lake powell pipeline - water.utah.gov€¦ · 30/04/2016 · lake powell pipeline project vi...
TRANSCRIPT
Lake Powell Pipeline 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
Lake Powell Pipeline
Final Study Report 7 Noise
April 2016
Lake Powell Pipeline Project i 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
Noise Study Report Table of Contents
Page
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ ES-1 Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Summary Description of LPP Project Alignment Alternatives ..................................... 1-1 1.2.1 South Alternative ........................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2.2 Existing Highway Alternative........................................................................................ 1-8 1.2.3 Southeast Corner Alternative ......................................................................................... 1-8 1.2.4 Transmission Line Alignments .................................................................................... 1-10 1.2.5 Natural Gas Pipeline and Generators Alternative ........................................................ 1-13 1.2.5.1 Natural Gas Transmission Line Connection ................................................ 1-15 1.2.5.2 Natural Gas Supply Line .............................................................................. 1-15 1.2.5.3 Natural Gas Generators ................................................................................ 1-18 1.3 Summary Description of No Lake Powell Water Alternative ..................................... 1-18
1.3.1 WCWCD No Lake Powell Water Alternative ................................................ 1-19 1.3.1.1 Background ..................................................................................... 1-19 1.3.1.2 WCWCD No Lake Powell Water Alternative Features .................. 1-19 1.3.2 KCWCD No Lake Powell Water Alternative ................................................. 1-23
1.4 Summary Description of the No Action Alternative ................................................... 1-23 1.4.1 WCWCD No Action Alternative .................................................................... 1-23 1.4.2 KCWCD No Action Alternative ..................................................................... 1-24 1.5 Identified Issues ........................................................................................................... 1-24 1.5.1 Purposes of Study ........................................................................................... 1-24 1.5.2 Identified Issues .............................................................................................. 1-24 1.6 Impact Topics .............................................................................................................. 1-25
Chapter 2 Methodology ................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 General ........................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Data Used ....................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2.1 Agency Resource Management Goals .............................................................. 2-2 2.2.1.1 National Park Service (NPS) ............................................................ 2-2 2.2.1.2 UDEQ, ADEQ and BLM, Counties and Local Agencies ................. 2-2 2.2.1.3 USFS ................................................................................................ 2-2 2.2.1.4 Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians ........................................................ 2-2
2.3 Assumptions................................................................................................................... 2-3 2.4 Impact Analysis Methodology ....................................................................................... 2-4
2.4.1 Review of Existing Information ....................................................................... 2-4 2.4.2 Field Investigations ........................................................................................... 2-4 2.4.3 Construction Noise Calculations ...................................................................... 2-5 2.4.4 Operations Noise Calculations .......................................................................... 2-6
Lake Powell Pipeline Project ii 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
Chapter 3 Affected Environment (Baseline Conditions) ............................................................ 3-1
3.1 Impact Area .................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Overview of Baseline Conditions .................................................................................. 3-1
3.2.1 Existing Noise Data .......................................................................................... 3-1 3.2.2 Background Noise Field Investigation .............................................................. 3-3 3.2.3 Estimated Peak Construction Noise Levels and Decay .................................. 3-10 3.2.4 Construction of Pipelines and Facilities ......................................................... 3-11 3.2.5 Construction of Transmission Lines ............................................................... 3-11 3.2.6 Construction of Reservoirs (Afterbay and Forebay) ....................................... 3-11 3.2.7 Operation of Facilities .................................................................................... 3-11
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences (Impacts) ................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Significance Criteria ...................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Human Receptors .............................................................................................. 4-1 4.1.1.1 Impacts on the Kaibab-Paiute Indian Reservation ............................ 4-3 4.1.2 Wildlife Receptors ............................................................................................ 4-3
4.2 Potential Impacts Eliminated From Further Analysis .................................................... 4-3 4.3 Noise Impacts ................................................................................................................ 4-4
4.3.1 Water Conveyance System ............................................................................... 4-4 4.3.2 Hydro System Existing Highway Alternative ................................................... 4-4 4.3.3 Hydro System South Alternative ...................................................................... 4-4 4.3.4 Hydro System Southeast Corner Alternative .................................................... 4-5 4.3.5 Transmission Line Alternatives ........................................................................ 4-5 4.3.6 Natural Gas Pipeline and Generators Alternative ............................................. 4-5 4.3.7 No Lake Powell Water Alternative ................................................................... 4-5 4.3.8 No Action Alternative ....................................................................................... 4-5
Chapter 5 Mitigation and Monitoring.......................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 LPP Project Alternatives (Water Conveyance System, Hydro System, Kane County Pipeline System, Transmission Line Alternatives, and Natural Gas Pipeline and Generators Alternative) .................................................................................................. 5-1
5.2 No Lake Powell Water Alternative ................................................................................ 5-1 5.3 No Action Alternative .................................................................................................... 5-1
Chapter 6 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 South Alternative ........................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Existing Highway Alternative........................................................................................ 6-1 6.3 Southeast Corner Alternative ......................................................................................... 6-1 6.4 Transmission Line Alternatives ..................................................................................... 6-1 6.5 Natural Gas Pipeline and Generators Alternative .......................................................... 6-1 6.6 No Lake Powell Water Alternative ................................................................................ 6-1 6.7 No Action Alternative .................................................................................................... 6-2
Chapter 7 Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................................................... 7-1
7.1 South Alternative ........................................................................................................... 7-1 7.2 Existing Highway Alternative........................................................................................ 7-1
Lake Powell Pipeline Project iii 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
7.3 Southeast Corner Alternative ......................................................................................... 7-1 7.4 Transmission Line Alternatives ..................................................................................... 7-2 7.5 Natural Gas Supply Line and Generators Alternative ................................................... 7-2 7.6 No Lake Powell Water Alternative ................................................................................ 7-2 7.7 No Action Alternative .................................................................................................... 7-2
References Cited ...................................................................................................................................... R-1 Glossary .................................................................................................................................................. G-1 Abbreviations & Acronyms .............................................................................................................. A&A-1 List of Preparers ..................................................................................................................................... LP-1
Tables Table Number Table Title Page Table 1-1 Water Conveyance System Natural Gas Generator Annual Fuel Consumption .......... 1-18 Table 1-2 Available Supplies and Projected Demands Under the No Lake Powell Water and Lake
Powell Pipeline Project Alternatives ........................................................................... 1-21 Table 2-1 Decibel Addition Rules .................................................................................................. 2-5 Table 2-2 Decibel Addition Example ............................................................................................. 2-6 Table 3-1 Relative Sound Levels and Thresholds .......................................................................... 3-2 Table 3-2 Construction Equipment/Operations Noise Levels ........................................................ 3-3 Table 3-3 Typical Day-Night Noise Levels for Various Areas ...................................................... 3-3 Table 3-4 Lake Powell Pipeline Background Sound Level Measurement Field Data ................... 3-4 Table 3-5 Estimated Noise from Each Construction Phase.......................................................... 3-10 Table 3-6 Noise Decay per Construction Type ............................................................................ 3-10 Table 4-1 Potential Human Receptors............................................................................................ 4-1 Table 4-2 OSHA Permissible Noise Exposure Limits ................................................................... 4-2
Figures Figure Number Figure Title Page Figure 1-1 Lake Powell Pipeline Proposed Project and Alternative Features ................................. 1-2 Figure 1-2 Lake Powell Pipeline Intake and Water Conveyance Systems ...................................... 1-4 Figure 1-3 Pipeline and Penstock Right-of-Way ............................................................................ 1-5 Figure 1-4 Lake Powell Pipeline Hydro System South Alternative ................................................ 1-7 Figure 1-5 Lake Powell Pipeline Hydro System Existing Highway Alternative ............................. 1-9 Figure 1-6 Lake Powell Pipeline Hydro System Southwest Corner Alternative ........................... 1-11 Figure 1-7 Lake Powell Pipeline Proposed Transmission Lines East ........................................... 1-12 Figure 1-8 Lake Powell Pipeline Proposed Transmission Lines West .......................................... 1-14 Figure 1-9 Lake Powell Pipeline Natural Gas Pipeline and Generators Alternative West ............ 1-16 Figure 1-10 Lake Powell Pipeline Natural Gas Pipeline and Generators Alternative East ............. 1-17 Figure 1-11 No Lake Powell Water Alternative Primary Infrastructure ......................................... 1-20 Figure 3-1 Decibel Levels Key Map ............................................................................................... 3-6 Figure 3-2 Lake Powell Pipeline Water Conveyance System Decibel Contours ............................ 3-7
Lake Powell Pipeline Project iv 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
Figure 3-3 Lake Powell Pipeline Hydro System Decibel Contours ................................................ 3-8 Figure 3-4 Not Used .............................................................................................................. Not Used Figure 3-5 Lake Powell Pipeline Water Conveyance System Transmission Decibel Contours ......................................................................................................... 3-12 Figure 3-6 Lake Powell Pipeline Hydro System Transmission Decibel Contours ........................ 3-13
Lake Powell Pipeline Project v 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
Final Study Report 7 - Noise Executive Summary
ES.1 Introduction This study report describes the results and findings of an analysis to evaluate noise impacts along the proposed alternative alignments of the Lake Powell Pipeline Project (LPP Project), No Lake Powell Water Alternative, and No Action Alternative. The purpose of the analysis, as defined in the 2008 Noise Study Plan prepared for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), was to identify potential impacts from noise during construction and operations of the LPP Project, document the potential influence of noise on human and wildlife receptors, and identify measures to mitigate impacts from the various noise sources as necessary.
ES.2 Methodology The analysis of noise impacts follows methodology identified and described in the Preliminary Application Document, Scoping Document No. 1, and the Noise Study Plan and Modified Noise Study Plan approved by FERC.
ES.3 Key Results of the Noise Impact Analyses The significance criteria for the LPP project were based on permissible noise exposure as defined by OSHA. A 90 dBA sound level was chosen as the significant impact level on humans as OSHA allows up to 8 hours per day at a 90 dBA exposure level. Impacts of noise on wildlife are difficult to quantify as most studies pertain to loud noises, and it appears that many species become tolerant of sound over time and resume use of habitat that may have been initially abandoned even as the noise continues. Therefore, a sound intensity of 60 dBA was chosen as the impact level for potential reduction of habitat value for wildlife. The following sections summarize the key results of the noise impact analyses. ES.3.1 Water Conveyance System The Water Conveyance System alignment is routed near several residential and visitor areas and could possibly affect human receptors during construction. It is expected that most residential and visitor areas would be outside the 90 dBA noise corridor and would not be significantly impacted. Those within the 90 dBA noise corridor (within 150 feet of construction activities) could be impacted, but the impacts would be mitigated through the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs). Wildlife receptors in the area could be temporarily affected, but the long-term impacts would not be measurable or significant. ES.3.2 Hydro System - Existing Highway Alternative The Hydro System Existing Highway Alternative would be routed near several residential areas and the Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians’ tribal headquarters area. Noise impacts on human and wildlife receptors would be similar to the Water Conveyance System impacts. No measurable impacts and no significant impacts are expected to occur.
Lake Powell Pipeline Project vi 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
ES.3.3 Hydro System – South Alternative Residential or significant visitor areas were not identified along the initial portion of the Hydro System South Alternative alignment from its beginning to the point of intersection with Highway 389. Therefore, human receptors would not be measurably impacted. Wildlife sensitive receptors in the area could be temporarily affected by the noise, although it is not expected to be a measurable impact because of low sound levels attenuating with distance.
The remaining portion of the alignment from Highway 389 to Sand Hollow Reservoir is shared by the Existing Highway and South Alternatives. There could be temporary noise impacts on residents or
visitors, although significant impacts are not expected since most residential or significant visitor areas are expected to be outside of the 90 dBA noise corridor. Those within the 90 dBA noise corridor could be
impacted during construction. These temporary noise impacts would be mitigated through the use of BMPs.
ES.3.4 Hydro System – Southeast Corner Alternative Noise impacts from the Hydro System Southeast Corner Alternative would be the same as for the Hydro System South Alternative. No significant impacts would occur. ES.3.5 Transmission Lines Alignments The power transmission lines are routed near some residential areas and could possibly affect human receptors during construction, although the impacts would not be significant since most residential areas are expected to be outside of the 90 dBA noise corridor. Those within the 90 dBA noise corridor could be impacted, but the impacts would be mitigated through the use of BMPs. Wildlife receptors in the area could be affected temporarily but the impacts would not be significant. ES.3.6 Natural Gas Pipeline and Generators Alternative Construction of the natural gas pipeline and generators would have the same noise levels as construction of the LPP alignments and pump stations; however, the natural gas pipeline would be installed following construction of the water pipeline. Operation of the natural gas generators would generate up to 140 dBA combined peak noise at the source, which would be attenuated to less than 72 dBA by enclosure of the generators and silencers in buildings incorporating acoustic baffling. Operating noise levels would decay to less than 60 dBA outside the perimeter fences of the pump stations. These noise levels would not affect any known sensitive noise receptors. ES.3.7 No Lake Powell Water Alternative No measurable and no significant noise impacts are expected to occur under the No Lake Powell Water Alternative. Noise would be temporarily generated during construction of the reverse osmosis water treatment facility. The noise levels would be attenuated over short distances and would not affect any known sensitive noise receptors. ES.3.8 No Action Alternative No noise impacts would occur under the No Action Alternative.
Lake Powell Pipeline Project 1-1 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 Introduction This chapter presents a summary description of the Lake Powell Pipeline (LPP) Project alignment alternatives, the No Lake Powell Water Alternative, and the No Action Alternative. It introduces the area studied for environmental resources. It provides an overview of the proposed LPP Project, including each alignment alternative and locator maps. The LPP Project would deliver Utah’s Colorado River water from Lake Powell to the service areas of Washington County Water Conservancy District (WCWCD) and Kane County Water Conservancy District (KCWCD). The LPP Project action alternatives studied include various pipeline and penstock system configurations. 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:
WCWCD would receive 82,249 acre-feet annually. KCWCD would receive up to 4,000 acre-feet annually.
One of the LPP systems previously studied included a conveyance system for the Central Iron County Water Conservancy District (CICWCD), which would have delivered approximately 13,249 acre-feet annually to the Cedar Valley area. The various alternatives were under study when the CICWCD decided to withdraw from the LPP Project, and this conveyance system is no longer being considered.
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 alignments for providing power to the pump stations and a natural gas supply line alignment alternative. The pipeline and penstock alignment alternatives share common segments between the intake at Lake Powell and delivery at Sand Hollow Reservoir, and they differ spatially in, through and around Kaibab-Paiute Indian Reservation. The South Alternative (Proposed Action) extends south around Kaibab-Paiute Indian Reservation. The Existing Highway Alternative follows an Arizona state highway through Kaibab-Paiute Indian Reservation. The Southeast Corner Alternative follows the Navajo-McCullough Transmission Line corridor through the southeast corner of Kaibab-Paiute Indian Reservation. The Electric Transmission Line alignments are common to all the pipeline and penstock alignment alternatives. The Natural Gas Supply Line Alignment Alternative is common to all pipeline and penstock alignment alternatives. The natural gas pipeline alignment would be coincident to the buried waterline and would not have a different alignment, as compared to transmission line alignments. Figure 1-1 shows the overall proposed project from Lake Powell near Page, Arizona to Sand Hollow Reservoir, Utah. 1.2.1 South Alternative The South Alternative consists of four systems: Water Intake, Water Conveyance, Hydro, and KCWCD (see Figure 1-1).
!!
!!
!!
!!
!! !!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!! !!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!! !!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!! !!!!!! !!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!! !!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!! !!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!! !!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!!! !!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!! !!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!! !!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!! !!!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/"/
"/
"/
"/
"/"/
"/
"/
"/
"/"/
"/
"/"/
"/"/"/"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/"/
"/"/ "/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/"/
"/"/
"/
#
#
#
#
#
# !
"
""
"
"
Grand Staircase-EscalanteNational Monument
UtahArizona
HS-3
HS-2 (South)
Sand Hollow Hydro
Hurricane Cliffs Pumped Storageand Peaking Power
Hydroelectric Generating Stations BPS-1
Water Intake Pump Station
BPS-2
Lake PowellLake Powell
BPS-3 (Alt.)High Point Reg. Tank-2
HS-1
BPS-4 (Alt.)
HS-4 (Alt.)
"
Kaibab-Paiute Indian Reservation
Navajo Indian Reservation
Kane
CoconinoMohave
Washington
Iron Garfield
San Juan
Paria River
Kana
b Cree
k
Wahweap Creek
Virgin R
iver
Ash C
reek
East F
ork Vi
rgin R
iver
Clayhole Wash
La Ver
kin Cree
k
Gould WashDe
ep Cr
eek
Coyo
te Cr
eek
Buckskin Gulch
Cotto
nwoo
d Cree
k
North
Fork
Virgin
River
Color
ado Ri
ver
Rock Canyon
Park Wash
Bulrush W
ash
Lick Wash
Jacob Canyon
Hackberry Creek
Dutchman Draw
Roun
d Vall
ey
Meadow Canyon
Langs Run
Main Street Valley
Blue Creek
North
Creek
Skutum
pah C
reek
Pinto Creek
Mill C
reek
Sand Wash
Twomile Wash
White Sage Wash
£¤89
£¤89a
£¤89
¬«389
¬«14
¬«9
¬«98
¬«12¬«63¬«148
¬«9
¬«12
¬«9
0 5 10 15 202.5Miles
´Spatial Reference: UTM Zone 12N, NAD-83
Lake Powell Pipeline Project
Lake Powell PipelineProposed Action
UDWRe
FERC Project Number:12966-001
BLM Serial Numbers:AZA-34941UTU-85472
Figure 1-1
Utah
Arizona
" Project Pump Station
! Project Regulating Tank
# Project Hydro Station
"/ Substation
"/ Proposed Substation
Water Conveyance System
Hydro System - South Alternative(Penstock Segment)
KCWCD System
!! !! Project Transmission Lines
!! !! Existing Transmission Lines
Interstate
US Highway
ST Highway
Hwy
Major Road
Access Roads
Hurricane Cliffs Forebay/Afterbay
Lakes & Reservoirs
Major Rivers & Streams
!!
!
! !! !! !!
!!!!!!
National Park/Monument
%% % %
%
%%%
GSENM-Boundary
Tribal Lands
State Boundaries
County Boundaries
Lake Powell Pipeline Project 1-3 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
The Water Intake System would pump Lake Powell water via submerged horizontal tunnels and vertical shafts into the LPP. The intake pump station would be constructed and operated adjacent to the west side of Lake Powell, approximately 2,000 feet northwest of Glen Canyon Dam in Coconino County, Arizona. An enclosed pump station building would house vertical turbine pumps with electric motors, electrical controls, and other equipment at a ground level elevation of 3,745 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The Water Conveyance System would convey water diverted from Lake Powell at the Intake System through a buried 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) along Highway 89 at ground level elevation 5,691 feet AMSL. The pipeline would be a line of connected pipes used for carrying water over a long distance. Figure 1-2 shows the LPP Project Water Intake and Water Conveyance systems. The High Point Regulating Tank-2 would be the LPP Project topographic high point (Figure 1-2). The pipeline would be sited within a utility corridor established by Congress in 1998 that extends 500 feet south and 240 feet north of the Highway 89 centerline on public land administered by 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 construction easement for the water conveyance system pipeline, adjacent to and away from the highway. Four booster pump stations (BPS) along the pipeline would pump water to the high point regulating tank. Each BPS would 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, pig retrieval and launching stations, and a surface emergency overflow detention basin. BPS-1 would be located within Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (GCNRA) adjacent to an existing Arizona Department of Transportation maintenance facility, along a segment of abandoned highway, west of Highway 89. The BPS-1 site would cover about six acres and be surrounded by security fencing. BPS-2 would be on land administered by Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) near Big Water, Utah, on the south side of Highway 89. The BPS-2 site would cover about five acres and be surrounded by security fencing. BPS-3 (Alt.) would be on land administered by BLM Kanab Field Office, near the east boundary of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM) on the south side of Highway 89, within the Congressionally-designated utility corridor. The BPS-3 (Alt.) site would 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 geologic feature (Figure 1-2). The BPS-4 (Alt.) site would cover about six acres and be surrounded by security fencing. The proposed pipeline alignment west of the Cockscomb geologic feature would be situated adjacent to the south boundary of the Congressionally-designated utility corridor. The proposed pipeline alignment would continue parallel to Highway 89 to the buried High Point Regulating Tank-2 at 5,691 feet AMSL, which would be the topographic high point of the LPP Project (Figure 1-2). The Water Conveyance System would terminate at High Point Regulating Tank-2. The buried High Point Regulating Tank-2 would cover about four acres and be surrounded by security fencing.
#
!
"
""
"
"
BPS-1
Intake Pump Station
UtahArizona
Grand Staircase-EscalanteNational Monument
BPS-2
Paria River
Water IntakeSystem
Lake Powell
BPS-3 (Alt.)
Coconino County
Kane County
Big Water
£¤89
£¤89
BPS-4 (Alt)
High Point Reg. Tank-2
HS-1
"
Paria River
Buckskin Gulch
Coyote Creek
£¤89
Copyright: © 2013 National Geographic Society
" Project Pump Station
! Project Regulating Tank
# Project Hydro Station
Water Conveyance System
Hydro System - South Alternative(Penstock Segment)
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 Project
Lake Powell Pipeline Intake and
Water Conveyance System
Figure 1-2UDWRe
FERC Project Number:12966-001
BLM Serial Numbers:AZA-34941UTU-85472
Lake Powell Pipeline Project 1-5 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
Figure 1-3 shows the typical 100-foot-wide right-of-way and 20-foot-wide temporary construction easement for the hydro system penstock adjacent to, and away from, the highway. Four in-line hydro generating stations (HS-1, HS-2 [South], HS-3, and HS-4 [Alt.]), with substations located along the penstock, would generate electricity and help control water pressure in the penstock. Each in-line hydro station would consist of a building housing the generator units, an afterbay reservoir, retention basin, pig retrieval and launching stations, switchyard, and maintenance parking area, all surrounded by perimeter security fencing.
Figure 1-3
Pipeline and Penstock Right-of-Way
Lake Powell Pipeline Project 1-6 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
The Hydro System would convey the water from High Point Regulating Tank-2, at a topographic high point in the LPP Project with ground level elevation 5,691 feet AMSL, for about 87.5 miles through a buried 69-inch diameter penstock in Kane and Washington counties, Utah, and Coconino and Mohave counties, Arizona, to Sand Hollow Reservoir near St. George, Utah (Figure 1-4). A penstock is an enclosed pipe that delivers water to hydroelectric turbines. A short penstock segment would convey the water to HS-1. This in-line hydro station would generate up to one megawatt (MW) of electricity at a site along Highway 89 within GSENM, and the penstock would continue west along Highway 89 to the GSENM west boundary. The HS-1 site would cover about five acres. The penstock alignment would turn south from Highway 89 through private land and BLM-administered public lands into White Sage Wash. It would continue across White Sage Wash and then parallel Navajo-McCullough Transmission Line, crossing Highway 89 Alt. and Forest Highway 22 toward the southeast corner of Kaibab-Paiute Indian Reservation. The penstock alignment would run parallel to and south of the Kaibab-Paiute Indian Reservation south boundary, crossing Kanab Creek and Bitter Seeps Wash. It would continue across Moonshine Ridge and Cedar Ridge to Yellowstone Road. At this point, the penstock alignment would run north along Yellowstone Road to Arizona State Route 389 west of Kaibab-Paiute Indian Reservation. HS-2 (South) would be located west of Kaibab-Paiute Indian Reservation on private land east of Yellowstone Road. HS-2 (South) would generate up to one MW of electricity. The HS-2 (South) site would cover about five acres. The penstock alignment would continue northwest along the south side of Arizona State Route 389 past Colorado City to Hildale City, Utah, and HS-3. HS-3 would be located on private land west of Hildale City, Utah, north of and adjacent to Uzona Road. HS-3 would generate up to one MW of electricity. The HS-3 site would cover about five acres. A turnout for future delivery of 13,249 acre-feet of WCWCD’s allocation of LPP Project water to Apple Valley would be located immediately west of HS-3. The penstock alignment would follow Uzona Road west through Canaan Gap and south of Little Creek Mountain, 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 1.7 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), maintaining active storage of 11,255 acre-feet of water. The forebay reservoir and two dams would cover about 500 acres of public land administered by 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 the Hurricane 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 35-MW-capacity peaking power hydroelectric generating station and a 300-MW-capacity pumped storage hydroelectric generating station. The Hurricane Cliffs hydroelectric generating stations and tailrace channel would cover about 50 acres of public land administered by BLM and would be surrounded by security fencing. The tailrace channel would discharge into an afterbay reservoir with 3,551 acre-feet of operating capacity, which is contained by a single dam in the valley below the Hurricane Cliffs. The afterbay reservoir and dam would cover about 200 acres of public land administered by BLM and would be surrounded by security fencing. Water would be released from the forebay reservoir through the hydro generating system to meet peak power demands. Water would be pumped from the afterbay reservoir into the forebay reservoir during periods of off-peak power demand. The forebay and afterbay reservoirs would not be open to public access because the water levels would fluctuate rapidly during daily operations. A low pressure tunnel would convey the water northwest from the afterbay reservoir to a penstock, continuing to the Sand
#
#
#
#
#
#!
Grand Staircase-EscalanteNational Monument
UtahArizona
HS-4 (Alt.)
HS-3
HS-2 South
Sand Hollow Hydro Station
Hurricane Cliffs Hydro Stations
¬«59Kanab
Fredonia
Hildale
Hurricane
LaVerkin
Mohave County
Washington County
Kane County
Coconino County
£¤89
£¤89
¬«9
Sand Hollow
Quail CreekReservoir
HS-1
High Point Reg. Tank-2
Kaibab-Paiute Indian ReservationKanab Creek
Gould Wash
Clayhole Wash
Hurricane Wash
East Fork Virgin River
Rock Canyon
Virgin R
iver
Jacob Canyon Roun
d Vall
ey
Bulrush Wash
Park Wash
Johnso
n Lake
s Cany
on
Ash C
reek
Johnson Wash
North Creek
Dutchman Draw
Deer Spring Wash
Fort Pearce Wash
North
Fork
Virgin
River
Sand WashTwomile Wash
Skutum
pah C
reek
White Sage Wash
§̈¦I-15
£¤89a
£¤89
£¤89
¬«389
¬«9
¬«59
¬«17
¬«9
" Project Pump Station
! Project Regulating Tank
# Project Hydro Station
Hurricane Cliffs Forebay/Afterbay
Lakes & Reservoirs
Water Conveyance System
Hydro System - South Alternative(Penstock Segment)
KCWCD System
Major Rivers & Streams
Interstate
US Highway
ST Highway
Hwy
Major Road
!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!! !! !! !!
!! National Park/Monument
%%%%%%
% % % %
% GSENM Boundary
Tribal Lands
State Boundaries
County Boundaries 0 2 4 6 81Miles
´Spatial Reference: UTM Zone 12N, NAD-83
Lake Powell Pipeline Project
Lake Powell PipelineHydro System
South Alternative
UDWRe Figure 1-4FERC Project Number:
12966-001BLM Serial Numbers:
AZA-34941UTU-85472
Lake Powell Pipeline Project 1-8 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
Hollow Hydro Station, which would generate up to 4.2 MW of electricity. The Sand Hollow Hydro Station would be located on land owned by WCWCD and cover about five acres adjacent to Sand Hollow Reservoir. The LPP Project water would discharge from the Sand Hollow Hydro Station into the existing Sand Hollow Reservoir. The KCWCD System would convey water diverted from Lake Powell through the LPP at the west GSENM boundary for about eight miles through a buried 24-inch diameter pipeline in Kane County, Utah, near the mouth of Johnson Canyon. The pipeline would parallel the south side of Highway 89 across Johnson Wash and then run north for 5000 feet to the mouth of Johnson Canyon (Figure 1-4). 1.2.2 Existing Highway Alternative The Existing Highway Alternative consists of four systems: Water Intake, Water Conveyance, Hydro, and KCWCD. The Water Intake and Water Conveyance systems would be the same as described for the South Alternative. The Hydro System would convey water diverted at Lake Powell from High Point Regulating Tank 2 at the LPP Project topographical high point (5,691 feet AMSL) for about 80.5 miles through a buried 69-inch diameter penstock in Kane and Washington counties, Utah, and Coconino and Mohave counties, Arizona, to Sand Hollow Reservoir near St. George, Utah (Figure 1-5). The alternative alignment parallels Highway 89 to the west and south boundary of GSENM and continues along Highway 89 to Lost Spring Gap. Four in-line hydro generating stations (HS-1, HS-2 [Hwy], HS-3, and HS-4 [Alt.]) located along the penstock would generate electricity and help control water pressure in the penstock. The HS-1, HS-3 and HS-4 (Alt.) hydro stations would be the same as described for the South Alternative. The penstock downstream from the proposed HS-1 would be sited along the south side of Highway 89 within GSENM. The penstock would parallel the south side of Highway 89 west of GSENM, continue past Johnson Wash and follow Lost Spring Gap southwest, crossing Highway 89 Alt. and Kanab Creek in the north end of Fredonia, Arizona. It would continue south, paralleling Kanab Creek to Arizona State Route 389, where it would run west, adjacent to the north side of Route 389 through Kaibab-Paiute Indian Reservation past Pipe Spring National Monument. The penstock would continue along the north side of Arizona State Route 389 through the west half of Kaibab-Paiute Indian Reservation to 1.8 miles west of Cedar Ridge (intersection of Yellowstone Road with Highway 89), where it would then follow the same alignment as the South Alternative to Sand Hollow Reservoir. HS-2 (Hwy) would be sited 0.5 miles west of Cedar Ridge along the north side of Arizona State Route 389. HS-2 (Hwy) would generate approximately 0.8MW of electricity and cover 8.7 acres of private land. The KCWCD System would convey water diverted at Lake Powell from the LPP Project along Highway 89 north along Johnson Canyon Road for 5,000 feet through a buried 24-inch diameter pipeline in Kane County, Utah to the mouth of Johnson Canyon (Figure 1-5). 1.2.3 Southeast Corner Alternative The Southeast Corner Alternative consists of four systems: Water Intake, Water Conveyance, Hydro, and KCWCD. The Water Intake, Water Conveyance, and KCWCD systems would be the same as described for the South Alternative. The Hydro System would be the same as described for the South Alternative from High Point Regulating Tank 2 at the LPP Project topographical high point (5,691 feet AMSL) to the east boundary of Kaibab-Paiute Indian Reservation. At the east boundary of Kaibab-Paiute Indian Reservation, the penstock alignment would parallel the north side of the Navajo-McCullough Transmission Line corridor in Coconino County, Arizona, through the southeast corner of the Kaibab-Paiute Indian Reservation for
#
#
#
#
#
#!
Grand Staircase-EscalanteNational Monument
UtahArizona
HS-4 (Alt.)
HS-3
HS-2 (Hwy)
Sand Hollow Hydro Station
Hurricane Cliffs Hydro Stations
¬«59Kanab
Fredonia
Hildale
Hurricane
LaVerkin
Mohave County
Washington County
Kane County
Coconino County
£¤89
£¤89
¬«9
Sand Hollow
Quail CreekReservoir
HS-1
High Point Reg. Tank-2
Kaibab-Paiute Indian ReservationKanab Creek
Gould Wash
Clayhole Wash
Hurricane Wash
East Fork Virgin River
Rock Canyon
Virgin R
iver
Jacob Canyon Roun
d Vall
ey
Bulrush Wash
Park Wash
Johnso
n Lake
s Cany
on
Ash C
reek
Johnson Wash
North Creek
Dutchman Draw
Deer Spring Wash
Fort Pearce Wash
North
Fork
Virgin
River
Sand WashTwomile Wash
Skutum
pah C
reek
White Sage Wash
§̈¦I-15
£¤89a
£¤89
£¤89
¬«389
¬«9
¬«59
¬«17
¬«9
" Project Pump Station
! Project Regulating Tank
# Project Hydro Station
Hurricane Cliffs Forebay/Afterbay
Lakes & Reservoirs
Water Conveyance System
Hydro System - Existing HighwayAlternative (Penstock Segment)
KCWCD System
Major Rivers & Streams
Interstate
US Highway
ST Highway
Hwy
Major Road
!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!! !! !! !!
!! National Park/Monument
%%%%%%
% % % %
% GSENM Boundary
Tribal Lands
State Boundaries
County Boundaries 0 2 4 6 81Miles
´Spatial Reference: UTM Zone 12N, NAD-83
Lake Powell Pipeline Project
Lake Powell PipelineHydro System
Existing Highway Alternative
UDWRe Figure 1-5FERC Project Number:
12966-001BLM Serial Numbers:
AZA-34941UTU-85472
Lake Powell Pipeline Project 1-10 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
about 3.8 miles. The penstock would then follow the South Alternative alignment south of the south boundary of the Kaibab-Paiute Indian Reservation, continuing to Sand Hollow Reservoir (Figure 1-6). The Southeast Corner Alternative would be about 85.7 miles long from High Point Regulating Tank-2 to Sand Hollow Reservoir. 1.2.4 Transmission Line Alignments Transmission line alignments have been identified to transmit electric power to pump stations in the Water Intake and Water Conveyance systems, and to transmit electric power generated by hydroelectric stations in the Hydro System. The transmission lines that would serve the Water Intake and Water Conveyance systems are located in the east half of the LPP Project. The transmission lines that would serve the Hydro System are located in the west half of the LPP Project. The proposed new Water Intake Transmission Line would begin at Glen Canyon Substation and run parallel to Highway 89 for about 2,500 feet to a new switch station, cross Highway 89 at the Intake access road intersection, and continue northeast to a new electrical substation on the Intake Pump Station site. This 69 kV transmission line would be 0.9 mile long in Coconino County, Arizona (Figure 1-7). The proposed new BPS-1 Transmission Line would begin at the new switch station located on the south side of Highway 89 and parallel the LPP Project Water Conveyance System alignment to a new electrical substation on the BPS-1 site west of Highway 89. The 69 kV transmission line would be about one mile long in Coconino County, Arizona (Figure 1-7). The proposed new Glen Canyon to Buckskin Transmission Line would consist of a 230 kV transmission line from the Glen Canyon Substation to the Buckskin Substation, running parallel to the existing 138 kV transmission line. This transmission line upgrade would be about 36 miles long through Coconino County, Arizona, and Kane County, Utah (Figure 1-7). The existing Buckskin Substation would be upgraded as part of the proposed project to accommodate the additional power loads from the new 230 kV Glen Canyon to Buckskin transmission line. The substation upgrade would require an additional five acres of land within GSENM adjacent to the existing substation in Kane County, Utah (Figure 1-7). The existing Paria Substation would be upgraded as part of the proposed project to accommodate the additional power loads to BPS-4 (Alt.). The substation upgrade would require an additional two acres of privately-owned land adjacent to the existing substation in Kane County, Utah (Figure 1-7). The proposed new BPS-2 Transmission Line would consist of a new three-ring switch station along the new 230 kV Glen Canyon to Buckskin Transmission Line, a new transmission line from the switch station to a new substation west of Big Water, and a connection to BPS-2 substation in Kane County, Utah. The new transmission line would parallel an existing distribution line that runs northwest, north, and then northeast to Big Water. This new 138 kV transmission line alignment would be about seven miles long across Utah SITLA-administered land, with a 138 kV connection to a new electrical substation on the BPS-2 site (Figure 1-7). The proposed new BPS-3 Alt. Transmission Line South would consist of a new three-ring switch station along the new 230 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 electrical substation on the BPS-3 (Alt.) site near the GSENM east boundary and within the Congressionally-designated utility corridor. This new 138 kV transmission line alignment would be about 5.9 miles long in Kane County, Utah (Figure 1-7).
#
#
#
#
#
#!
Grand Staircase-EscalanteNational Monument
UtahArizona
HS-4 (Alt.)
HS-3
HS-2 South
Sand Hollow Hydro Station
Hurricane Cliffs Hydro Stations
¬«59Kanab
Fredonia
Hildale
Hurricane
LaVerkin
Mohave County
Washington County
Kane County
Coconino County
£¤89
£¤89
¬«9
Sand Hollow
Quail CreekReservoir
HS-1
High Point Reg. Tank-2
Kaibab-Paiute Indian ReservationKanab Creek
Gould Wash
Clayhole Wash
Hurricane Wash
East Fork Virgin River
Rock Canyon
Virgin R
iver
Jacob Canyon Roun
d Vall
ey
Bulrush Wash
Park Wash
Johnso
n Lake
s Cany
on
Ash C
reek
Johnson Wash
North Creek
Dutchman Draw
Deer Spring Wash
Fort Pearce Wash
North
Fork
Virgin
River
Sand WashTwomile Wash
Skutum
pah C
reek
White Sage Wash
§̈¦I-15
£¤89a
£¤89
£¤89
¬«389
¬«9
¬«59
¬«17
¬«9
" Project Pump Station
! Project Regulating Tank
# Project Hydro Station
Hurricane Cliffs Forebay/Afterbay
Lakes & Reservoirs
Water Conveyance System
Hydro System - Southeast CornerAlternative (Penstock Segment)
KCWCD System
Major Rivers & Streams
Interstate
US Highway
ST Highway
Hwy
Major Road
!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!! !! !! !!
!! National Park/Monument
%%%%%%
% % % %
% GSENM Boundary
Tribal Lands
State Boundaries
County Boundaries 0 2 4 6 81Miles
´Spatial Reference: UTM Zone 12N, NAD-83
Lake Powell Pipeline Project
Lake Powell PipelineHydro System
Southeast Corner Alternative
UDWRe Figure 1-6FERC Project Number:
12966-001BLM Serial Numbers:
AZA-34941UTU-85472
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!! !!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!! !!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
"/
"/
"/"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
#
"
""
"
"
"
BPS-1
Water Intake Pump StationUtahArizona
Grand Staircase-EscalanteNational Monument
BPS-2
Paria River
Water IntakeTransmission Line
Lake Powell
BPS-3 (Alt.)
Coconino County
Kane County
Big Water
BPS-1Transmission Line
3-RingSwitch Station
3-RingSwitch Station
BPS-2Transmission LineGlen Canyon to Buckskin
Transmission Line
BuckskinSubstation
PariaSubstation
BPS-4 Alt.Transmission Line
BPS-3 Alt.Transmission Line South
£¤89
£¤89
Glen CanyonSubstation
HS-1
BPS-4 (Alt.)
Paria River
Buckskin Gulch
Wahw
eap Cr
eek
Coyote CreekRock Canyon
Copyright: © 2013 National Geographic Society
" Project Intake Pump Station
" Project Pump Station
# Project Hydro Station
"/ Substation
"/ Proposed Substation
!! !! Project Transmission Lines
!! !! Existing Transmission Lines
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 Project
Lake Powell Pipeline Proposed Transmission
Lines East
Figure 1-7UDWRe
FERC Project Number:12966-001
BLM Serial Numbers:AZA-34941UTU-85472
Lake Powell Pipeline Project 1-13 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
The proposed new BPS-4 Alt. Transmission Line would begin at the upgraded Paria Substation and run north to a new electrical substation on the BPS-4 Alternative site. This 69 kV transmission line would be about 0.4 mile long in Kane County, Utah (Figure 1-7). The proposed new HS-1 Transmission Line would begin at the new HS-1 and tie into the existing 69 kV transmission line along Highway 89 from the Buckskin Substation to the Johnson Substation. The HS-1 69 kV transmission line would be about 400 feet long in Kane County, Utah (Figure 1-8). The proposed new HS-2 (South) Transmission Line would connect the HS-2 hydroelectric station and substation along the South Alternative to an existing 138 kV transmission line paralleling Arizona 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 alternative would directly connect the HS-2 hydroelectric station and substation along the Existing Highway Alternative to an existing 138 kV transmission line paralleling Arizona State Route 389. This new 34.5 kV transmission line would be about 200 feet long in Mohave County, Arizona. The proposed new HS-3 Transmission Line would connect the HS-3 hydroelectric station and substation to the existing Twin Cities Substation in Hildale City, Utah. The new 12.47 kV transmission line would be about 0.6 mile long in Washington County, Utah (Figure 1-8). The proposed new HS-4 (Alt.) Transmission Line would connect the HS-4 (Alt.) hydroelectric station and substation to an existing transmission line parallel to Utah State Route 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 Line would consist of a new 69 kV transmission line, which would run northwest from the Hurricane Cliffs peaking power plant and substation to the Sand Hollow Hydro 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 Line would consist of a new 345 kV transmission line, running from the Hurricane Cliffs pumped storage power plant northwest and then north to the planned Hurricane West 345 kV substation. This new 345 kV transmission line would be about 10.9 miles long in Washington County, Utah (Figure 1-8). The proposed new Sand Hollow to Dixie Springs Transmission Line would consist of a new 69 kV transmission line, running from the Sand Hollow Hydro substation around the east side of Sand Hollow Reservoir and north to the existing Dixie Springs Substation. This new 69 kV transmission line would be about 3.4 miles long in Washington County, Utah (Figure 1-8). 1.2.5 Natural Gas Pipeline and Generators Alternative Natural gas engine-driven generation systems to power electric pumps would be an alternative to powering the LPP Project pump stations by electricity via transmission lines. Recent discussions with Questar Gas Company (local natural gas supplier) indicated that capacity would be available in the Kern River 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
"
!!!!!!!!
!!!!
"
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
"
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!! !! !!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!! !!!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!
!!
!! !!
!!!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!! !!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
"
"
!!
!! !!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
"
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!
""
!!!!!!
!!!!
""
"
"
!!!!!!
!!
"
"
"
!!!!
!!!!
!! !!
!!!!
"
"
"
" "
"
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!"
!!
!!
!!!!
"!!
" "
"
"
!!!! !!
!!!!!!!!
!! !!!!!!!!
!!
!!
"" "
!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!! !!
!!
"
!!
!!
""
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
"
"
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!! !!
!!!!
!!
!!!!!!!! !! !!!!!!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!
!!
"
"
"
"
""
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
"
"
!!
!!
"
!!
!!
!!!!!!
"
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
"
!!!!!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
"
""
"
""
!!!!
!!
!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!! !!
!! !!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
!!"
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
"
" "
!!!!
"
"
"
"
!!!!
!!
!!
"
!!!!!!
"
"
!!!!
!!
!!
"
"""""
"""
"
"""
"
"
"
"
" ""
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
" "
!!!!
!!!!!!
"
"
""
!!
"
"
"
!!
"!!
!!
"!!
"
"
!!!!
!!
""
"
""
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!!! !!
!!""
"
"
"
"
!!
!!
!!
!!
!! "
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!!!
!! !! !!!!
!!!!!!
"
"
"
"
"
!!
"
"
!!!!
!!
"
"
"
"
"
!!
"""
"
"
"
"
"" "
"
"
!! "
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!
!!
!! !!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
"
" !!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
"
"
" ""
"
""" " "
""
" "
"
""""
"""
" """" !!!!
!!
"
"
!!
"
"
""
"
""
""
"
"
""
""""
""""" "
!!
!!!!
!! !!
!!"""
"
""""
!!!!!!!!!!
!!
"""""
"
""
!!!!
!!!!
!!
"
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
"
"
""
"
" "
"
"""""
""
"
"""""""
""""
""
" "
"
"
""
""
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!! !!
"""
"
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
"
!!
!!!!
"
"""
""
!!!! !!
!!
""
" "
" !!!!
!!
"
!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!
!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
"
!!
"
!!!!!!
""
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!! !!"
!! "
!!"
!!
!!!!!!!!!!
"
"
"
!!
""
!!!!
"
""
"
""
"
!!
"
!!
!!!!
"
""
"
!!
!!
"
"
!!!!
"
" "
"
!!
""
!!!!
!!
!! !!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!"
!!!!
!!
"
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
""
!!!!
"
"
!!!!
""
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
"
"""
""
""""
!!" !!
!!
""
!!!!!!!!
""
""
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!! !!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!!!""
"
"
"
"
"
""
!!
!!!!
!!!!
""" "
"
"
!! !!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!
"
"
""
"
!!
!!!!
"
"
"
!!!!!!!!!!
"""
!!!!
"
"
""
""
""
""
"
"
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!"!!
!!"""
""" ""!!!!
""
!!
!!!!
!!!!
"
"""""
!!"
!!
!!
"
"
!!
!! !!
!!
!!
"
"
!!!!!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
" !!
!! "
!!
!!!!!!
""""
!!!!
!! !!
!!!!
!!!! !!!!!!!! !!
!!!! !!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!! !!
!!!! !!
!!!!!!
"""
!!!!!!!!
""
"
"
"""
""
""
"""
"
!!!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
""""
"
"
!!!!
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
!!
!!!!!! !!
"
"
!!
""
"
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!!! """
!!
"
"
!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!
!!
""
!!!!
!!
"
" """
!!""""
" !! !!
""!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" !!!!
"
"
!!!!
""
""" !!" "
""
"""" " """
"""
"
""
"""
"
" """""" ""
"
""
!!
!!"
!!!! """
""
!!!!
""!!
"
!!
!! "
!!
"
"
!!
"
!!!!
""
"
""
""
" "
" "
"
""
" "
!!!!!! " !!
""""
"
"""
"
" " """"
"""
"
!!"
!!
""
!!
!!
!!
" !!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
""""""""
"
" "
"
"
"""
"
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!! !! !!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!! !!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!! !!
!! !!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!! !!
!!!! !! !!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
#
#
#
#
#
#
Grand Staircase-EscalanteNational Monument
UtahArizonaHS-3
HS-2(South Alt.)
Sand HollowHydro Station
Hurricane CliffsHydro Stations
¬«59Kanab
Fredonia
Hildale
Hurricane
LaVerkin
Mohave County
Washington County
Kane County
Coconino County
£¤89
¬«9
Sand Hollow
Quail CreekReservoir
Hurricane WestSubstation
Dixie SpringsSubstation
HS-2 (South)Transmission Line
Twin CitiesSubstation
HS-4 (Alt.)Transmission Line
Hurricane Cliffs Afterbay toHurricane West Transmission Line
Hurricane Cliffs Afterbay toSand Hollow Transmission Line
HS-1HS-4 (Alt.)
HS-1Transmission LineSand Hollow to
Dixie SpringsTransmission Line
Point of InterconnectionSubstation
HS-3 UndergroundTransmission Line
Kaibab Indian ReservationKanab Creek
Gould Wash
Clayhole Wash
Hurri
cane
Wash
East F
ork Vi
rgin R
iver
Virgin R
iver
Rock Canyon
Jacob Canyon
Dutchman DrawRo
und V
alley
Bulrush Wash
Johnson Wash
Fort Pearce Wash
North Creek Deer Spring Wash
North
Fork
Virgin
River
Sand WashTwomile Wash
Skutum
pah C
reek
Bitter Seeps Wash
White Sage Wash
£¤89a
£¤89
¬«389
¬«9
¬«9
# Project Hydro Station
"/ Substation
"/ Proposed Substation
!! !! Project Transmission Lines
!! !! Existing Transmission Lines
!! !! Existing OH Primary Line" " Existing UG Primary Line
Hurricane Cliffs Forebay/Afterbay
Lakes & Reservoirs
Major Rivers & Streams
Interstate
US Highway
ST Highway
Hwy
Major Road
!!!!!!!!!!
!! !! !! !! !!
!! National Park/Monument
%%%%%% % % %
%% GSENM Boundary
Tribal Lands
State Boundaries
County Boundaries 0 2 4 6 81Miles
´Spatial Reference: UTM Zone 12N, NAD-83
Lake Powell Pipeline Project
Lake Powell PipelineProposed Transmission
Lines West
UDWRe Figure 1-8FERC Project Number:
12966-001BLM Serial Numbers:
AZA-34941UTU-85472
Lake Powell Pipeline Project 1-15 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
selection and fuel requirements, the natural gas supply pipeline would be 12 inches in diameter to provide natural gas supply for the LPP Project pump stations. The pipeline would likely 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 Line from the existing Kern River line to Hurricane City. The natural gas supply line would connect to the high pressure gas transmission line at a proposed gate station southeast of Sand Hollow Reservoir. The proposed gate station would be located adjacent to the alignment of the extension of the Southern Corridor Highway, which is the existing alignment of 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 operate between approximately 250 to 300 psi at the gate station connection. Because of pressure losses in the pipeline it is anticipated that the pressure at each of the LPP pump stations would vary between 50 and 100 psi, which would meet the requirements of the natural gas generators. The pipeline would be constructed of strong carbon steel and have a dielectric coating, such as a fusion bonded epoxy or extruded polyethylene. It would be installed with a minimum four feet of cover and be provided with cathodic protection (a technique that involves inducing an electric current through the pipe to ward off corrosion 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 other applicable federal and state regulations. The natural gas supply line would follow the proposed LPP ROW from the Sand Hollow Gate Station to the intake pump station near Page, Arizona. The line would be about 138.5 miles long and installed a minimum of 10 feet from the edge of the proposed water pipeline in a separately excavated trench within the LPP ROW. Figure 1-9 shows the west alignment of the natural gas supply line as proposed and an alternative alignment along Arizona State Route 389 and through Fredonia, Arizona, parallel to the Existing Highway Alternative alignment, both to the west GSENM boundary. Figure 1-10 shows the east alignment of the natural gas supply line as proposed from the west GSENM boundary to the water intake pump station. Sectionalizing valves would be required along the natural gas supply line alignment. These valves are safety devices used for emergency shut down or maintenance. The natural gas supply line sectionalizing valves would be required at approximately 20-mile intervals because of the gas line’s remoteness. The main line valve sites would cover a 40-foot by 40-foot area surrounded by a chain link fence within the confines of the permanent LPP pipeline ROW. The valves would be above ground and connected to the buried natural gas supply line. Additionally, pig launching or receiving equipment would be installed within the fenced areas. Pigs are devices that are placed into a natural gas supply line to clean the inside walls or to monitor its internal and external condition. Launching and receiving equipment is connected to the 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.
!BG
Grand Staircase-EscalanteNational Monument
UtahArizona
Sand HollowProposed Natural Gas
Gate Station
¬«59Kanab
Fredonia
Hildale
Hurricane
LaVerkin
Mohave County
Washington County Kane County
Coconino County
£¤89
¬«9
Sand Hollow
Quail CreekReservoir
Sand Hollow Rd.
Kaibab Indian Reservation
Kanab Creek
Gould Wash
Clayhole Wash
Hurri
cane
Wash
Virgin
River
East F
ork Vi
rgin R
iver
Rock Canyon
Jacob Canyon
Dutchman DrawRo
und V
alley
Johnso
n Lake
s Cany
on
Bulrush Wash
Johnson WashAs
h Cree
k
North
Creek
North
Fork
Virgin
River
Sand WashTwomile Wash
White Sage Wash
Skutum
pah C
reek
§̈¦I-15
£¤89a
£¤89
¬«389
¬«9
¬«17
¬«9
!BG Natural Gas Gate Station
Natural Gas Supply Line Alignment
Hurricane Cliffs Forebay/Afterbay
Lakes & Reservoirs
Major Rivers & Streams
Interstate
US Highway
ST Highway
Hwy
Major Road
!!!!!!!!!!
!! !! !! !!
!! National Park/Monument
%%%
%%
% % %
%% GSENM Boundary
Tribal Lands
State Boundaries
County Boundaries0 2 4 6 8 10
Miles
´Spatial Reference: UTM Zone 12N, NAD-83
Lake Powell Pipeline Project
Lake Powell PipelineNatural Gas Supply Line and Generators West Alternatives
UDWRe Figure 1-9FERC Project Number:
12966-001BLM Serial Numbers:
AZA-34941UTU-85472
""
"
"
"
Gas Generatorsat BPS-1
Gas Generators atWater Intake Pump Station
UtahArizona
Grand Staircase-EscalanteNational Monument
Gas Generatorsat BPS-2
Paria River
Lake Powell
Coconino County
Kane County
Big Water
£¤89
£¤89
Gas Generatorsat BPS-4 (Alt.)
"
Gas Generatorsat BPS-3 (Alt.)
Paria River
Buckskin Gulch
Wahw
eap C
reek
Coyote Creek
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
" Project Water Intake Pump Station
" Gas Generators at Booster Pump Station
Natural Gas Supply Line Alignment
Interstate
US Highway
ST Highway
Hwy
Major Road
Lakes & Reservoirs
Major Rivers & Streams
!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!! !! !! !! !!
!! National Park/Monument
%%%%%
%
% % % % %% GSENM Boundary
State Boundaries0 1 2 3 4
Miles
´Spatial Reference: UTM Zone 12N, NAD-83
Lake Powell Pipeline Project
Lake Powell PipelineNatural Gas Supply Line and Generators East Alternative
Figure 1-10UDWRe
FERC Project Number:12966-001
BLM Serial Numbers:AZA-34941UTU-85472
Lake Powell Pipeline Project 1-18 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
The overall pump station building size would be 14 feet wider and 18 feet longer than the pump stations which are powered by electricity from transmission lines. The natural gas generators would be approximately 35 feet long by eight feet wide by nine feet high. The intake pump station building size for the natural gas generators would be approximately 65 feet wide by 170 feet long by 50 feet high, and located adjacent to the pump station electrical room within the five-acre site designated for each pump station. The booster pump station building size for the natural gas generators 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 the building roof to disperse the exhaust gases. The five stacks (four operating natural gas generators plus one standby natural gas generator) at the intake pump station would extend 20 feet above the top of the 55-foot tall building. 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 total height of 100 feet above the ground surface. The natural gas generators at the intake pump station and BPS-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 gas supply of 2,855,400 million British thermal units (MMBtu). Table 1-1 shows the annual natural gas consumption 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
Pump Station
Site Elevation Feet MSL
Number of
Pumps
Motor (HP)
Total Motor (kW)
Natural Gas Generator
GE Model
# of
Units1
Emission Control
Required
Generator
Total kW2
Annual Fuel Consumption
(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-3
Alt. 4,657 5 2500 9,325 JGS 620 F09 4+1 No 11,652 607,500
BPS-4 Alt.
5,001 5 3000 11,190 JGS 620 F09 5+1 Yes 14,430 729,000
Total 25 43,830 18+5 53,089 2,855,400 Notes: 1 Number of operating units plus standby generator 2 Total generator capacity without standby generator 3 The 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.
1.3 Summary Description of No Lake Powell Water Alternative The No Lake Powell Water Alternative would involve a combination of developing remaining available surface water and groundwater supplies, developing reverse osmosis treatment of existing low quality water supplies, and eliminating 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 use without diverting Utah’s water from Lake Powell.
Lake Powell Pipeline Project 1-19 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
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 Powell Water alternative would need to supply 82,249 acre-feet per year to meet the same future water demands. In addition to the direct supply from Utah’s Colorado River water, the water supplied by the LPP Project would provide additional wastewater reuse supply provided that sufficient storage is available. The No Lake Powell Water Alternative would serve the same population as the LPP Project. WCWCD would implement other future water development projects currently planned by the District, develop additional water reuse/reclamation programs, continue to implement new water conservation measures, and convert additional agricultural water use to M&I use as a result of urban development in agricultural areas through 2028. Remaining planned and future water supply projects 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), and development/yield increase of existing groundwater wells (2,830 acre-feet per year). Along with existing supplies, these future water supplies would yield an estimated 72,842 acre-feet per year of potable water and 8,505 acre-feet per year secondary water by 2028. Under the No Lake Powell Water Alternative, actions in addition to the currently planned WCWCD projects would be taken to meet the water demand that would have been supplied by the Lake Powell Pipeline, as described below.
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. The WCWCD would develop a reverse osmosis (RO) advanced water treatment facility near the Washington Fields Diversion in Washington County, Utah, to treat up to 50,000 acre-feet per year of diverted Virgin River water, which has a high total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration, mixed with an additional 19,030 acre-feet per year of reuse water. WCWCD would develop the Warner Valley Reservoir to store the reuse water and diverted Virgin River water prior to RO treatment. A water distribution pump station and pipeline would be constructed to convey 13,249 acre-feet of potable water from Quail Creek Water Treatment Plant to the Apple Valley area of Washington County. Figure 1-11 shows the primary conceptual components of the No Lake Powell Water Alternative. Table 1-2 summarizes available supplies and projected demands under the No Lake Powell Water Alternative and the LPP Project alternatives.
0 1.5 3 4.5 60.75Miles
´Spatial Reference: UTM Zone 12N, NAD-83
Lake Powell Pipeline Project
No Lake PowellWater Alternative
Primary Infrastructure
UDWRe
FERC Project Number:12966-001
BLM Serial Numbers:AZA-34941UTU-85472
Figure 1-11
Utah
Arizona
3Q Quail Creek WTP (Existing)
TUW WT St. George Regional WaterReclamation Facility (Existing)
"/ Substation
"/ Substation (Future)
!! !! Warner Valley Transmission Line
!! !! Existing Transmission Lines
Desilting Facility
RO WTP
Washington Fields Diversion PumpStation
Lakes & Reservoirs
Brine Evaporation Ponds
Access Road
Apple Valley Pipeline 30"
Brine Pipeline 20"
Existing Reuse Water Pipeline 30"
RO Treated Water Pipeline 54"
Major Rivers & Streams
Interstate
US Highway
ST Highway
Hwy
Major Road
Southern Corridor Highway
State Boundaries
County Boundaries
Lake Powell Pipeline Project 1-21 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
Table 1-2
Available Supplies and Projected Demands Under the No Lake Powell Water and Lake Powell Pipeline Project Alternatives
No Lake Powell
Water
Alternative
Lake Powell
Pipeline Project
Alternative
Existing Supplies 67,677 67,677
Planned Projects 13,670 13,670
Lake Powell Pipeline Project 0 82,249
RO Treatment of Virgin River and Reuse Water 57,883 0
Agricultural Conversion 01 10,080
Reuse 17,1002 36,130
2060 Total Supply 156,330 209,806
2060 Total Demand 133,1193 185,285
Surplus in 2060 23,211 24,521 Notes: 1Agricultural conversion water included in RO treatment. 219,030 acre-feet per year additional reuse included in RO treatment. 3Demand reduced 52,166 acre-feet per year from elimination of residential outdoor watering.
1.3.1.2.1 Re-Purposing Potable Water Use. The No Lake Powell Water Alternative would permanently eliminate residential outdoor potable water use in Washington County, re-purposing the portion of potable water used for residential outdoor watering to indoor potable use. Projections of future water use through 2060 account for population growth, climate change (projected 6 percent reduction of Virgin River flows by 2050 [Reclamation 2014]), and water conservation (35 percent reduction in per capita water use from 2000 to 2060). Potable water in Washington County is consumed for residential indoor and outdoor uses, commercial uses, institutional uses, and industrial uses. These potable water uses would total 130,245 acre-feet per year by 2052, the year the LPP Project water is anticipated to be fully utilized (UDWRe 2015). Gradually eliminating residential outdoor potable water use starting in 2025 would provide the growing population with potable water for indoor 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 supply to meet the growing demand. Re-purposing residential outdoor potable water use to indoor potable use would require converting traditional residential outdoor landscapes and uses to either landscaping requiring no irrigation or desert landscapes compatible with the local climate. Residential water users would be responsible for converting their traditional outdoor landscapes to non-irrigated or desert landscapes. If no additional water supply was added in Washington County after 2025 and potable water use continued to meet residential indoor and outdoor purposes, then the projected population would completely utilize the potable water supply of 72,842 acre-feet per year by 2028. 1.3.1.2.2 Reverse Osmosis Water Treatment. Washington County’s additional future water supply under the No Lake Powell Water Alternative would be dependent on two water sources: 1) Virgin River water diverted at the Washington Fields Diversion; and 2) reuse water from an expanded St. George Regional Water Reclamation Facility. WCWCD would develop a RO advanced water treatment facility near Washington Fields Diversion in Washington County, Utah. The RO facility would be designed to treat 50,000 acre-feet of de-silted water per year diverted from the Virgin River at Washington Fields Diversion. St. George Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility would provide an additional 19,030 acre-feet of water per year to be treated at the RO facility. The RO facility would be necessary to remove
Lake Powell Pipeline Project 1-22 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
the high concentrations of TDS present in both the Virgin River and the effluent from the St. George Regional Wastewater Reclamation Facility. The reuse facility has a current capacity of approximately 7,800 acre-feet per year, with a future design capacity of 11,760 acre-feet per year. An additional 7,830 acre-feet per year of future wastewater reclamation capacity would need to be added to meet the total reuse water requirement of 19,030 acre-feet per year for RO processing inflow. The RO process would separate the TDS from the water, resulting in two products: 1) a treated water product; and 2) a brine product consisting of highly concentrated salts. A two-stage RO process would be applied to the brine solution to recover additional water and reduce the brine volume for enhanced evaporation. The RO-treated water product would be pH-adjusted to neutral pH, dosed with sodium silicate, mixed with conventionally-treated water from the Quail Creek Water Treatment Plant, and disinfected for distribution throughout the WCWCD service area. The RO advanced water treatment facility would process up to 64,313 acre-feet per year and produce up to 57,883 acre-feet per year of water suitable for M&I potable indoor use. The two-stage RO process would remove 90 percent of the TDS. The remaining 10 percent rejection (6,430 acre-feet per year) of brine by-product from the RO treatment process would require evaporation and disposal meeting State of Utah water quality regulations. The RO water treatment plant would process approximately 64,313 acre-feet per year of inflow water from Warner Valley Reservoir storage to meet the 2052 water demand under the No Lake Powell Water Alternative. The RO water treatment plant processes would consist of pressurized, parallel ultra-filtration units, an influent storage tank with acid added to adjust the pH, pressurized cartridge filtration to remove additional particles from the water, high pressure pumping to pass the water through the parallel RO membrane units, a product water storage tank with saturated lime solution added to adjust the pH of the treated product water prior to disinfection and distribution as potable water, and brine storage tanks in series with the two-stage RO process units for further brine reduction. These water treatment processes would be housed in a water treatment building with electrical, mechanical, chemical storage and metering, heating/air conditioning/ventilation, and SCADA systems. A seven-mile long buried 54-inch diameter pipeline would convey the product water from a pump station at the RO water treatment plant to the Quail Creek Water Treatment Plant. The RO water treatment plant would add RO membrane units in phases as necessary to meet the growing water demand. The RO water treatment plant would be powered by electricity, requiring a 2.8-mile long 69-kV power transmission line from the proposed Purgatory Substation. The concentrated brine product (6,430 acre-feet per year) would be pumped from the brine tanks through a pipeline to an evaporation apron, spray system and double-lined pond, and then pumped into spray headers over a series of double-lined ponds with leak detection and recovery systems. The enhanced evaporation ponds would be located south of Warner Valley Reservoir and would cover approximately 2,000 acres, developed in two phases. A buried brine conveyance pipeline approximately 4.4 miles long would convey the concentrated brine to the enhanced evaporation ponds. A 4.4-mile long 34.5-kV power transmission line would be extended from the RO water treatment plant to the enhanced evaporation ponds to provide electricity for the pumps spraying the brine solution. The brine solids would be evaporated for approximately 25 years in the Phase 1 ponds, and then dried, collected and disposed in an approved solid waste landfill. The Phase 2 enhanced evaporation ponds would be used during the following 25 years to continue evaporating the brine by-product. Additional infrastructure would be required as part of this alternative, including a de-silting facility, pump stations, pipelines, switch stations and substations, blending and storage tanks, and other associated earthwork. 1.3.1.2.3 Secondary Water Storage in Warner Valley Reservoir. WCWCD would develop the Warner Valley Reservoir to store diverted Virgin River water and reuse water from the St. George Regional Water Reclamation Facility, which would be delivered as inflow to the RO advanced water treatment facility. Warner Valley Reservoir would be located south-southwest of the Washington Fields Diversion. An earth-fill embankment with a clay core and rock-riprap facing would be constructed across the north
Lake Powell Pipeline Project 1-23 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
entrance to the natural valley. The reservoir would have a maximum active storage volume of 69,030 acre-feet and would cover approximately 1,130 acres, including the earth-fill embankment. A large pump station would be constructed at the Washington Fields Diversion to pump the diverted Virgin River water into the Warner Valley Reservoir. The pump station would be powered by electricity via the 69-kV transmission line from the Purgatory Substation to the RO water treatment plant. The reservoir would store Virgin River water diverted at the Washington Fields Diversion (50,000 acre-feet per year) mixed with St. George Regional Water Reclamation Facility effluent (19,030 acre-feet per year), accounting for annual average evaporation (4,717 acre-feet per year), to produce up to 57,883 acre-feet of RO product water (assuming 90 percent recovery). The brine product from RO treatment would total approximately 6,430 acre-feet per year. 1.3.1.2.4 Water Distribution to Apple Valley. The largest remaining contiguous land area available for development in Washington County would be in Apple Valley. WCWCD would develop a pump station and 28-mile long pipeline to deliver 13,249 acre-feet per year of potable water from the Quail Creek Water Treatment Plant near Hurricane City to the Apple Valley area to meet future residential and commercial water demands. 1.3.2 KCWCD No Lake Powell Water Alternative The KCWCD No Lake Powell Water Alternative would rely on existing water supplies, water conservation measures resulting in reduced water use, and future water development projects consisting of new groundwater production. Reliable water supplies (projected to be 2,170 acre-feet per year in 2035) for the area served by KCWCD (Kanab City and Johnson Canyon), adjusted for projected stream flow reductions (4.2 percent in 2035) resulting from climate change and a planning reserve (10 percent), would be exceeded by projected M&I water demands by 27 acre-feet per year within the KCWCD service area in 2035. KCWCD projected potable water demand in 2060 would be 3,435 acre-feet per year, with a potable water deficit of 1,334 acre-feet per year. Additional groundwater in the Kanab Creek drainage basin could be developed to provide up to 6,615 acre-feet per year of potable water within the aquifer’s estimated safe yield. The quality of this water would likely require advanced water treatment. The developed groundwater from the Kanab Creek drainage basin would be pumped and conveyed through an eight-mile long pipeline to the Johnson Canyon drainage basin. The Johnson Canyon drainage basin comprises the potable water supply service area served by KCWCD in the area that could be served by the LPP Project.
1.4 Summary Description of the No Action Alternative No new intake, water conveyance or hydroelectric features would be constructed or operated under the No Action Alternative. FERC would not issue a license for the LPP Project. The Utah Board of Water Resources’ Colorado River water rights consisting of 86,249 acre-feet per year would not be diverted from Lake Powell and would continue to flow into the lake until the water is used for another State of Utah purpose. 1.4.1 WCWCD No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, WCWCD would complete the Ash Creek Project, planned groundwater development and continue to implement planned conservation programs. Wastewater reuse would be utilized to the maximum extent storage allows. Existing and future water supplies totaling 72,840 acre-feet per year potable and 8,505 acre-feet per year secondary would meet projected M&I water demand within the WCWCD service area through approximately 2028, exhausting all water planning reserves.
Lake Powell Pipeline Project 1-24 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
Each supply source would be phased in to meet the M&I potable and secondary water demand associated with the forecasted population. The No Action Alternative would not provide WCWCD with any reserve water supply (e.g., water to meet annual shortages because of drought, emergencies, and other losses). The No Action Alternative would not provide adequate water supply to meet projected water demands beyond 2028. There would be a projected water shortage of approximately 102,903 acre-feet per year in 2060 within the WCWCD service area under the No Action Alternative. 1.4.2 KCWCD No Action Alternative KCWCD would use existing water supplies to meet potable water demands through 2035. Reliable water supplies are projected to be 2,101 acre-feet per year in 2060. The No Action Alternative would not provide KCWCD with any reserve water supply (e.g., water to meet annual shortages because of drought, emergencies, and other losses). The No Action Alternative would not provide adequate water supply to meet projected water demands beyond 2035. There would be a projected water shortage of approximately 1,334 acre-feet per year in 2060 within the KCWCD service area under the No Action Alternative.
1.5 Identified Issues 1.5.1 Purpose of Study This study report describes the results and findings of a preliminary noise analysis to evaluate conditions along the proposed alternative alignments of the LPP Project. The purpose of the analysis, as defined in the 2008 Noise Study Plan prepared for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), was to identify potential impacts from noise during construction and operations of the LPP Project, document the potential influence of noise on human and wildlife receptors, and identify measures to mitigate impacts from the various noise sources as necessary (UBWR 2008; UBWR 2011). 1.5.2 Identified Issues The noise issues identified in the Noise Study Plan for analysis in this report include the following:
Identify potential human and wildlife receptors near the LPP Project
Determine the regulations and requirements regarding noise at Federal, State, Tribal, and local levels
Estimate historical background noise for the LPP Project area
Determine current background noise levels in the region through field analysis and regional data research
Estimate equipment needed for various construction activities and their maximum noise levels
Calculate the combined noise from the construction equipment for pipeline, facility, and transmission line construction
Lake Powell Pipeline Project 1-25 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
Calculate the noise levels from operations
Define significant impact levels for humans and wildlife
Calculate the distances at which the noise levels decays below significant impact levels
Identify areas of potential impacts from LPP Project construction and operation noise
Analyze cumulative impacts within the LPP Project area from construction and operation noise
Identify the areas within the LPP Project that may contain noise levels capable of significant
impact to receptors
Prepare decibel contouring with figures showing the LPP Project noise footprint during construction and operation, including points at which LPP Project noise is not distinguishable from background and ambient noise
Evaluate whether noise from the LPP Project along the alternative alignments can be mitigated with specific design, construction, or O&M practices
Identify mitigation measures that would be necessary to protect human safety and other environmental resources at locations that may be affected by LPP Project noise
Identify preferred alignments based upon the potential for significant impact to potential receptors
Evaluate methods of sound attenuation and mitigation of natural gas generator systems
Determine noise levels from natural gas generator system alternative
1.6 Impact Topics The following impact topics are addressed in the Noise Study Report:
Human receptors
Wildlife receptors
Lake Powell Pipeline 2-1 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
Chapter 2 Methodology
2.1 General This Noise Study Report (report) analyzes the noise impacts resulting from the LPP Project alternatives. The report follows the methodology previously identified and described in the Preliminary Application Document (PAD), Scoping Document No. 1 and Noise Study Plan.
2.2 Data Used The following data and information was used for the report (complete references are found at the end of the report):
Agency resource management goals from various agencies (detailed below) (NPS 2006)
Background noise levels from field investigations (detailed below) (MWH 2009)
US Department of Transportation Construction Equipment Noise Levels and Ranges (FHA 2007)
US Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) - Noise and Hearing Conservation Standards (29 CFR 1910) (OSHA 2009)
U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (USACHPPM) - Sound Levels for Equipment (ACHPPM 2009)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) – Aircraft Noise Data for U.S. Certified Helicopters
(FAA 2001)
Mining Science and Technology - blasting noise assessment (Science 2009)
Central Utah Water Conservancy District - Utah Lake System Final Environmental Impact Statement (ULS FEIS), Wildlife Resources and Habitat Technical Report, Noise Calculations (CUWCD 2004)
Arizona Game and Fish Department - Sound Study for the Northern Arizona Regional Shooting Facility (AGFD 2006)
St. George Municipal Airport FEIS – Aircraft Noise Exposure of Zion National Park Management Zones (L&B 2006)
GE (Jenbacher) specification information on noise ratings and expected dB levels for exhaust, radiation, and mechanical generator system sources (Jenbacher 2011)
Universal Acoustic and Emission Technologies - generator silencer information
Lake Powell Pipeline 2-2 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
2.2.1 Agency Resource Management Goals 2.2.1.1 National Park Service (NPS) As stated in the 2006 NPS Management Policies, natural soundscape resources encompass the natural sounds that occur in parks, including the physical capacity for transmitting those sounds and the interrelationships among park natural sounds of different frequencies and volumes. Natural sounds occur within and beyond the range of sounds that humans can perceive, and they can be transmitted through air, water, or solid materials. The NPS is dedicated to preserving, to the greatest extent possible, the natural soundscapes of parks. Some natural sounds in the natural soundscape are also part of the biological or other physical resource components of the park. As stated by the NPS, examples of such natural sounds include:
sounds produced by birds, frogs, or katydids to define territories or aid in mating
sounds produced by bats to locate prey or navigate
sounds received by mice or deer to detect and avoid predators or other danger
sounds produced by physical processes, such as wind in the trees, claps of thunder, or falling water.
NPS will require restoration to the natural condition wherever possible those park soundscapes that have become degraded by unnatural sounds (noise), and will protect natural soundscapes from unacceptable impacts (NPS, 2006). 2.2.1.2 Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ), Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Counties and Local Agencies There are no specific environmental performance standards or goals for noise identified by these agencies. The State requirements are related to OSHA standards for direct noise exposures. 2.2.1.3 U.S. Forest Service (USFS) The LPP Project will not be constructed on USFS land, and construction and operation noise from the LPP Project is not expected to affect USFS-administered public land. 2.2.1.4 Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians No specific resource management goals were identified by the Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, other than to adhere to the goals and requirements established by State and Federal regulations. A review of the Comprehensive Cultural Ecology Ordinance of the Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians was performed. The Ecology Ordinance allows for creation of procedures to protect natural and cultural resources. The Ecology Ordinance does not identify specific noise resource management goals (Kaibab Tribe 1999).
Lake Powell Pipeline 2-3 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
2.3 Assumptions Assumptions made during the development and analysis of the report are based upon a review of the data and documentation previously listed construction sequencing, construction methods, and reasonable judgments, and include the following:
Construction of the LPP and associated facilities would require construction techniques through native soils and rocks using standard construction equipment for trenching, boring and blasting activities.
Sound dispersion is based on a standard decay calculation that reduces point source noise by 6 dBA as the distance from the point source doubles (FHWA 2011; CUWCD 2004). The initial 6 dBA reduction is assumed to occur at 100 feet from the point where the sound waves are generated. A-weighting (dBA) is the relative decibel gain based on various frequency ranges (10 Hz to 20 kHz) and is the standard most typically used.
Construction noise from one or more pieces of equipment in one general construction area is considered a point source. Operation sound from one facility is considered a point source. Traffic sound is considered a linear source.
Disruptive and perceptive noise levels for humans can be highly variable and difficult to quantify; however, the assumption was made that long term noises over 60 dBA are potentially disruptive and disturbing to humans (further discussed in Section 4).
A 60 dBA sound level was assumed to be the impact level for potential reduction of habitat value for wildlife (further discussed in Section 4).
A 90 dBA sound level was chosen as the significant impact level on humans as OSHA only allows up to 8 hours of 90 dBA exposure levels (OSHA 2009). Residents within the 90 dBA noise corridor could be significantly impacted. The distance for this level of sound is approximately 150 feet. Therefore, any construction within this distance to residents would include sound barriers or other sound attenuation efforts to maintain the noise level below 90 dBA.
Noise level estimates were based on conservative parameters to represent maximum, worst-case noise levels that reasonably could be expected. For example, noise levels were calculated with all construction equipment in use at peak noise levels. These peaks would be infrequent and for short periods of time, but were used in the analysis to obtain conservative results.
A one-hour period of interest was used, as most equipment operates continuously for at least one hour. Each piece of construction equipment was assumed to operate simultaneously during the hour, resulting in a conservative noise level calculation.
The A-weighted, hourly equivalent sound level was used. A-weighting is the relative decibel gain based on various frequency ranges (10 Hz to 20 kHz) and is the standard most typically used.
Helicopter use would occur for several weeks during power transmission line construction and would be used mainly for electrical transmission tower installation.
The actual noise from construction activities and operations would be field verified; the noise levels included in this report are calculated estimates.
Noise from blasting and jackhammers would be localized and temporary. Blasting or jackhammers may be required in some areas along the pipeline alignment where bedrock cannot be loosened by mechanical ripping. Blasting would occur largely underground, and is not
Lake Powell Pipeline 2-4 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
expected to have higher noise levels than more routine construction activities. The nominal noise level for jackhammers at 50 feet is 88 dBA. Blasting and jackhammering would be used as stand-alone activities from other construction.
Sounds are free from enclosures or boundaries that interfere with propagation of sound waves (free field conditions). Ground effects were ignored.
Additive noise from multiple construction sites would not occur because the noise from each site would decay to baseline levels when it reaches another construction site. A maximum addition of 3 bBA in overall noise would occur if site noises overlapped, based on the noise addition rules reviewed in Section 2.4.
Traffic noise near construction activities can also add to the cumulative construction noise but the contribution to peak noise would be minimal.
Operation activities include maintenance activities for the pipeline and facilities.
Most wildlife would evacuate the immediate construction area and there would be minimal wildlife use within 200 feet of construction operations.
Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be used in all construction and operation activities to minimize noise as practical.
Installation of natural gas supply lines would have lower noise impacts than the water pipeline and would not be constructed at the same time as the water pipeline construction in the same location.
The natural gas generator systems would be Jenbacher (GE) JGS 620 GS E01 models. All natural gas generator systems would be enclosed in buildings with acoustic baffling or
equivalent sound attenuation and designed to limit generator noise levels below 72 dBA at 50 feet from the building.
Sound attenuating buildings are masonry buildings with baffling and sound attenuation insulation or blanketing inside.
Silencers would be installed on all generator exhaust systems and are available to limit noise to less than 72 dBA at 50 feet from the noise source.
Noise within the ranges of the equipment operation indicated within would not affect plant life.
2.4 Impact Analysis Methodology The analysis was performed by reviewing existing information, performing field investigations to determine background sound levels, calculating probable construction and operation noise levels, and determining the extent of the noise impact. 2.4.1 Review of Existing Information Most literature and information regarding sound and noise in the region is general and lacks specific local sound data. Information from typical rural background sound levels was obtained from various sources to verify field measurements. Published information from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regarding typical construction equipment noise levels was obtained to use as baseline data for determining average and maximum expected sound levels from construction and operation (FHWA 2007). 2.4.2 Field Investigations
Lake Powell Pipeline 2-5 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
Sound level readings were taken at 28 different locations along the LPP Project alignment alternatives. Ambient sound levels in the LPP Project corridor vary depending upon location. The ambient noise is higher along roadways, streams, or in developed or windy areas. In undeveloped areas away from roads and out of the wind, ambient levels were considerably lower. Wind was a major factor in the sound measurements and most of the peak sound levels were observed during wind gusts or windy periods, although sites along roadways experienced peak sound levels based on traffic noise (MWH 2009). Sound level measurements were collected from an existing natural gas generator system to provide additional information to support the manufacturer noise rating information. 2.4.3 Construction Noise Calculations Construction noise was analyzed in accordance with the combined noise level and decay calculation procedures described below. Noise emission levels for construction equipment were taken from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration – Construction Equipment Noise Levels and Ranges data (FHWA 2007). Helicopter noise data was determined from FAA Noise Levels for Certified U.S. and Foreign Aircraft (FAA 2001). Since human hearing has a limited range of sensitivity to sound levels, a “weighted” scale that reflects human hearing is used to interpret sounds. This weighted scale is known as the “A-weighted” scale and is denoted by dBA. The A-weighted scale is used in this analysis to measure projected sound levels for the LPP Project. The noise was analyzed for the various construction phases/activities including pipeline construction, facility construction, and transmission line construction. The types of equipment used at each phase and the appropriate noise level for each equipment type were determined. The noise levels for each piece of equipment were added together for each phase and the phase with the highest noise level was used to determine the extent of influence. Table 2-1 below is a guideline for adding decibels for multiple pieces of equipment.
Table 2-1 Decibel Addition Rules
When two sounds differ by X:
Add the following amount to the higher value:
0 or 1 dBA 3 dBA 2 or 3 dBA 2 dBA 4 to 9 dBA 1 dBA
10 dBA or more 0 dBA Source: (FHWA 2011; CUWCD 2004)
To add decibels, begin with the lowest numbers and work to the highest numbers. Table 2-2 shows an example of this addition using the decibel addition rules.
Lake Powell Pipeline 2-6 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
Table 2-2 Decibel Addition Example
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5
Start with the decibel values shown below
Combine the values of the two lowest numbers (64 and 64), resulting in 67
Combine the remaining two lowest numbers (67 and 75), resulting in 76
Combine 76 and 85, resulting in 86
Combine 86 and 89, resulting in 91
64 - - - - 64 67 - - - 75 75 76 - - 85 85 85 86 - 89 89 89 89 91
Adding the noise emissions from a variety of construction equipment, as shown above, provides an expected noise level at a distance of 50 feet, assuming all the equipment was in use at once. The rate the sound levels decrease at increasing distances from the construction site (decay rate) was calculated to determine the sound levels at various distances from the site. The decay rule states that the decibel level decreases 6 dBA as the distance from a point source doubles. For example, at 100 feet the sound of equipment would decrease 6 dBA compared with the sound level at 50 feet. At 200 feet the sound level would decrease another 6 dBA. 2.4.4 Operations Noise Calculations Noise levels from natural gas generator system were analyzed using manufacturer data and equipment ratings for mechanical noise and exhaust noise (Jenbacher 2011). The mechanical noise data were used to determine the type of building construction and silencer needed to attenuate the noise and reduce it to acceptable levels. Noise level concerns from operations outside of the natural gas generator systems at each facility were eliminated from further analysis because the exterior noise levels from such facilities are usually moderate and the preliminary design of each facility includes sound attenuation that would reduce any exterior noise to a point that it would not be artificially above 60 dBA outside of each facility site (excluding occasional miscellaneous activities). This includes any pump facilities and the associated enclosures. Maintenance activities at each facility are infrequent and are assumed to include only traffic noise to and from the site.
Lake Powell Pipeline 3-1 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
Chapter 3 Affected Environment (Baseline Conditions)
3.1 Impact Area The study encompasses the area surrounding the LPP Project features shown in Figures 1-1 through 1-12. The study involved reviewing potential noise impacts on areas of possible cultural sensitivity, tourism, environmental sensitivity, special status species habitats, sensitive wildlife habitats, locations of economic or perceived aesthetic value, relatively dense population areas, or national monuments (wilderness areas, parks, etc.). The areas of highest concern are those within the decibel contours defined in Section 3.2.3. Receptors within the decibel contour areas have the potential to be impacted by the noise levels from LPP Project construction based on the noise level and decay calculations presented in this chapter.
3.2 Overview of Baseline Conditions The baseline noise levels in the study area have been evaluated based on general regional studies. Publications regarding noise within Zion National Park and other related noise studies have been reviewed. Limited information is available about local historical background noise levels; however, it is assumed they are typical of high desert rural areas. Field investigations of sound levels were performed and background noise data at numerous locations was gathered because of the lack of specific data for the region. The following is an analysis of the noise related baseline conditions in the LPP Project study area. 3.2.1 Existing Noise Data General sound levels for everyday activities are listed in Table 3-1.
Lake Powell Pipeline 3-2 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
Table 3-1 Relative Sound Levels and Thresholds
Noise Description dBA Level Breathing 10 Whisper, Mosquito 20 Library 30 Refrigerator Hum 40 Quiet Office 50 Conversational Speech 60 Street Traffic 70 Airplane at 1 mile 80 Garbage Disposal/OSHA Required Factory Hearing Protection 85 Farm Tractor/Sustained Exposure May Cause Hearing Loss 90 Blender (user receptor) 100 Power Saw/Sandblasting (user receptor) 110 Pain Begins 120 Cymbal Crash (user receptor) 130 Shotgun/Jet Takeoff (user receptor) 140 Chest Wall Begins to Vibrate 150 Ear Drum Breaks Instantly 160 Death of Hearing Tissue 180 Loudest Possible Sound 194 Source: (FHWA 2007)
Typical equipment that would likely be used in the construction of the LPP Project and their corresponding average and peak operational noise levels are detailed in Table 3-2. Natural gas generator field investigation noise levels are included in the table.
Table 3-2
Construction Equipment/Operational Noise Levels1
Page 1 of 2
Equipment Average (dBA) Peak (dBA) Pickup Truck 75 78 Dump Truck 76 90 Grader 75 94 Loader 79 94 Dozer 82 94 Excavator 81 93 Paver 77 89
Lake Powell Pipeline 3-3 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
Table 3-2
Construction Equipment/Operational Noise Levels1
Page 2 of 2
Equipment Average (dBA) Peak (dBA) Backhoe 76 85 Roller 80 92 Welder 74 87 Drill Rig (Auger) 84 85 Concrete Pump 81 93 Compactor 83 95 Crane 81 86 Blasting (above ground) (below ground)
<94 (variable) <90 (variable)
94 (variable) <90 (variable)
Jackhammer <89 89
Helicopter
90 (fly over) 92 (take off)
94 (approach)
93 (fly over) 97 (take off)
99 (approach)
Generator System Individual
Peak (dBA) Combined
Peak (dBA) GE - JGS 620 GS-E01 – Mechanical 122 131 GE - JGS 620 GS-E01 – Exhaust 131 140 Note:1Average and peak noise values at the equipment source with no silencers Source: (FHWA 2007), (FAA 2001), (ACHPPM 2009) (Jenbacher 2011)
Table 3-3 shows Ldn noise levels for different types of residential areas. Ldn is the average day versus night sound level and is defined as the 24-hour A-weighted sound level. It includes approximately 10 percent decibel reduction in nighttime levels to account for more sensitive receptors to nighttime noises.
Table 3-3
Typical Day-Night Noise Levels for Various Areas
Description Typical Range,
Ldn (dBA) Average Ldn
(dBA) Quiet Suburban Residential 48-52 50 Normal Suburban Residential 53-57 55 Urban Residential 58-62 60 Noisy Urban Residential 63-67 65 Very Noisy Urban Residential 68-72 70 Source: (FHWA 2011; CUWCD 2004)
3.2.2 Background Noise Field Investigation A field investigation was performed to gather background noise levels along the LPP Project alternative alignments in July 2009. Recorded peak sound levels were generally below 70 dBA except at roadways
Lake Powell Pipeline 3-4 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
with vehicular traffic, which were as high as 79 dBA. Background levels were typically at or below 52 dBA except near roadways or waterways. Table 3-4 details the background noise level field data gathered in the region. The approximate locations of field data measurements collected along the LPP Project study area are shown in Figures 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, and 3-4.
Table 3-4
Lake Powell Pipeline Background Sound Level Measurement Field Data Page 1 of 2
Location Background Level (dBA)
Peak Level (dBA)
Comments
Unnamed wash south of Hurricane Cliffs forebay site at LPP Project crossing
<50 53 Slight sound caused by wind
Short Creek at LPP Project crossing in Canaan Gap area (East Crossing)
<50 62 Measureable sound caused by wind
Short Creek at LPP Project crossing in Canaan Gap area (West Crossing)
<50 51 Slight sound caused by wind
Short Creek at LPP Project crossing in Colorado City
52 64 Proximity to AZ Route 389 traffic influenced sound levels
Bitter Seeps Wash at LPP Project crossing for South and Southeast Corner Alternatives
<50 <50 No wind
Kanab Creek at LPP Project crossing for Existing Highway Alternative
<50 <50 No wind
Unnamed wash west of Pipe Springs at LPP Project crossing on Kaibab Indian Reservation - Existing Highway Alternative
<50 78 Vehicle traffic on AZ Route 389
Two-Mile Wash at LPP Project crossing on Kaibab Indian Reservation - Existing Highway Alternative
<50 59 Vehicle traffic on AZ Route 389
Unnamed wash E. of Two-Mile Wash at LPP Project crossing on Kaibab Indian Reservation - Existing Highway Alternative
51 89 Vehicle traffic on AZ Route 389; sound caused by wind
Lake Powell Pipeline 3-5 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
Table 3-4
Lake Powell Pipeline Background Sound Level Measurement Field Data Page 2 of 2
Location Background Level (dBA)
Peak Level (dBA)
Comments
Cottonwood Creek at LPP Project crossing on Kaibab Indian Reservation - Existing Highway Alternative
<50 68 Vehicle traffic on AZ Route 389
Jacob Canyon at LPP Project crossing south of Kaibab-Paiute Indian Reservation - South Alternative
<50 51 Slight sound caused by wind
Jacob Canyon at LPP Project crossing on South Alternative
51 79 Sound caused by wind
Two-Mile Wash at Toroweap Road crossing
<50 60 Sound caused by wind
Jacob Canyon at confluence with Kanab Creek at LPP Project crossing - South Alternative
<50 64 Sound caused by wind
White Sage Wash access road in AZ
<50 64 Sound caused by wind
Unnamed wash east of Blue Pool Wash at LPP Project crossing
<50 54 Vehicle traffic on US Route 89, wind
Blue Pool Wash at LPP crossing <50 62 Vehicle traffic on US Route 89, wind
"Wetland" West of Blue Pool Wash at LPP Project crossing
<50 54 Vehicle traffic on US Route 89, wind
2nd wash east of Big Water at LPP Project crossing
<50 64 Vehicle traffic on US Route 89, wind
Unnamed wash at GSENM trailhead east of Paria River at LPP Project crossing
<50 68 Vehicle traffic on US Route 89, wind
Paria River south side at LPP Project crossing alternative
54 70 Vehicle traffic on US Route 89, wind
Johnson Canyon Wash at LPP Project crossing
51 64 Vehicle traffic on US Route 89, wind
Natural Gas Generator Field Noise Data Landfill Natural Gas Generator 50 feet east of generator
87 dBA 87 dBA Natural Gas Generator not enclosed in building
Notes: 1. All sound level measurements recorded on a Realistic Sound Level Meter. All sound level measurements recorded in dBA. 2. Sound level measurements <50 dBA were used because meter does not measure sounds below 50 dBA. 3. Vehicle traffic sounds are generated by mobile sources. Sound generated by wind is considered temporary. 4. Background sound levels were recorded over a 30 second period. 5. Peak sound levels recorded represent maximum sound generated over the 30 second period of measurement. 6. Data collected on 7/23/2009 and 7/24/2009 (MWH 2009).
Virgin River
Virgin River
Colorado River
UtahArizona
Glen Canyon DamU.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Water Conveyance System
Figure 3-3Hydro System Figure 3-2
Water ConveyanceSystemExisting Highway
Alignment Alternative
South Alignment Alternative
Sand Hollow Res.
Quail Creek Res.
Lake Powell
Saint George
Hurricane
Page
Apple Valley
Cedar City
Washington
Virgin
Kanab
Ivins
LaVerkinToquerville
Tropic
Rockville
Hildale
Orderville
Glendale
Fredonia
Santa Clara
Enterprise
Leeds
Springdale
Alton
Brian HeadBryce Canyon
Cannonville
Colorado City
Hatch
New Harmony
Kanarraville Henrieville
Utah
Arizona
Zion NP
Grand Staircase-Escalante
´Key Sheets
Water Conveyance System
Hydro System - South Alternative
Hydro System - Southeast Corner Alternative
KCWCD System
Hydro System - Existing Highway Alternative
!!!!!!!! !! !
!!! National Park/Monument
Tribal Lands
State Boundaries
Hurricane Cliffs Forebay/Afterbay
Major Rivers
Lakes/Reservoirs
Cities
Spatial Reference: UTM Zone 12N, NAD-83
0 5 10 15 202.5Miles
Lake Powell Pipeline Project
Figure 3-1
Utah
Arizona
Lake Powell PipelineDecibel Levels Key Map
UDWReFERC Project Number:
12966-001BLM Serial Numbers:
AZA-34941UTU-85472
!O!O
!O!O!O
!O
!O!O!O!O
#
!
"
""
"
"
BPS-1
High Point Reg. Tank-2
Intake Pump Station
UtahArizona
Grand Staircase-EscalanteNational Monument
BPS-2
Paria River
Water IntakeSystem
Lake Powell
BPS-3 (Alt.)
BPS-4 (Alt.)
HS-1
60dBA63dBA
69dBA75dBA
87dBA
81dBA81dBA75dBA
69dBA63dBA60dBA Big Water
Page
Church Wells
Paria River
Buckskin Gulch
Coyote Creek
£¤89
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
Noise Contour dBA Levels from Construction87dBA
81dBA
75dBA
69dBA
63dBA
60dBA
!O Noise Sample Location
" Project Pump Station
! Project Regulating Tank
# Project Hydro Station
Water Conveyance System
Hydro System - Proposed Action
Interstate
US Highway
ST Highway
Hwy
Major Road
Lakes & Reservoirs
Major Rivers & Streams
!!!!!!!!
!! !! !! !! National Park/Monument
!!!!!!!!
!! !! !! !! GSENM Boundary
State Boundaries
Cities0 1 2 3 40.5
Miles
´Spatial Reference: UTM Zone 12N, NAD-83
Lake Powell Pipeline Project
Lake Powell PipelineWater Conveyance System
Decibel Contours - Construction Impacts
Figure 3-2UDWReFERC Project Number:
12966-001BLM Serial Numbers:
AZA-34941UTU-85472
#
# #
#
#
#
#!
!O
!O !O
!O
!O
!O
!O!O
!O
!O
!O
!O
!O
!O
!O
!O
!O
!O!O!O!O!O!O
!O!O
High Point Reg. Tank-2
Grand Staircase-EscalanteNational Monument
UtahArizona
HS-1
HS-3
HS-2 South (Alt.)
Sand Hollow Hydro Station
Hurricane Cliffs Hydro Station
HS-2 Hwy. (Alt.)
¬«59HS-4 (Alt.)
60dBA
60dBA 63dBA
63dBA69dBA69dBA
75dBA 81dBA 87dBA
Kaibab-Paiute Indian Reservation
Hurricane
Virgin
Apple Valley
Kanab
LaVerkin
Rockville
Toquerville
Hildale
Orderville
Fredonia
Leeds
Springdale
Colorado City
Washington
Kana
b Cree
k
Virgin
River
Clayhole Wash
Hurricane Wash
East Fork Virgin River
Rock Canyon
Jacob Canyon
Roun
d Vall
ey
Park Wash
Bulrush Wash
Ash C
reek
North
Creek
Deer Spring Wash
Fort Pearce Wash
Skutum
pah C
reek
§̈¦I-15
£¤89a
£¤89¬«9
Noise Contour dBA Levels from Construction87dBA
81dBA
75dBA
69dBA
63dBA
60dBA
!O Noise Sample Location
" Project Pump Station
! Project Regulating Tank
# Project Hydro Station
Water Conveyance System
Hydro System - Proposed Action
KCWCD System
Hydro System, Existing Highway Alternative
Hydro System, Southeast Corner Alternative
Interstate
US Highway
ST Highway
Hwy
Major Road
Hurricane Cliffs Forebay/Afterbay
Major Rivers & Streams
!!!!!!
!!
!! !!
!!
National Park/Monument
Tribal Lands
State Boundaries
Cities
County Boundaries
Lakes & Reservoirs0 2.5 5 7.5 101.25
Miles
Spatial Reference: UTM Zone 12N, NAD-83
Lake Powell Pipeline Project
Lake Powell PipelineHydro System
Decibel Contours -Construction Impacts
UDWRe Figure 3-3´FERC Project Number:
12966-001BLM Serial Numbers:
AZA-34941UTU-85472
Lake Powell Pipeline 3-9 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Lake Powell Pipeline 3-10 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
3.2.3 Estimated Peak Construction Noise Levels and Decay Based on assumptions made for each phase of the construction and the equipment used in each phase, the average and peak noise levels were calculated and are displayed in Table 3-5.
Table 3-5
Estimated Noise from Each Construction Phase1
Construction Phase Average Noise
(dBA) Peak Noise
(dBA) Clearing & Grubbing / Earthwork2 88 99 Penstock/Piping Installation3 85 92 Transmission Line Installation (helicopters)4 92 99 Facility Construction (Pumpstation, hydrostation, etc.)5 86 94 Cleaning, Restoring, and Site Work at Facility5 86 99 Dam (Forebay and Afterbay) Construction Work6 91 100 Note: 1Average and peak noise values at the equipment source; 2 pickups (4), dump trucks (2), grader, loader, dozer; 3 pickups (4), backhoe, pipelayer crane, dump truck; 4 pickups (4), compactor, crane, welder, backhoe, concrete pump; 5 pickups (4), paver, backhoe, dump truck, roller, grader; 6 pickups (6), dozer (2), dump trucks (2) excavator (2), loader (2)
The peak hourly equivalent sound level of 99 dBA could occur during clearing and grubbing and restoration and site work phases due to the greater amount of equipment. The power transmission line construction could also have noise levels of 99 dBA due to the use of helicopters alone. A peak noise of 100 dBA could occur from the dam construction. Since these operations are noise point sources, noise levels would decay in 6 dBA increments as it is likely that the distance from the site doubles. Table 3-6 reports the noise level decay of the peak construction phase noise levels at various distances from the point sources.
Table 3-6
Noise Decay per Construction Type
Distance from Point Source (ft)
Noise Source (dBA)
Clearing and Grubbing / Earthwork
Piping / Transmission
Line Installation
Facility Construction
Cleaning, Restoring, and Site Work at
Facilities
Reservoir Construction
Work
50 99 92 94 99 100 100 93 86 88 93 94 200 87 80 82 87 88 400 81 74 76 81 82
Lake Powell Pipeline 3-11 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
800 75 68 70 75 76 1600 69 62 64 69 70 3200 63 56 58 63 64 6400 57 50 52 57 58
Linear interpolation of the table data reveals that peak noises from all of the construction phases would be at or below the 60 dBA level within 1,900 – 5,300 feet of the point source. These peak noises would be temporary and are a worst case estimate based on all the equipment operating at once at their loudest mode in a 100-foot diameter work area. Therefore, it is likely that the distances required for the maximum noise levels to decay to 60 dBA would be less than the distances presented in this report. Figure 3-2 shows the LPP Project Water Conveyance System, including the project facilities, pipeline routing and the associated decibel contouring which delineates the area that could be above 60 dBA from the construction noise. Figure 3-3 shows the LPP Project Hydro System and the decibel contouring. Trench blasting would be performed in a partially buried condition, and if performed, is expected to be less than 90 dBA. This is less than the noise from other phases of the construction because of ‘muffling’ which occurs inside a trench and under earthen material. Underground blasting would likely decay to 60 dBA in a shorter distance than the pipeline construction. In addition, blasting would be an instantaneous event and not a continuous event. Therefore, blasting noise levels were considered to be addressed through this evaluation. Decibel contouring of the noise from transmission line construction (primarily helicopters) is shown on Figures 3-5 and 3-6 for the LPP Project Water Conveyance System and LPP Project Hydro System, respectively. 3.2.4 Construction of Pipelines and Facilities The potential maximum noise level is 99 dBA which decays to 90 dBA at approximately 150 feet and 60 dBA at approximately 4,800 ft from the noise source during both pipeline and facility construction. It is not expected that these noise levels would be maintained for long periods of time but represent a worst case scenario. 3.2.5 Construction of Transmission Lines The potential maximum noise level is 99 dBA which decays to 90 dBA at approximately 150 feet and 60 dBA at approximately 4,800 ft from the noise source. This level of noise is likely only during helicopter activity which is expected to be much shorter in duration than pipeline or facility construction. Sensitive noise receptors in the areas of power transmission line construction would be affected. 3.2.6 Construction of Reservoirs (Afterbay and Forebay) The potential maximum noise level is 100 dBA which decays to 90 dBA at approximately 150 feet and 60 dBA at approximately 5,300 ft from the noise source during earthwork for the reservoir construction. However, the construction area for this reservoir work is quite large and the noise level would likely not leave the construction site unless activities occurred at the periphery and in one location of the construction area. It is not expected that these noise levels would be maintained for long periods of time but represent a worst case scenario. 3.2.7 Operation of Facilities
Lake Powell Pipeline 3-12 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
The mechanical equipment within each facility would be housed in noise attenuating buildings including the natural gas generator systems. Noise levels from facilities (pump stations and hydro stations) operating within sound attenuating enclosures are not likely to be greater than 60 dBA outside the perimeter fencing.
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!! !!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
"/
"/
"/
"/
!O!O
!O!O!O
!O
!O!O!O!O
#
!
"
""
"
"
BPS-1
High Point Reg. Tank-2
Intake Pump Station
UtahArizona
Grand Staircase-EscalanteNational Monument
BPS-2
Paria River
Water IntakeSystem
Lake Powell
BPS-3 (Alt.)
BPS-4 (Alt.)
HS-1 60dBA63dBA
69dBA75dBA
87dBA
81dBA81dBA
75dBA
69dBA63dBA
60dBA
Big Water
Page
Church Wells
Paria River
Buckskin Gulch
Coyote Creek
£¤89
Copyright: © 2013 National Geographic Society
Noise Contour dBA Levels from Construction87dBA
81dBA
75dBA
69dBA
63dBA
60dBA
!O Noise Sample Location
" Project Pump Station
! Project Regulating Tank
# Project Hydro Station
"/ Substation
!! !! Project Transmission Line
!! !! Existing Transmission Lines
Water Conveyance System
Hydro System - Proposed Action
KCWCD System
Hydro System, Existing Highway Alternative
Hydro System, Southeast Corner Alternative
Interstate
US Highway
ST Highway
Hwy
Major Road
Lakes & Reservoirs
Major Rivers & Streams
!!!!!!!!
!! !! !! !! National Park/Monument
State Boundaries
Cities
0 1 2 3 40.5Miles
´Spatial Reference: UTM Zone 12N, NAD-83
Lake Powell Pipeline Project
Lake Powell PipelineWater Conveyance System
Transmission Decibel Contours-Construction Impacts
Figure 3-5UDWRe
FERC Project Number:12966-001
BLM Serial Numbers:AZA-34941UTU-85472
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!! !! !!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!! !!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!! !!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!! !!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!! !!
!!!! !! !!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!
!!!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!!!
!!!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
!!
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
#
# #
#
#
#
#!
!O
!O !O
!O
!O
!O
!O!O
!O
!O
!O
!O
!O
!O
!O
!O
!O
!O!O!O!O!O!O
!O!O
High Point Reg. Tank-2
Grand Staircase-EscalanteNational Monument
UtahArizona
HS-1
HS-3
HS-2 South (Alt.)
Sand Hollow Hydro Station
Hurricane Cliffs Hydro Station
HS-2 Hwy. (Alt.)
¬«59HS-4 (Alt.)
Kaibab-Paiute Indian Reservation
Hurricane
Virgin
Apple Valley
Kanab
LaVerkin
Rockville
Toquerville
Hildale
Orderville
Fredonia
Leeds
Springdale
Colorado City
Washington
Kana
b Cree
k
Virgin
River
Clayhole Wash
Hurricane Wash
East Fork Virgin River
Rock Canyon
Jacob Canyon Roun
d Vall
ey
Park Wash
Bulrush Wash
Ash C
reek
North
Creek
Deer Spring Wash
Sand WashTwomile Wash
Fort Pearce Wash
Skutum
pah C
reek
White Sage Wash
§̈¦I-15
£¤89a
£¤89
£¤89
¬«389
¬«9
Noise Contour dBA Levels from Construction87dBA
81dBA
75dBA
69dBA
63dBA
60dBA
!O Noise Sample Location
" Project Pump Station
! Project Regulating Tank
# Project Hydro Station
"/ Substation
!! !! Project Transmission Line
!! !! Existing Transmission Lines
Water Conveyance System
Hydro System - Proposed Action
KCWCD System
Hydro System, Existing Highway Alternative
Hydro System, Southeast Corner Alternative
Interstate
US Highway
ST Highway
Hwy
Major Road
Hurricane Cliffs Forebay/Afterbay
Lakes & Reservoirs
Major Rivers & Streams
!!!!!!
!!
!! !!
!!
National Park/Monument
Tribal Lands
State Boundaries
Cities
County Boundaries
0 2.5 5 7.5 101.25Miles
Spatial Reference: UTM Zone 12N, NAD-83
Lake Powell Pipeline Project
Lake Powell PipelineHydro System
Transmission Decibel Contours-Construction Impacts
UDWRe Figure 3-6
´
FERC Project Number:12966-001
BLM Serial Numbers:AZA-34941UTU-85472
Lake Powell Pipeline 4-1 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences (Impacts)
4.1 Significance Criteria The significance criteria for the project address impacts on human health and significant impacts on humans and wildlife from loud noise levels and long-term cumulative noise levels. Potential receptors include persons working on construction site, visitors, tourists, local residents, wildlife in the region and any other living creatures capable of sensing the sounds from the project. 4.1.1 Human Receptors Potential human receptors are defined as persons in the area that could potentially be impacted by the construction noise. Potential human receptors (not including wildlife) are identified in Table 4-1. Primarily these receptors include residents along the alternative pipeline and transmission line alignments, although there are utilities and some businesses that may be temporarily affected, as well as visitors using the public lands to recreate.
Table 4-1
Potential Human Receptors Page 1 of 2
Potential Human Receptor Location Receptor Receptor Distance to Noise Source (ft)
Pipeline Construction
Water Conveyance System
Glen Canyon Dam Facilities Utility facility < 5,000
Greenhaven Residential < 1,000
Lower Big Water Residential < 1,000
Upper Big Water Residential < 1,000
Church Wells Residential < 1,000
Adairville (W. of Paria R.) Residential < 1,000
Paria River Crossing Visitors <1,000
Hydro System - Existing Highway Alternative
Near S. Johnson Rd and 89 Residential < 1,000
Near Bryce Canyon Rd and 89 Residential < 1,000
Near Kaibab Trail and 90 Residential < 1,000
Near Old Hwy 89 and 89 Residential < 1,000
Near Fredonia Residential < 1,000
Pipe Springs Residential/business / Government facility
< 1,000
Cottonwood Road Visitors <1,000
Lake Powell Pipeline 4-2 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
Lake Powell Pipeline 4-3 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
Table 4-1
Potential Human Receptors Page 2 of 2
Potential Human Receptor Location Receptor Receptor Distance to Noise Source (ft)
Hydro System - South and Southeast Corner Alternative
Near School Bound Rd. S. of Colorado City Residential < 1,000
Colorado City Residential < 1,000
Diamond Ranch Academy Residential < 1,000
Toroweap (Mt. Trumbull) Road Visitors <1,000
Kanab Creek Crossing Visitors <1,000
Transmission Line Construction
Near Hurricane Cliffs / Arizona Strip Rd Residential < 2000
Near SR 9 and W. Hurricane Residential < 1000
Near Hurricane Cliffs Power Station Residential / Industrial < 1000 OSHA has established specific criteria for noise exposure to prevent adverse impacts to human health. Table 4-2 outlines the Permissible Noise Exposure as defined by OSHA. For purposes of this analysis, a 90 dBA sound level was chosen as the significant impact level on humans as OSHA allows up to 8 hours per day at a 90 dBA exposure level. The minimum distance for the maximum calculated construction noise levels to decay to 90 dBA is approximately 150 feet. Several of the residential areas listed in Table 4-1 could potentially be impacted depending on the actual distance between residences and the construction activities; however, it should be noted that the maximum calculated noise levels used in this analysis are worst case projections based on temporary construction activities. As determined in Chapter 3, on-site construction noise levels could reach 100 dBA. OSHA has established a 2-hour maximum exposure limit at this noise level. It is not anticipated the noise levels would be hazardous to on-site receptors during construction or operations assuming adequate hearing protection is worn and OSHA and State guidelines are followed.
Table 4-2
OSHA Permissible Noise Exposure Limits
Duration Per Day (hours) Sound Level (dBA) 8 90 6 92 4 95 3 97 2 100
1.5 102 1 105
0.5 110 0.25 or less 115
Lake Powell Pipeline 4-4 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
Source: (OSHA 2009)
4.1.1.1 Impacts on the Kaibab-Paiute Indian Reservation Persons travelling through and located within the area of construction within the Kaibab-Paiute Indian Reservation boundaries could be affected or at least be able to hear the construction noise as shown in Figure 3-3. However, it is expected that even in worst case scenarios, persons within the reservation would be not be significantly impacted. Persons near the construction area are expected to be mobile and would likely move if the construction noise was a nuisance. The construction would only occur during normal working hours and would typically move several hundred feet per day with the disturbance in and out of a specific area within a few days. 4.1.2 Wildlife Receptors Impacts of noise on wildlife are difficult to quantify as most studies pertain to loud noises (greater than 90 dBA). OSHA noise level standards and regulations are defined by human criteria and may not be directly applicable to animals. EPA standards specify the average 24-hour sound level (Ldn) as the criterion for impact on human health. Under ANSI S12.40-1990 (ANSI 1990), an outdoor level of 60 dBA is considered compatible with land use for extensive natural wildlife and recreational areas. The level of 57 dBA has been deemed appropriate for “…lands in which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance…” by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Specific thresholds for noise disturbance are not known for most species and noise impacts may be difficult to separate from the visual impacts of the noise sources. It appears that many species become tolerant of sound over time (acclimate) and would resume use of habitat that may have been initially abandoned even as the noise continues. General population health and reproductive success of most species are not documented to be affected by moderately loud sounds up to 70 dBA (Manci, K.M., et. al. 1988). Therefore, a sound intensity of 60 dBA was chosen as the impact level for potential reduction of habitat value for wildlife. The area of potential impact from construction noise levels above 60 dBA is designated by the decibel contours shown in Figures 3-2 through 3-6. Wildlife that temporarily relocate away from areas of loud construction noise are expected to move back into the area and are not expected to be significantly impacted because the construction is temporary in nature, with pipeline construction near most habitat areas being completed within a few weeks and facility construction within a few months.
4.2 Potential Impacts Eliminated From Further Analysis The following impacts were eliminated from further analysis:
Existing traffic noise is 85 dBA along much of the LPP Project. The noise created from access roads along the highways is inconsequential relative to the highway noise and was not analyzed further.
Construction noise levels below human health concerns but possibly still an annoyance were eliminated from further analysis because this noise is temporary in nature and decays rapidly with distance from sources.
Lake Powell Pipeline 4-5 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
Blasting activities are expected to be underground and produce less than 90 dBA (variable) which would be lower than other construction activities.
Operation and maintenance of the facilities was eliminated from further analysis as it relates to impacts on humans and wildlife because of the infrequent nature of the maintenance and the likelihood it would include vehicle noise only and the inclusion of sound attenuation enclosures in the facility designs.
Noise from natural gas generator systems was eliminated from further analysis because the generators would be enclosed within a noise attenuating building and the exhaust would be silenced sufficiently to make sure that sound levels outside of each pump station perimeter are lower than 60 dBA. Buildings housing natural gas generators would be more than 200 feet from the pump station perimeter fencing.
4.3 Noise Impacts 4.3.1 Water Conveyance System The Water Conveyance System alignment is routed near several residential areas and could possibly affect human receptors during construction. It is expected that most residential areas and visitors would be outside the 90 dBA noise corridor and would not be significantly impacted. Those within the 90 dBA noise corridor (within 150 feet of construction activities) could be impacted, but the impacts would be mitigated through the use of the BMPs described in Chapter 5. Wildlife receptors in the area could be affected temporarily, but the impacts would not be significant. Wildlife are expected to return to the area after the temporary construction disturbance. 4.3.2 Hydro System Existing Highway Alternative The Hydro System Existing Highway Alternative is routed near several residential areas and impacts on human and wildlife receptors would be similar to the Water Conveyance System impacts. No significant impacts are expected to occur. 4.3.3 Hydro System South Alternative Residential areas were not identified along the initial portion of the Hydro System South Alternative alignment from its beginning to the point of intersection with Highway 389. Therefore, human receptors are not expected to be impacted by construction noise along this portion of the alignment. Wildlife sensitive receptors in the area could temporarily be affected by the noise although it is not expected to be a significant impact because of its temporary nature. Wildlife are expected to return to the area after the temporary construction disturbance ceases. The remaining portion of the alignment from Highway 389 to Sand Hollow Reservoir is shared by the Existing Highway and South Alternatives. Residential areas were identified along this portion of the alignment. There could be temporary noise impacts on residents and visitors, although significant impacts are not expected since most residential areas are expected to be outside of the 90 dBA noise corridor. Those within the 90 dBA noise corridor (within 150 feet of construction activities) could be impacted, but the impacts would be mitigated through the use of the BMPs described in Chapter 5. Much of the South Alternative alignment is more than a mile south of the Reservation boundary, and average construction noise levels from this alignment alternative would decay to below baseline levels within 0.6 mile from the construction activities. Where the South Alternative alignment is parallel to the
Lake Powell Pipeline 4-6 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
Reservation boundary near the southeast corner of the Reservation for about 3.5 miles, the alignment center line would be 300 feet south of the Reservation boundary. The temporary construction noise (average levels) extending onto the Reservation in this extremely rugged area would be about 79 dBA. This compares to temporary construction noise generated along the Existing Highway Alternative alignment at average levels of 88 dBA 50 feet from the noise source. These noise levels are considered temporary impacts. In addition, the likelihood of persons in this area impacted by the noise is not considerable and persons in the area would likely temporarily relocate to avoid construction noise. 4.3.4 Hydro System Southeast Corner Alternative Noise impacts from the Hydro System Southeast Corner Alternative would be the same as for the Hydro System South Alternative. No significant impacts are expected to occur. 4.3.5 Transmission LineAlignments The power transmission lines are routed near some residential areas and could possibly affect human receptors during construction, although the impacts would not be significant since most residential areas are expected to be outside of the 90 dBA noise corridor. Those within the 90 dBA noise corridor (within 150 feet of construction activities) could be impacted, but the impacts would be mitigated through the use of the BMPs described in Chapter 5. Wildlife receptors in the area could be affected temporarily but the impacts would not be significant. Wildlife are expected to return to the area after the temporary construction disturbance ceases. 4.3.6 Natural Gas Pipeline and Generators Alternative No significant noise impacts are expected to occur during construction or operation of the Natural Gas Supply Line and Generators Alternative. 4.3.7 No Lake Powell Water Alternative No significant noise impacts are expected to occur under the No Lake Powell Water Alternative. Noise would be temporarily generated during construction of the reverse osmosis water treatment facility and Warner Valley Reservoir dam. The noise levels would be attenuated over short distances and would not affect any known sensitive noise receptors. The noise levels generated from this alternative would likely be lower than the LPP alternatives with fewer noise effects. 4.3.8 No Action Alternative No noise impacts would occur under the No Action Alternative.
Lake Powell Pipeline 5-1 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
Chapter 5 Mitigation and Monitoring
5.1 LPP Project Alternatives (Water Conveyance System, Hydro System, Kane County Pipeline, Transmission Line Alternatives, and Natural Gas Pipeline and
Generators Alternative) BMPs would be required for all construction activities to control noise. This would include working with potentially affected residents and land management agencies to minimize noise impacts on local receptors using sound barriers, engine mufflers, restricted work hours where needed, and field monitoring of noise levels generated from construction. Construction occurring within 150 feet of any human receptors would be mitigated with noise barriers. Notification to residents or visitors would be used to help receptors prepare for the construction noise. In addition, BMPs for transmission line construction would include specifying the type of helicopter used during transmission line tower construction and notifying local residents and land management agencies of expected timing and flight patterns. Reasonable efforts would be made to establish flight routes that minimize noise disturbance on sensitive receptors. Noise levels that unexpectedly exceed calculated noise levels would be reviewed during construction and mitigated as possible. All construction activities would incorporate hearing protection for workers as required by OSHA. Peak, maximum and average temporary noise levels for people working inside the Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians tribal headquarters would be attenuated by the building and would be less than 90 dBA inside the building. Construction activities that would be performed near the Pipe Spring/tribal headquarters area include clearing and grubbing/earthwork (peak noise level <99 dBA, unsustained; average noise level <88 dBA) and penstock installation (peak noise level <92 dBA, unsustained; average noise level <85 dBA). Clearing and grubbing/earthwork would last less than two hours near the gas station/convenience store and the parking lot surrounding the tribal headquarters. The maximum noise levels at the gas station would be less than 99 dBA during clearing and grubbing/earthwork, and potential exposure would be lower than the OSHA limits described in Table 4-2. Peak construction (temporary) noise levels at Pipe Spring National Monument would be decayed from the source to about 72 dBA over the 1,090 feet distance. Average temporary construction noise levels at Pipe Spring National Monument would be decayed from the source to about 58 dBA over the 1,090 feet distance. No special mitigation measures (other than typical construction safety measures) were requested by the Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians however, notification and education on noise avoidance during the short period of construction will be given to residents and visitors. Noise from operating natural gas generators at the pump stations would be mitigated with a combination of acoustic baffling inside the buildings enclosing the generators and silencer equipment installed on the generator exhaust systems. Noise levels outside the generator buildings would be reduced and decayed to background levels at the pump station perimeter fences.
5.2 No Lake Powell Water Alternative Noise producing activities under the No Lake Powell Water Alternative during construction of the reverse osmosis treatment facility would be attenuated before reaching human receptors. The BMPs described in Section 5.1 would be required for all construction activities. Temporary construction noise levels would be monitored and mitigated if they exceed background levels where human receptors live and work.
Lake Powell Pipeline 5-2 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
5.3 No Action Alternative
No mitigation or monitoring for noise would occur under the No Action Alternative.
Lake Powell Pipeline 6-1 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
Chapter 6 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts
6.1 South Alternative Temporary construction activities may result in noise levels exceeding background sound levels near homes, businesses and buildings proximate to the pipeline and penstock right-of-way. Occasional blasting may result in instantaneous noise levels that could extend outside the construction right-of-way. These short-term noise impacts would be unavoidable adverse impacts on sensitive receptors. There would be no measurable unavoidable adverse noise impacts during South Alternative operation and maintenance activities.
6.2 Existing Highway Alternative The Existing Highway Alternative would have the same unavoidable adverse noise impacts on sensitive receptors as described for the South Alternative in Section 6.1
6.3 Southeast Corner Alternative The Southeast Corner Alternative would have the same unavoidable adverse noise impacts on sensitive receptors as described for the South Alternative in Section 6.1.
6.4 Transmission Line Alignments The Transmission Line Alternatives would have the same unavoidable adverse noise impacts on sensitive receptors as described for the South Alternative in Section 6.1.
6.5 Natural Gas Pipeline and Generators Alternative The Natural Gas Pipeline and Generators Alternative would have the same unavoidable adverse noise impacts on sensitive receptors as described for the South Alternative in Section 6.1.
6.6 No Lake Powell Water Alternative The No Lake Powell Water Alternative could have short-term cumulative noise impacts on sensitive receptors with the construction noise impacts of the Southern Corridor Highway. These cumulative impacts could be most intense near the Washington Fields Diversion where the two actions would intersect near the sites of the No Lake Powell Water Alternative pump station, diversion pipeline, reverse osmosis water treatment facility, and Warner Valley Reservoir embankment dam. Noise generated by construction of both projects simultaneously would exceed the significance threshold for wildlife receptors inhabiting riparian areas near the Washington Fields Diversion. There would be no cumulative noise impacts from the No Lake Powell Water Alternative if it is constructed on a different schedule than the Southern Corridor Highway.
Lake Powell Pipeline 6-2 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
6.7 No Action Alternative No unavoidable adverse noise impacts would occur under the No Action Alternative.
Lake Powell Pipeline 7-1 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
Chapter 7 Cumulative Impacts
This chapter analyzes cumulative impacts that may occur from construction and operation of the proposed LPP Project when combined with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and projects after all proposed mitigation measures have been implemented. Only those resources with the potential to cause cumulative impacts are analyzed in this chapter.
7.1 South Alternative The South Alternative could have minimal short-term direct cumulative noise impacts on sensitive receptors with the effects of the Southern Corridor Highway. The South Alternative penstock would cross the Southern Corridor Highway through a carrier pipe already installed under the future intersection of both alignments. The South Alternative construction occurring at the same time as the Southern Corridor Highway construction could result in short-term cumulative noise impacts at the intersection of these two projects near Sand Hollow Reservoir. These short-term cumulative noise impacts would be minimal in the immediate area where the South Alternative and Southern Corridor Highway intersect and the peak combined noise would decay to 60 dBA within approximately one mile. Campers and recreationists at Sand Hollow Reservoir would be the closest human receptors the potential cumulative noise impacts and could experience short-term cumulative effects exceeding the significance threshold. The South Alternative could have minimal short-term direct cumulative noise effects on sensitive receptors with the effects of the Kern River-Hurricane Natural Gas Pipeline. The South Alternative penstock would cross the Kern River-Hurricane Natural Gas Pipeline adjacent to the Southern Corridor Highway near Sand Hollow Reservoir. The South Alternative construction occurring at the same time as the Kern River-Hurricane Natural Gas Pipeline construction could result in short-term cumulative noise impacts at the intersection of these two projects near Sand Hollow Reservoir. These short-term cumulative noise impacts would be minimal in the immediate area where the South Alternative and Kern River-Hurricane Natural Gas Pipeline intersect and the peak combined noise would decay to 60 dBA within approximately one mile. Campers and recreationists at Sand Hollow Reservoir would be the closest human receptors to the potential cumulative noise impact and could experience short-term cumulative impacts exceeding the significance threshold.
7.2 Existing Highway Alternative The Existing Highway Alternative would have the same cumulative noise impacts on sensitive receptors as described for the South Alternative in Section 7.1.
7.3 Southeast Corner Alternative The Southeast Corner Alternative would have the same cumulative noise impacts on sensitive receptors as described for the South Alternative in Section 7.1.
Lake Powell Pipeline 7-2 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
7.4 Transmission Line Alternatives The Transmission Line Alternatives would have the same cumulative noise impacts on sensitive receptors as described for the South Alternative in Section 7.1.
7.5 Natural Gas Pipeline and Generators Alternative The Natural Gas Pipeline and Generators Alternative would have the same cumulative noise impacts on sensitive receptors as described for the South Alternative in Section 7.1.
7.6 No Lake Powell Water Alternative The No Lake Powell Water Alternative could have short-term cumulative noise impacts on sensitive receptors with the construction noise effects of the Southern Corridor Highway. These cumulative impacts could be most intense near the Washington Fields Diversion where the two actions would intersect near the sites of the No Lake Powell Water Alternative pump station, diversion pipeline, reverse osmosis water treatment facility, and Warner Valley Reservoir embankment dam. Noise generated by construction of both projects simultaneously would exceed the significance threshold for wildlife receptors inhabiting riparian areas near the Washington Fields Diversion because of equipment and construction activities. There would be no cumulative noise impacts from the No Lake Powell Water Alternative if it is constructed on a different schedule than the Southern Corridor Highway.
7.7 No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would have no cumulative impacts.
Lake Powell Pipeline R-1 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
References Cited American National Standards Institute (ANSI). 1990. South Level Descriptors for Determination of
Compatible Land Use. ANSI S12.40-1990.
Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (ACHPPM). 2009. Noise Levels for Common Military Equipment (http://chppm-www.apgea.army.mil/HCP/NoiseLevels.aspx). November, 17, 2009.
Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2006. Noise Study for Willard Springs Shooting Range. Acoustical Consulting Services, Mesa, Arizona. August 2006.
Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD). 2004. Utah Lake Drainage Basin Water Delivery System Final Environmental Impact Statement. September 30, 2004.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2001. Aircraft Noise Data for U.S. Certified Helicopters. November 15, 2001
FHWA. 2007.(see U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration)
FHWA. 2011. (see U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration)
General Electric (GE). 2011. Technical Description Genset JGS 620 GS-N.L, May 16, 2011
Landry and Brown (L&B). 2006. St. George Municipal Airport Final Environmental Impact Statement. May 2006.
Manci, K.M., Gladwin, D.N., Villella, R. and M.G. Cavendish. 1988. Effects of aircraft noise and sonic booms on domestic animals and wildlife: A literature synthesis. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Ecology Research Center, Ft. Collins, CO NERC-88/29. 88 pp.
MWH Americas, Inc. (MWH). 2009. Field investigation of ambient noise levels on July 23 and 24, 2009.
NPS (see U.S. National Park Service)
OSHA (see U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety & Health Administration)
OSHA 2009. 29 CFR (OSHA 1910.95 Appendix A)
Science Direct (Science). 2009. Assessment of Noise and Ground Vibration During Blasting. November 18, 2009.
U.S. Congress. 1998. Public Law 105-355. Title II – Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Section 202, Utility Corridor Designation, U.S. Route 89, Kane County, Utah. November 6, 1998
U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA). 2009. Noise and Hearing Conservation Standards. November 12, 2009
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2007. Construction Equipment Noise Levels and Ranges. April 10, 2007.
__________. 2011. FHWA Noise Barrier Design Handbook. Research and Special Programs Administration, John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Acoustics Facility, in support of Office of Natural Environment and Planning. July 7, 2011.
U.S. National Park Service (NPS). 2006. Management Policies 2006. ISBN 0-16-076874-8. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Utah Board of Water Resources (UBWR). 2008. Lake Powell Hydroelectric System, Revised Study Plan 7: Noise. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Project No. 12966. Prepared by the Utah Division of Water Resources.
Lake Powell Pipeline R-2 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
__________. 2011. Lake Powell Hydroelectric System, Modified Study Plan 7: Noise. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Project No. 12966. Prepared by the Utah Division of Water Resources.
Utah Division of Water Resources (UDWR). 2007. Municipal and Industrial Water Supply and Uses in the Cedar/Beaver Basin (Data Collected for Calendar Year 2005). November 2007.
__________. 2009. Municipal and Industrial Water Supply and Uses in the Kanab Creek/Virgin River Basin (Data Collected for Calendar Year 2005). January 2009.
__________. 2011. Lake Powell Pipeline Study, Water Needs Assessment, Draft. Prepared by MWH Americas, Inc. for Utah Division of Water Resources. March 2011.
Lake Powell Pipeline G-1 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
Glossary A-Weighted Average. A-weighting is the relative decibel gain based on various frequency ranges (10 Hz to 20 kHz) and is the standard most typically used. Decibel. A unit for expressing the relative intensity of sounds on a scale from zero for the average least perceptible sound to about 130 for the average pain level. Penstock: A high-pressure conduit extending from the first upstream water surface or source to the
turbine. Pipeline: A line of connected pipes used for carrying water over a long distance. Reverse Osmosis. The movement of freshwater through a semi-permeable membrane when pressure is applied to a solution (as brackish water) on one side of the membrane. Substation. A subsidiary station in which electric current is transformed.
Lake Powell Pipeline A&A-1 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
Abbreviations and Acronyms
Abbreviation/Acronym Meaning/Description AMSL Above Mean Sea Level ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management BMP Best Management Practice BPS Booster Pump Station CBPS Cedar Booster Pump Station CFR Code of Federal Regulations CICWCD Central Iron County Water Conservancy District dBA A-weighted Decibels EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FHA Federal Highway Administration GE General Electric GSENM Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument HS Hydro System KCWCD Kane County Water Conservancy District LPP Lake Powell Pipeline M&I Municipal and Industrial NPS National Park Service O&M Operations and Maintenance OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration UDEQ Utah Department of Environmental Quality UDWR Utah Division of Water Resources ULS-FEIS Utah Lake System – Final Environmental Impact Statement USFS U.S. Forest Service WCWCD Washington County Water Conservancy District
Lake Powell Pipeline LP-1 4/30/16 Final Noise Study Report Utah Board of Water Resources
List of Preparers
Name Degree(s) Role
Montgomery Watson Harza (MWH) Consultant Team
Nick Smith MWH, Inc.
BS - Environmental Engineering BS - Finance BS - Marketing
Noise Resources
Pat Naylor MWH, Inc.
M.S. – Civil Engineering B.S. – Engineering Geology
Noise Resources
Brian Liming MWH, Inc.
M.S. – Civil and Environmental Engineering
B.S. – Ecosystems Analysis
Report QA/QC Review
John Roldan MWH, Inc.
M.S. – Construction Management B.S. – Civil Engineering
Noise Resources
Diana Barnes MWH, Inc.
A.A. – Secretarial Science
Word Processing and Formatting