20230323ATW Water Study.pdf

BINGHAM COUNTY
Bingham County, Idaho
501 N. Maple
Blackfoot, ID 83221
[phone]
Atomic City Water System
Facility Planning Study

April 2022
RECEIVED2023 March, 23 1:54PMIDAHO PUBLICUTILITIES COMMISSION
Atomic City Water System
2022 Planning Study
- 2 - April 2022

April 19, 2022

HLE, Inc.
800 West Judicial
Blackfoot ID, 83221

Bingham County Commissioners
501 N. Maple
Blackfoot, ID 83221

RE: Atomic City Water System Facility Plan

This Plan is the product of a collaborative planning process with the previous Atomic City Water System staff. HLE, Inc.
collected system data and identified improvement needs.

The study is set up so that it can be used as a planning, development, and maintenance guide for the water system
management.

Sincerely,

Spence L. Ward, P.E.
HLE, Inc.

April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page i
Table of Contents
AUTHORIZATION ............................................................................................................................................. 1
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 2
1.1 Project Purpose & Need ......................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Scope .................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Report Organization ............................................................................................................................... 3 1.4 Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................................... 3 1.5 Definition of Terms ................................................................................................................................. 4
CHAPTER 2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS ........................................................................ 5
2.1 Proposed Project Planning Area Identification ....................................................................................... 5 2.2 Physiography, Topography, Geology, and Soils ..................................................................................... 6 2.3 Surface & Ground Water Hydrology ....................................................................................................... 6 2.4 Fauna, Flora, and Natural Communities ................................................................................................. 6
2.5 Housing, Industrial, and Commercial Development ................................................................................ 7 2.6 Cultural Resources (Historical & Archaeological) ................................................................................... 7 2.7 Utility Use ............................................................................................................................................... 7 2.8 Floodplains/Wetlands ............................................................................................................................. 7 2.9 Wild & Scenic Rivers .............................................................................................................................. 8 2.10 Public Health & Water Quality Considerations ....................................................................................... 8
2.11 Important Farmlands Protection ............................................................................................................. 8 2.12 Proximity to a Sole Source Aquifer ......................................................................................................... 8 2.13 Land Use & Development ...................................................................................................................... 9 2.14 Precipitation, Temperature and Prevailing Winds ................................................................................... 9 2.15 Air Quality & Noise ................................................................................................................................. 9 2.16 Energy Production & Consumption ...................................................................................................... 10 2.17 Socioeconomic Profile/Population Statistics ......................................................................................... 10 2.18 Maps, Site Plans, Schematics, Tables, & Letters from Consulted Agencies ......................................... 10
CHAPTER 3 EXISTING FACILITIES CONDITION & EVALUATION ........................................................ 20
3.1 Water Sources ..................................................................................................................................... 20 3.1.1 Source Water Criteria ....................................................................................................................... 20 3.1.2 Well #01 ........................................................................................................................................... 20 3.1.3 Well #02 ........................................................................................................................................... 20 3.2 Water Quality ....................................................................................................................................... 20
3.2.1 Water Quality Criteria ....................................................................................................................... 20 3.2.2 Well Water Quality ........................................................................................................................... 22 3.2.3 Distribution System Water Quality .................................................................................................... 23
3.3 Storage Tank ....................................................................................................................................... 23 3.4 Treatment ............................................................................................................................................ 23 3.5 Distribution System .............................................................................................................................. 23
3.5.1 Distribution System Criteria .............................................................................................................. 23 3.5.2 Pipe Network .................................................................................................................................... 24 3.5.3 System Connections ........................................................................................................................ 25
3.5.4 Fire Hydrants ................................................................................................................................... 25 3.5.5 Water Valves .................................................................................................................................... 25 3.5.6 Cross Connection Control ................................................................................................................ 25 3.6 Water Production/Consumption ........................................................................................................... 25 3.6.1 Well #01 ........................................................................................................................................... 25 3.6.2 Well #02 ........................................................................................................................................... 25 3.6.3 Water Balance ................................................................................................................................. 26 3.6.4 Water Usage .................................................................................................................................... 26
3.7 Design Water Usage Rates .................................................................................................................. 26
April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page ii
3.8 Water Rights ........................................................................................................................................ 27 3.9 Ground Water Source Redundancy ..................................................................................................... 28
3.10 Fire Protection Requirements ............................................................................................................... 28 3.11 Distribution System Hydraulic Analysis ................................................................................................ 29 3.11.1 Model Development ......................................................................................................................... 29 3.11.2 Maximum Day Demand plus Fire Flow Demand (MDD + FFD) ........................................................ 30 3.11.3 Peak Hour Demand .......................................................................................................................... 30 3.12 Water Storage Evaluation .................................................................................................................... 34 3.12.1 Water Storage Criteria...................................................................................................................... 34 3.12.2 Storage Volume Analysis ................................................................................................................. 36 3.12.3 Tank Residence Time ...................................................................................................................... 36 3.13 Reliability & Emergency Operation ....................................................................................................... 37 3.14 Finances .............................................................................................................................................. 37 3.14.1 Rate Structure .................................................................................................................................. 37 3.14.2 Budget ............................................................................................................................................. 37 3.15 Sanitary Survey .................................................................................................................................... 38
3.15.1 Significant Deficiencies .................................................................................................................... 39 3.15.2 Deficiencies ...................................................................................................................................... 39 3.15.3 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................... 39
CHAPTER 4 FUTURE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................ 42
4.1 Community Comprehensive Plans ....................................................................................................... 42 4.2 Future Land Use .................................................................................................................................. 42 4.3 Population Trends ................................................................................................................................ 42 4.4 Water Demand Projections .................................................................................................................. 43 4.5 Water Rights & Supply versus Future Demand .................................................................................... 44 4.6 Future Distribution System Conditions ................................................................................................. 44 4.7 Future Storage Needs .......................................................................................................................... 44
CHAPTER 5 DEVELOPMENT & EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES ..................................................... 45
5.1 Optimum Operation of Existing Facilities .............................................................................................. 46 5.2 Regionalization .................................................................................................................................... 46 5.3 Water Supply Alternatives .................................................................................................................... 46 5.3.1 No Action Alternative ........................................................................................................................ 47 5.3.2 Rehabilitate Well #2 ......................................................................................................................... 47
5.3.3 General Water Conservation ............................................................................................................ 47 5.4 Water Storage Alternatives .................................................................................................................. 47 5.4.1 No Action Alternative ........................................................................................................................ 48
5.5 Distribution System Improvement Alternatives ..................................................................................... 48 5.5.1 No Action Alternative ........................................................................................................................ 48 5.5.2 Installation of Isolation/Control/Bypass Valving ................................................................................ 49
5.5.3 Replacement of Booster Pumps and Pump House and Chlorine Treatment ..................................... 49 5.6 Water SERVICE Meter installation ....................................................................................................... 49 5.6.1 No Action Alternative ........................................................................................................................ 50 5.6.2 Install Water Service Meters............................................................................................................. 50 5.7 Misc. System Improvements ................................................................................................................ 50 5.7.1 No Action Alternative ........................................................................................................................ 50 5.7.2 Misc. Items ....................................................................................................................................... 50 5.8 System Classification & Operator Licensure ........................................................................................ 51 5.9 Final Screening of Alternatives ............................................................................................................. 51 5.9.1 Final Screening of Water Supply Alternatives ................................................................................... 52 5.9.2 Final Screening of Distribution System Alternatives ......................................................................... 53
5.9.3 Final Screening of New Water Meters .............................................................................................. 54 5.9.4 Misc. Improvements ......................................................................................................................... 55
April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page iii
5.9.5 Public Participation ........................................................................................................................... 55
CHAPTER 6 IMPLEMENTATION & FUNDING ANALYSIS ...................................................................... 55
6.1 Preferred Alternatives .......................................................................................................................... 55 6.1.1 Preferred Supply Alternative ............................................................................................................ 55 6.1.2 Preferred Storage Alternative ........................................................................................................... 56 6.1.3 Preferred Distribution System Improvements ................................................................................... 56 6.1.4 Preferred Water Meter Alternative .................................................................................................... 56 6.1.5 Misc. Improvements ......................................................................................................................... 56 6.2 Capital Improvement Plan .................................................................................................................... 56 6.3 System Operation & Maintenance ........................................................................................................ 57 6.4 Funding Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 57 6.5 Rate Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 59 6.6 Project Implementation and Schedule .................................................................................................. 59
APPENDIX A REFERENCE INFORMATION ............................................................................................... A
APPENDIX B WATER QUALITY DATA ....................................................................................................... B
APPENDIX C WELL LOGS AND WATER RIGHTS ..................................................................................... C
APPENDIX D WATER SYSTEM SANITARY SURVEY ................................................................................ D

April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page iv
List of Tables Table 2-1 Endangered Species Act – Species List ............................................................................................ 7
Table 2-2: Climate Data ..................................................................................................................................... 9 Table 3-1: Water Storage Capacity .................................................................................................................. 23 Table 3-2: Water Production Capacity ............................................................................................................. 25 Table 3-3: Estimated Water Usage .................................................................................................................. 26 Table 3-4: Design Water Usage Rates ............................................................................................................ 27 Table 3-5: Water Right Summary .................................................................................................................... 28 Table 3-6 Typical Fire Protection Requirements .............................................................................................. 29 Table 3-7 Water Model Results for ADD .......................................................................................................... 31 Table 3-8 Water Model Results for MDD ......................................................................................................... 32 Table 3-9 Water Model Results for PHD .......................................................................................................... 33 Table 3-10: Recommended Storage Volumes ................................................................................................. 36 Table 3-11: Water Quality Issues Associated with Water Age ......................................................................... 37 Table 3-12: Rate Structure………………………………………………………………………………………………37 Table 3-13: Average Annual O&M Costs………………………………………………………………………………38
Table 4-1: Population Estimates ...................................................................................................................... 43 Table 4-2: Water Demand Projections ............................................................................................................. 43 Table 4-3: Future Water Production Needs...................................................................................................... 44
Table 4-4: Future Storage Needs 2061 ............................................................................................................ 45 Table 5-1 DEQ Distribution System Classification ......................................................................................... 50 Table 5-2 Opinion of Estimated Well #02 Rehabilitation Costs ...................................................................... 52 Table 5-3 Opinion of Estimated Storage Tank Costs ........................................ ............................................... 53 Table 5-4 Opinion of Estimated Isolation/Control/Bypass Valving Costs ........................................................ 53 Table 5-5 Opinion of Estimated Pump House, Booster Pumps, and Chlorine Treatment Costs ..................... 54 Table 5-6 Opinion of Estimated Meter Replacement All at Once ................................................................... 55 Table 5-7 Opinion of Estimated Misc. Improvements Costs…………………………………………………………55 Table 6-1 Capital Improvement Plan.............................................................................................................. 56 Table 6-2 Estimated System Annual O&M Costs ........................................................................................... 57 Table 6-3 Preliminary Project Schedule ........................................................................................................... 59
April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page v
List of Figures Figure 2-1: Vicinity Map ..................................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 2-2: Proposed Project Planning Area .................................................................................................... 11 Figure 2-3: Topographic Map........................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 2-4: Fault Map ...................................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 2-5: Floodplain Map .............................................................................................................................. 14 Figure 2-6: Prime Farmland Map ..................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 2-7: Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer Map ......................................................................................... 16 Figure 2-8: Wetland Map ................................................................................................................................. 17 Figure 2-9: County Zoning Map ....................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 2-10: Administrative Boundaries for Areas with Sensitive Air Quality .................................................... 19 Figure 3-1: Water Model .................................................................................................................................. 30 Figure 3-2: Water Tank Storage ...................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 3-3: Storage Tank Configuration Examples .......................................................................................... 35 Figure 3-4: Existing Drinking Water System ..................................................................................................... 40 Figure 3-5: Fire Hydrant Locations .................................................................................................................. 41

April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 1
AUTHORIZATION
In August 2020, the City of Atomic City (potable water system (PWS) #6060003) contracted with HLE, 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-216-2020-12). In November 2020 the City of Atomic City residents voted to disincorporate and as such the water system and components thereof are now under the jurisdiction of Bingham County. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) grant has since been renegotiated to be with Bingham County.
April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 2
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT PURPOSE & NEED
This report presents the findings and recommendations relating to the Atomic City Water Facility Planning Study. This study was commissioned by the City/Bingham County in an effort to determine the current state of the water system and to plan for future needs. HLE has worked with key staff to understand the challenges currently facing
the system and develop practical, cost-effective solutions. HLE gratefully recognizes the administrative and support staff, and all others involved for their support and assistance in the completion of this study.
Due to the disincorporation of the City of Atomic City and the water system jurisdiction being assumed by Bingham County the Atomic City Water System will for the purpose of this study will be referred to as the Atomic City Area Water System or the Water System as there is no water district formed at this time for the water system.
1.2 SCOPE
The Scope of this study includes the following:
 Identify and evaluate standards, recommendations, and design criteria for: o Water supply o Storage
o Pressure requirements o Fire protection
 Existing Facilities Condition and Evaluation
o Compilation of data concerning the age and condition of the existing water system, including but not limited to pipelines, valves, the reservoir, wells, and other facilities
o Evaluation of the existing water system components – System pressures – Facility and pipe capacities
– Available fire protection – Water supply – Water storage
– Transmission and delivery o Outline of prioritized recommended improvements
 Identify and describe environmental conditions within the planning area
 Model Existing Water Facilities o Compile and review in the computer model: – Study area boundaries – Inventory of existing facilities – Type and amount of water consumption and production – Existing and projected land use and population
o Develop alternative solutions to address potential system deficiencies
 Master Planning and Capital Improvement Plan
o Develop population projections (20-yr and 40-yr)
o Review current and future water supply and storage needs o Develop an estimated schedule for capital improvements and a summary of potential impacts on
rates o Discuss funding sources and options
 Report Preparation
o Submit to Bingham County for their review and approval o Submit to Idaho Department of Environmental Quality for review and approval
April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 3
1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION
This report is intended to methodically describe the Atomic City’s complete water system including the five (5)
main components: source water, storage, transmission, delivery, and treatment. The report is organized to address these items in regard to the current and future conditions. The table of contents breaks down the chapters and lists the appendices. List of tables and figures are included after the table of contents. Chapters in
the report include:
 Chapter 1 – Introduction
 Chapter 2 – Existing Environmental Conditions
 Chapter 3 – Existing Facilities Condition & Evaluation
 Chapter 4 – Future Conditions
 Chapter 5 – Development & Evaluation of Alternatives
 Chapter 6 – Implementation & Funding Analysis Existing environmental conditions are presented in Chapter 2, design criteria, existing system facility conditions and identified system deficiencies will be discussed in Chapter 3, future conditions are discussed in Chapter 4,
alternatives to mitigate the deficiencies to meet current and future demands are evaluated in Chapter 5, and Chapter 6 will cover the selected alternatives, project implementation and funding.
1.4 ABBREVIATIONS
 ADD average day demand
 AWWA American Water Works Association
 bgs below ground surface
 cfs cubic feet per second
 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
 MCL maximum contaminant level
 MDD maximum day demand
 mg/L milligrams per liter
 MG million gallons
 PHD peak hour demand
 POD point of diversion
 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
April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 4
1.5 DEFINITION OF TERMS
 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.
 Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) – refers to the greatest concentration of a contaminant allowed
in drinking water often reported in ppm, ppb, mg/L, or μg/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.
 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.
 Firm Pumping Capacity – the total pumping capacity of the water system with the largest pump out of service

April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 5
CHAPTER 2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
This portion of the report presents a general overview of existing environmental conditions within the study area.
An Environmental Information Document (EID) for improvements will be prepared in conjunction with this study as a separate document. The EID contains descriptions of environmental conditions in the planning area, with the intent of identifying potential environmental impacts that may arise when implementing the proposed improvements and means to mitigate potential environmental impacts.
2.1 PROPOSED PROJECT PLANNING AREA IDENTIFICATION
The Atomic City Water System is located in Bingham County, Idaho along State Highway 26 in south-eastern
Idaho approximately 30 miles west of Blackfoot. The water system is located within Township 1 north Range 31 east Section 03, Boise Meridian. Figure 2-1 shows a map of the vicinity.

Figure 2-1: Vicinity Map

Atomic City
April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 6
This Water Facilities Planning Study is based on a specific proposed project planning area which incorporates the area and population which the water system could reasonably be expected to serve for the 20-yr planning
period (from 2021 to 2041) and 40-yr planning period (from 2021-2061). The proposed project planning area is shown in Figure 2-2 located at the end of this chapter with the rest of the figures related to this chapter. The delineation of this planning area boundary is developed based on existing water system piping, recent and planned developments, land use regulations (zoning), and topography.
2.2 PHYSIOGRAPHY, TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND SOILS
Atomic City is located in the northwest corner of Bingham County in southeastern Idaho. The area is a semi-arid climate, with elevation in the community is relatively flat at approximately 5024 feet above sea level. There are three buttes in the outskirts of the developed city area, the Big Southern Butte, the Middle Butte, and the East Butte. A topographic map of the area is shown in Figure 2-3. A soils report for the project area is included in Appendix A (Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2021). The primary soils in the proposed project planning area are Coffee-Nargon-Atom and Atom silt loam.
Southeastern Idaho is seismically active. Most remembered is the 7.2, Mount Borah earthquake in October of 1983, which resulted in serious damage and loss of life. Figure 2-4 shows the Class A Quaternary Faults, categorized by age of last known movement and their corresponding color:
• Historic are the most recent, known movement less than about 150 years. (Red)
• Holocene-Latest Pleistocene is younger than 15,000 years. (Yellow)
• Late Quaternary is younger than 130,000 years. (Green)
• Mid to Late Quaternary is younger than 750,000 years. (Blue)
• Quaternary are younger than 1,600,000 years. (Black)
• Class B is defined as geologic evidence which demonstrates the existence of Quaternary deformation, but either (1) the fault might not extend deeply enough to be a potential source of
significant earthquakes, or (2) the currently available geologic evidence is too strong to confidently assign the feature to Class C but not strong enough to assign it to Class A.
According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the Quaternary faults are believed to be the sources
of earthquakes larger than 6.0 in magnitudes. The Quaternary faults shown on the included map have the most potential for future large earthquakes and provide a fairly accurate picture of earthquake hazards. U.S. Geological Survey and Idaho Geological Survey Services, Quaternary fault and fold database for the United States,
accessed December 27, 2021, at https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/earthquake-hazards/faults.
2.3 SURFACE & GROUND WATER HYDROLOGY
The Snake River is the largest river in the region. It begins in the Uinta Mountains of Utah and flows through Wyoming and Utah before entering Idaho. It is fed by numerous tributaries and small streams. The Atomic City water system is located within the aquifer area see Figure 2-7.
2.4 FAUNA, FLORA, AND NATURAL COMMUNITIES
The species documented in the project area that are listed as endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate species by the US Fish and Game are listed below in Table 2-1 (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2021):

April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 7
Table 2-1 Endangered Species Act – Species List
Mammals Status
Insects Status
This species is not anticipated to be found within the area where most of the proposed improvements would be constructed. The water study area is not shown to be critical habitat for any of the above listed species according to the US Fish and Wildlife Critical Habitat Mapper. There are numerous migratory birds that could potentially be affected by activities in the project area. These are shown on the IPaC Trust Resource Report in Appendix A.
2.5 HOUSING, INDUSTRIAL, AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
The area is primarily a residential and agricultural community. The county has not zoned the area within what was Atomic City after the vote of disincorporation, but it is anticipated that most of the area is/will be residential
with some area of commercial.
2.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES (HISTORICAL & ARCHAEOLOGICAL)
There are no known historical or archaeological sites in the water system planning area. The Idaho National Laboratory (INL) is located adjacent to the Atomic City area water system. The INL has the Experimental Breeder Reactor-I (EBR-I) atomic museum. The EBR-I atomic museum is the only place in America
you can see four nuclear reactors – including two aircraft nuclear propulsion prototypes, a reactor control room, remote handling devices for radioactive materials, radiation detection equipment, and much more.
EBR-I Fast Facts
• On December 20, 1951, EBR-I became the first power plant to produce electricity using atomic energy.
• EBR-I was the first reactor built in Idaho at the National Reactor Testing Station (forerunner to today’s INL)
• In 1953, testing at EBR-I confirmed that a reactor could create (or breed) more fuel than it consumes.
• This pioneering reactor operated for 12 years before being shut down for the last time in December 1963.
• President Lyndon Johnson dedicated EBR-I as a National Historic Landmark in 1966. The INL EBR-I site will not be affected by any improvements within the water system planning area.
2.7 UTILITY USE
Culinary water is provided to the residents of the water system by well #01 or well #02 that pump water into the potable water storage tank. The water system is then pressurized by two booster pumps and 4 hydropneumatic 220-gallon tanks. Well #01 pump is controlled by a variable frequency drive (vfd) for power efficient startup and shutdown, well #02 does not have a pump or controller installed at this time, and the two booster pumps are across the line starters. The booster pumps should have vfd controllers and well #02 pump should have a soft start when installed.
2.8 FLOODPLAINS/WETLANDS
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has not completed a study to determine flood hazards for the entire proposed project area. A flood map for the area is available but does not include the Atomic City Area. It shows that the areas immediately adjacent to the study area are within zone C or areas with little or no flooding. The FEMA flood hazard map showing the study area is shown in Figure 2-5.
April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 8
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’ Wetland Mapper was used to find wetlands in or near the project area. For regulatory purposes under the Clean Water Act, the term wetlands is defined as "those areas that are inundated
or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas" (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2021). Figure 2-8 shows the wetlands located within the project area. There are no wetlands that have been identified within the proposed project planning area. (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2021).
2.9 WILD & SCENIC RIVERS
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 serves to protect designated free-flowing rivers that have "outstanding remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural and other similar values." The act states 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, 2021). There are no designated or proposed wild and scenic rivers in the water system or within the vicinity of
the proposed projects.
2.10 PUBLIC HEALTH & WATER QUALITY CONSIDERATIONS
The water system’s main source of water is from two drilled water wells. Well #01 located near center of the city and well #02 located on the east side of the city. The system currently has no way of treating the water if contaminated. The system once had a chlorine injection
system, but the system has deteriorated and is no longer functioning.
2.11 IMPORTANT FARMLANDS PROTECTION
Prime farmland, as defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is 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 or built-up land or water areas. Prime farmland is of major importance in meeting the Nation's short- and long-range needs
for food and fiber. Because the supply of high-quality farmland is limited, the U.S. Department of Agriculture recognizes that responsible levels of government, as well as individuals, should encourage and facilitate the wise use of the Nation's prime farmland (U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 2021).
Approximately 92% of the land in the study area is designated not prime farmland by the National Resources Conservation Services (NRCS). Most improvements are anticipated to be located within existing or future rights-
of-way, which will not affect farmland (See Figure 2-6).
2.12 PROXIMITY TO A SOLE SOURCE AQUIFER
A sole source aquifer is 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 (Idaho Dept. of Environmental Quality, 2021). The water system is located within the sole source aquifer in the Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer (ESPA).
April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 9
2.13 LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT
The majority of the land use in the project area is ranching and desert range ground. The county’s zoning map
is included in Figure 2-9. Most of the water system area is zoned Residential with some Commercial and Industrial zones. Little development is expected to occur over the planning period.
2.14 PRECIPITATION, TEMPERATURE AND PREVAILING WINDS
The climate summary (January 1952 through May 2016) for IDAHO FALLS 46 W, IDAHO (104460) the closest station with similar weather, shows average minimum temperatures ranging from 4.6°F to 49.5°F and average maximum temperature ranging from 27.9°F to 87.6°F. Over the same period, the total annual precipitation
averaged 8.67 inches with an average snowfall of 26.5 inches. The coldest month is January, the wettest month is May, the hottest month is July, and the driest month is August. (Western Regional Climate Center, 2021). See Table 2-2.
Table 2-2: Climate Data
Month Average Maximum Temp (°F)
Average Minimum Temp (°F)
Average Precipitation (inches)
Average Total Snowfall (inches)
January 27.9 4.6 0.7 6.5
February 33.4 9.2 0.58 4.7
April 56.4 27.8 0.83 1.7
June 76.5 43.6 1.17 0
August 85.7 47.2 0.47 0
October 60.7 26.8 0.58 0.6
December 30.1 6.7 0.74 6.4
Annual 57.2 27.2 8.67 26.5
2.15 AIR QUALITY & NOISE
Idaho is among the states that have delegated authority by EPA to issue air quality permits and enforce air quality regulations. DEQ’s air protection efforts are designed to assure 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 closely regulated as it contributes to particulate matter.
Idaho DEQ monitors air quality and publishes air quality information for areas with populations over 350,000. No air quality data is available, and no noise issues have been identified for the area.
There are no anticipated long-term adverse impacts to the air quality and noise levels from any proposed improvements. Proposed improvements may have a temporary local impact on noise and air quality (dust) during
April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 10
construction. Best Management Practices during construction can mitigate against airborne dust during construction.
2.16 ENERGY PRODUCTION & CONSUMPTION
The water system currently has moderate utility usage due to the supply of water obtained from groundwater wells. Water flows from the wells to the tank by submersible pump pressure (head) and the distribution system
is fed by the booster pumps. Well #01 is connected to the backup power generator for emergency use.
2.17 SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE/POPULATION STATISTICS
Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Census Bureau changed the 2020 American Community
Survey (ACS) release schedule. Instead of providing the standard 1-year data products, the Census Bureau released experimental estimates from the 1-year data. This includes a limited number of data tables for the nation, states, and the District of Columbia. The 2020 ACS 1-year experimental estimates are posted on the
2020 ACS 1-Year Experimental Data Tables page; they are not available on data.census.gov. Atomic City data was obtained from https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US1603970 on December 27, 2021. Based on the 2020 census, the population of Atomic City was 41 people. Historical and projected populations are found in Section 4.3 of this WFPS. Of the 39 housing units approximately 28 are occupied. Based on the reported population this equates to 1.5 people per household. For the purposes of this study 2.5 people per household will be used to determine estimated current and projected future water usage.
The median age in the Atomic City area is 64.1 and the median household income is estimated at $33,750 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2021). The median household income in Idaho is $60,999. Educational attainment is defined
as the population of bachelor’s degree or higher and is equivalent to 0.0%.
2.18 MAPS, SITE PLANS, SCHEMATICS, TABLES, & LETTERS FROM CONSULTED AGENCIES
General maps of environmental conditions are presented in this chapter.

April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 11

Figure 2-2: Proposed Project Planning Area

April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 12

Figure 2-3: Topographic Map

April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 13

Figure 2-4: Fault Map

Atomic City
April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 14

Figure 2-5: Floodplain Map

April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 15

Figure 2-6: Prime Farmland Map

April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 16

Figure 2-7: Eastern Snake River Plain Aquifer Map
April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 17

Figure 2-8: Wetland Map

April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 18

Figure 2-9: County Zoning Map
April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 19

Figure 2-10: Administrative Boundaries for Areas with Sensitive Air Quality
April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 20
CHAPTER 3 EXISTING FACILITIES CONDITION & EVALUATION
This chapter summarizes existing source, storage, and distribution system conditions for the water system.
Regulatory requirements are presented in each section as they pertain to the water system. 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, 2021).
3.1 WATER SOURCES
3.1.1 Source Water Criteria
Requirements for water sources for public water systems are addressed in The Idaho Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems. For wells, written approval by DEQ is required before water from any new or
reconstructed well may be served to the public1. Wells should be located a minimum of 50 ft. from the nearest property line to meet setback requirements from specified sources of contamination set forth in Subsection 900.1. Casings shall extend at least 18” above the final ground surface. All wells should be constructed in accordance with IDAPA 37.03.09. A sample tap suitable for collecting biological samples is required on the discharge piping from every well. A flow meter and check valve are required for each well. Disinfection is not required for wells but is required for systems with a surface water source or ground water source directly influenced by surface water2.
3.1.2 Well #01
Well #01 is located in the well/booster house as shown in Figure 3-4. The well house sits on land owned by the water system at an elevation of approximately 4,971-feet above sea level. The well has a 25 hp submersible pump capable of producing approximately 100 gpm. The well pumps directly into the water storage tank, has a depth of 638-feet with a 10-inch casing extending to a depth of 38-feet with lava rock the rest of the depth. The 25 hp submersible pump is installed at a depth of approximately 630-feet below ground surface (bgs). The submersible pump is a 480V three phase that is controlled by a vfd in the well/booster house. The pump turns on when the storage tank calls for water through a hydro ranger water level sensor.
3.1.3 Well #02
Well #02 is located southeast of well #01 approximately 800-feet on a well lot. The property is not fenced, and the well is the only thing on the lot. The well has a depth of approximately 670-feet bgs with an 8-inch casing installed to a depth of 60-feet bgs. The well had a 5-inch pvc liner installed in it as it is
assumed that the well was drilled and is not straight or has a rock that is protruding enough to rub the electrical wires causing a short and the solution at the time was to install a pvc liner to protect the wires from the rocks. The 5-inch pvc liner was removed in March of 2022. The well currently does not have a
pump installed in it but originally had a 25 hp pump installed before the pvc liner and supposedly had a 10 hp pump installed after the pvc liner. It is unknown why there is not a pump installed in the well at this time.
3.2 WATER QUALITY
3.2.1 Water Quality Criteria
Water quality standards are based on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA) which includes primary standards (legally enforceable) and secondary standards (not legally enforceable). Primary standards are defined to protect public health while secondary standards

1 IDAPA 58.01.08 – Idaho Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems, § 510
2 IDAPA 58.01.08 – Idaho Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems, § 300.04
April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 21
are defined for contaminants that pose no public health issue, but may cause corrosion, odor, unpleasant taste, or staining. Primary standards exist for microorganisms, disinfectants, disinfection byproducts,
inorganic chemicals, organic chemicals, and radionuclides. These primary constituents are required to be measured and reported on a regular basis. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2013). A list of the drinking water regulations for primary and secondary standards is included in Appendix B. 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. The rules presented below are those typically of concern. The summaries that follow contain only an overview of the associated rule and should in no way be considered authoritative. For additional information consult the EPA’s Current Drinking Water Regulations page (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2012). Ground Water Rule The purpose of the Ground Water Rule is to reduce the risk of illness caused by microbial contamination in public ground water 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:
1. Periodic sanitary surveys 2. Source water monitoring 3. Corrective actions
4. Compliance monitoring Total Coliform Rule This rule was established in 1989 to improve public health protection by reducing fecal pathogens to minimal levels through control of total coliform bacteria, including fecal coliform and E. coli. Sources of these organisms include sewage and animal wastes. 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. Nitrates themselves are nontoxic and are primarily used as fertilizer for agriculture. However,
when nitrates are ingested, they are converted to nitrites. Nitrites basically do not allow oxygen to bind to the blood cells, thus decreasing the transportation of oxygen throughout the body, a condition known as methemoglobinemia. The ingestion of nitrates is especially harmful to infants. (Argonne National
Laboratory, 2005) 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, n.d.).
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. The Arsenic Rule was published in January 2001 and changed the MCL from 50 ppb to 10 ppb (~0.01 mg/L). 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 the source water forming disinfection byproducts (DBP’s). DBP’s, such as chloroform, have been shown to be carcinogenic and have been shown to 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
April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 22
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. The rule establishes an MCL for uranium. 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. Ammonia does not usually affect anything other than the taste and smell of the water. Toxicological effects from ammonia do not become an issue until concentrations of 200 mg/kg of body weight are reached. Iron is a naturally occurring contaminant 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 1µg/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 a 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 to oxidize constituents such as hydrogen sulfide which causes “rotten egg” taste and odor problems as well as iron and manganese.
3.2.2 Well Water Quality
The wells have been sampled according to DEQ requirements with no known contaminants above allowable limits.
April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 23
3.2.3 Distribution System Water Quality
The distribution system has been sampled according to DEQ requirements with no known contaminants
above allowable limits.
3.3 STORAGE TANK
The water system has one concrete storage tank, for location see Figure 3-4. The tank’s roof elevation is
approximately 4979.7-feet. A 4-inch line supplies water to the tank and a 4-inch line provides water from the tank to the booster station that is reduced to 1.5-inch at the booster pumps. There is a discharge line and an overflow line coming out of the concrete tank. The overflow line is a 6-inch pvc pipe. There is also a 4-inch pvc bypass
line connected so that if needed, the storage tank could be isolated and bypassed. The new concrete tank was built in 2009 as part of the water infrastructure improvement project. The tank is
partially buried with the roof exposed. A partially buried tank provides some insulation during cold weather and helps to protect the walls from deterioration. Access to the interior of the tank is through an access hatch manway in the roof of the tank. A ladder extends from the access hatch down to the floor of the tank. The tank is vented, as required by IDAPA 58.01.08, and can be isolated for cleaning and maintenance. The water storage structure parameters are provided in Table 3-1. Note that the usable volume was conservatively calculated with only a 7-foot usable depth.
Table 3-1: Water Storage Capacity
Description New Tank
Usable Volume (gal) 65,600

3.4 TREATMENT
The water system had a chlorine treatment system that is no longer operational and currently the system does not have a way of treating the water.
3.5 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
This section outlines the distribution system pipe materials, pipe conditions, meter conditions, valves, and fire hydrants. A hydraulic analysis of the distribution system is presented in Section 3.11 of this report.
3.5.1 Distribution System Criteria
System Pressures IDEQ has set specific minimum water pressure requirements. 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 flow3. Water pressure at any point in the distribution system must be maintained above 20

3 IDAPA 58.01.08 – Idaho Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems, § 552.01.b.v
April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 24
psi during a MDD and fire flow event4. If pressure in the system drops below 20 psi the system is at risk of contamination and in violation of State regulations.
Normal operating pressures should typically range between 60 and 90 psi. Pressures above 100 psi should be controlled with pressure reducing valve stations installed in the distribution main5. 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 provide pressure, high pressures can be indicative of high 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 diameter6.
 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 fps7.
 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 loses. Typical pipeline velocities should be between 2.5 ft/sec and 5 ft/sec and should not exceed 10 ft/sec under any
circumstance.
 Pipelines may be oversized to allow for flexibility in future growth. 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 system8. 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.
EPA has published a Best Practices Guide for cross-connection control. It helps to explain where they can occur, what a control program involves, and how to implement a cross-connection control program. This guide can be found at:
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/smallsystems/pdfs/guide_smallsystems_crossconnectioncontrol.pdf
3.5.2 Pipe Network
The water distribution system was reconstructed in 2009 and is comprised of primarily pvc pipes ranging
from 6 to 8 inches in diameter. The existing water system utilizes one pressure zones that have typical pressures that range from 80 psi to 90 psi. The system has been in service for 12 years (distribution system). Figure 3-4 illustrates the distribution system by pipe size.

4 IDAPA 58.01.08 – Idaho Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems, § 552.01.b.i
5 IDAPA 58.01.08 – Idaho Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems, § 552.01.b.vi

6 IDAPA 58.01.08 – Idaho Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems, § 542.06
7 IDAPA 58.01.08 – Idaho Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems, § 542.09
8 IDAPA 58.01.08 – Idaho Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems, § 543
April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 25
3.5.3 System Connections
There are 30 unmetered connections to the system. 28 connections are residential and 2 are commercial.
3.5.4 Fire Hydrants
There are approximately eleven fire hydrants installed in the system even though the system is not currently capable of delivering fire flow to the system.
3.5.5 Water Valves
There are isolation valves at crosses and tees throughout the system to allow isolation of portions of the system to allow work to be completed as needed. The valves in the system are shown in Figure 3-4. It is reported that these isolation valves have not been regularly operated since they were installed in 2009, due to a lack of staffing.
3.5.6 Cross Connection Control
The water system does not currently have a cross connection control program since the Atomic City was unincorporated in 2020 and is now under the jurisdiction of Bingham County. It is recommended that the system develop a program and enforce it.

3.6 WATER PRODUCTION/CONSUMPTION
The primary water source for the system is groundwater from well #01. Well #02 does not currently have a pump
installed. The total water production capacity of the system equals the pumping capacity of the well. Very little data is available for the City’s water consumption because there are no flow meters on service connections and the flow meter on the discharge side of the tank does not always accurately record the flow. Table 3-2 shows
the available flow based on the pump curve data available.
Table 3-2: Water Production Capacity
Source
Well #01 95 Well #02 0
3.6.1 Well #01
Well #01 is located at the well/booster house. The well pumps directly into the water storage tank, has a depth of 638-feet with a 10-inch casing extending to a depth of 38-feet with lava rock the rest of the depth. The well has a 25 hp submersible pump that is installed at a depth of approximately 630-feet below ground surface (bgs). The submersible pump is a 480V three phase that is controlled by a vfd in the well/booster house. The pump turns on when the storage tank calls for water through a hydro ranger water level sensor.
3.6.2 Well #02
Well #02 is located southeast of well #01 approximately 800-feet on a well lot. The property is not fenced, and the well is the only thing on the lot. The well has a depth of approximately 670-feet bgs with an 8-inch casing installed to a depth of 60-feet bgs. The well had a 5-inch pvc liner installed in it as it is assumed that the well was drilled and is not straight or has a rock that is protruding enough to rub the electrical wires causing a short and the solution at the time was to install a pvc liner to protect the wires from the rocks. The 5-inch pvc liner was removed in March of 2022. The well currently does not have a pump installed in it but originally had a 25 hp pump installed before the pvc liner and supposedly had a
April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 26
10 hp pump installed after the pvc liner. It is unknown why there is not a pump installed in the well at this time.
3.6.3 Water Balance
The system does not keep regular records on water production or tank outflow because the meters have to be read manually and multiple meters do not work or are not installed. The amount of water loss in the
system is difficult to determine due to the inaccurate production logs and the lack of residential water meter consumption records.
Factors that could contribute to system water loss include:
• Leaky pipelines and services: The majority of the pipelines are 15 years old. Improper
installation, post installation inter-ties, and other utility work can also create leaks.
3.6.4 Water Usage
The propeller meter that was installed in the transmission line from well #01 to the water storage tank
measures water pumped into the tank and ultimately the water used by the system. There is limited data available on the flow pumped into the tank. For the purpose of this study the water usage of 125 gallons per person per day will be used which is slightly higher than the typical 100 gallons per person per day. For each home the water usage is calculated assuming approximately 2.5 people per home. As there are 28 connected homes currently within the water system the ADD of the system is 8,750 gpd.
Table 3-3: Estimated Water Usage
Estimated Water Usage*
Statistic
Average Annual Day 8,750 6.1 125 Maximum Day 15,750 10.9 225
Peak Hour 23,625*** 16.4 338
* Based on 28 connected homes ** Based on a 24-hour water usage day *** 984.4 (gph) As shown in Table 3-3, there is an average annual day per capita usage of 125 gpcd. Typically, in the winter months the potable water demand is lower since outdoor irrigation is limited. Monitoring of the existing flow meters and installation of service flow meters that are properly logged would greatly increase the accuracy of the actual water demand.
3.7 DESIGN WATER USAGE RATES
Because of the variation of water use on an annual and daily basis, peaking factors are used in evaluating water
system operating characteristics. Peaking factors are multipliers applied to standard demands. The Average Day Demand (ADD), Maximum Day Demand (MDD), and Peak Hour Demand (PHD) can be related using peaking factors. Where detailed water usage records exist, these factors can be determined directly from the collected data and compared to typical values. Where detailed water use data are not available, peaking factors are used and are based on available data, the size of the community, and usage in the area and region.
The ADD is estimated as the total volume of water used during a year divided by 365 days. To estimate future demands based on population projections, the ADD is typically expressed in terms of gallons per capita per day (gpcd).

April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 27
The MDD is the highest daily water use rate for the year. In smaller cities, peaking factors can usually vary from 1.3 to 4.0 depending on local conditions. Where daily data is not available, the data from the maximum month
average day can be related to the MDD. Using information relayed by visual inspection of the flow meter readings during times of high usage, a peaking factor of 1.8 times the ADD will be used for the water system to calculate the MDD. The PHD is the highest hourly water use rate throughout the year. This factor is difficult to determine unless very detailed flow data is available from the system. Typically, engineering judgment must be used based on past experience for similar sized communities. Based on the visual inspection of the flow meter during peak days a factor of 2.7 times the ADD will be used for the water system to calculate the PHD. The following flow in Table 3-4 rates were used for the hydraulic analysis of the existing system.
Table 3-4: Design Water Usage Rates
Flow gpm
Average Day Demand (ADD) -- 6.1
Maximum Day Demand (MDD) 1.8 10.9
Peak Hour Demand (PHD) 2.7 16.4

3.8 WATER RIGHTS
A water right is authorization to use water in a prescribed manner, not to own the water itself. Water rights provide the statutory mechanism allowing diversion of water from either surface or groundwater for a beneficial use. Allocation, inventory, and maintenance of water rights assure a reliable supply of water. Water rights are classified by where the Point of Diversion (POD) is drawing the water and are usually divided
into two categories. If the POD is taking water from a river or lake, it is classified as a surface water right. A POD can also be a well, which would require a groundwater right. Water right management is important since municipalities are required to manage their water delivery system in such a manner that water pumping rates do
not exceed the water right diversion rates. A summary of the water systems water rights is presented in Table 3-5. There are two rights for groundwater
diversion. A water right report from IDWR for each of the rights is included in Appendix C.
April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 28

Table 3-5: Water Right Summary
Water Right # Basis Source Water Use
35-04209 08/01/1952 0.27 121 Groundwater, Municipal
35-13701 1/14/2008 0.26 116 Groundwater Municipal
Total 0.53 237
It is important to note that some of the water rights have conditions of approval, restrictions, or combined
diversion rates. The available municipal water rights are sufficient to meet even the peak hour demands of the system.
3.9 GROUND WATER SOURCE REDUNDANCY
Community water systems served by ground water and constructed after July 1, 1985, or existing community water served by ground water that are substantially modified after July 2002, shall have a minimum of two (2) sources if they are intended to serve more than twenty-five (25) homes or equivalent. With any source out of
service, the remaining source or sources shall be capable of providing the peak hour demand of the system or maximum daily pumping demand plus equalization storage9. The water system currently has well #01 and well #02, the latter is not operable and needs to be rehabilitated.
3.10 FIRE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS
Providing adequate fire protection in residential, commercial, and industrial zones often governs distribution
pipeline sizes, pipe looping requirements, and reservoir storage needs. The Idaho Rules for Public Drinking
Water requires that the water system maintain residual pressure of 20 psi during a MDD and fire event to minimize the risk of contamination to the water system10. Pumping systems supporting fire flow capacity must be designed so that the MDD and FFD may be provided simultaneously with any pump out of service. Fire suppression storage reduces the requirement for redundant pumping capacity11. Table 3-6 estimates fire protection requirements based upon the 2000 International Fire Code, exact requirements are also based upon construction type. The current version of the 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.

9 IDAPA 58.01.08 – Idaho Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems, § 501.17
10 IDAPA 58.01.08 – Idaho Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems, § 552.01.b.i
11 IDAPA 58.01.08 – Idaho Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems, § 501.18
April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 29

Table 3-6 Typical Fire Protection Requirements
Building Type 2
One- & Two Family Residential <3,600 1000 2 120,000
Multi- & One-Family Residential <3,600 1500 2 180,000
Multi- & One-Family Residential 3,600 – 4,800 1750 2 210,000
Multi- & One-Family Residential 4,801 – 6,200 2000 2 240,000
Non-Residential 5,901 – 7,900 1,750 2 210,000
Non-Residential 2,750 2 330,000
Non-Residential 3,000 3 540,000
Non-Residential 3,250 3 585,000
Non-Residential 3,500 3 630,000
The minimum fire flow assumed for residential areas was 1,000 gpm in accordance with the 2018 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. For fire flows up to 2,500 gpm, 2 hours are required. Fire flows from 2,501 to 3,500 gpm require 3 hours and fire flows greater than 3,500 gpm require 4 hours. There are no structures within the system limits that meet these higher flow requirements. The City of Blackfoot Fire Chief has stated that if the system was able to provide 500 gpm for a minimum of 2
hours would be great for the ability to help the Fire Department fight a fire within the water system area. A higher flow, if possible, would be beneficial as well.
3.11 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
EPANET v2.2 was used to create the hydraulic model for the 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 model was analyzed with a fire flow demand at the
furthest point from the booster station to determine if the water piping was able to deliver the fire flow demand and maximum day demand without drawing the pressure levels below the minimum allowable at any node in the system.
Requirements for pressure calculations for PHD and FFD scenarios shall be based on the lowest level after operational, equalization and fire suppression storage have been exhausted12.
3.11.1 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, 2021). Demands (flows) were distributed to the nearest nodes based on individual connections within the system.

12 IDAPA 58.01.08 – Idaho Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems, § 552.01.b.viii

April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 30
3.11.2 Maximum Day Demand plus Fire Flow Demand (MDD + FFD)
The model was populated with the FFD identified by the Blackfoot Fire Chief. For all areas in the planning
area 500 gpm was selected as the minimum flow for the model evaluation. Under MDD (10.9 gpm) and the FFD requirements stated, the system was tested with criterion of pressure not dropping below 25 psi. A maximum velocity constraint was not used. The tank level was assumed to be at the overflow pipe
level since this is typically the case. 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. Model results shown in Table 3-8 are only for MDD as the system is currently not able to meet any fire flow demand as the existing booster pumps are only capable of providing 70 gpm flow. The model found the distribution system cannot meet the MDD + FFD scenario. There is not a single location capable of providing more than 140 gpm with both booster pumps running at the same time. New booster pumps will need to be installed in order to meet MDD + FFD.
3.11.3 Peak Hour Demand
The system was modeled under peak hour demands (PHD) 16.4 gpm to check for pressures in the system dropping below 40 psi. Model results indicate that the distribution system nodes are all above 71 psi. Model results are shown in Table 3-9.

Figure 3-1: Water Model

April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 31
T
Table 3-7 Water Model Results for ADD

April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 32

Table 3-7 Water Model Results for MDD

April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 33

Table 3-8 Water Model Results for PHD

April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 34

3.12 WATER STORAGE EVALUATION
3.12.1 Water Storage Criteria
The materials and designs used for finished water storage structures shall provide stability and durability as well as protect the quality of the stored water. Finished water storage structures shall be designed to
maintain water circulation and prevent water stagnation13. Figure 3-2 describes pictorially the following descriptions related to water storage reservoirs.
 Freeboard: Space above overflow pipe and below the tank roof.
 Operational Storage: Storage that supplies water when, under normal conditions, the sources are off. This component is the larger of:
o The volume required to prevent excess pump cycling and ensure that the equalization, fire suppression, and standby storage components are full and ready for use when needed o The volume needed to compensate for the sensitivity of the water level sensors
o HLE recommends a volume of 10 – 15% of total storage volume for operational storage to prevent water from becoming stagnant
 Peaking Storage: Peaking or equalization storage refers to the additional storage required to meet peak hour demands and fluctuations in the water demand during the day. The needed peaking storage will increase as the community grows. o Where detailed hourly data is available a demand curve of the MDD can be developed and the actual peaking storage volume calculated o HLE recommends a volume of 10 – 15% of total storage volume for peaking/equalization
storage
 Fire Storage: The water needed to support fire flow in those systems that provide it (A typical recommended fire protection volume is 120,000 gallons reserved to fight a 1,000-gpm fire for 2
hours). The required fire flow must be verified with the local fire authority
 Emergency Storage: o DEQ requires a minimum of 8 hours of average day demand
o May consider average summer day demand o Can be offset by standby power
 Dead Storage: Storage that is either not available for use in the system or can provide only substandard flows and pressures.

13 IDAPA 58.01.08 – Idaho Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems, § 544
April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 35

Figure 3-2: Water Tank Storage

In general, there are two types of storage components that can provide equalization storage to maintain flow and pressure as required. The two types of storage described below are shown in Figure 3-3.
• An elevated storage tank (either a high-level ground tank or a structurally elevated tank) develops the required pressures by virtue of the tank elevation.
• A ground level tank with booster pumps to supply flow and pressure to the system. In this event
the booster pumps must be able to supply flow and pressure during peak demands with the largest pump out of service in the same capacity as was described for the groundwater sources above.

Figure 3-3: Storage Tank Configuration Examples
April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 36
3.12.2 Storage Volume Analysis
Table 3-10 presents the minimum recommended storage volumes for the system based on the above
discussed criteria for water storage. System demands and fire flow requirements developed in the previous sections are needed and used in the evaluation of storage volumes. Comments regarding the values used are included for clarification.
Table 3-9: Recommended Storage Volumes
Storage Component Recommended Comments
6,560 Use 10-15% to keep water in tank from stagnating

Peaking/Equalization Storage
1,575 Typically, 10 -15% of MDD.

Fire Storage
60,000 Fire Chief Recommended Fire Flow Capability
Emergency Standby Storage
2,928 DEQ requires a minimum of 8
hours of average day demand

Offset Storage Needs w/ Source Capacity <12,000>
Fire storage needs can be offset with source capacity. Source capacity with any
pump out of service.

Total 59,063
The system has 65,600 gallons of available storage in the tank, therefore adequate storage capacity
exists at the present. It is important to note that the fire storage needs were offset with the well pump online. This is assuming that both wells are operational and for the analysis one is offline.
3.12.3 Tank Residence Time
Tank residence time is the duration water remains in the tank which is a function of the incoming flow rate and the tank volume. There is also residence time in the distribution system piping which is not discussed in this section. There are numerous water quality problems which are associated with
increased water age. These can be separated into three categories as shown below in Table 3-11:
April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 37
Table 3-10: Water Quality Issues Associated with Water Age
*Disinfection by-product formation *Disinfection by-product biodegradation Temperature increases
Disinfectant decay *Nitrification Sediment Deposition
*Corrosion control effectiveness *Microbial regrowth/recovery/shielding Color
* Denotes water quality problem with direct potential public heath impact.
3.13 RELIABILITY & EMERGENCY OPERATION
Water system improvements constructed after April 2007 are required to be equipped with dedicated standby power with automatic switch-over capability or standby storage volume. During power outage, water systems must be capable of providing average day water demands at adequate operating pressures for 8 hours plus fire
flow protection where provided14.
3.14 FINANCES
3.14.1 Rate Structure
The existing ordinance contains a user charge system that is based on a flat fee per connection per month for a given size connection. It also allows a "standby" rate for those not currently using water from the system which is billed at one half the regular rate. Residential connections are charged $37 per month for a 1-inch connection, $55 per month for a 1.5-inch connection, commercial connections are $110 per month, and any standby connection is charged $18 per month. There are currently not any standby
connections.
Table 3-12: Rate Structure
Connection Type Rate Total Fees
$110.00 3 $330.00
$37.00 34 $1,258.00
$55.50 3 $166.50
$1,754.50

The system generates $21,054 per year in revenue for operation of the system. The system also bills residences $30/month for garbage services.
3.14.2 Budget
The system has a balanced budget and over all does a good job of managing and planning their accounts. Funds are set aside for reserves, capital improvements, upgrades, and depreciation. A summary of the water fund budgets as well as detailed breakdowns for each are included below.

14 IDAPA 58.01.08 – Idaho Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems, § 501.07
April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 38
Table 3-13: Average Annual O&M Costs
Salaries and Wages $500
Legal and Acct Expenses $3,200
Utilities $4,600
Repairs and Maintenance $3,000
Parts and Supplies $200
Testing $1,000
Total $12,500

3.15 SANITARY SURVEY
A sanitary survey is typically conducted by DEQ every three years for community water systems. As stated on
DEQ’s website (Idaho Dept. of Environmental Quality, 2021): ‘A sanitary survey is an onsite review of a public water system’s water source, facilities, equipment, operation, and maintenance. The purpose of a sanitary survey is to evaluate and document the capabilities of a water system's sources, treatment, storage, distribution system, operation and maintenance, and overall management and financial capacity to continually provide safe drinking water and to identify any deficiencies that might adversely impact a public water system's ability to provide a safe, reliable water supply. The survey also seeks to identify systems that need technical or capacity development.’ An important part of this Facility Planning Study is to address deficiencies and recommendations in assisting the Community in making plans to correct identified issues. Items identified on the sanitary survey are based on the federal Safe Drinking Water Act and the state Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems (IDAPA 58.01.08). Three classifications are developed for issues identified. They are:

• A Significant Deficiency is defined in IDAPA 58.01.08.003.88. that states: As identified during a sanitary
survey, any defect in a system’s design, operation, maintenance, or administration, as well as any failure or malfunction of any system component, that the Department determines to cause, or have the potential to cause, risk to health and safety, or that could affect the reliable delivery of safe drinking water.

• A Deficiency states: As identified during a sanitary survey, the systems design, operation, maintenance, or administration, as well as any failure or malfunction of any system component, that the Department determines are not in compliance with the drinking water rules and do not cause or do not have the potential to cause, risk to health or safety, or that could not affect the reliable delivery of safe drinking
water.
• Recommendations are made as an item to consider to improve the overall operation of the water system.
The most recent sanitary survey for the Atomic City Water System was conducted on March 15, 2018. A copy of the sanitary survey letter dated April 13, 2018, can be found in Appendix D. Several deficiencies were identified as result of the sanitary survey. Recommendations and system deficiencies from the Sanitary Survey have been incorporated into the system improvements presented in Section 6.1. Improvements addressed in this study
April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 39
have been developed to help bring the water system into compliance with current regulatory requirements and to provide necessary maintenance to system components to avoid future non-compliance issues.
3.15.1 Significant Deficiencies
As stated in the 2018 Sanitary Survey, the following are a comprehensive list of Significant Deficiencies within the system:

• Well #01 tag # E0007277 is not in such a manner that surface water cannot enter the well, as
required by IDAPA 58.01.08.510.03.a-g.
o Corrected on March 28, 2018
• The manhole access for storage tank tag #T6060006TS1 does not have a cover that is watertight,
as required by IDAPA 58.01.08.544.07.c
o Corrected on March 28, 2018
• There is not a cross connection control program that complies with Rule, as required by IDAAPA
58.01.08.552.06
o Corrected on March 28, 2018, Old version found

3.15.2 Deficiencies
As stated in the 2018 Sanitary Survey, the following are a comprehensive list of deficiencies within the system:
• As long as the Responsible Designated Operator (DO) is available 24/7, an OP is not required.
At such time the DO is not available, an OP will be designated to take over the PWS
responsibilities as required by IDAPA 58.01.08.554.03.
o (no action required at this time)
• The tank supports for the Hydropneumatic tanks are not structurally sound and/or adequate, as
required by IDAPA 58.01.08.547.01.b
• Adequate ventilation is not provided in the pump house for dissipation of excess heat and moisture
from the equipment, as required by IDAPA 58.01.08.541.01.e. At the time of the inspection, there
was evidence of corrosion of metallic and/or electrical components from excessive heat and/or
moisture.
3.15.3 Recommendations
Within the 2018 Sanitary Survey, DEQ recommendations include the following:
• DEQ recommends that well #02 tag #D00055090 be protected from unauthorized entry through fencing around the source or using a locking well cap.
April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 40

Figure 3-4: Existing Drinking Water System

April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 41

Figure 3-5: Fire Hydrant Locations

April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 42
CHAPTER 4 FUTURE CONDITIONS
4.1 COMMUNITY COMPREHENSIVE PLANS
Bingham County has a Comprehensive Plan which was updated in 2018. The plan discusses current, future, and desired conditions of the County as well as strategies to accomplish those goals. Please refer to the county planning and zoning website for the most current information at Planning and Zoning (bingham.id.us)
https://www.co.bingham.id.us/planning_zoning/planning_zoning.html.
4.2 FUTURE LAND USE
Atomic City is predominately residential with a few small businesses in the area. There is an RV Park on the
southeast side of town supporting the transient population of INL/Construction workers. There is the Atomic City Racetrack that is a dirt racetrack that has a few events throughout the summer. There are many lots within the area that are not developed.
There are no major industries or significant commercial establishments in the water system area. The main business would be the INL that is approximately 10 miles to the closest INL facility. The physical boundaries of the planning area are the now unincorporated City limits. This planning area encompasses the entire water system. The land surrounding the planning area is predominately undeveloped sagebrush ground, with some farm fields or pasture area where soil cover allows. The depth to basalt/lava rock is shallow with some outcroppings of the rock visible at the surface.
4.3 POPULATION TRENDS
The Atomic City area population has had a stagnant trend since 1990 as reported by the US Census. The spike in population from 2010 to 2020 appears to be possibly due to the recent hiring of the INL. The INL facility has projected to hire 5,000-8,000 additional employees over the next 5 years. It is not anticipated that many of those hired employees will locate their residents at the Atomic City area as most of the INL employees reside near Rexburg, Idaho Falls, or Blackfoot and commute to the facility. Bingham County has seen a growth rate of 5.2% from 2010 to 2020 which will be the growth rate used for
purposes of this study. The starting population of 41 in 2021 was used to estimate population projections for the 20- and 40-year design horizons and the associated water demand. Using these factors, Table 4-1 contains population projections for the Atomic City area water system.
Growth Rate % = (FV-IV)/IV*100 FV is the final population
IV is the initial population Population Growth Formula – x(t) = x(0) * (1+r)^t x(t) is the final population after time t t is time in years x(0) is the initial population r is the growth rate
April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 43
Table 4-1: Population Estimates
Atomic City Area Bingham County Idaho
Population 2010 26 45,607 1,576,582
Population 2020 41 47,992 1,839,106
Population, percent change, 2010 to 2020 57.7% 5.2% 16.7%
Population 2041 (20-year Projection)1 113 53,113 2,504,659
Population 2061 (40-year Projection)1 311 58,781 3,411,067
Percent aged 18 and over (2020) 100% 69.4% 74.8%
Percent under the age of 18 (2020) 0.0% 30.6% 25.2%
Persons under the age 18 (2020) 0 14,677 462,706
Persons aged 18 and over (2020) 41 33,315 1,376,400
1 – used the Bingham County 5.2% growth rate for Atomic City as that is a more likely growth rate for the area.
4.4 WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS
The volume capability of the existing 25 HP pump installed in well #01 is approximately 100 gallons per minute. For the purpose of this study the water usage of 125 gallons per person per day will be used
which is slightly higher than the 82 gallons per person per day according to EPA (www.epa.gov/watersense/statistics-and-facts). The 28 home service connections suggest a peak day demand associated with the present system of about 16.4 gpm. For each home the water usage is calculated assuming approximately 2.5 people per home. Using the population projections shown in Table 4-1and the usage data developed from the current standards for unmetered systems the water demand projections in Table 4-2 were used for purposes of this study.
Table 4-2: Water Demand Projections
d Year 2021
41 113 311
28 45 124
Average Day Demand*
125 gpcd 125 gpcd 125 gpcd
8,750 gpd 14,125 gpd 38,875 gpd
6.1 gpm 9.8 gpm 27.0 gpm
Maximum Day Demand*
Peaking Factor: 1.8 x ADD
225 gpcd 225 gpcd 225 gpcd
15,750 gpd 25,425 gpd 69,975 gpd
10.9 gpm 17.7 gpm 48.6 gpm
Peaking Factor: 2.7 x ADD
16.4 gpm 26.5 gpm 72.9 gpm
3.2 MG 5.2 MG 14.2 MG
*Demand projections (gpd) based on number of homes multiplied by 2.5 people per home and 125 gpcd
April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 44
4.5 WATER RIGHTS & SUPPLY VERSUS FUTURE DEMAND
The system currently has 237 gpm in water rights, which is currently able to meet peak hour demands for the
20-yr and 40-yr planning period. It should be noted that since the system currently relies heavily on the well #01 for potable water, that during an extended drought static water levels could decrease from the historical levels and the system currently does not have a backup water supply as well #02 does not currently have a pump
installed in the well. Source capacity needs to equal or exceed the MDD or there is the risk of running out of water. The current MDD
of 10.9 gpm is less than the system capacity of 237 gpm. Table 4-3 below compares current production with future MDD.
Table 4-3: Future Water Production Needs
d Year 2021
10.9 17.7 48.6
2021 Water
Production Capacity 237 237 237
Production Excess 226.1 219.3 188.4
The table shows that current source production does meet the future planning demands.
4.6 FUTURE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM CONDITIONS
The demands for the 40-yr planning period were used to evaluate the future needs and conditions of the distribution system. For modeling purposes, it was anticipated that future residential water connections will fill in
empty fields and lots along the existing water lines within the water system.
4.7 FUTURE STORAGE NEEDS
There is a deficiency in storage for the existing conditions for the growth pattern that is identified for the 40-yr planning period. Using the same assumptions that were used in the storage evaluation for the existing conditions in combination with the 2061 demands presented in Table 3-10, there will be a storage deficiency of 8,918 gallons (14%) as shown in Table 4-4. There are a variety of ways this future storage deficiency can be addressed
by the system and will be discussed in Chapter 5.
April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 45

Table 4-4: Future Storage Needs 2061
Storage Component Recommended Comments
6,560 Use 10-15% to keep water in tank from stagnating

Peaking/Equalization Storage
6,998 Typically, 10 -15% of MDD.

Fire Storage
60,000 Fire Chief Recommendation
Emergency Standby Storage
12,960 average day demand

Offset Storage Needs w/ Source
Capacity <12,000>
Fire storage needs can be offset with
source capacity. Source capacity with any pump out of service.

Total Storage Required 74,518
CHAPTER 5 DEVELOPMENT & EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The Atomic City water system has been operating since the last major system update in 2008 with minimal improvements since then. The water system operator has brought up multiple operational system improvements that he would like to see completed, which are included below. System upgrades will improve the operation of
the system, increase reliability, protect water quality, reach compliance with all State and Federal standards, and meet the future demands of the residents. In order to do this, a thorough discussion of system improvements, estimated costs including available grants, timelines, and evaluation of all upgrades is required. Improvements
should address excessive water use, system losses and inefficiencies, compliance with State and Federal standards, efficient system operation, and recommendations to improve the health and safety of the water system.
Per the Idaho DEQ facility planning study requirements, each of the design alternatives are planned to meet the needs for a 20-year minimum period for facilities (i.e. well houses, pump stations, etc.), and a 40-year minimum period for the piping in the distribution system, or an equivalent development benchmark for the discussed growth rate. It is important to note that the 20-year and 40-year design horizons rely on the assumptions that were made for the demands and populations within each time period. These timing assumptions for populations and demands are only projections which may or may not be accurate due to the unpredictable nature of development. Equivalent development benchmarks could reasonably occur earlier or later than the proposed time periods, however, the information presented meets the industry standard for these types of predictions.
April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 46
With supporting data from population projections presented in Chapter 4 and the computerized hydraulic analysis
in Section 3.11, we anticipate that the water system would be out of compliance with public drinking water standards due to deficiencies in available fire flow protection and potential deficiencies in redundant water supply. A typical consequence of this type of non-compliance would be the system’s inability to approve any additional new water connections until these issues are resolved. Furthermore, the system could be subject to enforcement actions by the Department of Environmental Quality. Various alternatives exist to correct the identified system deficiencies. The alternatives presented in the following chapter are evaluated on their ability to resolve the system’s need, cost, environmental impacts, and operation and maintenance requirements. The estimated capital costs presented are concept level cost estimates which are used to provide enough accuracy for planning purposes. These estimates include costs associated with engineering services, contractor overhead and profit, and contingency to compensate for changes in the cost of construction and unexpected conditions.
5.1 OPTIMUM OPERATION OF EXISTING FACILITIES
The existing system operation strategy is efficient given the physical constraints of the existing infrastructure.
Well #01 currently is the only operating well in the system with well #02 needing a new pump and controls to operate. Well #01 is operated by a vfd and turned on automatically from a level transducer installed in the tank. Well #01 turns on when the tank level reaches the low point, and the level transducer calls for water. The booster pumps pressurize the water system and four (4) hydropneumatic pressure tanks. The booster pumps are currently operated by a pressure switch that calls for more pressure in the system, with the pumps hard wired without a vfd controller. The booster pumps would greatly benefit for longevity and lower power consumption if
controlled by a vfd. The 15 hp booster pumps could be replaced with pumps that have a better operating curve to meet the system curve which would provide more pump efficiency and power savings. With proposed improvements, optimization of facilities will be a goal, but it will not correct any of the identified deficiencies by itself. Environmental Impacts: This alternative would have no impacts on the surrounding environment.
5.2 REGIONALIZATION
The closest municipal water system to Atomic City is Butte City located 28.5 miles northwest along Highway 26. Costs to connect the systems would be quite high. Connecting with this system would not correct the City’s deficiencies. This alternative will not be considered further. Environmental Impacts: Construction of this alternative would affect a significant amount of property to connect the two water systems. Most of the improvements would be along Highway 26 in previously disturbed property that is known to have lava/basalt rock near the ground surface. It would not be a cost-effective approach.
5.3 WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES
A water supply and distribution system must be designed to meet the Peak Hour Demand (PHD) or the Maximum Day Demand (MDD) with Fire Flow Demand (FFD) requirements, whichever is greater. The entire water volume can be delivered to the system directly from the source during peak demand or it can be delivered from a combination of the two supply sources and storage. Under existing conditions, the current production capabilities
of well #01 exceed the MDD. The transmission line carrying water from well #01 and well #02 will be addressed as part of the distribution system alternatives.
April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 47
5.3.1 No Action Alternative
Based on 2061 demand estimates presented in Chapter 4, the MDD is predicted not to exceed the current
supply capabilities. A potential downfall of the no action alternative is if the water elevation in well #01 is significantly decreased due to a prolonged drought, then the potable water supply would be at risk.
The no action alternative is not a viable alternative for Atomic City’s water supply. Environmental Impacts: This alternative would not have any direct environmental impacts.
5.3.2 Rehabilitate Well #02
Well #02 has the potential to be able to be rehabilitated in that the previous well pump installer stated that the previous 25 hp pump was removed due to the electrical conduit rubbing against the well sidewall
which is likely due to the well being drilled slightly curved (not straight). As such they removed the 25 hp pump installed a 5-inch pvc liner in the well and installed a 10 hp pump. The 10 hp pump and controller has since been removed apparently due to failure. The pump installer was able to remove the 5-inch pvc liner in March of 2022. The use of electrical conduit can be utilized to protect the wiring from rubbing against the sell sidewall. This method would allow the re-installation of the 25 hp pump and maximize the water production of the existing well. Environmental Impacts: This alternative would not have any direct environmental impacts as this alternative takes advantage of existing facilities/previously developed assets.
5.3.3 General Water Conservation
The water system could consider policy, public outreach, and capital improvement efforts to promote water conservation.
 Consider newspaper, websites, or radio advertisements to promote water conservation topics.
 Involve schools and students in promoting awareness such as video contests, radio ads, and other campaigns.
 Educate the public regarding the net effect of small actions with specific examples of water
conservation and water wastefulness. This could be done through flyers that are sent out with the monthly water bill. For example, quantify how much water is wasted through small household leaks over the course of a year, running hoses continuously, or the habit of running
tap water to let it get cold as opposed to refrigerating drinking water.
 Host lawn care and landscaping classes identifying optimum water usage and highlighting consumption rate limits for typical lawns, gardens, and shrubs. More water is not necessarily
better when it comes to irrigating lawns.
 Require water saving fixtures on all new residential construction. Consider a retrofit water saving fixture program. Pipe insulation provides faster hot water and eliminates the need to run water to prevent pipes from freezing.
 Water meters on all connections for usage-based billing. Additional information is provided in Section 5.6.
 Aggressive leak detection and repair program for water mains
Environmental Impacts: Water conservation would only have positive environmental impacts. This would increase the longevity of the existing water sources without disturbing ground for new sources.
5.4 WATER STORAGE ALTERNATIVES
Water storage is needed when the source does not meet the system demand. In addition, water storage typically provides water for fire protection and emergency needs. Because wells are expensive to construct compared to
April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 48
their relative capacity, storage helps meet PHD and fire flow demands without needing to develop expensive water sources. The existing storage tank in Atomic City has a storage capacity of 65,600 gallons.
5.4.1 No Action Alternative
The available storage for the water system, including required fire flows, is not adequate for the 40-yr planning period based on the projections presented in Chapter 4. When the system reaches the 40-year
population projection it is estimated the system will have a storage deficiency of 8,918 gallons. To offset this future storage deficiency there are essentially three items that can be addressed by the system which include: reduce demand (See Sections 5.3 and 5.6), increase supply (See Section 5.3), or increase
storage. The most cost-effective method to achieve this is to reduce the existing potable water demands. The no action storage alternative is a viable option for the system. Environmental Impacts: This alternative would not have any direct environmental impacts.
5.4.2 New Water Tank
A new 10,000-gallon storage tank could be constructed to address the outlined fire flow shortfall. A potential location for the new tank would be adjacent to the system’s existing tank. It would be recommended that the new tank be built near the same elevation as the existing tank, to enable the tanks to be hydraulically connected to one another. Concrete storage tanks typically have the least amount of required maintenance and last longer than steel tanks. Since this tank would likely be 10,000 gallons other materials may be considered. Environmental Impacts: Construction of a new water tank would have minor impacts to land use
and the existing vegetation.
5.5 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES
Improvements needed to the distribution system were identified by consulting with the operators, onsite observations of fire flow capabilities, and from scenario results generated by the computerized hydraulic model. There are areas within the distribution system that would greatly benefit from increasing the line size from the
tank to the booster pumps, pump to waste hydrants, flow meter after booster pumps, and isolation/control/bypass valve installation. Future conditions for development were also considered and are presented.
5.5.1 No Action Alternative
The distribution system operates sufficiently during normal operation but is not able to meet fire flow requirements throughout the system. If the system were to do nothing to improve the delivery of fire flow demand (FFD) in the system, the points not currently meeting the FFD design criteria will continue to be
an issue. As the system grows in population and more demand is added, the condition will worsen. The potential result of doing nothing is that in the event of a fire at any of these locations, the full specified FFD would not be available from the system and the fire fighters would have to rely on other means.
Additionally, where FFD is not provided, DEQ requires that the affected parties be notified. The no action alternative will not be considered further because it cannot provide the flows required to meet IDAPA regulations. The no action alternative is not viable in as pump to waste from the wells and isolation/control/bypass valve installation is needed for proper system operation. Environmental Impacts: This alternative would not have any direct environmental impacts.
April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 49
5.5.2 Installation of Isolation/Control/Bypass Valving
The water system is currently set up with a flow meter for well #01, a bypass valve, and flushing hydrant
for well #01. Well #02 does not have piping/valving set up so that well #02 is able to be pumped to waste. There is not a flow meter installed after the booster pumps to know what is being pumped into the system accurately after the booster pumps, and the piping from the tank to the booster pumps reduces from a 4-
inch to a 1.5-inch pipe and is undersized to adequately feed the booster pumps. Environmental Impacts: Installation of a pump to waste flushing hydrant, isolation/control/bypass
valving, and upsizing the pipe form the tank to the booster pumps would have minimal impact as all the work would take place where the ground has been previously disturbed.
5.5.3 Replacement of Booster Pumps and Pump House and Chlorine Treatment
There are currently two 15 hp booster pumps that are not correctly sized for the system demand and there is not any fire flow booster pump(s). The installation of new booster pumps sized for system demand as well as two fire flow pumps (one for redundancy) would be needed for proper system water supply. The new pumps would be controlled by vfds for proper system operation and efficiency. The system currently does not have an operating chlorine treatment system and a new system would need to be installed so that treatment is able to be provided as needed. The new pumps, electrical controls, and chlorine system will be housed in a new building as the current booster pump house does not meet current standards. Environmental Impacts: Impacts from this alternative would be minimal since all the work would take place where the ground has been previously disturbed.
5.6 WATER SERVICE METER INSTALLATION
Usage based billing can be an effective way of reducing potable demands. The annual average per capita demand for the water system is 125 gallons per capita per day. It is probable the system could see a reduction
in the system demands by installing meters and moving to consumption-based billing schedule. Individual users would find specific ways to reduce demands on their own terms. This option would require the
installation of meters on all the existing connections and require them on all future connections. Metering and conservation are likely to reduce the per capita demands and greatly extend the use of the existing
water supplies. This will provide the system with the advantage of time to build up savings for adding new water sources to the system.
There are two basic types of high-quality municipal service water meters: positive displacement (nutating disc or reciprocating piston) and magnetic. The meter body has historically been made of bronze but with recent regulations to decrease the amount of lead in drinking water, some manufacturers have developed composite alloy materials that have no lead in them. The final component to a flow meter is the register which reports the amount of water measured by a flow meter. The register can be a direct read (the numbers have to be read by sight), configured to touch read (a meter reader wand is used), or radio read (the information is sent by radio signal to a receiver). Direct read meters have the lowest capital cost but are more time intensive to read because personnel have to open each meter pit and write down the reading. Touch read is faster than direct read because
each meter pit lid does not have to be opened, just touched, but each meter still has to be physically visited. These two types of registers are difficult to read in winter months due to snow. Radio read meters have some additional capital cost for the radio equipment, but time requirements to read the meters each month are much
less than the other two types. Reading can be accomplished by driving down each street with the receiver or the system could be set up so that the meters can be read from a central location such as the water system booster pump/generator building.
April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 50
5.6.1 No Action Alternative
If the population of the system grows, there is a potential in the future that the maximum day demand
could exceed the current water right supply. If the well production becomes reduced due to an extended drought or geological shifts, a continued high usage rate may place strain on the system’s users. Continuing unmetered practices does not generally promote water conservation. Although water meters
can be a good asset, the no action alternative is viable. Environmental Impacts: Impacts from this alternative could potentially be water supply deficiencies
if the water production is reduced.
5.6.2 Install Water Service Meters
Under this approach, new meters would be installed on all of the water service connections in the system.
This would include all residential, and commercial connections being metered and billed accordingly. The system then could set up a new billing structure to charge residents for the volume of water that they use. There are various water conservation grants that can be used for installation of water meters. The meters would likely be installed in meter pits near the shutoff valves. A decision on the type of meter, meter body materials, and register would need to be made all of which affect the capital cost as well as the operation and maintenance costs. Environmental Impacts: Impacts from this alternative would be minor since all of the work would take place where the ground has been previously disturbed when the original service lines were installed.
5.7 MISC. SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
There are several other improvements to be considered that would affect the quality and safety of the water delivered to the residents. The most recent DEQ sanitary survey identified the following needs.
5.7.1 No Action Alternative
Deficiencies noted by DEQ in the sanitary survey need to be addressed to avoid non-compliance issues. Significant deficiencies have the potential to cause risk to health and safety or could affect the reliable delivery of safe drinking water. The no action alternative is not recommended. Environmental Impacts: This alternative has the potential to negatively impact public health.
5.7.2 Misc. Items
From the DEQ sanitary survey and discussions with operations personnel, the following items have been identified. Deficiencies:
• Cross connection control program that complies with Rule, as required by IDAPA
58.01.08.552.06. System has old version of compliance plan and needs to submit an updated
version.
• The hydropneumatic tanks are not structurally sound and/or adequate, as required by IDAPA
58.01.08.547.01.b.
Recommendations:
• DEQ recommends that well #02 tag #D00055090 be protected from unauthorized entry through fencing around the source or using a locking well cap.
April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 51
Environmental Impacts: These improvements would minimize risk to public health.
5.8 SYSTEM CLASSIFICATION & OPERATOR LICENSURE
DEQ classifies drinking water systems on two levels: treatment and distribution. The complexity of each system is evaluated separately. The classification worksheets can be found on DEQ’s website. The distribution system is evaluated based on the population served by the system. The breakdown of population is shown in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1 DEQ Distribution System Classification
Classification Population
* 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 screened out should be compared for the potential effect they may have on system classification. For distribution system classification, the population is not projected to exceed 1,500 so there will be no change in classification. For the treatment system, no changes were evaluated which would change the treatment
classification. Since none of the alternatives will impact system classification and required operator licensure, no additional consideration will be given in comparing the proposed alternatives for system classification.
5.9 FINAL SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives that were not initially screened as unsuitable were further evaluated. Capital costs, O&M costs, public input, and environmental effects are used to compare alternatives for system improvements and to select the preferred alternatives. Costs include contingency and professional fees. The cost estimates are based on our perception of current conditions at the project location. This estimate reflects our opinion of probable costs currently and is subject to change as the project design matures. HLE has no control over variances in the cost of labor, materials, equipment, services provided by others, contractor's
April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 52
methods of determining prices, competitive bidding or market conditions, practices or bidding strategies. HLE cannot and does not warrant or guarantee that proposals, bids, or actual construction costs will not vary from
the cost presented herein.
5.9.1 Final Screening of Water Supply Alternatives

The viable supply alternatives include the no action alternative and well #02 rehabilitation. No Action
The “no action” alternative would not currently meet the needs of the system for water supply redundancy and therefore is not a viable option. Well #02 Rehabilitation Well #02 has the potential to be able to be rehabilitated in that the previous well pump installer stated that the previous 25 hp pump was removed due to the electrical conduit rubbing against the well sidewall which is likely due to the well being drilled slightly curved (not straight). As such they removed the 25 hp pump installed a 5-inch pvc liner in the well and installed a 10 hp pump. The 10 hp pump and controller
has since been removed apparently due to failure. The pump installer was able to remove the 5-inch pvc liner, allowing the well to be rehabilitated if desired.
Table 5-2 Opinion of Estimated Well #02 Rehabilitation Costs
Description Cost
Total $45,000

5.9.2 Final Screening of Storage Alternatives
The viable storage alternatives include the “no action” alternative and building a new tank. The no action alternative is the least cost alternative which does not meet the system’s current needs and does not meet the 40-year planning estimates.
The system currently has a storage shortage as shown in Section 4.7, due to the lack of fire flow storage. Rather than spending several hundred thousand dollars on a new storage tank, the system plans to look
at ways to reduce current consumption levels. Reducing water leaks and water consumption will reduce the amount of peaking demand storage required for the system. As the system continues to grow the need for fire flow will increase at which time the system will need to further determine if it is able to install an additional water storage tank.
April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 53
Table 5-3 Opinion of Estimated Storage Tank Costs
Description Cost
Total $120,000

5.9.3 Final Screening of Distribution System Alternatives
The viable distribution alternatives include the installation of isolation/control/bypass valving, replacement
of booster pumps, pump house, and chlorine treatment system. No Action
The distribution system operates sufficiently during normal operation but is not able pump to waste from well #02, there is not a flow meter installed after the booster pumps, and the piping from the tank to the booster pumps is reduced and likely causing the booster pumps to cavitate due to the piping being too small. The no action alternative is not viable in as pump to waste from the wells and isolation/control/bypass valve installation is needed for proper system operation. Installation of Isolation/Control/Bypass Valving The water system is currently set up with a flow meter for well #01 and a bypass valve and flushing
hydrant for well #01, but there is not piping/valving set up so that well #02 is able to be pumped to waste. There is not a flow meter installed after the booster pumps to know what is being pumped into the system accurately after the booster pumps, and the piping from the tank to the booster pumps reduces from a 4-
inch to a 1.5-inch pipe and is undersized to adequately feed the booster pumps.
Table 5-4 Opinion of Estimated Isolation/Control/Bypass Valving Costs
Description Cost
Pipe from tank to booster pumps $5,000
Total $40,000
Replacement of Booster Pumps, Pump House, and Chlorine Treatment
There are currently two 15 hp booster pumps that are not correctly sized for the system demand and there is not any fire flow booster pump(s). The installation of new booster pumps sized for system demand as well as two fire flow pumps (one for redundancy) would be needed for proper system water supply. The new pumps would be controlled by vfds for proper system operation and efficiency. The system currently does not have an operating chlorine treatment system and a new system would need to be installed so that treatment is able to be provided as needed. The new pumps, electrical controls, and
April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 54
chlorine system will be housed in a new building as the current booster pump house does not meet current standards.
Table 5-5 Opinion of Estimated Pump House, Booster Pumps, and Chlorine Treatment Costs

Description Cost
Total $250,000
The distribution system operates sufficiently during normal operation but is not able to meet fire flow
requirements throughout the system. If the system were to do nothing to improve the delivery of fire flow demand (FFD) in the system, the points not currently meeting the FFD design criteria will continue to be an issue. As the system grows in population and more demand is added, the condition will worsen. The
potential result of doing nothing is that in the event of a fire at any of these locations, the full specified FFD would not be available from the system and the fire fighters would have to rely on other means. Additionally, where FFD is not provided, DEQ requires that the affected parties be notified. The no action
alternative will not be considered further because it cannot provide the flows required to meet IDAPA regulations. It is recommended to install booster pumps in the booster station that would allow the system to meet the required fire flow. The option for a chlorine treatment system would be the liquid chlorine injection.
5.9.4 Final Screening of New Water Meters
The viable water meter alternatives include the “no action” alternative and installing water meters. The no action alternative is the least cost alternative and meets the City’s current needs. An evaluation of new water meters has been developed to provide the system additional information on this effective water conservation method. To implement new water meters, the administration would modify the existing user rate and structure it to charge a fixed fee plus a demand charge for every 1,000 gallons of water consumed.
A potential meter type that could be installed is the Sensus AccuStream meter, which is a composite body, piston displacement type meter. This meter can utilize the touch read or radio read systems. A radio read system would require the purchase of the radio for each meter and some upgraded modules for the reader. Table 5-5 shows capital costs, installation, and operation and maintenance costs and computes the present worth for the new meter option. Assuming a life of 20 years and an interest rate of
1.75% (from a potential DEQ loan offer) the meter was compared for the touch read vs. radio read option.
April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 55
Table 5-6 Meter Replacement – All at Once
Meter
Description AccuStream
Capital Cost $12,000
Annual O&M ($/yr) $500
Capital Cost $14,000
Annual O&M ($/yr) $150
The benefit of installing radio read meters is saving the system one day’s worth of time for the operator to walk to all the meters within the system once per month. The cost of either system is very similar, and the benefit of the radio read option would be much easier in overall effort to read the meters, especially during winter months.
5.9.5 Misc. Improvements
The items identified in the last Sanitary Survey have been corrected except for the fencing around well #02 site. Fencing around the site provides protection and security for the water system from possible contamination due to unauthorized
Table 5-7 Opinion of Estimated Misc. Improvements Costs
Description Cost
Total $15,000

5.9.6 Public Participation
HLE met with the City Council prior to Atomic City being disincorporated and are now meeting with Bingham County Commissioners for finalization of this study. In an October 2020 City Council meeting, the city formally adopted the study findings. These improvements will be described in more detail in
Chapter 6. CHAPTER 6 IMPLEMENTATION & FUNDING ANALYSIS
6.1 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES
Bingham County selected the following alternatives for improvements to their system. No change in operator licensing will be required with the implementation of the selected improvements.
6.1.1 Preferred Supply Alternative
The selected supply alternative of rehabilitating well #02 is the least cost with the quickest method to get a redundant water supply for the system.
April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 56
6.1.2 Preferred Storage Alternative
The alternative selected for storage was the no action alternative. The system plans to perform routine
cleaning and inspection to ensure the tank condition is maintained. This is the lowest cost alternative to meet current storage needs.
6.1.3 Preferred Distribution System Improvements
The alternative selected for distribution system improvements was the no action alternative. The county does not want to proceed with the installation of isolation, control, and bypass valving.
6.1.4 Preferred Water Meter Alternative
The alternative selected for water meters was the no action alternative. The county does not want to proceed with the installation of water meters as users currently do not want meters.
6.1.5 Misc. Improvements
To bring the system into compliance with IDAPA rules, well #02 site fencing improvements that have been identified in the most recent sanitary survey completed by IDEQ need to occur.
6.2 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
A capital improvement plan (CIP) has been developed for the Atomic City water system. The CIP outlines a prioritization schedule and provides an opinion of probable cost for those improvements. The CIP summarizes the recommended system improvements that will likely require capital beyond routine maintenance practices.
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 includes infrastructure upgrades that are considered immediate needs for the water system. The immediate needs include rehabilitation of well #02, piping improvements at well/booster house, flow meters at services, new well/booster station house and pumps, and miscellaneous system improvements to meet IDAPA requirements.
Table 6-1 Capital Improvement Plan
Atomic City Water System
Water Facility Planning Study
Capital Improvement Plan
ID Item Description Estimated Cost
1
2
3
4
5 Estimated Total $364,000.00

April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 57
6.3 SYSTEM OPERATION & MAINTENANCE
The proposed improvements will have some impact on the operation and maintenance costs of the water system.
The pipeline replacements will have a positive impact on the system by reducing the time and money spent on repairs as well as reducing water loss. The existing water tank has not been cleaned in several years and should be inspected and cleaned within the next 5 years. The cost to clean a tank varies depending on the amount of
sediment that has settled, but usually ranges from $5,000 to $10,000. The system will need to plan for ongoing maintenance and replacement costs associated with infrastructure
throughout the system. Planning for annual system replacement costs is vital to keeping the system functioning over the next several decades. A capital improvement fund is also recommended. This fund would grow by the amount shown in the table and should be used to fund needed replacements of pipelines, valves, pumps, and other infrastructure.
Table 6-2 Estimated System Annual O&M Costs
Item Annual Cost
Well Pump Replacement
Well Control Replacement
Booster Pump Replacement
Pump Control Replacement
Tank Replacement
Tank Cleaning
Tank Level Control
Valves
Hydrants
Water Services
Water Testing
Employee Cost(s)
Legal/Accounting
Utilities
Misc. Parts and Supplies
Misc. Repairs and Maintenance
Total Annual Cost $39,950

6.4 FUNDING ANALYSIS
In November 2020 the City of Atomic City residents voted to disincorporate and as such the water system and components thereof are now under the jurisdiction of Bingham County. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) grant has since been renegotiated to be with Bingham County. HLE met with the City Council prior to Atomic City being disincorporated and are now meeting with Bingham County Commissioners for finalization of this study. In recent discussions with Bingham County, the County is planning on utilizing American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to address deficiencies and for the implementation of the proposed system improvements.
The use of ARPA funds would result in no additional costs to the current user rates. Other possible funding for the implementation of the system improvements may come from several sources. The
primary source of funds for the recommended system improvements may come from low interest loans through
April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 58
DEQ’s State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan program and USDA-Rural Development. Remaining monies may come from other sources that the community may be eligible for might include grants from the Army Corps of
Engineers, Idaho Department of Commerce [Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG)], Special Congressional Appropriations, Bureau of Reclamation, and Homeland Security Grant Programs. The selection process for water project funding is competitive. To be eligible for and receive funding from DEQ-SRF, a letter of interest and application must be submitted for the fiscal year. DEQ ranks all the submitted applications and awards funds accordingly. In addition to the loan, DEQ may offer some principal subsidy (grant) money. Eligibility for USDA-Rural Development funding is based partially on the median household income for the community. For the community to be competitive for USDA grant funds the minimum monthly water user rate must be approximately $40.00. In addition to user rates, water systems must have water meters on all service connections or be installing water meters in the proposed project to be eligible for USDA-RD monies. Rural Development grant funds are awarded based on need as measured by a community’s median household income (MHI). The MHI is determined by the most recent census data.
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) offers WaterSMART water and energy efficiency grants. They will fund municipal water metering projects and distribution system meters associated with production. There are two
funding groups available: Group 1 – Up to $300,000 for small project that take up to two years and Group 2 – Up to $1,000,000 for phased projects with up to 50% grant match. For the water system this grant opportunity could be used for flow meters. The system could apply for funding through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) through their Section 595 Program for Rural Idaho. ACOE provides this opportunity to projects owned by public entities. Assistance can be for design-only, design and construction, or construction-only projects. The system could apply for a maximum of $500,000 in Idaho Department of Commerce CDBG monies. To be eligible for CDBG funds, the community must have a “Low to Moderate Income” (LMI) of 51% or higher. If the system decided to try to pursue this option, grant applications for public facilities are due annually in November.
Private project funding options for the water system include the Idaho Bond Bank Authority (IBBA). Financing through the IBBA is a relatively new program and is available to public entities in Idaho. The Bond Bank typically
pools loans from multiple participants, offers Federal and State Tax Exempt status, and pledges statewide sales tax revenues as security to bond holders – with a combined result in competitive bonds for Idaho communities. The program is typically used to finance water and wastewater projects with a variety of terms and financing
strategies. Recent interest rates have typically ranged from 1.5% to 4%, with the higher interest rate corresponding to long term bonds. Use of the funding does not trigger Davis Bacon or other federal requirements associated with subsidized loans/grants (i.e. IDEQ-SRF, USDA-RD). Once the bonds are sold, the full amount of funding is immediately available to the municipality and the repayment obligation begins. Special Congressional Appropriations vary in amount and are difficult to predict. Homeland Security Grants are a new source of funds with special regulations for eligibility, therefore eligibility and amount are also difficult to predict. To incur indebtedness, the system 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 system 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.
April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 59
6.5 RATE ANALYSIS
The use of ARPA funds by Bingham County to address deficiencies and for the implementation of the proposed
system improvements (see Section 6.4) would result in no additional costs to the current user rates. The water system assesses a flat fee of $37.00 per month for residences with 1-inch service, $55.00 per month
for residences with 1.5-inch, and $110 per month for commercial services. Water rates should be set based upon the loan amounts that the system will receive plus the operation and maintenance costs. 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 would need to raise monthly user rates. 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.
6.6 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION AND SCHEDULE
HLE has worked to analyze the water system and develop improvements that will have lasting impacts on the community. If seeking funding from a State/Federal agency an Environmental Information Document (EID) will need to be completed and approved by DEQ prior to proceeding with the implementation of this study and the identified projects. The EID is only viable for 5 years so it is not prudent to include all the items identified in the CIP, only those items that will be started within the five-year window after the EID is completed should be included. It is possible that identified projects could fall under a Categorical Exclusion, which would reduce the amount of time required for report completion. If the county plans to self-fund the improvements an EID will not be required to be completed unless the funds require an EID specifically.
Developing a schedule to implement system improvements provides a timeline that will help motivate project development, identification of funding sources, education of the public, and establish deadlines for major project
milestones. A preliminary project schedule is presented in Table 6-3.
Table 6-3 Preliminary Project Schedule
Event Date

April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 60
References
Argonne National Laboratory. (2005, August). Nitrate and Nitrite. Retrieved September 16, 2011, from http://www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/nitrate-ite.pdf
Google. (2021, December 29). Google Earth Pro.
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. (2002). City of Georgetown (PWS 6040013) Source Water
Assessment Final Report.
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. (2012). City of Georgetown Water System Sanitary Survey. Pocatello.
Idaho Dept. of Environmental Quality. (2011). Public Water System Classifications. Retrieved 12 21, 2012, from
http://www.deq.idaho.gov/water-quality/drinking-water/pws-classification-licensure/system-classifications.aspx
Idaho Dept. of Environmental Quality. (2013b). Air Quality Monitoring in Idaho. Retrieved January 9, 2014
Idaho Dept. of Environmental Quality. (2021). IDAPA 58.01.08 Idaho Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems. Retrieved December 29, 2021, from http://adminrules.idaho.gov/rules/current/58/index.html
Idaho Dept. of Environmental Quality. (2021). Sanitary Surveys. Retrieved December 29, 2021, from
http://www.deq.idaho.gov/water-quality/drinking-water/pws-monitoring-reporting/sanitary-surveys.aspx
Idaho Dept. of Environmental Quality. (2021). Sole Source Aquifers. Retrieved January 9, 2014, from https://www.deq.idaho.gov/water-quality/ground-water/aquifers/
Idaho Geological Survey. (n.d.). Miocene and Younger Faults in Idaho. Retrieved July 5, 2011, from http://www.idahogeology.org/livemaps/IdahoFaults/index.html
Keller Associates, I. (2011). City of Georgetown Wastewater Facilities Planning Study. Pocatello, ID.
National Park Service. (2013, November 2). National Register of Historic Places. Retrieved February 1, 2016, from http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/research/
Natural Resources Conservation Service. (2021). Web Soil Survey. Retrieved December 31, 2014, from http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/
Sunrise Engineering, I. (1998). Georgetown Water Source Study. Afton, WY.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). American Fact Finder. Retrieved June 27, 2011, from U.S. Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov/
U.S. Census Bureau. (2021). 2020 American Community Survey (ACS). Retrieved January 10, 2014, from 2020
ACS 1-year Experimental Data Tables: https://data.census.gov/cedsci/profile?g=1600000US1603970
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. (2021). Retrieved October 16, 2013, from Web Soil Survey: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2012, March 6). Current Drinking Water Regulations. Retrieved January
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/currentregulations.cfm
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2013, June 3). National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Retrieved
http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/index.cfm#List
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2021, December). Wetlands Definitions. Retrieved October 16, 2013, from http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/definitions.cfm
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Basic Information about Nitrate in Drinking Water. Retrieved September 16, 2011, from Information about Regulated Drinking Water Contaminants: http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/nitrate.cfm#three
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (2021). About the WSR Act. Retrieved from National Wild & Scenic Rivers System: http://www.rivers.gov/wsr-act.php
April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 Page 61
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (2021). National Wetland Inventory. Retrieved January 10, 2014, from http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Wetlands-Mapper.html
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (2021). Species information by county. Retrieved February 1, 2016, from http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/
U.S. Geological Society. (2004, March). Quaternary Fault and Fold Database for the Nation. Retrieved March 17, 2014, from http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2004/3033/
U.S. Geological Survey. (2009). Estimated Use of Water the United States in 2005 - USGS Circular 1344. Reston: U.S. Geological Survey. Retrieved April 10, 2014, from http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/data/2005/index.html
U.S. Geological Survey. (2010, Nov. 4). 2009 Earthquake Probability Mapping. Retrieved March 6, 2014, from Geologic Hazards Science Center: https://geohazards.usgs.gov/eqprob/2009/
Western Regional Climate Center. (2021). Idaho Falls 46 W, Idaho (104460). Retrieved January 9, 2014, from Western Regional Climate Center: https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?id4460
Whitehead, R. L. (1994). U.S. Geological Survey. Retrieved from Ground Water Atlas of the United States: http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_h/index.html

April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 A
Appendix A Reference Information
• NRCS Soil Report
• Endangered Species List
• Biological Assessment
• Existing System Drawings

United States
Department of
Agriculture
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
Butte County Area, Idaho,
Parts of Butte and Bingham
Counties
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
April 19, 2022
Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.
They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information
about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for
many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban
planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.
Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste
disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand,
protect, or enhance the environment.
Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose
special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil
properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.
The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of
soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for
identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.
Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area
planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some
cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/
portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering
applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center
(https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil
Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/?
cid=nrcs142p2_053951).
Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are
seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a
foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as
septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to
basements or underground installations.
The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States
Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey.
Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available
through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its
programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability,
and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion,
sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a
part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not
all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require
2
alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print,
audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at [phone] (voice
and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of
Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or
call [phone] (voice) or [phone] (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity
provider and employer.
3
Contents
Preface....................................................................................................................2
How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5
Soil Map..................................................................................................................8
Soil Map................................................................................................................9
Legend................................................................................................................10
Map Unit Legend................................................................................................12
Map Unit Descriptions........................................................................................12
Butte County Area, Idaho, Parts of Butte and Bingham Counties..................14
2—Atom silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes.....................................................14
16—Coffee-Nargon-Atom complex, 2 to 12 percent slopes........................15
References............................................................................................................18
4
How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous
areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous
areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and
limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length,
and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and
native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil
profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The
profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the
soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is
devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other
biological activity.
Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource
areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that
share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water
resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey
areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA.
The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that
is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the
area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind
of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and
miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific
segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they
were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict
with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a
specific location on the landscape.
Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their
characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil
scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only
a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented
by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to
verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.
Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They
noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock
fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them
to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their
properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).
Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil
characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for
comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic
classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character
of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil
5
scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the
individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that
they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and
research.
The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the
objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that
have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a
unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable
proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components
of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way
diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such
landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the
development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite
investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.
The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of
mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape,
and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the
soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at
specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller
number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded.
These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color,
depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for
content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil
typically vary from one point to another across the landscape.
Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of
characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct
measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit
component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other
properties.
While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally
are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists
interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed
characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the
soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through
observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management.
Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new
interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other
sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of
specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management
are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same
kinds of soil.
Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on
such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over
long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example,
soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will
have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict
that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.
After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the
survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and
Custom Soil Resource Report
6
identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings,
fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.
Custom Soil Resource Report
7
Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of
soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols
displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to
produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.
8
9
Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
48
1
1
0
0
0
48
1
1
1
0
0
48
1
1
2
0
0
48
1
1
3
0
0
48
1
1
4
0
0
48
1
1
5
0
0
48
1
1
6
0
0
48
1
1
7
0
0
48
1
1
8
0
0
48
1
1
9
0
0
48
1
2
0
0
0
48
1
2
1
0
0
48
1
2
2
0
0
48
1
2
3
0
0
48
1
1
0
0
0
48
1
1
1
0
0
48
1
1
2
0
0
48
1
1
3
0
0
48
1
1
4
0
0
48
1
1
5
0
0
48
1
1
6
0
0
48
1
1
7
0
0
48
1
1
8
0
0
48
1
1
9
0
0
48
1
2
0
0
0
48
1
2
1
0
0
48
1
2
2
0
0
352900 353000 353100 353200 353300 353400 353500 353600 353700 353800 353900
352900 353000 353100 353200 353300 353400 353500 353600 353700 353800
43° 26' 57'' N
11
2
°

4
9
'

5
'
'

W
43° 26' 57'' N
11
2
°

4
8
'

2
0
'
'

W
43° 26' 13'' N
11
2
°

4
9
'

5
'
'

W
43° 26' 13'' N
11
2
°

4
8
'

2
0
'
'

W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 12N WGS84
0 300 600 1200 1800Feet
0 50 100 200 300Meters
Map Scale: 1:6,560 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Butte County Area, Idaho, Parts of Butte and
Bingham Counties
Survey Area Data: Version 19, Sep 9, 2021
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Oct 29, 2014—Nov
14, 2016
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
Custom Soil Resource Report
10
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Custom Soil Resource Report
11
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
2 Atom silt loam, 1 to 3 percent
slopes
22.0 20.4%
16 Coffee-Nargon-Atom complex,
2 to 12 percent slopes
85.6 79.6%
Totals for Area of Interest 107.6 100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the
soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along
with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more
major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named
according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic
class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the
landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the
characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some
observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.
Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without
including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made
up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor
components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.
Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the
map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called
noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a
particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties
and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different
management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They
generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the
scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas
are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a
given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit
descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor
components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not
mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it
was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and
miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the
usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate
pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or
landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The
delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the
development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however,
Custom Soil Resource Report
12
onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous
areas.
An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.
Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil
properties and qualities.
Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for
differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major
horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.
Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness,
salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the
basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas
shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase
commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha
silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.
Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.
These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.
A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate
pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.
The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar
in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.
An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or
miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present
or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered
practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The
pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat
similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas
that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar
interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion
of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can
be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made
up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil
material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.
Custom Soil Resource Report
13
Butte County Area, Idaho, Parts of Butte and Bingham Counties
2—Atom silt loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2n5w
Elevation: 5,400 to 5,600 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 9 to 11 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 43 to 45 degrees F
Frost-free period: 70 to 90 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated and reclaimed
of excess salts and sodium
Map Unit Composition
Atom and similar soils:80 percent
Minor components:20 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Atom
Setting
Landform:Lava plains
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Parent material:Mixed alluvium
Typical profile
A - 0 to 9 inches: silt loam
Bk1 - 9 to 33 inches: silt loam
Bk2 - 33 to 60 inches: silt loam
Properties and qualities
Slope:1 to 3 percent
Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches
Drainage class:Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high (0.20
to 0.60 in/hr)
Depth to water table:More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding:None
Frequency of ponding:None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content:40 percent
Maximum salinity:Moderately saline to strongly saline (8.0 to 16.0 mmhos/cm)
Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum:30.0
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 8.1 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 6s
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: R011XB001ID - LOAMY 8-12 - Provisional
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Tenno
Percent of map unit:5 percent
Custom Soil Resource Report
14
Splittop
Percent of map unit:5 percent
Lesbut
Percent of map unit:5 percent
Bockston
Percent of map unit:5 percent
16—Coffee-Nargon-Atom complex, 2 to 12 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2n5r
Elevation: 4,500 to 5,500 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 9 to 11 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 43 to 45 degrees F
Frost-free period: 70 to 110 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Coffee and similar soils:35 percent
Nargon and similar soils:25 percent
Atom and similar soils:15 percent
Minor components:25 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Coffee
Setting
Landform:Lava plains
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Parent material:Mixed alluvium over basalt
Typical profile
A - 0 to 7 inches: silt loam
Bk - 7 to 25 inches: silt loam
Bkq - 25 to 48 inches: silty clay loam
2R - 48 to 58 inches: bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope:2 to 12 percent
Depth to restrictive feature:40 to 60 inches to lithic bedrock
Drainage class:Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 2.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table:More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding:None
Frequency of ponding:None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content:30 percent
Maximum salinity:Moderately saline to strongly saline (8.0 to 16.0 mmhos/cm)
Custom Soil Resource Report
15
Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum:35.0
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 5.2 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 6s
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: R011XB001ID - LOAMY 8-12 - Provisional
Hydric soil rating: No
Description of Nargon
Setting
Landform:Lava plains
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Parent material:Mixed alluvium over bedrock derived from basalt
Typical profile
A - 0 to 5 inches: loam
Bk - 5 to 15 inches: clay loam
Bkq - 15 to 22 inches: stony loam
2R - 22 to 32 inches: bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope:2 to 12 percent
Depth to restrictive feature:20 to 40 inches to lithic bedrock
Drainage class:Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high (0.20
to 0.60 in/hr)
Depth to water table:More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding:None
Frequency of ponding:None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content:30 percent
Maximum salinity:Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum:2.0
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Low (about 4.2 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6c
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: R011XB001ID - LOAMY 8-12 - Provisional
Hydric soil rating: No
Description of Atom
Setting
Landform:Lava plains
Down-slope shape:Linear
Across-slope shape:Linear
Parent material:Mixed alluvium
Typical profile
A1 - 0 to 3 inches: silt loam
A2 - 3 to 10 inches: silty clay loam
Bkq - 10 to 29 inches: silt loam
Bk - 29 to 60 inches: silt loam
Custom Soil Resource Report
16
Properties and qualities
Slope:2 to 12 percent
Depth to restrictive feature:More than 80 inches
Drainage class:Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat):Moderately high (0.20
to 0.60 in/hr)
Depth to water table:More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding:None
Frequency of ponding:None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content:40 percent
Maximum salinity:Moderately saline to strongly saline (8.0 to 16.0 mmhos/cm)
Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum:30.0
Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: Moderate (about 7.1 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 6s
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: R011XB001ID - LOAMY 8-12 - Provisional
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Deuce
Percent of map unit:10 percent
Splittop
Percent of map unit:5 percent
Packmo
Percent of map unit:5 percent
Rock outcrop
Percent of map unit:5 percent
Hydric soil rating: Unranked
Custom Soil Resource Report
17
References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling
and testing. 24th edition.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of
soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service FWS/OBS-79/31.
Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.
Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.
Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric
soils in the United States.
National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for
making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577
Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580
Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands
Section.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of
Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical
Report Y-87-1.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/
home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/
detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084
18
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States,
the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook
296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?
cid=nrcs142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land
capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf
Custom Soil Resource Report
19
IPaC resource list
This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat
(collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS)
jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list
may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be
directly or indirectly aected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood
and extent of eects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional
site-specic (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project-specic (e.g., magnitude and timing of
proposed activities) information.
Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS
oce(s) with jurisdiction in the dened project area. Please read the introduction to each section
that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for
additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section.
Location
Bingham County, Idaho
Local oce
Idaho Fish And Wildlife Oce
 [phone]
 [phone]
1387 South Vinnell Way, Suite 368
Boise, ID 83709-1657
U.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceIPaC
Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of
project level impacts.
The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species.
Additional areas of inuence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of
the species range if the species could be indirectly aected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a
dam upstream of a sh population even if that sh does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly
impact the species by reducing or eliminating water ow downstream). Because species can move,
and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near
the project area. To fully determine any potential eects to species, additional site-specic and
project-specic information is often required.
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary
information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area
of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any
Federal agency. A letter from the local oce and a species list which fullls this requirement can
only be obtained by requesting an ocial species list from either the Regulatory Review section in
IPaC (see directions below) or from the local eld oce directly.
For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website
and request an ocial species list by doing the following:
1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE.
2. Click DEFINE PROJECT.
3. Log in (if directed to do so).
4. Provide a name and description for your project.
5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.
Listed species and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the sheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA Fisheries ).
Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this
list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction.
1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows
species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more
information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ).
2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an oce of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.
The following species are potentially aected by activities in this location:
Insects
1
2
Critical habitats
Potential eects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered
species themselves.
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS AT THIS LOCATION.
Migratory birds
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds
of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn
more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ
below. This is not a list of every bird you may nd in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on
this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general
public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip:
enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur o the
Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird
NAME STATUS
Monarch Buttery Danaus plexippus
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Candidate
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act .
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory
birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing
appropriate conservation measures, as described below.
1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
Additional information can be found using the following links:
Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/
birds-of-conservation-concern.php
Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds
http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/
conservation-measures.php
Nationwide conservation measures for birds
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/nationwidestandardconservationmeasures.pdf
1
2
species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and
other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and
use your migratory bird report, can be found below.
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to
reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY at
the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your
project area.
Probability of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be
present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project
activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the FAQ
NAME BREEDING SEASON (IF A
BREEDING SEASON IS INDICATED
FOR A BIRD ON YOUR LIST, THE
BIRD MAY BREED IN YOUR
PROJECT AREA SOMETIME WITHIN
THE TIMEFRAME SPECIFIED,
WHICH IS A VERY LIBERAL
ESTIMATE OF THE DATES INSIDE
WHICH THE BIRD BREEDS
ACROSS ITS ENTIRE RANGE.
"BREEDS ELSEWHERE" INDICATES
THAT THE BIRD DOES NOT LIKELY
BREED IN YOUR PROJECT AREA.)
Cassin's Finch Carpodacus cassinii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in
the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9462
Breeds May 15 to Jul 15
Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in
the continental USA and Alaska.
Breeds May 15 to Aug 10
Rufous Hummingbird selasphorus rufus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in
the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8002
Breeds Apr 15 to Jul 15
Sage Thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird
Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9433
Breeds Apr 15 to Aug 10
 no data survey eort breeding season probability of presence
"Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to
interpret this report.
Probability of Presence ()
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your
project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.)
A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey eort (see below) can be
used to establish a level of condence in the presence score. One can have higher condence in the
presence score if the corresponding survey eort is also high.
How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:
1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the
week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that
week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was
found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.
2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence
is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence
across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted
Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any
week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is
0.05/0.25 = 0.2.
3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical
conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of
presence score.
To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
Breeding Season ()
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its
entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.
Survey Eort ()
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys
performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of
surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.
To see a bar's survey eort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.
No Data ()
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant
information. The exception to this is areas o the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all
years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Cassin's Finch
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental USA
and Alaska.)
Evening Grosbeak
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental USA
and Alaska.)
Rufous
Hummingbird
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental USA
and Alaska.)
Sage Thrasher
BCC - BCR (This is a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC) only
in particular Bird
Conservation
Regions (BCRs) in
the continental
USA)
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds.
Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at
any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to
occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and
avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to
occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or
permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or
bird species present on your project site.
What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specied location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC)and other species
that may warrant special attention in your project location.
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network
(AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is
queried and ltered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project
intersects, and that have been identied as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that
area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to oshore
activities or development.
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not
representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your
project area, please visit the AKN Phenology Tool.
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially
occurring in my specied location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the
Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen
science datasets .
Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To
learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the
Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.
How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, migrating or present year-round in my project area?
To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or
year-round), you may refer to the following resources: The Cornell Lab of Ornithology All About Birds Bird Guide, or
(if you are unsuccessful in locating the bird of interest there), the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Neotropical Birds
guide. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur
in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specied. If "Breeds
elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.
What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:
1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range
anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacic Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);
2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the
continental USA; and
3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because
of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in oshore areas from
certain types of development or activities (e.g. oshore energy development or longline shing).
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, eorts should be made, in particular, to
avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For
more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird
impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.
Details about birds that are potentially aected by oshore projects
For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of
bird species within your project area o the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal
also oers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review.
Alternately, you may download the bird model results les underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS
Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic
Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.
Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year,
including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on
marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam
Loring.
What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the
Eagle Act should such impacts occur.
Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report
The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority
concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be
in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring
in my specied location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10
km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look
carefully at the survey eort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a
red horizontal bar). A high survey eort is the key component. If the survey eort is high, then the probability of
presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey eort bar or no data bar means a lack
of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a
starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might
be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to
look for to conrm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid
or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be conrmed. To learn more about
conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize
impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.
Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge lands
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a
'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to
discuss any questions or concerns.
THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS AT THIS LOCATION.
Fish hatcheries
THERE ARE NO FISH HATCHERIES AT THIS LOCATION.
Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.
For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers District.
WETLAND INFORMATION IS NOT AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME
This can happen when the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map service is unavailable, or for very
large projects that intersect many wetland areas. Try again, or visit the NWI map to view wetlands at
this location.
Data limitations
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level
information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high
altitude imagery. Wetlands are identied based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error
is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in
revision of the wetland boundaries or classication established through image analysis.
The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts,
the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verication work conducted.
Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems.
Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or eld work. There may be
occasional dierences in polygon boundaries or classications between the information depicted on the map and
the actual conditions on site.
Data exclusions
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial
imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged
aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters.
Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tubercid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory.
These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.
Data precautions
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may dene and describe wetlands in a
dierent manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this
inventory, to dene the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish
the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in
activities involving modications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate federal,
state, or local agencies concerning specied agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may
aect such activities.
Atomic City Water System
Biological Assessment
Prepared using IPaC
Generated by Kyle Jones ([e-mail])
December 28, 2021
The purpose of this Biological Assessment (BA) is to assess the effects of the
proposed project and determine whether the project may affect any Federally
threatened, endangered, proposed or candidate species. This BA is prepared in
accordance with legal requirements set forth under Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1536 (c)).
In this document, any data provided by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is based on data as of December
28, 2021.
2
Prepared using IPaC version 5.68.0
3
Atomic City Water System Biological
Assessment
Table Of Contents
1 Description of the action 5
1.1 Project name 5
1.2 Executive summary 5
1.3 Project description 5
1.3.1 Location 5
1.3.2 Description of project habitat 6
1.3.3 Project proponent information 6
1.3.4 Project purpose 6
1.3.5 Project type and deconstruction 6
1.3.6 Anticipated environmental stressors 12
1.4 Action area 42
1.5 Conservation measures 43
1.6 Prior consultation history 43
1.7 Other agency partners and interested parties 43
1.8 Other reports and helpful information 43
2 Species effects analysis 44
2.1 Monarch Butterfly 44
2.1.1 Status of the species 44
2.1.2 Environmental baseline 46
2.1.3 Effects of the action 46
2.1.4 Cumulative effects 47
2.1.5 Discussion and conclusion 47
3 Critical habitat effects analysis 48
4 Summary Discussion, Conclusion, and Effect Determinations 49
4.1 Effect determination summary 49
4.2 Summary discussion 49
4.3 Conclusion 49
4
5
1 Description Of The Action
1.1 Project Name
Atomic City Water System
1.2 Executive Summary
the plan is to replace old piping, add some valving for better water system control, a
new flush hydrant for capability to flush water from well in case the well water is
contaminated, and replace the existing well/booster building with a new building.

Effect determination summary
1.3 Project Description
1.3.1 Location
6
LOCATION
Bingham County, Idaho
1.3.2 Description of project habitat
no idea. ground is flat and piping is underground. building is old and will be replaced
with a new building.
1.3.3 Project proponent information
Provide information regarding who is proposing to conduct the project, and their contact
information. Please provide details on whether there is a Federal nexus.
Requesting Agency
HLE, Inc.
FULL NAME
Kyle Jones
STREET ADDRESS
800 W. Judicial
CITY
Blackfoot
STATE
ID
ZIP
83221
PHONE NUMBER
[phone]
E-MAIL ADDRESS
[e-mail]
Lead agency
Lead agency is the same as requesting agency
1.3.4 Project purpose
This project is for water system improvements of already constructed pipelines, wells, or
booster stations.
1.3.5 Project type and deconstruction
This project is a pipeline operation & maintenance project.
7
1.3.5.1 Project map
8
LEGEND
Project footprint
New Well/Booster House: Building (structure)
Piping Misc.: Excavate soils/sediments, replace existing structure, replace
terrestrial subsurface pipeline segment, restore vegetation, building (structure)
Piping and Well Improvements: Replace existing structure, replace terrestrial
subsurface pipeline segment, restore vegetation
9
▪
▪
▪
1.3.5.2 building
Structure completion date
October 31, 2022
Removal/decommission date (if applicable)
November 01, 2022
Stressors
LANDFORM (TOPOGRAPHIC) FEATURES
Increase in impervious surfaces
HUMAN ACTIVITIES
Increase in human presence
Increase in vehicle traffic
Description
removal of existing building and construction of a new building at the same location.
10
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
1.3.5.3 excavate soils/sediments
Activity start date
July 28, 2022
Activity end date
October 31, 2022
Stressors
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY FEATURES
Increase in soil moisture/saturation
SOIL AND SEDIMENT
Increase in dust
HUMAN ACTIVITIES
Increase in human presence
Increase in noise
Increase in soil disturbance
Description
excavation for replacement of piping
1.3.5.4 replace existing structure
Activity start date
August 01, 2022
Activity end date
October 31, 2022
Stressors
This activity is not expected to have any impact on the environment.
Description
The project is to replace the existing well/booster house as it does not meet current
codes and is not adequate for the water system needs. The new building will be at
the same location as the existing.
11
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
1.3.5.5 replace terrestrial subsurface pipeline segment
Activity start date
Unspecified
Activity end date
Unspecified
Stressors
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY FEATURES
Increase in nutrients
Increase in soil moisture/saturation
SOIL AND SEDIMENT
Increase in dust
Increase in soil compaction
HUMAN ACTIVITIES
Increase in aircraft traffic
Increase in human presence
Increase in noise
Increase in soil disturbance
Increase in vehicle traffic
Description
replace existing piping around well/booster house
12
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
1.3.5.6 restore vegetation
Activity start date
August 01, 2022
Activity end date
October 31, 2022
Stressors
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY FEATURES
Increase in nutrients
Increase in soil moisture/saturation
HUMAN ACTIVITIES
Increase in human presence
Increase in soil disturbance
Increase in vehicle traffic
Description
revegetate areas that are disturbed during construction of piping or well/booster
house.
1.3.6 Anticipated environmental stressors
Describe the anticipated effects of your proposed project on the aspects of the land, air
and water that will occur due to the activities above. These should be based on the
activity deconstructions done in the previous section and will be used to inform the
action area.
1.3.6.1 Environmental Quality Features
Abiotic attributes of the landscape (e.g., temperature, moisture, slope, aspect, etc.).
13
1.3.6.1.1 Increase in nutrients
ANTICIPATED MAGNITUDE
we will likely want to fertilize the vegetation that is planted in the disturbed areas so
that the new vegetation will live and take root.
STRESSOR LOCATION
14
LEGEND
Project footprint
Stressor location
15
▪
▪
CONSERVATION MEASURES
No conservation measures for this stressor
STRUCTURES AND ACTIVITIES
Restore vegetation
Replace terrestrial subsurface pipeline segment
16
1.3.6.1.2 Increase in soil moisture/saturation
ANTICIPATED MAGNITUDE
we will want to water areas disturbed to limit dust
STRESSOR LOCATION
17
LEGEND
Project footprint
Stressor location
18
▪
▪
▪
CONSERVATION MEASURES
No conservation measures for this stressor
STRUCTURES AND ACTIVITIES
Restore vegetation
Replace terrestrial subsurface pipeline segment
Excavate soils/sediments
1.3.6.2 Landform (topographic) Features
Topographic (landform) features that typically occur naturally on the landscape (e.g., cliffs, terraces, ridges,
etc.). This feature does not include aquatic landscape features or man-made structures.
19
1.3.6.2.1 Increase in impervious surfaces
ANTICIPATED MAGNITUDE
the new building may be slightly larger than existing building
STRESSOR LOCATION
20
LEGEND
Project footprint
Stressor location
21
▪
CONSERVATION MEASURES
No conservation measures for this stressor
STRUCTURES AND ACTIVITIES
Building
1.3.6.3 Soil and Sediment
The topmost layer of earth on the landscape and its components (e.g., rock, sand, gravel, silt, etc.). This
feature includes the physical characteristics of soil, such as depth, compaction, etc. Soil quality attributes (e.g,
temperature, pH, etc.) should be placed in the Environmental Quality Features.
22
1.3.6.3.1 Increase in dust
ANTICIPATED MAGNITUDE
we will water the areas disturbed when replacing piping near well/booster house.
very limited dust would likely be generated
STRESSOR LOCATION
23
LEGEND
Project footprint
Stressor location
24
▪
▪
CONSERVATION MEASURES
No conservation measures for this stressor
STRUCTURES AND ACTIVITIES
Replace terrestrial subsurface pipeline segment
Excavate soils/sediments
25
1.3.6.3.2 Increase in soil compaction
ANTICIPATED MAGNITUDE
the ground will be compacted when installing new piping and the construction of the
new building. compaction is usually 92-95%.
STRESSOR LOCATION
26
LEGEND
Project footprint
Stressor location
27
▪
CONSERVATION MEASURES
No conservation measures for this stressor
STRUCTURES AND ACTIVITIES
Replace terrestrial subsurface pipeline segment
1.3.6.4 Human Activities
Human actions in the environment (e.g., fishing, hunting, farming, walking, etc.).
28
1.3.6.4.1 Increase in aircraft traffic
ANTICIPATED MAGNITUDE
there shouldn't be any aircraft traffic as part of this project.
STRESSOR LOCATION
29
LEGEND
Project footprint
Stressor location
30
▪
CONSERVATION MEASURES
No conservation measures for this stressor
STRUCTURES AND ACTIVITIES
Replace terrestrial subsurface pipeline segment
31
1.3.6.4.2 Increase in human presence
ANTICIPATED MAGNITUDE
the project needs a construction company to come and construct the project which
will require people to come and do the work.
STRESSOR LOCATION
32
LEGEND
Project footprint
Stressor location
33
▪
▪
▪
▪
CONSERVATION MEASURES
No conservation measures for this stressor
STRUCTURES AND ACTIVITIES
Restore vegetation
Replace terrestrial subsurface pipeline segment
Building
Excavate soils/sediments
34
1.3.6.4.3 Increase in noise
ANTICIPATED MAGNITUDE
construction of the piping replacement and the new well/booster house will include
construction equipment which can be noisy.
STRESSOR LOCATION
35
LEGEND
Project footprint
Stressor location
36
▪
▪
CONSERVATION MEASURES
No conservation measures for this stressor
STRUCTURES AND ACTIVITIES
Replace terrestrial subsurface pipeline segment
Excavate soils/sediments
37
1.3.6.4.4 Increase in soil disturbance
ANTICIPATED MAGNITUDE
limited soil disturbance for the piping replacement and the new well/booster house
STRESSOR LOCATION
38
LEGEND
Project footprint
Stressor location
39
▪
▪
▪
CONSERVATION MEASURES
No conservation measures for this stressor
STRUCTURES AND ACTIVITIES
Restore vegetation
Replace terrestrial subsurface pipeline segment
Excavate soils/sediments
40
1.3.6.4.5 Increase in vehicle traffic
ANTICIPATED MAGNITUDE
the construction will require a construction company and they will have vehicles to
get to/from construction site during construction
STRESSOR LOCATION
41
LEGEND
Project footprint
Stressor location
42
▪
▪
▪
CONSERVATION MEASURES
No conservation measures for this stressor
STRUCTURES AND ACTIVITIES
Restore vegetation
Replace terrestrial subsurface pipeline segment
Building
1.4 Action Area
43
1.5 Conservation Measures
Describe any proposed measures being implemented as part of the project that are
designed to reduce the impacts to the environment and their resulting effects to listed
species. To avoid extra verbiage, don't list measures that have no relevance to the
species being analyzed.
No conservation measures have been selected for this project.
1.6 Prior Consultation History
none
1.7 Other Agency Partners And Interested Parties
Bingham County is the owner of the system as Atomic City voted to disincorporate
recently.
1.8 Other Reports And Helpful Information
none
44
2 Species Effects Analysis
This section describes, species by species, the effects of the proposed action on listed,
proposed, and candidate species, and the habitat on which they depend. In this
document, effects are broken down as direct interactions (something happening directly
to the species) or indirect interactions (something happening to the environment on
which a species depends that could then result in effects to the species).

These interactions encompass effects that occur both during project construction and
those which could be ongoing after the project is finished. All effects, however, should
be considered, including effects from direct and indirect interactions and cumulative
effects.
2.1 Monarch Butterfly
2.1.1 Status of the species
This section should provide information on the species' background, its biology and life
history that is relevant to the proposed project within the action area that will inform the
effects analysis.
2.1.1.1 Legal status
The Monarch Butterfly is federally listed as 'Candidate' and additional information
regarding its legal status can be found on the ECOS species profile.
2.1.1.2 Recovery plans
Available recovery plans for the Monarch Butterfly can be found on the ECOS species
profile.
45
2.1.1.3 Life history information
Note - the monarch is a candidate species and not yet listed or proposed for listing.
There are generally no section 7 requirements for candidate species (see our Section 7
Questions and Answers on the monarch here - https://www.fws.gov/savethemonarch/
FAQ-Section7.html), but we encourage all agencies to take advantage of any
opportunity they may have to conserve the species.
For information on monarch conservation, visit https://www.fws.gov/savethemonarch/,
http://www.mafwa.org/?page_id=2347, and, for the West, https://wafwa.org/committees-
working-groups/monarch-working-group/.
Adult monarch butterflies are large and conspicuous, with bright orange wings
surrounded by a black border and covered with black veins. The black border has a
double row of white spots, present on the upper side of the wings. Adult monarchs are
sexually dimorphic, with males having narrower wing venation and scent patches. The
bright coloring of a monarch serves as a warning to predators that eating them can be
toxic.
During the breeding season, monarchs lay their eggs on their obligate milkweed host
plant (primarily Asclepias spp.), and larvae emerge after two to five days. Larvae
develop through five larval instars (intervals between molts) over a period of 9 to 18
days, feeding on milkweed and sequestering toxic chemicals (cardenolides) as a
defense against predators. The larva then pupates into a chrysalis before emerging 6 to
14 days later as an adult butterfly. There are multiple generations of monarchs produced
during the breeding season, with most adult butterflies living approximately two to five
weeks; overwintering adults enter into reproductive diapause (suspended reproduction)
and live six to nine months.
In many regions where monarchs are present, monarchs breed year-round. Individual
monarchs in temperate climates, such as eastern and western North America, undergo
long-distance migration, and live for an extended period of time. In the fall, in both
eastern and western North America, monarchs begin migrating to their respective
overwintering sites. This migration can take monarchs distances of over 3,000 km and
last for over two months. In early spring (February-March), surviving monarchs break
diapause and mate at the overwintering sites before dispersing. The same individuals
that undertook the initial southward migration begin flying back through the breeding
grounds and their offspring start the cycle of generational migration over again.
Identified resource needs
Bank
No idea
2.1.1.4 Conservation needs
no idea
46
2.1.2 Environmental baseline
The environmental baseline describes the species' health within the action area only
at the time of the consultation, and does not include the effects of the action under
review. Unlike the species information provided above, the environmental baseline is at
the scale of the Action area.
2.1.2.1 Species presence and use
no idea
2.1.2.2 Species conservation needs within the action area
no idea
2.1.2.3 Habitat condition (general)
no idea
2.1.2.4 Influences
no idea
2.1.2.5 Additional baseline information
no idea
2.1.3 Effects of the action
This section considers and discusses all effects on the listed species that are caused by
the proposed action and are reasonably certain to occur, including the effects of other
activities that would not occur but for the proposed action.
2.1.3.1 Indirect interactions
RESOURCE
NEED
STRESSORS CONSERVATION
MEASURES
AMOUNT OF
RESOURCE
IMPACTED
INDIVIDUALS
AFFECTED
Bank (no idea)This resource is not
present in the action
area
don't know, there
isn't a bank in the
project area
There will be no
impacts to this
resource, so no
individuals will be
affected.
47
2.1.3.2 Direct interactions
No direct interactions leading to effects on species are expected to occur from the proposed
project.
2.1.4 Cumulative effects
no idea
2.1.5 Discussion and conclusion
Determination: NE
48
3 Critical Habitat Effects Analysis
No critical habitats intersect with the project action area.
49
4 Summary Discussion, Conclusion, And Effect
Determinations
4.1 Effect Determination Summary
SPECIES
(COMMON
NAME)
SCIENTIFIC
NAME
LISTING
STATUS
PRESENT IN
ACTION AREA
EFFECT
DETERMINATION
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus Candidate Yes NE
4.2 Summary Discussion
no idea
4.3 Conclusion
the area to be disturbed is area that already was disturbed when the piping was
originally installed and to replace an old well/booster house with a new building.
Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3

April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 B
Appendix B Water Quality Data
• National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Regulations
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations

Contaminant MCL or Potential health effects from Common sources of contaminant Public Health
TT1 (mg/L)2 long-term3 exposure above the MCL in drinking water Goal (mg/L)2

OC Acrylamide TT4 Nervous system or blood problems; Added to water during sewage/ zero increased risk of cancer wastewater treatment
OC Alachlor 0.002 Eye, liver, kidney or spleen problems; Runoff from herbicide zero anemia; increased risk of cancer used on row crops R Alpha/photon emitters 15 picocuries Increased risk of cancer Erosion of natural deposits of certain zero per Liter minerals that are radioactive and (pCi/L) may emit a form of radiation known as alpha radiation
IOC Antimony 0.006 Increase in blood cholesterol; decrease Discharge from petroleum refineries; 0.006 in blood sugar fire retardants; ceramics; electronics; solder
IOC Arsenic 0.010 Skin damage or problems with circulatory Erosion of natural deposits; runoff 0 systems, and may have increased from orchards; runoff from glass & risk of getting cancer electronics production wastes
IOC Asbestos (fibers >10 7 million Increased risk of developing benign Decay of asbestos cement in water 7 MFL micrometers) fibers per intestinal polyps mains; erosion of natural deposits Liter (MFL)
OC Atrazine 0.003 Cardiovascular system or reproductive Runoff from herbicide used on row 0.003 problems crops
IOC Barium 2 Increase in blood pressure Discharge of drilling wastes; discharge 2 from metal refineries; erosion of natural deposits
OC Benzene 0.005 Anemia; decrease in blood platelets; Discharge from factories; leaching zero increased risk of cancer from gas storage tanks and landfills
OC Benzo(a)pyrene 0.0002 Reproductive difficulties; increased risk Leaching from linings of water storage zero (PAHs) of cancer tanks and distribution lines
IOC Beryllium 0.004 Intestinal lesions Discharge from metal refineries and 0.004 coal-burning factories; discharge from electrical, aerospace, and defense industries
R Beta photon emitters 4 millirems Increased risk of cancer Decay of natural and man-made zero per year deposits of certain minerals that are radioactive and may emit forms of radiation known as photons and beta radiation
DBP Bromate 0.010 Increased risk of cancer Byproduct of drinking water disinfection zero
IOC Cadmium 0.005 Kidney damage Corrosion of galvanized pipes; erosion 0.005 of natural deposits; discharge from metal refineries; runoff from waste batteries and paints
OC Carbofuran 0.04 Problems with blood, nervous system, or Leaching of soil fumigant used on rice 0.04 reproductive system and alfalfa
OC Carbon tetrachloride 0.005 Liver problems; increased risk of cancer Discharge from chemical plants and zero other industrial activities
D Chloramines (as Cl ) MRDL=4.01 Eye/nose irritation; stomach discomfort; Water additive used to control MRDLG=41 2 anemia microbes
OC Chlordane 0.002 Liver or nervous system problems;Residue of banned termiticide zero increased risk of cancer
D Chlorine (as Cl ) MRDL=4.01 Eye/nose irritation; stomach discomfort Water additive used to control MRDLG=41 2 microbes
D Chlorine dioxide MRDL=0.81 Anemia; infants, young children, and fetuses of Water additive used to control MRDLG=0.81
(as ClO ) pregnant women: nervous system effects microbes 2
DBP Chlorite 1.0 Anemia; infants, young children, and fetuses of Byproduct of drinking water 0.8 pregnant women: nervous system effects disinfection
OC Chlorobenzene 0.1 Liver or kidney problems Discharge from chemical and agricultural 0.1 chemical factories
IOC Chromium (total) 0.1 Allergic dermatitis Discharge from steel and pulp mills; 0.1 erosion of natural deposits
IOC Copper TT5; Short-term exposure: Gastrointestinal Corrosion of household plumbing 1.3 Action distress. Long-term exposure: Liver or systems; erosion of natural deposits Level = kidney damage. People with Wilson’s 1.3 Disease should consult their personal doctor if the amount of copper in their water exceeds the action level
M Cryptosporidium TT7 Short-term exposure: Gastrointestinal illness Human and animal fecal waste zero (e.g., diarrhea, vomiting, cramps)
LEGEND
D Disinfectant IOC Inorganic Chemical OC Organic Chemical
DBP Disinfection Byproduct M Microorganism R Radionuclides
Contaminant MCL or TT1 (mg/L)2 Potential health effects from long-term3 exposure above the MCL Common sources of contaminant in drinking water Public Health Goal (mg/L)2
IOC
OC
Cyanide (as free cyanide)
2,4-D
0.2
0.07
Nerve damage or thyroid problems
Kidney, liver, or adrenal gland problems
Discharge from steel/metal factories; discharge from plastic and fertilizerfactories
Runoff from herbicide used on row
0.2
0.07 crops

OC
OC
Dalapon
1,2-Dibromo-3- chloropropane (DBCP)
0.2
0.0002
Minor kidney changes
Reproductive difficulties; increased risk of cancer
Runoff from herbicide used on rights of way
Runoff/leaching from soil fumigant used on soybeans, cotton, pineapples,and orchards
0.2
zero
OC o-Dichlorobenzene 0.6 Liver, kidney, or circulatory system problems Discharge from industrial chemical factories 0.6
OC p-Dichlorobenzene 0.075 Anemia; liver, kidney or spleen damage; changes in blood Discharge from industrial chemical factories 0.075
OC 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.005 Increased risk of cancer Discharge from industrial chemical factories zero

OC
OC
OC
1,1-Dichloroethylene
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene
trans-1,2­ Dichloroethylene
0.007
0.07
0.1
Liver problems
Liver problems
Liver problems
Discharge from industrial chemical factories
Discharge from industrial chemical factories
Discharge from industrial chemical factories
0.007
0.07
0.1
OC Dichloromethane 0.005 Liver problems; increased risk of cancer Discharge from drug and chemical factories zero

OC
OC
1,2-Dichloropropane
Di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate
0.005
0.4
Increased risk of cancer
Weight loss, liver problems, or possible reproductive difficulties
Discharge from industrial chemical factories
Discharge from chemical factories
zero
0.4
OC Di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 0.006 Reproductive difficulties; liver problems; increased risk of cancer Discharge from rubber and chemical factories zero

OC
OC
OC
Dinoseb
Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD)
Diquat
0.007
0.00000003
0.02
Reproductive difficulties
Reproductive difficulties; increased risk of cancer
Cataracts
Runoff from herbicide used on soybeans and vegetables
Emissions from waste incineration and other combustion; dischargefrom chemical factories
Runoff from herbicide use
0.007

zero

0.02
OC Endothall 0.1 Stomach and intestinal problems Runoff from herbicide use 0.1
OC Endrin 0.002 Liver problems Residue of banned insecticide 0.002

OC Epichlorohydrin
TT4

Increased cancer risk; stomach problems
Discharge from industrial chemical factories; an impurity of some watertreatment chemicals
zero

OC Ethylbenzene 0.7 Liver or kidney problems Discharge from petroleum refineries 0.7

OC
M
Ethylene dibromide
Fecal coliform and E. coli
0.00005
MCL6
Problems with liver, stomach, reproductive Discharge from petroleum refineries system, or kidneys; increased risk of cancer
Fecal coliforms and E. coli are bacteria whose Human and animal fecal waste presence indicates that the water may be contaminated with human or animal wastes. Microbes in these wastes
zero
zero6

may cause short term effects, such as diarrhea, cramps,nausea, headaches, or other symptoms. They may pose aspecial health risk for infants, young children, and peoplewith severely compromised immune systems.

IOC
M
OC
Fluoride
Giardia lamblia
Glyphosate
4.0
TT7
0.7
Bone disease (pain and tenderness of the bones); children may get mottled teeth
Short-term exposure: Gastrointestinal illness (e.g., diarrhea, vomiting, cramps)
Kidney problems; reproductive difficulties
Water additive which promotes strong teeth; erosion of naturaldeposits; discharge from fertilizerand aluminum factories
Human and animal fecal waste
Runoff from herbicide use
4.0
zero
0.7
DBP
OC
OC
M
Haloacetic acids (HAA5)
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Heterotrophic plate count (HPC)
0.060
0.0004
0.0002
TT7

Increased risk of cancer
Liver damage; increased risk of cancer
Liver damage; increased risk of cancer
HPC has no health effects; it is an analytic method used to measure the variety of bacteria that are common in water. The lower the concentration of
Byproduct of drinking waterdisinfection
Residue of banned termiticide
Breakdown of heptachlor
HPC measures a range of bacteriathat are naturally present in theenvironment
n/a9
zero
zero
n/a
bacteria in drinking water, the bettermaintained the water system is.
LEGEND
D Disinfectant IOC Inorganic Chemical OC Organic Chemical
DBP Disinfection Byproduct M Microorganism R Radionuclides
Contaminant MCL or Potential health effects from Common sources of contaminant Public Health
TT1 (mg/L)2 long-term3 exposure above the MCL in drinking water Goal (mg/L)2

OC Hexachlorobenzene 0.001 Liver or kidney problems; reproductive Discharge from metal refineries and zero difficulties; increased risk of cancer agricultural chemical factories
OC Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 0.05 Kidney or stomach problems Discharge from chemical factories 0.05 IOC Lead TT5; Infants and children: Delays in physical or Corrosion of household plumbing zero Action or mental development; children could systems; erosion of natural deposits Level=0.015 show slight deficits in attention span and learning abilities; Adults: Kidney problems; high blood pressure
M Legionella TT7 Legionnaire’s Disease, a type of Found naturally in water; multiplies in zero pneumonia heating systems
OC Lindane 0.0002 Liver or kidney problems Runoff/leaching from insecticide used 0.0002 on cattle, lumber, gardens
IOC Mercury (inorganic) 0.002 Kidney damage Erosion of natural deposits; discharge 0.002 from refineries and factories; runoff from landfills and croplands
OC Methoxychlor 0.04 Reproductive difficulties Runoff/leaching from insecticide used 0.04 on fruits, vegetables, alfalfa, livestock
IOC Nitrate (measured as 10 Infants below the age of six months who Runoff from fertilizer use; leaching 10 Nitrogen) drink water containing nitrate in excess from septic tanks, sewage; erosion of of the MCL could become seriously ill natural deposits and, if untreated, may die. Symptoms include shortness of breath and blue-baby syndrome.
IOC Nitrite (measured as 1 Infants below the age of six months who Runoff from fertilizer use; leaching 1 Nitrogen) drink water containing nitrite in excess from septic tanks, sewage; erosion of of the MCL could become seriously ill natural deposits and, if untreated, may die. Symptoms include shortness of breath and blue-baby syndrome.
OC Oxamyl (Vydate) 0.2 Slight nervous system effects Runoff/leaching from insecticide used 0.2 on apples, potatoes, and tomatoes
OC Pentachlorophenol 0.001 Liver or kidney problems; increased Discharge from wood-preserving zero cancer risk factories
OC Picloram 0.5 Liver problems Herbicide runoff 0.5
OC Polychlorinated biphenyls 0.0005 Skin changes; thymus gland problems; Runoff from landfills; discharge of zero (PCBs) immune deficiencies; reproductive or waste chemicals nervous system difficulties; increased risk of cancer
R Radium 226 and 5 pCi/L Increased risk of cancer Erosion of natural deposits zero Radium 228 (combined)
IOC Selenium 0.05 Hair or fingernail loss; numbness in fingers Discharge from petroleum and metal refineries; 0.05 or toes; circulatory problems erosion of natural deposits; discharge from mines OC Simazine 0.004 Problems with blood Herbicide runoff 0.004
OC Styrene 0.1 Liver, kidney, or circulatory system problems Discharge from rubber and plastic 0.1 factories; leaching from landfills
OC Tetrachloroethylene 0.005 Liver problems; increased risk of cancer Discharge from factories and dry cleaners zero
IOC Thallium 0.002 Hair loss; changes in blood; kidney, intestine, Leaching from ore-processing sites;0.0005 or liver problems discharge from electronics, glass, and drug factories
OC Toluene 1 Nervous system, kidney, or liver problems Discharge from petroleum factories 1
M Total Coliforms 5.0 Coliforms are bacteria that indicate that other, Naturally present in the environment zero
percent8 potentially harmful bacteria may be present. See fecal coliforms and E. coli DBP Total Trihalomethanes 0.080 Liver, kidney or central nervous system problems; Byproduct of drinking water disinfection n/a9
(TTHMs) increased risk of cancer
OC Toxaphene 0.003 Kidney, liver, or thyroid problems; Runoff/leaching from insecticide used zero increased risk of cancer on cotton and cattle
OC 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 0.05 Liver problems Residue of banned herbicide 0.05
OC 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 0.07 Changes in adrenal glands Discharge from textile finishing 0.07 factories
OC 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 0.2 Liver, nervous system, or circulatory Discharge from metal degreasing 0.2 problems sites and other factories
OC 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.005 Liver, kidney, or immune system Discharge from industrial chemical 0.003 problems factories
OC Trichloroethylene 0.005 Liver problems; increased risk of cancer Discharge from metal degreasing zero sites and other factories
LEGEND
D Disinfectant IOC Inorganic Chemical OC Organic Chemical
DBP Disinfection Byproduct M Microorganism R Radionuclides
Contaminant

MCL or TT1 (mg/L)2 Potential health effects from long-term3 exposure above the MCL Common sources of contaminant in drinking water Public Health
Goal (mg/L)2

M Turbidity TT7 Turbidity is a measure of the cloudiness of water. Soil runoff n/a It is used to indicate water quality and filtration effectiveness (e.g., whether disease-causing organisms are present). Higher turbidity levels are often associated with higher levels of disease-causing microorganisms such as viruses, parasites and some bacteria. These organisms can cause short term symptoms such as nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and associated headaches.
R Uranium 30µg/L Increased risk of cancer, kidney toxicity Erosion of natural deposits zero OC Vinyl chloride 0.002 Increased risk of cancer Leaching from PVC pipes; discharge zero from plastic factories
M Viruses (enteric) TT7 Short-term exposure: Gastrointestinal illness Human and animal fecal waste zero (e.g., diarrhea, vomiting, cramps)
OC Xylenes (total) 10 Nervous system damage Discharge from petroleum factories; 10 discharge from chemical factories
LEGEND
D Disinfectant IOC Inorganic Chemical OC Organic Chemical
DBP Disinfection Byproduct M Microorganism R Radionuclides
NOTES 1 Definitions • Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG)—The level of a contaminant in drinking water below • Viruses: 99.99 percent removal/inactivation which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a margin of safety and are • Legionella: No limit, but EPA believes that if Giardia and viruses are removed/inactivated according non-enforceable public health goals. to the treatment techniques in the surface water treatment rule, Legionella will also be controlled. • Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)—The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in • Turbidity: For systems that use conventional or direct filtration, at no time can turbidity (cloudiness of drinking water. MCLs are set as close to MCLGs as feasible using the best available treatment water) go higher than 1 nephelolometric turbidity unit (NTU), and samples for turbidity must be
technology and taking cost into consideration. MCLs are enforceable standards. less than or equal to 0.3 NTU in at least 95 percent of the samples in any month. Systems that use
• Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level Goal (MRDLG)—The level of a drinking water disinfectant filtration other than conventional or direct filtration must follow state limits, which must include turbidity
below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MRDLGs do not reflect the benefits of at no time exceeding 5 NTU.
the use of disinfectants to control microbial contaminants. • HPC: No more than 500 bacterial colonies per milliliter
• Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level (MRDL)—The highest level of a disinfectant allowed in • Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment; Surface water systems or ground water systems
drinking water. There is convincing evidence that addition of a disinfectant is necessary for under the direct influence of surface water serving fewer than 10,000 people must comply with the
control of microbial contaminants. applicable Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule provisions (e.g. turbidity standards,
• Treatment Technique (TT)—A required process intended to reduce the level of a contaminant in individual filter monitoring, Cryptosporidium removal requirements, updated watershed control
drinking water. requirements for unfiltered systems).
2 Units are in milligrams per liter (mg/L) unless otherwise noted. Milligrams per liter are equivalent • Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment; This rule applies to all surface water systems
to parts per million (ppm). or ground water systems under the direct influence of surface water. The rule targets additional
3 Health effects are from long-term exposure unless specified as short-term exposure. Cryptosporidium treatment requirements for higher risk systems and includes provisions to reduce
4 Each water system must certify annually, in writing, to the state (using third-party or manufacturers risks from uncovered finished water storages facilities and to ensure that the systems maintain microbial
certification) that when it uses acrylamide and/or epichlorohydrin to treat water, the combination (or protection as they take steps to reduce the formation of disinfection byproducts. (Monitoring
product) of dose and monomer level does not exceed the levels specified, as follows: Acrylamide start dates are staggered by system size. The largest systems (serving at least 100,000
= 0.05 percent dosed at 1 mg/L (or equivalent); Epichlorohydrin = 0.01 percent dosed at 20 mg/L people) will begin monitoring in October 2006 and the smallest systems (serving fewer than
(or equivalent). 10,000 people) will not begin monitoring until October 2008. After completing monitoring and 5 Lead and copper are regulated by a Treatment Technique that requires systems to control the determining their treatment bin, systems generally have three years to comply with any additional
corrosiveness of their water. If more than 10 percent of tap water samples exceed the action level, treatment requirements.) water systems must take additional steps. For copper, the action level is 1.3 mg/L, and for lead is • Filter Backwash Recycling: The Filter Backwash Recycling Rule requires systems that recycle to 0.015 mg/L. return specific recycle flows through all processes of the system’s existing conventional or direct 6 A routine sample that is fecal coliform-positive or E. coli-positive triggers repeat samples--if any filtration system or at an alternate location approved by the state. repeat sample is total coliform-positive, the system has an acute MCL violation. A routine sample 8 No more than 5.0 percent samples total coliform-positive in a month. (For water systems that collect that is total coliform-positive and fecal coliform-negative or E. coli-negative triggers repeat samples--if fewer than 40 routine samples per month, no more than one sample can be total coliform-positive
any repeat sample is fecal coliform-positive or E. coli-positive, the system has an acute MCL violation. per month.) Every sample that has total coliform must be analyzed for either fecal coliforms or
See also Total Coliforms. E. coli. If two consecutive TC-positive samples, and one is also positive for E. coli or fecal coliforms,
7 EPA’s surface water treatment rules require systems using surface water or ground water under system has an acute MCL violation.
the direct influence of surface water to (1) disinfect their water, and (2) filter their water or meet 9 Although there is no collective MCLG for this contaminant group, there are individual MCLGs for
criteria for avoiding filtration so that the following contaminants are controlled at the following levels: some of the individual contaminants:
• Cryptosporidium: 99 percent removal for systems that filter. Unfiltered systems are required to • Haloacetic acids: dichloroacetic acid (zero); trichloroacetic acid (0.3 mg/L)
include Cryptosporidium in their existing watershed control provisions. • Trihalomethanes: bromodichloromethane (zero); bromoform (zero); dibromochloromethane (0.06 mg/L)
• Giardia lamblia: 99.9 percent removal/inactivation
National Secondary DrinkingWater Regulation
National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations are non-enforceable guidelines regarding contaminants that may cause cosmetic effects (such as skin or tooth discoloration) or aes-thetic effects (such as taste, odor, or color) in drinking water. EPA recommends secondary standards to water systems but does not require systems to comply. However, some states may choose to adopt them as enforceable standards.
Contaminant Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
Aluminum 0.05 to 0.2 mg/L Chloride 250 mg/L Color 15 (color units) Copper 1.0 mg/L Corrosivity noncorrosive Fluoride 2.0 mg/L Foaming Agents 0.5 mg/L Iron 0.3 mg/L Manganese 0.05 mg/L Odor 3 threshold odor number pH 6.5-8.5 Silver 0.10 mg/L Sulfate 250 mg/L Total Dissolved Solids 500 mg/L Zinc 5 mg/L
For More Information
EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Web site:
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Hotline: [phone]
To order additional posters or other ground water and drinking water publications, please contact the National Service Center for Environmental Publications at : [phone], or email: [e-mail].
EPA 816-F-09-004
May 2009

April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 C
Appendix C Well Logs and Water Rights
• Well #02 Log
• Water Right Report 35-04209
• Water Right Report 35-13701

April 2022 Water Facilities Planning

2020-248 D

Appendix D Water System Sanitary Survey
• Sanitary Survey Letter