4-1

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 

The environmental consequences of constructing and operating the Apex Expansion Project 

would vary in duration and significance. Four levels of impact duration were considered: temporary, 

short-term, long-term, and permanent. Temporary impacts generally occur during construction, with the 

resources returning to pre-construction conditions almost immediately afterward. Short-term impacts 

would continue for approximately 3 years following construction. Impacts were considered long-term if 

the resources would require more than 3 years to recover, but would be expected to recover during the life 

of the proposed Project. Permanent impacts would occur as a result of activities that modify resources to 

the extent that they would not return to pre-construction conditions within 50 years, such as clearing of 

old growth forest or conversion of land to an aboveground facility site. We considered an impact to be 

significant if it would result in a substantial adverse change in the physical environment. 

In this section, we discuss the affected environment, general construction and operational 

impacts, and proposed mitigation for each resource. Generally, we begin our discussion of potential 

impacts for a given resource with what could happen in the absence of appropriate construction 

techniques or conservation measures to address environmental impacts or effect to resources. Our 

discussion then focuses on what we anticipate the impacts to be, given the Project-specific conditions and 

measures that would address environmental concerns, including measures proposed by Kern River, those 

required by other agency or permitting or regulation, and our additional recommendations. The additional 

measures that we have identified appear as a bulleted paragraph and in boldface type in the text. We are 

recommending that these measures be included as specific conditions to any Certificate that the 

Commission may issue to Kern River for the proposed Project. 

Conclusions in this EIS are based on our analysis of environmental impacts and the following 

assumptions: 

 Kern River would comply with all applicable laws and regulations; 

 the proposed facilities would be constructed as described in section 2.0 of this EIS; and 

 Kern River would implement the mitigation measures identified in its application and 

supplemental filings to the FERC. 

4.1 GEOLOGY 

Impacts and geological hazards associated with the existing aboveground facilities were 

previously analyzed as part of the 2003 Kern River Expansion Project and were not resurveyed for the 

proposed Apex Expansion Project. Modifications to existing facilities would not impact geologic 

resources and therefore are not analyzed further in this discussion. Impacts associated with the proposed 

Wasatch Loop and the Milford Compressor Station are discussed in the following sections. 

4.1.1 Geology and Physiography 

The proposed Project would begin in Morgan County, Utah at MP 0.0 and traverse over 

mountainous terrain, ending in Salt Lake City, Utah at MP 28.0. Maximum elevations along the proposed 

route are between 7,800 and 8,600 feet above mean sea level, while the lowest elevation is at 4,215 feet. 

The Project would be located within two main geologic regions: the Middle Rocky Mountains and the 

Basin and Range physiographic provinces. These provinces include three smaller, distinct physiographic 

regions: Wasatch Hinterlands, Wasatch Range, and Wasatch Front Valleys. 
4-2

Approximately 19 miles of the proposed pipeline would occur in the Middle Rocky Mountains 

physiographic province and crosses portions of the Wasatch Hinterlands (MP 0.0 to 7.0) and Wasatch 

Range (MP 7.0 to 19.0) where two mountain ranges occur, the Uinta Mountains trending east and the 

Wasatch Range trending north. The terrain of the Uinta Mountains is characterized by wide arches while 

the terrain of the Wasatch Range is characterized by more jagged arches (Stokes 1988). The remainder of 

the proposed pipeline (MP 19.0 to 28.0) would cross the Wasatch Front Valleys, a part of the Basin and 

Range province. The Wasatch Front Valleys is a downward shifting block of land that is separated from 

the upward moving Wasatch Range by the Wasatch Fault Zone (WFZ). The Project would traverse 

quaternary-aged and younger sediments derived from rock formations of the Wasatch Range (Fitzhugh 

1983). 

The proposed Milford Compressor Station would also occur in the Basin and Range 

physiographic province on a floodplain of the Beaver River. Other aboveground facilities including 

two pipe yards, two contractor yards, and eleven staging areas, two of which may be used for additional 

workspace have soils that are shallow-to-bedrock. Geologic conditions crossed by the proposed Project 

are presented in table 4.1.1-1. 

PacifiCorp Electrical Distribution Line 

The surficial geology in the area of the proposed PacifiCorp electrical distribution line is 

Quaternary-aged lacustrine deposits of sandy and silty soils deposited by ancestral Lake Bonneville. 

While prehistoric megafauna fossils have been recovered from the shorelines of ancestral Lake 

Bonneville, the finds are relatively rare in the southern extent of the lake. The lands encompassed by the 

proposed Project are believed to rank as Class 2, Low Potential, using the Potential Fossil Yield 

Classification System. Lands crossed by the proposed electrical distribution line are unlikely to contain 

vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant non-vertebrate fossils. Therefore, an assessment or 

mitigation measures for potential paleontological resources is not considered necessary in this case. 

The approximately 1.4-mile electrical distribution line would be installed on approximately 

23 single wood pole structures. These poles would be installed using a rubber tire line truck-mounted 

auger. Once the pole structures are set in place, the space surrounding the poles would be backfilled. No 

vegetation or contorting would be necessary based on the flat topography of the area of the proposed 

distribution line. The work area for each pole would be reclaimed and seeded, if determined necessary, 

with a BLM-approved reclamation plan. Access for the distribution line would be on the existing 

Imperial Road. The auger rig would back up to the pole stake from Imperial Road. 

4.1.2 Mineral Resources 

Mineral resources identified in the vicinity of the proposed Project include oil and gas, metal 

ores, and aggregates including quartzite and sandstone. The locations of the mineral resources were 

determined using USGS topographic maps, mineral resource databases from the BLM and USGS, and 

geographic information system (GIS) data provided by the Utah Geological Survey (UGS). 
4-3

TABLE 4.1.1-1 

Geologic Conditions Crossed by the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Geologic Age 

Cumulative 

Length 

Crossed 

(miles) Formation or Unit Type 

Description of Formation or Unit 

Type 

Oligocene and Eocene 

(23 to 55.8 mya) 

1.9 Norwood Tuff rock composed of compacted 

volcanic ash varying in size from 

fine sand to coarse gravel 

Holocene 

(present) 

4.5 Alluvium and fill material alluvium, artificial fill, clay, silt, and 

sand 

Pleistocene 

(present to 1.8 mya) 

2.0 Pediment gravel, sand and 

gravel deposits of the high 

stand of Lake Bonneville 

pediment gravel, sand and gravel 

deposits of the high stand of Lake 

Bonneville 

Middle Jurassic 

(176 to 161 mya) 

0.6 Preuss Sandstone marine sandstones and limestones 

Upper Cretaceous 

(65.5 to 99.6 mya) 

0.4 Echo Canyon 

Conglomerate 

alluvial fan conglomerate 

Upper Cretaceous 

(65.5 to 99.6 mya) 

0.8 Hams Fork Member of the 

Evanston Formation 

alluvium and fluvial quartzitic 

conglomerate 

Eocene and Paleocene 

(33.9 to 65.5 mya) 

8.2 Wasatch Formation fluvial sandstone and shale 

Middle Cambrian 

(501 to 521 mya) 

0.1 Ophir Formation phyllitic shale with some thin beds 

of shaley limestone and some 

quartzite and phyllite 

Middle and Lower 

Cambrian 

(501 to 542 mya) 

0.4 Tintic Quartzite shallow marine quartz 

Eocene and Paleocene 1.6 Conglomerate/ Wasatch 

Formation 

conglomerate dominant of Wasatch 

Formation 

Archean 

(2,500 to 3,850 mya) 

4.1 Farmington Canyon 

Complex 

schist, gneiss, and quartzite 

Miocene 

(5.3 to 23.8 mya) 

5.2 Conglomerate consolidated pebbles, gravel, or 

boulders 

Holocene and 

Pleistocene (present to 

1.8 mya) 

0.5 Alluvial fan and landslide 

deposits 

landslide deposits, alluvial fan, and 

debris fan deposits 

Pliocene 

(2.4 to 5.4 mya) 

0.05 Hopper Canyon Formation valley fill deposits, alluvial and 

lacustrine sediments 

Quaternary 

(present to 1.8 mya) 

 Alluvium Alluvium deposits 

Quaternary 

(present to 1.8 mya) 

Milford 

Compressor 

Station 

Alluvium Alluvium deposits 

____________ 

Note: 

 Mya = Million years ago 
4-4

4.1.2.1 Mining 

Open pit and underground mines which occur within 0.5 mile of the proposed Project were 

identified. Table 4.1.2-1 identifies seven mines and two mineral leases near or traversed by the proposed 

pipeline. Six of the seven mines are open pit mines which produce aggregate, including limestone, 

quartzite, sandstone, and chert. Three of these mines are listed as active. An underground mine which 

produces iron ore from limonite, goethite, hematite, magnetite, and chalcopyrite was identified near the 

proposed Project and is listed as inactive. Two mineral leases would be traversed by the pipeline at 

MPs 10.7 and 11.7. Kern River would negotiate and coordinate with landowners and lease holders prior 

to construction. 

TABLE 4.1.2-1 

Mineral Resources Traversed by and along the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Mile Post 

Start End 

Distance from 

Proposed Project Resource 

Resource 

Production 

Type Status 

Source 

Identifying 

Resource 

6.1 6.1 2,250 feet north aggregate open pit inactive UGS 

10.6 12.0 1,550 feet southeast limonite, goethite, 

hematite, magnetite, and 

chalcopyrite iron ore 

underground 

mine 

inactive UGS 

10.7 11.7 pipeline crosses the 

southeast corner of 

the mineral claim 

unidentified mineral claim unidentified inactive USGS/UGS

11.7 12.2 pipeline crosses the 

northwest corner of 

the mineral claim 

iron unidentified inactive USGS/UGS

24.5 24.5 2,200 feet west limestone, quartzite, 

sandstone, and chert 

aggregate 

open pit active UGS 

25.0 25.0 1,000 feet northeast limestone, quartzite, and 

sandstone aggregate 

open pit intermittent 

producer 

UGS 

25.0 25.0 1,650 feet north limestone, quartzite, and 

sandstone aggregate 

open pit active UGS 

25.1 25.3 200 feet southa limestone, quartzite, and 

sandstone aggregate 

open pit inactive UGS 

25.1 25.3 100 feet northa limestone, quartzite, 

sandstone, and chert 

aggregate 

open pit active UGS 

28.0 28.0 2,200 feet south oil and gas oil well inactive UGS/BLM 

____________ 

Note: 

a

 Wasatch Loop would be placed within a fill berm with the existing Kern River and Questar pipelines. 

Potential mine hazards, including slope failure, could occur if adjacent mines are not properly 

stabilized. The pipeline would cross between two open pit mines which are within 500 feet of the 

pipeline at MP 25.0 to 25.2; potential risks would be minimized by constructing this segment within an 
4-5

existing berm that was constructed for the existing Kern River pipeline to provide additional stability 

between the open pits on either side of the right-of-way and would be expanded to accommodate the 

proposed pipeline. The berm was engineered and constructed to provide a consistent grade for the 

existing pipeline as it traverses the slopes of the Wasatch Front between the two open pit mines. No slope 

failures have been reported for the existing pipeline in this area since the berm was constructed. The 

Project would also be constructed within this berm between the open pit mines; therefore, risks associated 

with slope failure are not expected in this area. 

4.1.2.2 Oil and Gas Production 

An inactive oil well was identified approximately 2,220 feet south of the proposed pipeline near 

MP 28.0. No other oil or gas wells were identified within 0.5 mile of the proposed Project facilities. 

Potential impacts on the oil well and associated underground utilities would be minimized through the 

activation of the One-Call system by Kern River prior to construction in order to identify and avoid any 

buried utilities related to the oil well. 

4.1.3 Geologic Hazards 

Geologic hazards including seismicity, landslides, subsidence, flash floods, and volcanoes were 

evaluated for the proposed Project and are discussed in the following sections. 

4.1.3.1 Seismicity and Faulting 

Geologic hazards associated with seismicity may include earthquakes and faulting. Kern River 

identified potential seismic hazards using historical data for recorded earthquakes, published maps, and 

technical papers. Subsurface seismic investigations were conducted in areas along the proposed Project 

from MP 25.1 to 28.0. Based on the Richter Magnitude Scale, an earthquake with a magnitude (M) of 5.0 

to 5.9 can be felt by people and can cause major damage to poorly constructed buildings and slight 

damage to well-constructed buildings; an earthquake with a magnitude of 6.0 to 6.9 can be destructive in 

populated areas; and an earthquake with a magnitude of 7.0 or greater can cause major damage to large 

areas. Historical seismic investigations indicate that earthquakes have occurred in the vicinity of the 

proposed Project. Table 4.1.3-1 presents historical earthquakes with magnitudes greater than 3.0 that 

have occurred within 100 miles of the proposed Project. Historic earthquakes occurring within 20 miles 

of the proposed Milford Compressor Station with magnitudes ranging from 3.0 to 4.2 and three 

earthquakes with a magnitude of 5.0 or greater within 100 miles were identified. 

TABLE 4.1.3-1 

Historical Earthquakes within 100 Miles of the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Magnitude Range Number of Earthquakes 

Epicenter Distance from 

Proposed Project Alignment 

(miles) 

3.0 to 3.99 129.0 11 to 99 

4.0 to 4.99 36.0 5 to 89 

5.0 to 5.99 9.0 10 to 63 

6.0 to 6.99 3.0 75 to 90 
4-6

Earthquake shaking can be expressed in terms of acceleration due to gravity (g). In accordance 

with the American Society of Civil Engineers Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, a 

10 percent probability of exceedance within 50 years is used for construction of pipelines, while a 

2 percent probability of exceedance is used for buildings. Seismic hazards using peak horizontal ground 

acceleration (PGA) values are provided in table 4.1.3-2. A comparison equating the Richter Magnitude 

Scale to PGA is as follows: 5.0 to 5.9 M is equivalent to a PGA of 9.2 to 34 percent; a 6.0 to 6.9 M is 

equivalent to a PGA ranging from 34 to greater than 124 percent, and M values greater than 6.9 are 

equivalent to PGAs greater than 124 percent. 

TABLE 4.1.3-2 

Peak Horizontal Acceleration for Pipelines and Buildings along the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Alignment Section Pipeline Buildings 

Approximate Milepost 

10% Probability of Exceedance 

within 50 Years (g) 

2% Probability of Exceedance 

within 50 Years (g) 

25.9 0.30 0.76 

15.0 0.21 0.47 

3.0 0.16 0.30 

____________ 

Note: 

 g = Acceleration of gravitational force 

Faulting can occur with earthquakes and result in the cracking or pulling apart of the ground 

surface. Faults can be classified as normal, thrust or reverse, and strike-slip. A normal fault is a result of 

tensional force that pulls the ground surface apart. Thrust and reverse faults are a result of compressional 

force that pushes slabs of the ground together. A strike-slip fault occurs when a section of the crust 

moves laterally to another, and the displacement occurs along the fault line. Quaternary-aged (2 million 

years ago [mya]) and Holocene-aged (0.1 mya) faults along the proposed Project were identified and are 

presented in table 4.1.3-3. 

The WFZ is crossed by the proposed Project at two locations at MP 19.2 at the Rudy’s Flat Fault 

and at MP 25.6 at the Warm Springs Fault. The Warm Springs Fault is considered an active fault of 

Holocene age, with the last movement occurring approximately 1,300 years ago. Potential hazards 

associated with faults would be mitigated through the use of extra wall thickness of Grade X65 steel pipe 

and placement of granular/sand backfill material underneath and surrounding the pipeline near the fault. 

Areas of the pipeline trench would also be excavated to a depth of 10 feet below the pipeline and 

backfilled with sand and include the installation of expanded foam ditch plugs in areas of the trench. 

Granular/sand backfill would be placed along the pipeline extending 450 feet west and 750 feet east of the 

fault trace. Excavation to 10 feet below the pipeline would occur extending 100 feet west and 200 feet 

east of the fault trace. 
4-7

TABLE 4.1.3-3 

Quaternary and Holocene Faults Crossed by the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Milepost Fault Name Type of Fault 

Last Movement (years 

before present) 

2.0 East Canyon Fault (northern 

segment; eastern splay) 

Normal >100K to < 1.6M 

2.3 East Canyon Fault (northern 

segment; western splay) 

Normal >100K to < 1.6M 

19.2 Wasatch Fault Zone - Rudy's 

Flat Fault (Salt Lake City 

Segment) 

Normal < 1.6M 

25.6 Wasatch Fault Zone - Warm 

Springs Fault (Salt Lake City 

Segment) 

Normal ~1,300 ± 650 

____________ 

Notes: 

 K = Thousand 

 M = Million 

4.1.3.2 Landslide Incidence and Susceptibility 

Landslides are defined as the movement of rock, debris, or soil down a slope. Slope failure 

causing a landslide can be initiated by precipitation, seismic activity, slope disturbance due to 

construction or other activity, or a change in groundwater conditions. Construction factors that may 

increase the potential for slope failure could include trenching along slopes and the burden of construction 

equipment on unstable surfaces. Landslide hazards for the proposed Project were assessed through the 

use of aerial maps, helicopter flyovers of the Project area, and ground-based surveys. Existing landslides 

and steep slopes with high risk for future landslides were identified by Kern River; however, none of 

these are considered hazards to the proposed Project. Kern River evaluated the potential risk hazards 

posed by the identified landslides. The potential risk hazards are classified as high, moderate, and low. 

Map-based assessments of the Project area indicated nine known or mapped landslide hazards. 

Initial aerial and ground surveys have identified seven of the nine locations as low risk. A ground-based 

survey investigated landslides #8 and #9, which were determined to be high risk based on map 

observations to determine potential risk to the proposed pipeline. To mitigate potential risks posed by 

landslide #8, the proposed alignment was rerouted to an area of low potential risk. Ground 

reconnaissance of landslide #9 indicated that the alignment of the pipeline would not likely be affected by 

erosion or landslides, and the risk was determined to be low. Table 4.1.3-4 presents landslides and the 

associated risk hazards along the proposed Project. 
4-8

TABLE 4.1.3-4 

Landslide Risks Identified along the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Milepost 

Landslide 

Number Start End Description Geologic Unit 

Movement 

Relative to 

Pipeline 

Potential for 

Movement 

Hazard 

Risk 

Posed to 

Pipeline 

1 0.0 0.5 Project traverses 

the northern 

portion of a 

mapped, ancient 

landslide. 

Norwood Tuff, 

Landslide deposits

Perpendicular Low Low 

2 7.5 7.6 Project traverses a 

small ancient 

landslide. 

Wasatch Formation Perpendicular Low Low 

3 7.8 9.1 Project crosses a 

large ancient 

landslide. 

Wasatch Formation 

and Norwood Tuff

Parallel Low Low 

4 15.0 15.4 Project crosses 

south and above 

mapped 

landslides. 

Farmington 

Canyon Complex 

Perpendicular Low None 

5 15.7 15.8 Project crosses 

south and above 

mapped 

landslides. 

Farmington 

Canyon Complex 

Perpendicular None None 

6 16.4 16.9 Project traverses 

mapped landslide, 

aerial 

reconnaissance 

did not identify the 

landslide. 

Farmington 

Canyon Complex 

Parallel High None 

7 18.6 18.7 Project crosses 

slope north and 

east of an ancient 

and dormant 

landslide. 

Farmington 

Canyon Complex 

Parallel High Low 

8 18.9 19.2 Project rerouted to 

small spur west of 

landslide which is 

slow-moving and 

active. 

Wasatch Formation Parallel High Low 

9 19.6 20.0 Project traverses 

above and east of 

erosional headwall. 

Deep seated 

movement was not 

indicated in 

surveys. 

Alluvial fan and 

debris fan deposits, 

conglomerates 

Perpendicular High Low 

High risk indicates that the proposed Project crosses or is near a landslide that, if active, (1) may 

affect the proposed pipeline; (2) is located on a slope that is susceptible to slope failure; or (3) has 
4-9

geomorphic and surficial observations indicative that the landslide has had movement within the last 

100 years. A moderate risk indicates that the proposed Project (1) crosses or is near a landslide; (2) is 

located on a slope that is susceptible to slope failure; or (3) has geomorphic and surficial observations 

indicative that the landslide has had movement between 100 and 5,000 years ago. A low risk indicates 

that the proposed Project is located far from a landslide or is constructed so that a landslide has a low 

potential to involve the pipeline. A low risk may also include a landslide that is crossed but has a low 

potential for reactivation due to the removal of the cause of the landslide, stabilization of the landslide, or 

geomorphic and surficial features indicating the landslide has not had movement within 5,000 years. 

4.1.3.3 Subsidence 

The lowering or collapse of ground surface in either localized areas or regionally is known as 

subsidence; and it can be caused by underground mining, karst terrain, liquefaction induced by 

earthquakes, withdrawal of groundwater, or a change in hydrology. Subsidence hazards associated with 

karst terrain or change in regional hydrology were not identified along the proposed Project. Subsidence 

associated with liquefaction induced by earthquakes was discussed in section 4.1.3.1 and was determined 

to be a low hazard risk to the proposed Project. An underground mine identified near the proposed 

Project would be greater than 500 feet from the alignment and would not pose potential risk of subsidence 

to the pipeline. Regional ground subsidence due to groundwater extraction north of Milford, Utah would 

not pose subsidence risk to the proposed Milford Compressor Station or associated electric distribution 

line. 

4.1.3.4 Shallow Bedrock 

Soils with bedrock present within 60 inches (5 feet) of the surface are considered shallow-tobedrock. Areas with shallow-to-bedrock classifications were identified using the State Soil Geographic 

Database (STATSGO) database. To excavate the trench line in areas identified with shallow bedrock, 

blasting may be necessary. Geotechnical investigations conducted in 2009 by Kern River indicated that 

approximately 248 acres of the proposed Project may require blasting. Areas identified for potential 

blasting are discussed below and listed in table 4.1.3-5. 

Blasting 

Kern River anticipates that blasting may be necessary where hard bedrock occurs at depths of 

5 feet or less. Areas identified for potential blasting occur between MP 0.0 and 19.0. Kern River has 

used knowledge of construction data from the existing pipeline and depth to bedrock data to classify areas 

of the proposed Project into low, moderate and high potential for blasting, which is summarized in 

table 4.1.3-5. Areas classified with low potential for blasting were determined using previous 

construction data that indicated no blasting occurred during the construction of the existing pipeline. 

Areas classified as moderate were determined using construction data from the existing pipeline that 

indicate blasting occurred in restricted portions of the pipeline segment. Areas classified as high potential 

were determined using construction data from the existing pipeline that indicate a large portion of the 

pipeline segment required blasting. 

Potential impacts on water wells, springs, wetlands, slopes, paleontological resources, nearby 

aboveground facilities, and adjacent pipelines and utility lines could occur from blasting. Potential 

impacts on water wells and springs are discussed in section 4.3.2, and potential impacts on wetlands are 

discussed in section 4.3.3. To minimize potential impacts on slopes which could lead to landslides or 

slope failure, Kern River would survey areas near blasting locations to measure slope angles and 

determine slope stability. Areas that indicate potential hazards for slope failure would be monitored 
4-10

during blasting. Blasting potential is classified as low in areas identified for potential seismic activity 

(MP 25.0 to 28.0); therefore, blasting should not affect the seismic setting of the area. 

TABLE 4.1.3-5 

Blasting Potential for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Mile Post 

Start End 

Length of Pipeline 

(miles) Blasting Potentiala

0.0 0.4 0.4 Low 

0.4 1.3 0.9 Moderate 

1.3 2.2 1.0 Low 

2.2 2.8 0.6 Moderate 

2.8 3.0 0.2 High 

3.0 3.6 0.6 Moderate 

3.6 4.7 1.1 High 

4.7 5.5 0.8 Low 

5.5 6.0 0.5 Moderate 

6.0 6.8 0.8 High 

6.8 8.9 2.1 Low 

8.9 9.4 0.5 High 

9.4 10.4 1.0 Moderate 

10.4 11.0 0.6 Low 

11.0 12.0 1.0 Low 

12.0 13.6 1.6 Moderateb

13.6 17.9 4.3 Moderate 

17.9 18.8 0.9 Low 

18.8 20.5 1.8 Moderateb

20.5 21.6 1.1 Low 

21.6 24.9 3.3 Lowb

24.9 25.6 0.7 Low 

25.6 26.8 1.2 Lowb

26.8 28.0 1.3 Low 

____________ 

Note: 

a Except as noted, areas classified with low potential for blasting were determined 

using previous construction data that indicate no blasting occurred during the 

construction of the existing pipeline. Areas classified as moderate were 

determined using construction data from the existing pipeline that indicate 

blasting occurred in restricted portions of the pipeline segment. Areas classified 

as high potential were determined using construction data from the existing 

pipeline that indicate a large portion of the pipeline segment required blasting. 

b Segment of proposed Project is not collocated with the existing pipeline. Data 

from previous construction were not used to assess blasting potential. 
4-11

To minimize potential impacts on adjacent pipelines and buried utilities, Kern River would not 

conduct blasting within 10 feet of existing pipelines or buried utilities. In the event that blasting is 

necessary near existing pipelines or buried utilities, Kern River would notify the pipeline or utility owner 

and implement measures to minimize potential damage to the pipeline or buried utility. To minimize 

potential impacts on nearby aboveground structures, inspection of structures would be conducted prior to 

and following blasting. Kern River would comply with all federal, state, and local regulations for blasting 

and has developed a Blasting Plan that would be implemented during construction. Mitigation measures 

outlined in the Blasting Plan would be implemented to minimize potential impacts, including the 

placement of blasting mats/pads to minimize the potential for debris to damage nearby structures. The 

Blasting Plan requires the blasting contractor to prepare a site-specific blasting plan that includes 

requirements of the blasting contractor to provide the following: 

 explosive type and method of detonation; 

 detonation for delays; 

 depth and spacing of charges; 

 procedures for storage, handling, and transportation of explosives; 

 procedures for the prevention of fire, noise, accidental detonation; 

 procedures for pre- and post-blasting monitoring; 

 identification of geologic structures; and 

 procedures for notifications to residents, business owners, and owners of aboveground and 

buried structures. 

4.1.3.5 Flash Flood, Stream Scour and Debris Flows 

Erosion and movement of sediment and debris associated with water channel migration and flash 

flooding, along with mitigation methods that would be employed to minimize potential risk to the Apex 

Expansion Project are discussed in section 4.3. 

4.1.3.6 Volcanoes, Liquefaction, and Karst Topography 

Volcanoes are classified as openings of the earth’s crust, where magma or melted rock, ash, 

gases, and debris below the crust are brought to the surface in the form of an eruption. Volcanoes can be 

extinct, indicating that eruptions are no longer likely; dormant, indicating that an eruption may occur at 

some time, but is not imminent; or active, indicating that eruptions can occur at any time. Volcanic 

hazards can include landslides, lava, and pyroclastic flows which could pose potential risk to 

aboveground facilities and buried pipelines. No volcanic hazards were identified near the proposed 

Project. 

Liquefaction of soil occurs where saturated, non-cohesive soils temporarily lose their strength 

when subjected to intense ground shaking. Areas susceptible to liquefaction may include soils that are 

generally sandy or silty and are generally located along rivers, streams, lakes, and shorelines or in areas 

with shallow groundwater. Kern River identified an area of high potential for liquefaction along the 

proposed pipeline at MP 25.5 to 28.0 (Harty and Lowe 2003). Although an area along the pipeline has 

been identified with a high potential for liquefaction, a review of liquefaction-induced settlement of the 

ground following a major earthquake along the pipeline from MP 25.5 to 28.0 indicates settlement 

generally ranging from 1 to 14 inches, which would result in low potential for damage to the pipeline.
4-12

Karst topography is created from the dissolution of soluble rocks in areas that primarily contain 

limestone and dolomite. Karst terrain and the associated potential for sinkholes can be problematic 

during pipeline construction and operation. Hazards associated with karst topography were not identified 

along the pipeline route, indicating that sinkhole formation would be unlikely. 

4.1.4 Paleontological Resources 

Paleontological resources including plant, invertebrates, and vertebrate fossils may be found in a 

variety of geologic formations. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act and NEPA enforce the 

protection of significant paleontological resources on federally owned and/or managed lands. Potential 

impacts on paleontological resources associated with the proposed Project may occur as a result of 

construction and may include impacts from trenching the pipeline, the use of heavy equipment, grading, 

and excavation. Portions of the Apex Expansion Project would be near the existing Kern River pipeline 

and would not be recommended for monitoring during grading and trenching, as paleontological 

monitoring and surveys were previously conducted during the construction of the existing Kern River 

pipeline. Areas of the Project that diverge from the existing Kern River pipeline would be monitored for 

paleontological resources during grading and trenching operations. 

Kern River adapted the Paleontological Resource Management Plan (PRMP) that was developed 

for the 2003 Kern River Expansion Project for the Apex Expansion Project. The PRMP provides 

procedures for obtaining pre-construction approvals, monitoring identified significant fossil locations 

during construction, and procedures for unanticipated discovery of fossils during construction. 

The Apex Expansion Project would utilize the Implementation Plan developed for the 2003 Kern 

River Expansion Project, which was produced in 1990 and submitted to the FERC. Procedures outlined 

in the Implementation Plan associated with paleontological resources include: 

 production of a PRMP that identifies areas along the proposed Project containing potentially 

significant resources. Significant resources would be identified through a desktop review of 

published literature, maps and records; 

 identify areas requiring a field survey prior to construction; 

 prepare and submit for FERC approval and then implement a mitigation plan to address areas 

of the proposed Project where high-sensitivity areas would be impacted; and 

 prepare procedures for addressing construction concerns, monitoring, and proper handling 

and removal of significant fossils discovered during construction. 

The existing Kern River pipeline was assessed under the developed Implementation Plan and a 

PRMP was prepared to address construction concerns, monitoring and handling and removal of fossils 

discovered along the corridor during construction. Portions of the Apex Expansion Project follow the 

alignment of the existing Kern River pipeline and would not be recommended for monitoring unless an 

area of high sensitivity occurs. Areas where the proposed Apex Expansion Project diverges from the 

existing Kern River pipeline are summarized in table 4.1.4-1. 
4-13

TABLE 4.1.4-1 

Areas Recommended for Paleontological Resource Monitoring for 

the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Mile Post 

Start End 

Recommending 

Monitoring Rationale for Monitoring 

2.2 2.4 Monitoring 

recommended for 

trenching and 

grading operations 

Traverses the Evanston Formation which 

is known to contain dinosaur fossils 

11.6 13.6 Monitoring 

recommended for 

trenching and 

grading operations 

Traverses the Wasatch Formation which 

may contain fossils 

14.9 15.2 Monitoring 

recommended for 

trenching and 

grading operations 

Traverses pre-Cambrian-aged 

metamorphic rocks which may contain 

fossils 

16.9 17.3 Monitoring 

recommended for 

trenching and 

grading operations 

Traverses pre-Cambrian-aged 

metamorphic rocks which may contain 

fossils 

18.7 20.4 Monitoring 

recommended for 

trenching and 

grading operations 

Traverses the Wasatch Formation which 

may contain fossils 

21.6 24.9 Monitoring 

recommended for 

trenching and 

grading operations 

Traverses the Wasatch Formation and 

Cambrian-aged rocks which may contain 

fossils 

25.5 28.0 Monitoring 

recommended for 

trenching and 

grading operations 

Traverses Lake Bonneville sediments 

and other Quaternary-aged deposits 

which may contain fossils 

The area of the proposed Milford Compressor Station and the approximately 1.4-mile electrical 

distribution line was rated with a moderate to low sensitivity for fossils and is not recommended by Kern 

River for monitoring during construction operations. The Dry Lake Compressor Station is recommended 

by Kern River for monitoring during construction and excavation, as significant vertebrate fossils 

including horse, bison, sheep, deer, mammoth, camel, and bivalves have been identified in sediments in 

the area. The remaining compressor stations have previously been assigned moderate to low sensitivity 

and are not recommended by Kern River for monitoring. 

Kern River adapted the PRMP produced for the 2003 Kern River Expansion Project for the Apex 

Expansion Project. The PRMP would follow guidance established by the BLM, State of Utah, and the 

USFS. Mitigation of potential impacts on paleontological resources during the Project would be 

conducted under the supervision of a qualified paleontologist. Pre-construction approval and permits for 

paleontological monitoring and removal of fossils from land managed or owned by the BLM or USFS 

would be obtained prior to construction. The permit would be issued following the approval of a BLM 

paleontologist’s review of the PRMP, credentials of the paleontological monitors, and an agreement for 
4-14

curation of removed fossils. For paleontological resources identified on privately owned land, Kern River 

would notify both the FERC and the landowner and would negotiate the curation/repository of fossils 

with the landowner. Monitoring during trenching and grading operations in areas identified as high 

sensitivity would be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor. Areas not recommended for 

monitoring during trenching and grading operations would be spot-checked by qualified paleontologists. 

Workers in areas that do not require monitoring would receive orientation and training for fossil 

discovery and mitigation. A copy of the PRMP, which includes a section discussing unanticipated 

paleontological discoveries would be reviewed by construction supervisors and would be kept on-site 

during construction operations. If an unanticipated paleontological resource is identified, the construction 

foreman would immediately notify the Environmental Inspector, who would then notify the Project 

paleontologist of the find. If a fossil is identified, Kern River and the appropriate federal, state, or local 

agency would be notified of the find for consultation. Following the completion of trenching and 

grading, a monitoring report summarizing the findings would be completed by a qualified paleontologist 

and issued to the FERC and other cooperating agencies. 

4.1.5 Summary of Potential Impacts 

The primary effect of Project construction on geologic resources would be disturbances to 

topographic features found along the construction right-of-way. As described in section 2.3.1, all areas 

disturbed during Project construction would be graded and restored as closely as possible to preconstruction contours during cleanup and restoration. Potential impacts associated with landslides, soil 

liquefaction, and seismicity would be mitigated through avoidance of landslide-prone areas and through 

the use of special construction materials within seismically active areas. Potential hazards associated with 

faults would be mitigated through the use of extra wall thickness of Grade X65 steel pipe and placement 

of granular/sand backfill material underneath and surrounding the pipeline near the fault. Areas of the 

pipeline trench would also be excavated to a depth of 10 feet below the pipeline and backfilled with sand 

and would include the installation of expanded foam ditch plugs in areas of the trench. Granular/sand 

backfill would be placed along the pipeline extending 450 feet west and 750 feet east of the fault trace. 

Excavation to 10 feet below the pipeline would occur extending 100 feet west and 200 feet east of the 

fault trace. Kern River does anticipate the need for blasting and would follow all applicable state, federal 

and local regulations and prepare a site-specific blasting plan to minimize impacts. For these reasons, 

construction of the Project would be unlikely to result in significant alterations of the topography or 

geologic resources of the Project area. 

Impacts of the Apex Expansion Project from post-construction operations are expected to be 

minimal. Permanent impacts from the Project would include aboveground facilities, which include the 

proposed Milford Compressor Station and the electrical distribution line. Activities during operation 

would potentially involve repair or replacement of portions of the Project including pipeline and 

equipment at the aboveground facilities including the proposed Milford Compressor Station, the electrical 

distribution line and the four existing compressor stations. However, as no additional ground would be 

excavated during operations of the Project that has not previously been assessed for risks to geologic 

resources, no impacts would be expected related to geologic hazards or to mineral or paleontological 

resources during operation of the proposed Project. 

Based on the overall geologic conditions present in the Project area, Kern River’s proposed 

construction and operation methods (section 2.3), and our recommendations, we conclude that 

construction of the Project would not significantly alter the geologic conditions of the region. 
4-15

4.2 SOILS 

Soil types that occur within the proposed Project area and information on their characteristics 

were obtained using NRCS soil survey maps, the STATSGO, and the Soil Survey Geographic Database 

(SSURGO). 

Potential impacts on soil resources from construction of the proposed Apex Expansion Project, 

including the installation of the pipeline, construction of the proposed Milford Compressor Station, the 

extension of the electrical distribution line to the Milford Compressor Station, and modifications to the 

existing compressor stations, are related to clearing, grading, excavation, backfilling, and heavy 

equipment traffic. Removal of vegetation during construction operations could result in a greater chance 

for wind and water erosion. Compaction due to heavy equipment traffic could adversely impact the 

potential of the soil for revegetation and thereby increase the potential for erosion. Loss of topsoil during 

construction, excavation, and backfilling could also result in poorer quality soils with a lower revegetation 

potential. 

4.2.1 Standard Soil Limitations 

Several soil characteristics have the potential to affect, or be affected by, construction and 

operation of the proposed Project. These include erosion potential; prime farmland; compaction potential; 

presence of stony or rocky soils; hydric soils; and presence of shallow bedrock. Table 4.2.1-1 

summarizes areas along the proposed Project route, including ATWSs and staging areas, affected by these 

soil characteristics. 

TABLE 4.2.1-1 

Soil Limitations Crossed by the Proposed Apex Expansion Project (acres) 

Highly Erodible 

Water Wind 

Soil 

Compaction 

Potential 

Poor 

Revegetation 

Potential 

Shallow to 

Bedrock 

Prime 

Farmland 

Stony/Rocky 

Soils 

Hydric 

Soils 

266.2 19.6 121.2 228.2 380.7 0 67.6 53 

4.2.1.1 Erosion Potential 

Erosion is the wearing away of soils caused by exposure to water, wind, ice, or other geologic 

forces. Many factors influence the extent to which soil is eroded, such as soil structure, drainage 

characteristics, texture, slope, climate, and vegetation. The erosion potential across the proposed Project 

area was evaluated based on the occurrence of soils that are susceptible to wind or water erosion. Soils 

susceptible to erosion from water are classified by variables including slope class, slope length, and soil 

texture. Soils susceptible to erosion from water were identified as soils having slopes greater than 

9 percent or designated by STATSGO as highly erodible land (HEL), with the fine earth fraction of the 

soil (Kf value) greater than 0.26. The Kf value is indicative of the susceptibility for soil or material less 

than 2 millimeters to be eroded through sheet or rill erosion. 

Approximately 19.8 miles of the proposed Project route would cross soils classified as water 

erodible with approximately 62 percent (266.2 acres) of the proposed Project erodible to water when 

evaluated with STATSGO Kf values (0.26 to 0.50). Soils susceptible to wind are characterized by the 

properties of texture, soil content, aggregate stability, and the proportion of organic material. 

Approximately 5 percent (19.6 acres) of the proposed Project route and facilities are classified as winderodible soils. Successful restoration and revegetation are important for maintaining soil productivity and 
4-16

protecting the underlying soil from potential damage, such as erosion. Soils with a coarse surface texture 

(sandy loam or coarser) that are moderately well to excessively drained may prove to be difficult to 

revegetate because these drier soils have less water to aid in seed germination and the eventual 

establishment of new vegetation. The coarse-textured soils also have a lower water-holding capacity 

following precipitation, which could result in moisture deficiencies in the root zone and create 

unfavorable conditions for many plants. In addition, steep slopes (greater than 9 percent) along the 

proposed pipeline route may make the establishment of vegetation difficult. The clearing and grading of 

soils with poor revegetation potential could result in a lack of adequate vegetation following construction 

and restoration of the right-of-way, which could lead to increased erosion, a reduction in wildlife habitat, 

and adverse visual impacts. Soils with low or poor revegetation potential can be classified using a soils 

ability for growth of grassland, shrub land, or rangeland habitats. Approximately 65 percent (228.2 acres) 

of the proposed Project route and facilities are classified as having low revegetation potential for 

grasslands, shrub lands, and rangelands. 

Of the aboveground facilities associated with the Apex Expansion Project, only the proposed 

Milford Compressor Station would require a substantial amount of new construction. The other four 

compressor stations have potential impacts related to erosion of soils from Project-related construction 

and movement of equipment, but all disturbances and potential impacts would occur within the existing 

boundaries of the stations. The Coyote Creek Compressor Station located in Uinta County, Wyoming 

overlies soils considered to have moderate to high erosion potential, and portions of the site are 

considered to have low revegetation potential. The Elberta Compressor Station in Utah County, Utah 

overlies soil considered to have moderate to high erosion potential. The soils at the proposed Milford 

Compressor Station in Beaver County, Utah are considered to have low to moderate erosion potential. 

The Fillmore Compressor Station in Millard County, Utah overlies soils that are not considered to have 

moderate to highly erodible soils. The Dry Lake Compressor Station in Clark County, Nevada overlies 

soils that are not considered to have moderate to high erosion potential. Six staging areas would be 

located in areas that are considered to have low revegetation potential. However, impacts are expected to 

be minor as these workspaces are temporary. 

Impacts on erodible soils would be minimized through the use of temporary and permanent 

erosion control devices such as slope breakers, trench breakers, hay bales, and silt fences, as identified in 

Kern River’s Plan and the Reclamation Plan. To minimize potential impacts near waterbodies and 

wetlands, temporary erosion control devices would be installed prior to construction, as described in Kern 

River’s Procedures. Temporary erosion control devices would be inspected regularly to determine 

whether repairs or replacement is necessary and would only be removed following the successful 

revegetation of an affected area. 

4.2.1.2 Prime Farmland 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) defines prime farmland as “land that has the best 

combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, fiber, and oilseed crops” 

(USDA 1993). This designation includes cultivated land, pasture, woodland, and other lands that are 

either used for food or fiber crops, or are available for these uses. Urbanized land, built-up land, and open 

water cannot be designated as prime farmland. Prime farmland typically contains few or no rocks; is 

permeable to water and air; is not excessively erodible or saturated with water for long periods; and is not 

subject to frequent, prolonged flooding during the growing season. Soils that do not meet the above 

criteria may be considered prime farmland if the limiting factor is mitigated (e.g., by draining or 

irrigating). The Apex Expansion Project would not cross any areas designated as prime farmland. 

Drainage tiles used to improve the drainage of soils in agricultural areas may be encountered at MP 7.0 to 

8.0, near MP 18.8, and MP 27.6 to 27.9. Damage to drain tiles can occur from construction equipment. 

Potential impacts on drain tiles, if damaged by construction, would be repaired by a qualified tile-
4-17

drainage specialist. The compressor stations and other aboveground facilities associated with the 

proposed Project are not proposed in areas of prime farmland. 

4.2.1.3 Compaction Potential 

Soils identified as compaction prone are characterized as clay loams or finer grain size 

classifications designated by the USDA. A drainage class of somewhat poor to very poor is also 

considered in characterizing compaction-prone soils. Soil compaction and rutting could be affected by 

construction activities. The pipeline route would traverse approximately 121.2 acres of land classified as 

compaction-prone soils. Compaction prone soils are not expected to be present at the existing or 

proposed compressor stations, however some storage yards, contractor yards, and staging areas are 

located in areas with moderate to high compaction potential. The impacts associated with the existing 

aboveground facilities are expected to be minor and temporary since they would be restored to preconstruction use following construction activities. The areas impacted by new aboveground facilities 

would be converted to industrial use. The extent of soil compaction may be dependent on the proportion 

of moisture in the soil. Soils with moderate moisture content may be more prone to compaction 

associated with construction activities than dry soils. Potential impacts on compaction prone soils would 

be mitigated through scheduling construction during the dry season and the use of timber or board mats to 

cross areas that are compaction prone. Additionally, Kern River would conduct compaction tests and till 

compacted subsurface soils in agricultural areas through the use of paraplows or similar equipment as 

identified in its Plan. 

4.2.1.4 Stony-Rocky Soils 

Soils with textural classifications including stony, cobbly, gravelly, shale, slate, or droughty in 

any layer, or with stones larger than 3 inches in the surface layer in greater than 15 percent of the area, 

may be characterized as stony or rocky soil. Areas along the proposed Project route were evaluated to 

determine areas with 15 percent or greater occurrence of rock fragments greater than 3 inches in size and 

areas with soil classifications that include a rock outcrop identifier in their soil association classification. 

The Project would affect approximately 68 acres of stony and rocky soil. Proposed or existing 

compressor stations would not affect stony-rocky soils. Potential impacts from stony-rocky soils would 

be minimized on agricultural lands through the removal of rock fragments brought to the surface during 

construction. Topsoil removed from the trench line would be segregated and stockpiled during 

construction activities. Prior to topsoil replacement, topsoil would be screened for rock fragments greater 

than 3 inches. On croplands where bedrock fragments are brought to the surface during trenching 

operations would be removed using rock pickers. On rangelands, Kern River would scatter rocks along 

the right-of-way in a natural pattern, use rock fragments to create permanent slope breakers or make cross 

contour berms where approval has been granted. 

4.2.1.5 Hydric Soils 

Hydric soils are defined as “soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding 

long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part” (FR 1994). 

Soils that are artificially drained or protected from flooding (such as, by levees) are still considered hydric 

if the soil in its undisturbed state would meet the definition of a hydric soil. Hydric soils include very 

poorly, poorly, and somewhat poorly drained soils. Due to extended periods of saturation, hydric soils 

can be prone to compaction and rutting. In addition, high groundwater levels associated with hydric soils 

could create a buoyancy hazard for the proposed pipeline. Approximately 53 acres of the pipeline route 

would traverse hydric soils, of which 29 acres are considered to be prone to compaction and rutting. 

Hydric soils are not present at the locations of any of the existing or proposed compressor stations. 

Potential impacts on compaction prone hydric soils would be mitigated through the use of timber or board 
4-18

mats to cross areas that are compaction prone. Additionally, Kern River would conduct compaction relief 

tests and till compacted subsurface soils in agricultural areas through the use of paraplows or similar 

equipment as identified in its Plan. Thus, impacts on hydric soils would be minor and temporary. 

4.2.1.6 Shallow Bedrock 

Soils with bedrock present within 60 inches (5 feet) of the soil surface are considered shallow to 

bedrock. Soils with shallow-to-bedrock classifications were identified using the STATSGO database. 

Approximately 380.7 acres of the pipeline route traverses soil that is considered shallow-to-bedrock. The 

Coyote Creek and Dry Lake Compressor Stations contain soils identified as shallow-to-bedrock. Other 

aboveground facilities including two pipe yards, two contractor yards, and eleven staging areas two of 

which may be used for additional workspace have soils that are shallow-to-bedrock. To excavate the 

trench line, blasting may be necessary where shallow bedrock is present. Geotechnical investigations 

conducted in 2009 by Kern River indicate that approximately 248 acres of the Project may require 

blasting as previously discussed in section 4.1.3.4. If blasting was conducted, any rock fragments greater 

than 3 inches in diameter introduced into the topsoil would be removed as needed to maintain consistency 

with the surrounding land. Thus, impacts on shallow-to-bedrock soils would be minor and temporary. 

4.2.2 Spill/Contamination Prevention 

Other potential impacts during construction could include the accidental release of petroleum 

hydrocarbons or other hazardous materials or encountering existing contaminated areas during 

excavation. During construction, Kern River would implement mitigation measures to prevent and 

contain, if necessary, accidental spills of any material that may contaminate soils, and to ensure that 

inadvertent spills of fuels, lubricants, or solvents are contained and cleaned up in accordance with its 

SPCC Plan. If required, all potentially contaminated materials would be handled, transported, and 

disposed of in accordance with appropriate federal, state, and local regulations. 

4.2.3 Topsoil Segregation 

Topsoil is the uppermost layer of soil, typically has the highest concentration of organic 

materials, and generally has greater biological productivity than subsurface soils. The micro-organisms 

and other biological material typically found in topsoil provide necessary nutrients to vegetation. Topsoil 

also has the highest concentration of plant root and seeds. Topsoil preservation is important especially for 

restoration of natural vegetation and cropland and range or pasture lands, especially in areas where topsoil 

is limited in extent or depth. Topsoil would be segregated across the width of the construction workspace 

in agricultural and residential areas, and in areas where requested by landowners and in accordance with 

Kern River’s Plan. Topsoil segregation may also be conducted on range lands and USFS lands at the 

request of the BLM or the USFS and other land management agencies. Topsoil would be removed to a 

minimum depth of 12 inches in accordance with Kern River’s Plan. If areas of shallow topsoil and stonyrock soils are encountered, Kern River would reduce the minimum depth for topsoil segregation to 4 to 

6 inches. Topsoil would be stockpiled in a manner that discourages mixing with subsurface soil. Silt 

fences and other barriers would be installed to prevent erosion and siltation from the stockpiles into 

nearby waterways. 

To minimize impacts on soil resources from the Apex Expansion Project, Kern River would 

implement mitigation controls for erosion, compaction, drainage tiles, and stony and rocky soils, as 

discussed in the preceding sections and outlined in its Plan. These mitigation measures would be 

monitored through environmental inspections during construction and restoration. We have reviewed 

Kern River’s Plan and found that it is consistent with our Plan which is available for review on the FERC 

website at www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/guidelines. 
4-19

Environmental Inspectors would monitor construction and restoration activities to document that 

Kern River was complying with its Plan. Potential impacts from construction and restoration along the 

proposed Project may include erosion, compaction of soils, and damage to existing drainage tiles and the 

introduction of stones or rocks to the top 12 inches of topsoil. Environmental Inspectors would monitor 

and identify areas that appear to be susceptible to these impacts and implement appropriate mitigation 

measures to reduce or limit the potential affects. Mitigation measures that would be verified by 

Environmental Inspectors include the proper marking of areas to be cleared for construction; 

identification of any soil stabilization or erosion controls needed along the proposed Project route; and 

verifying the appropriate restoration of contours and topsoil, and that any soils imported for restoration 

purposes are free of noxious weeds and pests. Mitigation controls for erosion implemented by Kern River 

would include installation of sediment barriers and slope breakers during construction, and application of 

mulch or other erosion control measures in areas that are susceptible to erosion during restoration. In 

addition, Kern River would restore to pre-existing conditions any existing water bars and erosion control 

structures that are currently in place. 

Maintenance of drainage tiles during construction and any necessary repairs after construction to 

drainage tiles also would be conducted in accordance with Kern River’s Plan. To minimize grazing 

disturbance, Kern River would work with landowners, permittees, and appropriate agencies to develop 

grazing deferment plans in order to minimize potential grazing impacts during revegetation. 

Impacts on agricultural and rangeland soils resulting from construction of the pipeline would be 

temporary since the pipeline would be buried and disturbed areas within the temporary construction and 

permanent rights-of-way would largely revert to their pre-construction uses following restoration. 

4.2.4 PacifiCorp Electrical Distribution Line 

In addition to the construction of the proposed Milford Compressor Station, an approximately 

1.4-mile aboveground electrical distribution line would be extended to provide electrical power to the 

proposed compressor station. Soils found along the proposed electrical distribution line are similar to 

those identified at the proposed Milford Compressor Station. The approximately 23 single wood pole 

structures would be installed using a rubber tire line truck mounted auger. Once the pole structures are 

set in place, the space surrounding the poles would be backfilled. No contouring would be necessary 

based on the flat topography of the area proposed for the electrical distribution line. The work area for 

each pole would be reclaimed and seeded, if determined necessary, with a BLM approved reclamation 

plan. Access for the distribution line would be on the existing Imperial Road. The auger rig would 

backup to the pole stake from Imperial road. Potential impacts on soil resources would be limited to the 

footprint of the approximately 23 pole structures. Assuming an approximate diameter of 12 inches, the 

electrical distribution line would impact less than 0.1 acre. 

4.2.5 Operation Impacts 

During operations, there would be no impacts on soil resources expected beyond periodic 

inspection of the right-of-way and the use of permanent access roads to aboveground facilities. Any 

impacts on soil resources associated with standard operations would be minor and infrequent. 

Potential impacts from maintenance of the proposed Project could include soil displacement, 

compaction, and erosion caused by machinery necessary to maintain or repair any portions of the 

proposed pipeline or aboveground facilities. To minimize impacts on soils from operation of the 

proposed Project, Kern River would implement the measures in its Plan—as described for construction in 

the preceding sections—to mitigate impacts such as compaction and erosion. 
4-20

4.3 WATER RESOURCES 

4.3.1 Groundwater Resources 

The Apex Expansion Project would transverse portions of two major aquifer systems: the Basin 

and Range aquifer system in Utah and Nevada and the Upper Colorado River Basin aquifer system in 

Wyoming. Both of these aquifers include large-scale systems formed in bedrock and unconsolidated 

sedimentary deposits (referred to as “basin-fill aquifers”) and waterbearing zones of relatively small 

extent in glacial deposits and alluvial deposits along streams and rivers. Additional information on 

aquifers occurring along the proposed Project route, including sole-source aquifers, wellhead protection 

areas, and supply wells is provided below.

Basin and Range Aquifer System 

The Basin and Range aquifer system is a principal source of groundwater in Utah and Nevada. 

Historically, groundwater from this aquifer system has been used for irrigation purposes. Although the 

primary use of this aquifer system is still irrigation, increased populations and growing metropolitan areas 

are increasingly dependent on this system for potable water supply demands (USGS 2009a). The 

proposed Wasatch Loop and the Milford Compressor Station would be constructed within the Basin and 

Range aquifers in Morgan, Davis, Salt Lake, and Beaver Counties, Utah. 

This aquifer system extends over approximately 200,000 square miles of the southwestern United 

States, including western Utah and most of Nevada. The system includes basin-fill aquifers and aquifers 

where groundwater moves primarily within carbonate rock. Basin-fill or valley-fill aquifers were 

deposited in depressions formed by faulting, erosion, or both. These aquifers consist of moderately 

consolidated, well- to poorly-sorted beds of gravel, sand, silt, and clay deposited on alluvial fans, 

pediments, flood plains, and playas. Water generally moves under unconfined conditions from recharge 

areas along the margins of mountainous basins toward discharge areas at the center of structural basins 

near the center of valleys. Aquifer discharge occurs through upward leakage to shallower aquifers and 

then to major streams. The thickness of basin-fill aquifers is not well-known but ranges from about 

1,000 to 5,000 feet in many basins and may exceed 10,000 feet in a few deep basins in Utah. These 

aquifers generally have high hydraulic conductivities and, in places, allow rapid infiltration from the 

surface. Because of their high conductivity, rapid recharge, and good yield, these aquifers can be a 

significant water supply source; however, they are also susceptible to contamination. (USGS 2009a). 

Carbonate rock aquifers generally underlie the basin-fill aquifers in the Basin and Range system. 

These aquifers consist primarily of limestone, dolomite, and marble with some quartzite, shale, siltstone, 

and sandstone in formations that are thousands of feet thick. Groundwater yields vary and depend on the 

degree of secondary dissolution (primarily karst formation) within the bedrock. Groundwater flows 

through soluble rock to fractures and solution openings that can vary in size from small tubes to caverns, 

through bedrock from basin to basin, or beneath basins from mountainous recharge areas to discharge 

areas. Well yields and spring flows can be very high in areas where fractures and solution openings 

comprise well-connected networks and the rock is thickly saturated. (USGS 2009a). 

Three of the four existing compressor stations proposed for modifications under the Apex 

Expansion Project are located within the Basin and Range aquifer system and include Elberta Compressor 

Station (Utah County, Utah), Fillmore Compress Station (Millard County, Utah), and Dry Lake 

Compressor Station (Clark County, Nevada). The modification activities proposed at these stations are 

not expected to cause impacts on groundwater resources and thus are not discussed further. 
4-21

Upper Colorado River Basin Aquifer System 

The Upper Colorado River Basin aquifer system also underlies the southwestern United States as 

well as the southwestern portion of Wyoming. In Wyoming, the Upper Colorado River Basin aquifer 

system consists of five aquifers and extends over about 20,000 square miles which are mostly in the 

Green River, the Great Divide, and the Washakie structural basins (USGS 2009b). 

Most of the fresh water in the Upper Colorado River Basin aquifer system is found in the 

Wasatch–Fort Union aquifer. The Wasatch-Fort Union aquifer is the only aquifer that underlies the 

proposed Project area in Uinta County and the Green River Basin. The principal water-yielding beds in 

this aquifer are sandstones that are interbedded with shale, mudstone, and some coal beds. Groundwater 

is generally between 200 and 1,000 feet below ground surface (bgs) in the majority of the Wasatch-Fort 

Union aquifer, with shallower groundwater found near surface waterbodies that serve as discharge areas 

for the aquifer. Water in the western part of the aquifer moves from recharge areas in the mountains 

toward the Green River and its tributaries and toward the Flaming Gorge Reservoir (USGS 2009b). 

Wells completed in the Upper Colorado River Basin aquifer system commonly are 300 to 900 feet deep 

and locally are 1,000 to 3,000 feet deep. These aquifers are deeply buried or overlain by fine-grained 

rocks in many places. 

One of the four existing compressor stations proposed for modifications under the Apex 

Expansion Project is located within the Upper Colorado River Basin aquifer system. The modification 

activities proposed at the Coyote Creek Compressor Station (Uinta County, Wyoming) are not expected 

to cause impacts on groundwater resources and thus this station and its locations are not discussed further. 

4.3.1.1 Sole-Source Aquifers 

The EPA defines a sole-source aquifer or principal-source aquifer as one that supplies at least 

50 percent of the drinking water consumed in the area overlying an aquifer. EPA guidelines stipulate that 

such areas can have no alternative drinking water source(s) that could physically, legally, and 

economically supply all those who depend upon the aquifer for drinking water (EPA 2010). No solesource aquifers designated by the EPA would be crossed by the Apex Expansion Project. 

4.3.1.2 Water Supply Wells 

Based on agency consultations, field surveys, and desktop research, three public water supply 

wells, have been identified within the proposed pipeline construction right-of-way in Utah (table 4.3.1-1). 

All of these public supply wells are associated with transient non-community public water systems. 

Transient non-community water systems are defined as non-community public water systems that do not 

serve 25 of the same non-resident persons per day for more than 6 months per year (UDEQ 2009). All of 

these systems have protection zones that would be traversed by the proposed pipeline route as identified 

in table 4.3.1-2. Kern River has completed all landowner consultations and right-of-way surveys to verify 

the locations of all active wells and springs within 150 feet of the pipeline route including the Mueller 

Park and the North Salt Lake III route variations. No other water supply wells or springs have been 

identified within 150 feet of the proposed pipeline construction right-of-way or within 200 feet of the 

proposed Milford Compressor Station. 
4-22

TABLE 4.3.1-1 

Water Supply Well Protection Zones Crossed by the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Construction Workspacesa

Utah 

County 

Approximate 

Milepost Name/ Type Well Use Type 

Protection Zone 

Acreage Crossed 

Morgan 1.0 – 4.0b East Canyon State Park / 

public 

Transient NonCommunity Well 45.7 

Morgan 6.4 – 8.7 b LDS Stake Camp Woodland/ 

public 

Transient NonCommunity Well 33.0 

Morgan 7.8 – 7.9 b Camp Zarahemla / public Transient NonCommunity Well0.2 

____________ 

Notes: 

a Workspaces may include permanent right-of-way, temporary workspaces, additional temporary workspaces, staging 

areas, and contractor yards. 

b Pipeline construction workspaces would cross within an area of a protection zone, and the surface area crossed is 

reported. Jensen 2009a; 2009b

4.3.1.3 Wellhead Protection Areas 

Wellhead protection areas (identified in Utah as source protection areas) are defined by the Safe 

Drinking Water Act (SDWA) as surface and subsurface areas surrounding a water well or well field 

supplying a public water system through which contaminates are reasonably likely to move toward and 

reach the supply system. In Utah, public water systems supply drinking water from groundwater sources 

including wells and springs. The jurisdictional municipalities associated with public water systems are 

responsible for the management of system protection zones as regulated by the Utah Drinking Water 

Source Protection Program (UDAR 2009a). These local governments protect wells and springs from 

contamination by passing ordinances to control land uses within their protection zones. Wellhead 

protection areas for four community water systems have been identified along the proposed pipeline route 

in Utah and are listed in table 4.3.1-2. “Community water systems” are defined as serving at least 

15 service connections used by year-round residents (UDEQ 2009). 
4-23

TABLE 4.3.1-2 

Wellhead Protection Zones Identified within the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Construction Workspacesa

Public Water System Utah County Approximate Milepostb,c

Source 

Type 

Protection Zone 

Acreage Crossed 

Weber Basin South Davis 

Davis 

14.8 – 15.0 

15.3 – 15.5 

Well 

Well 

4.1 

2.1 

Bountiful City Davis 

Davis 

Davis 

15.1 – 15.3 

15.5 – 17.2 

18.7 – 19.0 

Well 

Well 

Well 

1.3 

30.4 

7.5 

North Salt Lake Davis 

Davis 

Davis 

Davis 

Davis 

20.1 – 20.1 

20.1 – 20.1 

20.1 – 20.1 

24.0 - 24.6 

24.9 - 25.6 

Well 

Well 

Well 

Well 

Well 

0.6 

0.3d

0.3d

6.1 

11.3 

South Davis County WID Davis 

Davis 

Davis 

Davis 

Davis 

Davis 

Davis 

19.8 – 19.8 

20.1– 21.2 

21.2 – 21.2 

21.4 – 21.5 

21.9 – 23.6 

21.9 – 23.6 

21.9 – 23.6 

Spring 

Spring 

Well 

Well 

Spring 

Spring 

Spring 

<0.1 

15.2 

0.4 

0.9 

25.4d 

25.4d 

25.4d 

____________ 

Notes: 

a

 Workspaces may include permanent right-of-way, temporary workspaces, ATWSs, and staging areas. 

b

 Mileposts are not listed in numerical order but rather by public water system. 

c

 Mileposts have been rounded up for purposes of this table and do not reflect exact locations. 

d

 Protection zone completely overlaps three different sources and the same protection area for the entire acreage 

crossed. 

Sources: Jensen 2009a, 2009b. 

 

4.3.1.4 Contaminated Groundwater 

Contaminated groundwater could be encountered along the proposed pipeline route from MP 25.9 

to 27.0 associated with the proposed crossing of the Chevron Products Company petroleum refinery 

(Chevron Refinery). According to the UDEQ, a contaminated groundwater plume under the Chevron 

Refinery has been identified. This plume is associated with the on-site tank farm; however neither the 

extent of the plume nor the contaminations are known. If shallow or perched groundwater is present at 

the proposed crossings of the Jordan River or the Northwest Oil Drain associated with the Chevron 

Refinery, contaminated groundwater could also be contacted. The Jordan River is discussed further in 

section 4.3.2.2 and the Northwest Oil Drain is discussed in detail in section 4.3.2.6. Kern River and its 

Environmental Inspectors would inspect excavated areas for indicators of contaminated soils and/or 

groundwater. Identification would be based on observations such as: soil staining, oily sheens, odors, and 

previously unreported buried tanks, drums, or waste containers. If contaminated groundwater is 

encountered during construction, Kern River would immediately stop construction activities and would 

coordinate with the appropriate regulatory agencies or private corporations to develop a plan for treatment 
4-24

and/or disposal of the contaminated groundwater. If contaminated groundwater is encountered during 

construction at the Chevron Refinery, the water would be disposed of on-site in accordance with 

Chevron’s procedures. 

4.3.1.5 Groundwater Impacts and Mitigation Procedures 

Construction 

Standard pipeline construction procedures would be used by Kern River and would consist of: 

clearing and grading, trench excavation, dewatering, and fuel handling. These activities could affect 

groundwater resources, including aquifers, wellhead protection areas, springs, and water supply wells. 

Clearing and grading would remove vegetation that provides filtration and slows surface runoff. 

Trenching and soil stockpiling activities would temporarily alter overland flow and groundwater recharge, 

and could alter near-surface groundwater flows where shallow groundwater is encountered. Heavy 

equipment used for construction could compact the soil along the right-of-way and slow groundwater 

recharge rates. The trench could also fill up with water during construction. In general, the potential for 

impacts on groundwater resources from construction and operation of the proposed Project depends on 

whether the proposed facilities would cause localized changes to existing groundwater flow and/or 

quality. 

Construction of the pipeline would require trenching and backfilling to a depth of 6 to 8 feet bgs. 

These construction activities would be generally located 50 feet or greater above most of the waterbearing zones that would be encountered along the Project. However, depth to groundwater is variable, 

and groundwater can be found near the surface of the ground in some areas where proposed Project 

activities could impact groundwater. The primary area of concern for shallow groundwater along the 

pipeline route would be associated with the crossing of the Chevron Refinery between MP 25.9 and 27.0. 

Shallow groundwater may also be encountered in surficial aquifers in Morgan County. Total suspended 

solid levels in surficial aquifers could increase if shallow groundwater were encountered during 

construction activities. Shallow groundwater could also affect the buoyancy of the pipe (i.e., the pipeline 

would be more likely to rise to the ground surface) and could increase the potential for pipe corrosion. 

Saturated soil conditions would also increase the difficulty of trench excavation and reduce the stability of 

the trench wall during pipeline installation and subsequent inspection of the pipeline before backfilling. 

Where necessary, Kern River would install weights, use concrete-coated pipe, or anchor the pipeline in 

areas where the positive buoyancy of the pipeline may exceed the combined uplift resistance of backfilled 

soil and soil adjacent to the ditch. Kern River would use externally coated pipe and install cathodic 

protection where necessary to guard against corrosion. Implementation of these measures would reduce 

impacts associated with shallow groundwater to less-than-significant levels. 

During construction, trench dewatering may result in localized, minor changes in the water table. 

Effects from construction of the proposed pipeline would likely be temporary, and any shallow 

groundwater systems would recover to equilibrium within a period of days to months. Dewatering of the 

trench would occur in an adjacent area through a sediment filter and energy displacement device, which 

would likely recharge the impacted aquifer. Heavy equipment used during construction could compact 

the soil along the proposed right-of-way and slow groundwater recharge rates. After the trench is 

backfilled, soils could also be compacted and may have different permeability rates compared to the 

surrounding undisturbed soils. Disturbed soils could potentially act as a conduit to transport groundwater 

and increase infiltration of surface water flows. This could cause subsurface erosion and ground 

subsidence along the pipeline route. Kern River would install trench breakers where necessary to 

minimize the potential of subsurface water flow along the trench. 
4-25

Construction of the aboveground facilities, including the proposed Milford Compressor Station, 

would require minimal subsurface work. However, the development of impervious surfaces and 

structures associated with the proposed aboveground facilities could result in alteration of localized 

infiltration/recharge rates. Impervious surfaces would divert runoff from the immediate area. However, 

the diverted runoff would infiltrate adjacent areas and would likely recharge the local aquifer under the 

proposed aboveground facilities. Therefore, only negligible effects to groundwater resources would 

occur. Kern River would limit impacts on water resources during construction of aboveground facilities 

by implementing the measures in its Plan and SPCC Plan discussed below. 

Accidental Spills of Hazardous Materials 

Pipeline construction necessitates the use of heavy equipment and associated fuels, lubricants, 

and other potentially hazardous substances that, if spilled, could affect shallow groundwater and/or 

unconsolidated aquifers. Accidental spills or leaks of hazardous materials associated with vehicle fueling, 

vehicle maintenance, and construction materials storage would present the greatest potential 

contamination threat to groundwater resources. Soil contamination resulting from these spills or leaks 

could continue to add pollutants to the groundwater long after a spill occurs. Implementation of proper 

storage, containment, and handling procedures would minimize the chance of such releases. Kern River 

has developed an SPCC Plan to addresses the preventative and mitigative measures that would be 

implemented to avoid or minimize the potential impacts of hazardous material spills during construction. 

Measures outlined in the SPCC Plan and in Kern River’s Plan and Procedures include, but are not limited 

to: 

 spill training for construction personnel; 

 regular inspection of construction equipment for leaks; 

 prohibition of fueling and lubricating activities and hazardous material storage in or adjacent 

to sensitive areas; 

 secondary containment for storage of fuels, oils, hazardous materials, and equipment; 

 collection and disposal procedures for wastes generated during equipment maintenance; 

 emergency response procedures; and 

 standard procedures for excavation and off-site disposal of any soils contaminated by 

spillage. 

We have reviewed Kern River’s SPCC Plan, Plan, and Procedures and find that these protocols 

adequately address the storage and transfer of hazardous materials and the response to be taken in the 

event of a spill. 

Wellhead Protection Areas and Water Supply Wells 

Groundwater flow generally reflects surface topography; therefore, proper restoration of the 

ground surface would ensure that overland runoff flow and recharge patterns are returned to preconstruction conditions. Kern River would restore surface topography as close as practicable to preconstruction contours, as well as restore the disturbed vegetation for stabilization along the right-of-way. 

Kern River would alleviate soil compaction by implementation of its Plan, which provides for testing and 

decompaction measures. Impacts from compaction would be localized, temporary, and minimal 

compared to the total groundwater recharge area adjacent to the Project area. 
4-26

Construction through wellhead protection areas must protect against the potential for impaired 

water quality, decreased yield, or other disruptions of service. Potential impacts on wellhead protection 

areas would be avoided or minimized by the measures described above to prevent impacts on 

groundwater resources. Furthermore, Kern River continues to consult with each of the municipalities 

affected by the proposed Project for development and approval of the Project-specific Storm Water 

Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Kern River would also comply with other state and municipal 

regulations, including the Utah Drinking Water Source Protection Program, as well as their SPCC Plan 

when working in wellhead protection areas. 

Kern River has identified three groundwater well protection zones within the proposed 

construction workspaces. Potential construction-related impacts could include localized decreases in 

groundwater recharge rates, changes to overland water flow, contamination, decreased well yields, 

decreased water quality (such as increased turbidity or odor in the water), interference with well 

mechanics, or complete disruption of the well or spring. These impacts could result from trenching 

activities and/or heavy equipment traffic. Kern River has agreed to perform pre- and post-construction 

monitoring for well yield and water quality for private wells and springs within 200 feet and for public 

wells and springs within 400 feet of the proposed construction right-of-way (table 4.3.1-1). Should the 

integrity of any water supply well or springs be impacted during construction, Kern River would provide 

an alternative water source and would restore the water yield and quality to pre-construction conditions or 

install a new comparable well. Kern River would implement measures in its Groundwater Monitoring 

Plan to address the preventative and mitigative measures that would be implemented to avoid or minimize 

the potential impacts of construction on wells and springs. As previously discussed, we have 

recommended that right-of-way surveys and landowner consultations be completed to definitively 

determine the location of each well and spring within 150 feet of the right-of-way and that site-specific 

mitigation measures be provided as applicable. 

Blasting 

Kern River identified several portions of the proposed construction right-of-way in Utah (MP 0.0 

to 20.5) where blasting may be required for pipeline installation. Blasting could affect groundwater 

quality by temporarily changing groundwater levels and increasing groundwater turbidity near the 

proposed construction right-of-way. Kern River would attempt to utilize specialized excavation methods 

to reach the required pipeline design burial depth in areas where shallow bedrock is encountered. These 

excavation methods could include ripping or the use of hydraulic hammers or rock saws. However, 

blasting may be necessary to achieve the required trench depth if excavation methods prove to be 

ineffective or inefficient. Blasting would likely be required along the pipeline route in areas where hard, 

non-rippable bedrock occurs within 5 feet of the ground surface. Kern River has developed a Blasting 

Plan to minimize potential adverse impacts on the environment, nearby water sources, structures, or 

utilities. As stated in the Blasting Plan, blasting activities would be conducted by licensed blasting 

contractors in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations. All necessary permits 

would be obtained if blasting were required. If blasting is required, increased turbidity could occur at 

shallow aquifers located beneath the trenchline; however, this impact would likely be temporary, and rock 

particles and sedimentation would be expected to settle out quickly. 

No wells or springs have been identified with 150 feet of the proposed workspaces near potential 

blasting locations. Kern River’s Blasting Plan has set peak particle velocity to a level that should protect 

water wells, springs, and other nearby structures from any structural damage. For instance, the industry 

standard for many years has been 12 inches per second maximum peak particle velocity on any 

underground structures. Kern River expects peak particle velocities to be 4 inches per second or lower on 

any underground structures and 2 inches per second or lower on wells and aboveground structures. We 

anticipate that any effect to nearby wells and springs from blasting would be temporary and would likely 
4-27

dissipate shortly after blasting or after a well has been flushed several times. As stated in section 4.3.1.5, 

Kern River has agreed to test all private wells and springs for water quality and yield prior to and after 

construction, and provide an alternative water source or mutually agreeable solution to a well or spring 

problem that arises. 

Operations 

No significant impacts on groundwater resources are anticipated during the operation of the 

proposed Project. The pipeline would be a fixed below ground structure, coated in accordance with 

USDOT standards, hydrostatically tested prior to the commencement of operation to avoid initial leaks, 

and monitored in accordance with USDOT requirements during operations to minimize potential impacts 

of corrosion and leaks. In the unlikely event of a pipeline rupture, groundwater impacts would be 

minimal due to the marginal solubility of natural gas and its rapid dispersal once exposed to air. 

Although the impervious surfaces and structures associated with the proposed aboveground facilities 

could result in alteration of localized infiltration/recharge rates, runoff would be diverted and would 

infiltrate adjacent areas. Thus the local aquifer under the proposed aboveground facilities would be 

recharged, and only negligible effects to groundwater resources would occur. 

No long-term groundwater impacts would be anticipated from construction or operation of the 

Project because disturbances would be temporary, erosion controls would be implemented, and natural 

ground contours would be restored. Groundwater impacts during construction would be minimized or 

avoided by implementing construction practices outlined in Kern River’s Plan and Procedures, such as 

installing trench plugs to prevent the movement of water along the buried pipeline; restricting or 

modifying construction practices during heavy rains and potential rutting circumstances; and limiting 

fertilizer, lime, and herbicides application to comply with state or federal requirements. 

Temporary minor impacts could result during trenching activities in areas with shallow 

groundwater (depth less than 10 feet bgs) that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline. The greatest 

threat posed to groundwater resources would be a hazardous material spill or leak into groundwater 

supplies. The FERC has reviewed Kern River’s SPCC Plan and believes that it adequately addresses 

strategies and methods to prevent or limit such contamination should a spill occur. No significant impacts 

on aquifers would be expected to occur by the construction and operation of the Project given the depth of 

the aquifers and the relatively shallow nature of construction. 

PacifiCorp Electrical Distribution Line 

The construction of the PacifiCorp electrical distribution line to the Milford Compressor Station 

would require the installation of 23 poles approximately 6.5 feet bgs. Groundwater resources along the 

distribution line would be the same as those described above for the Milford Compressor Station. 

Impacts on groundwater resources would be similar to the effects associated with pipeline construction. 

4.3.2 Surface Water Resources 

The Apex Expansion Project would cross three watershed basins located in Utah within the Great 

Basin Region. Watershed descriptions and approximate locations are provided in table 4.3.2-1. No 

waterbodies would be impacted by construction at the four existing compressor stations. Therefore, 

construction and operation impacts at these compressor stations are not discussed further. 
4-28

TABLE 4.3.2-1 

Watershed Basins Crossed by the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Watershed 

Approximate 

Milepost Rangea HUC / Drainage Area Description 

Lower Weber 

River 

0.0 – 19.8 

19.9 – 20.0 

16020102 / 

1,260 square miles 

The Lower Weber River watershed is located in 

northern Utah within the larger Weber River 

watershed which has a drainage area of nearly 

2,500 square miles. The Wasatch Mountains 

stretch north and south within the basin and 

separate the valley floors from the rolling hills. 

Jordan River 19.8 - 19.9 

20.0 – 28.0 

16020204 / 

791 square miles 

The entire Jordan River Basin has a drainage area 

of about 3,800 square miles and is located in northcentral Utah. The watershed is bounded on the 

east by the Wasatch Mountains, on the west by the 

Oquirrh Mountains, and on the south by the 

Traverse Range. The Great Salt Lake is the 

eventual recipient of water in the north-flowing 

Jordan River. 

Beaver 

BottomsUpper 

Beaver 

Milford CS 16030007 / 

1,720 square miles 

The Beaver Bottoms-Upper Beaver watershed is 

located in southwestern Utah within the larger 

Beaver River watershed which has a drainage area 

of about 320,000 acres including 306,000 acres in 

Beaver County. The watershed is encircled by the 

Tushar Mountains to the northeast and east, 

Circleville Mountains to the southeast, and the 

Mineral Mountains to the west. 

____________ 

Notes: 

 HUC = Hydrologic unit code 

 CS = Compressor station 

a Mileposts have been rounded up for purposes of this table and do not reflect exact locations. 

Sources: USGS 2008, USU 2008, UU 2004. 

The Apex Expansion Project would cross 21 waterbodies, including 12 perennial, 

seven intermittent, and two ephemeral streams. However, one perennial waterbody would be crossed 

three times which would account for a total of 23 proposed waterbody crossings. Three waterbodies have 

also been identified within the proposed Project workspace; however these waterbodies are not included 

in the total waterbody crossings of 23 because they would not be crossed by the pipeline and would not be 

directly affected by construction. “Perennial streams” are defined as waterbodies that hold water 

continually throughout the year. “Intermittent streams” hold water during wet or seasonal portions of the 

year. Intermittent streams may be fed by numerous sources, including groundwater, snowmelt, or 

precipitation, and do not flow continuously - typically ceasing during dry periods. Intermittent stream 

channels are well defined but lack the hydrological characteristics associated with perennial streams. 

“Ephemeral streams” or channels hold water only during and immediately after rain events or snowmelts. 

Ephemeral stream channels, also known as arroyo and drywash, are not always well defined and may lie 

above the water table at all times. 
4-29

4.3.2.1 Water Classifications 

CWA Section 303(d) requires that each state review, establish, and revise water quality standards 

for all surface waters within each state. State classification systems develop monitoring and mitigation 

programs to ensure that water standards are attained as designated. Waters that fail to meet their 

designated beneficial use are considered impaired and are listed under a state’s 303(d) list of impaired 

waters. 

The State of Utah designates five major management and protection classifications to surface 

waters to protect waters for drinking, fishing, boating, irrigation, stock watering, aquatic wildlife, and 

other legitimate beneficial uses (UDAR 2009b). A waterbody can have several use classifications, as 

detailed in table 4.3.2-2. The five major- and sub-classifications are as follows: 

Class 1: Protected for use as a raw water source for domestic water systems. 

Class 1A and 1B - Reserved. 

Class 1C - Protected for domestic purposes with prior treatment by treatment processes as 

required by the Utah Division of Drinking Water. 

Class 2: Protected for recreational use and aesthetics. 

Class 2A - Protected for frequent primary contact recreation where there is a high likelihood 

of ingestion of water or a high degree of bodily contact with the water. 

Class 2B - Protected for infrequent primary contact recreation. Also protected for secondary 

contact recreation where there is a low likelihood of ingestion of water or a low degree of 

bodily contact with the water. 

Class 3: Protected for use by aquatic wildlife. 

Class 3A - Protected for coldwater species of game fish and other coldwater aquatic life, 

including the necessary aquatic organisms in their food chain. 

Class 3B - Protected for warmwater species of game fish and other warmwater aquatic life, 

including the necessary aquatic organisms in their food chain. 

Class 3C - Protected for nongame fish and other aquatic life, including the necessary aquatic 

organisms in their food chain. 

Class 3D - Protected for waterfowl, shore birds, and other water-oriented wildlife not 

included in Classes 3A, 3B, or 3C, including the necessary aquatic organisms in their food 

chain. 

Class 3E - Severely habitat-limited waters. Narrative standards are applied to protect these 

waters for aquatic wildlife. 

Class 4: Protected for agricultural uses including irrigation of crops and stock watering. 

Class 5: The Great Salt Lake. 

Classes 5A through 5E –Specific waters associated with the Great Salt Lake. 
4-30

TABLE 4.3.2-2 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

County 

Project 

Component Mileposta 

Water 

Width/Crossing 

Distance (ft) 

Channel 

Width 

(ft) Waterbody Name Typeb State Quality Classificationc 

Morgan Pipeline 0.6 10 15 Unnamed tributary to 

Dip Hollow 

I 1C, 2B, 3A, 4 

Morgan Pipeline 1.2 12 20 Dixie Hollow P 1C, 2B, 3A, 4 Morgan Pipeline 2.4 3 12 Rocky Canyon E 1C, 2B, 3A, 4 Morgan Pipeline 3.4 3 6 Tuscon Hollow E 1C, 2B, 3A, 4 Morgan Pipeline 4.8 3 12 Redrock Canyon P 1C, 2B, 3A, 4 Morgan Pipeline 5.0 4 12 Redrock Canyon P 1C, 2B, 3A, 4 Morgan Pipeline 5.0 4 12 Redrock Canyon P 1C, 2B, 3A, 4 Morgan Pipeline 5.4 20 35 East Canyon Creek P 1C, 2B, 3A, 4 Morgan Pipeline 6.3 12 30 Sheep Canyon P 1C, 2B, 3A, 4 Morgan Pipeline 7.0 2 20 Unnamed tributary to 

East Canyon Creek 

I 1C, 2B, 3A, 4 

Morgan Pipeline 7.2 12 40 Jones Hollow I 1C, 2B, 3A, 4 Morgan Pipeline 7.8 2 25 Woods Creek I 1C, 2B, 3A, 4 Morgan Pipeline 8.1 1 20 Unnamed 

tributary/reservoir 

inlet 

I 1C, 2B, 3A, 4 

Morgan Pipeline 8.8 20 20 Tom Adams Hollow I 1C, 2B, 3A, 4 Morgan Pipeline 10.1 2 40 Tucker Hollow P 1C, 2B, 3A, 4 Category 1 

Water 

Morgan Pipeline 11.8 2 30 Hardscrabble Creek P 1C, 2B, 3A, 4 Category 1 

Water 

Davis Pipeline 16.5 12 20 Holbrook Creek P 2B, 3A, 4 Category 1 

Water 

Davis Pipeline 17.6 1 10 Kenney Creek I 2B, 3A, 4 Category 1 

Water 
4-31

TABLE 4.3.2-2 (continued) 

Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

County 

Project 

Component Mileposta 

Water 

Width/Crossing 

Distance (ft) 

Channel 

Width 

(ft) Waterbody Name Typeb State Quality Classificationc 

Davis Pipeline 19.0 10 30 Mill Creek P 2B, 3A, 4 Category 1 

Water 

Davis Pipeline 20.6 2 10 North Canyon Creek P 2B, 3A, 4 Category 1 

Water 

Davis Pipeline 26.8 30 42 Northwest Oil Drain P 3E Davis Pipeline 27.2 40 80 Jordan River P 2B,3B,3D,4 Salt Lake Pipeline 27.5 20 40 City Drain P 2B, 3E 

____________ Notes: a Mileposts have been rounded up for purposed of this table and do not reflect exact locations. b P = Perennial; I = Intermittent; E=Ephemeral c Waterbodies not specifically identified as Category 1 in the table are considered Category 3 waters 

 All watersheds not specifically classified by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality are presumptively classified as Classes 2B and 3D. 

 All irrigation canals and ditches statewide if not designated would be Classes 2B, 3E and 4.  All drainage canals and ditches statewide if not designated would be Classes 2B and 3E. 

d Except for those waterbodies designated as conventional bore and dam-and-pump, Kern River proposes to cross all waterbodies with water at the ti

flume methods. If water is not present at the time of construction these waterbodies would be open-cut. 

e Kern River is assessing the feasibility of using horizontal directional drilling (HDD) at these locations. If HDD is determined to be feasible, Kern Rive

contingency plan for review and approval by the FERC. 
4-32

In addition to the use classifications defined above, Utah designates waterbodies as Category 1, 

Category 2, and Category 3 waters (UDAR 2009b). The three categories are defined as follows: 

Category 1: “Waters of high quality” to be of exceptional recreational or ecological 

significance or have been determined to be a state or national resource requiring protection. 

New point source discharges of wastewater, treated or otherwise, are prohibited. 

Category 2: “Waters of high quality” that are treated as Category 1 waters except that a point 

source discharge may be permitted provided that the discharge does not degrade existing 

water quality

Category 3: All other waters of the state of which point source discharges are allowed and 

degradation of water quality may occur.

Six Category 1 waters, no Category 2 waters, and 15 Category 3 waters would be crossed by the 

pipeline route. Category 1 waters are considered state high-quality waters and are further discussed in 

section 4.3.2.2. 

The FERC classifies surface waters based on size: major waterbodies are greater than 100 feet 

wide, intermediate waterbodies are between 10 and 100 feet wide, and minor waterbodies are less than 

10 feet wide. No major waterbodies would be crossed by the Apex Expansion Project. 

Table 4.3.2-2 lists the location, name, type, proposed crossing method, and use classification for 

each of the proposed waterbody crossings. No surface waters would be located within or immediately 

adjacent to the boundaries of the existing or proposed new aboveground facilities, including the Milford 

Compressor Station. 

4.3.2.2 Sensitive Waterbodies 

By reviewing various databases and consulting with relevant agencies, Kern River identified 

10 sensitive waterbodies that would be crossed by the pipeline. “Sensitive waterbodies” include those 

streams designated as one or more of the following: state-listed impaired waterbodies, agency-identified 

waterbodies of concern, and waterbodies that provide habitat for aquatic species of special concern. No 

crossing would occur within 3 miles upstream of a potable water intake structure. Furthermore, no state 

or national Wild and Scenic Rivers would be crossed by the proposed pipeline route. 

Of the 10 sensitive waterbodies that would be crossed by the Project route, one is categorized as 

having impaired water quality by EPA, nine have been identified as supporting species of special concern, 

and six are considered state-designated high-quality waters (several waterbodies have multiple 

designations). Table 4.3.2-3 provides the sensitive waterbodies that would be crossed by the pipeline, the 

approximate locations by milepost, and the sensitive designations of each waterbody. Detailed 

information on aquatic species of special concern is provided in section 4.6.3. 
4-33

TABLE 4.3.2-3 

Sensitive Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Sensitive 

Waterbodies Mileposta

 Typeb Proposed Crossing Method 

Aquatic 

Species of 

Special 

Concern 

Impaired 

Water 

State High 

Quality 

Water 

Dixie Hollow 1.2 P Flume X 

East Canyon Creek 5.4 P Flume X 

Sheep Canyon 

Creek 

6.3 P Flume X 

Tucker Hollow 10.1 P Flume X X 

Hardscrabble Creek 11.8 P Flume X X 

Holbrook Creek 16.5 P Dam-and-pump X X 

Kenney Creek 17.6 I Flume X X 

Mill Creek 19.0 P Dam-and-pump X X 

North Canyon 

Creek 

20.6 P Flume X X 

Jordan River 27.2 P Bore X 

____________ 

Notes: 

a Mileposts have been rounded up for purposes of this table and do not reflect exact locations. 

b P = Perennial; I = Intermittent 

The segment of the Jordan River (MP 27.2) that would be crossed by the pipeline is designated as 

a 303(d) impaired water for dissolved oxygen and total dissolved solids levels (UDQW 2006). Six statedesignated high-quality waters would be crossed by the pipeline route: Tucker Hollow (MP 10.1), 

Hardscrabble Creek (MP 11.8), Holbrook Creek (MP 16.5), Kenney Creek (MP 17.6), Mill Creek 

(MP 19.0), and North Canyon Creek (MP 20.6). All six of these state-designated high-quality waters are 

located on lands (including public or private lands) within or near the outer boundaries of the UWCNF. 

Therefore, these waterbodies are classified as Category 1 waters because they have exceptional 

recreational or ecological significance or are state or national resources that require protection (UDAR 

2009b). As previously stated, category designations are in addition to assigned use classifications 

(detailed in section 4.3.2.1) and as identified in table 4.3.2-2. 

4.3.2.3 Surface Water Protection Areas 

Public water systems supply drinking water from surface water sources such as streams, rivers, 

and canals. In Utah, the jurisdictional municipality associated with each public water system is 

responsible for the management of system protection zones, as regulated by the Utah Drinking Water 

Source Protection Program (UDAR 2009c). Surface water protection zones within two water systems 

have been identified along the proposed pipeline route between MP 0.6 and 17.9 and are listed in 

table 4.3.2-4. Sixteen waterbodies would be crossed within these protection zones as identified in 

table 4.3.2-2. Protection zones are delineated and defined into the following four categories (UDAR 

2009c): 
4-34

Zone 1: Area on both sides of the source (streams, river, or canal) for 0.5 mile on each 

side of the source laterally from the high water mark (bank full), and from 

100 feet downstream of the point of diversion to 15 miles upstream, or to the 

limits of the watershed or to the state line, whichever comes first. 

Zone 2: Area from the end of Zone 1, and an additional 50 miles upstream (or to the 

limits of the watershed or to the state line, whichever comes first), and 1,000 feet 

on each side of the source measured from the high water mark of the source. 

Zone 3: Area from the end of Zone 2 to the limits of the watershed or to the state line, 

whichever comes first, and 500 feet on each side measured from the high water 

mark of the source. 

Zone 4: Remainder of the area of the watershed (up to the state line, if applicable) 

contributing to the source that does not fall within the boundaries of Zones 1 

through 3. 

4.3.2.4 PacifiCorp Electrical Distribution Line Crossings 

The proposed approximately 1.4-mile PacifiCorp electrical distribution line would cross over two 

waterbodies located within the Beaver Bottoms-Upper Beaver Watershed in Beaver County Utah: the 

Trans River Canal and the Beaver River. The Trans River Canal is a Category 3 intermittent waterbody 

classified for recreational use (2B) and aquatic wildlife (3E). The canal has an ordinary high-water mark 

and a bank-to-bank width of 25 feet. The Beaver River is also a Category 3 intermittent waterbody. This 

river is classified for recreational use (2B), aquatic wildlife (3E), and agriculture (4). It has a bank-tobank width of 20 feet and an ordinary high-water mark of 15 feet. Category designations and use 

classifications are detailed in section 4.3.2.1 and in table 4.3.2-2. No impacts on the Trans River Canal or 

the Beaver River are anticipated to occur as the electrical distribution line would be constructed on 

23 poles in upland areas. Erosion controls would be implemented, and upland contours would be restored 

to pre-construction conditions. 

4.3.2.5 Potential Surface Water Impacts 

Pipeline construction could impact surface waters in several ways. Clearing and grading of 

streambanks, instream trenching, trench dewatering, and backfilling could result in modification of 

aquatic habitat, increased sedimentation, turbidity, decreased dissolved oxygen concentrations, releases of 

chemical and nutrient pollutant from sediments, and introduction of chemical contaminants such as fuel 

and lubricants. 

One potential impact on surface waters could result from the temporary increase in sediments 

during instream construction. The extent of the impact would depend on sediment loads, stream velocity, 

turbidity, bank composition, and sediment particle size. These factors would determine the density and 

downstream extent of sediment migration. Instream construction could cause the dislodging and transport 

of channel bed sediments and the alteration of stream contours. Changes in the streambottom contours 

could alter stream dynamics and increase downstream erosion or deposition. Turbidity resulting from 

resuspension of sediments from instream construction or erosion of cleared right-of-way areas could 

reduce light penetration and photosynthetic oxygen production. Instream work could also introduce 

chemical and nutrient pollutants from sediments. Resuspension of deposited organic material and 

inorganic sediments could cause an increase in biological and chemical use of oxygen, potentially 

resulting in a decrease of dissolved oxygen concentrations in the affected area. Lower dissolved oxygen 

concentrations could cause temporary displacement of motile organisms, such as fish, and may kill nonmotile organisms within the affected area. 
4-35

TABLE 4.3.2-4 

Surface Water Protection Areas Crossed by the Proposed Apex Expansion Project Construction 

Workspacesa

Public 

Water 

System 

Surface 

Water 

Source 

Utah 

County 

Approximate 

Milepostb

Protection 

Zone 

Category 

Protection 

Zone 

Acreage 

Crossed 

Distance/Direction to 

Surface Water Source from

Construction 

Workspacesa,b

Morgan 0.0 – 4.3 4 63.2 Adjacent and 9 miles north of 

MP 0.0 to 4.3 

Morgan 2.7 – 2.7 2 5.19 0.4 mile south of MP 2.7 

Morgan 4.4 – 7.2 1 45.6 9 miles north of MP 4.4 to 

7.2 

Morgan 7.2 – 11.1 4 56.9 9 miles north of MP 7.2 to 

11.1 

Morgan 8.4 – 8.4 1 10.1 1.7 miles north of MP 8.4 

Weber 

Basin 

Weber 

River/ 

Stoddard 

Morgan 11.7 – 12.3 1 18.7 Adjacent and 9 miles north of 

MP 11.7 to 12.3 

Morgan 12.3 – 14.7 4 29.8 9 miles north of MP 12.3 to 

14.7 

Morgan 14.7 – 14.9 1 2.2 Adjacent and 9 miles north of 

MP 14.7 to 14.9 

Davis 15.2 – 15.3 1 1.8 2.2 miles northwest of 

MP 16.5 

Davis 15.3 – 15.5 1 3.7 2.2 miles northwest of 

MP 16.5 

 Stone 

Creek 

Davis 15.7 – 15.9 1 2.4 2.2 miles northwest of 

MP 16.5 

Bountiful Mill Creek Davis 17.7 - 17.9 4 1.3 0.4 mile southeast of MP 

18.8 

____________ 

Notes: 

a Workspaces may include: permanent right-of-way, temporary workspaces, ATWSs, and staging areas.

b

 Mileposts have been rounded up for purposes of this table and do not reflect exact locations. 

Source: Jensen 2009a. 

The clearing and grading of streambanks could expose soil to erosional forces and would reduce 

riparian vegetation along the cleared section of the waterbody (see section 4.4.5 for a discussion of 

riparian habitat and impacts). The use of heavy equipment for construction could cause compaction of 

near-surface soils, an effect that could result in increased runoff into surface waters in the immediate 

vicinity of the proposed construction right-of-way. Increased surface runoff could transport sediment into 

surface waters, resulting in increased turbidity levels and sedimentation rates in the receiving waterbody. 

Disturbances to stream channels and streambanks could increase the likelihood of scour after 

construction. 
4-36

Refueling of vehicles and storage of fuel, oil, or other hazardous materials near surface waters 

could create a potential for contamination. If a spill were to occur, immediate downstream users of the 

water could experience degradation in water quality. Acute and chronic toxic effects to aquatic organisms 

could also result from such a spill. 

Blasting may be required along the proposed pipeline route between MP 0.0 and 19.0, and could 

include blasting within streams. Instream blasting has the potential to injure or kill aquatic organisms, 

displace organisms during blast-hole drilling operations, and temporarily increase stream turbidity. By 

products from the blast could also be released and could potentially contaminate the water. Kern River 

developed a Blasting Plan to minimize potential adverse impacts on the environment, nearby water 

sources, structures, and utilities. As stated in the Blasting Plan, blasting activities would be conducted by 

licensed blasting contractors in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations. All 

necessary permits would be obtained if blasting were required. 

4.3.2.6 Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures 

Kern River has proposed to use several different waterbody crossing methods depending on 

waterbody-specific conditions at the time of construction. Kern River proposes to utilize the flume, damand-pump, horizontal bore, or open-cut crossing methods at all waterbodies crossed by the proposed 

pipeline. Refer to section 2.3.2.2 for a description of the proposed waterbody crossing methods. Based 

on Kern River’s field data, nine perennial, seven intermittent, and two ephemeral streams would be 

crossed using either the flume or dam-and-pump method. Three perennial waterbodies would be crossed 

by the horizontal bore crossing method. Both the flume and the dam-and-pump method are considered 

dry-ditch crossings and would involve diverting the flow of water from the work area using a flume or a 

dam so that the trench itself would be relatively dry during trenching, pipeline installation, and 

backfilling. In addition, Kern River may temporarily utilize dam-and-pump techniques during flume 

installation to allow for placement of the flumes in a stable environment. The use of dry-ditch methods 

are generally restricted to waterbodies less than 30 feet wide as it is more difficult to achieve a good seal 

around the flume pipes or dam at wider waterbodies. Use of dry-ditch waterbody crossing methods 

generally results in less sedimentation and turbidity in and downstream of the waterbody being crossed. 

Kern River proposes to utilize dry-ditch methods to cross waterbodies with the potential to contain 

aquatic species of special concern and would conduct stream crossings during the construction windows 

established by federal and state agencies, the FERC, and its Procedures to protect aquatic resources. 

Furthermore, Kern River has agreed to conduct fish salvage activities to minimize adverse impacts on 

aquatic species at those waterbodies where the dam-and pump method would be implemented. Fisheries 

impacts and mitigation are further discussed in section 4.6.1. 

Kern River would prepare all waterbody crossings, except for the three proposed for conventional 

bore and the two proposed for dam-and-pump, as flume crossings. However, if water is not present at the 

time of construction, these waterbodies would be crossed using open-cut methods. Based on Kern 

River’s field data, 18 waterbodies could be crossed by open-cut methods if conditions are dry at the time 

of construction. Materials needed for a flume crossing would be installed at all waterbodies, regardless of 

whether water is present at the time of construction. If water is not present and rain is not in the forecast, 

the flume would be removed and the waterbody would be crossed by open-cut methods. If a rain event 

occurs during construction and a “dry” waterbody begins to flow, Kern River would reinstall the flume 

and construction would proceed via the flume method. Furthermore, in regard to “dry” waterbody 

crossings and in accordance with its Procedures, Kern River would install a barrier across the streambed 

downstream to prevent downstream sedimentation, place excavated trench material a minimum of 10 feet 

from the high-water mark of the waterbodies, and stabilize the banks at dry waterbody crossings 

immediately following backfilling activities. 
4-37

Three perennial waterbodies would be crossed using the conventional horizontal boring method: 

Northwest Oil Drain (MP 26.8), Jordan River (MP 27.2), and City Drain (MP 27.5). This method would 

avoid or reduce impacts at these crossings by boring underneath the resource. The Jordan River is 

classified as an impaired water. While the Northwest Oil Drain is not classified as an impaired water, the 

Chevron Refinery located upstream of the Northwest Oil Drain, discharges approximately 1 million 

gallons per day (MGD) of treated wastewater into this waterbody. Due to these discharges, the Northwest 

Oil Drain has attained effluent mass and concentration limitations for several parameters (UDEQ 2007). 

Kern River proposes to bore under both of these waterbodies to avoid contact with, and suspension of, 

potential contaminates during proposed construction activities. Kern River is assessing the feasibility of 

using the horizontal directional drill (HDD) method at the Northwest Oil Drain (MP 26.8) and Jordan 

River (MP 27.2). If the HDD method is determined to be to the preferred method at one or both of these 

waterbodies, Kern River would file a HDD feasibility study, HDD Contingency Plan, and site-specific 

drawing for each crossing to the Director of OEP for review and approval prior to construction. 

Sixteen waterbodies would be crossed within surface water protection zones of two public water 

systems, as identified in table 4.3.2-2 and table 4.3.2-3. Seven of these waterbodies are classified as 

perennial, seven are intermittent, and two are ephemeral. Each of these waterbodies is proposed to be 

crossed by the flume method. However, as previously discussed, if conditions are “dry” at the time of 

crossing, these waterbodies would be crossed by open-cut methods. Protection and management of these 

public water systems is required by the Utah Drinking Water Source Protection Program under the 

municipalities associated with these protection zones. As previously stated, Kern River has agreed to 

consult with each of the municipalities affected by the proposed Project for development and approval of 

the Project specific SWPPP. 

Specialized construction is proposed for East Canyon Creek (MP 5.4) due to previous crossing 

difficulties encountered at this location during construction of the existing Kern River pipeline in 1991. 

Kern River has developed a site-specific crossing plan for this waterbody and proposes to construct at this 

location in late 2010 when surface water and groundwater levels are typically at their lowest. Kern River 

proposes to cross East Canyon Creek using the flume crossing method.

Kern River would minimize impacts on waterbodies during construction by implementing the 

construction and mitigation procedures contained in its Procedures, which include: 

 locating temporary extra workspaces at least 50 feet from surface waters, except where 

adjacent upland is actively farmed or developed or where approved by the FERC and 

appropriate agencies; 

 limiting clearing of vegetation between temporary extra workspaces and the edge of the 

waterbody to preserve riparian vegetation; 

 constructing the crossing as close to perpendicular to the waterbody as site conditions allow; 

 maintaining adequate flow rates throughout construction to protect aquatic life and prevent 

the interruption of existing downstream uses; 

 locating equipment parking areas, equipment refueling areas, concrete coating activities, and 

hazardous material storage at least 100 feet from surface waters; 

 requiring construction across waterbodies to be completed as quickly as possible and during 

the windows specified in the Procedures or required by applicable agency permits; 

 requiring temporary erosion and sediment control measures to be installed across the entire 

width of the construction right-of-way after clearing and before ground disturbance; 
4-38

 requiring maintenance of temporary erosion and sediment control measures throughout 

construction until streambanks and adjacent upland areas are stabilized; 

 requiring bank stabilization and reestablishment of bed and bank contours and riparian 

vegetation after construction; 

 limiting post-construction maintenance of vegetated buffer strips adjacent to streams; and 

 implementing its SPCC Plan if a spill or leak occurred during construction. 

Seasonal and flash flooding hazards are a potential concern where the pipeline would cross or 

would be near major streams, lakes, and small watersheds. Although flooding itself does not present a 

risk to pipeline facilities, bank erosion and/or scour could expose or cause sections of pipe to become 

unsupported. Stream scour is a channel process that effectively entrains or mobilizes sediment below the 

channel at depth and typically occurs during high flows. All proposed pipeline facilities are required to 

be designed and constructed in accordance with 49 CFR 192. These specifications ensure that pipeline 

facilities are designed and constructed in a manner to provide adequate protection from washouts and 

floods. They include specifications for installing the pipeline at a sufficient depth to avoid possible scour 

at waterbody crossings. 

A detailed stream scour analysis study was completed in 1990 for the existing Kern River 

pipeline. Ten of the waterbody crossings evaluated in the study would also be crossed by the Apex 

Expansion Project. Ten additional waterbody crossings were surveyed by GeoEngineers in 2010 that 

were not included in the 1990 study. In areas where bedrock is located within 5 feet of the surface, Kern 

River would place the pipeline within the bedrock to protect it from exposure resulting from scour. 

Where bedrock is located deeper than 5 feet but shallower than the estimated scour depth (as identified in 

a 1990 study and the 2010 survey), the pipeline would be placed below bedrock. At waterbody crossings 

where bedrock is deeper than the estimated scour depth, the pipeline would be placed so the top of 

pipeline would be located at the minimum depth of cover below the estimated scour depth. Where 

bedrock depth is unknown and no scour depth has been estimated, Kern River would attempt to locate 

bedrock through potholing or geophysical survey. If bedrock is located within 10 feet of the surface, the 

proposed pipeline would be placed below that elevation. If bedrock is deeper than 10 feet, Kern River 

would complete a site-specific scour study to estimate the depth to scour in order to determine the proper 

depth to place the pipe below the potential scour depth. 

In accordance with its Procedures, Kern River would monitor all areas disturbed by construction 

for at least 3 years after construction, and would conduct aerial and pedestrian surveys of the pipeline 

right-of-way throughout the life of the proposed Project to identify issues such as streambed scouring or 

potential pipe exposure. Should issues be identified, Kern River would be required to remediate the 

problems. The FERC would also conduct periodic field inspections during and after construction, and 

would review Kern River’s inspection and monitoring reports. If the FERC determines that scouring 

issues are not adequately addressed, Kern River would be required to remediate the problem. In addition 

to the construction and conservation measures described above, Kern River would need to obtain a COE 

Section 404 permit and Section 401 state water quality certifications and to comply with all conditions 

within these authorizations. 

4.3.2.7 Alternative Measures to the FERC’s Procedures 

As mentioned in section 2.3, Kern River’s Procedures incorporate the requirements of the 

FERC’s Procedures. The applicable sections of the FERC Procedures and Kern River’s associated 

revisions are described in table 4.3.2-5. 
4-39

TABLE 4.3.2-5 

Summary of Proposed Variations to the FERC Procedures for the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Applicable 

FERC 

Procedure 

Section Resource Issue Explanation of Variation 

Conclusion 

and Approval 

Status 

I.B.1.d Waterbody 

Definitions 

Kern River proposes to clarify the definition of “perceptible 

flow" to be flow from high gradient at the outer boundaries of 

the construction right-of-way to low gradient at the other edge 

of the construction right-of-way. Standing water within a 

feature would not constitute perceptible flow. An 

Environmental Inspector would determine and document 

whether any perceptible flow is evident for streams identified 

as intermittent or ephemeral. 

Approved 

V.B.1.a Waterbody 

Installation 

Time Window 

Kern River proposes to perform instream construction across 

waterbodies with coldwater fisheries from June 1 through 

September 30 and in streams containing Bonneville cutthroat 

trout from July 15 through February 28. 

Approved by 

UDWR and 

FWS 

V.B.3 General 

Waterbody 

Crossing 

Procedures 

Where the Project crosses intermittent or ephemeral 

waterbodies that are dry, Kern River proposes to use upland 

construction techniques. Kern River would install hay bales 

across the width of the streambed downstream of the 

crossing location. Should a rainfall event occur that leads to 

perceptible flow in an intermittent or ephemeral waterbody 

during the period from clearing/grading to re-establishing preconstruction contours, Kern River Environmental Inspectors 

would conduct an assessment to determine best 

management practices necessary to protect the resource. 

The banks of dry waterbodies would be stabilized 

immediately following backfilling. Kern River would conduct 

post-rain event monitoring to remedy any issues at dry 

drainages within 24 hours of precipitation events. Kern River 

would not perform refueling or handle hazardous materials 

within an exclusion zone of 100 feet from a dry drainage. 

Approved 

V.B.4.a Spoil Pile 

Placement and 

Control 

Kern River proposes to place spoil at an elevation above top 

of bank. 

Approved 

V.B.5.g Equipment 

Bridges 

Kern River proposes to install temporary bridges at all 

drainage features to accommodate flow and move 

construction equipment. 

Approved 

V.B.7 Crossing of 

Minor 

Waterbodies 

Kern River proposes to temporarily string welded pipe 

segments across waterbody features until the pipeline is 

installed, where practical. The pipeline would be placed in a 

manner that would not obstruct the highest expected flows of 

a particular stream. 

Approved 

VB.10 Temporary 

Erosion and 

Sediment 

Control 

On approaches to waterbody crossings and where practical, 

Kern River proposes to locate drainage control structures at 

the top of the slope/bank and at the base of the slope/bank. 

Runoff should be routed to stable slopes on either side of the 

right-of-way, or be routed via temporary conveyance 

structures to the base of the approach slope where it can 

infiltrate into the riparian zone. 

Approved 
4-40

TABLE 4.3.2-5 (continued) 

Summary of Proposed Variations to the FERC Procedures for the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Applicable 

FERC 

Procedure 

Section Resource Issue Explanation of Variation 

Conclusion 

and Approval 

Status 

VII.B.2. Hydrostatic 

Testing 

General 

Where pumps are used for hydrostatic testing within 100 feet 

of a waterbody, Kern River proposes to man these operations 

continuously to ensure that over filling, leaks or spills do not 

occur. Where stationary equipment must remain within 100 

feet of a waterbody or wetland, adequate secondary 

containment would be provided. 

Approved 

Based on field surveys and engineering evaluations, Kern River has identified certain locations 

where it would be necessary to perform instream construction outside the FERC time window and to 

locate ATWS within 50 feet of a waterbody. Section V.B.2.a states that all extra work areas, such as 

staging areas and additional spoil storage areas, should be located at least 50 feet away from the water’s 

edge, except where the adjacent upland consists of actively cultivated or rotated cropland or other 

disturbed land. Kern River’s Procedures indicate their plan to locate extra workspaces within 50 feet of a 

waterbody at MPs 3.4, 5.0, 5.4, 6.3, 16.5, 26.8, 27.2, and 27.5. We have reviewed these areas and believe 

that the extra workspace is justified in the above-specified locations. 

4.3.2.8 Hydrostatic Testing and Dust Control 

Kern River would verify the integrity of the proposed pipeline before placing it into service by 

conducting a series of hydrostatic tests. These tests would be conducted in accordance with USDOT 

regulations to ensure that the system is capable of operating at 125 percent of the MAOP. The tests 

would involve filling the pipeline with water, pressurizing the pipeline, and checking for pressure losses 

due to pipeline leakage. The vast majority of the test water would be drawn from local surface waters. A 

total of about 3,504,364 gallons of water would be required for hydrostatic testing. Of this total, 

3,157,364 gallons of water would be withdrawn from two waterbodies for testing the pipeline and about 

347,000 gallons of water would withdrawn from five municipal sources for testing at the one proposed 

and four existing compressor stations. Water for hydrostatic testing would be withdrawn at discrete times 

between November 2010 and October 2011 during the construction process. Kern River has identified 

hydrostatic test water sources and has estimated the approximate amount of water that would be 

appropriated from each water source (table 4.3.2-6). Kern River would be required by permit to ensure 

that base flows are maintained during the water withdrawal process. Kern River would ensure prior to 

withdrawals that a flow rate of at least 5 cubic feet per second (cfs) can be maintained immediately 

downstream of the withdrawal location at East Canyon Creek to minimize impacts. 

Kern River would also implement dust control measures through watering along the pipeline 

route, at all compressor stations except the Fillmore Compressor Station, and at pipe and contractor yards. 

A total of approximately 16,883,000 gallons of water would be required for dust control. Of this total 

approximately 10,128,000 gallons of water would be withdrawn from two surface water sources at 

discrete times during the construction process for workspaces along the pipeline route and about 

1,280,000 gallons of water would withdrawn from two municipal sources for use at the pipe and 

contractor yards. At the Coyote Creek and Milford Compressor Stations, dust control measures would 

require approximately three water trucks per day (2,500 gallons/truck). At the Elberta and Dry Lake 
4-41

Compressor Stations, approximately two water trucks per day (2,500 gallons/truck) would be required. 

Dust control measures would not be required at the Fillmore Compressor Station. All water required for 

dust control during construction of the compressor stations would be withdrawn from municipal sources. 

Kern River would obtain all appropriate permits and plan authorizations required prior to conducting any 

dust control activities at any of these facilities. Kern River has identified dust control water sources and 

has estimated the approximate amount of water that would be appropriated from each water source 

(table 4.3.2-6). 

TABLE 4.3.2-6 

Water Withdrawal Volumes for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Project 

Component 

Begin 

MP 

End 

MP Potential Source Water 

Hydrostatic Testing 

Approx. Volume 

(gallons) 

Dust Control 

Approx. 

Volume 

(gallons) 

0.0 14.8 East Canyon Creeka

(Alternative Hardscrabble Creek)

1,496,406b

(1,830,639)b

Pipeline -

 East Canyon Reservoir - 7,200,000 

Pipeline 14.8 28.0 Jordan Rivera

(Alternative Weber Basin Aqueduct)

1,660,958 

(1,660,958) 

2,928,000 

Coyote Creek CS N/A N/A Municipal source 66,000 1,575,000c

Elberta CS N/A N/A Municipal source 48,000 1,050,000c

Fillmore CS N/A N/A Municipal source 5,000 - 

Dry Lake CS N/A N/A Municipal source 40,000 1,050,000c

Milford CS N/A N/A Municipal source 188,000 1,800,000c

Pipe yard N/A N/A Municipal source - 560,000 

Contractor yard N/A N/A Municipal source - 720,000 

 Totals 3,504,364 16,883,000c

____________ 

Notes: 

 N/A = Information is not applicable 

 CS = Compressor Station 

 MP = Milepost 

a Kern River would discharge hydrostatic test water to an upland area near the source. 

b If the source is East Canyon Creek, pipe sections 1 and 2 would be filled with 1,496,406 gallons of water and tested; then the 

water would be transferred to sections 3, 4, and 5. If Hardscrabble Creek is used, pipe sections 4 and 5 would be filled with

1,830,639 gallons of water and tested; then the water would be transferred back to sections 1, 2 and 3. 

c

 Dust control water volumes for the compressor stations were estimated based on water use throughout the entire construction 

process. Actual dust control water volumes would likely be less than the estimated volumes. 

The withdrawal of large volumes of water from the surface water sources could temporarily affect 

the recreational and biological uses of the resource if the diversions constitute a large percentage of the 

source’s total flow or volume. Water withdrawals could also result in temporary loss of habitat, change in 

water temperature and dissolved oxygen levels, and entrainment or impingement of fish or other aquatic 

organisms. Section 4.6 further discusses the potential impacts from water withdrawals on aquatic species. 
4-42

One of Kern River’s proposed water sources (East Canyon Creek) and one alternative 

(Hardscrabble Creek) are known to contain aquatic species of special concern. Hardscrabble Creek is 

also state-designated as high-quality water. Kern River would minimize the potential effects of water 

withdrawals from surface water and groundwater sources by adhering to the measures in its Procedures. 

As stated in its Procedures, Kern River would screen intake hoses and regulate the rate of withdrawal of 

test water to prevent the entrainment of fish and other aquatic organisms. Kern River would acquire the 

necessary permits and approvals from state and federal agencies, and obtain or comply with water rights 

before withdrawing hydrostatic test water from surface water and groundwater sources. Furthermore, 

Kern River has agreed to consult with the Weber Basin Water Conservancy District or the Davis and 

Weber Canal Company prior to finalizing its proposed schedule for water withdrawal to ensure that 

adequate base flow would be maintained in East Canyon Creek. In addition, Kern River would ensure 

that a flow rate of 5 cfs can be maintained immediately downstream of the withdrawal location at East 

Canyon Creek to minimize impacts. 

Kern River would test the pipeline in 11 test sections. Upon completion of hydrostatic testing of 

a segment, the water would either be discharged or transferred to another pipeline segment to be reused 

for hydrostatic testing purposes. Test water would be discharged within the same eight-digit hydrologic 

unit code (HUC) watershed from which it was withdrawn. This would prevent the inadvertent transfer of 

invasive organisms to new watersheds. For water removed from East Canyon Creek, Kern River has 

agreed to discharge directly back into the East Canyon Creek drainage as a measure to prevent the spread 

of the New Zealand Mud Snail, an aquatic invasive species. No chemicals would be used during testing 

of the pipe. Kern River would discharge the pipeline test water to well-vegetated upland areas within or 

immediately adjacent to the construction right-of-way at a rate to prevent scour and erosion, and to 

prevent sediment migration to sensitive resources such as wetlands and waterbodies. Hydrostatic test 

water from the existing Coyote Creek, Elberta, Fillmore, and Dry Lake Compressor Stations would be 

disposed of at a local wastewater treatment facility or treated (if necessary) and disposed of on-site. 

Hydrostatic test water from the Milford Compressor Station would be tested and either released on-site or 

disposed of at a wastewater treatment facility. All used hydrostatic test water from the compressor 

stations would be stored in a tank, tested in accordance with state permits, and held until proper disposal 

or discharge methods are determined and approved. Discharges would be monitored by Environmental 

Inspectors and compliance monitors, and energy dissipation and erosion control devices would be used to 

prevent soil erosion and scouring at upland discharge sites. Discharge rates would be controlled to ensure 

that the discharged flows would not flow above the carrying capacity of the dissipation structure(s). 

No long-term impacts on surface waters are anticipated as a result of the proposed Project 

because designated water uses would not be permanently affected, the pipeline would be installed beneath 

the bed of all waterbodies, erosion controls would be implemented, and the streambanks and streambed 

contours would be restored as close as practical to pre-construction conditions. 

Operation of the Project would not cause impacts on any surface waters, unless maintenance 

activities involving pipe excavation and repair in or near streams or wetlands are required. For 

maintenance activities, Kern River would employ protective measures similar to those proposed for use 

during construction. As a result, any impacts derived from maintenance would be short-term and similar 

to those discussed above for the initial pipeline construction. 

4.3.3 Wetlands 

Wetlands are areas that are inundated or saturated with surface water or groundwater at a 

frequency and duration sufficient to support (and that under normal circumstances do support) a 

prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions (Environmental Laboratory 

1987). Wetlands in the proposed Project area include salt lakes and associated salt flats, forested 
4-43

wetlands, riparian wetlands, seeps, bogs, fens, and similar areas (COE 2008a, 2008b). The Apex 

Expansion Project would be located in arid and semi-arid environments, where wetlands account for a 

very small proportion of the total land surface but perform a number of valuable functions. Among these 

are flood flow attenuation, sediment retention, nutrient retention, wildlife habitat, groundwater recharge 

and discharge, recreation, and erosion control. 

Section 404 of the CWA established standards to minimize impacts on wetlands under the 

regulatory jurisdiction of the COE. These standards require avoidance of wetlands where possible and 

minimization of disturbance where impacts are unavoidable, to the degree practical. Any unavoidable 

crossings would be subject to review and approval by the Sacramento District of the COE, including the 

provisions of any required wetland compensatory mitigation. 

The soil, hydrology, and vegetation criteria for determining wetland and deepwater habitat areas 

are described in the COE Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). In addition to 

the 1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual, Interim Regional Supplements to the COE manual provide 

regionally specific standards for wetland classification (COE 2008a, 2008b). The proposed Project falls 

under the jurisdiction of the Interim Regional Supplement to the COE Manual: Western Mountains, 

Valleys, and Coast Region (COE 2008b) and the Interim Regional Supplement to the COE Manual: Arid 

West Region (COE 2008a). 

4.3.3.1 Existing Environment 

The Apex Expansion Project would be located within two arid to semi-arid ecoregions: the 

Central Basin and Range as well as the Wasatch and Uinta Mountain Ecoregions (EPA 2002). The 

Central Basin and Range ecoregion contains scattered mountains, salt flats, and extremely dry basins. 

The Wasatch and Uinta Mountain ecoregion contains high, sheer mountains and valleys. Plant 

distributions are influenced by the varying elevations within this ecoregion. 

Kern River conducted wetland delineations during spring and summer 2009 in accordance with 

the 1987 COE Manual, the Interim Regional Supplement to the USACE Manual: Western Mountains, 

Valleys, and Coast Region (COE 2008b) and the Interim Regional Supplement to the COE Manual: Arid 

West Region (COE 2008a). Prior to field surveys, aerial photographs and map data from the NWI were 

used by Kern River to identify potential wetland locations in the area of the proposed Project. Kern River 

also conducted wetland delineation surveys in the area of the proposed Milford Compressor Station, for 

which NWI data are not available. Wetland surveys at the four existing compressor stations were not 

necessary since the proposed modification would occur within previously disturbed fence lines which do 

not contain wetlands. 

The proposed pipeline route would affect five wetlands for a combined linear crossing distance of 

approximately 2,027 feet and a total impact area of 6.0 acres. The temporary impact of proposed pipeline 

construction would total 2.7 acres within the temporary work spaces, 0.9 acres within the ATWS, and 2.4 

acres within the permanent right-of-way. The results of field surveys by Kern River show that there are 

sensitive wetland resources in the proposed Project area, including a sensitive seep wetland located 

between MP 19.0 and 19.2. However, Kern River has re-routed the proposed pipeline in this area to 

avoid impacts on seeps. Table 4.3.3-1 provides a summary of the wetlands crossed by the proposed 

Project and includes the location, wetland classification, crossing length, and acreage for each wetland 

that would be affected by construction and operation of the Apex Expansion Project. 
4-44

TABLE 4.3.3-1 

Wetlands Affected by the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Begin 

Milepost 

End 

Milepost 

Wetland 

Classificationa

Centerline 

Crossing Length 

(feet) 

Acreage 

within TWS 

Acreage 

within ATWS 

Wetlands in the Permanent 

Right-of-Way (acres)b

0.5 0.6 PEM 10.3 <0.1 0.0 <0.1 5.2 5.4 PFO 32.6 0.2 0.4 0.1 

14.6 14.7 PSS 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 20.4 20.5 PSS 107.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 26.4 26.9 PEM 1,876.7 2.2 0.5 2.2 

Total PEM 1,887.0 2.2 0.5 2.2 Total PSS 107.2 0.3 0.0 0.1 Total PFO 32.6 0.2 0.4 0.1 

 Total 2,026.8 2.7 0.9 2.4 

____________ Notes: a Wetland Types: 

 PEM = Palustrine emergent  PSS = Palustrine scrub-shrub  PFO = Palustrine forested 

b Wetland acreages affected by the permanent right-of-way are those that are within the 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way. c Temporary impacts include wetlands within the construction right-of-way, temporary workspaces (TWSs), additional temporary workspaces (ATWS)
 

4-45

No new access roads are proposed by Kern River in wetlands and no wetlands would sustain 

impacts at any of the existing aboveground facility locations or as a result of construction of the new 

Milford Compressor Station. Therefore, no impacts on wetlands are expected as a result of aboveground 

facility and road construction. 

Wetlands identified in the proposed Project area include palustrine emergent wetlands (PEM), 

palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands (PSS), and palustrine forested wetlands (PFO). Palustrine emergent 

wetlands are characterized by erect, rooted, herbaceous hydrophytes, excluding mosses and lichens 

(Cowardin et al. 1979). The results of field surveys conducted by Kern River include the common 

species and dominant vegetation in PEM wetlands in the proposed Project area, which include sedges, 

Baltic rush, Solomon’s seal, and scouringrush horsetail. The effects of pipeline construction in PEM 

wetlands would be considered temporary due to the rapid reestablishment of herbaceous vegetation. No 

alteration of hydrology is anticipated and topsoil segregation would be implemented. Vegetation in PEM 

wetlands would be expected to return to a pre-construction state within 1 to 3 years. 

PSS wetlands include all wetlands dominated by woody vegetation less than 20 feet tall 

(Cowardin et al. 1979). Results from field surveys indicate that the dominant vegetation in these wetlands 

includes willow, red osier dogwood, and Utah honeysuckle. The regeneration time for PSS wetlands to 

return to pre-construction conditions is expected to be within 3 to 5 years, and would take longer than the 

regeneration time for PEM wetlands. 

Palustrine forested wetlands include wetlands dominated by woody vegetation that is at least 

20 feet tall (Cowardin et al. 1979). Field surveys indicate that palustrine forested wetlands in the Project 

area are dominated by bigtooth maple, curl-leaf mountain mahogany, and narrowleaf cottonwood, in 

addition to herbaceous plants and shrubs. The regeneration time for palustrine forested wetlands is 

expected to take up to 30 years or longer. 

4.3.3.2 Potential Wetland Impacts 

For projects where wetland impacts are proposed, the COE requires that all appropriate and 

practicable actions be taken to avoid and minimize those impacts, pursuant to its Section 404(b)(1) 

guidelines. In the semi-arid environment of the Project area, where wetlands comprise a very small 

percentage of the overall landscape, wetland impacts are of heightened concern-especially if they are not 

restored appropriately following construction. 

All wetland crossings would be subject to review by the COE to ensure that wetland impacts are 

fully identified and that appropriate wetland restoration and mitigation measures are implemented. Kern 

River would also comply with all conditions of the Section 404 authorizations that may be issued by the 

COE. 

Section 2.3.2 describes the specialized pipeline construction procedures that Kern River would 

implement to limit impacts on wetlands. Temporary impacts during construction activities have the 

potential to diminish the aesthetic value of wetlands through clearing, trenching, spoil placement, vehicle 

traffic, and related construction disturbances. Pipeline construction within wetland boundaries may also 

affect wetland structure and function by altering wetland hydrology, vegetation communities, and soil 

conditions. Vegetation removal and soil disturbance could alter the capability of a wetland to control 

sediment, aid surface water flow, and attenuate floodwaters. Temporary loss of fish and wildlife habitat 

and changes in species composition could result from removing wetland vegetation during pipeline 

construction. Soils and wetland vegetation could be contaminated by spills of construction-related fluids 

such as fuels, solvents and lubricants. Trenching or blasting through impervious soil layers could impact 

hydrology by changing soil drainage patterns, thereby altering wetland function. Alteration of wetland 
4-46

soil characteristics as a result of unsuccessful topsoil segregation from the trench could have negative a 

negative impact on the reestablishment of native hydrophytic vegetation. Compaction of wetland soils 

and rutting due to a failure to use appropriate equipment mats and low-ground-pressure equipment may 

inhibit seed germination or the re-colonization and establishment of hydrophytic plant species. 

Disturbance of surface soils as a result of construction could result in the deposition of sediments in 

wetlands and could alter the physical and chemical properties of wetland soils. 

In both PEM and PSS wetlands, Kern River would minimize construction impacts according to 

their Procedures by implementing erosion and sedimentation controls, separating topsoil in unsaturated 

wetlands, providing cross-drainage during construction and installing of trench plugs at wetland entrances 

and exits to maintain hydrology, returning contours and topography to pre-construction levels, and 

implementing and monitoring revegetation efforts. 

In wetlands crossed by the pipeline, Kern River’s Procedures would allow a 10-foot-wide strip 

centered over the pipeline to be maintained in an herbaceous state to allow for surveys of pipeline 

integrity. Additionally, trees may be removed from the permanent right-of-way if they are greater than 

15 feet in height and within 15 feet of the pipeline. As stated in Kern River’s Procedures, all PSS 

wetlands would be allowed to regenerate to scrub-shrub cover, including PSS wetland areas within the 

permanent right-of-way. However, the maintenance of this 10-foot-wide herbaceous corridor would 

prevent the growth of forested species, thereby resulting in a permanent conversion from forested 

vegetation to herbaceous vegetation in one area crossed by the permanent right-of-way. This habitat 

conversion could permanently modify the function of this wetland area as, for example, wildlife habitat. 

While the transformation of PFO wetlands into PEM and PSS wetlands would not constitute a loss of 

total wetland area, it does represent a long-term impact and a permanent conversion from forested 

wetland function. 

Kern River does not anticipate that blasting in the vicinity of identified wetlands would be 

required. However, Kern River has submitted a Blasting Plan to ensure safety during blasting. 

PacifiCorp Electrical Distribution Line 

No wetlands were discovered during surveys conducted along the route of the PacifiCorp 

Electrical Distribution Line; therefore construction and operation of the electrical distribution line would 

have no impact on wetlands. 

4.3.3.3 Wetland Construction and Mitigation Procedures 

Kern River’s Procedures include measures for mitigation of construction impacts on wetlands. 

These mitigation measures would be implemented to minimize wetland impacts by reducing the duration 

and total area of disturbance, by minimizing the amount of soil disturbance, and by applying wetland 

restoration measures after pipeline installation. Kern River’s Procedures incorporate the requirements of 

our Procedures, and include site-specific variations. The applicable sections of our Procedures and Kern 

River’s associated variations, are described in table 4.3.3-2. 
 

4-47

TABLE 4.3.3-2 

Summary of Proposed Alternative Construction Measures for the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Milepost 

Applicable FERC 

Procedure Section Basis for Alternative Measures 

Conclusion 

and Approval 

Status 

0.5 VI.A.3 Kern River proposes to utilize a 100-foot-wide construction 

right-of-way in this wetland due to the steep (38%) grade of 

the land. 

Approved 

5.2 VI.A.3 Kern River proposes to utilize a 100-foot-wide construction 

right-of-way in this wetland because of the constraints 

resulting from proximity to the Highway 66 embankment. 

Approved 

14.6 VI.A.3 Kern River proposes to utilize a 100-foot-wide construction 

right-of-way in this wetland because the workspace is near 

the base of a steep incline. 

Approved 

20.4 VI.A.3 Kern River proposes to utilize a 100-foot-wide construction 

right-of-way in this wetland because of the proximity of the 

wetland to the Mill Creek crossing and topographical 

constraints resulting from steep inclines along the crossing 

area. 

Approved 

5.2 VI.B.1.a Kern River proposes to locate ATWS within the wetland 

beginning at MP 5.2 to allow for the additional space needed 

to cross East Canyon Creek and the existing Kern River 

mainline. 

Approved 

14.6 VI.B.1.a Kern River proposes to locate ATWS within the wetland 

beginning at MP 14.6 to allow for the additional space needed 

to avoid a mature treeline on the west side of the proposed 

right-of-way. 

Approved 

20.4 VI.B.1.a Kern River proposes to locate ATWS within 50 feet of the 

wetland beginning at MP 20.4 to allow for the additional 

space necessary to cross North Canyon Creek. 

Approved 

26.4 VI.B.1.a Kern River proposes to locate ATWS within the wetland 

beginning at MP 26.8 to allow the necessary workspace for 

bored crossings of Redwood Road and the Northwest Oil 

Drain. 

Approved 

Pursuant to our Procedures, the construction right-of-way in a wetland should be limited to 

75 feet or less. However, Kern River proposes to allow for a construction right-of-way width of up to 

100 feet in wetlands. Kern River has provided sufficient justification for utilizing a 100-foot-wide 

construction right-of-way for four of five wetland areas (MPs 0.5, 5.2, 14.6, and 20.4). These wetland 

crossings and workspaces are constrained by steep inclines and, in the wetland at MP 5.2, the Highway 66 

embankment. In response to our recommendation in the draft EIS, Kern River has agreed to limit the 

construction right-of-way width in the wetland located at MP 26.4 to 75 feet unless soil conditions 

warrant a wider right-of-way. If wetland conditions are saturated at the time of construction, Kern River 

would provide site-specific soil conditions and request and receive approval from the Director of OEP for 

a wider right-of-way at this location prior to construction. 

Kern River is also proposing to utilize ATWS in three wetlands and one area within 50 feet of a 

wetland which are site-specific variations to our Procedures. After evaluation of these deviations, we 

have determined that Kern River has provided adequate justification for the area where ATWS would be 
4-48

located within 50 feet of wetlands (MP 20.4), and for the use of ATWS within the wetlands located at 

MPs 5.2 and 14.6. Topographic constraints in these areas necessitate the use of workspace in and near 

wetland areas. Kern River has also provided sufficient justification for the proposed ATWS within the 

wetland where workspace is required for the bored crossings of the Northwest Oil Drain and Redwood 

Road (located between MP 26.4 and 26.9). The specific wetland areas where Kern River proposes to use 

alternative construction measures are found in table 4.3.3-2. During construction in and near wetland 

areas, Kern River would adhere to the wetland protection and remediation measures outlined in its 

Procedures. 

Further wetland mitigation and restoration measures included in Kern River’s Procedures are as 

follows: 

 limit clearing of vegetation to the certified construction right-of-way in wetland areas; 

 utilize the construction right-of-way for access only when it has been appropriately stabilized 

or when wetland soil is firm enough to avoid rutting;

 restrict access to construction equipment necessary to install the pipeline where appropriate 

wetland stabilization is not feasible; 

 limit access to wetland areas using only existing roads or the construction right-of-way; 

 where possible, utilize “push-pull” or “float” crossing techniques; 

 in non-saturated wetlands, segregate topsoil excavated from the trench;

 restrict construction equipment within wetlands to that necessary to clear the right-of-way, 

dig the trench, fabricate and install the pipeline, backfill, and restore the site;

 minimize disturbance of root structure by leaving existing root systems intact; 

 constrain grading to the trenchline except when necessary to maintain safety;

 utilize temporary sediment controls, including sediment barriers;

 construct trench breakers or seal the trench bottom at wetland boundaries to preserve original 

wetland hydrology and avoid draining wetlands;

 develop a Project-specific wetland restoration plan in coordination with appropriate state or 

land management agencies; and

 limit vegetation maintenance of the permanent right-of-way to a 10-foot-wide corridor 

centered over the pipeline and trees greater than 15 feet in height within 15 feet of the 

pipeline. 

4.3.3.4 Wetland Restoration 

Kern River’s Procedures include stipulations to facilitate the revegetation of disturbed areas with 

appropriate wetland herbaceous and woody plant species. Wetlands would generally be allowed to 

revegetate naturally; however, Kern River has agreed to reseed the wetland at MP 0.5 using a seed mix of 

redtop bentgrass and Baltic rush and to reseed the wetland at MP 26.4 using a seed mix of alkaligrass, 

alkali sacaton, iodinebush, and shadscale as indicated in the Project-specific Reclamation Plan. Kern 

River has also agreed to supplemental tree planting within the wetland near East Canyon Creek at MP 5.2 

with the exception of the 0.05 acre of the wetland within the proposed permanently maintained right-ofway. In addition, mitigation in riparian areas would consist of additional woody plantings in riparian 

areas that currently support woody species. Herbicide and pesticide use would be prohibited within 
 

4-49

100 feet of a wetland unless dictated by the appropriate state or land management agency. As stated in 

Kern River’s Procedures, Kern River would monitor wetland revegetation for a minimum of 3 years 

following construction, and wetland revegetation would be considered successful if the cover of 

herbaceous and/or woody species is at least 80 percent of the cover type, density, and distribution of the 

vegetation in adjacent wetland areas not disturbed by construction. If the success criteria were met in 3 

years, monitoring would cease. Should the success criteria not meet requirements after 3 years, a 

remedial revegetation plan would be implemented to actively revegetate wetlands as required, and 

monitoring would continue. The revegetation efforts would continue until the success criteria are met. 

The dry climate in the western United States has historically made pipeline right-of-way 

restoration of wetlands challenging. In a study of wetland recovery in post-construction pipeline rightsof-way, over two-thirds of the wetlands studied in the Temperate Steppe eco-division defined by the 

FERC and the USFS, which encompasses the proposed Project, failed to satisfy the success criteria in the 

FERC Procedures following pipeline construction (FERC 2004). The primary criterion failing the 

wetland restoration requirement was that less than 80 percent of native species cover was present in 

disturbed wetlands after 3 years. The cover requirement was not met in the Temperate Steppe ecodivision primarily because (a) clay soils supporting perched water tables were not restored, leading to a 

lowered water table; and (b) drought conditions and human disturbance limited vegetative success (FERC 

2004). Given this low success rate for wetland restoration in the western United States, Kern River has 

developed and finalized a Wetland Remedial Revegetation Plan (Appendix K). Kern River’s Wetland 

Remedial Revegetation Plan outlines proposed mitigation measures that Kern River would implement if 

disturbed wetlands do not successfully recover. Examples of the proposed mitigation measures include: 

installing fencing to prevent livestock and wildlife grazing, decompacting soil, reseeding, and/or 

implementing noxious weed control measures as outlined in Kern River’s Noxious Weed Control Plan. 

Kern River would be required to comply with state-issued Section 401 water quality certifications 

or waivers and the COE’s Section 404 permit conditions, as well as the mitigation measures described 

above. By complying with federal and state permit conditions, as well as implementing the restoration 

and mitigation measures outlined in Kern River’s Plan and Procedures, significant adverse impacts on 

wetlands are not anticipated as a result of the proposed Project. 

4.3.3.5 Wetlands of Special Concern or Value 

One wetland is located within the Lazy H. Ranch Cooperative Wildlife Management Unit, an area 

of privately held land which contains a diverse suite of habitat types, including wetlands, and is used for 

fishing and big-game hunting. A more detailed assessment of the impacts of the proposed Project to the 

Lazy H. Ranch Cooperative Wildlife Management Unit special use area is provided in section 4.8.3. 

4.4 VEGETATION 

The proposed Apex Expansion Project, except for the existing Coyote Creek Compressor Station, 

is located within two physiographic provinces in Utah and Nevada: the Middle Rocky Mountains 

physiographic province (MP 0.0 to 19.0) noted for dissected mountainous terrain with alluvial basins, and 

the Basin and Range physiographic province (MP 19.0 to 28.0) which is noted for alternating north-south 

aligned basins and mountain ranges. The existing Coyote Creek Compressor Station is located within the 

Wyoming Basin physiographic province, which has predominantly sandstone and limestone sedimentary 

layers with low to moderate relief. 

Vegetation growth in the Project area is constrained by water availability both annually during 

late summer and episodically during multi-year droughts. Vegetation communities are developed in 
4-50

response to elevation, aspect, exposure to wind, and snowpack development, and have marked transitional 

areas where environmental factors change abruptly. 

4.4.1 Vegetation Resources 

The Project would cross eight vegetation cover types: Great Basin sagebrush, mountain 

mahogany-oak scrub, Douglas fir, riparian canyon woodlands, open grassland, saline-alkaline wetlands, 

improved pasture, and industrial/disturbed lands. 

The Great Basin sagebrush cover type includes sagebrush, horsebrush, rabbitbrush, hopsage, 

saltbush, Mormon tea, winterfat, and numerous species of grasses and forbs. 

The mountain mahogany – oak scrub cover type occurs in the lower slopes of the Wasatch range 

where Gambel oak stands include curl leaf mountain mahogany, maple, serviceberry, and snowberry. 

The Douglas fir cover type occurs at higher elevations where it can form dense mature-growth 

forests and transitions to other cover types while occurring with lodgepole pine, white fir, and blue 

spruce. The understory often includes barberry, snowberry, fringepod, and some grasses and forbs. 

Quaking aspen stands are a transitional phase to the climax vegetative type of Douglas fir forests. 

Riparian and canyon woodlands occur adjacent to streams and watercourses, and include willows, 

mountain alder, narrowleaf cottonwood, water birch, and box elder in upland areas. In riparian areas, 

species composition includes sandbar willow, Fremont cottonwood, Russian olive, and tamarisk. 

Open grassland includes tallgrass and shortgrass prairies and meadows often dominated by 

wheatgrass, bunchgrasses, and bluegrass. 

Improved pastures are areas where woody (often shrub) vegetation has been removed and seeding 

of grasses (often non-native) has occurred. These areas are often used for livestock grazing and vary in 

their intensity of disturbance from grazing pressure. 

Saline-alkaline wetlands occur in topographically flat areas where the soil has high salt content 

and the water table fluctuates frequently at a level near the surface. The vegetation is salt-loving 

(halophytic) and, depending on the salt content, varies even within a wetland from higher to lower salttolerant species depending on the water quality. Typical vegetation includes saltgrass, iodine bush, and 

greasewood. Wetlands are further discussed in section 4.3.3. 

Industrial/disturbed lands are areas where human use has largely eliminated native vegetation or 

reduced vegetation to only disturbance-tolerant herbaceous species or planted species. These areas may 

have gravel, asphalt, or concrete that is partly overgrown from historical use and abandonment, or may 

currently be in use with structures, roads, paths, lawns, or other maintained uses present. 

The vegetation composition of the proposed construction right-of-way, ATWSs, aboveground 

facilities, and pipe storage/contractor yards is provided in table 4.4.1-1. 
 

4-51

TABLE 4.4.1-1 

Acreages of Vegetation Types Impacted by Construction Activities for 

the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Vegetation Type 

Acres Temporarily 

Impacted 

Acres Permanently 

Impacted 

Great Basin sagebrush 36.0 65.3a

Mountain mahogany – 

oak scrub 

127.4 89.0 

Improved pasture 77.9 7.9 

Douglas fir forest 24.1 19.4 

Riparian and canyon 

woodlands 

1.7 0.9 

Open grasslands 4.5 4.1 

Saline-alkaline 

wetlands 

4.2 3.6 

Industrial/disturbed 

lands 

52.4 10.1 

Total 328.3 200.3 

____________ 

Note: 

a

 33.2 acres of Great Basin sagebrush would be permanently impacted at the proposed 

Milford Compressor Station.

The pipeline route, including ATWSs, pig launchers/receivers, contractor and pipe yards, and 

MLV sites, would impact approximately 328.3 acres during construction and approximately 200.3 acres 

during operations of the proposed Project. Two MLVs would be located along the proposed pipeline 

route at MPs 7.1 (within improved pasture) and 24.1A (within an existing MLV site). Both valves would 

be located entirely within the permanent right-of-way. The Milford Compressor Station site is within the 

Great Basin sagebrush cover type, but in an area where woody vegetation is present but very sparse due to 

grazing pressure. The Milford Compressor Station would contain two MLVs, two pig launchers, and two 

pig receivers and would permanently impact 33.2 acres of land. The vegetation at the compressor station 

site is predominantly cheatgrass and sand dropseed, with some broom snakeweed, Mormon tea, 

rabbitbrush, crested wheatgrass, and common yarrow. 

The proposed upgrades to four of Kern River’s existing compressor stations (Coyote Creek, 

Elberta, Fillmore, and Dry Lake) would involve disturbance within existing facility fence lines. These 

existing compressor stations are all industrial/disturbed lands, and no other vegetation cover types would 

be affected. 

Kern River has identified two pipe yards and two contractor yards that could be used to support 

construction. The proposed four yards total 113.8 acres, including 50.3 acres of developed lands and 

63.5 acres of agricultural lands. All yards are proposed for temporary use, and would be restored to preconstruction cover in accordance with Kern River’s Reclamation Plan. 
4-52

Kern River would use 35 existing access roads and would construct one new temporary access 

road for construction of the Project. Existing access roads would be improved where required in order to 

support transport of construction equipment and materials. The new temporary access road would be 

constructed at MP 27.5; and would disturb approximately 0.1 acre of land. 

PacifiCorp Electrical Distribution Line 

The vegetation along the PacifiCorp electrical distribution line corridor is predominantly 

cheatgrass and sand dropseed, with some broom snakeweed, Mormon tea, rabbitbrush, crested 

wheatgrass, and common yarrow. 

4.4.2 Vegetation Communities of Special Concern 

Although no Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands or FWS-designated critical habitat are 

located within the proposed Apex Expansion Project area, regulatory agencies (the USFS, Utah Division 

of Wildlife Resources [UDWR], and the FWS) identified three vegetation communities of special 

concern: Douglas fir forest, Great Basin sagebrush, and riparian areas. Douglas fir forest within the 

UWCNF is of concern because it is the primary habitat for the northern goshawk (see section 4.7). Great 

Basin sagebrush was identified because of its value to greater sage-grouse and pygmy rabbit. Riparian 

zones are areas adjacent to creeks and rivers with vegetation that is dependent on increased soil moisture 

and a higher water table. Riparian areas are an important component for protection of stream water 

quality and healthy biologic function in the immediate area and downstream. 

Existing access roads occur near Great Basin sagebrush and Douglas fir forest sensitive 

vegetation communities. Great Basin sagebrush occurs along approximately 9 miles of proposed access 

roads. Kern River would disturb 1-foot on either side of the existing roads through this community. The 

area immediately on either side of a road serves as a transition area; therefore, impacts on Great Basin 

sagebrush would not be expected. Douglas fir forest occurs along approximately 3 miles of proposed 

access roads. Approximately 2.6 miles would not be widened and therefore would not impact Douglas fir 

communities. The additional 0.5 mile would be widened, but activities would be limited to tree branch 

trimming rather than removal. 

4.4.3 Noxious Weeds 

Construction of the proposed Project has the potential to introduce noxious weeds to disturbed 

areas. Under the Federal Plant Protection Act of 2000, a “noxious weed” is defined as “any plant or plant 

product that can directly or indirectly injure or cause damage to crops, livestock, poultry, or other 

interests of agriculture, irrigation, navigation, the natural resources of the United States, the public health, 

or the environment.” Under the Utah Noxious Weed Act, three categories of noxious weeds are identified 

in the state: Class A (Early Detection Rapid Response), Class B (Control), and Class C (Containment). 

Kern River conducted noxious weed surveys in 2009 and found six species of noxious weeds 

within the proposed Project area. Kern River’s surveys identified two Class A species: leafy spurge and 

yellow starthistle; three Class B weeds: hoary cress, Dalmatian toadflax, and Scotch thistle; and one 

Class C weed: houndstongue. See section 4.4.5.2 for more information on Kern River’s proposed 

mitigation measures as outlined in its Noxious Weed Control Plan. 

4.4.4 Vegetation Pathogens 

Douglas fir beetle and the fir engraver potentially exist along the proposed pipeline route. Both 

species are beetles which infest and kill weak or felled Douglas fir trees. Douglas fir trees are also 
 

4-53

susceptible to root rot. Kern River’s proposed mitigation measures for vegetation pathogens are 

discussed below in section 4.4.5.1. 

4.4.5 Vegetation Impacts and Mitigation 

The primary impacts on vegetation from the Apex Expansion Project would be the clearing and 

removal of vegetation that would occur within the proposed 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way, in 

the ATWSs, at the proposed Milford Compressor Station, and in areas where road widening is proposed. 

The severity of impacts would depend on the type of vegetation impacted, the size of the area cleared, the 

time required for vegetation to become re-established, and any subsequent maintenance practices in 

cleared areas. Following construction, all affected areas outside of the aboveground facility sites would 

be restored and allowed to revert to their former vegetative cover type. 

The permanent 50-foot-wide right-of-way would be maintained in an herbaceous and low-growth 

woody vegetation state. During operation, 20 feet of the permanent right-of-way in uplands, centered 

over the pipeline, would be maintained in an herbaceous or scrub-shrub state (herbaceous plants with 

some woody shrubs and saplings). Maintenance mowing, if needed to assist with aerial inspections for 

leaks, would not occur more frequently than once every 3 years. In addition, the maintained right-of-way 

width would not exceed 10 feet (centered over the pipeline) in wetlands or areas adjacent to waterbodies. 

Trees would not be permitted within this 10-foot-wide corridor. In no case would routine vegetation 

maintenance clearing occur between April 15 and August 1 of any year. It is not expected that mowing 

would be required on grasslands or rangelands, within open lands, or on agricultural lands; however, 

maintenance of the permanent pipeline right-of-way may limit restoration of sagebrush and forested 

habitat. 

The cutting or removal of vegetation during construction could lead to increased soil erosion, an 

increase in invasive or exotic plant species, and a reduction in wildlife habitat. Clearing and construction 

activities along the pipeline right-of-way and associated facilities also could result in soil compaction. 

Additionally, heavy machinery could damage riparian vegetation associated with waterbodies, whether 

the equipment is moving or parked for extended periods. 

The use of all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and off-highway vehicles (OHVs) along the right-of-way 

could result in impacts on vegetation. Kern River has developed an ATV and OHV Barrier Plan which 

contains measures to create new ATV/OHV barriers to prevent access to the right-of-way. Additional 

discussion is provided in section 4.8.3. 

Most impacts on agricultural lands would be short-term, as these areas are disturbed annually to 

produce crops and would typically return to their previous condition shortly following construction, 

cleanup, and restoration. Lands currently dominated by herbaceous growth may revegetate quickly or 

may require more than 1 year, depending on a number of factors. The most important of these is probably 

the resumption of normal hydrologic inputs (such as precipitation, streamflow, or groundwater discharge) 

following restoration and planting of the right-of-way. While many of the factors affecting revegetation 

can be optimized for success, the resumption of normal hydrologic inputs is a necessary but uncertain 

one. Grazing and compaction by livestock also may slow revegetation of areas affected by construction. 

Lands with scrub-shrub vegetation that would be cleared during construction would likely require 

3 to 10 years to regain their woody composition and may require decades to develop a mature seral stage 

(Knight 1994). Forested lands that are cleared would require decades to be restored. Areas of scrubshrub may be affected on a longer-term basis; sagebrush would require more time to recover following 

disturbance due to its slow growth rate and long lifespan (NRCS 2009). 
4-54

The clearing of forested lands represents the largest impact due to the pronounced change in 

appearance, structure, and function; mature trees would be replaced by earlier successional stage species 

and would require decades to be restored. During operation of the pipeline, trees would not be allowed to 

grow over a 10-foot-wide corridor over the pipeline, resulting in a permanent conversion of cover type in 

that area to an herbaceous state. 

To minimize construction-related effects, Kern River would implement its Plan, which is based 

largely on our Plan with modifications as discussed in section 4.2. The intent of Kern River’s Plan is to 

identify baseline mitigation measures for minimizing erosion and enhancing revegetation in upland areas. 

Implementation of Kern River’s Plan would aid in restoration. Some of the restoration and best 

management practices identified in Kern River’s Plan include the following: 

 employment of at least one Environmental Inspector for the proposed Wasatch Loop, who 

would ensure compliance with the Plan, Procedures, and other required conditions; 

 segregation of topsoil in specific areas from the 100-foot-wide corridor consisting of the 

trench, the working side of the construction right-of-way, and a portion of the spoil side of 

the construction right-of-way; 

 installation of temporary erosion control measures, such as slope breakers, sediment barriers, 

and mulch; 

 commencement of cleanup immediately after backfilling and completion of restoration 

generally within 20 days; 

 installation of permanent erosion control devices, such as trench breakers and slope breakers; 

 revegetation in accordance with the recommendations of the BLM and the USFS, the local 

soil conservation authority, other land management agencies, and the affected landowners; 

 placement of barriers to control off-road vehicle activities; and 

 post-construction monitoring, maintenance, and reporting results of revegetated areas. 

Kern River developed the seedbed preparation procedures, seed mixtures, seeding rates, and 

seeding methods outlined in its Reclamation Plan in coordination with the USFS, the BLM, the UDWR, 

and the NRCS. Kern River would continue to coordinate with these agencies in order to stay apprised of 

specific information that would increase vegetation recovery. Kern River proposes to conduct final 

seedbed preparation, seeding, and planting in September and October of 2011. 

The FERC would continue to monitor post-construction revegetation until revegetation efforts 

have been successful. The USFS may require additional monitoring on USFS-managed lands. 

Kern River has sited the proposed route along existing easements to the extent possible, including 

the existing Kern River mainline, and has minimized the construction right-of-way and ATWSs to that 

necessary for safe construction. This strategy minimizes impacts on vegetation resources in areas 

traversed by the proposed Project. Construction activities would comply with the Kern River Plan. 

Furthermore, Kern River’s Reclamation Plan and Noxious Weed Control Plan have been developed in 

order to restore native vegetation to the right-of-way and other construction areas, and to minimize the 

potential spread of any noxious weeds that occur in the Project vicinity. 
 

4-55

PacifiCorp Electrical Distribution Line 

Potential impacts on vegetation associated with the construction of the PacifiCorp Electrical 

Distribution Line are expected to be minimal. The 23 single wood pole structures would be installed 

using a rubber tire line truck-mounted auger. Once the pole structures are set in place, the space 

surrounding the poles would be backfilled. No vegetation clearing or contorting would be necessary 

based on the flat topography of the area. The work area for each pole would be reclaimed and seeded, if 

determined necessary, with a BLM-approved reclamation plan. Access for the electrical distribution line 

would be via the existing Imperial Road. 

4.4.5.1 Impacts on Vegetation Communities of Special Concern 

Great Basin sagebrush areas and Douglas fir forests would be temporarily impacted during 

construction of the 100-foot-wide right-of-way for the proposed pipeline and by ATWSs. Kern River 

proposes to minimize impacts to these communities by allowing the permanent 50-foot-wide right-of-way 

for the pipeline to convert to pre-existing conditions with the potential exception for grassland conversion 

from maintenance mowing that would be conducted no more frequently than every 3 years, if needed. In 

addition, Kern River would seed sagebrush habitat; however, it may take several years for this community 

to regenerate. With the exception of selective removal, Douglas fir forests trees would be allowed to 

revegetate to within 10 feet of the pipeline centerline. The loss of these two habitat types along the rightof-way would introduce increased fragmentation to the landscape where greenfield routing is proposed. 

In areas where the proposed pipeline parallels an existing right-of-way, the existing grassland area would 

be widened. Great Basin sagebrush and Douglas fir forests are important communities for wildlife 

(section 4.5), and the loss of these habitats could introduce habitat edges into their communities. 

At the request of UDWR, USFS, and FWS, Kern River has agreed to leave riparian vegetation to 

a height of two feet within the bankfull channel and to a height of one foot within the 

floodplain/backwater area. Any trees within 15 feet of the pipeline and over 15 feet in height may be 

removed from the permanent right-of-way. Natural revegetation would be allowed to occur within 25 feet 

of the high-water mark on each side of each waterbody crossed, although woody vegetation over 15 feet 

high and within 15 feet of the pipeline would still be removed. In riparian areas where woody vegetation 

exists, Kern River would replant these areas with woody vegetation to within 10 feet of the pipeline 

centerline. Erosion control matting or netting would also be used at streambanks following seeding in 

order to provide soil erosion protection until vegetation has been established. 

As stated in section 4.4.4, Douglas fir trees along the proposed pipeline route could be impacted 

by various vegetative pathogens such as Douglas fir beetles, fir engraver, and root rot. To prevent the 

spread of Douglas fir beetle and fir engraver, Kern River’s Environmental Inspectors would identify 

beetle-infested areas prior to construction, and Kern River would grind, chip, or remove felled Douglas fir 

trees. Kern River would clear the right-of-way during the fall of 2010. Trees that could not be chipped 

would be stacked on the right-of-way until removal in the spring of 2011 by truck, helicopter, or other 

means. In order to minimize the spread of root rot, prior to construction in the spring of 2011, USFS 

personnel would survey the right-of-way to determine any locations of root rot. If root rot is present, 

Kern River would apply dry borax to infected trees within the right-of-way. Kern River proposes to plant 

areas infested with root rot with resistant conifer species such as native cedars, pines, and spruces. 

4.4.5.2 Noxious and Invasive Weeds 

Noxious and invasive weeds within the construction workspace would be eradicated and replaced 

with appropriate native vegetation following construction. Areas of concern identified by land 
4-56

management agencies would be controlled for weed species. Kern River would conduct restoration of 

disturbed areas in accordance with its Plan and Noxious Weed Control Plan. 

Kern River would adhere to construction procedures that would ensure that vehicles arrive at 

work sites weed free each day. Following construction, Kern River would monitor and treat occurrences 

of noxious and invasive weed infestations on the construction right-of-way and ATWSs for a minimum of 

3 years, or until self-sustaining native vegetation communities have been re-established. In addition, 

Kern River would continue to monitor the right-of-way for noxious weeds during operational 

maintenance activities. Kern River has also agreed to provide a noxious weed report for the Wasatch 

Loop 5 and 10 years following construction. 

4.4.6 Operation Impacts 

Inspection and maintenance of the pipeline would be conducted regularly. Periodically, the 

pipeline inspection results could identify areas where replacement of pipeline segments would be 

required. At these locations, the pipeline would be excavated, and each excavated site would be restored 

to grade and revegetated with native species in accordance with Kern River’s Plan and the landowner’s 

preference for seed mixtures. 

4.5 WILDLIFE 

4.5.1 Wildlife Resources 

The proposed Apex Expansion Project area is inhabited by a diversity of animal taxa, including 

large and small mammals, raptors, waterfowl, game birds, non-game birds, reptiles, and amphibians. 

Wildlife species common to the Project area are included in table 4.5.1-1. Information is also provided 

for sensitive resources in the Project area, including big game, raptors, and migratory birds. The 

dominant vegetative cover types are discussed in section 4.4. 

TABLE 4.5.1-1 

Common Representative Wildlife Species That Potentially Occur in the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project Area

Mammals 

American badger Least chipmunk Pronghorn

Bats Moose Red squirrel

Coyote Mule deer Sagebrush vole

Elk Northern flying squirrel Uinta ground squirrel

Gray fox Northern raccoon White-tailed jackrabbit

Great Basin pocket mouse Porcupine

Birds 

American avocet Ducks Red-napped sapsucker

American goldfinch Gray catbird Red-tailed hawk
 

4-57

TABLE 4.5.1-1 (continued) 

Common Representative Wildlife Species That Potentially Occur in the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project Area 

Birds (continued) 

American robin Gray jay Sage sparrow

Bald eagle Green-tailed towhee Sage grouse

Black-bellied plover Hermit thrush Sage thrasher

Black-billed magpie Ferruginous hawk Song sparrow

Black-necked stilt Killdeer Spotted towhee

Brewer’s sparrow Lazuli bunting Steller’s jay

Broad-tailed hummingbird Least sandpiper Swainson’s hawk

Burrowing owl Long-billed curlew Vesper sparrow

California quail Mountain bluebird Warbling 

Canada goose Mourning dove Western kingbird 

Cedar waxwing Northern flicker Western meadowlark

Chukar Olive-sided flycatcher Western tanager

Clark’s nutcracker Orange-crowned warbler Willet

Common nighthawk Plumbeous vireo Yellow warbler

Dark-eyed junco Red-breasted nuthatch

Reptiles and Amphibians 

Great Basin gophersnake Sagebrush lizard Western fence lizard

Great Basin spadefoot Striped whipsnake Woodhouse's toad

Northern sideblotched lizard Tiger salamander

Racer Wandering gartersnake

____________ 

Note: 

 The species listed in this table are considered to be representative, common species that are likely to occur in the 

area of the proposed Project; additional species may be encountered. 

The wildlife habitats in the Project area include Douglas fir forest, mountain mahogany-oak 

scrub, Great Basin sagebrush, riparian and canyon woodlands, open grassland, saline-alkaline wetlands, 

improved pasture, and developed lands (see section 4.4). The predominant wildlife habitats in the Project 

area are mountain mahogany-oak scrub, Great Basin sagebrush, and Douglas fir forest. These habitats 
4-58

provide local wildlife with areas for foraging, cover, and breeding. Although they comprise a relatively 

small proportion of the Project area, riparian areas adjacent to waterbodies crossed by the proposed 

Project route are an important wildlife habitat and are discussed in section 4.5.2.2. In addition to these 

general habitat types, the Project would cross through the East Canyon Wildlife Management Area 

(WMA) and the UWCNF, both of which are considered conservation lands and support quality wildlife 

habitat. 

4.5.2 Wildlife Construction Impacts and Mitigation 

Construction of the Apex Expansion Project, including the construction right-of-way, ATWSs, 

and pipe storage/contractor yards would temporarily disturb approximately 540 acres. Impacts on 

vegetation are discussed in section 4.4. 

The impact of the Project on wildlife species and their habitats would vary depending on the life 

history of each species and the habitat present along the pipeline route. During construction, more mobile 

species would be temporarily displaced from the construction right-of-way and surrounding areas to 

similar habitat nearby. Some wildlife displaced from the right-of-way would return to the newly 

disturbed area and adjacent, undisturbed habitats after completion of construction. Less mobile species, 

such as small mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and nesting birds, may experience direct mortality or 

permanent displacement. Displacement of species could lead to increased competition for the same 

resources. Potential impacts on wildlife could result from clearing of vegetation; alteration of the 

landscape from scraping the ground, soil disturbance, and recontouring; blasting; deposition of trash and 

debris; use of chemicals and herbicides; conflicts with vehicles; human presence; activities associated 

with trenching; increased predation; and edge effects and habitat fragmentation. 

Clearing of vegetation on the construction right-of-way and ATWSs would reduce cover, 

foraging, breeding, and nesting habitat for some wildlife. The degree of impact would depend on the type 

of habitat affected, the timing of clearing and construction activities, and the rate at which the area 

recovers after disturbance from construction. Seasonal habitat use is discussed for big game species and 

migratory birds in sections 4.5.3 and 4.5.4, respectively. The effect on species that rely on open land 

habitats such as open grassland and improved pasture would be short-term, as the area would be reseeded 

during the growing season following pipeline installation and habitat would be expected to recover within 

approximately 1 to 3 years following disturbance. Areas of tree and shrub dominated vegetation may be 

affected on a longer-term basis, for example as sagebrush would require more time to recover following 

disturbance due to its slow growth rate and long lifespan (NRCS 2009). Additional information regarding 

the expected recovery time of vegetation is provided in section 4.4. Shrub habitat and the species that 

inhabit these areas, especially Great Basin sagebrush and mountain mahogany-oak scrub obligate species, 

would incur long-term impacts from construction of the Project. The effect on forest-dwelling wildlife 

species would also be long-term, as forested lands would take decades to return to pre-construction 

maturity. Forested areas impacted during construction would be allowed to reestablish following 

construction except for within 10 feet of the pipeline centerline and at aboveground facilities. 

The alteration of the landscape through removal of vegetation, scraping of the ground, soil 

disturbance, and recontouring would reduce seed banks, disturb soil-dwelling species, and could alter 

drainage patterns. The degree of impact would depend on the species. Soil-dwelling invertebrates would 

be impacted directly through movement of soil from one place to another, resulting in some mortality and 

displacement. This could reduce the forage potential for insectivores that inhabit the area. Other animals 

would be indirectly affected through the reduction in seed banks, resulting in longer recovery times for 

vegetation that could provide forage, cover, and nesting habitat. Recontouring the land could result in 

changes to drainage patterns, resulting in some areas becoming wetter than normal and others drier. This 

could affect surface water supplies and change vegetative cover in areas, which could result in certain 
 

4-59

species avoiding areas they previously inhabited. These impacts, however, are expected to be minimal 

due to the temporary nature and limited extent of construction in the proposed Project area. Kern River, 

in accordance with its Plan and Procedures, would restore the construction right-of-way and waterbody 

crossings to pre-construction conditions; therefore, impacts would be temporary or short-term. 

Blasting is anticipated along approximately 9 percent of the pipeline route. Blasting impacts 

could include removal of adjacent habitat, direct mortality of wildlife, injury of wildlife in the vicinity of 

the blasting, noise disturbance, and dust and rock fragments thrown off by the blasts. Excessive noise 

from any construction activity can cause individuals to change movement patterns, avoid suitable habitat, 

and experience increased stress. These impacts from blasting, generally the loudest sounds created during 

construction activities, would be minimized by implementation of Kern River’s Blasting Plan, which 

requires site-specific blasting plans and the use of scare charges, thereby preventing or minimizing 

excessive noise and flyrock impacts. 

Trash and debris could impact wildlife by enticing certain species to eat contaminated or 

dangerous items; providing a feeding area where animals come into close contact and can spread disease 

or condensing animals into a small area, attracting predators. It also could impact wildlife by encouraging 

certain species to move into areas where humans are working, resulting in potential wildlife-human 

interaction and conflict. To minimize the potential for wildlife attraction, food wastes would be stored in 

containers and disposed of daily at existing, permitted waste disposal facilities. 

The use of chemicals and herbicides could directly impact wildlife through direct ingestion or 

ingestion of contaminated material. If chemicals or herbicides are stored near or placed in the same 

container as any material that would attract wildlife, certain species could potentially ingest the chemicals 

inadvertently. In addition, if certain plants are treated with herbicides, or chemicals are spilled in an area, 

wildlife could eat contaminated plant material, resulting in potential illness or mortality. The impacts 

from chemicals or herbicides are expected to be minimal through adherence to Kern River’s SPCC Plan 

and Noxious Weed Control Plan. While the risk of chemical exposure to individual animals would be 

low through proper implementation of these plans, there is virtually no risk of population-level impacts 

on any wildlife species. 

Project-related traffic on paved and unpaved roads during construction could cause an increase in 

wildlife-vehicle collisions and could temporarily disturb birds and big game in proximity to the roads. 

Individuals of highly mobile species could experience an increase in direct mortality from increased 

vehicle traffic on new or improved roads during construction. Due to the short timeframe of construction, 

impacts on animals from increased vehicular traffic are expected to be minor. An increase in Projectrelated traffic also could have a negative impact during hunting season, when the increased traffic could 

disrupt normal movement patterns of big game species and reduce hunter success. 

In addition to direct impacts from construction, blasting, noise, and trash/debris disposal, wildlife 

movement patterns could be disrupted by human presence as well as by the presence of trenches and spoil 

piles. Many species of wildlife tend to avoid areas where humans are, and this could cause certain species 

to avoid migration corridors or migratory stopover areas, avoid nesting areas, or avoid certain habitats 

altogether and potentially become displaced. These impacts, however, are expected to be minimal and 

short-term with adherence to requirements in Kern River’s Plan and Procedures regarding mitigation and 

habitat restoration such as beginning restoration immediately following backfill operation. Additionally, 

Kern River plans to conduct all clearing activities as well as some construction activities in fall and winter 

2010, outside of the breeding season. Clearing in the fall would preclude breeding birds from locating in 

the proposed right-of-way and work areas proposed for construction. 
4-60

Trenching activities and the spoil piles generated during construction could create potential traps 

for wildlife species and barriers to movement for less mobile species. Wildlife could fall into trenches; 

and spoil piles could create barriers to some less mobile species such as small reptiles and amphibians. 

Trenches would remain open for an average of 30 days during construction; however, Kern River would 

install ramps at 0.25-mile intervals (0.5-mile intervals on steep slopes) to allow animals to escape the 

trench. If an animal is seen in the trench but not using the existing escape ramps, Kern River would 

install an additional escape ramp, and inspection personnel would encourage the animal to move toward 

the ramp. In addition to escape ramps, Kern River would widen trench plugs every 0.5-mile to assist big 

game in crossing the open trench; these widened trench plugs would be staggered with the escape ramps. 

The Environmental Inspectors would inspect the trenches for big game every morning and contact 

UDWR if individuals become trapped. With implementation of these measures and Kern River’s Plan, 

impacts from open trenches and spoil piles are expected to be minor and temporary. 

Increased predation could occur during construction and operation of the proposed pipeline due to 

the removal of vegetation and increased line-of-sight over large areas. Many animals also may choose to 

use the pipeline right-of-way as a travel corridor, artificially concentrating individuals into a small area 

which could elevate the risk of predation. Although some species may experience higher mortality, the 

Project is unlikely to cause any population-level impacts from this effect. 

4.5.2.1 Habitat Fragmentation and Edge Effect 

Construction of the Apex Expansion Project would cause habitat fragmentation, especially in 

forested areas and shrub habitats. Fragmentation can alter species composition in a given community 

because biophysical conditions near habitat edge can significantly differ from those found in the center of 

the contiguous habitats. As a result, edge species could recruit to the fragmented area and species that 

occupy interior habitats could be displaced. The disturbance of these areas could create a long-term 

impact on some species that require undisturbed interior habitats, such as northern goshawk, by forcing 

the species to relocate to other suitable habitat or by reducing survival and reproductive success. 

Other species that could be adversely affected by the long-term or permanent conversion of 

forested and sagebrush habitat to other habitat types include certain migratory birds, discussed below, as 

well as various other birds, small mammals, amphibians, and reptiles. Less mobile species, such as 

reptiles and amphibians, could experience greater impacts from habitat fragmentation, as they are less 

mobile and less likely to relocate to more suitable habitat. To minimize potential impacts on wildlife, the 

pipeline would be constructed adjacent to existing rights-of-way for much of its length using previously 

disturbed areas to the extent practical. This would reduce habitat fragmentation and the potential impact 

on wildlife habitat for many species. 

Douglas fir forests comprise approximately 7 percent of the total proposed Project area, and 

mountain mahogany-oak scrub is present through 33 percent of the area. Although Kern River has 

collocated 19.7 of the 27.6 miles of the proposed right-of-way, habitat fragmentation and increased edge 

effects would occur in these communities. Of the 7.9 miles that are not collocated, approximately 5 miles 

would be located on USFS-managed lands. The amount of forested habitat that would be affected during 

construction and operation of the pipeline would cause some species to be disrupted temporarily or 

permanently. Disturbance and fragmentation of scrub-shrub habitats such as Great Basin sagebrush and 

mountain mahogany-oak scrub could negatively impact certain species that require large tracts of habitat, 

especially for breeding and nesting. Disturbance and fragmentation of habitat could reduce pairing 

success and the number of available nesting areas; encourage the expansion of non-native species; and 

inhibit migration, dispersal, foraging, and other movements of sagebrush-obligate species. Fragmentation 

also could increase nest predation, parasitism, or interspecific competition. Migration of birds and large 

mammals could be affected by fragmentation through the reduction of forage and cover. Kern River 
 

4-61

would adhere to restoration and reclamation protocols outlined in Kern River’s Plan and Reclamation 

Plan; therefore, impacts associated with fragmentation and edge-effect in shrub habitat would be 

minimized as much as possible. Over the long-term (likely within 10 years) habitats would be restored 

except for some areas of the 20-foot-wide maintained portion of the operational right-of-way and at 

permanent facilities such as the proposed Milford Compressor Station and MLV sites. 

The reduction of vegetative cover could provide the opportunity for noxious weeds to invade. If 

noxious weeds outcompete native vegetation, crucial habitat for breeding and foraging for many species, 

especially sagebrush-obligate species, could be reduced or eliminated. Kern River would implement its 

Noxious Weed plan during construction to minimize the spread and proliferation of noxious weeds and 

the impact on wildlife. Sagebrush and forested areas would be allowed to revegetate naturally and by 

reseeding except where aboveground facilities are located. These impacts would be minor given the 

overall extent of similar habitats within the Project area. 

4.5.2.2 Riparian Habitats 

Riparian habitats are important components of the larger ecosystem, as the proposed Project 

occurs in a semi-arid landscape. These habitats provide shelter, foraging areas, breeding and nesting 

areas, and/or roosting areas for many species of birds, mammals (both large and small), reptiles, 

amphibians, and invertebrates. The structure and function of these riparian habitats are important to 

preserve, as most of the wildlife species in the area are somewhat, if not fully, dependent on the resources 

they provide. Potential impacts on wildlife from the removal of riparian habitat include temporary 

displacement of species to adjacent suitable habitat and alteration of migration routes by mammals and 

birds, especially waterfowl. Although broad-scale fragmentation does not generally occur in riparian 

habitats, fragmentation of a riparian zone during construction could impact the structure and function of 

the habitat as a whole and affect certain wildlife species, — especially those with small ranges such as 

certain amphibians (Krueper 2000). A total of 2.6 acres of riparian habitat would be cleared during 

construction; however, with implementation of Kern River’s Procedures, impacts on waterbodies and 

their associated riparian areas would be minimized. Species that utilize these environments (amphibians 

and invertebrates) could experience displacement or direct mortality during clearing activities. 

At the request of UDWR, USFS, and FWS, Kern River has agreed to leave riparian vegetation to 

a height of two feet within the bankfull channel and to a height of one foot within the 

floodplain/backwater area. In riparian areas where woody vegetation exists, Kern River would replant 

these areas with woody vegetation to within 10 feet of the pipeline centerline. During operations, a 25-

foot buffer would be maintained adjacent to the waterbody with the possible exception of a 10-foot-wide 

corridor directly over the pipeline in riparian areas to assist with operational surveys. Although impacts 

on riparian areas would be minimized as much as possible, these impacts would be long-term; therefore, 

Kern River is developing a Supplemental Reclamation Plan that will address impacts to riparian habitat as 

a result of the proposed Project as well as areas of the original Kern River pipeline that have not reestablished successfully. Impacts on waterbodies are addressed in section 4.3 and special status 

amphibians are discussed in section 4.7. 

4.5.3 Big Game 

The four big game species that occur within the proposed Project area are mule deer, elk, 

pronghorn, and moose. Crucial value habitat is habitat that the local population of a wildlife species 

depends on for survival because there are no alternative ranges or habitats available and the habitat is 

essential to the life history requirements of a wildlife species. Crucial ranges for big-game are areas 

where big game are concentrated during certain times of the year because of environmental constraints or 

forage availability. Table 4.5.3-1 presents the crucial habitat for each of the four big game species in the 
4-62

proposed Project area. Crucial winter ranges are used when snowpack excludes big game from being able 

to forage in other portions of their range. Crucial winter ranges are thought to be the factor that limits the 

size of populations of big game in Utah. Crucial summer ranges are used for fawning habitat when forage 

availability is required to support young of the year. High-value summer/fall habitat areas have preferred 

cover type, water availability, and forage abundance to support higher use by big game. Although the 

highest use of these ranges is generally defined by the season, the UDWR and the USFS have indicated 

that crucial winter habitat for big game species should be avoided between November 15 and April 30, 

depending on snow coverage, and elk calving habitat should be avoided between May 1 and June 30. 

Kern River expects that construction would be precluded during the season of highest use for crucial 

winter habitat and elk calving habitat due to snowpack. If conditions allow, however, Kern River would 

consult with the applicable agencies to determine whether spring construction through crucial winter 

habitat is feasible based on species utilization at that time and location. 

TABLE 4.5.3-1 

Big Game Crucial Habitat in the Proposed Apex Expansion Project Area 

Location Species Season Value 

Temporary 

Impact 

(acres)

Permanent 

Impact (acres) 

Pipeline Right-of-Way 

MP 0.0 – 0.7 Mule deer Summera Crucial 9.8 4.2 

MP 0.7 – 3.6b Mule deer Winter Crucial 40.0 18.0 

MP 3.6 – 3.9b Mule deer Summera Crucial 2.6 0.9 

MP 3.9 – 5.4b Mule deer Winter Crucial 21.9 9.5 

MP 5.4 – 6.6b Mule deer Summera Crucial 18.8 7.2 

MP 6.6 – 7.6b Mule deer Winter Crucial 14.7 5.9 

MP 7.6 – 7.7 Mule deer Summera Crucial 2.4 1.2 

MP 7.7 – 8.0 Mule deer Winter Crucial 3.4 1.4 

MP 8.0 – 16.4b Mule deer Summera Crucial 119.5 51.3 

MP 9.1 – 18.4b Moose Year-longc Crucial 134.8 56.5 

MP 9.5 – 17.1 Elk Summer/falld Crucial 109.1 45.9 

MP 16.4 – 16.6 Mule deer Winter Crucial 3.1 1.0 

MP 16.6 – 17.6 Mule deer Summera Crucial 17.5 6.3 

MP 17.6 – 24.6 Mule deer Winter Crucial 92.8 39.6 

Staging Areas, Pipe Yards, and Contractor Yards 

South Hardscrabble 

Staging Area 

Elk Summer/fall Crucial 0.7 NA 

Hardscrabble Rd. 

Staging Area 

Elk Summer/fall Crucial 0.4 NA 

Hardscrabble Staging 

Area 

Elk Summer/fall Crucial 0.6 NA 

Skyline Staging Area Elk Summer/fall Crucial 3.6 NA 

Questar Right-of-Way 

Staging Area 

Elk Summer/fall Crucial 2.7 NA 
 

4-63

TABLE 4.5.3-1 (continued) 

Big Game Crucial Habitat in the Proposed Apex Expansion Project Area 

Location Species Season Value 

Temporary 

Impact 

(acres)

Permanent 

Impact (acres) 

Staging Areas, Pipe Yards, and Contractor Yards 

Hardscrabble Rd. 

Staging Area 

Moose Year-longc Crucial 0.4 NA 

Dennis Wright 

Contractor Yard 

Moose Summer Crucial 19.7 NA 

MLV 96 Laydown Area Mule deer Summera Crucial 4.2 NA 

Hardscrabble Rd. 

Staging Area 

Mule deer Summera Crucial 0.4 NA 

Hardscrabble Staging 

Area 

Mule deer Summera Crucial 0.6 NA 

East Canyon Staging 

Area 

Mule deer Winter Crucial 1.2 NA 

North Hardscrabble 

Road Staging Area 

Mule deer Summera Crucial 9.6 NA 

North Hardscrabble 

Road Staging Area 

Mule deer Winter Crucial 0.5 NA 

South Hardscrabble 

Road Staging Area 

Mule deer Summera Crucial 0.7 NA 

Skyline Staging Area Mule deer Summera Crucial 3.6 NA 

Highway 66 Staging 

Area 

Mule deer Winter Crucial 0.5 NA 

North Bountiful Staging 

Area 

Mule deer Winter Crucial 2.2 NA 

Questar Right-of-Way 

Staging Area 

Mule deer Summera Crucial 2.7 NA 

Aboveground Facilities

Milford Compressor 

Station 

Pronghorn Year-long Crucial 33.2 33.2 

Total Impact 677.9 282.1 

____________ 

Notes: 

 NA = Not available 

 MP = Milepost 

a

 Fawning area 

b

 All or a portion of this range would likely require blasting; blasting would occur between October and early December 2010 

for areas between MP 0.0 and 5.4; and between April 15 and August 31, 2011, for areas between MP 5.4 and 25.6. 

Blasting in summer, summer/fall, or year-long habitat between April 15 and August 31, 2011 would include the use of scare 

charges. 

c

 Calving area 

d Elk calving area occurs from approximately MP 13.2 to 17.0. 
4-64

Kern River is proposing to clear vegetation along the entire Wasatch Loop between October and 

early December 2010; construction between MP 0.0 and 5.4 and between 25.6 and 28.0 would also take 

place during this timeframe. All remaining construction activities would take place between late spring 

and fall 2011. Although clearing and some construction activities would occur during the season of high 

use for crucial winter habitat, the overlap would be limited to approximately 1 month of the 5-month 

winter period noted by the applicable agencies (November 15 through April 30). In addition, late 2010 

construction would avoid impacts on a limited amount of crucial summer habitat. Clearing of vegetation 

on crucial winter ranges would result in a long-term reduction in forage for wintering big game that 

depends on browse, which may result in reduced winter survival over that time period until the vegetation 

is restored. Weather and snow levels may affect survival over this period. Although big game may avoid 

areas of active clearing during late 2010, it is unlikely that early clearing would result in a significant 

adverse impact on big game species. 

Kern River’s proposed construction timeframe between late spring and early fall 2011 would 

result in active construction occurring in crucial summer, summer/fall, and year-long habitats for big 

game species that falls between MP 5.4 and MP 25.6. Active construction would occur within these 

habitats during the season of highest use, and it is likely that big game would experience some adverse 

effects during these periods. However, as clearing activities within this area would be conducted during 

late 2010, active construction during 2011 would have a slightly shorter duration. In addition, Kern River 

anticipates that some blasting would occur between April 15 and August 31 within crucial habitat, 

including portions of mule deer summer and moose year-long crucial habitat (see table 4.5.3-1). 

Although Kern River has stated that it would attempt to conduct blasting outside of the mule deer fawning 

times (May 1 through June 30), any blasting that occurs within fawning habitat during that period, or 

within other crucial habitat that would be utilized during the summer, could result in adverse effects to big 

game species. In response to our recommendation in the draft EIS to develop mitigation for blasting in 

crucial habitat during the proposed time-frame, Kern River has revised its Blasting Plan in consultation 

with USFS, BLM, and UDWR to include the detonation of scare charges, or small non-lethal charges, 

3 days, 1 day, and 1 hour prior to any blasting in the areas of concern to minimize the potential for big 

game to be impacted by flyrock during actual blasting activities. These scare charges would be detonated 

at 0.5-mile intervals along the right-of-way in blasting areas. Since construction would be completed 

between MP 0.0 and 5.4 during fall/early winter 2010, blasting would also potentially occur in winter 

crucial habitat after big game has begun to utilize it (November 15); however, crucial winter habitat 

would likely not be in full use while 2010 construction would be occurring. 

The Wasatch Loop would cross 7.6 miles of high-value elk summer and fall habitat. About 

109.1 acres of elk habitat would be disturbed during construction, and 45.9 acres would be retained within 

the permanent right-of-way. Additionally, due to the extent of crucial habitat in the Project vicinity, five 

staging areas (totaling 8.0 acres) would be located within elk crucial summer/fall range. 

Year-long crucial moose calving habitat is present along the Wasatch Loop for 9.3 miles, which 

would temporarily impact 134.8 acres and permanently encumber 56.5 acres of habitat. A contractor yard 

(19.7 acres) proposed for temporary use during construction would be located in moose crucial summer 

range. In addition, one staging yard (0.4 acres) would be within moose crucial year-long range. 

Mule deer crucial summer fawning habitat is present along the Wasatch Loop at six locations; the 

11.7 miles of this habitat that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline would result in a temporary and 

permanent impact of 170.6 and 71.1 acres, respectively. Six staging areas and one laydown area are 

proposed within mule deer crucial summer fawning habitat on 21.8 acres. Mule deer crucial winter 

habitat occurs at six locations along the Wasatch Loop, totaling 12.9 miles; the Wasatch Loop would 

result in 175.9 acres of temporary impact and 75.4 acres of permanent impact. Four staging areas on a 
 

4-65

total of 8.4 acres in mule deer crucial winter range are proposed to support the Wasatch Loop 

construction. 

The proposed Milford Compressor Station site is entirely within pronghorn year-long crucial 

habitat and would permanently encumber 33.2 acres of land managed by the BLM. To mitigate the 

permanent loss of pronghorn crucial habitat, Kern River has agreed to install and/or maintain a big game 

guzzler unit, or watering facility, in the upper Escalante Dessert Valley, where water access has been 

determined to be a limiting factor for pronghorn populations. 

Two managed areas, the East Canyon WMA and the UWCNF, would be crossed by the pipeline. 

Both of these areas contain crucial habitat for big game. The East Canyon WMA would be crossed from 

MP 4.0 to 5.0, which is entirely within the crucial winter habitat for mule deer; however, Kern River has 

stated that it would not construct within the boundaries of the WMA between January 1 and the second 

Saturday in April to protect wintering wildlife, or during open season rifle hunting (the week beginning 

October 17). Kern River is consulting with the UDWR to develop a site-specific crossing plan for the 

East Canyon WMA. The UWCNF would be crossed between MP 13.3 and 24.5, approximately 7.1 miles 

of which would occur in mule deer crucial winter habitat and 4.1 miles of which would occur in mule 

deer crucial summer range. Kern River is consulting with the USFS to resolve timing conflicts between 

the proposed construction schedule and the Uinta-Wastach-Cache forest plan. 

As previously discussed, construction would primarily occur during the summer and fall months 

which would minimize crucial winter range impacts by avoiding construction during the season of highest 

use. One of the exceptions is the planned crossing of East Canyon Creek, which would be constructed in 

late fall or early winter 2010 in crucial winter range for mule deer. Kern River proposes to cross East 

Canyon Creek during the fall/winter in order to complete the crossing during a time of low water flow to 

minimize potential effects to critical fish species. Construction at East Canyon Creek would represent a 

short-term, minor impact on crucial winter range for mule deer when compared to the overall availability 

of habitat in the region. 

Summer and fall construction would impact elk high-value summer/fall range, crucial calving 

habitat for moose, and crucial fawning habitat for mule deer. These are highly mobile species that would 

disperse from construction areas and move to other portions of the high-value and crucial ranges during 

spring and summer in order to find suitable forage and cover. While dispersal away from construction 

areas would increase energetic use by these species at a vulnerable time, the localized nature of 

construction would make it easier for big game to move short distances to avoid the construction areas. 

The proposed right-of-way would cross through productive forage habitat for big game; therefore, 

this habitat would be unavailable between initial clearing and the end of construction. Although the 

amount of foraging habitat would be slightly reduced, clearing in 2010 would not be likely to result in a 

significant adverse effect to big game. In addition, an increase in traffic during the season of highest use 

for either winter or summer crucial habitat could increase the potential for vehicular impacts on big game 

species within crucial winter and summer habitats. Construction traffic would be limited to existing roads 

that may require up to 2 feet of widening on each side (with the exception of one 410-foot road that would 

be newly constructed within a developed area for temporary use) and the construction right-of-way. In 

addition, there would be an average of 35 trips per day, generally occurring during daylight hours; 

therefore, construction traffic is not expected to have a significantly different impact on big game than 

normal traffic flows. 

To mitigate for short- and long-term habitat disruption, Kern River has proposed to acquire a 160-

acre parcel of land adjacent to the East Canyon WMA that would be donated to UDWR who would 

manage it for recreational use and as big game habitat. Kern River has also coordinated with federal and 
4-66

state agencies in the development of its Reclamation Plan to restore native cover types and the wildlife 

habitat they sustain. With adherence to the timing restrictions as practicable and the proposed habitat 

acquisition and mitigation measures, impacts to big game populations would be expected to be minor. 

4.5.4 Raptors and Other Migratory Birds 

The MBTA (16 USC 703-711) is a domestic law that implements the United States’ commitment 

to international conventions with Canada (1916), Mexico (1936), Japan (1972) and Russia (1978) for 

protection of shared migratory bird resources (FWS 2002). The MBTA prohibits the taking, killing, 

possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests, except when 

specifically authorized by the Department of the Interior. Executive Order (EO) 13186 (2001) directs 

departments and agencies to take certain actions to further implement the MBTA. The EO, among other 

things, directs federal agencies to identify where unintentional takes reasonably attributable to agency 

actions have, or are likely to have, a measureable negative effect on migratory bird populations, focusing 

first on species of concern, priority habitats, and key risk factors. With respect to those actions so 

identified, agencies are directed to develop and use principles, standards, and practices that will lessen the 

amount of unintentional take, developing any such conservation efforts in cooperation with the FWS. In 

addition to protections provided under the MBTA, bald and golden eagles are provided protection under 

the BGEPA, which also prohibits the direct or indirect take, possession, commerce, or disturbance of bald 

eagles or any of their parts, including eggs, nests, and feathers. 

Kern River has reviewed Utah’s Partners in Flight (PIF) list and has consulted with the UDNR, 

USFS, and FWS to determine which migratory birds potentially occur in the Project area. The results of 

these consultations have indicated that 26 migratory bird species could occur in the Project area (see 

table 4.5.4-1). These species generally mate, nest, and rear their young between April 1 and August 31 

(UDWR 2009). Between June and July of 2009, Kern River conducted bird surveys in the proposed 

Project area that targeted the species identified. Although additional migratory bird species were 

encountered, surveys confirmed the presence of 11 of the 26 identified species: osprey, northern 

goshawk, golden eagle, broad-tailed hummingbird, Lewis’s woodpecker, cordilleran flycatcher, gray 

catbird, Virginia’s warbler, Brewer’s sparrow, Cassin’s finch, and evening grosbeak. A separate survey 

was conducted in May 2009 in the area of the proposed Milford Compressor Station; five additional 

species were encountered, including the horned lark, common raven, western meadowlark, long-billed 

curlew, and mourning dove. As a species of concern to the USFS, the northern goshawk is specifically 

discussed in section 4.7. 

TABLE 4.5.4-1 

Migratory Bird Species of Concern in the Proposed Apex Expansion Project Area 

Identifying Agency 

Common 

Name Scientific Name UDNR FWS USFS 

Utah 

PIF 

Migratory Bird 

Survey Results (2009) 

Raptor Survey 

Results (2010) 

American 

white pelican 

Pelecanus 

erythrorhynchos

X X Not encountered N/A 

Osprey Pandion 

haliaetus 

 X Encountered along the 

right-of-way 

Not 

encountered 

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus 

X X X Not encountered Individuals 

(January) 

Probable nest 

(April) 
 

4-67

TABLE 4.5.4-1 (continued) 

Migratory Bird Species of Concern in the Proposed Apex Expansion Project Area 

Identifying Agency 

Common 

Name Scientific Name UDNR FWS USFS 

Utah 

PIF 

Migratory Bird 

Survey Results 

(2009) 

Raptor Survey 

Results (2010) 

Northern 

Goshawk 

Accipiter gentilis X X Encountered along the 

right-of-way 

Individual and 

probable nest 

encountered 

(June) 

Ferruginous 

Hawk 

Buteo regalis X X X Not encountered Occupied nest 

of unspecified 

Buteo sp. 

(April) 

Golden Eagle Aquila 

chrysaetos 

 X Encountered along the 

right-of-way 

Individuals 

(January and 

April), occupied 

nest (April) 

Peregrine 

Falcon 

Falco peregrinus X X Not encountered Not 

encountered 

Black-necked 

stilt 

Himantopus 

mexicanus 

 X Not encountered N/A 

American 

Avocet 

Recurvirostra 

americana 

 X Not encountered N/A 

Long-billed 

curlew 

Numenius 

americanus 

X X X Encountered at the 

proposed Milford 

Compressor Station 

N/A 

Yellow-billed 

cuckoo 

Coccyzus 

americanus 

X X X Not encountered N/A 

Flammulated 

Owl 

Otus flammeolus X X Not encountered Not 

encountered 

Burrowing 

Owl 

Athene 

cunicularia 

X X Not encountered Not 

encountered 

Short-eared 

owl 

Asio flammeus X X Not encountered Not 

encountered 

Broad-tailed 

hummingbird 

Selasphorus 

platycercus 

 X X Encountered along the 

right-of-way 

N/A 

Lewis’s 

Woodpecker 

Melanerpes lewis X X X X Encountered along 

the right-of-way 

N/A 

Williamson's 

Sapsucker 

Sphyrapicus 

thyroideus 

 X Not encountered N/A 

Three-toed 

woodpecker 

Picoides 

tridactylus 

X X X Not encountered N/A 

Cordilleran 

Flycatcher 

Empidonax 

occidentalis 

 X Encountered along 

the right-of-way 

N/A 

Gray Catbird Dumetella 

carolinensis 

 X Encountered along 

the right-of-way 

N/A 
4-68

TABLE 4.5.4-1 (continued) 

Migratory Bird Species of Concern in the Proposed Apex Expansion Project Area 

Identifying Agency 

Common 

Name Scientific Name UDNR FWS USFS 

Utah 

PIF 

Migratory Bird 

Survey Results 

(2009) 

Raptor Survey 

Results (2010) 

Virginia’s 

Warbler 

Vermivora 

virginiae 

 X X Encountered along 

the right-of-way 

N/A 

Brewer’s 

Sparrow 

Spizella breweri X X Encountered along 

the right-of-way 

N/A 

Grasshopper 

Sparrow 

Ammodramus 

savannarum 

X X X Not encountered N/A 

Bobolink Dolichonyx 

oryzivorus 

X X Not encountered N/A 

Cassin’s 

Finch 

Carpodacus 

cassinii 

 X Encountered along 

the right-of-way 

N/A 

Evening 

Grosbeak 

Coccothraustes 

vespertinus 

 X Encountered along 

the right-of-way 

N/A 

____________ 

Notes: 

 FWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

 N/A = Not applicable 

 PIF = Partners in Flight 

 UDNR = Utah Department of Natural Resources 

 USFS = U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service 

Kern River is proposing to clear vegetation along the entire Wasatch Loop between October and 

early December 2010. Kern River would also construct approximately 7.4 miles (MP 0.0 to 5.4 and 25.6 

to 27.6) of the pipeline during this time. All remaining construction activities would take place between 

late spring and fall 2011. Clearing in late fall/early winter 2010 would avoid or minimize direct impacts 

on migratory birds as well as preclude them from utilizing the right-of-way during active construction in 

2011, when they will be prevalent in the area. Construction between spring and fall 2011, however, could 

still result in indirect impacts on the species that occur in the area, especially nesting birds. Although 

direct effects to both tree- and ground-nesting birds would be largely avoided by clearing during 2010, 

indirect effects could occur as a result of the noise created by construction and human activity in the area. 

Construction activities also could disorient birds during migration or cause them to avoid a nesting area. 

Activities occurring adjacent to nesting individuals could result in nest abandonment, which would 

subsequently result in the mortality of eggs and young or premature fledging and ejection from the nest. 

To further minimize impacts on migratory birds, Kern River has collocated much of the right-ofway adjacent to other pipelines or proposed pipelines, which minimizes fragmentation of habitat and the 

potential for predaceous species to invade large contiguous habitats where some obligate bird species 

breed and fledge young. 

In addition to the migratory bird surveys conducted in 2009, Kern River conducted multiple 

raptor surveys in 2010 to determine the presence and locations of wintering eagles, burrowing owls, and 

raptor nests. Bald eagles utilize winter roosts during winter months (November through March), using 
 

4-69

conifer forests and trees in riparian areas for roosting habitat. During early consultation, the USFS noted 

that bald eagles are present in East Canyon Creek and near East Canyon Reservoir, in Morgan County. 

Therefore, between January and March 2010, Kern River surveyed for winter bald and golden eagles 

within suitable habitat of the East Canyon area, the Wasatch Front, and along the Jordan River. A total of 

57 eagles (53 adult bald eagles, 1 juvenile bald eagle, and 3 golden eagles) were encountered within the 

East Canyon region during two survey events; no further surveys were conducted in this area as it was 

clear that the area is highly used for winter roosting. Four locations along the Wasatch Front were 

surveyed a total of 7 times each. During these surveys, a pair of bald eagles was observed flying over 

Mills Creek Canyon, briefly stopping approximately 300 feet from the right-of-way before lifting off to 

land out of sight approximately 1.5 miles away from the right-of-way. No eagles were observed at the 

Jordan River and the surveys were concluded after one event as the habitat was poor and adjacent to 

developed land. Because many forested areas used for roosting by wintering bald eagles are present in 

the vicinity of the proposed Project, winter construction in bald eagle roost areas would likely displace 

eagles from roost sites during active construction. To minimize these effects, Kern River has committed 

in its Biological Resources Mitigation Plan (Appendix M) to conducting winter roost surveys on 

November 10, 2010, or five days prior to any construction through the East Canyon area. If any roosting 

eagles are seen during this time period, or after construction has begun through this area, Kern River 

would implement hourly limitations for construction activities (not including vehicular and equipment 

passage) between 9 am and 1 hour prior to sunset between November 15 and December 31, 2010. 

Construction through the East Canyon area would be finished in December 2010 and no further work 

would be done within or adjacent to the East Canyon area prior to March 2011, when eagles typically 

leave winter roosts. If hourly timing restrictions become infeasible during the course of construction, 

Kern River would consult with FWS to determine alternate mitigation prior to any work outside of the 

allowed work hours. Impacts on the golden eagle would be similar to those incurred by other migratory 

species, as discussed above. 

Burrowing owl surveys were conducted in April 2010 in accordance with the Burrowing Owl 

Consortium’s survey protocols. Although multiple burrows were encountered during surveys, the 

burrows were believed to belong to foxes, jackrabbits, and coyotes based on sightings of these species and 

their indicators. Suitable habitat for the burrowing owl exists along the first 5 miles of the proposed 

Project, but the species is unlikely to be affected due to the lack of individuals and burrows encountered 

during surveys and the avoidance of the breeding season through construction during the fall/winter 2010 

in that area. 

Aerial raptor nest surveys were conducted in April 2010 within a 2-mile corridor centered along 

the proposed right-of-way, Hardscrabble Road, and Skyline Drive. All other access roads proposed for 

use fall within the 2-mile corridor around the pipeline. A total of 28 nests were encountered including 

11 active nests, 16 unoccupied nests, and 1 dilapidated nest. The 11 active nests occurred between 

MP 0.0 and 8.0 or along Hardscrabble Road where the elevation and warmer conditions were more 

suitable to nesting. Many of the inactive nests were located in areas that were still snow-covered, but 

those that were within 0.5-mile of the Project were resurveyed in June 2010 to verify that they were still 

inactive. Of the occupied nests, six belonged to red-tailed hawks, one to golden eagles, one to 

Swainson’s hawk, two were unidentified species, and one was probably a bald eagle nest occupied by a 

Canada goose. In addition, nine raptors were seen perched or flying but not associated with a nest, 

including three red-tailed hawks, three golden eagles, a turkey vulture, and Cooper’s hawk. As discussed 

further in section 4.7.2, bioacoustic surveys conducted in June 2010 also indicated the presence of an 

active northern goshawk nest within the UWCNF boundaries. 

Although raptor nests and winter roosts were encountered, Kern River previously indicated that 

the seasonal and spatial buffers recommended by the FWS would likely not be feasible due to the short 

construction window. Measures that Kern River has proposed to minimize impacts on nesting raptors 
4-70

include conducting aerial surveys for raptor nests prior to construction activities in spring 2011; reducing 

speeds on access roads when within 0.5 mile of an active nest to reduce roadkill and consequently, raptor 

presence in the roads; performing nest-deterring activities for raptors excluding the bald and golden 

eagles, which would require a take permit, and potentially forage/prey habitat improvement if nests are 

discovered within the right-of-way; and post-construction monitoring of active and inactive nests within 

0.5 mile of the Project to document the nest usage and brood status. As the proposed mitigation measures 

are inconsistent with those recommended by the FWS in its Guidelines for Raptor Protection (FWS 

2002), Kern River prepared a Biological Resources Mitigation Plan (Appendix M) in consultation with 

FWS, BLM, USFS, and UDWR that includes measures to employ a qualified biological monitor during 

construction that would establish normal behavior of the two active raptor nests (a red-tailed hawk nest 

and a northern goshawk nest) that could be impacted by active construction occurring within 0.5-mile of 

the Project during the nesting season. If during construction those normal behaviors are seen to alter, 

Kern River would consult with the FWS to identify site-specific mitigation measures that would both 

protect the nesting raptors and allow the continuation of construction. However, we have not received 

correspondence indicating that the final Biological Resources Mitigation Plan was deemed adequate by 

the applicable agencies and multiple mitigation measures that were previously proposed for use, as 

discussed above, were not included in the current Mitigation Plan; therefore, we recommend that: 

 Prior to construction, Kern River file the pre-construction raptor surveys and update 

the Biological Resources Mitigation Plan including any additional mitigation measures 

developed in consultation with UDWR, FWS, BLM, and USFS, as applicable. 

We note that EO 13186 requires federal agencies to avoid or minimize negative impacts on 

migratory bird populations. The EO also requires a federal agency to identify where an unintentional 

“take” is likely to have a measurable negative effect on migratory bird populations. Effects to nonsensitive bird species (those that do not have significantly reduced populations) would not result in longterm or significant population-level impacts given the stability of local populations, the abundance of 

available habitat outside the Project right-of-way, and the linear nature of the Project. Potential impacts 

on tree-nesting species would be minor, given the limited amount of forested land crossed by the 

proposed Project, collocation of the pipeline, and by conducting tree-clearing in the fall, outside of the 

nesting season. Non-nesting individuals may be temporarily displaced by human activity, noise, and 

other construction activities but are expected to return to the disturbed area shortly after construction 

ceases. 

4.5.5 Operation Impacts 

Land within the permanent right-of-way, at aboveground facility locations, and the modified 

access roads would be permanently encumbered by the Project. The majority of the acreage required for 

operations would be within the pipeline permanent right-of-way, which would be allowed to revegetate 

following construction except for a possible 20-foot-wide strip over the pipeline that would be maintained 

in an herbaceous and scrub-shrub state to facilitate pipeline inspections. Kern River has proposed to 

minimize impacts from maintenance of the pipeline right-of-way by overlapping the permanent rights-ofway of its mainline and the Wasatch Loop by 15 feet in areas where construction allows. If maintenance 

of the right-of-way is required to facilitate inspections, Kern River would not conduct any clearing more 

than once every 3 years, and never between April 15 and August 1 in order to minimize disturbance to 

migratory birds during the nesting period. Based on Kern River’s experience with its existing pipeline, 

maintenance clearing is not anticipated over much of the pipeline right-of-way. 

A total of 95.2 acres would be permanently converted (Milford Compressor Station) or 

maintained as developed land (Coyote Creek, Elberta, Fillmore, and Dry Lake Compressor Stations). 

Herbaceous vegetation would be expected to fully recover within 3 years. The loss of woody shrubs and 
 

4-71

trees during construction would result in a minor short- to long-term effect on wildlife given the overall 

extent of these habitats in the Project area and the limited amount of forest fragmentation associated with 

the Project due to the collocations of much of the proposed pipeline route with existing rights-of-way. 

Wildlife could also be affected by general human presence during operation of the Project. Many 

species of wildlife tend to avoid areas where humans are and this could cause certain species to avoid 

migration corridors or migratory stopover areas, avoid nesting areas, or avoid certain habitats altogether 

and potentially become displaced. These impacts, however, are expected to be minor and short-term after 

construction since monitoring would be accomplished by a minimal number of people and major right-ofway maintenance is not expected. 

PacifiCorp Power Electrical Distribution Line 

The electrical distribution line to the Milford Compressor Station would be installed on 

approximately 23 single wood pole structures on BLM land. No access road would be required for pole 

placement. All areas necessary for the construction and maintenance of the distribution line lie within the 

proposed 25-foot distribution line right-of-way. No toxic substances are proposed for use or storage, 

would be generated or used during any phase of construction, or used for operation. As the habitat that 

would be crossed by the electrical distribution line would be similar to that at the proposed Milford 

Compressor Station, impacts on wildlife, including big game and migratory birds, would be similar in 

nature to those discussed above. The main wildlife habitat impact would be on pronghorn crucial yearlong habitat, as construction of the distribution line would temporarily impact 3.4 acres of the habitat and 

permanently encumber approximately 1.7 acres of habitat. As the distribution line would be 

aboveground, it would be supported on a single wood pole designed to deter raptor perching. 

4.6 FISHERIES AND AQUATIC RESOURCES 

4.6.1 General Fisheries and Aquatic Resources 

The Apex Expansion Project would cross 21 waterbodies: 12 perennial, 7 intermittent, and 

2 ephemeral. According to the UDWR, six of the perennial streams crossed are capable of supporting a 

fishery, including one warmwater fishery (Jordan River) and five coldwater fisheries (East Canyon Creek, 

Sheep Canyon, Hardscrabble Creek, Holbrook Creek, and Mill Creek). The proposed Project area has no 

outlet to coastal regions and therefore supports no anadromous fish species or any species managed by the 

National Marine Fisheries Service under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act. There is no defined essential fish habitat crossed by the proposed Project. There are no fisheries at 

any of the proposed compressor station sites, staging areas, or construction support yards, or associated 

with the proposed access roads. 

Representative coldwater fishes that occur in streams crossed by the proposed Wasatch Loop 

include Bonneville cutthroat trout, brown trout, rainbow trout, sculpin, and mountain whitefish. 

Representative warmwater fishes include largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, channel catfish, black 

bullhead catfish, and Utah sucker. 

The USFS has designated Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) within watersheds 

where resources dependent on riparian areas receive primary emphasis. RHCAs include traditional 

riparian corridors, wetlands, intermittent streams, and other areas that help maintain the integrity of 

aquatic ecosystems. RHCAs are defined by the USFS as: 

 Category 1 – Fish-bearing streams; 

 Category 2 – Perennial non-fish-bearing streams; 
4-72

 Category 3 – Ponds, lakes, reservoirs, and wetlands greater than 1 acre; and 

 Category 4 – Seasonally flowing or intermittent streams, wetlands, less than 1 acre, 

landslides, and landslide-prone areas. 

Tables 4.6-1 and 4.6-2 contain impact estimates for RHCAs within USFS lands. 

TABLE 4.6-1 

Stream RHCAs Within USFS Lands 

Approximate 

Milepost 

Waterbody 

No. 

Waterbody 

Name 

Waterbody 

Type 

Crossed 

By 

RHCA 

Category 

RHCA 

Width 

(feet) 

Acreage of 

RHCA Crossed 

by Construction 

Workspace 

14.8 StMO-030 Unnamed 

tributary of 

Left Hand 

Fork 

Intermittent Skyline 

Drive 

Access 

Road 

4 100 0.00a

14.8 StMO-031 Unnamed 

tributary of 

Stone 

Creek 

Intermittent Skyline 

Drive 

Access 

Road 

4 100 0.00 a

17.6 StDA-014 Kenney 

Creek 

Intermittent Pipeline 4 100 0.29 

19.0 StDA-015 Mill Creek Perennial Pipeline 1 600 1.76 

19.0 StDA-016 Unnamed 

tributary of 

Mill Creek 

Intermittent Pipeline 4 100 Completely 

overlaps with 

Mill Creek 

19.0 StDA-016 Unnamed 

tributary of 

Mill Creek 

Intermittent Mueller 

Park 

Access 

Road 

4 100 Completely 

overlaps with 

Mill Creek 

____________ 

Note: 

a This access road would not be widened; therefore, there would not be a construction workspace overlap with the RHCA. 

TABLE 4.6-2 

Wetland RHCAs Within USFS Lands 

Wetland No. 

Wetland 

Type 

Area 

within 

Wetland 

Boundary 

(acres) 

Beginning

Milepost 

Ending 

Milepost 

RHCA 

Category 

RHCA 

Buffer 

(feet) 

Acreage of 

RHCA 

Crossed by 

Construction 

Workspace 

WMO-002A PSS 1.7 14.6 14.7 3 150 1.4 

WDA-101 PFO 3.0 18.9 19.1 3 150 2.4 

WDA-003A PSS 1.4 20.4 20.5 3 150 1.6 
 

4-73

Construction of the Project could result in impacts on waterbodies and fisheries from 

sedimentation and turbidity, habitat alteration, streambank erosion, fuel and chemical spills, water 

depletions, entrainment or entrapment due to water withdrawals or construction crossing operations, 

blasting, and operational pipeline failure. The extent of the impact on aquatic resources from pipeline 

construction would depend on the waterbody crossing method, the existing conditions at each crossing 

location, the restoration procedures and mitigation measures employed, and the timing of construction. 

Most short-term impacts on aquatic resources would be associated with the immediate crossing activity 

itself (e.g., trenching and laying of the pipe, and substrate sediment being re-deposited downstream) and 

would dissipate within a few days of the crossing being completed. Other short-term impacts could last 

from the initiation of construction up to 3 years after construction ends, as streambank restoration efforts 

become established. Long-term impacts on aquatic organisms and habitat would be expected to last for 

more than 3 years in areas where mature trees are cleared within riparian areas. Long-term degradation of 

aquatic habitat could also occur if stream contours are modified in the area of the crossing, which would 

effectively change the flow patterns and increase sedimentation downstream of the crossing location. 

Construction of aboveground facilities along the proposed pipeline route (MLV stations, pig 

launcher/pig receiver stations) would have similar effects to fisheries and aquatic resources as pipeline 

construction and are considered with those discussions. No waterbodies are in close proximity to any of 

the compressor stations requiring modifications or the proposed Milford Compressor Station site. 

Therefore, construction at these facilities would have no effect on aquatic resources. 

4.6.1.1 Sediment Loads and Turbidity 

As discussed in section 4.3.2, pipeline construction through waterbodies could increase sediment 

loads and turbidity during and following construction. Open-cut crossings could loosen soils and 

temporarily increase turbidity and sedimentation. The extent of the impact would depend on sediment 

loads, stream velocity, turbidity, bank composition, and sediment particle size. These factors would 

determine the density and downstream extent of sediment migration. Instream work could also introduce 

chemical and nutrient pollutants from sediments. Resuspension of deposited organic material and 

inorganic sediments could cause an increase in biological and chemical use of oxygen, potentially 

resulting in a decrease of dissolved oxygen concentrations in the affected area. Lower dissolved oxygen 

concentrations could cause temporary displacement of motile organisms, such as fish, and may kill nonmotile organisms within the affected area. In addition, soil-dwelling invertebrates would be impacted 

directly through movement of soil from one place to another, resulting in some mortality and 

displacement. 

Kern River has proposed to use several different waterbody crossing methods (e.g., flume, opencut, dam-and-pump, or conventional horizontal bore) depending on waterbody-specific conditions at the 

time of construction. Kern River would initially prepare all waterbody crossings, except for those 

proposed for conventional bore and dam-and-pump, as flume crossings (dry-ditch crossings). However, if 

water is not present at the time of construction, these locations would be crossed using conventional 

upland construction methods. In addition, if water is present but not flowing, Kern River would use an 

open-cut crossing method, as this should not impact fisheries resources. 

4.6.1.2 Timing of Construction 

The season in which construction takes place can influence the degree of impacts associated with 

instream activities, such as the amount of sedimentation. Construction during periods of sensitive fish 

activity (such as spawning and migration) could cause greater impacts on fish than construction during 

other periods. As stated in Kern River’s Procedures, instream construction within coldwater fisheries 

would generally occur from June 1 through September 30 and from June 1 through November 30 for 
4-74

coolwater and warmwater fisheries. Kern River is also proposing instream work on Bonneville cutthroat 

trout fisheries streams (East Canyon Creek, Sheep Canyon Creek, and Hardscrabble Creek) from July 15 

through February 28. Kern River’s proposed instream construction window for Bonneville cutthroat trout 

fisheries deviates from our Procedures, which states: “Unless expressly permitted...by the appropriate 

state agency in writing on a site specific basis, instream work, except that required to install or remove 

equipment bridges, must occur in coldwater fisheries from June 1 through September 30.” Kern River 

has received approval from the FWS and the UDWR for its proposed deviation in order to install 

equipment bridges at Sheep Canyon Creek and Hardscrabble Creek and cross East Canyon Creek outside 

of the FERC permitted timing window. 

4.6.1.3 Vegetation Removal and Streambank Erosion 

Erosion could be increased because of clearing of vegetation on the channel banks at waterbody 

crossings, which could destabilize and loosen soils and leave them susceptible to erosion during rainfall 

or snowmelt. Erosion and the associated increase in sediment loading could negatively impact benthic 

macroinvertebrates, which are an important component of stream ecosystems and a food resource for fish. 

During construction, properly installed and maintained sediment controls would prevent or 

minimize sedimentation of waterbodies from the adjacent construction right-of-way. Immediately 

following instream construction, Kern River would install temporary erosion controls (such as straw bales 

and silt fencing) to further minimize sediment from entering waterbodies until the streambanks are 

restored. Kern River would also use erosion control fabric and other mitigation measures to improve the 

probability of successful revegetation and bank stabilization. As outlined in Kern River’s Plan and 

Procedures, temporary sediment barriers would be installed immediately after initial disturbance as 

necessary and at the base of slopes greater than 5 percent where the base of the slope is less than 50 feet 

from a waterbody. 

At the request of USWR, USFS, and FWS, Kern River has agreed to leave riparian vegetation to 

a height of two feet within the bankfull channel and to a height of one foot within the 

floodplain/backwater area. Kern River would use on-site markers to identify these “no-clearing” zones. 

Although matting and bridging would suppress and damage vegetation at waterbody crossings, the roots 

of riparian vegetation left intact would support rapid regrowth of most species (excluding sagebrush) 

during the spring following construction. In riparian areas where woody vegetation exists, Kern River 

would replant these areas with woody vegetation to within 10 feet of the pipeline centerline. Erosion 

control matting or netting would also be used at streambanks following seeding in order to provide soil 

erosion protection until vegetation has been established. 

Spoil storage generally would be located at least 50 feet from the waterbody edge in the ATWS, 

in order to minimize the potential for erosion of soil back into the channel or burial of riparian vegetation. 

An exception to this would be at eight locations where Kern River is requesting a variance from this 

standard procedure and proposes to locate ATWS no closer than 10 feet from the waterbody edge (see 

section 4.3.2). 

Following construction, Kern River would implement its Plan, Procedures, and Reclamation Plan 

in order to minimize the risk of streambank erosion or erosion of soils from the construction areas into 

waterbodies. Should Kern River need to introduce riprap into jurisdictional waterbody channels for longterm stabilization of the channel, Kern River would submit an application for such work and be permitted 

by the COE prior to such activities. 
 

4-75

4.6.1.4 Contaminated Sediment Resuspension 

As discussed in section 4.3.2, three proposed perennial waterbody crossings could contain 

contaminated sediments. To avoid impacts and minimize the risk of contaminated sediment being 

suspended within the water column and potentially harming aquatic species, Kern River proposes to cross 

the Northwest Oil Drain (MP 26.8), Jordan River (MP 27.2), and City Drain (MP 27.5) via conventional 

horizontal bore. Therefore, impacts on aquatic organisms would not be expected from the crossings of 

these waterbodies. 

4.6.1.5 Entrainment and Entrapment 

Dam-and-pump crossing methods could result in some fish being trapped between the upstream 

and downstream dams of the waterbody crossing. Currently, Kern River has proposed to potentially cross 

two waterbodies by the dam-and-pump method (Holbrook Creek, at MP 16.5 and Mill Creek, at 

MP 19.0). The final decision on the crossing method would be determined by the Environmental 

Inspector at the time of construction, depending on site conditions. Kern River may also use dam-andpump methods temporarily during installation of flumes in flume crossings or during hydrotesting. To 

protect fish from entrainment during dam-and-pump operations, Kern River would screen the water 

intake. Kern River is currently coordinating with the resource agencies to determine the appropriate 

screen mesh size. To protect fish from entrapment during dam-and-pump operations, Kern River would 

capture any fish that become trapped between the upstream and downstream dam and transfer them 

downstream of the construction area. Kern River would have a qualified fish biologist onsite during fish 

salvage activities. In addition, Kern River has contacted the UDWR to determine whether or not any state 

permits would be required for these activities. 

Small fish and benthic macroinvertebrates could be entrained by water pumps during hydrostatic 

test water withdrawal. As discussed in section 4.3.2, Kern River has identified three surface water 

sources for hydrostatic testing and dust control. As stated in its Procedures, Kern River would screen 

intake hoses and regulate the rate of water withdrawal to prevent the entrainment of fish and other aquatic 

organisms. Kern River would acquire the necessary permits and approvals from state and federal 

agencies, and obtain or comply with water rights before withdrawing hydrostatic test water from any 

surface water or groundwater sources. 

4.6.1.6 Water Temperature 

Loss of riparian cover could reduce shading of the waterbody, thereby increasing the temperature 

of the water at that location. Both warmwater and coldwater fishes have upper limits of water 

temperatures that can be tolerated for reproduction and persistence. Since the right-of-way would be 

narrow and less than 100 feet of width would be cleared during construction at waterbody crossings, the 

effect of vegetation removal on water temperatures would be negligible and likely would result in no 

measureable change. Therefore, the proposed Project would not likely have any noticeable effect on 

water temperatures or aquatic species. 

4.6.1.7 Blasting 

Kern River identified several portions of the proposed construction right-of-way in Utah (MP 0.0 

to 19.0) where blasting may be required for pipeline installation. Blasting could cause injury to or death 

of aquatic species because of the shock waves in the area blasted, debris fall from the blast, or elevated 

turbidity from soil introduced to the channel from the blast. If blasting were required, Kern River would 

adhere to its Blasting Plan, which outlines conditions for blasting and protections for the environment 

during and following blasting. These protections include using a pre-blast scare charge to disperse fish 
4-76

and immediately removing any post-blast debris that could impede flow in a waterbody. Kern River 

would provide additional blasting details for specific crossings where blasting may be required, and 

would obtain a COE permit prior to construction. 

4.6.1.8 Hydrostatic Testing and Water Withdrawals 

As stated above, Kern River has identified three waterbodies, East Canyon Creek, East Canyon 

Reservoir, and the Jordan River, that would provide source water for hydrostatic testing and dust control 

for the Wasatch Loop. Kern River proposes to use municipal water sources for dust control at the 

existing and proposed compressor stations. All necessary federal, state, and local permits would be 

obtained prior to water withdrawal. Withdrawal of water could reduce streamflows, deplete oxygen, 

increase temperatures, change or reduce habitat availability for fish, or potentially entrain fish if flow 

reduction is sufficiently large in proportion to the flow of the creeks at the time of withdrawal. Water 

would be discharged to uplands in the watershed from which water was withdrawn; in stable, wellvegetated areas; and with a dissipating device for flow dispersion and sediment control barriers. Kern 

River would monitor return flows to ensure that no significant erosion occurs during test water discharge. 

No chemical additives would be used for hydrostatic testing. Additional information regarding 

hydrostatic testing can be found in section 4.3.2. 

Because whirling disease is known to be present in East Canyon Creek, Kern River proposes to 

return water to upland areas adjacent to the creek following testing to prevent the introduction of the 

disease-causing parasite to other waterbodies. Equipment used for hydrostatic testing within all 

waterbodies would be cleaned thoroughly with hot water (greater than 140 degrees Fahrenheit [°F]).

4.6.1.9 Fuel and Chemical Spills 

The potential exists for fuel spills from storage containers, from equipment working in or near 

streams, and from fuel transfers. In order to minimize the potential for accidental releases to waterbodies 

and thus potentially harming aquatic organisms, fuel would not be stored within 100 feet of a waterbody, 

and fueling of construction equipment would not be allowed within 100 feet of a waterbody or wetland 

unless specifically identified by Kern River and approved by the FERC and other regulatory agencies. 

The only exceptions to the 100-foot buffer would be for portable pumps used for the dam-and-pump 

crossing method and hydrostatic testing. Kern River would use temporary containment for the pumps, 

such as the use of straw bales or earthen berms with impervious liners. Kern River would perform 

frequent maintenance and inspection of pumps and containment structures in order to minimize the 

potential for a release, and would adhere to its SPCC Plan. As outlined in the SPCC Plan, vehicles used 

to transport lubricants and fuel would be equipped with an emergency response kit. 

4.6.2 Invasive Aquatic Species 

Two invasive aquatic species are documented as being present within the proposed Project area, 

the New Zealand mudsnail and the parasite that causes whirling disease (additional invasive aquatic 

species may be present). Both species are known to occur in East Canyon Creek/Reservoir. The 

mudsnail shares similar habitats and food resources as native benthic macroinvertebrates, which is 

ecologically problematic because it displaces native species. Furthermore, the mudsnail is not a suitable 

food resource for fish, so it is causing a secondary effect of reducing food availability for fish by 

displacing native benthic macroinvertebrates. Whirling disease targets trout and whitefish, causing 

deformities to the head and spine and eventually leading to a whirling behavior that is fatal. Fish that are 

infected with whirling disease may or may not show clinical signs of whirling disease depending on 

infection rates and age at infection. This also affects mortality rates. 
 

4-77

According to Kern River’s site-specific crossing plan, East Canyon Creek would be crossed by 

the flume method in the late fall/early winter 2010. This timing would isolate equipment from potential 

cross-contamination with other waterbodies, which would be crossed during the following year. All 

equipment used at the East Canyon Creek crossing (as well as all other stream and waterbody crossings) 

would be cleaned following construction, which involves removal of all mud and debris and then spraying 

the equipment with water greater than 140 degrees (F). 

With adherence to Kern River’s proposed equipment cleaning methods, there is minimal risk of 

introducing invasive species to new streams in the proposed Project area. 

4.6.3 Fisheries of Special Concern 

The Bonneville cutthroat trout is the only fish species of concern identified within the proposed 

Project area. While the northern leatherside chub and least chub occur in the general vicinity of the 

Project, the UDWR has confirmed that these species are not found in waterbodies that Kern River 

proposes to cross. The FWS completed a review of the status of the Bonneville cutthroat trout and 

determined that federal listing is not warranted at this time. However, the species continues to be 

protected by the State of Utah and the USFS. 

The Bonneville cutthroat trout could be present in three waterbodies that would be crossed by the 

Project: East Canyon Creek, Sheep Canyon Creek, and Hardscrabble Creek. The UDWR recommends 

avoidance of construction outside the work window, which is from July 15 to February 28; Kern River 

has proposed to cross East Canyon Creek between November and January (within UDWR’s work 

window) to take advantage of lower water flows and avoid Bonneville cutthroat trout spawning season. 

Additionally, the use of a dry crossing method would minimize sedimentation and turbidity within the 

waterbody during construction. As discussed above, Kern River has been granted approval by the 

UDWR and the FWS to install equipment bridges at Sheep Canyon Creek and Hardscrabble Creek and 

cross East Canyon Creek outside of the FERC permitted timing window. 

Pipeline construction could cause effects to the Bonneville cutthroat trout, as described in 

section 4.6.1. Kern River is consulting with the COE, FWS, and UDNR to ensure that its work plan 

includes all the necessary mitigations and protections. 

4.6.4 Operation Impacts 

Operation of the Apex Expansion Project is not anticipated to have any negative effects to 

fisheries. In the event that vegetation maintenance would be required along specific streambanks, impacts 

on fisheries would be minor. No aboveground facilities would be located adjacent to waterbodies; thus, 

no impacts would occur from aboveground facilities operations. 

The pipeline would be designed; installed, tested, and maintained such that the chance of a 

pipeline rupture would be extremely remote (see section 4.12). However, if once operational, a pipeline 

rupture were to occur beneath a waterbody crossing, natural gas would percolate through the soil and 

sediments underlying the waterbody, rise through the water column, and rapidly dissipate into the 

atmosphere. The potential outcome would depend on the volume of natural gas released and whether an 

ignition source is available. A pipeline break could result in soil, sediment, and debris being thrown from 

the area of the break, destruction of streambank vegetation, and, in the case of ignition, explosion, or fire 

potentially resulting in a severe impact on nearby fisheries and habitat. For a less severe release, natural 

gas would displace oxygen within the interstitial water of the sediments, resulting in temporary hypoxia 

within the sediments. As natural gas ascends through the water column, it would displace oxygen, 

possibly producing hypoxic conditions in the immediate vicinity of the release and for some distance 
4-78

downstream. Fish in the vicinity of a natural gas release could be impacted by temporary hypoxia. 

Considering the narrow width of the waterbodies that would be crossed along the proposed pipeline route 

and the relatively shallow depth of the crossing, most of the natural gas would be rapidly released to the 

atmosphere, and any change in water chemistry or quality would be minor. Because fish are mobile, most 

would have the ability to avoid or leave the areas with unfavorable environmental conditions resulting 

from such a release. We believe that the chance for a pipeline rupture to affect aquatic resources is 

extremely remote. 

Overall, construction impacts on fisheries would be temporary and minor due to the relatively 

small area in which each waterbody would be affected. Kern River’s intention to use dry-ditch crossing 

methods at waterbodies, unless they are dry at the time of crossing, would further reduce impacts on 

fisheries resources. In addition, compliance with timing restriction windows, our recommendation, and 

implementation of Kern River’s Procedures, we believe that impacts on fishery resources would be 

minimized during construction. Direct impacts on fisheries and aquatic resources are expected to be 

minor and short-term. No significant impacts on fisheries resource would be anticipated as a result of 

Project operations. 

4.6.4.1 PacifiCorp Electrical Distribution Line Impacts 

The channels of the Beaver River and Trans River Canal proposed to be crossed by the 7.2 kV 

distribution line are ephemeral and narrow. To mitigate impacts, the BLM would require setbacks from 

the river and canal banks for the placement of pole structures. These distances have not yet been 

determined. Upon determining setback pole locations, PacifiCorp would submit a site-specific 

engineering drawing of the pole setbacks and spacing for the administrative record. Therefore, impacts 

on the Beaver River and Trans River Canal would not be expected. 

4.7 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND OTHER SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

Special status species are those species for which state or federal agencies afford an additional 

level of protection by law, regulation, or policy. Included in this category are species federally listed as 

endangered or threatened, are considered as candidates for such listing by the FWS, or are petitioned for 

listing under the ESA; species managed by the BLM or USFS to prevent listing under the ESA; and those 

species that are designated as Utah state species of concern or receive special management considerations. 

In accordance with the ESA the FWS lists certain species as endangered, threatened, candidate, or 

petitioned, and the FWS regulates and permits actions that occur in areas where listed-species or their 

critical habitats occur. Section 7 of the ESA requires each federal agency to ensure that any action 

authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency does not jeopardize the continued existence of federally 

listed threatened or endangered species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of the 

designated critical habitat for any federally listed species. The FERC, as lead agency in the review of the 

proposed Project, is required to consult with the FWS to determine whether federally listed species or 

their designated critical habitat, may occur in the proposed Project area and to determine the proposed 

action’s potential effects to these species and critical habitats. For actions involving major construction 

activities with the potential to affect listed species or designated critical habitats, the FERC must report its 

findings to the FWS in a BA. 

Kern River, as the non-federal representative to the FERC, conducted informal consultation with 

FWS offices in Wyoming and Utah. In addition, Kern River consulted with appropriate USFS, BLM, and 

state agencies possessing expertise regarding sensitive species, and reviewed threatened and endangered 

species-related database information. 
 

4-79

We have reviewed the information submitted by Kern River, performed our own independent 

analysis, and consulted directly with the FWS. Our analysis of the potential for Project-related impacts 

on federally listed species and their designated critical habitats is provided in this EIS. Table 4.7.1-1 lists 

the species with the federal status that could occur in the Project area along with any ESA determinations 

of effect. Those species cross-listed with state or USFS status are also noted. Additionally, the BGEPA 

recently had protections clarified for the bald and golden eagles (FWS 2009), and although the bald eagle 

was delisted from the ESA, both species could require consultation under the BGEPA and possibly 

permitting discussions with the FWS (see section 4.5.4). 

TABLE 4.7.1-1 

Federally Listed, Candidate, and Petitioned Species Potentially Occurring in the Proposed 

Apex Expansion Project Area 

Species 

Federal 

Statusa State Statusb USFS Statusc

County 

(Portion of Potential 

Range Crossed by 

the Proposed Project) Determination 

Birds 

Greater sagegrouse 

(Centrocercus 

urophasianus) 

C SPC X Morgan, Salt Lake, and 

Beaver 

Not applicabled

Yellow-billed 

cuckoo 

(Coccyzus 

americanus) 

C SESA,SPC  Morgan, Davis, and Salt 

Lake 

Not applicabled

Mammals 

Pygmy rabbit 

(Brachylagus 

idahoensis) 

P Salt Lake and Beaver Not applicabled

Utah prairie dog 

(Cynomys 

parvidens) 

T S-ESA Beaver May affect, not likely to 

adversely affect 

Amphibian 

Northern 

leopard frog 

(Rana pipiens) 

P Morgan, Davis, and Salt 

Lake 

Not applicabled

Vascular Plant 

Ute ladies’-

tresses 

(Spiranthes 

diluvialis) 

T S-ESA Salt Lake May affect, not likely to 

adversely affect 

____________ 

Notes: 

a E= Endangered; T=Threatened; C=Candidate; P=Petitioned 

b SPC = Species of Concern; S-ESA= State sensitive because species is listed federally or a federal candidate. 

c

 X = Included on USFS listing of sensitive species within the UWCNF. 

d

 Petitioned and candidate species are not protected by the ESA and do not require official ESA determinations. 
4-80

To comply with Section 7 of the ESA, we requested that the FWS consider the draft EIS as our 

official BA for the proposed Project. On March 26, 2010 we requested concurrence with the FWS on our 

determinations for the Utah prairie dog and the Ute ladies’-tresses. On April 27, 2010, the FWS 

concurred with our determinations of that the proposed Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely 

affect either species with the understanding that the FERC would re-initiate Section 7 consultation if 

either species is found in the Project area during surveys. No Utah prairie dogs were found during Kern 

River’s May 2010 surveys. In addition, Kern River proposed to reroute the pipeline route to avoid 

potential habitat for the Ute ladies’-tresses. Therefore, it is not necessary to re-initiate Section 7 

consultation and Section 7 consultation is complete for the proposed Project. 

Prior to initiation of field surveys, the USFS, BLM, and UDWR were consulted to identify 

sensitive species that could occur within the proposed Project area. State of Utah and USFS species that 

could occur or are found within the proposed Project vicinity are shown in table 4.7.2-1 and analyzed in 

greater detail in section 4.7.2. 

4.7.1 Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Petitioned Species 

4.7.1.1 Greater Sage-grouse 

The greater sage-grouse was petitioned for ESA listing in 2002 and in 2003. Although the 

species was not found to warrant listing under the original petition, subsequent legal challenges led to 

additional review, and on March 5, 2010 the FWS determined that the species warrants listing but that 

listing is currently precluded due to the need to list higher priority species first. The greater sage-grouse 

is now considered a candidate species under the ESA and the individual states will continue to be 

responsible for managing the species. BLM, under an Instruction Memorandum dated March 5, 2010, 

disclosed its intent to develop a range-wide map of “priority” habitat, or habitat with the highest 

conservation value relative to maintaining sustainable sage-grouse populations, that would be used to 

ensure development does not occur to an unreasonable extent in those habitats. The greater sage-grouse 

is considered a wildlife species of concern in the State of Utah and is listed as a Utah and BLM sensitive 

species. It is found in Morgan, Salt Lake, and Beaver Counties, but is not known to occur in Davis 

County. 

The greater sage-grouse generally moves through varying habitat types through the year (Braun et 

al. 2001, Connelly et al. 2004). In the spring (March through mid-May), lek sites are selected for 

courtship and breeding in open areas surrounded by sagebrush. Following courtship, greater sage-grouse 

use nesting habitat from April through June with moderate sagebrush cover of varying heights with 

grasses and forbs. Nesting generally occurs between 0.6 and 3.9 miles from the nearest lek, although 

females have been known to nest more than 12 miles away. Brood-rearing habitat changes from the early 

season (mid-May through July), when greater sage-grouse use open sagebrush habitat, to the late season 

(July through November), when the preferred habitat is riparian meadows and lush grasslands of 

herbaceous vegetation surrounded by sagebrush. Winter habitat is in sagebrush areas where snow cover 

leaves about 1 foot of sagebrush above the snow line, and is occupied from November through February 

(Hupp and Braun 1989, UDWR 2009). FWS has indicated that a 4-mile buffer must be established 

between a lek and the edge of any construction-related disturbance during the breeding season. 

Greater sage-grouse crucial wintering and brooding habitat occurs from MP 0.0 to 2.5, 3.8 to 4.6, 

and 11.5 to 11.8 (totaling 3.6 miles of intersection, of which all but 0.3 mile would be collocated with an 

existing right-of-way). It is not yet known if the BLM will classify any or all of this range to be priority 

habitat for the greater sage-grouse. Sagebrush habitat also occurs from MP 5.7 to 6.2, 6.3 to 6.7, 10.7 to 

10.8, 10.9 to 11.0, 14.7 to 15.0, 17.2 to 17.3, and 17.6 to 17.7, although the habitat includes slopes that 

are too steep to support ordinary greater sage-grouse use. There are five known active or historical leks 
 

4-81

located within 5 miles of the proposed Project area, with combined buffer zones that intersect the first 

5 miles of the pipeline route. The closest leks occur less than 1 mile from the proposed Project centerline. 

Brooding habitat has also been identified approximately 0.6 mile from the proposed location of the 

Milford Compressor Station; however, the sagebrush habitat within the footprint of the Milford site has 

been degraded by cattle grazing and does not provide suitable habitat for sage-grouse. A total of 

14 existing access roads would be used and/or improved within wintering and brooding habitat; 

improvements to these roads would result in 2.3 acres of temporary impact and 1.0 acre of permanent 

impact on the areas immediately adjacent (up to 2 feet on either side) to the existing roads. 

Kern River conducted surveys along areas of Great Basin sagebrush (MP 0.0 to 2.5, 3.8 to 4.6, 

and 11.5 to 11.8) and other sagebrush communities along the proposed route that were present at higher 

elevations on steeper slopes (MP 5.7 to 6.2, 6.3 to 6.7, 10.7 to 10.8, and 10.9 to 11.0). Although 

sagebrush also occurs from MP 14.7 to 15.0, 17.2 to 17.3, and 17.6 to 17.7, these areas were not surveyed 

due to elevations over 8,000 feet where sagebrush habitat included isolated patches under deep snowpack. 

Survey protocols from the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Management Plan were utilized. Surveys were 

generally conducted on foot between March and April 2010. The surveyor walked the centerline of the 

proposed route, stopping every 0.5 mile to listen for the sounds of breeding grouse for five minutes; the 

effective survey corridor was approximately 2 miles wide. Access roads that were more than 0.5 mile 

from the centerline were surveyed separately. The survey verified the presence of the five historic leks, 

two of which were active, but did not determine the presence of any new leks. The active leks are located 

within approximately 1 mile of the proposed pipeline centerline. 

Construction of the pipeline, use of access roads and ATWSs, and permanent operational 

facilities and associated traffic could disrupt the greater sage-grouse during the non-breeding and 

breeding seasons. Traffic to and from the construction areas and pipeline construction in the right-of-way 

could disrupt courtship and breeding behavior, as well as use of brood-rearing habitat depending on the 

location and timing of Project activities. Greater sage-grouse nest abandonment could occur if 

construction activity occurs near or in nesting or brood-rearing habitat. Individuals could be more widely 

dispersed, reducing courtship success, and Project traffic could cause direct mortality from collision with 

birds. In addition, blasting is likely to occur between MP 3.8 and 4.6, and is currently expected take place 

during fall 2010. If blasting were required between MP 0.0 and 4.6 from January 1 and August 31, Kern 

River would consult with FWS and UDWR to determine the appropriate mitigation prior to initiating 

blasting. Regardless of the season, Kern River would employ a qualified biologist to survey the blasting 

zone immediately prior to any blasting between MP 0.0 and 4.6. The biological monitor would clear the 

area of any individual sage-grouse prior to blasting, minimizing direct impacts. No blasting is anticipated 

in other areas of crucial winter or brood-rearing sage-grouse habitat. 

Long-term habitat fragmentation and loss could occur with installation of the pipeline, facilities, 

and access roads located in greater sage-grouse habitat. Eventually, sagebrush should recolonize most of 

the construction right-of-way so habitat could be restored where vegetation maintenance does not occur. 

However, the potential for periodic maintenance of a 20-foot-wide strip within the permanent right-ofway through sagebrush habitat could lead to disruption of greater sage-grouse movements and potentially 

leave individuals more susceptible to predation in the open areas. Kern River has agreed to compensatory 

mitigation for temporarily loss and fragmentation of sagebrush habitats. 

Kern River has proposed to construct through the sagebrush habitat between MP 0.0 and 5.5 

during the late fall/early winter of 2010 to avoid impacts on sage-grouse during the breeding season. In 

addition, Kern River has collocated the proposed pipeline where possible and no new aboveground 

facilities or new access roads would be placed within winter or brooding habitat, although some existing 

access roads within these habitats would be improved. Kern River would re-commence construction at 

MP 5.5 in spring 2011. Workspaces at MP 5.5 would be within a 4-mile lek buffer; however, USFS, 
4-82

USFWS, and UDWR concurred that the encroachment was acceptable due to the topography and features 

separating the lek from active construction. Kern River has also committed to the following measures 

which would further minimize impacts on greater sage-grouse: 

 requiring a qualified Environmental Inspector, with the ability to halt active construction, to 

be on-site during all construction activities within active sage grouse breeding, nesting, and 

brooding areas; 

 staking or flagging construction workspace limits, ATWS locations, wetland and waterbody 

crossings, and sensitive resource areas prior to clearing operations; 

 minimizing blade work within the right-of-way, and, where practical, crushing vegetation inplace; 

 scalping or blading previously undisturbed portions of the right-of-way such that root systems 

remain intact; 

 limiting vehicle traffic to approved areas such as the construction right-of-way and access 

roads; 

 removing construction-related materials from the Project area as soon as practical following 

installation of the pipeline and backfilling; 

 constructing water bars, according to USFS standards, on slopes and in areas with erodible 

soils to minimize erosion; 

 decompacting any compacted soils, as identified by the Environmental Inspector, to a 

minimum of 6-inches in non-agricultural areas; and 

 replanting all Great Basin sagebrush habitats with seed mixtures that are compatible with the 

Utah’s Standards and Guidelines for Healthy Rangelands (BLM 1997). 

Due to the relatively high presence of greater sage-grouse within the Project area, individual 

sage-grouse would likely be affected by construction of the Project. In addition, the USFS has indicated 

that the sage-grouse population in the East Canyon WMA is relatively isolated geographically, and that 

construction activities in the area could result in localized population declines. However, given the small 

area of suitable habitat that would be disturbed, the extent of collocation through that habitat, and Kern 

River’s proposed measures, we conclude that population-level effects are unlikely and that construction 

and operation of the proposed Project would not lead to a trend toward federal listing. 

4.7.1.2 Yellow-billed Cuckoo 

The western population of the yellow-billed cuckoo is a federal candidate species, and because of 

this federal designation it also is a State of Utah sensitive species. The species inhabits large tracts of 

deciduous forested wetland and floodplain habitats with a dense scrub understory. The western 

population of the yellow-billed cuckoo is found sporadically and in localized areas with suitable habitat in 

Utah, and is threatened by habitat fragmentation. If adult yellow-billed cuckoos were present in or near 

the Project area during construction, they could be displaced by noise or ground-disturbing activities. 

They would likely return to the area following construction. Breeding occurs from mid-June through 

July. During the breeding season, the potential exists for yellow-billed cuckoos to abandon nests, causing 

the loss of eggs or young, if they are located near construction activities. 

In the proposed Project area, potentially suitable habitat was originally identified at MPs 1.2, 5.4, 

10.1, 11.8, 16.5, 19.0, and 20.6. Of these areas of potential habitat, all but the location at MP 19.0 would 

be collocated with existing rights-of-way, minimizing the chance for habitat fragmentation. To verify the 
 

4-83

presence or absence of the species, in June 2009, Kern River used audio vocalizations to survey for the 

yellow-billed cuckoo at the five noted locations but did not observe or infer their presence. In addition, 

the surveys indicated that the current riparian habitat composition found throughout the survey area was 

not suitable for the specific habitat needs of the species. Based on the results of the 2009 surveys, FWS, 

USFS, and UDWR determined that further surveys for this species are not warranted. 

Based on the habitat needs of the species and the lack of observation during surveys, we believe 

that although the proposed Project may potentially have an impact on individual yellow-billed cuckoos or 

their habitat, no population-level effects are anticipated and the Project would not lead to a trend toward 

federal listing. 

4.7.1.3 Pygmy Rabbit 

The pygmy rabbit is a federally petitioned species under the ESA and is a State of Utah sensitive 

species. The FWS review of the pygmy rabbit is on-going. If FWS determines that the species warrants 

listing under the ESA, and if evidence of the pygmy rabbit is found within the proposed Project area at 

any time, then formal consultation with the FWS and a BO would be required. Like the greater sagegrouse, the pygmy rabbit is a sagebrush-obligate species. The pygmy rabbit uses burrows for refuge and 

breeding and generally stays within 100 feet of their burrows, although they may roam farther. Breeding 

occurs from February to May (Keinath and McGee 2004). 

Construction activities could cause direct mortality to pygmy rabbits if an individual or an 

occupied burrow is within the trenching area. Additionally, burrows could be covered during grounddisturbing activities. Pygmy rabbits are highly mobile and would likely leave areas during surface 

activities and therefore are unlikely to suffer from traffic-induced injury or mortality. If present, shortterm impacts on pygmy rabbit use of sagebrush areas near Project construction may occur; however, 

individuals would likely return following restoration. As discussed in section 4.7.1.1, blasting would 

likely take place within sagebrush habitat between MP 3.8 and 4.6; however, as discussed below surveys 

did not indicate the presence of pygmy rabbits along the proposed route, therefore it is unlikely that 

blasting through that range would affect the species. 

Although the Utah Natural Heritage Database has indicated that no current or historical burrows 

are known within 5 miles of the proposed Project, suitable habitat for this species is found along the 

proposed right-of-way from MP 0.0 to 2.5, 3.8 to 4.6, and 11.5 to 11.8, totaling 3.6 miles. Additionally, 

suitable habitat is present at the proposed Milford Compressor Station site. As such, Kern River 

conducted pygmy rabbit surveys in the spring of 2010 using the UDWR field survey protocols (UDWR 

2004). Although multiple burrows were encountered, the size of the burrows and the presence or 

indicators of other burrowing animals indicated that those burrows belonged to foxes, jackrabbits, 

badgers, and coyotes. In addition, suitable soils for pygmy rabbit burrows include deep, loose soils; soils 

in the surveyed area were generally dense, rocky soils although shallow soils and steep slopes were also 

encountered. The Milford Compressor Station was not specifically surveyed for the pygmy rabbit; 

however, it was surveyed for the Utah prairie dog, another burrowing species. The only burrows 

encountered within 0.5 mile of the Milford Compressor Station included Piute ground squirrel and a 

larger predator, possibly a kit fox, badger, or coyote. 

We believe that the proposed Project may have an impact on individual pygmy rabbits and their 

habitat; however, because of the small area and unsuitable soil characteristics of potentially suitable 

habitat that would be disturbed by the Project and the lack of pygmy rabbits or their burrows encountered 

during surveys, no population-level effects would occur and the Project would not lead to a trend toward 

federal listing. 
4-84

4.7.1.4 Utah Prairie Dog 

The Utah prairie dog is an ESA listed threatened species that is found in low-slope areas in desert 

scrub regions in the southwestern quarter of Utah. The proposed Milford Compressor Station site and 

associated electrical distribution line are in proximity to areas containing BLM-identified Utah prairie dog 

habitat. In addition, suitable habitat is present at the compressor station site. Preliminary field surveys 

did not identify any burrows at the compressor station site, although these were not species-specific 

surveys. Therefore, Kern River conducted Utah prairie dog surveys during prairie dog active season in 

spring 2010. Surveys were conducted in accordance with the Utah Prairie Dog Occupancy and Habitat 

Survey Protocol for Federal Section 7 Consultations and New HCPs (FWS 2010) and in coordination 

with the BLM. No Utah prairie dogs or their burrows were encountered in or around the proposed or 

alternative location for the Milford Compressor Station. The only burrows encountered included those of 

the Piute ground squirrel and a larger unidentified predator. 

In the unlikely event that the species is encountered at a later point in time, the FERC would reopen Section 7 consultation with the FWS to develop suitable mitigation and minimization measures, 

such as the spatial and temporal buffers around active colonies noted in FWS’s Biological Opinion for 

Utah Resource Management Plans (FWS 2007). However, based on the lack of burrows on the proposed 

site, we believe that the Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the Utah prairie dog. In a 

letter dated April 27, 2010, the FWS concurred with our determination. 

4.7.1.5 Northern Leopard Frog 

The northern leopard frog, a petitioned species, is currently under a 12-month review by the FWS 

to determine whether listing under the ESA is warranted. The northern leopard frog occurs in wellvegetated slow-moving aquatic areas, including streams where emergent vegetation is present along the 

margins. Potentially suitable breeding habitat is present for the northern leopard frog at MP 0.5, 1.2, 5.2, 

5.4, 6.3, 10.1, 11.8, 16.5, 19.0 (two discrete habitats), 20.6, and 27.0. Each of these locations was 

scheduled for three separate surveys between May and June 2010 as peak breeding occurs in mid-May; 

however, surveys at MP 5.4 and 6.3 were only surveyed once due to a lack of suitable breeding habitat. 

In addition, the habitats at MP 10.1, 11.8, 19.0 (first discrete location), and 20.6 were precluded from 

three full survey events due to high flood conditions and will be resurveyed when flood conditions 

subside. Based on the surveys conducted, Kern River identified six locations as containing suitable 

breeding habitat, including the habitats at MP 1.2, 5.2, 10.1, 11.8, 19.0, and 20.6. The habitats at MP 0.5, 

19.0 (second discrete location), and 27.0 contained marginal breeding habitat and the remaining habitats 

likely were unsuitable for breeding. Kern River encountered one adult male northern leopard frog located 

at MP 11.8 (Hardscrabble Creek) during the 2010 surveys as well as one northern leopard frog 

approximately 500 feet north of MP 11.8 during the 2009 field surveys. 

As individual frogs could be run over or buried by construction equipment, Kern River consulted 

with UDWR, FWS, BLM, and USFS to determine appropriate mitigation to minimize impacts to this 

species. Based on this consultation, Kern River has proposed to conduct pre-construction clearance 

surveys to clear the right-of-way of individuals at MP 11.8. A qualified biologist would survey the 

wetland/riparian habitat within the construction footprint and would physically remove any individuals 

encountered. Clearance surveys would be conducted each morning that construction or restoration 

activities are to occur at MP 11.8 and no more than four hours prior to ground disturbance (not including 

placement or erosion control). If individual northern leopard frogs, or other special status frogs, are found 

during subsequent surveys Kern River would coordinate with the applicable agencies and would seek to 

implement similar mitigation in other occupied habitats; therefore, we recommend that: 
 

4-85

 Prior to construction, Kern River file the results of the outstanding amphibian surveys 

and update the Biological Resources Mitigation Plan including any additional 

mitigation measures developed in consultation with UDWR, FWS, BLM, and USFS, as 

applicable. 

Kern River also proposes to use best management practices to minimize impacts on the northern 

leopard frog, including clearing vegetation during the winter in order to avoid direct impacts on breeding 

frogs and leaving 1 to 2 feet of vegetative growth in riparian areas to promote bank stability during the 

spring flood season. Kern River’s Reclamation Plan also would ensure the revegetation of wetland areas 

following construction. 

We believe that the proposed Project could have a negative impact on individual leopard frogs or 

their habitat; however, because of the small area of suitable habitat that would be disturbed, the proposed 

pre-construction clearance surveys, and our recommendation to finalize additional surveys and mitigation 

prior to construction, we do not anticipate any population-level effects and the Project would not likely 

lead to a trend toward federal listing of the northern leopard frog. 

4.7.1.6 Ute Ladies’-tresses 

The Ute ladies’-tresses is an ESA-listed threatened plant that is found in riparian edges, seeps, 

and lake shores. Within Utah, the species is known to occur in Daggett, Duchesne, Garfield, Salt Lake, 

Tooele, Uintah, Utah, Wayne, Wasatch, and Weber Counties (UDWR 2010). The Wasatch Loop would 

cross Salt Lake County and the Elberta Compressor Station would be located in Utah County, although it 

would not be improved outside of the existing facility boundaries. The majority of the riparian and 

wetland habitat along the proposed Project is lacking in the gravel deposits and alluvial geomorphology 

required by this species although potential habitat for Ute ladies’-tresses was identified in Morgan County 

near MP 0.2 and 11.6. Kern River conducted surveys within the potential habitat in May and June 2009 

and did not identify any Ute ladies’-tresses or suitable habitat; however, as the flower generally blooms 

between late July and August, it is possible that the species was not in bloom during the previous surveys 

and was therefore not identified (UDWR 2010). In addition, the USFS has indicated that potential habitat 

is present in the area. However, Kern River has stated that it would purposely avoid potential habitat for 

the species, thereby precluding the need for additional surveys. 

Because of the absence of Ute Ladies’-tresses during previous surveys, the Project area lacking 

the gravel deposits and alluvial geomorphology that the Ute ladies’-tresses requires, and Kern River’s 

commitment to avoiding potential habitat, we believe that construction and operation of the proposed 

Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the Ute ladies’-tresses. In a letter dated April 27, 

2010, the FWS concurred with our determination. 

4.7.2 Other Special Status Species 

The State of Utah has identified sensitive species for management and protection in order to 

avoid the need for a species to be federally listed under the ESA. By rule, wildlife species that are 

federally listed, candidates for federal listing, or for which a conservation agreement is in place 

automatically qualify as Utah Sensitive Species. Additional species on the Utah Sensitive Species list, 

“wildlife species of concern,” are those species for which there is credible scientific evidence to 

substantiate a threat to continued population viability. It is anticipated that wildlife species of concern 

designations will identify species for which conservation actions are needed, and that timely and 

appropriate conservation actions implemented on their behalf will preclude the need to list these species 

under the provisions of the ESA. 
4-86

The State of Utah has identified “tiers” for each of their sensitive species. Utah Tier I species are 

federally threatened, endangered, or candidate species under the ESA, or have a conservation agreement 

in place. Tier II species are Utah’s wildlife species of concern, which the UDWR manages to prevent 

from being federally listed. Utah Tier III species are those species that: (a) have need for more 

information; (b) indicate a habitat at risk; (c) demonstrate a marked decline in status; or (d) are facing an 

immediate threat. By Instruction Memorandum 2007-078, the Utah BLM adopts the existing UDWR 

Utah Sensitive Species List. 

The USFS has identified sensitive species on USFS lands and manages their lands in order to 

increase protections for these species to avoid listing under the ESA. The UWCNF has further identified 

management indicator species (MIS) as required by the National Forest Management Act. An MIS is a 

species that is “selected because its population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management 

activities” (CFR 219.19(a)(1). The Forest Plan of the UWCNF identified the goshawk, snowshoe hare, 

beaver, and Bonneville cutthroat trout as management indicator species (USDA Forest Service 2003b:J4-

J5). Monitoring of MIS populations is conducted according to the monitoring protocols established in the 

Forest Plan. Kern River reviewed and discussed the list of USFS sensitive species with the USFS in order 

to identify species that were recommended for avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures. USFS 

indicated that the beaver and Bonneville cutthroat trout do not occur within the Project area within the 

UWCNF although habitat suitable for goshawks and snowshoe hares occurs in the Project area. UWCNF 

staff have indicated that population trends for both goshawks and snowshoe hares were found to be static 

in recent monitoring reports; however, as the northern goshawk is considered under a Conservation 

Agreement and is a Utah Tier 1 species, it is discussed further below. Since the snowshoe hare is a 

common species it is not specifically discussed; although, impacts to it would be similar to those 

discussed for general wildlife populations in section 4.5. 

State of Utah, BLM (in adopting the State of Utah’s Sensitive Species List), and USFS sensitive 

species that could potentially occur or are known to occur within the proposed Project area are 

summarized in table 4.7.2-1. Species noted to be of particular concern to the USFS, BLM, and the State 

of Utah are discussed further below. Migratory bird species, including the burrowing owl and bald and 

golden eagles, are discussed in more detail in section 4.5. 

Northern goshawk is a Forest Service Intermountain Region Sensitive Species, a UWCNF MIS, 

and a species under a Conservation Agreement between the USFS and the FWS. Protection of the 

northern goshawk is of special concern to the USFS and the UWCNF contains approximately 511,649 

acres of goshawk habitat. Field surveys conducted in 2009 between MP 11.5 and 15.0 identified the 

presence of four northern goshawks, but did not identify specific nests; however, the USFS indicates that 

because the goshawks responded to broadcast calls, nests may have been present and active. Survey of 

potential habitat between MP 17.3 and 17.4 did not identify any individuals or nests. In 2010, Kern River 

conducted both general aerial raptor surveys along the entire route in April and broadcast acoustical 

surveys in June at specific locations in suitable habitat within the UWCNF management boundaries. The 

aerial raptor surveys conducted in April 2010 did not result in observations of northern goshawks or their 

nests. Although two inactive, snow-covered nests within 0.5-mile of the Project showed characteristics of 

northern goshawk nests, these nests were resurveyed in June 2010 and were determined to be inactive 

without recently placed nest materials. Broadcast acoustical surveys were conducted between MP 14.0 

and 15.5, between MP 16.5 and 17.0, and along Skyline Drive in June 2010 to further identify nests and 

individuals in the area. Only one individual was observed during these observations, which included an 

adult female approaching the surveyor and emitting alarm calls in response to the broadcasts. The 

surveyors were unable to identify a nest, but as a vocal approach indicates nest presence within 650 feet, a 

nest was assumed to be present at that location. 

 
4-87

TABLE 4.7.2-1 

State of Utah and USFS Sensitive Species Potentially Occurring within the Proposed Apex Expansion P

Common Name 

(Scientific Name) 

BLM and 

Utah State 

Ranka

Utah Tier 

Levelb

U.S. Forest Service 

Listc Comments 

Birds Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus) 

SPC II - Inhabits wet meadows and grasslands during summ

suitable habitat from MP 0.0 to 2.5. 

Boreal owl (Aegolius funereus) 

SPC III X Occurs in northern coniferous and mixed deciduous 

forests of North America. In Utah, species occurs in region. 

Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) 

SPC II - Occurs in open shortgrass and low-density sagebrus

from MP 0.0 to 2.5. No burrowing owls or their burro

during species-specific surveys in April 2010. 

Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) 

SPC II - Nests and hunts in large-tract low-disturbance sageb

occur from MP 0.0 to 2.5. Raptor nest surveys condencountered an active nest for an unspecified Buteo 

Flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus) 

- - X Occupies coniferous forests with aspen or oaks and 

suitable habitat from MP 10.4 to 10.7, 12.0 to 14.7, a

for raptors planned for 2010. 

Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) 

SPC II - Forages and breeds in grasslands and open sagebru

from MP 0.0 to 2.5 and 23.7 to 25.7. 

Great gray owl (Strix nebulosa) 

- - X Boreal forest and western mountains. Considered a 

Lewis's woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) 

SPC II - Nests in open Ponderosa pine stands and in riparian 

oak woodlands. Species observed in 2009 at MP 0.MPs 0.0, 4.6 to 5.7, along access roads, and at cree

Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) 

SPC II - Breeding range in open grasslands or low-density sa

sometimes agricultural fields; suitable habitat from M25.7. 
4-88

TABLE 4.7.2-1 (continued) 

State of Utah and USFS Sensitive Species Potentially Occurring within the Proposed Apex Expansion P

Common Name 

(Scientific Name) 

BLM and 

Utah State 

Ranka

Utah Tier 

Levelb

U.S. Forest Service 

Listc Comments 

Birds (continued) Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) 

CS I X-MIS Primarily found in coniferous forests and at edges wi

nests in forested areas; suitable habitat from MP 12.roads, and at creek crossings. Raptor surveys in Apspecies presence; however, acoustical surveys indicactive nest within the UWCNF. 

Sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus) 

SPC II X Occupies open grasslands and sagebrush habitat, s

coniferous forests; breeding and winter habitat from 

Short-eared owl (Asio flammeus) 

SPC II - Occurs in grasslands and sagebrush communities th

habitat from MP 0.0 to 2.5 and 23.7 to 25.7. Surveys 

2010. 

Three-toed woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus) 

SPC II X-MIS Nests and forages in coniferous montane forests and 

areas year-round; potentially suitable habitat from Malong access roads and at creek crossings. 

Mammals American pika (Ochotona princeps) 

SPC III - Inhabits rocky slopes; could be present suitable habi

Bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) 

SPC III X Prefer open habitats with adjacent steep rocky areas

cliffs, mountaintops, and river benches; habitat occu

Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) 

T I X Found in high elevation, deep snow areas; historic h

Mountains. 

Fisher (Martes pennanti) 

- - X Occurs in dense forest and avoids open areas; habit

North American wolverine (Gulo gulo) 

SPC III X May still be present in parts of the Wasatch and Uint

potentially extirpated from the state.
4-89

TABLE 4.7.2-1 (continued) 

State of Utah and USFS Sensitive Species Potentially Occurring within the Proposed Apex Expansion P

Common Name 

(Scientific Name) 

BLM and 

Utah State 

Ranka

Utah Tier 

Levelb

U.S. Forest Service 

Listc Comments 

Mammals (continued) Northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus) 

SPC III - Inhabits coniferous forests; could be present in suita

to 10.7, 12.0 to 14.7, and 16.4 to 17.2. 

Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum) 

SPC II X Occurs in low desert, scrub-shrub, and mountain con

roosts in caves; could forage in Project area, but no 

Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) 

SPC II X Inhabits coniferous and mixed forests, deserts, grass

year-round; roosts in caves; could forage in potentia17.0, but no roosting habitat. 

Amphibians Western boreal toad (Bufo boreas) 

SPC II X Breeds in sandy-bottomed slow-water wetlands and 

forage in grasslands and forests. Multiple areas of pspecies was not encountered during amphibian surv

Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris) 

CS I X Occurs and breeds in marshes, pond edges with em

slow-moving coldwater streams, and springs. Multiphabitat. This species was not encountered during amspring 2010. 

Reptiles Smooth greensnake (Liochlorophis vernalis) 

SPC II - Occurs in wet meadows, marshes, riparian areas, an

habitat from MP 0.0 to 14.9 and 27.3 to 28.0. 

Fish Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus) 

CS I X-MIS Historically occupied streams and a few lakes in the 

of Northern and Eastern Utah. Most populations are drainages. 
4-90

TABLE 4.7.2-1 (continued) 

State of Utah and USFS Sensitive Species Potentially Occurring within the Proposed Apex Expansion P

Common Name 

(Scientific Name) 

BLM and 

Utah State 

Ranka

Utah Tier 

Levelb

U.S. Forest Service 

Listc Comments 

Fish (continued) Bonneville cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii utah) 

CS I MIS Occurs in high-elevation streams with forested ripari

elevation streams in scrub-shrub areas. Spawning alate May to mid-July. Presence assumed in East CaSheep Canyon Creek (MP 6.3), and Hardscrabble C

Northern leatherside chub (Lepidomeda copei) 

SPC II X Small to medium-sized rivers. Inhabits Weber and B

may inhabit Snake River drainage.

Southern leatherside chub (Lepidomeda aliciae) 

SPC II X Small to medium-sized rivers. Inhabits Provo and Se

Plants Alpine cinquefoil (Potentilla pensylvanica var. paucijuga) 

- - X Open, often rocky sites in sagebrush communities to 

Alpine pepper plant/Wasatch pepperwort (Lepidium montanum var. alpinum) 

- - X Sagebrush and spruce-fir communities from 5,000 to 

Arctic poppy (Papaver radicatum var. pygmaeum) 

- - X Occurs in alpine tundra communities, with Polemoni

Erigeron, sedges and saxifrages, between 11,100 an

Barneby woody aster (Tonestus kingie barnebyana) 

- - X Mountain mahogany/oak communities on rock outcro

9,600 feet elevation. 
4-91

TABLE 4.7.2-1 (continued) 

State of Utah and USFS Sensitive Species Potentially Occurring within the Proposed Apex Expansion P

Common Name 

(Scientific Name) 

BLM and 

Utah State 

Ranka

Utah Tier 

Levelb

U.S. Forest Service 

Listc Comments 

Plants (continued) Broad-leaf beardtongue (Penstemon platyphyllus) 

- - X Open rocky sites in mountain brush communities bet

feet. 

Brownie ladyslipper (Cypripedium fasciculatum)

- - X Duff in spruce-fir or lodgepole pine forests and along 

between 8,000 and 9,000 feet. 

Burke’s draba (Draba burkei) 

- - X Talus slopes and rocky outcrops of quartzite, limesto

in Douglas-fir, mixed conifer, and maple-oak commufeet. The USFS identified potential habitat between Surveys conducted by Kern River did not identify any draba. 

Cache beardtongue (Penstemon compactus) 

- - X Openings in coniferous communities, growing with M

columbine and other penstemon species, on limestomaterial between 7,000 and 9,800 feet. 

Clay phacelia (Phacelia argillacea) 

E - X Pinyon-juniper and mountain brush communities on 

slopes at approximately 6,600 feet elevation 

Cottam cinquefoil (Potentilla cottamii) 

- - X Cracks and crevices in quartzite outcrops, often shad

sunlight, at 7,500 to 10,400 feet. 

Cronquist daisy (Erigeron cronquistii) 

- - X Crevices in limestone cliffs and talus between 5,750 

Dainty moonwort (Botrychium crenulatum) 

- - X Marsh or spring areas around 8,000 feet elevation. 
4-92

TABLE 4.7.2-1 (continued) 

State of Utah and USFS Sensitive Species Potentially Occurring within the Proposed Apex Expansion P

Common Name 

(Scientific Name) 

BLM and 

Utah State 

Ranka

Utah Tier 

Levelb

U.S. Forest Service 

Listc Comments 

Plants (continued) Deseret milkvetch (Astragalus desereticus) 

T - X Sagebrush/juniper communities between 5,600 and 

Echo spring-parsley (Cymopterus lapidosus) 

- - X Among rocks, endemic to western Summit County in 

Garrett bladderpod (Lesquerella garrettii) 

- - X Alpine tundra and spruce-fir communities on limesto

in talus or on rock outcrops between 10,000 and 12,

Garrett’s daisy (Erigeron garrettii) 

- - X Moist rock crevices and cliffs between 9,000 and 12,

Lesser yellow lady’s slipper (Cypripedium parviflorum) 

- - X Boggy fens from sea level to 9,800 feet elevation. P

at Mill Creek (MP 19.0), unnamed tributary to Mill CrCanyon Creek (MP 20.5). 

Logan buckwheat (Eriogonum brevicaule var. loganum) 

- - X Sagebrush-bunchgrass communities on rocky outcro

Maguire draba (Draba maguirei) 

- - X Open areas in spruce/fir forests, on dolomite, betwee

Maguire’s primrose (Primula maguirei) 

- - X Limestone crevices. 

Rockcress draba (Draba globosa)

- - X Gravelly, open soil of rocky slopes and exposed ridg

alpine zones. 
4-93

TABLE 4.7.2-1 (continued) 

State of Utah and USFS Sensitive Species Potentially Occurring within the Proposed Apex Expansion P

Common Name 

(Scientific Name) 

BLM and 

Utah State 

Ranka

Utah Tier 

Levelb

U.S. Forest Service 

Listc Comments 

Plants (continued) Rydberg’s musineon (Musineon lineare) 

- - X Limestone cliffs in Cache County. 

Santaquin draba (Draba santaquinensis) 

- - X Limestone outcrops and rocky slopes in mixed conife

8,000 feet. Flowers late April to early June. 

Sierra fumwort/Wasatch fitweed (Corydalis caseanassp. Brachycarpa) 

- - X Mid-montane growing in or along streams or nearby 

and 10,000 feet elevation. Holbrook Canyon (MP 16(MP 17.6). 

Slender moonwort (Botrychium lineare)

- - X Grass-forb meadows, under trees in woods and on s

cliffs, mostly between 4,900 and 6,600 feet. 

Smith violet (Viola franksmithii) 

- - X Cracks, crevices and holes in outcrops of limestone 

shady places at 5,300 to 5,900 feet. 

Spruce wormwood (Artemisia norvegica var. piceetorum) 

- - X Meadow, spruce-fir, lodgepole pine communities, tal

between 10,000 and 11,500 feet. 

Starvling milkvetch (Astragalus jejunus jejunus)

- - X Sagebrush and sagebrush-juniper communities, ofte

at 6,000 to 7,000 feet. 

Tower mustard (Arabis glabra var. furcatipilis) 

- - X Sagebrush to aspen-fir between 5,200- and 10,400-f

habitat occurs between MP 13.3 to 14.8, 16.4 to 17.2fir forests); MP 14.8 to 15.1, 17.2 to 17.3 (Great Bas

Uinta green thread (Thelesperma pubescens) 

- - X Grassland, sagebrush-grassland, or low prostrate fo

Oligocene Bishop conglomerate on cobbly soils betwfeet. 
4-94

TABLE 4.7.2-1 (continued) 

State of Utah and USFS Sensitive Species Potentially Occurring within the Proposed Apex Expansion P

Common Name 

(Scientific Name) 

BLM and 

Utah State 

Ranka

Utah Tier 

Levelb

U.S. Forest Service 

Listc Comments 

Plants (continued) Utah angelica (Angelica wheeleri) 

- - X Boggy or very wet areas, often in riparian communiti

between 5,000 and 10,000 feet. Potential habitat oc(MP 19.0), unnamed tributary to Mill Creek (MP 19.0Creek (MP 20.5). 

Utah ivesia (Ivesia utahensis) 

- - X Open rocky slopes in spruce-fir communities to abov

9,950 and 11,000 feet. 

Wasatch/Utah shooting star (Dodecatheon utahense) 

- - X Wet rock crevices in Salt Lake County. 

Wasatch daisy (Erigeron arenarioides) 

- - X Rock crevices between 6950 and 9,950 feet in Salt L

Box Elder Counties. 

Wasatch draba (Draba brachystylis) 

- - X Aspen-fir communities in Salt Lake and Utah Countie

Wasatch jamesia (Jamesia americana macrocalyx) 

- - X Mountain brush and spruce-fir communities, mostly o

places between 5,700 and 9,000feet. 
4-95

TABLE 4.7.2-1 (continued) 

State of Utah and USFS Sensitive Species Potentially Occurring within the Proposed Apex Expansion P

Common Name 

(Scientific Name) 

BLM and 

Utah State 

Ranka

Utah Tier 

Levelb

U.S. Forest Service 

Listc Comments 

____________ Notes: 

 USFS = U.S. Forest Service 

a State Status Key: E = Endangered; T = Threatened; SPC = Wildlife species of concern; CS = Species receiving special management under a Cons

to preclude the need for federal listing. By Instruction Memorandum 2007-078, the Utah Bureau of Land Management adopts the existing Utah D(UDWR) Utah Sensitive Species List.

b Utah Tier I species are federally threatened, endangered, and candidate or conservation agreement species. Tier II species are Utah's State Spec

managed by the UDWR to prevent them from being federally listed. Tier III species are those species that (a) have need for more information; (b) 

demonstrate a marked decline in status; or (d) are facing an immediate threat. 

C X = Included on U.S. Forest Service listing of sensitive species within the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest. MIS = Management Indicator Spe
4-96

The USFS has indicated that much of the potential effect of the Project on northern goshawk may 

be able to be mitigated by timing construction activities to avoid the nesting season (March 1 through 

mid-August) and nest buffer zones (0.5 mile). However, Kern River has stated that avoidance of nests 

and nesting impacts, either through adherence to agency-recommended timing windows or through route 

variations, would not be feasible due to topographical limitations and the local season of constructability. 

Therefore, after consultation with the applicable agencies, Kern River prepared a Biological 

Resources Mitigation Plan that discussed the northern goshawk and has proposed to employ a qualified 

biological monitor during construction that would establish normal behavior of the nesting goshawk noted 

within the UWCNF. If during construction those normal behaviors are seen to alter, Kern River would 

consult with the FWS to identify site-specific mitigation measures that would both protect the nesting 

raptor and allow the continuation of construction. The UWCNF staff has indicated that goshawk 

population trends within the Forest were found to be static during 2008 monitoring events. Although the 

proposed Project may affect individual goshawks, goshawk habitat within the Project area represents a 

small portion of the overall habitat available to goshawks within the Forest Planning area. Therefore, the 

UWCNF staff has determined that the proposed action would have little effect on the population trend of 

Northern Goshawks across the UWCNF. 

The American pika was a petitioned species and was being reviewed for listing status under the 

ESA by the FWS; however, on February 5, 2010, the FWS determined that the American pika did not 

warrant listing and that the only potential threat to the species is climate change. The American pika is 

also considered a sensitive species in Utah and is in need of further information regarding population and 

habitat monitoring (UDWR 2005). This mammalian species inhabits rocky areas above the treeline in 

subalpine and alpine mountainous areas. This species is particularly sensitive to warm periods, causing 

the pika to retreat to cooler, higher elevation areas in response to the trend toward longer, warmer 

summers. The proposed Project area has one rocky area with a few boulders at about 8,400 feet elevation 

at MP 15.8 that is not likely to be suitable habitat for the American pika; however, Kern River has agreed 

to survey this area between June and September 2010 to assess whether the species is present. As the 

FWS has determined that the pika does not warrant federal listing, Kern River has stated that it would 

provide the results of the surveys to the applicable agencies but would otherwise not mitigate impacts on 

any American pikas that are found. Utah requires that a Certificate of Registration be obtained for the 

take of an American pika as a non-game species. Because of the lack of suitable habitat and Kern River’s 

commitment to complete additional surveys, we believe no population-level effects to the American pika 

would occur and the Project would not lead to a trend toward future federal listing. As these surveys have 

not yet been conducted, we recommend that:

 Prior to construction, Kern River file the results of the American pika surveys and 

update the Biological Resources Mitigation Plan including any additional mitigation 

measures developed in consultation with the UDWR, FWS, USFS, as applicable. 

The Bonneville cutthroat trout is a Tier 1 species that is overseen by a multi-agency Conservation 

Agreement and is known to be present within streams that would be crossed by the Project. The Project 

would cross through the Northern Bonneville Management Unit, which is threatened by habitat 

degradation (especially fragmentation from diversion structures), recreational use, disease through 

introduced fish, and inadequate regulations regarding water use (UDWR 1997). The proposed Project has 

the potential to impact the species through habitat degradation during stream crossings and blasting, and 

through water use during water withdrawals from East Canyon Creek for hydrostatic testing. To 

minimize impacts on the species and to comply with the intent of the Conservation Agreement, Kern 

River would adhere to timing restrictions approved for the East Canyon, Sheep Canyon, and Hardscrabble 

Creeks by the UDWR (instream work would be conducted between July 15 and February 28), restore 

streambed contours to the extent practicable, screen hydrostatic intakes, implement its invasive species 
 

4-97

management plan, and maintain a downstream flow of at least 5 cfs for the protection of aquatic species. 

In addition, temporary bridges would generally be removed within 7 days of finalizing construction 

through a waterbody, or when the bridge is no longer needed for access down the right-of-way as 

discussed in Kern River’s Biological Resources Mitigation Plan. Blasting would likely be required for 

construction through Sheep Canyon Creek and would be conducted within the approved timing window 

(July 15 and February 28). Scare charges would also be used prior to blasting to disperse fish. Following 

construction through the species’ habitat, Kern River would submit a summary report to the UDWR 

detailing construction through East Canyon, Sheep Canyon, and Hardscrabble Creeks. 

Two amphibians of special concern, the western (boreal) toad and the Columbia spotted frog, 

potentially occur along the proposed right-of-way at MPs 0.5, 1.2, 5.2, 5.4, 6.3, 10.1, 11.8, 16.5, 19.0, 

20.4, 20.6, and 27.0. Kern River originally assumed that the boreal toad was present in the Project area as 

suitable habitat is located at multiple locations. However, at the request of the USFS, Kern River has 

agreed to conduct boreal toad surveys prior to ground disturbance. The Columbia spotted frog also has 

potential habitat within the Project area. Impacts on this species are guided by a multi-agency 

Conservation Agreement to ensure that listing under the ESA does not become necessary. No Columbia 

spotted frogs or boreal toads were encountered during breeding-season surveys conducted in 2010; 

however, as discussed for the northern leopard frog in section 4.7.1.5, the habitats at MP 10.1, 11.8, 19.0 

(both locations), and 20.6 will be resurveyed for species presence when flood conditions subside. As 

proposed for the northern leopard frog, if boreal toads or Columbia spotted frogs are found in the Project 

area, Kern River would conduct pre-construction clearance surveys. We have recommended in section 

4.7.1.5 that Kern River file the results of these surveys and the corresponding agency consultation prior to 

construction. In addition, Kern River would minimize clearing in riparian areas as well as adhere to 

BMPs as outlined in its Procedures. 

Consultation between Kern River and the USFS indicated that 33 plant species of concern were 

identified in the Forest Service Plan (including the Ute ladies’-tresses which was previously discussed), of 

which six species potentially had habitat in the vicinity of the proposed Project. These six species 

included the Utah angelica, tower mustard, lesser yellow lady’s slipper, Sierra fumewort, Starvling 

milkvetch, and Burke’s draba. Kern River conducted habitat level surveys along the Wasatch Loop and 

determined that five of these six species (all but the Starvling milkvetch) do have potential habitat along 

the proposed right-of-way. Kern River has proposed to conduct surveys for these five species in June and 

July 2010; since the initial surveys, Kern River has agreed to survey for the Maguire draba as well. If the 

tower mustard or Utah angelica are encountered during surveys, Kern River would segregate adjacent 

topsoil and seeds from the plants to be used during restoration. Similarly, topsoil surrounding Sierra 

fumewort and lesser yellow lady’s slipper would be segregated and the roots dug up and preserved for use 

during restoration. As Burke’s draba grows on talus slopes and rocky outcrops, that habitat would be lost 

during construction and converted to a vegetative state. Kern River would conduct post-construction 

monitoring of the transplanted roots and seeds to ensure successful reestablishment of a population. No 

specific mitigation has been proposed for the Maguire draba; however, should it be found during Kern 

River’s surveys, mitigation would be determined when and if it is warranted. As the species surveys have 

not yet been provided, we recommend that: 

 Prior to construction, Kern River file the results of the outstanding plant surveys and 

update the Biological Resources Mitigation Plan including any additional mitigation 

measures developed in consultation with UDWR, FWS, BLM, and USFS, as applicable. 

Impacts on USFS and state-listed sensitive species would typically be similar to those described 

for general wildlife and fish populations, as discussed in sections 4.5 and 4.6. Terrestrial wildlife, such as 

mammals and reptiles, could be subject to mortality or displacement during clearing and could lose 

habitats along the right-of-way. Birds could be affected by loss of nesting or foraging habitat during 
4-98

clearing for the proposed Project, and they could be disturbed by human activity. Although all streams 

with flowing water would be crossed by a dry crossing method which would decrease turbidity within the 

stream, fish could be affected by the limited increases in turbidity and sediment load associated with dry 

crossings. Sensitive plants could be lost through habitat disruption. 

The generalized impacts described above would largely be avoided or minimized through 

implementation of the measures that Kern River has proposed and additional measures that we have 

recommended. These measures include collocation with existing disturbance where possible, as well as 

implementation of Kern River’s Plan, Procedures, Reclamation Plan, and Noxious Weed Control Plan. 

Implementation of these plans would decrease the potential for erosion, restore pre-construction contours 

within wetlands and streambeds, increase the potential for successful revegetation of habitats, and prevent 

or control the spread of weeds. We believe that, given the nature of the species present and the measures 

that would be implemented as part of this proposed Project, impacts on special status species would be 

adequately avoided or minimized. 

In conjunction with the construction of the proposed Milford Compressor Station, PacifiCorp 

would extend an approximately 1.4-mile electrical distribution line to provide necessary power for the 

compressor station. This electrical distribution line would be constructed at the request of Kern River for 

the sole use of powering the compressor station. The electrical distribution line would cross land 

managed by the BLM. The electrical distribution line would operate at 7.2 kV and would be installed on 

approximately 23 single wood pole structures. No access roads would be required for the placement of 

poles. All areas necessary for the construction and maintenance of the distribution line would lie within 

the proposed distribution line 25-foot right-of-way. The estimated total acreage required for the electrical 

distribution line right-of-way would be approximately 4.1 acres. 

With regard to sensitive species, brooding habitat for greater sage-grouse has been identified 

approximately 0.6 mile from the proposed Milford Compressor Station site and the electrical distribution 

line corridor; however, the sagebrush habitat within the site footprint has been degraded by cattle grazing 

and does not provide suitable habitat for sage-grouse. In addition, although potential habitat for the Utah 

prairie dog is present in the area, species-specific surveys conducted in April 2010 did not encounter any 

prairie dogs and the only burrows encountered included those of the Piute ground squirrel and a larger 

unidentified predator. Kern River will conduct surveys for the species in 2010 and we have 

recommended that appropriate mitigation be determined in consultation with the FWS and the BLM if the 

species is found. 

4.8 LAND USE AND VISUAL RESOURCES 

The proposed Apex Expansion Project includes 27.6 miles of pipeline through the Wasatch 

Mountains (Wasatch Loop) in Utah; a new compressor station near Milford, Utah; and modifications to 

four existing compressor stations located in Utah, Wyoming, and Nevada. Six new MLVs, three pig 

launchers, and two pig receivers would also be installed or connected to the proposed pipeline loop. A 

detailed description of the proposed Project and associated facilities can be found in section 2.0. 

This section of the EIS includes land requirements for construction and operation of the proposed 

Project, as well as the existing land uses and an analysis of impacts on those lands for both construction 

and operation. This section also identifies designated recreation or other special use areas and includes 

discussions of potential visual impacts of proposed facilities on designated scenic rivers, areas, roads, 

recreation areas, and public lands or residential areas. 

In general, lands required for construction of the Project would experience temporary impacts, 

considered either short term or long term based on the time for land to recover to pre-construction 
 

4-99

conditions. Lands required for operation would experience permanent impacts. Short-term impacts 

would recover within a 3-year period following construction, while long-term impacts require more than 

3 years to recover but less than the expected lifetime of the Project. Permanent impacts would last for the 

life of the Project or beyond. 

Because the majority of the pipeline would be collocated with the existing Kern River and/or 

other pipeline rights-of-way, the pipeline would be consistent with the existing environment for these land 

uses or areas, such that new impacts would be minimized to the extent possible. Kern River would 

continue to coordinate with the landowners/land managers to ensure that impacts would be adequately 

minimized. 

4.8.1 General Impacts and Mitigation 

Six land use types would be affected by the Apex Expansion Project, including agricultural land, 

open water, forested land, open land, developed land, and recreation land. Table 4.8.1-1 lists the acreages 

for each land use type affected by construction and operation of the proposed Project. The definitions of 

each land use type are as follows: 

 Open land – includes non-forested open lands including grassland/rangeland and grazing 

land; 

 Forested land – includes upland forest lands or woodland; 

 Agricultural land – includes active crop lands, hayfields, and pasture land that is not 

considered rangeland; 

 Developed land – includes all developed rights-of-way, such as those for roads, railroads, or 

utility corridors; developed industrial areas; and developed residential land; 

 Open water – includes all emergent and scrub-shrub wetland areas and ephemeral, 

intermittent, and perennial streams, as well as open water areas; and 

 Recreation land – includes lands that are directly used for recreational activities. 
4-100

TABLE 4.8.1-1 

Land Use Types and Acres Impacted by Construction and Operation of the Proposed Apex Expansion 

Open Land Forested Agricultural Developed Open Water Recreatio

County/Type of Facility Con Op Con Op Con Op Con Op Con Op Con 

Morgan County, UT Right-of-way and extra workspaces 85.3 43.0 82.2 26.8 7.8 2.9 33.3 16.9 2.5 1.0 0.0 Access roadsb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.0 32.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pipe yards, staging areas, and contractor yardsc

7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Aboveground facilities 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Davis County, UT Right-of-way and extra workspaces 23.6 16.5 84.5 28.4 0.0 0.0 48.0 18.9 0.2 0.1 0.2 Access roadsb 0.0 0.0 0.0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.2 11.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pipe yards, staging areas, and contractor yardsc

11.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Aboveground facilities 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Salt Lake County, UT Right-of-way and extra workspaces 8.1 4.2 6.7 3.1 3.8 1.7 4.8 2.2 0.0 0.0 3.7 Access roadsb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 Pipe yards, staging areas, and contractor yardsc

1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Aboveground facilities 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Summit County, UT Yards 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 63.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Weber County, UT Pipe yards, staging areas, and contractor yards 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Uinta County, WY Aboveground facilitiesd 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 
4-101

TABLE 4.8.1-1 (continued) 

Land Use Types and Acres Impacted by Construction and Operation of the Proposed Apex Expansio

Open Land Forested Agricultural Developed Open Water Recreati

County/Type of Facility Con Op Con Op Con Op Con Op Con Op Con 

Utah County, UT Aboveground facilitiesd 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Millard County, UT Aboveground facilitiesd 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Beaver County, UT Aboveground facilities 33.2 33.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Clark County, NV Aboveground facilitiesd 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Facility Totals Right-of-Way and extra workspaces 117.0 63.6 173.4 58.3 11.7 4.6 86.0 38.0 2.7 1.1 4.0 Access roadsb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.3 43.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 Pipe yards, staging areas, and contractor yardsc

20.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 73.6 0.0 51.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Aboveground facilities 33.2 33.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 61.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total e 170.4 96.8 173.6 58.3 85.3 4.6 259.5 81.2 2.7 1.1 4.1 

____________ Notes: a Recreation Lands are defined as lands that are used exclusively for recreation purposes such as trails and parks. b Three access roads crossed multiple counties thus the access road acreages reported for Morgan, Davis, and Salt Lake Counties are estimates b

length of the access road contained in the respective county. 

c These acreages include impacts associated with staging areas to be used during construction. Impacts on specific land types for staging areas w

review of Applicant-provided alignment sheets. 

d Construction at existing facilities would be confined to previously disturbed lands within the existing property boundary, as such no permanent impe Construction acreages reported in the table may not sum to the total due to rounding for presentation purposes. 
4-102

Construction of the Apex Expansion Project would predominately affect developed land 

(37.3 percent), forested land (25.0 percent), and open land (24.5 percent). The remaining impacts would 

be to agricultural land, recreation land, and open water. The majority of the land required for operation of 

the Apex Expansion Project, including land for the Milford Compressor Station, would consist of open 

land (39.7 percent), developed land (33.3 percent) and forested land (23.9 percent). As discussed in 

section 2.1.2, proposed upgrades at four existing compressor stations would occur on previously disturbed 

lands within the existing fence line. 

In conjunction with the construction of the proposed Milford Compressor Station, PacifiCorp 

would construct approximately 1.4 miles of 7.2 kV electric distribution line to provide necessary power 

for the new compressor station. The electrical distribution line would have a permanent right-of-way 

width of 25 feet, with an estimated footprint of 4.2 acres of open land, used primarily for grazing. 

Approximately 18.5 miles (67.0 percent) of the proposed pipeline route would be collocated with 

Kern River’s existing right-of-way. An additional 1.2 miles would be collocated with the UNEV pipeline 

project, which is expected to be constructed by early 2011. Table 4.8.1-2 provides locations by milepost 

where the proposed pipeline would be collocated with or adjacent to existing rights-of-way. The 

construction right-of-way for the pipeline would use a total of 24.8 acres of existing Kern River right-ofway. The remaining approximately 7.9 miles (28.6 percent) of the pipeline route would deviate from the 

existing pipeline rights-of-way due to topographic conditions and other land use constraints. 

TABLE 4.8.1-2 

Collocated and Adjacent Rights-of-Way for the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

State/County 

Kern River Pipeline 

(miles) 

UNEV Pipelinea

(miles) 

Total 

(miles) 

Utah 

Morgan 11.1 N/A 11.1 

Davis 6.5 1.1 7.6 

Salt Lake 0.9 0.1 1.0 

Total 18.5 1.2 19.7 

____________ 

Note: 

a

 The UNEV pipeline is not yet constructed; however construction is scheduled to be complete 

by early 2011. 

Kern River would access construction areas along existing public or private roads, to the 

maximum extent practicable, especially those roads used for access during construction of the existing 

Kern River pipeline. Formal access road agreements would be pursued with landowners. Kern River has 

proposed the temporary use of 35 existing access roads ranging in length from less than 0.1 mile to up to 

11.9 miles. The access road at MP 14.0 (Powerline Road) is listed as an alternative access road. This 

road was identified by the USFS as an unauthorized road on USFS lands and would be used by Kern 

River only if approved by the USFS. If approval is granted, once construction is complete, Kern River 

would remove the road and restore the area according to USFS specifications. Appendix C lists the 

access roads, locations, modifications required, surface area potentially affected, and current land use for 

each. Kern River has identified 33 of the existing access roads that would require modifications to 
4-103

support construction-related traffic and equipment. Modifications may include grading, placement of 

additional gravel, and/or the addition of a temporary bridge on the existing surface. One new road 

totaling 410 feet in length would be constructed for use during construction. This new access road would 

temporarily disturb approximately 0.1 acre of recreation land. Following construction, this road would be 

removed; the area would be restored to pre-construction conditions, in consultation with the landowner 

and in accordance with Kern River’s Reclamation Plan. 

In addition to the use of access roads, Kern River has stated that they would utilize aerial transfer 

of pipe to some areas of the right-of-way. While limiting impacts on access roads, aerial transfer would 

increase the potential for noise and visual impacts. For further discussion on noise impacts, refer to 

section 4.11. Visual impacts are discussed in section 4.8.4. 

Following construction, 15 roads totaling 43.1 acres would be used and maintained as permanent 

access roads. The remaining access roads would revert to their pre-construction uses. 

4.8.1.1 Open Land 

Construction of the Apex Expansion Project would affect 170.4 acres of open land, which is 

concentrated from MP 0.0 to 3.0 and 9.0 to 12.0. The majority of these lands are used for grazing by freeranging herds of sheep and cattle. Lands utilized for grazing allotments would be crossed in two distinct 

locations. A USFS-managed sheep allotment would be crossed by the proposed pipeline route between 

MP 13.0 and 14.0A. This allotment would also be crossed by a portion of the Skyline Drive access road. 

Additional BLM lands used for grazing allotments are located at the site of the proposed Milford 

Compressor Station. For further discussion on impacts and mitigation to grazing allotments, see section 

4.8.2.1. The Project would not cross any remnant prairies. 

In general, standard overland construction techniques would be used for installation of the 

pipeline and Kern River would use measures included in their Plan and Procedures to minimize impacts. 

Following construction, all open land acreage would be restored as described in Kern River’s 

Reclamation and Noxious Weed Control Plans, and in accordance with any specific requirements 

identified by agencies or landowners. Approximately 63.6 acres of open land would be located within the 

permanent right-of-way and 33.2 acres of open land would be permanently impacted by the Milford 

Compressor Station. While open land within the permanent right-of-way would be restored, this land 

would be subject to routine maintenance as discussed in Kern River’s Plan. For further discussion on 

impacts and mitigation to vegetation, see section 4.4. 

The 7.2 kV PacifiCorp electric distribution line would consist of a 25-foot-wide right-of-way for 

a distance of approximately 1.4 miles. The electric distribution line would impact 4.2 acres of open land 

on BLM and private lands. All non-permanent disturbances along this right-of-way would be reclaimed 

and reseeded to BLM reclamation requirements. 

4.8.1.2 Forest Land 

The 173.6 acres of forest land that would be affected by the proposed Project include mountain 

mahogany-oak scrub, Douglas fir, and riparian canyon woodlands and are primarily concentrated from 

MP 3.0 to 24.0. This acreage includes forested lands within the UWCNF. Impacts specific to the 

UWCNF are discussed in section 4.8.3.1. There are no privately owned old-growth forests, pine 

plantations, or other forest crops (e.g. timber, maple sugar, or Christmas trees) within the 173.6 acres. 

Following construction, Kern River may restore these lands by incorporating special plantings of 

trees and shrub species. As discussed in section 4.4.5, impacts on forested land would be long-term to 
4-104

permanent, depending on the time it takes lands to re-grow to pre-construction conditions. A total of 

58.3 acres of currently forested land would be permanently converted to open land within the permanent 

pipeline right-of-way. The remaining 115.3 acres would be allowed to revert to forest vegetation. 

Further information on maintenance of the permanent right-of-way can be found in Kern River’s Plan and 

in section 4.4. 

4.8.1.3 Agricultural Land 

Approximately 85.3 acres of agricultural land would be affected by construction of the Project, 

which would primarily include active crop lands or hayfields, as well as pasture land that is not used for 

grazing. In general, agricultural lands are concentrated at the western end of the pipeline route with row 

crops comprised of winter wheat or alfalfa, and small pasture lands associated with farms and used for 

both horse and cattle grazing. At this time, Kern River has not identified any CRP lands within these 

tracts. 

The primary impact in these areas would be short-term loss of production due to constructionrelated activities. Following construction, agricultural land within the pipeline right-of-way would be 

allowed to revert to pre-construction conditions and use. In accordance with Kern River’s Reclamation 

Plan, Kern River would implement special construction procedures in actively cultivated or rotated 

cropland, pastures, and hayfields to minimize potential impacts. Topsoil would be removed and 

stockpiled separately from excavated subsoils, and the natural flow patterns of all fields would be 

maintained by providing breaks in topsoil and subsoil stockpiles. During backfilling of the trench, the 

subsoil material would be replaced first, and cobbles would be removed from the surface of all exposed 

subsoil and disposed of at locations previously approved by the landowner or appropriate public disposal 

facilities. Following construction, crop yields would be monitored for a period of at least 3 years to 

ensure that yields in areas affected by construction return to yields similar to those of adjacent, 

undisturbed areas, as described in section 2.3 and in Kern River’s Reclamation Plan. Finally, the owners 

of agricultural land would be compensated for the loss of agricultural production in accordance with the 

terms of landowner agreements. Impacts on agricultural lands would be short-term and offset by 

compensation agreed to during easement negotiations. 

4.8.1.4 Developed Land 

As depicted in table 4.8.1-1, the majority of the land affected by the proposed Project is classified 

as developed land (37.3 percent). Approximately 259.5 acres of developed land would be required for 

construction; including 86.0 acres for the pipeline right-of-way and temporary workspace; 51.2 acres for 

pipe yards, staging areas, and contractor yards; 60.3 acres for access roads; and 61.9 acres for 

aboveground facilities. Developed lands in the proposed Project area are comprised of industrial areas 

(e.g., energy facilities, manufacturing or industrial plants), commercial areas (e.g., retail facilities), roads, 

railroads, mines, quarries, landfills, and residential areas (e.g., subdivisions and planned residential 

developments). 

Areas of industrial/commercial land are concentrated from MP 25.0 to 27.0 and include facilities 

associated with the Chevron Refinery, an active gravel mine, transportation infrastructure and light 

industrial facilities, and commercial enterprises. The Wasatch Loop would cross two private roads within 

the Chevron Refinery property at four different locations. Additionally, the pipeline would cross an 

existing railroad spur which extends from the interior of the Chevron Refinery property to the Utah 

Transit Authority (UTA) railroad. Consultation between Kern River and Chevron regarding construction 

activities within the refinery property are ongoing; however, Kern River has identified several preliminary 

mitigation measures to help minimize impacts on refinery operations during construction, including: 
4-105

 coordinating access along, and avoiding peak use of, access roads and the railroad spur; 

 providing alternative access roads to the refinery property; and/or 

 boring the access roads and railroad spur within the refinery property. 

Overall, impacts on industrial/commercial land from construction activities would be short-term, 

limited to the time of construction. Following construction, areas outside of the permanent pipeline rightof-way and aboveground facilities would be graded, seeded, or otherwise restored and allowed to revert to 

pre-construction conditions, except where individual landowner agreements dictate other acceptable 

restoration measures. As a result, land use impacts on industrial/commercial areas would be temporary. 

In general, residential areas are sporadically distributed along the entire route, with a slightly 

higher concentration at the east end tie-in and a more substantial concentration along the western end of 

the proposed route (MP 24.0 to 27.0). Potential impacts and mitigation to residential areas are discussed 

in detail in section 4.8.2.3. 

4.8.1.5 Open Water 

The Apex Expansion Project would affect 2.7 acres of open water in the proposed right-of-way 

and ATWSs during construction. Construction procedures within all waterbodies would be conducted in 

accordance with all federal and state regulations, permit requirements, and Kern River’s Procedures. 

Following construction, 1.1 acres of open water would be within the permanent right-of-way. Water 

resources are discussed in more detail in section 4.3 and section 4.8.3. 

4.8.1.6 Recreation Land 

The Apex Expansion Project would affect 4.1 acres of recreation land in the proposed right-ofway and ATWSs during construction. Construction procedures would be conducted in accordance with 

all federal and state regulations, permit requirements, and Kern River’s Plan and Procedures. Following 

construction, 1.6 acres of recreation land would be within the permanent right-of-way. For further 

discussion of recreation and special use areas, refer to section 4.8.3. 

4.8.2 Land Ownership 

Approximately 59.2 percent of the land that would be affected by construction of the Wasatch 

Loop is considered private land (16.6 miles). The remaining land impacted by the Project would be 

distributed among federal and state lands. No tribal land would be crossed by the Project. Negotiated 

easements would be used to confer rights-of-way by a landowner to Kern River, on either a permanent or 

temporary (usually for construction) basis. The easement would give Kern River the right to construct, 

operate, and maintain the pipeline within a permanent or temporary right-of-way. In return, Kern River 

would compensate the landowner for use of the land. Typically, easement agreements between a 

company and landowner specify compensation for loss of use during construction, loss of resources, 

damage to the property, and allowable uses for the permanent right-of-way after construction has been 

completed. 

If an easement cannot be negotiated with a landowner and the proposed Project has been 

certificated by the FERC, Kern River could use the right of eminent domain granted to it under 

Section 7(h) of the NGA and the procedure set forth under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

(Rule 71A) to obtain the right-of-way and ATWSs. Although Kern River would compensate the 

landowner for the right-of-way and for any damages incurred during construction, a court would 
4-106

determine the level of compensation if a Certificate was issued. In either case, the landowner would be 

compensated for the use of the land. Eminent domain would not apply to lands under federal ownership. 

4.8.2.1 Federal Lands 

Reclamation Land 

The Project would use four roads partially located on land owned by Reclamation within East 

Canyon State Park (State Park Roads #1, #2 East, #2 West, and #3) for access during construction. State 

Park Roads #2 West and #3 would also be used for access during operation of the Project. The portions 

of State Park Roads #2 East and #2 West located within the East Canyon State Park would result in 

approximately 0.2 acre per road of impacts due to road modifications. State Park Road #3 would result in 

approximately 0.1 acre impacted within East Canyon State Park, while State Park Road #1 would result in 

less than 0.1 acre of impacts within the park. The draft EIS identified a staging area (TWS-MO-2) that 

was also located on land owned by Reclamation within East Canyon State Park. Kern River has since 

moved this staging area to a new location on private land. Appendix C lists the access roads, locations, 

modifications required, surface area potentially affected, and current land use for each. Kern River 

continues to consult with Reclamation regarding use of the access roads. Kern River would also be 

required to obtain a temporary use permit from Reclamation for use of these access roads. 

BLM Land 

Kern River is proposing to use Hardscrabble Road (MP 11.9) for access during construction and 

operation of the proposed Project. A portion of this existing road crosses BLM lands and would require 

improvements such as grading and a temporary bridge. Kern River continues to consult with the BLM to 

obtain the necessary approvals regarding the use of Hardscrabble Road. 

The 33.2-acre property proposed for the Milford Compressor Station is owned by the BLM. It is 

located within BLM’s Minersville No. 4 Grazing Allotment No. 061004 and is leased to four individuals. 

Kern River would be required to obtain a right-of-way grant from BLM to construct and operate the 

proposed aboveground facility on federal land. The entire 33.2 acres that would be impacted by the 

construction of the compressor station is open land. Construction of the compressor station would result 

in a permanent conversion of the land to developed land. 

Approximately 1 mile of the 7.2 kV PacifiCorp distribution line would be located on BLM land. 

It would consist of a 25-foot-wide right-of-way for a maximum disturbance of 3.4 acres on BLM lands. 

All non-permanent disturbances along the right-of-way would be reclaimed and reseeded to BLM 

reclamation requirements. 

The existing Dry Lake Compressor Station is also owned by the BLM but is leased to Kern River 

for use as an industrial facility. Construction within the existing Dry Lake Compressor Station would be 

contained to the existing property boundary. As such, this action would not result in a land use change. 

USFS Land 

The proposed Project would affect 6.4 miles of USFS lands within the UWCNF managed by the 

Salt Lake Ranger District. Additionally, between MP 13.0 and 14.0, the proposed Project would cross the 

Arthur’s Forks sheep grazing allotment managed by the USFS Salt Lake Ranger District. Kern River is 

currently in consultation with the USFS regarding the proposed pipeline route and the necessary 

approvals to construct and operate the proposed Wasatch Loop and utilize and/or improve access roads 
4-107

within the grazing allotment and the UWCNF. For further discussion on the potential impacts and 

mitigation to USFS lands, refer to section 4.8.3.1. 

The proposed pipeline alignment is within the North Wasatch Ogden Valley Management Area. 

The proposed Project would cross lands allocated to one of four broad management prescriptions. Each 

of these management prescriptions has an associated set of prescription standards and guidelines that 

allow, restrict or prohibit certain activities. Standards are a required course of action and any deviation 

requires a Forest Plan amendment. Guidelines describe a preferred or advisable course of action that is 

generally expected to be carried out. Deviation from compliance does not require Forest Plan 

amendment, but the rationale for such deviation must be documented in the project decision document 

(USDA 2003 pp.4-36). Pipeline construction is not specifically addressed, though associated road 

construction is addressed. The following summarizes the management prescriptions, and managementarea specific standards and guidelines relevant to the proposed Project. 

Watershed Emphasis (3.1W): Emphasis is on maintaining or improving quality of watershed 

conditions and aquatic habitats. Watershed function and aquatic habitat values are recognized as 

important and may require restoration to reach desired conditions. Areas of municipal watershed 

and public drinking water sources will be managed to maintain or improve soil processes and 

watershed conditions. Prior to the draft EIS, a staging area was proposed in this prescription; 

however, Kern River has removed the proposal for the staging area and therefore this prescription 

would not be affected by the Project. 

(S3.1W) Timber harvest, road construction and new recreation facility development are 

not allowed. 

Emphasis on Recreation Non-motorized Settings (4.2): These areas provide recreation 

opportunities in a semi-primitive to modified setting where visitors can obtain various degrees of 

solitude within a near-natural environment. About 2.9 miles of pipeline, 1 mile of access road, a 

2 acre staging area and 0.6 acre of ATWS are proposed in this prescription. 

(S4.2) Timber harvest and road construction are not allowed. 

Emphasis on Recreation Motorized Settings (4.4): These areas provide recreation 

opportunities within a range of semi-primitive to rural settings. About 2.5 miles of pipeline and 

10 miles of access road are proposed in this prescription. 

(G4.4-1) Timber harvest, vegetation/fuel treatment, road construction, prescribed fire and 

wildland fire use are allowed to mimic historic conditions, to restore ecosystem 

functioning, and to protect property in the wildland urban interface, and are designed to 

be compatible with motorized recreation, but must not detract from the recreation setting 

over the long term. 

Emphasis on maintaining or restoring non-forested ecosystem integrity while meeting 

multiple resource objectives (6.1) Emphasis is on non-forested vegetation properly functioning 

conditions. About 1.3 miles of pipeline and 0.4 acre of ATWS are proposed in this prescription. 

(G6.1-3) Road construction, new recreation development, and new trail construction are 

allowed.

Within the UWCNF, the proposed Project is inconsistent in one area of management direction in 

the LRMP. Access roads proposed as part of the proposed Project are not consistent with management 
4-108

direction for Prescription 4.2. The “significance” of an amendment must be determined. Determination 

of “significance” for a forest plan amendment is based on the following criteria defined in the Forest 

Service Manual 1926.5 (Amendment No. 1900-2006-2, January 31, 2006). The USFS evaluated the 

significance of the proposed Apex Expansion Project following each action listed below: 

1. Actions that do not significantly alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term 

land and resource management. 

Evaluation: This amendment will not alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for longterm land and resource management established during the planning process. Alternative 

routes that were within designated corridors were considered but eliminated from detailed 

study. 

2. Adjustments of management area boundaries or management prescriptions resulting from 

further on-site analysis when the adjustments do not cause significant changes in the 

multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land and resource management. 

Evaluation: Allowing this one-time waiver for 6.4 miles of pipeline construction, 11.6 miles 

of access road, 1.5 acres of staging areas and 6.7 acres of extra working space in this specific 

location does not change or affect the management prescription for the rest of the Forest or 

for future projects in this same area. It does not alter the boundaries of the North Wasatch 

Ogden Valley Management Area. 

3. Minor changes in standards and guidelines. 

Evaluation: This amendment does not change forest-wide standards and guidelines. It does 

allow a one-time waiver to Standard 4.2 and Standard 3.1W to allow road construction and 

reconstruction. 

4. Opportunities for additional projects or activities that will contribute to achievement of the 

management prescription. 

Evaluation: While there are four management prescriptions that are affected by this 

proposal, two require a forest plan amendment. This change will not preclude opportunities 

for additional projects in Management Prescriptions 4.2 and 3.1W. This change does not 

alter the ability to achieve the Management Prescription 4.2 or 3.1W because it affects only 

a small portion of the Forest. The areas mapped for Management Prescriptions 4.4 and 6.1 

will continue to be managed for their respective emphases. 

After reviewing the Forest Service Manual direction, the proposed amendment for Apex 

Expansion pipeline was found to be not significant by the USFS and in accordance with the requirements 

of sections 1926.51 and 1926.52. 

4.8.2.2 State Lands 

The Wasatch Loop right-of-way would affect 21.6 acres of state-owned lands. These lands span 

four areas located in East Canyon WMA, Jordan River Parkway Trail and Jordan River Crossing, Jordan 

River Off-Highway Vehicle Park, and the multi-use path along State Road 89. Kern River is in 

consultation with the appropriate state and federal agencies to obtain the necessary permits and approvals 

to construct and operate the proposed pipeline on state-owned lands. Potential impacts and mitigation to 

state-owned lands are discussed throughout section 4.8.3. 
4-109

4.8.2.3 Residential Lands 

As currently designed, approximately 11.1 acres of residential land would be impacted by 

construction of the Wasatch Loop. Following construction, approximately 6.2 acres of this residential 

land would be restored to pre-construction conditions to the extent possible, in accordance with Kern 

River’s Reclamation Plan and in accordance with any specific requirements identified by landowners. 

The remaining 4.9 acres of residential land would be considered permanent right-of-way for the Wasatch 

Loop. Kern River would also restore these portions of the permanent right-of-way to residential land 

consistent with the Reclamation Plan and landowner requirements. In most cases, property owners would 

be able to use the permanent right-of-way as they did before construction as long as the use does not 

conflict with the rights granted to Kern River in the negotiated easement agreement with the landowner. 

Planned Developments 

There are no planned residential or commercial areas within 50 feet of the proposed Milford 

Compressor Station or the four existing compressor stations (Coyote Creek, Elberta, Fillmore, and Dry 

Lake). The Wasatch Loop would cross three planned residential developments, as discussed below. Kern 

River would continue to consult with local agencies to identify any other planned development within 

0.25 mile of the proposed Apex Expansion Project. Additionally, there are two existing residences and a 

barn within 50 feet of the proposed construction workspaces, as shown in table 4.8.2-1 and discussed 

below. 

TABLE 4.8.2-1 

Existing Residences and Buildings within 50 Feet of the Construction Workspace for the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Facilitya County, State Milepost 

Number/Type of 

Residences/Buildings 

Distance 

from 

Construction 

Work Area 

(feet) 

Distance 

from Pipeline 

Centerline 

(feet) 

Morgan 

County, UT 

5.0 1 (barn) 30 109 

Davis County, 

UT 

24.1A 1 (occupied residence) 12 38 

Wasatch 

Loop 

Salt Lake 

County, UT 

27.5 1 (occupied residence) 42 67 

____________ 

Notes: 

 UT = Utah 

a

 There are no existing residences or buildings within 50 feet of the construction workspace for any of the aboveground 

facilities, except the existing compressor station buildings for Coyote Creek, Elberta, Fillmore, and Dry Lake, which are 

not included in this table. 

Kern River has identified three planned residential developments within 0.25 mile of the 

proposed right-of-way. Planned development projects would include those that are permitted but not yet 

constructed and those with submitted permit applications that have been filed but not yet approved. Only 

two of three planned developments identified would be crossed, the Shady Meadow Campground and the 

Edgewood/Eaglepointe Development. These developments would be crossed between MP 5.0 and 5.2 

and between 24.1A and 25.1, respectively. There are plans to develop the Shady Meadow Campground 
4-110

into six residential lots ranging between 15 and 22 acres; these plans have not been platted or recorded at 

the Morgan County Courthouse. This development is also located within the Lazy H. Ranch Cooperative 

Wildlife Management Unit (CWMU), which is discussed in section 4.8.3.5. Alternatively, construction 

has begun within portions of the Edgewood/Eaglepointe Development. Kern River has coordinated the 

location of the pipeline right-of-way with the developers to ensure the least amount of impacts 

practicable. The currently proposed route would cross the portions currently under construction, as well 

as portions planned for development that are not yet approved. Portions of this development are adjacent 

to the UWCNF and the Bonneville Shoreline, which are discussed in sections 4.8.3.1 and 4.8.3.3, 

respectively. 

Existing Residences and Buildings 

At the time of publication of the draft EIS, Kern River had identified two residences and several 

structures within 50 feet of the construction right-of-way and associated work areas. Following the 

publication of the draft EIS, Kern River adopted the North Salt Lake III Route Variation, with a short 

realignment near Sugar Plum Court at the request of a landowner. The adoption of the variation resulted 

in a route that avoids impacts on one residence at MP 24.5; however, the resulting proposed route would 

locate the construction workspace within 50 feet of the residence (MP 24.1A) occupied by the landowner 

who requested the realignment and a second residence (MP 24.2A). The realignment of the North Salt 

Lake III Route Variation was requested by the landowner in an effort to limit the number of encumbered 

lots within the development to those already affected by the existing Kern River pipeline right-of-way. 

Kern River developed a site-specific plan for construction near the residences (Appendix L). A third 

residence, at MP 27.5, would be about 42 feet from the construction workspace; this property is currently 

for sale. Finally, Kern River has identified a barn at MP 5.0 that would be approximately 30 feet from the 

proposed construction workspace. 

To minimize potential disruptions to residential areas near construction work areas, Kern River 

would coordinate construction work schedules with affected landowners prior to starting construction. In 

addition, Kern River would work to ensure that construction activities progress in a timely manner to 

minimize the exposure to noise, dust, and the general presence of construction activities. To further 

minimize impacts on residential areas within the vicinity of construction work areas, Kern River would 

implement the following measures: 

 maintain access and traffic flow to the property, particularly for emergency vehicles; 

 apply dust minimization techniques as needed; 

 remove all construction debris and litter on a daily basis; 

 install temporary safety fencing to control access and minimize the hazards associated with 

an open trench; 

 preserve mature trees and landscaping to the extent practicable; and 

 restore all areas disturbed by construction work areas to “as before or better” conditions. 

In the draft EIS, we identified a request made by the City of North Salt Lake that Kern River 

install a decorative cement wall with appropriate landscaping around the MLV proposed near the 

residence at MP 24.5. As discussed above, Kern River has since adopted the North Salt Lake III with a 

short realignment near Sugar Plum Court, which resulted in the proposed route being collocated with 

Kern River’s existing right-of-way and the re-location of MLV 121B to the existing MLV site (MLV 121 

at KRMP 121.1). Kern River has stated that the existing wall would be expanded at this location to also 

enclose MLV 121B. 
4-111

Kern River would be responsible for monitoring and ensuring compliance with all environmental 

mitigation measures required by the FERC Certificate. Landowners would be able to contact Kern River 

if they have any concerns or issues during the construction period. A toll-free number has been 

established for landowners and other stakeholders to obtain information on the Apex Expansion Project. 

This landowner hotline would continue to operate throughout the winter and during spring restoration 

efforts. Landowners would also have continued access to Kern River land representatives. 

Overall impacts on residences from construction of the Apex Expansion Project would be shortterm to long-term depending on the specific vegetation impacted and its ability to be restored to preconstruction conditions. These impacts would be partially offset by the compensation negotiated between 

individual landowners and Kern River during the easement process. 

Operational impacts would be limited to the 4.9 acres of land within the permanent right-of-way, 

which would have restricted use. Specifically, no trees over five feet tall or permanent structures would 

be permitted within the permanent right-of-way. Also, landowners would need prior approval from Kern 

River before grading or removal of cover could be completed within the permanent right-of-way. 

4.8.3 Recreation and Special Use Areas 

The Apex Expansion Project would cross several recreation and special use areas, including a 

National Forest, BLM land, two state parks, two gravel pits, hunting land, and other recreation areas, as 

shown in table 4.8.3-1 and figure 4.8.3-1. The most prominent of these special use areas is the UWCNF, 

which would be crossed between MP 13.3 and 24.4A. The Project as proposed would not cross any 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers, National Scenic Byways, National Wildlife Refuge land, National 

Monument lands, Wilderness Areas, or Wilderness Study Areas. Further, no sensitive receptors (e.g., 

churches, schools, cemeteries, or hospitals) are within 0.25 mile of the proposed route. The duration of 

any impacts at any single point would last approximately 6 to 10 weeks. This period includes the initial 

surveying and clearing to the backfilling and finish grading. 

4.8.3.1 Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

The Apex Expansion Project would cross approximately 9.9 miles of the proclaimed boundary of 

the UWCNF from MP 13.3 to 21.3, MP 21.8 to 22.5A, and MP 22.9 to 24.4A. Within the proclaimed 

boundary, the USFS manages only National Forest System lands. There are other parcels of land within 

the proclaimed boundary that are owned by private entities or managed by other federal and state agencies 

and local municipalities. For purposes of this EIS, impacts on the UWCNF will be based on the 

proclaimed boundary (unless stated otherwise) and would therefore, be an overestimate of those impacts 

under the jurisdiction of the USFS. Kern River is currently in consultation with the UWCNF to obtain the 

necessary approvals to construct and operate the proposed Wasatch Loop within the UWCNF and to 

improve and/or utilize access roads through the UWCNF. The portion of the UWCNF that would be 

crossed is managed by the Salt Lake Ranger District and consists of approximately 216,000 acres of 

public lands. This area is used heavily by residents for a variety of activities, including hiking, 

backpacking, horseback riding, mountain biking, and ATV riding. Fishing, hunting, and nature viewing 

are other activities that occur in this area. Winter activities within the UWCNF include winter camping, 

snow shoeing, backcountry skiing, and snowmobiling. Four recreational facilities would be crossed by 

the proposed Project, including three trails and Mueller Park. The pipeline route would also be located 

within or adjacent to two roadless areas, Hogsback Roadless Area and Mueller Park Roadless Area, 

where activities such as hunting, hiking, camping, and snowmobiling are allowed. Based on 

consultations with the USFS, we evaluated route variations that would either avoid or minimize impacts 

on the roadless areas (see section 3.5). For further discussion on roadless areas, refer to section 4.8.3.2. 
4-112

TABLE 4.8.3-1 

Public Land, Recreational Areas, and Other Designated or Special Use Areas Crossed by the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Facility 

County, 

State Milepost(s) Name of Area 

Collocated with 

Existing RightofWay/Compress

or Station 

Approximate 

Crossing 

Length (in 

miles unless 

otherwise 

indicated) 

Approximate 

Acreage 

Affected by 

Construction 

1.2 Oregon, 

Mormon 

Pioneer, and 

Pony Express 

Trails 

Yes 0.0a 0.0a

1.4 Donner 

Reed/Mormon 

Trail and 

California Trail 

(locally the 

Broad Hollow 

Pioneer Trail) 

Yes 12.5 feet <0.1 

4.0-5.0 East Canyon 

WMA 

Yes 1.0 12.3 

5.0-5.6 Lazy H Ranch 

CWMU 

Yes 0.6 5.6 

5.0-5.2 Shady 

Meadow 

Campground 

Yes 0.2 2.2 

9.7-13.3 Hardscrabble 

CWMU 

Yes 3.6 52.7 

13.3-21.3 UWCNF Yes 8.0 97.1 

21.8-22.5A UWCNF No 0.7 9.8 

22.9A24.4A UWCNF No 1.2 19.1 

Wasatch 

Loop 

Morgan 

County, 

UT 

15.1 North 

Holbrook 

Route Trail 

Yes 12.5 feet 0.1 
4-113

TABLE 4.8.3-1 (continued) 

Public Land, Recreational Areas, and Other Designated or Special Use Areas Crossed by the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Facility 

County, 

State Milepost(s) 

Name of 

Area 

Collocated with 

Existing RightofWay/Compressor 

Station 

Approximate 

Crossing 

Length (in 

miles unless 

otherwise 

indicated) 

Approximate 

Acreage 

Affected by 

Construction 

15.9 North 

Holbrook 

Route Trail 

Yes 12.5 feet 0.1 

16.5 Holbrook 

Canyon Trail 

Yes 5 feet <0.1 

18.5 Kenny Creek 

Trail 

Yes 3 feet <0.1 

18.9 Mueller Park No 1.7 23.6 

20.6 North 

Canyon 

Creek Trail 

Yes 8 feet <0.1 

21.0 North 

County Line 

Trail 

Yes 8 feet <0.1 

Davis 

County, 

UT 

21.9 South 

Hooper 

Ridge Trail 

No 8 feet <0.1 

24.2A Bonneville 

Shoreline 

No 40 feet <0.1 

25.5-25.6 Monte 

Thomas, Sr. 

Trust gravel 

pit 

Yes 0.1 2.3 

25.7 Multi-use 

path along 

U.S. Route 

89 

No 8 feet 0.0 a

27.1-27.2 Jordan River 

Parkway 

Trail and 

Jordan River 

Yes 0.03 0.0 a

Wasatch 

Loop (cont) 

Salt 

Lake 

City UT 

27.2-27.5 Jordan River 

Off-Highway 

Vehicle Park 

& Modelport 

Yes 0.3 4.3 

Milford 

Compressor 

Station 

Beaver 

County, 

UT 

326.9 

(existing 

KRGT 

system) 

BLM land 

(rangeland) 

No Not 

applicable 

33.2 
4-114

TABLE 4.8.3-1 (continued) 

Public Land, Recreational Areas, and Other Designated or Special Use Areas Crossed by the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Facility 

County, 

State Milepost(s) 

Name of 

Area 

Collocated with 

Existing RightofWay/Compressor 

Station 

Approximate 

Crossing 

Length (in 

miles unless 

otherwise 

indicated) 

Approximate 

Acreage 

Affected by 

Construction 

Dry Lake 

Compressor 

Station 

Clark 

County, 

NV 

500.1 

(existing 

KRGT 

system) 

BLM land 

(Kern Riverleased 

Industrial 

Land) 

Yes Not 

applicable 

0.0b 

____________ 

Notes: 

 BLM = U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 

 CWMU = Cooperative Wildlife Management Unit 

 KRGT = Kern River Gas Transmission 

 NV = Nevada 

 UT = Utah 

UWCNF = Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

 WMA = Wildlife Management Area. 

a Resource would be bored and would not be affected during construction. 

b Construction would be entirely within the existing Dry Lake Compressor Station property, which is considered industrial land.

Construction of the Project would impact a total of 126.0 acres of the UWCNF. Recreational 

activities, such as use of roads, trails, hunting, and snowmobiling, may be limited during the period of 

construction. Other than the initial right-of-way clearing in the winter of 2010, construction within the 

UWCNF is scheduled to occur between the end of May through the beginning of October; and actual 

construction at any single point would last for only 6 to 10 weeks. Following construction, 66.0 acres 

would be restored to its previous condition to the extent possible in accordance with both Kern River’s 

Reclamation Plan and any specific requirements identified by the UWCNF or private landowners of inholdings within the UWCNF. Approximately 60.0 acres would remain within the permanent right-of-way 

and be permanently converted to open lands. All authorized recreational activities could resume within 

the permanent right-of-way once construction and restoration activities are completed. 

In the draft EIS, we recommended that Kern River adopt the North Salt Lake III Route Variation, 

which was based on a request by the USFS. The variation would avoid steep slopes, mule deer wintering 

habitat, and historic CCC terracing and would reduce impacts on the UWCNF. Subsequent to the draft 

EIS, Kern River has adopted the North Salt Lake III Variation, thus minimizing impacts to these 

resources in this area. 
#

# #

#

 ̈¦§15

Mueller Park 

Roadless Area

Hogsback

Roadless Area

UV65

UV66

 ̈¦§215

 ̈¦§15

15

Bountiful

Farmington

Centerville

Salt Lake City

CA

AZ

NV

NM

OR

CO

WY

UT

Date: July 2010 Figure 4.8.3-1

APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

RECREATION AND SPECIAL INTEREST AREAS

0 1 2 4

Miles

Project Area

 ̄

Legend

# Mainline Valve Location

Proposed Wasatch Loop

Existing Kern River Pipeline

Access Road

Utility Corridor

Utah State Managed Area

BLM

Legacy Parkway

To be Conveyed to UWCNF from Bountiful City

UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Private lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

USFS-managed lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Roadless Areas

4-115
4-116

During consultations, the USFS raised concerns about the potential for unauthorized use of the 

permanent right-of-way through the national forest by ATV users. As stated in Kern River’s Plan, Kern 

River would install and maintain measures such as signs, fences, and barriers to control unauthorized 

vehicle access to the right-of-way. Kern River has also developed an ATV and OHV Barrier Plan 

(Appendix N). The measures contained within this plan include the creation of new ATV/OHV barriers 

where access roads and trails intersect or are within 100 yards of the proposed right-of-way; improving 

existing rock and buck rail fencing barriers already in place at various access road crossings; and 

installing signage at all barrier locations indicating that ATV/OHV usage is not permitted within the 

right-of-way. After construction is completed, Kern River would monitor these areas for 5 years to assess 

their condition. For the first 3 years of the monitoring period, annual foot surveys would be conducted. 

For the last 2 years, surveys would be conducted in conjunction with annual aerial surveys. In addition to 

the surveys above, Kern River also conducts routine aerial assessments of the existing right-of-way every 

two to four weeks to monitor the conditions of the right-of-way, including illegal uses. Kern River would 

continue these surveys for the existing and proposed right-of-way for the life of the pipeline. Kern River 

would notify the USFS of any illegal ATV/OHV use along the right-of-way. 

4.8.3.2 Roadless Areas 

The original proposed route, as analyzed in the draft EIS would have impacted two roadless areas 

within the UWCNF, the Mueller Park Roadless Area and the Hogsback Roadless Area. The Hogsback 

Roadless Area is identified in the set of inventoried roadless area maps contained in the November 2000 

Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2. It was 

further identified in the 2003 Wasatch-Cache NF LRMP. The Mueller Park Roadless Area is identified 

only in the LRMP. Appendix C2 of the Final Environment Impact Statement for the Wasatch Cache 

Revised Forest Plan is a document entitled “Evaluation of Roadless Area Values and Analysis of Effects 

of Individual Roadless Areas.” Every roadless area in the UWCNF was evaluated according to the 

roadless values that the area possessed. However, subsequent to the draft EIS, Kern River adopted the 

Mueller Park Variation as described in section 3.5 of the draft EIS, which avoids crossing the Hogsback 

Roadless Area. Therefore, the current proposed route would only cross the Mueller Park Roadless Area. 

Roadless characteristics include soil, water, diversity of plant and animal communities, habitat for 

special status species dependant on large undisturbed blocks of land, primitive and semi-primitive nonmotorized and motorized recreation, reference landscapes for research, study and interpretation, landscape 

character and scenic integrity, traditional cultural properties and sacred sites and other identified unique 

conditions. Wilderness attributes include untrammeled, natural, undeveloped, outstanding opportunities 

for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation, special features and manageability. 

The Mueller Park Roadless Area is a 7,000-acre area along the Salt Lake and Davis County line. 

The proposed Project would cross the Mueller Park Roadless Area in three locations: between MP 13.3 

and 14.6A, between 20.7 and 20.8, and between 21.8 and 22.5A. The effects of the proposed pipeline on 

wilderness attributes and roadless area characteristics are limited and are described in greater detail in 

Appendix O. A total of approximately 19.5 acres of forested land would be cleared within the Mueller 

Park Roadless Area for construction of the proposed pipeline. Between MP 13.3 and 14.6A, the proposed 

pipeline would not be collocated with the existing right-of-way due to the area being too steep and 

narrow; however, the proposed pipeline route is located entirely within a designated utility corridor 

through the area. Of the approximately 12.4 acres of tree clearing that would be required within this 

portion of the crossing, 2.3 acres would be maintained in an herbaceous state upon completion of pipeline 

construction. Between MP 20.7 and 20.8, a total of 1.6 acres would be impacted due to construction 

within this segment of the Mueller Park Roadless Area. Of the 1.6 acres that would be impacted, 

approximately 1.4 acres would require tree clearing; however, 0.5 acre would be allowed to revegetate 

with trees, while 0.9 acre would remain permanently cleared. The section of the roadless area that would 
4-117

be crossed between MP 21.8 and 22.5A would not be collocated with Kern River’s existing right-of-way. 

This is due to a number of homes that have been built close to the existing right-of-way, preventing 

collocation. Construction of the new right-of-way would result in the clearing of approximately 5.7 acres 

of forested land. However, trees would be allowed to revegetate greater than 10 feet from the centerline. 

As described in section 3.5 of the draft EIS, we recommended that Kern River adopt the North 

Salt Lake III Route Variation in order to avoid steep slopes, mule deer wintering habitat, and historic 

CCC and to reduce impacts on the UWCNF. Subsequent to the draft EIS, Kern River has adopted the 

North Salt Lake III Variation, thus minimizing impacts to these resources in this area. Adoption of this 

route variation also results in a shorter crossing of the Mueller Park Roadless Area between MP 22.0A 

and MP 22.4A. 

4.8.3.3 Recreational and Historic Trails 

The proposed Apex Expansion Project would cross 11 trail systems, including the Donner 

Reed/Mormon Trail and California Trail (locally known as the Broad Hollow Pioneer Trail), Great 

Western Trail, North Holbrook Route Trail, Holbrook Canyon Trail, Kenny Creek Trail, Mueller Park 

Trail, North Canyon Creek Trail, North County Line Trail, South Hooper Ridge Trail, the Bonneville 

Shoreline Trail, and the Jordan River Parkway Trail. The Project would also cross three National Historic 

Trails (Oregon, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express Trails) at approximate MP 1.2, in an area where they 

all follow the same route. 

Eight of the trails that would be crossed by the pipeline would be within the proclaimed boundary 

of the UWCNF: Great Western Trail, North Holbrook Route Trail (crossed twice at MP 15.1 and 15.9), 

Holbrook Canyon Trail, Kenny Creek Trail, Mueller Park Trail, North Canyon Creek Trail, North County 

Line Trail, and South Hooper Ridge Trail. The Great Western Trail has been proposed for study for 

designation as a National Scenic Trail. The trail is an approximately 4,500-mile-long system extending 

through five states, linking National Forests, tribal, state, and BLM-administered lands. The portion of 

the trail that would be crossed by the pipeline at MP 14.8 is an unpaved, two-track road that is accessible 

between May and October. Less than 0.1 acre of the Great Western Trail would be impacted during 

construction of the proposed Wasatch Loop. The North Holbrook Route Trail would be crossed by the 

pipeline at MP 15.1 and 15.9, impacting a total of 0.1 acre of the trail. This trail is managed by a number 

of state and federal agencies, including the USFS and the UDNR. There are a number of recreational 

activities associated with the trail including biking, horseback riding, and hiking. Motorized vehicles are 

not permitted on the trail. The Holbrook Canyon Trail would be crossed by the pipeline at MP 16.5, 

impacting less than 0.1 acre of the trail. The Kenny Creek Trail would be crossed at MP 18.5 and impact 

less than 0.1 acre. The Mueller Park Trail would be crossed at MP 19.2, impacting less than 0.1 acre of 

the trail. Mueller Park Trail is a 13-mile-long multi-use trail that begins at the Mueller Park Picnic 

Grounds and ends at Rudy’s Flats. The trail is open to hikers, horse users, mountain bikers, and 

motorcycles and can be crowded during weekends and holidays (Utah 2009). The North Canyon Creek 

Trail would be crossed at MP 20.6, where the pipeline route is collocated with Kern River’s existing 

right-of-way. Construction of the Project would impact less than 0.1 acre of the North Canyon Creek 

Trail. The trail is a 4-mile-long trail used by recreationalists for hiking and biking. The North County 

Line Trail would be crossed at MP 21.0, impacting less than 0.1 acre. The South Hooper Ridge Trail is 

an unclassified trail that would be crossed at MP 21.9 and sustain less than 0.1 acre of temporary impacts. 

The Donner Reed/Mormon Trail and California Trail at MP 1.4, known locally as the Broad 

Hollow Pioneer Trail, is located on privately-owned property and is considered to have historical 

significance. The pipeline would cross the trail at a location where it is collocated with the existing Kern 

River right-of-way. Less than 0.1 acre of the trail would be affected for this crossing. The Bonneville 

Shoreline Trail, which would be crossed by the pipeline at MP 24.2A and impact less than 0.1 acre, 
4-118

supports a variety of recreational activities including biking and hiking. This trail coincides with a 

parallel dirt trail called Eagle Ridge Trail, which is used for similar activities. 

Kern River is currently proposing to use the open-cut crossing method for construction across all 

of these trails. Installation of the proposed pipeline by the open-cut method would result in temporary 

disruption of recreational uses and activities at the site of the crossing for a period of 6 to 10 weeks. 

Construction is scheduled to occur sometime between May and September for most of the trails that 

would be crossed by the Wasatch Loop. Kern River is currently consulting with the landowners to 

determine any additional impacts or mitigation measures at the various crossings, and would continue to 

coordinate with the landowners in order to develop mitigation measures to ensure minimal disruption for 

trail users. Kern River has committed to work with the UWCNF and any vendors to ensure appropriate 

compensation for loss of any revenues that may result due to construction activities. 

Following construction, all trails would be restored to their previous condition to the extent 

possible in accordance with Kern River’s Reclamation Plan and any specific requirements identified by 

UWCNF and other appropriate land management agencies. 

The Jordan River Parkway Trail and Jordan River are located between MP 27.1 and 27.2. The 

trail is on land administered by the UDNR. The trail itself parallels the Jordan River and is used by 

recreationalists for hiking, biking, and horseback riding. The trail was developed through the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and Urban Park and Recreation Recovery (UPARR) federal financial 

assistance programs. No motorized vehicles are permitted along the trail. Kern River currently proposes 

to bore beneath the Jordan River Parkway Trail and Jordan River, which would result in no direct impacts 

on the trail system or river. Construction could temporarily disrupt users of the river and trail as use of 

the trail could be limited during construction due to safety reasons. Kern River would continue to 

coordinate with the Jordan River Parkway Authority to identify impacts associated with the Apex 

Expansion Project and to develop mitigation measures to minimize disruption to users of the path. 

4.8.3.4 Parks and Recreation Areas 

The Apex Expansion Project would cross a number of recreation areas and parks, including the 

Shady Meadow Campground, Mueller Park, a multi-use path, East Canyon WMA, and the Jordan River 

OHV Park and Modelport. The draft EIS identified the Goldfleck Recreation Area as being crossed by 

the proposed Project at MP 1.2. However, following publication of the draft EIS, it has been determined 

that the Goldfleck Recreation Area no longer exists. The proposed Project would use four roads partially 

located within the East Canyon State Park (State Park Roads #1, #2 East, #2 West, and #3) for access 

during construction. The park is a 680-acre park administered by the Utah Division of Parks and 

Recreation. Recreational activities that occur within the park are swimming, camping, boating, fishing, 

hiking, biking, and equestrian trails. The Shady Meadow Campground would be crossed by the pipeline 

between MP 5.0 and 5.2. The campground is for sale as residential lots. Mueller Park, a nature and 

picnic area located within the boundaries of the UWCNF would be crossed by the pipeline at MP 18.9. A 

multi-use path along State Road 89 would be crossed by the Project at MP 25.6. The path is utilized by 

bikes and pedestrians. The Jordan River Off-Highway Vehicle Park and Modelport would be crossed by 

the Project from MP 27.2 to 27.5. This park consists of tracks for OHV, motorcross, ATV, and offhighway motorcycles. 

Construction of the Apex Expansion Project would result in the temporary disruption of 

recreational activities, including hunting and camping, to all parks and recreation areas. These 

disruptions may include limited hunting and camping opportunities in the vicinity of the construction area 

and restricted use or access to trails and waterways. These disruptions would be expected to last for 6 to 

10 weeks at any one location. Construction at the Shady Meadow Campground, and the Jordan River 
4-119

OHV Park would occur sometime between April and September, while construction at Mueller Park 

would occur sometime between June and September. The exceptions would be for the East Canyon State 

Park, where the facilities supporting recreation activities would be more than 0.25 mile from the Project 

area, and the multi-use path along State Road 89, which would be crossed by a conventional bore, 

resulting in no disruptions to recreational activities at these two locations. Kern River would coordinate 

with landowners and vendors to compensate for any lost revenue due to construction of the proposed 

Project. Kern River is currently in consultation with the landowners in regard to additional mitigation 

measures to ensure minimal disruption of activities. 

Following construction, all affected areas would be restored to the pre-construction condition, to 

the extent possible, according to Kern River’s Reclamation Plan and any requirements specified by the 

landowners or appropriate agencies. Kern River would potentially maintain or mow a 20-foot-wide strip 

centered on the pipeline no more than every 3 years as described in Kern River’s Plan and section 4.4 to 

maintain lands in an herbaceous or scrub-shrub state to assist with aerial inspections of the pipeline. 

However, based on Kern River’s operational experience with its existing pipeline, maintenance mowing 

would likely not be necessary. 

4.8.3.5 Wildlife Management Areas and Cooperative Wildlife Management Units 

The Apex Expansion Project would cross two CWMUs, the Lazy H Ranch CWMU and 

Hardscrabble CWMU, and one WMA, the East Canyon WMA. CWMUs are privately-owned hunting 

areas that have been recognized for big game habitat and managing big game animals. The Lazy H 

Ranch CWMU is approximately 5,000 acres and would be crossed by the pipeline between MP 5.0 and 

5.6. Hunting for elk, mule deer, bobcat, ruffed and blue grouse, and a variety of other species is allowed 

within this CWMU with the appropriate permit. The Hardscrabble CWMU is approximately 16,400 acres 

and would be crossed by the pipeline between MP 9.7 and 13.3. Hunting for deer, elk, and moose is 

allowed within the Hardscrabble CWMU. 

Approximately 5.6 acres of the Lazy H Ranch CWMU and 52.7 acres of the Hardscrabble 

CWMU would be impacted by construction of the Project. Construction of the Project would result in the 

disruption of habitat used for game and other species, and recreational uses and activities within both 

CWMUs. Kern River has developed site-specific mitigation measures for impacts to big game species in 

consultation with USFS, BLM, and UDWR. For more information on these mitigation measures, refer to 

section 4.5 and Appendix M. Approximately 2.1 acres of the Lazy H Ranch CWMU and 22.1 acres of 

the Hardscrabble CWMU would be retained as permanent right-of-way. All recreational activities would 

be allowed to resume once construction and restoration efforts are complete. 

The East Canyon WMA is located north of Highway 65 and northwest of East Canyon Reservoir 

in Morgan County, Utah. It was established in 1985 through funds provided by the Federal Aid to the 

Wildlife Restoration Program, authorized by the Wildlife Restoration Act (aka Pittman-Robertson) of 

1937 and administered by the FWS’s Division of Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration. The East Canyon 

WMA is owned by the State of Utah and managed by the UDWR. The purpose of the East Canyon 

WMA is to provide public access for big game winter range and hunting in Morgan County. It is used for 

deer hunting, wildlife viewing, hiking, and horseback riding. 

Since the East Canyon WMA was purchased through Wildlife Restoration Program funding, the 

FWS and UDWR must evaluate any proposed uses or impacts on the property to ensure that the property 

would continue to uphold the wildlife and resource functions and values for which it was acquired. For 

any lands identified as state-owned lands and bound under contract with FWS for habitat conservation, 

Kern River would need to obtain a right-of-way permit from the State of Utah. The existing contracts 
4-120

between the UDWR and FWS would require amendments for a change in purpose. These amendments 

would precede the State of Utah issuing any right-of-way permit across such lands. 

Prior to granting an easement for the Apex Expansion Project through the East Canyon WMA, 

the FWS would review and evaluate the proposed impacts on the WMA to discern how the properties and 

the values protected may be materially affected by the Project. Upon completion of the process, the FWS 

can approve grant amendments for an easement crossing the WMA. These grant amendments would 

serve to legally grant the conditioned right-of-way to Kern River for the pipeline. Kern River would work 

with the UDWR and FWS to identify potential conditions to include in the right-of-way permit to protect 

the wildlife functions and values for which the properties were acquired. 

The proposed pipeline would cross the East Canyon WMA between MP 4.0 and 5.0 and would be 

located adjacent to Kern River’s existing pipeline in this area. Approximately 12.3 acres within the East 

Canyon WMA would be impacted by construction of the Project. Of this, 9.2 acres were previously 

disturbed during construction of Kern River’s existing pipeline and 3.1 acres would be greenfield 

construction. Approximately 5.8 acres would be retained as permanent right-of-way, of which, 3.1 acres 

would overlap with Kern River’s existing permanent right-of-way and 2.7 acres would be new permanent 

right-of-way. The habitat in the affected area is primarily Great Basin sagebrush, with occasional patches 

of mountain mahogany-oak scrub as discussed in section 4.4. Kern River conducted biological surveys 

along the corridor in this area (see sections 4.4 and 4.5). 

Construction impacts within the WMA would be associated with clearing of the construction 

right-of-way and additional temporary workspace areas along the construction right-of-way. These 

activities would result in the temporary loss of sagebrush and scrub oak habitats and the loss of 

recreational opportunities, such as hunting. However, these impacts would be temporary. As previously 

stated, Kern River has developed site-specific mitigation measures for impacts to big game species in 

consultation with UDWR (see sections 4.5). 

Construction traffic and noise would temporarily affect recreational uses of the East Canyon 

WMA. The primary access road for the WMA is located within construction workspace in the 

southeastern corner of the WMA; therefore, construction could interrupt access and potentially disrupt 

hunting and big game activity. This would be a short-term impact of two to three months and would 

occur only when construction is active on or near this particular parcel. Kern River consulted with the 

UDWR to determine the timing of construction in order to ensure minimal disruption of the function and 

uses of the WMA. The WMA is closed annually from January 1 through the second Saturday in April to 

protect wintering wildlife. In addition, there are several different hunt seasons in late September, October 

and early November, centered primarily on the October 23-27 open season rifle hunt. In an effort to 

avoid impacts on sage grouse during the lek and brood rearing seasons, Kern River proposes to construct 

from MP 0.0 to 5.5 between October 1, 2010 and January 1, 2011. The East Canyon WMA is included 

within this area. The UDWR has agreed to allow Kern River to construct during the open season rifle 

hunt dates of October 23 through October 31 so as to not need a second construction season in 2011 

within sage grouse habitat. For a more detailed discussion on vegetation and wildlife impacts and 

mitigation measures refer to sections 4.4 and 4.5, respectively. 

Kern River must receive the FWS grant amendment and UDWR right-of-way permit prior to 

construction across the East Canyon WMA. Therefore, Kern River would continue to coordinate with the 

UDWR and FWS in order to complete its consultation to ensure that mitigation measures are developed to 

minimize potential impacts to wildlife habitat and recreational hunting in the WMA. The UDWR would 

include any necessary conditions in Kern River’s right-of-way permit for the East Canyon WMA. 
4-121

After construction is complete, all disturbed areas would be restored in accordance with Kern 

River’s Reclamation Plan. Approximately 5.8 acres would be maintained as permanent right-of-way. 

4.8.3.6 Gravel Pits 

The Monte Thomas, Sr. Trust Gravel Pit would be crossed between MP 25.5 and 25.6. This is an 

active gravel pit that is currently mined for both gravel and sand. Approximately 2.3 acres of the gravel 

pit would be impacted during construction of the Apex Expansion Project. Once construction is 

completed, 1.5 acres of the impacted land would be restored to its current condition, to the extent 

possible. The remaining 0.8 acre would be converted to permanent right-of-way. Mining operations 

would be prohibited within the permanent right-of-way. Kern River is currently coordinating with the 

landowner and the operator of the pit to identify specific minimization measures and to determine 

appropriate compensation for any lost product. 

4.8.4 Visual Resources 

“Visual resources” refers to the composite of basic terrain features, geologic features, hydrologic 

features, vegetative patterns, and anthropogenic features that influence the visual appeal of an area for 

residents or visitors. The Project would cross federal, state, and privately owned lands. The 

responsibility for protecting visual resources on federal lands was established by the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act, which places emphasis on the protection of scenic resources on public land, and the 

Forestland and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act, which empowers the USFS to manage 

scenery resources. 

4.8.4.1 Visual Resource Federal Land Classifications 

The BLM assigns Visual Resource Management (VRM) classes to the various landscapes under 

its management. VRM classes range from Class I to Class IV, with Class I being the most restrictive and 

Class IV being the least restrictive. These classes describe the different degrees of modification, or 

contrast, allowed to the basic visual elements of the landscape. VRM classes and the allowable visual 

changes in each class include: 

 Class I – The objective of this class is to preserve the existing character of the landscape. 

This class provides for natural ecological changes; however, it does not preclude very limited 

management activity. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be very low 

and must not attract attention. 

 Class II – The objective of this class is to retain the existing character of the landscape. The 

level of change to the characteristic landscape should be low. Management activities may be 

seen, but should not attract the attention of the casual observer. Any changes must repeat the 

basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in the predominant natural features of 

the characteristic landscape. 

 Class III – The objective of this class is to partially retain the existing character of the 

landscape. The level of change to characteristic landscape should be moderate. Management 

activities may attract attention but should not dominate the view of the casual observer. 

Changes should repeat the basic elements found in the predominant natural features of the 

characteristic landscape. 

 Class IV – The objective of this class is to provide for management activities that require 

major modification of the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the 

characteristic landscape can be high. 
4-122

As currently proposed, the Apex Expansion Project would be consistent with the objectives and 

definitions of Class III and Class IV designations as defined by the BLM. The proposed Project, 

however, may not be consistent with the objectives and definitions of Class I and Class II designations. 

Nationally, the USFS is moving toward the Scenery Management System (SMS). The UWCNF 

is currently managed using the SMS. “The goal of SMS is to create and maintain landscapes having high 

scenic diversity, harmony, and unity for the benefit of society in general” (USDA Forest Service 1995). 

One of the first objectives within the SMS is to develop the landscape character descriptions. The 

landscape character is defined as the visual and cultural image based on the physical, biological, and 

cultural attributes that make each landscape unique or identifiable (USDA Forest Service 1995). The 

landscape character description is used for the scenic integrity of the land (USDA Forest Service 1995). 

Scenic integrity has to do with the degree to which the landscape is visually perceived complete. The 

SMS acknowledges scenery management is an integrated part of the ecosystem. Determining the amount 

of time it may take vegetation to recover and reach the scenic management objectives after completion of 

a project is a part of the analysis and a way to communicate to the public the time it may take for 

restoration to allow the project to blend into the landscape using characteristic patterns for the vegetation 

type. The SMS uses Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) to classify landscapes by degree of alteration and 

are defined in the Scenery Management Systems Handbook (USDA Forest Service 1995) as follows: 

 High – Landscapes where the valued landscape character appears intact and are said to have 

high scenic integrity. Deviations may be present but must repeat the form, line, color, 

texture, and pattern common to the landscape character so completely and at such scale that 

they are not evident. 

 Moderate – Landscapes where the valued landscape character appears slightly altered. 

Noticeable deviations must remain visually subordinate to the landscape character being 

viewed. 

 Low – Landscapes where the valued landscape character appears moderately altered. 

Deviations begin to dominate the valued landscape character being viewed. 

 Very Low – Landscapes where the valued landscape character appears heavily altered. 

Deviations may strongly dominate the valued landscape character. Deviations must be 

shaped and blended with the natural terrain so that the unnatural elements do not dominate 

the composition. 

 Unacceptable Low – Landscapes where the valued landscape character being viewed appears 

extremely altered and that are considered to have unacceptable low scenic integrity. 

Deviations are extremely dominant and borrow little if any form, line, color, texture, pattern, 

or scale from the landscape character. This level should only be used to inventory existing 

integrity. It must not be used as a management objective 

In consultation with the USFS, Kern River is conducting a visual assessment for USFS lands 

crossed by the proposed Apex Expansion Project. At the time of publication of the draft EIS, Kern River 

expected to complete the assessment by the spring 2010. However, at this time Kern River has provided a 

visual resource technical report (Appendix P) which states that a supplemental document assessing the 

appropriate visual mitigation techniques would not be completed until after the publication of the final 

EIS. While this technical report includes an inventory of the existing visual resources based on the USFS 

SMS and an assessment of potential impacts to these resources, it does not identify specific mitigation 

strategies for sensitive resources in the proposed Project area. Since the assessment is not finalized and 

the supplemental document would contain Kern River’s proposed mitigation measures, we recommend 

that: 
4-123

 Prior to construction, Kern River complete and file with the Secretary and the USFS, 

the final visual assessment report that contains the specific mitigation strategies for the 

USFS-managed lands. 

4.8.4.2 Impacts and Mitigation 

The proposed Project could alter existing visual resources in three ways: (1) construction activity 

and equipment may temporarily alter the viewshed; (2) lingering impacts along the right-of-way from 

clearing during construction could alter existing vegetation patterns; and (3) aboveground facilities would 

represent permanent alterations to the viewshed. The significance of these visual impacts primarily 

would depend on the quality of the viewshed, the degree of alteration of that view, the sensitivity or 

concern of potential viewers, and the perspective of the viewer. 

The majority of the land traversed by the pipeline consists of steep terrain with significant 

forested areas. Open land and agricultural areas can also be found in the proposed Project area. There are 

several existing pipelines in the vicinity of the Project, and the Apex Expansion Project would parallel 

some of these existing rights-of-way. Some areas along the pipeline route are either inaccessible or do 

not provide long-range unobstructed views, but public viewpoints are present along some of the roadways 

in the area. The Project as proposed would not cross any National Wild and Scenic Rivers, National 

Scenic Byways, National Wildlife Refuge land, National Monument lands, Wilderness Areas, or 

Wilderness Study Areas. 

Construction and operation of the pipeline may affect visual resources by altering the terrain and 

vegetation patterns during construction or right-of-way maintenance. Upgrades at the existing 

compressor stations would impact developed lands, while construction of the new compressor station 

would impact open lands. 

Construction of the proposed Project could result in impacts on the viewshed due to the presence 

of construction activities, construction equipment, and modification or clearing of vegetation along the 

construction right-of-way. From a Visual Resource management standpoint, the degree of visual impacts 

would depend on the quality of the existing viewshed, the magnitude of the alteration, and the number of 

viewers potentially impacted. Integrity “is limited to the deviation from or alteration of the existing 

landscape character that is valued for its aesthetic appeal” (USDA Forest Service 1995). The temporary 

alteration to the views could be perceived as detrimental to some, while others may derive enjoyment 

from viewing construction activity. 

The landscape setting along the proposed pipeline route is generally flat, and views of the 

construction activities may extend for some distance. However, the construction work areas would be 

restored as near as possible to pre-construction contours and revegetated. Once revegetation is complete, 

there would be no significant alteration of the landscape of the region. 

The Milford Compressor Station would be located on open land at Kern River’s mainline 

KRMP 326.9 in Beaver County, Utah. The entire station would comprise approximately 33.2 acres. As 

described in section 2.1.2, the compressor station would contain a number of components, including a 

new Titan 250 compressor, three filet/separator units, a gas cooler, two MLVs, two pig launchers, and 

two pig receivers. 

The Milford Compressor Station would be located in an area characterized by grazing lands, 

extending 0.25 mile in each direction. The compressor station would be 0.3 mile from Highway 129, thus 

it would be visible to motorists approaching the area. The nearest residence would be almost 2 miles 

from the Milford Compressor Station site. Due to the rural location of the compressor station, it is 
4-124

anticipated that the presence of the station would not result in visual impacts on residents in the area; 

however, the change in the existing landscape would be permanent. 

The electrical distribution line associated with the Milford Compressor Station would be 

constructed along Imperial Avenue. In general, visual impacts resulting from installation would be shortterm, typically lasting no longer than 1 month. Visual impacts from operation of the electrical 

distribution line associated with the proposed Project would be minor but long-term. 

Upgrades to the existing four compressor stations would occur within the previously defined 

property boundaries and would be visually similar to the existing components at these sites. As such, no 

permanent visual impacts are expected from these proposed Project-related activities. 

After construction is completed, Kern River would reseed all areas affected by construction in 

accordance with their Reclamation Plan to return the impacted vegetation to pre-existing conditions and 

minimize visual impacts. Further discussion on restoration of impacted vegetation can be found in 

section 4.4. 

4.9 SOCIOECONOMICS 

The Apex Expansion pipeline route and the Milford Compressor Station would traverse four 

counties in Utah (Morgan, Davis, Salt Lake, and Beaver); and upgrades to existing facilities would occur 

in two counties in Utah (Utah and Millard), one county in Wyoming (Uinta), and one county in Nevada 

(Clark). For the purposes of our socioeconomic analysis, these counties are defined as the “region of 

influence” for the proposed Project. 

Several socioeconomic effects could impact the region of influence during construction of the 

Project. These include alteration of population levels or local demographics, increased employment 

opportunities, increased demand for housing and public services, transportation impacts, and an increase 

in government revenue associated with sales and payroll taxes. Potential socioeconomic impacts 

associated with operation of the Project could include employment opportunities, ongoing local 

expenditures by the operating company, an increased tax base, and an increase in the demand for 

provision of public services. Section 4.9.7 contains an analysis of environmental justice, as per CEQ 

guidelines (1997). 

4.9.1 Population and Employment 

Table 4.9.1-1 provides a summary of selected socioeconomic and demographic information for 

the states and counties that would be traversed by the Apex Expansion Project. Population densities in 

the region of influence range from a low of 1.9 persons per square mile in Millard County, Utah to a high 

of 1,219 persons per square mile in Salt Lake County, Utah. Five of the eight affected counties have 

population densities above that of their respective state. 

The civilian labor force in the region of influence includes approximately 2.0 million people. The 

major industries within the counties traversed by the proposed Project include educational, health, and 

social services; management, professional, and related occupations; agriculture, forestry, fishing and 

hunting, and mining; and arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food services. Per capita 

income ranges from $13,408 in Millard County, Utah to $21,785 in Clark County, Nevada. Six out of the 

eight affected counties have per capita incomes that are below that of their respective states. 
4-125

TABLE 4.9.1-1 

Existing Socioeconomic Conditions for States and Counties in the Region of Influence of the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

State/County 

Population 

(2009)a

Population 

Density (2000)a

(persons/sq. mile) 

Per Capita 

Income 

(2007)b

Civilian Labor 

Forcec

Unemployment 

Rate (%)c Major Ind

UTAH 2,784,572 27.2 $31,944 1,369,400 6.0 

Morgan 8,908 11.7 $28,071 3,971 5.5 Management, pr

occupations 

Davis 300,827 786.2 $31,518 144,710 5.8 Educational, heaSalt Lake 1,034,989 1,219.0 $35,805 558,427 6.2 Educational, heaBeaver 6,267 2.3 $27,240 3,231 4.7 Agriculture, fore

hunting, and min

Utah 545,307 184.5 $21,668 220,409 5.8 Educational, heaMillard 12,276 1.9 $26,397 6,371 4.4 Educational, hea

WYOMING 577,270 5.1 $48,608 292,547 5.9 

Uinta 20,927 9.5 $42,621 11,581 7.2 Educational, hea

NEVADA 2,643,085 18.2 $41,182 1,402,450 11.4 

Clark 1,902,834 173.9 $39,188 1,010,318 11.6 Arts, entertainme

accommodation a

Total 3,832,335 1,958,964 

____________ Notes: a Source: State and County QuickFacts (U.S. Census Bureau 2010a) b Source: BEA 2009 c Source: Utah data as of July 2009 from Utah Department of Workforce Services; Wyoming data as of September 2009 from Wyoming Departm

Research and Planning 2009; and Nevada data as of 2009 from Nevada Workforce Informer 2009. 
4-126 

The unemployment rates within the affected counties are generally lower than their respective 

states’ rates. The unemployment rates range from 4.4 percent in Millard County, Utah to 11.6 percent in 

Clark County, Nevada. All unemployment rates are the most recently available estimates from 

September 2009 from the respective states employment or workforce divisions. Only three counties have 

employment rates that are higher than their respective states: including Clark County, Nevada; Uinta 

County, Wyoming; and Salt Lake County, Utah. 

Construction is expected to begin in October 2010 with an in-service date of November 2011. 

Kern River estimates that the peak construction workforce would be 871 workers, with 541 workers 

associated with the Wasatch Loop and 330 workers associated with upgrades at four compressor stations 

and construction of the one new compressor station (Milford Compressor Station) (table 4.9.1-2). The 

actual workforce for each Project component would vary over the course of the 13-month construction 

phase. The Milford Compressor Station is expected to take 8 months to construct, and installation of the 

associated electrical distribution line would generally coincide with this timeframe. The proposed 

additional compression at the existing Coyote Creek, Elberta, and Dry Lake Compressor Stations is 

anticipated to be completed within 7 months, and the proposed updated compression at the Fillmore 

Compressor Station would occur over an estimated 3-month period. Although construction of the new 

compressor station and upgrades at the existing compressor stations could occur at any time during the 

13-month construction phase, for the purposes of this analysis, we assume that these construction 

activities would coincide with the peak construction workforce for the pipeline. This results in a more 

conservative analysis of the potential socioeconomic impacts. 

Kern River estimates that approximately 50 percent of the pipeline construction workforce would 

be non-local workers. Therefore, at the peak of construction, up to 271 pipeline installation workers 

would be non-local workers while approximately 270 pipeline installation workers would be local. Kern 

River has stated that 50 percent of the entire workforce for the Milford Compressor Station would be 

hired locally, (i.e., from Utah). However, the proposed site for the compressor station is in a rural area 

that could result in unrealistic commute times from population centers located to the northeast. 

Therefore, it is likely that workers hired from within Utah would require temporary housing; thus, for the 

purpose of this analysis, all workers are assumed to be non-local workers. The workforce for the updates 

at the remaining compressor stations would be non-local. Overall, for the compressor stations a peak of 

330 workers would be considered non-local. The influx of approximately 601 non-local workers would 

result in a temporary, but negligible population growth within the affected counties. Any additional 

workforce required for the electrical distribution line would likely be small and negligible. 

Based on the available information, the Project would be expected to result in an increase in local 

populations within the region of influence. This would represent only a minor, temporary population 

increase and would be confined to the period of Project construction. 

Additional jobs would also be created as a result of secondary activity associated with 

construction of the Project, as purchases made by non-local workers on food, clothing, lodging, gasoline, 

and entertainment would have a temporary, stimulatory effect on the local economy. These jobs would 

represent a temporary, minor increase in employment opportunities within the region of influence. 
4-127 

TABLE 4.9.1-2 

Estimated Construction Workforce for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Facility/Activity 

Number of Workers 

(Local and Non-Local) 

PIPELINE FACILITIES – Wasatch Loop 

Peak Construction Workforce 541 

Average Construction Workforce 262 

COMPRESSOR STATIONS 

Coyote Creek Compressor Station

Peak Construction Workforce 70 

Average Construction Workforce 40 

Elberta Compressor Station

Peak Construction Workforce 70 

Average Construction Workforce 40 

Fillmore Compressor Station

Peak Construction Workforce 30 

Average Construction Workforce 20 

Milford Compressor Station

Peak Construction Workforce 90 

Average Construction Workforce 50 

Dry Lake Compressor Station

Peak Construction Workforce 70 

Average Construction Workforce 40 

Compressor Stations Peak Construction Workforce (Total) 330 

Compressor Stations Average Construction Workforce (Total) 190 

Peak Construction Workforce 871 

Average Construction Workforce 452 

During operation, Kern River has indicated that one additional employee would be required to 

operate and maintain the proposed Milford Compressor Station. This position would represent a 

negligible, long-term increase in employment. 

4.9.2 Housing 

Table 4.9.2-1 reports selected housing statistics for counties that would be traversed by the Apex 

Expansion Project. Within these counties, there are approximately 31,340 vacant rental units, as well as 

about 39 campgrounds and RV parks used for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. Approximately 

375 hotel or motels supplement this potential housing stock. 

At its peak, construction of the pipeline would require about 271 non-local workers, as described 

in section 4.9.1. The terminus of the Wasatch Loop would be located within Salt Lake City, while the 
4-128 

start of the Wasatch Loop would be approximately 28 miles from the city limits. Due to the large number 

of hotel/motels and vacant rental units available in Salt Lake County, especially in Salt Lake City, it is 

anticipated that the majority of the workforce for the Wasatch Loop would be housed within Salt Lake 

County, generally limiting housing impacts on Morgan and Davis Counties. Given the large number of 

accommodations within the Salt Lake area, we feel the housing accommodations would be sufficient to 

house the workforce without displacing tourists. 

At its peak, construction of the compressor stations would require about 330 non-local workers, 

as described in section 4.9.1. However, this workforce would be spread across the five counties where 

the facilities are located. It is anticipated that the majority of the workers for the compressor stations 

would temporarily relocate to the county where the compressor station is located to avoid long commutes. 

Because the workforces would be small (as detailed in table 4.9.2-1), there would be adequate housing for 

the compressor station workforces. 

TABLE 4.9.2-1 

Vacant Accommodation Housing Units for the Proposed 

Apex Expansion Project 

State/County 

Rental 

Vacancy Rate 

(%)a

Vacant 

Housing 

Units for 

Renta 

Hotels and 

Motelsb RV Parks and Campsb

UTAH 

Morgan 4.0 10 0 0 

Davis 5.6 950 15 2 

Salt Lake 6.4 6,259 112 7 

Beaver 19.5 101 12 0 

Utah 3.2 1,096 35 5 

Millard 7.7 65 7 0 

WYOMING 

Uinta 17.7 363 15 0 

NEVADA 

Clark 9.7 22,496 179 25 

Total 8.9 31,340 375 39 

____________ 

Notes: 

a Source: American Factfinder (U.S. Census Bureau 2009b) 

b

 Source: Kern River 2009 

During operation, Kern River has indicated that one additional employee would be required to 

operate and maintain the proposed Milford Compressor Station. Housing demand for this single 

individual would have a negligible, long-term increase in housing demand. 
4-129 

4.9.3 Public Services 

Demand for medical, police, and fire protection services would temporarily increase during 

construction of the Project. Table 4.9.3-1 summarizes the medical, police, and fire protection facilities in 

the counties traversed by the proposed Project. Based on the 2009 estimates (U.S. Census Bureau 2009a), 

these facilities serve a population of about 3,832,335 people (table 4.9.1-1). Due to the temporary nature 

of the work, it is assumed that the majority of the workers would not relocate with school-age children. 

Therefore, any impacts on the education sector are expected to be temporary and minor. 

Multiple construction activities may require the assistance of fire, police, or medical services. 

Local police may need to assist in maintaining traffic flow during construction at road crossings or would 

need to respond to emergencies associated with pipeline construction. Fire departments would be needed 

in case of project-related fire or emergencies. Increased need for medical services would be mainly due 

to any illness or injury of workforce personnel. 

TABLE 4.9.3-1 

Existing Public Service Facilities in the Region of Influence for the Apex Expansion Project 

State/County 

Police / 

Sheriff 

Departmentsa Fire 

Departmentsa Nearest Medical Facilitiesb

UTAH 

Morgan 1 3 St. Marks Hospital (Salt Lake City, UT) 

Davis 13 10 Lakeview Hospital (Bountiful, UT) 

Salt Lake 18 12 LDS Hospital (Salt Lake City, UT) 

Beaver 4 2 Beaver Valley Hospital (Beaver, UT) 

Utah 14 18 Mountain View Hospital (Payson, UT) 

Millard 1 7 Fillmore Community Medical Center (Fillmore, UT) 

WYOMING 

Uinta 5 3 Evanston Regional Hospital (Evanston, WY) 

NEVADA 

Clark 8 6 Sunrise Hospital and Medical Center (Las Vegas, NV) 

____________ 

Notes: 

a

 Source: Capitol Impact Government Gateway 2009 

b

 Source: American Hospital Directory 2009 

Construction of the proposed pipeline would traverse Morgan County, Davis County, and Salt 

Lake County, Utah. Davis and Salt Lake Counties contain emergency medical services, and all three 

counties contain police and fire protection services. Morgan County does not contain a hospital; 

however, it does have ambulance services. The closest hospitals to Morgan County are in Davis County. 

Considering the relatively small number of workers, it is anticipated that the increased demand of these 

services would be within the capacity of the existing departments. 

Operation of the pipeline would require the addition of one full-time permanent position. The 

impacts on public services due to this employee would be negligible but permanent. 
4-130 

4.9.4 Transportation 

Construction activities associated with both the proposed pipeline and the compressor stations 

could result in short-term impacts on transportation infrastructure. These activities include increased 

traffic flow due to movement of construction vehicles, personnel, and equipment; construction of the 

pipeline across roadways; and potential damage to local roadways from heavy construction equipment. 

Construction of the pipeline would require a peak workforce of 541 workers, while the peak 

workforce for the upgrades at the existing compressor stations and construction of the newly proposed 

Milford Compressor Station would be 330 workers. Kern River expects the majority of the workforce to 

be on-site prior to peak morning commuting hours and to depart after peak evening commuting hours. 

Kern River would have to obtain all appropriate permits prior to crossing any roads. These 

permits would be a direct result of consultation between Kern River and the associated county or 

municipal agency and thus would include specific guidance on detour routes; speed/load limits; and other 

use limitations, conditions, restrictions, or requirements by the issuing agency. Highly utilized and/or 

paved railroads, state highways, and county roads would generally be crossed by horizontal bore in order 

to avoid disruption to traffic. The primary impact at these locations would be associated with equipment 

crossing the roadway or entering and exiting the construction right-of-way. Currently, Kern River 

proposes to bore 13 roadways (table 2.3.2-1). 

The open-cut construction method would be used to cross driveways as well as minor or unpaved 

roads where permitted by local authorities and landowners. For these roads, the open-cut method would 

require temporary use of one lane or road closures. In the event that a road closure would be required, 

Kern River would make provisions for detours or other measures to permit traffic flow during 

construction. If a reasonable detour cannot be found, a minimum of one lane would be kept open, except 

when it is essential to close the road for construction across the roadway. To the extent possible, roads 

would not be closed during peak traffic hours. 

To maintain safe roadway conditions, Kern River would utilize fencing, signs, warning devices, 

and flaggers. In addition, Kern River would request that contractors remove all soil that is left on 

roadways from construction equipment. Tracking mats or sweeping would be used to minimize the 

transfer of soil. Impacts due to construction across roadways are expected to be minor and temporary. 

4.9.5 Property Values 

The potential impact of natural gas pipelines on the value of any land parcel depends on a number 

of factors, including the size of the property, the presence of other pipelines in the area, the current value 

of the parcel and its land use, and the value of other nearby properties. The compensation paid by Kern 

River to landowners for the acquisition of temporary and permanent easements also depends on these 

factors. If properties crossed by the proposed Apex Expansion Project are for sale during or following 

construction, potential buyers may choose not to purchase the property if the presence of the Project 

would conflict with their intended use of the property. If, following construction, a landowner believes 

that the presence of the pipeline or aboveground facility reduced his property value, the landowner could 

appeal to the local property taxation agency to obtain a reassessment of their property value that 

incorporated the easement. 

As described in sections 4.4 and 4.8, construction and operation of the proposed Project would 

result in a short-term loss of agricultural productivity. After construction is complete, agricultural 

practices would be allowed to resume along the right-of-way. Kern River would compensate landowners 

for any demonstrated losses or decreases in productivity due to construction of the Project.
4-131 

4.9.6 Economy and Tax Revenues 

Based on the projected workforce, Kern River estimates that the construction payroll would be 

approximately $35.4 million. While the purchase of specialized construction materials and equipment 

would occur outside of the region of influence, non-specialized material such as fuel and basic supplies 

would be purchased locally. Kern River estimates that $8.0 million would be spent locally on material 

purchases associated with the Project. Portions of the construction payroll would be spent locally for the 

purchase of housing, food, gasoline, and entertainment during construction. While the exact amount 

would depend on the proportion of the workforce hired locally, the behavior of individual workers, and 

the duration of their stay, a portion of these expenditures would be subject to state and county sales tax. 

Kern River estimates that approximately $1.3 million would be spent on local fuel purchases for the 

Project. The increases in sales tax revenues would represent a minor, short-term increase in state 

revenues for Utah, Wyoming, and Nevada. 

Construction of the Apex Expansion Project may also result in temporary secondary impacts on 

employment. Local businesses, such as restaurants and hotels/motels, may add staff or increase work 

hours for existing staff to accommodate any increases in demand. These impacts would likely be greatest 

in areas where workers are being housed, and are discussed in section 4.9.2. 

Long-term economic losses could be incurred to livestock operators who utilize the 33.2 acres of 

public leased grazing lands that would be permanently impacted from construction of the Milford 

Compressor Station. However, the total grazing allotment contains over 17,000 acres of public land. The 

removal of the public lands by the Project would represent much less than 1 percent in the total area of the 

allotment. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Apex Expansion Project would cause a significant economic 

loss to livestock operators. 

Overall, economic impacts due to construction of the Project may be beneficial at the local, 

county, and state level. However, these impacts would be limited to the duration of the construction 

period. 

Operation of the Apex Expansion Project would also produce economic impacts on the region. 

Table 4.9.6-1 summarizes Kern River’s estimate of the annual property (ad valorem) taxes that would be 

payable to each county traversed by the Project. Ad valorem taxes would be allocated to affected states, 

and then to affected counties according to the proportion of miles of the Project within each jurisdiction 

during the pipeline’s operational period, which is estimated to be 50 years. The total annual property tax 

would be approximately $2.2 million. Thus, operation of the Apex Expansion Project would provide a 

permanent increase in government revenues over the life of the Project. The one full-time employee that 

would be required during Project operation would provide a permanent but negligible impact on the state, 

county, and local economy through contribution in various taxes and the purchases of goods and services 

locally. 
4-132 

TABLE 4.9.6-1 

Estimated Annual Property (Ad Valorem) Tax for the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

State/County Estimated Tax 

UTAH 

Morgan $558,000 

Davis $626,000 

Salt Lake $44,000 

Beaver $370,000 

Utah $5,000 

Millard $236,000 

WYOMING 

Uinta $179,000 

NEVADA 

Clark $200,000 

Total $2,218,000 

4.9.7 Environmental Justice 

EO 12898 on Environmental Justice recognizes the importance of using the NEPA process to 

identify and address, as appropriate, any disproportionately high and adverse health or environmental 

effects of its programs, policies, or activities on minority populations and low-income groups. The 

provisions of EO 12898 apply equally to Native American programs. Consistent with EO 12898, the 

CEQ has called on federal agencies to actively scrutinize the following issues with respect to 

environmental justice (CEQ 1997): 

 the racial and economic composition of affected communities; 

 health-related issues that may amplify project effects to minority or low-income individuals; 

and 

 public participation strategies, including community or tribal participation in the NEPA 

process. 

The EPA provides guidance on determining whether there is a minority or low-income 

community to be addressed in a NEPA analysis. According to this guidance, minority population issues 

must be addressed when they comprise over 50 percent of an affected area or when the minority 

population percentage of the affected area is substantially greater than the minority percentage in the 

larger area of the general population. Low-income populations are those that fall within the annual 

statistical poverty thresholds from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census Population 

Reports, Series P-60 on Income and Poverty. 

Minority populations comprise less than 50 percent of the population in all of counties traversed 

by the proposed Project, and minorities do not comprise more than 50 percent of the population in the 

region of influence as a whole (table 4.9.7-1). To further assess whether the minority population in the 
4-133 

region of influence is substantially greater than the minority population in surrounding areas, we 

compared county-level demographics to the respective statewide proportions. The proportion of 

individual minority populations is greater than respective state-level statistics in two of the eight counties 

that make up the region of influence for the Project (table 4.9.7-1). Guidance from the CEQ states that 

“minority populations should be identified where either: (a) the minority population of the affected area 

exceeds 50 percent or (b) the minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater 

than the minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic 

analysis” (CEQ 1997). These statistics indicate that a disproportionate effect on minority populations is 

unlikely. 

TABLE 4.9.7-1 

Racial/Ethnic Comparison for Counties Crossed by the Proposed 

Apex Expansion Project 

(in percent)a

State/County 

White 

(2008) 

Black or 

African 

American 

(2008) 

American 

Indian 

and 

Alaska 

Native 

(2008) 

Asian 

(2008) 

Native 

Hawaiian 

and Pacific 

Islander 

(2008) 

Persons 

Reporting 

Two or More 

Races (2008)

Persons of 

Hispanic or 

Latino 

Origins 

(2008)b

UTAH 92.9 1.3 1.4 2.0 0.8 1.7 12.0 

Morgan 98.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 1.2 2.2 

Davis 94.1 1.4 0.6 1.7 0.4 1.7 7.6 

Salt Lake 90.8 1.8 1.1 3.1 1.4 1.9 16.3 

Beaver 95.8 0.4 1.3 0.8 0.1 1.6 8.1 

Utah 94.9 0.7 0.7 1.4 0.6 1.7 9.6 

Millard 96.2 0.3 1.6 0.6 0.2 1.1 12.6 

WYOMING 93.9 1.3 2.5 0.7 0.1 1.5 7.7 

Uinta 97.0 0.3 1.1 0.4 0.1 1.2 7.6 

NEVADA 80.9 8.1 1.5 6.2 0.5 2.8 25.7 

Clark 77.7 10.4 1.1 7.3 0.6 3.0 28.4 

____________ 

Notes: 

a Source: State and County QuickFacts (U.S. Census Bureau 2010a) 

b People who identify their origin as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. Thus, the percent Hispanic or Latino should 

not be added to the race as percentage of population categories. 

“Low-income populations” are defined as those living below the established poverty level. The 

U.S. Census Bureau also reports the percentage of county populations with an income below the poverty 

level of $10,991 in 2008, as summarized in table 4.9.7-2. In order to evaluate the potential for a lowincome population to be impacted disproportionately, we compared the poverty level rates for counties 

within the region of influence to those of their respective state levels. 
4-134 

TABLE 4.9.7-2 

Economic Statistics for Counties Crossed by the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

State/County 

Median Household Income 

(2008)a Persons below Poverty 

(%) (2008)a Households Receiving Public Assistance (%)b

UTAH $56,820 9.7 3.1 

Morgan $67,768 4.0 2.4 

Davis $67,004 6.1 2.9 

Salt Lake $59,138 8.8 3.0 

Beaver $45,994 9.7 4.0 

Utah $59,701 11.8 2.4 

Millard $46,823 12.7 5.1 

WYOMING $54,735 9.5 2.6 

Uinta $62,253 8.9 2.8 

NEVADA $54,432 11.2 2.3 

Clark $55,961 11.1 2.4 

____________ 

Notes: 

a Source: State and County Quickfacts (U.S. Census Bureau 2010a) 

b

 Source: American FactFinder (U.S. Census Bureau 2009b) 

The majority of the counties crossed by the proposed Project have poverty rates that are similar to 

or lower than the respective statewide levels, but two of the counties within the region of influence have 

poverty rates that are higher than the respective state levels (table 4.9.7-2). These include Utah 

(11.8 percent compared to 9.7 percent) and Millard (12.7 percent compared to 9.7 percent) Counties in 

Utah. While these statistics are indicative of a potentially disproportionate effect on low-income 

communities, the county levels are only slightly higher than their respective state levels. Also, these 

counties represent the locations of two of the four existing compressor stations; therefore, we do not 

believe that the potential for disproportionate effects to low-income communities exists. 

As described above, the Apex Expansion Project would have negligible to minor effects on 

socioeconomic characteristics and economies within the region of influence, and many of the Projectrelated effects, while minor, would generally be viewed as positive. As discussed throughout this EIS, 

potentially negative environmental effects associated with the Project would be minimized and/or 

mitigated, as applicable. Although the racial and economic composition of the counties traversed by the 

proposed Project route shows some deviations from state-level statistics, there is no evidence that the 

Project would cause a disproportionate share of adverse environmental or socioeconomic impacts on any 

racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group. 

The primary health issue related to the Apex Expansion Project would be the risk associated with 

an unanticipated pipeline failure. Section 4.12 discusses the localized risks to public safety that could 

result from a pipeline failure and describes how applicable safety regulations and standards would 
4-135 

minimize the potential for these risks. The routing of the proposed Project through rural, sparsely 

populated areas would further minimize the number of persons who would be at risk of injury due to a 

pipeline failure; and there is no evidence that such risks would be disproportionately borne by any racial, 

ethnic, or socioeconomic group. 

4.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Section 106 of the NHPA, as amended, requires the FERC, the USFS, and the BLM to take into 

account the effects of their undertakings (including the issuance of certificates) on properties listed, or 

eligible for listing, on the NRHP and to afford the ACHP an opportunity to comment on the undertaking. 

Kern River, as a non-federal party, is assisting the FERC in meeting our obligations under Section 106 

and the implementing regulations in 36 CFR 800 by preparing the necessary information, analyses, and 

recommendations, as authorized by 36 CFR 800.2(a)(3). 

Construction and operation of the proposed Project could potentially affect historic properties 

(i.e., cultural resources listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP). These historic properties could include 

prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, structures, and objects, as well as locations 

with traditional value to Native Americans or other groups. Such historic properties generally must 

possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and must 

meet one or more of the criteria specified in 36 CFR 60.4. 

If an historic property would be adversely affected by the proposed Project, avoidance or other 

mitigation would be proposed. Avoidance might include, but would not be limited to, realignment of the 

pipeline route, relocation of ATWSs, use of HDD, boring, or changes in the construction and/or 

operational design. Mitigation might include the systematic professional excavation of an archaeological 

site, the preparation of photographs and/or measured drawings documenting standing structures or other 

historic features, or the use of landscaping or other techniques that would minimize or eliminate effects 

on the historic setting or ambience of standing structures or other resources. 

4.10.1 Cultural Resources Surveys 

Class I literature reviews and Class III intensive surveys have been completed for all proposed 

Project features and ancillary facilities. These inventories total 2,862.4 acres of Class III inventory. The 

Class I inventories examined the possible indirect effects of the proposed Project for a radius of 0.5 mile. 

Kern River has conducted literature reviews and cultural resources surveys for the proposed Wasatch 

Loop pipeline right-of-way, access roads, pipe/contractor yards, staging areas, offloading areas, and the 

proposed Milford Compressor Station and the PacifiCorp electrical distribution line in Utah. 

Kern River completed a cultural resources survey of the proposed pipeline route during 

summer 2009 (Mullen and Zachman 2009). The survey incorporated portions of two previous surveys. 

Approximately 11.1 miles of the proposed route were surveyed during 2003 as part of a feasibility study 

for looping the Kern River pipeline through the Wasatch Mountains (Andrews et al. 2005), and 

approximately 2.3 miles were surveyed during 1997 for the Legacy West Project (Colman et al. 1998). 

The results of the previously surveyed segments are incorporated into the results of the 2009 survey. The 

remainder of the proposed pipeline route was surveyed during the summer of 2009, with the exception of 

three segments on private land and two of minor route variations. Additionally, the summer 2009 survey 

included 27.9 miles of access roads and 162.4 acres of potential pipe/contractor yards, staging areas, and 

offloading areas. 

Kern River surveyed a 300-foot-wide corridor abutting the existing pipeline in areas where the 

proposed pipeline would be collocated with the existing Kern River pipeline. A 600-foot-wide corridor 
4-136 

was surveyed where the proposed pipeline would not be collocated with the existing pipeline. A 100-

foot-wide corridor was surveyed for proposed access roads. Cultural resources identified during the 1997 

and 2003 surveys were re-evaluated during the summer 2009 survey. Kern River provided the survey 

report to the FERC, the USFS, the BLM-Salt Lake City Field Office (BLM-SLFO), the UDNR, the Utah 

Department of Transportation (UDOT), and the Utah SHPO. 

Kern River surveyed the remaining 1.7 miles of the proposed pipeline route and 322.4 acres of 

potential pipe/contractor yards, staging areas, and offloading areas during the fall of 2009 and provided an 

addendum report (Horn and Omvig 2009) to the FERC and the Utah SHPO. During the spring 2010, 

Kern River surveyed the 2.6-mile-long North Salt Lake III Route Variation as modified by the short 

realignment near Sugar Plum Court and encompassing the MLV 121B location (Horn 2010). It also 

documented that State Park Road 2 East and three laydown areas extending outside the pipeline survey 

corridor were inventoried in 2009, and confirmed that ATWS 62B1 did not require inventory due to steep 

terrain. No sites or isolated finds were identified during this survey. The USFS and Reclamation have 

commented on the report. The USFS indicated that no historic properties would be affected by the 

reroute. Reclamation indicated it had no cultural resources concerns for the portion of the access road 

crossing its lands. We are currently awaiting SHPO comments on the survey report for the variation. 

Kern River also surveyed the 0.9-mile-long Mueller Park Route Variation, three access roads, two staging 

areas, and additional work space. Two isolated finds were identified and recommended as not eligible for 

the NRHP. We are currently awaiting the USFS’s and SHPO’s comments on the addendum report 

resulting from this survey. During prior review of the variation, the USFS indicated that monitoring 

would be required for the Mueller Park Route Variation. 

Twenty-five historic or archaeological sites were identified by the cultural resources surveys 

(table 4.10.1-1). These include 20 sites identified during the summer 2009 survey of the proposed 

pipeline, access roads and pipe/contractor yards; five sites identified during the fall 2009 survey of the 

remaining portions of the proposed pipeline and additional pipe/contractor yards, including additional 

segments of three sites recorded during the summer 2009 survey; and three sites located along the Milford 

Compressor Station electric distribution line. In addition, 10 isolated finds were identified during the 

2009 surveys. 

TABLE 4.10.1-1 

Historic and Archaeological Sites within the Proposed 

Apex Expansion Project Area of Potential Effect 

Site No. Site Type Land Statusa NRHP Eligibility 

Assessment 

Proposed 

Avoidance/ 

Mitigation 

42BE2288 Trans River Canalb,i Private Not eligible None 

42BE3301 Historic and prehistoricb,i BLM-CCFO Eligible Will be required 

by the BLM 

42BE3302 Prehistoricb,i Private Not eligible None 

42DV86 Denver & Rio Grande Western 

Railroad (two segmentsd,f,h) 

Private Eligible Avoid by boring 

for pipeline 

Contractor yard 

droppedk

42DV87 Union Pacific/Utah Central 

Railroadc,f 

Private Eligible Avoid by boring 
4-137 

TABLE 4.10.1-1 (continued) 

Historic and Archaeological Sites within the Proposed 

Apex Expansion Project Area of Potential Effect 

Site No. Site Type Land Statusa NRHP Eligibility 

Assessment 

Proposed 

Avoidance/ 

Mitigation 

42DV126 Northwest Oil Drainc,f Private Eligible Avoid by boring 

42DV139/ 

42SL635 

Civilian Conservation Corps 

terraces/furrowsc,f USFS Eligible Avoided by route 

variation 

42MO28 Prehistoricc,f Private Not eligible None 

42MO29 California National Historic Trailc,f,g UDNR 

UDOT 

Eligible, 

noncontributing segments 

None for pipeline; 

fence edge of 

access road 

42MO39 Historic/Prehistoricc,f Private Not eligible None 

42MO40 Historic roadc,g Private Not eligible None 

42MO41 Hardscrabble Road 

(two segmentsd,f,g) 

Private/BLMSLFO Eligible, 

noncontributing segment 

Nonej

42MO59 Union Pacific Railroadc,h Private Eligible None 

42MO61 Historic/Prehistoricc,f Private Not eligible None 

42MO62 Historicc,f Private Not eligible None 

42MO63 Historicc,f Private Not eligible None 

42MO64 Prehistoricc,h Private Not eligible None 

42MO65 Devil’s Slide townsitec,h Private Eligible No longer in 

Projectj 

42SL300 Leamington Cutoff-San Pedro, 

Los Angeles and Salt Lake 

Railroadc,h

Private Eligible None 

42SL301 City Drainc,f Private Eligible Avoid by boring 

42SL303 Brighton Canal Extensionc,h Private Eligible Avoid by not 

using part of yard 

that contains sitej 

42SL306 Salt Lake, Garfield and Western 

Railroad (two segmentsd,h) 

Private Eligible Stockpile yard 

droppedk

42SL499 Reclamation Ditchc,f Private Eligible Mitigate 

42SM294 Transcontinental Telephone 

Linee,h Private Not eligible None 
4-138 

TABLE 4.10.1-1 (continued) 

Historic and Archaeological Sites within the Proposed 

Apex Expansion Project Area of Potential Effect 

Site No. Site Type Land Statusa NRHP Eligibility 

Assessment 

Proposed 

Avoidance/ 

Mitigation 

42WB466 Utah General Depot rail spure,h Private Not eligible None 

____________ 

Notes: 

a

 Within currently proposed Project’s area of potential effect; BLMCCFO = BLM Cedar City Field Office; BLMSLFO = BLM Salt 

Lake Field Office; UDNR = Utah Department of Natural Resources; UDOT = Utah Department of Transportation; USFS = 

U.S. Forest Service Uinta-Cache-Wasatch National Forest. 

b

 Identified during the survey for the Milford Compressor Station electrical distribution line (Mullen 2009a). 

c

 Identified during the summer 2009 survey (Mullen and Zachman 2009). 

d

 One segment identified during the summer 2009 survey (Mullen and Zachman 2009) and one segment identified during the 

fall 2009 survey (Horn and Omvig 2009). 

e

 Identified during the fall 2009 survey of additional pipeline route segments and pipe/contractor yards (Horn and Omvig 2009). 

f

 Along proposed Wasatch Loop pipeline corridor. 

g

 Along access road. 

h

 Within proposed contractor yard/stockpiling areas. 

i

 Along the Milford Compressor Station electrical distribution line. 

j

 As stated in its filing dated February 2, 2010, Kern River no longer intends to use the pipe/contractor yard containing Site 

42MO65 or the portion of the pipe yard containing Site 42SL303. 

k As stated in its filing dated January 8, 2010, Kern River no longer intends to use the stockpile/contractor yards at Site 

42DV86 and Site 42SL306. 

Ten historic sites have been previously determined eligible for listing on the NRHP. These are 

the California National Historic Trail (Site 42MO29), Hardscrabble Road (Site 42MO41), the Union 

Pacific Railroad (Site 42MO59); the Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad (Site 42DV86), the Union 

Pacific/Utah Central/Utah Southern/Oregon Short Line Railroad (Site 42DV87), the Northwest Oil Canal 

(42DV126), the Leamington Cutoff of the Los Angeles and Salt Lake Railroad (Site 42SL300), the Salt 

Lake, Garfield and Western Railroad (Site 42SL306), the City Drain (Site 42SL301), and the Brighton 

Canal Extension (Site 42SL303). Three newly identified sites are recommended eligible for listing on the 

NRHP. These are the Devil’s Slide townsite (Site 42MO65), the CCC erosion control earthworks 

(Site 42DV139/42SL635), and Reclamation Ditch (Site 42SL499). 

Two segments of the California National Historic Trail would be intersected by the proposed 

pipeline route, one of which was also used by the California Trail and Pony Express. One of the 

segments was destroyed by construction of State Road 65 and the other segment has been destroyed by 

disturbance from a previous pipeline and a heavily used two-track road. A third segment abuts an 

existing road proposed for access. It is an intact segment consisting of visible ruts, but would not be 

impacted by the proposed use of the access road. Kern River would fence the edge of the access road at 

its intersection with the trail segment during construction to prevent accidental use of the trail segment or 

other incidental disturbance. 
4-139 

The historic Hardscrabble Road would be used for access to the pipeline right-of-way. The road 

also would be intersected by a proposed pipeline realignment surveyed during fall 2009. Kern River may 

grade portions of the road, replace a modern bridge, or otherwise modify the road. The road already 

receives heavy use, and Kern River recommended the road segment to be non-contributing to NRHP 

eligibility, so it is not recommending avoidance or mitigation of the road segment. 

The five historic railroads are all active railroads. The proposed pipeline would avoid the Denver 

& Rio Grande Western Railroad and Union Pacific/Utah Central/Utah Southern/Oregon Short Line 

Railroad by boring beneath these properties. The proposed Project would utilize the Union Pacific/Utah 

Central/Utah Southern/Oregon Short Line Railroad, and the Leamington Cutoff of the Los Angeles and 

Salt Lake Railroad at proposed contractor/pipe yards surveyed during summer 2009. Associated activities 

would be limited to transport and offloading pipe and other construction materials. Since use of the 

railroads to transport materials would not alter the actively maintained route or tracks, Kern River has 

proposed there would be no effect on these sites. Kern River indicated that the originally proposed 

contractor/stockpile yards at the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad, and the Salt Lake, Garfield 

and Western Railroad are no longer under consideration. 

The City Drain Canal and the Northwest Oil Drain would be avoided by boring beneath the 

properties. The Reclamation Ditch would be crossed by the proposed pipeline by means of an open-cut. 

Kern River has provided a treatment plan for mitigating adverse effects to the Reclamation Ditch prior to 

any disturbance to the site. Mitigation includes detailed documentation, photography, mapping, and 

background research. We are currently awaiting the SHPO’s comments on the treatment plan. The CCC 

erosion control earthworks would be avoided by the North Salt Lake III Route Variation that Kern River 

has agreed to incorporate into its proposed route. In this case, no impact would occur to the site, and no 

other mitigation would be required. 

The Brighton Canal Extension is within a property that Kern River is considering using as a 

construction materials storage yard. Kern River previously considered using the entire property, 

including the portion that contains the canal. However, it is now considering use of only the previously 

developed portion of the property, which does not contain the canal. In that case, the Project would not 

affect the canal. In either case, Kern River would avoid altering the canal. The Devils Slide townsite is 

within the boundaries of a previously proposed pipe yard/contractor yard. Kern River no longer intends 

to use the area during the Project. 

The remaining sites and the isolated finds are considered ineligible for listing on the NRHP. 

Indirect effects of the proposed Project could include the introduction of visual elements that 

affect the setting or character of a historic property. Kern River assessed a 1-mile-wide corridor centered 

on the proposed pipeline centerline for indirect effects. Kern River recommended that none of the 

historic properties identified within the 1-mile-wide corridor during the file search or cultural resources 

survey possess characteristics that would be adversely affected by visual impacts resulting from the 

proposed Project, including the California Historic Trail, which has been destroyed in the vicinity of the 

proposed Project, and the Devil’s Slide townsite, for which the standing structures are not considered to 

contribute to the significance of the site. 

The USFS, the BLM-SLFO, the UDNR, and the UDOT have reviewed the reports for the 

proposed pipeline route and related facilities and agreed with Kern River’s NRHP-eligibility evaluations 

and proposed treatment. Based on the project reports and agency comments, the FERC sent combined 

agency determinations to the Utah SHPO on March 30, 2010. The Utah SHPO has concurred with the 

FERC’s determinations, including the determination of adverse effect based on anticipated disturbance to 

the Reclamation Ditch. 
4-140 

Kern River also completed surveys for a 37.2-acre parcel for the proposed Milford Compressor 

Station and a 400-foot-wide corridor for the PacifiCorp electrical distribution line (approximately 

1.4 linear miles). Kern River provided the reports (Mullen 2009a, Mullen 2009b) resulting from these 

surveys to the FERC, the BLM-Cedar City Field Office (BLM-CCFO), and the Utah SHPO. As a result 

of the surveys, no cultural resources were identified at the Milford Compressor Station. On May 28, 

2009, the BLM-CCFO accepted the report for the Milford Compressor Station. The Utah SHPO has 

concurred with the FERC’s determinations for the Project, including the Milford Compressor Stations. 

Three cultural resources were identified along the PacifiCorp electrical distribution line: the 

Trans River Canal (42BE2288), a prehistoric/historic artifact scatter (42BE3301), and a prehistoric 

artifact scatter (42BE3302). None of these were recommended as eligible for listing on the NRHP by the 

contractor. The BLM has determined Sites 42BE2288 and 42BE3302 not eligible and Site 42BE3301 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. If avoidance of Site 42BE3301 is not possible through Project design of 

the proposed electrical distribution line, the BLM will require mitigation measures to address adverse 

impacts on the site. In a letter dated June 8, 2009, the Utah SHPO indicated it would await an agency 

letter regarding the Project before commenting. The electrical distribution line is non-jurisdictional for 

the FERC. The BLM-CCFO would consult the SHPO, as necessary, for this non-jurisdictional facility. 

Kern River contacted the Wyoming SHPO regarding Project activities at the Coyote Creek 

Compressor Station; the Nevada SHPO and BLM Las Vegas Field Office (BLM-LVFO) regarding 

Project activities at the Dry Lake Compressor Station; and the Utah SHPO regarding Project activities at 

the Elberta and Fillmore Compressor Stations. In a letter dated May 19, 2009, the Wyoming SHPO 

concurred that no historic properties would be affected by the proposed work at the Coyote Creek 

Compressor Station. We agree. In a letter dated July 8, 2009, the BLM-LVFO approved the proposed 

work at the Dry Lake Compressor Station. The Nevada SHPO concurred that no historic properties 

would be affected by the proposed work at the Dry Lake Compressor Station in a letter dated December 

9, 2009. We agree. The Utah SHPO has concurred with the FERC’s determinations for the Project, 

including the Elberta and Fillmore Compressor Stations. 

4.10.2 Unanticipated Discovery Plan 

Kern River prepared an Unanticipated Discovery Plan to provide guidelines in the event that 

cultural resources or human remains are discovered during the course of construction. The plan was 

submitted to the FERC; the USFS, the BLM-CCFO and the BLM-LVFO; and the Utah, Wyoming, and 

Nevada SHPOs for review on October 21, 2009. To date, no comments had been received. 

4.10.3 Native American Consultation 

On May 15, 2009, we mailed our NOI to 22 federally recognized Native American tribes 

including the Cedar Band of Paiutes, Chemehuevi Indian Tribe, Colorado River Indian Tribes, 

Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation, Eastern Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, 

Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, Hopi Tribe, Indian Peaks Band of Paiute Indians, Kaibab Band of Paiute 

Indians, Kanosh Band of Paiute Indians, Koosharem Band of Paiute Indians, Las Vegas Paiute Tribe, 

Moapa Band of Paiute Indians, Northern Arapaho Tribe, Northwestern Band of Shoshone Nation, 

Pahrump Paiute Tribe, Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah, San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe, Shivwits Band of 

Paiute Indians, Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians, Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall 

Reservation, and Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation. This notice requested comments 

on the proposed Project and encouraged attendance at the FERC’s public scoping meetings for the 

Project. No responses to our NOI were received, nor were any comments received on the draft EIS. 
4-141 

Kern River sent letters to the 22 tribes via certified mail on May 12, 2009. Kern River received a 

response from Mr. Philbert Swain, Tribal Chairman of the Moapa Band of Paiutes in a letter dated 

June 30, 2009. The letter states that the Moapa Band has no interest in the proposed Project, but requests 

that Kern River immediately stop construction and contact the Moapa Band if archaeological remains or 

resources are discovered during construction. To date, Kern River has not received any other responses 

from any Native American tribes. In addition, Kern River conducted telephone follow-ups with the 

tribes. The Las Vegas Paiute Tribe stated that it had no concerns with the Project but that they should be 

contacted if the Dry Lake Compressor Station would be expanded beyond its current boundaries. The 

Chemehuevi Indian Tribe stated that it does not have any concerns with the Project but requested that it 

be contacted if a significant discovery occurs. The Moapa Band of Paiute Indians and Colorado River 

Indian Tribes indicated that they are not concerned with the proposed Project. No other responses to the 

follow-ups have been received to date by Kern River. 

4.10.4 Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act 

Kern River has completed surveys of all currently proposed Project areas. Consultations for the 

Project are still ongoing, including review of the North Salt Lake III Route Variation and Mueller Park 

Route Variation survey reports, and the treatment plan specifying mitigation of adverse effects to the 

Reclamation Ditch. Consequently, the process of complying with Section 106 of the NHPA is not 

complete. 

To ensure that the FERC’s, the USFS’s, and the BLM’s responsibilities under the NHPA and its 

implementing regulations are met, we recommend that: 

 Kern River not begin construction of facilities and/or use of staging, storage, or 

temporary work areas, and new or to-be-improved access roads until: 

a. Kern River files: 

(1) the Utah SHPO’s comments on the North Salt Lake III Route 

Variation survey report and the treatment plan; 

(2) the Utah SHPO’s and USFS’s comments on the Mueller Park Route 

Variation survey report; and 

(3) a survey report for any newly identified areas that require survey, 

and the Utah SHPO’s, USFS’s, and BLM’s comments (as 

appropriate) on the report; 

b. the ACHP is afforded an opportunity to comment; and 

c. the FERC staff reviews and the Director of OEP approves the cultural resource 

reports and plans, and notifies Kern River in writing that treatment 

plans/mitigation measures (including archaeological data recovery) may be 

implemented and/or construction may proceed. 

All material filed with the Commission that contains location, character, and ownership 

information about cultural resources must have the cover and any relevant pages therein 

clearly labeled in bold lettering ―CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION – DO NOT 

RELEASE. 
4-142 

4.11 AIR QUALITY AND NOISE 

4.11.1 Air Quality 

Impacts on air quality for a natural gas pipeline project typically fall into two categories: 

temporary impacts resulting from construction equipment emissions along the proposed pipeline route, 

and long-term or life-of-project impacts resulting from operational emissions at the compressor stations. 

Air quality would be affected by construction and operation of the Apex Expansion Project. 

Although air emissions would be generated by operation of equipment during construction of the 

proposed pipeline and aboveground facilities, most air emissions associated with the Project would result 

from the long-term operation of the new Milford Compressor Station and existing compressor stations to 

be modified. The compressor stations would be powered by gas-fired turbines that would result in longterm operational impacts on air quality. Table 4.11.1-1 provides an overview of the equipment proposed 

for each of the compressor stations. 

TABLE 4.11.1-1 

Compressor Station Additions/Modifications for the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Compressor 

Station County, State 

Proposed Equipment or Equipment 

Addition Site-Rated Horsepower 

Coyote Creek Uinta County, Wyoming Add one Solar Mars 100 turbine 12,710 

Elberta Utah County, Utah Add one Solar Mars 100 turbine 13,933 

Fillmore Millard County, Utah Replace one compressor Not applicable 

Milford (new) Beaver County, Utah Install one Solar Titan 250 turbine, one 

2,311-horsepower gas fire emergency 

generator, and one 6.4-MMbtu/hour 

heater 

26,548 (turbine) 

Dry Lake Clark County, Nevada Add one Solar Mars 100 turbine 15,533 

4.11.1.1 Existing Air Quality 

The proposed Project would be located in Uinta County, Wyoming; Morgan, Davis, Salt Lake, 

Utah, Millard, and Beaver Counties, Utah; and Clark County, Nevada. Representative weather data for 

these counties is provided by four weather stations and presented in table 4.11.1-2. Since Project 

components are located in distinctly different locations, a large variation between temperatures and 

rainfall is noted between the more mountainous locations of the Wyoming and Utah meteorological 

stations and the station located in Las Vegas, Nevada. 
4-143 

TABLE 4.11.1-2 

Representative Annual Average Weather Conditions for the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project Area 

Meteorological Monitor Name 

and Location 

Maximum 

Temperature 

(

o

F) 

Minimum 

Temperature 

(

o

F) 

Precipitation 

(inches) 

Snowfall 

(inches) 

483100 Evanston 1E, Wyoming 54.8 25.5 12.0 54.8 

4275598 Salt Lake City NWSFO, Utah 63.9 40.4 15.6 60.1 

425654 Milford, Utah 65.5 33.3 9.0 33.8 

264436 Las Vegas WSO Airport, Nevada 80.1 54.0 4.2 1.0 

____________ 

Note: 

o

F = Degrees Fahrenheit 

Source: WRCC 2009 

Air Quality Control Regions and Attainment Status 

The CAA designates criteria pollutants for which the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) are promulgated. The NAAQS have been set for sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns (PM10), particulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), and lead. 

Primary standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of “sensitive” populations such 

as asthmatics, children, and the elderly; whereas secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, 

including protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. 

State air quality standards cannot be less stringent than the NAAQS. Some individual state ambient air 

quality standards in Wyoming and Nevada are more stringent than the NAAQS, as defined in 40 CFR 50; 

these standards are summarized in table 4.11.1-3. Utah does not have state ambient air quality standards 

but has adopted the NAAQS. 

Air quality control regions (AQCR) are areas established for air quality planning purposes in 

which implementation plans describe how ambient air quality standards will be achieved and maintained. 

AQCRs were established by the EPA and local agencies, in accordance with Section 107 of the CAA, as a 

means to implement the CAA and comply with the NAAQS through state implementation plans. The 

AQCRs are intra- and interstate regions such as large metropolitan areas where improvement of the air 

quality in one portion of the AQCR requires emission reductions throughout the AQCR. Each AQCR, or 

portion thereof, is designated based on compliance with the NAAQS. AQCR designations fall under 

three categories: “attainment” (areas in compliance with the NAAQS), “nonattainment” (areas not in 

compliance with the NAAQS), or “unclassified” (areas with insufficient data to make a determination 

concerning compliance). Table 4.11.1-4 shows the attainment status of criteria pollutants in the affected 

counties. 
4-144

TABLE 4.11.1-3 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project Area 

National AAQS 

Pollutant Time Frame Primary Secondary Wyoming AAQS N

Annual N/A N/A 50 μg/m3 

Particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter 24-houra 150 μg/m3 150 μg/m3 150 μg/m3 

Annualb 15 μg/m3 15 μg/m3 15 μg/m3 Particulate matter less than 

2.5 microns in diameter 24-hourc 35 μg/m3 35 μg/m3 35 μg/m3 

Annual 0.030 ppm (80 μg/m3) N/A 60 μg/m3 

24-houra 0.14 ppm (365 μg/m3) N/A 260 μg/m3 

Sulfur dioxide 

3-houra N/A 0.5 ppm (1,300 

μg/m3) 1,300 μg/m3 

8-houra 9 ppm (10,000 μg/m3) N/A 9 ppm 9 ppm, 6 p

Carbon monoxide 

1-houra 35 ppm (40,000 μg/m3) N/A 35 ppm 

Nitrogen dioxide Annual 0.053 ppm (100 μg/m3) 0.053 ppm 100 μg/m3 

8-hourd 0.075 ppm (147 μg/m3) 0.075 ppm 0.075 ppm 

Ozone 

1-hour N/A N/A N/A 

Quarterly 1.5 μg/m3 1.5 μg/m3 1.5 μg/m3 

Lead Rolling 3-

month 

Average 

0.15 μg/m3 0.15 μg/m3 NA 

1-hour N/A N/A N/A 

1⁄2-hour N/A N/A 70 μg/m3 e Hydrogen sulfide 1⁄2-hour N/A N/A 40 μg/m3 f 

Annual N/A N/A 0.25 mg SO3/100 

cm2/day 

Suspended sulfates 

30-day N/A N/A 0.50 mg SO3/100 

cm2/day 
4-145

TABLE 4.11.1-3 (continued) 

Ambient Air Quality Standards for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project Area 

____________ Notes: 

 AAQS = Ambient Air Quality Standards  cm2/day = square centimeters per day 

μg/m3 = microgram(s) per cubic meter 

 mg = milligram(s)  N/A = not applicable  ppm = part(s) per million  SO3 = sulfur trioxide 

Wyoming has ambient air quality standards for fluorides. Modifications at Coyote Creek Compressor Station would not result in this station becoming a 

a Standard not to be exceeded more than once per year. b To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the weighted annual mean particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter concentrations from si

oriented monitors must not exceed 15.0 μg/m3. 

c To attain this standard, the 3-year average of 98th-percentile 24-hour average values of particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter concent

μg/m3. 

d To attain this standard, the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations, measured at each monitor w

must not exceed 0.075 ppm.

e Standard not to be exceeded more than two times per year. 

f Standard not to be exceeded more than two times in any 5 consecutive days. 

Sources: 

 EPA 2009a, WYDEQ 2009, NAC 2009 
4-146 

TABLE 4.11.1-4 

Attainment Designations of Counties Affected by the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Attainment Designations 

State County CO Lead NO2 Ozone PM10 PM2.5 SO2

Wyoming Uinta U/A U/A U/A U/A U U/A A 

Beaver U/A U/A U/A U/A U U/A A 

Davis U/A U/A U/A A/Md U U/Af A 

Millard U/A U/A U/A U/A U U/A A 

Morgan U/A U/A U/A U/A U U/A A 

Salt Lake A/Ma U/A U/A A/Md Non-A U/Af Non-A 

Utah 

Utah U/Ab

 U/A U/A U/A Non-A U/Af A 

Nevada Clark U/Ac U/A U/A Non-Ae Uc U/A A 

____________ 

Notes: 

 A = Attainment 

 A/M = Area is currently in attainment but has a maintenance plan 

 Non-A = Nonattainment 

 U/A = Unclassifiable/Attainment 

 U = Unclassifiable 

a

 The portion of Salt Lake County within Salt Lake City is designated a maintenance area for CO. 

b

 The portion of Utah County within Provo is designated a maintenance area for CO. The Elberta Compressor Station is not 

located in Provo. 

c

 The portion of Clark County in hydrographic area 212 is designated as nonattainment. Dry Lake Compressor Station is in 

hydrographic Area 216. 

d

 Davis and Salt Lake Counties are a 1-hour ozone maintenance areas. 

e

 That portion of Clark County that lies in hydrographic areas 164A, 164B, 165, 166, 167, 212, 213, 214, 216, 217, and 218 (but 

excluding the Moapa River and the Fort Mojave Indian Reservations) is designated non-attainment for the 8-hour ozone 

standard. 

f

 On October 8, 2009, the EPA issued a final Federal Register notice for area designations of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA 

has identified areas as either nonattainment, unclassifiable/attainment, or unclassifiable. Salt Lake County, Davis County, and 

the Utah Valley portions of Utah County were re-designated as PM2.5 nonattainment areas. These final designations became 

effective 30 days following publication in the Federal Register. 

Air Quality Monitoring 

A network of ambient air quality monitoring stations has been established by EPA and state and 

local agencies to measure and track the background concentrations of criteria pollutants across the United 

States, and to assist in designation of nonattainment areas. To characterize the background air quality in 

the region surrounding the proposed Project area, data from air quality monitoring stations were obtained. 

A summary of the available regional background air quality concentrations is presented in table 4.11.1-5. 
4-147 

TABLE 4.11.1-5 

Regional Background Criteria Pollutant Concentrations and Statewide Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

in the Regions of the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

PM10

(μg/m3

) PM2.5 (μg/m3

) SO2 (ppm) CO (ppm) 

NO2 

(ppm) 

Ozone 

(ppm) 

Lead 

(μg/m3) 

Year 

24-

hour Annual 

24-

hour Annual 

24-

hour 3-hour 

8-

hour 

1-

hour Annual 8-hour Quarterly

Murphy Ridge, Uinta County, Wyoming - Monitor No. 560410101 

2008 100 N/A N/A 0.001 0.003 0.003 0.7 0.9 0.003 0.064 N/A 

2007 62 N/A N/A 0.001 0.006 0.006 1.5 1.6 0.003 0.070 N/A 

2006 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Wyoming Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory - 19.2 million metric tons of CO2 equivalents (2005) 

Salt Lake County, Utah - SO2 from Monitor 490351001, other pollutants from Monitor No. 490350003 

2008 62 10.5 46.8 0.001 0.001 0.002 2.2 2.9 0.018 0.080 N/A 

2007 109 12.5 58.4 0.001 0.003 0.006 2.5 3.8 0.021 0.082 N/A 

2006 76 10.2 39.2 0.002 0.007 0.008 2.3 3.9 0.020 0.084 N/A 

Utah County, Utah – CO and NO2 from Monitor No. 490490002, particulates from Monitor No. 490494001, 

ozone from Monitor No. 490495010 

2008 177 9.8 35.5 N/A N/A N/A 1.5 3.9 0.017 0.071 N/A 

2007 112 11.7 64.9 N/A N/A N/A 2.5 3.8 0.021 0.077 N/A 

2006 90 9.4 32.0 N/A N/A N/A 2.1 4.5 0.020 0.079 N/A 

Davis County, Utah - Monitor No. 490110004 

2008 63 10.2 25.8 0.001 0.003 0.009 N/A N/A N/A 0.078 N/A 

2007 82 11.6 45.1 0.002 0.007 0.019 N/A N/A N/A 0.082 N/A 

2006 56 8.6 34.1 0.002 0.004 0.011 N/A N/A N/A 0.082 N/A 

Utah Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory - 31.0 million metric tons of CO2 equivalents (2005) 

Clark County, Nevada – SO2 from Monitor No. 320030539, other pollutants from Monitor No. 320032002 

2008 91 8.9 18.8 0.001 0.001 0.002 2.4 3.6 0.016 0.068 N/A 

2007 100 8.8 19.7 0.001 0.003 0.006 2.8 4.5 0.020 0.080 N/A 

2006 91 8.2 22.1 0.002 0.007 0.008 3.7 4.8 0.021 0.081 N/A 

Nevada Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory – 56.3 million metric tons of CO2 equivalents (2005) 

____________ 

Notes: 

μg/m3

 = microgram(s) per cubic meter 

 N/A = not available 

 ppm = parts per million 

Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of days the standard was exceeded. 

Source: 

 EPA 2009b, CCS 2007a, CCS 2007b, NDEP 2008, 
4-148 

4.11.1.2 Regulatory Requirements 

Federal Regulations 

The CAA (42 USC 7401 et seq., amended in 1977 and 1990) and 40 CFR 50 through 99 are the 

primary federal statutes governing air pollution. The provisions of the CAA that are potentially relevant 

to the proposed Project include the following: 

 New Source Review (NSR)/Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD); 

 Protection of Federal Class I areas; 

 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); 

 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP); 

 Title V operating permits; 

 General Conformity; 

 Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule; and 

 State regulations. 

New Source Review/ Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

NSR refers to the pre-construction permitting programs under Parts C and D of the CAA that 

must be satisfied before construction can begin on new major sources or major modifications to existing 

major sources located in attainment or unclassified areas. This review may include a PSD review. The 

review process is intended to keep new air emission sources from causing existing air quality to 

deteriorate beyond acceptable levels codified in the federal regulations as the NAAQS. For sources 

located in nonattainment areas, the Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) program is implemented 

for the pollutants for which the area is classified as nonattainment. The Dry Lake Compressor Station is 

located in an ozone nonattainment area and the Elberta Compressor Station is located in a PM10

nonattainment area. Consequently, NNSR would be applicable to these facilities. The other compressor 

stations (new and existing) are not located in nonattainment areas; therefore, NNSR is not applicable to 

these remaining compressor stations. 

The PSD review regulations apply to proposed new major sources or major modifications to 

existing major sources located in an attainment area. The PSD regulations (40 CFR 52.21) define a 

“major source” as any source type belonging to a list of named source categories that emit or have the 

potential to emit 100 tons per year (tpy) or more of any regulated pollutant. A major source under PSD 

can also be defined as any source not on the list of named source categories with the potential to emit 

such pollutants in amounts equal to or greater than 250 tpy. Modifications to existing major sources have 

lower emission thresholds, called “significant emission increases”; amounts over these thresholds would 

trigger PSD review. The proposed Project would not include facilities or operations on the list of named 

source categories to which the 100-tpy trigger applies. Also, the Project would not include any existing 

major sources under the PSD program; therefore, the new Milford Compressor Station and existing 

compressor station modifications would be subject to the 250-tpy applicability threshold. 

The PSD review evaluates existing ambient air quality and the potential impacts of the proposed 

source on ambient air quality (noting in particular whether the source would contribute to any violation of 

the NAAQS), and reviews the best available control technology (BACT) in order to minimize emissions. 
4-149 

The PSD regulations contain restrictions on the degree of ambient air quality deterioration that would be 

allowed. These increments for criteria pollutants are based on the PSD review classification of the area. 

The new Milford Compressor Station and existing compressor station modifications would not 

exceed emissions of 250 tpy of any criteria pollutant (see table 4.11.1-8). Therefore, PSD permitting 

would not be applicable. 

Federal Class I Area Protection 

PSD also considers AQCR categories or classes. AQCRs are categorized as Class I, Class II, or 

Class III. Class I areas are designated specifically as pristine natural areas or areas of natural 

significance; these areas have the lowest increment of permissible deterioration, which essentially 

precludes development near these areas. Class III designations, intended for heavily industrialized zones, 

can be made only on request and must meet all requirements outlined in 40 CFR 51.166. The remainder 

of the United States is classified as Class II. Class II areas are designed to allow moderate, controlled 

growth. The proposed Project would be located in Class II areas. The Coyote Creek Compressor Station 

is approximately 217 kilometers (about 135 miles) southwest of the Bridger Wilderness Area. The 

Elberta Compressor Station is approximately 168 kilometers (about 104 miles) north of Capitol Reef 

National Park. The Fillmore Compressor Station is approximately 101 kilometers (about 63 miles) north 

of Capitol Reef National Park. The proposed Milford Compressor Station would be approximately 

90 kilometers (about 56 miles) north of Zion National Park. The Dry Lake Compressor Station is 

85 kilometers (about 53 miles) west of Grand Canyon National Park. All of the compressor stations, with 

the exception of the Dry Lake and proposed Milford Compressor Stations, are located farther than 

100 kilometers from a Class I area. However, none of the compressor stations would be PSD major 

sources, and PSD air impacts analyses would not be required. 

On October 27, 2009, the EPA issued the proposed PSD and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring 

Rule, which correlates the major source applicability thresholds for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 

under the CAA’s PSD and Title V permitting programs by PSD significance level for GHG emissions. If 

the final rule is promulgated prior to construction/modification of the compressor stations, they may be 

subject to the rule. Types of GHGs include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), 

hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and other fluorinated gases including nitrogen 

trifluoride and hydrofluorinated ethers. 

New Source Performance Standards 

The NSPS (codified in 40 CFR 60 and incorporated by reference in the Wyoming Air Quality 

Standards and Regulations, Chapter 5, Section 2[a]; the Utah Air Rules R307-210-1; and the Nevada 

Administrative Code 445B.221) establish requirements for new, modified, or reconstructed facilities in 

specific source categories. NSPS requirements include emission limits, monitoring, reporting, and record 

keeping. The following NSPS requirements were identified as potentially applicable to the specified 

sources at the new Milford Compressor Station and the existing compressor stations. 

Stationary combustion turbines with a heat input of 10 million British thermal units per hour 

(MMBtu/hour) and larger installed after February 18, 2005, are covered by Subpart KKKK. The 

proposed turbines at each compressor station (both new and existing) would have a turbine in the range of 

50 to 850 MMBtu/hour. The standard imposes a limitation on nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions of 

25 parts per million (ppm) at 15 percent oxygen in the turbine exhaust for units of this size. The standard 

also imposes a SO2 emission limit of 0.9 pound per megawatts per hour or the use of fuel that results in 

SO2 emissions of no more than 0.06 pound SO2/MMBtu. Kern River would comply with all applicable 

standards of the rule. Kern River would verify NOx emissions through performance testing in accordance 
4-150 

with 40 CFR 60.4340 and 60.4400. Following turbine start-up, a NOx performance test would be 

performed, followed by annual performance tests. If NOx emissions from the annual performance test are 

less than or equal to 75 percent of the emission limit, then subsequent performance tests may be reduced 

to once every 2 years. If the results of subsequent performance tests exceed 75 percent of the NOx

emission limit for the turbine, annual performance testing would resume. Kern River would need to 

comply with any performance testing requirements stipulated in any air permit issued for each compressor 

station by the applicable state agency. 

Kern River would comply with the SO2 standard by demonstrating compliant fuel characteristics 

in a current, valid purchase contract, tariff sheet, or transportation contract for the fuel which would 

identify the total sulfur content for natural gas as 20 grains of sulfur or less per 100 standard cubic feet. 

On January 19, 2008, EPA issued final rules for the NSPS Subpart JJJJ for spark-ignition 

internal-combustion engines (SI ICE). The emergency generator engine proposed for the Milford 

Compressor Station would be subject to Subpart JJJJ. Owners and operators of SI ICE emergency 

engines with a capacity greater than 25 horsepower manufactured after January 1, 2009, must meet new 

emission limits for NOx, CO, and volatile organic compounds (VOC). The limitations on non-emergency 

use of such engines at 40 CFR 60.4243(d) must also be observed. Compliance with these standards 

would be demonstrated by purchasing an engine certified to the emission standards in 40 CFR 60.4231(a) 

through (c), as applicable, for the same engine class and maximum engine power. The engine would be 

operated and maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s emission-related written instructions. 

Records of conducted maintenance would be kept, but no performance testing would be conducted. It 

should be noted that the Utah Division of Air Quality (UDAQ), who is responsible for issuing the air 

permit for the Milford Compressor Station, may require performance testing or additional recordkeeping 

beyond what is described above. Applicable requirements by UDAQ would be stipulated in any air 

permit issued for the Milford Compressor Station. 

The Milford Compressor Station and the modified compressor stations would also be subject to 

applicable requirements of 40 CFR 60 Subpart A – General Requirements, which covers such 

administrative issues as notifications, performance testing, and monitoring. 

No other NSPSs would be applicable to the new or modified compressor stations. 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

The NESHAP, codified in 40 CFR 61 and 63, regulates hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions. 

Part 61 was promulgated prior to the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) and regulates eight types 

of hazardous substances (asbestos, benzene, beryllium, coke oven emissions, inorganic arsenic, mercury, 

radionuclides, and vinyl chloride). 

The 1990 CAAA established a list of 189 HAPs, resulting in the promulgation of Part 63. 

Part 63, also known as the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards, regulates HAP 

emissions from major sources of HAP emissions and specific source categories that emit HAPs. Part 63 

defines a “major source of HAPs” as any source with the potential to emit 10 tpy of any single HAP or 

25 tpy of HAPs in aggregate. MACT standards are intended to reduce emissions of air toxics or HAPs 

through installation of control equipment rather than enforcement of risk-based emission limits. The 

compressor stations (proposed and existing) would each emit less than 10 tpy of total HAPs (see 

table 4.11.1-8); therefore, MACT would not be applicable. 

On January 18, 2008, final rules for the Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine (RICE) 

MACT standard were published as 40 CFR 63 Subpart ZZZZ. Subpart ZZZZ applies to RICE at both 
4-151 

major and area HAP sources. Because the emergency generator engine at the proposed Milford 

Compressor Station would be subject to 40 CFR 60 Subpart JJJJ, no further requirements from 40 CFR 

63 Subpart ZZZZ would apply [per 40 CFR 63.6590(c)]. 

On September 13, 2004, rules were promulgated for an Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional 

Boilers and Process Heaters MACT standard at 40 CFR 63 Subpart DDDDD. Subpart DDDDD applies 

only to boilers and heaters at major HAP sources. The Milford Compressor Station would have a 

3.85 MMbtu/hour heater. Subpart DDDDD would not be applicable because the Milford Compressor 

Station would not be a major HAP source. 

The regulation in 40 CFR 63 Subpart YYYY applies to turbines at major HAP sources. Subpart 

YYYY would not be applicable because the compressor stations (proposed and existing) would not be 

major HAP sources. 

Title V Permitting 

The Title V permit program, as described in 40 CFR 70, requires sources of air emissions with 

criteria pollutant emissions that reach or exceed major source levels to obtain federal operating permits. 

These permits list all applicable air regulations and include a compliance demonstration for each 

applicable requirement. The major source threshold level in attainment areas is 100 tpy of NOx, SO2, CO, 

PM10, PM2.5, and VOC. Any source with the potential to emit 10 tpy of any single HAP or 25 tpy of 

HAPs in aggregate is also considered a major source under Title V. The major source thresholds are the 

same in the Clark County, Nevada ozone nonattainment area and the Salt Lake County and Utah County, 

Utah PM10 nonattainment areas. The proposed and existing compressor stations would not emit any 

pollutant at these applicability levels (see table 4.11.1-6). Therefore, Title V is not applicable to the new 

compressor station or proposed compressor station modifications. 

General Conformity 

The regulation in 40 CFR 51 Subpart W and 93 Subpart B defines the requirements for 

determining conformity of federal actions with federal or state implementation plans. A conformity 

determination is required for each criteria pollutant where the total of direct and indirect emissions in a 

nonattainment or maintenance area caused by a federal action would equal or exceed any of the rates 

specified in 40 CFR 51.853, 40 CFR 93.153, or 10 percent of the entire emission budget for a 

nonattainment or maintenance area. 

For the existing nonattainment and maintenance areas, the conformity determination applicability 

level specified in 40 CFR 51.853(b) and 93.153(b) is 100 tpy for each applicable pollutant. Ten percent 

of the emissions budget exceeds the 100 tpy level, so the 40 CFR 51.853(b) and 93.153(b) limits are 

controlling. Nonattainment and maintenance areas along the proposed Project include construction of the 

Wasatch Loop in Davis and Salt Lake Counties, Utah; installation and operation of the Elberta 

Compressor Station in Utah County, Utah; and installation and operation of the Dry Lake Compressor 

Station in Clark County, Nevada. Estimated emissions from the construction and operation of the Project 

would not reach the 100 tpy level for any pollutant in any nonattainment or maintenance area, as shown in 

table 4.11.1-6, and are deemed to conform to the appropriate State Implementation Plans (SIPs). A 

general conformity determination is therefore not required [as specified in 40 CFR 51.853(c)(1) and 40 

CFR 93.153(c)(1)]. 
4-152 

TABLE 4.11.1-6 

Comparison of Emissions to General Conformity Thresholds for the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project

Nonattainment/ 

Maintenance 

Area 

Project 

Component 

Location of 

Project 

Activities 

Air Pollutant of 

Concern 

Emissions 

(tpy) 

General 

Conformity 

Thresholdsa

 (tpy) 

PM2.5 19 100 

NOx 

(PM2.5 precursor) 

80 100 

Proposed Salt 

Lake City PM2.5

Nonattainment 

Areab

Construction – 

Wasatch 

Pipeline Loopc

Salt Lake and 

Davis 

Counties, 

Utah 

SO2

(PM2.5 precursor) 

0.3 100 

PM2.5 1.7 100 

NOx 

(PM2.5 precursor) 

7.3 100 

Construction – 

Elberta 

Compressor 

Station 

Expansion 

Utah County, 

Utah 

SO2

(PM2.5 precursor) 

<0.1 72d

PM2.5 3.2 100 

NOx 

(PM2.5 precursor) 

0e

 100 

Proposed 

Provo PM2.5

Nonattainment 

Areab

Operation of 

Proposed 

New Turbine 

– Elberta 

Compressor 

Station 

Utah County, 

Utah 

SO2

(PM2.5 precursor) 

0c

 72d

Salt Lake 

County PM10 

Nonattainment 

Area 

Construction – 

Wasatch 

Pipeline Loopd

Salt Lake 

County, Utah 

PM10 27 100 

Salt Lake City 

CO 

Maintenance 

Area 

Construction – 

Wasatch 

Pipeline Loopd

Salt Lake 

County, Utah 

CO 22 100 

NOx

(ozone precursor) 

Davis/Salt Lake 80 100 

O3

Maintenance 

Area 

Construction – 

Wasatch 

Pipeline Loopc

Salt Lake and 

Davis 

Counties, 

Utah VOC 

(ozone precursor) 

8.7 100 

Construction – 

Elberta 

Compressor 

Station 

Expansion 

Utah County, 

Utah 

Utah County PM10 8.7 100 

PM10

Nonattainment 

Area 

Operation of 

Proposed 

New Turbine 

– Elberta 

Compressor 

Station 

Utah County, 

Utah 

PM10 0c

 100 
4-153 

TABLE 4.11.1-6 (continued) 

Comparison of Emissions to General Conformity Thresholds for the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project

Nonattainment/ 

Maintenance 

Area 

Project 

Component 

Location of 

Project 

Activities 

Air Pollutant of 

Concern 

Emissions 

(tpy) 

General 

Conformity 

Thresholdsa

 (tpy) 

NOx

(ozone precursor) 

Construction – 6.7 100 

Dry Lake 

Compressor 

Station 

Expansion 

Clark County, 

Nevada 

VOC 

(ozone precursor) 

0.6 100 

NOx

(ozone precursor) 

29 100 

Clark County 

O3

Maintenance 

Area 

Operation of 

Proposed 

New Turbine 

– Dry Lake 

Compressor 

Station 

Clark County, 

Nevada 

VOC 

(ozone precursor) 

3.3 100 

____________ 

Notes: 

 CO = Carbon monoxide 

 NOx = Nitrogen oxides 

 PM10 = Particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter 

 PM2.5 = Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter 

 SO2 = Sulfur dioxide 

 tpy = Tons per year 

 VOC = Volatile organic compound 

a Except where noted, de minimis thresholds are listed. 

b

 This area was previously designated as unclassifiable/attainment for PM2.5; thus, PM2.5 precursor emissions in this area 

were not subject to the General Conformity Rule. However, on October 8, 2009, the EPA issued a final Federal Register 

notice for area designations of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA re-designated Salt Lake, Davis, and portions of Utah 

Counties as nonattainment for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. These final designations became effective 30 days following 

publication in the Federal Register. 

c

 Listed emissions also include those anticipated from on-road vehicle use in Salt Lake County. during construction activities 

at the Elberta Compressor Station. 

d

 Threshold represents 10 percent of total emission inventory for Utah County (UDAQ 2008). 

e

 Emission reduction credits have been purchased to offset emission increases of PM10, NOx, and SO2 due to operation of the 

proposed replacement turbine at the Elberta Compressor Station. 

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule 

On September 22, 2009, the EPA issued the final Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases 

Rule, which requires reporting of GHG emissions from suppliers of fossil fuels and facilities that emit 

greater than or equal to 25,000 metric tons of GHG (as carbon dioxide equivalent emissions, or CO2-eq) 

per year. Kern River would be required to comply with all applicable requirements of the rule for all 

actual GHG emissions from proposed sources at the stations equal to or greater than 25,000 metric tons 

per year. 
4-154 

State Regulations 

In addition to the federal regulations described above, Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada have statespecific air quality regulations (see table 1.5-1 in section 1.0). The WDEQ manages air quality issues in 

Wyoming, the UDAQ manages air quality issues in Utah, and the Clark County Department of Air 

Quality and Environmental Management (CC DAQEM) manages air quality issues in Clark County, 

Nevada. Subject to EPA oversight, these agencies manage the air permitting, compliance, and 

enforcement programs. Installation and operation of the additional turbine at the Coyote Creek 

Compressor Station would require authorization from the WDEQ. An application for a construction 

permit for the modification of the Coyote Creek Compressor Station was received by the WDEQ and was 

assigned an application number. Any revised permit for the modification of the compressor station that 

may be issued by the WDEQ would serve as the Permit to Construct and Operate. Installation and 

operation of the new turbine at the Elberta Compressor Station and the proposed Milford Compressor 

Station would require authorization from the UDAQ. The UDAQ issued a revised Approval Order for the 

modification at the Elberta Compressor Station and a new Approval Order for the proposed Milford 

Compressor Station in February 2010. These will serve as Permits to Construct and Operate for the 

Elberta and Milford Compressor Stations. In its revised Approval Order for the Elberta Compressor 

Station expansion, Kern River purchased 35.00 tpy of banked NOx emissions credits in addition to its 

previous credits of 0.62 tpy. This transfer of NOx emissions credits from the Staker Parson Companies to 

Kern River was issued by the UDEQ on September 10, 2009, and is accounted for in the Utah County 

Emissions Credit Registry. The additional turbine at Dry Lake Compressor Station would require 

authorization from CC DAQEM. An application for an Authority to Construct for the modification of 

the Dry Lake Compressor Station has been submitted to the CC DAQEM. Any permit issued by the CC 

DAQEM for the Dry Lake Compressor Station expansion would serve as a revised combined Authority to 

Construct/Operating Permit. The compressor replacement at Fillmore Compressor Station is not an air 

pollution emitting unit and authorization to replace the compressor would not be required. 

The Regional Haze Rule was developed to protect and improve visibility in the country's 

156 national parks and large wilderness areas (referred to as mandatory Federal Class I areas). The rule 

became final on July 1, 1999, and requires the states, in coordination with the Environmental Protection 

Agency, the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and other 

interested parties, to develop and implement air quality protection plans to reduce the pollution that 

causes visibility impairment. The pollutants causing haze are primarily smoke, soot, oxides of nitrogen 

and sulfur dioxide from fires, vehicles, off road equipment, industrial sources and other activities that 

generate pollution. Utah, Nevada, and Wyoming have revised their respective SIPs to include regional 

haze plans and have submitted these SIP revisions to the EPA. There are no requirements with regards to 

regional haze that apply to the proposed Project. 

4.11.1.3 Construction Impacts 

Construction of the proposed pipeline looping, compressor stations, and access roads would 

generate air emissions during grading, trenching, backfilling, and operation of construction vehicles, as 

well as emissions from helicopters. The Project would use existing roads to the extent possible; however, 

Kern River has proposed to construct one new access road. Some roads used for access may require 

improvements during construction by widening or adding drain pipes, gravel, or grading. These activities 

could generate dust and particulate emissions from earth moving and from construction equipment engine 

exhaust. 

Some of the access roads used for construction would continue to be used during operation to 

provide access to the proposed pipeline looping for maintenance purposes. 
4-155 

Construction of the pipeline, existing compressor station modifications, and construction of the 

Milford Compressor Station would be performed with mobile equipment similar to that typically used for 

pipeline and road construction. Kern River would also construct other minor aboveground facilities 

consisting of MLVs and pig launchers/receivers. 

Construction would be expected to cause a temporary impact on local ambient air quality as a 

result of fugitive dust and combustion emissions generated by construction equipment. Criteria pollutant 

emissions, primarily NO2, CO, VOCs, PM10, PM2.5, small amounts of SO2, and small amounts of HAPs 

(such as formaldehyde, benzene, toluene, and xylene) would be produced by the gasoline and dieselpowered construction equipment engines. Construction emissions for the proposed Project are shown in 

table 4.11.1-7. These emissions would occur over the anticipated 13-month duration of construction 

activity. Impacts from construction equipment would be temporary and is not expected to result in a 

significant impact on air quality. In addition to these emissions, construction of the Project is estimated to 

produce about 26,655 metric tons (tonnes) of CO2-eq. 

The WDEQ regulates airborne particulate matter resulting from construction activities through its 

Air Quality Division Standards and Regulations Chapter 3, Section 2(f)(i)(A). The rule requires frequent 

watering or application of dust control chemicals to reduce fugitive dust. The UDAQ has a similar 

fugitive dust requirement at R307-205-5 and the CC DAQEM has a similar requirement in Section 41 of 

its Air Quality Regulations. Kern River would submit such a Dust Control Plan to the UDAQ prior to 

construction of Elberta Compressor Station expansion. Although a Dust Control plan is not required 

to be submitted to the UDAQ for construction activities at the Milford Compressor Station; Kern 

River would commit to certain dust control measures as required. Kern River would also submit 

such a Dust Control Plan to the CC DAQEM prior to construction of the Dry Lake Compressor 

Station expansion. Kern River would file these Dust Control plan with the Commission when they 

are submitted to the UDAQ and CC DAQEM. These plans would include proven construction 

practices, such as applying water to roadways and mulching bare areas to control fugitive dust if fugitive 

dust becomes a problem. 

TABLE 4.11.1-7 

Estimated Construction Emissions for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Construction Phase 

NOx

(tons) 

CO 

(tons) 

VOC 

(tons) 

PM10

(tons) 

PM2.5

(tons) SOx (tons) 

CO2-eq

(tonnes) 

Wasatch Pipeline Loop 

– Equipment Operation 

163.0 251.0 17.0 10.1 10.2 0.6 23,179 

Wasatch Pipeline Loop 

– Fugitive Dust 

-- -- -- 194.4 26.3 -- -- 

Coyote Creek CS – 

Equipment Operation 

6.6 3.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 <0.1 763 

Coyote Creek CS – 

Fugitive Dust 

-- -- -- 12.6 1.5 -- -- 

Elberta CS – Equipment 

Operation 

8.6 5.3 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.1 875 

Elberta CS – 

Fugitive Dust 

-- -- -- 8.8 1.2 -- -- 

Fillmore CS - 

Equipment Operation 

1.8 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 <0.1 209 
4-156 

TABLE 4.11.1-7 (continued) 

Estimated Construction Emissions for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Construction Phase 

NOx

(tons) 

CO 

(tons) 

VOC 

(tons) 

PM10

(tons) 

PM2.5

(tons) SOx (tons) 

CO2-eq

(tonnes) 

Fillmore CS – 

Fugitive Dust 

-- -- -- 6.5 0.7 -- -- 

Milford CS – Equipment 

Operation 

7.4 4.1 0.7 0.6 0.6 <0.1 853 

Milford CS – 

Fugitive Dust 

-- -- -- 22.3 3.1 -- -- 

Dry Lake CS - 

Equipment Operation 

6.7 0.6 3.7 0.5 0.5 <0.1 776 

Dry Lake CS – 

Fugitive Dust 

-- -- -- 7.8 1.0 -- -- 

Total 194.1 265.6 23.0 265.4 46.3 1.1 26,655 

____________ 

Notes: 

 CO = Carbon monoxide 

 CO2-eq = CO2 equivalent 

 CS = Compressor Station 

 NOx = Nitrogen oxides 

 PM10 = Particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter 

 PM2.5 = Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter 

 SOx = Sulfur oxides 

 VOC = Volatile organic compound. 

4.11.1.4 Operational Impacts 

Kern River proposes to install one Solar Titan 250 gas turbine site-rated at 26,548 horsepower 

(hp), one natural gas-fired backup generator engine rated at 2,311 hp, a 6.4-MMBtu/hour boiler, and a 

piping blowdown stack at the proposed Milford Compressor Station. One additional Solar Mars 100 gas 

turbine is proposed at each of the existing Coyote Creek, Elberta, and Dry Lake Compressor Stations. 

Each of the proposed turbines would be controlled with Solar’s SoLoNOx technology to reduce NOx

emissions. 

Impacts from operation of the Project would result from the proposed turbines and from the 

additional equipment at the Milford Compressor Station. Operation of the equipment would be subject to 

permit-to-construction applications, which would require Kern River to complete further air quality 

analyses. As part of these analyses, Kern River modeled the impacts of certain criteria pollutants and 

HAPs from the Project compressor stations as required by the applicable state permitting agencies and the 

NEPA review. The modeling analyses are described below. 

The Milford Compressor Station would include an emergency shut down (ESD or blowdown) 

system, pursuant to USDOT requirements. The Elberta and Dry Lake Compressor Stations would each 

have an additional blowdown stack installed, and the Fillmore Compressor Station may also have an 

additional blowdown stack installed. Activation of the ESD system would vent the piping (expel the 

natural gas) to the atmosphere in case of an emergency. The ESD would be used only in the event of an 
4-157 

emergency. Compressor unit blowdowns would occur as needed to relieve pressure when a unit is taken 

offline. Natural gas blowdowns would not be part of routine operation. 

Operation of the aboveground block valves and pig launcher/receiver would not result in 

substantial air emissions under normal operating conditions. Typically, only minor emissions of natural 

gas, called “fugitive emissions,” occur from small connections at meter station and valve sites; because 

such emissions are very small, they are not regulated by permit or source-specific requirements. 

Use of the access roads for maintenance would generate occasional, minor, and short-term 

increases in dust similar to that generated on other unpaved roads in the area. Use of these roads by 

maintenance and operation personnel would have a negligible effect on air quality; however, any 

residents near the road may experience short periods of elevated dust levels. 

Kern River estimates annual air pollutant emissions from compressor station equipment 

(excluding the Fillmore Compressor Station, which would have no increase of emissions). Annual 

emissions, including GHGs, are summarized in table 4.11.1-8. 

TABLE 4.11.1-8 

Annual Air Pollutant Emissions from Compressor Station Equipment for the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Compressor 

Station 

Equipment 

Status 

CO 

(tpy) 

NOx 

(tpy) 

PM10 

(tpy) 

PM2.5 

(tpy) 

SO2 

(tpy) 

VOC 

(tpy) 

CO2-eq 

(tons per 

year) 

Total

HAPs

Existing 52.7 44 2.6 2.6 1.3 13.1 NC 0.4 

Coyote Creek 

Proposed 26 25 3 3 1.5 3.2 53,965 0.5 

Existing 54.7 44.2 2.9 2.9 1.4 14.1 NC <0.1 

Elberta 

Proposed 27 27 3.2 3.2 1.7 3.1 57,824 0.5 

Existing 94.2 85.2 5.5 5.5 2.8 28.7 NC 0.06 

Fillmore 

Proposed 94.2 85.2 5.5 5.5 2.8 28.7 NC 0.06 

Existing NA NA NA NA NA NA NC NC Milford (new) 

Proposed 50 47.4 5.4 5.4 2.7 6 98,685 1.1 

Existing 19.4 45.8 3.1 3.1 1.5 3.2 NC <0.1 

Dry Lake 

Proposed 29 29 3.4 3.4 1.8 3.3 61,403 1.0- 

____________ 

Notes: 

 CO = Carbon monoxide 

 CO2-eq = Carbon dioxide equivalent 

 CS = Compressor Station 

 HAP = Hazardous air pollutant 

μg = Microgram(s) 

 m3

 = Cubic meter(s) 

 NA = Not applicable 

 NC = Not calculated 

 NOx = Nitrogen oxides 

 PM10 = Particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter 

 PM2.5 = Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter 

 SO2 = Sulfur dioxide 

 tpy = Tons per year 

 VOC = Volatile organic compound 
4-158 

Dispersion Modeling 

Kern River conducted dispersion modeling using EPA’s-approved AERMOD model (version 

09292) for the Elberta, Coyote Creek, and Dry Lake Compressor Station expansions as required by the 

Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada air quality permitting agencies, and for the NEPA analysis. Kern River 

modeled the impacts on the nearest receptors within 1,000 meters of the compressor station expansions 

and used the AERMOD Terrain Processor (AERMAP) to assign terrain elevations for the receptor 

locations for the air dispersion analyses. The applicable state agencies provided Kern River with the 

meteorological data from representative weather stations using the AERMOD meteorological 

preprocessor (AERMET). 

Kern River used the EPA’s ISC-PRIME model (version 04629) to model the impacts of the 

proposed Milford Compressor Station. Kern River modeled the impacts on the nearest receptors within 

1,000 meters of the Milford Compressor Station and used USGS 7.5-minute digital elevation models for 

processing elevations of the receptor locations for the air dispersion analysis. 

Kern River conducted an air quality impact analysis for formaldehyde emissions at the Elberta 

Compressor Station as part of its Notice-of-Intent to the UDAQ. Kern River followed guidance outlined 

in UDAQ’s Modeling Guidance (UDAQ 2008). Kern River modeled the maximum 1-hour formaldehyde 

impact from the new unit and compared the impact to the formaldehyde toxic screening level. UDAQ 

provided Kern River with the meteorological data for the years 2004 through 2008 based on surface 

measurements in Spanish Fork, Utah and upper air data from Salt Lake City, Utah. Kern River modeled 

for each year of meteorological data to determine the formaldehyde impacts on receptors within 1,000 

meters. As shown in table 4.11.1-9 below, the ambient impacts due to formaldehyde emissions from the 

proposed new turbine for each meteorological year would be well below the applicable toxic screening 

level. 

TABLE 4.11.1-9 

Formaldehyde Analysis Modeling Results – 

Proposed New Turbine at the Elberta Compressor Station 

Maximum Formaldehyde 1-Hour Average Concentration 

Run 1 

(Met Year 2004) 

Run 2 

(Met Year 2005) 

Run 3 

(Met Year 2006) 

Run 4a 

(Met Year 2007) 

Run 5 

(Met Year 2008) 

Formaldehyde 

Toxic 

Screening 

Level 

0.20 μg/m3 0.21 μg/m3 0.21 μg/m3 0.21 μg/m3 0.20 μg/m3 37 μg/m3

____________ 

Notes: 

μg = Microgram(s) 

 m3

 = Cubic meter(s) 

a

 Due to rounding, the maximum impacts from Runs 2, 3, and 4 are equivalent. However, the actual maximum impact from Run 

4 (Year 2007) is slightly greater than maximum impacts from Run 2 (Year 2005) and Run 3 (Year 2006) out to additional 

decimal places.

Kern River also modeled the CO, NO2, PM10, PM2.5, and SO2 emissions associated with the 

proposed project activities at the Elberta Compressor Station and compared them to the PSD significant 

impact levels (SIL) in a significant impact analysis completed for the NEPA review. Kern River used the 

estimated emission rates of the new unit operating at full load and the same meteorological data provided 

by UDAQ in the air quality impact analysis for formaldehyde. Kern River modeled for each year of 

meteorological data to determine the CO, NO2, PM10, PM2.5, and SO2 impacts. The modeling results 
4-159 

(shown in table 4.11.1-10) indicate that the project-related impacts from the Elberta Compressor Station 

would be less than the respective SIL for CO, NO2, PM10, PM2.5, and SO2. 

TABLE 4.11.1-10 

Summary of Significant Impact Analysis for Proposed New Turbine 

for Elberta Compressor Station

Pollutant Averaging Period 

Maximum Impact from New Turbine 

(μg/m3) 

SILa 

(μg/m3) 

CO 1-Hour 16 2,000 

8-Hour 12 500 

NO2 Annual 0.23 1 

PM10 24-Hour 0.85 5 

Annual 0.037 1 

PM2.5 24-Hour 0.85 1.2 to 5(b)

Annual 0.037 0.3 to 1.0(b)

SO2 3-Hour 0.92 25 

24-Hour 0.44 5 

Annual 0.019 1 

____________ 

Notes: 

 CO = carbon monoxide 

 NO2 = nitrogen dioxide 

 PM10 = particulate matter less than or equal to 10 micrometers 

 PM2.5 = particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers 

 SIL = significant impact level 

 SO2 = sulfur dioxide 

a SIL for Class II Area. The Elberta compressor station is located in a Class II area. The nearest Class I Area is 

located 104 miles (168 km) from the station. 

b EPA has not yet established SILs for PM2.5. The values listed here represent the range of proposed SILs presented 

as options under the proposed rule “PSD PM2.5 – Increments, SILs and Significant Monitoring Concentration.” 

Criteria pollutant emissions for the new Milford Compressor Station were below UDAQ model 

thresholds with the exception of NO2. Emissions of formaldehyde and acrolein (both HAPs) were also 

above the emission threshold levels established by UDAQ. Kern River conducted dispersion modeling 

for NO2, formaldehyde, and acrolein, as required for its Notice of Intent to the UDAQ for construction 

and operation of the Milford Compressor Station. Maximum hourly formaldehyde and acrolein emission 

rates of the new equipment operating at full load were used to determine ambient formaldehyde and 

acrolein impacts over a 1-hour averaging period. Annual average emission rates of NOx were used to 

determine annual average ambient NO2 impacts. Kern River used the meteorological data files provided 

by UDAQ for the years 1993 through 1996 based on surface measurements for the Graymont facility (a 

PSD site) and upper air data from Salt Lake City, Utah. Kern River modeled for each year of 

meteorological data to determine the NO2, formaldehyde, and acrolein impacts. Based on consultation 

with UDAQ, a NO2 background concentration of 5 μg/m3 was assigned to the compressor station 

background area. This background concentration was added to the maximum modeled annual NO2
4-160 

emissions to determine a total maximum NO2 impact, which was then compared to the NO2 NAAQS. 

Kern River modeled the maximum 1-hour formaldehyde and acrolein impacts from the new equipment 

and compared the impact to the applicable toxic screening level. The modeling results (shown in 

table 4.11.1-11) indicate that the NO2 impacts from the Milford Compressor Station would be below the 

NO2 NAAQS and the formaldehyde and acrolein impacts would be below the applicable toxic screening 

level. 

TABLE 4.11.1-11 

Comparison of Modeled Results for the 

Milford Compressor Station 

Maximum Concentration 

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time 

Maximum 

Modeled 

Impact 

Background 

Concentration TOTAL NAAQS 

Toxic 

Screening 

Level 

NO2

a Annual 2.1 μg/m3 5 μg/m3 7.1 μg/m3 100 μg/m3 - 

Formaldehyde 1-Hour 16 μg/m3 - 16 μg/m3 - 37 μg/m3

Acrolein 1-Hour 1.5 μg/m3 - 1.5 μg/m3 - 23 μg/m3

____________ 

Notes: 

μg = Microgram(s) 

 m3

 = Cubic meter(s) 

 NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

 NO2 = Nitrogen dioxide 

a

 Maximum NO2 impact was calculated by multiplying maximum NOx impact (2.7 μg/m3) by a factor of 0.75. 

Source: 

 Kern River Gas Transmission Notice of Intent (NOI) for the Construction of the New Milford Compressor Station submitted 

to the UDAQ in December 2009. 

Kern River conducted dispersion modeling for NO2 and formaldehyde impacts at the Coyote 

Creek Compressor Station. The modeling analysis was included in Kern River’s Air Permit Application 

to the WDEQ. Kern River followed the modeling protocol primarily based on the WDEQ Air Quality 

Division’s Guidance for Conducting Near-Field Modeling Analyses for Minor Sources (Including 

Coalbed Methane Facilities). (WDEQ 2009) Kern River used the meteorological data files provided by 

WDEQ for the years 2000 through 2005 based on surface measurements Evanston, Wyoming and upper 

air data from Riverton, Wyoming. The ambient annual NO2 impacts at the station were modeled and 

compared them to the PSD SIL in a significant impact analysis. Because the modeled NO2 impacts 

exceeded the SIL of 1 μg/m3, a full NO2 impact analysis was conducted to determine compliance with the 

applicable WAAQS and PSD increment. The radius of impact was calculated from results of the 

significant impact analysis and extended to the most distant receptor at which emissions from the station 

emission sources produced a predicted annual average NOx impact that equaled or exceeded the SIL. The 

radius of impact was used to determine the receptor locations included in the full NO2 impact analysis. 

Impacts were modeled based on the Coyote Creek Compressor Station emissions along with emissions at 

facilities within 10 kilometers of the station. Kern River modeled for each year of meteorological data to 

determine the NO2 impacts in the full impact analysis. Based on consultation with WDEQ, a NO2 

background concentration of 3.4 μg/m3 was assigned to the compressor station background area. This 

background concentration was added to the maximum modeled annual NO2 emissions to determine a total 

maximum NO2 impact, which was then compared with the annual NO2 WAAQS of 100 μg/m3. The 
4-161 

analysis indicates that the maximum annual NO2 impact due to emissions from the compressor station and 

nearest sources would be below applicable PSD increment and WAAQS, as shown in table 4.11.1-12. 

TABLE 4.11.1-12 

Comparison of Modeled Results to WAAQS and PSD Increment for the 

Coyote Creek Compressor Station 

Maximum Concentration 

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time 

Maximum 

Modeled Impact 

Background 

Concentration TOTAL WAAQS 

PSD 

Increment 

NO2

a

 Annual 2.4 μg/m3 3.4 μg/m3 5.8 μg/m3 100 μg/m3 25 μg/m3

____________ 

Notes: 

μg = Microgram(s) 

 m3 = Cubic meter(s) 

 NO2 = Nitrogen dioxide 

 PSD = Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

WAAQS = Wyoming Ambient Air Quality Standards 

a

 Maximum NO2 impact was calculated by multiplying maximum NOx impact (3.26 μg/m3) by a factor of 0.75. 

Source: 

 Kern River Gas Transmission Air Permit Application for the Proposed Addition of One Gas Turbine to the Coyote Creek 

Compressor Station submitted to the WYDEQ in December 2009. 

An impact risk assessment analysis was conducted to evaluate formaldehyde emissions from 

sources at Coyote Creek Compressor Station and sources at facilities located within the vicinity of the 

station. Kern River modeled formaldehyde ambient impacts due to emissions from the Coyote Creek 

Compressor Station emission sources, as well as emission sources at facilities located within the vicinity 

of the station. WDEQ provided a list of emission sources at the surrounding facilities. Impacts were 

evaluated at receptors that fell within the NO2 radius of impact. Kern River used the estimated emission 

rates of the new unit operating at full load and the same meteorological data provided by WDEQ in the 

modeling analysis. The modeled formaldehyde emissions from the station and the surrounding facilities 

were. The maximum modeled formaldehyde impact from the AERMOD model run during Year 2006 

was compared to the cancer risk screening level. The incremental cancer risk was calculated by 

multiplying the maximum modeled annual formaldehyde impact by the dose-response value for 

formaldehyde. The dose-response value is taken from the most current version of the EPA Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards’ Table 1: Prioritized Chronic Dose-ResponseValues (EPA 2009). The 

analysis indicates that the incremental cancer risk due to emissions from the compressor station and 

nearby sources would be well below the cancer risk screening level of one in one hundred thousand (1 x 

10-5) shown in table 4.11.1-13. 
4-162 

TABLE 4.11.1-13 

Comparison of Formaldehyde Results to the Cancer Risk Screening Level for the Coyote Creek 

Compressor Station 

Maximum Formaldehyde Impacts 

Maximum Formaldehyde 

Concentration 

Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk From 

Formaldehydea Cancer Risk Screening Level 

0.0392 μg/m3 2.16 x 10-10 1 x 10-5 

____________ 

Notes: 

μg = Microgram(s) 

 m3 = Cubic meter(s) 

a

 The Incremental Cancer Risk = maximum modeled annual formaldehyde impact x dose-response value for formaldehyde 

(5.5 x 10-9 m3/μg) 

Kern River conducted air dispersion modeling for NOx, PM10, and SO2, as required by its 

Application for Authority to Construct to the CC DAQEM, to assess the impacts on the nearest receptors 

within 1,000 meters of the Dry Lake Compressor Station expansion. The CC DAQEM provided Kern 

River with the meteorological data for the years 1999 through 2003 based on surface measurements in 

Las Vegas, Nevada and upper air data from Mercury, Nevada. Kern River modeled for each year of 

meteorological data to determine the NOx, PM10, and SO2 impacts. The analysis indicates that the 

maximum modeled impacts for NOx, PM10, and SO2 would be well below the applicable PSD increment 

levels (table 4.11.1-14). 

TABLE 4.11.1-14 

Comparison of Modeled Results to PSD Increment for the 

Dry Lake Compressor Station 

Pollutant Averaging Time Maximum Modeled Impact PSD Increment 

NO2

a

 Annual 1.7 μg/m3 25 μg/m3 

PM10 24-Hour 2.2 μg/m 30 μg/m 

3-Hour 1.3 μg/m 512 μg/m 

24-Hour 0.7 μg/m 91 μg/m 

SO2

Annual 0.07 μg/m 20 μg/m 

____________ 

Notes: 

μg = Microgram(s) 

 m3 = Cubic meter(s) 

 NO2 = Nitrogen dioxide 

 PM10 = Particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter 

 PSD = Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

 SO2 = Sulfur dioxide 

a Maximum NO2 impact was calculated by multiplying maximum NOx impact by a factor of 0.75. 

Source: 

 Kern River Gas Transmission Application for Authority to Construct for the Proposed Addition of One Gas Turbine to the Dry 

Lake Compressor Station submitted to the CC DAQEM in December 2009. 
4-163 

Kern River also modeled the CO and PM2.5 emissions associated with the proposed project 

activities at the Dry Lake Compressor Station and compared them to the PSD SILs in a significant impact 

analysis completed for the NEPA review. Included in the significant impact analysis, Kern River 

modeled the significance of impact of formaldehyde emissions from the new unit and compared the 

impact to acute and chronic dose-response screening values. The acute and chronic dose-response 

screening values are outlined in tabulated dose-response assessments prepared by the EPA’s Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards for risk assessments. Kern River used the estimated emission rates of the 

new unit operating at full load and the same meteorological data provided by CC DAQEM in the 

modeling analysis. The modeling results (shown in table 4.11.1-15) indicate that the project-related 

impacts from the Dry Lake Compressor Station would be less than the respective SIL for CO and PM2.5 

and the modeled impacts for formaldehyde would result in ambient concentrations well below the listed 

acute and chronic dose-response screening values. 

TABLE 4.11.1-15 

Summary of Significant Impact Analysis for Proposed New Turbine 

for Dry Lake Compressor Station 

Pollutant 

Averaging 

Period 

Maximum 

Impact from 

New 

Turbine 

(μg/m3) 

SILa 

(μg/m3) 

AEGL-1 

(μg/m3) 

DRVNoncancerb 

(μg/m3) 

DRV - 

Cancerc 

(μg/m3) 

CO 1-Hour 13 2,000 - - - 

8-Hour 11 500 - - - 

PM 2.5 24-Hour 0.76 1.2 to 5(d) - - - 

Annual 0.046 0.3 to 1.0(d) - - - 

Formaldehyde 1-Hour 0.17 - 1,100 - - 

Annual 0.005 - - 9.8 0.76 

____________ 

Notes: 

 AEGL-1 = Acute exposure guideline levels for mild effects (1-hour) 

 CO = carbon monoxide 

 DRV = dose response value 

 PM2.5 = particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers 

 SIL = significant impact level 

a SIL for Class II Area. The Dry Lake compressor station is located in a Class II area. The nearest Class I Area is 

located 53 miles (85 km) from the station. 

b Value is based on exposure for 24 hours per day for a 70-year period. 

c Value is based on cancer risk of 1 x 10-5 and exposure for 24 hours per day for a 70-year period. 

d EPA has not yet established SILs for PM2.5. The values listed here represent the range of proposed SILs 

presented as options under the proposed rule “Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for PM2.5 – 

Increments, SILs, and Significant Monitoring Concentration.” 

The modeling results summarized above for the new Milford Compressor Station and the Elberta, 

Coyote Creek, and Dry Lake Compressor Station expansions indicate that the project-related emissions 

would not contribute significantly to regional air quality impacts. 
4-164 

Greenhouse Gases 

Construction of the Project would result in temporary impacts on air quality that would be limited 

to the duration of construction. Operation of the Project would be expected to result in long-term, minor 

impacts on air quality at the Milford Compressor Station and the existing compressor stations. All of the 

compressor stations (with the exception of the Fillmore Compressor Station) would be subject to the 

conditions of their required air quality permits, including emission limits for each piece of emissiongenerating equipment. Periodic use of access roads during operations would result in infrequent and 

minor impacts associated with dust, and these impacts would be localized and temporary at time of use. 

GHGs occur in the atmosphere both naturally and as a result of human activities, such as the 

burning of fossil fuels. These gases are the integral components of the atmosphere’s greenhouse effect 

that warms the earth’s surface and moderates day/night temperature variation. The most abundant GHGs 

are water vapor, CO2, CH4, N2O, and O3. The primary GHGs produced by fossil fuel combustion are 

CO2, CH4, and N2O. During construction and operation of the Project, these GHGs would be emitted 

from non-electrical construction equipment and any compressors, line heaters, and generators. Methane is 

released by blowdown events under routine operations or upset conditions. In addition, CH4 emissions 

could occur due to leaks from pipeline and system components such as equipment packing, seals, valves, 

flanges, pneumatic devices, and connectors at pipeline facilities, compressor stations, and meter and 

pressure regulation stations. Emissions of GHGs are typically expressed in terms of CO2-eq, where the 

potential of each gas to increase heating in the atmosphere is expressed as a multiple of the heating 

potential of CO2, or its global warming potential (GWP). 

We calculate the emissions of GHG pollutants associated with the construction and operation of 

the APEX Expansion Project, including all direct and indirect emission sources. GHG emissions were 

then converted to total CO2-eq emissions, based on the GWP of each pollutant. A summary of GHG 

emissions from construction and operation of the Project are provided in tables 4.11.1-7 and 4.11.1-8, 

respectively. Pipeline operation would result in about 465 metric tons per year (tonnes/year) of CO2-eq. 

Based on the emission estimates, the combustion-related GHG emissions from operation of the Project 

may potentially exceed 25,000 metric tons per year. For all actual GHG emissions from the proposed 

sources equal to or greater than 25,000 metric tons per year, Kern River would be required to comply with 

all applicable requirements of the Final Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. 

PacifiCorp Distribution Line 

In conjunction with the construction of the Milford Compressor Station, PacifiCorp would extend 

an approximately 1.4-mile electrical distribution line to provide necessary power for the compressor 

station. With regard to air quality, the proposed site and a majority of the PacifiCorp electrical 

distribution line would be on BLM land. Land use at the site, and generally within a 0.25-mile radius is 

rangeland, used primarily for livestock grazing. The nearest residences are 1.9 miles from the proposed 

site. Neither construction nor operation of the electrical distribution line would produce air emissions that 

would significantly impact air quality at the nearest receptors based on distance to the site. 

4.11.2 Noise 

Noise impacts related to a natural gas pipeline project generally fall into two categories: 

temporary impacts resulting from operation of construction equipment and long-term or life-of-theproject impacts resulting from operation of compressor units. Construction-related noise from heavy 

equipment operation would be of a similar nature regardless of the project. We received comments 

during the public comment period regarding the proposed Project’s noise levels during construction and 

operation; those comments are addressed in this section. 
4-165 

Noise would affect the local environment during both construction of the proposed pipeline and 

compressor stations (proposed and existing) and operation of each of the compressor stations. The 

ambient sound level of an area is defined by the total noise generated within the specific environment, and 

is usually comprised of sound emanating from both natural and artificial sources. At any location, both 

the magnitude and frequency of environmental noise may vary considerably over the course of the day 

and throughout the week. This variation is caused in part by changing weather conditions and the effects 

of seasonal vegetation cover. 

Two measures to relate the time-varying quality of environmental noise to its known effect on 

people are the 24-hour equivalent sound level (Leq) and the day-night sound level (Ldn). The Leq is the 

level of steady sound with the same total (equivalent) energy as the time-varying sound of interest, 

averaged over a 24-hour period. The Ldn is the Leq with 10 decibels on the A-weighted scale (dBA) added 

to nighttime sound levels (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) to account for people’s greater sensitivity to sound during 

nighttime hours. The A-weighted scale is used because human hearing is less sensitive to low and high 

frequencies than mid-range frequencies. The human ear’s threshold of perception for noise change is 

considered to be 3 dBA; 5 dBA is clearly noticeable to the human ear, and 10 dBA is perceived as a 

doubling of noise. Potential noise impacts on wildlife are discussed in section 4.5. 

4.11.2.1 Noise Regulatory Requirements 

In 1974, the EPA published its Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to 

Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. This document provided 

information for state and local governments to use in developing their own ambient noise standards. The 

EPA has determined that an Ldn of 55 dBA protects the public from indoor and outdoor activity noise 

interference. The FERC has adopted this criterion and used it to evaluate the potential noise impact from 

construction of the proposed Project and operation of the modified and new compressor station. 

Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada do not regulate noise at the state level. However, the Salt Lake 

County Board of Health has adopted noise regulations (SLBH 2001). Between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., noise 

is limited to 55 dBA in residential areas, 60 dBA in commercial or agricultural areas, and 80 dBA in 

industrial areas. Nighttime noise limits are 5 dBA lower than daytime limits. We note that the FERC 

standard (i.e., limiting operational compressor station noise to an Ldn of 55 dBA) is the more restrictive 

standard and therefore, have applied to the APEX Expansion Project. 

4.11.2.2 Existing Noise Environment 

Impacts are determined at receptors known as NSAs. NSAs include residences, schools, daycare 

facilities, hospitals, long-term care facilities, places of worship, libraries, and parks and recreational areas 

specifically known for their solitude and tranquility (such as wilderness areas). 

Noise during Project construction would be associated with general pipeline construction and 

construction of aboveground facilities. HDD is not planned for the proposed Project. 

Measurement surveys of existing noise levels at the Elberta and Coyote Creek Compressor 

Stations were conducted in May 2003 for what was considered full-load conditions following the Kern 

River’s 2003 Expansion Project. The surveys conducted in 2003 are considered representative of the 

current noise environment near the Elberta and Coyote Creek Compressor Stations. Measurement 

surveys of existing noise levels at the Fillmore and Dry Lake Compressor Stations were conducted in 

May 2009. Existing noise levels for the proposed Milford Compressor Station were estimated based on 

land uses and activities in the area. 
4-166 

The Coyote Creek Compressor Station is currently equipped with one Solar Mars 100 turbine 

compressor unit. During the 2003 noise survey, the compressor unit was operating at 95-percent load, 

and noise measurements were recorded at four locations along the property boundary. The Leq noise 

levels ranged between 36.7 dBA and 46.5 dBA. The nearest NSA is located about 3 miles from the 

compressor station. Noise from the nearby Anschutz Ranch plant was the most noticeable sound in the 

area. 

The Elberta Compressor Station is currently equipped with one Solar Mars 100 turbine 

compressor unit. During the 2003 noise survey, the compressor unit was operating under full load, and 

noise measurements were recorded at four locations along the property boundary and two NSAs. 

NSA #1, a residence, is located about 6,700 feet east of the compressor station, and NSA #2 is located 

7,400 feet to the east-northeast. The Leq noise levels ranged between 41.6 dBA and 49.6 dBA along the 

property boundaries of the compressor station. The noise levels at NSA #1 and NSA #2 were measured at 

42.5 dBA and 46.2 dBA, respectively. The dominant noise sources in the area were traffic on U.S. 

Highway 6 and State Highway 68. 

The Fillmore Compressor Station is equipped with two Solar Mars 100 turbines. During the 2009 

noise survey, the two units were operating under full load. Noise levels were measured at four locations 

along the property boundary. NSA #1, the nearest residence, is located about 1.2 miles north-northwest 

of the compressor station, and NSA #2 is located about 2.2 miles to the southwest. The Leq noise levels 

ranged between 44.6 dBA and 55.2 dBA along the property boundary measuring locations. 

The immediate area surrounding the proposed Milford Compressor Station site is undeveloped 

range land. Highway 129 is located within 1,600 feet of the proposed site, and agricultural land use is 

also present about 4,000 feet away. Sound levels in an area such as this would be expected to range from 

35 to 45 dBA, depending on weather conditions. The nearest NSA to the proposed Milford Compressor 

Station site is located about 1.9 miles to the northeast. 

The Dry Lake Compressor Station is currently equipped with one Solar Mars 100 turbine 

compressor unit. During the 2009 noise survey, the unit was operating under full load, and noise 

measurements were recorded at five locations along the property boundary. The Leq noise levels ranged 

between 46.1 dBA and 61.2 dBA. The nearest NSAs are more than 14 miles southwest of the Dry Lake 

Compressor Station. 

4.11.2.3 Construction Noise Impacts 

Construction of the Project would be expected to be typical of other pipeline projects in terms of 

schedule, equipment used, and types of activities. Construction would increase sound levels in the 

vicinity of Project activities; and the levels would vary during the construction period, depending on the 

construction phase. Pipeline construction generally would proceed at rates of several hundred feet per 

day. However, due to the assembly-line method of construction, construction activities in any one area 

along most of the proposed route could last several weeks on an intermittent basis. Construction at the 

compressor stations would be concentrated at specific locations and would last for months. Construction 

equipment would be operated on an as-needed basis during those periods and would be maintained to 

manufacturers’ specifications to minimize noise impacts. 

Nighttime noise levels would normally be unaffected because pipeline construction would take 

place only during daylight hours. As indicated previously, a 3-dBA increase is considered the noticeable 

threshold, a 5-dBA increase is considered clearly noticeable, and a 10-dBA increase is considered a 

perceived doubling of noise. Table 4.11.2-1 shows typical noise produced by each piece of pipeline 

construction equipment expected to be used at various distances from the equipment, and the theoretical 
4-167 

combined noise produced by the construction fleet. The combined noise calculation is based on the 

assumption that all equipment is working simultaneously and is collocated. The calculated noise level is 

conservative because it is not possible for all the equipment to be concentrated in a small area and it is 

unlikely that all the equipment would be working simultaneously. In addition to the construction 

equipment listed in table 4.11.2-1, helicopters would be used to fly in pipe in remote locations. 

Helicopter noise would peak during takeoff and landing and would be similar to the noise levels for other 

construction equipment. 

TABLE 4.11.2-1 

Typical Sound Pressure Levels from Pipeline Construction Equipment for the Proposed Apex 

Expansion Project 

Estimated Noise Level at (Leq)Distance from Source (dBA) 

Equipment 

Reference 

dBA at 50 

feet 

Number 

of Units 

Usage 

(%) 50 ft 100 ft 250 ft 500 ft 1,000 ft 2,500 ft 

1-ton truck 84 2 40 83 77 69 63 57 49 

2-ton truck 84 2 40 83 77 69 63 57 49 

Fuel truck 84 1 40 80 74 66 60 55 46 

Mechanic 

truck 

55 2 40 54 48 40 34 28 20 

Operator 

truck 

55 2 40 54 48 40 34 28 20 

Hammer 90 1 20 83 77 69 63 57 49 

Excavator 85 2 80 87 81 73 67 61 53 

Bulldozer 85 4 80 90 84 76 70 64 56 

Sideboom 85 2 80 87 81 73 67 61 53 

Borer 85 1 20 78 72 64 58 52 44 

Trencher 85 1 80 84 78 70 64 58 50 

Tractor 84 3 40 85 79 71 65 59 51 

Front-end 

loader 

80 1 70 78 72 64 58 52 44 

Boom truck 84 2 40 83 77 69 63 57 49 

Water 

pumps 

77 1 50 74 68 60 54 48 40 

Water truck 84 2 80 86 80 72 66 60 52 

Forklift 75 1 40 71 65 57 51 45 37 

String truck 84 1 40 80 74 66 60 54 46 

Vacuum 

truck 

85 1 40 81 75 67 61 55 47 

Tack rig 79 1 80 74 68 60 54 48 40 

Theoretical worst-case combined levels 96 90 82 76 70 62 

____________ 

Notes: 

 dBA = A-weighted decibel scale 

Source: 

USDOT 2006 
4-168 

There are three areas along the proposed pipeline route where existing residences and buildings 

are within 50 feet of the construction workspace (see section 4.8.2.3 for further details). Table 4.11.2-2 

shows similar data for compressor station construction. 

TABLE 4.11.2-2 

Sound Pressure Levels from Compressor Station Construction Equipment 

for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Estimated Noise Level (Leq) at Distance from 

Source (dBA) 

Equipment 

Reference 

dBA at 50 

feet 

Number 

of Units 

Usage 

(%) 50 ft 100 ft 250 ft 500 ft 1,000 ft 2,500 ft 

Excavator 85 1 40 81 75 67 61 55 47 

Compactor 80 1 20 73 67 59 53 47 39 

Front-end 

loader 

80 2 40 79 73 65 59 53 45 

Backhoe 80 1 40 76 70 62 56 50 42 

Forklift 80 1 40 76 70 62 56 50 42 

300-ton 

crane 

85 1 16 77 71 63 57 51 43 

55-ton crane 85 2 16 80 74 66 60 54 46 

Welder 73 14 40 80 74 67 60 54 47 

Manlift 85 1 20 78 72 64 58 52 44 

Caisson drill 84 1 20 77 71 63 57 51 43 

Air 

compressor 

80 1 40 76 70 62 56 50 42 

Theoretical worst-case combined levels 89 83 75 69 63 55 

____________ 

Notes: 

 dBA = A-weighted decibel scale 

Source: 

USDOT 2006 

As discussed in section 4.1.3, Kern River has identified several locations where exposed or 

shallow-bedrock soils exist along the pipeline route. Where unrippable rock is encountered, blasting for 

ditch excavation would be necessary. In these areas, blasting mats or soil cover would be used as 

necessary to prevent the scattering of loose rock. All blasting would be conducted during daytime hours 

and would not commence until occupants of nearby buildings, stores, residences, places of business and 

farms have been notified. Kern River expects that blasting would be required in four segments along the 

proposed pipeline route - MP 2.8 to 3.0, 3.6 to 4.7, 6.0 to 6.8, and 8.9 to 9.4. There are three structures 

within 50 feet of the construction workspace: at approximately MP 5.0, 24.5, and 27.5, and the nearest 

blasting could be approximately 0.3 mile from a barn located at approximately MP 5.0. Mitigation 

measures proposed for blasting areas include the use of blasting mats or soil cover as described above, 

and limitations on the size of charges in accordance with regulations. More information is provided in 

Kern River’s Blasting Plan. 
4-169 

4.11.2.4 Operational Noise Impacts 

During operation of the Apex Expansion Project, potential noise impacts would be limited to the 

vicinity of the proposed and existing compressor stations. Principal noise sources would include the air 

inlet, exhaust, and casing of the turbines. Secondary noise sources would include yard piping and valves. 

Noise from the relief valves, blowdown stack, and emergency electrical generation equipment would be 

infrequent. 

Table 4.11.2-3 summarizes the existing and projected noise levels for the existing Coyote Creek, 

Elberta, and Dry Lake, and the proposed Milford Compressor Stations. The compressor replacement at 

the Fillmore Compressor Station would not measurably change current noise levels attributable to station 

operation. 

TABLE 4.11.2-3 

Compressor Stations Predicted Noise Impacts at the Nearest NSAs 

for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Compressor Station 

Distance / Direction of 

NSA from Compressor 

Building 

Ambient Ldn

(dBA) 

Estimated Ldn

of 

Compressor 

Addition 

(dBA)a

Total 

Estimated 

Ldn of 

Modified/

New 

Station + 

Ambient 

(dBA) b Potential Noise 

Increase (dB)c

Coyote Creek 2.9 miles / east 51.4 26.7 51.4 0.0 

Elberta 1.3 miles / east 48.9 35.3 49.1 0.2 

Milford (new) 1.9 miles / northeast 51.4 30.9 51.4 0.0 

Dry Lake 14+ miles / southwest 59.5 59.5 59.5 0.0 

____________ 

a

 Estimated Project Ldn sound levels are from operation of existing and expansion station equipment, with noise control 

measures installed as recommended. 

b

 Estimated total Ldn = 10 log (10(Ambient L

dn

/10) + 10 (Predicted L

dn

/10)). 

c

 Estimated increase in the ambient Ldn sound levels due to operation of the existing and expansion station equipment. 

Noise from blowdown events is designed for a maximum peak sound level of 55 dBA at a 

distance of 100 feet from the blowdown vent using appropriate silencing. As a result, there would not be 

a significant impact on the noise environment at any NSA. 

During operation of the proposed Project, the potential noise impacts from the pipeline itself 

would be limited to the vicinity of the new valves. The principal noise source would be gas flowing 

through the valves. Such gas flow noise is typically not noticeable more than a short distance from the 

equipment. One of the proposed MLVs (MLV 121B) would be located about 38 feet from an existing 

residence at MP 24.1A. Kern River now proposes to locate MLV 121B at MP 24.1A, which is 

immediately adjacent to an existing MLV (MLV 121 at KRMP 121.1). Kern River has stated that the 

existing decorative cement wall would be expanded at this location to enclose MLV 121B, which may 

serve to attenuate noise levels. Gas flow noise is expected to be undetectable at the residence. 

Underground sections of the pipeline are not a significant source of noise. 
4-170 

No significant long-term noise impacts would be expected from normal operation of the new 

equipment or blowdown events at the Coyote Creek, Fillmore, Elberta, Milford, and Dry Lake 

Compressor Stations. 

Based on the measurements and estimates presented in the acoustical analyses, noise levels 

attributable to operation of the compressor stations would remain below our criterion of an Ldn of 55 dBA 

at the nearest NSAs. However, to ensure that the noise attributable to operation of the new and expanded 

compressor stations at nearby NSAs would not exceed an Ldn of 55 dBA, we recommend that: 

 Kern River file noise surveys no later than 60 days after placing the Milford 

Compressor Station and the authorized units at the Coyote Creek and Elberta 

Compressor Stations in service. If the noise attributable to the operation of all of the 

equipment at the identified compressor stations at full load exceeds an Ldn of 55 dBA at 

any nearby NSAs, Kern River should install the additional noise controls to meet the 

level within 1 year of each station’s in-service date. Kern River should confirm 

compliance with the above requirement by filing a second set of noise surveys no later 

than 60 days after it installs the additional noise controls. 

With implementation of the measures proposed by Kern River, impacts related to noise during 

construction would be minor and temporary. Based on estimated sound levels and the recommendation 

above, we believe that the noise levels attributable to operation of the expanded compressor stations and 

the new Milford Compressor Station would not have a significant impact on the surrounding 

environment. 

PacifiCorp Distribution Line 

In conjunction with the construction of the proposed Milford Compressor Station, PacifiCorp 

would extend an approximately 1.4-mile electrical distribution line to provide necessary power for the 

compressor station. With regard to noise, the proposed Milford Compressor Station and PacifiCorp 

electrical distribution line are on land administered by the BLM. Land use at the site and generally within 

a 0.25-mile radius is rangeland, used primarily for livestock grazing. The nearest residences are 1.9 miles 

from the site. Neither construction nor operational noise would be expected to produce a perceptible 

change to existing ambient noise levels at the nearest receptors based on this separation distance. 

4.12 RELIABILITY AND SAFETY 

The transportation of natural gas by pipeline involves some risk to the public in the event of an 

accident and subsequent release of gas. The greatest hazard is a fire or explosion following a major 

pipeline rupture. 

Methane, the primary component of natural gas, is colorless, odorless, and tasteless. It is not 

toxic but is classified as a simple asphyxiate, possessing a slight inhalation hazard. If breathed in high 

concentration, oxygen deficiency can result in serious injury or death. Methane has an ignition 

temperature of 1,000 o

F and is flammable at concentrations between 5 and 15 percent in air. Unconfined 

mixtures of methane in air are not explosive. However, a flammable concentration within an enclosed 

space in the presence of an ignition source can explode. It is buoyant at atmospheric temperatures and 

disperses rapidly in air. 
4-171 

4.12.1 Safety Standards 

The USDOT is mandated to provide pipeline safety under Title 49, USC Chapter 601. The 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s (PHMSA) Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) 

administers the national regulatory program to ensure the safe transportation of natural gas and other 

hazardous materials by pipeline. It develops safety regulations and other approaches to risk management 

that ensure safety in the design, construction, testing, operation, maintenance, and emergency response of 

pipeline facilities. Many of the regulations are written as performance standards that set the level of 

safety to be attained and allow the pipeline operator to use various technologies to achieve safety. 

PHMSA ensures that people and the environment are protected from the risk of pipeline incidents. This 

work is shared with state agency partners and others at the federal, state, and local level. 

Section 60105(a) of the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act (NGPSA) provides for a state agency to assume 

all aspects of the safety program for intrastate facilities by adopting and enforcing the federal standards, 

while section 60105(b) permits a state agency that does not qualify under section 60105(a) to perform 

certain inspection and monitoring functions. Certified states may make an agreement with USDOT that 

authorizes them to also participate in the oversight of interstate pipeline transportation. Although OPS 

may authorize a state to act as its agent to inspect interstate pipelines, it retains responsibility for 

enforcement of the regulations. The majority of the states act as interstate partners, including Utah, 

Wyoming, and Nevada. 

The USDOT pipeline standards are published in 49 CFR 190 to 199. Part 192 specifically 

addresses natural gas pipeline safety issues. 

Under a Memorandum of Understanding on Natural Gas Transportation Facilities (Memorandum) 

dated January 15, 1993, between USDOT and the FERC, USDOT has the exclusive authority to 

promulgate federal safety standards used in the transportation of natural gas. Section 157.14(a)(9)(vi) of 

the FERC’s regulations require that an applicant (1) certify that it will design, install, inspect, test, 

construct, operate, replace, and maintain the facility for which a Certificate is requested in accordance 

with federal safety standards and plans for maintenance and inspection or (2) certify that it has been 

granted a waiver of the requirements of the safety standards by the USDOT in accordance with 

section 3(e) of the NGPSA. The FERC accepts this certification and does not impose additional safety 

standards other than the USDOT standards. If the Commission becomes aware of an existing or potential 

safety problem, there is a provision in the Memorandum to promptly alert USDOT. The Memorandum 

also provides for referring complaints and inquiries made by state and local governments and the general 

public involving safety matters related to a pipeline under the Commission’s jurisdiction. 

The FERC also participates as a member of the USDOT’s Technical Pipeline Safety Standards 

Committee, which determines whether proposed safety regulations are reasonable, feasible, and 

practicable. 

The pipeline and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed Project must be designed, 

constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with the USDOT Minimum Federal Safety Standards 

in 49 CFR 192. The regulations are intended to ensure adequate protection for the public and to prevent 

natural gas facility accidents and failures. Part 192 specifies material selection and qualification, 

minimum design requirements, and protection from internal, external, and atmospheric corrosion. 

Part 192 also defines area classifications, based on population density in the vicinity of the 

pipeline, and specifies more rigorous safety requirements for populated areas. The class location unit is 

an area that extends 220 yards (660 feet) on either side of the centerline of any continuous 1-mile length 

of pipeline. The four area classifications are defined as follows: 
4-172 

Class 1 - location with 10 or fewer buildings intended for human occupancy; 

Class 2 - location with more than 10 but less than 46 buildings intended for human 

occupancy; 

Class 3 - location with 46 or more buildings intended for human occupancy or where the 

pipeline lies within 100 yards of any building, or small well-defined outside area 

occupied by 20 or more people on at least 5 days a week for 10 weeks in any 

12-month period; and 

Class 4 - location where buildings with four or more stories aboveground are prevalent. 

Class locations representing more populated areas require higher safety factors in pipeline design, 

testing, and operation. Pipelines constructed on land in Class 1 locations must be installed with a 

minimum depth cover of 30 inches in normal soil and 18 inches in consolidated rock. Class 2, 3, and 

4 locations, as well as drainage ditches of public roads and railroad crossings, require a minimum cover of 

36 inches in normal soil and 24 inches in consolidated rock. All pipelines installed in navigable rivers, 

streams, and harbors must have a minimum cover of 48 inches in soil and 24 inches in consolidated rock. 

Class locations also specify the maximum distance to a sectionalizing block valve (specifically, 

10.0 miles in Class 1, 7.5 miles in Class 2, 4.0 miles in Class 3, and 2.5 miles in Class 4). Pipe wall 

thickness and pipeline design pressures, hydrostatic test pressures, MAOP, inspection and testing of 

welds, and frequency of pipeline patrols and leak surveys must also conform to higher standards in more 

populated areas. 

Class locations based on current population density for the proposed Wasatch Loop are listed in 

table 4.12.1-1 along with the locations of MLVs proposed for the proposed route. Approximately 

25 miles of the proposed route would be in Class 1, 1.4 miles would be in Class 2, and 1.5 miles would be 

in Class 3. 

TABLE 4.12.1-1 

U.S. Department of Transportation Classifications and Mainline Valve 

Locations for the Proposed Wasatch Loop 

Wasatch Loop Milepost Pipeline Length (Miles) 

Begin End Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 

Mainline Valve Locations 

(WLMP) 

0.0 24.3 24.3 - - 0.0 

24.3 25.2 - 0.9 - 7.1 

25.2 25.7 0.5 - - 24.5 

25.7 26.6 - - 0.9 27.4 

26.6 26.8 0.2 - - 

26.8 27.4 - - 0.6 

27.4 27.9 - 0.6 - 

Totals 25.0 1.5 1.5 

In 2002, Congress passed an act to strengthen the nation’s pipeline safety laws. The Pipeline 

Safety Improvement Act of 2002 was passed by Congress on November 15, 2002, and signed into law by 

the President in December 2002. That law requires that all gas transmission operators develop and follow 

a written integrity management program that contains all the elements described in part 192.911 of the 
4-173 

USDOT regulations and addresses the risks on each covered transmission pipeline segment. Specifically, 

the law established an integrity management program that applies to all high consequence areas (HCAs). 

As described below, the USDOT (68 FR 69778, 69 FR 18228, and 69 FR 29903) defines HCAs as they 

relate to the different class zones, potential impact circles, or areas containing an identified site as defined 

in section 192.903 of the USDOT regulations. 

OPS published a series of rules from August 6, 2002, to May 26, 2004 (69 FR 29903), that 

defines HCAs where a gas pipeline accident would cause considerable harm to people and their property, 

and requires an integrity management program to minimize the potential for an accident. This definition 

satisfies, in part, the Congressional mandate in 49 USC 60109 for OPS to prescribe standards that 

establish criteria for identifying each gas pipeline facility in a high-density population area. 

The HCAs may be defined in one of two ways. In the first method, an HCA includes the 

following: 

 current Class 3 and 4 locations; 

 any area in Class 1 or 2 where the potential impact radius1

 is greater than 660 feet and 20 or 

more buildings are intended for human occupancy within the potential impact circle;2

 or 

 any area in Class 1 or 2 where the potential impact circle includes an identified site.3

In the second method, an HCA includes any area within a potential impact circle that contains 

20 or more buildings intended for human occupancy, or an identified site. 

Once a pipeline operator has determined the HCAs on its pipeline, it must apply the elements of 

its integrity management program to those segments of the pipeline within HCAs as required by 

49 CFR 192.911. 

Kern River has not identified any HCAs along the proposed route, but would re-evaluate the route 

for HCAs prior to construction. In addition, to maintain compliance with the pipeline classification and 

pipeline integrity management regulations in Part 192, Kern River would continue to monitor for 

potential class location changes and HCAs throughout the life of the Project. Monitoring would include 

Kern River’s aerial and ground inspections, review of aerial photography of the route, and surveillance 

during activities associated with operation. The pipeline integrity management rule for HCAs requires 

inspection of the entire pipeline for HCAs every 7 years. 

Part 192 also prescribes the minimum standards for operating and maintaining pipeline facilities, 

including the requirement to establish a written plan governing these activities. Under part 192.615, each 

pipeline operator must also establish an emergency plan that includes procedures to minimize the hazards 

in a natural gas pipeline emergency. Key elements of the plan must include the following procedures: 

 receiving, identifying, and classifying emergency events, gas leakage, fires, explosions, and 

natural disasters; 

 

1 The potential impact radius is calculated as the product of 0.69 and the square root of the MAOP of the pipeline 

in pounds per square inch multiplied by the pipeline diameter in inches. 2

 The potential impact circle is a circle of radius equal to the potential impact radius. 

3

 An “identified site” is an outside area or open structure that is occupied by 20 or more persons on at least 

50 days in any 12-month period; a building that is occupied by 20 or more persons on at least 5 days a week for 

any 10 weeks in any 12-month period; or a facility that is occupied by persons who are confined, are of 

impaired mobility, or would be difficult to evacuate. 
4-174 

 establishing and maintaining communications with local fire, police, and public officials, and 

coordinating emergency response; 

 emergency shutdown of the system and safe restoration of service; 

 making personnel, equipment, tools, and materials available at the scene of an emergency; 

and 

 protecting people first and then property, and making them safe from actual or potential 

hazards. 

Kern River has an existing emergency plan for the Kern River Gas Transmission System that 

includes policies and procedures for accomplishing the tasks mentioned for the existing system. Kern 

River would expand the existing emergency plan to include the facilities included by the Apex Expansion 

Project. 

Part 192 requires that each operator establish and maintain liaison with appropriate fire, police, 

and public officials to learn the resources and responsibilities of each organization that may respond to a 

natural gas pipeline emergency, and to coordinate mutual assistance. The operator must also establish a 

continuing education program to enable customers, the public, government officials, and those engaged in 

excavation activities to recognize a gas pipeline emergency and report it to appropriate public officials. 

Kern River would expand it existing liaison and continuing education programs for the Kern River Gas 

Transmission System to include the Apex Expansion Project. 

4.12.2 Pipeline Accident Data 

OPS maintains a database of pipeline incident reports on the PHMSA website 

(http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/safety/SigPSI.html). Except where noted, information on 

natural gas pipeline incidents presented in this EIS is based on nationwide data for onshore natural gas 

transmission lines that is available on the PHMSA site for the 20-year period from 1989 through 2008. 

As defined by 49 CFR 191.3, a natural gas pipeline incident is an event that involves the release 

of gas and meets any of the following criteria: 

 results in a fatality or injury requiring in-patient hospitalization; 

 results in $50,000 or more in total costs, measured in 1984 dollars; or 

 is otherwise considered significant by the operator. 

Parts 192.5 and 192.15 require that operators report all of these incidents to PHMSA, and the 

PHMSA website categorizes any such incident as “significant.” The PHMSA database also includes 

“serious” incidents as a subset of significant incidents: a serious incident is one that results in a fatality or 

injury requiring in-patient hospitalization. 

Table 4.12.2-1 lists the significant incidents from 1989 through 2008 for onshore natural gas 

transmission pipelines by cause categories along with the percent of incidents by cause and the annual 

frequency by cause per 1,000 miles of pipeline in service for the reporting period (based on a total 

293,000 miles of natural gas transmission pipelines reported by PHMSA on its website). 
4-175 

TABLE 4.12.2-1 

Significant Incidents by Cause for Onshore Natural 

Gas Transmission Systems (1989 through 2008)a, b

Cause 

Number of 

Incidents 

Percent of Total 

Incidents 

Incidents per 

1,000 Miles of 

Pipelinec

Corrosion 163 20.0 0.6 

Excavation damage 194 23.8 0.7 

Human error 18 2.2 0.1 

Material failure 165 20.2 0.6 

Natural force damage 64 7.9 0.2 

Other outside force damage 27 3.3 0.1 

All other causes 184 22.6 0.6 

Total 815 100.0 2.9 

____________ 

Notes: 

a

 Data from Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration (PHMSA) website accessed October 2009 

(http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/safety/SigPSI.html). 

b

 Significant incidents consist of incidents with a fatality or injury requiring in-patient hospitalization; $50,000 or more 

in total costs, measured in 1984 dollars; release of gas; or are otherwise considered significant by the operator. 

c

 Based on the a total of approximately 293,000 miles of natural gas transmission lines in the United States as 

reported on the PHMSA website (PHMSA 2009a). 

The dominant single cause of incidents was excavation damage, which accounted for 23.8 percent 

of the incidents. Damage in the “all other causes” category (which includes damage by vehicles, fire, or 

explosion as the primary cause, rupture of a previously damaged pipe, and vandalism) was the second 

highest cause at 22.6 percent, followed by material failure (20.2 percent) and corrosion (20.0 percent). 

Since April 1982, operators have been required to participate in One-Call public utility programs 

in populated areas to minimize unauthorized excavation activities in the vicinity of pipelines. The “One 

Call” program is a service used by public utilities and some private sector companies (such as oil 

pipelines and cable television) to provide pre-construction information to contractors or other 

maintenance workers on the underground location of pipes, cables, and culverts. 

The pipelines included in the data set in table 4.12.2-1 vary widely in terms of age, pipe diameter, 

and level of corrosion control. Each variable influences the incident frequency that may be expected for a 

specific segment of pipeline. 

The frequency of incidents is strongly dependent on pipeline age. Although pipelines installed 

since 1950 exhibit a fairly constant and low level of incident frequency, pipelines installed before that 

time have a significantly higher rate, partially due to corrosion since corrosion is a time-dependent 

process. Further, new pipe generally uses more advanced coatings and cathodic protection to reduce 

corrosion potential. 

Older pipelines have a higher frequency of outside forces incidents partly because their locations 

may be less well known and less well marked than newer lines. In addition, the older pipelines contain a 
4-176 

disproportionate number of smaller-diameter pipelines. Those pipelines have a higher rate of incident 

occurrence due to excavation damage and other outside forces than larger diameter pipelines because 

small-diameter pipelines are more easily crushed or broken by mechanical equipment or earth 

movements. 

Jones et al. (1986) compared reported incidents with the presence or absence of cathodic 

protection and protective coatings. The results of that study, summarized in table 4.12.2-2, indicated that 

corrosion control was effective in reducing the incidence of failures caused by external corrosion. The 

use of both an external protective coating and a cathodic protection system, required on all pipelines 

installed after July 1971, significantly reduced the rate of failure compared to unprotected or partially 

protected pipe. The data also indicate that cathodically protected pipe without a protective coating 

actually has a higher corrosion rate than unprotected pipe. This anomaly reflects the retrofitting of 

cathodic protection to actively corroding spots on pipes. 

TABLE 4.12.2-2 

Incidents Caused by External Corrosion and Level of Protection 

(1970 through June 1984)a

Corrosion Control Incidents per 1,000 Miles per Year 

None – bare pipe 0.42 

Cathodic protection only 0.97 

Coated only 0.40 

Coated and cathodic protection 0.11 

____________ 

Note: 

a

 Source: Jones et al. 1986 

4.12.3 Impact on Public Safety 

The incident data summarized in table 4.12.2-1 include pipeline failures of all magnitudes, with 

widely varying consequences. Approximately two-thirds of the incidents were classified as leaks; the 

remaining incidents were classified as ruptures, indicating more serious failures. 

The OPS database provides information on the number of incidents and the associated total 

fatalities from 1989 through 2008, as well as the number of industry fatalities and public fatalities for the 

period from 2003 through 2008. The average annual total fatalities for the last 3 years, 5 years, 10 years, 

and 20 years are listed in table 4.12.3-1. OPS began separating industry fatalities (employees) from 

public fatalities in the data for 2003. The average annual industry fatalities and average annual public 

fatalities that occurred for onshore natural gas transmission lines in the United States during the past 

6 years are presented in table 4.12.3-2. 
4-177 

TABLE 4.12.3-1 

Average Annual Fatalities for Onshore 

Natural Gas Transmission Systems in the United Statesa

 Annual Average 

Period 

Number of 

Incidents Fatalities 

3-year average (2006 – 2008) 73 1.7 

5-year average (2004 – 2008) 78 1.0 

10-year average (1999 – 2008) 66 2.6 

20-year average (1989 – 2008) 53 3.0 

____________ 

Note: 

a

 Data from Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration (PHMSA) website 

accessed October 2009 

(http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/safety/SigPSI.html); PHMSA reports the 

total transmission line distance in the United States is approximately 293,000 miles. 

TABLE 4.12.3-2 

Fatalities by Sector for Onshore Natural Gas Transmission 

Systems in the United States (2003-2008)a

Number of Fatalities 

Year Industry Public Total 

2003 1 0 1 

2004 0 0 0 

2005 0 0 0 

2006 2 1 3 

2007 1 1 2 

2008 0 0 0 

Total 4 2 6 

6-Year annual average 0.7 0.3 1.0 

____________ 

Note: 

a Data from Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration (PHMSA) website accessed October 2009 

(http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/safety/SigPSI.html); the PHMSA website reported that the total 

transmission line distance in the United States in 2008 was approximately 293,000 miles. 

The average annual number of fatalities has been relatively consistent over the past 20 years, 

ranging from about 1 to 3 deaths per year. The 10- and 20-year annual averages are somewhat skewed 

due to the 15 deaths that occurred during a single incident in Carlsbad, New Mexico in 2000. 
4-178 

The OPS database also lists incidents and total fatalities (public combined with employee) for 

Utah. For the 3,621 miles of natural gas transmission line in the state, there were only three reported 

incidents from 2001 through 2008, and none of the incidents resulted in either fatalities or injuries. The 

incidents occurred in 2001, 2006, and 2007. The 3-year annual average number of incidents 

(2006 through 2008) was 0.7, and the 10-year annual average was 0.3. 

The nationwide totals of accidental deaths from various manmade and natural hazards are listed 

in table 4.12.3-3 to provide a relative measure of the safety of natural gas transmission pipelines. 

However, direct comparisons between accident categories should be made cautiously, because individual 

exposures to hazards are not uniform among all categories. Nevertheless, the average rate of total 

fatalities of 3.0 per 1,000 miles for the 20-year averaging period (see table 4.12.3-1) and the average rate 

of public fatalities of 0.3 per year for the 6-year reporting period (see table 4.12.3-2) are relatively small, 

considering the nearly 293,000 miles of transmission lines in service nationwide. Furthermore, the 

fatality rate is approximately two orders of magnitude (100 times) lower than the fatalities from natural 

hazards such as lightning, tornadoes, floods, and earthquakes. 

TABLE 4.12.3-3 

Nationwide Accidental Deathsa

Type of Accident Fatalities 

All accidents 121,599 

Motor vehicle 45,216 

Other transportation 3,096 

Falls 20,823 

Accidental discharge of firearms 642 

Drowning 3,579 

Poisoning 27,531 

Fires and burns 3,109 

Suffocation by ingested object 5,912 

Natural/environmental 1,588 

Onshore natural gas transmission pipelines, all 

fatalities (1989-2008 annual average)b 3.0 

Onshore natural gas transmission lines, 

non-employees (2003–2008 annual average)b 0.3 

Natural gas transmission and gathering lines, 

non-employees (1970-1984 annual average)c 2.6 

____________ 

Notes: 

a

 Source: All data, unless otherwise noted, are for accidental deaths in 2006 from 

Heron et al. (2009). 

b

 Source: Data from Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration website 

accessed October 2009 

(http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/reports/safety/SigPSI.html). 

c

 Source: Jones et al. 1986 
4-179 

The available data indicate that natural gas pipelines continue to be a safe, reliable means of 

energy transportation. Based on approximately 293,000 miles of natural gas transmission lines in service 

in 2008 and the worst-case average annual total fatality rate of 3.0 deaths per year (see table 4.12.3-1), the 

rate of total fatalities for the nationwide natural gas transmission lines in service is approximately 0.01 per 

year per 1,000 miles of pipeline. Using this rate, implementing the proposed 27.9-mile-long Wasatch 

Loop might result in a fatality (either an industry employee or a member of the public) on that pipeline 

every 3,584 years. The recently available PHMSA data for public fatalities indicates that the rate of 

public fatalities was approximately 0.3 per year for the 6-year reporting period for the entire 

293,000 miles of transmission pipelines in service (table 4.12.3-2). These calculations indicate that 

implementation of the proposed Project represents little increase in risk to the public. 

4.12.4 Additional Security and Safety Issues 

In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, terrorism has 

become a very real issue for the facilities under the FERC’s jurisdiction. Increased security awareness 

has occurred throughout the industry and the nation. The Office of Homeland Security was established 

with the mission of coordinating the efforts of all executive departments and agencies to detect, prepare 

for, prevent, and protect against, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks within the United States. 

The FERC, in cooperation with other federal agencies and industry trade groups, has joined in the efforts 

to protect the energy infrastructure, including the approximately 327,000 miles of interstate natural gas 

transmission pipelines. 

The FERC, like other federal agencies, is faced with the dilemma of deciding how much 

information can be offered to the public while still providing a significant level of protection to energy 

facilities. Consequently, the FERC has taken measures to limit the distribution of information to the 

public regarding facility design to minimize the risk of sabotage. Facility design and location information 

has been removed from the FERC’s website to ensure that sensitive information filed as Critical Energy 

Infrastructure Information is not readily available to the public (Docket No. RM06-23-000, issued 

October 30, 2007 and effective as of December 14, 2007). 

Safety and security are important considerations in any action undertaken by the FERC. The 

attacks of September 11, 2001 have changed the way pipeline operators as well as regulators must 

consider terrorism, both in approving new projects and in operating existing facilities. Since September 

11, 2001, the FERC has been involved with other federal agencies in developing a coordinated approach 

to protecting the energy facilities of the United States, and continues to coordinate with these agencies to 

address this issue. In addition, interstate natural gas companies are actively involved with several 

industry groups to chart how best to address security measures in the current environment. A Security 

Task Force has been created and is addressing ways to improve pipeline security practices, strengthen 

communication within the industry and the interface with government, and extend public outreach efforts. 

The likelihood of future attacks of terrorism or sabotage occurring along the proposed Project, or 

at any of the myriad of natural gas pipeline or energy facilities throughout the United States is 

unpredictable given the disparate motives and abilities of terrorist groups. Further, the Commission, in 

cooperation with other federal agencies, industry trade groups, and interstate natural gas companies, is 

working to improve pipeline security practices, strengthen communications within the industry, and 

extend public outreach in an ongoing effort to secure pipeline infrastructure. 

Kern River would incorporate inspection of the Wasatch Loop into its existing inspection and 

maintenance program for the Kern River Gas Transmission System. This would include inspection by air 

and on the ground in accordance with the USDOT surveillance requirements. Security measures at the 

new Milford Compressor Station would include secure fencing, locked buildings, and security lighting. 
4-180 

Those measures are currently in place at the existing compressor stations that would be modified as a part 

of the Apex Expansion Project. 

Despite the ongoing potential for terrorist acts along any of the nation’s natural gas infrastructure, 

the continuing need for the construction of these facilities is not eliminated. Given the continued need for 

natural gas conveyance and the unpredictable nature of terrorist attacks, the efforts of the FERC, the 

USDOT, and the Office of Homeland Security to continually improve pipeline safety would minimize the 

risk of terrorist sabotage of the Project to the maximum extent practical, while still meeting the nation’s 

natural gas needs. Moreover, the unpredictable possibility of such acts does not support a finding that this 

particular project should not be constructed. 

4.13 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

Cumulative impacts represent the incremental effects of a proposed action when added to other 

past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes 

such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant 

actions, taking place over a given period. The direct and indirect impacts of the proposed Apex 

Expansion Project are discussed in other sections of this EIS. 

The purpose of this analysis is to identify and describe cumulative impacts that would potentially 

result from implementation of the proposed Project. After potential cumulative impacts are identified, 

cumulative impacts analyses are also used to modify projects where impacts are avoidable, to determine if 

additional or more appropriate mitigation is necessary, and to include effective monitoring for any 

impacts of concern. This cumulative impacts analysis uses an approach consistent with the methodology 

set forth in relevant guidance (CEQ 1997, 2005, EPA 1999). Under these guidelines, inclusion of other 

potential future actions is based on identifying commonalities between the potential impacts that would 

result from the proposed Project and the impacts likely to be associated with those other potential future 

projects. In order to avoid unnecessary discussions of insignificant impacts and projects and to 

adequately address and accomplish the purposes of this analysis, the cumulative impacts analysis for the 

proposed Apex Expansion Project was conducted using the following guidelines: 

 A project must impact a resource category potentially affected by the proposed Project. For 

the most part, these projects are located in the same region of influence or counties which are 

directly affected by the construction of the proposed Apex Expansion Project. The effects of 

more distant projects are generally not assessed because their impacts would be localized and 

not contribute significantly to the impacts of the proposed Project. Air quality, however, was 

considered on a more regional basis. 

 The distance into the future which other planned or proposed projects could potentially 

cumulatively impact the proposed Project area was based on whether the impacts would be 

short-term, long-term, or permanent. Most of the impacts would occur during the 

construction of the Apex Expansion Project, which would begin in October 2010, with the 

bulk of the compression and pipeline construction occurring during the spring through fall of 

2011. Kern River anticipates that all facilities would be placed in-service in November 2011. 

For projects where the impacts are long-term or permanent the temporal range was extended. 

 The other projects in the area were identified from information provided by Kern River; field 

reconnaissance; internet research; and communications with federal, state, and local agencies. 

Where a potential for cumulative impacts was indicated, those impacts were quantified to the 

extent practicable; however, in some cases the potential impacts can only be described 

qualitatively. This is particularly the case for projects which are in planning stages or are 

contingent on economic conditions, availability of financing, or the issuance of permits. 
4-181 

For the purposes of the cumulative impact analysis, the region of influence is defined as the eight 

counties impacted by the proposed Apex Expansion Project. Only three of these counties would be 

traversed by the proposed Wasatch Loop (Morgan, Davis, and Salt Lake Counties, Utah). In addition to 

the proposed pipeline, Kern River intends to construct a new compressor station, the Milford Compressor 

Station, in Beaver County, Utah. In conjunction with the construction of the proposed Milford 

Compressor Station, PacifiCorp would construct an approximately 1.4-mile 7.2 kV electrical distribution 

line to provide necessary power for the new compressor station. The electrical distribution line would be 

supported on approximately 23 single wood pole (raptor-safe) structures. While this electric distribution 

line is not part of the proposed Project, it is being analyzed throughout this EIS in association with the 

Apex Expansion Project, and more specifically for this section in conjunction with the proposed Milford 

Compressor Station. The potential impacts that are most likely to be cumulatively significant with the 

Project as a whole are related to geology; soils; water resources; vegetation; wildlife, fisheries, and 

special status species; land use and visual resources; socioeconomics; cultural resources; air quality and 

noise; and reliability and safety. 

Construction of the Apex Expansion Project would also require upgrades at four existing 

compressor stations (Coyote Creek, Elberta, Fillmore, and Dry Lake), which are located in Uinta County, 

Wyoming; Utah and Millard Counties, Utah; and Clark County, Nevada, respectively. For the purposes 

of this analysis, only cumulative impacts related to air and noise are assessed in the counties where 

compressor stations are already in existence. As discussed in section 2.1.2, construction activities at these 

sites would be confined within the existing facility boundaries. This is consistent with the first criterion 

of cumulative impacts, which states that for impacts to occur, a project must impact a resource category 

potentially affected by the proposed Project. 

Current, proposed, or reasonably foreseeable future projects or activities that may cumulatively 

impact resources that would be affected by the construction and operation of the proposed Apex 

Expansion Project are identified in table 4.13-1. In some cases these projects do not fit all three 

guidelines identified to determine the potential for cumulative impacts; however, they were considered to 

be large enough projects to mention in the analysis in order to portray a more complete picture of the type 

of projects occurring in the region of influence. 

TABLE 4.13-1 

Existing or Proposed Projects which Could Cumulatively Impact Environmental Resources 

in the Region of Influence for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Project Description Timing 

Counties within 

Region of Influence 

Other Natural Gas and Crude Oil Pipeline Projects 

Moxa Arch Area Infill 

Gas Development 

Project 

1,861 new natural gas wells 

and the installation and 

operation of additional 

ancillary facilities in 

southwestern Wyoming. 

Proposed 

(construction to 

occur from 2010 to 

2020) 

Uinta County, WY 

Ruby Pipeline Project 680 miles of 42-inchdiameter natural gas pipeline 

across Wyoming, Utah, 

Nevada, and Oregon; 4 new 

compressor stations; and 

related facilities. 

Proposed 

(construction to 

occur from Mid2010 through 

March 2011) 

Uinta County, WY 
4-182 

TABLE 4.13-1 (continued) 

Existing or Proposed Projects which Could Cumulatively Impact Environmental Resources 

in the Region of Influence for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Project Description Timing 

Counties within 

Region of Influence 

Other Natural Gas and Crude Oil Pipeline Projects (continued) 

UNEV Pipeline Project 399-mile-long petroleum 

pipeline from Woods Cross, 

Utah to Apex Industrial Park, 

north of Las Vegas in Clark 

County, Nevada. Includes a 

2.4-mile lateral line to the 

Salt Lake City Airport and a 

9-mile lateral line to Cedar 

City, Utah. 

Construction 

occurring from 

summer 2010 into 

early 2011 

Davis, Salt Lake, Millard, and 

Beaver Counties, UT; Clark 

County, NV 

Magnum Gas Storage 

Project 

Four underground natural 

gas storage salt caverns and 

related facilities near Delta, 

Utah. Each cavern contains 

4 Bcf working gas capacity 

with 2 Bcf base gas. 

Includes approximately 61.5 

miles of 36-inch-diameter 

natural gas pipeline for 

connection with Kern River 

and Questar interstate 

natural gas pipeline systems. 

Construction to 

occur from October 

2010 into fall 2013 

Millard, Juab, and Utah Counties, 

UT 

Electrical Transmission Lines 

Energy Gateway Transmission Expansion Project 

Gateway Central – 

Segment C 

100-mile segment from 

Mona, Utah to Salt Lake City, 

Utah. 

Proposed 

(construction to 

occur from January 

2010 through June 

2012) 

Salt Lake City and Utah Counties, 

UT 

Gateway South – 

Segment G 

400 miles of new electric 

transmission from Mona, 

Utah to Las Vegas, Nevada 

and a parallel line, about 160 

miles long, from Sigurd, Utah 

to Red Butte, Utah. 

Proposed 

(construction to 

occur from 2014 

through 2017) 

Millard and Beaver Counties, UT; 

Clark County, NV 

TransWest Express 

Project 

725 miles of new 600-kV 

direct current merchant line 

from south-central Wyoming 

to southern Nevada. 

Proposed 

(construction to 

occur from 2012 

through 2014) 

Millard, Beaver, Salt Lake City 

and Utah Counties, UT; Clark 

County, NV 

Wind Energy Projects

Spanish Fork Wind 

Park 

18.9 MW wind farm that 

consists of nine wind 

turbines which is located 

near Spanish Fork, Utah and 

owned and operated by 

Wasatch Wind. 

Existing 

(constructed in 

2008) 

Utah County, UT 
4-183 

TABLE 4.13-1 (continued) 

Existing or Proposed Projects which Could Cumulatively Impact Environmental Resources 

in the Region of Influence for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Project Description Timing 

Counties within 

Region of Influence 

Wind Energy Projects (continued) 

Milford Wind Corridor 

Phase I 203.5 MW-wind energy 

project with 97 wind turbines, 

an 88-mile-long 345-kV 

transmission line, a 

substation, underground 

electrical and communication 

facilities, an operations and 

maintenance facility, access 

roads and temporary use 

areas. 

Existing 

(Constructed in 

September and 

November 2009) 

Millard and Beaver Counties, UT 

Phase II 102-MW wind energy project 

which includes 68 wind 

turbines and an 

approximately 3-mile-long 

connection transmission line, 

a substation, underground 

electrical and communication 

facilities, an operations and 

maintenance facility, access 

roads, and temporary use 

areas. 

Under construction Millard County, UT 

Phase III Tentatively 300 – 400 MW 

wind energy project to 

include up to 270 turbines, 

connection transmission line, 

a substation, underground 

electrical and communication 

facilities, an operations and 

maintenance facility, access 

roads, and temporary use 

areas. 

Proposed 

(Construction 

2011) 

Millard County, UT 

Residential and Commercial Development

Shady Meadow 

Campground/ East 

Canyon Ranchettes 

Plans to convert this 

campground into six 

residential lots of 15 to 22 

acres in size. 

Undetermined Morgan County, UT 

Edgewood/ 

Eaglepointe 

Plans to construct additional 

houses in Edgewood 

Estates. 

Undetermined Davis County, UT 

Eaglewood Village A planned development off of 

Highway 89 and Eagle Ridge 

Drive. 

Undetermined Davis County, UT 
4-184 

Other Natural Gas and Crude Oil Pipeline Projects 

Moxa Arch Area Infill Gas Development Project 

In the Moxa Arch Area of southwestern Wyoming, EOG Resources, Inc. and several other 

companies are proposing to expand an existing natural gas drilling and field development operation. This 

project covers about 475,808 acres of federal, state, and private lands in Sweetwater, Lincoln, and Uinta 

Counties and would result in the drilling of 1,861 new wells, as well as the installation and operation of 

additional ancillary facilities; (including roads; gas pipelines; and separation, dehydration, metering, and 

fluid storage facilities). While the precise locations of the proposed wells are not known at this time, over 

a 10-year drilling schedule the project is expected to have a surface disturbance associated with drilling 

and completion activities of 18,650 acres. The long-term disturbance associated with project 

development, after interim reclamation is complete, would be approximately 5,997 acres (BLM 2007). 

Uinta County, Wyoming is the only county in common with both the proposed Moxa Arch Infill Gas 

Development Project and the proposed Apex Expansion Project. As this is the location of Kern River’s 

existing Coyote Creek Compressor Station, only air and noise impacts of the Moxa Arch Infill Gas 

Development Project are considered in this analysis. 

Ruby Pipeline Project 

Ruby Pipeline, LLC plans to construct and operate 680 miles of 42-inch-diameter natural gas 

pipeline across Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon, as well as four new compressor stations and related 

facilities. The main aboveground facilities include 1 electric-powered compressor station, 3 natural gaspowered compressor stations, 5 meter stations containing interconnects to other pipeline systems, 

44 MLVs, 20 pig launchers or pig receivers, and 4 new communication towers. Uinta County, Wyoming 

is the only county in common with both the proposed Ruby Pipeline Project and the proposed Apex 

Expansion Project. As this is the location of Kern River’s existing Coyote Creek Compressor Station, 

only air and noise impacts of the Ruby Pipeline Project are considered in this analysis. 

UNEV Pipeline Project 

UNEV Pipeline, LLC is proposing to construct and operate a 399-mile petroleum pipeline from 

Woods Cross, Utah to Apex Industrial Park, north of Las Vegas in Clark County, Nevada. The UNEV 

Pipeline Project would include an inlet pumping station at Woods Cross, Utah; a pressure reduction 

station at the lateral terminal northwest of Cedar City, Utah; a pressure reduction site; and a receiving 

terminal near Las Vegas. The project would also include a 2.4-mile-long lateral service line to the Salt 

Lake City International Airport and a 10-mile-long lateral line to Cedar City Terminal in Cedar City, 

Utah. The project would include both permanent facilities (access roads and all aboveground structures) 

and temporary facilities (construction and equipment storage yards, extra workspace for pipe stringing, 

and additional construction access roads) (BLM 2008a). Construction of the UNEV Pipeline Project is 

scheduled to begin in summer 2010 and be completed by early 2011, around the same time when 

construction of the Apex Expansion Project would commence. The UNEV Pipeline Project would be 

paralleled by the Wasatch Loop for approximately 1.24 miles from MP 25.8 through 28.0 in Davis and 

Salt Lake Counties, Utah, in an urbanized and industrial area. The UNEV Pipeline Project area also 

corresponds to the proposed Apex Expansion Project in Beaver County, Utah where the Milford 

Compressor Station and PacifiCorp’s electric distribution line would be constructed and in Millard 

County, Utah and Clark County, Nevada where Kern River would modify the existing Fillmore and Dry 

Lake Compressor Stations. For the two counties where construction for the Project would only occur 

within existing facilities, only air and noise impacts of the UNEV Pipeline Project are considered in this 

analysis. Potential cumulative effects for all other counties are assessed below. 
4-185 

Magnum Gas Storage Project 

The proposed Magnum Gas Storage Project involves the construction and operation of an 

interstate natural gas storage facility including up to four salt caverns developed through in-situ mining, 

natural gas handling and compression facilities, facilities for the production and handling of water and 

brine resulting from the cavern creation process, associated gas pipeline header facility (Header), and 

various appurtenant facilities. The project’s Header will consist of a new 61.5-mile, 36-inch-diameter 

natural gas transmission pipeline to connect the gas storage caverns with separate existing interstate gas 

transmission facilities operated by Kern River Gas Transmission Company and Questar. Construction of 

the storage facilities in Millard County, Utah, is anticipated to begin in October 2010. Construction of the 

Header is scheduled to occur from April to October 2013. 

Electrical Transmission Lines 

Energy Gateway Project 

Pacific Power’s Energy Gateway Transmission Expansion Project would add approximately 

2,000 miles of new transmission line across the western United States. The Energy Gateway Project is 

divided into three major projects: Gateway Central, Gateway West, and Gateway South. The proposed 

route for Segment C of the Gateway Central Project and Segment G of Gateway South Project correspond 

to several of the counties within the proposed Apex Expansion Project area (Pacific Power 2009). 

According to Pacific Power (2009), Segment C of the Gateway Central Project crosses two 

counties crossed by the proposed Apex Expansion Project (Utah and Salt Lake Counties, Utah) as well as 

several other Utah counties. This segment includes a 100-mile transmission line that would start at Mona 

Annex Substation, a new substation near the existing Mona Substation, outside of Mona in Juab County, 

and north to Limber Substation, another new substation, located in Tooele Valley in Utah. From Limber 

Substation the line will divide and run to Oquirrh Substation in West Jordon and to Terminal Substation 

in Salt Lake City (BLM 2009c). This project will traverse the areas around Cedar Fort, Eureka, 

Grantsville, Mona, Salt Lake City, South Jordan, Stockton, Tooele, and West Jordan communities. 

Construction of Segment C is planned to occur from 2011 through June 2013. 

According to Pacific Power (2009), Segment G (Mona to Crystal) of the Gateway South Project 

would cross Clark County, Nevada as well as several other counties. This segment includes a 400-mile 

transmission line from a new substation near Mona, Utah to the existing Crystal Substation, which is 

north of Las Vegas, Nevada. Construction of Segment G is planned to occur from 2014 through 2017. 

Given the proximity of this and the proposed Project in Utah and Salt Lake Counties in Utah, the potential 

cumulative effects are assessed below. 

TransWest Express Project 

TransWest Express LLC is proposing to construct and operate an extra-high-voltage directcurrent electric transmission system. The proposed route would originate in south-central Wyoming, 

traversing northwestern Colorado and central Utah, and terminating in southern Nevada near Las Vegas. 

Construction of the TransWest Express Project is planned to occur from 2012 through 2014. The 

TransWest Express Project area corresponds to the proposed Apex Expansion Project in Beaver County, 

Utah (where the Milford Compressor Station and PacifiCorp’s electric distribution line would be 

constructed) and in Utah and Millard Counties in Utah and Clark County, Nevada (where Kern River 

would modify the existing Elberta, Fillmore, and Dry Lake Compressor Stations). For the three counties 

where construction for the Project would only occur within existing facilities, only air and noise impacts 
4-186 

of the TransWest Express Project are considered in this analysis. Potential cumulative effects for all other 

counties are assessed below. 

Wind Energy Projects 

Spanish Fork Wind Park 

In 2008, Edison Mission Group and Wasatch Wind constructed an 18.9-MW wind farm that 

consists of nine wind turbines located near Spanish Fork, Utah in Utah County. Spanish Fork Wind Park 

is not expected to cumulatively contribute to impacts of the proposed Apex Expansion Project for two 

reasons. First, only air and noise impacts of the Spanish Fork Wind Park are considered in this analysis 

because construction in Utah County, Utah for the Apex Expansion Project would be limited to the area 

within Kern River’s existing Elberta Compressor Station. Second, because construction of Spanish Fork 

Wind Park was completed in 2008, the analysis considers only air and noise impacts from the operation of 

the facility, which are positive or negligible. While wind farms are known to be an attractive nuisance to 

bats and birds, the proposed Apex Expansion Project would not affect these species; therefore, the 

Spanish Fork Wind Park was excluded from further analysis. 

Milford Wind Corridor 

Milford Wind Corridor, LLC (First Wind) filed an application with the BLM to construct and 

operate the Milford Wind Corridor Project. First Wind proposed a 305.5-MW wind farm approximately 

10 miles northeast of Milford, Utah in Millard and Beaver Counties to be constructed in phases. Phase I 

of the project, which was completed in fall of 2009, included 97 wind turbines, an 88-mile-long 345kV 

transmission line, a substation, underground electrical and communication facilities, and an operations 

and maintenance facility. The BLM determined that no significant impacts would result from this project 

(BLM 2008b, 2008c). 

In Phase II, First Wind amended its plans for the Milford Wind Corridor Project to include 

68 wind turbines to yield a total generation capacity of up to 305.5-MW (BLM 2009a, 2009b). The 

project would be constructed in the same general location The BLM is currently reviewing First Wind’s 

application to amend the plans for Milford Wind Corridor (BLM 2009b). This project and the proposed 

Apex Expansion Project are both planned to occur in Millard and Beaver Counties, Utah. Construction in 

Millard County for the Apex Expansion Project would be limited to the area within Kern River’s existing 

Fillmore Compressor Station, where only cumulative air and noise impacts are to be considered. The 

Apex Expansion Project’s Milford Compressor Station and PacifiCorp’s electric distribution line would 

be located in Beaver County to the south of Milford, Utah and over 10 miles from the proposed site of the 

Milford Wind Corridor Project. With regard to air quality, very few emissions would be associated with 

the operation of the Milford Wind Corridor projects. However, if constructed at the same time as the 

nearest portions of the Apex Expansion Project, cumulative air quality impacts could occur. Construction 

of the Milford Wind Corridor Project was originally scheduled to begin in October 2008 and continue for 

12 to 15 months; however, the plan for this project was amended with the BLM in October 2009 without 

a projected timeline for construction and completion. Considering the minimum distance of 10 miles 

separating the two projects and the unlikelihood that the adjacent portions of the Apex Expansion Project 

would be constructed at the same time, the Milford Wind Corridor Project is not expected to create any 

cumulative impacts with the construction or operation of the proposed Apex Expansion Project. While 

wind farms are known to be an attractive nuisance to bats and birds, the proposed Apex Expansion Project 

would not affect these species; therefore, they are excluded from further analysis. 

First Wind filed an application June 2010 for a Phase III development, with tentative plans 

encompassing construction of approximately 275 turbines (300-400 MW). 
4-187 

Residential and Commercial Development 

Shady Meadow Campground/ East Canyon Ranchettes 

Shady Meadow Campground in Morgan County, Utah is currently listed for sale by 

Intermountain Realty Group as East Canyon Ranchettes. This proposed development has not been platted 

or recorded at the Morgan County Courthouse. The entire property is 130 acres in size. Planned 

residential development of this area would result in six residential lots that would each be 15 to 22 acres 

in size (Intermountain Realty Group 2009a, 2009b). A seventh lot is not available for sale and would be 

retained by the owner. Each of the lots is bordered on one side by East Canyon Creek. East Canyon 

Creek provides fishing opportunities and is abundant in brown, rainbow, and Bonneville cutthroat trout. 

The property also provides habitat for wildlife such as moose, elk, mule deer, turkeys, and waterfowl; 

however, hunting would not be allowed in the proposed development. While the Apex Expansion 

Project’s pipeline would cross both the Shady Meadow Campground property and East Canyon Creek, it 

would not cross these concurrently. The proposed Project would cross the Shady Meadow Campground 

property between MP 5.0 and 5.2, and East Canyon Creek would be crossed at MP 5.4. 

Edgewood/Eaglepointe 

There are three additional residential areas planned for the existing Edgewood/Eaglepointe 

development, which is in North Salt Lake, Utah. One of the planned development areas would be crossed 

by the Apex Expansion Project between MP 24.1A and 24.6A. Several roads have also been constructed 

in association with the Edgewood/Eaglepointe developments. Edgewood/Eaglepointe is already zoned as 

planned development. As such, the construction at Eaglewood/Eaglepointe is not expected to have a 

significant impact on land use or other resources with respect to the region of influence. 

Eaglewood Village 

Eaglewood Village is a planned development off of Highway 89 and Eagle Ridge Drive. The 

development would be constructed on the site of the City of North Salt Lake’s former gravel pit in Davis 

County, Utah. The lower area of the planned Eaglewood Village development would be within 0.25 mile 

of the proposed Apex Expansion Project between MP 25.2 and 25.5. The development, which would 

include town homes, row homes, lofts, and retail and office spaces, was initially planned to be completed 

by spring of 2009 (Wardell 2008). However, due to current economic conditions, construction of this 

development has been delayed. As of October 2009, there was no timeline for when construction of 

Eaglewood Village would resume (Wardell 2009). If the plans for developing Eaglewood Village were to 

resume, then the development would likely have significant positive socioeconomic impacts, as the plans 

include a wide range of services such as housing, retail stores, and other businesses. Since the planned 

development would be located on a formal industrial site, negative land use impacts are unlikely. 

4.13.1 Geology 

4.13.1.1 Mineral Resources 

Cumulative effects on geology and mineral resources crossed by the Apex Expansion Project 

would be limited primarily to the combined impacts of construction projects located within the same 

region of influence as the Project and previous construction activities along the same route as the 

proposed pipeline. These include the UNEV Pipeline Project, the Magnum Gas Storage Project, the 

Energy Gateway Project, the TransWest Express Project, and the three residential and commercial 

development projects. Of these projects, the construction of the UNEV Pipeline Project has the largest 

potential to contribute to cumulative impacts on geology and mineral resources; however, the UNEV 
4-188 

Project, which is being reviewed by the BLM, would take similar precautions and mitigation measures to 

avoid impacts on geology and mineral resources in accordance with BLM procedures. 

The design and construction of the proposed Apex Expansion Project considered various 

geological issues, of which the following were the most applicable to the Project area: seismicity and 

faulting, slope stability and landslides, subsidence, and blasting. In areas where it was necessary, a 

mitigation plan was designed to offset potential geological impacts of the proposed Project. Kern River 

would implement site-specific construction techniques and best management practices to minimize 

potential impacts from geological hazards that cannot be avoided completely. As a result of the 

mitigation measures proposed, these effects are expected to be highly localized and limited primarily to 

the period of construction. Cumulative impacts would only occur if the other projects would involve 

excavation and were constructed at the same time and place as the proposed Project. The UNEV Pipeline 

Project meets these cumulative impacts criteria for geologic and mineral resources, as the pipeline would 

be paralleled by the Apex Expansion Project for 1.24 miles; however, the UNEV Pipeline Project is 

scheduled to be completed around the same time that construction of the proposed Project would begin. 

As past, present, and future developments in the proposed Project area are limited, potential 

cumulative impacts on mineral resource development as a result of the Apex Expansion Project are 

expected to be minor. 

4.13.1.2 Paleontological Resources 

Cumulative effects on paleontological resources crossed by the Apex Expansion Project would be 

limited primarily to the combined impacts of construction projects located within the same region of 

influence as the proposed Project and previous construction activities along the same route as the 

proposed pipeline. These include the UNEV Pipeline Project, the Magnum Gas Storage Project, the 

Energy Gateway Project, the TransWest Express Project, and the three residential and commercial 

development projects. The Apex Expansion Project would cross about 10.5 miles of geologic formation 

that has moderate to high potential to contain significant fossils, based on surveys and literature review. 

Kern River indicated that Quaternary-age sediments exposed from MP 26.0 to 28.0, where the 

proposed Project would parallel the UNEV Pipeline Project, may also contain fossils deposited in and 

around the ancient Lake Bonneville. The paleontological sensitivity rating for this segment is moderate; 

therefore, Kern River would monitor construction activities in this area. The UNEV, the Magnum Gas 

Storage Project, and the TransWest Express Project, which are being reviewed by the BLM (Magnum is a 

FERC jurisdictional project and therefore the FERC is the lead federal agency for the NEPA review), 

would take similar precautions and mitigation measures to those taken by Kern River to avoid impacts on 

paleontological resources, in accordance with BLM procedures. Eaglewood Village is also planned for 

development in the area of the Lake Bonneville sediments and other Quaternary-aged deposits. The 

Edgewood/Eaglepointe and Eaglewood Village developments would be crossed by the proposed Project 

within the Wasatch Front Variation. This is the area of Wasatch Formation and Cambrian-age shales 

which may contain fossils. While the construction of these two developments could contribute to 

cumulative impacts on paleontological resources, they would be required to implement the best 

management and restoration practices in accordance with the appropriate federal, state, and local 

permitting agencies. Therefore, only minor cumulative impacts on paleontological resources are expected 

as a result of the proposed Apex Expansion Project. 

4.13.2 Soils 

Cumulative effects on soils crossed by the Apex Expansion Project would be limited primarily to 

the combined impacts of construction projects located within the same region of influence as the proposed 
4-189 

Project and previous construction activities along the same route as the proposed pipeline. These include 

the UNEV Pipeline Project, the Magnum Gas Storage Project, the Energy Gateway Project, the 

TransWest Express Project, and the three residential and commercial development projects. These 

projects would implement best management and restoration practices in accordance with the respective 

federal, state, and local permitting agencies. Past land uses within areas crossed by the proposed Apex 

Expansion Project have disturbed soils from livestock grazing, agricultural production and irrigation, 

urban development, and industrial activities. Kern River did not identify any prime farmland soils within 

the permanent right-of-way or construction workspaces. These land uses have removed soil cover and 

have altered soils, which results in increased erosion potential and sediment yield. Any additional land 

clearing and soil disturbance resulting from construction and operation of the proposed Project has the 

potential to contribute to direct cumulative impacts. 

The primary soil concerns in the area of influence are erosion, the introduction of rock to the 

surface, and compaction. Cumulative impacts could potentially occur if the disturbance areas for other 

construction projects overlap or are located in proximity to each other. The projects identified in 

table 4.13-1 that match these criteria are the UNEV Pipeline Project, the Magnum Gas Storage Project, 

the TransWest Express Project, and the three residential and commercial development projects. The 

UNEV Pipeline Project has the largest potential to contribute to the cumulative impacts of the proposed 

Project on soils because it would parallel the proposed pipeline from MP 25.8 to 28.0. The UNEV 

Pipeline Project is scheduled to be completed in the same period that construction of the Apex Expansion 

Project would begin. The potential for cumulative soil impacts resulting from one or more of these 

projects is temporary and low because erosion control practices and mitigation measures would likely be 

implemented for all construction projects in the Project area. As Kern River would follow the 

recommended procedures and take the necessary precautions to avoid and mitigate soil impacts, the 

proposed Project is not expected to significantly contribute to the potential cumulative impact on soils. 

4.13.3 Water Resources 

Construction and operation of the Apex Expansion Project would likely result in only short-term 

impacts on water resources (see section 4.3). Short-term impacts, such as increased turbidity, would 

dissipate over a period of days or weeks following construction in the immediate area of water resources. 

4.13.3.1 Groundwater 

The major pipeline construction activities of the Apex Expansion Project and the UNEV Pipeline 

Project which could affect groundwater include: the clearing of vegetation, excavation and dewatering of 

the trench and bore pits, soil mixing and compaction, and hazardous material handling. Blasting in areas 

with shallow groundwater could also affect groundwater by decreasing well yields or quality. If these 

activities cannot be avoided, Kern River would implement appropriate measures to minimize and mitigate 

impacts on groundwater. The impacts of the proposed Apex Expansion Project on groundwater resources 

are expected to be short-term and minor. All of the major projects in the region of influence identified in 

table 4.13-1, as well as the Apex Expansion Project, would be required to obtain water use and discharge 

permits and would implement SPCC plans as mandated by federal and state agencies. Therefore, we 

anticipate only minor cumulative impacts on groundwater. 

4.13.3.2 Surface Water 

Generally impacts resulting from pipeline construction across waterbodies are localized and 

short-term. Cumulative impacts would only occur in the event of two projects impacting the same 

waterbody within a similar period of time. Construction of the Apex Expansion Project may result in 

minor, short-term impacts on waterbodies. However, such impacts would be minimized by 
4-190 

implementation of Kern River’s Procedures and other specialized construction and restoration procedures, 

installing erosion control devices to prevent waterbody sedimentation during construction, and providing 

bank stabilization and reestablishing bed and bank contours after construction. 

The Apex Expansion Project and the UNEV Pipeline Project cross the Jordan River in the same 

general area; however, the UNEV Pipeline Project is expected to be completed in early 2011, which is 

approximately the same time that construction of the Apex Expansion Project would commence. The 

Jordan River, which flows northwest to the Great Salt Lake, historically contains contaminated sediments. 

The UNEV Pipeline Project plans to cross the Jordan River using HDD (BLM 2008a). Kern River 

proposes to cross the Jordan River with a horizontal bore to minimize or avoid further impacts from 

possible in-situ contaminants that may be present. Therefore, no cumulative impacts on the Jordan River 

are expected. 

The Apex Expansion Project would also cross East Canyon Creek which borders the Shady 

Meadow Campground/East Canyon Ranchettes residential development property. East Canyon Creek has 

documented spawning habitat for the Bonneville cutthroat throat, which is a species of concern. Kern 

River would cross this river using the flume crossing method and a site-specific crossing plan during late 

fall or early winter 2010 to avoid the spring Bonneville cutthroat throat spawning season. The Shady 

Meadow Campground/East Canyon Ranchettes (130-acre property) would be sold as six planned unit 

development lots, each measuring 15 to 22 acres with an average of 745 feet of East Canyon Creek 

frontage. As each landowner would independently plan the development of his or her lot, the timing of 

construction for these sites is unknown at this time. However, Intermountain Realty Group (2009b) did 

specify that each landowner would be expected to put in a septic system and drain-field. It is assumed 

that this and other construction on the East Canyon Creek lots would be conducted in accordance with the 

appropriate state and local regulations after obtaining the appropriate permits to mitigate impacts from 

runoff. Based on this assumption and the limited East Canyon Creek frontage of the six lots, potential 

impacts on East Canyon Creek resulting from the Shady Meadow Campground/East Canyon Ranchettes 

are expected to be negligible. As such, cumulative impacts of the two projects on East Canyon Creek 

would be negligible. 

No other projects listed in table 4.13-1 would contribute to cumulative impacts of the waterbodies 

crossed by the Apex Expansion Project; therefore, we do not anticipate any significant cumulative 

impacts on surface water resources in the Project area. 

4.13.3.3 Wetlands 

Cumulative wetland impacts would occur if wetlands were permanently drained or filled, wetland 

functionality and characteristics were changed by construction and operation, or more than one project 

affected the same wetland at the same time and location. In most cases, construction of the proposed 

Apex Expansion Project may result in minor, short-term impacts on the wetlands crossed. However, there 

would be long-term and permanent impacts on approximately 0.1 acre of forested wetland that would be 

crossed by the Wasatch Loop. About 0.5 acre is within the permanent right-of-way. This would 

represent a permanent conversion from a forested wetland to an emergent wetland. The remaining 

0.5 acre would be allowed to return to a forested state; however, given the extended amount of time 

required for the growth of forest, this would be considered a long-term impact. Adverse impacts of the 

proposed Project at wetland crossings would be minimized by implementation of Kern River’s 

Procedures and other specialized construction and restoration procedures, by preventing sediment from 

entering wetlands during construction, and by allowing reestablishment of native wetland vegetation after 

construction. 
4-191 

The UNEV Pipeline Project, which parallels the Apex Expansion Project for approximately 

1.24 miles from MP 25.8 to 28.0, has the largest potential to contribute to cumulative impacts on 

wetlands. Within this segment, the Apex Expansion Project would cross one wetland with an estimated 

temporary wetland impact of 4.9 acres. As both the Apex Expansion Project and the UNEV Pipeline 

Project would take the appropriate precautions and mitigation measures to minimize wetland impact, 

cumulative impacts on wetlands would be minor. 

4.13.4 Vegetation 

Cumulative effects on vegetation disturbed by the Apex Expansion Project would be limited 

primarily to the combined impacts of construction projects located within the same region of influence as 

the proposed Project and previous construction activities along the same route as the proposed pipeline. 

These include the UNEV Pipeline Project, the Magnum Gas Storage Project, the Energy Gateway Project, 

the TransWest Express Project, and the three residential and commercial development projects. While the 

vegetation impacts of these projects and the Apex Expansion Project would not be inconsequential, the 

overall impact of these projects would be considered minor in comparison to the abundance of 

comparable habitat in the area. Construction of the proposed Project would result in both temporary and 

permanent impacts on vegetation. Among the temporary vegetation impacts, the most significant would 

be those impacting vegetation that is slow to regenerate (i.e., sagebrush and forested vegetation). Kern 

River has committed to conduct clearing of riparian woody vegetation such that approximately two feet of 

above-ground woody material would be left in place in the bankfull channel and one foot of material 

would be left in the remainder of the riparian corridor to provide bank stability during spring run off 

periods and other storm events. In addition, riparian areas would be replanted with woody vegetation to 

within 10 feet of the centerline of the pipeline where woody vegetation exists before clearing. 

Implementation of these additional measures would minimize impacts and ensure revegetation of native 

species in riparian areas. 

Limited habitat fragmentation would result from construction, as a majority of the pipeline route 

would follow existing rights-of-way where habitat fragmentation has been introduced previously; 

however, some fragmentation would occur to Great Basin sagebrush vegetation and Douglas fir forest in 

the areas where greenfield routing is proposed for the Apex Expansion Project. The UNEV Pipeline 

Project would also limit habitat fragmentation by constructing the pipeline within or adjacent to existing 

cleared rights-of-way (BLM 2008a). No vegetation communities of concern were identified in the 

segment where the proposed Project and the UNEV Pipeline Project would parallel; however, the two 

pipelines would cross a very disturbed saline-alkaline wetland between MP 26.4 and 27.0. This wetland 

is adjacent to a chemical plant and an interstate highway, and the dominant vegetation species are iodine 

bush, whitetop/hoary cress, reed canary grass, and elm. The cumulative vegetation impacts resulting from 

the fragmentation of the saline-alkaline wetland are expected to be minor as these are common species 

and the area of impact would be small. 

Approximately 58 miles of the proposed route for the UNEV Pipeline Project (15 percent) is 

dominated by sagebrush and sagebrush shrub (BLM 2008a). However, no sagebrush communities would 

be impacted in the segment where the Apex Expansion Project would parallel the UNEV Pipeline Project. 

While there is potential for cumulative impacts on sagebrush as a whole in the region of influence, no 

projects were identified which would cumulatively impact the specific sagebrush communities impacted 

by the proposed Project. Given the abundance of sagebrush habitat in the region of influence, the overall 

cumulative impact on sagebrush habitat would be minor. 

Kern River has developed a Reclamation Plan and would also implement a Noxious Weed 

Control Plan, both of which would aid in restoring native vegetation. Cumulative vegetation impacts of 

the Apex Expansion Project, the UNEV Pipeline Project, and other potential projects in the area are 
4-192 

expected to be minor or negligible, considering the limited area impacted within the region of influence 

and because these projects are expected to take the required precautions and mitigation measures in 

accordance with state and federal regulations to minimize impacts. The incremental effect to vegetation 

of the proposed Project would be minor. 

4.13.5 Wildlife 

4.13.5.1 Wildlife Habitat 

Cumulative effects on wildlife, fisheries and special status species would occur where projects are 

constructed in the same general time frame and in proximity or which represent permanent or long term 

loss of habitat types important to wildlife. There are seven projects in table 4.13-1 that have the potential 

to coincide with the Apex Expansion Project: the UNEV Pipeline Project, the Magnum Gas Storage 

Project, the Energy Gateway Project, the TransWest Express Project, and the three residential and 

commercial development projects. Construction activities such as right-of-way and other workspace 

clearing and grading would result in loss of vegetative cover and soil disturbance, alteration of wildlife 

habitat, displacement of wildlife species from the construction zone and adjacent areas, mortality of less 

mobile species, and other potential indirect effects as a result of the noise created by construction and 

human activity in the area. Overall impacts would be greatest where projects are constructed in the same 

time frame and area as the Apex Expansion Project or that have long-term or permanent impacts on the 

same or similar habitat types. 

In general, wildlife would be expected to return to affected areas following construction of the 

proposed pipeline and other projects in the area. For big game, this represents only a small percentage of 

the overall habitat within the broader Project area. However, affected foraging areas for wintering big 

game would result in longer term impacts, especially for mule deer, because wintering big game depend 

on browse species to forage in winter. Plant species suitable for browsing deer require more time to 

recover and would not be allowed to grow back on the permanent rights-of-way, and on developments in 

several of these projects. These browse species would, however, be allowed to recover within the 

construction right-of-way and with other suitable habitat present in the broader Project area. Kern River 

has proposed to acquire 160-acres of land adjacent to the East Canyon WMA which would be donated to 

UDWR for additional recreational access and big game habitat. Kern River would also install wider 

trench plugs and/or escape ramps at approximately 0.5-mile intervals to aid big game escape and 

crossover. For these reasons cumulative impacts would not be considered significant. 

Fragmentation of habitat along the Wasatch Front is a concern for big game species, especially 

fragmentation of deer winter range. However, not all of these projects occur along the Wasatch Front, 

and the pipeline and transmission line Project proponents have attempted to limited fragmentation effects 

by collocating to the greatest extent practicable. 

Clearing and grading of the construction rights-of-way and ATWSs for the proposed Project, the 

UNEV Pipeline Project, the Magnum Gas Storage Project, the Energy Gateway Project, and the 

TransWest Express Project would result in a loss of vegetative cover and soil disturbance. This may 

result in a cumulative loss of individuals of small mammal species, amphibians, reptiles, nesting species, 

tree cavity nesting species, and non-mobile species. If construction activities for the proposed pipeline 

and Shady Meadow Campground/East Canyon Ranchettes were to occur in late spring (May to early 

June), this would coincide with big game calving and fawning times for moose and mule deer, 

respectively. These animals may be adversely affected by avoidance of construction areas; however, 

because the areas affected by construction represent only a small percent of the overall habitat within the 

broader Project area, the cumulative impact would not be significant. 
4-193 

Minor, negligible cumulative impacts are expected from the construction of the proposed Milford 

Compressor Station. The compressor station would be constructed in an area of highly impacted 

sagebrush habitat, which has already been significantly degraded due to livestock grazing. Although this 

construction would result in a permanent conversion of the property to a developed use, the value of the 

habitat is already significantly reduced. 

Construction of these projects would also result in some habitat fragmentation, especially in 

forested areas and shrub habitats. The Apex Expansion Project would be constructed adjacent to existing 

rights-of-way for much of its length, using previously disturbed areas to the extent practical to minimize 

impacts on wildlife. The UNEV Pipeline Project would also limit habitat fragmentation by constructing 

the pipeline within or adjacent to existing cleared rights-of-way (BLM 2008a). 

Cumulative impacts are expected to be negligible for any individual wildlife species relative to 

the population in the region of influence. The proposed Project and the UNEV Pipeline Project would 

cross a very disturbed saline-alkaline wetland between MP 26.4 and 27.0, which is located adjacent to a 

chemical plant and Interstate Highway. Kern River identified coyote, American badger, porcupine, 

white-tailed jackrabbit, and rodents as common mammals inhabiting saline-alkaline wetlands. The 

construction of these two pipelines may result in destruction of the underground burrows used by these 

mammals; however, the cumulative wildlife impacts resulting from the disturbance of the saline-alkaline 

wetland are expected to be minor since the area of impact would be small and these are common species. 

4.13.6 Fisheries and Aquatic Resources 

Cumulative impacts on fisheries and aquatic resources could occur if other projects occur within 

the same segment of a waterbody and have similar construction timeframes as the proposed Project or that 

could result in permanent or long-term impact on the same or similar habitat types. This is the case for 

two projects listed in table 4.13-1: the UNEV Pipeline Project and Shady Meadow Campground/East 

Canyon Ranchettes residential development. Construction of these projects and the Apex Expansion 

Project could result in cumulative impacts on waterbodies and fisheries from sedimentation and turbidity, 

habitat alteration, streambank erosion, fuel and chemical spills, water depletions, entrainment or 

entrapment due to water withdrawals or construction crossing operations, blasting, and operational 

pipeline failure. These projects would implement best management and restoration practices in 

accordance with the respective federal, state, and local permitting agencies. As such none, of these 

impacts are expected to be cumulatively significant because of their temporary nature and avoidance 

measures taken by the Apex Expansion Project and the UNEV Pipeline Project. The ensuing operations 

of the proposed pipeline would not result in any additional impacts unless maintenance activities occur in 

or near streams. 

As discussed in section 4.13.3.2, both the proposed Project and the UNEV Pipeline Project would 

cross the Jordan River, which is a warmwater fishery. This fishery supports black bullhead catfish, black 

crappie, channel catfish, common carp, rainbow trout, Utah chub, Utah sucker, walleye, white bass, and 

yellow perch. Construction of the Apex Expansion Project would occur between June and November to 

minimize impacts to these species. Construction of the two pipelines would most likely not occur at the 

same time because the UNEV Pipeline Project is expected to be completed in early 2011, which is 

approximately the time that construction of the Apex Expansion Project would begin. It is expected that 

the UNEV Project would take similar precautions and mitigation measures as those for the proposed 

Project to avoid impacts on the Jordan River, in accordance with BLM procedures. As such, we believe 

that any cumulative impacts would be minor and short-term. 

The construction of Shady Meadow Campground/East Canyon Ranchettes residential 

development could potentially occur during the same period as the Apex Expansion Project. This 
4-194 

development borders the East Canyon Creek near the proposed crossing of the proposed Wasatch Loop. 

Whirling disease is known to occur in East Canyon Creek. Given the devastating effect this disease can 

have on salmonid populations, Kern River has proposed many measures to ensure no cross-contamination 

of water from East Canyon Creek to other waterbodies. Kern River would conduct construction through 

East Canyon Creek independently from work at all other waterbody crossings and would thoroughly clean 

all equipment that comes in contact with East Canyon Creek prior to moving equipment to another 

waterbody crossing. In addition, Kern River would clean all equipment between all stream and 

waterbody crossings. The Shady Meadow Campground/East Canyon Ranchettes residential development 

is not expected to impact fisheries or aquatic resources in East Canyon Creek as construction activities 

would occur within the lots bordering the waterbody. Therefore, we believe that any cumulative impacts 

on salmonid populations would be minor and short-term. 

Bonneville cutthroat trout is a species of concern in the proposed Project area. The presence of 

this species is assumed at the proposed crossings of East Canyon Creek, Sheep Canyon Creek, and 

Hardscrabble Creek. One of these streams, East Canyon Creek, borders the Shady Meadow 

Campground/East Canyon Ranchettes residential development property. Kern River would avoid 

instream disturbance during the spawning season, from late May through mid-July. Kern River proposes 

to use East Canyon Creek for hydrostatic testing. As discussed in section 4.6.2, whirling disease is 

known to be present in East Canyon Creek; therefore all water used for testing would be returned to 

upland areas to prevent introduction of the disease-causing parasite to other waterbodies. Further Kern 

River would monitor return flows to ensure that no significant erosion occurs during test water discharge. 

The development of the Shady Meadow Campground/East Canyon Ranchettes is unlikely to impact the 

Bonneville cutthroat trout, as construction would not occur within East Canyon Creek. Therefore, we 

believe that no cumulative impacts to this species would result from construction of these projects. 

4.13.7 Special Status Species 

The species discussed in section 4.7 of this report could potentially be affected by construction 

and operation of other projects occurring within the same area as the Apex Expansion Project, such as the 

UNEV Pipeline Project, the Magnum Gas Storage Project, the Energy Gateway Project, the TransWest 

Express Project, and the three residential and commercial development projects identified in table 4.13-1. 

Prior to construction, Kern River and all other companies would be required to consult with the 

appropriate federal, state, and local agencies to evaluate the types of species that may be found in the 

Project area; identify potential impacts from construction and operation of the Project to any species 

identified; and implement measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts on special status species and 

their habitat. Because protection of threatened, endangered, and other special status species is part of the 

federal and state permitting processes, cumulative impacts to such species would be reduced or eliminated 

through conservation and mitigation measures identified during those relevant permitting processes. 

Consequently, we believe that past and present projects have had minor cumulative effects to special 

status species. 

4.13.8 Land Use and Visual Resources 

4.13.8.1 Land Use 

Projects with permanent aboveground components, such as buildings or roads, would have more 

significant impacts on land use than the construction of a pipeline, which would be buried and thus allow 

for most uses of the land following construction. With the exception of the aboveground facilities and the 

permanent right-of-way, pipeline projects typically only have temporary impacts on land use. 

Maintenance of the permanent right-of-way would prohibit the growth of trees over 5 feet tall, and 
4-195 

permanent structures would not be permitted. Therefore, some cumulative impacts to landowners could 

occur where multiple easements cross one property. 

The Apex Expansion Project would result in both temporary and permanent changes to current 

land uses. The majority of land use impacts associated with the Apex Expansion Project would be 

temporary, as most land uses would be allowed to revert to prior uses following construction. The 

proposed Project, if built at the same time as other foreseeable future projects, could result in cumulative 

impacts on recreation and special-interest areas if other projects would affect the same area or feature 

(e.g., trails) at the same time. The UNEV Pipeline Project, the Energy Gateway Project, and the three 

residential and commercial development projects were the only projects in table 4.13-1 which fit these 

criteria. The proposed Project would cross or be located adjacent to several recreation and special-interest 

areas, such as the UWCNF and designated roadless areas within the UWCNF, the Great Western Trail, 

the Sessions Mountain and Holbrook Canyon Trail, Mueller Park, the North Canyon Trail, the Jordan 

River OHV Park and Modelport, the California National Historic Trail, the Mormon Pioneer National 

Historic Trail, and the Pony Express National Historic Trail. Because the Apex Expansion Project would 

be constructed primarily adjacent to existing rights-of-way and would not substantially affect the current 

land uses, most Project-related impacts would be short-term, often lasting only for the duration of 

construction through that area, after which the area would be restored to its pre-construction condition. 

Approximately 71.5 percent of the Apex Expansion Project would be located adjacent to the 

existing Kern River and/or the proposed UNEV rights-of-way, thereby minimizing land use impacts. 

However, this proximity also results in the potential for cumulative impacts along the portion of the Apex 

Expansion Project which would parallel the proposed UNEV pipeline. The Jordan River was the only 

public land, recreational area, or other designated or special use area identified that would be crossed by 

both proposed pipelines. Kern River plans to coordinate with the landowners and land managers so that 

land use impacts are sufficiently minimized. Potential cumulative impacts on the Jordan River are 

discussed further in section 4.13.3.2. 

The UNEV Pipeline Project is expected to be constructed by early 2011. While the collocation 

with an existing corridor concentrates the cumulative effects to land use, it also reduces the available 

space for certain types of future development and/or uses by the landowner. In addition, regardless of 

whether the project is collocated or through greenfield, the creation of right-of-way is a potential attractor 

to future linear projects to collocate within the existing corridor. 

The pipeline route for the Apex Expansion Project is proposed to cross two planned residential 

developments. The first is the East Canyon Ranchettes (discussed previously), and the second is a 

planned expansion in the Edgewood/Eaglepointe development—an existing housing development with 

vacant lots zoned as planned development. Several roads have already been constructed in association 

with this development. A third planned development that would not be crossed but would be within 

0.25 mile of the proposed pipeline is Eaglewood Village. Kern River has committed to coordinate with 

each of the developers and landowners to avoid and minimize the impacts on these planned residential 

developments and/or expansions of existing residential developments. Collectively, these developments 

would cumulatively add to the acreage of developed land in the Project area. 

Overall, there is a potential for cumulative impacts on land use and recreation should other 

projects also occur in the same areas. These impacts would be primarily associated with the addition of 

new easements on the properties crossed. 
4-196 

4.13.8.2 Visual Resources 

The visual impacts of the various projects in the area of the proposed Apex Expansion Project are 

expected to be highly variable. The other pipeline projects would likely have similar impacts as the 

proposed Project. The additive visual effects would be limited based on the existing disturbance in the 

areas where the Apex Expansion Project is proposed to be collocated with any existing right-of-way. 

Widening an existing right-of-way to construct the Project would contribute to cumulative visual impacts; 

however, this impact would be less than if Kern were to build an entirely new greenfield pipeline outside 

of existing rights-of-way. Kern River is in the process of conducting a visual resources assessment for the 

proposed Project. Kern River would take the appropriate measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate visual 

impacts occurring during restoration activities; thus, the cumulative visual impacts from the Apex 

Expansion Project are not anticipated to be significant 

In cases where a compressor station or aboveground facility is proposed to be constructed near a 

transmission line or residential development, cumulative impacts on visual resources may occur. At the 

time of publication of the draft EIS, the proposed site for MLV 121B was near a residential 

neighborhood. Since the draft EIS, Kern River adopted the North Salt Lake III Route Variation with a 

short realignment to the variation to accommodate a landowner. As a result of this modification to the 

proposed route, the location of MLV 121B has changed. Kern River now proposes to locate the MLV at 

MP 24.1A, which is immediately adjacent to an existing MLV (MLV 121 at KRMP 121.1). Kern River 

has stated that they would expand the existing wall at this location to enclose MLV 121B. The Milford 

Compressor Station and the PacifiCorp electrical distribution line would be about 2 miles from any 

structures; thus, no cumulative visual effects are anticipated from these elements.

4.13.9 Socioeconomics 

The socioeconomic issues considered in the proposed Project area were employment, housing, 

public services, transportation, property values, economy and tax revenues, hunting, and environmental 

justice. The anticipated workforce expected to relocate to the Project area would cause a minor increase 

in housing demand during periods of peak construction. However, the current housing inventory within 

the proposed Project area appears to be sufficient to handle this increased demand, even if construction 

occurs during the peak tourism period. If other projects requiring non-local workers were to occur at the 

same time as the proposed Apex Expansion Project, there is the potential for a short-term cumulative 

effect on housing. These cumulative impacts would be limited to the duration of the time that the projects 

were present in a common area. 

Construction of the Apex Expansion Project would result in short-term, temporary impacts on 

transportation. The proposed Project would cross several major roads in addition to many secondary 

roads. The transportation of equipment and materials for the proposed Project would also result in 

increased traffic, which may have a minor effect on commuter traffic. Kern River plans to minimize local 

impacts by working on road crossings during non-peak hours and using major highways to transport 

construction equipment and materials. Any transportation impacts from the Project would be short-term 

and minimal. Therefore, there would be little or no cumulative impact on traffic. 

The Apex Expansion Project would have short-term, but minor positive effects on the economy in 

the Project area, such as increased employment and increased sales and tax revenues. Other major 

projects in the area, such as the UNEV Pipeline Project and the Energy Gateway Project, would likely 

have similar impacts on the economy. Thus, short-term positive cumulative effects on the economy in the 

area are possible but would be minor. 
4-197 

Construction of the UNEV Pipeline Project is expected to be completed in early 2011, which is 

approximately the time that construction of the Apex Expansion Project would begin, however no 

cumulative socioeconomic impacts related to hunting areas are anticipated since the bulk of the Apex 

Expansion Project would not be built until spring of 2011. 

4.13.10 Cultural Resources 

Cumulative impacts on cultural resources would only occur if other projects were to impact the 

same historic properties impacted by the proposed Apex Expansion Project. Twenty-two historical or 

archaeological sites were identified in the cultural resources inventory of the proposed pipeline, access 

roads, pipeyards, and staging areas. Thirteen of these sites are considered eligible for listing on the 

NRHP. Kern River’s proposed pipeline would directly affect one NRHP-eligible property (Reclamation 

Ditch, Site 42SL499). The proposed pipeline would cross this site by open-cut methods. As discussed in 

section 4.10.1, Kern River has developed a treatment plan to mitigate adverse effects to this site prior to 

disturbance. Disturbance would occur only to a portion of one site that does not contribute to its 

significance. Four NRHP-eligible sites would be avoided by horizontally boring beneath them, one site 

would be avoided by incorporating a route variation, two sites would be avoided by not using the pipe 

yard or part of the pipe yard that contains the site, and disturbance to one site would be avoided by 

fencing the edge of an access road at its intersection with the site. No impacts would occur to the other 

three NRHP-eligible sites. Three historical or archaeological sites were identified along the proposed 

PacifiCorp electrical distribution line, with one of these determined eligible for listing on the NRHP. If 

avoidance is not possible the BLM would require mitigation. No cultural resources were identified in the 

area where the Milford Compressor Station would be located. No new cultural resources surveys are 

expected to be required for adding or replacing units at the four existing compressor stations. None of the 

projects identified in table 4.13-1 were determined to occur within the same areas as the cultural resources 

affected by the proposed Apex Expansion Project. Therefore, no cumulative impacts on cultural 

resources are expected to occur. 

4.13.11 Air Quality and Noise 

4.13.11.1 Air Quality 

Construction of the Apex Expansion Project and other projects in the area would involve the use 

of heavy machinery, which would likely result in dust from soil disruption and air contaminants from 

equipment emissions. Operations of projects such as the Ruby Pipeline Project, the Magnum Gas Storage 

Project, the Gateway Energy Project, the TransWest Express Project, the Moxa Arch Area Infill Gas 

Development Project, and the UNEV Pipeline would contribute cumulatively to ongoing air emissions in 

the Project area, including the addition of compressor units at three of Kern River’s existing compressor 

stations, the proposed Milford Compressor Station, and the proposed Wasatch Loop. State and local 

requirements for dust control on roads and excavated surfaces would be adhered to for all of these 

projects. State construction and operating permits would also be required for each compressor station. 

These permit applications would consider potential interactions with nearby emission sources. 

Cumulative increases in air pollution emissions could occur on a local scale where new 

compressor or pumping stations are sited at or near existing or proposed compressor stations. Where this 

is the case, each compressor station would be required to obtain state construction and operation permits. 

These permit applications would consider potential interactions with nearby emission sources. Therefore, 

no significant cumulative air quality impacts are expected to occur. 
4-198 

4.13.11.2 Noise 

The proposed Apex Expansion Project and the other projects listed in table 4.13-1 would impact 

noise levels during construction in the Project area. These noise impacts would be temporary and only 

occur during the proposed construction period for each project. For the construction of the pipelines and 

transmission lines, the noise impacts at any one location would be short-term as construction would move 

along the proposed routes. The construction of the Wasatch Loop would be temporary and mainly result 

from on-site construction noise from heavy-duty construction equipment and also blasting activity. The 

only areas expected to be impacted by operational noise are those near the four existing compressor 

stations and the proposed Milford Compressor Station. As such, the noise levels at the NSAs surrounding 

the compressor stations are all expected to remain below the FERC Ldn limit of 55 dBA. Due to the 

proximity of the nearest NSAs, Kern River would be required to conduct noise surveys at each of the 

existing and proposed compressor stations following startup to confirm that noise levels are below 

55 dBA or to mitigate if noise levels exceed 55 dBA, as recommend in section 4.11.2.4. Cumulative 

impacts would only occur if project construction were planned for the same location and over the same 

time period. Construction of the UNEV Pipeline Project is expected to be completed in early 2011, which 

is approximately the time that construction of the Apex Expansion Project would begin, however no 

cumulative impacts from noise are anticipated since the bulk of the Apex Expansion Project would not be 

built until spring of 2011. 

4.13.12 Reliability and Safety 

As the Apex Expansion Project would be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in 

accordance with the USDOT Safety Standards in 49 CFR 192, we do not believe that there would be any 

cumulative operational safety impacts among the pipelines and other projects in the vicinity of the 

proposed Project. These standards were set to prevent natural gas pipeline accidents and failures, and to 

ensure that the public is adequately protected. Kern River participates in statewide One-Call programs. 

Kern River has also developed a comprehensive operations and maintenance program for the Apex 

Expansion Project. This program’s purpose is to prevent operational incidents and to respond effectively 

to any incidents that may occur. The operations and maintenance program includes corrosion control, 

leak inspection surveys, and regularly scheduled aerial and ground patrols of the pipeline right-of-way. It 

is assumed that other projects in the area would take similar safety precautions. 

4.13.13 Climate Change 

Climate change is the change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result 

of human activity, and cannot be represented by single annual events or individual anomalies. For 

example, a single large flood event or particularly hot summer is not an indication of climate change, 

while a series of floods or warm years that statistically change the average precipitation or temperature 

over years or decades may indicate climate change. 

The leading U.S. scientific body on climate change is the U.S. Global Change Research Program 

(USGCRP). Thirteen federal departments and agencies participate in the USGCRP which began as a 

presidential initiative in 1989 and was mandated by Congress in the Global Change Research Act of 

1990. 

In June 2009, the USGCRP issued its recent report, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United 

States, summarizing the impacts climate change has already had on the United States and what projected 

impacts climate change may have in the future. The report includes a break down of overall impacts by 

resource and impacts described for various regions of the United States. Although climate change is a 

global concern, for this cumulative analysis, we will focus on the cumulative impacts of climate change in 
4-199 

the Project area. The USGCRP’s report notes the following observations of environmental impacts that 

may be attributed to climate change in the Southwest and Great Plains region: 

 groundwater pumping is lowering water tables and rising temperatures are reducing river 

flows in vital rivers, leading to limited water supplies; 

 limited water supplies are projected to worsen due to reductions in rain and snowfall in the 

spring months; 

 flooding risks increase due to vegetation die-off, wildfires, loss of wetlands along rivers, and 

an increased fraction of winter precipitation falling as rain rather than snow; 

 rising temperatures and decreased spring snowpack are also leading to increased wildfires; 

and 

 with increased temperatures, some plant species are spreading northward to cooler climates 

causing noxious weed species to further invade the region. 

The GHG emissions associated with construction of the Project were identified in 

section 4.11.1.1. Emissions of GHGs from the proposed Project would not have any direct impacts on the 

environment in the project area. Currently there is no standard methodology to determine how the 

Project’s relatively small incremental contribution to GHGs would translate into physical effects on the 

global environment. However, the emissions would increase the atmospheric concentration of GHGs, in 

combination with past and future emissions from all other sources, and contribute incrementally to 

climate change that produces the impacts previously described. Although we cannot accurately determine 

the Project’s incremental addition to the impacts of climate change on the environment, we do not expect 

the relatively minor amount of CO2-eq produced by the Project to result in significant cumulative impacts 

related to climate change. 

4.13.14 Conclusion 

A majority of the cumulative impacts identified would be temporary and minor. Long-term 

cumulative impacts on vegetation and land use could potentially occur if the reasonably foreseeable 

projects listed in table 4.13-1 were to affect similar vegetation and land uses within the same geographical 

areas. Long-term cumulative benefits may result from the local economic benefits of the proposed 

Project. The creation of jobs, increased wages, and purchases of local goods and services from projects 

would result in short-term and minor cumulative benefits to the Project area.