1-Preliminary Water Availability Analysis-SPF Water Engineer

8/7/2019 1-Preliminary Water Availability Analysis-SPF Water Engineer

1/58

Preliminary

Water Availability Analysisfor the Idaho Energy Complex

Payette County Site

Prepared for Enercon Services, Inc.

400 Valley Road, Suite 301Mount Arlington, NJ 07856

Prepared by

SPF Water Engineering, LLC300 East Mallard Drive, Suite 350

Boise, ID 83706

March 15, 2010


2/58

SPF Water Engineering, LLC Page ii Preliminary Water Supply AnalysisMarch 15, 2010 Idaho Energy Complex (Payette County Site)

Executive Summary

This report presents a preliminary identification and analysis of potential water sources forthe Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc. (AEHI) Nuclear Energy Production Facility known as theIdaho Energy Complex. AEHI is proposing to construct two reactor units at this site inPayette County, Idaho. Based on our analysis, is it our opinion that a sufficient water supplycan be developed to meet the proposed demand.

The Idaho Energy Complex has not selected a reactor technology or the water-coolingsystem at this time, so the water usage cannot be defined. A reactor vendor has publishedthat when dry cooling equipment is used, the estimated water consumption for coolingpurposes is less than one million gallons per day (1,000 acre feet per year). When moreconventional wet cooling equipment is used, the reactor vendor has estimated waterconsumption for cooling purposes is 45,000,000 gallons per day (50,000 acre feet per year).AEHI intends to use a combination of dry and wet cooling equipment (i.e., a hybrid system)which will reduce the consumption. The ultimate water demand for cooling purposes will bedetermined as the equipment is selected.

The Snake and Payette rivers represent the most likely sources of water for the proposednuclear facility. Water rights authorizing the diversion of water from either source can likelybe obtained under a new appropriation and/or through the acquisition and transfer ofexisting water rights. Peak and/or seasonal water demand could be met, in part, throughthe use of on-site or off-site storage.

Conveyance of water from points of diversion on the Snake and/or Payette rivers istechnologically feasible via constructed pumping facilities and pipelines. The design of suchinfrastructure will be guided by final water requirements and the overall water-supplystrategy.


3/58

SPF Water Engineering, LLC Page iii Preliminary Water Supply AnalysisMarch 15, 2010 Idaho Energy Complex (Payette County Site)

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Background ............................................................................................................. 1 1.2. Purpose and Objectives .......................................................................................... 1 1.3. Overview of Potential Water Sources ..................................................................... 1 1.4. Report Organization ................................................................................................ 2

2. Project Water Requirements ............................................................................................... 6

2.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 6 2.2. Annual Water Demands .......................................................................................... 6 2.3. Monthly Water Demand .......................................................................................... 7

3. Snake River....................................................................................................................... 10

3.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 10 3.2. River Flow Characteristics .................................................................................... 10

3.2.1. Snake River Flow at Weiser .......................................................................... 11 3.2.2. Snake River flow at Lime Point ..................................................................... 15 3.2.3. Snake River flow at Johnson Bar .................................................................. 15 3.2.4. Flows Present by Special Circumstances ..................................................... 17 3.2.5. Snake River Flow Potentially Available for Appropriation ............................. 18

3.3. Snake River Water Rights ..................................................................................... 23 3.3.1. Existing rights ................................................................................................ 23 3.3.2. Pending applications ..................................................................................... 24

4. Payette River ..................................................................................................................... 25

4.1. Payette River Flow Characteristics ....................................................................... 25 4.2. Water Potentially Available for Appropriation ........................................................ 25 4.3. Payette River Water Rights ................................................................................... 31

4.3.1. Pending applications ..................................................................................... 32

5. Groundwater ..................................................................................................................... 33

5.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 33 5.2. Hydrogeology ........................................................................................................ 33 5.3. Aquifer Characteristics in the Vicinity of the Proposed Site .................................. 35 5.4. Limitations to Groundwater Use ............................................................................ 35

6. Other Water Sources ........................................................................................................ 37

6.1. Snake River Water from Above Milner .................................................................. 37 6.2. Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Effluent .................................... 37 6.3. Oregon Water Rights ............................................................................................ 38

6.4. Water Storage ....................................................................................................... 38 6.4.1. Private Reservoirs ......................................................................................... 38 6.4.2. Federal Reservoirs ........................................................................................ 43 6.4.3. New Reservoirs ............................................................................................. 43

7. Water Supply Infrastructure .............................................................................................. 44

7.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................... 44


4/58

SPF Water Engineering, LLC Page iv Preliminary Water Supply AnalysisMarch 15, 2010 Idaho Energy Complex (Payette County Site)

7.2. Diversions and Alignments .................................................................................... 44 7.2.1. Snake River Diversion and Alignment .......................................................... 45 7.2.2. Payette River ................................................................................................ 46

7.3. Conveyance Options ............................................................................................. 48 7.3.1. Pipe Sizing Considerations ........................................................................... 48 7.3.2. Redundancy .................................................................................................. 50

7.4. Reservoir Storage ................................................................................................. 50 7.5. Potable Water System .......................................................................................... 51

8. References ........................................................................................................................ 52

List of Figures

Figure 1: Vicinity map. ............................................................................................................. 3

Figure 2: Location map (2006 NAIP imagery). ........................................................................ 4

Figure 3: Location map (1:250,000 USGS Quad background). .............................................. 5 Figure 4. Conceptual monthly water demand distribution for the AEHI facility. ..................... 9

Figure 5: Proposed project area and Snake, Boise, Payette Rivers. .................................... 11

Figure 6. USGS gaging locations for State-established minimum flows. ............................. 12

Figure 7. Average and minimum Snake River flows at Weiser, 1910-2009. ........................ 15

Figure 8. Minimum Snake River flows at Weiser, 1910-2009. ............................................. 16

Figure 9. Locations of administrative basins 02 and 03. ...................................................... 19

Figure 10. Approximate Snake River volume in excess of minimum flow (based onaverage flow conditions). ............................................................................................... 21

Figure 11. Approximate Snake River volume in excess of minimum flow (based onabsolute minimum flow conditions). .............................................................................. 22

Figure 12. Minimum flow locations in the upper portions of the Payette River basin. .......... 26

Figure 13. Approximate locations of USGS Payette River gaging stations (nearPayette and near Letha). ........................................................................................... 28

Figure 14. Mean and minimum discharge in the Payette River near Payette and nearLetha, Idaho, 1993-2009. .............................................................................................. 29

Figure 15. Volume above 500 cfs between mid October and early June under averageconditions. ..................................................................................................................... 30

Figure 16. Volume above 500 cfs between mid October and early June under extreme

low-water conditions. ..................................................................................................... 31

Figure 17. Surficial geology in the vicinity of the proposed site. .......................................... 34

Figure 18. Locations of drillers reports in the vicinity of the proposed project site. ............. 35

Figure 19. Major storage reservoirs in Idaho. ...................................................................... 42

Figure 20: Potential Snake River diversion area. .................................................................. 46


5/58

SPF Water Engineering, LLC Page v Preliminary Water Supply AnalysisMarch 15, 2010 Idaho Energy Complex (Payette County Site)

Figure 21. Payette River Diversion Area .............................................................................. 47

List of Tables

Table 1. Conceptual water demand distribution for the AEHI facility. .................................... 8

Table 2: Snake River minimum stream flows. ....................................................................... 13

Table 3. River miles at selected Snake River locations. ...................................................... 14

Table 4. Recorded average daily flows less than 4,750 cfs since Weiser minimumstream flow was established. ........................................................................................ 17

Table 5: Pending non-hydropower applications in Administrative Basins 02 and 03. ........... 20

Table 6: Summary of Snake River water rights (live flow) based on priority dates. .............. 24

Table 7. Payette River minimum stream flow water rights. .................................................. 27

Table 8: Summary of Payette River Basin No. 65 water rights (live flow) based on prioritydates. ............................................................................................................................. 32

Table 9: Idaho storage facilities of at least 5,000 acre-feet capacity (based on dataobtained from Idaho Department of Water Resources.) ................................................ 40

Table 10. Oregon storage facilities of at least 5,000 acre-feet capacity tributary to theSnake River above Brownlee Reservoir (based on data obtained from State ofOregon). ........................................................................................................................ 41

Table 11: Applicable Regulations and Agencies. .................................................................. 45

Table 12: Flow and Diameter Information. ............................................................................ 48

Table 13: Snake River TDH, pressure, and horsepower. ..................................................... 49

Table 14. Payette River TDH, pressure, and horsepower. .................................................. 49

Appendices

Appendix A: Snake River Discharge Data

Appendix B: Snake River Water Rights

Appendix C: Payette River Discharge Data

Appendix D: Payette River Water RightsAppendix E: Summary of Drillers Reports


6/58

SPF Water Engineering, LLC Page 1 Preliminary Water Supply AnalysisMarch 15, 2010 Idaho Energy Complex (Payette County Site)

1. I NTRODUCTION

1.1. Background

Enercon Services, Inc. (ENERCON) is preparing a preliminary feasibility analysis forthe proposed Idaho Energy Complex a nuclear facility proposed by Alternate EnergyHoldings, Inc. (AEHI) for Payette County, Idaho. The Idaho Energy Complex facility isproposed for a 500-acre portion of property near Big Willow Road and Stone QuarryRoad in Townships T9N R4W, T9N R3W, T8N R4W, and T8N R3W in PayetteCounty, Idaho (Figure 1 through Figure 3).

ENERCON retained SPF Water Engineering, LLC (SPF) to evaluate water supplyoptions for the facility. SPF is an Idaho-based water-resource engineering andconsulting firm with extensive experience in hydrology, water rights, and water-systemdesign and construction.

1.2. Purpose and ObjectivesThe purpose of this analysis was to identify (and assess the likelihood for developing)potential sources of water for the proposed energy facility. Specific objectives of thisanalysis included the following:

1. Review project water supply requirements based on data provided byENERCON;

2. Evaluate potential Snake River water availability;3. Evaluate potential Payette River water availability;4. Evaluate potential groundwater availability;

5. Evaluate potential water availability from other sources;6. Describe potential diversion and conveyance options; and

1.3. Overview of Potential Water SourcesThis report presents a preliminary identification and analysis of potential water sourcesfor the Idaho Energy Complex facility. Water sources throughout southern Idaho, andto a lesser extent eastern Oregon, were evaluated as a potential water supply for theIdaho Energy Complex facility. The water-source evaluation was based on thefollowing criteria:

1. Quantity of water;

2. Reliability of water supply;3. Likelihood of acquiring water rights at a reasonable cost or establishing

new water rights through appropriation;4. Possible institutional constraints to completing a water transfer or water

exchange; and


7/58


5. Proximity to site (i.e., likelihood of successfully constructing a conveyancesystem to bring water to the project site).

Sources of water that were considered for this analysis included the following:

1. Snake River downstream from Milner Dam;2. Lower Payette River;3. Groundwater; and4. Other water sources (groundwater, Snake River above the Milner, other

Snake River tributaries, storage, etc.).

This analysis was based on publicly available information. Information sourcesincluded the Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR), the U.S. GeologicalSurvey, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and other sources.

This is a preliminary water-supply analysis. It describes the likelihood of being able to

develop a water supply from the identified sources.1.4. Report Organization

This report begins with a review of water supply requirements for the proposed facility(Section 2). Snake River flow characteristics and water rights are described in Section3. Similarly, Payette River flow characteristics and water rights are described inSection 4. The potential availability of groundwater is explored in Section 5; otherpotential water sources are considered in Section 6. Section 7 outlines potentialinfrastructure options for the proposed facility. Supporting materials are provided inappendix form.


8/58


Figure 1: Vicinity map.


9/58


Figure 2: Location map (2006 NAIP imagery).


10/58


Figure 3: Location map (1:250,000 USGS Quad background).


11/58


2. P ROJECT WATER REQUIREMENTS

2.1. Introduction

This section lists projected annual and monthly water demands. These projectionsare based on typical plant requirements. Specific water-demand requirements for thisproposed facility have not yet been developed.

2.2. Annual Water DemandsFor purposes of conceptual project planning and evaluation, annual water demandsfor the project were projected by ENERCON 1 to be 50 kaf (thousand acre-feet) peryear in a worst-case scenario based on published reactor-vendor information. Thisannual volume is equivalent to an average annual diversion rate of 69 cfs (cubic feetper second). For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that all diverted waterwould be fully consumed (i.e., evaporated) on site, with no return flow or wastewaterdischarge to the Payette or Snake Rivers.

This 50 kaf annual water-demand projection was based on the assumed maximumcooling demand for two 1,710 MWe commercially-available, conventional-technologyreactor units with standard cooling systems 2. Actual demand for the Idaho EnergyComplex may be less because of the following factors:

ENERCON has conservatively estimated less than 50 kaf annual waterdemand for cooling. However, there is a 30% difference in coolingrequirements among the six most common reactor technologies 3. Thisdifference results in a potential base cooling water demand that may be as lowas 35 kaf.

There is also a 20% difference in water use between different coolingtechniques 4. Coupled with the base cooling requirement differences notedabove, this might decrease the potential water demand to as low as 28 kaf.

AEHI has indicated a plan to use hybrid-cooling technology that could reducethe demand to less than 50kaf annual water demand for cooling. 5. Thisdemand would likely be limited to certain climatic conditions. A detailedcooling-requirements analysis has not been conducted to confirm this value.

1 Rick McGoey, Enercon Services Inc., personal communication.2 Ibid.3 Ibid. 4 Ibid.5 AEHI e-mail from Don Gillispie (AEHI) to Rick McGoey (ENERCON) dated March 8, 2010.5


12/58


Given the factors above, the estimated 50 kaf/yr demand may substantiallyoverestimate the ultimate annual water demand for the facility. However, a watersupply acquisition and conveyance strategy is more easily scaled down than scaledup. In other words, a strategy that is feasible for a cooling-water demand of 50 kaf/yris likely easier to implement for an annual demand of 30 kaf, and even easier toimplement for an annual demand of 1,000 acre feet. In contrast, some water supplystrategies cannot be scaled up due to lack of available water supply or available waterrights. Therefore, although 50 kaf/yr may overestimate the ultimate water demand forthe facility, it was used in this analysis as an initial projection for preliminary water-supply analysis purposes.

2.3. Monthly Water DemandDue to seasonal air temperature variations, cooling loads can be expected to vary ona monthly basis. A detailed evaluation of project cooling load variation is not possibleat this preliminary stage. However, for purposes of preliminary water supply analysis,monthly cooling loads were estimated based on the ratio of mean monthly airtemperature to mean annual air temperature. This technique leads to a projection ofrelative monthly cooling needs and provides a preliminary methodology for distributionof the estimated annual water demand. The monthly conceptual water demanddistribution estimates are presented in Table 1, and are shown graphically in Figure 4.Mean monthly temperatures are based on the National Weather Service site inEmmett (elevation 2390 feet) because it has a similar elevation to the project site(2450 feet +/-). Using this approach, peaking factors vary from a high of 1.44 inAugust (i.e., 72.8 F / 50.7 F) to a low of 0.58 in January. Corresponding averagemonthly water demands vary from 99.1 cfs in August to 39.9 cfs in January.


13/58


MonthMean Monthly AirTemperature (F)

Emmett NWS

Average MonthlyWater Demand

(cfs)

Average MonthlyWater Demand (af)

Peaking Factor

January 29.3 39.9 2,453 0.58February 32.2 43.8 2,433 0.63

March 40.4 55.0 3,384 0.8April 47.0 63.9 3,804 0.93May 53.7 73.0 4,492 1.06June 61.8 84.1 5,004 1.22July 69.4 94.4 5,806 1.37

August 72.8 99.1 6,093 1.44September 66.2 90.2 5,365 1.31

October 56.1 76.4 4,698 1.11November 44.9 61.1 3,637 0.89

December 34.5 47.0 2,890 0.68Annual 50.7 69.0 50,058 1.00

Table 1. Conceptual water demand distribution for the AEHI facility.


14/58


0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

Mean ai r t emper at ur e ( F ) M

onthly water demand (cfs)

Average Monthly Water Demand (cfs)

Mean Monthly Air Temperature (F) Emmett NWS

69 cfsAverageAnnualWater

Demand

50.7 FAverage

Annual AirTemperature

Figure 4. Conceptual monthly water demand distribution for the AEHIfacility.


15/58


3. S NAKE R IVER

3.1. Introduction

The Snake and Payette rivers represent the most likely sources of water for theproposed nuclear facility. The Snake River drains nearly all of southern Idaho andflows within approximately 10 miles of the proposed project site. The Payette Riverdrains into the Snake River near the project site (Figure 5).

Water supply needs can likely be met by the use of (1) existing Snake and/or PayetteRiver water rights and (2) new appropriations from the Snake and Payette rivers.While not directly a water source, the use of on- or off-site storage may be used toincrease reliability and diversion options.

The following sections outline preliminary water-supply options and opportunities fromthe Snake and Payette rivers. Section 3.2 describes Snake River historical flow

levels, State-established minimum flow levels, flows present by special circumstances,and potential unappropriated water. Section 3.3 describes water rights with points ofdiversion in the Snake River between Milner Dam and Weiser. Payette River flowsand water rights are discussed in Section 4.

It is likely that existing Snake River water rights and/or new appropriations from theSnake River could supply all or part of the proposed project water needs (it is alsolikely possible to meet a portion of the projected water needs from the Payette River see Section 4). Although flows in the Snake River are substantial, the availability ofnew appropriations from the Snake River may be limited on a seasonal basis by State-established minimum stream flows. The following sections describe historical SnakeRiver flows relative to established minimum flows, describe factors that may eitherincrease or decrease the availability of water at any given time, and provide adiscussion of existing water rights that could potentially be used to help satisfy projectwater needs.

3.2. River Flow CharacteristicsThe Snake River above Milner Dam and below Milner Dam is managed as twodistinctly different river reaches. In essence, the Snake River flow may go zero atMilner Dam during a portion of the year as a result of upstream diversions. Incontrast, irrigation return flows, groundwater discharge, spring discharge, and tributarystream inflows result in substantial year-round flows in the Snake River below MilnerDam.

Minimum streamflows have been established for the Snake River at Milner, Murphy,Weiser, Johnson Bar, and Lime Point (Figure 6). The State-established minimumstream flows at these sites are listed in Table 2. These minimum stream flows arebased on flow measurements at USGS gaging stations located at Milner, Murphy,


16/58


Weiser, Hells Canyon Dam, and China Gardens. River miles for these and otherselected Snake River locations are listed in Table 3.

3.2.1. Snake River Flow at Weiser

The Snake River at Weiser drains an area of approximately 69,200 mi. Historicalflows in the Snake River at this location within the period of record have ranged from alow flow of 4390 cfs on June 7, 1992 to a high flow of over 84,000 cfs on April 29,1952.

Figure 5: Proposed project area and Snake, Boise, Payette Rivers.

Although diversions from the Snake River for the AEHI facility could affect flows ateach of the downstream minimum streamflow sites, the Idaho Department of WaterResources (IDWR) uses the Snake River flow at Weiser to administer water rightsupstream of the Weiser gage (Figure 6). New appropriations from the Snake River (orfrom tributaries such as the Payette River) above Weiser will not be authorized to


17/58


divert during times when the new diversions would cause the Snake River flow to fallbelow 4,750 cfs that of the established minimum flow at Weiser. If authorized, newappropriations would likely be vulnerable to occasional curtailment when Snake Riverflows fall below that of established the minimum flow at Weiser.

However, Snake River flows are typically above the minimum flow of 4,750 cfs atWeiser (Figure 7 and Appendix A). In fact, the mean flow generally remains aboveapproximately 9,800 cfs. Even the absolute minimum flows 6 are generally greaterthan 4,750 cfs (Figure 8). The Snake River flow at Weiser has fallen below theminimum flow of 4,750 cfs on only six days in two years (1977 and 1992) since theminimum flow was established in 1976 (Figure 8 and Table 4 pages 16 and 17,respectively).

Figure 6. USGS gaging locations for State-established minimum flows.

6 The absolute minimum flow is the lowest flow recorded for a particular day within the period ofrecord.

Approximatesite location


18/58


WaterRight

Owner UseQuantity

(cfs)Gage

StationSeason Priority Date Notes

2 200 IWRBMinimum

Stream Flow

0 Milner 1/1 12/31 12/29/1976Average Daily Flow of Zero (0)

2 100Idaho Power

CompanyPower 2150 Murphy 1/1 1 2/3 1 1 /1 7/1 90 0

Average Daily Flow; multiple combined rights (see record); unsubordinated flows of 3,900 cfs; April 1 to Oct 31, and 5,600 cfs Nov 1 to March 31

2 201 IWRBMinimum

Stream Flow

3300 Murphy 1/1 12/31 12/29/1976

Average daily flow; water rights 2 100, 2 201, 2 4000A; combined limited to 3,900

cfs

2 223 IWRBMinimum

Stream Flow

600 Murphy 1/1 12 /31 7/1/1 985

Average daily flow; water rights 2 100, 2 201, 2 223, 2 4000A combined limited to 3,900 cfs (IC 42 203B)

2 224 IWRBMinimum

Stream

Flow

1700 Murphy 11/1 3/31 7/1/1985

Quantity is average daily flow measured at Murphy gage. Water Rights 2 100, 2 201, 2 223, 2 224, 2 4000A, 24001A, 2 2032A combined

limited to 5,900 cfs (IC 42 203B) Note: The 5,900 cfs value appears to be in error and should be 5,600 cfs

2 4000AIdaho Power

CompanyPower

18401750

Murphy11/1 3/314/1 10/31

1/17/1900Average Daily FlowMultiple Combined Rights

3 6 IWRBMinimum

Stream Flow

4750 Weiser 1/1 12/31 12/29/1976Average daily flow at Weiser gage

3 7 IWRBMinimum

Stream Flow

5 00 0 Johns on Bar 1/1 12 /31 7/1/1 978

The average daily flows are to be maintained 95 percent

of the time. Gage at Johnson Bar

3 8 IWRBMinimum

Stream Flow

13000 Li me Poi nt 1/1 12 /31 7/1/1 985

The average daily flows are to be maintained 95 percent of the time. Gage at China Gardens

Table 2: Snake River minimum stream flows.


19/58


Location River Mile

Milner Dam 639.1

Snake River at Milner (USGS Gaging Station 13087995) 638.7

CJ Strike Reservoir 494.0

Swan Falls Dam 457.7

Snake River at Murphy (USGS Gage No. 13172500) 453.5

Snake River at Weiser (USGS Gage No. 13269000) 351.3

Hells Canyon Dam 247.6

Snake River at Hells Canyon Dam (USGS Gage No. 13290450) 247.0

Johnson Bar 230.0

Snake River at Johnson Bar (USGS Gage No. 13290460) 229.9

Imnaha River 191.6

Salmon river 188.2

Snake River below McDuff Rapids at China Gardens (USGS Gage No.13317660) 175.7

Lime Point 172.0

Grande Ronde River 168.7

Snake River near Anatone (USGS Gage No. 13334300) 167.2

Source: FERC FEIS (FERC, 2007, pg 55-56) and USGS NWIS website; river miles are based on the distance from the mouth of the Snake River.

Table 3. River miles at selected Snake River locations.


20/58


0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

1/1 1/31 3/2 4/1 5/2 6/1 7/2 8/1 9/1 10/1 11/1 12/1 1/1

Mean daily discharge, 1910 2009


Minimum daily discharge, 1910 2009


Minimum flow at Weiser

Figure 7. Average and minimum Snake River flows at Weiser, 1910-2009.

3.2.2. Snake River flow at Lime Point

A minimum flow of 13,000 cfs 95 percent of the time was established under water right3-8 for the Snake River at Lime Point (located approximately 75 miles below HellsCanyon Dam) by the Idaho Water Resource Board (IWRB) on July 1, 1985. Thisminimum flow is periodically not met. However, this minimum flow is not used, norwas it intended for use, in the administration of water rights upstream of Hells Canyon.Our expectation is that the Idaho Water Resource Board will clarify this minimumstreamflow water right accordingly in the next State water plan.

3.2.3. Snake River flow at Johnson Bar

A minimum flow of 5,000 cfs at Johnson Bar (located below Hells Canyon Dam seeFigure 6) 95 percent of the time was established by the Idaho Water Resource Board(IWRB) on July 1, 1978 under water right no. 3-7. However, this minimum flow is notused for the administration of water rights above Hells Canyon and therefore does not


21/58


represent a constraint to new appropriations above Weiser. This is, in part, becauseflows at Johnson Bar are controlled by discharge rates from Hells Canyon Dam.Idaho Powers current operating practice and pending application for relicensing(FERC, 2007; Idaho Power, 2003) call for flows below Hells Canyon Dam of 6,500 cfsbetween June 1 and October 20 (except 5,000 cfs under atypical operations); 8,000 to13,000 cfs between October 21 and December 11; and a minimum flow establishedon a year to year basis (generally above 6,500 cfs) between December 12 andJune 1.

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

1/1 1/31 3/2 4/1 5/2 6/1 7/2 8/1 9/1 10/1 11/1 12/1



Figure 8. Minimum Snake River flows at Weiser, 1910-2009.


22/58


DateAverage daily flows less than 4,750 cfs

since 12/29/1976, Snake River at Weiser(cfs)

6/30/1977 4,5707/1/1977 4,6906/5/1992 4,7006/6/1992 4,6106/7/1992 4,460

6/25/1992 4,510

Table 4. Recorded average daily flows less than 4,750 cfs since Weiserminimum stream flow was established.

3.2.4. Flows Present by Special Circumstances

Not all flow in the Snake River above that of the State-established minimum flow atWeiser is available for potential appropriation. Some of the Snake River flow atWeiser is present as a result of flow augmentation and unexercised water rights, ormay be reduced in the future by diversions under currently-pending water rightapplications.

First, a portion of the summer flow in the Snake River is present in the form of aspecial release to assist in the downstream migration of anadromous fish.Applications to divert substantial amounts of water during such flow-augmentationrelease periods might be opposed by downstream fishery interests. Theseaugmentation flows consist of special releases from reservoirs in the upper Snake,Boise, and Payette basins, as well as undiverted water from Oregon Skyline Farmsand the Oregon Water Trust. Augmentation releases began in the mid-1990s. Untilthe last two years, augmentation flows were generally released from about June 20through August 20, although augmentation releases sometimes began earlier in dryyears or later in wet years. The Bureau of Reclamation has begun shifting future flowaugmentation releases to the late April early July timeframe (Bureau of Reclamation,2007) when possible. From a practical standpoint, the flow augmentation releasesgenerally do not coincide with flood control releases, and thus can typically be

expected to begin in mid-June and end in late July (releases from Cascade Reservoirinto the Payette River generally are extended through August because of water qualityconcerns in the reservoir).

Second, some water is present in the Snake River because some upstream irrigators(or other users) are not diverting all or a portion of the amount authorized under theirexisting water rights. There is no assurance that these users would not divert their


23/58


entire water rights in the future. To avoid forfeiture, water right holders may placeunused water into the Idaho Water Supply Bank, from which others may rent thewater. A cursory review of available water bank records suggests that there may beas much as 150 to 200 cfs of Basin 02 Snake River water rights available for rent(water rights for rental in Basin 03 are substantially less). These rights that arecurrently held by the Idaho Water Supply Bank contribute to flows at the Weiser gage.Further research is required to more accurately identify and quantify the actual amountof available flow that is present as a result of unexercised rights, or to identify andquantify the amount that could be rented and used by the AEHI facility.

A third factor influencing the amount of water available for appropriation in the SnakeRiver above Weiser is the amount of water represented in pending applications. Aninitial review was conducted of water right applications proposing diversions from theSnake River between Milner Dam and the confluence of the Snake River with theClearwater River near Lewiston. The inventory was conducted by searching the

IDWR online water rights database. Diversions between Milner Dam and the pointwhere the river first flows out of western Idaho and into Oregon are in IDWRAdministrative Basin 02. Diversions between the point where the river re-enterswestern Idaho and where it leaves Idaho are in Administrative Basin 03 (Figure 9).The results of the review indicate that there are a total of 11 applications in Basins 02and 03 (Table 5). Five of these are in Basin 02 and five are in Basin 03. The sum ofthe diversion rates for the non-hydropower applications in Basin 02 and Basin 03 isapproximately 9.53 cfs. An Idaho Power Company application (02-10325) with apriority date of October 10, 2003 seeking to appropriate 3,850 cfs for hydropowergeneration is currently pending before the Department. This proposed diversionappears to be for the Shoshone Falls facility near Twin Falls. However, hydropower

uses are non-consumptive and will not impact flows available for downstreamappropriation.

3.2.5. Snake River Flow Potentially Available for Appropriation

Any new Snake River diversions for the proposed AEHI facility could not reduce flowsto less than the State-established minimum streamflow at Weiser. Nonetheless,excluding water likely present as a result of unexercised rights or possibly committedto pending applications, there are over 7.9 million acre feet of water in the Snake Riverflowing by Weiser in excess of minimum flows under average conditions (Figure 10).Even under absolute minimum-flow conditions, there are likely in excess of 1.9 millionacre feet of water in the Snake River flowing by Weiser in excess of minimum flows

(Figure 11).The Snake River does not adjoin the AEHI property. Any diversions from the SnakeRiver would need to be conveyed to the AEHI property or exchanged for flow and/ordiversion from the Payette River. Conveyance options are discussed in Section 7.2.1.


24/58


Figure 9. Locations of administrative basins 02 and 03.


25/58


26/58


0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

1/1 1/31 3/2 4/1 5/2 6/1 7/2 8/1 9/1 10/1 11/1 12/1 1/1



7,900,000 acre feet

Figure 10. Approximate Snake River volume in excess of minimum flow(based on average flow conditions).


27/58


0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

1/1 1/31 3/2 4/1 5/2 6/1 7/2 8/1 9/1 10/1 11/1 12/1 1/1



Minimum flow at Weiser

Series1

1,900,000 acre feet

Figure 11. Approximate Snake River volume in excess of minimum flow(based on absolute minimum flow conditions).


28/58


3.3. Snake River Water Rights

3.3.1. Existing rights

The Idaho Department of Water Resources has divided the Snake River into threeseparate administrative basins. The Upper Snake River from the Wyoming-Idahoborder near Alpine, Wyoming to Milner Dam near Burley, Idaho is designated Basin01. Administrative Basin 02 extends from Milner Dam to the Oregon-Idaho bordernear Adrian, Oregon, where the Snake River flows into Oregon for approximately 14miles before returning to form the Idaho-Oregon border. Basin 03 extends from nearParma, Idaho to Lewiston, Idaho, where the Snake River enters Washington State.

Existing water rights in Basins 02 and 03 could form one component of the waterrequired to serve the proposed AEHI facility. For example, under a willing seller/buyer

scenario, existing irrigation water rights could be acquired and transferred, changingthe place of use to the AEHI facility for industrial use. Acquisition of existing rightsholds many benefits. One such benefit is the ability to secure water rights with prioritydates senior to the States minimum stream flow right at Weiser.

Due to river operation and management constraints, water rights located above MilnerDam (i.e., Snake River rights in Basin 01) are expected to be less desirable fortransfer to the AEHI facility than Snake River rights located below Milner Dam 7.Therefore, only Snake River water rights below Milner Dam in Basins 02 and 03(above Weiser) are explored in this report.

Lists of selected Snake River water rights sorted by diversion rate and by priority date

are provided in Appendix B. These water right lists are based on the following searchcriteria:

Water rights from Basin 02 and Basin 03 (Snake River below Milner Dam);

Point of diversion located upstream of the Weiser gage;

Use is irrigation; and

Minimum diversion rate of 0.50 cfs.

The sum of diversion rates for all Snake River water rights meeting the search criteriais 4,545 cfs. Snake River water rights with priority dates junior to the December 29,1976 Weiser minimum flow right authorize an aggregate maximum diversion of 233cfs (see Table 6).

7 Milner Dam is located 288 river miles upstream of Weiser, Idaho (see Table 3).


29/58


Some water rights will have combined use limits where two or more rights are limitedto a quantity less than the sum of the individual rights. These combined use limits aredisregarded in this investigation, and therefore the ultimate total available diversionrate will be slightly less than shown in Table 6.

Priority Date Diversion Rate

Appropriated (cfs)all 4,545

Post 1950 3,534Post 1960 3,023

Post 12/29/1976 (1) 233

Snake River Water Rights

(1) Priority date of Weiser minimum flow water right 3 6

Table 6: Summary of Snake River water rights (live flow) based on prioritydates.

Large blocks of water diverted from the Snake River may be available for acquisitionand transfer to the AEHI facility. For example, the largest six irrigation water rights,each of which individually exceeds 125 cfs, together authorize diversion of over 1,218cfs.

3.3.2. Pending applications

Twelve pending applications for new appropriations from the Snake River in Basins 02

and 03 represent a total non-hydropower diversion of up to 14.22 cfs, and hydropowerdiversion of 3,850 cfs. The hydropower application is for Idaho Powers ShoshoneFalls Hydroelectric Project. A list of Snake River permit applications was presentedearlier in Table 5.


30/58


4. P AYETTE RIVER

4.1. Payette River Flow Characteristics

The Payette River, a tributary to the Snake River, flows near the AEHI property. ThePayette River drains an area of approximately 3,240 mi. Historical daily flows in thePayette River near the City of Payette (based on the period of record, 1952 to present)have ranged from a minimum of 127 cfs on August 15, 1991 to a maximum of 32,000cfs on January 2, 1997.

The lower Payette River (i.e., below Black Canyon Reservoir) does not have a State-established minimum flow. However, minimum flows have been established forseveral reaches in the upper portions of the basin (Figure 12 and Table 7). Thesedecreed rights establish minimum stream flows with various quantities, seasons, andreaches of the Payette River, North Fork Payette River, and South Fork Payette Riverwith priority dates ranging from April 26, 1985 to May 16, 1989. In addition, PermitNo. 65-13894 establishes additional minimum stream flow conditions on the NorthFork Payette River with a July 16, 1999 priority date. All minimum stream flowreaches are located upstream of anticipated potential facility diversion locations andtherefore should have limited impact on establishing new appropriations or water righttransfers proposing diversions from the Payette River.

Average and minimum flows in the Payette River near Payette and near Letha (Figure13) for the period 1993 8 to 2009 are shown in Figure 14 (see also Appendix C).Although the lower Payette River does not have a State-established minimum flow,opportunities for large new diversions from the Payette River near the AEHI propertymay be limited during times when the river is flowing at less than 300 to 500 cfs 9. A

line denoting 500 cfs is shown in Figure 14 for reference.

4.2. Water Potentially Available for AppropriationUnder average conditions, water near the AEHI facility is likely available forappropriation during the non-irrigation season. The volume of water during times offlows greater than 500 cfs between mid October and early June is approximately 1.6million acre feet under average conditions (Figure 15). Even under extreme low-waterconditions, the volume of water from flows in excess of 500 cfs likely in excess of100,000 acre feet (Figure 16).

8 The approximate time at which flow augmentation releases began.9 This is based on professional judgment regarding the practical limitations of diverting water from abroad channel at low flows; additional analysis would be required to determine an actual low-flowdiversion threshold.


31/58


32/58


WaterRight

Owner UseReach

IDQuantity Season Priority Date Status Notes

212 01/01 - 04/18

1,100 04/19 - 07/15212 07/16 - 12/31337 01/01 - 04/14

1,100 04/15 - 08/31337 09/01 - 12/31337 01/01 - 04/14

33704/15 - 08/31 Monday

- Thursday

400 04/15 - 08/31 Friday -Sunday

337 01/01 - 04/141,100 04/15 - 08/31

337 09/01 - 12/31407 01/01 - 04/141,350 04/15 - 08/31407 09/01 - 12/31

500 03/16 - 06/17

1,400 06/18 - 10/12

106 10/13 - 03/15

100 03/16 - 06/17

294 10/13 - 03/15

1,800 05/01 - 06/30

1,300 07/01 - 07/31

1,800 08/01 - 09/01

65-13059 IWRB MinimumStream Flow

400 09/02 - 04/30 5/1/1989 Decreed North ForkPayette River

65-13060 IWRB MinimumStream Flow

763 04/15 - 08/31 5/16/1989 Decreed South ForkPayette River

65-13894 IWRBMinimum

Stream Flow 60 07/01 - 09/07 7/16/1999 PermitNorth Fork

Payette River

MinimumStream Flow65-12733 IWRB

North ForkPayette River

4/5/1988

South ForkPayette River

MinimumStream Flow

IWRB65-12840

65-12822

MinimumStream FlowIWRB65-12839

MinimumStream Flow

IWRB

4/5/1988

A

Payette River


Decreed

Decreed

Decreed

Decreed

B

C

D


12/17/1987

E

4/26/1985

Table 7. Payette River minimum stream flow water rights.


33/58


Figure 13. Approximate locations of USGS Payette River gaging stations(near Payette and near Letha).


34/58


0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

1/1 1/31 3/2 4/1 5/2 6/1 7/2 8/1 9/1 10/1 11/1 12/1 1/1

Mean daily discharge, 1993 2009 (Payette R nr Payette)

Minimum daily discharge, 1993 2009 (Payette R nr Payette)Mean daily discharge, 1993 2009 (Payette R nr Letha)

Minimum daily discharge, 1993 2009 (Payette R nr Letha)

Figure 14. Mean and minimum discharge in the Payette River near Payetteand near Letha, Idaho, 1993-2009.


35/58


0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

1/1 1/31 3/2 4/1 5/2 6/1 7/2 8/1 9/1 10/1 11/1 12/1 1/1

Mean daily discharge, 1993 2009 (Payette R nr Payette)Mean daily discharge, 1993 2009 (Payette R nr Letha)500 cfs

1,600,000 acre feet

Figure 15. Volume above 500 cfs between mid October and early Juneunder average conditions.


36/58


0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

1/1 1/31 3/2 4/1 5/2 6/1 7/2 8/1 9/1 10/1 11/1 12/1 1/1

Minimum daily discharge, 1993 2009 (Payette R nr

Payette)Minimum daily discharge, 1993 2009 (Payette R nr Letha)

129,000 acre feet

Figure 16. Volume above 500 cfs between mid October and early Juneunder extreme low-water conditions.

4.3. Payette River Water RightsThe Idaho Department of Water Resources divides the state into administrativebasins. The Payette River Basin is designated Basin 65, the boundaries of whichare depicted in Figure 12.

Similar to the above discussion on Snake River water rights (Section 3.3), existingPayette River Basin water rights offer potential for providing some or all water requiredto serve the proposed AEHI facility. They could be acquired under a willingbuyer/seller scenario and transferred to the facility for industrial use.

Lists of selected Payette River Basin No. 65 water rights sorted by diversion rate andby priority date are provided in Appendix D. These water right lists are based on thefollowing search criteria:

Water rights from Basin 65;


37/58


Source is surface water (not groundwater);

Use is irrigation; and

Minimum diversion rate of 0.50 cfs.

The sum of diversion rates for all Basin 65 water rights meeting the search criteria is5,408 cfs. Water rights with priority dates senior to the December 29, 1976 dateestablished for the Weiser gage minimum stream flow total 5,178 cfs (see Table 8).Black Canyon Irrigation District owns a 1,200 cfs water right bearing a September 19,1938 priority date. Water rights with prioritys pre-dating September 19, 1938 total3,276 cfs.

Some water rights will have combined use limits where two or more rights are limitedto a quantity less than the sum of the individual rights. These combined use limits aredisregarded in this investigation, and therefore the ultimate total available diversionrate will be slightly less than shown in Table 8.

Priority Date Diversion Rate

Appropriated (cfs)all 4,545

Pre 12/29/1976 (1) 3,534Pre 9/19/1938 3,023

Payette River Water Rights

(1) Priority date of Weiser minimum flow water right 3 6

Table 8: Summary of Payette River Basin No. 65 water rights (live flow)based on priority dates.

4.3.1. Pending applications

There are 53 pending applications for new appropriations from all sources in PayetteRiver Basin No. 65 representing a total proposed appropriation of nearly 2388 cfs. Ofthis total, 1,875 cfs is proposed for hydropower use, 145 cfs is proposed for minimumstream flow, and 305 cfs is proposed for irrigation from wastewater. Search results forBasin 65 applications are provided in Appendix D.


38/58


5. G ROUNDWATER

5.1. Introduction

This section provides a brief review of aquifer characteristics in the vicinity of theproposed site. The conclusion of the review is that aquifers underlying the site wouldlikely be insufficient for supplying 30 to 50 kaf; however, additional studies would beneeded to confirm this conclusion.

5.2. HydrogeologyStratigraphy in the vicinity of the project site consists primarily of the Tertiary-agePayette Formation (Figure 17). The Payette Formation typically consists of fine-grainlake-bed sediments such as clay, mudstone, and shale, with lesser amounts fine-grained sand and sandstone. Sediments of the Payette Formation are visible in thebluffs along the north side of the Payette River valley between Big Willow Creek andthe City of Payette. The Payette Formation contains water-bearing zones that aretapped by numerous wells in Payette County for domestic and stockwater purposes.

Higher elevations within the project boundary are capped with younger Quaternary-age terrace gravels. These gravel deposits are generally found above the regionalwater table and do not function as significant aquifers.

Sediments overlying the valley bottoms along Big Willow Creek, Stone Quarry Gulch,and the Payette River are mapped as Quaternary-age alluvium, consisting of sands,gravels, and clays generally deposited by the present streams. Along the PayetteRiver, these alluvial sediments may contain significant thicknesses of clean sand andgravel. Within the tributary streams, the sediments are generally thinner and finer-grained.A search of the Idaho Department of Water Resources well construction databaserevealed a total of 135 recorded well records within a 5-mile radius of the proposedpower plant site (Figure 18). A list of well drillers reports is provided in appendix E.


39/58


Figure 17. Surficial geology in the vicinity of the proposed site.


40/58


Figure 18. Locations of drillers reports in the vicinity of the proposedproject site.

5.3. Aquifer Characteristics in the Vicinity of the Proposed SiteBased on a review of geology and recorded well drillers report, aquifers within theproject boundary likely consist of fractured shale or mudstone and thin sand layerscontained within predominantly non-water bearing section of clay, mudstone, andshale sediments of the Payette Formation. These aquifers typically produce yields ofless than 20 gpm, and may be sufficient for stockwater and individual domestic homeuses.

5.4. Limitations to Groundwater UseThe aquifers within the site boundary are clearly insufficient for use as a source ofpower plant cooling water. It is unclear without further investigation whether these


41/58


aquifers are capable of supplying a sufficient amount of water for all or a portion ofpotable water needs.

Aquifers located within the Payette River Valley (in contrast to aquifers under the

proposed site) are generally more productive, and are sufficient for domestic,irrigation, municipal, and limited industrial uses. The aquifers in this area couldpotentially be developed as a potable supply source from the Idaho Energy Complex.However, these aquifers lack adequate capacity for power plant cooling uses.Therefore, they have not been considered as a potential source of water for the IdahoEnergy Complex.


42/58


6. O THER WATER S OURCES

Several other sources of water were evaluated for this project, including use of waterfrom the Snake River above the Milner Dam, municipal wastewater, Oregon waterrights, and various options for water storage. These are discussed in the followingsections.

6.1. Snake River Water from Above MilnerIt may be possible to transfer natural flow and/or storage water rights from the SnakeRiver upstream of Milner Dam downstream to the Payette vicinity. However, largeblocks of water are not likely available at a feasible cost, and there may be politicalconstraints to moving water from eastern Idaho to western Idaho. Theoretically, floodcontrol releases could be available from above Milner Dam, but there would be noadvantage to appropriating these releases over appropriating high-water flows from

the Snake River closer to the proposed site. Snake River flows from above MilnerDam therefore do not represent a viable source of water for the proposed facility.

6.2. Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) EffluentReuse of treated municipal wastewater effluent for power plant cooling purposes canbe a win-win for the municipality, the power plant owner, and the environment. Theadvantage to the municipality is that the treatment requirements for targetcontaminants (phosphorus, etc.) is reduced, resulting in significant savings in capitaland O&M costs for wastewater treatment. The advantage for the power plant ownercan be an available water supply even in a water-limited area. The advantage for theenvironment is that the power plant operator can pre-treat or concentrate themunicipal wastewater contaminants, making them easier to remove from the wastestream, and ultimately reducing or eliminating the contaminant load to receivingstreams.

A relatively large population within a reasonable proximity of the power plant isrequired for treated effluent to be considered a viable source of water supply. Forexample, cities with newer sanitary sewer systems (i.e., without significant inflow andinfiltration of groundwater and storm water) have a typical wastewater flow ofapproximately 60 gallons per day (gpd) per-person. Older cities with significantinfiltration of groundwater into the sewers might have a per person wastewater flow of80 gpd/person. In the Treasure Valley, municipal systems are likely a mix of older andnewer sewer systems. Assuming an average wastewater flow rate of 70 gpd/person,1 cfs of wastewater flow requires a municipal population of approximately 9,200persons. Thus, 10 cfs of wastewater flow requires a municipal population ofapproximately 92,000 persons, and 100 cfs of wastewater flow requires a municipalpopulation of 920,000 persons. Given the current population of the local area,obtaining a significant municipal wastewater flow would require extending pipe toseveral of the larger municipal wastewater treatment plants in the Treasure Valley.


43/58


6.3. Oregon Water RightsThere is currently no existing mechanism for the direct transfer of Oregon water rightsinto Idaho. However, non-use of one or more selected Oregon water rights could

potentially be used for mitigation purposes.6.4. Water Storage

Existing storage facilities could supplement anticipated water requirements for theproject. Water storage could be used to help meet peak demands, allow AEHI to takeadvantage of seasonal high flow rates, and/or help mitigate for irrigation-seasonwithdrawals from the Snake and/or Payette rivers.

Table 9 lists dams and reservoirs in Idaho which impound streams tributary to eitherthe Payette River or the Snake River upstream of Brownlee Reservoir and haveindividual storage capacity of at least 5,000 acre-feet. Table 10 lists reservoirs inOregon with the same attributes. Figure 19 shows primary reservoir sites in Idaho.

Most reservoirs listed in Table 9 do not offer a suitable source of supply for the facilitydue to a variety of constraints including delivery restrictions, insufficient capacity,operational limits, ownership, unreliable fill, or other reasons.

Water delivery from many of the Payette River storage facilities would likely requirepumping from the Payette River to the site. Water from Paddock Valley Reservoircould be pumped from Little Willow Creek below the reservoir.

Lower Snake River reservoirs provide several opportunities for water delivery fromexisting storage. Delivery to the site would likely require pumping from the SnakeRiver.

Delivery from Upper Snake River storage facilities is more challenging due tomanagement operations which limit releases from the Upper Snake River past MilnerDam to the Lower Snake River.

Reservoirs located in neighboring Oregon may also offer water supply opportunities.However, securing interstate delivery agreements may be a complicated endeavor.

6.4.1. Private Reservoirs

Payette Lake and Paddock Valley Reservoir appear to offer the greatest opportunityfor supply from existing non-federally owned systems in the Payette River drainage.Paddock Valley Reservoir, a facility owned by Little Willow Irrigation District, is located

approximately 13 miles northeast of the project site. Its primary purpose is to supplyirrigation water to water users in the Little Willow Creek drainage. Annual fill reliabilityat Paddock Valley Reservoir is limited. Payette Lake and Little Payette Lake offerstorage on upper reaches of the Payette River.

Private storage opportunities in the Lower Snake River system are limited. MagicReservoir on the Big Wood River and Salmon Falls Reservoir on Salmon Falls Creek


44/58


45/58


DAM NAME DAM OWNER STREAMCAPACITY

(ACRE-FEET)

BLACK CANYON U S BUREAU OF RECLAMATION PAYETTE RIVER 29,822 CASCADE U S BUREAU OF RECLAMATION N FK PAYETTE RIVER 703,200

DEADWOOD U S BUREAU OF RECLAMATION DEADWOOD RIVER 161,900 LITTLE PAYETTE LAKE LAKE FORK IRRIGATION DIST LAKE FORK CREEK 10,300 PADDOCK VALLEY LITTLE W ILLOW IRRIGATION DIST LITTLE W ILLOW CREEK 36,400 PAYETTE LAKE LAKE RESERVOIR COMPANY N FK PAYETTE RIVER 41,000 SAGE HEN SQUAW CREEK IRRIGATION CO SAGE HEN CREEK 5,210 ANDERSON RANCH U S BUREAU OF RECLAMATION S FK BOISE RIVER 493,200 ARROWROCK U S BUREAU OF RECLAMATION BOISE RIVER 286,600 BLISS IDAHO POWER CO SNAKE RIVER 11,000 BYBEE RIDDLE RANCHES INC SHOOFLY CREEK 7,970 C J STRIKE IDAHO POWER CO SNAKE RIVER 250,000 C BEN ROSS LITTLE WEISER RIVER IRRI DIST LITTLE WEISER RIVER 7,787 CEDAR CREEK CEDAR MESA RES AND CANAL CO CEDAR CREEK 30,000 DEER FLAT LOWER U S BUREAU OF RECLAMATION BOISE RIVER (OS) 190,000 DELAMAR KINROSS DELAMAR MINING CO HENRIETTA GULCH - JORDAN CR 14,400 FISH CREEK FISH CREEK RESERVOIR CO FISH CREEK 12,743 HOT SPRINGS NO 2 CARL F REYNOLDS & SONS HOT SPRINGS CREEK 5,334 HULET NO 2 JAY H HULET SINKER CREEK (OS) 6,787 LITTLE CAMAS MOUNTAIN HOME IRRIGATION DIST LITTLE CAMAS CREEK 18,400 LITTLE WOOD LITTLE WOOD IRRIGATION DISTRICT LITTLE WOOD RIVER 30,000 LOST VALLEY LOST VALLEY RESERVOIR CO LOST CREEK 7,100 LUCKY PEAK U S ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS BOISE RIVER 307,000 MAGIC BIG WOOD CANAL CO BIG WOOD RIVER 191,500 MANN CREEK U S BUREAU OF RECLAMATION MANN CREEK 12,950 MORMON TW IN LAKES RES & IRRIGATION CO MCKINNEY AND DAIRY CREEKS 19,280 MOUNTAIN VIEW U S BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS BOYLE CREEK 5,500 MURTAUGH LAKE TWIN FALLS CANAL CO SNAKE RIVER (OS) 7,720 SALMON FALLS SALMON RIVER CANAL CO LTD SALMON FALLS CREEK 230,650 SALMON FALLS LOWER IDAHO POWER CO SNAKE RIVER 18,500 SLACK PETAN CO JUNIPER CREEK 5,000

SWAN FALLS IDAHO POWER CO SNAKE RIVER 7,500 TEXAS BASIN SUCCOR CK DIST IMPROVEMENT CO SUCCOR CREEK 6,340 AMERICAN FALLS U S BUREAU OF RECLAMATION SNAKE RIVER 1,671,300 ASHTON PACIFICORP HENRYS FORK 9,800 BLACKFOOT U S BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS BLACKFOOT RIVER 350,000 GEM STATE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS SNAKE RIVER 5,000 GRAYS LAKE-N END OUTLET U S BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS GRAYS LAKE OUTLET 40,000 HENRYS LAKE NORTH FORK RESERVOIR CO HENRYS FORK 90,000 ISLAND PARK U S BUREAU OF RECLAMATION HENRYS FORK 127,646 MACKAY BIG LOST RIVER IRRIGATION DIST BIG LOST RIVER 45,000 MILNER MILNER DAM INC SNAKE RIVER 36,300 MINIDOKA U S BUREAU OF RECLAMATION SNAKE RIVER 210,000 PALISADES U S BUREAU OF RECLAMATION SNAKE RIVER 1,401,000 PORTNEUF PORTNEUF-MARSH VALLEY CANAL CO PORTNEUF RIVER 23,695 RIRIE U S BUREAU OF RECLAMATION WILLOW CREEK 100,500

Payette River

Basin

Lower Snake River System

Upper Snake River System

Table 9: Idaho storage facilities of at least 5,000 acre-feet capacity (based

on data obtained from Idaho Department of Water Resources.)


46/58


DAM NAME DAM OWNER STREAMCAPACITY

(ACRE-FEET)

AGENCY VALLEY U S BUREAU OF RECLAMATION N FK MALHEUR RIVER 59,900

ANTELOPE (MALHEUR) JORDAN VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT JACK, ANTELOPE & JORDAN CR 55,000

BULLY CREEK U S BUREAU OF RECLAMATION BULLY CREEK & MALHEUR R 31,628

OWYHEE U S BUREAU OF RECLAMATION OWYHEE RIVER 1,120,000

WARMSPRINGS WARM SPRINGS IRRIGATION DIST / USBR MIDDLE FORK MALHEUR RIVER 192,400

WILLOW CREEK 3 ORCHARD WATER COMPANY WILLOW CREEK 20,400

Table 10. Oregon storage facilities of at least 5,000 acre-feet capacitytributary to the Snake River above Brownlee Reservoir (basedon data obtained from State of Oregon).


47/58


Figure 19. Major storage reservoirs in Idaho.


48/58


6.4.2. Federal Reservoirs

Cascade and Deadwood reservoirs offer significant storage potential for waterdelivery from the Payette River. These facilities typically fill each year, and rental poolwater is generally available. Similarly, other federal reservoirs (Anderson Ranch,Arrowrock, and Lucky Peak on the Boise River, and American Falls and Palisades onthe Snake River) store vast quantities of water. Securing storage dedicated forindustrial uses in federal facilities will likely require congressional reauthorization.

6.4.3. New Reservoirs

A cursory site review suggests possible opportunities for on-site storage. One or moresmall- to medium-sized dams could be constructed to store a portion of the facilitysexpected annual water requirements. As on-site water sources are limited or non-existent, the supply for on-site storage would likely be pumped from the Payette Riveror Snake River.

Off-site storage opportunities could include new facilities, or modifications to existingfacilities. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation investigated new Snake River Basinstorage to provide additional water for lower Snake River flow augmentation to aidsalmon migration (Bureau of Reclamation, 1994). Fourteen dam site locations areassessed. Bissel Creek, a tributary to the Payette River located approximately elevenmiles upstream from Big Willow Creek, offers potential storage capacity of 170,600acre-feet. On the nearby Weiser River, the study shows that Galloway Dam offersstorage potential of 900,000 acre-feet. Three sites are identified for offstream storagefrom the Snake River. These include Saylor Creek with a storage potential of 347,400acre-feet, Lower Rosevear Gulch at 51,700 acre-feet, and Upper Rosevear Gulch at675,300 acre-feet. Additional opportunities for increasing storage in the Payette Riverbasin are described in the more recent water storage assessment report (CH2M Hilland John Petrovsky Associates, 2006).


49/58


7. W ATER S UPPLY INFRASTRUCTURE

7.1. Introduction

The two most likely water sources in the general vicinity of the proposed site capableof supplying a peak flow of 100 cfs are the Snake River and the Payette River. Thepurpose of this section is to determine if it is physically feasible to convey water fromthese sources to the proposed facility site.

Based on this review, we conclude that it is physically possible to divert and conveythe required amount of water from the Snake River and Payette River to the proposedsite. This section provides a brief discussion of physical requirements needed to doso.

The proposed facility will require process water for cooling and a potable watersystem. Sections 7.2 through 7.4 describe infrastructure required for process

(cooling) water. Section 7.5 describes potable water requirements.

7.2. Diversions and AlignmentsSome of the general requirements for a diversion point and associated pump station ateither river include the following:

Favorable diversion location, typically on the outside of a stable river bend withadequate depth;

Close proximity to adequate reliable power; potentially supplied from twosources;

Accessible to large trucks and equipment for construction and maintenance;

Pump station and top of intake structure out of the 100-year flood plain; and

Minimum and maximum river surface water elevations that are compatible with365-day operation.

Another component that will play a large part in not only determining the feasibility ofthe diversion sites and alignments, but also in the design and construction of theinfrastructure, is the permitting and approval process. Table 11 provides a partial listagencies and/or governmental entities that will need to be consulted and included inthe diversion site and pipeline alignment selection process.


50/58


Applicable RegulationsAuthority

Regulatory Agency/Contacts Permit, Approval or Notice

Section 10 of the Riversand Harbors Act of 1899

US Army Corps of EngineersSection 10 Permit

Clean Water Act US Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit

Clean Water ActObtained by the Corps from the IdahoDEQ during the 404 permit process.

Section 401 Water QualityCertification

IDAPA 37.03.07Idaho Department of Water

ResourcesStream Alteration Permit

IDAPA 58.01.02Idaho Department of Environmental

QualityShort Term Activity Exemption

Endangered Species Act US Fish and Wildlife Services Various sections of the act may applyClean Water Act US Environmental Protection Agency Section 402 NPDES Permit

Owns River Beds Idaho Department of Lands Easement

Idaho Department of Fish and Game Fish Screening Requirements

Idaho Transportation DepartmentRight-of-Way Encroachment

Application and Permit for Utilities

Payette County Road & Bridge andother applicable entities

Right of way permits, easements,and/or license agreements

Table 11: Applicable Regulations and Agencies.

7.2.1. Snake River Diversion and Alignment

There are several locations along the east side of the Snake River between Nyssa,Oregon and Payette, Idaho (Figure 20) that would be acceptable for diverting waterfrom the river. The general requirements listed in Section 7.2 can be used to narrowthe list of possible sites. An additional criterion is that of identifying a cooperative landowner. The land owner will need to be willing to allow initial site geotechnical andenvironmental investigations as part of the due diligence needed to qualify thediversion site.

Figure 20 shows the closest and furthest direct distances from the section of the

Snake River between Nyssa and Payette to the site. These distances range inapproximate length from 10 miles to 17 miles. The final alignment will, however, notlikely be a straight line. The final alignment will be determined, in part, by the ability togain easements from cooperating private land owners and/or license agreements fromcooperating highway districts or other entities. The final alignment distance from theSnake River to the proposed site will likely be between about 14 to 24 miles (whichrepresents an approximate 40% greater distance than a straight-line route).


51/58


In general, it is preferable to keep the pipeline alignment as short as possible.However, sometimes significant changes in elevation can be avoided by adding lengthto the alignment. This may ultimately be preferred to minimize cost of operations (andpossibly to reduce capital costs).

Figure 20: Potential Snake River diversion area.

7.2.2. Payette River

There are likely several locations along the east side of the Payette River in thevicinity of the proposed site that would be acceptable for constructing diversionfacilities. The general requirements listed in Section 7.2 should be used to select apotential diversion location. Again, in addition to the attributes listed in Section 7.2,cooperation from an existing landowner will be needed to allow initial site geotechnicaland environmental investigation as part of the due diligence needed to qualify thediversion site.


52/58


The north and east portions of the main Payette River channel appear to be braidedwith side channels and other private waterways. There may be some potential to useexisting diversion sites and channels in this area, and/or to convey water through anexisting canal or channel rather than pumping the water directly out of the River.

Figure 21 shows the closest and the furthest direct distances (i.e., straight-line) to theproposed site from the section of the Payette River between the Gem County line andthe mouth of Little Willow Creek. These direct-line distances range in approximatelength from 4.6 miles to 6.6 miles. The final alignment will most likely be determinedby the ability to gain easements from cooperating private land owners and licenseagreements from cooperating highway districts. Therefore, the final alignmentdistance could be 40% longer than straight-line distance possibly ranging from about6.5 miles to 9.5 miles in length. Additional pipeline alignment length they also beneeded to avoid unnecessary elevation gains and drops.

Figure 21. Payette River Diversion Area


53/58


7.3. Conveyance OptionsThe ultimate pipeline sizing will depend on anticipated flow rates and other factors.Once a diversion site and an alignment have been identified, the following general

information can be used to size the piping and determine the pressure requirements.7.3.1. Pipe Sizing Considerations

The type of pipe will be determined based on pressure, diameter, availability,durability, corrosion resistance, and cost. At a peak flow of 100 cfs, the pipediameters will need to be fairly large to keep the velocities and the correspondingfriction losses at acceptable levels. Table 12 below shows pipe diameters that wouldbe considered for flows ranging from 40 cfs to 100 cfs.

Velocity(ft/s)

Head lossper 1,000 ft

(ft)

Velocity(ft/s)


(ft)

Velocity(ft/s)


(ft)

Velocity(ft/s)


(ft)40 3.19 0.63 2.52 0.36 2.04 0.21 1.42 0.09

50 3.97 0.95 3.14 0.54 2.54 0.32 1.77 0.13

60 4.77 1.33 3.77 0.75 3.05 0.45 2.12 0.19

70 5.57 1.77 4.40 1.00 3.57 0.60 2.48 0.25

80 6.37 2.27 5.03 1.28 4.08 0.77 2.83 0.32

90 7.17 2.83 5.66 1.59 4.59 0.95 3.19 0.39

100 7.97 3.44 6.29 1.94 5.10 1.16 3.54 0.48

48-inch diameter 54-inch diameter 60-inch diameter 72-inch diameter

PIPELINE DIAMETERS

Flow(cfs)

Table 12: Flow and Diameter Information.

The anticipated average flow is 69 cfs, with a range from 40 cfs to 100 cfs (Section 2).If it is assumed the flow is to be conveyed in a single pipe, a 72-inch diameter pipeinitially appears to produce optimal flow characteristics, as 70 cfs maintains a velocityunder 2.50 ft/sec and the peak flow of 100 cfs is approximately 3.50 ft/sec. A 42-inchdiameter pipe may suffice if double pipes are used for redundancy purposes (seebelow).

Once the length of the alignment and the associated elevation difference from thediversion site to the plant has been determined, the pressure within the pipe at theriver can be calculated. Based on this information, the types of pipe material and theirassociated pipe thickness or pressure class can be determined. If the Total DynamicHead (TDH) at the respective river is below certain thresholds, this could alsoinfluence the pipe diameter selected. Table 13 shows some of the potential maximumpressures for a pipeline from the Snake River and Table 14 shows some of thepotential maximum pressures for a pipeline from the Payette River.


54/58


MaxFlow

(cfs)

Velocity(ft/s)

Diameter(inches)

Headlossper 1000 ft

(ft)

Shortest &LongestLengths(miles)

HeadLoss (ft)

ApproxStatic

Lift(feet)

TDH(ft)

TDH(psi)

TotalHP

100 6.29 54 1.94 6.44 65.9 275 341 148 4700

100 6.29 54 1.94 9.24 94.5 275 370 160 5100

100 5.10 60 1.16 6.44 39.5 275 314 136 4300

100 5.10 60 1.16 9.24 56.6 275 332 144 4600

100 3.54 72 0.48 6.44 16.3 275 291 126 4000

100 3.54 72 0.48 9.24 23.3 275 298 129 4100

Table 13: Snake River TDH, pressure, and horsepower.

MaxFlow(cfs)

Velocity(ft/s)

Diameter(inches)

Headlossper 1000 ft

(ft)

Shortest &

LongestLengths(miles)

HeadLoss (ft)

ApproxStatic Lift

(feet)TDH(ft)

TDH(psi)

TotalHP

100 6.29 54 1.94 6.44 65.9 275 341 148 4700

100 6.29 54 1.94 9.24 94.5 275 370 160 5100

100 5.10 60 1.16 6.44 39.5 275 314 136 4300

100 5.10 60 1.16 9.24 56.6 275 332 144 4600

100 3.54 72 0.48 6.44 16.3 275 291 126 4000

100 3.54 72 0.48 9.24 23.3 275 298 129 4100

Table 14. Payette River TDH, pressure, and horsepower.

The maximum TDH pressures demonstrated in the tables above are at acceptablelevels. All of the pressures listed above are under 250 psi. Pipe, valves, andappurtenances are available for these pressure ratings. Some of the pipe materialsthat could be considered for pressures less than 250 psi include welded steel,gasketed steel, ductile iron, HDPE, and PVC. However, some of these pipe materialsare not available in the larger diameters.

A key item that should be noted is that the water can be pumped from either river tothe plant site with one pump station at these pressures. Therefore, intermediatebooster pumping stations are not necessary.

Other considerations when sizing the pipe and comparing the associated frictionlosses are the horsepower requirements and the cost of power over the life of theplant. Table 13 and Table 14 above list the required horsepower needed to pump thepeak flows for the different lengths and diameters. Additional feasibility study willdetermine whether the upfront capital savings of a smaller pipe diameter is costeffective when compared to the additional energy costs over the life of the facility.


55/58


A difference in potential pumping costs was estimated based on an assumed averageflow of 69 cfs, the longest Snake River route from the table above, and a $0.07/kW-Hrpower rate. The power needed to pump the water through a 54-inch pipe diameter willlikely cost over $14 million dollars more than pumping the same flow through a 72-inchdiameter pipe over a 40-year period. The cost savings associated with construction ofthe smaller diameter pipeline must be weighed against the lower long-term pumpingcosts if the larger diameter pipeline is utilized.

7.3.2. Redundancy

The required level of redundancy for the pump system and pipeline is another itemthat will have to be determined by the project team and by the regulatory agenciesgranting approval for this project.

Full 100% redundancy could require two full-size pipes and duplication of thechosen pumping set-up. However, if adequate on-site water stora

Date post:	08-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	geoffreyschroeder
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times

1-Preliminary Water Availability Analysis-SPF Water Engineer

Documents