Public records library › 26-555 › 10_08_2026_mray@ci.moscow.id.us_RE_ estimated land inventory.pdf

Extracted text

Machine-extracted text layer of the file above, shown verbatim for search and reading. Tables and slides lose their layout. The original file governs.

# 10_08_2026_mray@ci.moscow.id.us_RE_ estimated land inventory.pdf
- path: 10_08_2026_mray@ci.moscow.id.us_RE_ estimated land inventory.pdf
- type: PDF
- pages/slides/sheets: 41
- extraction method: text layer
- unreadable pages: 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32
## Page 1
Sent: 
8/10/2026 4:30:49 PM
From: 
Michael Ray <mray@ci.moscow.id.us
To: 
"Nichoel Baird Spencer" 
Cc: 
Bcc: 
Importance: Normal
Subject:
RE: estimated land inventory
Attachments
:
Illustrative Final Updated.pdf ,estimated residential land 
inventory (002) mr.pdf ,TO #2 Eddington Development 
Modeling Analysis TM DRAFT 2021-11-19(002) mr.pdf 
Nichoel, generally I think the ranges which are listed are fine, but it might also be good to list commonly observed 
estimates. For instance, the multi-family lots typically average around 24 units/acre. Attached is a document that I 
created back in 2010 which lists net and gross density for different types of subdivisions throughout Moscow. We 
could list a typical density based upon the acreage if it would be helpful to try to narrow it down further. 
 
Attached are my comments on the land inventory and Edington modeling.
Thanks,
Mike
 
Mike Ray, AICP
Planning Manager
City of Moscow
504 S. Washington Street
Moscow, ID 83843
mray@ci.moscow.id.us
(208) 883-7008
 
 
Disclaimer: The information provided is for general informational purposes only based on the limited information provided and 
is not provided in lieu of the formal application, review, and permitting process as required per Moscow City Code. The City 
retains the right to review all applications for compliance with City, Idaho Code, and other standards at the time of submittal of a 
formal application and prior to the issuance of permits for the site.   The information provided is intended to help individuals 
understand the City process, requirements, and potential impacts of a site-specific use.  The City’s informal review does not 
constitute a substitute for consulting a qualified attorney, engineer, or planning professional for your specific situation and does 
not take the place of the formal application, review and permitting process. 
 
From: Nichoel Baird Spencer <nspencer@ci.moscow.id.us> 
Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2026 9:50 AM
To: Michael Ray <mray@ci.moscow.id.us>
Subject: FW: estimated land inventory
 
Mike, 
 
Can you review this information for me?  
 
I think the planned (AOI w/Residential designation) is correct on page 3/map but doesn’t reflect on the table 
on page 2.  I am not sure why they are different.  
 
Similarly with Annexed/Potential on page 2 and the map and table on page 4.  
 
Finally, Can you look at the Eddington modeling and refine the numbers a bit.  
 
Thanks!

## Page 2
 
From: Lucy Falcy <lfalcy@ci.moscow.id.us> 
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2026 12:01 PM
To: Nichoel Baird Spencer <nspencer@ci.moscow.id.us>
Subject: estimated land inventory
 
Nichoel,
I hope this works for you.
 
Lucy

## Page 3
ILLUSTRATIVE GUIDE TO
City of Moscow 
Community Development Dept
 221 E Second Street
Moscow | ID |  83843
www.ci.moscow.id.us
2010
An illustrated  analysis of: 
Christopher’s Crossing Addition
Pheasant Run Addition
Ridgeview Estates Addition
Rolling Hills  7th Addition
Quail Run 2nd Addition
The Villages
McGregor’s 2nd Addition
Fort Russell Neighborhood
Camden Ct Planned Unit Development
Green Acres Planned Unit Development
Tiempo Commons Planned Unit Development
Peterson’s 1st Addition
DENSITY

## Page 4
Introduction
This illustrated guide is provided to assist the Planning and Zoning Commission and public in 
visualizing residential development densities, either in the number of dwelling units per acre or 
persons per acre, present within select examples of existing developments and neighborhood 
within the City of Moscow across the spectrum of low to high densities.  The guide provides an 
inventory of existing land uses, aerial photos of the neighborhood, as well as street view photo-
graphs that capture the neighborhood character.  
Glossary of Terms
Acre – 43,560 square feet
Gross Density – measure of total dwelling units within the study area per acre including public 
streets, alleys and other public spaces that exist outside the individual building lots.
Net Density – measure of total dwelling units within the study area excluding land area outside 
of the individual building lots (such as streets and alleys).
Population Density – measure of the total number of persons expected to reside within the 
study area assuming an average household size of 2.25 persons per dwelling unit as observed 
during the 2000 Census.
du/a – dwelling units per acre
p/a – persons per acre
du – dwelling unit
sq ft – square feet

## Page 5
Net Density 
 
Gross Density 
Page 2
Population
Density 
Christopher’s
Crossing
Addition
Year:
2000
Total Units: 
17  du
Study Area: 
18.9 acres
Use(s): 
Single Family
1.05 du/a 
.89 du/a 
2.00 p/a

## Page 6
(This page has no text layer. Open the original PDF to view it.)

## Page 7
Net Density 
 
Gross Density 
Page 4
Population
Density 
Pheasant Run
Addition
Year:
1995
Total Units: 
9  du
Study Area: 
9.84 acres
Use(s): 
Single Family
1.04 du/a 
.91 du/a 
2.04 p/a

## Page 8
(This page has no text layer. Open the original PDF to view it.)

## Page 9
Net Density 
 
Gross Density 
Page 6
Population
Density 
Ridgeview
Estates
Addition
Year:
1987
Total Units: 
26 du
Study Area: 
14.08 acres
Use(s): 
Single Family
2.14 du/a 
1.84 du/a 
4.14 p/a

## Page 10
(This page has no text layer. Open the original PDF to view it.)

## Page 11
Net Density 
 
Gross Density 
Page 8
Population
Density 
Rolling Hills 
7th
Addition
Year:
2005
Total Units: 
63 du
Study Area: 
21.30 acres
Use(s): 
Single Family
3.68 du/a 
2.95 du/a 
6.63 p/a

## Page 12
(This page has no text layer. Open the original PDF to view it.)

## Page 13
Net Density 
 
Gross Density 
Page 10
Population
Density 
Quail Run
2nd
Addition
Year:
1999
Total Units: 
37 du
Study Area: 
11.03 acres
Use(s): 
Single Family
3.76 du/a 
3.35 du/a 
7.53 p/a

## Page 14
(This page has no text layer. Open the original PDF to view it.)

## Page 15
Net Density 
 
Gross Density 
Page 12
Population
Density 
Villages
(Re-plat of Southgate 3rd)
Year:
2005
Total Units: 
22 du
Study Area: 
5.27 acres
Use(s): 
Single Family
Average Lot Size: 
Minimum: 6,002 sf
Maximum: 8,804 sf
Mean: 6,272 sf
6.94 du/a 
4.17 du/a 
9.38 p/a

## Page 16
(This page has no text layer. Open the original PDF to view it.)

## Page 17
Net Density 
 
Gross Density 
Page 14
Population
Density 
McGregor’s
2nd
Addition
Year:
1889
Total Units: 
284  du
Study Area: 
56.29 acres
Use(s): 
Single Family
Two Family
Multi Family
Average Lot Size: 
Minimum: 1,650 sf
Maximum: 42,422 sf
Mean: 9,300 sf
6.69 du/a 
5.04 du/a 
11.34 p/a

## Page 18
(This page has no text layer. Open the original PDF to view it.)

## Page 19
Net Density 
 
Gross Density 
Page 16
Population
Density 
Fort Russell
Neighborhood
Year:
1882 (Approx.)
Total Units: 
314 du
Study Area: 
85.59 acres
Use(s): 
Single Family
Two Family
Multi Family
Institutional
Average Lot Size: 
Minimum: 1,875 sf
Maximum: 22,801 sf
Mean: 7,634 sf
7.23 du/a 
3.66 du/a 
8.23 p/a

## Page 20
(This page has no text layer. Open the original PDF to view it.)

## Page 21
Net Density 
 
Gross Density 
Page 18
Population
Density 
Camden Ct
Planned Unit
Development
Year:
2006
Total Units: 
13 du
Study Area: 
92,543 sq ft
Use(s): 
Single Family
Average Lot Size: 
Minimum: 5,061 sf
Maximum: 6,814 sf
Mean: 5,663 sf
7.69 du/a 
6.11 du/a 
13.74 p/a

## Page 22
(This page has no text layer. Open the original PDF to view it.)

## Page 23
Net Density 
 
Gross Density 
Page 20
Population
Density 
Green Acres
Planned Unit
Development
Year:
2007
Total Units: 
43  du
Study Area: 
229,209  sq ft
Use(s): 
Single Family
Average Lot Size: 
Minimum: 1,549 sf
Maximum: 2,325 sf
Mean: 2,000 sf
21.8 du/a 
8.17 du/a 
18.38 p/a

## Page 24
(This page has no text layer. Open the original PDF to view it.)

## Page 25
Net Density 
 
Gross Density 
Page 22
Population
Density 
Tiempo 
Commons
Planned Unit
Development
Year:
2007
Total Units: 
50  du
Study Area: 
5.5 acres
Use(s): 
Single Family
Average Lot Size: 
Minimum: 1,583 sf
Maximum: 3,266 sf
Mean: 2,033 sf
21.4 du/a 
8.94 du/a 
20.11 p/a

## Page 26
(This page has no text layer. Open the original PDF to view it.)

## Page 27
Net Density 
 
Gross Density 
Page 24
Population
Density 
Peterson’s
1st
Addition
Year:
2003
Total Units: 
265  du
Study Area: 
11.9 acres
Use(s): 
Multi Family
24.7 du/a 
22.2 du/a 
49.95 p/a

## Page 28
(This page has no text layer. Open the original PDF to view it.)

## Page 29
Net Density 
 
Gross Density 
Page 26
Population
Density 
8.78 du/a 
Total Units: 
66  du
Study Area: 
12.2 acres
Use(s): 
Single Family
Two Family
Multi Family
Average Lot Size: 
Minimum: 3,920 sf
Maximum: 12,499 sf
Mean: 7,113 sf
5.4 du/a 
12.15 p/a

## Page 30
(This page has no text layer. Open the original PDF to view it.)

## Page 31
Net Density 
 
Gross Density 
Page 28
Population
Density 
Total Units: 
80  du
Study Area: 
21.5 acres
Use(s): 
Single Family
Two Family
Average Lot Size: 
Minimum: 6,499 sf
Maximum: 24,218 sf
Mean: 9,360 sf
4.89 du/a 
3.72 du/a 
8.37 p/a

## Page 32
(This page has no text layer. Open the original PDF to view it.)

## Page 33
City of Moscow Residential Lot Inventory 
Construction Ready: Lots ready for building permits (can pull a building permit) 
Single Family 
Undeveloped Lots 
Miller Ridge (Pope's Third) 
4 
Southgate 1st 
2 
Southgate 2nd 
2 
Indian Hills 6th 
3 
Indian Hills 6th Replat 
1 
Indian Hills 9th 
5 
Woodbury 1st Addition 
54 
Paradise View Addition 
11 
Anderson 1st Addition 
6 
Indian Hills 7th 
1 
Meadow Brook 2nd Addition 
12 
Southgate 3rd Addition 
34 
Rolling Hills 8th Addition 
2 
Rolling Hills 10th Addition 
4 
White Acres 
1 
Edington 1st Addition 
35 
Anderson 7th Addition (Sunnyside) 
0 
Ridgeview Estates 2nd Addition 
3 
Quail Run Replat 
1 
University Gateway on 6th  
27 
Single Family Subtotal 
208 
  
  
Two-Family 
Undeveloped Lots 
Quail Run Replat 
3 
Popes Third 
4 
  
Subtotal 
7 
Multi-Family  
Undeveloped Lots 
Jabora White Ave Property 
0 
Southgate 
1 
Indian Hills 8th 
1 
Popes Third 
6 
Subtotal 
8

## Page 34
Entitled: Acres & Units Entitled as residential (Final plat or Pending final plat) 
Single Family 
Undeveloped Lots 
Peterson 2nd Addition 
64 
Sierra Vista 
8 
Park Valley 
12 
Pine View 
40 
Urban Berm Addition (townhouses) 
8 
Wildrose Court PUD 
16 
Subtotal 
148 
  
  
Two-Family 
Undeveloped Lots 
Peterson 2nd Addition, R-3, 7000sq ft-17800 sq ft lots, 
wide density range available within zone 
30 
  
  
Multi-Family  
Potential Units (MF-SF) 
Augustine Ave Apartments Plat/PUD 
102 
Peterson 2nd Addition, 15 R-4 Lots, 6.9 acres total 
48-301* 
End of Warbonnet Lot Division 4 R-4 lots-9.7 acres  
67-423* 
Subtotal 
217-826 
*range reflects 800sq ft of lot area minimum for multi-family to 5000sq ft for single-family 
Partially Entitled: Acres & Units Partially entitled (PUD & Pre-Plat) 
Single Family 
Undeveloped Lots 
Harvest Hills 2nd Addition 
64.0 
Annexed/Potential: Acres Annexed and Zoned Residential but undeveloped 
Marineau ANX/RZ (Orchard) (Pending), 32.8 acres R-2, 11.19 acres SR 
171 SFD lot potential 
Remaining Edington Property, 205 acres R-3  
1190-3500 lot potential 
Planned:  Acres within Area of City Impact & Residential in Comp Plan designated as 
Residential but undeveloped 
Woodbury 2nd Addition, outside of City Limits, Auto Urban Residential  
190-298 lot potential 
 
Miscellaneous  
UI Vandal Village, students only, nearly complete 
213 Dus 
University Gateway on 6th, condos, in review 
12 DUs  
Almon Apartments, nearly complete 
10 DUs 
Blum Apartments, Mtn View, last three buildings 
48 DUs 
 
If we're trying to match the map not the next page, need to add
Thompson, Trail, Kenworthy, Mix, Rheinghans, and UI properties

## Page 35
Planned: Area of City Impact Comprehensive Plan Designation 
 
 
 
 
Area of City Impact 
City Limits 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Comp Plan Designation 
Acres 
Dus 
Auto Urban Residential 
1044 
3306-5196 
Suburban Residential 
166 
107-195 
1210 
3413-5391 
Industrial 
63 
  
Park and Open Space 
3 
  
Rural and Agriculture 
545 
  
Suburban Commercial 
7 
  
Auto Urban Commercial 
56 
  
These areas ballooned in purple are
already developed and so fragmented
that I don't see really any large additional
development potential
U of I property,
not sure if this
should be
included or not.

## Page 36
Other Underdeveloped Residential Lots over 2 Acres in Size Within City Limits 
Zoning  
SQ FT 
-20% 
Parameters 
Potential Dus 
R1 
1191029 
952823 
9600sqft SFD 
99 
R2 
1308106 
1046484 
7000sqft SFD 
149 
R3 
1458705 
1166964 
2000sq ft townhome, 6000sq ft SFD 
233-583 
R4 
3836583 
3069266 
800sqft MF, 5000sq ft SFD 
613- 3836 
SR 
410498.7 
328398 
1 acre SFD 
7

## Page 37
Task Order 2 - Eddington Development Modeling Analysis 
1 
DRAFT 
Technical Memorandum - DRAFT 
 
To: 
Michael Parker (City of Moscow) 
From: 
David Kuhns (HDR) 
Date: 
11/19/2021 
Subject: 
Task Order 2 – Eddington Development Modeling Analysis 
Introduction 
 
A new development (Eddington) is planned on the south end of the City, west of US-95 and south of 
Sand Road, that will consist primarily of single family residential (SFR) properties but also potentially 
some mixed use and a sports field complex (see Figure 1 on page 5). 
The new Eddington development spans an area that includes higher elevations that cannot be directly fed 
from the City’s main pressure zone. The City desires to understand the infrastructure components, such 
as pumping and storage reservoirs, that are likely necessary for serving the Eddington development. 
This Task Order 2 effort involves use of the City’s existing hydraulic model to preliminarily identify the 
infrastructure necessary for serving the Eddington development. The results of the analysis are 
summarized in this technical memorandum (TM). 
This TM is an updated analysis, specific to the Eddington development, to the South Moscow Modeling 
Analysis TM (6/7/2021) completed as part of Task Order 1. 
Forecasted Demands 
HDR was provided a copy of a preliminary plat of the Eddington development that shows parcel and road 
locations. The development consists of SFR lots, multi-family residential (MFR) townhome style lots, and 
a sports field complex. The plat has 429 SFR lots and 92 MFR lots. 
The City’s 2012 Comprehensive Water System Plan (2012 CWSP) includes typical water use factors of: 
• 
SFR average day demand = 247 gallons per day (gpd) 
• 
MFR unit average day demand = 126 gpd 
• 
Maximum day demand (MDD) to average day demand (ADD) peaking factor of 2.2 
A 1.2 safety factor was also used on forecasted demands based on recommendations in the Washington 
Department of Health (DOH) 2020 Water System Design Manual (WSDM). 
The demands, excluding the sports field complex, were calculated as: 
• 
SFR ADD = 429 SFR lots × 247 gpd/SFR = 105,963 gpd = 73.6 gallons per minute (gpm) 
• 
MFR ADD =  92 MFR lots × 126 gpd/MFR = 11592 gpd = 8.1 gpm 
• 
Residential ADD = (73.6 gpm + 8.1 gpm) × 1.2 = 98 gpm, assumed 100 gpm for analysis 
• 
MDD = 100 gpm × 2.2 = 220 gpm 
The City provided HDR with historical water consumption for the City’s parks. Parks with sports fields 
include Ghormley Park, Joseph Field, and Oyler Field. Based on that data, it was found that the typical 
annual water consumption for this type of park is 500,000 gallons per acre with a MDD/ADD peaking 
factor of approximately 5. The fields part of the Eddington development have an area of approximately 28 
acres. Therefore, the demands were estimated to be: 
• 
Sports field ADD = 27 gpm 
• 
Sports field MDD = 135 gpm 
120 MF Units
approved/anticipated
140 SF lots
platted/anticipa
ted
200 acres
remaining,
assuming 3
units/acre
based upon
topography/
streets
would be
600 SF lots

## Page 38
 
Task Order 2 - Eddington Development Modeling Analysis 
2 
DRAFT 
Table 1 provides a summary of the Eddington development demands assumed in the analysis. 
Table 1. Assumed Eddington demands 
Demand type 
Residential demand 
(gpm) 
Sports field demand 
(gpm) 
Total demand (gpm) 
Average day demand 
100 
27 
127 
Maximum day demand 
220 
135 
355 
 
Eddington Development Analysis 
Based on the Eddington development plat that showed parcel and road locations, the development was 
brought into the hydraulic model. The plat did not show utility infrastructure but it was assumed that 8-inch 
piping followed all the roads in the development. The development was then assumed to be supplied via 
12-inch piping from the connection point to Palouse River Drive. The piping and connection points are 
shown on Figure 1.  
The Eddington development has a significant change in elevation with the northern part of the 
development at an elevation of approximately 2,540 feet and the highest elevation at the south end of the 
development at an elevation of approximately 2,920 feet; resulting in a 380 foot difference. The Main 
Pressure Zone of the City has a hydraulic grade line (HGL) elevation of approximately 2,790 feet. 
Therefore, a portion of the development will require a booster pump station to provide water supply. 
The 380 foot difference is equivalent to a pressure difference of 165 pounds per square inch (psi). 
Assuming an acceptable minimum pressure of 40 psi during typical demand conditions, 20 psi during fire 
flow conditions, and a maximum pressure of 100 psi; and given the current road configuration of the 
development, a preliminary layout of the development’s water system was prepared that included four 
different pressure zones, including an area that can be fed directly from the Main Pressure Zone. These 
zones include: 
• 
Eddington Main Pressure Zone 
• 
Eddington 2815 Zone 
• 
Eddington 2924 Zone 
• 
Eddington 3020 Zone 
Figure 1 shows the approximate boundaries assumed for the pressure zones. The Eddington Booster 
Pump Station (BPS) would boost water from the Eddington Main Pressure Zone (which is directly 
connected to the Main Pressure Zone from a connection to Palouse River Drive) to the Eddington 3020 
Zone. The Eddington 2924 and 2815 Zones would be supplied from the Eddington 3020 Zone (and the 
Eddington BPS) through pressure reducing valves (PRVs). Given the current assumed boundaries, 290 
SFR parcels would be served by the Eddington BPS. 
Closed Pressure Zone 
If the Eddington development has no storage tank, the Eddington BPS would be serving a closed 
pressure zone and would need to be sized to supply the fire flow goal (1,500 gpm) plus the peak hour 
demand. The demands of the boosted area (290 SFR parcels) and pump station minimum capacity are 
given in Table 2. Given a closed pressure zone configuration, the Eddington BPS would need a minimum 
pumping capacity of at least 1,803 gpm with the largest pump offline.

## Page 39
 
Task Order 2 - Eddington Development Modeling Analysis 
3 
DRAFT 
Table 2. Closed pressure zone Eddington BPS capacity analysis 
Demand type 
Demand (gpm) 
Boosted area average day demand 
60 
Boosted area maximum day demand 
132 
Boosted area peak hour demand 
303 
Fire flow demand 
1,500 
Minimum pumping capacity with largest pump offline 
(peak hour demand + fire flow demand) 
1,803 
A preliminary location for the Eddington BPS was identified. At this location, pressures remain adequate 
on the suction side of the pump station. The peak pressure on the discharge side of the pump station 
(start of the transmission main) is approximately 180 psi. At the end of the transmission pipe where the 
pipe connects to the Eddington 3020 Zone, the pressure is about 80 psi. 
Open Pressure Zone 
If the Eddington development included a storage tank (connected to the Eddington 3020 Zone (open 
pressure zone) and sized to serve the boosted zones, the Eddington BPS would need to be sized to 
supply the maximum day demand. The demands of the boosted area (290 SFR parcels) and pump 
station minimum capacity are given in Table 3. Given an open pressure zone configuration, the Eddington 
BPS would need a minimum pumping capacity of at least 132 gpm with all pumps online. 
Table 3. Open pressure zone Eddington BPS capacity analysis 
Demand type 
Demand (gpm) 
Boosted area average day demand 
60 
Boosted area maximum day demand 
132 
Minimum pumping capacity with all pumps online 
132 
A storage capacity analysis was completed to determine the necessary tank geometry based off the 
required storage components in Table 4. 
Table 4. Required storage components 
Storage 
Volume (gallons) 
Operational storage (assuming 2 foot operating band) 
7,344 
Equalization storage (assuming 132 gpm capacity pump station) 
25,650 
Standby storage (assuming 8 hours of average day demand) 
28,800 
Fire suppression storage (assuming 1,500 gpm x 2 hours) 
180,000 
The actual tank geometry (diameter and height) varies depending on the pressure being provided to the 
highest service connection in the Eddington 3020 Zone. Table 5 provides a range of potential tank 
geometry to meet the storage needs in Table 4. The tank geometry assumes a circular standpipe style 
tank with a base elevation at the same elevation of the highest service connection. A pressure for a filled 
tank at the highest service connection of 50 psi results in the lowest tank surface area if optimizing the 
tank surface area to be a minimum (lowest material quantity). This is equivalent to a 24.4 diameter, 0.4 
million gallon tank.

## Page 40
 
Task Order 2 - Eddington Development Modeling Analysis 
4 
DRAFT 
Table 5. Range of potential tank geometry 
Pressure for 
filled tank at 
highest service 
elevation (psi) 
Tank overflow 
elevation (ft) 
Tank Height (ft) 
Tank Diameter 
(ft) 
Total Internal 
Volume (gal) 
Tank surface 
area (sft) 
80 
3,105.64 
185.6 
17.1 
318,899 
10,432 
70 
3,082.56 
162.6 
18.8 
336,086 
10,133 
60 
3,059.48 
139.5 
21.0 
362,058 
9,904 
50 
3,036.40 
116.4 
24.4 
405,859 
9,841 
45 
3,024.86 
104.9 
26.8 
441,372 
9,943 
44 
3,022.55 
102.6 
27.3 
450,317 
9,982 
43 
3,020.24 
100.2 
29.8 
522,191 
10,770 
42 
3,019.32 
99.3 
33.0 
636,559 
12,019 
41 
3,015.63 
95.6 
119.1 
7,964,356 
58,036 
 
Fire Flow Results 
Assuming a closed pressure zone configuration, the piping shown on Figure 1, and 2030 forecasted 
maximum day demand, the available fire flow was calculated for the Eddington development. The 
available fire flow is subject to a constraint of maintaining at least a pressure of 20 psi throughout the 
distribution system. While the water system does not have a maximum velocity constraint, a constraint of 
10 feet per second was also applied for piping within the development (but not applied to existing piping 
outside of the development). 
It was determined that available fire flow is currently limited by the high point in the existing distribution 
system near Cayuse Drive and Conestoga Street. This pressure constraint is reduced assuming that the 
check valve at the intersection of Conestoga Street and Appaloosa Road is removed, allowing looped 
flow of the Main Pressure Zone through that intersection. As the City plans on completing an 
improvement to remove that check valve and allow looped flow through that intersection, the fire flow 
analysis assumes that check valve is removed. The analysis also found that some segments of 10-inch 
pipe were necessary to maintain adequate pressure in certain areas during fire flow. 
The available fire flow given the above assumptions is shown on Figure 1. Note that while the fire flow 
goal of 1,500 gpm is met for all SFR locations, the MFR locations at the northwest corner of the 
Eddington development is limited to 1,850 gpm which is below the MFR fire flow goal of 4,250 gpm 
contained in the Water System Plan. Additional improvements to the water system are necessary to 
improve flows into the South Moscow area if a higher fire flow is needed that what is currently available, 
which could consist of a combination of piping improvements and additional storage at the south part of 
the system.  
Summary 
The Eddington development will require a booster pump station to achieve adequate pressures at the 
higher elevations of the development which could consist of using a series of pressure zones divided by 
PRVs with a booster pump station supplying the higher zones (see Figure 1). The lower parts of the 
development can be supplied directly from the Main Pressure Zone via a connection on Palouse River 
Drive. 
The available fire flow for the development is approximately 1,500 gpm to 1,850 gpm given 2030 
maximum day demand and is limited by capacity of flows into the South Moscow area.

## Page 41
1851 gpm
1857 gpm
1857 gpm
1860 gpm
1851 gpm
1852 gpm
1810 gpm
1559 gpm
1860 gpm
1542 gpm
1544 gpm
1853 gpm
1857 gpm
1567 gpm
1567 gpm
1856 gpm
1856 gpm
1857 gpm
1567 gpm
1853 gpm
1858 gpm
1852 gpm
1857 gpm
1563 gpm
1562 gpm
1842 gpm
1854 gpm
1853 gpm
1857 gpm
1851 gpm
1854 gpm
1853 gpm
1850 gpm
1567 gpm
1840 gpm
1857 gpm
1858 gpm
1855 gpm
1852 gpm
1850 gpm
1852 gpm
1852 gpm
1564 gpm
1851 gpm
1564 gpm
1858 gpm
1850 gpm
EDDINGTON DEVELOPMENT
   
FIGURE 1
TASK ORDER 2 - EDDINGTON DEVELOPMENT MODELING ANALYSIS
PATH: P:\CITY_MOSCOW_201226\NW_RESERVOIR_10048301\7.2_WP\MAP_DOCS\TO2 EDDINGTON\EDDINGTON.MXD  -  USER: DKUHNS  -  DATE: 11/19/2021
0
500
Feet
O
Eddington Pump Station
12-inch pump station
transmission pipe
PRV Station
PRV Station
PRV Station or
Normally Closed Valve
Note: The layout shown is a
preliminary layout of the water
system 
and 
should 
not 
be
considered the final layout for the
system. Follow-up analysis should
take place once grading and plat
are finalized.
Available fire flow assumes 2030
MDD, 20 psi pressure constraint,
10 fps velocity constraint within the
development, and removal of the
check valve at the intersection of
Conestoga St and Appaloosa Rd.
Connection to existing piping
on Palouse River Drive
Sports Complex
MFR Area
LEGEND
Available fire flow
Existing Water Main
Eddington Development
Eddington Development
Proposed Pipes
8-inch
10-inch
12-inch
Eddington Pressure Zones
Eddington 2815
Eddington 2924
Eddington 3020
Eddington Main