FERC Application - Economics Study

7/24/2019 FERC Application - Economics Study

1/116

Lake Powell Pipeline 11/30/15Revised Draft Socioeconomics/Water Resource Economics Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources

Lake Powell Pipeline

Draft Study Report 10Socioeconomics and Water Resource Economics

Revised November 2015


2/116

Lake Powell Pipeline P-1 11/30/15

Revised Draft Socioeoncomics/WaterResource Economics Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources

PREFACE

This Revised Draft Socioeconomics/Water Resource Economics Study Report is filed with

FERC in support of the Lake Powell Pipeline (LPP) Project Preliminary Licensing Proposal

(PLP). The Revised Draft Study Report has been updated from the Modified Draft Study Reportfiled with FERC in January 2012. It incorporates the Natural Gas Pipeline and Generators

Alternative. This alternative was eliminated from further consideration in the PLP.

An updated Revised Draft Socioeconomics/Water Resource Economics Study Report will be

filed after remaining pending resource analyses are completed. The Utah Division of Water

Resources (UDWRe) contracted with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to prepareupdated analyses of surface water resources in Lake Powell and releases into the Colorado River

downstream from Glen Canyon Dam using the Colorado River System Simulation (CRSS)

model. Reclamations power loss model for Glen Canyon Dam hydroelectric generation is beingused to estimate the power losses that would result from LPP Project diversions out of Lake

Powell. Upon completion of the power loss modeling, Reclamation will review the model resultsand provide them to UDWRe for use in updating the benefit/cost analyses. Recent updates to theconceptual cost opinion for the LPP Project Proposed Action and alternatives are being used to

update the benefit/cost analyses. The updated benefit/cost analyses will be incorporated into the

updated Revised Draft Socioeconomics/Water Resource Economics Study Report.

Comments received on the Revised Draft Socioeconomics/Water Resource Economics Study

Report will be addressed in the Final Socioeconomics/Water Resource Economics Study Report.

The Final Socioeconomics/Water Resource Economics Study Report will be filed with FERC inApril 2016 as part of the license application.


3/116

Table of Contents

Page

Lake Powell Pipeline i 11/30/15Revised Draft Socioeconomics/Water Resource Economics Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources

Executive Summary

ES-1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... ES-1ES-1.1 NED, FERC, and RED Project Impacts ........................................................... ES-1

ES-1.1.1 NED or State Direct Economic Impacts Perspective ....................... ES-1ES-1.1.2 Commissions Economic and Fiscal Impacts Perspective ............... ES-3ES-1.1.3 RED Economic Impacts Perspective ............................................... ES-3ES-1.1.4 Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians and the Kaibab-Paiute

Indian Reservation .................................................................... ES-4ES-1.1.5 Qualitative Economic Issues and Impacts ....................................... ES-4

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 General ................................................................................................................................... 1-11.2 Summary Description of LPP Project Alignment Alternatives ............................................. 1-1

1.2.1 South Alternative ................................................................................................ 1-11.2.2 Existing Highway Alternative ............................................................................ 1-61.2.3 Southeast Corner Alternative .............................................................................. 1-81.2.4 Transmission Line Alternatives .......................................................................... 1-81.2.5 Natural Gas Pipeline and Generators Alternative ............................................. 1-12

1.2.5.1 Natural Gas Transmission Line Connection .................................... 1-141.2.5.2 Natural Gas Supply Line ................................................................. 1-141.2.5.2 Natural Gas Generators ................................................................... 1-17

1.3 Summary Description of No Lake Powell Water Alternative ............................................. 1-181.3.1 WCWCD No Lake Powell Water Alternative .................................................. 1-18

1.3.1.1 Background ...................................................................................... 1-181.3.1.2 WCWCD No Lake Powell Water Alternative Features ................... 1-18

1.3.2 KCWCD No Lake Powell Water alternative .................................................... 1-201.4 Summary Description of the No Action Alternative ........................................................... 1-21

1.4.1 WCWCD No Action Alternative ...................................................................... 1-21

1.4.2 KCWCD No Action Alternative ....................................................................... 1-211.5 Identified Issues and Impacts ............................................................................................... 1-22

1.5.1 Water Resource Economics .............................................................................. 1-221.5.2 Socioeconomics: Population, Regional Economic and Fiscal Impacts ........... 1-23

Chapter 2 Study Approach

2.1 Project Need and Relationship to Water Resources Planning ............................................... 2-12.2 Water Resource Economics and Financial Assumptions ....................................................... 2-1

2.2.1 Water Resource Economics ................................................................................ 2-12.2.1.1 NED Analyses Assumptions .............................................................. 2-42.2.1.2 Sensitivity Analysis-NED with Real Discount Rate and

Real Escalation Rates ......................................................................... 2-52.2.1.3 Sensitivity Analysis-NED with Social Time Preference and

Real Escalation Rates ......................................................................... 2-5

Chapter 3 Existing Environment

3.1 Overview Background Description ........................................................................................ 3-13.2 Area of Potential Effect ......................................................................................................... 3-1


4/116

Lake Powell Pipeline ii 11/30/15Revised Draft Socioeconomics/Water Resource Economics Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources

Chapter 4 Water Resource Marginal Costs and Alternative Project Costs

4.1 Population and Water Needs Forecasts .................................................................................. 4-14.1.1 Population Forecasts .............................................................................................. 4-14.2.1 Water Needs Forecasts ........................................................................................... 4-3

4.2 Water Resources Marginal Costs ........................................................................................... 4-4

Chapter 5 Water Resource Economic Benefits and Costs NED Analyses

Chapter 6 Commission Economic Analysis

6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 6-16.2 Hydro Project Benefits ........................................................................................................... 6-16.2 Hydro Generation Project Costs ............................................................................................ 6-3

Chapter 7 Regional Economic Development Analyses and Impacts

7.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 7-17.2 Analysis and Impacts ............................................................................................................. 7-1

Chapter 8 Socioeconomics Baseline (Action and No Action Alternatives)

8.1 Population Trends for Washington and Kane Counties, Utah ............................................... 8-18.2 Population Projections for Washington and Kane Counties .................................................. 8-4

8.2.1 Washington County Population .......................................................................... 8-58.2.2 Kane County Population ..................................................................................... 8-5

8.3 Economic Trends ................................................................................................................... 8-78.3.1 Personal Income Trends ...................................................................................... 8-78.3.2 Employment Trends .......................................................................................... 8-12

8.3.2.1 Washington County Employment .................................................... 8-138.3.2.2 Kane County Employment ............................................................... 8-15

8.3.3 Economic Base of Washington and Kane Counties ......................................... 8-178.3.3.1 Washington County Economic Base ................................................ 8-188.3.3.2 Kane County Economic Base ........................................................... 8-19

8.4 Population Trends for Coconino and Mohave Counties, Arizona ....................................... 8-218.5 Population Projections for Coconino and Mohave Counties ............................................... 8-24

8.5.1 Coconino County Population ............................................................................ 8-248.5.2 Mohave County Population .............................................................................. 8-24

8.6 Economic Trends ................................................................................................................. 8-268.6.1 Personal Income Trends .................................................................................... 8-268.6.2 Employment Trends .......................................................................................... 8-31

8.6.2.1 Coconino County Employment ........................................................ 8-338.6.2.2 Mohave County Employment ........................................................... 8-35

8.6.3 Economic Base of Coconino and Mohave Counties ......................................... 8-378.6.3.1 Coconino County Economic Base .................................................... 8-378.6.3.2 Mohave County Economic Base ...................................................... 8-37

Chapter 9 Kaibab-Paiute Indian Reservation Baseline and Impacts


5/116

Lake Powell Pipeline iii 11/30/15Revised Draft Socioeconomics/Water Resource Economics Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources

Chapter 10 Qualitative Economic Issues and Impacts

Chapter 11 Cumulative Impacts

Chapter 12 Unavoidable Adverse Effects

References and Citations ........................................................................................................................... R-1Abbreviations and Acronyms ............................................................................................................. A&A-1List of Preparers ...................................................................................................................................... LP-1Appendix A ............................................................................................................................................... A-1


6/116

Lake Powell Pipeline iv 11/30/15Revised Draft Socioeconomics/Water Resource Economics Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources

Table Number Table Title Page

Table 1-1 Water Conveyance System Natural Gas Generator Annual Fuel Consumption1-18

Table 2-1 Basic NED Accounting Benefit-Cost Analysis StructureSensitivity Analysis Baseline NED Assumptions and Escalation Rates ............................. 2-2

Table 2-2 Basic NED Accounting Benefit-Cost Analysis StructureSensitivity Analysis NED with Social Time Preference Discount Rate/Real Escalation.... 2-3

Table 4-1 Population Forecasts/Projections for Area of Potential Effect Counties ................................ 4-2Table 4-2 Marginal Water Values (Alternative Costs) .......................................................................... 4-6Table 4-3 Marginal Water Values (Alternative Costs) ........................................................................... 4-7Table 5-1 LPP NED Analyses Baseline NED Assumptions and Escalation Rates ............................. 5-2Table 5-2 LPP NED Analyses Social Time Preference Discount Rate ............................................... 5-3Table 5-3 LPP NED Analyses Baseline NED Assumptions and Escalation Rates ............................. 5-4Table 5-4 LPP NED Analyses Pump Storage Configuration Social Time

Preference Discount Rate ....................................................................................................... 5-5Table 6-1 Commission Economic-Financial Analyses with 5.4% Nominal Discount Rate ................... 6-2Table 6-2 Commission Economic-Financial analyses with 3.0% Real Discount Rate........................... 6-3

Table 6-3 Commission Economic-Financial Analyses with 4.14% Real Discount Rate ...................... 6-4Table 6-4 FERC Economic-Financial Analyses with 3% State Real Discount Rate ............................ 6-5Table 7-1 RED Economic Analyses ....................................................................................................... 7-2Table 8-1 Population Trends in Washington and Kane Counties, 1990-2007 ........................................ 8-2Table 8-2 Population Projections for Washington and Kane Counties, 2010-2060 ............................... 8-6Table 8-3 Summary of Per Capita Personal Income (PCPI) Trends for Washington and Kane

Counties, and State of Utah, 1990-2007 ................................................................................. 8-8Table 8-4 Total Personal Income, Per Capita Personal Income, and Sources of Income for

Washington and Kane Counties, and State of Utah, in Various Years................................. 8-10Table 8-5 Summary of Employment Trends in Washington and Kane Counties, and State of

Utah, 1990-2007 ................................................................................................................... 8-12Table 8-6 Employment Changes by Sector in 2001 and 2007, Washington County ............................ 8-14

Table 8-7 Employment Change by Sector in 2001 and 2007, Kane County ........................................ 8-16Table 8-8 Location Quotients for Washington, Iron, and Kane Counties Compared to the

State of Utah and the United States, 2007 ............................................................................ 8-20Table 8-9 Population Trends in Coconino and Mohave Counties, 1990-2007 ..................................... 8-22Table 8-10 Population Projections for Coconino County and Mohave Counties, 2008-2060 ................ 8-25Table 8-11 Summary of Per Capita Personal Income (PCPI) Trends for Coconino and

Mohave Counties and State of Arizona, 1990-2007............................................................. 8-28Table 8-12 Total Personal Income, Per Capita Personal Income, and Sources of Income for

Coconino and Mohave Counties, and State of Arizona, Selected Years .............................. 8-30Table 8-13 Summary of Employment Trends in Coconino and Mohave Counties and

State of Arizona, 1980-2007 ................................................................................................ 8-32Table 8-14 Percent of Employment by Industry in 2001 and 2007, Coconino County .......................... 8-33

Table 8-15 Percent of Employment by Industry in 2001 and 2007, Mohave County ............................ 8-35Table 8-16 Location Quotients, Coconino and Mohave Counties Compared to State of

Arizona and the United States, 2007 .................................................................................... 8-38


7/116

Lake Powell Pipeline v 11/30/15Revised Draft Socioeconomics/Water Resource Economics Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources

Figures

Figure Number Figure Title Following Page

Figure 1-1 Lake Powell Pipeline Proposed Project and Alternative Features ................................... 1-2Figure 1-2 Lake Powell Pipeline Intake and Water Conveyance Systems ........................................ 1-4Figure 1-3 Pipeline and Penstock Right-of-Way ............................................................................... 1-5Figure 1-4 Lake Powell Pipeline Hydro System South Alternative .................................................. 1-6Figure 1-5 Lake Powell Pipeline Hydro System Existing Highway Alternative ............................... 1-8Figure 1-6 Lake Powell Pipeline Hydro System Southwest Corner Alternative ............................. 1-10Figure 1-7 Lake Powell Pipeline Transmission Line Alternatives East .......................................... 1-11Figure 1-8 Lake Powell Pipeline Transmission Line Alternatives West ......................................... 1-14Figure 1-9 Lake Powell Pipeline Natural Gas Pipeline and Generators Alternative West .............. 1-16Figure 1-10 Lake Powell Pipeline Natural Gas Pipeline and Generators Alternative East ............... 1-17Figure 3-1 LPP Study Area Project Alignment Alternatives ............................................................. 3-3Figure 4-1 WCWCD Water Supply and Demand Curves ................................................................. 4-3Figure 4-2 KCWCD Water Supply and Demand Curves .................................................................. 4-4Figure 8-1 Population Trends in Washington, Iron, and Kane Counties

and in the State of Utah, 1990-2007 ................................................................................ 8-3Figure 8-2 Washington, Iron, and Kane Counties Share of Utahs Population, 1990-2007 ............ 8-3Figure 8-3 Annual Percentage Changes in Population of Washington, Iron and Kane Counties,

and State of Utah, 1990-2007 .......................................................................................... 8-4Figure 8-4 Population Projection Growth Rates for Washington, Iron, and Kane Counties,

2008-2060 ........................................................................................................................ 8-7Figure 8-5 Per Capita Personal Income (PCPI) Trends in Washington, Iron, and Kane Counties,

and State of Utah, 1990-2007 .......................................................................................... 8-9Figure 8-6 Real PCPI Trends in Washington, Iron, and Kane Counties and State of Utah,

1990-2007 ........................................................................................................................ 8-9Figure 8-7 Source of 2007 Total Personal Income in Washington, Iron, and Kane Counties,

and the State of Utah ...................................................................................................... 8-11Figure 8-8 Employment Trends in Washington, Iron, Kane Counties and

State of Utah, 1990-2007 ............................................................................................... 8-13Figure 8-9 Percentage Difference in Employment Changes by Sector between 2001 and 2007

Washington County versus the State of Utah and the United States ............................. 8-15Figure 8-10 Percentage Difference in Employment Changes by Sector between 2001 and 2007

Iron County versus the State of Utah and the United States .......................................... 8-17Figure 8-11 Population Trends in Coconino and Mohave Counties and

State of Arizona, 1990-2007 .......................................................................................... 8-23Figure 8-12 Coconino and Mohave Counties Share of the State of Arizonas

Total Population, 1990-2007 ......................................................................................... 8-23Figure 8-13 Population Projection Growth Rates for Coconino and Mohave, 2006-2060 ............... 8-26

Figure 8-14 Per Capita Personal Income (PCPI) Trends in Coconino and Mohave Countiesand State of Arizona, 1990-2007 (in current $) ............................................................. 8-29

Figure 8-15 Real PCPI Trends in Coconino and Mohave Counties, andState of Arizona, 1990-2007 .......................................................................................... 8-29

Figure 8-16 Source of 2007 Total Personal Income, Coconino and Mohave Countiesand State of Arizona ...................................................................................................... 8-31

Figure 8-17 Employment Trends in Coconino and Mohave Counties andState of Arizona, 1980-2007 .......................................................................................... 8-32


8/116

Lake Powell Pipeline vi 11/30/15Revised Draft Socioeconomics/Water Resource Economics Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources

Figure 8-18 The Percentage Difference in Employment Changes by Sectorbetween 2001 and 2007, Coconino County vs. the State and the United States ............ 8-34

Figure 8-19 Percentage Difference in Employment Changes by Sectorbetween 2001 and 2007 Mohave County vs. the State and the United States ............... 8-36

Figure 9-1 Kaibab-Paiute Indian Reservation ................................................................................... 9-1


9/116

Lake Powell Pipeline ES-1 11/30/15Revised Draft Socioeconomics/Water Resource Economics Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources

Executive Summary

ES-1 Introduction

This Executive Summary succinctly reviews the economic analyses, methods, and estimated impacts onthe water resource economics and socioeconomics resources affected by the Lake Powell Pipeline (LPP)Proposed Action (South Alternative). The Project conforms to the Proposed Action configuration(s), andits impacts are considered incrementally to the No Lake Power Pipeline Alternative and to the No ActionAlternative (baseline conditions, as is without the Project).

The following material reflects technical reviews and analyses completed through December 2011, basedon completed (or draft) analyses pertaining to several pre-construction engineering and preliminary coststudies. Most of the analyses/estimates presented here are draft in nature, subject to change and revision,given project design/configuration changes and different resource management and impact assumptions.

ES-1.1 NED, FERC, and RED Project Impacts

The No Action Alternative is considered as not implementing the LPP Project and reflects baseline,empirical conditions. Consequently, no incremental economic impact analyses have been applied to thebaseline conditions. Baseline conditionsand associated water resource acquisitionscontinue to bereviewed. Even so, the economic analyses performed and documented in this study report take intoaccount alternative (marginal) water resource costs for the Project that could be adopted under baselineconditions. Further economic analyses on the No Action Alternative (baseline condition) may bedeveloped, given additional planning direction.

Under the No Lake Powell Water Alternative, the economic analyses performed and documented in thisstudy report take into account alternative (marginal) water resource costs that reflect this actionalternative. The marginal value of water used for the LPP Proposed Alternative is equivalent to the No

Lake Powell Water Alternative, and generally reflects a conservative assessment.

The LPP Project Proposed Action (South Alternative) impacts can be summarized from three differentperspectives: 1) a direct net, national economic development (NED) or state direct net value perspective;2) the developmental economic analysis approach commonly employed by the Federal EnergyRegulatory Commission (Commission), and using an avoided cost criteria for measuring project cost-effectiveness; and 3) a regional economic development (RED) perspective, where state and localemployment/income impacts are the central focus. Relying on these three perspectives, the Projecteconomic impacts are summarized in the following sections.

ES-1.1.1 NED or State Direct Economic Impacts Perspective

The LPP Project is determined to be an infrastructure feature of population and economic growthin Southern Utah, but it is not the driver of growth. The Utah state populationprojection/forecast indicates that other population and economic growth features (natural growthrates and net in-migration) would drive upward population growth in the area. This assessment ismade by the state economists. The long-term, average annual rate of population growth for theProject affected area is forecast to be about 3.1 percent.


10/116


The LPP Project would facilitate new population growth in a manner similar to otherinfrastructure requirements, such as roads and transportation, power and energy, housing, andother human services needs. All of these infrastructure requirements would accommodatepopulation and economic growth in the area.

The LPP Project is part of the water resources infrastructure that is needed to accommodate

growth. If theLPP Project is not developed, then other alternative cost water resource supplieswould need to be acquired, along with an acceptance of potential changes in individual andcommunity lifestyles affected by reduced water demand and use.

The LPP Project benefits are principally determined by comparing (or defining) the LPP Projectdevelopment (direct benefits and costs) to alternative (marginal) costs for other water resources.The marginal cost spread, for alternative water resources, is great, with some conservationfeatures being under $250/acre-foot, some water marketing and transfer costs likely ranging from$130-260/acre-foot; and new water treatment costs likely being in a $750-$1,150/acre-foot range(or higher), depending on an ability to meet regulatory compliance and environmentalrequirements and the effect of real escalation rates affecting project operations (annual 2010$).

The NED base LPP Project costs, without power benefits included, suggest costs approaching$1,100/acre-foot ($1,100/acre-foot is based on an average water delivery over the project life, notpeak operations).

The LPP Project is reviewed with the expectation that lower cost resources such as conservation,water right transfers, and other planned water development projects are brought into developmentfirst with the LPP Project development following thereafter. Also, the LPP Project is determinedto avoid or delay the construction of high-cost water treatment and waste disposal facilities, suchas reverse osmosis (RO) and combined brine disposal projects (currently under review); and toavoid costs of restricting residential outdoor irrigation with culinary water and converting thiswater to only culinary use.

Overall, the LPP Project displays greater benefits than costs given the complex set of economicvariables and assumptions under consideration. Depending on economic perspectives andassumptions, the LPP Project direct net benefits range from about $1.8 to $2.7 billion, and theLPP Project costs range from about $1.8 to $2.7 billion (2010$, present value). The cost andbenefit ranges are exactly the same?

The analyses have incorporated a LPP Project configuration that includes a pump storage hydrogeneration component. This LPP Project configuration has LPP Project costs of about $2.6 to 3.2billion, with benefits potentially in the $2.9 to $4.3 billion range. These estimates are preliminaryin nature. The B/C ratio is about 1.14 to 1.34 depending on analysis assumptions.

An initial set of analyses have taken into account relying on the natural gas generation alternativefor pipeline water pumping (see Tables 5-3 and 5-4). The pumped storage LPP Project withnatural gas generation pumping would have benefits of about $2.9 billion, with cost at about $2.6billion (4.14% discount rate); or benefits at about $4.3 billion, with costs at about $3.2 billion(3.0% discount rate). This yields B/C ratios of 1.12 and 1.33, respectively.

For the above analyses, the primary risk, or sensitivity, components would be escalatingconstruction, OM&R, power, and water costs. To limit this risk, power costs (values) have beenestablished at a relative mid-to-high range, and real escalation rates are used to take into account


11/116


structural shifts in the relationship to power and water values relative to other societal costs. As ageneral statement, the higher the initial capital costs for any project, the greater is the risk of theeconomic analyses being inaccurate, thus carrying inadequate assumptions over the life of theproject. Related to the above analyses, the LPP Project OM&R costs are likely the mostuncertain factor related to construction costs. Low range values are used here relative to a broadrange of construction projects.

ES-1.1.2 FERCs Economic and Fiscal Impacts Perspective

The Commissions project developmental perspective differs from the NED perspective, and italso focuses exclusively on the power production costs and benefits (hydro project) portions ofthe LPP Project, per a specified hydro project configuration. Under this specified configuration,the hydro project power benefits are substantially less than the hydro project costs. The costs arebased on all hydro project generation facilities and the full portion of the inter-connected waterdelivery pipeline.A nominal, instead of real, discount rate is applied.

For the pump storage configuration of the LPP Project, the B/C ratios are about 0.47 to 0.89, andthe power costs are estimated to be about $80-130/MWh. This cost per MWh is higher than theavoided cost of about $65/MWh (or $85/MWh for the green power premium).

From a true marginal cost perspective, the LPP Project power costs should be treated asincremental costs to the water delivery pipelinedepicting a with and without hydro-projectanalysis. In this analysis, the costs of the water delivery system are not included as part of thehydro project. Under the pump storage configuration, the hydro project benefits areapproximately equal to or greater than the costs, with the costs estimated to be about $100/MWh.The corresponding B/C ratios would be in the 0.97 to 1.10 range (direct project benefits andcosts, depending on the discount rate applied).

While this LPP Project power cost is greater than the estimated avoided (market) regionalpower costs, it is roughly equivalent to the costs of integrating renewable power sources such as

wind turbine generation; and the power would likely be marketed as a renewable resource, withan implied carbon credit.

ES-1.1.3 RED Economic Impacts Perspective

The regional economic development (RED) perspective is more focused on economic impactson the ground, describing impacts resulting from regional and state direct LPP Projectemployment, secondary employment and income, and the overall affect of purchases of goodsand services throughout the state economy. LPP Project construction is initially estimated toproduce about 2,395 direct jobs (annual FTE) during the period of project construction, and about5,510 jobs taking into account direct and indirect employment effects throughout the state.Annual operation and maintenance (O&M) employment is estimated to be at least 64 jobs (direct

and indirect impacts).

Total state construction labor income impacts are estimated to be about $247,578,200, withannual O&M labor income impacts estimated to be about $2,485,000.

The estimated value of total goods and services purchases throughout the state is difficult todetermine at this time, since the contracting and vender firms have yet to be designated.Nevertheless, an initial range of potential impacts suggests that $902,000,000 to $2.0 billion


12/116


could pass through the state economy, as a result of the LPP Project (direct and secondaryimpacts).

It is assumed that most of the direct employment benefits will accrue to the study area counties,primarily in Utah. For analysis purposes, the direct and secondary employment and incomeestimates are primarily allocated to the state of Utah.

Additional review is forthcoming on LPP Project construction-related public services and laborforce needs. The time frame for construction and relatively low construction-related increases tolocal populations (and existing services) does not suggest significant impacts. Most service needswould be directed toward site-specific construction staging areas, where land, transportationservices and congestion, power/water and fuel, and other public and private sector servicedemands would increase.

The LPP Project will contribute to the long-term economic stability and general development ofthe region. To the extent that it off-sets higher cost water resources projects or maintains anattractive lifestyle for the region, it provides more dollars to be allocated to economic sectorsother than infrastructure.

ES-1.1.4 Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians and the Kaibab-Paiute Indian Reservation

Additional analyses are forthcoming to determine LPP Project construction, income, and potentialtax opportunities for Tribal members and the Tribal government. This will depend on LPP Projectconfiguration and selection of the LPP Project alignment.

It is assumed that any Executive Order Environmental Justice issues would be reconciled, ormitigated, per consultations with the Tribe. There are several mitigation tools available tomitigate for undesired social or economic impacts caused by the LPP Project.

ES-1.1.5 Qualitative Economic Issues and Impacts Additional analyses are forthcoming to better assess and describe the more qualitative (or non-

quantified economic impacts at this time) surrounding project development. These items willinclude: 1) general concerns about regional economic growth and community lifestyle changes(should there be growth controls in the area); 2) non-LPP Project development impacts ondeclining groundwater aquifer resources; 3) non-LPP Project development impacts associatedwith substantial water demand reductions per capita within the study area, as a programmaticcurtailment option; and 4) other economic impacts.


13/116

Lake Powell Pipeline 1-1 11/30/15Revised Draft Socioeconomics/Water Resource Economics Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources

Chapter 1Introduction

1.1 General

This chapter presents a summary description of the LPP Project alignment alternatives, the No ActionAlternative, the No Lake Powell Water Alternative, and introduces the area studied for environmentalresources. It provides an overview of the proposed LPP Project, including each alignment alternative andlocator maps.

The LPP Project action alternatives studied include various pipeline and penstock system configurations(see Figure 1-1). Each action alternative would deliver 86,249 acre-feet of municipal and industrial (M&I)use water to the following southwest Utah water conservancy district service areas:

Washington County Water Conservancy District (WCWCD) would receive 82,249 acre-feetannually.

Kane County Water Conservancy District (KCWCD) would receive up to 4,000 acre-feetannually.

One of the LPP systems previously studied included a conveyance system for the Central Iron CountyWater Conservancy District (CICWCD), which would have delivered approximately 13,249 acre-feet tothe Cedar Valley area annually. The various alternatives were under study at the time that the CICWCDdecided to withdraw from the LPP Project.

1.2 Summary Description of LPP Project Alignment Alternatives

Three primary pipeline and penstock alignment alternatives are described in this section, along with the

electrical power transmission line alternatives for providing power to the pump stations and a natural gassupply line alignment alternative. The pipeline and penstock alignment alternatives share commonsegments between the intake at Lake Powell and delivery at Sand Hollow Reservoir, and they differspatially in, through, and around the Kaibab-Paiute Indian Reservation (KPIR).

The South Alternative (Proposed Action) extends south around the KPIR. The Existing HighwayAlternative follows an Arizona state highway through the KPIR. The Southeast Corner Alternativefollows the Navajo-McCullough Transmission Line Corridor through the southeast corner of the KPIR.The Electric Transmission Line Alignment Alternatives are common to all the pipeline and penstockalignment alternatives. The Natural Gas Supply Line Alignment Alternative is common to all pipeline andpenstock alignment alternatives. Figure 1-1 shows the overall proposed project and alternative featuresfrom Lake Powell near Page, Arizona to Sand Hollow Reservoir, Utah.

1.2.1 South Alternative

The South Alternative consists of four systems: Intake, Water Conveyance, Hydro, andKane CountyPipeline.

The Intake Systemwould pump Lake Powell water via submerged horizontal tunnels and vertical shaftsinto the LPP. The intake pump station would be constructed and operated adjacent to the west side of


14/116


15/116


Lake Powell, approximately 2,000 feet northwest of Glen Canyon Dam in Coconino County, Arizona. Anenclosed pump station building would house vertical turbine pumps with electric motors, electricalcontrols, and other equipment at a ground level elevation of 3,745 feet above mean sea level (AMSL).

The Water Conveyance Systemwould convey the Lake Powell water from the Intake System through aburied 69-inch diameter pipeline for about 51 miles, parallel with Highway 89 in Coconino County,

Arizona and Kane County, Utah, to a buried regulating tank (High Point Regulating Tank-2) alongHighway 89 at ground level elevation, 5,691 feet AMSL. Figure 1-2 shows the LPP Water Intake andConveyance Systems. The High Point Regulating Tank-2 would be the LPP Project topographic highpoint (Figure 1-2). The pipeline would be sited within a utility corridor established by Congress in 1998that extends 500 feet south and 240 feet north of the Highway 89 centerline on public land administeredby the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (U.S. Congress 1998).

Figure 1-3 shows the typical 100-foot-wide right-of-way and 20-foot-wide temporary constructioneasement for the water conveyance system pipeline, adjacent to and away from the highway. Four boosterpump stations (BPS) along the pipeline would pump water to the high point regulating tank. Each BPSwould house vertical turbine pumps with electric motors, electrical controls, and other equipment.Additionally, each BPS site would have a buried forebay tank, buried surge tanks, and a surface

emergency overflow detention basin. BPS-1 would be located within the Glen Canyon NationalRecreation Area (GCNRA) adjacent to an existing Arizona Department of Transportation maintenancefacility, west of Highway 89. The BPS-1 site would cover about six acres and be surrounded by securityfencing.

BPS-2 would be on land administered by the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration(SITLA) near Big Water, Utah, on the south side of Highway 89. BPS-2 site would cover about five acresand be surrounded by security fencing. BPS-3 (Alt.) would be on land administered by the BLM KanabField Office, near the east boundary of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM) on thesouth side of Highway 89, within the Congressionally-designated utility corridor. The BPS-3 (Alt.) sitewould cover about five acres and be surrounded by security fencing.

BPS-4 (Alt.) would be located on private land east of Highway 89 and west of the Cockscomb geologicfeature (Figure 1-2). The BPS-4 (Alt.) site would cover about six acres and be surrounded by securityfencing. The proposed pipeline alignment west of the Cockscomb geologic feature would be situatedadjacent to the south boundary of the Congressionally-designated utility corridor. The proposed pipelinealignment would continue parallel to Highway 89 to the buried High Point Regulating Tank-2 at 5,691feet AMSL, which would be the topographic high point of the LPP Project (Figure 1-2). The WaterConveyance System would terminate at the High Point Regulating Tank-2. The buried High PointRegulating Tank-2 would cover about four acres and be surrounded by security fencing.

The Hydro Systemwould convey the water from the High Point Regulating Tank-2, at a topographichigh point with ground level elevation 5,691 feet AMSL, for about 87.5 miles through a buried 69-inchdiameter penstock in Kane and Washington counties, Utah, and Coconino and Mohave counties, Arizona,

to Sand Hollow Reservoir near St. George, Utah (Figure 1-4).

Figure 1-3 shows the typical 100-foot-wide right-of-way and 20-foot-wide temporary constructioneasement for the hydro system penstock adjacent to, and away from, the highway. Four in-line hydrogenerating stations (HS-1, HS-2 [South], HS-3, and HS-4 [Alt.]), with substations located along thepenstock, would generate electricity and help control water pressure in the penstock. Each in-line hydrostation would consist of a building housing the generator units, an afterbay reservoir, retention basin,switchyard, and maintenance parking area, all surrounded by perimeter security fencing.


16/116

#

!

"

"

"

"

"

BPS-1

Intake Pump Station

Utah

Arizona

Grand Staircase-Escalante

National Monument

BPS-2

Paria

River

Water Intake

System

Lake Powell

BPS-3 (Alt.)

Coconino County

Kane County

Big Water

89

89

BPS-4 (Alt)

High Point

Reg. Tank-2

HS-1

"

Paria

Rive

r

BuckskinGulch

CoyoteCreek

Copyright: 2013 National Geographic S

" Project Pump Station

! Project Regulating Tank

# Project Hydro Station

Water Conveyance System

Hydro System - Sout h Alternative

KCWCD System

Interstate

US Highway

ST Highway

Hwy

Major Road

Lakes & Reservoirs

Major Rivers & Streams

!!!!!!!!!!

!! ! ! !! ! !!!

!! National Park/Monument

!!!!!!!!!!

!! ! ! !! ! !!!

!! GSENM Boundary

State Boundaries 0 1 2 3 40.5Miles

Spatial Reference:UTM Zone 12N, NAD-83

Lake Powell Pipeline Proje


Intake and

Water Conveyance Syst

Figure 1-2UDWR

FERC Project Number:

12966-001

BLM Serial Numbers:

AZA-34941

UTU-85472


17/116


Figure 1-3Pipeline and Penstock Right-of-Way

A short penstock segment would convey the water to HS-1. This in-line hydro station would generate upto one megawatt (MW) of electricity at a site along Highway 89 within the GSENM, and the penstockwould continue west along Highway 89 to the GSENM west boundary. The HS-1 site would cover aboutfive acres.

The penstock alignment would turn south from Highway 89 through private land and BLM-administeredpublic lands into White Sage Wash. It would continue across White Sage Wash and then parallel theNavajo-McCullough Transmission Line, crossing Highway 89 Alt. and Forest Highway 22 toward the

southeast corner of the KPIR. The penstock alignment would run parallel to and south of the southboundary of the KPIR, crossing Kanab Creek and Bitter Seeps Wash. It would continue acrossMoonshine Ridge and Cedar Ridge to Yellowstone Road. At this point, the penstock alignment would runnorth along Yellowstone Road to Arizona State Route 389 west of the KPIR. HS-2 (South) would belocated west of the KPIR on private land east of Yellowstone Road. HS-2 (South) would generate up toone MW of electricity. The HS-2 (South) site would cover about five acres. The penstock alignmentwould continue northwest along the south side of Arizona State Route 389 past Colorado City to HildaleCity, Utah, and HS-3. HS-3 would be located on private land west of Hildale City, Utah, north and


18/116

#

#

#

#

#

#!

!BW

Grand Staircase-EscalanteNational Monument

Utah

Ari zona

HS-4 (Alt.)

HS-3

HS-2 South

Sand Hollow Hydro Station

Hurricane Cliffs Hydro Station

59 Kanab

Fredonia

Hildale

Hurricane

LaVerkin

Mohave County

Washington County

Kane County

Coconino County

KCWCD WTF

89

9

SandHollow

Quail CreekReservoir

HS-1

High PointReg. Tank-2

Kaibab-Paiute Indian Reservation

Ka n a b Creek

GouldW

ash

ClayholeWash

Hurric

aneWash

EastFor

kVirginR

iver

RockCanyon

Virgin

Riv

er

Jaco

bC

anyo

n Round

Va

lley

Bulru

shWa

sh

John

sonLa

kesC

anyo

n

Ash

Cre

ek

Johnso

nW

ash

North

Creek

DutchmanDraw

DeerSp

ringWash

ortPearce

Wash

NorthFo

rkVi

rgin

River

SandW

ash

TwomileWash

Skutum

pah

Creek

WhiteSa

geWash

I-15

89a

89

89

389

9

59

17

9

!BW Water Treatment Facility




Hurricane Cliffs Forebay/Afterbay


Hydro System - South Alternative

KCWCD System

Lakes & Reservoirs


Interstate

US Highway

ST Highway

Hwy

Major Road

!!!!!!!!!!

!!

!! ! ! ! ! ! !


!!!!!!!!!!

!!

!! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! GSENM Boundary

Tribal Lands

State Boundaries

County Boundaries 0 2 4 6 81 Miles

Spatial Reference: UTM Zone12N, NAD

Lake Powell Pipeline Pr

Lake Powell PipelHydro System

South Alternativ

UDWR Figure 1-4

FERC Project Number:12966-001

BLM Serial Numbers:AZA-34941UTU-85472


19/116


adjacent to Uzona Road. HS-3 would generate up to one MW of electricity. The HS-3 site would coverabout five acres.

The penstock alignment would follow Uzona Road west through Canaan Gap and south of Little CreekMountain, turning north to HS-4 (Alt.) above the proposed Hurricane Cliffs forebay reservoir. HS-4 (Alt.)would be located on about three acres of public land administered by the BLM. HS-4 (Alt.) would

generate up to 1.6 MW of electricity and would discharge into the forebay reservoir.

The forebay reservoir would be contained in a valley between two dams (south and north), maintainingactive storage of 11,255 acre-feet of water. The forebay reservoir and two dams would cover about 500acres of public land administered by the BLM and would be surrounded by security fencing. A low-pressure tunnel would convey the water to a high-pressure vertical shaft in the bedrock forming theHurricane Cliffs, connected to a high-pressure tunnel near the bottom of the Hurricane Cliffs. The high-pressure tunnel would connect to a penstock conveying the water to a 300-MW-capacity, pumped storagehydro generating station.

The Hurricane Cliffs hydro generating station and tailrace channel would cover about 50 acres of publicland administered by the BLM and would be surrounded by security fencing. The stations tailrace

channel would discharge into an afterbay reservoir with 3,551 acre-feet of operating capacity, which iscontained by a single dam in the valley below the Hurricane Cliffs. The afterbay reservoir and dam wouldcover about 200 acres of public land administered by the BLM and would be surrounded by securityfencing.

Water would be released from the forebay reservoir through the hydro generating system to meet peakpower demands. Water would be pumped from the afterbay reservoir into the forebay reservoir duringperiods of off-peak power demand. The forebay and afterbay reservoirs would not be open to publicaccess because the water levels would fluctuate rapidly during daily operations. A low pressure tunnelwould convey the water northwest from the afterbay reservoir to a penstock, continuing to the SandHollow Hydro Station, which would generate up to 4.2 MW of electricity. The Sand Hollow HydroStation would be located on land owned by WCWCD and cover about five acres adjacent to Sand Hollow

Reservoir. The LPP water would discharge from the Sand Hollow Hydro Station into the existing SandHollow Reservoir.

The Kane County Pipeline Systemwould convey the Lake Powell water from the LPP at the westGSENM boundary for about eight miles through a buried 24-inch diameter pipe in Kane County, Utah, toa new conventional water treatment facility located near the mouth of Johnson Canyon. The pipelinewould parallel the south side of Highway 89 across Johnson Wash and then run north to the new watertreatment facility site (Figure 1-4).

1.2.2 Existing Highway Alternative

The Existing Highway Alternative consists of four systems: Intake, Water Conveyance, Hydro, and

Kane County Pipeline. The Intakeand Water Conveyancesystems would be the same as described forthe South Alternative. The Hydro Systemwould convey the Lake Powell water from the regulating tankat the high point at 5,691 feet AMSL for about 80.5 miles through a buried 69-inch diameter penstock inKane and Washington counties, Utah, and Coconino and Mohave counties, Arizona, to Sand HollowReservoir near St. George, Utah (Figure 1-5). The proposed alignment parallel Highway 89 to the westboundary of the GSENM and continue along Highway 89 to Lost Spring Gap. Four in-line hydrogenerating stations (HS-1, HS-2 [Existing Highway], HS-3, and HS-4 [Alt.]) located along the penstockwould generate electricity and help control water pressure in the penstock.


20/116

#

#

#

#

#

#!

!BW


Utah

Ari zona

HS-4 (Alt.)

HS-3

HS-2 (Hwy)



59 Kanab

Fredonia

Hildale

Hurricane

LaVerkin

Mohave County

Washington County

Kane County

Coconino County

KCWCD WTF

89

9

SandHollow


HS-1



Ka n a b Creek

GouldW

ash

ClayholeWash

Hurric

aneWash

EastFor

kVirginR

iver

RockCanyon

Virgin

Riv

er

Jaco

bC

anyo

n Round

Va

lley

Bulru

shWa

sh

John

sonLa

kesC

anyo

n

Ash

Cre

ek

Johnso

nW

ash

North

Creek

DutchmanDraw

DeerSp

ringWash

ortPearce

Wash

NorthFo

rkVi

rgin

River

SandW

ash

TwomileWash

Skutum

pah

Creek

WhiteSa

geWash

I-15

89a

89

89

389

9

59

17

9







Hydro System - Existing Highway Alternative

KCWCD System

Lakes & Reservoirs


Interstate

US Highway

ST Highway

Hwy

Major Road

!!!!!!!!!!

!!

!! ! ! ! ! ! !


!!!!!!!!!!

!!

!! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! GSENM Boundary

Tribal Lands

State Boundaries





Existing Highway Alte

UDWR Figure 1-5




21/116


The proposed HS-1 would be sited along Highway 89 within the GSENM and the penstock wouldcontinue along Highway 89. The penstock would parallel the south side of Highway 89 west of theGSENM past Johnson Wash and follow Lost Spring Gap southwest, crossing Highway 89 Alt. and KanabCreek in the north end of Fredonia, Arizona. It would continue south, paralleling Kanab Creek to ArizonaState Route 389, where it would run west, adjacent to the north side of Route 389 through the KPIR pastPipe Spring National Monument. The penstock would continue along the north side of Arizona State

Route 389 through the west half of the KPIR to 1.8 miles west of Cedar Ridge (intersection ofYellowstone Road with Highway 89), where it would then follow the same alignment as the SouthAlternative to Sand Hollow Reservoir. HS-2 (Existing Highway) would be sited 0.5 miles west of CedarRidge along the north side of Arizona State Route 389.

The Kane County Pipeline Systemwould convey the Lake Powell water from the LPP along Highway89 north along Johnson Canyon Road for approximately one mile through a buried 24-inch diameter pipein Kane County, Utah, to a future conventional water treatment facility located near the mouth of JohnsonCanyon (Figure 1-5).

1.2.3 Southeast Corner Alternative

The Southeast Corner Alternative consists of four systems: Intake, Water Conveyance, Hydro, andKane County Pipeline. The Intake, Water Conveyance, and Kane County Pipelinesystems would bethe same as described for the South Alternative.

The Hydro Systemwould be the same as described for the South Alternative from the regulating tank atthe high point at 5,691 feet AMSL to the east boundary of the KPIR. At the east boundary of the KPIR,the penstock alignment would parallel the north side of the Navajo-McCullough Transmission Linecorridor in Coconino County, Arizona, through the southeast corner of the KPIR for about 3.8 miles. Thepenstock would then follow the South Alternative alignment south of the south boundary of the KPIR,continuing to Sand Hollow Reservoir (Figure 1-6).

1.2.4 Transmission Line Alternatives

Transmission line alternatives include the Intake (three alternative alignments), BPS-1, Glen Canyon toBuckskin, Buckskin Substation upgrade, Paria Substation upgrade, BPS-2 Alternative, BPS-3 AlternativeNorth, BPS-3 Alternative South, BPS-4 Alternative, HS-1 Alternative, HS-2 South, HS-2 Highway, HS-3Underground, HS-4, HS-4 Alternative, Hurricane Cliffs Afterbay to Sand Hollow, Hurricane CliffsAfterbay to Hurricane West, and Sand Hollow to Dixie Springs.

The proposed new Intake Transmission Linewould begin at the Glen Canyon Substation and runparallel to Highway 89 for about 2,500 feet to a new switch station, cross Highway 89 at the Intake accessroad intersection, and continue northeast to a new electrical substation on the Intake Pump Station site.This 69 kV transmission line would be about 0.9 miles long in Coconino County, Arizona (Figure 1-7).One alternative alignment would run parallel to an existing 138 kV transmission line to the west, turn

north to the new switch station, cross Highway 89 at the Intake access road intersection, and continuenortheast to the Intake substation. This 69 kV transmission line alternative would be about 1.2 miles longin Coconino County, Arizona (Figure 1-7). Another alternative alignment would bifurcate from anexisting transmission line and run west, then northeast to the new switch station, cross Highway 89 at theIntake access road intersection, and continue northeast to the Intake substation. This 69 kV transmissionline alternative would be about 1.3 miles long in Coconino County, Arizona (Figure 1-7).


22/116

#

#

#

#

#

#!

!BW


Utah

Ari zona

HS-4 (Alt.)

HS-3

HS-2 South



59 Kanab

Fredonia

Hildale

Hurricane

LaVerkin

Mohave County

Washington County

Kane County

Coconino County

KCWCD WTF

89

9

SandHollow


HS-1



Ka n a b Creek

GouldW

ash

ClayholeWash

Hurric

aneWash

EastFor

kVirginR

iver

RockCanyon

Virgin

Riv

er

Jaco

bC

anyo

n Round

Va

lley

Bulru

shWa

sh

John

sonLa

kesC

anyo

n

Ash

Cre

ek

Johnso

nW

ash

North

Creek

DutchmanDraw

DeerSp

ringWash

ortPearce

Wash

NorthFo

rkVi

rgin

River

SandW

ash

TwomileWash

Skutum

pah

Creek

WhiteSa

geWash

I-15

89a

89

89

389

9

59

17

9







Hydro System - Southeast Corner Alternative

KCWCD System

Lakes & Reservoirs


Interstate

US Highway

ST Highway

Hwy

Major Road

!!!!!!!!!!

!!

!! ! ! ! ! ! !


!!!!!!!!!!

!!

!! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! GSENM Boundary

Tribal Lands

State Boundaries





Southeast Corner Alte

UDWR Figure 1-6




23/116

!!!!

!!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

! !

!!

!!

! !

!!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!!

!!

!!!!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!!

!!!!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!! !!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!!!

!!

!!

!!

! !

! !

! !

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

"/

"/

"/

"/

"/

"/

"/

"/

#

"

"

"

"

"

"

BPS-1

Intake Pump StationUtah

Arizona

Grand Staircase-Escalante

National Monument

BPS-2

PariaRiver

Water Intake

Transmission Line

Lake Powell

BPS-3 (Alt.)

Coconino County

Kane County

Big Water

BPS-1

Transmission Line

3-Ring

Switch Station

3-Ring

Switch Station

BPS-2

Transmission LineGlen Canyon to Buckskin

Transmission Line

Buckskin

Substation

Paria

Substation

BPS-4 Alt.

Transmission Line

BPS-3 Alt.

Transmission Line South

89

89

Glen Canyon

Substation

HS-1

BPS-4 (Alt.)

PariaRiver

BuckskinGulch

Wahweap

Creek

Co

yoteC

reek

RockCanyon

Copyright: 2013 National Geographic S

" Project Intake Pump Station



"/ Substation

"/ Proposed Substation

!! !! Project Transmission Line

!! !! Existing Transmission Lines

Interstate

US Highway

ST Highway

Hwy

Major Road

Lakes & Reservoirs


!!!!!!!!!!

!! !! !! !! ! !


!!!!!!!!!!

!! !! !! !! ! !

!! GSENM Boundary

State Boundaries 0 1 2 3 40.5Miles

Spatial Reference:UTM Zone 12N, NAD-83

Lake Powell Pipeline Proje


Proposed Transmissio

Lines East

UDWR Figure 1-7

FERC Project Number:

12966-001

BLM Serial Numbers:

AZA-34941

UTU-85472


24/116


The proposed new BPS-1 Transmission Linewould begin at the new switch station located on the southside of Highway 89 and parallel the LPP Water Conveyance System alignment to a new electricalsubstation on the BPS-1 site west of Highway 89. The 69 kV transmission line would be about one milelong in Coconino County, Arizona (Figure 1-7).

The proposed new Glen Canyon to Buckskin Transmission Linewould consist of a 230 kV

transmission line from the Glen Canyon Substation to the Buckskin Substation, running parallel to theexisting 138 kV transmission line. This transmission line upgrade would be about 36 miles long throughCoconino County, Arizona, and Kane County, Utah (Figure 1-7).

The existing Buckskin Substationwould be upgraded as part of the proposed project to accommodatethe additional power loads from the new 230 kV Glen Canyon to Buckskin transmission line. Thesubstation upgrade would require an additional five acres of land within the GSENM adjacent to theexisting substation in Kane County, Utah (Figure 1-7).

The existing Paria Substationwould be upgraded as part of the proposed project to accommodate theadditional power loads to BPS-4 (Alt.). The substation upgrade would require an additional two acres ofprivately-owned land adjacent to the existing substation in Kane County, Utah (Figure 1-7).

The proposed new BPS-2 Transmission Line Alternativewould consist of a new three-ring switchstation along the existing 138 kV Glen Canyon to Buckskin Transmission Line, a new transmission linefrom the switch station to a new substation west of Big Water, and a connection to BPS-2 substation inKane County, Utah. The new transmission line would parallel an existing distribution line that runsnorthwest, north, and then northeast to Big Water. This new 138 kV transmission line alternative wouldbe about seven miles long across Utah SITLA-administered land, with a 138 kV connection to a newelectrical substation on the BPS-2 site (Figure 1-7).

The new BPS-2 Alternative Transmission Linewould consist of a new 138 kV transmission line fromGlen Canyon Substation, running parallel to the existing Rocky Mountain Power 230 kV transmissionline and connecting to a new electrical substation on the BPS-2 site west of Big Water. This new 138 kV

transmission line alternative would be about 16.5 miles long in Coconino County, Arizona, and KaneCounty, Utah, crossing National Park Service-administered land, BLM-administered land and UtahSITLA-administered land (Figure 1-7).

The new BPS-3 Alternative Transmission Line North Alternativewould consist of a new 138 kVtransmission line from BPS-2, paralleling the south side of Highway 89 west to a new electricalsubstation on the BPS-3 Alternative site near the GSENM east boundary within the Congressionally-designated utility corridor. This new 138 kV transmission line alternative would be about 9.3 miles longin Kane County, Utah (Figure 1-7).

The proposed new BPS-3 Alternative Transmission Line South Alternativewould consist of a newthree-ring switch station along the existing 138 kV Glen Canyon to Buckskin Transmission Line, and a

new transmission line from the switch station north along an existing BLM road to a new electricalsubstation on the BPS-3 Alternative site near the GSENM east boundary and within the Congressionally-designated utility corridor. This new 138 kV transmission line alternative would be about 5.9 miles longin Kane County, Utah (Figure 1-7).

The proposed new BPS-4 Alternative Transmission Linewould begin at the upgraded Paria Substationand run north to a new electrical substation on the BPS-4 Alternative site. This 69 kV transmission linewould be about 0.4 miles long in Kane County, Utah (Figure 1-7).


25/116


The proposed new HS-1 Transmission Linewould begin at the new HS-1 and tie into the existing 69 kVtransmission line along Highway 89 from the Buckskin Substation to the Johnson Substation. The HS-169 kV transmission line would be about 400 feet long in Kane County, Utah (Figures 1-7 and 1-8).The proposed new HS-2 South Transmission Line alternativewould connect the HS-2 hydroelectricstation and substation along the South Alternative to an existing 138 kV transmission line parallelingArizona State Route 389. This new 34.5 kV transmission line would be about 0.9 mile long in Mohave

County, Arizona (Figure 1-8).

The new HS-2 Highway Transmission Line alternativewould directly connect the HS-2 hydroelectricstation and substation along the Existing Highway Alternative to an existing 138 kV transmission lineparalleling Arizona State Route 389. This new 34.5 kV transmission line would be about 200 feet long inMohave County, Arizona.

The proposed new HS-3 Underground Transmission Linewould connect the HS-3 hydroelectric stationand substation to the existing Twin Cities Substation in Hildale City, Utah. The new 12.47 kVunderground circuit would be about 0.6 mile long in Washington County, Utah (Figure 1-8).

The new HS-4 Transmission Linewould consist of a new transmission line from the HS-4 hydroelectric

station and substation north along an existing BLM road to an existing transmission line parallel to UtahState Route 59. The new 69 kV transmission line would be about 8.2 miles long in Washington County,Utah (Figure 1-8).

The proposed new HS-4 Alternative Transmission Line Alternativewould connect the HS-4Alternative hydroelectric station and substation to an existing transmission line parallel to Utah StateRoute 59. The new 69 kV transmission line would be about 7.5 miles long in Washington County, Utah(Figure 1-8).

The proposed new Hurricane Cliffs Afterbay to Sand Hollow Transmission Linewould consist of anew 69 kV transmission line, which would run northwest from the Hurricane Cliffs peaking power plantand substation to the Sand Hollow Hydro Station substation. This new 69 kV transmission line would be

about 4.9 miles long in Washington County, Utah (Figure 1-8).

The proposed new Hurricane Cliffs Afterbay to Hurricane West Transmission Linewould consist ofa new 345 kV transmission line, running from the Hurricane Cliffs pumped storage power plant northwestand then north to the planned Hurricane West 345 kV substation. This new 345 kV transmission linewould be about 10.9 miles long in Washington County, Utah (Figure 1-8).

The proposed new Sand Hollow to Dixie Springs Transmission Linewould consist of a new 69 kVtransmission line, running from the Sand Hollow Hydro Station substation around the east side of SandHollow Reservoir and north to the existing Dixie Springs Substation. This new 69 kV transmission linewould be about 3.4 miles long in Washington County, Utah (Figure 1-8).

1.2.5 Natural Gas Pipeline and Generators Alternative

An alternative to powering the LPP pump stations by electricity via transmission lines would be installingnatural gas engine driven generation systems to power electric pumps. Recent discussions with QuestarGas Company (local natural gas supplier) indicated that capacity would be available in the Kern River


26/116


27/116


natural gas pipeline, which is located west of St. George, Utah, to supply natural gas for this alternative.

Questar Gas Company indicated the company has future plans to extend a high pressure natural gas

pipeline from the Kern River line to Hurricane, Utah. The Questar Gas pipeline would be sized to supply

natural gas to the LPP Project if it is determined that a single-purpose, dedicated high pressure gas line

would be extended to service the LPP pump stations. Based on the preliminary pump selection and fuel

requirements, the natural gas supply line would be 12 inches in diameter to provide natural gas supply forthe LPP pump stations. The pipeline would be successively reduced in size as it delivers gas to each of the

pump stations.

1.2.5.1 Natural Gas Transmission Line Connection

The natural gas supply line alternative would connect to the proposed Questar Gas Transmission Linefrom the existing Kern River line to Hurricane City. The natural gas supply line would connect to the highpressure gas transmission line at a proposed gate station southeast of Sand Hollow Reservoir. Theproposed gate station would be located adjacent to the alignment of the future extension of the SouthernCorridor highway, which would be constructed along the existing alignment of the Sand Hollow Road

east of Sand Hollow Reservoir (Figure 1-9).

1.2.5.2 Natural Gas Supply Line

The proposed natural gas supply line would be an intermediate high pressure line and would operatebetween approximately 250 to 300 psi at the gate station connection. Because of pressure losses in thepipeline it is anticipated that the pressure at each of the LPP pump stations would vary between 50 and100 psi, which would meet the requirements of the natural gas generators. The pipeline would beconstructed of strong carbon steel and have a dielectric coating, such as a fusion bonded epoxy orextruded polyethylene. It would be installed with a minimum four feet of cover and be provided withcathodic protection (a technique that involves inducing an electric current through the pipe to ward offcorrosion and rusting). The pipeline would be designed, constructed, tested, and operated at a minimum in

accordance with all applicable requirements included in the U.S. DOT regulations in 49 CFR Part 192,Transportation of Natural Gas and other Gas by Pipeline: Minimum Federal Safety Standards, and otherapplicable federal and state regulations.

The natural gas supply line would follow the proposed LPP ROW from the Sand Hollow Gate Station tothe intake pump station near Page, Arizona. The line would be about 138.5 miles long and installed aminimum of 10 feet from the edge of the proposed water pipeline in a separately excavated trench withinthe LPP ROW. Figure 1-9 shows the west alignment of the natural gas supply line as proposed and analternative alignment along Arizona State Route 389 and through Fredonia, Arizona, parallel to theExisting Highway Alternative alignment, both to the west GSENM boundary. Figure 1-10 shows the eastalignment of the natural gas supply line as proposed from the west GSENM boundary to the intake pumpstation.

Sectionalizing valves would be required along the natural gas supply line alignment. These valves aresafety devices used for emergency shut down or maintenance. The natural gas supply line sectionalizingvalves would be required at approximately 20-mile intervals because of the gas lines remoteness. Themain line valve sites would cover a 40-foot by 40-foot area surrounded by a chain link fence within theconfines of the permanent LPP pipeline ROW. The valves would be above ground and connected to theburied natural gas supply line. Additionally, pig launching or receiving equipment would be installedwithin the fenced areas. Pigs are devices that are placed into a natural gas supply line to clean the inside


28/116

!BG

Grand Staircase-EscalNational Monumen

Utah

Ari zona

Sand HollowProposed Natural Gas

Gate Station

59Kanab

Fredonia

Hildale

Hurricane

LaVerkin

Mohave County

Washington CountyKane County

Coconino County

89

9

SandHollow


Sand Hollow Rd.

Kaibab Indian Reservation

Ka n a b Creek

GouldWash

ClayholeWash

H u r r

i c a n e

W a s h

Virgin

Riv

er

EastF

orkVi

rginRiv

er

RockCanyon

JacobCanyo

n

DutchmanDraw

John

sonLa

kesC

anyon

Bulrush

Wash

Johnso

nWash

Ash

Cre

ek

North

Creek

NorthFo

rkVi

rginRi

ver

SandWash

Twomile

Wash

WhiteSa

geWash

Skutum

pah

Cre

ek

I-15

89a

89

389

9

17

9

!BG Natural Gas Gate Station

Natural Gas Supply Line Alignment


Lakes & Reservoirs


Interstate

US Highway

ST Highway

Hwy

Major Road

!!!!!!!!

!!

! ! ! ! ! ! !!


!!!!!!!!

!!

! ! ! ! ! ! !!

!! GSENM Boundary

Tribal Lands

State Boundaries

County Boundaries0 2 4 6 8 10

Miles

Spatial Reference: UTM Zone 12N, NAD-


Lake Powell Pipeli

Natural Gas Supply LinGenerators West Alt ern

UDWR Figure 1-9

FERC Project Num ber:12966-001

BLM Serial Numbers:

AZA-34941UTU-85472


29/116

"

"

"

"

"

Gas Generatorsat BPS-1

Gas Generators aIntake Pump Stati

Utah

Ari zona


Gas Generatorsat BPS-2

PariaRiver

Lake Powell

Coconino County

Kane County

Big Water

89

89

Gas Generatorsat BPS-4 (Alt.)

"

Gas Generatorsat BPS-3 (Alt.)

PariaRiver

BuckskinGulch

WahweapC

reek

CoyoteCreek

Copyright: 2013 National Geographic Society, i-

" Project Intake Pump Station

" Gas Generators at Booster Pump Station

Natural Gas Supply Line Alignment

Interstate

US Highway

ST Highway

Hwy

Major Road

Lakes & Reservoirs


!!!!!!!!!!

!!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !


!!!!!!!!!!

!!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! GSENM Boundary

State Boundaries0 1 2 3 4

Miles

Spatial Reference: UTM Zone 12N, NAD-83

Lake Powell Pipeline Proj

Lake Powell PipelineNatural Gas Supply Line Generators East Alterna

Figure 1-10UDWR




30/116


walls or to monitor its internal and external condition. Launching and receiving equipment is connected tothe natural gas supply line to enable pigs to be inserted into or removed from the pipeline.

1.2.5.3 Natural Gas Generators

Natural gas generators would be used to supply power to operate the electric pumps at the LPP pump

stations. The size of the electric pumps is approximately 18 feet from center to center when configured.The overall pump station building size would be 14 feet in width and 18 feet in length larger than thepump stations powered by electricity from transmission lines.

The natural gas generators would be approximately 35 feet long by eight feet wide by nine feet high. Theintake pump station building size for the natural gas generators would be approximately 65 feet wide by170 feet long by 50 feet high, and located adjacent to the pump station electrical room within the five-acresite designated for each pump station. The booster pump station building size for the natural gasgenerators would be 65 feet wide and 39 feet high, with lengths ranging from 114 feet to 162 feet long.Each natural gas generator would require a 24-inch diameter stack, with guide wires, extending above thebuilding roof to disperse the exhaust gases. The five stacks (four operating natural gas generators plus onestandby natural gas generator) at the intake pump station would extend 25 feet above the top of the

building, bringing the building to a total height of 75 feet above the ground surface. The stacks at BPS-1,BPS-2, BPS-3 (Alt.), and BPS-4 (Alt.) would extend 61 feet above the top of the buildings to a totalheight of 100 feet above the ground surface. The natural gas generators at the intake pump station andBPS-4 (Alt.) would require emission control systems to meet air quality standards.

The natural gas generators alternative at the LPP pump stations would require an annual natural gassupply of 2,855,400 million British thermal units (MMBtu). Table 1-1 shows the annual natural gasconsumption at the proposed project intake pump station and booster pump stations 1 through 4.

Table 1-1

Water Conveyance System Natural Gas Generator Annual Fuel Consumption

PumpStation

SiteElevationFeet MSL

Numberof

Pumps

Motor(HP)

TotalMotor(kW)

Natural GasGenerator

GE Model

# ofUnits1

EmissionControl

Required

GeneratorTotal kW2

Annual FuelConsumption

(MMbtu)3

IPS 3,750 5 3000 11,190 JGS 620 F09 4+1 Yes 12,120 729,000

BPS-1 4,111 5 1500 5,595 JGS 620 F09 2+1 No 5,992 364,500

BPS-2 4,311 5 1750 6,530 JGS 620 F09 3+1 No 8,895 425,400

BPS-3Alt.

4,657 5 2500 9,325 JGS 620 F09 4+1 No 11,652 607,500

BPS-4Alt.

5,001 5 3000 11,190 JGS 620 F09 5+1 Yes 14,430 729,000

Total 25 43,830 18+5 53,089 2,855,400Notes:1Number of operating units plus standby generator2Total generator capacity without standby generator3The annual fuel consumption is based on all pumps operating at rated motor horsepower, 8400 hours/year operation with generators loaded at 87

percent on the average.


31/116


1.3 Summary Description of the No Lake Powell Water Alternative

The No Lake Powell Water Alternative would involve a combination of developing remaining availablesurface water and groundwater supplies, developing reverse osmosis treatment of existing low qualitywater supplies, and reducing residential outdoor water use in the WCWCD service area. This alternative

could provide a total of 86,249 acre-feet of water annually to WCWCD and KCWCD for M&I usewithout diverting Utahs water from Lake Powell.

1.3.1 WCWCD No Lake Powell Water Alternative

1.3.1.1 Background

The WCWCD LPP allocation would be 82,249 acre-feet per year, and the WCWCD No Lake PowellWater alternative would need to supply 82,249 acre-feet per year to meet the same future potable indoorwater demands. Water supplied under the No Lake Powell Water Alternative including the 2025Washington County potable water supply of 72,362 acre-feet per year, would be completely used by

2052, and the total potable water demand would be 130,245 acre-feet per year in 2052. Therefore, the2052 M&I water supply deficit would be 57,883 acre-feet per year.

The WCWCD would implement other future water development projects currently planned by theDistrict, develop additional water reuse/reclamation programs, continue to implement new waterconservation measures, and convert additional agricultural water use to M&I use as a result of urbandevelopment in agricultural areas through 2025. Remaining planned and future water supply projectsthrough 2025 include the Ash Creek Pipeline (2,840 acre-feet per year), Sand Hollow recharge/recovery(3,000 acre-feet per year), Westside groundwater wells arsenic treatment (5,000 acre-feet per year), anddevelopment/yield increase of four groundwater wells (2,350 acre-feet per year). These future watersupplies are all part of the 72,362 acre-feet per year that would be developed by 2025. The same amountof water comprises the 2052 potable water supply, indicating Washington County would have no newwater supplies after 2025.

1.3.1.2 WCWCD No Lake Powell Water Alternative Features

Beginning in 2025, Washington County residential outdoor potable water use would be permanently re-purposed to indoor potable water use to help meet increasing indoor potable water demands. TheWCWCD would develop a reverse osmosis (RO) advanced water treatment facility near the WashingtonFields Diversion in Washington County, Utah, to treat up to 54,782 acre-feet per year of diverted VirginRiver water, which has a high total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration plus other contaminants, mixedwith an additional 14,248 acre-feet per year of reuse water. WCWCD would develop the Warner ValleyReservoir to store the reuse water and diverted Virgin River water prior to RO treatment. The combinedRO product water and residential outdoor potable water use re-purposed to indoor potable use would

equal 82,249 acre-feet per year of M&I water to meet Washington Countys potable indoor waterdemands through 2052. A water distribution pump station and pipeline would be constructed to convey13,249 acre-feet of potable water to the Apple Valley area of Washington County.

1.3.1.2.1 Re-Purposing Potable Water Use.The No Lake Powell Water Alternative would permanentlyeliminate residential outdoor potable water use in Washington County, re-purposing the portion of potablewater used for residential outdoor watering to indoor potable use. Projections of future water use through2060 account for population growth, climate change (projected 6 percent reduction of Virgin River flowsby 2050), water conservation (35 percent reduction in per capita water use from 2000 to 2060), and a


32/116


water planning reserve (10 percent) to avoid utilizing all available water supplies in meeting demands.Potable water in Washington County is consumed for residential indoor and outdoor uses, commercialuses, institutional uses, and industrial uses. These potable water uses would total 130,245 acre-feet peryear by 2052, which would be equal to the potable water demand. Gradually eliminating residentialoutdoor potable water use starting in 2025 would provide the growing population with potable water forindoor use through 2045; however, re-purposing residential outdoor potable water use to indoor use

would not increase the water supply and would have to be accompanied by adding another water supplyto meet the growing demand. By 2

FERC Application - Economics Study

Documents

Transcript of FERC Application - Economics Study