required to
meet the peak hourly and fire flow demands of the system. Within the 20 -year planning
study 2 additional tanks may be required.
The City has no distribution lines that do not meet current code requirements but
improvements to the distribution system will be required to meet the needs of the
growing system.
The current average water use in Chubbuck (196 gpcd) is over 5% greater than average
Idaho use (186 gpcd).
222190-000
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
Evaluation of the identified deficiencies resulted in several improvement alternatives as outlined
in Chapter 5 which are planned to address the current and future shortcomings.
Alternatives Considered
All components of the water supply, storage, and distribution systems utilized by the City of
Chubbuck were reviewed and their replacement alternatives, including the no -action alternative,
were considered.
Various options for enhancing the existing system or implementing new upgrades were thoroughly
examined and assessed. The feasible supply alternatives encompassed initiatives such as water
conservation, leak detection, and the installation of three new groundwater wells, responding to
the rising demands of the growing population. Storage alternatives were explored, considering
the addition of a new main pressure zone tank, a developer -led upper bench pressure zone tank,
and the potential demolition of the aging tank hill steel tanks as deemed necessary. The
enhancement of the distribution system was strategically divided into multiple phases. Emphasis
was placed on upgrading lines in conjunction with the Idaho Transportation Department's road
sections within the City, as well as catering to the developing areas of town. Additional phases
addressed alternatives to enhance the performance of fire flow in locations that have previously
experienced failures. For an in-depth exploration of project alternatives, please refer to Chapter
5.
Preferred Alternatives
A preferred alternative was identified following a planned public open house presentation. The
preferred priority alternatives selected are discussed in detail in Chapter 6. The preferred supply
alternative was a new groundwater well and well house, the preferred storage alternative was to
construct a new 1.5 MG tank. The well, wellhouse, storage tank, and booster station are planned
to completed in one project and known as the Well #7 Complex. The preferred distribution
alternative is the Phase I Distribution Improvements discussed in Chapter 6.
222190-000
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
In 2022, the City of Chubbuck, Idaho contracted with Keller Associates to prepare a Water System
Facilities Planning Study. The purpose of the study is to provide a comprehensive evaluation of
the existing water system, and to identify deficiencies that need to be addressed to meet current
and future demands.
The City of Chubbuck, Idaho is a community on the northern border of Pocatello, Idaho, as shown
in Figure 2-1 in Bannock County. The population of Chubbuck from the 2020 Census was 15,570
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2024). Dominant industries for employment in Chubbuck are educational
services and health care and social assistance at 24.5% and other services, except public
administration at 10.2%. 14.1 %of the population was over the age of 65 (U.S. Census Bureau,
2024).
The City of Chubbuck currently provides water, sewer, and garbage collection services to
residents. Other utilities available to community residents and businesses from non -municipal
entities include electrical power, natural gas, and high-speed communications. The City of
Chubbuck contracts with the nearby City of Pocatello for wastewater treatment services.
The water system of the City of Chubbuck delivers potable water to around 4,882 metered water
connections spread across the City. Covering an extensive network, the distribution system
comprises approximately 86 miles of predominantly cast iron, ductile iron, and polyvinyl chloride
(PVC) piping. Notably, the original distribution system was installed in the 1940s, reflecting the
City's historical development. The water supply to this distribution system is sourced from five
deep water wells, drawing from the Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer. To ensure consistent and
reliable water availability, the system is supported by four storage tanks with a collective capacity
of 3.1 million gallons. Additionally, three booster stations play a crucial role in maintaining
adequate pressure throughout the distribution network. This comprehensive infrastructure allows
for the efficient and effective delivery of water services to the residents and businesses of
Chubbuck.
Currently the City of Chubbuck monitors their residents water usage through individual residential
meters and well production flows. Based on this information, the Average Day Demand is
approximately 196 gpcd, approximately 5% more than the 186 gpcd Average Day Demand in
Idaho (USGS, 2024). Additional discussion over the City's water use will be provided in
subsequent sections.
Chubbuck owns and operates the water supply, storage, and distribution system; and provides
all residents with high quality water. This study has been completed to aid The City of Chubbuck
in maintaining their high quality of service by assessing the current condition of the Chubbuck
water system, identifying current system deficiencies, and developing a framework to address the
future needs of the system. System improvements were developed without any consideration of
the ethnicity, religion, or socioeconomic status of the residents that the proposed improvements
will benefit.
222190-000 ' . • -
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
1.2 SCOPE
The scope of this study includes the following:
Base Map
o Key Facilities and Pipelines
o Pressure Zones
Water System Management Classification, Operators and License
o Required System Licensing
o Current Operator License
Conditions Assessment
o Facility Tour
o City Staff
o Physical Condition Deficiencies
o Distribution pipe material and age
Water Supply and Delivery Evaluation
o Water Model Calibration
■ Determine areas below 40 psi and above 80 psi
■ Evaluate fire flow
o Existing System Evaluation
■ Report fire flow deficiencies
o Future System Evaluation
■ Evaluate additions to system as growth increases and upsize lines to
improve fire flow deficiencies.
Water Quality
o Existing water quality data review
o Identify if treatment beyond chlorination is needed
Financial Status of Existing Facilities
o Summarize historical fees and rate structures
o Capital Improvements Plan
Review Meeting Workshop
o Review preliminary findings
1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION
This report is intended to provide a methodical description of the complete water system for The
City of Chubbuck, including a synopsis of source water, storage, transmission, delivery, and
disinfection. This report is organized to address these items in regard to current and future
conditions. A table of contents is provided as a comprehensive layout of the report, following
which a list of tables and figures is included for reference. A summary of the chapters included in
the report follows.
➢ Chapter 1
— Introduction
➢ Chapter 2
— Project Planning
➢ Chapter 3
— Existing Facilities Condition & Evaluation
➢ Chapter 4
— Need for Project
➢ Chapter 5
— Alternatives Analysis
➢ Chapter 6
— Implementation & Funding Analysis
222190-000
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
Project planning and environmental conditions are presented in Chapter 2; existing facility
conditions and identified system deficiencies will be discussed in Chapter 3; future conditions and
the need for the project are discussed in Chapter 4; alternatives to mitigate the deficiencies to
meet current and future demands are evaluated in Chapter 5; selected alternatives, and an
implementation analysis of each alternative is presented in Chapter 6.
1.4 PROJECT PURPOSE & NEED
This report presents the findings and recommendations of the City of Chubbuck Water Facility
Planning Study. This study was commissioned by the City in an effort to document the current
state of the water system, and plan for future needs. Keller Associates has worked with key City
personnel to understand the challenges currently faced by the system, and to develop practical,
cost-effective solutions. Keller Associates gratefully recognizes the support and assistance of
municipal, administrative, and support staff who were essential to the completion of this study, as
well as the contributions of all others involved.
Deficiencies and issues throughout the water system reported by the key City personnel and
observed through the course of this study are summarized below:
The City has about 1.7% of fire hydrants unable to meet fire flow demand. Many of these
lines are at dead end locations. Notably, Chubbuck Elementary School fire flow
requirement is currently unable to be met in accordance with IDAPA 58.01.552.01
The City currently has sufficient supply but within the study period more source supply
will be needed to meet the maximum daily demand of the system as the population
increases.
The City currently has sufficient storage in accordance with IDAPA 58.01.08.003 but
within the next 5 years (near population 20,000) additional storage will be required to
meet the peak hourly and fire flow demands of the system. Within the 20 -year planning
study 2 additional tanks may be required.
The City has no distribution lines that do not meet current code requirements but improvements
to the distribution system will be required to meet the needs of the growing system. Average water
use in Chubbuck (196 gpcd) is over 5% greater than average Idaho use (186 gpcd).
1.5 ABBREVIATIONS
ADD
Average Day Demand
AWWA
American Water Works Association
bgs
below ground surface
cfs
cubic feet per second
Idaho DEQ
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality
EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
FFD
fire flow demand
ft.
foot
fps
feet per second
gal
gallons
gpcd
gallons per capita per day
gpm
gallons per minute
Hp
horsepower
IDWR
Idaho Department of Water Resources
IOC
inorganic chemical
kW
kilowatt
222190-000 ' . • - .
City of Chubbuck
Water Facilities Planning Study
MCL
maximum contaminant level
MDD
Maximum Day Demand
mg/L
milligrams per liter
MG
million gallons
MGD
million gallons per day
PHD
Peak Hour Demand
POD
point of diversion
PPPA
Proposed Project Planning Area
ppb
parts per billion
ppm
parts per million
psi
pounds per square inch
SDWA
Safe Drinking Water Act
SOC
synthetic organic chemical
VOC
volatile organic chemicals
WFPS
Water Facilities Planning Study
1.6 DEFINITION OF TERMS
KELLER
Average Day Demand (ADD) — the volume of water supplied to the system in a year
divided by 365 days
Consumption — refers to the volume of water customer's use. Consumption is generally
measured with a water meter installed at each consumer's connection to the water system.
In cases where a water system is not equipped with water meters at individual
connections, consumers are charged a flat rate for water usage.
Demand — refers to the water needed to meet residential, commercial, industrial, and
public water needs over a period of time, as well as the system losses that are associated
with the demand. Demands on the water system vary by the time of day and season. Due
to varying consumer needs, system condition, and other factors, individual communities
have unique water demand patterns. Volumetric rates (gpm or cfs), volumes (gal or MG),
and per capita demand (gpcd) are often used to quantify the demand placed on a system.
Demand Factors — also referred to as peaking factors. Demand factors define the
relationships between ADD, MDD, and PHD.
Fire Flow Demand (FFD) — flow required to supply a sufficient quantity of water to fight a
fire. The International Fire Code establishes fire flow requirements and is the accepted
code in the State of Idaho.
Firm Pumping Capacity — the total pumping capacity that a pump system can deliver with
the largest pump out of service.
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) — refers to the greatest concentration of a
contaminant allowed in drinking water often reported in ppm, ppb, mg/L, or pg/L.
Maximum Day Demand (MDD) —the maximum volumetric rate or volume of water supplied
to the system in one day during a year.
Peak Hour Demand (PHD) — the maximum volumetric rate or volume of water supplied to
the system in one hour during a year.
222190-000
City of Chubbuck
Water Facilities Planning Study
KELLER
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) — United States regulation passed by Congress in 1974
to protect public health by regulating public drinking water. The Act was amended in 1986
and 1996 and is enforced by the EPA.
Total Pumping Capacity — the total pumping capacity of all pumps within a pumping
system.
222190-000 ' . • -
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
CHAPTER 2 PROJECT PLANNING
This portion of the report presents a general overview of existing conditions within the study area.
An Environmental Information Document (EID), if needed, will be completed subsequent to this
study and will provide additional detail regarding environmental conditions within the planning
area, potential environmental impacts which may result from the implementation of the proposed
improvements, and means to mitigate these environmental impacts.
2.1 PROPOSED PROJECT PLANNING AREA IDENTIFICATION
The City of Chubbuck is the second largest City in Bannock County and is located approximately
70 miles north of the Idaho/Utah border. The City of Chubbuck sits on the edge of the Snake River
Plain at the north end of the Portneuf Valley. Based on the Boise Meridian, the City is located
within both Township 5 South, Range 34 East and Township 6 South, Range 34 East. Figure 2-1
shows the location of Chubbuck relative to the State of Idaho.
Fiqure 2-1 Vicinitv Ma
buck
222190-000 ' . • - •
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
The planning area of this study is defined by the established Impact Area of the City of Chubbuck.
The City is bounded on the south by the City of Pocatello. The City's potential growth area is
bordered to the north by the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, to the south by the City of Pocatello,
and to the east and west by designated areas of impact for the City of Pocatello. The planning
area encompasses approximately 11,922 acres.
This Water Facilities Planning Study is based on a specific proposed project planning area
(PPPA) which incorporates the region and population which the water system could reasonably
be expected to serve for the 20 -yr planning period from 2023 to 2043. Figure 2-3 identifies this
planning area and is provided at the end of this chapter.
2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES PRESENT
2.2.1 Physiography, Topography, Geology, and Soils
The City of Chubbuck lies at elevations between 4,400 -feet and 4,850 -feet above sea level and
is bordered by higher elevations on the east. The topography within the planning area generally
slopes from east to west. The majority of the City gradually slopes west towards the Portneuf
River. The region immediately surrounding Chubbuck is dominated by the Bannock Mountain
Range to the south, the Pocatello Mountain Range to the East, and the Snake River Plain to the
northwest.
Classification of soils in and around the planning area was completed by the USDA Natural
Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) and an NRCS soil report is included in Appendix A
(USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, 2023). The soils in the planning area are
primarily silt loams and cobble loams. Area soils and their relative prevalence are shown in Table
2-1, Table 2-2, and Figure 2-4.
It is worth noting that a large portion of the soil in the study area are considered moderate to highly
corrosive to steel. Care will be taken to minimize that proposed buried steel and iron pipe, fittings,
and valves are installed with an appropriate coating to prevent damage from external corrosion.
Special planning, design and installation will be adopted to minimize specified limitations.
Table 2-1 Chubbuck Area Soils
222190-000 ' . • -
Bahem Silt Loam
4520
37.9
If Irrigated
Broncho Cobbly Loam
853.5
7.1
No
Broxon Silt Loam
2896.5
24.3
If Irrigated
McDole-McDole Variant Complex
36.6
0.3
If Irrigated
Pits, gravel
52.6
0.4
No
Pocatello Silt Loam
2710
22.7
No
Urban Lan-Bahem-Broxon Complex
826.1
6.9
No
222190-000 ' . • -
City of Chubbuck
Water Facilities Planning Study
Table 2-2 Typical Soil Profiles for Chubbuck, Idaho
KELLER
Classification
Depth, inches
Description
Bahem
0-11
Silt Loam
11-49
Silt Loam
49-60
Extremely Cobbly Sand
Broncho
0-6
Cobbly Loam
6-13
Cobbly Loam
13-60
Extremely Cobbly Coarse Sand
Broxon
0-8
Silt Loam
8-25
Silt Loam
25-60
Extremely Stony Sand
McDole
0-21
Silt Loam
21-74
Silt Loam
Pits
0-60
gravel, cobbles
Pocatello
0-8
Silt Loam
8-40
Silt Loam
40-60
Silt Loam
Urban
0-11
Silt Loam
11-49
Silt Loam
49-60
Extremely Cobbly Sand
2.2.2 Ground Water Hydrology
According to IDWR there are approximately 535 wells within the planning area, of which
approximately 517 are for domestic use. The depth to static water of groundwater wells in the
surrounding area ranges from 5 to 254 ft. below ground surface with well depths ranging from 15
to 582 ft. below ground surface (Idaho Department of Water Resources). There are 5 groundwater
wells currently being utilized by the City of Chubbuck for potable domestic use located within the
planning area.
The City of Chubbuck is within the Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer which encompasses much
of Eastern Idaho. The Chubbuck area and the Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer is primarily
composed of unconsolidated deposit aquifers (USGS, 2022).
The City of Chubbuck lies within Idaho DEQ's established N. Pocatello Nitrate Priority Area, and
all City wells are within the nitrate priority area besides the inactive Well #1 (Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality, 2022). Although the wells are in the Nitrate Priority Area, the 2023
consumer confidence report for the City of Chubbuck indicates nitrate levels in the range of 2.97-
6.23 mg/L were found in collected potable water samples ( 2023 Consumer Confidence Report
City of Chubbuck, 2023).
2.2.3 Surface Water Hydrology
Surface water is found in the Portneuf River to the southwest of the planning area, while the
Snake River is to the northwest of the planning area. The Portneuf River originates in the Portneuf
Range to the east of the City. The Snake River originates in Yellowstone National Park in
Wyoming and is fed by tributaries such as Henry's Fork, Buffalo, Hoback, Greys, and Salt Rivers.
Neither of these surface water sources is currently utilized by the City for domestic potable use.
222190-000
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 serves to protect designated free-flowing rivers that have
"outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural and
other similar values." The act states that these rivers "shall be preserved in free-flowing condition,
and that they and their immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment
of present and future generations" (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2022). No surface waters in and
around Chubbuck or the Project Planning Area have been designated as wild and scenic rivers.
2.2.4 Fauna, Flora, and Natural Communities
The Snake River, Portneuf River and area surrounding Chubbuck supports a wide diversity of
animal and plant life. There are 13 species of migratory birds of conservation concern for which
the project planning area provides habitat. There are no threatened or endangered species for
the planning area. There are several locations with freshwater emergent wetland and the Portneuf
River on the eastern edge of the planning area (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2023). More
information on birds of conservation is provided in Appendix A.
A majority of land in the planning area is either developed or used for cultivated crops, but there
are a few areas that contain natural vegetative communities (USDA Natural Resource
Conservation Service, 2023). Land use within the Chubbuck City limits is shown in Figure 2-8.
2.2.5 Zoning, Land Use, and Development
Zoning in the City of Chubbuck is based upon fifteen classifications: Single Family Residential,
Dense Residential, Limited Residential, Limited Residential -P, Planned Unit Development,
Limited Commercial, General Commercial, Industrial, Creative Community, Creative Community
— Northside Crossing, Creative Community — Harvest Springs, County, Highway Corridor, Village
and Agricultural. A map identifying the different City zones is included in Figure 2-7.
A majority of the City is zoned as residential. Areas of commercial use exist primarily to the south
of 1-86 and along Yellowstone Avenue. Industrial portions of the City are primarily confined to
areas near the railroad.
2.2.6 Cultural Resources (Historical & Archaeological)
No entries exist on the National Register of Historic Places for structures and areas within the City
of Chubbuck (National Park Service, 2023).
2.2.7 Utility Use
Electricity is provided within the Chubbuck project planning area by Idaho Power. Minimizing
electrical consumption is an important consideration when evaluating system upgrades or
expansion. In cases where it is necessary to utilize electrical power (i.e., pumping/monitoring/etc.)
it is important to consider efficient components as well as to ensure proper design so that all
components are operating as efficiently as possible.
The City of Chubbuck currently operates 3 booster pumping stations, and 5 active wells which
are the electrical demand items on the system. Pump sizes within the booster pumping stations
and well houses range from 15 horsepower to 500 horsepower. Any proposed improvements will
be planned with high -efficiency equipment (lighting, motors, pumps, etc.).
2.2.8 Flood plains/Wetlands
A large majority of Chubbuck lies outside of the 100 -year flood event flood plain. A small strip of
land along the Portneuf River to the southwest and strips along 3 small drainages that terminate
in the Hiline Canal including: Buffalo Creek and 2 other drainages to the north running from east
222190-000 ' . • -
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
to west are designated as lying within the 100 -year flood plain. Base flood elevations and hazard
factors have not been established for these areas (Federal Emergency Management Agency,
2023). A floodplain map can be found in Figure 2-5 and FIRM maps are provided in Appendix A.
Wetlands were delineated by the National Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service,
2023). Wetlands located within the area of potential effect include Freshwater emergent wetland,
freshwater forested/shrub wetland, freshwater pond, Lake, and riverine. Figure 2-6 shows a map
of the wetlands located within the area of potential effect.
2.2.9 Wild & Scenic Rivers
The Wild & Scenic Rivers Act enacted by Congress on October 2, 1968 states that certain
selected rivers of the Nation which, with their immediate environments, possess outstanding
remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar
values, shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate
environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations
(U.S. Congress, 1968).
None of the nearby rivers, including the Portneuf River, Snake River, nor any of their tributaries,
are listed as Wild and Scenic Rivers (National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, 2023).
2.2.10 Public Health & Water Quality Considerations
If no action is taken to secure the City's future potable water supply public health will be at risk
during peak demand periods due to insufficient water supply and storage to reliably meet the
projected peak water demands. New wells should be located outside of existing groundwater
contamination zones to reduce exposure to known contaminants and reduce the cost associated
with water treatment. Disinfection capabilities should be included for all new water sources
developed.
2.2.11 Important Farmlands Protection
Prime farmland, is defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as:
"Land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics
for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops and is available for
these uses. It could be cultivated land, pastureland, forestland, or other land,
but it is not urban, built-up land, or water areas."'
Prime farmland is of major importance in meeting the Nation's short- and long-term needs for food
and fiber. Because the supply of high-quality farmland is limited, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture recognizes that responsible governments, as well as individuals, should encourage
and facilitate the wise use of the Nation's prime farmland (U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 2023).
A majority of the land in the Chubbuck planning area is classified as prime farmland if irrigated or
farmland of statewide importance by the National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
(USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, 2023).
Over time prime farmland within the City has been developed, and a majority of the remaining
prime farmland is located on the north and east portions of the planning area. Water system
improvements could have an impact on prime farmland due to increased residential development
(USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, 2023)
222190-000
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
in these areas. Additional information regarding prime farmland, including a map identifying areas
of prime farmland near the PPPA, can be found in Appendix A.
2.2.12 Proximity to a Sole Source Aquifer
A sole source aquifer is defined by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality as:
"...an aquifer that has been designated by EPA as the sole or principal source
of drinking water for an area. As such, a designated sole source aquifer
receives special protection. EPA designates an aquifer as a sole source
based upon a petition from an individual, company, association, or
government entity. Three of Idaho's aquifers — the Eastern Snake River Plain
Aquifer, the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer, and the Lewiston Basin
Aquifer — are classified as sole source aquifers. "2
Chubbuck and the planning area sit on the southern extent of the Eastern Snake River Plain
Aquifer (ESRPA). The Snake River Aquifer is considered a sole source aquifer. Approximately
67% of the aquifer recharge occurs from infiltration of surface water diverted from the Snake River
for irrigation. Additionally much of the precipitation that falls on the Snake River Plain quickly
infiltrates due to openings in the Pliocene and basaltic rocks. Water within the aquifer flows in a
southwesterly direction until it is discharged from springs on the north side of American Falls
Reservoir and Thousand Springs, near Twin Falls (Whitehead, 1994).
2.2.13 Climate
The closest weather station to Chubbuck is located in Pocatello, Idaho. Climate data for Pocatello
is found in Table 2-3. The coldest month of the year is typically January with an average maximum
temperature of 32.5 degrees F and minimum temperature of 15.1 degrees F. The warmest month
of the year occurs in July with an average maximum temperature of 88.5 degrees and a minimum
average temperature of 53.2 degrees F. Precipitation averages 11.59 inches per year, which
includes the snow water equivalent for the annual snowfall of 39.8 inches (Western Regional
Climate Center, 2023).
2 (Idaho Dept. of Environmental Quality, 2023)
222190-000 ' . • -
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
Table 2-3 Climate Data for Pocatello, Idaho
Month
Average
Maximum
Temp (
32.5
Average
Minimum
I Temp (*F)
15.1
Average Total
Precipitation
(inches)
1.08
Average Total
Snowfall
(inches)
9.1
January
February
38.2
19.8
0.9
6.5
March
47.6
26.3
1.17
5.4
April
58.1
32.8
1.12
3.4
May
68.1
40.2
1.34
0.4
June
77.5
46.8
1.05
0
July
88.5
53.2
0.53
0
August
87
51.5
0.59
0
September
76
42.6
0.78
0.1
October
62.3
33.6
0.92
1.8
November
45.3
24.7
1.05
4.7
December
34.8
17.4
1.07
8.6
Annual
59.7
33.7
11.59
39.8
2.2.14 Air Quality & Noise
Idaho is among the states that have primacy authority designated from the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue air quality permits and enforce air quality
regulations. Idaho DEQ's air quality programs are designed to encourage compliance with federal
and state health -based air quality regulations. The Clean Air Act of 1970 identified six common
air pollutants of concern, called "criteria pollutants." These criteria pollutants are carbon
monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. Fugitive dust is
also closely regulated as it contributes to particulate matter.
The City of Chubbuck lies within the identified Portneuf Valley Maintenance Area for PM,o as
identified in Figure 2-9 (IDEQ, 2023). There are no anticipated long-term adverse impacts to air
quality or noise levels from any proposed improvements; however, proposed improvements may
have a temporary local impact on both noise and air quality (dust) due to construction activities.
Best Management Practices during construction can mitigate adverse impacts.
Any pump motors within the project will meet federal and state emission standards contained in
the air quality state implementation plan and will not violate national ambient air quality standards
in the attainment area. The motors for the booster station and wells will be housed inside of
buildings, which help to significantly reduce the amount of noise heard by surrounding neighbors.
Emergency generators will also meet the minimum standard requirements for emissions and
noise.
2.3 SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE/POPULATION STATISTICS
Based on most recent (2020) census data, about 95.5% of Chubbuck's population 25 years old
and over have graduated from high school or higher (compared to 91.3% for the State overall)
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2024). The median household income in Chubbuck was $65,619 compared
222190-000 ' . • -
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
to the state average of $66,474. About 8.6% of the people were below the poverty level, lower
than both Idaho at 11.0% and the US average of 12.8%.
The population of Chubbuck from the 2020 Census was 15,570 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2024).
Dominant industries for employment in Chubbuck are educational services and health care and
social assistance at 24.5% and other services, except public administration at 10.2%. 13.1 %of
the population was over the age of 65 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2024).
Because increasing populations will largely drive the need for further investment into additional
water infrastructure, population projections will be used to develop possible demand scenarios
upon which to base recommendations. Population projections based on the 2.5% annual growth
rate requested by City Planners are shown in Table 2-4. The planned growth rate of 2.5% is an
assumed value and should be monitored over time.
Table 2-4 Projected Population at 2.5% Annual Growth
2020
PopulationYear
15,570
4,607
2023
16,767
4,961
2025
17,616
5,212
2030
19,931
5,897
2035
22,550
6,672
2040
25,513
7,548
2045
28,866
8,540
Based on a 2.5% growth rate, the City population would increase by approximately 11,000 people
over the next 20 years. This population estimate can vary if a large number of commercial or
industrial users are added into the City's system. Commercial/industrial users often have an
increased demand potential and one building may demand the equivalent of several typical
residential homes in Chubbuck. Therefore, it is important to monitor what types of users are being
added into the City's system. The additional equivalent usage rate can be tracked by using EDU's
as shown in Table 2-4.
Because the Chubbuck water system is currently comprised of two pressure zones, the population
of each zone must be analyzed. A majority of the growth which has historically occurred within
Chubbuck has been to the west and north as well as minor infilling at various locations within the
City. With the construction of the Northgate Interchange, it is anticipated that growth will
accelerate within the Eastern Bench Area.
City planners requested that 40% of the anticipated growth over the next 20 years be attributed
to growth within the bench area. Based on this growth breakdown, the respective increases in
population within the respective pressure zones are provided in Table 2-5 and Figure 2-2.
3 Based on Census Families and Household Characteristics average family size value of 3.38.
222190-000 ' . • -
City of Chubbuck
Water Facilities Planning Study
Table 2-5 Historical & Projected Population of Chubbuck
Year 2.5%
Growth
1970 2,924
Main City
2,485
Bench
439
1980 7,052
5,994
1,058
1990 7,791
6,622
1,169
2000 9,700
8,245
1,455
2010 13,922
1Z422
1,500
2020 15,570
13,411
2,159
2023 16,767
14,129
2,638
2030 19,931
16,027
3,904
2040 25,513
19,377
6,137
2043 27,475
20,554
6,921
2050 3Z659
23,664
8,995
2060 41,806
29,153
12,654
2063 45,021
31,081
13,940
2070 53,516
36,178
17,338
KELLER
60,000
50,000
40,000
c
0
30,000
CL
0
a-
20,000 20,000
10,000
0
1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 2070
Year
Historical Population 2.5% Growth Main City Bench Zone
Figure 2-2 Historical & Projected Population of Chubbuck Idaho
222190-000 ' . • -
J.
a
E
7
O
0
R
_-4
hac 40
low-
Reservation Rd.
i
F
77
Miles
0 0.5 1 2
KELLER
y
w.
t' m .
44ff 1 $ ,.
■ . I . I . � I . I . I . I . I . I . I r ' •
_ � I
il.l.l.l.l.l.�• __
■
■ I I I I �
S.I. I.I VI.A/.li r I. I.I .I■
■+ll�+�+� il.l.l� ,rl.l.l.l.l■
AT
■ ■ ■
■g' •a'' .I.Irlrl.lrlrl.lrlr
■Ir
.IN
■ .I�
■
0
_■ .'
■
■
r 17
■
Proposed Project Planning Area
Chubbuck Water Facility Planning Study
JillinIMIr
Legend
■�■ City Limits
0 2022 Proposed Project
Planning Area
State Highways
440'f'_\
CHUBBUCK
1 0 0 H 0
Figure 2-3
City of Chubbuck
F
E
n
U
O
0
3 1.
•i
4,
Ism
II 1
ONU
Miles
0 0.5 1 2
KELLER
Chubbuck Area Soils
Chubbuck Water Facility Planning Study
91
itill. I.I .1.1�
i
•
•
!NI.1.1 ELM LMI - I. f .......
-•
r�
�h�/Iihfh�
i I.I.I �At
2
2
,
2
�Awl
• . �
�'r./� •.1.1.1.1. / . I . I .1.1.1.
Legend
, I . I . I . I min
1 - �
�+� ;
■- City Limits
E
Pocatello silt loam
. A
_ _ _�_
h_■
2022 Proposed Project
E
Broncho gravelly loam
Planning Area
Delco loam
State Highways
CPaniogue
loam
Soil Map Unit Description
• • I=
loam
Urban land-bahem-
broxon complex
C
gravelly
Parehat silt loam
CPenoyer
silt loam
kill M
Broncho cobbly loam
C
Snake silt loam
- -
Broxon silt loam
Tickason loam
r
McDole variant complex
Water
Bahem silt loam
C
Wheeler silt loam
Source: RIOT GeoE e,
Miles
0 0.5 1 2
KELLER
Chubbuck Area Soils
Chubbuck Water Facility Planning Study
91
itill. I.I .1.1�
lao,t--\
CHUBBUCK
10080
Figure 2-4
City of Chubbuck
i
•
!NI.1.1 ELM LMI - I. f .......
-•
�h�/Iihfh�
i I.I.I �At
2
2
,
2
�Awl
• . �
�'r./� •.1.1.1.1. / . I . I .1.1.1.
Legend
1 - �
�+� ;
■- City Limits
E
Pocatello silt loam
. A
_ _ _�_
2022 Proposed Project
E
Broncho gravelly loam
Planning Area
Delco loam
State Highways
CPaniogue
loam
Soil Map Unit Description
CPaniogue
loam
Urban land-bahem-
broxon complex
C
gravelly
Parehat silt loam
CPenoyer
silt loam
Broncho cobbly loam
C
Snake silt loam
- -
Broxon silt loam
Tickason loam
r
McDole variant complex
Water
Bahem silt loam
C
Wheeler silt loam
Source: RIOT GeoE e,
star Ge Pits, gravel
lao,t--\
CHUBBUCK
10080
Figure 2-4
City of Chubbuck
E
U
O
0
1
w
IY�IAAII
N
N
LTihee R'd�
Miles
0 0.5 1 2
KELLER
Floodplains
Chubbuck Water Facility Planning Study
IMJMIMIIM
Legend
rl - I - I - I - I ■
City Limits
2022 Proposed Project
Planning Area
1
State Highways
FEMA Flood Zones
Zone A - Areas of 100 -year
SoiarseaEsri�Maxar, GeoE "e, E -a hsta Gec flood
1i i_._�Y4 t ri
lao't-\
CHUBBUCK
10080
Figure 2-5
City of Chubbuck
A
VC
Reser
M- k -W111%
fiee Rd.
mow• • J.I .I.I
r
WIN
- �F � . , � � ■ -. I . I . I tttti
I
1 ti ■
1 ■
I.i�i ` ■
IM
r � ,
Miles
0.5 1 2
KELLER
Wetlands
Chubbuck Water Facility Planning Study
Awl
_ PAA.
1
.I.I.I YI Lwl.l.
f I.I. I. Ir
Ilk
2
'
IN
■
■
ti I. I. I. I. I. 1
SII/If II �11�
i I.I.I or,.
A.I .1.1.1■
.I. I.I.It 1
i ■ �
2
!�,1 �I
1
Elm
.I.I.I YI Lwl.l.
f I.I. I. Ir
Ilk
2
'
IN
SII/If II �11�
i I.I.I or,.
A.I .1.1.1■
2
!�,1 �I
t� ■I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I.
Elm
Ilk
2
'
IN
SOU
lao,t--\
CHUBBUCK
10080
Legend
' ! City Limits
2022 Proposed Project Planning Area
State Highways
Wetland Type
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Lake
Riverine
Figure 2-6
City of Chubbuck
..
c-110116 46L
�, N
4-11
if L
E
U
0
0
r�
'�+``*,...•�� 'ter, . . ; .
N '
-",MIMI or
Chubbuco,
..z
Miles
0 0.5 1 2
KELLER
Zoning
WittFAA,
2
L
i
all so
E
U
0
0
r�
'�+``*,...•�� 'ter, . . ; .
N '
-",MIMI or
Chubbuco,
..z
Miles
0 0.5 1 2
KELLER
Zoning
WittFAA,
2
■I.
.IN 2
2 �
!.
City of Chubbuck GISCity of Chuk
AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS Use
Chubbuck Water Facility Planning Study
Legend
I . .-
Cit Limits
IL y
2022 Proposed Project
Planning Area
State Highways
Zoning
Agriculture (A)
Single Family Residential
(R-1)
Limited Residential (R-2)
Limited Residential - P (R -
2P)
Dense Residential (R-4)
Limited Commercial (C-1)
440'f'-\
CHUBBUCK
1OAH0
General Commercial (C-2)
Industrial (1)
Planned Unit Development
(PUD)
Creative Community
Creative Community -
Northside Crossing (CC -
NC)
Creative Community -
Harvest Springs (CC -HS)
County
Highway Cooridor (HC)
Village (V)
Figure 2-7
City of Chubbuck
i
all so
■I.
.IN 2
2 �
!.
City of Chubbuck GISCity of Chuk
AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS Use
Chubbuck Water Facility Planning Study
Legend
I . .-
Cit Limits
IL y
2022 Proposed Project
Planning Area
State Highways
Zoning
Agriculture (A)
Single Family Residential
(R-1)
Limited Residential (R-2)
Limited Residential - P (R -
2P)
Dense Residential (R-4)
Limited Commercial (C-1)
440'f'-\
CHUBBUCK
1OAH0
General Commercial (C-2)
Industrial (1)
Planned Unit Development
(PUD)
Creative Community
Creative Community -
Northside Crossing (CC -
NC)
Creative Community -
Harvest Springs (CC -HS)
County
Highway Cooridor (HC)
Village (V)
Figure 2-7
City of Chubbuck
1
w
-01 in ;2.
E
U
0
0
Z
a
F
r' L V"
114
—za .
Miles
0 0.5 1 2
KELLER
Reservation Rd.
_ ,VAN
-t iii}��� r
r ` �
City of Chubbuck GISCity of Chuk
AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS Use
Land Use
Chubbuck Water Facility Planning Study
lao,4-\
CHUBBUCK
10080
Legend
City Limits
2022 Proposed Project Planning Area
State Highways
Landuse
Residential
Commercial
Civic (and utilities)
Industrial
Agriculture
Vacant, approved for development
;ar„ uesorE,e, E Vacant, undeveloped
Figure 2-8
City of Chubbuck
City of Chubbuck
Water Facilities Planning Study
KELLER
Administrative Boundaries for Areas with Sensitive Air Quality
Thompson
U
Plateau
-
-
Medicine Hat
Kelowna
=
Lethbridge
p Cabinet
,LfounYarrs Learis Range
Srkane
o
Washington
c�
' O
Montana
G
Helena
d-
o
Kennewick
N
€3illings
Bruer el
Ra
gIac
f
Mountains
---
--- a': --------
�
:s6saroka
9''P
ldaho
Range
0
Oregon
BOISE
n�
y
h
Harney
0
_
Wyoming
Basin !
r
r
r
-------------------------
N
Salt Lake City
-
�c
O
Carson City
Great Basin
Utah
o
9/30/2022 1:9,244,649
D 55 11D
Maintenance Areas Tribal Lands
PM Advance Areas = DEQ Regional offices 0 87-5 175
Areas of Concern Counties
EM, HERE, G -1n, FAD, Napa, U3GS, EPA, Evi, USGS
Figure 2-9 Administrative Boundaries for Areas with Sensitive Air Qualii
4 (Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, 2022)
220 mi
q
350 km
222190-000 ' . • -
City of Chubbuck
Water Facilities Planning Study
KELLER
CHAPTER 3 EXISTING FACILITIES CONDITION & EVALUATION
This chapter summarizes the current condition of the City of Chubbuck's drinking water system.
Regulatory requirements are presented in the sections to which they pertain. Idaho DEQ sets
rules "to control and regulate the design, construction, operation, maintenance, and quality control
of public drinking water systems to provide a degree of assurance that such systems are protected
from contamination and maintained free from contaminants which may injure the health of the
consumer" (Idaho Dept. of Environmental Quality, 2023).
3.1 SYSTEM HISTORY
Residents of Chubbuck receive domestic potable water from a community -wide water system.
The original distribution system was installed in the 1940's and is currently comprised of
approximately 86 miles of pipe. A significant portion of the distribution system pipe material is
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe, ductile- and cast-iron, and concrete pipe. The majority of the
distribution pipe is six to twelve -inch pipe with sixteen -inch to twenty -four -inch transmission lines.
Four wells pump directly into the distribution system. Well #6 feeds directly into a storage tank.
The wells in the City system were installed periodically from 1956 to the most recent well in 2017.
All well pumps in the water system are operated based on the storage tank levels.
The City currently operates four storage tanks. The two steel storage tanks were constructed in
1949, and 1960. After this, concrete tanks were constructed in 1977 and 2016. The Bench and
Hiline Booster Stations operate based on local system pressure on the Bench. The Well #6
Booster Station operates based on tank levels at the Hill Tank Farm. The Bench Booster Station
was constructed in 2003, followed by the Well #6 Booster Station in 2018, and finally the Hiline
Booster Station in 2019.
The City of Chubbuck supplies domestic water to its residents from five active groundwater wells.
Currently, there are approximately 4,882 residential, commercial, and business connections.
Water connections within the City are metered. Monthly water service rates in FY 2025 include a
minimum base charge based on meter size with up to 1 -inch connections charged $30.57, a
volumetric charge of $1.47 per one thousand gallons (Chubbuck, 2024).
Several upgrades to the Chubbuck water system have been completed in recent years. Well #2
was rehabilitated from its original 1996 condition in 2016. Shortly after, the Well #6 complex was
constructed in 2017. The Well #6 complex includes a 2,200 gpm Well #6, a 1.5 -million -gallon
concrete storage tank, and a 4,200 gpm booster station. The facility was also designed to
accommodate future public access in order to encourage water conservation within the
community. The 2017 project also included improvements to the distribution system and upgrades
to improve fire flows. Finally, the most recent addition is the Hiline Booster Station was
constructed in 2019 with a capacity of 4,400 gpm to supplement system pressures in the Bench
Pressure Zone.
3.2 WATER RESOURCES ANALYSIS
Water systems tend to experience both daily and seasonal variations in water demand due to
daily usage patterns and outdoor irrigation demands. The greatest water consumption in
Chubbuck occurs during the summer months in the morning and evening hours, while the lowest
consumption occurs in the winter and at night. Due to the variability in water demand, demand
scenarios must be established to evaluate water system requirements.
222190-000
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
Peak Hour Demand (PHD) is used to represent the largest single demand on a given water
system in a single hour during the year. Similarly, Maximum Day Demand (MDD) and Average
Day Demand (ADD) represent the maximum daily use and average daily use respectively; and
must also be considered in water system design. Demand data recorded between January 2018
and December 2022 was considered to establish demand scenarios. Ultimately Peak Hour
Demand and Maximum Day Demand were determined using data recorded during the month of
July 2021 as this represented the highest demand period within the data record.
3.2.1 Water Production and Consumption
The City of Chubbuck meters all water services except for parks. Water demand in the winter
months is generally a function of indoor uses that are controlled by the end user. Summer demand
includes indoor uses plus the outdoor uses including landscape irrigation. Water usage as
calculated from well pumping data is approximate since it does not account for potential water
leaks in the system.
Current water usage within the City of Chubbuck can be estimated using data collected at each
well, tank, and booster station. Well production data from January 2018 through December 2022
was reviewed and is presented in Figure 3-1. The maximum water production occurred in 2021
and totaled to about 1.22 billion gallons, which is more than has ever been pumped in the City.
The average annual production during the years of 2018 and 2022 is about 1.12 billion gallons.
Water consumption in gallons per capita day (GPCD) is illustrated in Figure 3-2.
1,400
1,200
� 1,000
C:
0
+� 800
u
0
0
a 600
0
400
Q
M
0
2018
2019 2020 2021
2022
Figure 3-1 Chubbuck Annual Water Usage
■ Well 6
■ Well 5
■ Well 4
■ Well 3
■ Well 2
222190-000 ' . • - •
600
500
U
Oz 400
C:
'p 300
a
E
C- 200
0
U
100
City of Chubbuck
Water Facilities Planning Study
KELLER
00 00 00 00 00 N 01 01 N O O O O -1 -1 -1 -1 N N N N
ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci ci N N N N N N N N N N N N
C C Q U C: Q U C: Q U C: Q U Q U
c0 Q- 7 cuv ns 7 Ol O) ns 7 cu O) 7 (U 7 0)
Q V) V') o V) o U) o Ln o
Fiaure 3-2 Chubbuck Monthly Water Consumption (January 2018 — December 2022)
Total consumption varied by 174 million gallons per year from 2018 to 2022. The highest
consumption values were measured in July of 2021 and appeared to occur due to the especially
hot and dry summer as summer 2021 consumption was marginally higher than previous years.
The lower valleys in the figure above occur during winter months and are relatively consistent
year to year.
3.2.2 Existing Water Demand
As discussed previously, water demand can be divided into winter demand and summer demand.
As is shown in Figure 3-2, seasonal demands in Chubbuck are significantly different. Winter
demand is considered a function of indoor use only (base demand), while summer demand is
considered to be base demand plus the additional demand created by outside water use and
irrigation. Data from the wintertime months of November through February of 2021 and 2022 was
used to represent wintertime demands because of the higher wintertime production compared to
other years as described above. For the period considered, wintertime demand was 81 gpcd, or
approximately 906 gpm. Gpcd is calculated using total production of water pumped from all of the
Wells combined, divided by the population, and does not differentiate between water users.
Using the highest production water year of 2021, the ADD was 3.3 MGD or approximately 209
gpcd. The average ADD for the years 2018-2022 was 3.07 MGD or approximately 196 gpcd.
Based on the highest usage day on July 7th, 2021, the MDD was determined to be approximately
530 gpcd (5,887 gpm) and the PHD is 1,094 gpcd (12,157 gpm). For the use within the study, the
highest day usage for MDD and PHD and the highest production year are used to determine the
ADD to be conservative. This provides a basis that the City will be able to provide water as
demanded by its residents even in an abnormally dry year, but does not reflect the City's average
MDD, PHD, or ADD over a period of years. Table 3-1 provides a summary of the existing demands
experienced by the City of Chubbuck. Anticipated future demands are discussed in Section 4.3
of this report.
To provide context for these reported demands, the ADD in the United States and the State of
Idaho are 82 gpcd and 186 gpcd, respectively (USGS, 2024). The United States and Idaho ADD
was averaged for the year of 2015 and calculated by public -supply withdrawal. A more recent
222190-000
City of Chubbuck KELLER k
Water Facilities Planning Study
ADD was not determined by the time of this study. When comparing the ADD of Chubbuck to that
of the rest of the State of Idaho and the United States, the 5 -year ADD of Chubbuck is about 5%
greater than the rest of the State of Idaho, and about two and a half times higher than the average
value for the United States.
The higher demands can be a result of higher -than -normal outdoor water use by City residents
potentially due to larger lots and drier conditions than is found elsewhere in Idaho and the United
States.
Table 3-1 Existing Demands Summa
Criteria
GPCD
Dernandd
Factor
Avg. Annual Day Demand
3,340,702
2,320
209
1.00
Avg. Winter Day Demand
1,304,408
906
81
0.39
Avg. Summer Day Demand
6,860,900
4,765
429
2.05
Maximum Day Demand
8,477,795
5,887
530
2.54
Peak Hour Demand
-
12,157
1,094
5.24
A diurnal curve can be used to visually describe the demands experienced by a community over
the course of any given day. Diurnal curves are particularly useful in visualizing the time
dependent nature of demands during a maximum demand day to compare the largest demands
faced by a community to the current ability to meet those demands. A diurnal curve from the MDD,
July 7t" 2021, is provided in Figure 3-3. The blue shaded area under the PHD and above firm
capacity represents the required storage to meet the PHD with the pumps running at firm capacity.
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
W
4,000
2,000
12,000,000
10,500,000 -ofOo
c
9,000,000 g
.Q
7,500,000 E
6,000,000 0
4,500,000 avi
3,000,000 a
1,500,000 E
v
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
'll 1.7.1�.1a?.1st 1S 1G cP.19.1111.1�.1a?.1st1cP.19.11 1.7
�0, OD O0 OD O0 O0 O0 OL OD O0 -0 -0, -0 Q0AQ0AQ0AQ0AQ0AQ0AQ0AQ0 0 0O -0
System Demand (gpm)
Firm Capacity (8,020 gpm)
Cummulative Consumption (gal)
Bench Zone Demand (gpm)
Max Day Demand (5,887 gpm)
Figure 3-3 Diurnal Curve (July 7', 2021
222190-000 ' . • -
City of Chubbuck
Water Facilities Planning Study
KELLER
3.2.3 Water Rights
Water rights held by the City of Chubbuck are summarized in Table 3-2. Appendix B contains
more information regarding these water rights.
Table 3-2 Water Riahts
ater Right
Use
ConditionsDiversion
Date Rate
(CFS)
Diversion
Rate (gpm)
Tota '
Volumej
29-2385
Municipal
-
1/1-12/31
0.78
350.06
NA
29-2413
Municipal
-
1/1-12/31
1.10
493.68
NA
29-2469
Municipal
-
1/1-12/31
1.11
498.17
NA
29-7624
Municipal
-
1/1-12/31
4.96
2226.05
NA
29-8188
Municipal
-
1/1-12/31
6.70
3006.96
NA
29-8229
Municipal
-
1/1-12/31
1.74
780.91
NA
29-8230
Municipal
-
1/1-12/31
2.21
991.85
NA
29-14012
Municipal
Irrigation
4/1-10/31
1.83
821.30
488.80
29-14013
Municipal
Irrigation
4/1-10/31
2.25
1009.80
651.20
29-14016
Municipal
Irrigation
4/1S -10/1S
1.76
789.89
449.20
29-14016
Mitigation
Irrigation
4/1S -10/1S
0.13
58.34
33.80
29-14054
Municipal
Irrigation
4/1-10/31
1.47
659.74
491.60
29-14055
Municipal
Irrigation
4/1-10/31
0.13
58.34
26.40
29-14056
Municipal
Irrigation
S/1-10/is
0.09
40.39
18.80
29-14058
Municipal
Irrigation
4/1-10/31
0.05
22.44
16.00
29-14080
Municipal
Irrigation
4/1-10/31
0.27
119.38
87.60
29-14081
Municipal
Irrigation
4/1-10/31
0.03
11.22
4.40
29-14082
Municipal
Irrigation
S/1-10/15
0.02
8.08
3.60
29-14096
Municipal
Irrigation
4/1-10/31
0.21
94.25
83.20
29-14097
Municipal
Irrigation
4/1-10/31
0.02
8.98
8.80
29-14099
Municipal
Irrigation
4/1-10/31
2.52
1130.98
462.00
29-14106
Municipal
Irrigation
4/1-10/31
0.93
417.38
186.40
29-14107
Municipal
Irrigation
4/1-10/31
0.61
273.77
121.60
The City currently holds a total of 30.9 cfs (13,872 gpm) of usable water rights for the water
system. The City holds 12.3 cfs (5,524 gpm) of water rights that have use dates from April 1St to
October 31St for use during the irrigation season. Of the total water rights 18.6 cfs (8,348 gpm)
are usable year round. Water right transfers have consolidated all of these rights for diversion
from any of the City's five existing well locations and for point of use defined as the City's water
service area.
3.3 WATER QUALITY AND CAPACITY
3.3.1 Water Quality Criteria
Water quality standards for the City of Chubbuck are based on the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) which includes primary standards (legally
enforceable) and secondary standards (not legally enforceable). Primary standards are designed
222190-000 ' . • - •
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
to protect public health while secondary standards regulate aesthetic qualities that pose no public
health issue such as taste, color, and odor. Primary standards exist for microorganisms,
disinfectants, disinfection byproducts, inorganic chemicals, organic chemicals, and radionuclides
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2023). Drinking water quality test results are included in
Appendix C.
In association with the SDWA the EPA has developed rules to further address water quality. The
following drinking water rules are considered priority rulemakings by the EPA. A brief overview of
rules which are applicable to this study is provided below; however, it should be noted that these
summaries contain only an outline of the associated rule and should in no way be considered
authoritative. For additional information, please consult the EPA's Current Drinking Water
Regulations page (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2023).
Ground Water Rule
The purpose of the Ground Water Rule is to reduce the risk of illness caused by microbial
contamination in public groundwater systems. Viral and bacterial pathogens are found in fecal
matter which can be introduced to ground water sources from leaking septic systems, leaking
sewer systems, and potentially through open flow paths in the ground. This rule addresses risk
through a risk -targeting approach using four components. These components are:
Periodic sanitary surveys
Source water monitoring
Corrective actions
Compliance monitoring
Total Coliform Rule
This rule was established in 1989 to protect public health by reducing fecal pathogens to minimal
levels through control of total coliform bacteria, including fecal coliform and E. coli (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2023). Sources of these organisms include sewage and animal
waste. Sampling requirements are based on the population served by the utility.
Nitrate Rule
The Phase II Rule, the regulation for nitrate, became effective in 1992. The MCL for nitrate is 10
mg/L or 10 ppm. Nitrate itself is reasonably non-toxic and primarily used as fertilizer for agriculture.
However, when nitrates are ingested, the resultant biochemical reactions reduce the bloods ability
to oxygenate and decrease the transportation of oxygen throughout the body. This condition is
known as methemoglobinemia. Ingestion of nitrates is especially harmful to infants. (Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 2017) Infants below six (6) months of age who drink
water containing nitrate in excess of the MCL could become seriously ill and, if untreated, may
die. Symptoms include shortness of breath and blue baby syndrome. (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 2023).
Arsenic Rule
Long-term exposure to arsenic in drinking water has been linked to cancer of the bladder, lungs,
skin, kidneys, nasal passages, liver, and prostate. Other effects of ingesting arsenic include
cardiovascular, pulmonary, immunological, neurological, and endocrine effects (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2023). The Arsenic Rule was published in January 2001 and
changed the MCL from 50 ppb to 10 ppb (-0.01 mg/L).
222190-000 ' . • -
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
Disinfectants are used to inactivate many potentially harmful microorganisms, but they may also
react with natural organic and inorganic material in drinking water, forming disinfection byproducts
(DBP's). Some DBP's, such as the trihalomethane chloroform, have been shown to be
carcinogenic and cause reproductive and developmental effects in laboratory animals. The Stage
1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproduct Rule was promulgated in December 1998 and
establishes maximum residual disinfectant levels (MRDL) and MCL's for disinfection byproducts.
Additionally, this rule addresses removal of total organic carbon (TOC) to minimize the production
of DBP's. The Stage 2 Disinfectant and Disinfection Byproducts Rule was promulgated in
December 2005 and focuses on decreasing DBP concentration peaks in the transmission and
distribution system.
Radionuclide Rule
The Radionuclide Rule was promulgated in December 2000 to address exposure to radionuclides
found in drinking water. This rule retains existing MCL's for combined radium -226 and radium -
228, gross alpha particle radioactivity, and beta particle and photon activity; and establishes an
MCL for uranium. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2023). The purpose of this rule is to
reduce exposure to radionuclides in drinking water due to the increased risk of cancer from
exposure.
Nuisance Contaminants
Some of the nuisance contaminants found in municipal water systems are hydrogen sulfide,
ammonia, iron, and manganese. Where applicable, these contaminants have been compared to
the National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations as set by the EPA. These are non -
enforceable guidelines regulating aesthetic water quality parameters. The EPA does not have
suggested guidelines for hydrogen sulfide and ammonia.
The presence of hydrogen sulfide adversely affects the smell and taste of the water. Hydrogen
sulfide causes the "rotten egg" taste and odor problems commonly encountered in many wells in
the area. At concentrations of 1 mg/L, hydrogen sulfide may tarnish some metals and leave black
stains on laundry and porcelain fixtures.
Ammonia is found naturally in groundwater supplies or as a result of agricultural and industrial
processes. According to the studies performed by the World Health Organization, natural levels
of ammonia are usually below 0.2 mg/L in groundwater. Typically, ammonia has no other impact
than to the taste and smell of drinking water. Toxic effects from ammonia do not become an issue
until concentrations of 200 mg/kg of body weight are reached.
Iron naturally occurs in drinking water and is typically found in concentrations ranging from 0.5
mg/L to 50 mg/L depending on the geologic characteristics of the area. Excessive iron in drinking
water can cause discoloration and taste problems.
Manganese is a metal found naturally in ground and surface water supplies at concentrations
ranging from 1 lag/L to 10 mg/L. Its presence in drinking water is not considered a health risk, but
it can lead to discoloration and precipitate deposition on water fixtures. Iron and Manganese are
responsible for the "hard" taste in many waters and can be treated by adding polyphosphate when
iron and manganese levels are low to moderate.
A chlorine residual of 0.2 mg/L in a water distribution system can be used to eliminate the growth
of bacteria and other contaminants throughout the distribution system. Chlorination is also used
222190-000 NE$
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
to oxidize constituents such as hydrogen sulfide which causes "rotten egg" taste and odor
problems as well as iron and manganese.
Lead and Copper Rule
The Lead and Copper Rule, originally published by the US EPA in 1991 significantly modified the
manner in which public water systems monitored and treated for lead and copper in drinking
water. The rule also required water utilities to take actions if greater than 10% of customer taps
sampled identified levels of lead and copper greater than the allowable limit. The Rule has gone
through various minor revisions since it was originally passed in 1991, and a major revision was
released in 2021. While the action levels associated with the Lead and Copper Rule remained
unchanged in the 2021 Revisions, a majority of the changes regard the manner in which lead and
copper issues are identified and addressed by public water systems. One requirement from the
revisions is that cities are required to complete a lead service line inventory of the service lines
within the system by October 2024. A summary of the action levels is provided below and
summary overview with the summarized changes table from the rule itself and funding and
technical resources is provided in Appendix C (Environmental Protection Agency, 2023).
The lead action level is exceeded if the concentration of lead in more than 10 percent of
the tap water samples collected during any period is greater than 0.015 mg/L (i.e., if the
"90th percentile" lead level is greater than 0.015 mg/L).
The copper action level is exceeded if the concentration of copper in more than 10 percent
of the tap water samples collected during any period is greater than 1.3 mg/L (i.e., if the
"90th percentile" copper level is greater than 1.3 mg/L).
3.3.2 Water Quality Monitoring Program
The City of Chubbuck routinely monitors the quality of water produced by City wells. The City also
monitors conditions within the distribution system with six monthly samples for total coliform,
Stage 2 Disinfection Byproducts yearly, and thirty samples for lead and copper analysis taken
every three years (Idaho DEQ, 2023). Each drinking water source is monitored for specific
compounds and at the frequencies established by Idaho DEQ. Table 3-3 below provides a
summary of sampling type and frequency. The 2024 monitoring schedule report is provided in
Appendix C.
222190-000 ' . • -
City of Chubbuck
Water Facilities Planning Study
Table 3-3 Monitoring Requirements
KELLER
Source
Frequency
��Gonstitu—en���
Yearly
Nitrate, Volatile Organic Chemicals
(VOCs)
Every Three Years
Arsenic, Sodium, Phase 2 & 5
Inorganic Chemicals (IOCs)
Well #2
Every Six Years
Radium 226, Radium 228, Uranium,
Gross Alpha
Every Nine Years
Nitrite
Yearly
Nitrate, Volatile Organic Chemicals
(VOCs)
Every Three Years
Sodium
Every Six Years
Uranium, Gross Alpha
Well #3
Radium 226, Radium 228, Arsenic,
Every Nine Years
Fluoride, Phase 2 & 5 Inorganic
Chemicals (IOCs), Nitrite
Yearly
Nitrate, Volatile Organic Chemicals
(VOCs)
Every Three Years
Sodium
Every Six Years
Uranium, Gross Alpha
Well #4
Radium 226, Radium 228, Arsenic,
Every Nine Years
Fluoride, Phase 2 & 5 Inorganic
Chemicals (IOCs), Nitrite
Every Quarter
Nitrate
Yearly
Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOCs)
Every Three Years
Gross Alpha, Sodium, Uranium
Well #5
Every Six Years
Radium 226, Radium 228,
Every Nine Years
Arsenic, Fluoride, Phase 2 & 5
Inorganic Chemicals (IOCs), Nitrite
Yearly
Nitrate, Volatile Organic Chemicals
VOCs
Nitrite, Fluoride, Phase 2 & 5
Well #6
Every Three Years
Inorganic Chemicals (IOCs), Sodium,
Arsenic
Every Six Years
Radium 226, Radium 228, Uranium,
Gross Alpha
Fifteen Per Month
Coliform
Distribution System
Four Per Year
DBP2-Stage 2
120 Per Year
Lead Copper
222190-000 ' . • -
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
3.3.3 Groundwater Quality and Capacity
The capacity of a water supply is a function of the water source and water rights held by the water
supplier. Water withdrawal from the source is governed by either the quantity of available water,
or the limits placed upon the user by the associated water right. Under Idaho water law, a water
right must be put to beneficial use or a portion up to 100% of the right can be lost (Idaho
Department of Water Resources, 2023).
The City of Chubbuck domestic water supply comes from five actively used groundwater wells
located within the City. The City owns one well (Well #1) which is not currently used. All of the
wells draw water from the Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer, but the City of Chubbuck is situated
near the confluence of the Lower Portneuf River Valley Aquifer. It is understood that the Eastern
Snake River Plain Aquifer flows generally south through the northern edge of Portneuf River
Valley Aquifer before following the terrain and heading southwest which influences the
groundwater elevations in Chubbuck.
The Portneuf River Valley Aquifer extends from the northern reaches of Chubbuck, south to the
Portneuf Gap. This aquifer is the only identifiable water source with direct influences from the
Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer for the City of Chubbuck. The Portneuf River Valley Aquifer
obtains most of its recharge from the Mink Creek and Gibson Jack Creek drainage basins, while
the remainder comes from inflow through the Portneuf Gap from the Upper Portneuf Valley
Aquifer. The average through -flow water of the Portneuf River Valley Aquifer is approximately 5.4
billion gallons per year. The total pumping withdrawal is about 6.1 billion gallons per year
according to the Idaho Geologic Survey. Figure 3-4 shows the aquifer water balance in the Lower
Portneuf Aquifer.
222190-000 ' . • -
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
0.2
D Mlles 2
a Hill .
Portnouf
Ga
YI
Figure 3-4 Lower Portneuf Aquifer Water Balance
3.4 WELL SYSTEM
The City of Chubbuck Municipal Water System is comprised of 5 active wells with a total pumping
capacity of 10,505 gpm and have one additional inactive well that is designated as a backup
source. Each of the 5 active wells includes an Accutab Chlorination system that injects chlorine
into the water before it enters the distribution system. The following is a summary of current
conditions of the 6 wells maintained by the City of Chubbuck Municipal Water System.
3.4.1 Well #1
Well #1 is located in Bistline Park east of Hiline Road on Venture Way. Drilled in 1956, it has a
total depth of 305 feet with 12 -inch casing to 150 ft below ground surface followed by 10 -inch
casing to 234 feet below ground surface. The static water level was 90 feet in 1992. The well was
originally operated by an 8 -inch vertical turbine pump with a 30 -hp motor. During the rehabilitation
of the pump in 1992, the pump was replaced with a 10 -inch vertical turbine pump. Well #1
222190-000
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
operated full time until January 2003. At that time, the introduction of the Bench Booster Pump
Station took place. Because Well #1 serves the same pressure zone as the booster pump station,
the increased pressure created by the booster pump station caused Well #1 to run continually
with minimal pumping, being unable to overcome the higher pressure. The use of Well No.1 was
discontinued. It was not removed from the system, instead it has been designated as a redundant,
back-up water source for that pressure zone (Keller Associates, Inc., 2015). The City is interested
in abandoning this Well as it is not currently planned for future use and the Hiline Booster Station
now provides a redundant backup for the Bench Booster Station.
Arsenic was detected in Well #1 in 1998 and 1999 at levels of 8 ppb and 10 ppb. A Maximum
Contaminant Level (MCL) of 10 ppb was established in 2006. Nitrate has also been detected in
Well #1 with levels of 3.45 ppm in 1999 and 2.1 ppm in 2002. The MCL for nitrate is 10 ppm
(Keller Associates, Inc., 2015).
Figure 3-5 Well #1
3.4.2 Well #2
Well #2 is in Stuart Park along Hawthorne Road. Drilled in 1957, it has a total depth of 255 feet
with 12 inch casing installed to a depth of 154 feet, and 10" casing installed from 100 feet below
ground surface to 250 feet below ground surface. In 1996 use of Well No. 2 was discontinued and
the well was effectively disconnected from the water system due to tetrachloroethylene (also
known as perch loroethylene, PERC) levels greater than the MCL (Keller Associates, Inc., 2015).
The City of Chubbuck monitored the level of PERC in the water produced by Well #2 since the
well was taken offline. Monitoring was consistently conducted from May 1990 to August 2001.
Water quality testing at this well showed decreasing PERC levels including samples below the
MCL. Monitoring ceased in 2006 before being resumed in 2014. Results prior to 2014 reveal a
PERC concentration consistently above the MCL. Since testing began in October 2014, PERC
concentrations were consistently approximately 2-3 fag/L. The PERC concentration in water
produced by Well #2 dropped below the MCL sometime between July 2006 and October 2014
(Keller Accociates, Inc., 2015). In 2016, the original Well #2 was reconstructed and has been
supplying the City system since. Well #2 is operated by a vertical turbine pump with a 100 -hp
motor. The peak volume pumped by Well #2 is 800 gpm and is primarily only used during the
peak irrigation season as it has had some issues with sand production at pump startup.
222190-000 ' . • -
City of Chubbuck
Water Facilities Planning Study
re 3-6 Well #2
3.4.3 Well #3
KELLER
Well #3 is located on Lariat Lane along Hawthorne Road north of Siphon Road. The well was
drilled in December of 1962, it has a total depth of 250 feet with 16 inch casing installed to a depth
of 160 feet, and 12.75' casing installed from 152 feet below ground surface to 250 feet below
ground surface. Well #3 is operated by a vertical turbine pump with a 200 -hp motor. The peak
volume pumped by Well #3 is 1,620 gpm.
Figure 3-7 Well #3
3.4.4 Well #4
Well 4 is situated at the intersection of West Chubbuck Road and Independence Avenue. Drilled
in June 1984, the well is operated by a turbine pump with a 125 -hp motor. The peak volume
pumped by Well No.4 is 3,400 gpm. The Well was modified in 1994 adding the Aeration Tower,
as seen in the adjacent Figure 3-8, for treatment of perch loroethylene (PERC). Following the
aeration tower the water is boosted into the distribution system with a 350 -hp close coupled
vertical turbine pump. The well is equipped with liquid chlorine injection for disinfection. Installation
of an emergency generator was completed in early 2012.
Testing at Well No. 4 has revealed arsenic, barium, chromium, nitrate, selenium, and
perch loroethylene (PERC) at levels below the respective MCLs. Treatment is occurring for PERC
222190-000 ' . • -
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
and levels are well below the MCL following treatment. The peak volume pumped by Well #4 is
3,400 gpm after the pump was rebuilt in 2017.
Figure 3-8 Well #4
3.4.5 Well #5
Well Number 5 is located on Hawthorne Road north of Quinn Road on the south side of the City
of Chubbuck in a newer medium to high-density residential development. Drilled in April 1996,
the well is operated by a turbine pump with a 500 -hp motor. The peak volume pumped by Well
No. 5 is 3,500 gpm. The well was recently equipped with an emergency generator and has a liquid
chlorine disinfection system. Figure 3-9 depicts Well No. 5.
Water quality tests at Well No. 5 have detected arsenic, barium, nitrate, selenium and
perch loroethylene at levels below the respective MCLs.
7
jj
Figure 3-9 Well #5
ftI
a�
3.4.6 Well #6
The newest well servicing the City of Chubbuck's water system is Well #6 which was constructed
as part of the Well #6 Complex. Drilled in March 2017 the well is operated by a turbine pump and
a 125 HP motor. Well #6 was pumped at a rate of 2,200 gpm. The well was constructed with an
emergency generator and has a liquid chlorine disinfection system.
222190-000
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
Well #6 complex comprises the Well #6 facility, a 1.5 -million -gallon concrete storage tank, and a
4,200 gpm booster station. The facility was also designed to accommodate future public access
around the exterior of the buildings in order to encourage water conservation within the
community.
ure 3-10 Well #6
3.4.7 Well System Summary
Table 3-4 provides a summary of the normal operating capacity and emergency capacity during
a power outage of each municipal well.
Table 3-4 Existing Well Capacities
"ell
Normal Capacity
(gpm)
Firm Capacity (gpm)
:00
Emergency Capacity
(gpm)
1,620
1,620
.00
3,400
3,500
3.5 STORAGE SYSTEM
The City of Chubbuck storage tanks are located in the City's Hill Tank Farm and at the Well #6
complex. The Tank Farm is situated east of Interstate 15 on Venture Way. All three tanks are
hydraulically connected to one another and to the distribution system. Isolation valves are
available to remove individual tanks from the system for maintenance and repair.
3.5.1 Hill Tank Farm Storage
Two of the storage tanks are above ground welded steel tanks and the other is an above ground
concrete storage tank. The total volume of the storage tanks at the tank farm is 1,625,000 gallons.
The first of the welded steel tanks was constructed around 1949 and is 24 ft. tall with a diameter
of 20 feet and has a capacity of 50,000 gallons. The second welded steel tank was constructed
222190-000 ' .. - •
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
around 1960 and is 24 feet tall with a diameter of 27 feet and has a capacity of 75,000 gallons.
Both steel storage tanks are located on the south side of Venture Way and according to March
2022 tank inspection reports indicated that both steel tanks are in relatively good condition. These
tanks can be seen in the foreground of Figure 3-11.
The concrete storage tank is an above ground pre -stressed concrete tank that was constructed
in 1977. The tank is 110 ft. in diameter and 22 feet tall inside with a capacity of 1.5 million gallons.
The concrete storage tank is located just east of the two steel tanks adjacent to Venture Way as
seen in the background of Figure 3-11. In 2005 the City of Chubbuck undertook a rehabilitation
of the concrete tank which included the installation of a concrete curb around the perimeter of the
tank which allows for wall movement independent of the roof slab. The curb included drain
openings to prevent water accumulation on the roof. The roof was sealed with a waterproof
coating. The interior floor of the tank was sealed and the exterior surface repainted. March 2022
tank inspection reports indicated that the interior of the concrete tank is in relatively good
condition. The exterior coating on top of the tank roof has begun experiencing deterioration and
needs to be replaced.
Figure 3-11 Hill Tank Farm Storage
3.5.2 Complex #6 Storage
The newest storage tank is at the Well #6 Tank and Booster Station Complex is located off of
West Siphon Road and Truman Street. The tank is a partially buried concrete tank constructed in
2018 and has a storage volume of 1,500,000 gallons. The exposed roof portion of the storage
tank is shown in Figure 3-12.
Figure 3-12 Complex #6 Storage Tank
222190-000 ' . • -
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
3.5.3 Storage System Summary
The total capacity of all four storage tanks is 3,125,000 gallons. Summarized in Table 3-5 Existing
Storage Capacities are the capacities, year built, material, and condition of all storage tanks as of
2023.
Table 3-5 Existing Storage Capacities
#
Tank
CapacityTank
1
50,000
1949
Welded Steel
Good
2
75,000
1960
Welded Steel
Good
3
1,500,000
1977
Partially Buried Pre-
Stressed Concrete
OK -Exterior Roof
Coating Concerns
4
1,500,000
2018
Partially Buried Cast
In Place Concrete
Good
Totals
3,1251000
3.6 BOOSTER STATIONS
The Hiline Booster Station and the Bench Booster Station alternate as lead and lag booster
stations where the Hiline Station is the lead during periods of high demand. The Complex #6
Booster Station is used to pull water out of the Well 6 Storage Tank for distribution in the northern
main pressure zone.
3.6.1 Bench Booster Station
The Bench Booster Station was constructed in 2001 and houses 3 pumps with a firm capacity of
2,200 gpm. The reported total capacity of the booster station is 2,500 gpm when all 3 pumps are
running due to suction pressure limitations. It is anticipated that these pressure limitations will
lessen with the new 24" line replacing the existing 20" line. The increase in line size will decrease
the pressure drop from the tank farm during peak hour demand periods. The 3 pumps are
categorized as the primary, lag, and lead with sizes of 30 hp, 75 hp, and 75 hp respectively with
flow capacities of 400, 2,000 and 2,000 gpm where either the lead or lag pump is always
redundant. The Bench Booster Station is fed from the Tank Farm where the tank high level set
point is 21.5 ft and the low-level set point 14.0 ft and is used to help pressurize the Bench Pressure
Zone where the alarm set points are at high pressure of 75 psi and low pressure of 32 psi. The
Bench Booster station is show in Figure 3-13 Bench Booster Stationbelow.
222190-000 ' . • -
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
Fiaure 3-13 Bench Booster Station
3.6.2 Hiline Booster Station
The Hiline Booster Station was constructed in 2019 and houses 4 booster pumps with space and
pedestals to expand into a total of 6 pumps. Three pumps are used with a firm capacity of 2,600
gpm and a total capacity of 4,400 gpm. In the future, the addition of 2 more 100 hp pumps will
expand the firm capacity and total capacity to 6,200 and 8,000 gpm, respectively. The 4 pumps
are sizes 15 hp, 40 hp, 100 hp, and 100 hp respectively with capacities of 200, 600, 1,800, and
1,800 gpm. The discharge pressure set point is 116 psi, where the alarm set points for high-
pressure is 130 psi and the low-pressure alarm is at 100 psi. The Hiline Booster Station is shown
in Figure 3-14 below.
222190-000 ' . • -
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
Fiqure 3-14 Hiline Booster Station
3.6.3 Complex #6 Booster Station
As previously described the Complex #6 Booster Station is part of the Well #6 and storage
complex constructed in 2018. Well #6 pumps directly into the 1.5 MG storage tank and the booster
station sets directly on top of the tank and is used to pull water from the at grade storage tank into
the distribution system and up to the Tank Farm Tanks. This is done using three 125 hp pumps
categorized as lead, lag, and standby that are operated based on tank water level at the Tank
Farm Complex. The booster station has a firm capacity of 2,800 gpm and a total capacity of 4,200
gpm. During a site visit in May of 2023, the lead pump setpoint was utilized with a start level of
17.5 ft and a stop level of 20.0 ft. The lag pump setpoint was utilized with a start level of 15.0 ft
and a stop level of 16.5 ft. The standby pump setpoint was utilized with a start level of 14.2 ft and
a stop level of 16.0 ft. These setpoints are operator adjustable and can be varied throughout the
year as needed based on system operation. The Complex #6 Booster Station is show in Figure
3-15 below.
222190-000
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
Fiaure 3-15 Complex #6 Booster Station
3.6.4 Booster Station Summary
Table 3-6 below provides a summary of the normal operating capacity and total capacity of the
booster stations.
Table 3-6 Existing Booster Station Capacities
Hiline Booster Station future firm and total capacity.
3.7 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
3.7.1 Distribution System Criteria
System Pressures
Idaho DEQ has set specific minimum water pressure requirements for public water systems.
Water pressures at any point in the distribution system must not be below a minimum pressure of
40 psi during Peak Hour Demand conditions, excluding fire flow'. Additionally, water pressure at
any point in the distribution system must be maintained above 20 psi during MDD and fire flow'.
If pressure in the system drops below 20 psi the system is at risk of contamination and in violation
of State of Idaho regulations.
5 IDAPA 58.01.08 — Idaho Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems, § 552.01.b.v
6 IDAPA 58.01.08 — Idaho Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems, § 552.01.b.i
222190-000 ' . • -
Booster Station
Firm CapacityCapacity
Bench
2,200
2,500
Hiline
2,600
4,400
Hiline Future (2
additional pumps)'
6,200
8,000
Complex #6
2,800
4,200
Totals
7,600
11,100
Hiline Booster Station future firm and total capacity.
3.7 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
3.7.1 Distribution System Criteria
System Pressures
Idaho DEQ has set specific minimum water pressure requirements for public water systems.
Water pressures at any point in the distribution system must not be below a minimum pressure of
40 psi during Peak Hour Demand conditions, excluding fire flow'. Additionally, water pressure at
any point in the distribution system must be maintained above 20 psi during MDD and fire flow'.
If pressure in the system drops below 20 psi the system is at risk of contamination and in violation
of State of Idaho regulations.
5 IDAPA 58.01.08 — Idaho Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems, § 552.01.b.v
6 IDAPA 58.01.08 — Idaho Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems, § 552.01.b.i
222190-000 ' . • -
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
Normal operating pressures should typically range between 60 and 90 psi. Pressures above 100
psi should be controlled with pressure reducing valves installed on the distribution main'. Higher
pressures typically increase the amount of water lost due to leakage and the potential for water
main breaks. In systems that rely on pumping to supplement or provide system pressure,
excessively high pressures can be indicative of higher than needed energy consumption.
Pipe Sizing
Pipeline design is based upon meeting PHD and MDD plus fire protection while maintaining
required system pressures. The following design criteria should be addressed:
Water lines where fire hydrants are provided must be six (6) inches in diameter or larger.
If fire flow is not provided, water mains should not be smaller than three (3) inches in
diameter$.
Dead end mains should be minimized by looping the system when practical. Dead end
lines should be equipped with a means of flushing at a velocity of at least 2.5 fps'.
Valves should be located to minimize the amount of the system exposed to contamination
due to loss of pressure during repairs.
Fire hydrants should be placed 250 to 500 ft. apart, depending upon the area served.
System pipe sizing should reduce the velocity head to reduce friction losses. Typical
pipeline velocities should be between 2.5 ft./sec and 5 ft./sec and should not exceed 10
ft./sec.
Pipelines may be oversized to allow for future growth as long as water stagnation does
not become a concern.
Cross Connection Control
A cross connection control program should take reasonable and prudent measures to prevent
unsafe or contaminating materials from being discharged or drawn into the drinking water
system10. This can occur from pipes, pumps, hydrants, water loading stations, or tanks. The cross -
connection control program should include provisions for evaluating the existing system and
connections, addressing connections without backflow prevention, controlling new connections,
testing of backflow preventers by a licensed backflow tester, and ensuring enforcement of the
program is met. The U.S. EPA has published several resources to assist small utility systems in
protecting their distribution systems (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2023).
3.7.2 Existing Distribution Lines
Water service is provided to City residents using approximately 453,777 feet (85.9 miles) of
transmission pipe, and fire suppression is provided to City neighborhoods through approximately
864 fire hydrants. Table 3-7 summarizes the estimated lengths of pipe by diameter in the
Chubbuck distribution system. Figure 3-19 and Figure 3-20 show the layout of the City's
distribution system pipe sizes and materials.
The potable water distribution system in the City of Chubbuck consists of two main pressure
zones, the Main Pressure Zone, and the Bench Pressure Zone. The Bench Pressure Zone
' IDAPA 58.01.08 — Idaho Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems, § 552.01.b.vi
8 IDAPA 58.01.08 — Idaho Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems, § 542.06
9 IDAPA 58.01.08 — Idaho Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems, § 542.09
10 IDAPA 58.01.08 — Idaho Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems, § 543
222190-000 ' . • -
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
incorporates the area east of Hiline Road and north of Interstate 86. The Bench or upper pressure
zone is supplied by Hiline and Bench Booster Stations. The normal operating pressures in the
bench pressure zone are typically between 58 and 98 psi and are constantly maintained by the
booster station pumps.
The main or lower pressure zone serves the majority of the City west of Hiline Road, north of
Interstate 86 to Reservation Road, area south of Interstate 86 near Walmart, and is supplied by
all 5 Wells with a primary transmission line from the Tank Farm along Venture Way into the
distribution network. The pressures in this zone are maintained by the water level in the Tank
Farm tanks.
The water is distributed in a closed loop or redundant fashion to maintain adequate water service
to a majority of areas serviced. Major redundant loops generally occur on a half -mile interval west
of Hiline Road. These loops connect Whitaker Road, Yellowstone Avenue, and Hawthorne Road
into Chubbuck Road and Siphon Road, with several transmission line branches outside of this
area.
Normal operating pressures within the main pressure zone are typically between 75 to 98 psi.
The exception of this is the Harvest Springs development on the East side of Hiline Road, which
has normal pressures between 55 and 75 psi.
Table 3-7 is a summary of the Chubbuck Distribution System line sizes and lengths.
Table 3-7 Chubbuck Distribution System Pipe Size Summary
Diameter
Length
Length
% of Total
Unknown
3,509
0.7
0.8%
Less than 4
866
0.2
0.2%
4
2,004
0.4
0.4%
6
181,235
34.3
39.9%
8
127,629
24.2
28.1%
10
22,323
4.2
4.9%
12
54,975
10.4
12.1%
14
1,751
0.3
0.4%
16
44,747
8.5
9.9%
18
8,137
1.5
1.8%
20
72
0.0
0.0%
22
268
0.1
0.1%
24
6,260
1.2
1.4%
Total
453,777
85.9
100.0%
3.7.3 Fire Protection Requirements
Providing adequate fire protection in residential, commercial, and industrial zones often governs
distribution pipeline sizes, pipe looping requirements, and tank storage needs. The Idaho Rules
for Public Drinking Water requires that the water system maintain residual pressure of 20 psi
222190-000 ' . • - .
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
during a MDD and fire event to minimize the risk of contamination to the water system". Pumping
systems supporting fire flow capacity must be designed so that the maximum day demand and
fire flow demand may be provided simultaneously with any pump out of service. Fire suppression
storage reduces the requirement for redundant pumping capacity12. Table 3-8 estimates fire
protection requirements based upon the 2021 International Fire Code, exact requirements are
also based upon construction type. The 2021 International Fire Code should be consulted for
further details. Reduction in fire flow requirements of up to 50% for one- and two-family residential
buildings and 75% for buildings other than one- and two-family residential buildings is allowed
when the building is equipped with an approved automatic sprinkler system. Table 3-8 list the
typical fire protection requirements from the 2021 International Fire Code.
Table 3-8 Typical Fire Protection Requirements
Building Type
Multi- & One -Family Residential
Size
(ft2)
<3,600
Flow
..
1,500
Duration
2
StorageBuilding
..
180,000
Multi- & One-FamilyResidential
3,600
- 4,800
1,750
2
210,000
Multi- & One-FamilyResidential
4,801
- 6,200
2,000
2
240,000
Non -Residential
5,901
- 7,900
1,750
2
210,000
Non -Residential
7,901
- 9,800
2,000
2
240,000
Non -Residential
9,801 -
12,600
2,250
2
270,000
Non -Residential
12,601
-15,400
2,500
2
300,000
Non -Residential
15,401
-18,400
2,750
2
330,000
Non -Residential
18,401
-21,800
3,000
3
540,000
Non -Residential
21,801
-25,900
3,250
3
585,000
Non -Residential
25,901
-29,300
3,500
3
630,000
Non -Residential
29,301
-33,500
3,750
3
675,000
Non -Residential
33,501
-37,900
4,000
4
960,000
Non -Residential
37,901
-42,700
4,250
4
1,020,000
Non -Residential
42,701
-47,700
4,500
4
1,080,000
Non -Residential
47,701
-53,000
4,750
4
1,140,000
Non -Residential
53,001-
58,600
5,000
4
1,200,000
The minimum fire flow assumed for residential areas was 1,500 gpm in accordance with the 2021
IFC. The recommended fire flows for larger or commercial buildings were provided by the Idaho
Surveying and Rating Bureau (ISRB). Buildings with required flows greater than 1,000 gpm were
evaluated individually to assure adequate flows are available. The fire flow duration used by the
ISRB is from the Fire Suppression Rating Schedule as published by ISO. For fire flows up to
2,750 gpm, 2 hours are required. Fire flows from 2,501 to 3,750 require 3 hours and fire flows
greater than 4,000 gpm require 4 hours. Table 3-9 lists the locations with requirements of greater
than 1,500 gpm and their fire flow requirements. Locations below that are in red text do not meet
fire flow requirements as determined by hydraulic modeling.
11 IDAPA 58.01.08 - Idaho Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems, § 552.01.b.i
12 IDAPA 58.01.08 - Idaho Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems, § 501.18
222190-000 ' . • -
City of Chubbuck
Water Facilities Planning Study
Table 3-9 ISRB Fire Flow
irements
KELLER
3.7.4 Distribution System Hydraulic Analysis
Haestad Methods' WaterCAD v8i was used to create the hydraulic model for the Chubbuck water
distribution, storage, and delivery system. The software applies the Hazen -Williams formula in an
iterative manner for complex networks to determine system pressures based on various flow
scenarios. The software also has the ability to determine fire flow demand (FFD) available to each
node by methodically analyzing each node (pipe junction) at different flow rates and checking
every node to determine the maximum amount of water available without drawing the pressure
levels below the minimum allowable at any node in the system. The fire flow results provide the
available fire flow at that location whether that is being provided by one or multiple fire hydrants.
Requirements for pressure calculations for PHD and fire flow demand scenarios shall be based
on the lowest level after operational, equalization and fire suppression storage have been
exhausted13
Model Development
Information regarding pipe diameters, network connectivity, and material types were determined
through available mapping, previous reports, and consultations with staff familiar with the water
system. Elevation data for the model is based on Google Earth DEM capabilities (Google, 2023).
Demands (flows) were distributed to the nearest nodes based on individual connections within
Chubbuck.
13 IDAPA 58.01.08 — Idaho Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems, § 552.01.b.viii
222190-000 ' . • -
ModeledRequired
Flow
Flow
AvailableLocation
..
..
Brian Hopkins — 272 Tailwind
1,750
3,205
99
25
F&F Development LLC — 850
1,750
3,498
92
28
Quinn
Five Mile Plaza — 4824
1,750
6,000
94
80
Yellowstone
Fuller Bullock, LLC — 150 Bullock
1,750
6,000
89
40
Granite Business Enterprises —
1,750
6,000
97
57
4990 Valent
Michael J Harper — 4700 Burley
1,750
6,000
95
85
New Day Rentals, LLC — 167
1,750
5,044
98
25
Southside Way
S&S Machine & Welding — 5695
2,000
6,000
98
73
I ndustry Way
RV Service and Supply — 4950
3,500
6,000
95
59
Yellowstone
Gary G Ratliff — 4860 Burley
4,000
5,550
95
25
Gary G Ratliff — 4902 Burley
4,000
4,799
95
25
School District #25 — 600 Chastain
4,500
3,130
93
25
— Chubbuck Elementary
RK Motels LLC — 133 Burnside
6,000
7,500
90
47
Ave
3.7.4 Distribution System Hydraulic Analysis
Haestad Methods' WaterCAD v8i was used to create the hydraulic model for the Chubbuck water
distribution, storage, and delivery system. The software applies the Hazen -Williams formula in an
iterative manner for complex networks to determine system pressures based on various flow
scenarios. The software also has the ability to determine fire flow demand (FFD) available to each
node by methodically analyzing each node (pipe junction) at different flow rates and checking
every node to determine the maximum amount of water available without drawing the pressure
levels below the minimum allowable at any node in the system. The fire flow results provide the
available fire flow at that location whether that is being provided by one or multiple fire hydrants.
Requirements for pressure calculations for PHD and fire flow demand scenarios shall be based
on the lowest level after operational, equalization and fire suppression storage have been
exhausted13
Model Development
Information regarding pipe diameters, network connectivity, and material types were determined
through available mapping, previous reports, and consultations with staff familiar with the water
system. Elevation data for the model is based on Google Earth DEM capabilities (Google, 2023).
Demands (flows) were distributed to the nearest nodes based on individual connections within
Chubbuck.
13 IDAPA 58.01.08 — Idaho Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems, § 552.01.b.viii
222190-000 ' . • -
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
Model Calibration
Model calibration refers to the process of adjusting model parameters, so that model outputs
match observed field conditions. For this study, fire hydrant flow tests served as the basis for
model calibration. A series of hydrant tests were conducted on May 4, 2023, June 13, 2023, and
September 20, 2023, by Keller Associates and Chubbuck Water System Staff as part of the
planning study. Static and residual pressures (i.e., pressures before and during the hydrant tests),
and flows were recorded for each of the tests. The data sheets from the testing and a map
showing locations of the fire flow testing are included in Appendix D. All water during fire flow
testing was being supplied from the Tank Farm, Well #4, and/or Well #6 Booster Station. Based
on the results, it was determined the model was well calibrated after the final hydrant retest in
September 2023.
A comparison of model versus field pressures was conducted to determine the accuracy of the
model in replicating water system conditions. Table 3-10 summarizes fire flow testing results and
shows a comparison between the field observed values and the calibrated modeled values. The
"error" column represents the pressure difference between the field measurement and the model
result. A positive difference means the model under predicts the pressure drop, and a negative
difference means the model over predicts the pressure drop.
Table 3-10 Fire Hydrant Calibration Results
222190-000 ' . • - •
- -
- -
Test 1
Flow (gpm)
Field (psi)
90 79
90
79
-4
-3
1,434
Model (psi)
90 75
88
76
Test 2
Flow (gpm)
Field (psi)
82 80
82
78
-3
0
1,394
Model (psi)
93 77
83
78
Test 3
Flow (gpm)
Field (psi)
90 82
86
78
2
4
1,464
Model (psi)
89 84
87
82
Test 4
Flow (gpm)
Field (psi)
97 88
92
86
-4
-4
1,454
Model (psi)
96 84
94
82
Test 5
Flow (gpm)
Field (psi)
70 64
60
55
4
2
1,278
Model (psi)
72 68
59
53
Test 6
Flow (gpm)
Field (psi)
63 55
70
66
-4
-3
1,101
Model (psi)
64 51
72
63
Test 7
Flow (gpm)
Field (psi)
76 61
96
86
0
2
1,404
Model (psi)
77 61
97
84
222190-000 ' . • - •
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
The calibration resulted in a model that reflects the actual conditions of the water system. The
error was less than or equal to 5 psi. This illustrates that the water model is well calibrated and
will serve as an accurate tool for evaluation and planning in Chubbuck.
Development of a well calibrated model not only serves as a planning tool for future development
but can also be especially useful for regular management of the existing system. It is
recommended that the City update the model to reflect changes in physical attributes and usage
patterns of the water system. This would help the City quickly identify probable causes for
problems they are seeing in the system.
Using the calibrated model, the current distribution system has been evaluated for compliance
with the pressure and flow standards. The following sections summarize the results. The system
was analyzed using a steady state evaluation.
3.7.5 Maximum Day Demand plus Fire Flow Demand (MDD + FFD)
The model was populated using a base fire flow demand (FFD) of 1,500 gpm. Higher fire flows
were included where identified by the ISRB and were as presented in Appendix D. Under
maximum day demands of 5,887 gpm and the FFD requirements stated, the system was tested
with the criterion of pressures not dropping below 25 psi. A maximum velocity constraint was not
used. The tanks were assumed to be 75% full since this is a typical level during the high demands
for the City of Chubbuck.
The water model evaluates each of the nodes individually under the previously stated criteria,
while considering pressure at other nodes in the system. The analysis is steady state and
assumes adequate fire storage is provided to support the design durations. Ultimately, the model
predicted that the distribution system can generally meet the MDD + FFD scenario with exceptions
at dead end lines within the system. Approximately 98% of the nodes that were evaluated were
able to meet fire flow requirements. Suggested improvements will be discussed in a subsequent
section of this report. Figure 3-21 below, show the results of the fire flow analysis during maximum
day demand. Red hydrants indicate that fire hydrants in these areas do not meet fire flow
requirements.
3.7.6 Peak Hour Demand
The system was modeled under peak hour demands (PHD) of 12,157 gpm to check for pressures
in the system dropping below 40 psi. Model results indicate that the distribution system is able to
provide adequate pressures at peak demands. Pressures are generally between 60 psi and 90
psi during peak hour flows with all pressures remaining above 40 psi. Figure 3-16, Figure 3-17,
and Figure 3-18 show the peak hour demand pressures throughout the water system. Model
results are included in Appendix D.
222190-000 ' . • -
January 2025
e51
■
.111 41
■
L210 4
10.0 5
I�
� �... _ •. �
-
;
24.0
fir.-
r . r : �
��
-.4�. - ■ . t 7.?�!_� -� �
s`' fisc
kj
Ds
bi
e51
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
Fiqure 3-18 Modelinq Peak Hour Demands (Southern
3.7.7 Pressures During Low Demands
Because water demands decrease during the winter season, a low demand scenario was
evaluated to determine whether or not any of the distribution system pressures are over 80 psi
during the lowest demands anticipated for the system. The average day demand (ADD) of 2,320
gpm was used and the tank level was assumed to be full. The model predicted that at low demand
periods, there are many sections on the low ends of the two zones where pressures are higher
than 80 psi. Model results are included in Appendix D.
3.8 SYSTEM OPERATION
All well pumps in the water system are operated based upon the storage tank level. The Bench
and Hiline Booster Stations operate based on local system pressure in the Bench Pressure Zone.
The Bench Booster is set to maintain approximately 62 psi at the booster station outlet. The Hiline
booster station is set to maintain approximately 116 psi at the booster station outlet. The Well #6
booster station operates based on water level on/off setpoints at the Tank Farm Complex.
All active wells, the tank farm and all of the booster stations have SCADA communication
equipment which relay system information to a computer system located at Hiline Booster Station
and at the Water Shop. Operators can view system operation and modify system set points from
either of these locations.
The City requires backflow preventers on all connections to help prevent the risk of contaminating
the water system.
The city government within Chubbuck consists of an elected mayor and four council members.
Bridger Morrison is the City Public Works Director and City Engineer. The water system
Responsible in Charge (RIC) operator is Cameron Lusk who holds a Water Distribution Class 3
license. Scott Baker is the substitute RIC who holds a Drinking Water Distribution Class 2 license.
222190-000 ' . • -
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
3.9 FINANCIAL STATUS OF EXISTING FACILITIES
The City currently has incorporated water meter replacement within the O&M budget with a typical
10 -year life replacement. The City is currently using Neptune meters.
Monthly user rate charges incrementally increase based on size of meter. The monthly water
service rate for fiscal year 2025 ranges from $30.57 to $2,035.80 for 1" up to 10" meter,
respectively. The water usage rate is a volumetric charge of $1.47 per one thousand gallons.
There are currently 4,443 residential connections, 394 commercial connections, and 45
connections to residents outside of the City limits.
A Water System Financial Plan and Capacity Replacement Fee Study was completed in May
2022 by the FCS Group. The study developed a multi-year rate strategy to meet the total operating
and capital costs of the water system. The study used improvements identified in the 2020 Water
System Capital Improvements Plan Update as a basis for future projects. Project costs for the
fiscal year 2022 — 2040 totaled $57.1 million. Monthly user rates from FY 2025 through FY 2026
are planned to increase from $30.57 to $32.10 respectively (FCS Group, 2022). The City Water
System Financial Plan and Capacity Replacement Fee Study is available in Appendix E.
3.10 WATER/ENERGY AUDITS
The City of Chubbuck had an energy audit completed for their system in October 2019 by Idaho
Power. An ongoing energy audit every five to ten years is recommended to evaluate and optimize
efficiency of energy operations within the water system.
222190-000
KELLER
Distribution System Pipe Size
Chubbuck Water Facility Planning Study
lao,t--\
CHUBBUCK
10080
Figure 3-19
City of Chubbuck
KELLER
Distribution System Pipe Material
Chubbuck Water Facility Planning Study
lao,t--\
CHUBBUCK
10080
Figure 3-20
City of Chubbuck
0LIIF `Y' - • ia
t
KELLER
°°
WWI
NO
OP
O
0
!WelV3 @ °
p
0019
Ono O
O O O p O o
p p O
WeII 6 p
cog -- ° r r - . @ g °° °
p
C ElO O O to -
0
O
O O poo o O ° O OO O @__°
° O
o °
° ° IF p • O ° ° LL �F 11 LL LL 00
° ° O
p �--rr O O O O p O -r p
• ° O . L_L O O p O° 99 0
° °
O
�
2 0
@ 7
o O ° p O u- ° • OO •
67
=L°
° O Oe
00
OSI C
7 L -
p
° °
° ° C° O O° pODDO(111^�000111°
°@
OOOO ° ° O O
OO0- °pO O°
O °CNm. O °p ° op° 0
o�° °
p p °
.. llF °a o
W��°,W000O e
.lOC l L
L1
OOO p O O AO 0 00 O
° 0o 0 0 O0 ° ° o ° p
L
°L
°
°
O
°p
00o °
o op o 00 0 n °
°.00 O O
00° ° ° 0 O O O O °OO OO O O 0
p ° p °O O 0. 0
°p °
p %
° °tp°8O °o 0
p
'
r1 . i 0`O
91
• o
° o
O° OO O O
n °
R^
p O 0
° o
WeII'5° ° O p p °
°
r �—o
° ° °
o°
N �o
Ppm
:` , +� $' �� . �; �, .� dill • -:..
Fire Flow Results (2021 MDO +FFD)
Chubbuck Water Facility Planning Study
lao,t--\
CHUBBUCK
10080
MOIF X09
i*
Maxar, Earthstar Ge'ographi
Legend
❑ BPS
Wells
. Tanks
Meets
FFD
Fail
Pass
Unknown
Iih
PA
4"
6"
8"
10"
12"
14"
16"
18"
20"
22"
24"
250 FT Range
State Highways
Figure 3-21
City of Chubbuck
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
CHAPTER 4 NEED FOR PROJECT
4.1 PUBLIC HEALTH
There are no environmental conditions in the planning area that need to be addressed with regard
to public health.
4.2 EXISTING INFASTRUCTURE
Issues within the City's current water system present concern for the City. This section will
describe the condition of the existing system infrastructure and will address needs for
improvements to the system infrastructure.
4.2.1 Estimated System Losses
Water system losses can be estimated for Chubbuck by comparing winter water consumption to
measured flows sent to the Pocatello Water Pollution Control Facility. For loss estimates to be
accurate winter flows must be used because it is assumed that most water used during the winter
will enter the wastewater collection system and subsequently the wastewater treatment plant.
Approximately 90% of water use during non -irrigation times becomes wastewater
(Tchobanoglous, Burton, & David, 2004). Utilizing this approach, distinction between water
(leaking) and wastewater (exfiltration) system losses is not possible, but the approach still
provides insight into the extent of the total losses.
The average wintertime flows (November through February) from the City of Chubbuck to the
Pocatello Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) from December 2020 through July 2022 were
0.93 MGD or 649 gpm. Average winter water usage during the same period discussed was 892
gpm of which 90% is assumed will become wastewater (803 gpm). Estimated total losses for the
wastewater collection system (exfiltration) and water system leaks are 154 gpm or approximately
81 MG per year (-r6% of annual use).
4.2.2 Fire Flow Conditions
Chubbuck has approximately 864 fire hydrants connected to the municipal water system.
According to the Idaho Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems (542.06) fire hydrants must be
connected to water mains no smaller than six inches in diameter and system pressures must not
fall below 20 psi during fire flow conditions. The minimum fire flow that must be available is 1,500
gpm.
Modeling results discussed have indicated that certain locations within the City's water system
cannot meet the minimum requirements for fire flow. A total of 15 fire hydrants (1.7% of total) do
not meet fire flow requirements. Hydrants with the lowest fire flows and pressures were primarily
located on dead end lines near the outskirts of the City or were connected to undersized lines.
4.2.3 Storage Evaluation
Water storage requirements are composed of several components per IDAPA 58.01.08.003 that
include operational storage, peaking storage, fire storage, emergency storage, dead storage, and
tank freeboard. A brief description of each of these components is below:
Operational storage refers to the difference in the tank level from when the source filling
the tanks turn on, to when they turn off. This volume has the potential to change throughout
the year depending on system demands and water stagnation, but typically this is around
15% of the total storage volume.
222190-000
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
Peaking storage is quantified by the volume of water consumed by the City during high
demand times of day that exceed the firm capacity of the system's sources. Peaking
storage is a function of the City's diurnal demand pattern.
Fire suppression storage is the volume required for City fire protection to fight a fire at the
flows and duration recommended by local fire marshal, the international fire code, or the
Idaho Surveying and Rating Bureau (ISRB). The range of flows and locations requiring
these flows throughout the City are listed in Table 3-9. The highest requirement reported
by the ISRB for Chubbuck is 6,000 gpm for four hours. This fire flow requirement equates
to 1.44 MG.
Emergency or standby storage is an adjustable volume based on the system susceptibility
to extenuating circumstances or unanticipated emergencies such as extended power
outages or main line ruptures. IDEQ requires that a system be able to deliver average day
demand (ADD) for a period of 8 hours during a power outage.
Dead storage is storage that is either not available for use in the system (e.g., lies below
the tank's outlet elevation) or can provide only substandard flows and pressures.
Freeboard: Space above overflow pipe and below the tank roof.
Effective storage refers to all storage other than dead storage.
Both elevated and ground level tanks can be used to provide equalization storage to maintain
flows and pressures as required. An elevated storage tank develops the required pressure with
the storage location elevation relative to the water system. A ground level tank utilizes booster
pumps to supply flow and pressure to a system unless the tank can be constructed at a location
that sits higher than the distribution system. Table 4-1 provides a breakdown of the minimum
recommended storage volume based on the previously mentioned storage criteria. This storage
requirement could be reduced by adding a redundant water source to the system.
Table 4-1 2023 Existing Recommended Storage Volumes (-17,000 Population)
ComponentStorage
Operational Storage
468,750
Use 15% to keep water
in tanks from stagnation
Total Storage
3,125,000
of Total
15%
Peaking Storage
682,581
Used to meet peak
demand hour with all
firm pumps running
Peak Demand - Firm Cap.
Fire Storage
1,440,000
RK Motels LLC14
Fire Demand (gpm)
6,000
Duration (hrs.)
4
Emergency Standby Storage
0
Backup power provided
at Wells #3, #4, #5, and
#6 to meet ADD
ADD (gpm)
2320
Duration
8
Total
2,591,331
17.08% Excess Capacity
14 If the City required RK Motels LLC to add their own fire suppression the next largest fire demand is
Chubbuck Elementary School. This would save the City nearly 360,000 gallons for the required fire flow
storage requirement
222190-000 ' . • -
City of Chubbuck
Water Facilities Planning Study
4.3 FUTURE WATER DEMAND
KELLER
Population projections presented in Section 2.3 have been used to estimate future demand
scenarios. If water use in Chubbuck remains consistent with historical maximum annual use (ADD
= 209 gpcd) the ADD would increase from 2,320 gpm to 3,982 gpm by 2043 when the population
reaches 27,475. This increased water demand is equivalent to needing an additional 874 MG per
year. Peak Hour Demand is projected to increase from 12,157 gpm to 20,868 gpm.
It is estimated that Average Day Demands will increase to 6,525 gpm in 2063 when population
reaches approximately 45,021. In comparison, if water use could be reduced to state averages,
the ADD for the City of Chubbuck would increase from its current level of 2,320 gpm to 5,753 gpm
in 2063 assuming an ADD of 186 gpcd (ID average).
Analysis of winter water demand is also valuable due to the negligible impact outdoor water use
has on winter water usage. The current wintertime ADD is approximately 906 gpm (81 gpcd).
Assuming future winter water demand will grow at the same rate as the other demands considered
as part of this report, it is projected that winter demand, would increase from current levels to
approximately 1,555 gpm in 2043, and 1,848 gpm in 2063.
Table 4-1 summarizes projected water demands in 2043 and 2063. The last column in the table
provides a comparison to Idaho average consumption rates.
Table 4-1 Current and Projected Water Demands for Chubbuck
Table 4-3, Table 4-4, and Table 4-5 show the minimum recommended future storage volume for
the system based on the previously mentioned storage criteria. Comments regarding the future
values used are included for clarification. It should be noted that these values assume the current
production capacity from the wells remain the same. If an additional Well is added to the system,
the required storage capacity for peaking storage would be reduced.
222190-000 ' . • - •
Savings i
"Current
2043 Demand
2063 Demand
Reduced to ID
Avg.2063
Demands
(Projected
(Projected
projected
(gpm)
gpm)
gpm)
demand
(gpm)
Table 4-3, Table 4-4, and Table 4-5 show the minimum recommended future storage volume for
the system based on the previously mentioned storage criteria. Comments regarding the future
values used are included for clarification. It should be noted that these values assume the current
production capacity from the wells remain the same. If an additional Well is added to the system,
the required storage capacity for peaking storage would be reduced.
222190-000 ' . • - •
City of Chubbuck
Water Facilities Planning Study
Table 4-2 Recommended Storage Volumes (-20,000 Population)
KELLER
Storage Component
Min Recommended
(gal.)
Commentsn
Operational Storage
468,750
Use 15% to keep water in
tanks from stagnation
Total Storage
3,125,000
of Total
15%
Peaking Storage
1,826,543
Used to meet peak
demand hour with all
firm pumps running
Peak Demand - Firm Cap.
Fire Storage
Fire Storage
1,440,000
RK Motels LLC
Fire Demand (gpm)
6,000
Duration (hrs.)
4
Emergency Standby Storage
0
Backup power provided
at Wells #4, #5, and #6 to
meet ADD
ADD (gpm)
2893
Duration
8
Total
3,735,293
19.53% Under Capacity
Table 4-3 Recommended Storage Volumes (21,500 Population)
OLMStorage Component
Operational Storage
Min Recommended
(gal.) I&,j
�men
468,750
Use 15% to keep water in
tanks from stagnation
Total Storage
3,125,000
of Total
15%
Peaking Storage
2,163,435
Used to meet peak
demand hour with all
firm pumps running
Peak Demand - Firm Cap.
Fire Storage
1,440,000
RK Motels LLC
Fire Demand (gpm)
6,000
Duration (hrs.)
4
Emergency Standby Storage
0
Backup power provided
at Wells #4, #5, and #6 to
meet ADD
ADD (gpm)
3115
Duration
8
Total
4,072,185
30.31% Under Capacity
222190-000
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
Table 4-4 Recommended Storage Volumes (27,000 Population)
ComponentStorage
Min Recommended
(gal.)
Commentsn
Operational Storage
468,750
Use 15% to keep water in
tanks from stagnation
Total Storage
31125,000
of Total
15%
Peaking Storage
3,734,106
Used to meet peak
demand hour with all
firm pumps running
Peak Demand - Firm Cap.
Fire Storage
1,440,000
RK Motels LLC
Fire Demand (gpm)
6,000
Duration (hrs.)
4
Emergency Standby Storage
0
Backup power provided
at Wells #4, #5, and #6 to
meet ADD
ADD (gpm)
3988
Duration
8
Total
5,642,856
80.57% Under Capacity
At current water usage rates, the City will not be able to accommodate anticipated growth without
developing additional storage tanks and or additional wells in the near future. It is anticipated that
current storage tanks will meet the needs through the population of roughly 18,500, but at that
time the PHD of around 14,000 gpm is anticipated to maximize the peaking storage capacity of
the tanks.
Due to the difficulties typical to obtaining additional water rights in recent years, water supply
development or a water conservation program should always be considered in order to continue
to provide for long-term needs. A water conservation program could include a public outreach
program focused on educating the public about efficient landscape irrigation and water
conservation practices. It is reported that installing water saving devices, such as, low flow
shower heads and toilets can reduce household demand by up to 16% (Cornwell & Davis,
1998). Establishing a leak detection program could also decrease demands by identifying
repairs that will decrease system losses and provide additional water availability at the tap.
4.4 COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS
A few issues have been identified regarding the current condition and operation of the Chubbuck
water system. Many of these issues are violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act or violate current
IDAPA regulations. Where current issues violate SDWA or IDAPA standards, the specific rule
violated is listed. These issues, and remedial action taken or advised to be taken, are summarized
below:
The City currently has enough storage in accordance with IDAPA 58.01.08.003, but is
anticipated to no longer meet this requirement in the near future
Approximately 1.7% of the City's fire hydrants cannot meet required system pressures
during fire flow conditions. IDAPA 58.01.08.542.06 requires that fire hydrants must be
connected to water mains no smaller than six inches in diameter and system pressures
222190-000 ' . • - .
City of Chubbuck
Water Facilities Planning Study
KELLER
must not fall below 20 psi during fire flow conditions. This issue is addressed in Section
5.6.
Fire flow test results indicate that sections of the City are unable to meet fire flow
requirements in some City hydrants (IDAPA 58.01.08.552.01). This is addressed in
Section 5.6.
The current average water use in Chubbuck (196 gpcd) is over 5% greater than average
Idaho use (186 gpcd). Currently the City is nearing the required storage capacity and
additional sources and/or tanks will be needed to meet the population needs of
approximately 20,000 people.
222190-000 ' . • - .
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
CHAPTER 5 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
The Chubbuck water distribution system needs upgrades to improve the operation of the system,
protect water quality, achieve compliance with State and Federal regulations, and meet projected
demands. To provide the community with a plan for addressing these needs, a thorough
discussion of system improvement alternatives with regards to estimated funding requirements,
potential grant monies, and improvement timelines is provided in the subsequent sections.
Improvement alternatives will address water use, system losses and inefficiencies, compliance
with State and Federal standards, efficient system operation, and recommendations to improve
the overall health and safety of the water system.
5.1 SANITARY SURVEY
The results of an Idaho DEQ sanitary survey conducted in December 2019 designated no items
as `significant deficiencies' or deficiencies by Idaho DEQ reviewers. However, there was one
recommendation for improvement and are summarized below. A copy of the sanitary survey can
be found in Appendix F. Recommendations for improvement by Idaho DEQ included the following:
1. Storage tanks should be inspected annually and cleaned every five years if
necessary.
Identified system deficiencies and Idaho DEQ's recommendations from the 2019 Sanitary Survey
have been incorporated into the improvement alternatives presented later in this chapter. The
alternatives found within this study have been developed to help maintain the water system
compliance with current regulatory requirements. Estimated capital costs for each alternative are
also included. These costs are considered concept level cost estimates and are to be used for
planning purposes only. The estimates include costs associated with engineering services,
contractor overhead and profit, legal fees, funding fees, and a concept level factor to compensate
for design & construction contingencies.
5.2 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The City may choose to continue operating the water system `as is,' without addressing any of
the deficiencies discussed in previous sections. Under this option the distribution system will
continue to deteriorate, increasing the probability of significant system failures and resultant
contamination, water outages, and more costly repairs and maintenance to the system. Also,
taking no action may cause Idaho DEQ to pursue enforcement up to and including civil penalties
and prohibiting further connections until the deficiencies are corrected. Because of these issues,
it is not prudent for the City to accept this alternative for all scenarios.
Environmental Impacts:
This alternative would not have any direct environmental impacts beyond existing conditions.
5.3 REGIONALIZATION ALTERNATIVE
The exploration of regionalizing the Chubbuck water system has been previously investigated in
collaboration with the City of Pocatello. After careful consideration, both municipalities have
mutually determined that opting against the regionalization of their potable water systems is in
their collective best interests. This decision is rooted in the recognition that neither City possesses
a surplus of water supply, making it a strategic choice to maintain their individual systems.
222190-000 ' . • - .
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
Environmental Impacts:
Construction of this alternative would impact a moderate amount of property to connect Chubbuck
to the Pocatello water system.
5.4 WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES
A water distribution system must be designed to meet the PHD or the MDD with fire flow
requirements, whichever is greater. The entire water volume can either be delivered directly to
the system from the source, or it can be delivered from a combination of source supply and
storage. In cases where a source and storage are supplying a water system, PHD can be supplied
from storage, and source capacity can be reduced to near MDD. This supply scenario reduces
the instantaneous demand capacity of the source due to the availability of water in storage. The
City of Chubbuck currently operates their water system using both source and storage.
Based upon the analysis shown in Section 4.2.3, the existing storage volume presently meets
requirements. However, as the population grows, and the current storage infrastructure nears the
end of its lifespan there will need to be upgrades. To proactively address this challenge, the City
should continue to develop secondary irrigation systems in new developments where possible.
Beyond the end of the study at approximately a population 37,500, it is predicted that the MDD
will require the City to obtain more water rights assuming firm pumping capacity is used to meet
the MDD rather than a larger storage capacity. For the year 2043 the projection reveals that the
City will still have enough water rights to meet the demand of its residents. Because of the
moratorium on the Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer it is in the City's best interest to acquire
additional water rights if any become available.
It is noteworthy that, over the past few years, periodically all requests for additional ground and
surface water sources within the Snake River Basin have been suspended under a moratorium.
Consequently, these water right applications are becoming increasingly difficult to obtain.
Six alternatives were considered regarding water supply including a no action alternative;
implementation of a water conservation program, hiring or purchasing a leak detection system
and making system repairs; and adjusting groundwater rights for 3 possible groundwater wells.
5.4.1 Water Supply Alternative 1 — No Action Alternative
The City of Chubbuck has sufficient supply to meet current demands with their storage capacity;
however, while obtaining additional water sources could be postponed for a few years, it would
be prudent for the City of Chubbuck to begin planning to either supplement current storage and
supply, or to decrease demands due to the extensive process required to obtain additional water
rights in the Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer. Thus, this alternative is not considered to be in
the City's best interest and will not be considered moving forward.
Environmental Impacts:
This alternative would not have any direct environmental impacts beyond existing conditions.
5.4.2 Water Supply Alternative 2 — Water Conservation
Under this alternative, the City would implement a conservation outreach program to encourage
consumers to use water more carefully. A public education program could be used to educate
consumers regarding conservation practices such as installing low flow faucets, using effective
irrigation methods, and utilizing low water consumption landscaping. This alternative has the
potential to provide a net money savings for the City because less energy will be required to pump
water, and future water needs can be met using the current supply, thereby delaying future
222190-000 ' . • - .
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
expenditures related to additional source capacity until more residents are available to share the
costs.
An enhanced water conservation program has the potential to provide additional supply
redundancy and decrease the demands on the supply and distribution system by increasing
citizen awareness. The goal of this improvement is to decrease water usage in Chubbuck to levels
that reflect the average domestic consumption in Idaho (186 gpcd). Table 5-1 provides an
estimate of projected water use and the potential savings if this goal could be met. Although the
City's 5 year ADD is 196 gpcd for the purpose of this study the highest ADD (209 gpcd) is used
to show potential savings.
Table 5-1 Water Conservation Proaram Potential Water Savinas in 2063
In addition to what the City is currently doing, a conservation program could include passing water -
wise ordinances to govern future developments or could also provide incentive to improve
currently existing properties as deemed appropriate by the City Council. Due to the myriad ways
the City could implement this alternative, a present value capital cost of $10,000 is attributed to
this alternative.
Environmental Impacts:
The long-term environmental impacts of water conservation would prolong additional drilling of
City wells and help to preserve the current condition of the Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer.
5.4.3 Water Supply Alternative 3 — Leak Detection Service
As discussed in Section 4.2.1, there appears to be losses in the water distribution system.
Instituting a leak detection program could include hiring a leak detection service to evaluate the
City's water distribution system. Through a leak detection service, leaking pipes could be
identified for repair and replacement, thus improving the integrity of the distribution system, and
reducing water loss due to leaking pipes. The leak detection program would also allow the City to
focus resources on the sections of the system that are in the most need of repair. Through the
identification of leaking system piping, Chubbuck will be able to develop a distribution repair plan
based upon the extent of the leak.
This alternative has the potential to increase the water available to the system, decrease system
losses, and increase system pressures through pipe replacement and leak repair, allowing the
City to comply with IDAPA system pressure requirements (IDAPA 552.01.b) more easily. The
information provided in a leak detection survey would provide water system operators with
information that could be used to improve the operation and maintenance of the City's current
system.
The estimated present value cost of this alternative is $50,000. If the City chose to purchase
222190-000 ' . • - .
City of Chubbuck
Water Facilities Planning Study
KELLER
materials to do this service in house, costs could vary from those presented above.
Environmental Impacts:
Utilizing a leak detection service has the potential to protect environmental conditions by reducing
system losses that must be made up through additional supply.
5.4.4 Water Supply Alternative 4 — New Well #7 Construction
As the City nears a population of 21,500, the City would need a new groundwater well to stay in
compliance with IDAPA requirements. A new well is suggested before the MDD is equal to the
firm capacity of the system rather than increasing storage alone. The Well #7 Tank will technically
be required several years before the Well #7 source is required. Based on current water demands
and projected population growth it is expected that the maximum daily demand will match firm
capacity around the year 2033.
Often with this type of facility, it becomes more cost effective to construct a well, tank and booster
station at the same time to prevent components from being oversized; however, the facility can
be constructed in a variety of different ways.
For hydraulic reasons, the ideal location for this facility would be near to the Hiline Booster Station
and west of Hiline Rd. If located near the Hiline Booster Station, the Well #7 Complex will become
a major source for water in the bench area and in so doing help to prevent reduced pressures in
the main system as additional bench growth occurs. A Well #7 Complex near the Hiline Booster
Station will also improve the performance of that system as demand increases and as pumps are
added to the Booster Station.
Based on current conditions, it is anticipated that the site would be on the City Owned parcel
located in the undeveloped area north of New Day Parkway and west of Hiline Rd. The Well #7
Complex would likely be similar to the Well #6 Complex and consist of a well, storage tank, and
booster station housed on the same lot. The facility will require at least a 16 -inch transmission
line in order to effectively supply water into the City's distribution system.
The present value cost estimate of a new well and well house is approximately $2M.
Environmental Impacts:
This location has not been previously disturbed for municipal water use but has been used as
agriculture land thus the environmental impacts of a new well is anticipated to be minimal.
5.4.5 Water Supply Alternative 5 — New Well #8 Construction
Assuming Well #7 has pumping capacity of 2,000 gpm, as the population of the City nears 27,000
people additional water supply sources are anticipated to be needed. Unlike Well #7, Well #8 is
anticipated to be a Well and well house only. The location of this well is expected to be in the
main pressure zone on the western side of the City to serve this growing area. The precise
location is anticipated to be on a City owned parcel West of Philbin Road. The facility will require
at least a 16 -inch transmission line to effectively supply water into the City's distribution system.
The present value cost estimate of a new well and well house is approximately $2M.
Environmental Impacts:
This location has not been previously disturbed for municipal water use but has been used as
agriculture land thus the environmental impacts of a new well is anticipated to be minimal.
222190-000 ' . • - . .
City of Chubbuck
Water Facilities Planning Study
KELLER
5.4.6 Water Supply Alternative 6 — New Well #9 Developer Construction
Parallel to Well #8, the foreseeable demand for the growing East Bench Zone east of 1-15
suggests that a 9th well may become a necessity. While the development of this area is currently
under discussion and not actively underway, it is advisable for the City to proactively plan for
growth if it does occur.
To avoid allocating City resources prematurely to infrastructure in an uncertain location, a
practical approach is proposed. It is anticipated that a future developer will need to build Well #9.
The City could possibly allocate some funds to the development of Well #9 if it were deemed to
be beneficial for the City to upsize the Well. This collaborative strategy allows for responsible
planning and resource allocation in tandem with the progression of the development in the East
Bench Zone.
Due to the lack of information on the disposition and standing of the water rights situation in the
Chubbuck area, no cost information is available at this time associated with possibly needing to
transfer additional ground water rights; Additionally, there is no value provided for possible land
buying requirement as it is expected the well will sit on the developer's land and be given to the
City for the water infrastructure. However, the present value cost estimate for a potential
developer, of a new well and well house, is approximately $2M.
Environmental Impacts:
The well would likely sit on previously used agriculture land thus the environmental impacts of an
additional well are anticipated to be minimal.
5.5 WATER STORAGE ALTERNATIVES
Water storage is required when the source supply does not meet the system demands, which is
typical during peak hour demands. In addition, water storage typically provides water for fire
protection and emergency needs. Because wells are expensive to construct relative to the
capacity they provide, storage can help meet demands without additional water sources. Currently
the City Storage Tanks in Chubbuck have an excess capacity of approximately 17%.
5.5.1 Water Storage Alternative 1 — No Action Alternative
The existing storage tanks in Chubbuck have a capacity of 3.125 MG. Under current conditions
without any firm capacity, it is estimated the City currently has a storage surplus of 0.53 MG. As
population increases the storage surplus will decrease. Additionally, the age and infrastructure of
the metal tanks at Hill Tank Farm is diminishing and may need to be taken offline. It is estimated
that by the year 2027 or around 18,500 people the City will have no surplus storage. To offset this
storage deficiency there are three items that can be addressed by the City which include: reducing
demand, increasing supply, or increasing storage. Because the City population is anticipated to
increase, the no action alternative is not anticipated to be in the City's best interest. The City
should plan to have the tanks inspected and routine maintenance conducted at regular intervals;
however, routine maintenance is not considered as a separate storage alternative.
Environmental Impacts:
This alternative would not have any direct environmental impact.
5.5.2 Water Storage Alternative 2 — Main Zone Additional Storage
It is recommended that a City be able to provide maximum day demands using its firm pumping
capacity and utilize storage tanks to provide for peak demands, operational, and emergency
222190-000 ' . • - .
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
storage. The amount of emergency storage is typically set by fire codes or the Idaho Surveying
and Rating Bureau which evaluates required fire flow conditions based on building type and size.
Emergency storage is a set quantity that is determined by the anticipated greatest fire suppression
demand and respective duration. As of the time of the writing, the largest identified fire
suppression demand is 6,000 gpm for four hours and is assigned to the RK Motels LLC. This
quantity results in a total required fire suppression storage volume of 1.44 Million Gallons.
Assuming the required amount of fire suppression storage remains the same and that the City
will only need to meet the peak demand storage requirements for an increasing population, the
City should anticipate constructing 1.5 million gallons of storage in the next few years as the
population nears 18,500 assuming a continued gpcd of 209.
As mentioned in section 5.4.4 a new Well #7 Complex location has already been determined and
purchased by the City around a decade ago. For hydraulic reasons, the preferred location for this
facility is near the Hiline Booster Station and west of Hiline Rd. The estimated cost of storage and
booster station complex would be approximately $7M in addition to the well described previously
and assuming a 1.5 -Million -gallon storage tank. The total cost of the Well #7 Complex is estimated
to be $9M.
Environmental Impacts:
This location has not been previously disturbed for municipal water use but has been used as
agriculture land thus the environmental impacts of an additional tank and booster station are
anticipated to be minimal.
5.5.3 Water Storage Alternative 3 — East Bench Developer Storage
This trend of constructing a 1.5 -million -gallon storage should be repeated for nearly every 20
years assuming peaking factors and water usage remain similar, and Wells are also being
developed. This estimate coincides with the recommended period for additional water supply
wells, and therefore allows the City some flexibility in how to construct water system
improvements. Assuming the addition of a 1.5MG tank, and 2,000 gpm source well (Well #7
Complex) at a population of 18,500, by year 2043 it is projected the City will have a shortfall in
storage of approximately 10.3% or approximately 0.5 MG. Depending on population growth, water
consumption rates per capita, and groundwater production a 1.5 MG tank may be needed sooner
than the expected and should be evaluated on a regular basis as planning studies are updated.
It is anticipated that as development occurs in the east bench area a storage tank will need to be
constructed in this section to improve supply and flow in the new development. At this time, it is
anticipated for only a storage tank to be constructed rather than the City's previous well, booster
station, storage complex design. The tank cost is anticipated to taken on by the developer in the
region to make sure that City's water infrastructure resources are used in the populated locations.
The estimated cost for the 1.5 MG Developer Storage Tank would be approximately $5.6M not
accounting for future inflation. Depending on the needs of the City, it may be beneficial for the
City to upsize the Developer's tank and potentially cost share for the storage tank.
Environmental Impacts:
This location has not been previously disturbed for municipal water use but has been used as
agriculture land thus the environmental impacts of an additional tank are anticipated to be
minimal.
222190-000 ' . • - .:
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
5.6 WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
Water supply and storage alternatives are only as useful as the distribution system which conveys
the produced and stored water throughout the City. The City of Chubbuck has a system comprised
of pipes varying widely in both age and diameter. Newer areas of growth within Chubbuck are
typically serviced by newer 6- or 8 -inch lines with large diameter transmission lines
interconnecting the various neighborhoods. The City has replaced many older area lines and most
of the City residential neighborhoods are served by 6- and 8 -inch lines. Based on the results of
the water modeling efforts described in Section 3, dead end lines, difficult to access distribution
lines, and Chubbuck Elementary School are sources of fire flow deficiencies due to local
recommended flow requirements.
5.6.1 Distribution Alternative 1 — No Action Alternative
The no action alternative is not considered to be a viable option due to fire flow deficiencies within
the Chubbuck distribution system, maintenance of older sections, and population growth in new
developing areas. For this reason, this alternative is not evaluated in detail.
5.6.2 Distribution Alternative 2 — Distribution System Phased Improvements
To optimize the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of anticipated developments, the initial focus for
transmission improvements will prioritize addressing distribution enhancements aligned with the
planned improvements by the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD), aiming to synergize with
scheduled projects and thereby reduce the overall expense of waterline improvements. The
sequential approach involves addressing problematic lines next, followed by the expansion of
distribution lines necessary to facilitate growth in emerging areas of Chubbuck.
In the coming years, there will be a growing need for additional transmission lines within the bench
area. These lines are essential to provide water service and support development along the newly
established Northgate Interchange Corridor. It is envisioned that most of the installation cost for
the transmission lines and small -diameter piping required to service new neighborhoods and
developments will be borne by the respective land developers. This approach ensures a
collaborative effort in infrastructure development, promoting sustainable growth and community
advancement.
Due to the size of the Chubbuck water system, this alternative is broken up into phases that
systematically address the future deficiencies faced by the City as it keeps up with a 2.5% growth
rate. In each case, recommendations focus upon upgrading undersized lines to improve hydraulic
conditions generally within the distribution system as well as encourage compliance with state
regulations. In addition to the phased approach to meet the growing needs of the City a set of
potential improvements to improve the current fire flow deficiencies is also included to be
evaluated and prioritized by the City.
Grouping system improvements into phases provides the City with a means for planning to add
new components to meet the growth needs. Each phase will improve compliance with State and
Federal Standards as well as the overall hydraulic performance of the water system.
Distribution Phase I Improvements (Population 16,000-20,000)
Phase I Improvements focus on the pressing needs of the system and the already planned Idaho
Transportation Department roadwork.
222190-000 ' . • - . •
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
In alignment with the Idaho Transportation Department's initiatives occurring in 2028 and to
minimize unnecessary roadwork, the City anticipates installing a new 12 -Inch line from Southside
Way to Tyhee Road along Yellowstone Avenue. This increased transmission line along
Yellowstone Avenue done at the time of the 2028 ITD project and tie-ins would allow for improved
hydraulic performance in this area and opens the area east of Yellowstone Avenue for additional
industrial and heavy commercial development.
A critical segment of the infrastructure, a 16 -inch HDPE waterline beneath 1-86 between Walmart
and the ICCU, is currently deactivated and necessitates either replacement or rehabilitation.
These projects have been strategically identified by the City as urgent needs or responsive
measures to the various transportation projects unfolding in and around the City.
These Phase I improvements involve the installation of approximately 5,350 ft. of new 12 -inch
PVC water lines as listed in Table 5-2, and shown in Figure 5-1.
Table 5-2 Distribution Phase I Upgrades
The improvements covered in this phase provide sufficient water pressures and fire flows at fire
hydrants in the new growth areas. The estimated present value cost of this alternative is $2.OM
depending on how the costs are split up.
Distribution Phase II Improvements (Population 20,000-25,000)
Phase II improvements are focused on the East bench developments as this is the fastest growing
area with some developments underway.
Looking ahead, the impending development necessitates the installation of a 16 -inch transmission
line, running in a north -south direction within the bench zone. Undertaking this initiative is
imperative to facilitate and accommodate the envisioned development in the area.
As significant development is planned for in East Chubbuck, additional growth will also be
occurring in West Chubbuck between Hawthorne Road and Rio Vista Road. A portion of this
development is planned for in unincorporated areas, but developers have expressed interest in
installing water service from the City of Chubbuck. These areas may also be annexed at some
point in the future. To provide capacity for these developments, increased transmission capacity
would be required along Siphon Road from the Well #6 Tank to Philbin Road and South along
Philbin Road to approximately Kiersten Drive. A new transmission line from Cumberland Road to
Northgate road along Rio Vista Road is planned for Phase II Distribution Improvements. It is
anticipated that residents along this route would be given the option of connecting to City water
at that time. For the purpose of the study it is assumed that new transmission lines will be located
in roadways, but there are many alternatives that may run transmission lines through new
development roadways instead.
222190-000 ' . • -
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
The Phase II improvements involve the installation of approximately 14,000 ft. of new 16 -Inch
PVC water lines as shown in Table 5-3, and shown in Figure 5-1.
Table 5-3 Distribution Phase II Upgrades
I& mj&&�
ApproximatePipe
•
Northgate
Interchange -North
Buffalo Creek Bend
Tyhee Rd.
Alignment
4,000 16
Siphon Road West
Existing 18" Line
Philbin Road
3,600 16
Rio Vista Road
Cumberland Rd
Siphon Road
2,700 16
Philbin Road
I Existing 16" Line I
Siphon Rd.
3,700 16
of Field
The improvements covered
in this phase will better maintain water Dressures and help Drovide
sufficient fire flows at fire hydrants in new developments. The estimated present value cost of this
alternative is $5.3M.
Distribution Phase III Improvements (Population 25,000-30,000)
Phase III Improvements will install new transmission lines located in the outer most portions of
the City in anticipation of new growth in these outer sections.
It is also planned that increased development in Chubbuck would benefit from transmission line
extending along the New Day Parkway to the east limits of the City to a future developer storage
tank. For the purpose of this planning study transmission lines are also anticipated to extend west
along Chubbuck Road to Rio Vista and then north along Rio Vista to Cumberland Road. New
transmission lines are also recommended from Philbin Road to Rio Vista along Siphon Road. As
well as extending the Transmission line on Rio Vista to the North of Siphon Road to approximately
12215 Rio Vista depending on developer location. As an alternative these transmissions lines
may be placed in the new development land with coordination between City and developer to
ensure proper pressures and fire flows.
These Phase III improvements involve the installation of approximately 17,600 ft. of new 16 -inch
PVC water lines as shown in Table 5-4, and shown in Figure 5-1.
Table 5-4 Distribution Phase III Upgrades
222190-000 ' . • -
ApproximateFrom
Length
Siphon Road West
Philbin Rd.
Rio Vista Rd.
5,300
16
Rio Vista Road
Chubbuck Rd.
Northern End
1,300
16
of Field
Rio Vista Road
Siphon Rd.
West
2,600
16
LLacey
Chubbuck Road
Lamar St.
Rio Vista Rd.
2,600
16
Northgate
Venture Way
West Tyhee
5,800
18
Interchange
Road
Total.0i
222190-000 ' . • -
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
The improvements covered in this phase will better maintain water pressures and help provide
sufficient fire flows in the new development fire hydrants. The estimated total present value cost
of this alternative is $5.7M.
Distribution Phase IV Improvements (Population 30,000+)
Phase IV improvements will install new transmission lines located on the outer most portions of
the City in anticipation of new growth in these outer sections. These Phase IV improvements
involve the installation of approximately 22,500 ft. of new 16 -inch PVC water lines as shown in
Table 5-5, and shown in Figure 5-1.
Table 5-5 Distribution Phase IV Upgrades
The improvements covered in this phase will better maintain water pressures and help provide
sufficient fire flows to the new development's fire hydrants. The estimated total present value
cost of this alternative is $8.2M.
Distribution Fire Flow Improvements
Fire Flow deficiency improvements are suggested improvements lines to increase the size of line
from 6 -inch to 8 -inch to allow better flow or to circle a line and prevent dead end locations. These
improvements involve the installation of approximately 8,250 ft. of new 8 -inch and 10 -Inch PVC
water lines as shown in Table 5-6, and shown in Figure 5-1.
222190-000 ' . • -
Approximate
Hiline Road
Harvest
Springs Blvd
Thee Road
y
1,300 16
Hawthorne Road
Tyhee Road
Siphon Road
3,900 16
Philbin Road
Siphon
Road
Tyhee Road
5,300 16
Tyhee Road
Philbin Road
Hiline Road
12,000 16
I
ILIA "111
The improvements covered in this phase will better maintain water pressures and help provide
sufficient fire flows to the new development's fire hydrants. The estimated total present value
cost of this alternative is $8.2M.
Distribution Fire Flow Improvements
Fire Flow deficiency improvements are suggested improvements lines to increase the size of line
from 6 -inch to 8 -inch to allow better flow or to circle a line and prevent dead end locations. These
improvements involve the installation of approximately 8,250 ft. of new 8 -inch and 10 -Inch PVC
water lines as shown in Table 5-6, and shown in Figure 5-1.
222190-000 ' . • -
City of Chubbuck
Water Facilities Planning Study
Table 5-6 Distribution Fire Flow Improvements
KELLER
The improvements covered in this phase will better maintain water pressures and help provide
sufficient fire flows. The estimated total present value cost of this alternative is $2.3M. All
Distribution Improvements are identified in Figure 5-1 and the impact to fire flow conditions and
coverage is presented in Figure 5-2.
5.7 OTHER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
The City has outlined specific requirements that merit consideration as potential projects, distinct
from those primarily motivated by population growth. These projects are to address maintenance
needs, underscoring the City's commitment to preserving and enhancing existing infrastructure.
5.7.1 Decommission Well #1
During the year 2023 some vandalism occurred at the abandoned Well #1 location. The City has
already removed the motor and column but has one 6 -inch line connected to the distribution
15 If City can procure an easement, a 400ft 6 -inch line between Briscoe Road and Stuart would be
preferable.
222190-000 ' . • -
Approximate
Moran Street
Brundage
End of Moran
700
8
Street
Chubbuck Elementary
Hawthorne
Hawthorne
1000
8
School
Abandon Line Behind
Houses (Beach and
Hawthorne
Homes
770
8
Hawthorne)
Carnation Circle
Hollyhock
End of
120
8
St
Carnation
Church Parking Lot
Patriot
Hydrant
340
8
Street
Sacajawea Drive
Stripes Rd
Washburn St
550
8
Scotts St
Chubbuck
North Scotts
300
8
Rd
St
Lisa Street
Lucky Ave
End of Lisa
480
8
Street
Briscoe Road
Belva Ln
End of
79015
8
Briscoe Rd
Complete Diamond Cir
MesquiteLakeside
Dr
670
8
Loop Loo
Rink Rd
Sacajawea-New Day to
South 18"
Tree Valley
1460
8
Chubbuck Rd
Line
Road
Sacajawea-New Day to
South 18"
Garden Drive
560
10
Chubbuck Rd
Line
Sacajawea-New Day to
South 18"
Leonidas
560
10
Chubbuck Rd
Line
Street
.Iii
o
The improvements covered in this phase will better maintain water pressures and help provide
sufficient fire flows. The estimated total present value cost of this alternative is $2.3M. All
Distribution Improvements are identified in Figure 5-1 and the impact to fire flow conditions and
coverage is presented in Figure 5-2.
5.7 OTHER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
The City has outlined specific requirements that merit consideration as potential projects, distinct
from those primarily motivated by population growth. These projects are to address maintenance
needs, underscoring the City's commitment to preserving and enhancing existing infrastructure.
5.7.1 Decommission Well #1
During the year 2023 some vandalism occurred at the abandoned Well #1 location. The City has
already removed the motor and column but has one 6 -inch line connected to the distribution
15 If City can procure an easement, a 400ft 6 -inch line between Briscoe Road and Stuart would be
preferable.
222190-000 ' . • -
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
system with active water supply that is valved closed. The well has already been evaluated and
determined that the well casing is irreparable and is not in the City's best interest to rehabilitate.
It is to the benefit of the City to decommission the well and move resources away from ensuring
protection of the water supply at the abandoned well House #1.
The anticipated cost to complete this alternative is expected to be about $10,000.
Environmental Impacts:
This alternative would not have any direct environmental impact.
5.7.2 1977 1.5 MG Tank Roof Repair
The current City tank yard 1.5MG concrete tank lid's waterproof membrane is failing with
holes/cracks and a good amount of stagnant water pools that sit on the roof. There are concerns
with the possibility of potential contamination of tank water due to the failing lid membrane. This
improvement consists of the removal and disposal of the existing roof membrane, structural
inspection of the tank roof, structural repairs to the tank roof, rigid insulation with sloping for
drainage and a new roof membrane.
The anticipated cost to complete this alternative is $0.5M; however, depending upon the selection
of improvement the cost could be variable.
Environmental Impacts:
This alternative would not have any direct environmental impact.
5.7.3 Bench Booster Station Improvements
the City may also consider upgrades to the existing Bench Booster Station focusing on
components which are anticipated to be in need of replacement such as the booster pumps and
electrical components. It is assumed that the building structure and other appurtenances to the
facility will remain in good working condition.
The anticipated cost to complete this alternative is expected to be about $363,000.
Environmental Impacts:
As only the internal components of the bench booster station will be updated it is not anticipated
to have any adverse environmental impacts.
5.7.4 Demolish Steel Tanks and Increase Storage at Tank Hill Farm
With the aging steel tanks at Tank Hill Farm, it is prudent for the City to consider alternatives and
be prepared for the need to remove the tanks. As the condition of the tanks is still reportedly good
there is not a timeline or population driven need in which this alternative is necessary to occur.
To keep the current storage and slightly improve the storage capacity of the system it is
anticipated that the two steel tanks will be demolished and a new 500,000 -gallon tank will be
erected in the same location where the previous tanks were. The City is limited by land available
at the Tank Hill Farm and will only be able to increase the storage capacity by about 200,000
gallons depending on the possible tank configuration and laybacks at the site. The estimated cost
for the demolition of the steel tanks and construction of a 500,000 -gallon concrete tank is
approximately $2M.
222190-000 ' . • -
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
Environmental Impacts:
As the location of the tank will exist on the current steel tank location and is already disturbed
land for municipal water use it is not expected to have significant environmental impacts.
5.8 SYSTEM CLASSIFICATION, STAFFING, & OPERATOR LICENSURE
Idaho DEQ classifies drinking water systems into two levels: treatment and distribution, and the
complexity of each system is evaluated separately. Classification worksheets can be found on
Idaho DEQ's website (Idaho Dept. of Environmental Quality, 2021). The distribution system is
evaluated based on the population served by the system. The breakdown of population is shown
in Table 5-7
Table 5-7 Idaho DEQ Distribution System Classification
* Very Small Public Drinking Water System - A Community or Non -transient Non-
community Public Water System that serves five hundred (500) persons or less and
has no treatment other than disinfection" or has only treatment which does not
require any chemical treatment, process adjustment, backwashing or media
regeneration by an operator (e.g. calcium carbonate filters, granular activated
carbon filters, cartridge filters, ion exchangers.) (IDAPA 58.01.08.003.79)
** Disinfection - Introduction of chlorine or other agent or process approved by the
Department of Environmental Quality, in sufficient concentration and for the time
required to kill or inactivate pathogenic and indicator organisms. (IDAPA
58.01.08.003.22)
The treatment system classification is based on the following eight criteria:
• System Size
• Water Supply Source
• Average Raw Water Quality
• Treatment Process
• Disinfection
• Sludge / Backwash Water Disposal
• Bacteriological / Biological Laboratory Control
• Chemical / Physical Laboratory Control
Alternatives not eliminated by screening should be compared for any potential impacts on system
classification. For distribution system classification, the current system has a classification of
DWD3, and for the treatment system, the current system has a classification of DWT1 (DEQ,
2023). None of the alternatives presented will alter the drinking water or distribution classification,
therefore, no additional consideration of system classification will be given in comparing the
proposed alternatives.
222190-000
PopulationClassification
Very Small Public Drinking Water System
* See definition below
Class 1
1,500 or less
Class 11
1,501 to 15,000
Class 111
15,001 to 50,000
Class IV
50,001 and greater
* Very Small Public Drinking Water System - A Community or Non -transient Non-
community Public Water System that serves five hundred (500) persons or less and
has no treatment other than disinfection" or has only treatment which does not
require any chemical treatment, process adjustment, backwashing or media
regeneration by an operator (e.g. calcium carbonate filters, granular activated
carbon filters, cartridge filters, ion exchangers.) (IDAPA 58.01.08.003.79)
** Disinfection - Introduction of chlorine or other agent or process approved by the
Department of Environmental Quality, in sufficient concentration and for the time
required to kill or inactivate pathogenic and indicator organisms. (IDAPA
58.01.08.003.22)
The treatment system classification is based on the following eight criteria:
• System Size
• Water Supply Source
• Average Raw Water Quality
• Treatment Process
• Disinfection
• Sludge / Backwash Water Disposal
• Bacteriological / Biological Laboratory Control
• Chemical / Physical Laboratory Control
Alternatives not eliminated by screening should be compared for any potential impacts on system
classification. For distribution system classification, the current system has a classification of
DWD3, and for the treatment system, the current system has a classification of DWT1 (DEQ,
2023). None of the alternatives presented will alter the drinking water or distribution classification,
therefore, no additional consideration of system classification will be given in comparing the
proposed alternatives.
222190-000
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
5.8.1 Public Participation
40 CFR Part 25 discusses objectives and requirements for public participation. The public refers
to, in the broadest sense, the general populace and may include any relevant special interest
groups. This process helps elected officials to become aware of public attitudes by allowing the
public to communicate their views. The Chubbuck Water Facilities Planning Study, its
conclusions, and its recommendations are to be presented at Chubbuck City Hall on November
14, 2024.
222190-000 ' . • - •
n
r
IF
IT
�f rCf r�
t,
7.
'+ A . _�', ,• �l� .,tri T �� _ dp. 1 y r_3!_�..ie+ .�/ � -
tai --v ' �i ,�%
T 7
17
• Imo.
--
low
_ its= �, T.., '�-'�:' -' �•� �-��,��r� �,
.. •��_LL- I�'f _ _ .:•TSI►� •h•�,y��• �y��'• L }I.�>•
�N f -
Vi
r. �t ' � � � L fir• .) % < �_� L� �I�r•�31
All
N
Pronosed ❑
.r
•X•La 111.0
In
x
E
0
LL
LL
D
0
0
,2
1
0 0
�Dp� 0 °
LL ° ° °SO.
11
0
06
,.
LL LL
po@
0
Well;3@, °°°°°
n @ o
o
0
A o ° ° ° ° o , ° ° -
i @ ° °
0 0
0 0
o @0% o
0 0 ° o �io
'
Well 6.3
° o 0
° o °
0 0 0 0 0 �
0 0 ° o o o 11 O O ° O
0 0 ° 0 . O o ,I [fh o 0 0
° • o o ° L_C o 0
0
O O o ° ° 11 ,7�j 11 LL LL 00 0
° ° LS
o ° o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0° ° o . @ 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
°
0 0 - o
0 jo@
0° SrLWeII2 °° o ° 00 7_0C ° 0 00 dp7j LL d�1p '- LL 11 ° 0 @ ° o ° LL LL
°°{1Y0O�110O�iL--Lrr �-r � l"rr � � � ° �-r
,�,o °Q0 ° ° 11 11 0 "JJ 0" .o, 0 0 0 0 0 • o o
7_[ o 0 o u O o q @� 0 ]]�0[ 0 �5�0[ ° �oo o 0 0 7=C
° Qm o_° @0 o ° o �i0 � ,q 0 0 D o o ° 0 0 0 0° 0 0
r, --F yam'` `� `�
° ° ,Well 4 ydpgp�h 0 0 0 ° ° ° ° ° lap °°° o p We 11 l -
° + ° V ° ° ° J.1 0 0 O O ° ° O O �lo
° f o ° DOD o
LLL o ° ++ ^^ 1111 ° ° ° 11 °
o A • • - .
Miles
0 0.25 0.5 1
—
° [ °1111 � 0 0Y=t'0 °°
77-. 000
O 0
°
° °°
°°o ° °
o o °
ta 4a O O O
°°° ° O
0 oO°0 %° ° 0 @ 0 °
O
f
° 0 -
0
0 0 0 0 °
° O 0 qS�� o ° 11 g
° ' 'S
O o �SUO 5 ° o O
.', We 115 ° ° ° °
- - °0
0 0
'! a.
VIOS+��. o. • ,,1C,.. E.77..c
s
Fire Flow Results with
KELLER Improved Lines (2021 MDD + FFD)
Chubbuck Water Facility Planning Study
lao,t-\
CHUBBUCK
10080
Sou
[
Legend
of
-`
❑ BPS
Wells
,J`,���
Tanks
-4 Sam
Meets
FFD
Fail
,ads
Pass
Water Main Lines
250 FT Range
Maxar, EarthsUaXGe.`ogr State Highways
Figure 5-2
City of Chubbuck
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
CHAPTER 6 IMPLEMENTATION & FUNDING ANALYSIS
6.1 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Community engagement in the project planning process is critical to its success. The purpose of
a public utility is to serve the needs of the community. As such, involvement by the community in
the planning process can help develop public understanding of the need for the project, funding
requirements, and revenue strategies.
An open house special public meeting was held outside of the regularly scheduled council
meeting and notification of this meeting was published in the local newspaper and on the City's
website. The advertisement provided basic information, such as date, time, location, and an
explanation of where the public can access the planning study and provide comments. The public
meeting facilitated a discussion of the proposed and rejected project alternatives, related
environmental impacts, and mitigation measures specific to each alternative. Only a couple of
members of the public attended and none of the member provided comments on the proposed
alternatives.
A 14 -day public comment period was held along with the public meeting. A copy of the planning
study was made available for review at City Hall. Public comments were accepted during the
public comment period, but no public comments were received for this study by the City. Copies
of the presentation given in the public open house are available in Appendix H.
6.2 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES & PRIORITY RANKING
Because none of the identified alternatives were considered mutually exclusive, no rankings for
project alternatives were conducted. Rather, the City plans to implement and address each
alternative at different time scales to provide best for the long-term needs of the community.
Additional consideration was given based on public comment and feedback from City leaders and
employees. It was necessary to evaluate the proposed improvements based on all these criteria
to address the needs of the City's water system as a whole.
Initial efforts will be expended to continue encouraging conservation within the community and
reduce fugitive losses associated with leaking waterlines through public outreach and leak
detection services. The City will also begin planning to address age and fire flow deficiencies
within the distribution system by upgrading undersized distribution lines. Ultimately, the number
of new wells and tanks which the City will need will largely depend on production and storage
volumes, changes in per capita water usage resulting from water conservation efforts, and the
total service population. Assuming system demands per person remain fairly constant the City
should be able to provide for the needs of nearly 18,500 people.
6.2.1 Priority Rankings
Priority 1 (0-5 Years, or population 16,000-20,000)
Four ranking criteria were used to classify the importance of the system improvements. Priority I
improvements are improvements that are vital to reliable operation of the water system and that
will improve both the short and long-term operation of the system. Priority I improvements include
the construction of a new groundwater well, booster station, a new 1.5 MG tank, and Phase
Distribution Improvements.
Constructing a 1.51VIG storage tank and booster station is required to meet the projected PHD of
the population around 18,500 people. Concurrent with the construction of the storage tank it is
222190-000 ' . • - •
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
recommended to construct the new groundwater Well #7 and booster station to meet the
projected MDD when the population nears 21,000. As the area will already be disturbed and this
complex can be designed and constructed at the same time easier than in two separate phases.
Some of the Phase 1 Distribution Improvements are planned to concurrently take place as ITD
projects are scheduled and to rehabilitate or replace the 16 -inch line under 1-86. Priority I
improvements are illustrated in Figure 6-1 and listed in Table 6-1.
Priority II (5-10 years or population 20,000-25,000)
Priority 11 improvements is the construction of new transmission lines to areas of growth in
development. The design of these improvements is recommended to begin as the population
nears 20,000 and continuing each year following assuming the population growth requires the
development.
By identifying Priority II -IV improvements at this time, it is anticipated that the City of Chubbuck
will have time to collect the necessary data to determine which projects will best address the
needs of the community and increase user rates, pursue grant funding, and educate the public
on the need for these projects. Because the residents of Chubbuck will ultimately be responsible
for much of the cost of these projects through user rates, it is necessary that all financing options
be considered and evaluated. Design and construction are recommended to begin as the
population requires. Priority 11 improvements are shown in Figure 6-1 and listed in Table 6-1.
Priority III (10-15 years or population 25,000-30,000)
Priority I II improvements are those that will be necessary for the City of Chubbuck to continue to
meet the needs of the expected 2.5% growth rate. These include transmission lines along the
outer sections of the City, and a 1.5 MG storage tank on the East Side of 1-15 depending on
development timing on that side of the interstate. Priority III improvements are shown in Figure
6-1 and listed in Table 6-1.
Priority IV (15+ years or population 30,000+)
Similar to priority III improvements, priority IV improvements are those that will be necessary for
the City of Chubbuck to continue to meet the needs of the expected 2.5% growth rate. These
include transmission lines along the outer sections of the City and additional Wells #8 and #9.
Priority IV improvements are shown in Figure 6-1 and listed in Table 6-1.
Fire Flow Improvements
The distribution improvements suggested to improve the current 2023 fire flow deficiencies are
shown in Figure 6-1 and listed in Table 6-1. Completion of these improvements would eliminate
the existing fire flow deficiencies of the system. It is anticipated that these upgrades will be
addressed as funding is available to do so.
Other Improvements
These improvements include projects that should be completed but are generally large capital
expenditures for maintenance items. The items include abandoning Well #1, Well House #5 motor
replacement, rehabilitating the roof of the existing 1.5 MG concrete tank at the tank farm, Bench
Booster Station upgrades, and upgrading the steel tanks at the tank farm as they continue to age.
These items are shown in Figure 6-1 and listed in Table 6-1.
6.3 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
A capital improvement plan (CIP) has been developed for the City of Chubbuck. The CIP outlines
a prioritization schedule and provides an opinion of probable cost for those improvements. The
222190-000 ' . • -
City of Chubbuck
Water Facilities Planning Study
KELLER
CIP summarizes the recommended system improvements that will likely require capital beyond
routine maintenance practices. A detailed description of these improvements and a breakdown of
the estimated costs can be found in Appendix G.
The prioritization schedule in the CIP was established through communication with the City.
Priority for these projects was assigned based on a review of the design criteria for the water
system and an evaluation of the water system needs with respect to the City's goals.
The CIP summary shown in Table 6-1 is grouped by priority, with Priority 1 having the highest
priority. Priority 1 includes the construction of the Well #7 Complex and phase I distribution
improvements. Priority 2 includes the phase II distribution lines. Priority 3 an additional 1.5 MG
tank and phase III distribution improvements. Priority 4 includes a new Wells #8 and #9, and the
phase IV distribution improvements. All capital improvements are shown in Figure 6-1.
222190-000 ' . • -
City of Chubbuck
Water Facilities Planning Study
KELLER
Table 6-1 Capital Improvement Plan
ME M
Pr or tv Improvements (Population 16,000 — 20,
FundedItem All City
City Pays for
Funded By
Developer
1A
Well #7 Complex (Well, 1.5 MG Tank, & Booster Station) (18,000 people)
$11,531,000
$0
$0
1B
12 -Inch Line in Yellowstone Ave from Southside Way to Tyhee — 4,400' (ITD 2028)
$1,279,000
$262,000
$0
1C
16 -Inch Line under 186 Walmart to ICCU - 950' (Replace/Rehabilitate)
$995,000
$0
$0
Total Priority 1 Improvements
$13,805,000
$262,000
$0
"2B16-Inch
ch Line from Buffalo Creek to Tyhee Alignment — 4,000'
$1,279,000
$262,000
$0
Line in Siphon Rd. from Trueman to Philbin Rd. - 3,600'
$1,451,000
$338,000
$0
2C
16 -Inch Line in Rio Vista Rd from Cumberland to Siphon Rd — 2,700'
$1,076,000
$253,000
$0
2D
16 -Inch Line in Philbin Rd from Angela Street to Siphon Rd — 3,700'
$1,520,000
$355,000
$0
Priority
Total Priority 2 Improvements
3 Improvements (Population 25,000 — 30,000 -K
$5,326,000
I
$1,208,000
AL
$0
3A
16 -inch Line in Siphon Rd from Philbin Rd to Rio Vista Rd — 5,300'
$2,040,000
$445,000
$0
3B
16 -Inch Line in Rio Vista from Existing Line in Chubbuck Rd to Northern End of Field— 1,300'
$515,000
$117,000
$0
3C
16 -Inch Line in Rio Vista from Siphon Rd to West Lacey Rd. — 2,600'
$1,006,000
$219,000
$0
3D
16 -Inch Line in Chubbuck Rd from Lamar St to Rio Vista Rd. — 2,600'
$1,007,000
$220,000
$0
3E
18 -Inch Line from New Day Interchange east to Olympus Dr. — 5,800'
$1,090,000
$1,090,000
3F
Potential Developer Hill 1.5 MG Tank, (Developer Paying 100%)
$0
$0
$5,588,000
Total Priority 3 Improvements
$5,658,000
$1,001,000
$6,678,000
4A
16 -Inch Line in Flandro Rd from Harvest Springs Blvd to Tyhee Rd — 1,300'
$498,000
$109,000
$0
4B
Well #8 Well House and Piping
$3,562,000
$0
$0
4C
16 -Inch Line in Hawthorne Rd from Tyhee Rd to Siphon Rd — 3,900'
$1,440,000
$257,000
$0
4D
16 -Inch Line in Philbin Rd from Siphon Rd to Tyhee — 5,300'
$1,951,000
$348,000
$0
4E
16 -Inch Line in Tyhee Rd from Philbin Rd to Hiline Rd — 12,000'
$4,411,000
$788,000
$0
222190-000
City of Chubbuck
Water Facilities Planning Study
KELLER k
4F Well #9 Developer Well House and Piping (City paying 50% of $3.6M)
$1,757,000
$0
$1,757,000
Total Priority 4 Improvements
ImprovementsFire Flow
8 -Inch Line in Moran Street From Brundage Street to end of Moran - 700'
$13,619,000
$212,000
$1,502,000
$0
$1,757,000
$0
10 -Inch Line at Chubbuck Elementary School - 1,000'
$312,000
$0
$0
Abandon Line Behind Houses and Connect 8 -Inch Line off Hawthorne - 770'
$232,000
$0
$0
8 -Inch Line in Hollyhock Street to end of Carnation - 120'
$37,000
$0
$0
8 -Inch Line in Church Parking Lot from Patriot Street to Hydrant - 340'
$103,000
$0
$0
8 -Inch Line in Sacajawea Drive from Stripes Rd to Washburn St - 550'
$166,000
$0
$0
8 -Inch Line off Chubbuck Rd - 300'
$90,000
$0
$0
8 -Inch Line in Lisa Street from Lucky Ave to end of Lisa St - 480'
$144,000
$0
$0
8 -Inch Line in Briscoe Road from Belva Ln to end of Briscoe - 790'
$239,000
$0
$0
8 -Inch Line Complete Diamond Circle Loop - 670'
$202,000
$0
$0
8 -Inch Line from Tree Valley Rd to East 16" Line —1,460'
$288,000
$0
$0
10 -Inch Connection from Garden Dr to East 16" Line — 560'
$123,000
$0
$0
10 -Inch Connection from Leonidas St to East 16" Line— 560'
$118,000
$0
$0
Total Fire Improvements
Other
Decommission Well #1
$2,266,000
$15,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
Rehabilitate 1.5 MG 1977 Concrete Tank Roof
$504,000
$0
$0
Well #5 Motor Replacement
$161,000
$0
$0
Bench Booster Station Improvements
$363,000
$0
$363,000
0.5 MG Hill Tank Farm Expansion and Steel Tank Demolition
$2,025,000
$0
$0
Total Other Improvements
$3,068,000
$0
$363,000
w-7TT-COST OPTI• •
CITY Or-• •• • •(Developer
-W -J
*All costs in 2024 Dollars. Costs include approximated engineering and planning contingencies. The cost estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at
the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control
over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions,
practices or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from the cost
presented herein.
222190-000
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
6.4 SYSTEM OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
The proposed improvements will have some impact on the operation and maintenance costs of
the Chubbuck Water System. Pipeline improvements will have a positive impact on the system
by reducing the time and money spent on repairs and the production of water being lost through
leaking distribution system components. Maintenance of existing facilities, including the wells,
storage tanks, booster pumping stations, and water meters, are already planned and provided for
within the existing City budgets; however, with the construction of each new well, tank, and
booster pump station the City will face higher operation and maintenance costs.
While planning for annual system maintenance costs is vital to keeping the system functioning,
the establishment of a capital improvement fund is also recommended. Such a fund would allow
the City to set aside a sum of money to be used to fund future improvements without requiring
outside funding sources. Such a fund will ultimately provide substantial savings for the City by
avoiding the pitfalls associated with interest on loans and the higher cost of projects which must
comply with the funding requirements such as the American Iron and Steel and Davis Bacon
requirements.
6.5 FUNDING ANALYSIS
Funding for system improvements may come from several sources. The primary source of funds
for the recommended system improvements may come from low interest loans through Idaho
DEQ's State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan program and USDA -Rural Development (USDA -RD).
Remaining monies may come from other sources that the community may be eligible for. These
include grants from the Army Corps of Engineers, Idaho Department of Commerce Community
Development Block Grant Program (CDBG), Special Congressional Appropriations (STAG),
Bureau of Reclamation, and Homeland Security Grant Programs. It is worth noting that the City
is not eligible for funding through USDA -Rural Development due to the population of the City.
The selection process for water and wastewater project funding is competitive. To be eligible for
and receive funding from Idaho DEQ -SRF, a letter of interest and application must be submitted
before the applicable deadlines for the fiscal year that funding is desired. Idaho DEQ -SRF
construction loans are typically 20 to 30 -year loans with below -market -rate interest rates. Idaho
DEQ ranks all of the submitted applications and awards funds accordingly. In addition to the loan,
Idaho DEQ may offer some principal subsidy (grant) money (Idaho Department of Environmental
Quality, 2024).
Additional funding sources include the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's (US BOR) WaterSMART
Drought Response Program's Drought Resiliency Projects (DRP) grants which will fund
hydropower and distribution production projects. There are typically three funding groups
available and the funding amounts in each group vary from year to year. For fiscal year 2024 the
available funding was broken up as follows: Group 1 — Up to $500,000 for small project that take
up to two years and Group 2 — Up to $2,000,000 and Group 3 - $5,000,000 for phased projects
with up to 50% grant match (USBR, 2024). The City of Chubbuck could also apply for up to a 75%
reimbursement through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (US ACOE) Section 595 Program for
Rural Idaho (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2024). The US ACOE provides this opportunity to
projects owned by public entities and assistance can be made available for design -only, design
and construction, or construction -only projects.
Idaho Department of Commerce CDBG monies could also be used to offset potential project
costs. To be eligible for CDBG funds, the community must have a "Low to Moderate Income"
222190-000 ' . • -
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
(LMI) of 51% or higher. Currently the City of Chubbuck is ineligible for the program, but these
numbers are updated every couple of years, so it is still a potential future option (Idaho
Department of Commerce, 2024). Grant applications for public facilities are due annually in
November. Other funding options include Special Congressional Appropriations, Stimulus
Funding, and Homeland Security Grants which both vary in amount and are difficult to predict
from year to year.
To incur indebtedness, the City must either pass a bond election or go through the `Ordinary and
Necessary' Judicial Confirmation process. Bond elections can only be held twice per year, once
in May and once in November. The Judicial Confirmation process requires a hearing with a judge
who will review the needs, proposed solution, and impacts to the City and make a ruling on
whether or not the project is ordinary and necessary. Some funding sources require that a bond
election be passed rather than the Judicial Confirmation process.
6.6 RATE ANALYSIS
The City of Chubbuck currently assesses a base rate for water services based on service size
and an additional $1.47 per 1,000 gallons discussed in Section 3.9. Water rates should be set
based upon the loan amounts that the system will receive plus additional operation and
maintenance, short lived assets, and other costs which may be incurred as part of the
improvements. In order to be able to complete all of the identified projects and pay the loan
payment (plus a 10% debt service reserve), additional O&M, and a capital improvement fund;
Chubbuck would need to raise monthly base user rates from current levels to fund the Priority I
and Priority II Improvements. Because Priority III Improvements will largely be driven by an
increased population, user rates will need to be considered at that time. A water rate study update
is recommended every 5 years to further refine these user rate estimate increases. This analysis
is just to provide a rough estimate of potential user rate increases.
In addition to raising user rates, it is recommended that the connection fee be increased 2-3% per
year to keep up with inflationary changes. Connection fees should be added to a capital
improvements fund to be used for future improvement projects. Table 6-2 shows two potential
funding scenarios for the City based on funding information from Idaho DEQ and self -funding from
capital reserves. With the most recent rate study that was completed it is likely that most of the
priority I improvements can be completed based on the planned increases through FY 2026
($32.10 base rate & $1.45/1,000 gallons). It should be noted that while grants are available to
assist in making water system improvements, the availability of grant funding and principal
forgiveness varies each year. Therefore, no grant forgiveness is shown to provide a conservative
estimate of what could be expected. The left hand column assumes a 30 year loan at 2% from
DEQ while the right hand column in Table 6-2 shows the rough cost if the City self -funds the
Priority I Improvements over that same 30 year period for comparison purposes.
222190-000 ' . • -
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
Table 6-2 Funding Scenarios for Priority I Improvements
*The estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location and 5,000 EDU's. This estimate reflects our opinion
of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of
labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding, or market conditions,
practices, or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will
not vary from the cost presented herein.
6.7 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND SCHEDULE
Keller Associates' staff has worked closely with the City to analyze the water system and develop
improvements that will have lasting impacts on the community. Prior to proceeding with the
implementation of this study and the identified projects, an environmental analysis or possibly an
Environmental Information Document (EID) may need to be completed and approved by Idaho
DEQ depending on the area that would be disturbed by the project. The EID is only viable for 5
years, so it is not prudent to include all of the items identified in the CIP, only those items that
maybe started within the five-year window after the EID is completed.
Developing a schedule to implement system improvements provides a timeline that will help
motivate project development, identification of funding sources, education of the general public,
and establish deadlines for major project milestones. A preliminary project schedule is presented
in Table 6-3.
Table 6-3 Preliminary Project Schedule — Priority I Improvements
P1 Event
Apply for DEQ Funding (Grant)
Priority I
Priority I
Improvements
August 2025
iImprovements
0'
October 2025
Total Project Cost
$13,805,000
$13,805,000
CDBG Grant - Estimate
$0
$0
USACE Grant - Estimate
$500,000
$0
DEQ Principal Forgiveness - Estimate
0.0% $0.00
$0.00
Loan Amount
$13,305,000
$13,805,000
Annual Loan Payment*
$594,067
$460,167
Annual Debt Service Reserve
10% $59,407
$0
O&M Increase, estimated
$45,000
$45,000
SLA Reserve, estimated
$10,000
$10,000
Total Annual Cost
$708,474
I $506,183
2022 Rate Before Rate Study
$24.00
I $24.00
Estimated Monthly Rate Increase
$11.81
$8.44
Estimated Base Rate per 1" Connection
1 1 $35.81
$32.44
*The estimate herein is based on our perception of current conditions at the project location and 5,000 EDU's. This estimate reflects our opinion
of probable costs at this time and is subject to change as the project design matures. Keller Associates has no control over variances in the cost of
labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's methods of determining prices, competitive bidding, or market conditions,
practices, or bidding strategies. Keller Associates cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will
not vary from the cost presented herein.
6.7 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND SCHEDULE
Keller Associates' staff has worked closely with the City to analyze the water system and develop
improvements that will have lasting impacts on the community. Prior to proceeding with the
implementation of this study and the identified projects, an environmental analysis or possibly an
Environmental Information Document (EID) may need to be completed and approved by Idaho
DEQ depending on the area that would be disturbed by the project. The EID is only viable for 5
years, so it is not prudent to include all of the items identified in the CIP, only those items that
maybe started within the five-year window after the EID is completed.
Developing a schedule to implement system improvements provides a timeline that will help
motivate project development, identification of funding sources, education of the general public,
and establish deadlines for major project milestones. A preliminary project schedule is presented
in Table 6-3.
Table 6-3 Preliminary Project Schedule — Priority I Improvements
P1 Event
Apply for DEQ Funding (Grant)
Date �
January 2025
Start Environmental Document (as Needed)
August 2025
Finish Environmental Document as Needed
October 2025
Finalize Funding w/ Agencies
October 2025
Begin Design of Priority I Improvements
November 2025
DEQ Review of Design
October 2026
Bid
December 2026
Begin Construction
Aril 2027
Complete Construction
August 2028
222190-000 ' . • - :.
Existing wate�s ae sffi
ghtrucient
until population of_ 37,000 -unless
per capita water usecontinues�-
to increase _
City should continue practice of
obtaining additional rights with
additional annexations.
6MrVW-r.',&..m
i
ter:
ITyhee' Rd!
FMMM�
Improvement
ML16-Inch l
.l
r r
- Improvement 3D
16 -Inch !'
•
40 i�'ITN411---,
0 0.25 0.5
KELLER
Improvement
f -Inch
•Improvement
o
LE
ME ME;
IF IF IF IF
I11010* Im
- Well #2
w4ell 1 #8
vement
- `��ry 6)�RF c 1 w +q rw �• - ii •
�.So
i • +
Well #4
Me
�� • - 1-r • �` E ill_
Miles
v
L E�
IF
� e
,
lffiwImpfUVC flint 1A
,i
Improvement '
8 -Inch
m..r
Et - r
♦ o
..son.. =..=..EME.. 5 \
rr3 �
I I� ♦
i
ReplaceSWelI
41
Decomm
ISrmn
fslML
TT■III
Hiline BPS
Well .'#
i k t
Chubbuck Water CIP
ME=
Improvement
8 -Inch
Improvement
10 -Inch
Improvement
j� ch
II o
Improvement 4F
*r veloner Well #!
Improvement
ft. 8 -Inch
Legend
low
I '�pi8��ch"3P
Population 30,000 0
Existing
1.
Population 16,000
O
Population 16,000 O
Population 30,000
a
Improvement 3F
�S
,E
Existing
❑
Transmission Improvements
Population 16,000
❑
Concrete Roof
Tank Improvement
Population 20,000
Population 25,000
Metal Tank
Replacement ' F
Population 30,000 —
E c
Fire Improvement
Failed Fire Flow X
Other Improvements
Well O
Booster Station ❑
Tank ❑
-
2-
USA Major Roads
2022 Existing System
Figure 6-1
CHUBBULK
E
City of Chubbuck
I D A � a
LO
3
Improvement 3AB
16 -Inch
,, _ - •-
Improvement 2P Sip ho n Rd.
r r
- Improvement 3D
16 -Inch !'
•
40 i�'ITN411---,
0 0.25 0.5
KELLER
Improvement
f -Inch
•Improvement
o
LE
ME ME;
IF IF IF IF
I11010* Im
- Well #2
w4ell 1 #8
vement
- `��ry 6)�RF c 1 w +q rw �• - ii •
�.So
i • +
Well #4
Me
�� • - 1-r • �` E ill_
Miles
v
L E�
IF
� e
,
lffiwImpfUVC flint 1A
,i
Improvement '
8 -Inch
m..r
Et - r
♦ o
..son.. =..=..EME.. 5 \
rr3 �
I I� ♦
i
ReplaceSWelI
41
Decomm
ISrmn
fslML
TT■III
Hiline BPS
Well .'#
i k t
Chubbuck Water CIP
ME=
Improvement
8 -Inch
Improvement
10 -Inch
Improvement
j� ch
II o
Improvement 4F
*r veloner Well #!
Improvement
ft. 8 -Inch
Legend
Wells
I '�pi8��ch"3P
Population 30,000 0
Existing
O
Population 16,000
O
Population 16,000 O
Population 30,000
0
Improvement 3F
Booster Stations
1.5 MG Developer. Ta
Existing
❑
Transmission Improvements
Population 16,000
❑
Population 25,000 m
I '�pi8��ch"3P
Population 30,000 0
Tanks
Existing O
Population 16,000 O
Population 25,000
Improvement 3F
population 30,000 •
1.5 MG Developer. Ta
Transmission Improvements
-
Population 16,000
Concrete Roof
Tank Improvement
Population 20,000
Population 25,000
Metal Tank
Replacement ' F
Population 30,000 —
Fire Improvements
Fire Improvement
Failed Fire Flow X
Other Improvements
Well O
Booster Station ❑
Tank ❑
Approximate City Limit V.14
USA Major Roads
2022 Existing System
Figure 6-1
CHUBBULK
City of Chubbuck
I D A � a
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
REFERENCES
2023 Consumer Confidence Report City of Chubbuck. (2023). City of Chubbuck water and Waste
Water. Chubbuck: City of Chubbuck. Retrieved from City of Chubbuck:
https:Hcityofchubbuck.us/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/CCR-2023-FI NAL.pdf
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (2017, October 25). Nitrate/Nitrite -
ToxFAQs. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved
September 16, 2011, from https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tfacts204.pdf
Chubbuck, C. o. (2024, October). Water & Wastewater. Retrieved from
https:Hcityofchubbuck.us/water-waste-
water/#: -:text= Base%20 Rate%3A%20%2430.57%20plus%20%241.47%20for%20each
%20thousand,covers%20all%20three%20services%20offered%20by%20the%20City.
Cornwell, D. A., & Davis, M. (1998). Introduction to Environmental Engineering. Boston: WCB
McGraw Hill.
DEQ. (2023). System Classification and Supervision Requirements.
Environmental Protection Agency. (2023, Feburary 7). National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations: Lead and Copper Rule Revisions. Retrieved from Regulations.gov:
https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OW-2017-0300-1550
FCS Group. (2022). Water System Financial Plan & Capacity Replacement Fee Study. Chubbuck:
FCS Group.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2023, January 25). FEMA's National Flood Hazard
layer Viewer. Retrieved September 6, 2011, from https://www.fema.gov/flood-
maps/national-flood-hazard-layer
Google. (2023, September 24). Google Earth Pro.
Idaho Department of Commerce. (2024, Feburary 16). Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG). Retrieved from Idaho Department of Commerce:
https:Hcommerce.idaho.gov/communities/community-grants/community-development-
block-grant-cdbg/
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. (2022, November 29). Nitrate Priority Areas.
Retrieved from https://www.deq.idaho.gov/water-quality/ground-water/ground-water-
quality/
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. (2022, September 30). Nonattainment Map.
Retrieved from
https:Hidahodeq.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Styler/index.html?appid=05cfO445503d454cb4b
bc83a6891232a
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. (2024, Feburary 16). Construction Loans. Retrieved
from Idaho Department of Environmental Quality: https://www.deq.idaho.gov/water-
quality/grants-and-loans/construction-loans/
Idaho Department of Water Resources. (2023, Feburary 22). Idaho Water Rights: A Primer.
Retrieved from https:Hidwr.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/water-rights/water-
rights-brochure.pdf
Idaho Dept. of Environmental Quality. (2021, January 20). System Classification and Supervision
Requirements. Retrieved 12 21, 2012, from http://www.deq.idaho.gov/water-
quality/drinking-water/pws-classification-licensure/system-classifications.aspx
222190-000 ' . • - ::
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
Idaho Dept. of Environmental Quality. (2023, Feburary 07). IDAPA 58.01.08 Idaho Rules for
Public Drinking Water Systems. Retrieved January 16, 2014, from Idaho Office of the
Administrative Rules Coordinator: http://adminrules.idaho.gov/rules/current/58/index.html
Idaho Dept. of Environmental Quality. (2023, January 25). Sole Source. Retrieved January 9,
2014, from Aquifers: https://www.deq.idaho.gov/water-quality/ground-water/aquifers/
Idaho DEQ. (2023, Feburary 8). Monitoring Schedule Report. Retrieved from
https://www2.deq.idaho.gov/water/monitoringschedulereport
IDEQ. (2023, 02 6). Priority Areas. Retrieved from Idaho Department of Environmental Quality:
https://www.deq.idaho.gov/air-quality/improving-air-quality/priority-areas/
Keller Accociates, Inc. (2015). Well #2 Rehabilitation Well Site Evaluation Report. Chubbuck:
Keller Associates, Inc.
Keller Associates, Inc. (2015). Chubbuck Water Facilities Plan and Preliminary Report. Pocatello:
Keller Associates, Inc.
National Park Service. (2023, January 25). National Register of Historic Places. Retrieved
February 1, 2016, from https://www.nps.gov/articles/nr digitization.htm
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. (2023, January 25). State Listings: Idaho. Retrieved
from National Wild and Scenic Rivers System: https://www.rivers.gov/idaho.php
Tchobanoglous, G., Burton, F. L., & David, S. H. (2004). Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and
Reuse. New York: McGraw Hill.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2024, Feburary 16). Section 595 Program - Rural Idaho.
Retrieved from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
https://www. nww. usace.army. mil/Portals/28/docs/assistanceprograms/2014/FS_Section
595Ruralldaho_140612.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau. (2024, January 25). Explore Census Data. Retrieved from United States
Census Bureau:
https://www.census.gov/qu ickfacts/fact/table/chubbuckcityidaho/PST045222
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. (2023, January 25). Soil Data Access Prime and other Important
Farmlands. Retrieved October 16, 2013, from Soil Data Access Prime and other Important
Farmlands:
https:Hefotg.sc.egov. usda.gov/references/public/LA/Prime_and_other_I mportant_Farmla
nd.html
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2023, Feburary 7). Arsenic In Your Drinking Water.
Retrieved from Just The Facts For Consumers:
https:Hnepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=60000E1 E.txt
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2023,
Drinking Water Systems. Retrieved fr
resources -small -drinking -water -systems
Feburary 28). Distribution Resources for Small
im https://www.epa.gov/dwcapacity/distribution-
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2023, Feburary 7). Drinking Water Contaminants -
Standards and Regulations. Retrieved January 14, 2014, from
https://www.epa.gov/dwstandardsregulations
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2023, Feburary 7). Drinking Water Rule Quick Reference
Guides. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/drinking-water-rule-quick-
reference-guides#tcrqrg
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2023, Feburary 7). National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations. Retrieved January 14, 2014, from Drinking Water Contaminants:
222190-000 ' . • - : •
City of Chubbuck
Water Facilities Planning Study
KELLER
https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/national-primary-drinking-water-
regulations
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2023, Feburary 7). National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations. Retrieved September 16, 2011, from Ground Water and Drinking Water:
https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/national-primary-drinking-water-
regulations
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2023, Feburary 7). Radionuclides Rule: A Quick
Reference Guide. Retrieved from
https:Hnepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=30006644.txt
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (2022, November 29). About the WSR Act. Retrieved from National
Wild & Scenic Rivers System: http://www.rivers.gov/wsr-act.php
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (2023, January 25). Surface Waters and Wetlands. Retrieved April
27, 2015, from National Wetland Inventory:
https:Hfwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/
USBR. (2024, Feburary 16). WaterSMART. Retrieved from Bureau of Reclamation:
https://www.usbr.gov/watersmart/
USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service. (2023, January 25). Retrieved April 27, 2012,
from Web Soil Survey: http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx
USGS. (2022, November 29). Ground Water Altlas of the United States. Retrieved from Idaho,
Oregon. Washington: https:Hpubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_h/H-text8.html
USGS. (2024). Public Supply and Domestic Water Use in the United States, 2015. Balitimore:
USGS.
Western Regional Climate Center. (2023, Feburary 6). Pocatello Rgnl Ap, Idaho (107211).
Retrieved October 9, 2009, from Western Regional Climate Center Climate Summaries:
https:Hwrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?id7211
Whitehead, R. (1994). Ground Water Atlas of the United States Segment 7 . Reston, Virginia:
U.S. Geological Survey.
222190-000 ' . • - •
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
APPENDIX A: COMMUNITY REFERENCE INFORMATION
• NRCS Soil Report
• Endangered Species List
FEMA FIRM Maps
2022 Consumer Confidence Report
222190-000 A
City of Chubbuck
Water Facilities Planning Study
APPENDIX B: WATER RIGHTS
• Water Right Report 29-2385
• Water Right Report 29-2413
Water Right Report 29-2469
Water Right Report 29-7624
Water Right Report 29-8188
Water Right Report 29-8229
• Water Right Report 29-8230
• Water Right Report 29-14012
• Water Right Report 29-14013
• Water Right Report 29-14016
• Water Right Report 29-14054
• Water Right Report 29-14055
• Water Right Report 29-14056
Water Right Report 29-14058
Water Right Report 29-14080
• Water Right Report 29-14081
• Water Right Report 29-14082
• Water Right Report 29-14096
• Water Right Report 29-14097
Water Right Report 29-14099
Water Right Report 29-14106
Water Right Report 29-14107
222190-000
KELLER
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
APPENDIX C: WATER QUALITY DATA AND REFERENCE
INFORMATION
Lead and Copper Rule Revisions
DEQ Monitoring Schedule Report
Water Violations
222190-000 C
City of Chubbuck
Water Facilities Planning Study
APPENDIX D: HYDRAULIC MODELING
ISRB Fire Flow Calculations and Field Measurements
Fire Flow Testing Results
2023 Max Day + Fire Flow Results
2023 Peak Hour Results
• 2043 Max Day + Fire Flow Results
• 2043 Peak Hour Results
222190-000
KELLER
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
APPENDIX E: CITY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
July 2022 City Fees
Chubbuck Water Rate Study Report 2022
222190-000 D
City of Chubbuck
Water Facilities Planning Study
APPENDIX F: SANITARY SURVEY
2019 Sanitary Survey
222190-000
KELLER
City of Chubbuck KELLER
Water Facilities Planning Study
APPENDIX G: ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATES
Cost Estimates for Alternatives
222190-000 G
City of Chubbuck
Water Facilities Planning Study
APPENDIX H: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Public Presentations
222190-000
KELLER