FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426

OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS In Reply Refer To: 

 OEP/DG2E/Gas 1 

Kern River Gas Transmission 

Company 

 Apex Expansion Project 

 Docket No. CP10-14-000 

TO THE PARTY ADDRESSED: 

The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) 

has prepared a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Apex Expansion 

Project proposed by Kern River Gas Transmission Company (Kern River) in the abovereferenced docket. Kern River requests authorization to expand its natural gas pipeline 

system in Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada, to transport an additional 266 million cubic feet 

per day of natural gas from existing receipt points in southwestern Wyoming, to existing 

delivery connections in southern Nevada. 

The draft EIS assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and 

operation of the Apex Expansion Project in accordance with the requirements of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that 

approval of the proposed project would have some adverse environmental impact; 

however, these impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with the 

implementation of Kern River’s proposed mitigation and the additional measures we 

recommend in the draft EIS. 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Forest Service (USFS), and the 

Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) participated as cooperating agencies in the 

preparation of the EIS. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special 

expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal and participate in 

the NEPA analysis. The cooperating agencies will adopt and use the EIS to consider the 

issuance of right-of-way grants on federally administered lands. While the conclusions 

and recommendations presented in the draft EIS were developed with input from the 

cooperating agencies, the agencies will present their own conclusions and 

recommendations in their respective Records of Decision for the project. 
Docket No. CP10-14-000 - 2 -

The draft EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the construction and 

operation of the following project facilities: 

 approximately 28 miles of 36-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline loop1

extending southwest in Utah from Morgan County, through Davis to Salt 

Lake County; 

 one new 30,000 horsepower compressor station (known as the Milford 

Compressor Station) in Beaver County, Utah; 

 modifications to four existing compressor stations to add additional 

compression: the Coyote Creek Compressor Station located in Uinta 

County, Wyoming; the Elberta Compressor Station located in Utah County, 

Utah; the Fillmore Compressor Station located in Millard County, Utah; 

and the Dry Lake Compressor Station located in Clark County, Nevada; 

 six mainline valves; and 

 three pig2

 launcher and two pig receiver facilities. 

The draft EIS has been placed in the public files of the FERC and is available for 

public viewing on the FERC’s website at www.ferc.gov. A limited number of copies are 

available for distribution and public inspection at: 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Public Reference Room 

888 First Street, NE, Room 2A 

Washington, DC 20426 

(202) 502-8371 

Copies of the draft EIS have been mailed to federal, state, and local government 

representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; 

Native American tribes; local newspapers and libraries in the project area; intervenors to 

the FERC’s proceeding; and potentially affected landowners and other interested 

individuals and groups. Paper copy versions of this EIS were mailed to those specifically 

requesting them; all others received a CD version. 

 

1

 A loop is a segment of pipe that is usually installed adjacent to an existing pipeline and 

connected to it at both ends. The loop allows more gas to be moved through the system.

2

 A pig is an internal tool that can be used to clean and dry a pipeline and/or to inspect it for 

damage or corrosion. 
Docket No. CP10-14-000 - 3 -

Route Variations Recommended by FERC in the Draft EIS

Some landowners are receiving the draft EIS because their property has been 

identified as potentially being affected by the Mueller Park or Salt Lake III Route 

Variations recommended by FERC staff to avoid or lessen environmental impacts along 

Kern River’s proposed pipeline route. Refer to sections 3.5.6 and 3.5.7 of the draft EIS 

for discussions of the Mueller Park and Salt Lake III Route Variations, respectively. The 

Commission staff wants to ensure that all potentially affected landowners have the 

opportunity to participate in the environmental review process. Therefore, staff is 

soliciting comments to assist with the environmental analysis of these route variations, 

which will be presented in the final EIS. 

Comment Procedures and Public Meetings

 Any person wishing to comment on the draft EIS may do so. To ensure 

consideration of your comments on the proposal in the final EIS, it is important that the 

Commission receive your comments before May 17, 2010. 

 For your convenience, there are four methods you can use to submit your 

comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the project docket 

number (CP10-14-000) with your submission. The Commission encourages electronic 

filing of comments and has dedicated eFiling expert staff available to assist you at (202) 

502-8258 or efiling@ferc.gov. Please carefully follow these instructions so that your 

comments are properly recorded. 

1) You may file your comments electronically by using the Quick Comment

feature, which is located on the Commission’s website at www.ferc.gov

under the link to Documents and Filings. A Quick Comment is an easy 

method for interested persons to submit text-only comments on a project; 

2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature, 

which is located on the Commission’s website at www.ferc.gov under the 

link to Documents and Filings. eFiling involves preparing your submission 

in the same manner as you would if filing on paper, and then saving the file 

on your computer’s hard drive. You will attach that file as your 

submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on 

“Sign up” or “eRegister.” You will be asked to select the type of filing you 

are making. A comment on a particular project is considered a “Comment 

on a Filing;” 
Docket No. CP10-14-000 - 4 -

3) You may file a paper copy of your comments at the following address: 

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

888 First Street, NE, Room 1A 

Washington, DC 20426 

4) In lieu of sending written or electronic comments, the Commission invites 

you to attend one of the public comment meetings its staff will conduct in 

the project area to receive comments on the draft EIS. Interested groups 

and individuals are encouraged to attend and present oral comments on the 

draft EIS. Transcripts of the meetings will be prepared. All meetings will 

begin at 7:00 p.m., and are scheduled as follows: 

Date Location 

Tuesday, April 27, 2010 

Millcreek Junior High School 

245 East 1000 South 

Bountiful, UT 84010 

801-402-6200 

Wednesday, April 28, 2010 

Morgan County Courthouse 

Auditorium 

48 West Young Street 

Morgan, UT 84050 

801-845-4027 

 Although your comments will be considered by the Commission, simply filing 

comments will not serve to make the commentor a party to the proceeding. Any person 

seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to 

Rule 214 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR Part 385.214).3

 

Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission’s decision. 

Affected landowners and parties with environmental concerns may be granted 

intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and direct 

 

3

 Interventions may also be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See the 

previous discussion on filing comments electronically. 
Docket No. CP10-14-000 - 5 -

interest in this proceeding which would not be adequately represented by any other 

parties. You do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered. 

Questions?

Additional information about the project is available from the Commission’s 

Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC (www.ferc.gov) using the 

eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search,” and enter the docket 

number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP10-14-000). 

Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact 

FERC Online Support at FercOnline Support@ferc.gov or toll free at (866) 208-3676; for 

TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of 

formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings. 

In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription that allows 

you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can 

reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing 

you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the 

documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm. 

Kimberly D. Bose 

Secretary 

 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Apex Expansion Project 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... i 

LIST OF APPENDICES .............................................................................................................vii 

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................viii 

LIST OF FIGURES .....................................................................................................................xii 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS...................................................................................xiii 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................................................ES-1

PROPOSED ACTION.................................................................................................. ES-1

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .......................................................................................... ES-2

PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION................................................................. ES-2

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED .............................................................................. ES-6

MAJOR CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................ ES-7

1.0 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1-1

1.1 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED....................................................................1-3

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE EIS ..............................................................1-3

1.3 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT...............................................................1-5

1.4 NON-JURISDICTIONAL FACILITIES..........................................................1-10

1.5 PERMITS, APPROVALS, AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS..........1-12

1.6 CONFORMANCE WITH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS ...............1-22

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION...................................................................................................2-1

2.1 PROPOSED FACILITIES..................................................................................2-1

2.1.1 Pipeline Facilities .........................................................................................2-1

2.1.2 Aboveground Facilities ................................................................................2-1

2.1.3 Cathodic Protection System .........................................................................2-5

2.1.4 PacifiCorp Electrical Distribution Line........................................................2-5

2.2 LAND REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................2-7

2.2.1 Pipeline Right-of-Way .................................................................................2-7

2.2.2 Aboveground Facilities ................................................................................2-9

2.2.3 Pipe and Contractor Yards .........................................................................2-10

2.2.4 Access Roads..............................................................................................2-10

2.3 CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES.................................................................2-12

2.3.1 General Pipeline Construction Procedures.................................................2-14

2.3.1.1 Survey, Staking, and Fence Crossings....................................2-14

2.3.1.2 Clearing and Grading..............................................................2-16

2.3.1.3 Trenching................................................................................2-16

2.3.1.4 Pipe Stringing, Bending, and Welding ...................................2-17

2.3.1.5 Lowering-In and Backfilling ..................................................2-18

2.3.1.6 Hydrostatic Testing.................................................................2-18

2.3.1.7 Cleanup and Restoration.........................................................2-19

2.3.1.8 Commissioning.......................................................................2-19

2.3.2 Special Pipeline Construction Procedures..................................................2-20

2.3.2.1 Wetlands .................................................................................2-20

2.3.2.2 Waterbodies ............................................................................2-22

2.3.2.3 Agricultural Areas ..................................................................2-30

2.3.2.4 Roads, Highways, and Railroads ............................................2-30
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

ii

2.3.2.5 Residences within 50 Feet of the Construction Rightof-Way ....................................................................................2-34

2.3.2.6 Commercial and Industrial Areas ...........................................2-34

2.3.2.7 Areas of Steep Terrain ............................................................2-34

2.3.2.8 Areas with Geologic Faults.....................................................2-35

2.3.3 Construction Procedures for Aboveground Facilities ................................2-35

2.3.3.1 Compressor Stations ...............................................................2-35

2.3.3.2 Mainline Valves......................................................................2-39

2.3.3.3 Pig Launchers and Pig Receivers............................................2-39

2.4 CONSTRUCTION WORKFORCE AND SCHEDULE ..................................2-39

2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTION, COMPLIANCE MONITORING, 

AND POST-APPROVAL VARIANCES.........................................................2-40

2.6 POST-APPROVAL VARIANCE PROCESS ..................................................2-41

2.7 OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE ...........2-42

2.7.1 Operation....................................................................................................2-42

2.7.1.1 Pipeline Surveys and Inspections ...........................................2-42

2.7.1.2 Right-of-Way Maintenance ....................................................2-42

2.7.1.3 Compressor Stations ...............................................................2-43

2.8 FUTURE PLANS AND ABANDONMENT ...................................................2-43

3.0 ALTERNATIVES..........................................................................................................3-1

3.1 NO ACTION OR POSTPONED ACTION ALTERNATIVES .........................3-1

3.2 ENERGY ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................3-2

3.2.1 Energy Conservation and Increased Efficiency ...........................................3-2

3.2.2 Renewable Energy........................................................................................3-3

3.2.3 Nuclear Energy.............................................................................................3-5

3.2.4 Fossil Fuels...................................................................................................3-5

3.3 SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES..............................................................................3-5

3.4 MAJOR ROUTE ALTERNATIVES..................................................................3-9

3.4.1 Kern River Right-of-Way Route Alternative .............................................3-11

3.4.2 Legacy Highway Route Alternative ...........................................................3-14

3.4.3 Pages Lane/Porter Road Route Alternative................................................3-16

3.4.4 Bountiful Boulevard Route Alternative .....................................................3-19

3.4.5 Wasatch Mountains Route Alternative.......................................................3-21

3.5 ROUTE VARIATIONS....................................................................................3-23

3.5.1 East Canyon Route Variation.....................................................................3-24

3.5.2 Holbrook Canyon Route Variation.............................................................3-26

3.5.3 Sitka Holdings Route Variation .................................................................3-28

3.5.4 North Salt Lake I Route Variation .............................................................3-30

3.5.5 North Salt Lake II Route Variation ............................................................3-32

3.5.6 Mueller Park Route Variation ....................................................................3-34

3.5.7 North Salt Lake III Route Variation...........................................................3-37

3.6 ABOVEGROUND FACILITY ALTERNATIVES..........................................3-39

3.6.1 Milford Compressor Station Site Alternative.............................................3-39

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS................................................................................4-1

4.1 GEOLOGY .........................................................................................................4-1

4.1.1 Geology and Physiography ..........................................................................4-1

4.1.2 Mineral Resources........................................................................................4-3

4.1.2.1 Mining.......................................................................................4-4

4.1.2.2 Oil and Gas Production.............................................................4-5

4.1.3 Geologic Hazards .........................................................................................4-5
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

iii

4.1.3.1 Seismicity and Faulting ............................................................4-5

4.1.3.2 Landslide Incidence and Susceptibility ....................................4-7

4.1.3.3 Subsidence ................................................................................4-9

4.1.3.4 Shallow Bedrock.......................................................................4-9

4.1.3.5 Flash Flood, Stream Scour and Debris Flows.........................4-12

4.1.3.6 Volcanoes, Liquefaction, and Karst Topography ...................4-12

4.1.4 Paleontological Resources..........................................................................4-12

4.1.5 Summary of Potential Impacts ...................................................................4-14

4.2 SOILS ...............................................................................................................4-15

4.2.1 Standard Soil Limitations...........................................................................4-15

4.2.1.1 Erosion Potential.....................................................................4-16

4.2.1.2 Prime Farmland ......................................................................4-17

4.2.1.3 Compaction Potential..............................................................4-17

4.2.1.4 Stony-Rocky Soils ..................................................................4-17

4.2.1.5 Hydric Soils ............................................................................4-18

4.2.1.6 Shallow Bedrock.....................................................................4-18

4.2.2 Spill/Contamination Prevention .................................................................4-18

4.2.3 Topsoil Segregation....................................................................................4-18

4.2.4 PacifiCorp Electrical Distribution Line......................................................4-19

4.2.5 Operation Impacts ......................................................................................4-20

4.3 WATER RESOURCES ....................................................................................4-20

4.3.1 Groundwater Resources .............................................................................4-20

4.3.1.1 Sole-Source Aquifers..............................................................4-21

4.3.1.2 Water Supply Wells................................................................4-22

4.3.1.3 Wellhead Protection Areas .....................................................4-23

4.3.1.4 Contaminated Groundwater....................................................4-24

4.3.1.5 Groundwater Impacts and Mitigation Procedures ..................4-24

4.3.2 Surface Water Resources............................................................................4-28

4.3.2.1 Water Classifications ..............................................................4-28

4.3.2.2 Sensitive Waterbodies.............................................................4-33

4.3.2.3 Surface Water Protection Areas..............................................4-34

4.3.2.4 PacifiCorp Electrical Distribution Line Crossings .................4-36

4.3.2.5 Potential Surface Water Impacts.............................................4-36

4.3.2.6 Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures..............4-37

4.3.2.7 Alternative Measures to the FERC’s Procedures....................4-39

4.3.2.8 Hydrostatic Testing and Dust Control ....................................4-41

4.3.3 Wetlands.....................................................................................................4-43

4.3.3.1 Existing Environment .............................................................4-44

4.3.3.2 Potential Wetland Impacts......................................................4-46

4.3.3.3 Wetland Construction and Mitigation Procedures..................4-47

4.3.3.4 Wetland Restoration ...............................................................4-50

4.3.3.5 Wetlands of Special Concern or Value...................................4-50

4.4 VEGETATION.................................................................................................4-50

4.4.1 Vegetation Resources.................................................................................4-51

4.4.2 Vegetation Communities of Special Concern ............................................4-53

4.4.3 Noxious Weeds ..........................................................................................4-53

4.4.4 Vegetation Pathogens.................................................................................4-53

4.4.5 Vegetation Impacts and Mitigation ............................................................4-54

4.4.5.1 Impacts on Vegetation Communities of Special Concern ......4-56

4.4.5.2 Noxious and Invasive Weeds..................................................4-56

4.4.6 Operation Impacts ......................................................................................4-56
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

iv

4.5 WILDLIFE........................................................................................................4-57

4.5.1 Wildlife Resources .....................................................................................4-57

4.5.2 Wildlife Construction Impacts and Mitigation...........................................4-58

4.5.2.1 Habitat Fragmentation and Edge Effect..................................4-61

4.5.2.2 Riparian Habitats ....................................................................4-61

4.5.3 Big Game....................................................................................................4-62

4.5.4 Raptors and Other Migratory Birds............................................................4-66

4.5.5 Operation Impacts ......................................................................................4-70

4.6 FISHERIES AND AQUATIC RESOURCES ..................................................4-71

4.6.1 General Fisheries and Aquatic Resources ..................................................4-71

4.6.1.1 Sediment Loads and Turbidity................................................4-71

4.6.1.2 Timing of Construction...........................................................4-72

4.6.1.3 Vegetation Removal and Streambank Erosion .......................4-72

4.6.1.4 Contaminated Sediment Resuspension...................................4-73

4.6.1.5 Entrainment and Entrapment ..................................................4-73

4.6.1.6 Water Temperature .................................................................4-74

4.6.1.7 Blasting...................................................................................4-74

4.6.1.8 Hydrostatic Testing and Water Withdrawals..........................4-74

4.6.1.9 Fuel and Chemical Spills ........................................................4-74

4.6.2 Invasive Aquatic Species............................................................................4-75

4.6.3 Fisheries of Special Concern......................................................................4-75

4.6.4 Operation Impacts ......................................................................................4-76

4.6.4.1 PacifiCorp Electrical Distribution Line Impacts.....................4-76

4.7 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND OTHER SPECIAL 

STATUS SPECIES...........................................................................................4-76

4.7.1 Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and 

Petitioned Species ......................................................................................4-78

4.7.1.1 Greater Sage-grouse................................................................4-78

4.7.1.2 Yellow-billed Cuckoo.............................................................4-81

4.7.1.3 Pygmy Rabbit .........................................................................4-82

4.7.1.4 Utah Prairie Dog .....................................................................4-82

4.7.1.5 Northern Leopard Frog ...........................................................4-83

4.7.1.6 Ute Ladies’-tresses..................................................................4-83

4.7.2 Other Special Status Species ......................................................................4-84

4.8 LAND USE AND VISUAL RESOURCES .....................................................4-93

4.8.1 General Impacts and Mitigation .................................................................4-94

4.8.1.1 Open Land ..............................................................................4-98

4.8.1.2 Forest Land .............................................................................4-98

4.8.1.3 Agricultural Land....................................................................4-98

4.8.1.4 Developed Land......................................................................4-99

4.8.1.5 Open Water...........................................................................4-100

4.8.1.6 Recreation Land....................................................................4-100

4.8.2 Land Ownership .......................................................................................4-100

4.8.2.1 Federal Lands........................................................................4-100

4.8.2.2 State Lands............................................................................4-102

4.8.2.3 Residential Lands..................................................................4-102

4.8.3 Recreation and Special Use Areas............................................................4-105

4.8.3.1 Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest .................................4-105

4.8.3.2 Roadless Areas......................................................................4-109

4.8.3.3 Recreational and Historic Trails ...........................................4-110

4.8.3.4 Parks and Recreation Areas ..................................................4-111
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

v

4.8.3.5 Wildlife Management Areas and Cooperative Wildlife 

Management Units................................................................4-112

4.8.3.6 Gravel Pits ............................................................................4-113

4.8.4 Visual Resources ......................................................................................4-113

4.8.4.1 Visual Resource Federal Land Classifications .....................4-113

4.8.4.2 Impacts and Mitigation .........................................................4-115

4.9 SOCIOECONOMICS.....................................................................................4-116

4.9.1 Population and Employment ....................................................................4-116

4.9.2 Housing ....................................................................................................4-119

4.9.3 Public Services .........................................................................................4-121

4.9.4 Transportation ..........................................................................................4-122

4.9.5 Property Values ........................................................................................4-122

4.9.6 Economy and Tax Revenues ....................................................................4-123

4.9.7 Environmental Justice ..............................................................................4-124

4.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES ...........................................................................4-127

4.10.1 Cultural Resources Surveys......................................................................4-127

4.10.2 Unanticipated Discovery Plan..................................................................4-132

4.10.3 Native American Consultation .................................................................4-132

4.10.4 Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act ........................4-132

4.11 AIR QUALITY AND NOISE ........................................................................4-133

4.11.1 Air Quality................................................................................................4-133

4.11.1.1 Existing Air Quality..............................................................4-134

4.11.1.2 Regulatory Requirements .....................................................4-140

4.11.1.3 Construction Impacts ............................................................4-146

4.11.1.4 Operational Impacts..............................................................4-148

4.11.2 Noise.........................................................................................................4-150

4.11.2.1 Noise Regulatory Requirements ...........................................4-151

4.11.2.2 Existing Noise Environment.................................................4-151

4.11.2.3 Construction Noise Impacts..................................................4-152

4.11.2.4 Operational Noise Impacts....................................................4-155

4.12 RELIABILITY AND SAFETY......................................................................4-156

4.12.1 Safety Standards.......................................................................................4-157

4.12.2 Pipeline Accident Data.............................................................................4-160

4.12.3 Impact on Public Safety ...........................................................................4-162

4.12.4 Additional Security and Safety Issues......................................................4-165

4.13 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS............................................................................4-166

4.13.1 Geology ....................................................................................................4-173

4.13.2 Soils..........................................................................................................4-174

4.13.3 Water Resources.......................................................................................4-175

4.13.4 Vegetation ................................................................................................4-177

4.13.5 Wildlife.....................................................................................................4-178

4.13.6 Fisheries and Aquatic Resources..............................................................4-179

4.13.7 Special Status Species ..............................................................................4-180

4.13.8 Land Use and Visual Resources...............................................................4-180

4.13.9 Socioeconomics........................................................................................4-182

4.13.10 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................4-182

4.13.11 Air Quality and Noise...............................................................................4-183

4.13.12 Reliability and Safety ...............................................................................4-184

4.13.13 Climate Change ........................................................................................4-184

4.13.14 Conclusion................................................................................................4-185
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 

vi

5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .........................................................5-1

5.1 CONCLUSIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS .........................5-1

5.1.1 Geology ........................................................................................................5-1

5.1.2 Soils..............................................................................................................5-2

5.1.3 Water Resources...........................................................................................5-2

5.1.4 Vegetation ....................................................................................................5-3

5.1.5 Wildlife.........................................................................................................5-4

5.1.6 Fisheries and Aquatic Resources..................................................................5-4

5.1.7 Special Status Species ..................................................................................5-5

5.1.8 Land Use and Visual Resources...................................................................5-6

5.1.9 Socioeconomics............................................................................................5-7

5.1.10 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................5-7

5.1.11 Air Quality and Noise...................................................................................5-8

5.1.12 Reliability and Safety ...................................................................................5-8

5.1.13 Cumulative Effects.......................................................................................5-8

5.1.14 Alternatives Considered ...............................................................................5-9

5.2 FERC STAFF’S RECOMMENDED MITIGATION.......................................5-10
LIST OF APPENDICES 

vii

APPENDIX A Distribution List 

APPENDIX B Pipeline and Facility Maps 

APPENDIX C Listing of Extra Workspaces by Milepost 

APPENDIX D Kern River’s Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance 

Plan (Kern River’s Plan) 

APPENDIX E Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (Kern 

River’s Procedures) 

APPENDIX F Kern River Reclamation Plan 

APPENDIX G Kern River Noxious Weed Control Plan 

APPENDIX H Kern River Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan 

APPENDIX I Kern River Blasting Plan 

APPENDIX J Kern River Winter Construction Plan 

APPENDIX K Draft Wetland Remedial Revegetation Plan 

APPENDIX L Residence Proximity Maps 

APPENDIX M Draft All-Terrain Vehicle and Off-Highway Vehicle Barrier Plan 

APPENDIX N Roadless Area Worksheets 

APPENDIX O References 

APPENDIX P List of Preparers 
LIST OF TABLES 

viii

Number Title Page

1.3-1 Key Environmental Concerns Identified during the Scoping Process 

for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project .............................................1-8

1.5-1 Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Proposed Apex 

Expansion Project ................................................................................1-14

2.1.2-1 Aboveground Facilities for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project.......2-3

2.2.3-1 Potential Pipe Yards, Staging Areas, and Contractor Yards for the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project.......................................................2-11

2.3.2-1 Proposed Horizontal Bore Locations for the Proposed Apex 

Expansion Project ................................................................................2-31

2.4-1 Construction Workforce and Schedule for Compressor Station 

Construction and Modifications for the Proposed Apex Expansion 

Project ..................................................................................................2-40

3.3-1 Proposed or Recently Certificated Interstate Pipeline Projects 

Proposed to Transport Rocky Mountain Natural Gas............................3-8

3.4-1 Deviations from Kern River’s Existing Right-of-Way Incorporated 

into the Proposed Apex Expansion Project Route ...............................3-10

3.4.1-1 Comparison of Kern River Right-of-Way Route Alternative and the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project Route ............................................3-13

3.4.2-1 Comparison of Legacy Highway Route Alternative and the Proposed 

Apex Expansion Project Route ............................................................3-14

3.4.3-1 Comparison of Pages Lane/Porter Road Route Alternative and the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project Route ............................................3-18

3.4.4-1 Comparison of Bountiful Boulevard Route Alternative and the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project Route ............................................3-19

3.4.5-1 Comparison of Wasatch Mountains Alternative and the Proposed 

Apex Expansion Project Route ............................................................3-23

3.5-1 Summary of Route Variations Identified for the Proposed Apex 

Expansion Project ................................................................................3-24

3.5.1-1 Comparison of Features of the Proposed Project Route and the East 

Canyon Route Variation ......................................................................3-26

3.5.2-1 Comparison of Features of the Proposed Project Route and the 

Holbrook Canyon Route Variation ......................................................3-28

3.5.3-1 Comparison of Features of the Proposed Project Route and the Sitka 

Holdings Route Variation ....................................................................3-30

3.5.4-1 Comparison of Features of the Proposed Project Route and the North 

Salt Lake I Route Variation .................................................................3-32

3.5.5-1 Comparison of Features of the Proposed Project Route and the North 

Salt Lake II Route Variation................................................................3-34
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) 

ix

Number Title Page

3.5.6-1 Comparison of Features of the Proposed Project Route and the 

Mueller Park Route Variation..............................................................3-35

3.5.7-1 Comparison of Features of the Proposed Project Route and the North 

Salt Lake III Route Variation...............................................................3-37

3.6.1-1 Comparison of Milford Compressor Station Site Alternative and the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project.......................................................3-40

4.1.1-1 Geologic Conditions Crossed by the Proposed Apex Expansion 

Project ....................................................................................................4-2

4.1.2-1 Mineral Resources Traversed by and along the Proposed Apex 

Expansion Project ..................................................................................4-4

4.1.3-1 Historical Earthquakes within 100 Miles of the Proposed Apex 

Expansion Project ..................................................................................4-5

4.1.3-2 Peak Horizontal Acceleration for Pipelines and Buildings along the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project.........................................................4-6

4.1.3-3 Quaternary and Holocene Faults Crossed by the Proposed Apex 

Expansion Project ..................................................................................4-7

4.1.3-4 Landslide Risks Identified along the Proposed Apex Expansion 

Project ....................................................................................................4-8

4.1.3-5 Blasting Potential for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project..............4-10

4.1.4-1 Areas Recommended for Paleontological Resource Monitoring for 

the Proposed Apex Expansion Project.................................................4-14

4.2.1-1 Soil Limitations Crossed by the Proposed Apex Expansion Project ...4-15

4.3.1-1 Water Supply Well Protection Zones Crossed by the Proposed Apex 

Expansion Project Construction Workspaces ......................................4-22

4.3.1-2 Wellhead Protection Zones Identified within the Proposed Apex 

Expansion Project Construction Workspaces ......................................4-23

4.3.2-1 Watershed Basins Crossed by the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 4-29

4.3.2-2 Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed Apex Expansion Project.........4-30

4.3.2-3 Sensitive Waterbodies Crossed by the Proposed Apex Expansion 

Project ..................................................................................................4-33

4.3.2-4 Surface Water Protection Areas Crossed by the Proposed Apex 

Expansion Project Construction Workspaces ......................................4-35

4.3.2-5 Summary of Proposed Variations to the FERC Procedures for the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project.......................................................4-40

4.3.2-6 Water Withdrawal Volumes for the Proposed Apex Expansion 

Project ..................................................................................................4-42
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) 

x

Number Title Page

4.3.3-1 Wetlands Affected by the Proposed Apex Expansion Project.............4-45

4.3.3-2 Summary of Proposed Alternative Construction Measures for the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project.......................................................4-48

4.4.1-1 Acreages of Vegetation Types Impacted by Construction Activities 

for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project ...........................................4-52

4.5.1-1 Common Representative Wildlife Species That Potentially Occur in 

the Proposed Apex Expansion Project Area ........................................4-57 

4.5.3-1 Big Game Crucial Habitat in the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Area......................................................................................................4-63

4.5.4-1 Migratory Bird Species of Concern in the Proposed Apex Expansion 

Project Area .........................................................................................4-67

4.7.1-1 Federally Listed, Candidate, and Petitioned Species Potentially 

Occurring in the Proposed Apex Expansion Project Area..................4-78

4.7.2-1 State of Utah and USFS Sensitive Species Potentially Occurring 

within the Proposed Apex Expansion Project Area.............................4-86

4.8.1-1 Land Use Types and Acres Impacted by Construction and Operation 

of the Proposed Apex Expansion Project.............................................4-95 

4.8.1-2 Collocated and Adjacent Rights-of-Way for the Proposed Apex 

Expansion Project ................................................................................4-97

4.8.2-1 Existing Residences and Buildings within 50 Feet of the Construction 

Workspace for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project ......................4-103

4.8.3-1 Public Land, Recreational Areas, and Other Designated or Special 

Use Areas Crossed by the Proposed Apex Expansion Project...........4-106

4.9.1-1 Existing Socioeconomic Conditions for States and Counties in the 

Region of Influence of the Proposed Apex Expansion Project.........4-117

4.9.1-2 Estimated Construction Workforce for the Proposed Apex Expansion 

Project ................................................................................................4-119

4.9.2-1 Vacant Accommodation Housing Units for the Proposed Apex 

Expansion Project ..............................................................................4-120

4.9.3-1 Existing Public Service Facilities in the Region of Influence for the 

Apex Expansion Project.....................................................................4-121

4.9.6-1 Estimated Annual Property (Ad Valorem) Tax for the Proposed Apex 

Expansion Project ..............................................................................4-124

4.9.7-1 Racial/Ethnic Comparison for Counties Crossed by the Proposed 

Apex Expansion Project.....................................................................4-125

4.9.7-2 Economic Statistics for Counties Crossed by the Proposed Apex 

Expansion Project ..............................................................................4-126

4.10.1-1 Historic and Archaeological Sites within the Proposed Apex 

Expansion Project Area of Potential Effect .......................................4-129
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED) 

xi

Number Title Page

4.11.1-1 Compressor Station Additions/Modifications for the Proposed Apex 

Expansion Project ..............................................................................4-134

4.11.1-2 Representative Annual Average Weather Conditions for the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project Area............................................4-134

4.11.1-3 Ambient Air Quality Standards for the Proposed Apex Expansion 

Project Area .......................................................................................4-136

4.11.1-4 Attainment Designations of Counties Affected by the Proposed Apex 

Expansion Project ..............................................................................4-138

4.11.1-5 Regional Background Air Quality Concentrations in the Regions of 

the Proposed Apex Expansion Project (2006–2008) .........................4-139

4.11.1-6 Comparison of Emissions to General Conformity Thresholds for the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project.....................................................4-144

4.11.1-7 Estimated Construction Emissions for the Proposed Apex Expansion 

Project ................................................................................................4-147

4.11.1-8 Annual Air Pollutant Emissions from Compressor Station Equipment 

for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project ........................................4-149

4.11.2-1 Typical Sound Pressure Levels from Pipeline Construction 

Equipment for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project.......................4-153

4.11.2-2 Sound Pressure Levels from Compressor Station Construction 

Equipment for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project.......................4-154

4.11.2-3 Compressor Stations Predicted Noise Impacts at the Nearest NSAs for 

the Proposed Apex Expansion Project...............................................4-155

4.12.1-1 U.S. Department of Transportation Classifications and Mainline 

Valve Locations for the Proposed Wasatch Loop.............................4-158

4.12.2-1 Significant Incidents by Cause for Onshore Natural Gas 

Transmission Systems (1989 through 2008)......................................4-161

4.12.2-2 Incidents Caused by External Corrosion and Level of Protection 

(1970 through June 1984)..................................................................4-162

4.12.3-1 Average Annual Fatalities for Onshore Natural Gas Transmission 

Systems in the United States..............................................................4-163

4.12.3-2 Fatalities by Sector for Onshore Natural Gas Transmission Systems 

in the United States (2003-2008) .......................................................4-163

4.12.3-3 Nationwide Accidental Deaths ..........................................................4-164

4.13-1 Existing or Proposed Projects which Could Cumulatively Impact 

Environmental Resources in the Region of Influence for the Proposed 

Apex Expansion Project.....................................................................4-168

4.13-1 Existing or Proposed Projects which Could Cumulatively Impact 

Environmental Resources in the Region of Influence for the Proposed 

Apex Expansion Project.....................................................................4-169
LIST OF FIGURES 

xii

Number Title Page

1-1 General Project Location .......................................................................1-2

2.1.1-1 Proposed Wasatch Loop ........................................................................2-2

2.1.2-1 Plot Plan for the Proposed Milford Compressor Station .......................2-4

2.1.2-2 Plot Plan for the Mainline Valve, Pig Launcher, and Pig Receiver at 

Milepost 0.0 ...........................................................................................2-6

2.2.1-1 Cross-section of a Typical Right-of-Way..............................................2-8

2.3.1-1 Typical Pipeline Construction Sequence .............................................2-15

2.3.2-1 Typical Wetland Crossing Adjacent to an Existing Pipeline...............2-21

2.3.2-2 Typical Non-flowing Waterbody Crossing..........................................2-23

2.3.2-3 Conventional Bore Crossing Method...................................................2-26

2.3.2-4 Flume Crossing Method.......................................................................2-27

2.3.2-5 Dam-and-Pump Crossing Method .......................................................2-29

2.3.2-6 Conventional Horizontal Boring for Roadway Crossing.....................2-32

2.3.2-7 Conventional Horizontal Boring for Railroad Crossing ......................2-33

2.3.2-8 Cross-section of Typical Side Slope Construction Method.................2-36

2.3.2-9 Typical Side Slope Construction Method Right-of-Way.....................2-37

3.3-1 System Alternatives ...............................................................................3-7

3.4.1-1 Kern River Right-of-Way Route Alternative.......................................3-12

3.4.2-1 Legacy Highway Route Alternative.....................................................3-15

3.4.3-1 Pages Lane/Porter Road Route Alternative .........................................3-17

3.4.4-1 Bountiful Boulevard Route Alternative...............................................3-20

3.4.5-1 Wasatch Mountains Route Alternative ................................................3-22

3.5.1-1 East Canyon Route Variation ..............................................................3-25

3.5.2-1 Holbrook Canyon Route Variation ......................................................3-27

3.5.3-1 Sitka Holdings Route Variation...........................................................3-29

3.5.4-1 North Salt Lake I Route Variation.......................................................3-31

3.5.5-1 North Salt Lake II Route Variation......................................................3-33

3.5.6-1 Mueller Park Route Variation..............................................................3-36

3.5.7-1 North Salt Lake III Route Variation ....................................................3-38

3.6.1-1 Milford Compressor Station Site Alternatives.....................................3-41

4.8.3-1 Recreation and Special Interest Areas ...............................................4-108
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

xiii

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

API American Petroleum Institute 

AQCR air quality control region 

ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers 

ATWS additional temporary workspace 

BA Biological Assessment 

BACT best available control technology 

Bcf/d billion cubic feet per day 

BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

bgs below ground surface 

BLM U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management 

BLM-CCFO BLM-Cedar City Field Office 

BLM-SLFO BLM-Salt Lake City Office 

BMP best management practice 

BO Biological Opinion 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CAAA 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments 

CC DAQEM Clark County Department of Air Quality and Environmental 

Management 

CCC Civilian Conservation Corps 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

Certificate Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity 

cf/d cubic feet per day 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CH4 methane 

cm2

 square centimeters 

CO carbon monoxide 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

CO2-eq carbon dioxide equivalents 

COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Commission Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

CRP Conservation Reserve Program 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CWMU Cooperative Wildlife Management Unit 
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED) 

xiv

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 

dBA decibels on the A-weighted scale 

DEP Division of Environmental Protection 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

DWR Division of Wildlife Resources 

EFH essential fish habitat 

EIA U.S. Energy Information Administration 

EIS environmental impact statement 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPAct 2005 Energy Policy Act of 2005 

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973 

ESD emergency shut down 

F Fahrenheit 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

FERC’s Plan FERC Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan 

FERC’s Procedures FERC Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation 

Procedures 

FWS U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

g gravity 

GHG greenhouse gas 

GIS geographic information system 

GWP global warming potential 

HAP hazardous air pollutant 

HCA high-consequence area 

HDD horizontal directional drilling 

HEL highly erodible land 

HFC hydrofluorocarbons 

HFE hydrofluorinated ethers 

hp horsepower 

HUC hydrolic unit code 

ISO International Organization for Standardization 

Kern River Kern River Gas Transmission Company 

Kern River's Plan Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan 

Kern River's Procedures Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures 
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED) 

xv

KRMP Kern River milepost 

kV kilovolt 

Ldn day-night sound level 

Leq equivalent sound level 

LNP Legacy Nature Preserve 

LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan 

M magnitude 

m3

 cubic meters 

MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

MAOP maximum allowable operating pressure 

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

Memorandum Memorandum of Understanding on Natural Gas Transportation 

Facilities 

Mcf/d million cubic feet per day 

mg milligrams 

MGD million gallons per day 

MLA Mineral Leasing Act 

MLV mainline valve 

MMBtu/hour million British thermal units per hour 

MP milepost 

MW megawatt 

mya million years ago 

N2O nitrous oxide 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NDCNR Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NF National Forest 

NF3 nitrogen trifluoride 

NGA Natural Gas Act 

NGPSA Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NNSR Nonattainment New Source Review 
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED) 

xvi

NO2 nitrogen oxide 

NOA notice of availability 

NOI Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Apex Expansion Project, Request for Comments on Environmental 

Issues, and Notice of Joint Public Scoping Meetings 

Nox nitrogen oxides 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NRCS National Resources Conservation Service 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NSA noise-sensitive area 

NSPO non-standard parallel offset 

NSPS New Source Performance Standards 

NSR New Source Review 

NWI National Wetlands Inventory 

O3 ozone 

OEP Office of Energy Projects 

OPS Office of Pipeline Safety 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

PEM palustrine emergent wetlands 

PFC perfluorocarbons 

PFO palustrine forested 

PGA peak horizontal ground acceleration 

PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

PIF Partners in Flight 

PM10 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns 

PM2.5 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than 2.5 microns 

POD Plan of Development 

ppm parts per million 

PRMP Paleontological Resource Management Plan 

Project Apex Expansion Project 

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

psi pounds per square inch 

psig pounds per square inch (gauge) 

PSS palustrine scrub-shrub 

Reclamation U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation 
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED) 

xvii

Reclamation Plan Reclamation Plan for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

RICE Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engine 

RMP BLM Resource Management Plan 

ROD Record of Decision 

RPS Renewable Portfolio Standards 

SCADA supervisory control and data acquisition 

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act 

SF6 sulfur hexafluoride 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SI ICE spark-ignition internal-combustion engines 

SIO Scenic Integrity Objectives 

SMS Scenery Management System 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

SO3 sulfur trioxide 

SPCC Plan Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan 

SSURGO Soil Survey Geographic Database 

STATSGO State Soil Geographic Database 

SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 

tpy tons per year 

UDAQ Utah Division of Air Quality 

UDEQ Utah Department of Environmental Quality 

UDNR Utah Department of Natural Resources 

UDOT Utah Department of Transportation 

UDWR Utah Division of Wildlife 

UGS Utah Geological Survey 

USC United States Code 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

USFS U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service 

USGCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program 

USGS United States Geological Survey 

UTA Utah Transit Authority 

UWCNF Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest 

VOC volitile organic compound 
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (CONTINUED) 

xviii

VRM Visual Resource Management 

WDEQ Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

WFZ Wasatch Fault Zone 

WLMP Wasatch Loop Milepost 

WMA wildlife management area 

WPDES Wyoming Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

μg micrograms 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared 

this draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to fulfill requirements of the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the Commission’s implementing regulations under Title 18 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations, Part 380 (18 CFR 380). On November 2, 2009, Kern River Gas Transmission 

Company (Kern River) filed an application with the Commission pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural 

Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the Commission’s regulations for a Certificate of Public Convenience and 

Necessity to construct, operate, and maintain an interstate natural gas pipeline and associated ancillary 

and aboveground facilities, collectively known as the Apex Expansion Project (Project). The purpose of 

this document is to inform the public and the permitting agencies about the potential adverse and 

beneficial environmental impacts of the proposed Project and its alternatives, and to recommend 

mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce adverse impacts. 

The FERC is the federal agency responsible for authorizing interstate natural gas transmission 

facilities under the NGA, and is the lead federal agency for the preparation of this EIS in compliance with 

the requirements of NEPA. The U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and 

the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service 

(USFS) are cooperating agencies for the development of this EIS. A cooperating agency has jurisdiction 

by law or has special expertise with respect to environmental resource issues associated with the Project. 

The BLM is the federal agency responsible for issuing right-of-way grants for natural gas 

pipelines across federal lands affected by this Project. Right-of-way grants are issued under Section 28 of 

the Mineral Leasing Act and 43 CFR 2880 to any qualified individual, business, or government entity. 

The BLM would decide whether or not to issue Kern River a right-of-way grant to cross all federal land 

based on this EIS; however, the BLM would not issue a right-of-way grant until the heads of the BLM, 

USFS, and Reclamation had concurred with respect to use of lands under their respective jurisdictions. 

Where concurrence is not reached, the Secretary of the Interior, after consultation with the heads of the 

BLM, USFS, and Reclamation, would decide whether or not to issue a right-of-way grant. 

PROPOSED ACTION 

The purpose of the Apex Expansion Project is to transport an additional 266 million cubic feet per 

day (MMcf/d) of natural gas on Kern River’s existing pipeline system from southwestern Wyoming to 

Nevada. Dependent upon Commission approval, Kern River proposes to begin construction in the fall of 

2010 and place the facilities into operation in November 2011. Kern River proposes to construct and 

operate: 

 approximately 28 miles of 36-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline loop1

extending southwest in Utah from Morgan County, through Davis County to Salt Lake 

er compressor station (known as the Milford Compressor Station) 

 

County; 

 one new 30,000-horsepow

in Beaver County, Utah; 

 modifications to four existing compressor stations to add additional compression (the Coyote 

Creek Compressor Station located in Uinta County, Wyoming; the Elberta Compressor 

1

 A pipeline “loop” is a segment of pipeline that is installed adjacent to or in the vicinity of an existing pipeline 

and connected to the existing pipeline at both ends. A loop increases the volume of gas that can be transported 

through that portion of the system. 

ES-1 
Station located in Utah County, Utah; the Fillmore Compressor Station located in Millard 

ocated in Clark County, Nevada); 

 six mainline valves; and 

ion would be constructed by PacifiCorp. Although the 1.4-mile electric 

under the FERC’s jurisdiction, we3

 include it in our environmental review. 

formation related to the Project into the 

public r

about the Project. Attendees were invited to ask questions and submit 

any con

 and 

lity, noise, and state- and federally managed lands. This 

nvironmental mailing list included in Appendix A. 

e recommended additional mitigation to minimize or avoid these impacts. We 

also considered the cumulative impacts of this Project with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

actions in the Project area. 

 

County, Utah; and the Dry Lake Compressor Station l

 three pig launcher and two pig receiver facilities.2

In addition to Kern River’s proposed facilities, a non-jurisdictional electric transmission line to 

the Milford Compressor Stat

transmission line does not fall 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

On March 13, 2009, the FERC began its pre-filing review of the Apex Expansion Project and 

established a pre-filing docket number (PF09-07-000) to place in

ecord. The cooperating agencies agreed to conduct their environmental reviews of the proposed 

Project in conjunction with the Commission’s pre-filing process. 

Kern River initially contacted federal and state agencies to inform them about the Project and the 

FERC’s pre-filing process. Subsequently, Kern River hosted three public open houses and two 

stakeholder meetings in communities in the vicinity of the proposed Project, from March 23 through 

March 27, 2009. These open houses and meetings were conducted to inform landowners, government 

officials, and the general public 

cerns. The FERC staff participated in the open houses and provided information regarding the 

environmental review process. 

As part of our pre-filing review, we issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Apex Expansion Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues and Notice of 

Joint Public Scoping Meetings (NOI) on May 19, 2009. The NOI was published in the Federal Register 

and sent to affected landowners; federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials; 

environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; local libraries; newspapers; and other 

interested parties. In response to our notice, public site visits, and two public scoping meetings held 

along the proposed pipeline route, we received numerous comments from landowners, concerned citizens, 

public officials, and government agencies regarding the proposed Project. These comments expressed 

concerns with the location of the proposed pipeline and the effects of the proposed Project on resources 

and land uses, including soils, geology, waterbodies, wetlands, wildlife, vegetation, threatened

endangered species, safety, alternatives, air qua

draft EIS is being mailed to the Commission’s e

PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 

Construction and operation of the Apex Expansion Project could result in numerous impacts on 

the environment. We evaluated the impacts of the Project, as reduced by Kern River’s proposed 

mitigation, on geology, soils, groundwater, surface water, wetlands, vegetation, wildlife, fisheries, special 

status species, land use, visual resources, socioeconomics, cultural resources, air quality, noise, and 

safety. Where necessary, w

2

 A pipeline “pig” is a device used to clean or inspect the pipeline. A pig launcher/receiver is an aboveground 

facility where pigs are inserted or retrieved from the pipeline. 3

 The pronouns “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the FERC's Office of Energy Projects. 

ES-2 
Based on scoping comments, agency consultations, and our independent evaluation of resource 

impacts, the major issues identified in our analysis are in regard to: geologic hazards, paleontological 

resources, vegetation, wildlife habitat, federally listed species, the Uinta Wasatch Cache National Forest 

(UWCNF), recreational areas and roadless areas within the UWCNF, and visual resources. Our analysis 

of these issues is summarized below and is discussed in detail in the appropriate resource sections in 

section 4. Where necessary, we recommended additional mitigation measures to minimize or avoid these 

impacts. Section 5.2 of the EIS contains our conclusions and a compilation of our recommended 

mitigation measures. 

Geology, Paleontology, and Soils 

Potential geologic hazards in the Project area include faults, landslides, soil liquefaction, and 

seismicity. The Project would cross four faults, one of which, the Warm Springs Fault is considered to be 

active. Kern River has also designed for these hazards through avoidance of landslide-prone areas and 

through the use of special construction materials within seismically active areas. For example, potential 

hazards associated with constructing and operating the pipeline in an area of an active fault would be 

mitigated through the use of pipe with extra wall thickness and the placement of granular/sand backfill 

material underneath and surrounding the pipeline near the fault. 

To protect paleontological resources at seven sites identified along the proposed pipeline, Kern 

River would utilize its previously prepared Paleontological Resource Management Plan (PRMP) that was 

developed for the 2003 Kern River Expansion Project. The PRMP contains procedures for obtaining preconstruction approvals, monitoring of identified significant fossil locations during construction, and 

procedures for unanticipated discovery of fossils during construction. 

To minimize general construction-related effects to soils, Kern River would implement the 

measures described in Kern River’s Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan (Kern 

River’s Plan); Kern River’s Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (Kern 

River’s Procedures); Kern River’s Reclamation Plan; and Kern River’s Spill Prevention, Control, and 

Countermeasure Plan. These measures would control erosion and increase the potential success of 

revegetation efforts. 

Waterbody Crossings, Water Use, and Wetlands 

The pipeline would cross 12 perennial and several intermittent and ephemeral waterbodies. All 

waterbodies with water present at the time of construction would be crossed via dry crossing methods 

such as flume crossings or a conventional bore. Waterbody crossings would be conducted in accordance 

with all federal and state regulations and permit requirements, and Kern River would minimize impacts 

by following measures identified in its Procedures and our additional recommended measures. 

Kern River proposes to withdraw approximately 14.9 million gallons of water from two rivers, 

one reservoir, and municipal sources for hydrostatic testing and dust abatement purposes. Kern River 

would not use biocides, chemical de-watering agents, or other potentially toxic water additives for any 

water withdrawals (hydrostatic testing or dust abatement), and discharges would be in accordance with 

applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements. 

The pipeline would cross approximately 2,027 feet of land classified as wetlands. No wetlands 

would be permanently filled; however, 0.1 acre of forested wetland within the maintained pipeline rightof-way would be converted to herbaceous or shrub-scrub wetlands. With strict adherence to its 

Procedures, Reclamation Plan, and Wetland Remedial Revegetation Plan, impacts on wetlands would be 

minimized. To further mitigate impacts on wetlands, we recommended that Kern River limit the 

ES-3 
construction right-of-way width in the wetland at MP 26.4 to 75 feet unless it is determined at the time of 

construction that the soils within this wetland are saturated to warrant a wider construction right-of-way. 

Vegetation, Wildlife, and Federally Listed Species 

The Project would affect three communities of special concern: Great Basin sagebrush, Douglas 

fir forest, and riparian areas. With the implementation of Kern River’s proposed construction and 

mitigation measures, we have determined that impacts on vegetation can be minimized. Kern River’s 

Reclamation Plan describes measures Kern River would use to return disturbed areas to their preconstruction land use while also minimizing visual impacts. The Reclamation Plan also addresses the 

vegetation conditions found in the higher elevation segments of the proposed Project and includes Kern 

River’s experience from previous construction and expansion projects in the vicinity. Where applicable, 

Kern River would revise the Reclamation Plan to incorporate new technical standards or information in 

consultation with the BLM, the USFS, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Impacts on 

vegetation would range from short term to long term depending on vegetation type impacted and amount 

of time to reach pre-construction condition. 

The Project would affect wildlife and wildlife habitats along the proposed route; these impacts 

could be temporary, short term, long term, or permanent depending on the habitat type impacted. The 

Project would minimize impacts on migratory birds by maximizing collocation which would reduce 

habitat fragmentation and by conducting clearing and grading activities outside of the breeding season. 

Implementation of Kern River’s Plan and Procedures and timing restrictions would minimize the effects 

of the proposed Project on wildlife. To further minimize impacts on wildlife, we recommended that Kern 

River file the results of its raptor and migratory bird surveys along with any buffers and or mitigation 

measures developed in consultation with the agencies. We also recommended that Kern River conduct 

any blasting outside of the season of highest use in crucial habitat for big game. 

Construction of the proposed waterbody crossings could result in impacts on fisheries from 

sedimentation and turbidity, habitat alteration, streambank erosion, fuel and chemical spills, water 

depletions, entrainment or entrapment during water withdrawals or construction crossing operations, 

blasting, and operational pipeline failure. Kern River would employ dry-ditch crossing methods and 

implement the mitigation measures included within its Procedures to minimize aquatic resource impacts. 

Overall, construction impacts on fisheries would be temporary due to the relatively small area in which 

each waterbody would be affected and the measures that Kern River would follow to minimize impacts 

on each waterbody during construction. 

Based on Kern River’s consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and our 

review of existing records, six federally listed threatened or endangered species, or species that are 

candidates or petitioned for federal listing, are reported to potentially occur in the vicinity of the proposed 

Project. We have determined that construction and operation of the proposed Project may affect but 

would not likely adversely affect the Utah prairie dog and Ute Ladies’-tresses. The remaining species 

(greater sage-grouse, yellow-billed cuckoo, pygmy rabbit, and Northern leopard frog) are proposed or 

candidate species. Known habitat for these species would be crossed by the Project, and individuals 

could be impacted or lost. We requested that the FWS consider the draft EIS as the Biological 

Assessment for the proposed Project. In addition to the federally listed, federally petitioned, and federal 

candidate species, 49 USFS- or state-identified special status species could occur within the vicinity of the 

Project. We believe that, given the nature of the species occurrence and the measures that would be 

implemented as part of the proposed Project, impacts on special-status species would be adequately 

avoided or minimized. We recommended that no construction activities be allowed to commence until all 

necessary consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is completed. 

ES-4 
Land Use and Visual Resources 

Construction and operation of the Project would result in short- and long-term impacts on 

agricultural land, forest, and special use areas. Because the majority of the pipeline (71.4 percent) would 

be collocated with the existing Kern River and/or other pipeline rights-of-way. Following construction, 

all affected areas outside the aboveground facility sites would be restored and allowed to revert to preconstruction conditions and uses. Kern River would retain the easement for a 50-foot-wide permanent 

right-of-way along the approximately 28.0 miles of the Project route. Kern River would maintain or mow 

the permanent right-of-way no more frequently than every 3 years, with the exception of a 10-foot-wide 

section centered over the pipeline. 

Roadless areas, as designated by the USFS, are regulated under the Roadless Area Conservation 

Act (36 CFR 294), which limits road construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvesting in 

inventoried roadless areas on National Forest System lands. As proposed, the Project would impact two 

roadless areas within the UWCNF: the Mueller Park Roadless Area and the Hogsback Roadless Area. A 

total of approximately 15.7 acres of forested land would be cleared within the Mueller Park Roadless 

Area for construction of the proposed pipeline. With the implementation of Kern River’s Reclamation 

Plan, approximately 11 acres of forested land would be able to re-grow upon completion of pipeline 

construction. We recommended that Kern River modify its route to adopt the Mueller Park Variation 

which would generally utilize previously cleared areas along the existing rights-of-way and eliminate 

impacts on the Hogsback Roadless Area. 

Visual resources along the pipeline route would be affected by the alteration of existing 

vegetative patterns associated with clearing of the construction and permanent pipeline rights-of-way. In 

order to minimize visual impacts, Kern River proposes a reseeding regimen (in its Reclamation Plan) to 

return the impacted vegetation to pre-existing conditions. Kern River’s Reclamation Plan also allows for 

selective growth of forested species within the permanent right-of-way, excluding the 10-foot-wide area 

centered over the pipeline, in order to maintain a more natural setting visually. In addition, Kern River is 

conducting a visual assessment for USFS lands crossed by the proposed Project. Because this assessment 

will not be completed until the spring of 2010 we recommended that Kern River file its visual assessment 

before the end of the draft EIS comment period. 

The Project would impact numerous trails, parks, the UWCNF, and other public lands. For most 

of the Project, collocation of the pipeline with existing rights-of-way would help to reduce recreational 

and visual impacts by decreasing the need for new rights-of-way across these areas. We recommended 

that Kern River modify its proposed route to adopt the North Salt Lake III Variation to further collocate 

the proposed loop with the existing Kern River right-of-way along a 1.6 mile segment and avoid impacts 

to a residence at MP 24.5. Kern River is continuing to consult with the appropriate agencies concerning 

impacts of crossing public and recreational lands. 

Cultural Resources 

Cultural resource surveys are complete along the proposed pipeline route. Kern River also has 

completed cultural resources surveys at the proposed Milford Compressor Station; at pipe yards and 

staging areas; along Project access roads; and along the approximately 1.4-mile-long electric distribution 

line for the Milford Compressor Station. Cultural resource surveys identified 25 historic or 

archaeological sites. Twenty-three of the sites would be avoided; one site would either be avoided or 

mitigated for; and one site would be mitigated. The review process under Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act is on-going. Survey reports are currently under review. We recommended that 

no construction activities begin until all required surveys are completed, reports and any necessary 

treatment plans are reviewed, and the appropriate consultations are completed. 

ES-5 
Air Quality and Noise 

Construction of the Project would result in temporary impacts on air quality during construction 

and long-term impacts on air quality at the proposed Milford Compressor Station and the existing 

compressor stations during operation. Because pipeline construction moves through an area quickly, air 

emissions caused by construction are typically intermittent and short term. Emissions from fugitive dust, 

construction activities, and open burning would be controlled to the extent required by state and local 

agencies. We conclude that emissions from construction-related activities would not significantly affect 

local or regional air quality and would not cause nor contribute to an exceedance of the ambient air 

quality standards. 

Operational emissions resulting from the Project would be associated with the operation of the 

Coyote Creek, Elberta, and Dry Lake Compressor Station modifications and the new Milford Compressor 

Station. The modification at the Fillmore Compressor Station would not result in an increase in operating 

emissions. Kern River would be required to obtain all necessary air quality permits for construction and 

operation for the stations prior to commencing construction. The new emission sources proposed would 

not be classified as major sources and we do not anticipate that the compressor station modifications or 

new compressor station would have any significant impact on regional air quality. 

Construction activity and its associated noise levels would vary depending on the phase of 

construction in progress at any one time. We do not anticipate significant noise impacts associated with 

construction of the Project. The modeling analyses for each proposed new/modified compressor station 

incorporated noise reduction measures to achieve the levels presented in this draft EIS. Based on the 

estimates presented in the acoustical analysis, noise levels would remain below a day-night sound level 

(Ldn) of 55 decibels on the A-weighted scale (dBA) at noise sensitive areas (NSAs). To ensure that the 

Project achieves this level of noise control, we recommended that Kern River file a noise survey for 

Milford, Coyote Creek, and Elberta Compressor Stations. If the noise attributable to the operation of any 

of the compressor stations exceeds an Ldn of 55 dBA at any nearby NSA, Kern River would install 

additional noise controls to meet that level within 1 year of the in-service date. Based on the estimated 

sound levels and our recommendation, noise levels attributable to operation of the new or modified 

compressor stations would not result in significant impact on NSAs in the Project area. 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

The No Action and Postponed Action Alternatives were considered for the proposed Apex 

Expansion Project. While the No Action or Postponed Action Alternatives would eliminate or delay the 

environmental impacts identified in this draft EIS, U.S. markets would be denied the Project objective of 

delivering an additional 266 MMcf/d of natural gas from existing points in southwestern Wyoming to 

Nevada. This denial or delay might result in more expensive and less reliable natural gas supplies for the 

end users and greater reliance on alternative fossil fuels, such as coal or fuel oil, or both. 

A system alternative for the Project would need to be able to transport similar volumes of natural 

gas from southwestern Wyoming to Nevada. We are not aware of any existing pipeline systems with 

expansion plans that could meet the purpose and need of the Apex Expansion Project. Similarly, it is 

anticipated that construction and operational impacts associated with system alternatives involving 

existing/proposed pipelines in the region would be greater than those of the proposed Project due to the 

amount of looping and new construction required to connect the systems to the Project origin and 

terminus. Consequently, no system alternatives were identified that are environmentally preferable to the 

proposed Project. 

ES-6 
ES-7 

We evaluated five major route alternatives to the proposed Project route. Because none of these 

would offer significant environmental advantages over the proposed Project route, we eliminated them 

from further consideration. Lastly, we considered route variations to resolve or reduce construction 

impacts on localized, specific resources. Each route variation considered was compared to the 

corresponding segment of the proposed Project route to determine whether potential environmental 

benefits would be afforded. The Mueller Park and North Salt Lake III Route Variations were found to 

offer environmental advantages and we recommended that these variations be incorporated into the 

proposed Project. 

We also evaluated alternative locations for the proposed Milford Compressor Station to determine 

whether environmental impacts would be reduced or mitigated by use of alternative facility sites. We did 

not identify any alternative sites for the proposed Milford Compressor Station that would offer a 

significant environmental advantage to the proposed site. 

MAJOR CONCLUSIONS 

As part of our review, we developed measures that we believe would appropriately and 

reasonably avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental impacts associated with construction and 

operation of the proposed Apex Expansion Project. We recommend that these measures be attached as 

conditions to any authorization issued by the Commission. 

We conclude that, if the proposed Project is approved and is constructed and operated in 

accordance with Kern River’s proposed minimization and mitigation measures and our recommended 

mitigation measures, the proposed facilities would result in some adverse environmental impacts. 

However, these impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with the implementation of Kern 

River’s proposed mitigation and the additional measures we recommend in the draft EIS. Our 

conclusions are supported by the following: 

 the proposed Project would be collocated with existing utility rights-of-way for 

approximately 20 miles, or about 71.4 percent of the route; 

 Kern River would obtain all necessary federal, state, and local permits, approvals, and 

authorizations prior to commencement of construction; 

 Kern River would implement its Plan and Procedures, as well as additional Project-specific 

construction and restoration plans, each of which would reduce and mitigate impacts on 

natural resources during construction and operation of the proposed Project; 

 all waterbodies would be crossed via dry crossing methods if water is present at the time of 

construction; and 

 Kern River would complete all necessary surveys for sensitive species and cultural resources, 

and the appropriate consultations with the FWS and the State Historic Preservation Officer 

would be completed before initiating construction. 
1.0 INTRODUCTION 

On November 2, 2009, Kern River Gas Transmission Company (Kern River) filed an application 

with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or the Commission) in Docket Number 

CP10-14-000 for the Apex Expansion Project (Project) under Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), 

as amended, and Parts 157 and 284 of the Commission’s regulations. The application was noticed in the 

Federal Register on November 16, 2009. Kern River is seeking a Certificate of Public Convenience and 

Necessity (Certificate) for its Apex Expansion Project, which would include construction and operation of 

a pipeline, compressor station, modifications to existing compressor stations, and ancillary facilities in 

Utah, Wyoming, and Nevada. 

The environmental staff of the FERC prepared this draft environmental impact statement (EIS) to 

assess the environmental impact associated with the construction and operation of the facilities proposed 

by Kern River in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

The U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service (USFS) are participating as cooperating agencies1 in the preparation of 

the EIS because the Apex Expansion Project would cross federally administered lands under their 

jurisdiction. The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is also a 

cooperating agency because one of the alternatives to the proposed Project would cross land under its 

jurisdiction. 

The proposed Project would consist of approximately 28.0 miles of new 36-inch-diameter natural 

gas pipeline loop in Morgan, Davis, and Salt Lake Counties, Utah (the Wasatch Loop) and the following 

major associated facilities and upgrades: 

 a new compressor station in Beaver County, Utah (Milford Compressor Station); 

 replacement of an existing compressor unit at the Fillmore Compressor Station in Millard 

County, Utah; 

 installation of additional compression at the Coyote Creek Compressor Station in Uinta 

County, Wyoming; the Elberta Compressor Station in Utah County, Utah; and the Dry Lake 

Compressor Station in Clark County, Nevada; 

 three pig launchers and two pig receivers; and 

 six new mainline valves (MLVs). 

Figure 1-1 depicts the locations of the proposed facilities. The proposed Project would allow 

Kern River to transport an additional 266 million cubic feet per day (MMcf/d) of natural gas on its 

pipeline system from existing receipt connections in southwestern Wyoming to existing delivery 

connections in southern Nevada.2

 

More detailed descriptions of the proposed facilities are presented in section 2.0. 

 

1

 A cooperating agency is an agency that has jurisdiction over all or part of the Project area and must make a 

decision on the proposed Project, and/or an agency that provides special expertise. 2

 Kern River’s existing pipeline system extends from the gas-producing fields in southwestern Wyoming to 

Bakersfield, California. 

1-1
"

"

"

"

"

Nevada

Clark

Millard

Utah

Uinta

Beaver

Davis

Salt Lake

Morgan

Utah

Nevada

Arizona

Wyo

California 

Milford

Elberta

Fillmore

Dry Lake

Coyote Creek

"

"

"

"

"

MT

CA

ID

AZ

NV

NM

OR

CO

WY

UT

WA

Date: March 2010 

APEX EXPAN

GENERAL PRO

 ̄

0 60 120 30

Miles

Legend

" Proposed/Existing Compressor Stations

Proposed Wasatch Loop

1-2
1.1 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED 

1.1.1 Project Purpose 

Kern River’s stated purpose of the proposed Project is to expand the Kern River Gas 

Transmission System to enhance its overall flexibility and reliability, and to provide transportation service 

for natural gas from existing receipt points in southwestern Wyoming to existing delivery points near 

electrical generation plants in southern Nevada. The Kern River Gas Transmission System transports 

about 1.7 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) of natural gas from Wyoming to the Las Vegas area and then 

southwest as far as San Bernardino, California. This system provides over 80 percent of the gas 

consumed in the Las Vegas area (EIA 2009a). The majority of the original Kern River Gas Transmission 

System has been looped to increase transport capacity, resulting in a two-pipeline delivery system along 

most of the pipeline route. However, there is not a loop in the system through the Wasatch Mountains in 

Utah and also near the Las Vegas area in Nevada. The single pipeline of the Kern River system through 

these areas limits the volume of gas that can be transported to the Las Vegas and southern California 

markets. Kern River has proposed to eliminate this bottleneck by constructing and operating the proposed 

Project in the Wasatch Mountains segment of its system and adding compression to the existing system. 

In addition, Kern River states that the volume of gas that can currently be transported is fully subscribed 

under firm, long-term contracts. 

1.1.2 Project Need 

The transportation of natural gas to the Las Vegas area is currently constrained by available 

pipeline capacity. Kern River states that NV Energy3

 expressed a need for natural gas supplies to 

delivery points connected to its generation facilities in southern Nevada. In the proposed Apex Expansion 

Project, Kern River would provide NV Energy with up to 390 MMcf/d by “backhauling” gas (essentially 

reversing the flow of gas) from the existing Kern River connection with the Mojave Pipeline, located at 

Daggett, California, about 9 miles east of Barstow, California. The Apex Expansion Project would 

provide an additional 266 MMcf/d in the existing Kern River Gas Transmission System and meet the 

additional needs of NV Energy in southern Nevada. 

On August 25, 2008, Kern River and NV Energy signed a Precedent Agreement4

 for long-term 

transportation service of the gas. As a result, the increase in volume that would result from 

implementation of the Apex Expansion Project is fully subscribed. 

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE EIS 

This draft EIS has been prepared for public review and comment. The principal purposes in 

preparing this EIS were to: 

 identify and assess potential impacts on the natural and human environment that would result 

from implementation of the proposed Project; 

 describe and evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed Project that would avoid or 

minimize adverse effects to the environment; 

 

3

 NV Energy was formed in July 1999 by the merger of Nevada Power Company, Sierra Pacific Power, and 

Sierra Pacific Resources. 4

 A Precedent Agreement is an agreement between parties which identifies a set of conditions that must be met 

prior to the execution of a contract. 

1-3
 identify and recommend specific mitigation measures, as necessary, to minimize environmental 

impacts; and 

 encourage and facilitate involvement by the public and interested agencies in the environmental 

review process. 

The environmental topics addressed in this EIS include geology; soils; groundwater and surface 

water; wetlands; vegetation; fish and wildlife; threatened, endangered, and other special-status species; 

land use, including agricultural resources, and recreation; visual resources; socioeconomics; cultural 

resources; air quality and noise; reliability and safety; and cumulative impacts. This EIS describes the 

affected environment as it currently exists, addresses the environmental consequences of the proposed 

Project, and compares the Project’s potential impacts to those of the alternatives. The EIS also presents 

our conclusions and recommended mitigation measures. All stakeholders, including the public and 

federal, state, and local entities, are strongly encouraged to provide comments on this draft EIS for 

consideration by the FERC prior to issuing a final EIS. After a final EIS is issued, the Commission will 

determine whether or not the proposed Project should be approved. 

1.2.1 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

The FERC is the federal agency responsible for evaluating applications filed for authorization to 

construct and operate interstate natural gas pipeline facilities. Certificates are issued under Section 7(c) of 

the NGA and Part 157 of the Commission’s regulations if the Commission determines that the projects 

are required by the public convenience and necessity. As a part of that determination, the FERC staff 

conducts an environmental review in accordance with NEPA. We prepared this EIS to assess the 

potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project in compliance with the 

requirements of NEPA, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing 

NEPA in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500–1508 (40 CFR 1500–1508), and the 

FERC regulations implementing NEPA (18 CFR 380). 

The Commission will consider the findings of the final EIS as well as non-environmental issues 

in its review of Kern River’s Application to determine whether or not a Certificate should be issued for 

the proposed Apex Expansion Project. A Certificate will be granted only if the FERC finds that the 

evidence produced on financing, rates, market demand, gas supply, existing facilities and service, 

environmental impacts, long-term feasibility, and other issues demonstrates that the proposed Project is 

required by the public convenience and necessity. Environmental impact assessments and mitigation 

development are important factors in the overall public interest determination. 

1.2.2 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management and Bureau of Reclamation; 

and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 

As noted above, the BLM, the USFS, and the Reclamation served as cooperating agencies during 

preparation of the EIS because the proposed Project or an alternative to the proposed Project would cross 

federal lands and resources for which those agencies have jurisdiction. In addition, the cooperating 

agencies have special expertise with respect to environmental issues and impacts associated with the 

proposed Project and alternatives to the proposed Project. The BLM and the USFS may adopt this EIS in 

accordance with 40 CFR 1506.3 to meet their NEPA responsibilities in considering Kern River’s 

applications for use of lands administered by those agencies, or they may elect to conduct their own 

environmental analysis to meet their responsibilities under NEPA. If an alternative to the proposed 

Project that crosses land under the jurisdiction of Reclamation were selected as the preferred route, 

Reclamation could also use the EIS in accordance with 40 CFR 1506.3 to meet its NEPA responsibilities. 

The roles of these agencies in the Project review process are described in further detail below. 

1-4
BLM is the federal agency responsible for issuing right-of-way grants for natural gas pipelines 

across federal lands under the jurisdiction of the BLM or under the jurisdiction of two or more federal 

agencies. Right-of-way grants are issued under Section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA) and 

43 CFR and 2880 of the BLM’s regulations to any qualified individual, business, or government entity. 

BLM is reviewing Kern River’s application for an amendment to the original Kern River Right-of-Way 

Grant to include both the proposed pipeline and the proposed new Milford Compressor Station site. 

Issuance of a Right-of-Way Grant for the proposed Project would require amendments to BLM Resource 

Management Plans (RMPs) where the RMPs are inconsistent with Project implementation. An RMP is a 

land use plan that describes broad multiple-use direction for managing public lands. RMPs are intended 

to guide management activities for 15 to 20 years. During that timeframe, however, changes in land use 

requirements, resource concerns, and federal policies may necessitate amending the RMP to adapt to new 

conditions. This may be the case for the proposed Apex Expansion Project. 

BLM would not issue a Right-of-Way Grant until the heads of the BLM and the USFS have 

concurred with respect to use of lands under their respective jurisdictions. Where concurrence is not 

reached, the Secretary of the Interior, after consultation with the heads of the BLM and the USFS, would 

decide whether or not to issue a Right-of-Way Grant. BLM will consider the findings of the final EIS in 

its review of Kern River’s application to determine whether a Right-of-Way Grant should be issued for 

the proposed Project. BLM will prepare a Record of Decision (ROD) to document its decision to either 

approve or deny a grant. If approved, the ROD would specify environmental protection measures to be 

implemented on federal lands, as well as indicate that USFS and, if appropriate, Reclamation concurred 

on the findings and environmental protection measures presented in the ROD. 

The USFS is the federal agency responsible for approving use of National Forest system lands 

and amending Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPs) required under the National Forest 

Management Act. If BLM issues a Right-of-Way Grant for USFS-managed land, the USFS would be 

required to amend its LRMP for the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest (UWCNF).5

 The BLM ROD 

would be based on the USFS decision to amend the LRMP to allow the proposed Project. Subgoal 12d of 

the UWCNF LRMP requires pipelines to follow designated utility corridors. As proposed, the Apex 

Expansion Project would not follow a designated utility corridor for its entire length through the National 

Forest; therefore, the USFS will use this EIS to consider amending the UWCNF LRMP to allow the 

pipeline to cross the forest as proposed. The USFS is reviewing Kern River’s proposal and an 

amendment to the LRMP for the portions of the proposed Project that would be in the UWCNF. The 

proposed amendment is discussed in greater detail in section 1.6. 

Reclamation is the federal agency responsible for issuing consent documents for easement 

encroachments under Section 10 of the Reclamation Project Act. If the Bountiful Boulevard Route 

Alternative were selected (as discussed in section 3.4.4 of this EIS), the proposed Project would cross 

land under the authority of Reclamation, and Reclamation would use information presented in the EIS as 

a part of its NEPA environmental review process. 

1.3 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT 

On February 27, 2009, Kern River filed a request with the FERC to implement the Commission’s 

pre-filing process for the proposed Project. The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early 

involvement of interested stakeholders, facilitate interagency cooperation, and identify and resolve issues 

before an application is filed with the FERC. On March 13, 2009, the FERC granted Kern River’s 

request and established pre-filing Docket Number (PF09-7-000) to place information filed by Kern River, 

 

5

 The USFS has separate LRMPs for the Uinta National Forest and the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. These 

plans are not yet merged. 

1-5
information and comments filed by stakeholders, and documents issued by the FERC into the public 

record. As cooperating agencies, the BLM, USFS, and Reclamation agreed to conduct environmental 

reviews of the proposed Project in conjunction with the FERC pre-filing process. 

In January 2009, Kern River implemented a public outreach and consultation plan designed to 

(1) share Project information; (2) seek input regarding Project alternatives and construction constraints or 

methods; and (3) provide stakeholders and other interested parties with opportunities to provide 

comments about the Project. As a part of the plan, Kern River communicated with landowners; elected 

officials and staff (municipal, county, state, and federal); community leaders; environmental agencies and 

non-governmental organizations; agricultural, businesses, and civic organizations; and other interested 

stakeholders. Kern River conducted more than 190 consultation meetings with public officials and other 

interested stakeholders. 

From March 23 through March 27, 2009, Kern River held three public open houses and two 

stakeholder meetings in communities in the vicinity of the proposed Apex Expansion Project. On 

March 4, 2009, Kern River mailed meeting invitations and Project information to more than 

2,100 stakeholders, including all affected and adjacent landowners; regulatory and resource agency staff; 

elected officials and government staff; and other interested parties. In addition, Kern River placed 

notifications of the open houses in selected weekly and daily newspapers near the open house locations 

from March 9 through 13 and from March 16 through 20, 2009. The FERC and the USFS staff 

participated in the open house meetings and provided information regarding the environmental review 

process. 

As a part of its public participation plan, Kern River provided a toll-free number for landowners 

and other stakeholders to obtain information about the proposed Project, and provided a Project website 

that includes a description and maps of the proposed Project, information on open houses and public 

meetings, regulatory filings and information, and contact information. In addition, Kern River has used 

direct mail to provide two newsletters to stakeholders with Project information. 

On May 15, 2009, the FERC issued its Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Apex Expansion Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues and Notice of 

Joint Public Scoping Meetings (NOI). The NOI was published in the Federal Register on May 26, 2009. 

The NOI explained that the FERC would be assessing potential environmental impacts and issues 

associated with the proposed Apex Expansion Project. It also explained the pre-filing process, generally 

described the proposed Project, announced the time and location of public scoping meetings, requested 

written comments from the public, and requested that other federal, state, and local agencies with 

jurisdiction and/or special expertise formally cooperate with the FERC in the preparation of the EIS. The 

notice was sent to 2,584 parties, including representatives of federal, state, and local agencies; elected 

officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected 

landowners; local libraries, newspapers, and television and radio stations; property owners within 

0.25 mile of the proposed pipeline route; and other stakeholders in the region who had indicated an 

interest in the proposed Project. Issuance of the NOI opened the public scoping period and established a 

closing date of June 15, 2009, for receiving scoping comments. However, all relevant comments we 

received prior to final production of the draft EIS were considered in the EIS. Forty comment letters were 

received during the scoping process. 

During the pre-filing period, the FERC, in close cooperation with the BLM, the USFS, and the 

Reclamation, conducted two public scoping meetings in the vicinity of the proposed Project route in Utah 

to obtain comments on environmental issues for the proposed Project. The first scoping meeting was at 

Bountiful High School on June 9, 2009; the second was at the Morgan County Courthouse Auditorium on 

June 10, 2009. 

1-6
These scoping meetings provided an opportunity for the public to learn more about the proposed 

Project and to provide comments on environmental issues to be addressed in this EIS. Approximately 

85 people attended the scoping meetings. Transcripts of the scoping meetings have been entered into the 

Project docket. The transcripts of the scoping meetings, as well as the 40 written comment letters 

received as part of the scoping process, are part of the public record for the proposed Project and are 

available for viewing on the FERC Internet website (www.ferc.gov).6

The FERC also conducted agency consultations and participated in interagency meetings to 

identify issues that should be addressed in this EIS. The meetings provided a forum for the exchange of 

information and supported the FERC’s responsibility to coordinate all federal authorizations and 

associated environmental review for the proposed Project. On March 25, 2009, the FERC staff met with 

representatives from the USFS, FWS, the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ), and the 

Utah Department of Natural Resources (UDNR). On June 9, 2009, the FERC staff also met with 

Bountiful city officials, including the mayor, city manager, and city council members to discuss the 

Bountiful Boulevard Alternative (discussed in section 3.4.4 of this EIS). 

This EIS addresses all substantive scoping comments submitted to the FERC or made at the 

scoping meetings and interagency coordination meetings. Table 1.3-1 lists the environmental issues and 

concerns identified by the commentors during the scoping process and identifies the EIS section where 

the issue is addressed. 

On November 16, 2009, the FERC issued a Notice of Application for the proposed Project. The 

notice announced that Kern River’s application had been filed with the Commission on November 2, 

2009, and that the pre-filing process had ended. The notice also opened the period for intervention. 

This draft EIS was mailed to federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials; 

Native American tribes; local libraries and newspapers; intervenors to the FERC’s proceeding; 

landowners; and other interested parties. The distribution list for the draft EIS is presented in 

Appendix A. The draft EIS was also submitted to the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for 

issuing its formal public Notice of Availability (NOA) in the Federal Register. The public has 45 days 

after the date of EPA’s notice in the Federal Register to review and comment on the draft EIS in written 

comments and at the public comment meetings to be held in the Project area. The dates and locations of 

those public meetings are listed in the letter in the front of this draft EIS and in the NOA. All timely 

comments received on the draft EIS related to environmental issues will be addressed in the final EIS. 

 

6

 Public meeting transcripts are available for viewing on the FERC Internet website (http://www.ferc.gov). Using 

the “eLibrary” link, select “general Search” from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range and “Docket 

No.” excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP10-14), and follow the instructions. For assistance, call 1-866-208-

3676, or e-mail FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov. Because scoping was conducted during the pre-filing review 

(before Kern River filed a formal application with the FERC on November 2, 2009), PF09-7 must be used in the 

Docket No. field to view the public scoping transcripts. 

1-7
TABLE 1.3-1 

Key Environmental Concerns Identified during the Scoping Process 

for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Issue/Comment 

EIS Section 

Addressing 

Comment 

General 

Design and location of the pipeline, land requirements 2.1.1, 2.2.1, 

2.2.2 

Easement rights and restrictions, compensation for land use and damage to property 4.8.2 

Future pipelines and other utilities 4.13 

Impacts on traffic patterns during pipeline construction and maintenance 4.9.4 

Purpose and need for the Project 1.1 

Use of ATVs on the proposed right-of-way 4.8.3 

Cooperation and considerations to landowners 1.3 

Geology 

Damage to geoantiquities and geologic and geomorphic features in the Bonneville Shoreline 

Preserve 

4.1.1, 4.1.4 

Potential for seismic activity or land slides to affect the integrity of the pipeline after 

construction 

4.1.3.1, 4.1.3.2 

Impacts from blasting 4.1.3 

Potential for construction activities near geologic faults to trigger an earthquake 4.1.3 

Soils 

Potential for reduced soil fertility due to pipeline and construction associated wildfires 4.2.1.2 

Impacts on soil microbiota and hydrology 4.2 

Water Resources 

Effects of construction on waterbodies, groundwater, and springs 2.3.2.2, 4.3.1, 

4.3.2 

Impacts on wetlands, including adjacent upland buffers 4.3.3 

Impacts on river, stream, lake, and riparian areas, including surface water quality 4.3.2 

Effects of construction on watersheds and water supply for residential areas 4.3.1.2 

Effects of water discharge for hydrostatic testing, including spread of aquatic invasive 

species 

4.3.2.8 

Fish, Wildlife, and Vegetation 

Effects of the proposed Project on fish and wildlife and their habitat, including greater sagegrouse, pygmy rabbit, spotted frog, boreal toad, least chub, Bonneville cutthroat trout, 

raptors, passerines, migratory birds, and big game species

4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 

4.7 

Potential for invasion or spread of undesirable vegetation and noxious weeds during and 

after construction 

4.4.5 

Revegetative efforts should include planting replacement native trees (e.g., white fir, 

sawtooth maple, chokecherry) and allow colonization of many herbaceous species 

4.4.5 

1-8
TABLE 1.3-1 (continued) 

Key Environmental Concerns Identified during the Scoping Process 

for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Issue/Comment 

EIS Section 

Addressing 

Comment 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Potential for impacts on federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered species or 

their critical habitat 

4.7 

Land Use, Recreation and Special Interest Areas, and Visual Resources

Potential impacts on the trails used for recreation (e.g., Bonneville Shoreline Trail and 

Mueller Park Trail) 

4.8.3 

Disturbance of visual resources during construction and by the permanent right-of-way 4.8.4 

Impacts on existing and proposed conservation easements (e.g., Bonneville Shoreline 

Preserve) and potential for future preclusion from conservation easements 

4.8.3 

Impacts on roadless areas 3.5, 4.8.3.2 

Impacts on recreation (e.g., hunting and hiking) 4.8.3 

Impacts on existing residences and future development 4.8.2.3 

Socioeconomics

Potential effects of construction workforce demands on public services including schools, 

roads, and waste and wastewater handling facilities, and temporary housing 

4.9.3 

Decline in property values for residential areas near the proposed action 4.9.5 

Impacts on public schools as a result of potential loss of tax revenues due to decreased 

property values 

4.9.3, 4.9.5, 

4.9.6 

Cost of relocating and maintaining existing utility infrastructure 4.9.3 

Cultural Resources 

Effects to known cultural resources including the improvements made by the Civilian 

Conservation Corps 

4.10 

Potential impacts on historic trails 4.10 

Air Quality and Noise

Effects of the proposed Project on air quality and noise during construction from operation of 

construction equipment and after construction from operation of the compressor stations 

4.11.1.3, 

4.11.1.4, 

4.11.2.3, 

4.11.2.4 

Potential for nuisance fugitive dust from construction and dust suppression methods 4.11.1.3 

Reliability and Safety

Hazards associated with living near a natural gas pipeline and the potential for natural gas 

leaks and explosions 

4.12.2, 4.12.3 

Safety for pipeline personnel, including helicopter operators 4.12.1 

Potential for restricted access to residential areas for emergency response vehicles and 

residents as well as road hazards during pipeline construction and maintenance 

4.12.2 

Potential hazards to natural gas pipelines from wildfires, and potential for construction to 

start a wildfire 

4.12.1, 4.12.4 

1-9
TABLE 1.3-1 (continued) 

Key Environmental Concerns Identified during the Scoping Process 

for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Issue/Comment 

EIS Section 

Addressing 

Comment 

Alternatives

Follow the existing pipeline right-of-way and remain close to the current pipeline to minimize 

right-of-way expansion 

3.0 

Shorten the proposed route to avoid infringing on private property and to use federal land 

available for the pipeline easement 

3.0 

Modify Alternative E to connect from south of East Canyon to the Meridian Peak utility 

corridor through private and USFS administered lands 

3.4.5 

Seek alternative routes further north and south of the proposed Alternative 3.4 

Utilize the proposed Route Alternative and not the Bountiful Boulevard Route Alternative 3.4.4 

Utilize an alternative route across the upper portion of Utah into Nevada, then down to the 

final destination of the pipeline 

3.0 

Utilize undeveloped residential areas instead of the Bonneville Shoreline Preserve area 3.5 

Adopt minor variations to avoid specific features or resources 3.5 

Incorporate private landowner input to alignment 3.5 

Cumulative Impacts

Potential for cumulative impacts from siting numerous utilities within the same corridor 4.13 

Potential for new corridors created by the proposed pipeline to encourage development of 

future utility lines in the same corridor and result in cumulative impacts 

4.13 

Potential for increased greenhouse gas emissions associated with construction from the 

natural gas transported in the pipeline to contribute toward global warming 

4.13.13 

1.4 NON-JURISDICTIONAL FACILITIES 

Under Section 7 of the NGA, the FERC is required to consider, as part of its decision to authorize 

interstate natural gas facilities, all factors bearing on the public convenience and necessity. Occasionally, 

proposed projects have associated facilities that do not come under the jurisdiction of the Commission. 

These “non-jurisdictional” facilities may be integral to the need for the proposed facilities (e.g., a power 

plant at the end of a FERC-jurisdictional pipeline), or they may be merely associated as minor, nonintegral components of the jurisdictional facilities that would be constructed and operated as a result of 

Certification of the proposed facilities. 

The FERC has adopted a four-factor procedure to determine whether there is sufficient federal 

control and responsibility over a project as a whole to warrant environmental analysis of portions of the 

project outside the Commission’s direct sphere of responsibility. These factors are: 

 whether the regulated activity comprises “merely a link” in a corridor type project (e.g., a 

transportation or utility transmission project); 

1-10
 whether there are aspects of the non-jurisdictional facility in the immediate vicinity of the 

regulated activity which uniquely determine the location and configuration of the regulated 

activity; 

 the extent to which the entire project will be within the FERC’s jurisdiction; and 

 the extent of cumulative federal control and responsibility. 

Two non-jurisdictional facilities have been identified in association with the Project: an addition 

to an existing electrical generation plant, and an approximately 1.4-mile-long electrical distribution line to 

the proposed Milford Compressor Station (PacifiCorp electrical distribution line). 

NV Energy is currently constructing a new, natural gas-fired, 500-megawatt (MW) combinedcycle electrical generation unit at its existing Harry Allen Plant, approximately 25 miles north of Las 

Vegas, in Clark County, Nevada. The Apex Expansion Project would increase the throughput of the Kern 

River Gas Transmission System and allow Kern River to provide natural gas transportation to the plant 

through the existing interconnection with NV Energy. The new unit would require construction of a 500-

kilovolt (kV) interconnection at the plant and approximately 0.5 mile of 500-kV transmission line from 

the plant to NV Energy’s existing transmission system. The electrical transmission line would be 

reviewed by the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada as required by Nevada’s Utility Environmental 

Protection Act. If the transmission line crosses BLM or other federal lands, or if the project results in 

impacts on jurisdictional wetlands or streams, federal approvals would be required and the project will be 

reviewed under NEPA by the agencies with jurisdiction. The transmission line associated with the plant 

will also be subject to local permit requirements. 

The new generation unit is currently under construction. After applying the four-factor procedure 

to the facilities proposed by NV Energy, we determined that the FERC’s control and responsibility is not 

sufficient to extend our environmental review to include the non-jurisdictional generation unit or NV 

Energy’s electric facilities for the reasons listed below: 

 First, Kern River’s Project is clearly a link in a corridor type project. The Project would supply 

natural gas from western suppliers to the respective power plant at an existing interconnection. 

 As to the second factor, there are no aspects of the non-jurisdictional facilities that uniquely 

determine the location and configuration of the Project. Kern River plans to provide natural gas 

to NV Energy at an existing interconnection, and no aspect of the non-jurisdictional facilities 

impact the location of Kern River’s proposed facilities. 

 In consideration of the third factor, none of the environmental reviews for the power plant 

addition activities or the electric power supplier facilities are within the FERC’s jurisdiction. 

 The fourth factor, the extent of cumulative federal control and responsibility over the nonjurisdictional facilities, is minimal. The new power plant has already undergone a NEPA review 

by the BLM (supplemental EIS issued November 2009) and is currently under construction. 

To provide electrical power to the proposed Milford Compressor Station, PacifiCorp would build 

an approximately 1.4-mile-long 7.2 kV electrical distribution line from an existing 46-kV electrical subtransmission line. The proposed line would be supported on single wood pole (raptor-safe) type 

structures. This electrical distribution line would be built at the request of Kern River and would be for 

the sole use of the proposed Milford Compressor Station. Although the environmental review for the 

non-jurisdictional facility is not within the FERC’s jurisdiction, the new electrical distribution line would 

cross land managed by the BLM and require a Right-of-Way Grant from the BLM. As a result, the BLM 

has requested that this EIS also include the NEPA review of the electrical distribution line. A separate 

1-11
right-of-way grant would be issued pursuant to Title V of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

for the electrical distribution line. Applying the four-factor analysis, we have determined that the 

cumulative federal control regarding this non-jurisdictional facility warrants that our environmental 

review include the electrical distribution line. Therefore, we have included a summary of the 

environmental impacts of the electrical distribution line in each resource section. In addition, the 

electrical distribution line would also be under the jurisdiction of the Utah Public Service Commission 

and subject to local permitting requirements. 

1.5 PERMITS, APPROVALS, AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 

The FERC, the BLM, and the USFS are required to comply with Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (ESA), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act (BGEPA), Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), and Section 

307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), where applicable. The Project would not be 

within marine environments or designated coastal zones, nor would it affect anadromous fish species;7

therefore, the reviews under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and CZMA do not apply to the Apex Expansion 

Project. The requirements for compliance with the applicable acts are presented below. 

In addition, there are federal permits and approval authority required for the proposed Project that 

are outside of the FERC’s jurisdiction. Those include compliance with the Clean Water Act (CWA) and 

the Clean Air Act (CAA). Further, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) authorizes the 

Commission to establish a schedule for all federal authorizations and to maintain a consolidated record of 

decisions for judicial review. Each of these statutes has been taken into account in the preparation of this 

EIS. 

Section 7 of the ESA, as amended, states that any project authorized, funded, or conducted by any 

federal agency (such as, the FERC) should not “...jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered 

species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species 

which is determined...to be critical...” (16 United States Code [USC] Section 1536[a][2][1988]). The 

FERC, or Kern River as a non-federal party, is required to consult with the FWS to determine whether 

any federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered species or their designated critical habitats 

occur in the vicinity of the proposed Project. If, upon review of existing data, it is determined that species 

or habitats may be affected by the proposed Project, the FERC is required to initiate informal consultation 

with FWS. If species or habitats would be affected, the FERC is required to prepare a Biological 

Assessment (BA) to identify the nature and extent of adverse impacts and to recommend measures that 

would avoid the species and/or habitats or would reduce potential impacts to acceptable levels. However, 

if the FERC determines that no federally listed or proposed endangered or threatened species or their 

designated critical habitats would be affected by the proposed Project, no further action is necessary under 

the ESA. Further information on potential impacts on federally listed species is presented in section 4.7 

of this EIS. 

The MBTA implements various treaties and conventions between the United States, Canada, 

Japan, Mexico, and the former Soviet Union for the protection of migratory birds. Birds protected under 

the act include all common songbirds, waterfowl, shorebirds, hawks, owls, eagles, ravens, crows, native 

doves and pigeons, swifts, martins, swallows, and others, including their body parts (e.g., feathers or 

plumes), nests, and eggs. The MBTA makes it unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture, or kill; attempt to 

take, capture, or kill; possess, offer to or sell, barter, purchase, deliver, or cause to be shipped, exported, 

 

7

 Anadromous fish are fish that migrate up rivers from the ocean to spawn in fresh waters. 

1-12
imported, transported, carried, or received any migratory bird, part, nest, egg or product, manufactured or 

not. This EIS discusses compliance with the MBTA in section 4.5.4. 

The BGEPA prohibits knowingly taking, or taking with wanton disregard for the consequences of 

an activity, any bald or golden eagle or their body parts, nests, chicks, or eggs, which includes collection, 

molestation, disturbance, or killing. The BGEPA protections include provisions not included in the 

MBTA, such as the protection of unoccupied nests and the definition of take that includes the prohibition 

of disturbing eagles. The BGEPA includes limited exceptions to its prohibitions through a permitting 

process, including exceptions to take golden eagle nests that interfere with resource development or 

recovery operations. Compliance with the BGEPA is addressed in section 4.5.4 of this EIS. 

Section 106 of the NHPA, as amended, requires the FERC to take into account the effects of its 

undertakings on properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP), including prehistoric or historic sites, districts, buildings, structures, objects, or properties of 

traditional religious or cultural importance. The NHPA also requires the FERC to afford the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) an opportunity to comment on the undertaking. In accordance 

with ACHP procedures, the FERC, as the lead agency, is required to consult with cooperating agencies 

and the appropriate State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) regarding the NRHP eligibility of cultural 

resources and the potential effects of the proposed undertaking on those NRHP-listed or NRHP-eligible 

cultural resources. The FERC has requested that Kern River, as a non-federal party, assist in meeting the 

FERC’s obligation under Section 106 by preparing the necessary information and analyses, as required by 

the ACHP procedures in 36 CFR 800. The status of this review is presented in section 4.10 of this EIS. 

Kern River would be required to comply with Sections 401, 402, and 404 of the CWA. The EPA 

has delegated water quality certification (Section 401) and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permitting authority (Section 402) to the jurisdiction of agencies in each of the states 

where Project facilities are proposed to be located. The EPA may assume this authority if a state program 

is not functioning adequately, or at the request of a state. Water used for hydrostatic testing that results in 

a point-source discharge into waterbodies requires an NPDES permit issued by each state. Water quality 

and applicable regulations are addressed in section 4.3 of this EIS. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has responsibility for determining compliance with the 

regulatory requirements of Section 404 of the CWA. EPA also independently reviews Section 404 

wetland dredge-and-fill applications for the COE and has Section 404(c) veto power for wetland permits 

issued by the COE. Section 404 of the CWA regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into 

waters of the United States. In addition to the CWA, the COE has responsibilities under Section 10 of the 

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. 

The COE may issue an individual permit or a nationwide permit (NWP) for natural gas pipelines 

that affect wetlands. A NWP is a type of general permit designed to authorize certain activities that have 

minimal adverse effects to the aquatic environment and generally comply with the related laws cited in 

33 CFR 320.3. Kern River is applying for a NWP 12 (Utilities). This NWP would be evaluated for 

compliance with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, including Subparts C through G. For issuance of a 

NWP 12, the COE must determine that the discharges authorized by a NWP 12 comply with those 

guidelines with the inclusion of appropriate and practicable conditions, including mitigation, necessary to 

minimize adverse effects to affected aquatic ecosystems. Further discussion of wetlands affected by the 

Project is provided in section 4.3. 

Ambient air quality is protected by federal regulations under the CAA. These regulations include 

compliance under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and requirements for the Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD). The EPA has delegated the federal permitting process for the CAA to 

1-13
each of the states where Project facilities are proposed to be located. Although applications are reviewed 

by both the states and the EPA, the states would determine the need for an NSPS or a PSD permit. Air 

quality and applicable regulations are discussed in section 4.11.1 of this EIS. 

The major permits, approvals, and consultations required for the proposed Project are identified 

in table 1.5-1. In addition, Kern River would need to obtain permits from counties and/or municipalities 

along the route (such as permits for road, highway, and flood channel encroachment and crossings; and 

temporary use and occupancy permits). Kern River would be responsible for obtaining all permits and 

approvals to construct and operate the proposed Apex Expansion Project, regardless of whether they 

appear in this table. 

TABLE 1.5-1 

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations 

for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Agency Permit/Approval/Consultation Agency Action Status 

FEDERAL 

FERC Certificate of Public 

Convenience and Necessity 

under Section 7(c) of the NGA 

Determine whether the 

construction and operation 

of the natural gas pipeline 

and associated facilities 

are in the public interest, 

and consider issuing a 

Certificate. 

Application for 

Certificate under 

review (filed 

November 2, 2009) 

Prepare EIS under Section 102 

of the NEPA and Section 2 of 

Executive Order 11514 

Prepare an EIS to 

describe the effects of the 

proposed Project on the 

environment, plans to 

mitigate the effects of the 

proposed Project, and 

alternatives to the 

proposed Project. 

Draft EIS issued 

Right-of-Way Grant and 

Temporary Use Permit under 

Section 28 of the MLA 

Consider issuing a rightof-way grant through BLM, 

USFS, or other federally 

administered lands for the 

proposed facilities and 

consider authorizing 

temporary work areas 

during construction. 

Consultations initiated 

in May 2008; 

application filed April 

9, 2009 

Consultation under Section 106 

of the NHPA 

Comment on the effects of 

the proposed Project on 

properties listed or eligible 

for listing on the NRHP. 

Consultations in 

progress 

BLM 

Sensitive Species Consultation 

(BLM Manual Chapter 6840) 

Comment on sensitive 

species on land 

administered by the BLM. 

Consultations in 

progress 

Cooperating agency for EIS 

under Section 204 of NEPA 

Assist the FERC with 

preparation of the EIS and 

use the EIS as part of its 

NEPA review process for 

consideration of issuing a 

Right-of-Way Grant and 

Temporary Use Permit 

decision process. 

Ongoing 

1-14
TABLE 1.5-1 (continued) 

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations 

for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Agency Permit/Approval/Consultation Agency Action Status 

FEDERAL (continued) 

FWS Consultations regarding 

compliance with Section 7 of 

the ESA 

Consider the FERC’s 

finding of impact on 

federally listed and 

proposed species and 

their critical habitat, and 

provide Biological Opinion 

if the action is likely to 

adversely affect federally 

listed or proposed species 

or their critical habitat. 

Consultations in 

progress 

Migratory Bird Consultation 

under Section 3 of Executive 

Order 13186 

Comment on the proposed 

Project and its effects to 

listed migratory birds. 

In progress 

Fish and Wildlife Consultation 

under Section 2 of the Fish and 

Wildlife Coordination Act 

Comment on the 

impoundment, diversion, 

channelization, control, or 

modification of 

waterbodies for the Project 

and the effects to fish and 

wildlife. 

In progress 

Consultation on the Right-ofWay Grant and Temporary Use 

Permit under Section 28 of the 

MLA 

Consider concurring with 

the right-of-way grant and 

temporary use permits that 

would be issued by the 

BLM. 

In progress 

U.S. Department of 

Defense, U.S. Army 

Corp of Engineers 

(COE), Utah 

Regulatory Office 

Section 404 of the CWA Consider issuing an 

individual permit or 

authorization under the 

Nationwide Permit 

Program for the discharge 

of dredge or fill material 

into waters of the United 

States, including wetlands. 

Application under 

review (submitted 

November 20, 2010) 

USFS Concurrence for Right-of-Way 

Grant for Uinta-Wasatch-Cache 

National Forest 

Consider providing 

concurrence to the BLM to 

issue the right-of-way 

grant. 

Application under 

review (submitted 

March 10, 2009) 

LMRP Amendments under 

Section 6 of the National Forest 

Management Act 

Consider amending the 

LRMP for the UintaWasatch-Cache National 

Forest to allow the 

proposed Project. 

Application under 

review (submitted 

November 2, 2009) 

Consultation on the BLM Rightof-Way Grant and Temporary 

Use Permit under Section 28 of 

the MLA 

Consider concurring with 

the right-of-way grant and 

temporary use permits that 

would be issued by the 

BLM. 

Application under 

review (submitted 

November 2, 2009) 

1-15
TABLE 1.5-1 (continued) 

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations 

for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Agency Permit/Approval/Consultation Agency Action Status 

FEDERAL (continued) 

USFS (continued) Cooperating agency for EIS 

under Section 204 of NEPA 

Assist the FERC with 

preparation of the EIS and 

use the EIS as part of its 

NEPA review. 

Ongoing 

Reclamation Consultation on the Right-ofWay Grant and Temporary Use 

Permit under Section 28 of the 

MLA 

Consider concurring with 

the right-of-way rant and 

temporary use permits that 

would be issued by the 

BLM. 

N/A at this time 

Consent Document for 

Easement Encroachment under 

Section 10 of the Reclamation 

Project Act 

Consider authorizing 

encroachment on 

Reclamation-administered 

easements. 

N/A at this time 

Cooperating agency for EIS 

under Section 204 of NEPA 

Assist the FERC with 

preparation of the EIS and 

use the EIS as a part of 

the NEPA review in 

considering authorizing 

the Easement 

Encroachment if the 

alternative route is 

selected. 

Ongoing 

U.S. Department of 

Transportation 

(USDOT), Pipeline 

and Hazardous 

Materials 

Administration, 

Office of Pipeline 

Safety 

Approval of Integrity 

Management Plan under 49 

CFR 192 

Review and consider 

approval of Integrity 

Management Plan. 

Plan to be filed prior to 

initiation of operation 

USDOT, Federal 

Highway 

Administration 

Encroachment Permit Consider issuing 

encroachment permit for 

crossing federally funded 

highways that are not in 

accordance with Utah 

Accommodation Policy 

R933. 

Application under 

review (submitted 

December 30, 2009) 

EPA, Region VIII Section 404 of the CWA Review Section 404 

applications to the COE 

for dredge-and-fill 

activities and consider 

exercising veto power over 

COE permit. 

Application under 

review (submitted 

November 20, 2010) 

Section 401 of the CWA Consider issuance of 

water use and crossing 

permits, in conjunction 

with state agencies. 

In progress with EIS 

review 

1-16
TABLE 1.5-1 (continued) 

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations 

for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Agency Permit/Approval/Consultation Agency Action Status 

FEDERAL (continued) 

EPA, Region VIII 

(continued) 

Section 402 of the CWA, 

National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System permit 

Review and issue NPDES 

permit for hydrostatic test 

water discharge in 

conjunction with state 

agencies. 

In progress with EIS 

review 

Stormwater Discharge Permit, 

CWA 

Review and issue 

stormwater permit for 

construction activities in 

conjunction with state 

agencies. 

In progress with EIS 

review 

Review EIS under Section 309 

of the Clean Air Act 

Comment on the EIS and 

consider appealing to the 

CEQ. 

Draft EIS issued and 

under review 

U.S. Department of 

Treasury, Bureau of 

Alcohol, Tobacco, 

and Firearms 

Treasury Department Order No. 

120-1, Permit to Purchase 

Explosives for Blasting 

Consider issuing an 

Explosive User Permit for 

trench blasting. 

Application to be 

submitted August, 

2010 

ACHP Consultation under Section 106 

of the NHPA 

Has opportunity to 

comment on the 

undertaking. 

As necessary 

CEQ Review EIS under Section 204 

of NEPA and Section 3 of 

Executive Order 11514 

Review and mediate 

interagency 

disagreements about 

findings of the EIS, if 

requested. 

Will review EIS after 

issuance 

STATE 

Utah 

Utah Department of 

Community and 

Culture, Division of 

State History, SHPO 

Consultation under Section 106 

of the NHPA 

Comment on the effects of 

the proposed Project on 

properties listed or eligible 

for listing on NRHP. 

Report submitted in 

December 2010 

Utah Department of 

Environmental 

Quality (UDEQ), 

Division of Air 

Quality 

Construction Permit under Title 

I of the CAA 

Consider issuing a permit 

to construct a new source 

of air emissions 

associated with the Milford 

compressor station and 

compressor station 

expansions. 

Application under 

review (submitted 

November 2, 2009) 

Operating Permit under Title V 

of the CAA 

Consider issuing a permit 

to operate a major source 

of air emissions 

associated with the Milford 

compressor station and 

compressor station 

expansions. 

Application under 

review (submitted 

November 2, 2009) 

1-17
TABLE 1.5-1 (continued) 

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations 

for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Agency Permit/Approval/Consultation Agency Action Status 

STATE (continued) 

Utah (continued) 

UDEQ, Division of 

Air Quality 

(continued) 

Dust Control Plan Consider approval of a 

Dust Control Plan for 

construction. 

Application to be 

submitted in 2010 

Notice of Intent I under General 

Permits UTR100000 and 

UTG070000 

Issue Notice of Intent. Application under 

review (submitted 

November 2, 2009) 

UDEQ, Division of 

Water Quality 

Water Quality Certification 

under Section 401 of the CWA 

Consider issuing water 

quality certification for 

permits authorized under 

Sections 402 and 404 of 

the CWA. 

Application under 

review (submitted 

November 20, 2009) 

NPDES Storm Water Permit 

under Section 402 of the CWA 

Consider authorizing 

storm water discharges 

associated with 

construction under the 

General Permit. 

Application to be 

submitted March 2010 

NPDES Waste Water 

Discharge Permit under 

Section 402 of the CWA 

Consider authorizing 

hydrostatic test water 

discharges under the 

General Permit. 

Application to be 

submitted March 2010 

Groundwater Quality Protection 

Permit under state statutes 

Consider issuing a permit 

for hydrostatic test water 

discharges to the ground. 

Application under 

review (submitted 

December 30, 2009) 

Construction Dewatering 

Permit 

Consider issuing a permit 

for discharge of intruded 

water from construction 

excavation to land or U.S. 

waters. 

Application to be 

submitted March 2010 

Storm Drain Permit Consider issuing a permit 

if compression facilities 

are proposed. 

Application to be 

submitted in March 

2010 

UDEQ Division of 

Drinking Water 

Consultation Consultations regarding 

potential impacts on 

drinking water sources. 

In progress 

Utah Department of 

Natural Resources 

(UDNR), Division of 

Water Rights 

Stream Channel Alteration 

Permit under Section 404 of the 

CWA and state statutes 

Consider issuing a permit 

for stream channel 

alteration and the 

discharge of dredge or fill 

material into waters of the 

United States. The State 

of Utah authorizes 

activities under Section 

404 of the CWA under an 

agreement with the COE. 

Application under 

review ( submitted 

November 20, 2009) 

1-18
TABLE 1.5-1 (continued) 

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations 

for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Agency Permit/Approval/Consultation Agency Action Status 

STATE (continued) 

Utah (continued) 

UDNR, Division of 

Water Rights 

(continued) 

Water Rights Transfer Consider issuance of a 

permit for the transfer of 

water rights for hydrostatic 

testing. 

Application to be 

submitted April 2010 

UDNR, Division of 

Wildlife Resources, 

Northern Region 

Consultation under 18 CFR 

380.12(e)(8) 

Comment on the effects of 

the proposed Project on 

wildlife, fisheries, 

vegetation, and statelisted species. 

In progress 

UDNR, Division of 

Forestry, Fire and 

State Lands 

Approval of Soil Erosion, 

Sedimentation Control, and 

Spill Control Plans 

Coordinate with local 

conservation districts, 

recommend erosion 

control measures, and 

consider approval of plan. 

Plans to be submitted 

February 2010 

Utah Department of 

Transportation 

Statewide Utility License 

Agreement under state statutes 

(Encroachment Permit) 

Consider issuing a license 

for crossing or sharing 

state highway rights-ofway. 

Application under 

review ( submitted 

December 30, 2009) 

Utah Transit 

Authority (UTA) 

Encroachment permit Consider issuing a permit 

for any activities affecting 

Utah Transit Authority 

routes. 

Application under 

review (submitted 

December 30, 2009) 

Wyoming

Department of State 

Parks and Cultural 

Resources, SHPO 

Consultations under Section 

106 of the NHPA 

Comment on the effects of 

the proposed Project on 

properties listed or eligible 

for listing on the NRHP. 

Complete. Letter 

dated May 19, 2009; 

no historic properties 

would be affected 

Wyoming 

Department of 

Environmental 

Quality (WDEQ), 

Water Quality 

Division 

Wyoming Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (WPDES) 

General Permit for Temporary 

Discharge 

Consider issuing a 

General permit for 

discharge of hydrostatic 

test water. 

Application submitted 

February 2010 

WPDES General Permit for 

Stormwater Discharges for 

Construction Activities 

Consider authorizing 

storm water discharges 

associated with 

construction under the 

General Permit. 

Application submitted 

February 2010 

WDEQ, Air Quality 

Division 

Construction Permit under Title 

I of the CAA 

Consider issuing a permit 

for a new source of air 

emissions associated with 

construction of the new 

compressor. 

Application under 

review ( submitted 

December 1, 2009) 

1-19
TABLE 1.5-1 (continued) 

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations 

for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Agency Permit/Approval/Consultation Agency Action Status 

STATE (continued) 

Wyoming (continued) 

Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department 

Consultation under 18 CFR 

380.12(e)(8) 

Comment on the effects of 

the proposed Project on 

wildlife, fisheries, 

vegetation, and statelisted species. 

Filed letter with the 

FERC dated May 7, 

2009 stating it had no 

concerns regarding 

effects of the 

proposed Project 

Nevada 

Nevada Department 

of Cultural Affairs, 

SHPO 

Consultation under Section 106 

of the NHPA 

Comment on the proposed 

Project and its effects to 

properties listed on or 

eligible for listing on the 

NRHP. 

Complete. Letter 

dated December 9, 

2009; no historic 

properties would be 

affected 

Nevada Department 

of Conservation and 

Natural Resources 

(NDCNR), Division 

of Environmental 

Protection (DEP), 

Bureau of Water 

Pollution Control 

NPDES Storm Water Permit 

under Section 402 of the CWA 

(Stormwater General Permit) 

Consider authorizing 

storm water discharges 

associated with 

construction under the 

General Permit. 

Application to be 

submitted February 

2010 

NPDES Discharge Permit 

under Section 402 of the CWA 

Consider authorizing 

hydrostatic test water 

discharges under the 

General Permit. 

Application to be 

submitted February 

2010 

NDCNR, Natural 

Heritage Program 

Consultation under 18 CFR 

380.12(e)(8) 

Comment on the proposed 

Project and its effects to 

wildlife, fisheries, 

vegetation, and statelisted species. 

In progress 

LOCAL 

Clark County, Nevada 

Clark County, 

Department of Air 

Quality and 

Environmental 

Management 

Air Quality Permit to Construct 

and Operate 

Consider issuing an 

amendment to the existing 

permit to accommodate a 

new compressor at the 

Dry Lake Compressor 

Station. 

Application under 

review ( submitted 

November, 2009) 

Dust Permit Consider issuing dust 

permit for construction 

activities at the 

compressor station. 

Application to be 

submitted in 2010 

1-20
TABLE 1.5-1 (continued) 

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations 

for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Agency Permit/Approval/Consultation Agency Action Status 

LOCAL (continued) 

Clark County, Nevada (continued) 

Department of 

Building Services 

Building Permit Issuance of building permit 

for upgrades to the 

existing compressor 

station. 

Application to be 

submitted March 2010 

Beaver County, Utah 

Building Inspection 

Department 

Building Permit Issuance of a permit for 

the construction of the 

Milford Compressor 

Station. 

Application to be 

submitted March 2010 

Davis County, Utah

Department of 

Public Works 

Source Water Protection 

Ordinance 

None In progress 

Flood Control Permit Issuance of flood control 

permit for stormwater 

discharge. 

In progress 

Morgan County, Utah 

Planning and 

Development 

Services 

Consultation requested None In progress 

Salt Lake County, Utah 

Public Works—

Engineering Division 

Flood Control Permit Issuance of flood control 

permit for stormwater 

discharge. 

Application to be 

submitted June 2010 

Public Works—

Planning and 

Development 

Services Division 

Grading Permit Issuance of grading 

permit. 

Application submitted 

January 2010 

Utah County, Utah 

Community 

Development 

Building Department 

Building Permit Consider issuing dust 

permit for construction 

activities at the Elberta 

Compressor Station. 

Application submitted 

January 2010 

Uinta County, Wyoming

Community 

Development 

Building Department 

Building Permit Consider issuing dust 

permit for construction 

activities at the Coyote 

Creek Compressor 

Station. 

Application submitted 

January 2010 

1-21
TABLE 1.5-1 (continued) 

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations 

for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Agency Permit/Approval/Consultation Agency Action Status 

LOCAL (continued) 

Bountiful City, Utah 

Encroachment Permit for 

electrical distribution line rightof-way 

Issuance of permit for 

encroachment into the 

existing Bountiful Power 

Right-of-Way. 

Application to be 

submitted May 2010 

North Salt Lake City, Utah 

Road Crossing Permit Issuance of a permit for 

crossing existing city 

roads. 

Application to be 

submitted May 2010 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

Road Crossing Permit Issuance of a permit for 

crossing existing city 

roads. 

Application to be 

submitted May 2010 

Utah Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System(UPDES) 

Permit 

Proof of issuance of permit 

by the state of Utah must 

be provided to Salt Lake 

City. 

Application submitted 

February 2010 

The FERC encourages cooperation between applicants and state and local authorities; however, 

state and local agencies, through the application of state and local laws, may not prohibit or unreasonably 

delay the construction or operation of facilities approved by the FERC. Any state or local permits issued 

with respect to jurisdictional facilities must be consistent with the conditions of any authorization issued 

by the FERC.8

 

1.6 CONFORMANCE WITH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS 

As described above, the BLM is participating as a cooperating agency in preparation of the EIS 

and has jurisdiction over lands that would be crossed by the proposed Project. Under Section 28, as 

amended in Section 185(f), of the MLA of 1920, the BLM has the authority to issue right-of-way grants 

and temporary use permits for all affected federal lands; those actions would be accomplished in 

accordance with 43 CFR 2880, the subsequent 2880 Manual, and Handbook 2801-1. Kern River would 

need to obtain an amendment to its existing Right-of-Way Grant as well as a Temporary Use Permit from 

the BLM for crossing BLM-managed lands. 

As also described above, the Forest Service is also participating as a cooperating agency in 

preparation of the EIS. This includes ensuring occupancy and use of NFS lands is in accordance with the 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP)2

, and if not amending the 

LRMP before concurring with the BLM’s issuance of a Right-of-Way. Subgoal 12d of the LRMP states 

 

8

 For example, see Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co., 485 U.S. 293 (1988); National Fuel Gas Supply v. Public 

Service Commission, 894 F.2d 571 (2n Cir. 1990); and Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P., et al., 

52 FERC 61,091 (1990) and 59 FERC 61,094 (1992). 

1-22
that currently designated utility corridors be used fully for power transmission lines of 66kV or greater 

and oil and gas pipelines that are 10 inches in diameter or greater. This direction was recently clarified in 

Amendment #9 to the Wasatch-Cache LRMP to require the use of designated corridors to the extent 

practical. A portion of the proposed alignment of the Wasatch Loop is not within one of the ten 

designated utility corridors on the Forest. For construction to occur, the Wasatch-Cache LRMP would 

not have to be amended; however, analysis has been included to describe why the use of designated 

corridors is not feasible. The proposed Apex Expansion Project pipeline alignment would not become a 

designated Forest Plan corridor. 

Within the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest (NF or UWCNF), the proposed Project is 

inconsistent with management direction in the Wasatch-Cache LRMP. Access roads proposed as part of 

the Project are not consistent with management direction for Prescription 4.2. This is described in further 

detail below. 

The proposed pipeline alignment is within the North Wasatch Ogden Valley Management Area. 

The broad management prescriptions assigned to the area where the pipeline, access roads, and staging 

areas are proposed include areas where different resources are emphasized. The following prescriptions 

would be affected by 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. A 1-acre staging area is proposed in this prescription. 

 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. 

 Emphasis on Recreation Motorized Settings (4.4): These areas provide recreation opportunities 

within a range of semi-primitive to rural settings. 

 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. 

With each of these management prescriptions is 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 plan amendment. In the Wasatch-Cache LRMP, guidelines are defined as 

statements describing 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 that the rationale for such 

deviation 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 standards and guidelines are relevant to the Wasatch Loop portion of the Apex 

Expansion Project: 

 (S3.1W) Timber harvest, road construction and new recreation facility development are not 

allowed; 

 (S4.2) Timber harvest and road construction are not allowed; 

1-23
1-24

 (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; and 

 (G6.1-3) Road construction, new recreation development, and new trail construction are allowed. 
2.0 PROPOSED ACTION 

2.1 PROPOSED FACILITIES 

The proposed Project would consist of a 28-mile-long pipeline loop, one new compressor station, 

modifications to four existing compressor stations, and other associated aboveground facilities. 

Figure 1-1 is an overview map depicting the proposed locations of Project facilities; more detailed maps 

with the proposed locations of the pipeline route and aboveground facilities are provided in Appendix B. 

2.1.1 Pipeline Facilities 

Kern River proposes to construct, operate, and maintain approximately 28.0 miles of new 

36-inch-diameter interstate natural gas transmission pipeline in Utah (termed the Wasatch Loop). The 

proposed Wasatch Loop would extend southwest from a connection to the existing Kern River Gas 

Transmission System pipeline at existing Kern River milepost (KRMP) 96.4 in Morgan County (Wasatch 

Loop milepost [MP] 0.0), traverse Davis and Salt Lake Counties, and end at a connection to the existing 

Kern River Gas Transmission System pipeline at KRMP 124.5 (MP 28.0) in Salt Lake County. 

Figure 2.1.1-1 depicts the proposed route of the Wasatch Loop. 

The pipeline would be designed to provide approximately 266 MMcf/d of natural gas. The 

maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of the pipeline would be 1,333 pounds per square inch 

gauge (psig). 

2.1.2 Aboveground Facilities 

The Project would include one new compressor station; one new gas-fired, turbine-driven, 

centrifugal compressor at each of three existing compressor stations; replacement of a compressor at an 

existing compressor station; six MLVs to control the flow of gas within the pipeline; three pig launchers 

and two pig receivers. Table 2.1.2-1 lists aboveground facilities by facility type, milepost, and county. 

The proposed Milford Compressor Station would be located in Beaver County, Utah. Major 

equipment to be installed at the Milford Compressor Station includes a new Titan 250 compressor, three 

filet/separator units, a gas cooler, two MLVs, two pig launchers, and two pig receivers. A site plan for the 

proposed Milford Compressor Station is presented in figure 2.1.2-1. Additional compression would be 

installed at the Coyote Creek Compressor Station in Uinta County, Wyoming; the Elberta Compressor 

Station in Utah County, Utah; and the Dry Lake Compressor Station in Clark County, Nevada. At each of 

those compressor stations, a new Mars 100 compressor would be installed and the existing compressors at 

those stations would be “restaged” (adjusted) to accommodate the reduced flow through the existing 

compressors that would occur with use of both the existing compressors and the new compressors. The 

replacement compressor would be installed at the Fillmore Compressor Station in Millard County, Utah. 

Table 2.1.2-1 lists the locations and horsepower of the compressor stations. 

During a previous looping project, Kern River installed equipment in anticipation of a future loop 

to close the gap between KRMP 96.4 and KRMP 124.5. One of the two existing MLVs at MLV 

station 96 would be connected to the proposed pipeline at MP 0.0, and one of the MLVs at MLV 

station 124 would be connected to the Wasatch Loop at MP 28.0. Two new additional MLVs would be 

installed along the route at MPs 7.1 and 24.6. At the Milford Compressor Station, two new MLVs would 

be installed, one on each of the two existing Kern River pipelines (the mainline and the existing loop 

line). Table 2.1.2-1 lists the locations of each of the MLVs. 

2-1
!A

!A

!A

!A !A

!A

215

§ ̈¦

15

§ ̈¦

65 UV

66 UV

Bountiful

Farmington

Canyon Rim

Centerville

Salt Lake City

South Salt Lake

5 

28 25

20

15

10

CA

AZ

NV

NM

OR

CO

WY

UT

Date: March 2010 

APEX EXPAN

PROPOSED W

0 2.5 5 1.25

Miles

Project Area

 ̄

Legend

!A Milepost

Proposed Wasatch Loop

Utility Corridor

UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Private lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

USFS-managed lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Roadless Areas

2-2
TABLE 2.1.2-1 

Aboveground Facilities for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Horsepowera

Facility 

County and 

State Milepostb Existing Additional 

New Milford Compressor Station Beaver, Utah KRMP 326.9 - 30,000 

Additional Compressor, Existing 

Coyote Creek Compressor Station 

Uinta, Wyoming KRMP 60.1 15,000 16,000 

Additional Compressor, Existing 

Elberta Compressor Station 

Utah, Utah KRMP 191.6 15,000 16,000 

Additional Compressor, Existing 

Dry Lake Compressor Station 

Clark, Nevada KRMP 500.1 15,000 16,000 

Replace Compressor, Existing 

Fillmore Compressor Station 

Millard, Utah KRMP 276.7 30,000 - 

MLV 96B Morgan, Utah MP 0.0c - - 

MLV 103B Morgan, Utah MP 7.1 - - 

MLV 121B Salt Lake, Utah MP 24.6 - - 

MLV 124B Salt Lake, Utah MP 28.0c - - 

2 MLVs at the Milford Compressor 

Station (one on the mainline, one 

on the existing loop line) 

Beaver, Utah KRMP 326.9 - - 

1 Pig Launcher Morgan, Utah MP 0.0 - - 

2 Pig Launchers and Pig 

Receivers at the Milford 

Compressor Station 

Beaver, Utah KRMP 326.9 - - 

____________ 

Notes: 

a

 Horsepower presented as ISO (International Organization for Standardization) rating. 

b

 KRMP = mainline (Kern River gas transmission pipeline) milepost; MP = Wasatch Loop milepost. 

c

 Mainline Valve (MLV) 96B and MLV 124B were constructed during a previous action but would be connected to the 

Wasatch Loop as a part of the proposed Apex Expansion Project. 

2-3
Date: March 2010

Not to Scale APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

Plot Plan for the Proposed Milford Compressor Station

Figure 2.1.2-1

PacifiCorp Electrical Distribution Line

2-4
An existing pig launcher barrel at MLV station 124 (MP 28.0) would be relocated to MLV 

station 96 (MP 0.0). Figure 2.1.2-2 is a plan view of the MLV and pig launcher and pig receiver at 

MP 0.0. Two new pig launchers and pig receivers would be installed at the Milford Compressor Station, 

one on the mainline and one on the existing loop line (see figure 2.1.2-1). 

There would not be any metering stations installed for the Apex Expansion Project. 

2.1.3 Cathodic Protection System 

The pipeline would be protected from corrosion by an impressed current cathodic protection 

system in accordance with USDOT Regulations under 49 CFR 192 (Transportation of Natural and Other 

Gas by Pipeline: Minimum Federal Safety Standards). The cathodic protection system impresses a direct 

current on the pipe and a ground-bed of sacrificial anodes that would corrode instead of the pipe. The 

main components of the system are anode beds, rectifiers, and test stations. 

As specified by 49 CFR 192, aboveground cathodic protection system test stations would be 

located at about 1-mile intervals along the pipeline route. A cathodic protection system test station 

typically consists of test wires within a metal conduit, leading to a junction box. The conduit is supported 

with a painted metal punched post. 

A testing terminal is located at the top of the pipe that can be accessed by operations personnel to 

measure the current and determine the potential for corrosion. Kern River proposes to use the existing 

cathodic protection sites that are on the existing Kern River system. If testing indicates that additions to 

the system are necessary, Kern River would identify new sites or upgrade the existing system. New sites 

for the Project would be within either the existing Kern River right-of-way or the proposed Project rightof-way. 

2.1.4 PacifiCorp Electrical Distribution Line 

PacifiCorp would construct an approximately 1.4-mile-long 7.2 kV electrical distribution line 

from an existing 46-kV electrical sub-transmission line out of the South Milford Substation. This line 

would extend south from the substation along Imperial Avenue to the proposed Milford Compressor 

Station. The line would be supported on single wood pole “EJ” (raptor safe) type structures. The 

transmission line would cross about 1.1 miles (encompassing 3.43 acres) of BLM public land located in 

Beaver County, Utah. PacifiCorp proposes a right-of-way width of 25 feet, with the transmission line 

centered within the right-of-way. The power line is designed for and would operate at 72 kV for 30 years. 

The power line would require 23-single wood pole structures on BLM public land, and 9-single wood 

pole structures on private lands; no access road would be required for the placement of poles. All areas 

necessary for the construction and maintenance of the transmission line would be within the 25-foot-wide 

right-of-way. No toxic substances are proposed for use or storage, or would be generated or used during 

any phase of construction, and/or used for any phase of the electrical distribution line. Where 

appropriate, specific effects from the construction and operation of the electrical distribution line may be 

analyzed separately within the resource discussions throughout this EIS. However, if the effects are 

similar to those associated with the proposed Milford Compressor Station, then the analysis will be 

detailed within the discussion of the compressor station. 

2-5
Date: March 2010

Not to Scale APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

Plot Plan for the Mainline Valve, Pig Launcher, and Pig 

Receiver at Milepost 0.0

Figure 2.1.2-2

2-6
2.2 LAND REQUIREMENTS 

Construction of the proposed pipeline would disturb a total of about 395.5 acres of land, 

including the pipeline construction right-of-way and additional temporary workspaces (ATWSs). Pipe 

yards, staging areas, contractor yards, and offloading sites would disturb 213.5 acres of land depending on 

which sites are selected, as described below. Construction of the Milford Compressor Station would 

disturb about 33.2 acres of land, and construction of 1 new temporary access road and modifications to 

35 existing roads would disturb 6.0 acres of land.1

 Operation of the Project would require a total of about 

246.6 acres of which 169.5 acres would be required for the permanent pipeline right-of-way and new 

aboveground facility sites along the route, and 33.2 acres would be required for the Milford Compressor 

Station. The 169.5 acres of land required for the permanent right-of-way includes approximately 

24.8 acres of existing right-of-way from the overlapping of the Wasatch Loop right-of-way with the Kern 

River Mainline right-of-way. Finally, 15 of the existing roads encompassing 43.9 acres would be 

maintained as permanent access roads. 

A more detailed description of land use and requirements is presented in section 4.8. If the 

proposed Project is approved, Kern River’s construction and operation work areas would be limited to the 

areas described in this EIS and any subsequent Commission authorizations. 

2.2.1 Pipeline Right-of-Way 

Kern River would use a 100-foot-wide construction right-of-way for a majority of the proposed 

pipeline route. In addition to the construction right-of-way, ATWS would be required in areas such as the 

following: 

 where the proposed route crosses roadways, railroads, waterbodies, wetlands, or other 

utilities; 

 areas of steep terrain and areas with other construction constraints that require special 

construction techniques; 

 locations with soil stability concerns; 

 where topsoil segregation is required, possibly including construction along lands managed 

by the USFS or BLM; 

 truck turnarounds; 

 hydrostatic test water withdrawal and discharge locations; and 

 staging and fabrication areas. 

Figure 2.2.1-1 illustrates a typical construction right-of-way. 

In general, Kern River proposes to install the pipeline approximately 35 feet from the existing 

mainline to allow for construction activities and maintenance of soil stability around the existing pipeline. 

However, Kern River’s field investigations identified 18 locations where the proposed pipeline would be 

parallel to the mainline but construction would require a non-standard parallel offset (NSPO) greater than 

Kern River’s standard offset of 35 feet. These NSPOs range from 36 to 85 feet and would generally be 

associated with steep terrain; highway, road, and waterbody crossings; crossings of other utility lines; 

restricted right-of-way availability; or where aboveground features are within 25 feet of the existing line.

 

1

 A total of 37 existing roads (of which 35 would require modifications) and one new temporary access road

would be used during construction. 

2-7
Date: March 2010

Not to Scale APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

Cross-section of a Typical Right-of-Way

Figure 2.2.1-1

2-8
The FERC regulations (18 CFR 380.15[d][1]) give primary consideration to the use, enlargement, 

or extension of existing rights-of-way over developing a new right-of-way in order to reduce potential 

impacts on sensitive resources. In general, installation of new pipeline along existing rights-of-way that 

have been previously cleared (such as pipelines, power lines, roads, or railroads) may be environmentally 

preferable to the development of new rights-of-way. Construction-related effects and cumulative impacts 

can normally be reduced by use of previously cleared rights-of-way; however, in congested or 

environmentally sensitive areas, it may be advantageous to deviate from an existing right-of-way. 

Additionally, collocation may be infeasible in some areas due to a lack of or unsuitably oriented existing 

corridors, engineering and design considerations, or constructability issues. 

Kern River has proposed a route for the Wasatch Loop that is generally parallel to its existing 

right-of-way, the existing right-of-way of Questar Pipeline Company, and the proposed right-of-way for 

the UNEV pipeline. As currently proposed, approximately 18.4 miles (65.7 percent) of the Wasatch Loop 

would be installed near the edge of an existing right-of-way (the proposed pipeline would be 35 feet from 

the existing pipelines). This includes approximately 0.6 mile that is sited to be collocated with the 

proposed UNEV project,2

 which is expected to be constructed by December 2010. The remaining 

approximately 9.6 miles (34.3 percent) of the loop would deviate from these pipeline rights-of-way due to 

topographic and other land use constraints, requiring establishment of new rights-of-way. The lateral 

separation from the existing rights-of-way would be up to about 0.7 mile. Additional information on the 

locations of the proposed pipeline in relation to existing rights-of-way is presented in section 4.8 of the 

EIS. 

In total, the construction right-of-way for the pipeline would temporarily disturb about 

339.2 acres of land. Areas used for extra workspace along the construction right-of-way would affect a 

total of about 56.3 acres during construction. Of the total 395.5 acres, about 51.7 acres were previously 

disturbed during construction of other pipelines. 

Staging areas may be located along the construction right-of-way or off the right-of-way in 

nearby areas and would vary in size. The locations and sizes of ATWSs are presented in Appendix C. 

Restrictions on the use of workspaces and staging areas in or near waterbodies, wetlands, and woody 

riparian areas are discussed in sections 4.2.2.3, 4.3.2.4, 4.3.3.2, and 4.4.3. Although Kern River has 

identified areas where extra workspace would be required, additional or alternative areas could be 

identified in the future due to changes in site-specific construction requirements. Kern River would be 

required to file information on each of those areas for review and approval prior to use. 

Where the Wasatch Loop is collocated with the existing Kern River pipeline, the permanent rightof-way would have a 15-foot overlap where the exiting right-of-way is 50 feet wide and a 27.5-foot 

overlap where the existing right-of-way is 75 feet wide. The permanent right-of-way would require about 

169.5 acres of land. Of that area, about 24.8 acres are currently in permanent right-of-way for existing 

pipelines. After construction is completed, Kern River intends to retain a 50-foot-wide permanent rightof-way to operate the proposed pipeline. 

2.2.2 Aboveground Facilities 

The proposed aboveground facilities include one new compressor station, upgrades of four 

existing compressor stations, six MLVs, three pig launchers, and two pig receivers. Construction and 

operation at the existing compressor stations (Coyote Creek, Elberta, Fillmore, and Dry Lake) would be 

 

2

 The UNEV Pipeline is a 400-mile, 12-inch buried petroleum products line that originates near the refineries in 

North Salt Lake City and ships product from them to a distribution terminal in Iron County, Utah, and a 

terminal in North Las Vegas. The pipeline project has not yet been approved by the BLM. 

2-9
conducted within the existing fence lines and no new area would be affected. Construction and operation 

of the new Milford Compressor Station would impact a total of approximately 33.2 acres. 

Four of the MLVs and one pig launcher would be installed within the proposed pipeline 

construction right-of-way; therefore, the land requirements for those facilities are included in the 

discussion of land requirements for the proposed pipeline (section 2.2.1). The remaining two MLVs, two 

pig launchers, and two pig receivers would be constructed within the boundaries of the Milford 

Compressor Station and are included in the site’s 33.2 acres of impact. 

2.2.3 Pipe and Contractor Yards 

Kern River anticipates using two pipe storage yards and two contractor yards during construction 

of the proposed Wasatch Loop, one of each near the eastern end of the loop and one of each near the 

western end. Kern River has identified nine areas for potential use as pipe storage and contractor yards 

totaling 176.2 acres. In addition 11 areas to be used as staging areas during construction would affect 

37.3 acres. Contractor yards typically would be located away from the construction right-of-way and 

would be used for stockpiling pipe, storing materials, staging work, fabricating accessories, repairing 

equipment, housing mobile offices, and parking vehicles. Alternative staging areas would generally be 

located along the construction right-of-way or in proximity to access roads. Table 2.2.3-1 lists the 

locations and areas of the sites being considered, and the sites are depicted on the maps presented in 

Appendix BS. Following construction all yards would be restored to their pre-construction conditions, 

except where individual landowner agreements negotiated during the easement acquisition process dictate 

other acceptable restoration measures. 

Additional pipe, rail, and contractor yards beyond those currently identified could be required 

during construction of the proposed Apex Expansion Project. Prior to construction, Kern River would be 

required to file a complete and updated list of all extra work areas, including pipe, rail, and contractor 

yards (see Post-Approval Variance Process, section 2.6). 

2.2.4 Access Roads 

Kern River plans to use 38 access roads during installation of the proposed pipeline. Of these, 

37 are existing roads and one would be a new temporary access road (see Appendix C). A total of 

41.8 miles of access roads would be required for construction, including one new 410-foot-long (less than 

0.1-mile) temporary access road. A total of 62.3 acres of access roads would be required for construction 

of the Apex Expansion Project. The new temporary access road and modifications to 35 existing access 

roads would only disturb 6.0 acres of land beyond the existing access road widths. 

Kern River would use existing roads for construction and for personnel ingress and egress at the 

four existing compressor stations; no new access roads or road improvements outside of the existing 

compressor station sites would be required. The proposed site of the new Milford Compressor Station is 

adjacent to Imperial Avenue, which would be used for access to the site. Kern River would construct a 

driveway to the facility from Imperial Avenue. 

It should be noted that roads located within the National Forest that are not a part of the USFS 

road system are considered by the USFS to be non-existing, and any improvements required to these 

roads would be considered by the USFS as new construction. 

2-10
TABLE 2.2.3-1 

Potential Pipe Yards, Staging Areas, and Contractor Yards for the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Identification Number Location County 

Primary/ 

Alternate Area (acres) 

Pipe Yard 

STK-DA-1a Business Depot, Ogden Davis Primary 29.4 

STK-DA-2 Warehouse-500 N. Redwood Rd., North 

Salt Lake 

Davis Primary 2.7 

STK-MO-1 Wasatch Rail Siding, Wasatch Summit Alternate 6.5 

STK-SU-2 Henefer Frontage Rd., Henefer Summit Alternate 43.8 

STK-SL-2 Metro Group W. 900 S., Salt Lake City Salt Lake Alternate 37.2 

Staging Area 

TWS-MO-1 MP 0.0 - MLV 96 Laydown Area Morgan Primary 3.8 

TWS-MO-2 MP 2.3 - East Canyon Morgan Primary 5.2 

TWS-MO-9 MP 4.9 - Highway 66 Morgan Primary 0.8 

TWS-MO-3 MP 11.9 - North Hardscrabble Road Morgan Primary 10.1 

TWS-MO-4 MP 11.9 - South Hardscrabble Morgan Primary 1.9 

TWS-MO-6 MP 11.9 - Hardscrabble Morgan Primary 0.6 

TWS-MO-8 MP 14.8 - Skyline Davis Primary 4.6 

TWS-DA-1 MP 14.8 - North Bountiful Davis Primary 3.2 

TWS-DA-2 MP 15.8 - Questar Right-of-Way Davis Primary 4.1 

TWS-SL-1 MP 23.8 - Forest Service Salt Lake Primary 1.5 

TWS-SL-2 MP 28.0 - West Tie-In Salt Lake Primary 1.5 

Contractor Yard

CY-SU-1 Dennis Wright, Coalville Summit Primary 19.7 

CY-SU-2 Rees Enterprises, Coalville Summit Alternate 4.7 

CY-DA-1 West Parrish Ln., Centerville Davis Primary 20.9 

CY-SL-1 1500 West 150 South, Salt Lake City Salt Lake Alternate 11.3 

Total 213.5 

____________ 

Note: 

a

 Two potential sites have been identified at the Business Depot location. 

Kern River would obtain owner approval for use of all existing access roads. Other roads 

constructed by public and private entities may also be used provided they are suitable and landowner 

approval is received. Improvements would be required on some existing roads prior to hauling 

construction equipment and materials. Sections 4.5 and 4.8 provide additional information on access 

roads. 

2-11
2.3 CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES 

The proposed pipeline facilities would be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in 

accordance with the USDOT regulations under 49 CFR 192 (Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by 

Pipeline: Minimum Federal Safety Standards) and other applicable federal and state regulations. Among 

other design standards, these regulations specify pipeline material selection; minimum design 

requirements; protection from internal, external, and atmospheric corrosion; and qualification procedures 

for welders and operations personnel. More detailed safety information is provided in section 4.12. In 

addition, Kern River would comply with the siting and maintenance requirements in 18 CFR 380.15 

(Siting and Maintenance Requirements) and other applicable federal and state regulations, including the 

requirements of the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 

The OSHA regulations are intended to ensure adequate protection of the public, pipeline workers, 

contractors, and employees, and to prevent natural gas pipeline accidents and failures. 

Kern River prepared an Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan for the 

proposed Apex Expansion Project (Kern River’s Plan). We have reviewed Kern River’s Plan and find 

that it meets or exceeds the best management practices and mitigation measures included in our Upland 

Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance Plan (our Plan). The intent of Kern River’s Plan is to 

identify baseline mitigation measures for minimizing erosion and enhancing revegetation in upland areas. 

Modifications to our Plan are identified in Kern River’s Plan which includes mitigation measures 

designed to address the greater potential for erosion and sediment transport in critical slope areas found 

along the proposed alignment in the Wasatch Mountains. Kern River’s Plan is presented in Appendix D. 

Kern River also developed Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures for 

the proposed Project (Kern River’s Procedures) that meet or exceed the best management practices and 

mitigation measures included in our Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures

(our Procedures). The intent of the Kern River Procedures (Appendix E) is to identify baseline mitigation 

measures for minimizing the extent and duration of construction-related disturbance on wetlands and 

waterbodies. Kern River would implement its Plan and Procedures during construction and operation of 

the Apex Expansion Project. Modifications to our Plan and Procedures that Kern River has proposed in 

Kern River’s Plan and Procedures are addressed further in sections 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 of this EIS. Our Plan 

and Procedures are available on the FERC Internet website at www.ferc.gov/industries/gas

/enviro/guidelines. 

In addition, Kern River would restore all BLM-managed lands in accordance with the BLMapproved Plan of Development (POD) for the proposed Project. 

Kern River also prepared a Reclamation Plan for the proposed Project (Reclamation Plan) that 

describes measures Kern River would use to return disturbed areas to their pre-construction land use and 

minimize visual impact. The Reclamation Plan, which is presented in Appendix F, adapts and expands on 

the Reclamation Plan prepared for construction of Kern River’s existing pipeline system in 1991 to 

incorporate (1) more current agency recommendations; (2) Kern River’s experience from the construction 

of the mainline; and (3) Kern River’s experience in construction and restoration of its 2003 Expansion 

Project. In addition, the Reclamation Plan addresses the vegetation conditions found in the higher 

elevation segments of the proposed Project. Where applicable, Kern River would revise the Reclamation 

Plan to incorporate new technical standards or information in consultation with the BLM, the USFS, and 

the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and in conjunction with developing the post-FERCCertificate Implementation Plan. 

Kern River would also implement the procedures included in its Noxious Weed Control Plan for 

the proposed Project, which is provided in Appendix G. As part of that plan, Kern River would clean 

2-12
vehicles and equipment prior to mobilization to Project sites and as they leave construction areas with 

identified noxious weeds. The Noxious Weed Control Plan is discussed further in section 4.4 of this EIS. 

Kern River has also developed a draft Project-specific Spill Prevention, Control and 

Countermeasure (SPCC Plan) for oil and hazardous substances for the proposed Apex Expansion Project. 

The SPCC Plan, which is presented in Appendix H, describes the management of hazardous materials, 

such as fuels, lubricants, and coolants that would be implemented during construction. 

Kern River anticipates that blasting may be necessary to construct the pipeline along portions of 

the proposed route (see section 4.1.3.4). Kern River has prepared a Blasting Plan (presented in 

Appendix I) and would follow the procedures of that plan where blasting is necessary. 

Kern River has developed an Unanticipated Discoveries Plan to guide the treatment of any 

unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources or human remains during construction (see section 4.10). 

The cooperating agencies are reviewing Kern River’s construction plans with respect to their 

areas of responsibility, and additional measures may be incorporated into agency permits to ensure that 

construction and restoration would be completed in compliance with agency standards. BLM will require 

that Kern River prepare a POD as part of the right-of-way granting process in accordance with the 

regulations at 43 CFR 2884.11. Kern River’s construction and restoration plans referenced in this EIS 

and included in the appendices would also be part of Kern River’s POD with the BLM. 

The majority of construction would be accomplished in the spring (starting on or after May 1), 

summer, and fall of 2011. Kern River proposes to clear the entire right-of-way in the fall and winter of 

2010. Construction activities beyond just clearing, however, are anticipated in late fall and early winter 

2010 in the following areas: 

 East Canyon Creek crossing (MP 5.4); 

 Jordan River crossing (MP 27.0); 

 City Drain Canal crossing (MP 27.4); 

 Interstate 15 (I-15), Highway 89, Frontage Road crossing (MP 25.7); 

 areas of agricultural land between Interstate 215 (MP 27.6) and MP 28.0; and 

 the Milford (KRMP 326.9), Fillmore (KRMP 276.7), and Dry Lake (KRMP 500.1) 

Compressor Stations. 

In addition to the proposed winter construction in 2010, Kern River would begin preparation for 

spring, summer, and fall 2011 construction at several locations in the late fall and early winter of 2010. 

Preparatory activities would include clearing and grubbing along the proposed pipeline route, installing 

construction bridges, preparing laydown yards, and establishing a construction grade at the crossing of the 

Wasatch Fault. Clearing and grubbing activities would occur at various points along the proposed 

pipeline route, and other preparatory activities would occur in the following locations: 

 Sheep Creek (MP 6.3) and Hardscrabble Creek (MP 11.8) crossings; 

 Hardscrabble Road laydown yard (MP 8.7 or 11.9); 

 Bountiful Boulevard laydown yard (MP 16.0); and 

 Wasatch Fault crossing (MP 25.4). 

2-13
Winter construction would be conducted in accordance with the Kern River Winter Construction 

Plan for the Apex Expansion Project. The plan is provided in Appendix J. 

2.3.1 General Pipeline Construction Procedures 

Prior to initiating construction-related activities, Kern River would secure right-of-way easements 

from private landowners and managers of public lands whose properties would be crossed by the 

proposed pipeline route. All owners, tenants, and lessees of private land, and lessees and managers of 

public lands along the right-of-way would be notified in advance of construction activities that could 

affect their property, business, or operations. If the necessary land rights or easements cannot be obtained 

through good faith negotiations with private landowners and the proposed Project has been certificated by 

the FERC, Kern River may use the right of eminent domain granted to it under Section 7(h) of the NGA 

to obtain a right-of-way. Kern River would still be required to compensate the private landowners for the 

right-of-way, as well as for any damages incurred during construction. However, the level of 

compensation would be determined by the court according to state laws that set forth the procedures for 

the use of eminent domain once the FERC issues a Certificate. Kern River must proceed through the 

appropriate state court to condemn land for which it has received a Certificate from the FERC. The 

FERC does not take part in such proceedings. 

Kern River would construct the proposed pipeline along the construction right-of-way using 

sequential pipeline construction techniques, including survey, staking, and fence crossing; clearing and 

grading; trenching; pipe stringing, bending, and welding; lowering-in and backfilling; hydrostatic testing; 

cleanup and restoration; and commissioning. Conventional overland installation of the pipeline is 

essentially a moving assembly line with a construction spread (construction crew and equipment) 

proceeding along the construction right-of-way in a continuous operation, as depicted in figure 2.3.1-1. 

Kern River would construct the Wasatch Loop using a single construction spread. 

The majority of the pipeline construction process would be accomplished using conventional 

open-cut methods, which typically include the steps described below. The proposed methods for 

accomplishing pipeline installation across wetlands and waterbodies, as well as other specialized 

construction procedures, are described in section 2.3.2. 

Construction at any single point along the pipeline, from right-of-way surveying and clearing to 

backfill and finish grading, would typically last about 6 to 10 weeks. The construction process would be 

coordinated to limit the time of active disturbance of an individual area and the time the trench is open to 

limit the potential for erosion and the loss of normal use. 

2.3.1.1 Survey, Staking, and Fence Crossings 

After right-of-way easements have been obtained, the pipeline centerline, construction right-ofway, ATWSs, drainage centerlines and elevations, and highway and railroad crossings would be surveyed 

and staked. Access roads would be clearly marked using temporary signs or flagging, and wetlands and 

other environmentally sensitive areas, such as water wells and springs, would be marked. Kern River 

would contact the Utah One-Call system to locate, identify, and flag existing underground utilities (for 

example, cables, conduits, and pipelines) to prevent accidental damage during pipeline construction. 

2-14
Date: March 2010

Not to Scale APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

Typical Pipeline Construction Sequence

Figure 2.3.1-1

2-15
Where fences are encountered along the proposed construction right-of-way and require cutting 

or removal, a fence crew would install temporary fences to confine livestock to existing areas off the 

right-of-way and to prohibit or otherwise control public access across the right-of-way. This work would 

include installing new posts to brace the existing fence on either side of the cut or removed fencing to 

avoid damage to the existing fence. Temporary gates would be installed, as necessary. 

2.3.1

2.3.1

.2 Clearing and Grading 

After completion of the surveys, staking, and fence work, large obstacles, such as trees, rocks, 

brush, and logs would be removed from the right-of-way and ATWSs. Timber would be removed only 

when necessary for construction purposes. Timber and other vegetative debris may be chipped for use as 

erosion control mulch, or otherwise disposed of in accordance with applicable local regulations and 

landowner requirements. The construction right-of-way and the ATWSs would then be cleared and, 

where necessary, graded, to provide a relatively level surface for trench-excavating equipment and the 

movement of other construction equipment along the right-of-way. 

To prevent mixing of soil horizons or introduction of rock into the topsoil, topsoil would be 

removed across the full width of the construction right-of-way in agricultural and residential areas and 

segregated from the subsoil in accordance with Kern River’s Plan. It is anticipated that topsoil would be 

removed to a depth of 12 inches at most locations, or as described below if that is not possible. Topsoil 

may also be segregated if requested by landowners or land management agencies and on rangelands and 

USFS lands to enhance restoration. On those lands, Kern River would develop site-specific topsoil 

segregation and redistribution plans that would be completed in consultation with the USFS, BLM, and 

other managing agencies or landowners. Where additional topsoil stripping is required, Kern River would 

evaluate the need for additional right-of-way width to maintain separation of the topsoil and subsoil piles. 

To segregate topsoil in other areas, Kern River would remove topsoil and vegetative debris to a 

typical depth of 12 inches over the trench, the storage areas for excavated materials, and areas where cutand-fill activities would be conducted (for example, on side-slopes). Topsoil would be stockpiled along 

one side of the right-of-way, allowing the other side to be used for access, material transport, and pipe 

assembly, as illustrated in figure 2.2.1-1. Where shallow soils or soils with stony substrates are 

encountered, Kern River would reduce the depth of topsoil removal for segregating the topsoil to 

approximately 4 to 6 inches, instead of the typical 12 inches for deeper soils as specified in Kern River’s 

Plan. When soils have a high content of cobbles, rocks, or boulders, topsoil salvaging may not be 

possible. In addition, Kern River would segregate topsoil only when safe construction conditions can be 

maintained. Additional information on topsoil segregation is provided in section 4.2. 

Temporary erosion controls would be installed immediately after initial disturbance of the soil 

along the construction right-of-way and would be properly maintained throughout construction. They 

would remain in place until permanent erosion controls are installed or restoration is completed. 

.3 Trenching 

The pipeline trench would be excavated using a rotary trenching machine, a track-mounted 

excavator, or similar equipment. Excavated materials would be stockpiled along the right-of-way on the 

side of the trench away from the construction traffic and pipe assembly areas. 

Explosives would be used as necessary in areas where rock substrates occur at depths that 

interfere with conventional excavation or rock-trenching methods (generally within 5 feet of the ground 

surface). Based on its preliminary analysis, Kern River identified four areas along the proposed route 

where there is a high likelihood that blasting would be required: from MP 2.8 to 3.0, from 3.6 to 4.7, from 

2-16
6.0 to 6.8, and from 8.9 to 9.4. Kern River would conduct blasting in accordance with its Blasting Plan, 

and in accordance with all other applicable regulations. Blasting would be conducted in a manner that 

would prevent damage to underground structures (for example, cables, conduits and pipelines) or to 

springs, water wells, or other water sources. Blasting mats or soil cover would be used as necessary to 

prevent the scattering of loose rock. All blasting would be conducted during daylight hours and would 

not begin until occupants of nearby buildings, stores, residences, places of business and farms have been 

notified. Additional information on blasting is presented in section 4.1. 

The proposed pipeline would be buried below the ground surface to a depth that would meet or 

exceed the USDOT standards presented in 49 CFR 192.327. Except in rocky areas, the trench would be 

excavated to a sufficient depth to allow a minimum of 3 feet of cover between the top of the pipe and the 

final land surface after backfilling; this would exceed the USDOT general minimum depth of cover 

30 inches in soil in Class I areas. Where consolidated rock is within 18 inches of the surface, the pipeline 

would be buried to allow 2 feet of cover over the pipe; this would exceed the USDOT standard for depth 

of cover of 18 inches in consolidated rock near the surface. The minimum depth of cover in road and 

railroad drainage ditches and at stream and road crossings would be 5 feet. In addition, the bottom of the 

trench would be excavated at least 12 inches wider than the diameter of the pipe (that is, the bottom of the 

trench would be at least 48 inches wide). 

Trench breakers (barriers to subsurface water flow placed in the trench) would be used to create 

segments within the open trench to reduce erosion and allow access across the trench. Trench breakers 

would typically consist of sandbags or polyurethane foam placed across the ditch and would be installed 

in accordance with the Kern River Plan and Procedures. 

2.3.1.4 Pipe Stringing, Bending, and Welding 

After trenching, sections of straight steel pipe, generally either 40 feet long or 80 feet long, would 

be transported to the right-of-way by truck or helicopter and placed along the excavated trench in a single, 

continuous line on the working side of the trench, opposite the side where the excavated materials are 

stockpiled (termed “stringing”). For river crossings, pipe would be stockpiled in ATWSs in close 

proximity to the river. Pipe sections would be protected on the outside and inside with a factory-applied 

fusion-bonded epoxy coating; the beveled ends of the sections would be uncoated to allow for welding. 

Some pipe sections would be bent at the work site to follow the natural grade and direction 

changes of the right-of-way. Bending would be accomplished using track-mounted hydraulic bending 

machines. Where multiple or complex bends are required, bending would be conducted at the pipe 

fabrication factory, and the pipe would be shipped to the work sites pre-bent. 

The pipe joints would be aligned, welded together into a long segment, and placed on temporary 

supports at the edge of the trench. Welders would use multiple passes to provide a full-penetration weld. 

Kern River would only use experienced welders who are qualified according to applicable American 

Welding Society, American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), and American Petroleum Institute 

(API) standards. 

Each weld would be visually inspected and non-destructively tested using radiographic (x-ray) or 

other approved test methods in accordance with API standards. Welds with flaws would be repaired or 

cut out and re-welded. After welding is completed, a coating crew would coat the area around the weld. 

Pipeline companies use several different types of coating in the field, the most common being fusionbonded epoxy. Prior to application, the coating crew would thoroughly clean the bare pipe (the welded 

area) with a power wire brush or sandblast machine to remove dirt, mill scale, and debris. The crew 

would then apply the coating and allow the coating to dry. The pipeline would be inspected electronically 

2-17
(also referred to as “jeeped”) for faults or voids in the coating and would be visually inspected for faults, 

scratches, or other defects. If damage to the coating is discovered, it would be repaired before the pipe is 

lowered into the trench. 

2.3.1

2.3.1

.5 Lowering-In and Backfilling 

Prior to lowering the proposed pipeline, the trench would be cleaned of debris and foreign 

material. The pipe and trench would also be inspected to ensure that the pipe and trench configurations 

are compatible. During construction, the open trench may accumulate water either from groundwater 

intrusion or precipitation and would be dewatered periodically to allow for proper and safe construction, 

particularly during tie-ins. During trench dewatering, water would be pumped from the trench into stable 

upland areas through a filter bag, straw bales, or equivalent to remove sediment. The rate of flow from 

the pump would be regulated and energy dissipation devices would be used as necessary to prevent 

erosion from runoff and to prevent the flow of heavily silt-laden water directly into adjacent waterbodies. 

Dewatering would be conducted in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local permitting 

requirements and in accordance with Kern River’s Procedures. 

In areas of rock, the bottom of the trench may be padded with sandbags or support pillows to 

protect the pipe coating. Topsoil would not be used as padding material. Where the previously excavated 

material contains large rocks or other materials that could damage the pipe or its coating, screened fill or 

protective coating would be placed around the pipe prior to backfilling. The pipeline would then be 

lowered into the trench by appropriately spaced, sideboom tractors working in unison to avoid buckling of 

the pipe. In accordance with Kern River’s Plan and Procedures, trench breakers would be installed at 

regular intervals where appropriate to prevent subsurface erosion and flow of water between the trench 

and crossed waterbodies, wetlands, and near-surface groundwater. 

After the proposed pipeline is lowered into the trench and adequately protected, previously 

excavated materials would be used to backfill the trench using bladed equipment or excavators. Subsoil 

in all cultivated areas and on BLM lands would be decompacted after backfilling and prior to replacing 

topsoil. If decompaction is necessary after topsoil has been replaced, Kern River would use a tiller (or 

similar equipment) to loosen compacted areas. Topsoil previously segregated from the trench material in 

all agricultural and residential areas would be returned as nearly as possible to its original horizon. The 

right-of-way, ATWSs, and other disturbed areas would be finish graded and restored as closely as 

possible to pre-construction contours and to conform with adjacent areas, with some crowning over the 

trench outside of wetland areas to accommodate soil settlement. Any excess excavated materials or 

materials deemed unsuitable for backfill would be evenly spread over the right-of-way or disposed of in 

accordance with applicable regulations and landowner requirements. 

.6 Hydrostatic Testing 

Once installation and backfilling are completed and before the proposed Project begins operation, 

the pipeline would be hydrostatically pressure tested in accordance with USDOT safety standards 

(49 CFR 192) to verify its integrity and to ensure its ability to withstand the MAOP. Hydrostatic testing 

consists of installing a hydrostatic test cap and manifold, filling the pipeline with water, pressurizing the 

pipeline to 125 percent of its MAOP, and maintaining that test pressure for a specified minimum period 

of time. Kern River would test segments of the pipeline and wherever possible would transfer the 

hydrostatic test water to the next segment for re-use. Any leaks or loss of pressure detected during the 

test would be repaired, and that segment of pipeline would be re-tested. 

When discharged, the test water would be released adjacent to the construction right-of-way 

through an energy-dissipating device such as a splash plate, and a straw bale filter or sediment bag. Test 

2-18
water would not be discharged directly into surface waters. Discharge sites would be in stable, wellvegetated upland areas in the vicinity of the same water source it is taken from to avoid transferring nonnative species into a new area. Test water for the proposed Project would contact only new pipe and no 

chemicals would be added. 

Hydrostatic test water would be obtained and discharged in accordance with applicable state and 

local regulations, and in accordance with Kern River’s Procedures. Additional information on hydrostatic 

testing, including potential sources of hydrostatic test water, is presented in section 4.3 of this EIS. 

2.3.1

2.3.1

.7 Cleanup and Restoration 

After the proposed pipeline has been successfully tested, the trash, debris, surplus materials, and 

temporary structures present along the construction right-of-way would be removed and disposed of in 

accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Permanent erosion control measures, 

such as diversion terraces and slope breakers, would be installed during this phase in accordance with 

Kern River’s Plan and Procedures. Disturbed areas would be seeded in accordance with the Kern River’s 

Reclamation Plan and written recommendations for seed mixes, rates, and dates, obtained from the local 

soil conservation authority or as requested by the landowner or land management agency. Additional 

information on restoration and revegetation procedures in wetland and upland areas is provided in 

sections 4.3 and 4.4, respectively. Measures that Kern River would incorporate into the proposed Project 

to limit the spread of noxious weeds are presented in its Noxious Weed Control Plan. Final seedbed 

preparation, as required, and seeding and planting are planned for September and October 2011 and 

would coincide with the optimal periods for dormant seeding and planting. In addition, designated 

locations of noxious weeds would be treated prior to reclamation in accordance with the Noxious Weed 

Control Plan. Seeding would be completed, along with other erosion control, by the onset of winter 2011. 

Disturbed pavement and other road surfaces along access roads would be restored to preconstruction or better conditions, unless otherwise specified by the property owner and approved by 

applicable regulatory agencies. Likewise, any private or public property damaged during construction, 

such as fences, gates, and driveways, would be restored to original or better condition, consistent with 

individual landowner agreements. 

Pipeline markers and/or warning signs would be installed along the pipeline centerline at 

specified intervals to identify the pipeline location, specify Kern River as the operator of the pipeline, and 

provide telephone numbers for emergencies and inquiries. 

.8 Commissioning 

Test manifolds would be removed and final pipeline tie-ins would be completed after hydrostatic 

testing. The pipeline then would be cleaned and dried using pigs that are moved through the pipeline with 

pressurized dry air. Pigs also would be used to internally inspect the pipeline to detect whether the pipe 

was damaged during construction. Damaged pipe segments would be dug up, repaired, and retested. 

Pipeline commissioning would then commence. Commissioning involves verifying that equipment has 

been properly installed and is working, verifying that controls and communications systems are 

functioning, and confirming that the pipeline is ready for service. In the final step, the pipeline would be 

prepared for service by purging the pipeline of air and loading it with natural gas. Kern River would not 

be authorized to place its pipeline into service until it has received written in-service approval from the 

FERC Director of the Office of Energy Projects (OEP). 

2-19
2.3.2 Special Pipeline Construction Procedures 

Special construction techniques would be required when constructing across most 

environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands and waterbodies where there is existing infrastructure 

such as roadways and railroads, or in other areas where the open-cut construction methods described in 

section 2.3.1 are not appropriate. The special construction methods Kern River proposes to use for the 

Apex Expansion Project are described below. ATWSs adjacent to the construction right-of-way would be 

used at most of these areas for staging construction, storing materials, maneuvering equipment, 

fabricating pipe, and stockpiling spoil. 

2.3.2.1 Wetlands 

Construction of the proposed Project pipeline across wetlands would be conducted in accordance 

with applicable permit requirements and Kern River’s Procedures. Overall, the wetland crossing methods 

and mitigation measures identified in Kern River’s Procedures are designed to minimize the extent and 

duration of construction-related disturbance within wetlands. The site-specific crossing procedures used 

to install the pipeline across wetlands would vary dependent on the level of soil stability and saturation 

encountered during construction. 

All wetlands crossed by the proposed Project are scrub-shrub, forested, or emergent. Wetland 

vegetation would be cut to ground level within the construction right-of-way through wetland areas. 

Grading and stump removal would be performed only over the trench, except where otherwise required 

for safety. To minimize erosion and promote revegetation within the wetland, removal of the root mass 

of woody vegetation would be allowed only directly over the trench area or where required for safety. 

Silt fences would be installed at the edges of the construction right-of-way in wetlands where 

there would be a possibility for materials excavated from the trench to flow into undisturbed areas of the 

wetland. If the previously excavated trench adjacent to the wetland contains water, trench plugs would be 

left in the trench at the edge of the entry into the wetland. In addition, where necessary to maintain the 

hydrologic integrity of the wetland, trench breakers would be installed where the trench enters and exits 

the wetland. 

A typical wetland crossing parallel to an existing pipeline is depicted in figure 2.3.2-1. 

Construction procedures across wetlands that are unsaturated at the time of construction would be 

similar to those used in upland areas. However, Kern River would use low ground-pressure equipment 

and would install equipment mats to minimize compaction of wetland soils and rutting within wetlands. 

In unsaturated wetlands, up to 12 inches of topsoil would be segregated over the pipeline trench. If 

saturated wetlands with standing water or unstable soils are encountered, stable temporary work surfaces 

of timber mats would be constructed within the construction right-of-way adjacent to the area to be 

excavated. Construction would then proceed as in unsaturated wetlands, except topsoil segregation would 

not be possible because of saturation. Pipe stringing and fabrication may occur within the construction 

right-of-way within the wetland adjacent to the trench or adjacent to the wetland in a designated ATWS. 

Permanent erosion control structures that may alter hydrology (for example, slope breakers) 

would not be installed within wetland boundaries, but would be used in the adjacent upland areas to 

control erosion and sedimentation. Materials such as equipment mats placed in wetlands during 

construction would be removed during final cleanup, and the pre-construction contours of the wetland 

would be restored. Stockpiled topsoil removed from directly over the trench would be placed over the 

backfilled trench to as close as feasible to its original horizon. Excess backfill material would be spread 

2-20
Date: March 2010

Not to Scale APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

Typical Wetland Crossing Adjacent to an 

Existing Pipeline

Figure 2.3.2-1

If applicable

2-21
over adjacent upland areas and stabilized. Permanent erosion control measures would be installed, and 

disturbed areas within the wetland would be temporarily stabilized by seeding with native, annual wetland 

grasses. 

The transferring of liquids and refueling would occur only in pre-designated locations at least 

100 feet from all wetlands and waterbodies as required by Kern River’s SPCC Plan. Where conditions 

require that construction equipment such as trench dewatering pumps or hydrostatic test water pumps be 

refueled within 100 feet of wetlands or waterbodies, these operations would be manned 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. 

Section 4.3 addresses wetlands, including the wetland restoration and mitigation procedures and 

the draft Wetland Remedial Revegetation Plan (Appendix K) that would be implemented by Kern River. 

2.3.2.2 Waterbodies 

This section describes the methods used to construct pipeline crossings of waterbodies and the 

methods used to install equipment bridges over waterbodies. 

Pipeline Crossings and Equipment Bridges 

The Kern River Procedures define a waterbody as (1) any natural or artificial stream, river, or 

drainage with perceptible flow at the time of crossing and (2) permanent waterbodies such as ponds and 

lakes. Installation of the proposed pipeline across rivers and streams and the installation and removal of 

equipment bridges across waterbodies would be accomplished in accordance with Kern River’s 

Procedures and all applicable permit requirements. Kern River’s Procedures identify the baseline 

mitigation measures, from pre-construction planning through construction, restoration, and monitoring, 

for minimizing the extent and duration of Project-related disturbance to waterbodies. The waterbody 

crossing measures specified in Kern River’s Procedures are based on industry standard practices. 

The proposed route would cross 21 waterbodies, including 7 intermittent streams, 12 perennial 

streams, and 2 ephemeral streams. Kern River proposes to cross three of these waterbodies (City Drain, 

Jordan River, and Northwest Oil Drain) using the conventional horizontal boring method; two 

waterbodies using the dam-and-pump method; and the remainder using the flume method. If waterbodies 

are dry or exhibit no flow at the time of construction, Kern River would use an open-cut construction 

method. 

In general, an open-cut waterbody crossing is accomplished using methods similar to 

conventional open-cut trenching methods used in upland areas. The open-cut construction method 

involves excavation of the pipeline trench across the waterbody; installation of a prefabricated segment of 

pipeline; and backfilling of the trench with native material, with no effort to isolate flow, if any, from 

construction activities. Figure 2.3.2-2 illustrates a typical open-cut waterbody crossing. Excavation and 

backfilling of the trench would generally be accomplished using backhoes operating from one or both 

banks of the waterbody. All construction equipment would cross the waterbody using equipment bridges, 

if water was present. 

2-22
Date: March 2010

Not to Scale APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

Typical Non-flowing Waterbody Crossing

Figure 2.3.2-2

2-23
The flume method involves establishing dams upstream and downstream of the crossing area and 

installing one or more pipes (flumes) that would extend along the course of the waterbody and through 

both dams. Streamflow would be carried through the construction area by the flume pipes. Additional 

information on the flume method is provided below. The East Canyon Creek Crossing would be 

constructed using the flume method. Kern River has indicated that the actual method of waterbody 

crossing would be subject to change based on the site-specific conditions (water flow) encountered at the 

time of construction. The conventional horizontal bore, flume, and dam-and-pump methods are described 

below. 

All waterbody crossings that Kern River does not intend to construct using the conventional bore 

or dam-and-pump methods would be prepared as flume crossings, regardless of whether or not water is 

present. Because Kern River is proposing construction in the summer and fall at most crossing sites, 

many of the intermittent streams may be dry at the time of construction. Waterbodies, without flow at the 

time of construction would be constructed using the open-cut method. If water is not present at the time 

of construction and precipitation is not forecast, the flume pipe would be removed and the crossing would 

be constructed using the open-cut method. In the event that unexpected flow occurs during construction, 

the flume pipe would be replaced and construction would proceed using the flume method. If water is 

present in a crossing at the time of construction, the crossing would be constructed using the flume 

method. 

Mitigation measures described in Kern River’s Procedures would be implemented to minimize 

impacts on the aquatic environment during construction, especially if water is present in the channel. 

This would include installing mats across the wetland adjacent to the East Canyon Creek and Jordan 

River crossing sites to prevent excessive rutting and to protect the vegetative material and topsoil. 

Construction would be scheduled so that the trench would be excavated immediately prior to 

pipelaying activities. In accordance with Kern River’s Procedures, excavated materials would be 

stockpiled in the construction right-of-way at least 10 feet from the streambank or in approved ATWSs 

and would be surrounded by sediment control devices to prevent sediment from returning to the 

waterbody. 

All streambeds and banks would be restored to pre-construction contours as part of restoration 

activities. The methods that would be used for equipment bridges and for constructing waterbody 

crossings are described below. As previously indicated, Kern River proposes to cross East Canyon Creek, 

the Jordan River, and the City Drain in the fall or winter of 2010 prior to mainline construction in 2011, 

and a description of its proposed crossing method for these waterbodies is included below. Any 

modification to the methods described in this EIS and Kern River’s filings would require review and 

approval by the FERC and possibly other agencies. Additional information on the proposed waterbody 

crossing procedures and potential environmental consequences is presented in section 4.3. 

Equipment Bridges 

Kern River would install temporary equipment bridges across waterbodies for access along the 

proposed right-of-way. The bridges would be installed in accordance with Kern River’s Procedures. 

Except at East Canyon Creek and the City Drain, equipment bridges would generally be constructed of 

culverts (or flumes) and equipment pads (or geotextiles) or culverts (flumes) and clean rock fill. A 

culvert or flume bridge involves using flume pipes to convey the flow of water, with the number of 

flumes needed dependent on the potential flow of water at the time of construction. The flumes would be 

laid on the river bed and the equipment pads or clean rock, purchased from a commercial source, would 

be used to cover the flumes up to the level of the streambank to provide a travel surface for construction 

equipment. If excessively soft soils are encountered in the streambed, or if high-water flows occur, 

2-24
portable bridges (flexi-float bridges) may be used at minor stream crossings in lieu of culverts. At East 

Canyon Creek and the City Drain, a flat railroad car frame or similar type of portable bridge would be 

used. Except at the City Drain, equipment bridges would be maintained throughout construction, and 

construction traffic would be required to use the equipment bridge if water is present in the channel. The 

bridge at the City Drain would be removed immediately after the bored crossing is completed. 

Each bridge would be designed to accommodate the highest streamflow expected to occur and 

would be maintained to prevent soil from entering the waterbody and to prevent restriction of flow, bank 

erosion and stream scour during the period of time that the bridge is in use. After the bridges are 

removed, all disturbed areas would be restored to pre-installation conditions. 

Conventional Bore Crossing Method

Conventional (horizontal) boring requires the excavation of entry and exit pits on either side of 

the crossing for a boring machine to install the pipeline beneath the feature. The machines would bore a 

horizontal hole equivalent to the diameter of the pipe. The pipeline section would then be pushed through 

the bore hole. If additional pipeline sections are required, they would be welded to the first section of the 

pipeline in the bore pit before being pushed through the bore hole. A typical conventional bore crossing 

is shown in figure 2.3.2-3. 

Flume Crossing Method

Kern River would install flumes with sufficient capacity to transport the maximum flows that 

could be generated seasonally within the waterbody. The flumes, typically 40 to 60 feet long, would be 

installed before trenching and aligned to prevent impounding of water upstream of the construction area 

or to cause back-erosion downstream. The upstream and downstream ends of the flumes would be 

incorporated into dams made of sandbags or plastic dams. Upstream dams would be installed first and 

would funnel streamflow into the flumes. Downstream dams then would be constructed to prevent water 

from flowing back into the area to be trenched. Kern River would monitor the dams and adjust them as 

necessary to minimize leakage. The flumes would remain in place during pipeline installation, 

backfilling, and streambank restoration. A typical flume crossing is shown in figure 2.3.2-4. 

Prior to trenching, the area between the dams typically would be dewatered. Water from any 

trench dewatering activities would be released into the adjacent upland area using a water discharge 

device and sediment barriers, in accordance with Kern River’s Plan and Procedures. Backhoes working 

from one or both banks would excavate the trench across the waterbody and under the flume pipes. 

Sediment containment devices, such as silt fences and straw bales, would be installed to contain the 

excavated material and to minimize the potential for sediment to migrate into the waterbody. 

After the trench is excavated to the proper depth, a prefabricated section of pipe would be 

positioned and lowered into the trench. The trench then would be backfilled with the excavated material 

from the stream unless otherwise specified in stream crossing permits. Prior to removing the dams and 

flume pipes and restoring streamflow, water that accumulated in the construction area would be pumped 

into a straw bale structure or similar dewatering device, and the bottom contours of the streambed and the 

streambanks would be restored as close as practical to pre-construction contours. 

2-25
Date: March 2010

Not to Scale APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

Conventional Bore Crossing Method

Figure 2.3.2-3

2-26
Date: March 2010

Not to Scale APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

Flume Crossing Method

Figure 2.3.2-4

8

2-27
Dam-and-Pump Method 

The dam-and-pump method involves installing temporary dams upstream and downstream of the 

proposed waterbody crossing. The temporary dams would typically be constructed using sandbags or 

plastic dams. After dam installation, appropriately sized pumps would be used to transport the 

streamflow around the construction work area. Figure 2.3.2-5 illustrates a typical dam-and-pump 

waterbody crossing. Intake screens would be installed at the pump inlets to prevent or limit entrainment 

of aquatic life, and energy-dissipating devices would be installed at the pump discharge point to minimize 

erosion and streambed scour. Trench excavation and pipeline installation would then commence in the 

dewatered portion of the waterbody channel. 

Horizontal Directional Drilling Crossing Method 

Horizontal directional drilling (HDD) is a trenchless crossing method that may be used to avoid 

direct impacts o sensitive resources, such as waterbodies and wetlands, by directionally drilling beneath 

them. HDD is typically used for crossing major waterbodies (greater than 100 feet wide). However, the 

proposed route does not cross any waterbodies of that width, and Kern River does not propose the use of 

HDD at any locations at this time. If further engineering analysis indicates that HDD is the preferred 

installation method at any location, Kern River would notify the FERC. 

East Canyon Creek Crossing 

During construction of the Kern River mainline in 1991, a conventional bore was proposed for 

crossing East Canyon Creek. The boring was not successful and installation was accomplished using 

open-cut installation techniques. East Canyon Creek has significant surface flow and groundwater flow 

throughout much of the year, but flow is generally lowest late in the year. As a result, Kern River has 

developed a site-specific crossing plan to construct the crossing in late fall or early winter of 2010, when 

surface and groundwater levels are expected to be low in the creek. If construction extends into winter, it 

would be conducted in accordance with Kern River’s Winter Construction Plan. In addition to lower 

flows, winter construction with partially frozen or frozen soil with an insulating snow cover would reduce 

the potential for impacts to the adjacent wetlands as compared to summer and fall conditions. 

Kern River proposes to use the flume crossing method at East Canyon Creek. After the pipe is 

lowered into the trench, the ends of the pipe sections near the beginning of the sag bend would be capped 

until tie-ins can be completed in 2011. After capping, trench breakers would be installed on each side of 

the East Canyon Creek crossing and the trench, banks would be backfilled to restore the channel and 

banks to stable slopes and contours, and the flume pipes would be removed. Where the backfill material 

may have become partially frozen, portable diesel-fired drying units may be used for thawing and 

removing ice and snow prior to backfill to avoid the potential for excessive settling, or clean fill would be 

imported. The banks would be stabilized with cobbles or boulders to provide protection from hydraulic 

erosion in higher flow periods until permanent seeding and installation of erosion control matting could 

be completed in the 2011 construction season. 

The temporary equipment bridge at the crossing site would remain in place for the 2011 

construction season. The bridge would be removed when reclamation of adjacent portions of the right-ofway and ATWSs have been completed. 

2-28
Date: March 2010

Not to Scale APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

Dam-and-Pump Crossing Method

Figure 2.3.2-5

2-29
Temporary mulch would be applied to the disturbed portion of the construction right-of-way and 

the ATWSs. The sediment barriers would be left in place and inspected as described in Kern River’s Plan 

and Procedures or during and immediately following a period of thawing and higher runoff. The bridge 

would be maintained as necessary. The crossing would require approximately 2 to 3 weeks to complete. 

Jordan River and City Drain Crossings 

The Jordan River and City Drain crossings would be constructed using the conventional 

horizontal bore method. Construction at both crossings would be initiated in the fall of 2010, but may 

extend into winter. If construction extends into winter, it would be conducted in accordance with the 

Kern River’s Winter Construction Plan. In the fall and early winter, groundwater levels would be lower 

than at other times of the year and would result in better bore pit stability and less disturbance to the 

adjacent wetlands. 

Kern River anticipates that excavation of bore pits would proceed similarly to that for 

conventional non-winter construction. Frozen soils near the surface are not expected to impede 

excavation or use of conventional equipment. Topsoil and subsoil would be stockpiled separately as 

described for standard pipeline construction (section 2.3.1). The bore pits would be excavated outside of 

existing levees, and the levees would not be disturbed during construction. The bore pits would be 

dewatered as necessary. Water would be released into the adjacent upland area using a water discharge 

device and sediment barriers in accordance with Kern River’s Plan and Procedures. Kern River would 

remove snow from the bore pits to allow visual inspection of the trench and bore pits and to allow work in 

the bore pits. Excavated material from the boring may be covered with Visqueen or a similar product to 

protect it from excessive snow accumulation and from mixing with the snow removed from the bore pits. 

Portable drying units may be used to thaw and remove snow and ice from the excavated material prior to 

backfilling the bore pits in order to prevent excessive settling. In addition, Kern River may import clean 

topsoil if required to restore the original contours. After the pipeline is installed under the waterbody, it 

would be capped and the bore bits would be backfilled. The right-of-way and ATWSs would be covered 

with mulch to reduce the potential for erosion during snowmelt and other runoff. 

The pits would be re-excavated in 2011 to complete tie-ins with the adjacent pipe segments and 

restored with the adjacent segments of the construction right-of-way in accordance with Kern River’s 

Procedures and Reclamation Plan. 

2.3.2

2.3.2

.3 Agricultural Areas 

The proposed pipeline route would cross about 1.1 miles of agricultural areas. In these areas, 

Kern River proposes to segregate the topsoil across the entire width of the construction workspace. To 

mitigate impacts on topsoil in these areas, Kern River proposes to separate the topsoil to its actual depth, 

to a maximum depth of 12 inches. The topsoil would be stockpiled separately from the subsoil to prevent 

mixing. Kern River would also bury the pipeline to a depth that would result in at least 5 feet of cover in 

agricultural areas. 

.4 Roads, Highways, and Railroads 

The proposed pipeline route would cross paved and unpaved roads, highways, and railroads. 

Construction across these features would be accomplished in accordance with Kern River’s Plan and the 

requirements of all applicable crossing permits and approvals. During roadway construction, Kern River 

would incorporate safety precautions required by federal, state, and local transportation agencies. 

2-30
Railroads and major paved highways would be crossed using conventional subsurface boring 

techniques where feasible (conventional horizontal bore technique, described in section 2.3.2.2 and 

table 2.3.2-1). Figures 2.3.2-6 and 2.3.2-7 are plan views of typical road and railroad bored crossings, 

respectively. With this method, the pipeline would pass under the railroad or roadway with little or no 

disturbance to traffic along the roadway. The crossing of Interstate 15 would be accomplished during the 

late fall and would extend into early winter. 

TABLE 2.3.2-1 

Proposed Horizontal Bore Locations for the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

State County Feature Crossed Milepost 

Roadways

Utah Morgan State Highway 65 1.2 

Morgan State Highway 66 5.0 

Davis South Frontage Road 25.7 

Davis State Highway 89 25.7 

Davis Interstate 15 25.7 

Davis Interstate 15 Southbound Ramp 25.8 

Davis Beck Street Ramp 25.8 

Davis Redwood Road 27.0 

Davis Pony Express Court 27.0 

Salt Lake Interstate 215 27.6 

Salt Lake 2200 W. Street 28.0 

Railroads 

Utah Davis Union Pacific and UTA Railroads (4) 25.8 – 25.9 

Davis Chevron Rail Spur 26.5 

Pipeline crossings of lightly traveled paved and unimproved rural dirt roads would typically be 

crossed using the open-cut installation method. If open-cut road construction requires extensive 

construction time, provisions would be made for detours or other measures to permit traffic flow during 

construction. If reasonable detours are not feasible, a minimum of one lane would be kept open to traffic, 

except for brief periods when it is essential to close the road to lay the pipeline or weld pipeline segments 

together. To the extent possible, roads would not be closed during peak traffic hours. After the pipeline 

is installed, the roadway would be restored to its pre-construction condition or better. 

With either method, the pipeline would be buried to a depth of at least 5 feet below the road or 

railroad surface and designed to withstand the anticipated external loads. 

Section 4.8 provides additional information on the proposed road and railroad crossings. 

2-31
Date: March 2010

Not to Scale APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

Conventional Horizontal Boring for 

Roadway Crossing

Figure 2.3.2-6

2-32
Date: March 2010

Not to Scale APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

Conventional Horizontal Boring for 

Railroad Crossing

Figure 2.3.2-7

2-33
2.3.2

2.3.2

2.3.2

.5 Residences within 50 Feet of the Construction Right-of-Way 

Kern River identified two residences and one barn within 50 feet of the proposed construction 

right-of-way. The residence at MP 27.5 is located adjacent to Kern River’s existing right-of-way. Kern 

River would reduce the pipeline offset or the construction workspace as practicable to minimize 

inconvenience to property owners. If construction requires the removal of private property features such 

as gates or fences, Kern River would coordinate with the landowner or tenant on the best methods to use. 

Kern River is currently coordinating with the property landowners to avoid and minimize impacts 

on the residential properties. Kern River would coordinate construction work schedules with affected 

landowners prior to starting construction. To minimize impacts on residential areas within the vicinity of 

construction work areas, Kern River would implement measures as described in section 4.8.2.3 on a siteby-site basis. Kern River developed site-specific residential construction plans to inform affected 

landowners of proposed measures to minimize disruption and to maintain access to the two residences 

located within 50 feet of the construction right-of-way (see appendix L). These site-specific construction 

plans include a dimensioned drawing depicting the residence in relation to the pipeline; workspace 

boundaries; the proposed permanent right-of-way. We have reviewed the site-specific residential 

construction plans and find them acceptable. We are, however, specifically seeking comments on these 

plans. 

After completion of major construction, the property would be restored as reasonably as 

practicable as requested by the landowner to the extent that the landowner’s requirements are compatible 

with existing regulations and with Kern River’s standards regarding right-of-way restoration and 

maintenance. 

.6 Commercial and Industrial Areas 

Industrial and commercial land is present in the vicinity of the proposed route between MP 25.0 

and 27.0. No industrial or commercial buildings are located within 50 feet of the proposed construction 

right-of-way. Kern River would coordinate with business owners to maintain access; reduce construction 

duration to the extent possible; and generally minimize impacts and inconveniences to business owners, 

employees, and customers. 

.7 Areas of Steep Terrain 

Portions of the proposed Project would traverse areas of side slopes and rolling terrain that could 

require additional right-of-way to create level and safe workspaces. Where steep slopes (greater than 

15 percent) are parallel to the proposed pipeline right-of-way, Kern River would use industry-accepted 

steep slope construction methods. This would involve cutting the uphill side of the construction right-ofway during grading. The material removed from the cut would be used to fill the downhill side of the 

construction right-of-way to provide a safe and level surface from which to operate heavy equipment. 

The pipeline trench would then be excavated along the newly graded right-of-way at the appropriate 

depth beneath the original grade. 

After pipeline installation and backfill of the trench, excavated material would be placed back in 

the cut and appropriately compacted to restore the approximate original contours. All disturbed areas 

would then be stabilized in accordance with Kern River’s Plan. This would include seeding and 

installation of erosion control matting or fabric to provide a higher degree of protection from surface 

erosion until vegetation becomes established. 

2-34
Where steep slopes are generally perpendicular to the right-of-way, erosion control structures 

including slope and trench breakers would be used in accordance with Kern River’s Reclamation Plan and 

the provisions of Kern River’s Plan. The restored right-of-way would be monitored for restoration 

success and corrective action would be implemented in any areas of active erosion. 

Figure 2.3.2-8 provides a typical cross-section of the steep slope construction technique. This 

construction technique would likely require ATWSs to accommodate the additional volumes of fill 

material generated by this technique. Figure 2.3.2-9 depicts a typical right-of-way for construction areas 

on steep slopes. 

2.3.2

2.3.3

.8 Areas with Geologic Faults 

The proposed route would cross one active fault, the Warm Springs Fault, at about MP 25.6. The 

other faults crossed by the pipeline route are considered to be geologically older and inactive. Analyses 

conducted for the Warm Springs Fault and construction of the existing Kern River pipeline at this location 

indicate that special construction methods would be needed for the proposed Project. Kern River would 

use the design and construction procedures that were employed for the Kern River mainline crossing of 

the Warm Springs Fault, including the following specific fault-rupture mitigation measures:

 Install extra-heavy wall, Grade X65 steel pipe; 

 Surround the pipe with select sand backfill along a distance of 450 feet west of the fault trace 

and 750 feet east of the fault trace; and 

 Excavate the pipe trench to a depth of 10 feet below the pipe and place a 4-foot-deep layer of 

select sand backfill in the trench along a distance of 100 feet west of the fault trace and 

200 feet east of the fault trace. 

Section 4.1 provides additional information on the proposed crossing of the faults and geologic 

hazards. 

2.3.3 Construction Procedures for Aboveground Facilities 

Aboveground facilities for the proposed Project include one new compressor station (Milford 

Compressor Station), one new compressor at each of three existing compressor stations (Coyote Creek, 

Elberta, and Dry Lake Compressor Stations), replacement of an existing compressor at an existing 

compressor station (Fillmore Compressor Station), six MLVs, three pig launchers, and two pig receivers. 

The pipeline construction crew would install four MLVs and one pig launcher along the proposed 

pipeline; construction at the existing compressor stations and at the site of the new compressor station 

(which includes two MLVs, two pig launchers, and two pig receivers) would be conducted by fabrication 

crews working separately from the pipeline construction spread. At the existing compressor stations, all 

construction activities would be conducted within the existing fence lines. 

.1 Compressor Stations 

At the site of the proposed Milford Compressor Station at KRMP 326.9, the first step of 

construction would involve the removal of vegetation from the site and leveling of the terrain. After 

grading at the site of the new proposed compressor station, concrete foundations would be poured for 

buildings and pipe support piers. After completion of this work, Kern River would winterize the site. 

2-35
Date: March 2010

Not to Scale - Reference OnlyKern River proposes to use specific side slope construction methods when the proposed pipeline would be 

upgradient and downgradient of other pipelines and transmission lines

APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

Cross-section of Typical Side Slope Construction 

Method

Figure 2.3.2-8

2-36
Date: March 2010

Not to Scale APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

Typical Side Slope Construction Method Right-of-Way

Figure 2.3.2-9

2-37
In the spring of 2011, Kern River would return to the proposed Milford Compressor Station site 

to install new filter/separator units; a new compressor building; a new turbine/compressor package inside 

the compressor building; high-pressure gas coolers; a natural gas-fired auxiliary power generation unit for 

backup power generation; pipelines associated with the new compressor; a blowdown/vent stack; two 

MLVs (one on the existing mainline pipeline and one on the existing loop pipeline); two pig launchers 

and two pig receivers (one on the existing mainline pipeline and one on the existing loop pipeline); power 

and control buildings; a warehouse building and the required electrical service; other utilities; and control 

equipment. Kern River would also construct a potable water tank and a septic system to serve the 

restrooms in the control building. Potable water would be brought to the compressor station by truck. 

The new compressor station site would be fenced for security and protection. 

At the existing compressor stations, some grading may be required at the sites planned for 

installation of the new compressors. At the existing stations, concrete foundations would be poured to 

support extensions of the existing compressor buildings, the new or replacement compressors, and the 

associated piping and appurtenant equipment. 

Constructing the concrete foundations at each of the sites would entail setting forms, installing 

rebar, pouring the concrete, and allowing the concrete to cure in accordance with applicable standards. 

Concrete pours would be randomly sampled to verify compliance with minimum strength requirements. 

Major construction activities at the existing compressor stations would involve extending the 

compressor buildings, installing the new or replacement turbine/compressor units inside of the buildings, 

installing piping associated with the new compressors and existing pipelines, installing new high-pressure 

gas coolers, relocating the existing blowdown/vent stacks or adding new blowdown/vent stacks, and 

installing the required utilities and control equipment. In addition, the existing compressors at the Coyote 

Creek, Elberta, and Dry Lake Compressor Stations would be restaged to accommodate the reduced flow 

through the existing compressors that would occur with use of both the existing compressors and the new 

compressors. 

For each existing compressor station, prefabricated segments of pipe, valves, fittings, and flanges 

would be shop- or site-welded and assembled at the compressor station site. The compressor units and 

other large equipment would be brought to the sites by truck, mounted on their respective foundations by 

cranes, and the compressor buildings or the building extensions erected around them. Noise abatement 

measures (including use of sound-dampening equipment installed in the walls of the building) and 

emission control technology would be installed as needed to meet applicable federal, state, and local 

standards. Section 4.11 provides additional information on noise abatement and emission control 

technology. 

Before being placed in service, all components of the high-pressure natural gas system would be 

hydrostatically tested and all controls and safety equipment and systems would be calibrated and tested. 

Municipal or private water well sources would be used for all hydrostatic testing associated with the 

compressor stations. Hydrostatic testing would be conducted in accordance with the requirements of 

USDOT pipeline safety regulations (49 CFR 192), Kern River’s testing specifications, and applicable 

permit requirements as described in section 4.3. Because hydrostatic test water from the existing 

compressor stations would be exposed to both new and existing pipe, it would be tested and disposed of at 

a local wastewater treatment facility, or if necessary, wastewater would be treated and disposed of on site. 

Test water for the proposed Milford Compressor Station would contact only new pipe and no chemicals 

would be added; therefore the that test water would be discharged on site in accordance with applicable 

state and local regulations and in accordance with the Kern River Procedures. Section 4.3 of the EIS 

provides additional information on hydrostatic testing procedures at the compressor stations. 

2-38
After completion of testing, the final construction activities would consist of painting structures 

using colors that do not contrast with the surrounding environment, grading and surfacing the driveway at 

the proposed Milford Compressor Station, gravelling the working yard in the vicinity of the new 

compressors at the existing stations, and gravelling the working yard of the new Milford Compressor 

Station. Debris and wastes generated from the construction would be disposed of in accordance with 

applicable regulations. 

2.3.3

2.3.3

.2 Mainline Valves 

As described in section 2.1.2, there are two MLVs in place at both Kern River MLV station 96 

and MLV station 124. One of the two existing MLVs at each station would be connected to the proposed 

Wasatch Loop at MPs 0.0 and 28.0. In addition, the pipeline construction crew would install two new 

MLVs along the proposed route at MPs 7.1 and 24.6. At the proposed Milford Compressor Station, one 

new MLV would be installed on each of the two existing Kern River pipelines (the mainline and the 

existing loop line). Installation of the new MLVs would be conducted in compliance with the same 

standards and requirements described above for the compressor stations and pipeline. 

At each of the MLV sites along the pipeline route, clearing and grading would be accomplished 

as part of pipeline construction. Concrete footings and concrete pads would be constructed as described 

for the compressor stations (section 2.3.3.1). The pipeline construction crew would connect the MLVs to 

the proposed pipeline using the welding and testing procedures described for pipeline construction 

(section 2.3.1.4). After the valves are installed, the sites would be graveled, as necessary, and fenced. 

At the proposed Milford Compressor Station, the compressor station construction crew would 

install the two MLVs on the concrete foundations described in section 2.3.3.1, connect them to the 

existing pipelines, and hydrostatically test the valves as described in section 2.3.1.6. 

.3 Pig Launchers and Pig Receivers 

As described in section 2.1.2, a pig launcher barrel would be relocated from the existing MLV 

station 124 (MP 28.0) to MLV station 96 (MP 0.0). These facilities would be tied into the existing Kern 

River pipeline and the proposed Wasatch Loop pipeline by the pipeline construction crew. The special 

facility construction crew at the Milford Compressor Station would install two pig launchers and two pig 

receivers at that site. One pig launcher and one pig receiver would be attached to the existing mainline, 

and one pig launcher and one pig receiver would be attached to the existing loop line. These facilities 

would be installed on the concrete foundations and tested as described in section 2.3.3.1. 

The pig launchers and pig receivers would be connected to the pipelines using the welding and 

testing procedures described for pipeline construction (section 2.3.1.4), and installation of the new pig 

launchers would be conducted in compliance with the same standards and requirements described above 

for the pipeline and compressor stations. 

2.4 CONSTRUCTION WORKFORCE AND SCHEDULE 

Kern River plans to begin construction in November 2010 and initiate service by 

November 2011. The majority of construction of the proposed loop would occur from April through 

November 2011 using one construction spread. The spread would have an estimated peak workforce of 

541 and an average workforce of 262. As the pipeline spread moves along, construction at any single 

point along the proposed pipeline, from initial surveying and clearing to backfilling and finish grading, 

would last approximately for 6 to 10 weeks. However, the duration of construction may be longer at the 

proposed MLV sites and at hydrostatic test tie-in locations. 

2-39
The proposed modifications at the Coyote Creek, Elberta, and Fillmore Compressor Stations may 

occur at any time during the proposed pipeline construction period. Modification of the Dry Lake 

Compressor Station would be completed in the fall of 2010 and the winter of 2011. Construction of the 

Milford Compressor Station and the additions to and modifications of the existing compressor stations 

would take from 3 to 8 months to complete. At the Milford Compressor Station site, Kern River would 

accomplish the site preparation work in late 2010, winterize the site, and return in the spring of 2011 to 

complete construction. 

The average and peak construction workforce numbers for each compressor station are listed in 

table 2.4-1. 

TABLE 2.4-1 

Construction Workforce and Schedule for Compressor Station 

Construction and Modifications for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Number of Workers 

Compressor Station 

Kern River Mainline 

Milepost Average Peak 

Estimated Time to 

Complete 

(months) 

Coyote Creek (existing) 60.1 40 70 7 

Elberta (existing) 191.6 40 70 7 

Fillmore (existing) 276.7 20 30 3 

Milford (new) 329.6 50 90 8 

Dry Lake (existing) 500.1 40 70 7 

2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTION, COMPLIANCE MONITORING, AND POSTAPPROVAL VARIANCES 

The FERC may impose conditions on any Certificate granted for the proposed Apex Expansion 

Project. These conditions could include requirements and mitigation measures identified in this EIS to 

minimize environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project (see section 5.2). We will 

recommend to the Commission that these requirements and mitigation measures (indicated with bold type 

in the text) be included as conditions to any Certificate issued for the proposed Project. Further, Kern 

River would be required to implement the construction procedures and mitigation measures it has 

proposed in its filings with the FERC unless specifically modified by other Certificate conditions. 

Other regulatory agencies also may issue conditions as part of their permits or approvals. While 

there would be differences between the conditions of the FERC and other agencies, the environmental 

inspection program for the Apex Expansion Project would address all conditions placed on the proposed 

Project by regulatory agencies. 

During Project construction, Kern River would be represented by a Chief Inspector who would be 

supported by one Environmental Inspector and Craft Inspectors dedicated entirely to the Wasatch Loop. 

A full-time inspector would be assigned to each compressor station until initial ground work and 

temporary erosion control measures are installed as needed to ensure that there are no adverse impacts 

from excessive soil erosion and sedimentation from the site. There would be a full-time Environmental 

Inspector during winter construction of the pipeline. In areas where winter work is completed and the 

spread has been demobilized, the right-of-way would not be continuously inspected. However, access 

2-40
roads would be monitored biweekly, and when the snow cover melts, the construction sites and access 

roads would be inspected to determine whether maintenance or remedial erosion control efforts are 

needed. 

The Environmental Inspector would be responsible for monitoring and ensuring compliance with 

all environmental mitigation measures required by the FERC Certificate; the BLM Right-of-Way Grant 

and Temporary Use Permit; conditions or requirements of other federal, state, or local permits or 

authorizations; and Kern River’s plans. The Environmental Inspector would have the authority to stop 

activities that violate the environmental conditions of these authorizations, state and federal 

environmental permit conditions, or landowner requirements, and to order appropriate corrective actions 

if needed. The Environmental Inspector would also be responsible for maintaining status reports and 

training records. 

In addition to the Environmental Inspector, inspectors from the FERC, the BLM, and the USFS 

would conduct periodic field inspections during construction and restoration. The FERC, the BLM, and 

the USFS inspectors would report on the effectiveness of Kern River’s environmental inspection program 

and assess environmental compliance with both the FERC Certificate and with the terms and conditions 

of the BLM right-of-way grant. 

2.6 POST-APPROVAL VARIANCE PROCESS 

The pipeline alignment and work areas identified in this EIS should be sufficient for construction 

and operation (including maintenance) of the Apex Expansion Project and ancillary facilities. However, 

minor route realignments and other workspace refinements often continue past the project planning phase 

and into the construction phase. As a result, the project location and areas of disturbance described in this 

EIS may require refinement after project approval (assuming the project is approved). These changes 

frequently involve minor route realignments, shifting or adding new temporary extra workspaces or 

staging areas, or adding additional access roads. We have developed a procedure for assessing impacts on 

those areas that have not been evaluated in this EIS and for approving or denying their use. In general, 

biological and cultural resource surveys were conducted using a survey corridor larger than that necessary 

to construct the pipeline. For example, Kern River utilized a 400- to 600-foot-wide survey corridor for 

wetland, wildlife, and cultural resource surveys, and identified wells and springs within 150 feet of the 

proposed pipeline workspaces. If Kern River shifts any additional temporary workspace or requires 

unanticipated workspace subsequent to any project approval, these areas would typically be within the 

previously surveyed area. Such requests would be reviewed using a post-approval variance process. 

The request for route realignments or additional workspace locations along with a copy of the 

survey results would be documented and forwarded to the FERC (and other federal land managing 

agencies, as applicable) in the form of a “variance request”. The FERC and/or the applicable federal land 

managing agency would take the lead on reviewing the request, depending on the ownership status of the 

subject land. Typically, no further resource agency consultation would be required if the requested 

change is within previously surveyed areas. The procedures used for assessing impacts on work areas 

outside the survey corridor and for approving their use are similar to those described above, except that 

additional surveys, analyses, and resource agency consultations would be performed to ensure that 

impacts on biological, cultural, and other sensitive resources would be avoided or minimized to the 

maximum extent practicable. 

After Kern River completes any additional surveys, analyses, and/or resource agency 

consultations, the new work area and supporting documentation (including landowner approval) would be 

forwarded to the FERC and other federal land managing agencies, as applicable, in the form of a variance 

request, which would be evaluated in the manner described above. At the conclusion of the Project, as2-41
built drawings would be provided to the FERC, the BLM, and the USFS, as appropriate, to document the 

final location of the constructed facilities. The BLM and other federal land managing agencies, as 

appropriate, would use the information in the as-built survey to determine if an amendment to the rightof-way grant on federal land would be necessary. 

2.7 OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE 

The Project pipeline and aboveground facilities would be operated and maintained in accordance 

with USDOT regulations in 49 CFR 192, the Commission’s guidance at 18 CFR 380.15, and Kern 

River’s Plan and Procedures. 

2.7.1 Operation 

2.7.1

2.7.1

.1 Pipeline Surveys and Inspections 

As required by 49 CFR 192.615, Kern River would establish an operation and maintenance plan 

and an emergency plan that includes procedures to minimize the hazards in a natural gas pipeline 

emergency. Kern River’s existing operations and maintenance program includes corrosion control, leak 

inspection surveys, regularly scheduled aerial and ground patrols of the pipeline right-of-way, and 

maintenance of the right-of-way. The existing Kern River operation, maintenance, and emergency plans 

would be expanded to incorporate the Apex Expansion Project; key elements of those plans are described 

below. 

As a part of the existing operations and maintenance plans, Kern River conducts regular patrols of 

the pipeline right-of-way. The patrol program includes periodic aerial and vehicle patrols of the pipeline 

facilities to survey surface conditions on and adjacent to the pipeline right-of-way for evidence of leaks, 

unauthorized excavation activities, erosion and wash-out areas, areas of sparse vegetation, damage to 

permanent erosion control devices, exposed pipe, missing markers and signs, new residential 

developments, and other conditions that might affect the safety or operation of the pipeline. The cathodic 

protection system is also inspected periodically to ensure that it is functioning properly. In addition, pigs 

are regularly sent through the pipeline to check for corrosion and irregularities in the pipe in accordance 

with USDOT requirements. Kern River keeps detailed records of all inspections and supplements the 

corrosion protection system as necessary to meet the requirements of 49 CFR 192. 

Kern River also maintains a liaison with the appropriate fire, police, and public officials. This 

program identifies the available resources and responsibilities of each organization that may respond to a 

natural gas pipeline emergency and assists in developing coordination responsibilities 

In addition, Kern River uses a supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system, which 

continuously monitors gas pressure, temperature, and volume at specific locations along the pipeline. 

This system is installed along the Kern River mainline and existing loop lines and would be incorporated 

into the proposed Project. The SCADA system is continuously monitored from Kern River’s gas control 

center in Salt Lake City, Utah. The system provides continuous information to the control center 

operators and has threshold and alarm values set such that warnings are provided to the operators if 

critical parameters are exceeded. 

.2 Right-of-Way Maintenance 

In addition to the survey, inspection, and repair activities described above, operation of the 

pipeline would include maintenance of the right-of-way. The right-of-way would be allowed to 

revegetate after restoration; however, large brush and trees may be periodically removed near the 

2-42
pipeline. Trees or deep-rooted shrubs could damage the pipeline’s protective coating, obscure periodic 

surveillance, or interfere with potential repairs; in accordance with Kern River’s Plan, such vegetation 

would typically not be permitted to grow within the permanent right-of-way. The frequency of the 

vegetation maintenance would depend upon the vegetation growth rate. Routine vegetation maintenance 

clearing would not be done more frequently than every 3 years. However, to facilitate periodic corrosion 

and leak surveys, a corridor not exceeding 10 feet in width centered on the pipeline would be maintained 

annually in an herbaceous state. In no case would routine vegetation maintenance clearing occur between 

April 15 and August 1 of any year. Vegetation maintenance would not normally be required in 

agricultural or grazing areas. Vegetation management is discussed further in section 4.5. 

Pipeline facilities would be clearly marked at line-of-sight intervals and at crossings of roads, 

railroads, and other key points. The markers would clearly indicate the presence of the pipeline and 

provide a telephone number and address where a company representative may be reached in the event of 

an emergency or prior to any excavation in the area of the pipeline by a third party. Kern River 

participates in the One-Call system in Utah. 

2.7.1.3 Compressor Stations 

The current operation and maintenance procedures of the four existing compressor stations would 

be expanded to include the equipment installed as a part of the proposed Project. Operation and 

maintenance of the Milford Compressor Station would be similar to that of the existing Kern River 

compressor stations. 

At each of the compressor stations associated with the proposed Project, operations personnel 

would perform routine checks of the facilities, including calibration of equipment and instrumentation, 

inspection of critical components, and scheduled and routine maintenance of equipment. Safety 

equipment, such as pressure relief devices, fire detection and suppression systems, and gas detection 

systems, would be periodically tested for proper operation. Corrective actions would be taken for any 

identified problems. 

The existing compressor stations are equipped with combustible gas and fire detection alarm 

systems and an emergency shutdown system, as described below. The Milford Compressor Station 

would have the same alarm and emergency shutdown systems and capabilities. The gas detection system 

is designed to sound an alarm and begins venting upon detection of 20 percent of the lower explosive 

limit of natural gas in air. Automatic emergency shutdown of the compressors, evacuation or venting of 

gas from the station piping, and isolation of the station from the main pipeline would occur following a 

fire detection alarm or the detection of a 40 percent of the lower explosive limit inside the station. The 

compressor stations are also equipped with relief valves or pressure protection devices to protect the 

station piping from overpressure if station or unit control systems fail. 

The Kern River telemetry system is designed to notify personnel locally and at the gas control 

headquarters in Salt Lake City of the activation of safety systems and alarms. If alerted to a potential 

emergency, these personnel would instruct maintenance personnel to investigate and take proper 

corrective actions. 

2.8 FUTURE PLANS AND ABANDONMENT 

Kern River currently has no plans for future expansion of the facilities proposed. If additional 

demand for natural gas supplies requires future expansion, Kern River would apply for the appropriate 

authorizations from the FERC and the relevant federal, state, or local agencies. If such applications are 

filed, the potential environmental impacts of the new proposal would be examined at that time. 

2-43
2-44

Abandonment of the pipeline facilities would be subject to the approval of the FERC under 

Section 7(b) of the NGA and would comply with USDOT regulations and specific agreements or 

stipulations made for the pipeline right-of-way. An environmental review of any proposed abandonment 

would be conducted when the application for abandonment is filed with the FERC. 
3.0 ALTERNATIVES 

As required by NEPA and the FERC policy, we have evaluated alternatives to the Apex Expansion 

Project to determine whether they would be technically and economically feasible, and environmentally 

preferable to the proposed action. These alternatives include the No Action and Postponed Action 

alternatives, energy alternatives, system alternatives, major route alternatives, route variations, and 

aboveground facility site alternatives. The purpose of this evaluation was to determine whether there are 

reasonable alternatives that would result in less environmental impact than the Project as proposed while still 

meeting the Project’s objectives. Kern River has indicated the following proposed Project objectives: 

 provide additional natural gas pipeline capacity to growing electric generation requirements of 

NV Energy in southern Nevada; 

 provide supply diversity and enhanced reliability, which would minimize the reliance on more 

costly energy sources to the southern Nevada market; 

 efficiently meet the first two objectives with minimal pipeline construction and environmental 

impacts by using existing available pipeline capacity on the Kern River pipeline system; and 

 meet a November 2011 in-service date. 

Identification of alternatives to the proposed Project incorporated public comments and input received 

from federal and state regulatory agencies. The analysis of alternatives is based on information provided by 

Kern River and our review of aerial photographs, USGS topographic maps, other publicly available 

information, input from cooperating agencies, and our site visits. 

We used the following evaluation criteria to determine whether an alternative would be 

environmentally preferable: 

 significant environmental advantage over the proposed Project; 

 ability to meet the proposed Project objectives; and 

 technical and economic feasibility and practicability. 

It is important to recognize that not all conceivable alternatives are technically and economically 

practical and feasible. Some alternatives may be impracticable because the sites are unavailable and/or 

incapable of being implemented after taking into consideration costs, existing technologies, constraints of 

existing system capacities, and logistics in light of the overall Project objectives. In conducting a reasonable 

analysis, it is also important to consider the environmental advantages and disadvantages of the proposed 

action and to focus the analysis on those alternatives that may reduce impacts and/or offer a significant 

environmental advantage. 

Through the application of evaluation criteria and subsequent environmental comparisons, each 

alternative was considered until it was clear that the alternative was not reasonable or would result in 

significantly greater environmental impacts that could not be readily mitigated. Those alternatives that 

appeared to be the most reasonable with less than or similar levels of environmental impact are reviewed 

below in the greatest detail. 

3.1 NO ACTION OR POSTPONED ACTION ALTERNATIVES 

The Commission has three possible courses of action in processing applications under Section 7 of 

the NGA: (1) the requested authorization could be denied (e.g. the No Action Alternative); (2) the proposed 

3-1 
action could be postponed pending additional filings or studies (e.g. the Postponed Action Alternative); or 

(3) the Certificate could be granted with or without conditions. 

As discussed in section 1.1.2, the proposed Project would supply an additional 266 MMcf/d of natural 

gas from the Rocky Mountains supplies to southwest markets through an expansion of the existing Kern River 

pipeline system. The proposed looping of the existing Kern River system and the proposed compression 

would meet the additional needs of NV Energy in southern Nevada. The addition of incremental supply to 

the Kern River pipeline system would help meet growing energy demands, enhance reliability, and result in 

supply diversification by providing access to a larger share of domestic natural gas supplies. 

If the FERC were to deny Kern River’s application, the short- and long-term environmental impacts 

identified in this EIS would not occur. If the Commission postpones action on the application, the 

environmental impacts identified in this EIS would be delayed. If Kern River decided not to pursue the 

Project, the impacts would not occur at all. However, if the FERC were to select the No Action or Postponed 

Action Alternative, the objectives of the proposed Project as described in section 1.1 would not be met, and a 

new source of natural gas to markets that can be accessed through the existing Kern River pipeline system 

would not be developed. 

Although it would be purely speculative and beyond the scope of this analysis to attempt to predict 

what actions might be taken by policymakers or end users in response to the No Action or Postponed Action 

Alternative, it is likely that potential end users (i.e., NV Energy) would make other arrangements to obtain 

natural gas service or make use of alternative fossil fuel energy sources (such as fuel oil or coal), other 

traditional long-term fuel source alternatives (such as nuclear power or hydropower), and/or renewable energy 

sources (such as wind or solar power) to compensate for the reduced availability of natural gas that would be 

supplied by the proposed Project. It is also possible that energy conservation practices would be used to 

offset the demand for natural gas in the markets that would be supplied by the proposed Project. 

In combination or as individual sources, specific energy alternatives or conservation measures could 

have one of three end results. The projected energy needs of the target market area could: (1) not be 

provided; (2) be met with equal or less environmental impact than that of the proposed Project; or (3) be met 

with greater environmental impact than those of the proposed Project if implemented. Section 3.2 discusses 

energy alternatives, including increased efficiency, conservation, renewable energy sources, and use of other 

non-renewable fuels. 

3.2 ENERGY ALTERNATIVES 

3.2.1 Energy Conservation and Increased Efficiency 

A decision to deny or postpone Kern River’s application could result in higher natural gas prices over 

time due to limited access to new natural gas supplies. In turn, these higher prices may motivate consumers to 

conserve or reduce their use of natural gas. The acts of conservation and increased efficiency are undoubtedly 

important components of future energy portfolios for southern Nevada, as well as for the country as a whole. 

Energy conservation and increased efficiency in energy have been of national concern since the 1973 

oil crisis. Since then, most states have implemented conservation and efficiency programs. The California 

Energy Commission, established in 1974, is tasked with promoting energy efficiency standards, as well as 

public interest through research and technology. The Nevada Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation 

Task Force was established in 2001 by the Nevada Legislature to assist the Nevada State Office of Energy in 

developing and implementing conservation measures and procedures to reduce the demand for energy. A 

private-public partnership between the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) and the state’s 

3-2 
private utilities promotes energy conservation and efficient energy use in homes and both private and public 

businesses. 

Energy conservation could help alleviate some of the nation’s growing demand for energy and, 

therefore, offset the need for increased natural gas supplies. Due to increased energy efficiency, energy use 

per capita will decrease between 2007 and 2030 (EIA 2009a). Despite this per capita decrease, overall energy 

demand in the United States will increase as population increases, with total energy consumption estimated to 

increase by 11 percent between 2007 and 2030 (EIA 2009a). Under the State Energy Program that is 

administered by Department of Energy (DOE) (2008a) and required under Section 123 of the EPAct of 2005, 

state energy programs are required to develop an energy conservation plan to participate in the State Energy 

Program. California, Nevada, and Utah have developed energy conservation plans for their states. Although 

conservation under the state energy plans and other energy conservation measures will be important elements 

in addressing future energy demands, energy conservation would not preclude the need for natural gas 

infrastructure that would supply Kern River’s proposed volumes to NV Energy’s new 500-MW electric 

generation unit (currently under construction). 

3.2.2 Renewable Energy 

Renewable energy sources are another long-term fuel source alternative to natural gas, including 

hydropower and other renewable energy sources (e.g., wind, biomass, solar, tidal, and geothermal energy). 

Renewable energy projects will likely play an increasingly prominent role in meeting the U.S. energy 

demands in the coming years. Each of these energy sources discussed below have associated environmental 

impacts. For technologies currently in use, these impacts are more clearly defined (e.g., wind turbines may 

affect birds and bats); however, the impacts of newer technologies have yet to be determined (e.g., the 

potential impacts of hydrokinetic energy). 

Electricity generated from the flow of water through turbines that was previously stored behind dams 

is called “hydropower”. Currently, this energy source is a significant contributor to the U.S. energy mix, and 

non-tidal hydropower electricity generation is expected to remain steady (approximately 3 percent of all 

energy production) through 2030 (EIA 2009a). Although efficiency upgrades at existing hydropower 

facilities are expected to produce incremental additions of power in the coming years, it is unlikely that new 

or significant sources of hydropower could be developed in a timeframe to be considered an alternative to NV 

Energy’s new 500-MW project. 

Heat sources from the earth, including hot springs, geysers, and volcanoes, can be used to generate 

energy known as geothermal energy. According to the 2009 U.S. Geothermal Power Production and 

Development Update, the United States is leading the world in online geothermal energy capacity, with about 

4 percent of renewable energy-based electricity as geothermal energy in 2007. Eight states, including 

California, Nevada, and Utah, currently have facilities generating geothermal electricity, as of August 2009, 

the on-line capacity of geothermal power facilities in California, Nevada, and Utah were 2,605.3 MW, 

448.4 MW, and 47 MW, respectively (Jennejohn 2009). In California, 4.5 percent of total electricity is 

produced by geothermal power plants (California Energy Commission 2008). According to the Energy 

Information Administration (EIA), less than 1 percent of Nevada’s energy is supplied from a mix of 

hydroelectric and geothermal, while the contribution of geothermal in Utah is minimal. The primary barriers 

to further development of this renewable resource include resource uncertainty, and high development and 

exploration costs, in addition to the resource’s location in environmentally sensitive areas, which makes siting 

facilities challenging. Given the physical limitations of geothermal sites and the overall negligible 

contribution to energy production, this type of renewable resource could not provide the additional energy 

supply in the timeframe proposed by NV Energy’s 500-MW project. 

3-3 
Biomass energy production (including biofuels, waste, and wood-derived fuels) now accounts for 

37 percent of all non-hydropower renewable resource energy production (EIA 2009a). The production and 

consumption of biofuels (such as ethanol and biodiesel) drive a large portion of this production. The 

Renewable Fuel Standards that was passed under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 requires 

the production of 36 billion gallons of biofuels per year by 2022 (BRDB 2008). Further, DOE (2008b) 

announced a $1 billion partnership with industry to research, develop, and implement advanced biofuel 

production by 2012. Nationally, biomass consumption is projected to increase by 4.4 percent per year 

between 2007 and 2030, resulting in biomass energy accounting for approximately 53 percent of the nonhydropower renewable resources energy production by 2030 (EIA 2009a). However, uncertainty regarding 

biomass output, the high costs of transportation of inputs to energy conversion facilities, and the lack of 

private capital investment in new facilities make this energy source an infeasible and unforeseeable alternative 

to NV Energy’s 500-MW project (CBEA 2008). 

Solar energy production accounted for approximately 1 percent of all non-hydropower renewable 

energy production in the United States in 2007 (EIA 2009a). Solar energy can be produced in three ways: 

passive solar energy involves use of direct sunlight through windows to warm and/or light interior spaces, 

water can be heated through solar means, or the sunlight can be converted into electricity via solar panels. 

Large-scale commercial and small-scale and customer applications are anticipated to increase (EIA 2009a) but 

are not expected to represent a significant replacement of current natural gas energy resources for several 

years. Therefore, we do not consider solar energy to be a reasonable or feasible alternative since it could not 

off-set the energy proposed by the NV Energy’s new 500-MW project in the same timeframe. 

The American Wind Energy Association reports that as of October 2009, 1.2 percent of U.S.-

generated electricity came from wind sources. California is ranked third in the United States in total operating 

capacity with 2,787 MW, or about 9 percent of the total U.S. capacity wind power contributes approximately 

2.8 of the state’s total power (AWEA 2009, DOE 2008b). According to the EIA, Nevada has substantial 

wind-based energy potential; however, there is currently no active energy production based on wind sources 

in Nevada (EIA 2009b). The largest renewable facility in Utah, a 203-MW wind farm in Millard and Beaver 

Counties, was completed in November 2009 (Ecogeek 2009). Power generated by wind is dependent upon a 

variety of factors, such as cost of fossil fuels, state renewable energy programs, technology improvements, as 

well as public concerns for environmental and other impacts. Currently, the foremost barrier to future 

development of wind farms stems from the lack of existing transmission distribution lines. As such, we do 

not believe that wind power represents a reasonable, feasible alternative on the same timeframe as NV 

Energy’s 500-MW project and the proposed Project. 

Renewable energy sources, including wind and solar power, will increasingly play an important role 

in power generation for the western market, especially as it relates to electrical demand. All three states in the 

region of influence have established Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS). According to the EIA, California 

and Nevada have RPS with goals of increased electricity generation from renewables by the years 2020 (33 

percent) and 2025 (25 percent), respectively1

. Utah has a voluntary program, with a target of 20 percent 

increase in renewables by 2025 (EIA 2009b). However, these sources represent a small fraction of the 

projected energy demands for this market for the foreseeable future, especially related to providing refined 

petroleum products for the transportation sector. 

Overall, the percentage of electricity generated from hydropower and non-hydropower renewable 

energy sources is projected to increase from approximately 6.7 percent in 2007 to about 12.6 percent of total 

energy use through 2030 (EIA 2009a). Despite the current and future promotion of renewable energy use, as 

 

1

 California also has an intermediate goal for investor-owned utilities, electric service provides, small and multijurisdictional utilities, and community choice aggregators to meet at least 20 percent by 2010 (EIA 2009b). 

3-4 
described above, increases in renewable energy supplies cannot be fully implemented on the same timeline to 

provide comparable generation capability as NV Energy’s 500-MW project and the proposed Project. 

3.2.3 Nuclear Energy 

Another traditional, non-renewable fuel source alternative to natural gas for electric generation is 

nuclear power. Several incentive and partnership programs aimed at promoting increased nuclear power 

generation infrastructure in the United States have recently been developed to promote fossil fuel alternatives 

for power generation (EIA 2009a, DOE 2008b). The DOE (2008c) has implemented a loan guarantee 

program with the U.S. nuclear industry to license and construct new nuclear power plants throughout the 

country (DOE 2008b). Further, under the EPAct, several incentives for the development of new nuclear 

reactor facilities and improved technology are designed to promote the operation of new nuclear power 

systems (DOE 2009). With projected new nuclear generating facilities and upgrades to existing nuclear 

infrastructure, nuclear power generation is expected to increase in the United States by approximately 

0.5 percent annually between 2007 and 2030 (EIA 2009a). Despite this projected growth in nuclear power 

generation, the EIA estimates that nuclear power will account for about 18 percent of total U.S. generating 

capacity by 2030 (EIA 2009a). Use of nuclear energy results in spent nuclear fuel that requires long-term 

management or disposal, which is not available. Additionally, regulatory requirements, cost considerations, 

and public concerns make new nuclear power plants an infeasible alternative to serve NV Energy’s targeted 

markets within a timeframe that would meet the objectives of the proposed Project. 

3.2.4 Fossil Fuels 

Denying or postponing a decision on the proposed Project would eliminate the increase in natural gas 

availability in the targeted market regions intended to satisfy future demand. Therefore, NV Energy would 

either need to obtain natural gas supplies from an alternative source or convert its new unit to another fuel 

source. A likely consequence could be an increased reliance on fuel oil, coal, and other non-renewable fuel 

supply sources. EIA (2009b) reported that, between 2007 and 2030, primary energy production is likely to 

increase (see section 3.1). While fuel oil and coal may provide an alternative to natural gas, the 

environmental impacts associated with the extraction and increased consumption of oils would not be 

preferable to natural gas. Natural gas is the cleanest burning of the fossil fuels. Relative to natural gas, 

reliance on coal or fuel oil to power electric generation would likely result in substantial increases in the 

emissions of pollutants, such as nitrous oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and carbon dioxide, and 

associated reductions in air quality. In addition, increased reliance on other fossil fuels would result in 

secondary impacts associated with their production (such as oil drilling and coal mining); transportation via 

truck, rail cars, and/or pipelines; and crude oil refinement. The use of fossil fuels like coal also results in 

higher emission of pollutants such as mercury into both the atmosphere and surrounding environment through 

deposition. In addition, unlike natural gas, coal use results in waste coal ash that requires disposal. 

Therefore, we believe that use of this energy source is not preferable to the proposed Project. 

3.3 SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES 

System alternatives are alternatives to the proposed action that would make use of existing, modified, 

or proposed pipeline systems to meet the stated objectives of the Apex Expansion Project. Implementation of 

a system alternative would make it unnecessary to construct all or a part of the proposed Project, although 

some modifications or additions to existing or proposed pipeline systems may be required to satisfy the 

proposed Project objectives. These modifications or additions would result in environmental impacts that 

may be less than, similar to, or greater than those associated with construction and operation of the proposed 

Project. The purpose of identifying and evaluating system alternatives is to determine whether the 

environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project could be avoided or 

reduced by using another pipeline system, while still meeting the objectives of the proposed Project. 

3-5 
A viable system alternative to the proposed Apex Expansion Project would have to supply an 

additional 266 MMcf/d of natural gas to southern Nevada and other southwest markets in the same general 

timeframe as the proposed Project. 

Our analysis of system alternatives includes an examination of existing and proposed natural gas 

systems that currently or would eventually serve the markets targeted by the proposed Project, and considers 

whether those systems would meet the proposed Project’s objectives while offering an environmental 

advantage over the proposed Project. The remainder of this section includes a discussion of existing overland 

natural gas pipeline systems and proposed pipeline systems that extend from the general Project area to target 

markets. Figure 3.3-1 depicts the location of the existing pipeline system alternatives in relation to the 

proposed Project route. 

In addition to the Kern River System, El Paso and Transwestern currently transport natural gas to 

southern Nevada. While the Kern River system supplies natural gas to southern Nevada from Rocky 

Mountain sources, the natural gas supplied by El Paso and Transwestern originates from the Permian and San 

Juan basins in New Mexico and Texas, respectively. The connection to these natural gas supplies via the El 

Paso and Transwestern lines is not direct, but rather relies on an interconnection with Southwest Gas 

Corporation’s pipeline system and local distribution system. Since Southwest Gas Corporation’s existing 

system is currently at capacity, significant modifications to the system would be required in order for either 

the El Paso or Transwestern pipeline systems to meet the proposed Project objectives. Currently, the FERC is 

not aware of any proposal by Southern Gas Corporation to make modifications to their existing system to 

meet the additional demand for gas in southern Nevada or any other market. However, in order to meet the 

objectives of the proposed Project, typical expansion of system infrastructure would include the construction 

of 140 miles of new pipeline in addition to the need for additional compression and construction of other 

appurtenant facilities. These types of modifications would have a significantly larger impact on the 

environment than Kern River’s proposed 28-mile loop. While expansions to the El Paso or Transwestern 

pipeline systems may enhance the reliability to the southern Nevada markets, they would not provide supply 

diversity, which is a key goal of the proposed Project. 

In April 2009, an interconnect between the Kern River system and that of the Mojave Pipeline 

Company allowed for increased supply of natural gas from the Permian and San Juan basins. While this 

interconnect has improved the reliability of the gas supply in this market, it does not provide for supply 

diversity and thus does not meet the proposed Project goals. Therefore, the Mojave Pipeline existing system 

is not a viable system alternative to the proposed Apex Expansion Project. 

Projects that are proposed to transport natural gas but are not yet constructed and systems that are 

recently put into service are also possible alternatives to the proposed Project. We have identified seven 

recently proposed or certificated interstate pipeline projects that would transport natural gas from the Rocky 

Mountain region (table 3.3-1). The discussion that follows is organized to discuss system alternatives based 

on their state of completion those that are most complete are discussed first. 

3-6 
Texas

Utah

Montana

Idaho

Nevada

Arizona

California

Colorado

Wyoming

Kansas

Oregon

New Mexico

Nebraska

Oklahoma

South Dakota

North Dakota Washington

Mexico

CA

AZ

NV

NM

OR

CO

WY

UT

Date: March 2010 

APEX EXPAN

SYSTEM AL

0 210 420 105

Miles

Legend

Proposed Wasatch Loop

Bison Pipeline Project

Kanda Lateral and Mainline Expansion Project

Loop Expansion Project

Rex-West Pipeline Project

Ruby Pipeline Project

El Paso Natural Gas

Mojave Pipeline

Southwest Gas Pipeline

Transwestern Pipeline

Kern River Gas Pipeline

Project Area

 ̄

3-7
TABLE 3.3-1 

Proposed or Recently Certificated Interstate Pipeline Projects 

Proposed to Transport Rocky Mountain Natural Gas

Project Name Project Status Proposed In-Service Date

Kanda Lateral and Mainline Expansion Certificated In service

Rex-West Project Certificated In service 

Kern River 2010 Expansion Project Certificated November 2010 

Loop Expansion Project Application submitted November 2010 

Bison Pipeline Project Application submitted November 2010 

Ruby Pipeline Project Application submitted Spring 2011 

Two of the eight systems are currently in service: the Kanda Lateral and Mainline Expansion and the 

Rex-West Project. The Kanda Lateral and Mainline Expansion transports up to 0.15 Bcf/d of natural gas via a 

124-mile-long pipeline that extends from the Natural Buttes Fields in Uintah County, Utah to Sweetwater 

County, Wyoming. The Rex-West Project transports up to 1.5 Bcf/d of natural gas via a 713-mile-long, 

42-inch-diameter pipeline extending from the Cheyenne Hub in Weld County, Colorado to Audrain County, 

Missouri. These system alternatives would require connections to the proposed Project’s target markets via 

additional pipeline systems or new pipe. As such, it would be necessary to significantly expand or modify the 

pipeline systems to meet the proposed Project’s objectives. While the specific details of expansion or 

modifications to meet the proposed Project goals are not known, as the systems are currently not proposing to 

do so, we estimate that the systems would require new pipe of approximately 125 miles to more than 

350 miles. Environmental impacts associated with the expansions of these pipeline systems and the 

construction of new pipelines to connect the system alternative to the targeted market would result in greater 

impacts than those associated with the proposed Project. For these reasons, we do not consider the Kanda 

Lateral and Mainline Expansion or the Rex-West System Alternatives to provide environmental benefits 

superior to the proposed Project, and we have eliminated these from further consideration. 

There is one certificated/approved project currently under construction that utilizes natural gas from 

the Rocky Mountain region. The Kern River 2010 Expansion Project (Docket No. CP08-429-001), which 

involved the addition of compression and upgrades at existing aboveground facilities, would enhance the 

existing system to transport up to an additional 0.14 Bcf/d of natural gas via the existing 1,680-mile-long 

pipeline that extends from southwestern Wyoming to southern California. While these projects would 

increase the infrastructure that transports Rocky Mountain supplies, thus helping to reduce the bottlenecking 

that occurs in that area, neither project would serve the southern Nevada market. Further, these projects 

would not enhance the reliability of the Kern River system, which currently serves customers in Utah, 

Nevada, Arizona, and California. Therefore, we do not believe that these projects are viable alternatives to 

the proposed Apex Expansion Project. 

Questar’s Loop Expansion Project (Docket No. CP10-03-000) would transport up to 0.78 Bcf/d of 

natural gas via a 43-mile-long pipeline that extends from Sweetwater County, Wyoming to Uinta County, 

Wyoming. This proposed project is currently under review by the FERC. The proposed Bison Pipeline 

Project and Ruby Pipeline Project are new pipeline projects that are also currently under review by the FERC 

under Docket Nos. CP09-161-000 and CP09-54-000, respectively. The Bison Pipeline Project is proposed to 

transport 0.5 Bcf/d of natural gas from the Rocky Mountain region to Midwestern markets through an 

interconnect with the Northern Border pipeline system. The Bison Pipeline Project would consist of a 301.2-

3-8 
mile-long, 30-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline that would extend northeast from a point near 

Dead Horse (Campbell County), Wyoming, through southeastern Montana and southwestern North Dakota. 

It would connect with Northern Border’s pipeline system near Northern Border’s Compressor Station #6 in 

Morton County, North Dakota, which would ship the gas to markets in the Midwestern United States 

(primarily Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois). The purpose of the Bison Pipeline Project would be to 

transport natural gas produced in the Rocky Mountain region to markets in the Midwest. Similarly the Ruby 

Pipeline Project would transport Rocky Mountain gas. This project would transport 1,455 cubic feet per day 

(cf/d) of natural gas via a 675.2-mile-long, 42-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline that would 

extend west across northern Utah and Nevada to the Malin Market Center in Oregon. The purpose of this 

pipeline system would be to serve markets in northern Nevada and consumers on the west coast (northern 

California, Oregon, and Washington). While these projects would increase the infrastructure that transports 

Rocky Mountain supplies, thus helping to reduce the bottlenecking that occurs in that area, none would serve 

the southern Nevada market. Further, these projects would not enhance the reliability of the Kern River 

system, which currently serves customers in Utah, Nevada, Arizona, and California. Therefore, we do not 

believe that these projects are viable alternatives to the proposed Apex Expansion Project. 

3.4 MAJOR ROUTE ALTERNATIVES 

Kern River’s preliminary route for the Wasatch Loop was selected to follow its existing pipeline 

system across the Wasatch Mountains in northern Utah. Subsequent deviations from this existing corridor 

were developed through consultation and coordination with Kern River’s engineering team, as well as 

consideration of public comments and input received from federal, state, and local agency representatives. As 

noted in section 1.3, Kern River held a variety of public open houses as well as agency and stakeholder 

meetings while developing the proposed route. In addition, the FERC held two scoping meetings during 

development of the proposed Project to identify and evaluate alternatives that could avoid or minimize 

potential impacts. 

In the initial stages of route selection studies for the Apex Expansion Project, Kern River based its 

evaluations on one primary routing objective, to collocate the proposed pipeline with the existing pipeline. 

Since the loop would have the same origination and destination points along the existing Kern River pipeline 

in this area, installing it adjacent to the existing pipeline would be preferable to constructing a new route 

through undisturbed areas. As described in section 2.0, the origin of the loop is at KRMP 96.4 (Loop MP 0.0) 

on Kern River’s existing pipeline and the terminus of the loop is at KRMP 124.5 (Loop MP 28.0). The 

majority of the original Kern River Gas Transmission System has been looped to increase transport capacity, 

resulting in a two-pipeline delivery system along most of the pipeline route. However, there is not a loop in 

the system through the Wasatch Mountains in Utah and also near the Las Vegas area in Nevada. A route 

along the existing Kern River pipeline corridor would also result in more efficient and effective management 

of operation and maintenance of the loop compared to a route that would not be adjacent to the existing 

pipeline. This analysis resulted in the subsequently proposed Project that is described throughout sections 2.0 

and 4.0 of this EIS. The currently proposed route incorporates eight deviations from the existing right-ofway, which are described in table 3.4-1. 

3-9 
TABLE 3.4-1 

Deviations from Kern River’s Existing Right-of-Way Incorporated into the Proposed Apex 

Expansion Project Route 

Variation County 

Beginning 

Mileposta

Ending 

Mileposta

Total 

Length 

(Miles) 

Change 

in 

Proposed 

Route 

Lengthb Description/Rationalec

Rocky Canyon Morgan 2.3 2.6 0.3 +0.05 More perpendicular 

waterbody crossing; 

avoids narrow ridge and 

steep slopes. 

Tucson Hollow Morgan 3.4 3.7 0.3 +0.01 Avoids steep slopes. 

Hardscrabble Morgan 11.6 13.7 2.1 -0.22 Avoids steep side slope 

construction on ridge 

confined with multiple 

rights-of-way. 

Saddle Morgan 15.0 15.4 0.4 -0.02 Avoids narrow ridge and 

steep slopes. 

Sessions 

Mountains 

Morgan 17.0 17.4 0.4 -0.14 Follows a shorter, more 

linear path, minimizes 

visual impacts, and 

improves construction 

safety. 

Cave Peak Davis 18.8 20.5 1.8 -0.14 Avoids steep side slope 

construction on a narrow 

ridge with unstable slopes 

and minimizes visual 

impacts. 

Wasatch Front Davis and 

Salt Lake 

21.6 25.4 3.8 +0.31 Avoids steep slope and 

existing residential 

development, minimizes 

visual impacts, and 

accommodates a 

landowner request for a 

portion of the variation. 

Chevron 

Refinery 

Salt Lake 25.6 26.9 1.8 +0.03 Avoids location of planned 

future projects and 

crosses Interstate 15 at 

location approved by Utah 

Department of 

Transportation. 

____________ 

Notes: 

a

 The beginning and ending mileposts correspond to the locations where the proposed route deviates from and rejoins the 

existing Kern River right-of-way. 

b

 This value is positive for variations that add length to the proposed route or negative for variations that reduce the overall

length of the proposed route. 

c

 Provided by Kern River in their Application (November 2009). 

3-10
We considered major route alternatives for the proposed Apex Expansion Project to determine 

whether these alternatives would avoid or reduce impacts to environmentally sensitive resources that would 

be crossed by the proposed pipeline and in response to suggestions by the public. The origin and delivery 

points of a major route alternative are generally the same as for the corresponding portion of a proposed 

pipeline. However, the alternatives would follow routes significantly different from the proposed pipeline. 

Major route alternatives would not modify or make use of other existing or new pipeline systems. 

Commission regulations (18 CFR 380.15[d][1]) give primary consideration to the use, enlargement, 

or extension of existing rights-of-way to reduce potential impacts on sensitive resources. Installation of new 

pipeline along existing, cleared rights-of-way (such as pipelines, power lines, roads, and railroads) may be 

environmentally preferable to construction along new rights-of-way; and construction effects and cumulative 

impacts can normally be reduced by use of previously cleared rights-of-way. Likewise, long-term or 

permanent environmental impacts can normally be reduced by avoiding the creation of new rights-of-way 

through undisturbed areas. 

We received comments from the public and federal and state resource agencies during the scoping 

period for the proposed Project requesting the evaluation of various route alternatives. Based on input 

provided to us by the general public and federal and state resource agencies, and based on our review of the 

proposed Project, we identified and evaluated five major route alternatives: the Kern River Right-of-Way 

Route Alternative (section 3.4.1), the Legacy Highway Route Alternative (section 3.4.2), the Pages 

Lane/Porter Road Route Alternative (section 3.4.3), the Bountiful Boulevard Route Alternative (section 

3.4.4), and the Wasatch Mountains Route Alternative (section 3.4.5). 

3.4.1 Kern River Right-of-Way Route Alternative 

The Kern River Right-of-Way Route Alternative would follow Kern River’s existing system from the 

point of origin at MP 0.0 through to the tie-in point at MP 28.0 as depicted in figure 3.4.1-1. The major 

advantage of this alternative route would be its complete collocation with the existing pipeline, which could 

potentially minimize environmental and land use impacts. 

Impacts of the proposed Project route and the Kern River Right-of-Way Route Alternative are 

compared in table 3.4.1-1. Quantitative data are based on a comparative desktop analysis using a combination 

of United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps, National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps, 

and USGS land cover land use data. 

The Kern River Right-of-Way Route Alternative would impact approximately 77 acres less than the 

proposed Project route. The alternative route would have greater impacts on forest lands, while the proposed 

route would have greater impacts on sage grouse and pygmy rabbit habitat (sage brush habitat). The terrain 

along the alternative route also presents significant construction challenges and would impact more residences 

within 50 feet of the permanent right-of-way. While the Kern River Right-of-Way Route Alternative 

conceptually represents a route that would eliminate the need for new right-of-way, the original pipeline was 

constructed along ridge lines and across several steep slopes. Construction of a loop along existing pipeline at 

these locations raises construction challenges and construction safety concerns. In several locations there 

would be insufficient room to allow for safe installation of the proposed pipeline. Further, due to the 

constrained nature of the topography along Kern River’s existing right-of-way, there is an increased chance of 

soil erosion and sedimentation issues, which have both environmental and visual implications. As a result of 

these impediments along the existing pipeline, Kern River has incorporated the route deviations described in 

table 3.4-1 into its proposed route. Construction of the loop entirely along the existing pipeline is not 

technically feasible for these reasons. In addition, this alternative would require construction within 50 feet of 

3-11
!A

28

CA

AZ

NV

NM

OR

CO

WY

UT

Date: March 2010 

APEX EXPAN

KERN 

RIGHT-OF-WAY R

0 3 6 1.5

Miles

Project Area

 ̄

Legend

Existing Kern River Pipeline

Proposed Wasatch Loop

Utility Corridor

UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Roadless Areas

Private lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

USFS-managed lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Milepost !A

3-12
27 additional residences. Therefore, we believe that the alternative route does not present a clear 

environmental advantage over the proposed route, and we have eliminated the Kern River Right-of-Way 

Route Alternative from further consideration. While we do not believe it is technically feasible for Kern 

River to follow its existing pipeline entirely, we did evaluate several variations in section 3.5 to determine 

possible locations where Kern River could increase its collocation with the existing pipeline right-of-way. 

TABLE 3.4.1-1 

Comparison of Kern River Right-of-Way Route Alternative and the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project Route

Evaluation Criterion 

Proposed Project 

Route 

Alternative 

Route 

Total length (miles) 28.0 29.4 

Construction impacts (acres) 433 356 

Permanent impacts (acres) 170 178 

Residences within 50 feeta (number) 3 30 

Agricultural land (miles/acres) 1.0/21.2 1.2/14.2 

Forested land (miles/acres) 3.4/81.6 12.4/150.2 

Wetlands crossed (miles) 0.4 0.2 

Coldwater fisheries (number) 5 20 

Category 1 high-quality waters crossed (number) 6 8 

Adjacent to existing rights-of-way (miles) 18.4 29.4 

U.S. Forest Service Lands (miles) 7.6 6.0 

National Forest Service trail crossings (number) 5 3 

Proposed special management areas crossedb

(number) 

4 6 

Douglas fir stands crossed (miles/acres) 4.0/43.9 3.9/46.7 

Mountain mahogany-oak stands crossed(miles/acres) 15.2/211.0 13.2/159.4 

Sage brush habitat crossedc (miles) 12.0 3.6 

____________ 

Notes: 

a

 The number of residences reported would be within 50 feet of the permanent right-of-way. 

b

 Special management areas are comprised of wildlife management areas, national forests, preserves and other public use 

lands. 

c

 Identified as sensitive communities and/or species of concern. 

3-13
3.4.2 Legacy Highway Route Alternative 

The Legacy Highway Route Alternative would follow Kern River’s existing system, and the proposed 

route, for the first 16.1 miles west of the origin. Between MP 15.9 and 16.0, the alternative route would then 

deviate from the Kern River right-of-way and head northwest within the USFS Ward Canyon utility corridor. 

 The Legacy Highway Route Alternative would then take a generally northern route along the Bonneville 

Bench through the eastern foothills of Bountiful and Centerville cities. To cross Interstate 15, the alternative 

route would head west after which it would turn south to follow an existing transmission corridor and the 

Legacy Highway through the Legacy Nature Preserve (LNP) before terminating at the proposed Project tie-in 

point at MP 28.0 (figure 3.4.2-1). 

Impacts of the proposed Project route and the Legacy Highway Route Alternative are compared in 

table 3.4.2-1. Quantitative data are based on a comparative desktop analysis using a combination of USGS 

topographic maps, NWI maps, and USGS land cover use data. 

TABLE 3.4.2-1 

Comparison of Legacy Highway Route Alternative and the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project Route

Evaluation Criterion 

Proposed Project 

Route 

Alternative 

Route 

Total length (miles) 28.0 34.8 

Construction impacts (acres) 433 422 

Permanent impacts (acres) 170 211 

Residences within 50 feeta (number) 3 7 

Agricultural land (miles/acres) 1.0/21.2 7.5/90.7 

Forested land (miles/acres) 3.4/81.6 9.0/109.5 

Wetlands crossed (miles) 0.4 1.4 

Coldwater fisheries (number) 5 22 

Category 1 high-quality waters crossed (number) 6 21 

Adjacent to existing rights-of-way (miles) 18.4 29.0 

U.S. Forest Service lands (miles) 7.6 3.9 

National Forest Service trail crossings (number) 5 3 

Proposed special management areas crossedb

(number) 

4 7 

Douglas fir stands crossed (miles/acres) 4.0/43.9 3.0/35.8 

Mountain mahogany-oak stands crossed(miles/acres) 15.2/211.0 10.5/126.7 

Sage brush habitat crossedc (miles) 12.0 3.6 

____________ 

Notes: 

a

 The number of residences reported would be within 50 feet of the permanent right-of-way. 

b

 Special management areas are comprised of wildlife management areas, national forests, preserves and other public use 

lands. 

c Identified as sensitive communities and/or species of concern. 

3-14
Bountiful

Farmington

Centerville

28

CA

AZ

NV

NM

OR

CO

WY

UT

Date: March 2010 

APEX EXPAN

LEGACY HIGHWAY 

0 3 6 1.5

Miles

Project Area

 ̄

Legend

Milepost

Legacy Highway Route Alternative

Proposed Wasatch Loop

Utility Corridor

UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Private lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

USFS-managed lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Roadless Areas

3-15
The Legacy Highway Route Alternative would be about 7.0 miles longer than the proposed Project 

alignment. The alternative would have reduced construction impacts due to its greater collocation with 

existing rights-of-way but increased permanent impacts due to its longer length. The alternative would avoid 

crossing the urbanized areas of Bountiful and Centerville cities, and in some cases, impacts on certain habitat 

would be reduced. Construction of this alternative, however, would be within 50 feet of 4 additional 

residences than the proposed route. The alternative route has several constrained areas due to the extreme 

topography and existing features (e.g., the Davis County Aqueduct), that present construction limitations and 

safety concerns. The location of the route within the Salt Lake Valley poses concerns for a high water table, 

which would slow construction, require specialized construction equipment, and impact more wetlands and 

waterbodies. Kern River has indicated that this alternative has the potential for exposure to artesian water 

pressure, which raises concerns for soil liquefaction during construction and could reduce the success of postconstruction restoration in affected areas. 

The alternative would cross the LNP, which would result in an increased risk of impacts on highquality habitat supporting a variety of species as compared to the proposed route. The LNP was established to 

mitigate impacts from construction of the Legacy Highway, including wetland mitigation sites that would fall 

within the construction workspace of this alternative route. The FERC received comments from stakeholders 

regarding potential impacts of this alternative route to local businesses/commercial areas; recreation; and 

other sensitive areas, including the Farmington Bay Waterfowl Management Area, the LNP, and the 

Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Additional concerns for this alternative route included concern regarding the 

proposed expansion of an airport nearby and its location within an already highly congested utility corridor. 

Due to the potential impact on special management areas, construction feasibility and safety concerns along 

this alternative route, as well as the issues raised by stakeholders, we believe that the alternative route does 

not present a clear environmental advantage over the proposed route. Therefore, we have eliminated the 

Legacy Highway Route Alternative from further consideration. 

3.4.3 Pages Lane/Porter Road Route Alternative 

Similar to the Legacy Highway Route Alternative, the Pages Lane/Porter Road Alternative would 

follow Kern River’s proposed route between MP 0.0 and 15.9. The Pages Lane/Porter Road Alternative 

would then follow the Legacy Highway Alternative for about 3.5 miles from MP 15.9 to the foothills of 

Centerville, Utah (figure 3.4.3-1). In Centerville the alternative route would follow either Pages Lane or 

Porter Road to cross the Salt Lake Valley. The alternative route would meet up with the Legacy Highway 

Route Alternative near the Legacy Highway and follow a similar route to the terminus. 

Impacts of the proposed Project route and the Pages Lane/Porter Road Route Alternative are 

compared in table 3.4.3-1. Quantitative data are based on a comparative desktop analysis using a combination 

of USGS topographic maps, NWI maps, and USGS land cover use data. 

The Pages Lane/Porter Road Alternative would impact approximately 67 acres less than the proposed 

Project route. This alternative would have greater impacts than the proposed route on agricultural and 

forested land but less impacts on other habitat types (Douglas fir stands, mountain mahogany-oak stands, and 

sage brush habitat). While the Pages Lane/Porter Road Route Alternative would have some of the same 

construction constraints as the Legacy Highway Route Alternative due to the terrain, they would be less 

significant. Further, the alternative route’s collocation with Pages Lane or Porter Road to cross Salt Lake 

Valley would reduce the crossing length of the LNP. Alternatively, this segment of the alternative route is in 

a residential area with 45 residences within 50 feet of the permanent right-of-way, compared to two 

residences within 50 feet of the proposed permanent right-of-way. This alternative would also require 

multiple utility crossings, both underground at various depths and overhead, resulting in traffic control issues. 

 Specialized 

3-16
Bountiful

Farmington

Centerville

28

CA

AZ

NV

NM

OR

CO

WY

UT

Date: March 2010 

APEX EXPAN

PAGES LANE / 

ROUTE AL

0 3 6 1.5

Miles

Project Area

 ̄

Legend

Milepost

Pages Lane / Porter Road Route Alternative

Proposed Wasatch Loop

Utility Corridor

UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Private lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

USFS-managed lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Roadless Areas

3-17
construction techniques due to the limited area for temporary workspace along this alternative would also 

cause construction to occur at a slow pace. The FERC received comments regarding concerns from 

stakeholders similar to those received for the Legacy Highway Route Alternative, in addition to comments 

regarding traffic-related issues and other disruptions to the various local communities along this alternative 

route. Due to greater landowner impacts, we do not believe that this alternative provides a clear 

environmental advantage over the proposed route; therefore, we have eliminated the Pages Lane/Porter Road 

Route Alternative from further consideration. 

TABLE 3.4.3-1 

Comparison of Pages Lane/Porter Road Route Alternative and the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project Route

Evaluation Criterion 

Proposed Project 

Route 

Alternative 

Route 

Total length (miles) 28.0 30.2 

Construction impacts (acres) 433 366 

Permanent impacts (acres) 170 183 

Residences within 50 feeta (number) 2 45 

Agricultural land (miles/acres) 1.0/21.2 5.0/61.0 

Forested land (miles/acres) 3.4/81.6 8.9/107.5 

Wetlands crossed (miles) 0.4 0.3 

Coldwater fisheries (number) 5 16 

Category 1 high-quality waters crossed (number) 6 33 

Adjacent to existing rights-of-way (miles) 18.4 24.6 

U.S. Forest Service lands (miles) 7.6 3.7 

National Forest Service trail crossings (number) 5 2 

Proposed special management areas crossedb

(number) 

4 7 

Douglas fir stands crossed (miles/acres) 4.0/43.9 3.0/35.8 

Mountain mahogany-oak stands crossed(miles/acres) 15.2/211.0 10.5/126.7 

Sage brush habitat crossedc (miles) 12.0 3.6 

____________ 

Notes: 

a

 The number of residences reported would be within 50 feet of the permanent right-of-way. 

b

 Special management areas are comprised of wildlife management areas, national forests, preserves and other public use 

lands. 

c Identified as sensitive communities and/or species of concern. 

3-18
3.4.4 Bountiful Boulevard Route Alternative 

Similar to the Legacy Highway Alternative, the Bountiful Boulevard Route Alternative would follow 

Kern River’s proposed pipeline route between MP 0.0 and 15.9. The Bountiful Boulevard Route Alternative 

would also follow the Legacy Highway Alternative for about 2.5 miles from MP 15.9, at the east tie-in point, 

to the foothills of Bountiful, Utah (figure 3.4.4-1). In Bountiful, the alternative route would turn south 

following Bountiful Boulevard for about 6 miles to reach Kern River’s existing system near MLV 121 and 

then following the existing right-of-way to the terminus at MP 28.0. 

Impacts of the proposed Project route and Bountiful Boulevard Route Alternative are compared in 

table 3.4.4-1. Quantitative data are based on a comparative desktop analysis using a combination of USGS 

topographic maps, NWI maps, and USGS land cover use data. 

TABLE 3.4.4-1 

Comparison of Bountiful Boulevard Route Alternative and the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project Route

Evaluation Criterion 

Proposed Project 

Route 

Alternative 

Route 

Total length (miles) 28.0 28.3 

Construction impacts (acres) 433 293 

Permanent impacts (acres) 170 172 

Residences within 50 feeta (number) 3 245 

Agricultural land (miles/acres) 1.0/21.2 1.3/16.2 

Forested land (miles/acres) 3.4/81.6 8.6/107.3 

Wetlands crossed (miles) 0.4 0.2 

Coldwater fisheries (number) 5 17 

Category 1 high quality waters crossed (number) 6 2 

Adjacent to existing rights-of-way (miles) 18.4 21.6 

U.S. Forest Service lands (miles) 7.6 2.8 

National Forest Service trail crossings (number) 5 3 

Proposed special management areas crossedb

(number) 

4 6 

Douglas fir stands crossed (miles/acres) 4.0/43.9 3.0/35.8 

Mountain mahogany-oak stands crossed(miles/acres) 15.2/211.0 10.5/126.7 

Sage brush habitat crossedc (miles) 12.0 3.6 

____________ 

Notes: 

a

 The number of residence reported would be within 50 feet of the permanent right-of-way. 

b

 Special management areas are comprised of wildlife management areas, national forests, preserves and other public use 

lands. 

c Identified as sensitive communities and/or species of concern. 

3-19
Bountiful

Farmington

Centerville

28

CA

AZ

NV

NM

OR

CO

WY

UT

Date: March 2010 

APEX EXPAN

BOUNTIFUL BOULEVAR

0 3 6 1.5

Miles

Project Area

 ̄

Legend

Milepost

Bountiful Boulevard Route Alternative

Proposed Wasatch Loop

Utility Corridor

UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Private lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

USFS-managed lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Roadless Areas

3-20
The alternative route would cross through a residential area along Bountiful Boulevard, impacting a 

significant number of residences within 50 feet of the proposed permanent right-of-way (245 residences). 

Impacts associated with this alternative through residential areas would be similar to those discussed for the 

Pages Lane/Porter Road Route Alternative but would be greater due to the larger number of residences. 

FERC received several comments regarding concerns from stakeholders about potential impacts during 

construction to utility lines, water lines, sewers/drains, as well as potential challenges with maintenance of 

these utilities following construction. Commentors also pointed to potential traffic control issues since 

Bountiful Boulevard is the only access road for residences of the area and access to two golf courses and a 

fire station. In addition, the alternative route would be in proximity to areas utilized for flood control, which 

may require additional specialized construction designs and/or further refinement of the identified route. Due 

to the greater number of affected landowners and the associated impacts from construction, we do not believe 

that the alternative provides an environmental advantage over the proposed route. Therefore, we have 

eliminated the Bountiful Boulevard Route Alternative from further consideration. 

3.4.5 Wasatch Mountains Route Alternative 

The Wasatch Mountains Route Alternative would run southwest from the east tie-in point of the 

corresponding segment of the proposed route at MP 0.0, following an existing utility corridor and other 

pipelines through Emigration Canyon, which would also be partly located within the USFS-designated Little 

Mountain utility corridor (figure 3.4.5-1). Upon exiting the canyon, the alternative route would then turn 

north along the Bonneville Bench to parallel the existing Questar pipeline right-of-way to Kern River’s 

existing pipeline system near MLV 121, and then follow the existing right-of-way to the terminus at MP 28.0. 

Impacts of the proposed Project route and Wasatch Mountains Route Alternative are compared in 

table 3.4.5-1. Quantitative data are based on a comparative desktop analysis using a combination of USGS 

topographic maps, NWI maps, and USGS land cover use data. 

The Wasatch Mountains Route Alternative would require the most greenfield2

 construction 

(13.1 miles) of any of the alternative routes considered and 3.5 miles more length than the proposed loop, 

including lands within the UWCNF. Also, this alternative route would encumber all of the issues previously 

identified across the other four major alternatives, including construction challenges, residences in close 

proximity (45 within 50 feet of the permanent right-of-way), traffic concerns (especially at the crossing of 

Canyon Creek Road where steep slopes may prohibit a road bore), and limited area for temporary workspace, 

and associated safety concerns. Further, since the Wasatch Mountains Route Alternative would be 

constructed on lands not previously disturbed, the majority of the route has not been surveyed to identify 

cultural resources (only 5 percent of the first 28 miles has previously been surveyed). Given the proximity of 

this route to areas identified as important historical, cultural, or recreational areas, it is likely that the corridor 

of the alternative route would be of moderate to high density for potential cultural/historic sites. Given the 

extensive amount of greenfield associated with the alternative, in addition to the other factors discussed 

above, we do not believe that the alternative provides an environmental advantage over the proposed route. 

Therefore, we have eliminated the Wasatch Mountains Route Alternative from further consideration. 

 

2

 “Greenfields” are lands that do not contain existing utility rights-of-way. 

3-21
Bountiful

Centerville

Salt Lake City

28

CA

AZ

NV

NM

OR

CO

WY

UT

Date: March 2010 

APEX EXPAN

WASATCH MOUNTAIN

0 3 6 1.5

Miles

Project Area

 ̄

Legend

Milepost

Wasatch Mountains Route Alternative

Proposed Wasatch Loop

Utility Corridor

UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Private lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

USFS-managed lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Roadless Areas

3-22
TABLE 3.4.5-1 

Comparison of Wasatch Mountains Alternative and the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project Route

Evaluation Criterion 

Proposed Project 

Route 

Alternative 

Route 

Total length (miles) 28.0 31.2 

Construction impacts (acres) 433 378 

Permanent impacts (acres) 170 189 

Residences within 50 feeta (number) 3 45 

Agricultural land (miles/acres) 1.0/21.2 1.4/16.8 

Forested land (miles/acres) 3.4/81.6 11.2/135.2 

Wetlands crossed (miles) 0.4 0.1 

Coldwater fisheries (number) 5 22 

Category 1 high-quality waters crossed (number) 6 33 

Adjacent to existing rights-of-way (miles) 18.4 18.1 

U.S. Forest Service lands (miles) 7.6 4.8 

National Forest Service trail crossings (number) 5 4 

Proposed special management areas crossedb

(number) 

4 4 

Douglas fir stands crossed (miles/acres) 4.0/43.9 1.6/19.4 

Mountain mahogany-oak stands crossed(miles/acres) 15.2/211.0 8.3/100.6 

Sage brush habitat crossedc (miles) 12.0 6.6 

____________ 

Notes: 

a

 The number of residences reported would be within 50 feet of the permanent right-of-way. 

b

 Special management areas are comprised of wildlife management areas, national forests, preserves and other public use 

lands. 

c Identified as sensitive communities and/or species of concern. 

3.5 ROUTE VARIATIONS 

Route variations differ from system or major route alternatives in that they are identified to resolve or 

reduce construction impacts to localized, specific resources such as cultural resources sites, wetlands, 

recreational lands, residences, and terrain conditions. While route variations may be a few miles in length, 

most are relatively short and in close proximity to the proposed route. Because route variations are identified 

in response to specific local concerns, they are often the result of landowner comments. A variety of factors 

are considered in identifying and evaluating route variations, including length, land requirements, and 

potential for reducing or minimizing impacts on natural resources. 

Our analysis of route variations is based on information provided by Kern River, input provided to us 

by the general public, as well as federal and state resource agencies. In addition, we have reviewed aerial 

photography and USGS topographic maps of the proposed route, and have conducted site visits. Seven route 

3-23
variations were identified for the proposed Apex Expansion Project, which are described below. Table 3.5-1 

lists the seven variations, the associated segments along the proposed route that they would replace, and the 

rationale for the variation we have taken into consideration in our analysis. 

TABLE 3.5-1 

Summary of Route Variations Identified for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Route Variation 

Proposed 

Project Route 

Milepost Range 

(approximate) Reason for Variation Status 

East Canyon 5.0 – 5.6 Provides a more perpendicular 

crossing of the East Canyon Creek 

and riparian area 

Not recommended 

Mueller Park 13.7 – 14.7 Avoids the Hogsback Roadless 

Area 

Recommended 

Holbrook Canyon 15.9 – 17.1 Avoids steep slopes of Holbrook 

Canyon and coniferous habitat 

Not recommended 

Sitka Holdings 21.0 – 22.5 Avoids private land holding but 

impacts more U.S. Forest Service 

land and forest habitat 

Not recommended 

North Salt Lake I 23.9 – 25.0 Avoids steep slope and recent 

residential development but 

encroaches on the Bonneville 

Shoreline Preserve 

Not recommended 

North Salt Lake II 23.9 – 25.0 Avoids Eaglepointe residential 

development area and the 

Bonneville Shoreline Preserve 

Not recommended 

North Salt Lake III 22.0 – 24.9 Avoids steep slope, mule deer 

wintering habitat, and historic 

Conservation Corps terracing 

Recommended 

3.5.1 East Canyon Route Variation 

The East Canyon Route Variation was developed to allow for a more perpendicular crossing of the 

East Canyon Creek (see section 4.3). The East Canyon Route Variation would deviate from the proposed 

Project alignment at MP 5.0, shifting the alignment southwest and then east before resuming the proposed 

Project alignment at MP 5.6 (figure 3.5.1-1). 

The East Canyon Route Variation would be approximately the same length as the proposed Project 

alignment (table 3.5.1-1). However, the route variation would cross topography that would make construction 

difficult. Further, the route variation would not be collocated with Kern River’s existing right-of-way, while 

the corresponding segment of the proposed alignment would be collocated and would cross one less 

waterbody than the route variation. The East Canyon Route Variation would traverse both sagebrush/grass 

(0.3 mile) and mahogany-oak scrub (0.3 acre), while the proposed Project route would avoid these habitats 

but would instead cross 0.01 mile of wetlands. However, this segment of the proposed route alignment would 

be contained entirely within an existing right-of-way. Both the proposed Project route and the route variation 

do not cross USFS property, and both would result in similar impacts to private landowners. 

3-24
!A

!A

!A

5

6

NV UT

Date: March 2010 

APEX EXPAN

EAST CANYON R

0 0.1 0.2 0.05

Miles

Project Area

 ̄

Legend

!A Milepost

East Canyon Route Variation

Proposed Wasatch Loop

Utility Corridor

UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Private lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

USFS-managed lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Roadless Areas

3-25
 

TABLE 3.5.1-1 

Comparison of Features of the Proposed Project Route and 

the East Canyon Route Variation 

Feature Unit 

Proposed Project 

Route Route Variation 

Total length Miles 0.6 0.7 

Collocation Miles 0.6 0.0 

Construction impacts Acres 6.8 8.1 

Residences within 50 feeta Number 0 0 

Private land holdings Miles 0.6 0.7 

U.S. Forest Service lands Miles 0.0 0.0 

Waterbody crossings Number 3 4 

Wetland crossingsb Miles 0.1 0.0 

____________ 

Notes: 

a The number of residences reported would be within 50 feet of the permanent right-of-way. 

b

 National Wetlands Inventory wetlands. 

Kern River stated that this route variation would have terrain constraints and conflicts with the 

landowners use of the area. While the East Canyon Route Variation would allow for a more perpendicular 

crossing of East Canyon Creek, Kern River has developed specialized construction techniques along the 

proposed route, discussed in section 4.3.2.6, that would minimize impacts on this waterbody. For these 

reasons, along with the decreased collocation with existing rights-of-way, we do not consider the East Canyon 

Route Variation to be environmentally preferable to the proposed Project alignment. Therefore, we have 

eliminated the East Canyon Route Variation from further consideration. 

3.5.2 Holbrook Canyon Route Variation 

The Holbrook Canyon Route Variation was considered due to construction constraints from steep 

terrain and an area of mature spruce-fir habitat along a segment of the proposed route between MP 15.9 to 

17.1 (figure 3.5.2-1). The Holbrook Canyon Route Variation would deviate from the proposed Project 

alignment at MP 15.9, continuing west within the Ward Canyon Utility Corridor and then south before 

resuming the proposed Project alignment at MP 17.1. 

The Holbrook Canyon Route Variation would be slightly longer than the proposed Project alignment 

(table 3.5.2-1) and would not be collocated with Kern River’s existing right-of-way. Additionally, the route 

variation would have more construction impacts than the proposed alignment and would also impact more 

USFS property. 

3-26
!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

19

18

17

16

15

NV UT

Date: March 2010 

APEX EXPAN

HOLBROOK CANYO

0 0.5 1 0.25

Miles

Project Area

 ̄

Legend

!A Milepost

Holbrook Canyon Route Variation

Proposed Wasatch Loop

Utility Corridor

UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Private lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

USFS-managed lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Roadless Areas

3-27
 

TABLE 3.5.2-1 

Comparison of Features of the Proposed Project Route and 

the Holbrook Canyon Route Variation 

Feature Unit Proposed Project Route Route Variation 

Total length Miles 1.3 1.8 

Collocation Miles 1.3 0.0 

Construction impacts Acres 15.2 21.9 

Residences within 50 feeta Number 0 0 

Private land holdings Miles 0.1 0.3 

U.S. Forest Service lands Miles 0.3 1.1 

Waterbody crossings Number 2 2 

Wetland crossingsb Miles 0.0 0.0 

____________ 

Notes: 

a The number of residences reported would be within 50 feet of the permanent right-of-way. 

b

 National Wetlands Inventory wetlands. 

Both the proposed route and the Holbrook Canyon Route Variation have similar terrain challenges 

but the Holbrook Canyon Route Variation would be approximately 0.5 mile longer, would not be collocated 

with the existing pipeline, and would impact more private and USFS land. Further, while the Holbrook 

Canyon Route Variation would avoid clearing of mature spruce-fir habitat along the corresponding segment 

of the proposed route; this impact does not outweigh the additional construction disturbance resulting from 

this variation. Therefore, we believe that the variation does not offer an environmentally preferable 

alternative to that of the proposed Project alignment. Therefore, we have eliminated the Holbrook Canyon 

Route Variation from further consideration. 

3.5.3 Sitka Holdings Route Variation 

The Sitka Holdings Route Variation was identified during meetings with landowners and based on 

comments received at the FERC scoping meetings. A request was made on behalf of a private landowner to 

re-route the pipeline alignment to circumvent his property between MP 21.0 and 22.5. To address the 

landowner’s concern, we considered a variation known as the Sitka Holdings Route Variation. At MP 21.0, 

the variation would deviate south of the proposed route to avoid the private landholding and then turn 

southwesterly to rejoin the proposed route at MP 22.5 (figure 3.5.3-1). 

3-28
!A

!A

!A

23

22

21

NV UT

Date: March 2010 

APEX EXPAN

SITKA HOLDINGS 

0 0.3 0.6 0.15

Miles

Project Area

 ̄

Legend

!A Milepost

Sitka Holdings Route Variation

Proposed Wasatch Loop

Utility Corridor

UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Private lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

USFS-managed lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Roadless Areas

3-29
We reviewed the Sitka Holdings Route Variation in detail, including the maps provided by the 

commentor. While this variation would meet the landowner’s request to avoid the property, the variation is 

not collocated with the existing pipeline and would require 0.4 mile of greenfield construction across USFS 

lands which would result in an additional 0.2 mile, or 2.4 acres3

 of impacts on forest habitat (table 3.5.3-1). 

TABLE 3.5.3-1 

Comparison of Features of the Proposed Project Route and 

the Sitka Holdings Route Variation 

Feature Unit Proposed Project Route Route Variation 

Total length Miles 1.5 1.4 

Collocation Miles 0.4 0.0 

Construction impacts Acres 17.7 17.1 

Residences within 50 feeta Number 0 0 

Private land holdings Miles 0.1 0.2 

U.S. Forest Service lands Miles 0.9 1.3 

Waterbody crossings Number 0 0 

Wetland crossingsb Miles 0.0 0.0 

____________ 

Notes: 

a The number of residences reported would be within 50 feet of the permanent right-of-way.

b

 National Wetlands Inventory wetlands. 

Despite the slightly shorter overall route of the Sitka Holdings Route Variation, the variation would 

have increased impacts on previously undisturbed areas by creating new right-of-way and would increase 

impacts on forest habitat on USFS-managed land. We believe that this route alternative does not offer an 

environmental advantage over the corresponding segment of the proposed Project alignment; therefore, we 

have eliminated the Sitka Holdings Route Variation from further consideration. 

3.5.4 North Salt Lake I Route Variation 

The North Salt Lake I Route Variation was considered as an alternative to the corresponding segment 

of the proposed route which avoids steep terrain and the presence of recent development of residential 

communities along Kern River’s existing right-of-way between MP 24 and 25. This variation, which would 

be slightly longer than the corresponding segment of the proposed route, would leave the existing right-ofway at MP 23.9 and take a southwest path to follow the prehistoric Bonneville Bench shoreline (figure 3.5.4-

1). The North Salt Lake I Route Variation would then continue west about 1 mile before heading in a 

northwesterly direction for 0.8 mile to rejoin the proposed route at MP 25.0. 

 

3

 This impact area was calculated based on the additional 0.2 mile of forest land and a 100-foot-wide construction 

right-of-way. 

3-30
!A

!A

!A

26

25

24

NV UT

Date: March 2010 

APEX EXPAN

NORTH SALT LAKE 

0 0.25 0.5 0.125

Miles

Project Area

 ̄

Legend

!A Milepost

North Salt Lake I Route Variation

Proposed Wasatch Loop

Utility Corridor

UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Private lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

USFS-managed lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Roadless Areas

3-31
The route variation would be 0.3 mile longer than the corresponding segment of the proposed route, 

with slightly increased construction impacts (an additional 4.1 acres). Both routes are not collocated with 

Kern River’s existing pipeline and would have a similar level of impact on private land and USFS land 

(table 3.5.4-1). 

TABLE 3.5.4-1 

Comparison of Features of the Proposed Project Route and 

the North Salt Lake I Route Variation 

Feature Unit Proposed Project Route Route Variation 

Total length Miles 1.1 1.4 

Collocation Miles 0.0 0.0 

Construction impacts Acres 13.2 17.3 

Residences within 50 feeta Number 0 0 

Private land holdings Miles 0.5 0.5 

U.S. Forest Service lands Miles 0.6 0.5 

Waterbody crossings Number 0 0 

Wetland crossingsb Miles 0.0 0.0 

____________ 

Notes: 

a The number of residences reported would be within 50 feet of the permanent right-of-way. 

b

 National Wetlands Inventory wetlands. 

The North Salt Lake I Route Variation would cross lands under the jurisdiction of Salt Lake and 

North Salt Lake Cities known as the Bonneville Shoreline Preserve. This geological formation represents the 

shoreline of prehistoric Lake Bonneville and has been protected as a preserve in perpetuity by a conservation 

easement. 

Commentors expressed concern with and opposition to any route alignment impacting the Bonneville 

Shoreline Preserve during Kern River’s open houses and the FERC scoping period. Due to the public 

opposition to any route alignment within the Bonneville Shoreline Preserve and the additional construction 

impact resulting from this variation, we have eliminated the North Salt Lake I Route Variation from further 

consideration. 

3.5.5 North Salt Lake II Route Variation 

The North Salt Lake II Route Variation was considered as an alternative to the previous route 

variation (North Salt Lake I) and as an alternative to the corresponding segment of the proposed route which 

avoids the Edgewood/Eaglepointe residential development along Kern River’s existing right-of-way. This 

variation would leave the existing right-of-way at MP 23.9 and generally take the same route as the North Salt 

Lake I Route Variation for 0.3 mile and a different route for the last 0.8 mile before rejoining the proposed 

route at MP 25.0 (figure 3.5.5-1). 

3-32
!A

!A

!A

26

25

24

NV UT

Date: March 2010 

APEX EXPAN

NORTH SALT LAKE 

0 0.25 0.5 0.125

Miles

Project Area

 ̄

Legend

!A Milepost

North Salt Lake II Route Variation

Proposed Wasatch Loop

Utility Corridor

UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Private lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

USFS-managed lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Roadless Areas

3-33
The North Salt Lake II Route Variation would be approximately 0.5 mile longer than the 

corresponding segment of the proposed route, with increased construction impacts (an additional 6.1 acres). 

Both routes would have similar impacts on private land and USFS land (table 3.5.5-1). 

TABLE 3.5.5-1 

Comparison of Features of the Proposed Project Route and 

the North Salt Lake II Route Variation 

Feature Unit Proposed Project Route Route Variation 

Total length Miles 1.1 1.6 

Collocation Miles 0.0 0.0 

Construction impacts Acres 13.2 19.3 

Residences within 50 feeta Number 0 0 

Private land holdings Miles 0.5 0.6 

U.S. Forest Service lands Miles 0.6 0.5 

Waterbody crossings Number 0 0 

Wetland crossingsb Miles 0.0 0.0 

____________ 

Notes: 

a The number of residences reported would be within 50 feet of the permanent right-of-way. 

b

 National Wetlands Inventory wetlands. 

The North Salt Lake II Route Variation would be longer and would have more construction impacts 

than either the corresponding segment of the proposed Project alignment or the North Salt Lake North I Route 

Variation. However, as discussed above, the route variation would avoid the Edgewood/Eaglepointe 

residential development and the Bonneville Shoreline Preserve. 

Kern River consulted with North Salt Lake City officials, who expressed their preference for the 

North Salt Lake II Route Variation to avoid impacts on the Edgewood/Eaglepointe development. The FERC 

also received comments from both North Salt Lake and Salt Lake Cities, which stated that this route variation 

was preferable to any route alignment impacting the Bonneville Shoreline Preserve. Kern River’s proposed 

route also avoids impact on the Edgewood/Eaglepointe residential development and the Bonneville Shoreline 

Preserve. Because the North Salt Lake II Route Variation results in additional construction impacts and does 

not offer any environmental advantages over the corresponding segment of the proposed route, we have 

eliminated the North Salt Lake II Route Variation from further consideration. 

3.5.6 Mueller Park Route Variation 

The Mueller Park Route Variation was identified to avoid impacts on the Hogsback Roadless Area.

4

 

This variation would be the same length as the corresponding segment of the proposed route, but would 

generally follow Kern River’s existing pipeline and the Questar Line on the south side of the existing right-ofway between MP 13.7 and 14.7 rather than on the north side of the existing right-of-way (figure 3.5.6-1 and 

table 3.5.6-1). While the Mueller Park Route Variation avoids impact on the Hogsback Roadless Area, it is 

 

4

 A copy of the Secretary’s memorandum 1042-154 is available at: http://www.ocio.usda.gov/directives/doc/SM1042-

154.pdf 

3-34
aligned within the Mueller Park Roadless Area. Since the Mueller Park Roadless Area was not identified in 

the set of inventoried roadless area maps contained in the Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation FEIS, 

Volume 2, dated November 2000, removal of timber and road construction would not be subject to approval 

from the Secretary of Agriculture. 

TABLE 3.5.6-1 

Comparison of Features of the Proposed Project Route and 

the Mueller Park Route Variation 

Feature Unit Proposed Project Route Route Variation 

Total length Miles 1.0 1.0 

Collocation Miles 0.1 <0.1 

Construction impacts Acres 13.0 12.7 

Residences within 50 feeta Number 0 0 

Private land holdings Miles 0.1 0.2 

U.S. Forest Service lands Miles 0.1 <0.1 

Waterbody crossings Number 0 0 

Wetland crossingsb Miles 0.0 0.0 

____________ 

Notes: 

a The number of residences reported would be within 50 feet of the permanent right-of-way. 

b

 National Wetlands Inventory wetlands. 

The Mueller Park Route Variation would generally utilize previously cleared areas along the existing 

rights-of-way. Due to challenging terrain a minor deviation from the existing rights-of-way would be 

required resulting in less than 0.1 acre of greenfield construction within the UWCNF and the Mueller Park 

Roadless Area. The Mueller Park Route Variation would impact 0.5 mile, or about 6.1 acres, of the Mueller 

Park Roadless Area during construction. While the Mueller Park Route Variation would not be entirely 

collocated with the existing right-of-way, some portions would be located within a designated utility corridor 

through the area. It is likely that some tree clearing would be required within this portion of the crossing; 

however, these lands would be able to revegetate upon completion of pipeline construction. While this 

variation would require 0.4 mile of greenfield within the UWCNF, the USFS, the managing agency for the 

UWCNF and the associated roadless areas, has stated that they prefer the Mueller Park Route Variation over 

the proposed route. We agree and in conjunction with the reduced impacts from workspace design along this 

variation, we believe this route offers an environmental preferable alternative to the proposed route. The 

Mueller Park Route Variation also avoids impact on the Hogsback Roadless Area, which may require 

approval due to the more stringent restrictions of this roadless area than the Mueller Park Roadless Area. 

Therefore, we recommend that: 

 Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Kern River should incorporate the 

Mueller Park Route Variation into the proposed Project route between MP 13.7 and 14.7. 

In addition, Kern River should complete and file with the FERC all biological and cultural 

resources surveys and consultations on the recommended variation and provide updated 

alignment sheets for the review and written approval of the Director of OEP. 

3-35
A!

14

NV UT

Date: March 2010 Figure 3.5.6-1

APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

MUELLER PARK

ROUTE VARIATION

0 0.0375 0.075 0.15

Miles

Project Area

 ̄

Legend

A! Milepost

Mueller Park Route Variation

Existing Kern River Pipeline

Proposed Wasatch Loop

Questar Gas Line

Existing Power Line

Utility Corridor

UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Private lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

USFS-managed lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Hogsback Roadless Area

Mueller Park Roadless Area

3-36
3.5.7 North Salt Lake III Route Variation 

The North Salt Lake III Route Variation was based on a request by the USFS regarding the area of the 

proposed route between MP 22.0 and 24.9 to avoid steep slopes, mule deer wintering habitat, and historic 

Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) terracing. Similar to the corresponding segment of the proposed route, 

this variation avoids impact on the Bonneville Shoreline Preserve. This variation, which would be slightly 

shorter than the proposed route, would also follow an existing access road (access road #33) and Kern River’s 

existing right-of-way across the USFS lands in this area (figure 3.5.7-1 and table 3.5.7-1). The North Salt 

Lake III Route Variation would rejoin the proposed route at MP 24.9. 

TABLE 3.5.7-1 

Comparison of Features of the Proposed Project Route and 

the North Salt Lake III Route Variation 

Feature Unit Proposed Project Route Route Variation 

Total length Miles 3.0 2.6 

Collocation Miles 0.0 1.6 

Construction impacts Acres 40.4 32.4 

Residences within 50 feeta Number 1 0 

Private land holdings Miles 0.5 1.0 

U.S. Forest Service lands Miles 2.4 1.2 

Waterbody crossings Number 0 0 

Wetland crossingsb Miles 0.0 0.0 

____________ 

Notes: 

a The number of residences reported would be within 50 feet of the permanent right-of-way. 

b

 National Wetlands Inventory wetlands. 

The North Salt Lake III Route Variation would be shorter than the corresponding segment of the 

proposed route and would be collocated with Kern River’s existing right-of-way for an additional 1.6 miles. 

Further, the variation would have a shorter crossing of USFS lands and avoid crossing the historic CCC 

terracing. Since the construction of Kern River’s existing pipeline there has been substantial development of 

residential communities (Edgewood/Eaglepointe) along and near the existing Kern River right-of-way, which 

in conjunction with the existing terrain could result in construction constraints through this area of the 

variation; however, the North Salt Lake III Route Variation would not come within 50 feet of any residences. 

 In addition, this variation would avoid a residence within 50 feet along the corresponding segment of the 

proposed route. By collocating the proposed pipeline with the existing Kern River pipeline along this 

segment, additional visual impacts that would be created by the corresponding segment of the proposed route 

would be avoided. The USFS has also indicated their preference for Kern River to utilize the North Salt Lake 

III Route Variation. 

3-37
!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

26

25

24

23

2

NV UT

Date: March 2010 

APEX EXPAN

NORTH SALT LAKE 

0 0.6 1.2 0.3

Miles

Project Area

 ̄

Legend

!A Milepost

North Salt Lake III Route Variation

Proposed Wasatch Loop

Utility Corridor

UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Private lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

USFS-managed lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Roadless Areas

3-38
We believe that the North Salt Lake III Route Variation route offers an environmentally preferable 

advantage to the proposed route. Therefore, we recommend that: 

 Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Kern River should incorporate the North 

Salt Lake III Route Variation into the proposed Project route between MP 22.0 and 24.9. 

In addition, Kern River should complete and file with the FERC all biological and cultural 

resources surveys and consultations on the recommended variation and provide updated 

alignment sheets for the review and written approval of the Director of OEP. 

3.6 ABOVEGROUND FACILITY ALTERNATIVES 

We evaluated the proposed locations of the new aboveground facilities to determine whether 

environmental impacts would be reduced or mitigated by use of alternative facility sites. Our evaluation 

involved inspection of aerial photography and mapping, as well as site visits along the proposed Project 

corridor. The aboveground facilities for the proposed Project include one new compressor station, upgrades 

at four existing compressor stations, three pig launchers, two pig receivers, and six MLVs (two of the MLVs 

and the two pig launchers/pig receivers would be located at the proposed Milford Compressor Station). 

Because the locations of MLVs would be linked to the location of the existing pipeline MLVs, the 

search for alternatives was constrained to sites located adjacent to the intersection of the proposed Project 

route and the existing pipeline facility locations. The proposed locations of MLVs along the proposed Project 

route were also largely determined based on USDOT safety regulations that specify the maximum distance 

between sectionalizing block valves and require that these facilities be located in readily accessible areas. 

Additionally, we did not identify any alternative sites for the proposed MLV or pig launcher/pig receiver 

facilities that would offer a significant environmental advantage to the proposed sites for these facilities. 

As with the other proposed aboveground facilities, the proposed upgrades at the compressor station 

locations would be constrained to sites at existing compressor stations. As described in section 2.1, the 

upgrades at the existing compressor stations would consist of restaging and/or additional compression that 

would be confined within the existing site boundary. Since the proposed upgrades at these compressor 

stations would occur within the boundary of existing facilities, we did not evaluate alternative locations for 

these compressor stations. We did, however, consider an alternative site for the new Milford Compressor 

Station. 

3.6.1 Milford Compressor Station Site Alternative 

The proposed compressor station site in Beaver County, Utah along the existing Kern River pipeline 

route (MP 326.9) was largely dictated based on engineering and economic design standards. As described in 

section 4.8, construction and operation of the proposed compressor station would result in the permanent 

conversion of 33.2 acres of rangeland to an industrial land use for the life of the proposed Project. We have 

determined that operation of this facility would not result in significant air quality degradation or noise 

impacts to any nearby residents, given the measures proposed by Kern River and our recommendations (see 

section 4.11). 

We reviewed the area within a five mile radius of the proposed site, the general distance at which an 

alternative site would be viable based on the design of the proposed Project, and found the terrain to be 

generally similar with comparable land uses. In addition to the proposed compressor station site at 

KRMP 326.9 on Kern River’s existing system, we evaluated one alternative site for the proposed Milford 

Compressor Station (KRMP 326.5) (see figure 3.6.1-1). Project noise and air emission impacts at the 

proposed Milford Compressor Station, and plans to minimize and mitigate those impacts, are discussed in 

section 4.11. As shown in table 3.6.1-1, the proposed compressor site and the alternative site are similar in 

3-39
land use. No noise-sensitive areas would be located within 0.5 mile of either the proposed or alternative sites. 

 The proposed Milford Compressor Station site and the alternative site are both located on BLM land and are 

currently managed as rangeland. In general, conditions at the proposed and alternative site are similar and as 

such would have similar environmental consequences. The one exception is that the proposed site has more 

direct access via existing improved roads, whereas the alternative site would require construction of a 0.2-

mile access road resulting in additional acres of impact. Therefore, in the absence of a site that would clearly 

be environmentally preferable to the proposed site, we have eliminated any sites for further analysis. We 

have determined that the alternative site as discussed above would be environmentally acceptable. If Kern 

River would need to use the alternative location for the Milford Compressor Station because of Utah prairie 

dog presence at the proposed location, then Kern River would need to obtain the appropriate approvals from 

the FERC and the BLM. 

TABLE 3.6.1-1 

Comparison of Milford Compressor Station Site Alternative and the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Evaluation Criterion 

Proposed Project 

Site Alternative Site 

Construction impacts (acres) 33.2 33.2 

Permanent impacts (acres) 33.2 33.2 

Prime farmland (acres) 0.0 0.0 

Noise-sensitive areas within 0.25 mile 

(number) 

0 0 

Noise-sensitive areas within 0.5 mile 

(number) 

0 0 

Land availability Available Available 

Land uses Rangeland Rangeland 

3-40
NV UT

Date: March 2010 

APEX EXPAN

MILFORD COMP

SITE ALT

0 0.4 0.8 0.2

Miles

Legend

Proposed Wasatch Loop

Existing Kern River Pipeline

Proposed Location

Alternative Location

Project Area

 ̄

3-41
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 

three pipe yards, five contractor yards, and eight 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. 

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 
4-3

TABLE 4.1.1-1 (continued) 

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 

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 

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). 
4-4

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

24.9 24.9 2,200 feet west limestone, quartzite, 

sandstone, and chert 

aggregate 

open pit active UGS 

25.4 25.4 1,000 feet northeast limestone, quartzite, and 

sandstone aggregate 

open pit intermittent 

producer 

UGS 

25.4 25.4 1,650 feet north limestone, quartzite, and 

sandstone aggregate 

open pit active UGS 

25.5 25.7 200 feet southa limestone, quartzite, and 

sandstone aggregate 

open pit inactive UGS 

25.5 25.7 100 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 25.4 to 25.6; 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. 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 25.5 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 

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 
4-6

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) 

26.3 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 11 known or mapped landslide hazards. 

Initial aerial and ground surveys have identified nine of the 11 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 
4-9

TABLE 4.1.3-4 (continued) 

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 

10 22.0 22.9 Project traverses 

above and 

southwest of 

ancient landslide. 

No indications of 

active movement 

observed. 

Landslide deposits Perpendicular Low None 

11 22.5 22.9 Project crosses 

ridgeline above 

and northwest of 

debris flow. 

Landslide deposits Parallel High None 

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 

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 
4-10

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. 

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

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 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. 

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, 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 

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. 

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. 
4-12

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.

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 has not conducted a specific paleontological resource study for the Project but would 

utilize its previously prepared Paleontological Resource Management Plan (PRMP) that was developed 

for the 2003 Kern River Expansion Project as part of the approved Implementation Plan. The PRMP 

would be adapted for the Project and provides procedures for obtaining pre-construction approvals, 

monitoring identified significant fossil locations during construction, and procedures for unanticipated 

discovery of fossils during construction. 
4-13

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. 

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 would adapt 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 

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. 
4-14

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 

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, 
4-15

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. 

4.2 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 

266.3 19.6 178.9 324.9 398.8 0 67.6 53 
4-16

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 (266.3 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 

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 75 percent (325 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. Other aboveground facilities 

including a contractor yard (CY-SL-1), one pipe yard, and six staging areas for additional workspace are 

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 
4-17

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

Potential impacts on drain tiles, if damaged by construction, would be repaired by a qualified tiledrainage 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 2.6 miles 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 
4-18

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 

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 16.5 miles 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 3 pipe yards, 5 contractor yards, and 8 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 
4-19

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. 

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 
4-20

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. 

4.3 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 
4-21

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. 

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. 
4-22

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. No other water supply wells or springs have been identified within 150 feet of the 

proposed pipeline construction right-of-way in Utah. Furthermore, no water supply wells or springs have 

been identified within 200 feet of the proposed Milford Compressor Station. 

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

Kern River has stated that they would continue to consult with landowners and perform right-ofway surveys to verify the locations of all active wells and springs within 150 feet of the pipeline route. At 

this time, these surveys have not been completed; therefore, we recommend that: 

 Prior to construction, Kern River file completed surveys for all potable water supply 

wells and springs identified within 150 feet of the proposed construction right-of-way 

and list any site-specific measures that it would implement to avoid, minimize, or 

mitigate for potential impacts on water supply wells and springs. 
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 

23.4 - 24.4 

24.4 – 25.6 

Well 

Well 

Well 

Spring 

Well 

0.6 

0.3d

0.3d

13.6 

18.7 

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 – 23.3 

21.9 – 23.3 

21.9 – 23.3 

Spring 

Spring 

Well 

Well 

Spring 

Spring 

Spring 

<0.1 

15.2 

0.4 

0.9 

17.5 

17.5d 

17.5d 

____________ 

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. 

 

4.3.1.3 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). 
4-24

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 

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 
4-25

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. 

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. 
4-26

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. 

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 has agreed 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 
4-27

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 

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. 
4-28

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. 

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 23 waterbody crossing total 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. 

4.3.2.1 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. 
4-29

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 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: 
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 3E5 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. 
4-32

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. 

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. 
4-33

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. 

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 
4-34

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): 

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. 
4-35

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 29.9 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. 
4-36

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. 

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 4.5.2 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. 

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. 
4-37

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. 

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 
4-38

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. 

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; 

 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. 
4-39

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. Thirteen additional waterbody crossings have been identified that were not included 

in the 1990 study. These crossings would occur at waterbodies with primarily intermittent bedrock. 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 completed on the existing Kern 

River mainline), 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. 

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. 
4-40

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 July 15 through 

February 28. 

Awaiting 

agency 

approval (see 

section 4.6) 

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 
4-41

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 Revision 

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 

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 from November 

2010 through October 2011. 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 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 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 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. 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). 
4-42

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. 

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 
4-43

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. 

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. No chemicals would be used during testing of the pipe. Kern 

River would discharge the pipeline test water to 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 

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. 
4-44

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. 

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. 
4-45

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)
4-46

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 

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. 
4-47

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. 
4-48

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 

14.7 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 

26.4 VI.A.3 Kern River proposes to utilize a 100-foot-wide construction 

right-of-way in this wetland because soils are expected to be 

saturated and would require a larger area for storage. 

Denied 

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. For one wetland, located at MP 26.4, Kern River proposes to use a 100-foot-wide right-ofway due to the presence of saturated soils that would require additional workspace for storage. Because 

soil saturation is variable with precipitation and other hydrologic factors, it is possible that the soil would 

not be saturated at the time of construction. Therefore, we recommend that: 
4-49

 Kern River limit the construction right-of-way width in the wetland at MP 26.4 to 

75 feet unless Kern River files evidence that the soil conditions within this wetland at 

the time of construction warrant a wider right-of-way, and Kern River receives written 

approval from the Director of OEP to expand the construction right-of-way. 

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 

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. 
4-50

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. For example, herbicide and pesticide use 

would be prohibited within 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 the first 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 a draft 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 
4-51

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 

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. 

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. 
4-52

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 

119.3 87.1 

Improved pasture 77.9 7.9 

Douglas fir forest 24.1 19.3 

Riparian and canyon 

woodlands 

1.7 0.9 

Open grasslands 10.4 8.5 

Saline-alkaline 

wetlands 

4.2 3.6 

Industrial/disturbed 

lands 

128.2 10.1 

Total 401.9 202.7 

____________ 

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 401.9 acres during construction and approximately 202.7 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 24.6 (within open grassland). 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 five pipe yards and four contractor yards that could be used to support 

construction. Kern River has stated that it anticipates ultimately using only four yards rather than all nine 

for construction. The proposed nine yards total 176.2 acres, including 112.6 acres of developed lands and 

63.6 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. 
4-53

Kern River would use 37 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 3.7). 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 
4-54

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, the entire width of the permanent right-of-way would be 

mowed up to once every 3 years. In addition, annual mowing may be conducted along a 10-foot-wide 

corridor centered over the pipeline to facilitate inspection. 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). 

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 
4-55

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 vegetation is at least 

80 percent of the type, density, and distribution of vegetation in adjacent undisturbed areas. 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. 

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 
4-56

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. The permanent 

50-foot-wide right-of-way for the pipeline would be converted to grassland through the mowing 

anticipated to occur every 3 years in Great Basin sagebrush, but 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 right-of-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. 

The riparian areas would be cleared of vegetation within the construction right-of-way width of 

100 feet, and the permanent width of cleared riparian vegetation would be 20 feet wide centered over the 

pipeline. 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. 

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 bury felled Douglas fir 

trees or remove the bark from the trees and leave the downed woody portion. In order to minimize the 

spread of root rot, the Environmental Inspectors would document root rot sites prior to construction, and 

Kern River would apply dry borax to freshly cut tree stumps and wounds of inflicted trees. 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 

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 3 years, or 

until self-sustaining native vegetation communities have been re-established. 

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 
4-57

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

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
4-58

TABLE 4.5.1-1 (continued) 

Common Representative Wildlife Species That Potentially Occur in the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project Area

Birds (continued) 

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 

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 604.6 acres. Impacts on vegetation are 

discussed in section 4.4. 
4-59

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 scrub-shrub may be affected on a longer-term 

basis, 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 

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. These impacts 

would be minimized by implementation of Kern River’s Blasting Plan, which requires site-specific 

blasting plans that would include measures to prevent 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 
4-60

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. 

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. 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. 
4-61

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 18.4 of the 28.0 miles of the proposed right-of-way, habitat fragmentation and increased edge 

effects would occur in these communities. Of the 9.6 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 

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 in the 10-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 for a 10-foot-wide maintained strip over the proposed pipeline within the right-of-way 

and 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 
4-62

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. During 

operations, a 25-foot buffer would be maintained adjacent to the waterbody with the exception of a 10-

foot-wide corridor directly over the pipeline to assist with operational surveys. Although impacts on 

riparian areas would be minimized as much as possible, these impacts would be long-term. 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 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 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 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. 

Kern River is proposing to clear vegetation along the entire Wasatch Loop between October and 

early December 2010; construction between MP 0.0 and 5.5 and between 25.5 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. 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. 
4-63

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 Cruciala 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 Cruciala 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 119.6 51.2 

MP 9.1 – 18.4b Moose Year-longc Crucial 134.9 56.4 

MP 9.5 – 17.1 Elk Summer/falld Crucial 109.2 45.8 

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 93.6 42.8 

Staging Areas, Pipe Yards, and Contractor Yards 

South Hardscrabble 

Staging Area 

Elk Summer/fall Crucial 0.7 NA 

Hardscrabble Staging 

Area 

Elk Summer/fall Crucial 0.6 NA 

Skyline Staging Area Elk Summer/fall Crucial 3.6 NA 

Questar ROW Staging 

Area 

Elk Summer/fall Crucial 2.7 NA 

Rees Enterprises 

Contractor Yard 

Elk Winter Crucial 4.7 NA 

Dennis Wright 

Contractor Yard 

Moose Summer Crucial 19.7 NA 

Wasatch Rail Siding Moose Summer Crucial 6.5 NA 

Rees Enterprises 

Contractor Yard 

Moose Winter Crucial 1.9 NA 

MLV 96 Laydown Area Mule deer Summera Crucial 4.2 NA 

Hardscrabble Staging 

Area 

Mule deer Summera Crucial 0.6 NA 
4-64

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 (continued) 

East Canyon Staging 

Area 

Mule deer Winter Crucial 5.2 NA 

Wasatch Rail Siding Mule deer Summera Crucial 6.5 NA 

North Hardscrabble 

Staging Area 

Mule deer Summera Crucial 9.6 NA 

North Hardscrabble 

Road Staging Area 

Mule deer Winter Crucial 0.5 NA 

South Hardscrabble 

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 

Forest Service Staging 

Area 

Mule deer Winter Crucial 0.6 NA 

Aboveground Facilities

Milford Compressor 

Station 

Pronghorn Year-long Crucial 33.2 33.2 

Total Impact 702.0 285.0 

____________ 

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 5.5; and between April 15 and August 31, 2011, for areas between MP 5.5 and 25.5. 

c

 Calving area 

d Elk calving area occurs from approximately MP 13.2 to 17.0. 

Kern River’s proposed construction timeframe between late spring and early fall would result in 

active construction occurring in crucial summer, summer/fall, and year-long habitats for big game 

species. 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 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 
4-65

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. To minimize these impacts, we recommend 

that: 

 Prior to construction, Kern River file a revised blasting plan that either stipulates that 

any blasting within big game crucial habitat would occur outside of the season of 

highest use or includes site-specific measures developed in consultation with the USFS, 

BLM, and UDWR that would minimize impacts on big game species during blasting 

activities. 

The Wasatch Loop would cross 7.6 miles of high-value elk summer and fall habitat. About 

109.2 acres of elk habitat would be disturbed during construction, and 45.8 acres would be retained within 

the permanent right-of-way. Additionally, due to the extent of crucial habitat in the Project vicinity, three 

staging areas (totaling 4.0 acres) and one pipe storage area (3.6 acres) would be located within elk highvalue summer/fall range, and a contractor yard (4.7 acres) would be located in elk crucial winter range. 

Year-long crucial moose calving habitat is present along the Wasatch Loop for 9.3 miles, which 

would temporarily impact 134.9 acres and permanently encumber 56.4 acres of habitat. A contractor yard 

(19.7 acres) and a pipe yard (6.5 acres) proposed for temporary use during construction would be located 

in moose crucial summer range. In addition, one contractor yard (1.9 acres) would be within moose 

crucial winter 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 170.7 and 71.0 acres, respectively. Six staging areas and one pipe yard are proposed 

within mule deer crucial summer fawning habitat on 27.9 acres. Mule deer crucial winter habitat occurs 

at six locations along the Wasatch Loop, totaling 12.9 miles; the Wasatch Loop would result in 

176.7 acres of temporary impact and 78.6 acres of permanent impact. Five staging areas on a total of 

9.0 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. 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 USFS 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 
4-66

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 a maximum of 10 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. 

Kern River continues to consult with the resource agencies to develop appropriate measures to 

minimize impacts on wildlife, including avoidance and timing restrictions, where feasible and 

appropriate. Kern River has also coordinated with federal and state agencies in the development of its 

Reclamation Plan to restore native cover types and the wildlife habitat they sustain, and is continuing to 

consult with the applicable agencies to develop and implement a restoration plan that would provide 

habitat for big game outside of the permanent right-of-way after construction. 

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. 

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 
4-67

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 Survey Results 

American 

white pelican 

Pelecanus 

erythrorhynchos

X X Not encountered 

Osprey Pandion haliaetus X Encountered along the 

right-of-way 

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus 

X X X Not encountered 

Northern 

Goshawk 

Accipiter gentilis X X Encountered along the 

right-of-way 

Ferruginous 

Hawk 

Buteo regalis X X X Not encountered 

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos X Encountered along the 

right-of-way 

Peregrine 

Falcon 

Falco peregrinus X X Not encountered 

Black-necked 

stilt 

Himantopus 

mexicanus 

 X Not encountered 

American 

Avocet 

Recurvirostra 

americana 

 X Not encountered 

Long-billed 

curlew 

Numenius 

americanus 

X X X Encountered at the 

proposed Milford 

Compressor Station 

Yellow-billed 

cuckoo 

Coccyzus 

americanus 

X X X Not encountered 

Flammulated 

Owl 

Otus flammeolus X X Not encountered 

Burrowing Owl Athene 

cunicularia 

X X Not encountered 

Short-eared 

owl 

Asio flammeus X X Not encountered 

Broad-tailed 

hummingbird 

Selasphorus 

platycercus 

 X X Encountered along the 

right-of-way 

Lewis’s 

Woodpecker 

Melanerpes lewis X X X X Encountered along the 

right-of-way 

Williamson's 

Sapsucker 

Sphyrapicus 

thyroideus 

 X Not encountered 
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 Survey Results 

Three-toed 

woodpecker 

Picoides 

tridactylus 

X X X Not encountered 

Cordilleran 

Flycatcher 

Empidonax 

occidentalis 

 X Encountered along the 

right-of-way 

Gray Catbird Dumetella 

carolinensis 

 X Encountered along the 

right-of-way 

Virginia’s 

Warbler 

Vermivora 

virginiae 

 X X Encountered along the 

right-of-way 

Brewer’s 

Sparrow 

Spizella breweri X X Encountered along the 

right-of-way 

Grasshopper 

Sparrow 

Ammodramus 

savannarum 

X X X Not encountered 

Bobolink Dolichonyx 

oryzivorus 

X X Not encountered 

Cassin’s Finch Carpodacus 

cassinii 

 X Encountered along the 

right 

Evening 

Grosbeak 

Coccothraustes 

vespertinus 

 X Encountered along the 

right 

____________ 

Notes: 

 FWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

 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 8 miles (MP 0.0 to 5.5 and 25.5 to 

28.0) 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 
4-69

potential for predaceous species to invade large contiguous habitats where some obligate bird species 

breed and fledge young. 

Kern River has committed to conducting additional aerial surveys (followed by pedestrian 

verification if necessary) in 2010 to document locations of nesting raptors. Burrowing owl surveys will 

also be conducted in 2010 in accordance with the Burrowing Owl Consortium’s survey protocols. 

Although surveys will be conducted, Kern River has indicated that the seasonal and spatial buffers 

recommended by the FWS would likely not be feasible due to the short construction window. Measures 

that would be implemented to minimize impacts on nesting raptors include 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 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. Suitable habitat for the burrowing 

owl exists along the first 5 miles of the proposed Project and would be avoided during the breeding 

season by fall/winter 2010 construction in that area. Kern River is continuing to coordinate with resource 

agencies regarding implementation of protective measures for raptors and will resume coordination after 

2010 surveys have been completed. However, Kern River’s currently proposed mitigation measures are 

inconsistent with those recommended by the FWS in its Guidelines for Raptor Protection (FWS 2002), 

therefore, we recommend that: 

 Prior to construction, Kern River file the results of the raptor surveys and copies of 

consultations with the FWS, UDWR, USFS, and BLM, as applicable, to develop 

appropriate spatial buffers and/or other mitigation measures to protect raptors. 

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 conduction 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. 

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. Four adult golden 

eagles (including one pair) and a golden eagle nest were identified during the 2009 breeding bird surveys. 

Bald eagles, although not encountered during the breeding bird surveys, could be present during 

winter months (November through March) using conifer forests and trees in riparian areas for roosting 

habitat, and the USFS has noted that the species is present in East Canyon Creek and near East Canyon 

Reservoir, in Morgan County. Kern River has committed to conduct winter bald eagle surveys in suitable 

roosting habitat during early 2010. These surveys are intended to identify bald eagle usage within the 

proposed Project area, specifically areas proposed for winter construction such as East Canyon Creek. As 

discussed above, Kern River has committed to conduct spring and summer aerial surveys for raptors and 

raptor nests, including bald eagles. Kern River will provide the results of the raptor surveys to the 

applicable agencies in order to determine appropriate mitigation and avoidance measures, such as spatial 

and temporal buffers, where feasible, that would be implemented for the proposed Project. Because many 
4-70

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. Kern River’s commitment to conducting surveys for bald eagles and to coordinate 

with the FWS and the UDWR to determine appropriate mitigation and avoidance measures (as applicable) 

should minimize any potential effects. Impacts on the golden eagle would be similar to those incurred by 

other migratory species, as discussed above. 

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 10-foot-wide strip over the pipeline that would be maintained in an 

herbaceous state. Kern River has proposed to minimize impacts from maintenance of the pipeline rightof-way by overlapping the permanent rights-of-way of its mainline and the Wasatch Loop by 15 feet in 

areas where construction allows. In addition, with the exception of the 10-foot-wide strip over the 

pipeline that could be maintained annually, 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. 

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 

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. 
4-71

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. 

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 non-
4-72

motile 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 July 15 through February 28 and from June 1 through November 30 for 

coolwater and warmwater fisheries, unless otherwise permitted or restricted by an applicable agency. 

Kern River’s proposed instream construction window for coldwater 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 requested and is awaiting 

agency concurrence from the COE, 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 permitted timing window. Because agency concurrence is still outstanding we recommend that:

 Prior to construction, Kern River file a revised version of its Procedures specifying that 

the time window for crossing coldwater fisheries is between June 1 and September 30, 

unless expressly permitted by the appropriate agencies. 

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. 

Kern River would leave a 10-foot-wide buffer of vegetation along streambanks at waterbody 

crossings in order to minimize the effects of vegetation removal, except where the trench would be 
4-73

excavated or in forested areas. 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. 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. 

4.6.1.4 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. 
4-74

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 20.5) 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 

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 East Canyon 

Creek would be cleaned thoroughly with hot water (greater than 130 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, 
4-75

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. 

4.6.2 Invasive Aquatic Species 

Two invasive aquatic species are present within the proposed Project area, the New Zealand 

mudsnail and the parasite that causes whirling disease. Both species are known to occur in East Canyon 

Creek. 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. 

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 130 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. 

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; however, 

Kern River has proposed to cross East Canyon Creek within the avoidance window to take advantage of 

lower water flows. Additionally, the use of a dry crossing method would minimize sedimentation and 

turbidity within the waterbody during construction. As discussed above, Kern River is requesting to 

install equipment bridges at Sheep Canyon Creek and Hardscrabble Creek and cross East Canyon Creek 

outside of the permitted timing window. We have included a recommendation that Kern River must cross 

during the permitted timing window unless expressly permitted by the applicable agencies. 

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. Kern River is currently waiting for concurrence 

from the applicable agencies on its proposed waterbody crossings outside of the standard timing window. 
4-76

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 

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. 
4-77

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. 

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). 

To comply with Section 7 of the ESA, we are requesting that the FWS consider this EIS as our 

official BA for the proposed Project. Because ESA consultation with the FWS is ongoing and to ensure 

that Kern River does not begin construction until Section 7 consultation is complete, we recommend 

that:

 Kern River not begin construction of the proposed Project facilities until: 

a. the FERC staff completes any necessary consultations with the FWS; and 

b. Kern River has received written notification from the Director of OEP that 

construction and/or use of mitigation (including implementation of conservation 

measures) may begin. 

Additionally, the BGEPA recently had protections clarified for the bald and golden eagles (FWS 

2009). Although the bald eagle was de-listed from the ESA, both species could require consultation 

under the BGEPA and possibly permitting discussions with the FWS (see section 4.5.4). 

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. 
4-78

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. 

4.7.1 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 
4-79

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 leks must be avoided by a 4-mile buffer 

during the breeding season. 

Greater sage-grouse crucial wintering and brooding habitat occurs from MP 0.0 to 2.5, MP 3.8 to 

4.6, and MP 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. Although sagebrush habitat occurs in other areas, the slopes 

are too steep to support ordinary greater sage-grouse use. There are five known active or historical leks 

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. Greater sagegrouse habitat does not occur within any of the other proposed Project areas, and no leks are located 

within 4 miles of any of the other areas proposed for disturbance. 

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 

between April 15 and August 31, 2011. 

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 
4-80

the construction right-of-way so habitat could be restored where maintenance mowing does not occur. 

However, annual maintenance of a 10-foot-wide strip, and periodic mowing of the 50-foot-wide 

permanent right-of-way 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 committed to conducting sage-grouse surveys during March and April of 2010 in 

accordance with UDWR guidelines, and to provide those survey results to the applicable agencies. 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. Kern River has also 

committed to the following measures which would 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). 

Although Kern River has minimized impacts on sage-grouse habitat through collocation with 

existing rights-of-way, we believe that additional measures should be implemented to further minimize 

impacts on the suitable lekking habitat between MP 0.0 and 4.6. In addition, the USFS has noted that 

greater sage-grouse can utilize Great Basin sagebrush habitats with steep slopes and although Kern River 

has acknowledged that these areas occur along the proposed route, the areas are not currently proposed 

for inclusion in the 2010 surveys. Therefore, to minimize impacts on lekking habitat during the active 

season, and to further minimize the effects of habitat fragmentation and potential loss of greater sagegrouse, we recommend that: 

 Kern River adopt the following measures to minimize impacts on greater sage-grouse: 

a. identify all areas of Great Basin sagebrush within the right-of-way and access 

roads that are potential habitat for sage-grouse, regardless of slope gradient, and 

include those areas in the lek surveys proposed for spring 2010; 
4-81

b. avoid clearing and construction activities between March 1 and July 31 within a 

4-mile radius of any active leks encountered during its 2010 surveys; 

c. file a site-specific blasting plan developed in consultation with the FWS and 

UDWR for the sagebrush habitat between MP 3.8 and 4.6 that includes measures 

for both sage-grouse and pygmy rabbit; and 

d. plant Great Basin sagebrush within the construction work area during 

restoration at MP 0.0-2.5, 3.8-4.6, and 11.5-11.8. 

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, Kern 

River’s proposed measures, and our recommendation, 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 western population of the yellowbilled cuckoo inhabits large tracts of deciduous forested wetland and floodplain habitats with a dense 

scrub understory. The species is found sporadically and in localized areas with suitable habitat in Utah, 

and is threatened by habitat fragmentation. In the proposed Project area, suitable habitat exists at MP 0.9, 

5.0 - 5.4, 17.3, 19.8, and 21.2 (totaling 0.8 mile of right-of-way intersection with suitable habitat). Of 

these areas of potential habitat, all but the locations at MP 17.3 and 19.8 would be collocated with 

existing rights-of-way, minimizing the chance for habitat fragmentation. 

Breeding occurs from mid-June through July. 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; however, as the species is migratory, future use of the potential habitat is possible. 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. 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 order to avoid the 

potential for loss of nesting success of yellow-billed cuckoos, we recommend that: 

 If construction is to occur through suitable yellow-billed cuckoo habitat at MP 0.9, 5.0-

5.4, 17.3, 19.8, and 21.2 during the breeding season, Kern River conduct audio surveys 

immediately prior to such construction. If individuals or evidence of yellow-billed 

cuckoos are found, Kern River should not begin construction in these areas until we 

have reviewed Kern River’s proposed avoidance and/or mitigation measures, as well as 

any agency comments on these measures, and Kern River has received written 

notification from the Director of OEP that construction or use of mitigation may begin. 

We believe that the proposed Project may have an impact on individual yellow-billed cuckoos or 

their habitat; however, given the small area of suitable habitat that would be disturbed and our 

recommendation, no population-level effects are anticipated and the Project would not lead to a trend 

toward federal listing. 
4-82

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, then 

formal consultation with the FWS and a BO would be required. Like the greater sage-grouse, 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). 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. 

Kern River has committed to conducting pygmy rabbit surveys in the spring of 2010 using the 

UDWR field survey protocols (UDWR 2004). Where burrows are found, Kern River would attempt to 

realign the Project workspace to avoid disturbance within 100 feet of each burrow. If avoidance of the 

burrow in this manner is not possible, Kern River would consult with the UDWR and the FWS to develop 

mitigation measures to minimize and/or offset disturbance to individuals. Because surveys for the pygmy 

rabbit have not been completed, we recommend that:

 Prior to construction, Kern River file the results of its 2010 pygmy rabbit surveys, and 

submit the results to the FWS, BLM, and UDWR. If individuals or evidence of pygmy 

rabbits are found, Kern River should file a plan detailing pygmy rabbit 

avoidance/mitigation measures developed in consultation with the applicable agencies, 

for review and written approval of the Director of OEP. 

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. Short-term 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; therefore, we have recommended that Kern River 

develop a site-specific blasting plan developed in consultation with the applicable agencies to minimize 

impacts to the species. 

We believe that the proposed Project may have a negative impact on individual pygmy rabbits 

and their habitat; however, because of the small area of suitable habitat that would be disturbed by the 

Project and our recommendation, no population-level effects would occur and the Project would not lead 

to a trend toward federal listing. 

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. A known population of Utah prairie dogs is within 5 

miles of the proposed Milford Compressor Station site and associated electrical distribution line. 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 proposes to conduct Utah prairie dog surveys in 2010, during prairie dog active 

season in accordance with draft FWS survey protocols and in coordination with the BLM. 
4-83

In order to avoid impacts on Utah prairie dog, we further recommend that: 

 Prior to construction, Kern River file the results of its 2010 Utah prairie dog surveys, 

and submit the results to the FWS, BLM, and UDWR. If individuals or evidence of 

Utah prairie dogs are found, Kern River should file a plan detailing Utah prairie dog 

avoidance/mitigation measures developed in consultation with the applicable agencies, 

for review and written approval of the Director of OEP. 

If the species is encountered, then the FERC would re-open 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). 

Kern River has also indicated that it might seek an alternative location for the Milford Compressor Station 

if any Utah prairie dogs are found during surveys. We analyzed the alternative compressor station site in 

section 3.6, and we determined that it is environmentally acceptable if Kern River determines that the 

Milford Compressor Station needs to be relocated because of Utah prairie dog presence at the proposed 

location. If it is determined that the alternative location needs to be used, then Kern River would be 

required to obtain the appropriate approvals from the FERC and the BLM. Based on the lack of burrows 

on the proposed site, our recommendation, and Kern River’s commitment to conduct surveys in 2010, we 

believe that the Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the Utah prairie dog. 

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 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, 20.4, 20.6, and 27.0. During the 2009 field surveys, Kern River tentatively 

identified a frog as a northern leopard frog; therefore, field surveys will be conducted in spring 2010 to 

definitively determine the presence or absence of the species within potential habitat. 

If the species is determined to be present, Kern River has proposed to conduct pre-construction 

clearance surveys to clear the right-of-way of individuals and would conduct population monitoring for 3 

years after construction in order to determine the impacts of pipeline construction on the species. 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 would ensure revegetation of wetland areas following 

construction; therefore, no long-term impact on this species is expected. Individual frogs could be run 

over or buried by construction equipment. 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, we do not anticipate any population-level effects and that the Project would not 

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 
4-84

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. Therefore, we recommend that: 

 Kern River not begin construction of the proposed Project facilities until: 

a. it consults with USFS and FWS regarding potential habitat for the Ute ladies’-

tresses within the proposed Project area and, if applicable, develop a survey 

protocol that would promote identification of the species; and 

b. files the results of any surveys completed for the Ute ladies’-tresses. 

If the Ute Ladies’-tresses are found in the Project areas, our general recommendation at the 

beginning of section 4.7 would ensure that any necessary Section 7 consultation would be complete 

before construction is authorized. 

Because of the absence of Ute Ladies’-tresses during previous surveys, the project area lacking 

the gravel deposits and alluvial geomorphology the Ute ladies’-tresses requires, and our recommendation, 

we believe that construction and operation of the proposed Project may affect, but is not likely to 

adversely affect, the Ute ladies’-tresses. 

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. 

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 also 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. 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. 

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 
4-85

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 are discussed in more detail in section 4.5. 

Northern goshawk is a Forest Service Intermountain Region Sensitive Species, a UWCNF 

management indicator species, 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. Field surveys conducted 

between MP 11.5 and 15.0 identified the presence of four northern goshawks, but did not identify specific 

nests or nesting activity. Survey of potential habitat between MP 17.3 and 17.4 did not identify any 

individuals or nests. The USFS, however, has identified two northern goshawk nest sites along the 

proposed pipeline route near MP 12.0 and 14.5. The raptor surveys proposed for 2010 will include 

northern goshawks, and broadcast acoustical surveys will be conducted specifically to identify northern 

goshawks in late June/early July 2010 to further identify nests and individuals in the area. In section 4.5, 

we have included a recommendation that Kern River file the results of the raptor surveys and copies of 

consultations with the applicable agencies, and to develop appropriate spatial buffers and/or other 

mitigation measures to protect raptors. 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. In February 2010, Kern River, the FWS, the USFS, the BLM, and the 

UDWR agreed to table discussions regarding specific mitigation measures for northern goshawk until 

field surveys have been completed. Kern River and the applicable agencies will continue discussions 

once site-specific data is available. Kern River has agreed to prepare a site-specific mitigation plan in the 

event that northern goshawk are actively nesting in proximity to the proposed pipeline route. 

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 in 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. 
4-86

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 summe

suitable habitat from MP 0.0 to 2.5. 

Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) 

SPC II - Occurs in open shortgrass and low-density sagebrus

from MP 0.0 to 2.5. Surveys for this species are plan

Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) 

SPC II - Nests and hunts in large-tract low-disturbance sageb

occur from MP 0.0 to 2.5. Surveys for raptors planne

Flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus) 

- - X Occupies coniferous forests with aspen or oaks and 

habitat from MP 10.4 to 10.7, 12.0 to 14.7, and 16.4 raptors planned for 2010. 

Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) 

SPC II - Forages and breeds in grasslands and open sagebru

MP 0.0 to 2.5 and 23.7 to 25.7. 

Lewis's woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) 

SPC II - Nests in open Ponderosa pine stands and in riparian 

woodlands. Species observed in 2009 at MP 0.0. S4.6 to 5.7, along access roads, and at creek crossing

Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) 

SPC II - Breeding range in open grasslands or low-density sa

sometimes agricultural fields; suitable habitat from M25.7. 

Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) 

CS I X Primarily found in coniferous forests and at edges wi

in forested areas; suitable habitat from MP 12.0 to 14and at creek crossings. Surveys for raptors planned 

Sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus) 

SPC II X Occupies open grasslands and sagebrush habitat, so

coniferous forests; breeding and winter habitat from 
4-87

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) Short-eared owl (Asio flammeus) 

SPC II - Occurs in grasslands and sagebrush communities t

habitat from MP 0.0 to 2.5 and 23.7 to 25.7. Survey

2010. 

Three-toed woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus) 

SPC II X Nests and forages in coniferous montane forests an

areas year-round; potentially suitable habitat from Malong access roads and at creek crossings. 

Mammals American pika (Ochotona princeps) 

- III - Inhabits rocky slopes; could be present suitable hab

Northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus) 

- 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 co

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, gras

year-round; roosts in caves; could forage in potentia17.0, but no roosting habitat. 

Amphibians Western boreal toad (Bufo boreas) 

SPC II - Breeds in sandy-bottomed slow-water wetlands and 

forage in grasslands and forests. Multiple areas of River will conduct species surveys in spring 2010. 

Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris) 

CS I - Occurs and breeds in marshes, pond edges with em

slow-moving coldwater streams, and springs. Multihabitat. Kern River will conduct species surveys in 
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 

Reptiles Smooth greensnake (Liochlorophis vernalis) 

SPC II - Occurs in wet meadows, marshes, riparian areas, a

habitat from MP 0.0 to 14.9 and 27.3 to 28.0. 

Fish Bonneville cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii utah) 

CS I - Occurs in high-elevation streams with forested ripar

elevation streams in scrub-shrub areas. Spawning late May to mid-July. Presence assumed in East CSheep Canyon Creek (MP 6.3), and Hardscrabble C

Plants Alpine cinquefoil (Potentilla pensylvanica var. paucijuga) 

- - X Open, often rocky sites in sagebrush communities t

Alpine pepper plant (Lepidium montanum var. alpinum) 

- - X Sagebrush and spruce-fir communities from 5,000 t

Arctic poppy (Papaver radicatum var. pygmaeum) 

- - X Occurs in alpine tundra communities, with Polemon

sedges and saxifrages, between 11,100 and 12,800 

Broad-leaf beardtongue (Penstemon platyphyllus) 

- - X Open rocky sites in mountain brush communities be

feet. 

Brownie ladyslipper (Cypripedium fasciculatum)

- - X Duff in spruce-fir or lodgepole pine forests and alon

8,000 and 9,000 feet. 

Burke’s draba (Draba burkei) 

- - X Talus slopes and rocky outcrops of quartzite, limest

Douglas-fir, mixed conifer, and maple-oak communThe USFS identified potential habitat between MP 1

conducted by Kern River did not identify any habitat 
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 

Plants (continued) Cache beardtongue (Penstemon compactus) 

- - X Openings in coniferous communities, growing with 

columbine and other penstemon species, on limestomaterial between 7,000 and 9,800 feet. 

Cottam cinquefoil (Potentilla cottamii) 

- - X Cracks and crevices in quartzite outcrops, often sha

sunlight, at 7,500 to 10,400 feet. 

Cronquist daisy (Erigeron cronquistii) 

- - X Crevices in limestone cliffs and talus between 5,750 

Echo spring-parsley (Cymopterus lapidosus) 

- - X Among rocks, endemic to western Summit County i

Garrett bladderpod (Lesquerella garrettii) 

- - X Alpine tundra and spruce-fir communities on limesto

talus or on rock outcrops between 10,000 and 12,00

Garrett’s daisy (Erigeron garrettii) 

- - X Moist rock crevices and cliffs between 9,000 and 12

Lesser yellow lady’s slipper (Cypripedium calceolusvar. parviflorum) 

- - X Boggy fens from sea level to 9,800 feet elevation. P

at Mill Creek (MP 19.0), unnamed tributary to Mill CCanyon Creek (MP 20.5). 

Logan buckwheat (Eriogonum brevicaule var. loganum) 

- - X Sagebrush-bunchgrass communities on rocky outcr

Maguire draba (Draba maguirei) 

- - X Open areas in spruce/fir forests, on dolomite, betwe

Maguire’s primrose (Primula maguirei) 

- - X Limestone crevices. 
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 

Plants (continued) Rockcress draba (Draba globosa)

- - X Gravelly, open soil of rocky slopes and exposed rid

alpine zones. 

Rydberg’s musineon (Musineon lineare) 

- - X Limestone cliffs in Cache County. 

Sierra fumwort (Corydalis caseana ssp. Brachycarpa) 

- - X Mid-montane growing in or along streams or nearby 

and 10,000 feet elevation. Holbrook Canyon (MP 1(MP 17.6). 

Slender moonwort (Botrychium lineare)

- - X Grass-forb meadows, under trees in woods and on 

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 5,900feet. 

Spruce wormwood (Artemisia norvegica var. piceetorum) 

- - X Meadow, spruce-fir, lodgepole pine communities, ta

between 10,000 and 11,500feet. 

Starvling milkvetch (Astragalus jejunus jejunus)

- - X Sagebrush and sagebrush-juniper communities, oft

at 6,000 to 7,000feet. 

Tower mustard (Arabis glabra var. furcatipilis) 

- - X Sagebrush to aspen-fir between 5,200- and 10,400

habitat occurs between MP 13.3 to 14.8, 16.4 to 17forests); MP 14.8 to 15.1, 17.2 to 17.3 (Great Basin 

Uinta green thread (Thelesperma pubescens) 

- - X Grassland, sagebrush-grassland, or low prostrate fo

Oligocene Bishop conglomerate on cobbly soils bet
4-91

TABLE 4.7.2-1 (continued) 

State of Utah and USFS Sensitive Species Potentially Occurring within the Proposed Apex Expansion 

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 commu

between 5,000 and 10,000 feet. Potential habitat (MP 19.0), unnamed tributary to Mill Creek (MP 1(MP 20.5). 

Utah ivesia (Ivesia utahensis) 

- - X Open rocky slopes in spruce-fir communities to ab

9,950 and 11,000 feet. 

Utah shooting star (Dodecatheon dentatum var. utahense) 

- - X Wet rock crevices in Salt Lake County. 

Wasatch daisy (Erigeron arenarioides) 

- - X Rock crevices between 6950 and 9,950 feet in Sa

Box Elder Counties. 

Wasatch draba (Draba brachystylis) 

- - X Aspen-fir communities in Salt Lake and Utah Cou

Wasatch jamesia (Jamesia americana macrocalyx) 

- - X Mountain brush and spruce-fir communities, most

places between 5,700 and 9,000feet. 

____________ Notes: 

 USFS = U.S. Forest Service 

a State Status Key: SPC = Wildlife species of concern; CS = Species receiving special management under a Conservation Agreement in order to pre

By Instruction Memorandum 2007-078, the Utah Bureau of Land Management adopts the existing Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) Uta

b Utah Tier I species are federally threatened, endangered, and candidate or conservation agreement species. Tier II species are Utah's State Speci

by the UDWR to prevent them from being federally listed. Tier III species are those species that (a) have need for more information; (b) indicate 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. 
4-92

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 recommended for coldwater fisheries by the UDWR (instream 

work would be conducted between July 15 and February 28), restore streambed contours to the extent 

practicable, screen hydrostatic intakes, and maintain downstream flow for the protection of aquatic 

species. 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. In 

the unlikely event of an impact on the Bonneville cutthroat trout, Kern River would mitigate impacts 

through support of a state-funded stocking program. Since blasting would likely be required for 

construction through Sheep Canyon Creek, impacts on the species through blasting would also be 

mitigated through the stocking program. 

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. 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 as well as population sampling at known toad 

locations for 3 years following construction. In addition, Kern River would minimize clearing in riparian 

areas as well as adhere to BMPs as outlined in its Procedures. Kern River is continuing to consult with 

the FWS, the USFS, the BLM, and the UDWR, as applicable, to determine supplemental mitigation 

methods to offset impacts on these species. 

Consultation between Kern River and the USFS indicated that 32 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 2010. If 

the tower mustard or Utah angelica were 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 postconstruction monitoring of the transplanted roots and seeds to ensure successful reestablishment of a 

population. 

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 
4-93

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, potential habitat for the Utah prairie 

dog is present in the area. 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 28.0 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 

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 
4-94

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. 

Construction of the Apex Expansion Project would predominately affect developed land 

(42.5 percent), open land (23.4 percent), and forested land (22.0 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 (40.0 percent), developed land (33.9 percent) and forested land (23.1 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. 
4-95

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 85.2 43.3 80.0 25.2 7.8 2.9 35.7 18.1 2.5 1.0 0.0 Access roadsb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 46.9 31.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 Pipe yards, staging areas, and contractor yardsc

11.9 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 27.0 18.1 81.8 28.7 0.0 0.0 48.0 19.5 0.2 0.1 0.2 Access roadsb 0.0 0.0 0.0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.7 11.6 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 24.0 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 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.1 Pipe yards, staging areas, and contractor yardsc

2.6 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 48.6 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 63.6 0.0 11.1 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 
4-96

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 facilitiesd 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 120.2 65.5 168.5 57.0 11.7 4.6 88.4 39.8 2.7 1.1 4.0 Access roadsb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 62.2 43.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 Pipe yards, staging areas, and contractor yardsc

25.9 0.0 0.5 0.0 73.7 0.0 113.5 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 179.3 98.7 169.0 57.0 85.3 4.6 326.0 83.7 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 imp
4-97

Approximately 17.8 miles (63.6 percent) of the proposed pipeline route would be collocated with 

Kern River’s existing right-of-way. An additional 0.6 mile would be collocated with the UNEV pipeline 

project, which is expected to be constructed by November 2010. Table 4.8.1-2 provides locations by 

milepost where the proposed pipeline is 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 9.6 miles (34.3 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 12.1 N/A 12.1 

Morgan/Davis 0.5 N/A 0.5 

Davis 4.0 0.6 4.6 

Salt Lake 1.2 <0.1 1.1 

Total 17.8 0.6 18.4 

____________ 

Note: 

a

 The UNEV pipeline is not yet constructed; however construction is scheduled to be complete 

by November 2010. 

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 37 existing access roads ranging in length from less than 0.1 mile to up to 

11.9 miles. The access road at MP 13.9 (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. A portion of another 

access road (Skyline Drive) was also identified as an unauthorized road on USFS land. If approval to use 

that portion of the road is granted, Kern River would remove the unauthorized portion of the road 

according to USFS specifications following construction. Appendix C lists the access roads, locations, 

modifications required, surface area potentially affected, and current land use for each. Kern River has 

identified 35 of the existing access roads that would require modifications to 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. 
4-98

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 43.9 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 179.3 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. The Project would not cross any sensitive rangeland areas such as 

remnant prairies or public land used for grazing allotments. 

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 65.5 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 169.0 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 169.0 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 

permanent, depending on the time it takes lands to re-grow to pre-construction conditions. A total of 

57.0 acres of currently forested land would be permanently converted to open land within the permanent 

pipeline right-of-way. 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 
4-99

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 (38.5 percent). Approximately 326.0 acres of developed land would be required for 

construction; including 88.4 acres for the pipeline right-of-way and temporary workspace; 113.5 acres for 

pipe yards, staging areas, and contractor yards; 62.2 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: 

 limiting the hours of construction within the refinery property; 

 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. 
4-100

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 

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 

BLM Land 

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 
4-101

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 6.3 miles of USFS lands of the UWCNF managed by the Salt 

Lake Ranger District. Kern River is currently in consultation with the USFS regarding the proposed 

pipeline route (see section 3.5.8) and the necessary approvals to construct and operate the proposed 

Wasatch Loop and utilize and/or improve access roads within 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 that the rationale for such deviation 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. A 1 acre staging area is proposed in this prescription. 

(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. 
4-102

(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 

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). Changes to the land management plan 

that are not significant can result from one of the four actions listed below. 

1. Actions that do not significantly alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land 

and resource management. 

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. 

3. Minor changes in standards and guidelines. 

4. Opportunities for additional projects or activities that will contribute to achievement of the 

management prescription. 

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 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. 

4.8.2.3 Residential Lands 

As currently designed, approximately 11.1 acres of residential land would be required for 

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. 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. Therefore, Kern River would also restore these portions of the 

permanent right-of-way to residential land consistent with the Reclamation Plan and landowner 

requirements, to the maximum extent practical. 
4-103

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 

24.5 1 (unoccupied residence 

in foreclosure) b

34 99 

Wasatch 

Loop 

Salt Lake 

County, UT 

27.5 1 residence (occupied and 

for sale) b

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. 

b

 Foreclosure and for sale information as of November 2009. 

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 24.4 and 25.1, respectively. Development of Shady Meadow Campground into six 

residential lots ranging between 15 and 22 acres has 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. 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 4.8.3.2, respectively. Finally, the Lower Area of the Eaglewood 

Village development is not crossed by the proposed Project but is immediately adjacent to portions of 

Kern River’s existing right-of-way and where the proposed Project route is sited (MP 25.2 to 25.5). Kern 

River is currently in consultation with the developers/landowners to identify measures to avoid and 

mitigate impacts on these developments. 
4-104

Existing Residences and Buildings 

Kern River has identified two residences and several structures within 50 feet of the construction 

right-of-way and associated work areas (table 4.8.2-1). The first residence at MP 24.5 is currently not 

occupied and would be about 34 feet from the construction workspace. In addition to the proposed rightof-way, an MLV would be close to this residence. The second 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. However, as described in section 3.5, we are recommending that Kern River adopt the North 

Salt Lake III Route Variation which would avoid impacts on the residence at MP 24.5. 

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. 

As requested by the City of North Salt Lake, Kern River would install a decorative cement wall 

with appropriate landscaping around the MLV proposed near the residence at MP 24.5. 

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 short 

term 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. 
4-105

4.8.3 Recreation and Special Use Areas 

The Apex Expansion Project would cross several recreation and special interest 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 24.5. 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 10.7 miles of the proclaimed boundary 

of the UWCNF from MP 13.3 to 21.3 and 21.8 to 24.5. Parcels of land within the proclaimed boundary 

are owned by the USFS and private landowners. The USFS manages only those areas within the 

UWCNF that it directly owns. 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, snowmobiling, and alpine resort skiing. 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 3.5.8). For further discussion on roadless areas, refer to section 

4.8.3.2. 

Construction of the Project would impact a total of 119.1 acres of the UWCNF. Recreational 

activities, such as use of 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, 60.9 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. However, 58.2 acres within the permanent right-of-way would 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. 
4-106

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/Compressor 

Station 

Approximate 

Crossing 

Length (in 

miles unless 

otherwise 

indicated) 

Approximate 

Acreage 

Affected by 

Construction 

1.2a Goldfleck 

Recreation 

Areab

Yes Not available Not available 

1.4 Broad Hollow 

Pioneer Trail 

Yes 12.5 feet 0.0 

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 

21.8-24.5 UWCNF No 2.7 22.0 

14.8 Great 

Western Trail 

Yes 13.2 0.0 

Morgan 

County, 

UT 

15.1 North 

Holbrook 

Route Trail 

Yes 12.5 feet 0.1 

15.9 North 

Holbrook 

Route Trail 

Yes 12.5 feet 0.1 

16.5 Holbrook 

Canyon Trail 

Yes 5 feet 0.0 

18.48 Kenny Creek 

Trail 

Yes 3 feet 0.0 

18.9 Mueller 

Parkb No Not available Not available 

20.6 North 

Canyon 

Creek Trail 

Yes 8 feet 0.0 

Wasatch 

Loop 

Davis 

County, 

UT 

21.0 North County 

Line Trail 

Yes 8 feet 0.0 
4-107

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 

Davis 

County, 

UT 

(cont) 

21.9 South 

Hooper 

Ridge Trail 

No 8 feet 0.0 

24.6 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 

Dry Lake 

Compressor 

Station 

Clark 

County, 

NV 

500.1 

(existing 

KRGT 

system) 

BLM land 

(Kern Riverleased 

Industrial 

Land) 

Yes Not 

applicable 

0.0c

____________ 

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 Exact boundaries of the Goldfleck Recreation Area and Mueller Park have not yet been obtained from landowners. 

c Construction would be entirely within the existing Dry Lake Compressor Station property, which is considered industrial land. 
#

# #

Kaysville

Bountiful

Farmington

Centerville

Salt Lake City

15

§ ̈¦

215

§ ̈¦

65 UV

66 UV

CA

AZ

NV

NM

OR

CO

WY

UT

Date: March 2010 

APEX EXPAN

RECREATION AND SP

0 2 4 1

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

Roadless Areas

UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Private lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

USFS-managed lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

4-108
4-109

During consultations, the USFS raised concerns about the 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 M). 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, earthen 

berm, 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. 

4.8.3.2 Roadless Areas 

Roadless areas are designated by the USFS, and are regulated under the Roadless Area 

Conservation Act (36 CFR 294), which limits road construction, road reconstruction, and timber 

harvesting in inventoried roadless areas on National Forest System lands. The proposed Apex Expansion 

Project would impact 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. Mueller 

Park is identified only in the LRMP. For the purposes of this EIS effects to both roadless areas are 

evaluated. 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 on the Forest was evaluated according the roadless 

values that the area possessed. 

The proposed Wasatch Loop would cross the Hogsback Roadless Area between MP 13.7 and 

14.7. The effects of the proposed pipeline on wilderness attributes and roadless area characteristics are 

limited and are described in greater detail in Appendix N. 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 non-motorized 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 Hogsback Roadless Area is a 

7,900-acre area located in Morgan County. Activities permitted in the area include hunting, hiking, 

camping, snowmobiling, heliskiing, OHV use, and grazing. The Mueller Park Roadless Area is a 

7,000-acre area along the Salt Lake and Davis County line. Activities permitted include hiking, 

picnicking, and biking. 

The proposed pipeline route would be collocated with the existing right-of-way through the 

Hogsback Roadless Area, limiting the level of impact. Approximately 4.9 acres within the Hogsback 

Roadless Area would be impacted by the proposed Project, all of which would require tree clearing. 

Approximately 4.4 acres of the forested area would be allowed to re-vegetate, while 0.5 acre would 

represent a permanent impact. Trees would be allowed to grow back to within 10 feet of the pipeline 

centerline to offset some of the tree clearing impacts. As described in section 3.5, we are recommending 

that Kern River adopt the Mueller Park Route Variation in order to eliminate impacts on the Hogsback 

Roadless Area. The Mueller Park Route Variation would generally utilize previously cleared areas along 

the existing rights-of-way; due to challenging terrain a minor deviation from the existing right-of-way 
4-110

would be required, resulting in approximately 0.4 mile of greenfield construction within the UWCNF and 

the Mueller Park Roadless Area. 

The proposed Project would cross the Mueller Park Roadless Area in three locations: between 

MP 13.3 and 13.7, between 20.7 and 20.8, and between 21.8 and 22.5. A total of approximately 15.7 

acres of forested land would be cleared within the Mueller Park Roadless Area for construction of the 

proposed pipeline. Between MP 13.3 and 13.7, 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 4.7 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 be crossed between MP 21.8 and 22.5 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 9.6 acres of forested land. However, trees would be allowed to revegetate 

greater than 10 feet from the centerline. As described in section 3.5, we are recommending that Kern 

River adopt the North Salt Lake III Route Variation in order to avoid steep slopes, mule deer wintering 

habitat, and historic CCC terracing. Additionally, the North Salt Lake III Route Variation would reduce 

impacts on the UWCNF. 

4.8.3.3 Recreational and Historic Trails 

The proposed Apex Expansion Project would cross 11 trail systems, including 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. Three National Historic Trails are 

located in proximity to the proposed construction right-of-way; however, they are not crossed by the 

proposed Project. 

Eight of the trails that would be crossed by the pipeline would be within 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 
4-111

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 Broad Hollow Pioneer Trail at MP 1.4 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 24.6 and 

impact 0.2 acre, 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 owned by Provo-Jordan River Parkway Authority and administered by the UDNR. The 

trail itself parallels the Jordan River and is used by recreationalists for hiking, biking, and horseback 

riding. 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 

Goldfleck Recreation Area, Shady Meadow Campground, Mueller Park, a multi-use path, East Canyon 

WMA, and the Jordan River OHV Park and Modelport. The Goldfleck Recreation Area would be crossed 

by the pipeline at MP 1.2. This area is privately owned and Kern River is currently working with the 

landowner to determine the boundaries of the recreation area. This recreational area is used for hunting 

by employees of Goldfleck and their guests. Approximately 5.2 acres of the East Canyon State Park 

would be used as a temporary staging area during construction of the Project. 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 would be crossed by the pipeline at MP 18.9; impacts on the Mueller Park 

Trail are discussed above in section 4.8.3.2. 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 
4-112

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 off-highway 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 Goldfleck Recreation Area, Shady Meadow 

Campground, and the Jordan River 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 these 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 minimum 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 regularly maintain or mow the permanent rightof-way about every 3 years as described in Kern River’s Plan and section 4.4. However, annual 

maintenance within a 10-foot-wide strip centered on the pipeline would be required to remove trees that 

may grow immediately adjacent to the pipeline as the roots may be detrimental to pipeline integrity. 

4.8.3.5 Wildlife Management Areas and Cooperative Wildlife Management Units 

The Apex Expansion Project would cross one WMA and two CWMUs. The East Canyon WMA 

would be crossed by the pipeline between MP 4.0 and 5.0, it is located on land owned by the State of 

Utah and managed by the UDWR. It is used for deer hunting, wildlife viewing, hiking, and horseback 

riding. 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 12.3 acres within the East Canyon WMA would be impacted by construction of 

the Project. Construction within the WMA would result in temporary disruption of habitat and 

recreational activities. 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. Based on these consultations, 

the UDWR indicated that the WMA is closed annually from January 1 through the second Saturday of 

April to protect wintering wildlife; construction would be avoided during this period. In addition, 

construction would also be avoided during the open season rifle hunt dates of October 17-18 and for the 

duration of that week to avoid displacing animals from public land onto surrounding private lands. 

Therefore, construction at the East Canyon WMA would occur sometime in November, December, and 

between the end of April and September. After construction is complete, all disturbed areas would be 

restored in accordance with Kern River’s Reclamation Plan. Approximately 5.78 acres would be 

maintained as permanent right-of-way. 

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 
4-113

disruption of habitat used for game and other species, and recreational uses and activities within both 

CWMUs. Kern River is currently in consultation with the landowners and the UDWR as necessary in 

regard to the timing of construction in order to minimize any disruptions to these activities. No timing 

restrictions are required at the Lazy H Ranch CWMU. 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 

completed. 

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. 
4-114

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. 

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), which is 

currently used by the UWCNF. The SMS is based on the idea that landscape management that tends to 

preserve positive scenic elements would maintain or increase the overall scenic integrity of the landscape, 

and landscape management that eliminates or obscures positive scenic elements would degrade scenic 

integrity. “Scenic integrity” has to do with the state of disturbance created by human activities or 

alterations. The SMS acknowledges that it takes a longer period of time for vegetation to recover and 

reach the scenic management objectives after completion of a project. It also allows 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 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. 

In consultation with the USFS, Kern River is conducting a visual assessment for USFS lands 

crossed by the proposed Apex Expansion Project. Kern River plans to complete the assessment in the 

spring of 2010. To ensure that Kern River’s visual assessment is evaluated in the final EIS, we 

recommend that: 

 Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Kern River complete and file with the 

Secretary and the USFS, a visual assessment report for the USFS-managed lands. 
4-115

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 number 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. 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. 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 

MP 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 

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 short 
4-116

term, 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 4.5. 

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. 
4-117

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 

(2008)a

Population 

Density (2000)a

(persons/sq. mile) 

Per Capita 

Income 

(2007)b

Civilian Labor 

Forcec

Unemployment 

Rate (%)c Major Ind

UTAH 2,739,424 27.2 $31,944 1,369,400 6.0 

Morgan 8,669 11.7 $28,071 3,971 5.5 Management, pr

occupations 

Davis 295,332 786.2 $31,518 144,710 5.8 Educational, heaSalt Lake 1,022,651 1,219 $35,805 558,427 6.2 Educational, heaBeaver 6,162 2.3 $27,240 3,231 4.7 Agriculture, fore

hunting, and min

Utah 530,837 184.5 $21,668 220,409 5.8 Educational, heaMillard 12,082 1.9 $26,397 6,371 4.4 Educational, hea

WYOMING 532,668 5.1 $48,608 292,547 5.9 

Uinta 20,167 9.5 $42,621 11,581 7.2 Educational, hea

NEVADA 2,600,167 18.2 $41,182 1,402,450 11.4 

Clark 1,865,846 173.9 $39,188 1,010,318 11.6 Arts, entertainme

accommodation a

Total 3,761,746 1,958,964 

____________ Notes: a Source: State and County QuickFacts (U.S. Census Bureau 2009a) 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. 
4-118

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. 

Kern River proposes to utilize one construction spread; 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. 

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. 
4-119

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 

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. 
4-120

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 

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 

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. 

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. 
4-121

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 2008 estimates (U.S. Census Bureau 2009a), 

these facilities serve a population of about 3,761,746 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. 

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 

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. 

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. 
4-122

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.
4-123

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. 
4-124

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 
4-125

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 2009a) 

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 $10,590 in 2007, 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. 
4-126

TABLE 4.9.7-2 

Economic Statistics for Counties Crossed by the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

State/County 

Median Household Income 

(2007)a Persons below Poverty 

(%) (2007)a Households Receiving Public Assistance (%)b

UTAH $55,220 9.8 3.1 

Morgan $68,174 4.2 2.4 

Davis $65,767 6.3 2.9 

Salt Lake $56,378 9.0 3.0 

Beaver $39,465 9.5 4.0 

Utah $57,113 11.4 2.4 

Millard $44,948 12.7 5.1 

WYOMING $52,433 9.5 2.6 

Uinta $57,858 9.8 2.8 

NEVADA $54,996 10.6 2.3 

Clark $55,960 10.7 2.4 

____________ 

Notes: 

a Source: State and County Quickfacts (U.S. Census Bureau 2009a) 

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 four 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 

(11.4 percent compared to 9.8 percent) and Millard (12.7 percent compared to 9.8 percent) Counties in 

Utah, Uinta County (9.8 percent compared with 9.5 percent) in Wyoming, and Clark County (10.7 percent 

compared to 10.6 percent) in Nevada. 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 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. 
4-127

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 

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, except for two FERC-recommended route variations and several 

other small areas. These inventories total 2,707.4 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 rightof-way, access roads, pipe/contractor yards, staging areas, offloading areas, and the proposed Milford 

Compressor Station and the PacifiCorp electrical distribution line in Utah. Areas that have not yet been 

inventoried are the North Salt Lake III and Mueller Park Route Variations, small portions of three 

laydown areas and an ATWS, an alternate contractor yard, an alternate pipe storage yard, and a new 

access road. 

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 
4-128

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 27.7 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 

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. 

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 

surveys. 

Ten historic sites have been previously determined eligible for listing on the NRHP. These are 

the Donner-Reed/Mormon 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 Donner-Reed/Mormon 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. 

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. 
4-129

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 BLM-CCFO Not eligible None 

42BE3301 Historic and prehistoricb,i Private 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 

42DV126 Northwest Oil Drainc,f Private Eligible Avoid by boring 

42DV139/ 

42SL635 

Civilian Conservation Corps 

terraces/furrowsc,f USFS Eligible Avoid by route 

variation 

42MO28 Prehistoricc,f Private Not eligible None 

42MO29 Donner-Reed/Mormon 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 
4-130

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 

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 

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 tor 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.. 

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 
4-131

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 would develop a treatment plan in consultation with the FERC and Utah SHPO for mitigating 

adverse effects to the Reclamation Ditch prior to any disturbance to the site. Mitigation might entail 

detailed documentation, limitations on construction, and restoration/reconstruction. The CCC erosion 

control earthworks would be avoided by the North Salt Lake III Route Variation that we recommend in 

section 3.5.7. In this case, no impact would occur to the site, and no other mitigation would be required. 

Kern River would be required to complete a cultural resources survey of the route variation. 

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 Donner-Reed/Mormon 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 report for the 

proposed pipeline route and agreed with Kern River’s NRHP-eligibility evaluations and proposed 

treatment. In letters dated October 13, 2009 and January 4, 2010, the Utah SHPO indicated it would 

await an agency letter regarding the project before commenting. 

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. Three cultural 

resources were identified along the 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. On May 28, 2009, 

the BLM-CCFO accepted the report for the Milford Compressor Station. In a letter dated June 8, 2009, 

the Utah SHPO indicated it would await an agency letter regarding the project before commenting. 
4-132

Kern River contacted the Wyoming SHPO regarding Project activities at the Coyote Creek 

Compressor Station; the Utah SHPO regarding Project activities at the Elberta and Fillmore Compressor 

Stations; and the Nevada SHPO and BLM Las Vegas Field Office (BLM-LVFO) regarding Project 

activities at the Dry Lake Compressor Station. 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. In a letter dated June 1, 2009, the Utah SHPO indicated it would await an agency 

letter regarding the project before commenting. 

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 have been received. 

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 not yet completed surveys for the North Salt Lake III or Mueller Park Route 

Variations, portions of several ATWSs, a new access road, or two alternate contractor/pipe yards. In 

addition, consultations for the Project are still ongoing. Consequently, the FERC, the USFS, and the 

BLM have not completed the process of complying with Section 106 of the NHPA. The FERC, in 
4-133

consultation with the SHPOs, the USFS, the BLM, and other appropriate parties, would determine 

whether construction of the proposed Project would affect any historic properties. If historic properties 

would be adversely affected, Kern River would develop a treatment plan for those properties that could 

not be avoided. 

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 survey reports; 

(2) the Utah SHPO’s comments on the Milford, Elberta, and Fillmore 

Compressor Stations; 

(3) a survey report for the Mueller Park and North Salt Lake III Route 

Variations, any outstanding areas and newly identified areas that 

remain to be surveyed, and the Utah SHPO’s, USFS’s, and BLM’s 

comments (as appropriate) on the report; and 

(4) any required avoidance and/or mitigation/treatment plan, and the 

SHPO’s, and USFS’s and BLM’s (as appropriate) comments on the 

plan; 

b. the ACHP is afforded an opportunity to comment if historic properties would be 

adversely affected; 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 PRIVILEDGED INFORMATION – DO 

NOT RELEASE. 

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. 
4-134

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. 

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), 
4-135

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. 

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. 
4-136

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 

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 N/A 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 

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 

Lead Quarterly 1.5 μg/m3 1.5 μg/m3 1.5 μg/m3 

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 
4-137

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 s

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 sin

oriented monitors must not exceed 15.0 μg/m3. 

c To attain this standard, the 3-year average of annual the 98th-percentile 24-hour average values of particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diame

exceed 35.0 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 wi

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 
4-138

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. 
4-139

TABLE 4.11.1-5 

Regional Background Air Quality Concentrations in the Regions of the Proposed 

Apex Expansion Project (2006–2008) 

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 

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 

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 

____________ 

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 
4-140

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. 
4-141

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 
4-142

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 Apex Expansion Project 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 Apex Expansion Project. 

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). Potential HAP emissions resulting from the Project would be below the 10-tpy and 25-

tpy thresholds; therefore, MACT would not be applicable. 
4-143

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 

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 to the Project 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 

proposed Project. 

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. A general conformity determination is therefore not required [as specified in 

40 CFR 51.853(c)(1) and 40 CFR 93.153(c)(1)]. 
4-144

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 
4-145

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. 
4-146

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 Division of Air Quality (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. Following review of the application, Kern River expects the WDEQ to 

issue a revised permit for the modification of the compressor station, which will 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. Following 

UDAQ’s review of the Notices of Intent, Kern River expects UDAQ to issue a revised Approval Order 

for the modification at the Elberta Compressor Station and a new Approval Order for the proposed 

Milford Compressor Station. These will serve as Permits to Construct and Operate for the Elberta and 

Milford Compressor Stations. 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. Following review of the 

application, Kern River expects the CC DAQEM to issue a revised combined Authority to 

Construct/Operating Permit for expansion of the compressor station. The compressor replacement at 

Fillmore Compressor Station is not an air pollution emitting unit and authorization to replace the 

compressor would not be required. 

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. 

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 
4-147

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. 

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 

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 

____________ 

Note: 

 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 

CS = Compressor Station 

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 
4-148

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 prepare required dust control plans in accordance with 

state air quality regulations and would provide these plans to the appropriate state agencies and the 

Commission prior to construction. Kern River has indicated that these plans would propose to use proven 

construction practices, such as applying water to roadways and mulching bare areas to control fugitive 

dust if fugitive dust becomes a problem. 

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, NO2 and formaldehyde emissions (a HAP) at the Coyote Creek 

Compressor Station would be compared with appropriate PSD increments and the NAAQS. 

Formaldehyde emissions at the Elberta Compressor Station would be compared with toxic screening 

levels, and NOx and CO levels would be compared with and mitigated to below UDAQ thresholds. 

Emissions of NO2 and formaldehyde at the Milford Compressor Station would be compared with the 

NAAQS for NO2 and the appropriate toxic screening level for formaldehyde. Finally, emissions of NO2, 

PM10, and SO2 at the Dry Lake Compressor Station would be compared with the appropriate PSD 

increment. 

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 

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. 
4-149

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 

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 
4-150

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. 

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. 

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 
4-151

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. 

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 
4-152

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 

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. 
4-153

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 
4-154

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 4.1.2, 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. 
4-155

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 100 feet north of an 

existing residence at MP 24.6. Kern River would install a decorative cement wall around the MLV at 

MP 24.6 as requested by the City of North Salt Lake, 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. 
4-156

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. 
4-157

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: 
4-158

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 
4-159

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. 
4-160

 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). 
4-161

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 
4-162

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. 
4-163

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. 
4-164

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 
4-165

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. 
4-166

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 by November 1, 

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 
4-167

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. 

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. 
4-168

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 

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 

spring 2010 

through December 

2010 

Davis, Salt Lake, Millard, and 

Beaver Counties, UT; Clark 

County, NV 

Magnum Gas Storage 

Project 

Eight 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 2012 

through 2014 

Millard 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 
4-169

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 

Electrical Transmission Lines 

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 

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 

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 
4-170

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 spring 2010 and be completed by December 2010, 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 2.25 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. 
4-171

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. 

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 

of the TransWest Express Project are considered in this analysis. Potential cumulative effects for all other 

counties are assessed below. 
4-172

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. 
4-173

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 24.7 and 24.9. 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 
4-174

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 2.25 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 Quatemary-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 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 
4-175

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 
4-176

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 December 2010, 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 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. 

The UNEV Pipeline Project, which parallels the Apex Expansion Project for approximately 

2.25 miles from MP 25.8 to 28.0, has the largest potential to contribute to cumulative impacts on 
4-177

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). 

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 

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. 
4-178

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 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, 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 collocation 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. 

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 
4-179

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 distruction 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 December 2010, 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 

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 
4-180

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. 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 

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 
4-181

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 65.7 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 December 2010. 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. 

4.13.8.2 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. The 

proposed site for MLV 121B (MP 24.6) is near a residential neighborhood. Kern River proposes to place 
4-182

a decorative concrete wall around the valve site so that it will blend in more with the surrounding 

development, similar to MLV 121A. 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 crossing 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. 

Construction of the UNEV Pipeline Project is expected to be completed in December 2010, 

which is approximately the time that construction of the Apex Expansion Project would begin, however 

no cumulative socioeconomic impacts related to hunting area 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. Twelve of these sites are considered eligible for listing on the 

NRHP. Kern River’s proposed pipeline would directly affect two NRHP-eligible historic properties: 

CCC earthworks (42DV139/42SL635) and Reclamation Ditch (42SL499). The proposed pipeline would 

cross these sites by open-cut methods. As discussed in section 4.10-1, Kern River would develop a 

treatment plan to mitigate adverse effects to these sites prior to disturbance. However, in section 3.5.7, 

we recommend that Kern River adopt the North Salt Lake III Route Variation that would avoid the CCC 

earthworks (42DV139/42SL635), in which case no impact would occur to the site. Disturbance would 

occur only to a portion of one site that does not contribute to its significance. Three NRHP-eligible sites 

would be avoided by horizontally boring beneath them, 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 
4-183

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. 

4.13.11.2 Noise 

The proposed Apex Expansion Project and the other projects listed in table 4.13-1 may 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 December 2010, 

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. 
4-184

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 Unites 

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 

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 4.11.1.3. 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 
4-185

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. 
5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

5.1 CONCLUSIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 

The conclusions and recommendations presented in this section are those of the FERC 

environmental staff. Our conclusions and recommendations were developed with input from the USFS, 

BLM, and Reclamation as cooperating agencies. The USFS, BLM, and Reclamation could adopt this EIS 

per 40 CFR 1506.3 if, after an independent review of the document, they conclude that their permitting 

requirements have been satisfied. However, these agencies would present their own conclusions and 

recommendations in their respective RODs. Otherwise, they may elect to conduct their own supplemental 

environmental analysis. 

Based on our review of information provided by Kern River; literature research; alternatives 

analysis; comments from federal, state, and local agencies; and input from public groups and individual 

citizens, we have determined that construction and operation of the proposed Apex Expansion Project 

would result in some adverse environmental impacts. However, we believe that environmental impacts 

would be reduced to less than significant levels if the proposed Project is constructed and operated in 

accordance with applicable laws and regulations, Kern River’s proposed mitigation, and additional 

measures we recommend in this draft EIS. Most impacts would be temporary and short-term; however, 

the Project could result in some long-term and potentially permanent impacts on sagebrush, upland forest, 

forested wetland vegetation, and individual wildlife species. Although the mitigation proposed by Kern 

River would reduce most of these impacts, as part of our review, we developed specific mitigation 

measures that we determined would appropriately and reasonably minimize the environmental impacts 

resulting from construction and operation of the proposed Project. We are therefore recommending that 

our mitigation measures be attached as conditions to any authorization issued by the Commission. A 

summary of the anticipated Project impacts and our conclusions is provided below by resource. 

5.1.1 Geology 

Potential geologic hazards in the Project area include faults, landslides, and subsidence. The 

proposed Project would cross four faults near MPs 2.0, 2.3, 19.2, and 25.6. Potential hazards associated 

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

granular/sand backfill material underneath and surrounding the pipeline near the active fault at MP 25.6. 

Kern River has mitigated for landslide hazards by re-routing the pipeline to areas of low risk. Kern River 

anticipates that blasting may be necessary between MP 0.0 to 19.0 where hard bedrock occurs at depths of 

five feet or less. Kern River would follow all applicable state, federal and local regulations regarding 

blasting as specified in its blasting plan. 

Kern River would utilize its PRMP that was developed for the 2003 Kern River Expansion 

Project to mitigate impacts on paleontological resources. The PRMP would be adapted for the proposed 

Project and provides procedures for obtaining pre-construction approvals, monitoring identified 

significant fossil locations during construction and addresses procedures for unanticipated discovery of 

fossils during construction. 

Construction and operation of the Project would cause minimal impact on geological resources. 

The primary geological effect of the Project construction would be disturbances to the existing 

topography along the proposed pipeline construction right-of-way, but all areas disturbed during pipeline 

construction would be finish-graded and restored as closely as possible to pre-construction contours 

during cleanup and restoration. With the implementation of Kern River’s Plan and Procedures, impacts 

on geological resources would be adequately minimized. 

5-1
5.1.2 Soils 

The Project would traverse a variety of soil types and conditions. Construction activities 

associated with the proposed Project, such as clearing, grading, trenching, and backfilling, could 

adversely affect soil resources by causing erosion, compaction, and loss of soil productivity and fertility 

by mixing of topsoil and subsurface soil horizons and changing drainage patterns. However, Kern River 

would implement the mitigation measures contained in its Plan, Procedures, and Reclamation Plan to 

control erosion, enhance successful revegetation, and minimize any potential adverse impacts on soil 

resources. Specifically, potential soil impacts would be mitigated through measures such as topsoil 

stripping, compaction treatment, and monitoring of revegetation to ensure that density and cover of nonnuisance vegetation were similar in density and cover to adjacent undisturbed lands. Additionally, Kern 

River would implement an SPCC Plan during construction and operation to prevent and contain, if 

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

spills of fuel, lubricant, or solvents are contained and cleaned up in an appropriate manner. 

Permanent impacts on soils would mainly occur at the existing and proposed compressor stations 

and other aboveground facilities where the sites would be graveled and converted to natural gas facility 

use. 

5.1.3 Water 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. 

The Wasatch Loop would be within 150 feet of three public water supply wells. Because all 

active water wells within 150 feet of the proposed pipeline route have not been identified, we are 

recommending that Kern River file completed surveys for all potable water supply wells and springs. 

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. This includes Kern River’s commitment to perform pre- and postconstruction monitoring for well yield and water quality for private wells and springs within 200 feet and 

public wells and springs within 400 feet of the proposed construction right-of-way and repair or replace 

any damaged wells or springs or provide an alternate water source. 

No surface waters would be located within or immediately adjacent to the boundaries of the 

existing and proposed new aboveground facilities, including the proposed Milford Compressor Station. 

The pipeline would cross 12 perennial waterbodies, 7 intermittent waterbodies, and 2 ephemeral 

waterbodies. If water is flowing at the time of construction, Kern River would cross the waterbodies 

using a dry crossing method. If water is not present at the time of construction, these waterbodies would 

be crossed using open-cut methods. All waterbody crossings would be accomplished in accordance with 

Kern River’s Procedures and the terms of any applicable federal and state permits that may be granted. 

Kern River proposes to withdraw water from two rivers, one reservoir, and municipal sources for 

the purposes of hydrostatic testing and dust abatement. Test water would not be chemically treated and 

would be released within the same hydrologic basin from which it was withdrawn. In addition, Kern 

River would obtain appropriate NPDES discharge permits prior to conducting hydrostatic testing. 

Accidental spills during construction and operations would be prevented or adequately minimized through 

implementation of Kern River’s Procedures and SPCC Plan. 

5-2
The pipeline would cross approximately 2,027 feet of land classified as wetlands. No wetlands 

would be impacted by construction of the Milford Compressor Station or modifications to the existing 

compressor stations. All wetland crossings would be subject to review by the COE. Kern River would 

also comply with all conditions of the Section 404 authorizations that may be issued by the COE. 

Kern River proposes to use a construction right-of-way width of up to 100 feet in wetlands. We 

are recommending that Kern River limit the construction right-of-way width to 75 feet in the wetland at 

MP 26.4 unless it is determined at the time of construction, that soils within this wetland are saturated to 

warrant a wider right-of-way. We are allowing a wider right-of-way than 75 in wetlands in specified 

locations due to site-specific conditions. Additionally, according to Kern River’s Procedures, which are 

consistent with the our Procedures, extra work areas should be located a minimum of 50 feet away from 

wetland boundaries, except where approved of otherwise. Kern River proposes to locate three ATWSs 

within wetlands and one ATWS within 50 feet of a wetland boundary and we believe Kern River has 

provided adequate justification for these sites. With adherence to Kern River’s Plan and Procedures, Kern 

River’s Reclamation Plan, our recommended mitigation, and COE permit requirements, overall impacts 

on water resources would be adequately minimized. Impacts on herbaceous and scrub-shrub wetlands 

resulting from the proposed Project would be temporary and short-term as wetlands would be expected to 

return to their pre-construction status within 3 to 5 years. Impacts on the 0.6 acre of forested wetland 

affected would be long-term due to the length of time for forested species to regenerate. However, 0.1 

acre of forested wetland would be permanently impacted by the Apex Expansion Project because it is 

located within the permanent right-of-way and would permanently be converted from forested to 

emergent or scrub-shrub wetland. 

5.1.4 Vegetation 

The Apex Expansion Project would permanently impact eight vegetative cover types: Great 

Basin sagebrush (65.3 acres), mountain mahogany-oak scrub (87.1 acres), Douglas fir (19.3 acres), 

riparian canyon woodlands (0.9 acres), open grassland (8.5 acres), saline-alkaline wetlands (3.6 acres), 

improved pasture (7.9 acres), and industrial/disturbed lands (10.1 acres). 

Impacts on agricultural lands would be short-term as these lands would revert to pervious 

conditions following restoration. Lands currently dominated by herbaceous growth may revegetate 

quickly or may require more than 1 year, depending on a number of factors such as resumption of normal 

hydrologic inputs following restoration and planting of the right-of-way. 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. 

Forested lands that are cleared would constitute the most significant impact due to the 

pronounced change in appearance, structure, and function as mature trees would be replaced by earlier 

successional stage species and would require decades for mature trees to be restored. During the 

operation of the proposed pipeline, trees would not be allowed to grow within the permanent right-of-way 

corridor, resulting in a permanent conversion of cover type in that area to an herbaceous or scrub-shrub 

state. 

During noxious weed surveys conducted for the proposed Project, six noxious weed species were 

encountered within the right-of-way. The potential spread of these weeds would be controlled by 

implementation of Kern River’s Noxious Weed Control Plan. 

Kern River would restore all disturbed areas in accordance with its Plan and Procedures and the 

specific recommendations of USFS, BLM, Reclamation, and state and local agencies. Given the 

5-3
measures in Kern River’s Plan, Procedures, and Reclamation Plan, effects to upland vegetation would be 

effectively minimized. 

5.1.5 Wildlife 

The wetlands and upland vegetation communities crossed by the proposed Project route support 

habitats that provide cover and forage for a variety of wildlife species, including birds, mammals, reptiles, 

and amphibians. The Apex Expansion Project would affect wildlife and wildlife habitats along the 

proposed route; these impacts could be temporary, short-term, long-term, or permanent. Specifically, 

wildlife could be displaced, injured, or killed by construction activities; but these impacts would not result 

in population level effects. Construction of the Project would cause habitat fragmentation, especially in 

forested areas and shrub habitats where the proposed right-of-way deviates from the existing right-ofway. To minimize potential impacts on wildlife, the pipeline would be collocated or 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. 

Kern River anticipates that blasting would likely be required, and 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. To minimize impacts, we are recommending that Kern River conduct all 

blasting within crucial habitat outside of the season of highest use or develop site-specific measures to 

minimize blasting impacts in coordination with the applicable agencies. 

Four big game species occur within the proposed Project area: mule deer, elk, pronghorn, and 

moose. Kern River’s proposed construction time-frame, between late spring and early fall, would result 

in active construction occurring in crucial summer, summer/fall, and year-long habitats for big game 

species. As a result, it is likely that big game would experience some adverse effects during these 

periods. However, Kern River would conduct clearing activities during fall/winter which would cause 

active construction during spring/summer to be of a slightly shorter duration. 

A variety of migratory bird species, including both songbirds and raptors, are associated with the 

habitats identified along the proposed Project. Construction could cause direct and indirect impacts on 

raptors and other migratory birds. In order to minimize these impacts, Kern River has collocated much of 

the right-of-way 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, Kern River would conduct clearing and grading in late 

fall/winter, outside of the bird breeding season. Kern River is continuing to coordinate with resource 

agencies regarding implementation of protective measures for birds protected by the MBTA and will 

resume coordination after their 2010 surveys have been completed; however, Kern River’s currently 

proposed mitigation measures are inconsistent with those recommended by FWS’s Guidelines for Raptor 

Protection. Therefore, we are recommending that Kern River provide the results of the raptor surveys to 

FWS, UDWR, USFS, and BLM and provide any buffers or other mitigation developed. 

Implementation of Kern River’s Plan, Procedures, Reclamation Plan, our recommendations, and 

maximizing collocation with existing rights-of-way would minimize impacts on wildlife species. 

5.1.6 Fisheries and Aquatic Resources 

According to UDWR, six of the perennial streams crossed are capable of supporting a fish, 

including one warmwater fishery and five coldwater fisheries. There are no fisheries at any of the 

compressor station sites (proposed and existing), staging areas, construction support yards, or access 

roads. Construction of the proposed Project could result in impacts on waterbodies and fisheries from 

5-4
sedimentation and turbidity, habitat alteration, streambank erosion, fuel and chemical spills, water 

depletions, entrainment or entrapment due to water withdrawals. The extent of 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. Kern River proposes to cross all waterbodies either when they are dry or using 

a dry-crossing method to minimize impacts on aquatic resources. All waterbody crossings would be 

accomplished in accordance with Kern River’s Procedures and the terms of any applicable federal or sate 

permits that may be granted. 

Intake screening to limit entrainment of fishes and maintenance of adequate streamflow rates to 

protect aquatic life during hydrostatic test water withdrawals would further minimize Project-related 

impacts on aquatic resources. 

Kern River would adhere to the FERC and agency timing windows for coolwater and warmwater 

fisheries to further minimize impacts on fishery resources. We are recommending that it adhere to the 

timing windows for coldwater fisheries unless it receives state agency concurrence to cross coldwater 

fisheries outside of the timing window. 

If blasting is required within waterbodies, 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 scare charge to disperse fish, and immediately removing any 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 any additional required permits prior to construction. 

Overall, construction impacts on fisheries would be temporary and minor due to the relatively 

small area within each waterbody that would be affected. By adhering to the measures in Kern River’s 

Procedures, there would be no significant impacts on fisheries as a result of Project construction and 

operations. 

5.1.7 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, considered as candidates for such listing by the FWS, or petitioned for listing 

under the ESA; species managed by the BLM or USFS to prevent listing under the ESA; and those 

species that are state-listed as threatened or endangered or designated as a state species of concern. 

Based on Kern River’s consultation with FWS and our review of existing records, six federally 

listed threatened or endangered species, or species that are candidates or petitioned for listing, are 

reported to potentially occur in the vicinity of the proposed Project. Based on our review of the 

six federally listed species, we have determined that construction and operation of the proposed Project 

may affect but would not likely adversely affect, Utah prairie dog and Ute ladies’ tresses. The remaining 

species (greater sage-grouse, yellow-billed cuckoo, pygmy rabbit, and Northern leopard frog) are 

proposed or candidate species. Known habitat for these species would be crossed by the proposed 

Project, and individuals could be impacted or lost; however, the Project would not cross any FWSdesignated critical habitat. Therefore, should the FWS determine that these species warrant listing under 

the ESA prior to construction of the proposed Project, formal Section 7 consultation under the ESA would 

be required. We have requested that the FWS consider this draft EIS as the BA for the proposed Project. 

In addition to the federally listed, federally petitioned, and federal candidate species, 49 USFS- or 

state –identified special status species could occur within the vicinity of the proposed Project. We believe 

5-5
that, given the nature of the species occurrence and the measures that would be implemented as part of the 

proposed Project, impacts on special-status species would be adequately avoided or minimized. 

We are recommending additional mitigation to avoid or reduce impacts on certain federally listed 

and other special status species that may be affected by the Project. We are also recommending that 

construction not begin until after we complete our ESA consultation with the FWS. The analysis in this 

EIS will also be used by other federal cooperating agencies, as applicable, to fulfill their permitting 

requirements. For these reasons, impacts on special-status species have been adequately minimized. 

5.1.8 Land Use and Visual Resources 

As proposed, construction of the Apex Expansion Project would affect approximately 766.4 acres 

of land, including 395.5 acres for the pipeline construction right-of-way and ATWSs; 213.5 acres for pipe 

storage and contractor yards; 95.1 acres for aboveground facilities; and 62.3 acres for access roads. For 

most of the Project, collocation of the pipeline with existing rights-of-way would help to reduce land use, 

recreational, and visual impacts by decreasing the need for new rights-of-way across these areas. 

Following construction, all affected areas outside the permanent right-of-way and aboveground facility 

sites would be restored and allowed to revert to pre-construction conditions and uses. Lands within the 

permanent right-of-way would be restored; however, this land would be subject to routine maintenance as 

discussed in Kern River’s Plan. During operation of the proposed Project, the permanent pipeline rightof-way, aboveground facilities, and permanent access roads would encumber approximately 246.6 acres. 

Kern River would retain the easement for a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way along the proposed 

Project route. Kern River would annually maintain a 10-foot-wide area centered over the pipeline and 

would conduct maintenance mowing the 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way every three years in nonriparian areas. 

Kern River would mitigate any unavoidable impacts on structures located within construction 

work areas per the terms of the agreements negotiated during the easement acquisition process. Two 

existing residences and a barn would be located within 50 feet of proposed construction workspaces. 

Kern River proposes specific measures to reduce residential impacts at these locations including: ensuring 

construction activities progress in a timely manner; maintaining access and traffic flow to the property; 

installing safety fence; and restoring all areas disturbed by construction work areas to “as before or better” 

conditions. We are recommending that Kern River adopt the North Salt Lake III Route Variation which 

would avoid impacts on one of the residences within 50 feet of the proposed construction workspace. 

The Apex Expansion Project would cross several recreation and special interest areas, including, 

a National Forest, BLM land, two state parks, two gravel pits, hunting land, and other recreation areas. 

The most prominent of these special use areas is the UWCNF, which would be crossed between MP 13.3 

and 24.5. Kern River would use special construction methods such as boring to avoid impacts, or time 

the construction to occur when the area is least utilized, such as avoiding certain hunting seasons to 

minimize impacts on these areas. Kern River would consult with the managing agencies to identify 

appropriate avoidance and minimization measures, as appropriate. 

Visual resources along the proposed Project route would be affected by the alteration of existing 

vegetative patterns associated with clearing of the construction and permanent pipeline rights-of-way. In 

order to minimize visual impacts, Kern River would reseed all areas affected by construction in 

accordance with their Reclamation Plan to return the impacted vegetation outside of the permanent rightof-way to pre-existing conditions. We are recommending that Kern River submit its visual assessment 

report to the USFS and FERC. 

5-6
With adherence to Kern River’s Plan and Procedures, and Kern River’s Reclamation Plan, overall 

impacts on land use would be adequately minimized. 

5.1.9 Socioeconomics 

The proposed pipeline route and the proposed Milford Compressor Station would affect 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. 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. 

Kern River proposes to utilize one construction spread for the Wasatch Loop with construction 

expected to begin in October 2010 and 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 proposed 

Wasatch Loop and 330 workers associated with upgrades at four compressor stations and construction of 

the one new compressor station (Milford Compressor Station). 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 proposed Wasatch Loop would be housed within Salt Lake County, 

generally limiting housing impacts on Morgan and Davis Counties. 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, there would be 

adequate housing for the compressor station workforces. 

There is no evidence that the proposed Project would result in disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects to minority or low-income communities. 

5.1.10 Cultural Resources 

Kern River has conducted cultural resources surveys and prepared reports covering the entire 

proposed Wasatch Loop. Kern River also has completed cultural resources surveys at the proposed 

Milford Compressor Station and along the associated electrical distribution line; at pipe yards/offloading 

areas; and along Project access roads. Surveys remain to be completed for the two recommended route 

variations, some laydown areas and contractor yards, one extra work space, and one access road. 

In total, the surveys have identified 25 historic or archaeological sites. Twenty sites are historic, 

three sites are prehistoric, and two sites are both historic and prehistoric. Fourteen sites are considered 

eligible and 11 are considered not eligible for listing on the NRHP. Of the 14 eligible sites, Kern River 

would avoid impacts on all but two sites. Kern River would mitigate impacts on one of the eligible sites 

and it would either avoid or mitigate impacts on the remaining site.

Cultural resources survey reports for the Project have been submitted to the FERC, USFS, BLM, 

UDOT, UDNR, (as appropriate by jurisdiction) and Utah SHPO for review, and we have received 

comments and concurrence from the USFS, BLM, UDOT, and UDNR. 

We sent our NOI to 22 federally recognized Native American tribes. No responses to our NOI 

from Native American tribes were received. Kern River also contacted these groups. To date, the Moapa 

Band of Paiute Indians and Colorado River Indian Tribes have responded, indicating that they had no 

interest in the Project. The Las Vegas Paiute Tribe and the Chemehuevi Indian Tribe did not have any 

5-7
concerns, but requested to be contacted in the event of Project changes or significant discoveries, 

respectively. No other responses have been received to date. 

No historic properties would be affected at the Coyote Creek and Dry Lake Compressor Stations. 

The Section 106 process is complete for these Project components. 

To ensure that our responsibilities under Section 106 of the NHPA are met, we are recommending 

that Kern River not begin construction until all required surveys are completed, survey reports, and any 

necessary treatment plans have been reviewed by the appropriate parties, and we provide written 

notification to proceed. 

5.1.11 Air Quality and Noise 

Air quality impacts associated with construction of the proposed Project would include emissions 

from fossil-fueled construction equipment and fugitive dust. Such air quality impacts would generally be 

temporary and localized, and are not expected to cause or contribute to a violation of applicable air 

quality standards. Operation of the proposed Project would be expected to result in long-term minor 

impacts on air quality at the proposed Milford Compressor Station and the existing compressor stations. 

All of the air emissions associated with operation of the compressor stations would meet federal and state 

ambient air quality standards and would be subject to the conditions of any respective air quality permits 

each state would issue, including emission limits for each of emission-generating source. 

With implementation of the measures proposed by Kern River, impacts related to noise during 

construction would be minor and temporary. If the proposed Project is approved and constructed, we are 

recommending that Kern River measure actual noise levels associated with the Coyote Creek, Elberta, 

and Milford Compressor Stations to confirm that noise levels are below an Ldn of 55 dBA at the nearest 

NSA, or implement the necessary mitigation to ensure that it is. Based on estimated sound levels and our 

recommendation, noise levels attributable to operation of the existing compressor stations and the new 

Milford Compressor Station would not have a significant impact on the surrounding environment. 

5.1.12 Reliability and Safety 

The proposed Project would be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to meet or 

exceed all USDOT safety standards for natural gas pipelines. Following construction, Kern River also 

would initiate a pipeline integrity management plan to ensure public safety during operation. The Project 

would result in only a slight increase in risk to the nearby public. 

5.1.13 Cumulative Effects 

Three types of projects (past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects) could potentially 

contribute to a cumulative impact when considered with the proposed Project. These projects include 

other oil and natural gas gathering and transmission pipelines in the Project area, non-jurisdictional 

facilities associated with the proposed Project, and unrelated projects in the vicinity of the proposed 

pipeline route. We considered the region of influence for the cumulative impact analysis to be the 

counties traversed by the proposed Project. The environmental impacts associated with these projects that 

would be most likely to be cumulatively significant are related to wetlands and waterbodies, vegetation 

and wildlife (including federally and state listed endangered and threatened species), land use, air quality, 

and noise. 

Impacts associated with the proposed Project would be relatively minor overall, and we have 

included recommendations in this EIS to further reduce the environmental impacts associated with the 

5-8
proposed Apex Expansion Project, as summarized in section 5.2. Additionally, Kern River has selected a 

route that collocates with its existing right-of-way to the largest extent possible considering terrain 

constraints, safety, and recent development since the existing pipeline was installed. Similarly, each of 

the other projects considered in our cumulative impacts analysis have been designed to avoid or minimize 

impacts on sensitive environmental resources. Additionally, it is anticipated that any significant impacts 

on sensitive resources resulting from these projects would be mitigated. Mitigation generally leads to 

avoidance or minimization of cumulative impacts. Consequently, only a small incremental cumulative 

effect would be anticipated after the impacts of the proposed Project are added to those of past, present, or 

reasonably foreseeable projects. 

5.1.14 Alternatives Considered 

As an alternative to the proposed action, we evaluated the No Action or Postponed Action 

Alternatives, system alternatives, major route alternatives, route variations, and aboveground facility site 

alternatives. While the No Action or Postponed Action Alternative would eliminate or delay the short 

and long-term environmental impacts identified in this draft EIS, the objectives of the proposed Project 

would not be met, and Kern River would not be able to provide a new source of natural gas to markets 

that can be accessed through the proposed Project. We also evaluated the use of alternative energy 

sources and the potential effects of energy conservation, but these measures would not satisfy the need for 

the proposed Project. 

Our analysis of system alternatives included an evaluation of whether existing or proposed 

natural gas pipeline systems could meet the proposed Project objectives while offering an environmental 

advantage over the proposed Project. In addition to the Kern River System, there are two other existing 

pipeline systems that currently transport natural gas to southern Nevada: El Paso and Transwestern. Both 

would not meet the capacity requirements of the proposed Apex Expansion Project without substantial 

system upgrades, such as new or increased compression and new pipeline looping, or construction of 

additional pipelines. Similarly, it is anticipated that construction and operational impacts associated with 

other system alternatives involving existing/proposed pipelines in the region (Bison Pipeline Project, 

Kanda Lateral and Mainline Expansion, Loop Expansion Project, Rex-West Project, Ruby Pipeline 

Project, and Sunstone Project) would be greater than those of the proposed Project due to the amount of 

looping and new construction required to connect the systems to the Project origin and terminus. 

Consequently, no system alternatives are considered available that are environmentally preferable to the 

proposed Project. 

We evaluated five major route alternatives to the proposed Project route. Because none of these 

would offer significant environmental advantages over the proposed Project route, we eliminated them 

from further consideration. Lastly, we considered route variations to resolve or reduce construction 

impacts on localized, specific resources. These minor variations were developed based on comments 

from landowners, resource agencies, and land-managing agencies to avoid or minimize impacts on natural 

and cultural resources, reduce or eliminate engineering and constructability concerns, and avoid or 

minimize conflicts with existing or proposed residential and agricultural land uses. It also is anticipated 

that minor alignment shifts would be made prior to and during construction to accommodate such sitespecific circumstances as landowner concerns. We are recommending that Kern River incorporate the 

Mueller Park Variation into the proposed Project to avoid an inventoried roadless area within USFS 

lands. We are also recommending that Kern River incorporate the North Salt Lake III Variation into the 

proposed Project because it would result in a shorter crossing of USFS lands and would avoid crossing 

the historic CCC terraces. 

We evaluated alternative locations for the proposed Milford Compressor Station to determine 

whether environmental impacts would be reduced or mitigated by use of alternative facility sites. We did 

5-9
not identify any alternative sites for the proposed Milford Compressor Station that would offer a 

significant environmental advantage to the proposed site. 

In summary, we have determined that Kern River’s proposed Project, as modified by our 

recommended mitigation measures and route variations, is the preferred alternative that can meet the 

Project objectives. 

5.2 FERC STAFF’S RECOMMENDED MITIGATION 

If the Commission authorizes the Apex Expansion Project, we recommend that the following 

measures be included as specific conditions in the Commission’s Order. We believe that these measures 

would further mitigate the environmental impact associated with construction and operation of the 

proposed Project. In the following section, “file” means to file with the Secretary at the FERC. Certain 

recommendations listed below request that Kern River provide information to assist us in the 

development of the final EIS. Any recommendations that are satisfied by Kern River prior to issuance of 

the final EIS will not be included as recommended conditions in the final EIS. 

1. Kern River shall follow the construction procedures and mitigation measures described in its 

application and supplemental filings (including responses to staff information and data requests), 

and as identified in the EIS, unless modified by the Commission’s Order. Kern River must: 

a. request any modification to these procedures, measures, or conditions in a filing; 

b. justify each modification relative to site-specific conditions; 

c. explain how that modification provides an equal or greater level of environmental 

protection than the original measure; and 

d. receive approval in writing from the Director of OEP before using that modification. 

2. The Director of OEP has delegated authority to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure the 

protection of all environmental resources during construction and operation of the Project. This 

authority shall allow: 

a. the modification of conditions of the Commission’s Order; and 

b. the design and implementation of any additional measures deemed necessary (including 

stop-work authority) to assure continued compliance with the intent of the environmental 

conditions as well as avoidance or mitigation of adverse environmental impact resulting 

from Project construction and operation. 

3. Prior to any construction, Kern River shall file an affirmative statement, certified by a senior 

company official, that all company personnel, Environmental Inspectors, and contractor 

personnel will be informed of the Environmental Inspectors’ authority and have been or will be 

trained on the implementation of the environmental mitigation measures appropriate to their jobs 

before becoming involved with construction and restoration activities. 

4. The authorized facility locations shall be as shown in the EIS, as supplemented by filed alignment 

sheets, and shall include the Mueller Park and North Salt Lake III Variations as described in 

section 3.5.7. As soon as they are available, and before the start of construction, Kern River 

shall file any revised detailed survey alignment maps/sheets at a scale not smaller than 1:6,000 

with station positions for all facilities approved by the Order. All requests for modifications of 

5-10
environmental conditions of the Order or site-specific clearances must be written and must 

reference locations designated on these alignment maps/sheets. 

 Kern River’s exercise of eminent domain authority granted under NGA section 7(h) in any 

condemnation proceedings related to the Order must be consistent with these authorized facilities 

and locations. Kern River’s right of eminent domain granted under NGA Section 7(h) does not 

authorize it to increase the size of its natural gas pipeline to accommodate future needs or to 

acquire a right-of-way for a pipeline to transport a commodity other than natural gas. 

5. Kern River shall file detailed alignment maps/sheets and aerial photographs at a scale not smaller 

than 1:6,000 identifying all route realignments or facility relocations, and staging areas, pipe 

storage yards, new access roads, and other areas that would be used or disturbed and have not 

been previously identified in filings. Approval for each of these areas must be explicitly 

requested in writing. For each area, the request must include a description of the existing land 

use/cover type, documentation of landowner approval, whether any cultural resources or federally 

listed threatened or endangered species would be affected, and whether any other 

environmentally sensitive areas are within or abutting the area. All areas shall be clearly 

identified on the maps/sheets/aerial photographs. Each area must be approved in writing by the 

Director of OEP before construction in or near that area. 

 This requirement does not apply to extra workspace allowed by the Kern River’s Upland Erosion 

Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan, and/or minor field realignments per landowner 

needs and requirements which do not affect other landowners or sensitive environmental areas 

such as wetlands. 

 Examples of alterations requiring approval include all route realignments and facility location 

changes resulting from: 

a. implementation of cultural resources mitigation measures; 

b. implementation of endangered, threatened, or special concern species mitigation 

measures; 

c. recommendations by state regulatory authorities; and 

d. agreements with individual landowners that affect other landowners or could affect 

sensitive environmental areas. 

6. Within 60 days of the acceptance of the Certificate and before construction begins, Kern 

River shall file an Implementation Plan for review and written approval by the Director of OEP. 

Kern River must file revisions to the plan as schedules change. The plan shall identify: 

a. how Kern River will implement the construction procedures and mitigation measures 

described in its application and supplements (including responses to staff data requests), 

identified in the EIS, and required by the Order; 

b. how Kern River will incorporate these requirements into the contract bid documents, 

construction contracts (especially penalty clauses and specifications), and construction 

drawings so that the mitigation required at each site is clear to onsite construction and 

inspection personnel; 

c. the number of Environmental Inspectors assigned for the Wasatch Loop and aboveground 

facility sites, and how the company will ensure that sufficient personnel are available to 

implement the environmental mitigation; 

5-11
d. company personnel, including Environmental Inspectors and contractors, who will 

receive copies of the appropriate material; 

e. the location and dates of the environmental compliance training and instructions Kern 

River will give to all personnel involved with construction and restoration (initial and 

refresher training as the Project progresses and personnel change), (with the opportunity 

for OEP staff to participate in the training session(s)); 

f. the company personnel (if known) and specific portion of Kern River's organization 

having responsibility for compliance; 

g. the procedures (including use of contract penalties) Kern River will follow if 

noncompliance occurs; and 

h. for each discrete facility, a Gantt or PERT chart (or similar Project scheduling diagram), 

and dates for: 

(1) the completion of all required surveys and reports; 

(2) the mitigation training of onsite personnel; 

(3) the start of construction; and 

(4) the start and completion of restoration. 

7. Kern River shall employ a team of two or more Environmental Inspectors for the Wasatch Loop. 

The Environmental Inspectors shall be: 

a. responsible for monitoring and ensuring compliance with all mitigation measures 

required by the Order and other grants, permits, certificates, or other authorizing 

documents; 

b. responsible for evaluating the construction contractor's implementation of the 

environmental mitigation measures required in the contract (see condition 6 above) and 

any other authorizing document; 

c. empowered to order correction of acts that violate the environmental conditions of the 

Order, and any other authorizing document; 

d. a full-time position, separate from all other activity inspectors; 

e. responsible for documenting compliance with the environmental conditions of the Order, 

as well as any environmental conditions/permit requirements imposed by other federal, 

state, or local agencies; and 

f. responsible for maintaining status reports. 

8. Beginning with the filing of its Implementation Plan, Kern River shall file updated status reports 

on a weekly basis until all construction and restoration activities are complete. On request, 

these status reports will also be provided to other federal and state agencies with permitting 

responsibilities. Status reports shall include: 

a. an update on Kern River’s efforts to obtain the necessary federal authorizations; 

b. the construction status of the Project work planned for the following reporting period, and 

any schedule changes for stream crossings or work in other environmentally-sensitive 

areas; 

c. a listing of all problems encountered and each instance of noncompliance observed by the 

Environmental Inspectors during the reporting period (both for the conditions imposed by 

5-12
the Commission and any environmental conditions/permit requirements imposed by other 

federal, state, or local agencies); 

d. a description of the corrective actions implemented in response to all instances of 

noncompliance, and their cost; 

e. the effectiveness of all corrective actions implemented; 

f. a description of any landowner/resident complaints which may relate to compliance with 

the requirements of the Order, and the measures taken to satisfy their concerns; and 

g. copies of any correspondence received by Kern River from other federal, state, or local 

permitting agencies concerning instances of noncompliance, and Kern River’s response. 

9. Prior to receiving written authorization from the Director of OEP to commence 

construction of any Project facilities in each state, Kern River shall file documentation that it 

has received all authorizations required under federal law (or evidence of waiver thereof) in each 

state. 

10. Kern River must receive written authorization from the Director of OEP before placing into

service the Apex Expansion Project facilities. Such authorization will only be granted following 

a determination that rehabilitation and restoration of the right-of-way and other areas affected by 

the Project are proceeding satisfactorily. 

11. Within 30 days of placing the authorized facilities in service, Kern River shall file an 

affirmative statement, certified by a senior company official: 

a. that the facilities have been constructed in compliance with all applicable conditions, and 

that continuing activities will be consistent with all applicable conditions; or 

b. identifying which of the Certificate conditions Kern River has complied with or will 

comply with. This statement shall also identify any areas affected by the Project where 

compliance measures were not properly implemented, if not previously identified in filed 

status reports, and the reason for noncompliance. 

12. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Kern River shall incorporate the Mueller 

Park Variation (MP 13.7-14.7) into the proposed route. In addition, Kern River shall complete 

and file with the FERC all required biological and cultural resources surveys and consultations 

for this recommended variation and provide updated alignment sheets. (Section 3.5.6) 

13. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Kern River shall incorporate the North Salt 

Lake III Variation (MP 22.0-24.9) into the proposed route. In addition, Kern River shall 

complete and file with the FERC all required biological and cultural resources surveys and 

consultations for this recommended variation and provide updated alignment sheets. (Section 

3.5.7) 

14. Prior to construction, Kern River shall file completed surveys for all potable water supply wells 

and springs identified within 150 feet of the proposed construction right-of-way and list any sitespecific measures that it would implement to avoid, minimize, or mitigate for potential impacts 

on water supply wells and springs. (Section 4.3.1.2) 

15. Kern River shall limit the construction right-of-way width in the wetland at MP 26.4 to 75 feet 

unless Kern River files evidence that the soil conditions within this wetland at the time of 

5-13
construction warrant a wider right-of-way, and Kern River receives written approval from the 

Director of OEP to expand the construction right-of-way. (Section 4.3.3.3) 

16. Prior to construction, Kern River shall file a revised blasting plan that either stipulates that any 

blasting within big game crucial habitat would occur outside of the season of highest use or

includes site-specific measures developed in consultation with the USFS, BLM, and UDWR that 

would minimize impacts on big game species during blasting activities. (Section 4.5.3) 

17. Prior to construction, Kern River shall file the results of the raptor surveys and copies of 

consultations with the FWS, UDWR, USFS, and BLM, as applicable, to develop appropriate 

spatial buffers and/or other mitigation measures to protect raptors. (Section 4.5.4) 

18. Prior to construction, Kern River shall file a revised version of its Procedures specifying that the 

time window for crossing coldwater fisheries is between June 1 and September 30, unless 

expressly permitted by the appropriate agencies. (Section 4.6.1.2) 

19. Kern River shall not begin construction of the proposed Project facilities until: 

a. it consults with USFS and FWS regarding potential habitat for the Ute ladies’-tresses 

within the proposed Project area and, if applicable, develop a survey protocol that would 

promote identification of the species; 

b. files the results of any surveys completed for the Ute ladies’-tresses; 

c. the FERC staff completes any necessary consultations with the FWS; and 

d. Kern River has received written notification from the Director of OEP that construction 

and/or use of mitigation (including implementation of conservation measures) may begin. 

(Section 4.7 and Section 4.7.1.6) 

20. Kern River shall adopt the following measures to minimize impacts on greater sage-grouse: 

a. identify all areas of Great Basin sagebrush within the right-of-way and access roads that 

are potential habitat for sage-grouse, regardless of slope gradient, and include those areas 

in the lek surveys proposed for spring 2010; 

b. avoid clearing and construction activities between March 1 and July 31 within a 4-mile 

radius of any active leks encountered during its 2010 surveys; 

c. file a site-specific blasting plan developed in consultation with the FWS and UDWR for 

the sagebrush habitat between MP 3.8 and 4.6 that includes measures for both sagegrouse and pygmy rabbit; and 

d. plant Great Basin sagebrush within the construction work area during restoration at MP 

0.0-2.5, 3.8-4.6, and 11.5-11.8. (Section 4.7.1.1) 

21. If construction is to occur through suitable yellow-billed cuckoo habitat at MP 0.9, 5.0-5.4, 17.3, 

19.8, and 21.2 during the breeding season, Kern River shall conduct audio surveys immediately 

prior to such construction. If individuals or evidence of yellow-billed cuckoos are found, Kern 

River shall not begin construction in these areas until we have reviewed Kern River’s proposed 

avoidance and/or mitigation measures, as well as any agency comments on these measures, and 

Kern River has received written notification from the Director of OEP that construction or use of 

mitigation may begin. (Section 4.7.1.2) 

5-14
5-15

22. Prior to construction, Kern River shall file the results of its 2010 pygmy rabbit surveys and 

Utah prairie dog surveys, and submit the results to the FWS, BLM, and UDWR. If individuals or 

evidence of pygmy rabbits or Utah prairie dogs are found, Kern River shall file a plan detailing 

pygmy rabbit and/or Utah prairie dog avoidance/mitigation measures developed in consultation 

with the applicable agencies, for review and written approval of the Director of OEP. (Section 

4.7.1.3 and 4.7.1.4) 

23. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Kern River shall complete and file with the 

Secretary and the USFS, a visual assessment report for the USFS-managed lands. (Section 

4.8.4.1) 

24. Kern River shall 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 survey reports; 

(2) the Utah SHPO’s comments on the Milford, Elberta, and Fillmore 

Compressor Stations; 

(3) a survey report for the Mueller Park and North Salt Lake III Route 

Variations, any outstanding areas and newly identified areas that remain 

to be surveyed, and the Utah SHPO’s, USFS’s, and BLM’s comments (as 

appropriate) on the report; and 

(4) any required avoidance and/or mitigation/treatment plan, and the 

SHPO’s, and USFS’s and BLM’s (as appropriate) comments on the plan; 

b. the ACHP is afforded an opportunity to comment if historic properties would be 

adversely affected; 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 PRIVILEDGED INFORMATION – DO NOT 

RELEASE. (Section 4.10.4)

25. Kern River shall 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 shall install the 

additional noise controls to meet the level within 1 year of each station’s in-service date. Kern 

River shall 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. (Section 4.11.2.4) 
APPENDIX A 

DISTRIBUTION LIST
APPENDIX A – DISTRIBUTION LIST 

A-1 

Federal Government Agencies

ACSIM, Operations Directorate, Operations 

Division (DAIM-ODO), Ravin L. Howell, 

VA 

Adv. Council on Historic Pres., Director 

Cultural Resources, DC 

Air Force Real Property Agency, Jeffrey 

Blevins, TX 

Bureau of Land Management, Field Manager, 

Glenn Carpenter, UT 

Bureau of Land Management, Archaeologist, 

Gardiner Dalley, UT 

Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake Field 

Office Archaeologist, Dale Earl, UT 

Bureau of Land Management, Wildlife 

Biologist, Christine Pontarolo, UT 

Bureau of Land Management, - Las Vegas Field 

Office, Supervisory Realty Specialist, Philip 

Rhinehart, NV 

Bureau of Land Management, Archaeologist, 

Susanne Rowe, NV 

Bureau of Land Management, SD, Selma Sierra, 

UT 

Bureau of Land Management, ASD, Gene 

Terland, UT 

Bureau of Land Management, Associate District 

Manager, Randy Trujillo, UT 

Bureau of Land Management, Realty Specialist, 

Dave Watson, UT 

Bureau of Land Management, UT 

Bureau of Land Management - Color Country 

District - Cedar City Field Office, Realty 

Specialist, Rob Wilson, UT 

Bureau of Land Management - Utah State 

Office, Lead Realty Specialist, Mike 

Dekeyrel, UT 

Bureau of Land Management - West Desert 

District - Salt Lake Field Office, Mike 

Nelson, UT 

Bureau of Land Management—Utah State 

Office, Dave Murphy, UT 

Bureau of Reclamation, Valerie Heath-Harrison, 

UT 

Bureau of Reclamation, Chief, Environmental 

Group, Beverly Heffernan, UT 

Bureau of Reclamation, Archaeologist, Brian 

Joseph, UT 

Bureau of Reclamation Provo Area Office, 

Bruce Barrett, UT 

Bureau of Reclamation, Provo Area, Reed 

Murray, UT 

Center for Disease Control, GA 

Commandant, United States Coast Guard 

Council on Environmental Quality, DC 

Council on Environmental Quality, Gen 

Counsel, DC 

Council on Environmental Quality, Director of 

NEPA Oversight, DC 

Department of Homeland Security, Admiral, DC 

Committee on Energy and Nat Gas, DC 

CUP Completion Act Office, Ralph G. & Renata 

Swanson, UT 

Department of Energy, Director for 

Import/Export Activities, DC 

Department of Energy, Ofc of Environ. 

Compliance, DC 

Department of Energy, Manager, Natural Gas 

Regulatory Activities, DC 

Department of Justice, Land & Natural 

Resources Div., DC 

Department of Labor, Office of Regulatory 

Economics, DC 

Department of State, Office of 

Environment/Health, DC 

Department of the Air Force, Office of Deputy 

Secretary, Environment, Safety & 

Occupational Health, DC 

Department of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Deputy Director, DC 

Dept of Natural Resources, UT 

Dept of the Interior, Deputy Assistant Scy for 

Land & Minerals Mgmt., DC 

Dept. of Transportation, Office of Pipeline 

Safety, Research & Special Programs 

Admin., DC 

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, 

Installations and Environment, DC 

Director of Environmental Policy & 

Compliance, Dept. of the Interior – MIB2340, DC 

Director of Lands, USDA Forest Service, DC 

Division of Wildlife Resources, Kevin Conway, 

UT 

DOT, P/L & Hazardous Materials Safety 

Admin., MO 

DOT, Office of Pipeline Safety, Rm 462, MO 

DOT, OPS Eastern Region, DC 

DOT, P/L & Hazardous Materials Safety 

Admin., Community Assistance/Technical 

Services, CO 

DOT/RSPA/OHME/SW Region, Houston 

Office, TX 
APPENDIX A – DISTRIBUTION LIST (continued) 

A-2 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Federal Activities, Susan E. Bromm, Acting 

Director, DC 

Forest Service Intermountain Region, Director, 

UT 

HUD Director of Environment, DC 

Interior Board of Land Appeals, Office of 

Hearing and Appeals, VA 

Intermountain Region, Terry Padilla, UT 

Intermountain Region, John Palmer, UT 

Interstate Commerce Commission, Chief Energy 

& Environment, DC 

Library of Congress, Federal Documents 

Section, Madison Bldg 

Exchange & Gift Div, DC 

National Forest Foundation, DC 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of 

Habitat Protection, Marine Resource Habitat 

Specialist, MD 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, NEPA Coordinator, 

Program Planning and Integration, MD 

National Park Service (2310), DC 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Gary 

Jann, UT 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, US 

Department of Agriculture, National 

Environmental Coordinator, DC 

Office of Federal Activities - 2251A, Director, 

DC 

Office of Intergov Affairs - DOE, DC 

Office of Operating and Environmental 

Standards, United States Coast Guard, DC 

Office of Pipeline Safety - DOT 

Research & Special Programs Admin., 

Administrator, DC 

Office of Pipeline Safety - USDOT, Pipeline & 

Hazardous Material Safety Admin., DC 

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army 

(Civil Works) 

Tribal and Regualtory Affairs, Assistant for 

Environment, DC 

Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of 

Defense - Installations and Environment, 

Robert Uhrich, DC 

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, DC 

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Attn: 

IRM, DC 

Office-Asst. Secy of the Navy, Installations and 

Environment, Tom Egeland, DC 

Timpanogos Cave National Monument, Denis 

Davies, UT 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Project 

Manager, Hollis Jencks, UT 

U.S. Department of Interior, Director, Office of 

Environmental Policy and Compliance, DC 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and 

Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 

DC 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Henry R. Maddux, 

UT 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Field 

Supervisor, Larry Crist, UT 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecologist, Betsy 

Herrmann, UT 

U.S. Forest Service, Ecosystem Mgmt. 

Coordination, DC 

UDOT, UT 

UDWR, Central Region, Regional Manager, UT 

UDWR, Northeast Region, Walt Donaldson, UT 

United States Department of Agriculture, 

Archaeologist, Thomas Flanigan, UT 

United States Department of Agriculture, 

District Ranger-Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest, Cathy Kahlow, UT 

United States Department of Agriculture, 

RecHeritage Wilderness Land Group 

Leader- Wasatch Cache National Forest, 

Larry Lucas, UT 

United States Department of Agriculture, Lands 

and Special Uses, David Ream, UT 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

- Region 8, Director of NEPA Program, 

Larry Svoboda, CO 

United States Forest Service, Wildlife Biologist, 

Steve Blatt, UT 

United States Forest Service, Wildlife Biologist, 

Michael Bornstein, UT 

United States Forest Service, Fish Biologist, 

Paul Chase, UT 

United States Forest Service, Fisheries & 

Wildlife, Paul Cowley, UT 

United States Forest Service, Botanist, Mike 

Duncan, UT 

United States Forest Service, Soil Scientist, Paul 

Flood, UT 

United States Forest Service, Landscape 

Architect, David Hatch, UT 

United States Forest Service, Environmental 

Coordinator, Julie Hubbard, UT 
APPENDIX A – DISTRIBUTION LIST (continued) 

A-3 

United States Forest Service, Public Affairs 

Officer, Lorraine Januzelli, UT 

US Army Corp of Engineers, UT 

US Army Corps of Engineers, Office of the 

Chief of Army Engineers, DC 

US Department of Commerce 

Office of the Secretary, Senior Policy Advisor, 

DC 

US Dept of Transportation, Environmental 

Policies Team Leader, DC 

USDA, Office of Finance & Management, DC 

USDA Farm Service Agency, Keith Christensen, 

UT 

USDA Forest Service, Director, DC 

USDA Forest Service, Deputy Chief, National 

Forest System, DC 

USDA Forest Service - FHP, Darren Blackford, 

UT 

USDA-APHIS-PPQ, Greg Abbott, UT 

USDA-APHIS-PPQ, Robert E. King, UT 

USDOT, P/L & Hazardous Materials Safety 

Admin., GA 

USFA FS, DC 

Utah Dept of Agriculture & Food, Dick Wilson, 

UT 

Federal Senators and Representatives 

U.S. Senator Bob Bennett, UT 

U.S. Representative Rob Bishop, UT 

U.S. Representative Jason Chaffetz, DC 

U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch, UT 

U.S. Representative Jim Matheson, DC 

Office of U.S. Senator Bob Bennett, Energy 

Advisor, Joan Hellstrom, UT 

Office of U.S. Senator Bob Bennett, Senior 

Counsel, Tyler Owens, DC 

Office of U.S. Senator Bob Bennett, Energy 

Advisor, Brad Shafer, UT 

Office of U.S. Representative Rob Bishop, Legal 

Assistant, Wayne Bradshaw, DC 

Office of U.S. Representative Rob Bishop, 

Davis Area Director, Peter Jenks, UT 

Office of U.S. Representative Rob Bishop, 

Morgan Area Director, John Newhall, UT 

Office of U.S. Representative Rob Bishop, Salt 

Lake Area Director, John Tanner, UT 

Office of U.S. Representative Jason Chaffetz, 

Energy Advisor, Wade Garrett, UT 

Office of U.S. Representative Jason Chaffetz, 

Communications Director, Mike Jerman, 

DC 

Office of U.S. Representative Jason Chaffetz, 

Energy Advisor, Dell Smith, UT 

Office of U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch, 

Congressional Staffer, Jared Brown, DC 

Office of U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch, Energy 

Advisor, Ron Dean, UT 

Office of U.S. Representative Jim Matheson, 

Legislative Director, Neeta Bidwai, DC 

Office of U.S. Representative Jim Matheson, 

State Director, Mike Reberg, UT 

State Government Agencies

CUWCD, UT 

Dept of Natural Resources, Robert L. Morgan, 

UT 

Governor's Office of Public Land Policy, John 

Harja, UT 

Nevada Department of Air Quality & 

Environmental Management - Clark County, 

Administrative Secretary, Grace Bautista, 

NV 

Nevada Department of Air Quality & 

Environmental Management - Clark County, 

Permit Manager, Richard Beckstead, NV 

Nevada Department of Air Quality & 

Environmental Management - Clark County, 

Permit Supervisor, Santosh Mathew, NV 

Nevada Department of Air Quality & 

Environmental Management - Clark County, 

Permit Modeler, Vsant Rajagopolan, NV 

Nevada Historic Preservation Office, Deputy 

State Historic Preservation Officer, Alice 

Baldrica, NV 

Office of Property Rights Ombudsman, Lead 

Attorney, Brent Bateman, UT 

Office of Property Rights Ombudsman, 

Attorney, Su Chon, UT 

Office of the Wyoming State Archaeologist 

Department of Anthropology, Deputy State 

Historic Preservation Officer, Mary 

Hopkins, WY 

State of Utah, Archaeological Permitting 

Analyst, Kelly Beck, UT 

State of Utah, Governor Jon Hunstman Jr., UT 

State of Utah, Energy Resource Coordinator, 

Mary Ann Wright, UT 

State of Utah, Division of Water Rights, Bill 

Schlotthauer, UT 

State of Utah, Public Lands Policy Coordinating 

Office, Director, John Harja, UT 
APPENDIX A – DISTRIBUTION LIST (continued) 

A-4 

Utah Association of Counties, Brent Gardner, 

UT 

Utah Association of Counties, Mark Ward, UT 

Utah County, Jeff Mendenhall, UT 

Utah County Government, Larry Ellertson, UT 

Utah County Health Department, Health and 

Justice Building, UT 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality, 

Environmental Engineer, Tad Anderson, UT 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality, 

Environmental Scientist, Phil Burns, UT 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality, 

Business Assistance Environmental 

Scientist/P.G., Paul Harding, UT 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality, 

Section Manager, Ty Howard, UT 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality, 

Environmental Scientist, Mark Jensen, UT 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality, 

Department of Drinking Water, Jesse 

Johnson, UT 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality, 

Environmental Engineer, Svetlana 

Kopytkovskaya, UT 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality, 

Environmental Engineer, Steve Onysko, UT 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality, 

Permit Modeler, Tom Orth, UT 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality, 

Environmental Scientist, Jon Parry, UT 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality, 

Environmental Scientist, Sean Warner, UT 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality, 

Environmental Scientist - EPCRA 

Coordinator, Mike Zucker, P.G., UT 

Utah Department of Natural Resources, Water 

Resources, Dave Cole, UT 

Utah Department of Natural Resources, 

Forestry, Fire & State Lands, Dave 

Grierson, UT 

Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division 

of Oil Gas & Mining, Gil Hunt, UT 

Utah Department of Natural Resources, Habitat 

Biologist, Pam Kramer, UT 

Utah Department of Natural Resources, 

Engineer, Daren Rasmussen, UT 

Utah Department of Natural Resources, Parks 

and Recreation, Susan Zarekarizi, UT 

Utah Department of Public Safety, Deputy 

Director of Public Safety, Jeff Carr, UT 

Utah Department of Public Safety, Deputy 

Commissioner, Keith D. Squires, UT 

Utah Department of Transportation, District 

Engineer, Kelly Barrett, UT 

Utah Department of Transportation, Region Two 

Director, Randy Park, P.E., UT 

Utah Department of Transportation, 

Construction Engineer, Rob Wight, UT 

Utah Dept of Environmental Quality, UT 

Utah Div of Forestry, Fire & State Lands, 

Barbara Gardner, UT 

Utah Division of Oil, Gas & Mining, John R. 

Baza, P.E., UT 

Utah Division of Water Resources, Eric Millis, 

UT 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Dean 

Mitchell, UT 

Utah Environmental Congress, Kevin Mueller, 

UT 

Utah Farm Bureau Federation, Sterling Brown, 

UT 

Utah Geological Survey, Richard Allis, UT 

Utah Geological Survey, Geologic Hazards 

Program, Frances Ashland, UT 

Utah Geological Survey, Project Geologist, Greg 

McDonald, UT 

Utah Native Plant Society, William H. King, UT 

Utah Reclamation Mitigation & Conservation 

Comm., UT 

Utah Rivers Council, Merritt Frey, UT 

Utah - Utah Division of Homeland Security, 

Special Agent, Scott Hansen, UT 

Utah State Historical Society, Deputy State 

Historic Preservation Officer, Lori 

Hunsaker, UT 

Utah State University Extension, County 

Director/FCS Agent, Marilyn Albertson, UT 

Utah State University Extension, Agricultural 

Agent, James Barnhill, UT 

Utah State University Extension, Ag Agent, 

County Director, Shawn Olsen, UT 

Utah Wildlife Federation, Gerald Gordon, UT 

Wasatch Mountain State Park, Bruce Strom, UT 

Wyoming Department of Agriculture, Don 

Christensen, WY 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

- Air Quality Division, Permit Engineer, 

Alicia Boltz, WY 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

- Air Quality Division, Permit Modeler, Josh 

Nall, WY 
APPENDIX A – DISTRIBUTION LIST (continued) 

A-5 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

- Air Quality Division, Environmental 

Analyst, Darla Potter, WY 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

- Air Quality Division, Program Supervisor, 

Chad Schlictemeire, WY 

State Senators & Representatives 

Senator Hatch's Office, Ron Dean, UT 

State of Utah, Energy Policy Coordinator, 

Ronald Daniels, UT 

State of Utah, Governor, Jon Huntsman, Jr., UT 

State of Utah, Office of the Attorney General, 

Attorney General, Mark Shurtleff, UT 

Utah House of Representatives, Representative - 

District 19, Sheryl Allen, UT 

Utah House of Representatives, Representative - 

District 53, Mel Brown, UT 

Utah House of Representatives, Representative - 

District 24, Rebecca Chavez-Houck, UT 

Utah House of Representatives, Representative - 

District 20, Becky Edwards, UT 

Utah House of Representatives, Representative, 

Mike Noel, UT 

Utah State Office of Ethnic Affairs, Director, 

Jesse Soriano, UT 

Utah State Senate, Senator - District 19, Allen 

Christensen, UT 

Utah State Senate, Senator - District 23, Daniel 

Liljenquist, UT 

Utah State Senate, Senator - District 2, Ben 

McAdams, UT 

Utah State Senate, Senator - District 1, Luz 

Robles, UT 

Representative Matheson's Office, Mike Reberg, 

UT 

Senator Bennett's Office, Bruce Richeson, UT 

Senator Bennett's Office, Donna Sackett, UT 

Local Government Agencies 

Alpine City, Mayor, UT 

American Fork City, Mayor, UT 

Beaver County, Planning and Zoning 

Commission Administrator, Craig Davis, 

UT 

Beaver County, Sheriff, Cameron Noel, UT 

Beaver County, Emergency Response 

Coordinator, Les Whitney, UT 

Beaver County, County Commission Chair, 

Donald Willden, UT 

Capitol Hill Community Council, Chair, Polly 

Hart, UT 

City of Bountiful, Emergency Management 

Director, John Hadlow, UT 

City of Bountiful, City Manager, Tom Hardy, 

UT 

City of Bountiful, Council Member, Beth 

Holbrook, UT 

City of Bountiful, City Planner, Aric Jensen, UT 

City of Bountiful, Mayor, Joe Johnson, UT 

City of Bountiful, Council Member, John Marc 

Knight, UT 

City of Bountiful, City Attorney, Russell 

Mahan, UT 

City of Bountiful, Council Member, R. Fred 

Moss, UT 

City of Bountiful, Council Member, Scott 

Myers, UT 

City of Bountiful, Fire Chief, Jim Rampton, UT 

City of Bountiful, Police Chief, Tom Ross, UT 

City of Bountiful, City Engineer, Paul Rowland, 

UT 

City of Bountiful, Council Member, Tom 

Tolman, UT 

City of Bountiful Planning Commission, 

Commissioner, Michael Allen, UT 

City of Bountiful Planning Commission, 

Commissioner, David Badham, UT 

City of Bountiful Planning Commission, 

Commissioner, Barbara Holt, UT 

City of Bountiful Planning Commission, Chair, 

Clark Jenkins, UT 

City of Bountiful Planning Commission, 

Commissioner, Ray Keller, UT 

City of Bountiful Planning Commission, ViceChair, Thomas Smith, UT 

City of Farmington, City Manager, Max 

Forbush, UT 

City of Farmington, Mayor, Scott Harbertson, 

UT 

City of Farmington, Emergency Management 

Director, Paul White, UT 

City of Milford, Council Member, Cullen Carter, 

UT 

City of Milford, Building Inspector, Craig 

Davis, UT 

City of Milford, Council Member, Karrie Davis, 

UT 

City of Milford, Council Member, Nolan Davis, 

UT 
APPENDIX A – DISTRIBUTION LIST (continued) 

A-6 

City of Milford, Zoning Administrator/ City 

Treasurer, Arden Fowles, UT 

City of Milford, City Attorney, Leo G. Kanell, 

UT 

City of Milford, City Manager, Nedra Kennedy, 

UT 

City of Milford, City Engineer, April McKeon, 

UT 

City of Milford, Council Member, Troy Netto, 

UT 

City of Milford, City Recorder, Monica Seifers, 

UT 

City of Milford, Mayor, Bryan Sherwood, UT 

City of Milford, Council Member, Russell 

Smith, UT 

City of Morgan, Mayor Pro-Tem, Ray Little, UT 

City of Morgan, Mayor, H. Dean Pace, UT 

City of North Salt Lake, Mayor, Len Arave, UT 

City of North Salt Lake, City Recorder, LaRae 

Dillingham, UT 

City of North Salt Lake, Emergency 

Management Director, Ryan Frandsen, UT 

City of North Salt Lake, Community & 

Economic Development Director, Blaine 

Gehring, UT 

City of North Salt Lake, Council Member, Ron 

Gordon, UT 

City of North Salt Lake, Police Chief, Steve A. 

Harder, UT 

City of North Salt Lake, Council Member, 

Matthew Hardy, UT 

City of North Salt Lake, Council Member, 

Stewart Harman, UT 

City of North Salt Lake, Council Member, Brian 

Horrocks, UT 

City of North Salt Lake, Minutes Secretary, 

Linda Horrocks, UT 

City of North Salt Lake, Council Member, Matt 

Jensen, UT 

City of North Salt Lake, City Attorney, Michael 

Nielsen, UT 

City of North Salt Lake, City Engineer, Paul 

Ottoson, UT 

City of North Salt Lake, Assistant 

Manager/Finance Director, Brian Passey, 

UT 

City of North Salt Lake, Council Member, Stan 

Porter, UT 

City of North Salt Lake, Parks Superintendent, 

T. J. Riley, UT 

City of North Salt Lake, City Manager, Collin 

Wood, UT 

City of North Salt Lake, Public Works Director, 

Rod Wood, UT 

City of North Salt Lake Trails Advisory Board, 

Board Member, Len Arave, UT 

City of North Salt Lake Trails Advisory Board, 

Board Member, Dan Cottan, UT 

City of North Salt Lake Trails Advisory Board, 

Chair, Robert Franson, UT 

City of North Salt Lake Trails Advisory Board, 

Board Member, Eric Klotz, UT 

City of North Salt Lake Trails Advisory Board, 

Board Member, Vicky Walker, UT 

City of Salt Lake City, Mayor, Ralph Becker, 

UT 

City of Salt Lake City, Transportation Engineer, 

Trails, Dan Bergenthal, UT 

City of Salt Lake City, Police Chief, Chris 

Burbank, UT 

City of Salt Lake City, Council Member, District 

1, Vice Chair, Carlton Christensen, UT 

City of Salt Lake City, Engineer, Dell Cook, UT 

City of Salt Lake City, Public Services Director, 

Rick Graham, UT 

City of Salt Lake City, Director of Community 

& Economic Development, Frank Gray, UT 

City of Salt Lake City, Engineer, Joel Harrison, 

UT 

City of Salt Lake City, Council Member, District 

3, Vice Chair RDA, K. Eric Jergensen, UT 

City of Salt Lake City, Emergency Management 

Director, Cory Lyman, UT 

City of Salt Lake City, City Recorder, Christine 

Meeker, UT 

City of Salt Lake City, Planning and Zoning, 

Wayne Mills, UT 

City of Salt Lake City, Public Works Director, 

Jeff Niermeyer, UT 

City of Salt Lake City, Council Member, District 

3, Vice Chair RDA, Stan Penfold, UT 

City of Salt Lake City, City Engineer, Max G. 

Peterson, P.E., UT 

City of Salt Lake City, Fire Chief, Tom 

Shannon, UT 

City of Salt Lake City, Planning and Zoning 

Director, Wilford Sommerkorn, UT 

City of Salt Lake City, Open Space Coordinator, 

Emy Storheim, UT 

City of Salt Lake City, Engineer, Scott Weiler, 

UT 
APPENDIX A – DISTRIBUTION LIST (continued) 

A-7 

Davis Co. Farm Bureau Federation, Thad Horne, 

UT 

Davis County, Planning Director, Barry Burton, 

UT 

Davis County, Sheriff, Bud Cox, UT 

Davis County, Commissioner, Louenda Downs, 

UT 

Davis County, Emergency Services, Garland 

Fahrner, UT 

Davis County, Planner, Scott Hess, UT 

Davis County, Commission Chair, P. Bret 

Millburn, UT 

Davis County, Emergency Management 

Director, Brent Peters, UT 

Davis County, Commissioner, JP Petroff, UT 

Davis County, Clerk, Steve S. Rawlings, UT 

Davis County, Public Works Director, Kirk 

Schmalz, UT 

Greater Avenues Community Council, Chair, 

Judith Locke, UT 

Heber City, Mayor, UT 

Juab County Commission, Val Jones, UT 

Juab County Commission, UT 

Midway City, Mayor, UT 

Morgan County, County Engineer, Jason Allen, 

PE, UT 

Morgan County, Council Member, Member at 

Large, Sid Creager, UT 

Morgan County, Community Development 

Planning Director, Garth Day, UT 

Morgan County, Sheriff, Gene Ercanbrack, UT 

Morgan County, Planning Technician, Charles 

Ewert, UT 

Morgan County, Council Member, District 5, 

David Gardiner, UT 

Morgan County, Council Member, District 3, 

Howard Hansen, UT 

Morgan County, Council Member, District 4, 

Rodney Haslam, UT 

Morgan County, Council Member, District 1, 

Tina Kelley, UT 

Morgan County, Clerk, Stacy Lafitte, UT 

Morgan County, Council Member, Member at 

Large, David Miller, UT 

Morgan County, Recorder, Brenda D. Nelson, 

UT 

Morgan County, Chair, District 2, Karen 

Sunday, UT 

Morgan County, Emergency Management 

Director, Terry Turner, UT 

North Salt Lake City, Shanna Schaefermeyer, 

UT 

Salt Lake City Attorney's Office, Attorney, Eve 

Furse, UT 

Salt Lake City Attorney's Office, Attorney, Ed 

Rutan, UT 

Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities, 

Watershed Reservations, Vicki Baer, UT 

Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities, 

Water Conservation, Stephanie Duer, UT 

Salt Lake City Planning Commission, 

Commissioner, Frank Algarin, UT 

Salt Lake City Planning Commission, 

Commissioner, Tim Chambless, UT 

Salt Lake City Planning Commission, Senior 

Planner, Cheri Coffey, UT 

Salt Lake City Planning Commission, 

Commissioner, Babs De Lay, UT 

Salt Lake City Planning Commission, 

Commissioner, Angela Dean, UT 

Salt Lake City Planning Commission, 

Commissioner, Michael Fife, UT 

Salt Lake City Planning Commission, 

Commissioner, Michael Gallegos, UT 

Salt Lake City Planning Commission, Senior 

Secretary, Tami Hansen, UT 

Salt Lake City Planning Commission, 

Commissioner, Kathleen Hill, UT 

Salt Lake City Planning Commission, 

Commissioner, Susie McHugh, UT 

Salt Lake City Planning Commission, 

Commissioner, Prescott Muir, UT 

Salt Lake City Planning Commission, Chair, 

Matt Wirthlin, UT 

Salt Lake City Planning Commission, 

Commissioner, Mary Woodhead, UT 

Salt Lake County, Planning and Zoning, 

Grading Review, Greg Baptist, UT 

Salt Lake County, Director - Business & 

Economic Development, Dale Carpenter, 

UT 

Salt Lake County, Mayor, Peter Corroon, UT 

Salt Lake County, Emergency Services 

Coordinator, Jeff Graviet, UT 

Salt Lake County, Public Works Director, Linda 

Hamilton, UT 

Salt Lake County, Personal Computer Tech, 

Glenn Hammer, UT 

Salt Lake County, Council Chair, District 1, Joe 

Hatch, UT 
APPENDIX A – DISTRIBUTION LIST (continued) 

A-8 

Salt Lake County, Economic Development 

Manager, Marian Hein, UT 

Salt Lake County, Council Member, District 2, 

Michael Jensen, UT 

Salt Lake County, Program Manager, Steve 

Jensen, UT 

Salt Lake County, GIS Planner, Patrick Leary, 

UT 

Salt Lake County, Excavation Permit 

Coordinator, Darla Locher, UT 

Salt Lake County, GIS Specialist, Amy 

McClelland, UT 

Salt Lake County, Assistant Emergency Services 

Coordinator, Jackie Nicholl, UT 

Salt Lake County, Emigration Canyon 

Development, Ann Ober, UT 

Salt Lake County, Open Space Program 

Manager, Julie Peck-Dabling, UT 

Salt Lake County, Senior Planner, FCOZ expert, 

Debbie Riddle, UT 

Salt Lake County, Principal Planner, Sustainable 

Communities, Tom Shafer, UT 

Salt Lake County, Clerk, Sherrie Swensen, UT 

Salt Lake County, District Attorney, Jeff 

Thorpe, UT 

Salt Lake County, Principal Planner, Long-range 

Planning, David White, UT 

Salt Lake County, Sheriff, James M. Winder, 

UT 

Salt Lake County, County Planner, Curtis 

Woodward, UT 

Sanpete County Commission, UT 

Santaquin City, Mayor, UT 

Spanish Fork City, Mayor, UT 

Summit County Community Development, UT 

Tooele County, Dennis L. Rockwell, UT 

Tooele County Commission, Colleen Johnson, 

UT 

Tooele County Commission, Matt Lawrence, 

UT 

Tooele County Engineering Department, 

Raymond Johnson, UT 

Tooele County Wildlife Federation, Rick Smith, 

UT 

Uinta County Commissioners, WY 

Utah County Commission, Steve White, UT 

Utah County Public Works, Clyde Naylor, UT 

Vernon Town, Mayor, UT 

Wasatch County, Robert Riddle, UT 

Wasatch County Planning Assist., Anthony 

Kohler, UT 

Native American Tribes

Cedar Band of Paiute Indians, Chairwoman, 

Lora Tom, UT 

Chemehuevi Indian Tribe, Tribe Member, 

Edward Smith, CA 

Chemehuevi Indian Tribe, Chairman, Charles 

Wood, CA 

Colorado River Indian Tribes, Chairman, Daniel 

Eddy, Jr., AZ 

Colorado River Indian Tribes, Museum Director, 

Michael Tsosie, AZ 

Confederated Tribes of the Goshite Reservation, 

Chairman, Rupert Steele, UT 

Eastern Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River 

Restoration, Chairman, Ivan D. Posey, WY 

Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, Chairman, Timothy 

Williams, CA 

Hopi Cultural Preservation Office, Leigh 

Kuwanwisiuma, AZ 

Indian Peaks Band of Paiute Indians, 

Chairperson, Anthonia Tom, UT 

Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, Chairwoman, 

Ona M. Segundo, AZ 

Kanosh Band of Paiute Indians, Chairwoman, 

Corrina Bow, UT 

Koosharem Band of Paiute Indians, Chairman, 

Elliott Yazzie, UT 

Las Vegas Paiute Tribe, Cultural Resource 

Coordinator, Kenny Anderson, NV 

Las Vegas Paiute Tribe, Chairman, Benny Tso, 

NV 

Moapa Band of Paiute Indians, Cultural 

Committee Chair, Deanna Domingo, NV 

Moapa Band of Paiute Indians, Chairman, 

Philbert Swain, NV 

Moapa Band of Paiutes Dept. of Environmental 

Protection, Ian Zabarte, NV 

Northern Arapaho Tribe, Chairman, Harvey 

Spoonhunter, WY 

Northwestern Band of Shoshone Nation, 

Chairman, Bruce G. Parry, UT 

of the Goshute Reservation, Milton Hooper, UT 

Pahrump Paiute Tribe, Chairman, Richard 

Arnold, NV 

Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah, Chairperson, Lora 

Tom, UT 

San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe, President, Mary 

Lou Boone, AZ 

Shivwits Band of Paiute Indians, Chairwoman, 

Charlotte Lomeli, UT 
APPENDIX A – DISTRIBUTION LIST (continued) 

A-9 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall 

Reservation, Chairman, Alonzo A. Coby, ID 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall 

Reservation, Museum Director, Rosemary 

Devinney, ID 

Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians, 

Chairman, Lawrence Bear, UT 

Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians, Leon 

Bear, UT 

Tribal Historic Presrvation Office, WY 

Ute Indian Tribe, Maxine Natchees, UT 

Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray 

Reservation, Chairman, Curtis Cesspooch, 

UT 

Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray 

Reservation, Cultural Rights & Protection, 

Betsy Chapoose, UT 

Ute Tribe, Shaun Chapoose, UT 

Libraries 

Davis-Centerville Branch Library, UT 

Milford Public Library, UT 

Morgan County Library, UT 

Quinney Library, UT 

Quinney Natural Resources Library, UT 

Salt Lake City Day-Riverside Branch Library, 

UT 

Salt Lake City Public Library, UT 

Uintah County Library, UT 

Wasatch County Library, Kristen Bowcutt, UT 

Media 

Beaver Press, Marlow Draper, UT 

Davis County Clipper, Chris Bradshaw, UT 

Deseret News, Susan Benitez, UT 

Morgan County News, Chris, UT 

Mundo - Hispano, Sandra, UT 

Salt Lake Tribune, Susan Benitez, UT 

Organizations 

A Utah Limited Partnership, MRF Family 

Limited, UT 

Aera Energy LLC, James P. Mosher, CA 

Alpentech Inc, Beat vonAllmen, UT 

American Fork Canyon.net, Mark Smith, UT 

American Gas Association, President, DC 

America's Adventure, Rory Ralston, CO 

Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service, 

Michael J. Bodenchuk, UT 

Aphis-PPQ, Charles L. Brown, MD 

Ayres & Baker, Pole & Post inc., Larry Ayres, 

WY 

Back Country Horsemen of Utah, Bruce 

Kartchner, UT 

Backcountry Hunters and Anglers - Utah 

Chapter, John Pollard, UT 

Balch & Bingham, LLP, Roy R. Robertson, AL 

Bennion Ranch, Elizabeth & Alan Mitchell, UT 

Bjork, Lindley, Little, PC, Laura Lindley, CO 

Blazzard Lumber Company, James R. Blazzard, 

UT 

Blue Ribbon Coalition, Brian Hawthorne, ID 

Blue Ribbon Coalition, Brian Hawthorne, UT 

Bonneville Shoreline Trail Committee, CoChair, Jim Byrne, UT 

Bountiful Water Subconservancy District, Board 

President, Ann Hanson, UT 

BP Energy Company, Federick T. Kolb, TX 

BP Energy Company, Steve Tarpey, TX 

Brehm Environmental LLC, Michael Brehm, UT 

Brigham Young University, Rick Baxter, UT 

Brighton Ski Resort, Randy Doyle, UT 

C/o: B & E Pace Investment Co. LTD, North 

Salt Lake City A Corporation, UT 

C/o: Causey Creek Development, LLC, Kevin 

Tolton, UT 

Calpine Corporation, Jay Dibble, TX 

Calpine Corporation, Sarah Novosel, DC 

CARG, Nick Hudson, UT 

Carson Helicopters Inc., OR 

Center for Native Ecosystems, Erin Robertson, 

CO 

Central Utah Water Conservancy District, Bill 

Peatross, UT 

Christmas Meadows Homeowners Association, 

David E. Leta, UT 

Coho Timber Industry Assoc., Nancy Fishering, 

CO 

Corda Technologies, Gary Ashcraft, UT 

Currant Creek Cattle Allotment, Shane Rowley, 

UT 

Davis Conservation District, Conservation 

District Manager, Harris Adams, UT 

Davis Conservation District, Associate 

Supervisor, Nile Carlson, UT 

Davis Conservation District, Clerk, Annette 

DeFries, UT 

Davis Conservation District, Conservation 

District Manager, Jeremy East, UT 

Davis Conservation District, Associate 

Supervisor, K.N. "Jake" Jacobson, UT 
APPENDIX A – DISTRIBUTION LIST (continued) 

A-10 

Davis Conservation District, Conservation 

District Manager, Shawn Olsen, UT 

Davis Conservation District, Associate 

Supervisor, Bill Rigby, UT 

Davis Conservation District, Associate 

Supervisor, Tyson Roberts, UT 

Davis Conservation District, Conservation 

Chair, Ben Thurgood, UT 

Davis County Chamber of Commerce, President 

and CEO, John Pitt, UT 

Davis County Community Coalition, Founder, 

Alan Cottle, UT 

Davis County Community Coalition, Cecilee 

Price-Huish, UT 

DR Johnson Lumber Company, Shawn 

Westbrooks, OR 

Duchesne County Planning & Zoning, Clayton 

Chidester, UT 

EDCUtah, Vice President of Economic 

Development, Todd Brightwell, UT 

EDCUtah, President & CEO, Jeff Edwards, UT 

Edwards & Associates, Katherine B. Edwards, 

VA 

Edwards & Associates, John Paul Floom, VA 

Envision Utah, Executive Director, Alan 

Matheson, UT 

Friends of the Great Salt Lake, Board Member, 

Juan Arce-Larreta, UT 

Friends of the Great Salt Lake, Executive 

Director, Lynn DeFreitas, UT 

Friends of Wasatch Mountain State Park, Chip 

Higgins, UT 

Goldstein & Associates, P.C., Eric Brach, DC 

Great Salt Lake Audubon, President, Nathan 

Darnell, UT 

Great Salt Lake Audubon, Executive Director, 

Bruce Heath, UT 

Happy Horse Ranch, LLC, Rhonda Devereaux, 

UT 

Hawkwatch International, Tim Funk, UT 

Hawkwatch International, Executive Director, 

Caroline Goldman, UT 

Hunter Energy, Bill McKnabb, CO 

Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP, Shannon P. 

Coleman, DC 

Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP, William F. 

Demarest, DC 

Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain 

Stat, Andrew Bremner, CO 

Intermountain Region, Harv Forsgren, UT 

Jay Roberts & Sons Inc., Abby Roberts, UT 

JC2 Holdings LLC, UT 

Jordan River Sub-Basin, Watershed 

Coordinator, Steve Jensen, UT 

Juab County Livestock Association, R. Roscoe 

Garrett, UT 

Lions Club, President, Karl Koenig, UT 

Lone Peak 4-Wheelers, Marlin Sharp, UT 

McCarthy, Sweeney & Harkaway, P.C., Douglas 

M. Canter, DC 

Moon Livestock, Carolyn Moon, UT 

Morgan Conservation District, County Weed 

Board Member, Gaston Dupne, UT 

Morgan Conservation District, Board Member, 

Barclay Earl, UT 

Morgan Conservation District, Chair, District 

19, Fred Thurston, UT 

Morgan Conservation District, Board Member, 

Richard Wilde, UT 

Mountainland Assoc of Governments, Darrell 

Cook, UT 

Natural Resources Policy Group, Carolyn 

Wright, UT 

Nature Conservancy of Utah, Northern 

Mountains Regional Director, Joan 

Degiorgio, UT 

Nature Conservancy of Utah, President and 

CEO, Mark Tercek, UT 

New-Com, Inc. & Subsidiaries, Lori Buff, NV 

North Fork Special Service District, L. Stewart 

Olson, UT 

NV Energy, Allen Montoya, NV 

NV Energy, Thomas C. Woodworth, NV 

Office of General Counsel, Elise Foster, UT 

Okelberry Livestock, Brian Okelberry, UT 

Oregon California Trails Association, A. Oscar 

Olson, UT 

Oregon California Trails Association, T. 

Michael Smith, UT 

Oregon California Trails Association, Linda 

Turner, UT 

Pacific Rivers Council, Lee Zukoski, OR 

Payson Livestock Assoc., Warren Ahlin, UT 

PESCO, Brent Woodward, UT 

Pine Plateau Estates, Lee Ann Stevens, UT 

Pipe Line Contractors Assoc., TX 

Provo River Water Users Assoc., Steve Cain, 

UT 

Questar Exploration & Production, J P Matheny, 

CO 

Questar Pipeline, Mark Stewart, UT 
APPENDIX A – DISTRIBUTION LIST (continued) 

A-11 

Questar Pipeline Company, L. Bradley Burton, 

UT 

Questar Pipeline Company, Tad M. Taylor, UT 

Questar Regulated Services Co., Kim Heimsath, 

UT 

Rangeland Jonvicks, Fred Fuller, UT 

RGB Consulting, Ron Hansen, UT 

Ridgewood Owners Assocation, Dottie 

Burnham, UT 

Ridgewood Owners Assocation, Kenneth Smith, 

UT 

Rock'n R Ranch, Larry Russell, UT 

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, William E. 

Christensen, UT 

Rocky Mountain P/L Constr. Assoc., Exec. 

Director, LA 

Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce, President, 

Lane Beattie, UT 

Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce, Director of 

Business Development, Dave Roberts, UT 

Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce, Director of 

Public Policy, Wes Smith, UT 

Salt Lake Conservation District, Chair, Douglas 

Bateman, UT 

Salt Lake Conservation District, 

Conservationist, Ken Naylor, UT 

Salt Lake County Open Space, Julie PeckDabling, UT 

Save Our Canyons, President, Gale Dick, UT 

Save Our Canyons, Executive Director, Carl 

Fisher, UT 

Save Our Canyons, Issues Coordinator, Jennifer 

Kecor, UT 

Save Our Canyons, Alexis & Karla Kelner, UT 

Save Our Canyons, Lisa Smith, UT 

Sierra Club, Marc Heilson, UT 

Sierra Club - Utah Chapter, Regional 

Representative, Marc Heileson, UT 

Sierra Club Member, Marilyn L. Dinger, UT 

Snowbird Ski & Summer Resort, Bob Bonar, 

UT 

Snowmobile Alliance of Western States, Steven 

Smith, UT 

Snowmobile Representative, USA Petition 

Signer, UT 

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Executive 

Director, Scott Groene, UT 

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, UT 

Southwest Gas Corporatioin, Rosemary 

DeMaio, NV 

Southwest Gas Corporatioin, Keith A. Layton, 

NV 

Southwest Gas Corporatioin, Edward C. 

McMurtrie, NV 

Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, Founder, Don 

Peay, UT 

Stoel Rives, LLC, Martin Banks, UT 

Strawberry Angler's Assoc., Jim Carter, UT 

Strawberry Bay Marina, Doug Phillips, UT 

Strawberry Water Users Association, Gary 

Aitken, UT 

Strawberry Water Users Association, Kelly B. 

Lewis, UT 

The Stonefly Socity of the Wasatch, David R. 

Serdar, UT 

The Wilderness Society, Suzanne Jones, CO 

The Wilderness Society, Resource Economist, 

CO 

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, 

Joel Webster, MT 

Tread Lightly! Executive Director, Lori 

McCullough, UT 

Tread Lightly! Marketing Communications 

Director, Amanda Weldon, UT 

Trout Unlimited, Corey Fisher, MT 

Trout Unlimited, Bill Partner, UT 

TVTMA Treasure Valley Trail Machine 

Association, Kenneth Coleman, UT 

UBC, Jeffrey Felter, UT 

USC, John E. & Shirley Hines, UT 

Utah Association of Conservation Districts, 

Resource Conservationist, Danny McBride, 

UT 

Utah Association of Conservation Districts, 

Resource Coordinator, Desiree VanDyke, 

UT 

Utah Association of Counties, Executive 

Director, L. Brent Gardner, UT 

Utah Association of Counties, Senior Policy 

Analyst and Natural Resources Counsel, J. 

Mark Ward, UT 

Utah Cattleman’s Association, President, Gary 

Hallows, UT 

Utah Cattleman’s Association, Executive Vice 

President, Brad Tanner, UT 

Utah Conservation District - Zone Two, 

Resource Coordinator, Heather Johnson, UT 

Utah Division of Water Rights, Mark Page, UT 

Utah Environmental Congress, Executive 

Director, Kevin Mueller, UT 
APPENDIX A – DISTRIBUTION LIST (continued) 

A-12 

Utah Environmental Congress, President, Ryan 

Pietramali, UT 

Utah Farm Bureau Federation, V.P. Public 

Policy, Sterling Brown, UT 

Utah Farm Bureau Federation, President, Thad 

Horne, UT 

Utah Farm Bureau Federation, President, Betty 

Naylor, UT 

Utah Farm Bureau Federation, Chief Executive 

Officer, Randy Parker, UT 

Utah Farm Bureau Federation, President, Shane 

Pentz, UT 

Utah Farmlands Reserve, Jesse Fairbanks, UT 

Utah Geological Survey, Geologic Hazards 

Program, Frances Ashland, UT 

Utah League of Cities and Towns, Executive 

Director, Kenneth Bullock, UT 

Utah Native Plant Society, Conservation CoChair, Tony Fraks, UT 

Utah Native Plant Society, Conservation 

Contact, Bill King, UT 

Utah Open Lands, Executive Director, Wendy 

Fisher, UT 

Utah Open Lands, Itern, Wendy Wolf, UT 

Utah Petroleum Association, Lee Peacock, UT 

Utah Rivers Council, Executive Director, Ted 

Wilson, UT 

Utah Snowmobile Assoc., Doug Page, UT 

Utah Snowmobile Association, Tom Jensen, UT 

Utah Snowmobile Association, Curt Kennedy, 

UT 

Utah Snowmobile Association, Bernard Rollins, 

UT 

Utah Snowmobile Association, Kenneth R. 

Rossum, UT 

Utah Snowmobile Association, Glen & Judy 

Zumwalt, UT 

Utah Trout Unlimited, Paul Dremann, UT 

Utah Wilderness Coalition, UWC Coordinator, 

Wayne Y. Hoskisson, UT 

Vernon Utah Livestock, Les Albertson, UT 

Wasatch Front Regional Council, Administrator, 

Loveit Baumgardner, UT 

Wasatch Front Regional Council, Executive 

Director, Chuck Chappell, UT 

Wasatch Front Regional Council, Transportation 

Engineering, Ned Hacker, UT 

Wasatch Front Regional Council, Growth 

Planning, Val John Halford, UT 

Wasatch Front Regional Council, Deputy 

Director, Doug Hattery, UT 

Wasatch Front Regional Council, Community 

Development, Public Information Officer, 

Sam Klemm, UT 

Wasatch Mountain Club, William McCarvry, 

UT 

Wasatch Mountain Club, President of the Board 

of Directors, Heidi Schubert, UT 

Wasatch Mountain Club, Kyle Williams, UT 

Wasatch Powderbird Guides, Rusty Dassing, UT 

Watts Grazing Association, Leo Larsen, UT 

Weber Basin Water Conservancy District, 

Engineering Manager, Darren Hess, UT 

Weber Basin Water Conservancy District, 

Power Irrigation Manager, Chris Hogge, UT 

Weber Basin Water Conservancy District, 

Administration Manager, Sherrie Mobley, 

UT 

Weber Basin Water Conservancy District, Matt 

Rasmussen, P.E., UT 

Western Land Exchange Project, Janine 

Blaeloch, WA 

Western Rivers Flyfisher, Steve Schmidt, UT 

Wild Utah Project, Allie Jones, UT 

Wilde Bunch Adventures, Doug Wilde, UT 

Wilderness Society, Regional Director, 

California/Nevada, Sara Barth, CA 

Wilderness Watch, George Nickas, MT 

Wildlife Management Institute, Len Carpenter, 

CO 

Wyoming Pipeline Authority, Brian Jeffries, 

WY 

Individuals

75th Air Base Wing, UT 

A-1 Centerville Storage LC, UT 

Abn Inc, UT 

Accent Surfaces, UT 

Chet & Joan Adams, UT 

Jesse Adams, UT 

Kenneth & Marie Adams, UT 

J Collin Allan, UT 

Lisa Allcott, UT 

John & Sheryl Allen, UT 

Todd L Allen, UT 

Allied Waste Transfer Services Of Utah Inc, AZ 

Brent K Anderson, UT 

Dennis E. Anderson, UT 

Doug Anderson, UT 

Edward LaMont Anderson, UT 

Ray & Lois Anderson, UT 

Robert Anderson, UT 
APPENDIX A – DISTRIBUTION LIST (continued) 

A-13 

Virgil B. Anderson, UT 

Kerry Angelbuer, UT 

Robert & Joyce & Alan Arbuckle, UT 

Arc 4cp LLC, UT 

Lois M Archibald, UT 

Stacey Arens, UT 

Ed Askew, UT 

Association Of Unit Owners Of Edgewood 

Estates, A Pud, UT 

Autumn Wood Development LC, UT 

Harold T & R Rebecca Ayrton (Joint Trust), UT 

B & E Pace Investment Company, LTD, UT 

Traci Baadsgaard, UT 

Greg & Joni Bailey (Trust), UT 

Ted Baird, UT 

Matt Baker, UT 

Dennis C & Jackie C Bangerter, UT 

R L Bangerter Family LP-A, UT 

Tom Barlow, UT 

E. Sherman Barrus, UT 

Kent Bateman, UT 

Beard Construction Company, UT 

Richard Beardall, UT 

Beaver Creek Cabin, LLC, UT 

Matthew K Beckstead, UT 

Bob and Lori Beckstrand, UT 

Bella Vida At Eaglewood Homeowners 

Association INC, UT 

Mark Belles, TX 

Belmont LP, UT 

Sharma Bender, UT 

Brad Bennett, UT 

Terry F. Berger, UT 

Bertagnole Trust, UT 

Alan Bezzant, UT 

Chris Bias, Kern River, Project Director, UT 

Bruce Bingham, UT 

Jean Bingham, UT 

Jean Bingham, UT 

Ron Bird, UT 

Congressman Rob Bishop, UT 

K. Bishop, UT 

Chris Black, UT 

BLM--Color Country District Office, UT 

BLM--Las Vegas Field Office, NV 

BLM--Salt Lake Field Office, UT 

Calvin & Leesa Blohm, UT 

Marvin A B Blosch, UT 

Blue Tee Corp, CO 

Board Of Education Of Davis County School 

District, UT 

John W. Booth, UT 

Steve Booth, UT 

Richard Borgmeier, UT 

Bountiful "B" Association, UT 

Bountiful City Corporation, UT 

John Bowman, UT 

J Ralph & Rosalie Bown, UT 

Michael Bradshaw, UT 

Rebecca Bradshaw, UT 

Laila Bremmer, UT 

Patrick Brennan, UT 

Eric & Taunya Brewer, UT 

Lynn H. Broadhead, UT 

Wayne Brotherson, UT 

Josh Brown, UT 

Michael Brown, UT 

Loa Jean Brown (Trustee), UT 

Charles E. Brown Jr., UT 

Carter Budell, etal. (Trust), UT 

Glenn L & Colleen Buhler (Trustees), UT 

Burbs Llc, UT 

Dee S & Barbara G Burningham, UT 

Gary R Burningham, UT 

Kim R & Susan C Burningham, UT 

Jory Burton, UT 

Mike Burton, UT 

BVE, LLC, UT 

Craig L & Debby H Bybee, UT 

Neal Caines, UT 

California Ave Land Llc, UT 

B. W. Call, UT 

Michel L Call, UT 

Kevin Stigge & Pam Callahan, UT 

Ron & Stuart Caller, UT 

Boyd Calton, UT 

Edward Campbell, UT 

T. Campbell, UT 

Vyrna H. Campbell Trust, UT 

Rusty & Lisa Cannon, UT 

Wilford Cannon, UT 

Canyon Creek Assosiates L L C, UT 

Randall W & Jennifer R Cardinal, UT 

JC & MK Carling, UT 

Len Carpenter, CO 

Ben Carter, UT 

CLAY CARTER, UT 

Daniel & Catherine Carter, UT 

Debbie Carter, UT 

Budell & Erma Carter Family Trust, UT 

Joe Casper, UT 

Pete Castagno, UT 
APPENDIX A – DISTRIBUTION LIST (continued) 

A-14 

Castle Rock Land & Livestock Company, UT 

Centerville City Corporation, UT 

Carl Chappell, UT 

Gerald A. & Robin D. Rose & Mary Lou Chard, 

UT 

Chevron Pipe Line Co., UT 

Chevron USA, Inc., UT 

Chief Consolidated Mining Company, UT 

Linda L Child, UT 

Douglas B & Shauna H Christensen, UT 

Glen Lee & Marian P Christensen, UT 

Kelly J & Bonnie Christensen, UT 

Kevin Dean Tolton & Emily Christensen, UT 

Edward & Mark Sweeney (Trustees), Mark 

Christopher, UT 

City Of Ogden, UT 

Jonathan James Clark, UT 

David Lafrance & Jill Clark (Trustees), VA 

Maribel G & Jeffrey C Cliatt, UT 

Dennis & Brandon Cloward, UT 

C Ray & Michelle Coleman, UT 

Boyd Colton, UT 

Dale & Sasha Cook, UT 

Lavae N. Cook, UT 

Myron Cook, UT 

William P. Cook, UT 

Grace & Lloyd E. Corder, UT 

Corp Of The Presiding Bishop Of The Lds 

Church, UT 

Corporation Of The Presiding Bishop Of The 

Lds Chruch, UT 

Cozzens And Danfors Development LLC, UT 

Michael & Jill Craemisch, UT 

Calvin V Crandall, UT 

G Lymon & Linda K Jackson & Calvin G & 

Betty J Crandall, UT 

Ruby C Crandall-Hofman (Trustee), UT 

Merlene Crapo, UT 

Crest Manufacturing Inc, UT 

Crestpointe Investment LLC, UT 

David Curtis, UT 

Custom Enterprises, Inc., UT 

D L DBA 3rd Little Pig Construction LLC, UT 

D U Company INC, UT 

BA Dahlquist, UT 

Nick D'Alesandro, UT 

Earl C. Dallon, UT 

Beverly Dalquist, UT 

Phillip Ross & Ann Jenkins Daniels, UT 

James A & Ruth Ann Dart (Trustees), WA 

Bryant Davis, Karen Watanabe, Douglas & 

Taylor Davis, UT 

Dent S & Doris B Davis, UT 

Douglas Davis, UT 

Steven S & Rita T Davis, UT 

Taylor K Davis, UT 

William B & Nancy A Davis, UT 

Ross J & Mary S Davis (Trustees), UT 

Davis County Corp., UT 

David Day, UT 

Day Construction LLC, UT 

Bret C Decker, UT 

Charles Deneris, UT 

Beth Sessions & Wilson Charles Denhalter, CO 

Carleta DeTar, UT 

Carlton Detar, UT 

Lavinia DiSanto, DE 

Diven & Hilbig Development LC, UT 

John Walter & Margaret Ann Dodds, UT 

Jonathen & Tay Doty, UT 

Bob Dowland, UT 

Richard Downey, UT 

Howard J & Blaine W Layton & Graham W & 

David W Doxey, UT 

Ruth Drakos (Trustee), UT 

Diane Drechsel, UT 

Kyle Drechsel, UT 

Nathan Duersch, 

Sandra Dunn, UT 

Eagle Pointe Development, LLC & Edgewood 

NSL Development Inc. & A PUD Assoc. of 

Unit Owners of Edgewood Estates, 

Eaglewood Development LLC, Eaglewood 

Investment LLC, UT 

Eaglewood Village Inc., UT 

East Canyon Ranch Trust, UT 

Rodney Eggett, UT 

Elberta Water Company, UT 

Connie J. & Michael R. Ellerbeck, UT 

David L Shipley & Luann Elliott, UT 

Ron Ellison, UT 

Kabe Elmer, UT 

Timothy Emery, UT 

EP Land II LLC, UT 

Lyle Erickson, UT 

A Leland & Thelma C Erickson (Trustees), UT 

Leonard Esparza, UT 

David R & Gayle Evans, UT 

Paul & Jeanette Evans, UT 

F&N Enterprises LLC, UT 

Timothy M & Heidi D Farrell, CA 
APPENDIX A – DISTRIBUTION LIST (continued) 

A-15 

Robert Farrington, Jr., UT 

Margo M Feller (Trustee), UT 

Nora Fenton, UT 

W. Greg Ferre, UT 

Michael Fife, UT 

Sharon G Fila, UT 

Kurt H Fitz-Randolph, UT 

David L & Elicia E Flynn, UT 

Franklin Estimating Systems Inc, UT 

Lester R. Freeman, UT 

Wade A & Glenna L Frey, UT 

G & S Development LLC, UT 

Gambles Oaks Properties, LLC; Orvis Family 

Company, LLC; Hidden Hollow Cir. 

Homeowners Assoc., Inc., Sitka Holdings, 

LLC, UT 

Alisa Gamette Gardner, UT 

Michael Garlick, UT 

Gaskin Properties, Utah, LLC, AZ 

Roger Gellersen, UT 

Brandon W & Jennifer S George, UT 

Brian And Sarah Getzelman Tc, UT 

GHL LLC, LA 

Doug Gibbons, Kern River, Project Manager, 

UT 

Gillmor Holdings, LLC, UT 

Girls Holding Company LLC, UT 

Larry D & Sue Ann Glabe, NE 

C. Joseph Glenn, UT 

Jerry Glowacki, ID 

Jim Gowans, P Ross Gowans Living Trust, UT 

Granite Construction Company, CA 

Granite Construction Company, UT 

James Roger Graves, UT 

Brenda & William Green, UT 

Elayne Green, UT 

Ryan Greenwood, UT 

Jennifer Grigg, UT 

Kent Grover, UT 

Kim Grover, UT 

Sung Chul Kim & Su Young Ha, UT 

George & Samira Haddad (Trustees), UT 

Michael Hadley, UT 

Marcie Hahn, UT 

Brent D & Julie G Haight, UT 

Jared Hair, UT 

Robert Halbertalli, UT 

John W & Julie L Hall, UT 

Halverson Family Properties, UT 

Handy Family LLC, ID 

Del Hanks, UT 

David Hanscom, UT 

Brad Hansen, UT 

Joe Hansen, UT 

Roy & Verlynn K Hansen, UT 

Colonel Max Hanson, UT 

Thomas E & Elisabeth Hanson, UT 

Happy Horse Ranch, LLC, UT 

Hardscrabble, LTD, UT 

James L & Carmen S Hardy, UT 

Harker Homes LLC, ID 

Jay F Harmer, UT 

Brian Haskell, UT 

Sandra & Coleman Newman, Ronald E & 

Valerie N Haslam, UT 

Larry Hatch, UT 

R Daniel Hatch, UT 

Senator Orrin G. Hatch, UT 

Susan Hazur, UT 

Chris & Kimberly Healy, UT 

Lindsey Heath, UT 

Dennis G & Margo P Heiner (Trustees), UT 

Edgar D & Bonnie K Heining (Trustees), UT 

David & Grace U Henderson, UT 

William L. Hendren, William L & Betty 

Hendren (Trustees), NV 

Heritage Investment And Development 

Corporation, UT 

Kelly & Sharon Herron, UT 

Hidden Lake #5 LLC, UT 

Jeff Hilbert, UT 

Holly Hilton, UT 

David O Hinckley, UT 

James Hines, CA 

Steven W & Jan Lyn Hobbs (Trustees), UT 

Christopher R & Yvonne R Hogle, UT 

Bruce Honey, UT 

David A. & Ruby Hoover, UT 

Kurt P & Tami Horan, UT 

Carmen Hordy, UT 

Thad Horne, UT 

Dalene J & Donley G Houchin (Joint Trust), UT 

Dan Householder, CA 

Tristan Hughes, UT 

Jodie Hunt, UT 

Marcene B Hunt, UT 

Hunter Investment CO, Et Al, UT 

Robert G & Linda Hutchinson, UT 

Willie & Shary Huth, UT 

Julie M. Isom, UT 

Dale G. Jackson, UT 

Carlin Jacobson, North Salt Lake, UT 
APPENDIX A – DISTRIBUTION LIST (continued) 

A-16 

Ladawn & Carlin W Jacobson, UT 

Jade Jarrett, UT 

Brad Jasperson, UT 

JC2 Holdings LLC, UT 

Gary Jensen, UT 

Linda C. & Paul K. Jensen, UT 

Richard Jensen, UT 

Faye L Jensen, Et Al (Trust), UT 

Eun-Kee Jeong, UT 

Mac Jessen, UT 

Rodney Weaver & Karen Sue Johnsen - 

Trustees, UT 

Gerald Johnson, UT 

Norman Ray & Diane Johnson, UT 

William T & Lynda Johnson, WA 

Christopher R Jones, UT 

Ted & Cindy Jones, UT 

Wayne & Kay Jones, UT 

Tod B & Denise H Jones (Trustees), UT 

Katie Juenger, UT 

JVC Land LLC, UT 

K J E INC, UT 

Kanosh Warm Springs, LLC & Missouri Flat 

Ltd Partnership, UT 

Lennart & Susan Karlson, UT 

Holly Corn & Jonathan Kaufelt, CA 

Donald KaufER, UT 

Ray Kay, UT 

Brian D Kellen, UT 

Ralph Keller, UT 

Marshall Caryl Kelley, UT 

Darla M. & Gordon L. Kelly, UT 

Chloe D Gordon & Joy G Kennedy, UT 

KIJ Investments LLC, UT 

Kat Kinett, UT 

Catherine King, UT 

Mary Lynn & John Philip Kinsel, UT 

Charles R. Kippen & Sons, UT 

Bob Kirgan, CO 

Matthew Kirk, UT 

Kat Kivett, UT 

Douglas & Margaret A Koob, UT 

Leo W & Eleanor C Koski, FL 

G. Cloyd Krebs, UT 

Kriss Group LLC, UT 

Phil C & Katherine A Kunkel (Joint Trust), UT 

Carol LaCroix, UT 

Gary Lambert, UT 

Katie Lange, Natural Resource Group, Public 

Affairs, MN 

Kirk Langford, UT 

Julianne Larson (Trustee), UT 

Lauro Management Lc Profit Sharing Plan, UT 

Jackie Layton, DE 

Todd Layton, UT 

Lazy H Ranch, LLC, UT 

Scott Leech, UT 

Lefevre Family Interests Ltd PartnersHIP, UT 

Scott Lindgren, UT 

Bob Linnell, UT 

Randy Long, UT 

Willie Lopan, UT 

H. Trevor Loveday, TX 

LRP Investments LLC, UT 

Jessica Luckett, UT 

Michael L & Ann V Lundquist, UT 

Brian M., UT 

Brett Mach, CO 

Brent V. Manning, UT 

Randy R & Penne B Marchant, UT 

Abraham & Arline Markosian, TrusT, UT 

Joey Martel, UT 

Leo W & Philomena M Martinez, UT 

Steven Masterson, UT 

Congressman Jim Matheson, UT 

Kent & Renae Matthews, UT 

Georgiana May, UT 

Ben McAdams, UT 

Burdett Stephens Mccall, UT 

Mike & Karen McCoy, UT 

Donna McDaniel, UT 

Wesley J McDougal & Causey Creek 

Development LLC, UT 

Scott & Julie A McLachlan, UT 

Franki McLaughlin, UT 

Scott C McQuarrie, UT 

Meddling Mike, LLC, UT 

Jamie L Glenn & Julie Merrill, UT 

Metro Development Group, UT 

Steve Meyer, UT 

Dennis W. Miller, UT 

Margot Miller, UT 

Robert L Mills, Etal, UT 

Melvin D Miner, Jr, NV 

Bobby Mock, UT 

John R. Moon, UT 

Charles W. Morgan, Frank Morgan Family L.C., 

UT 

Mike & Karen Morgan, UT 

Gary Mortensen, UT 

Lamar & May T. Mortensen, UT 

Paul Mortensen, UT 
APPENDIX A – DISTRIBUTION LIST (continued) 

A-17 

Darlene Mortenson (Trustee), UT 

Dee A Moultrie (Trustee), UT 

Mountain West LLC, UT 

Oscar W & Dan T Moyle, Et Al, UT 

MRF Family Limited A Utah Limited 

Partnership, UT 

Marilyn Muir (Trustee), UT 

Tom Mullins, UT 

Paula Murdock, UT 

Ryan Nagy, UT 

Gregory E Naylor, UT 

Laird P. Naylor, UT 

Steve Neal, UT 

Andrew R Nelson, UT 

Gaylen J & Deanna P. Nelson, UT 

John Earl & Ann B Nelson, UT 

Ricky E & Chamaine Nelson (Joint Trust), UT 

S L Nerdherder LC, UT 

Anthony W Newby, UT 

Anthony W Newby, UT 

Al & Sandra Newman, UT 

Gerald R Nichols, UT 

John Nicksich, Kern River, Senior 

Communications Specialist, UT 

Shelley Nielsen, UT 

Sylvia J Nielsen, UT 

Brent H & Marcia A Nielson, ID 

Chris Nielson, UT 

Richard E & Elizabeth S Nilsen (Trustees), CA 

Rob Norbutt, UT 

Craig Norman, UT 

North Canyon Ranch Inc, UT 

North Salt Lake City A Corporation, UT 

North Salt Lake Corp, UT 

North Salt Lake Hills, LLC, UT 

North Springs, LC, UT 

Pearl Northrup, UT 

Kris Nosack, UT 

Dean S. Nybo, UT 

Bruce S Osterman & Lucille C S Nyder (Trust), 

CA 

Steven Nye, UT 

Stephen Ober, UT 

Andrew A & Rebecca H Odoardi, UT 

Ray Okelberry, UT 

Geoff Olds, CA 

Donald Olsen, UT 

Gordon C & Louan A Olsen (Trustees), UT 

Bruce L & Christine P Olsen (Trustees), CA 

Victor Orvis, UT 

Steven Osborne, UT 

Overland Leasing LLC, UT 

Blaine & Annette Overson, UT 

Curtis Page, UT 

Craig V & Melody D Palmer, UT 

Layne R & Leilani G Palmer, UT 

Dorene D Pandolfi, CA 

Terry R Parker, UT 

Jay W & Lucille A Parker (Trustees), UT 

Parrish Land Holdings LLC, UT 

Tony R. Patterson, UT 

Ralph & June Pearson (Trustees), UT 

W R (Tom) Peay, UT 

Raymond & Karen Pehrson, UT 

Shane Pentz, UT 

Brett Perkes, UT 

Royes J Petersen, Jr, Et Al, NV 

Amy Peterson, UT 

Rob Peterson, UT 

Maurine Pace Platt (Trustee), UT 

Pony Express Rv Resort LLC, UT 

Richard & Jill Pope, UT 

Pamela Postacchini, UT 

Praia LLC, UT 

Anna Prawl, UT 

John W. Prevatt, FL 

T. LaRen Provost, UT 

Kelly Queensberry, UT 

Questar Gas Company, UT 

Michael E & Jill C Raemisch, UT 

Julie Rasmussen, CLS, Officer in Charge, TX 

Carl Rauch, UT 

RCI Properties LLC, NM 

Larry Reaves, UT 

Leland & Kathryn Redd Joint Trust, UT 

Reddsand Enterprises, NV 

Kay V & Carol C Rees, UT 

Paul Reimann, UT 

Carol & Douglas Richins, UT 

Kaye, Jill, Clare & Lamont Richins, UT 

Ron H. & Marsha Richins, UT 

Kurt & Jennifer Richter, UT 

Robert Riding, UT 

Richard C. & Colleen Roberts Trust, Joan 

Esquire & Kent Florence, Utah 

Ray D. Robertson, UT 

Greg Robinson, UT 

Melissa Robinson Family, LC, UT 

Arlyn A & Capri R Robison (Trustees), UT 

Rocky Mountain Recycling Holdings LLC, 

Jared Rogers, UT 

Jared Rosa, ID 
APPENDIX A – DISTRIBUTION LIST (continued) 

A-18 

Royal Rose, UT 

Paula Rose (Trustee), UT 

Earl J. Roueche, Earl W & Elaine W Roueche 

(Trustees), UT 

Christopher Russell, UT 

Janet Russell, UT 

Sahara Redwood Association Inc, UT 

Salt Lake Airport Garages, LLC, CO 

Salt Lake City Corporation, UT 

Gail C. Sanders Living Family Trust, UT 

Sanders Properties LLC, UT 

Heber W & Shirley A Sartor (Trustees), UT 

Dan R. Scarbrough, UT 

Alan & Shauna Scates, UT 

John B Kelly & Sharon Scheffler, Etal, UT 

Jon R & Michelle Schmidt, UT 

Jeff Schoetz, UT 

John Schroeppel, UT 

Roger G & Natrone W Sears (Trustees), UT 

Seiter-Phillipps Holding Company, LLC, UT 

Selway Investments, LLC, UT 

Deven Serr, UT 

Deven & Casey Serr, UT 

Julie Sharp, CO 

Cindy Shepherd, UT 

Ed Shriver, CA 

Rober J. Shumway, UT 

Randy W & Maureen E Shumway (Trustees), 

UT 

Robert M Siegel, UT 

Fred Silvia, UT 

DeWayne Simmons, UT 

Jason Simmons, UT 

Gary Simons, UT 

Robert Jason & Carrie Simpson, UT 

M. Sine, UT 

Jenny Slate, TX 

Jeremy Smart, UT 

Chad Smith, UT 

David Smith, UT 

Frances Harwood Smith, UT 

Paul C. Smith, UT 

Richard T. Smith, UT 

Diane Sorenson, UT 

South MillCreek Grazing Co., UT 

Jennifer P. Spinti, UT 

Gwen Springmeyer, UT 

Gwen Springmeyer, UT 

Fred Staff, UT 

Richard & Jean Stagg, UT 

Staker Parson Acquisition Inc, UT 

Greg, Gwen, Roy E. & Susan T. Stapp, UT 

State of Utah - Department of Transporation 

Region One Headquarters, UT 

State of Utah, Department of Transportation, UT 

State of Utah, Department of Transportation 

Region Two Headquarters, UT 

State of Utah, Dept. of Natural Resources, 

Provo-Jordan River Parkway, UT 

State of Utah, Division of Wildlife Resources, 

UT 

State Road Commission Of Utah, UT 

Christopher J & Camille N Stepan, UT 

Streadbeck DevelopmeNT LLC, UT 

Devan T. & Judith O. Stringham, OR 

Bridget Stuchly, UT 

Suburban Land Reserve Inc, UT 

James J & Kristie A Suchar, UT 

Cindy Sullivan, UT 

John Mark Sullivan, UT 

S&L Sumsion Properties LC Et Al, UT 

Jerry Surratt, UT 

Richard J & Michelle M Sutton, UT 

Scott Sutton, UT 

Robert B. Swaner Company, UT 

Craig Swesson, UT 

Jeff Tachiki, UT 

Joe R. Tangler, UT 

John Tanner, UT 

Pamela Tanner, UT 

Alan Taylor, UT 

Eugene & Helen Taylor, UT 

Taylor Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp, FL 

Matthew Johnson & Linda Terry - Trustees, UT 

Craig A. & Kelly L. Thomas, UT 

Dan Thomas, UT 

Don Thomas, UT 

Monte C. Thomas, UT 

Verl C. Thomas, UT 

Bill & Eileen Thompson, UT 

Daniel H. & Natalee B. Thompson, UT 

Guy Thompson, UT 

Thousand Peaks Ranches, Inc, UT 

Aaron K & Wendy L Tibbitts, UT 

Shirley E Tibbs (Trust), UT 

Ann Tillson, UT 

Eric M & Dusti L Tipton, UT 

Tlc Construction Inc, UT 

Kevin Tolton, UT 

Kimberley L Townsend, UT 

Paula Trater, UT 

David Schley & Carol Trillia, UT 
APPENDIX A – DISTRIBUTION LIST (continued) 

A-19 

Jason Trimble, UT 

Paul F. Turner, UT 

Stephanie & Jason Udy, UT 

Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest, UT 

Union Pacific Railroad, NE 

Utah Transit Authority, UT 

Peter J Valcarce, UT 

Jan Van Demerwe, Jr (Trustee), UT 

Adrian J & Jamie L Vande Merwe, UT 

Eric Wagner, UT 

Valerie A & Eric A Waite, UT 

Debby Walker, UT 

Mark L. Walker, UT 

Terry & Carol Walker, UT 

David Wallentine, UT 

Chris & Erica Wangsgard, UT 

Jennifer Ward, DE 

 Warm Springs, LC, UT 

Brent W. Warner, UT 

Shauna Lee Greening & Falecia Watts, UT 

Laurie Weaver, E & E, Senior Consultant, NY 

Glen C Weiser, ID 

John Weiss, UT 

Gerald M. Wenner, Jr., UT 

Darren Wesemann, UT 

Stacy Wesemann - Trustee, UT 

West Valley Industrial Partners LC, UT 

Greg & Relda White, UT 

Dennis Wilberg, UT 

Kayla Willey, UT 

Sue Williams, UT 

Tom Williams, UT 

Carter Williamson, UT 

Andy Wilson, UT 

Mark C. & JoAnn Winn, UT 

Michael T Knight & Patricia E Wissler (Joint 

Trust), UT 

Sally P Knight & Patricia E Wissler (Joint 

Trust), UT 

Wendy Wolf, UT 

Ross S. Wolfley, UT 

Glen E. Wood, UT 

R. Taylor World, UT 

Dale M & DaNell Worwood, UT 

David & Carmela Worwood, UT 

Richard B & Shari Wray, UT 

Joel Wright, UT 

Lenard Wright, UT 

Trenton & Heather Wright, UT 

Wallace A Wright, III, UT 

Takeshi Yamashita, CA 

Yaryca, LLC Profit Sharing Plan, etal, UT 

Weston K. Youd, UT 

Paul L. Young, UT 

Young Automotive Group, Inc., UT 

Ron Younger, UT 

Dong Pan & Wei Yu, UT 

Dariush Zamani, UT 

ZBF Investments I, UT 

Stewart & Barbara Zick, UT 

David G & Tracy Zitting, UT 

Stephen Zusy, UT 
APPENDIX B 

PIPELINE AND FACILITY MAPS 

B1 Pipeline Maps 

B2 Contractor, Pipe, and Storage Yard Maps 

B3 Compressor Station Maps 
APPENDIX B1 

PIPELINE MAPS 
CA

AZ

NV

NM

OR

CO

WY

UT

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A #

East Canyon Staging Area5.2 acres

MLV 96 Laydown Area3.8 acres

3

4

0

1

2

MLV 96B

APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

PIPELINE AND FACILITY MAPS

Date: March 2010 Sheet 1 of 7

 ̄

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.1

Miles

Legend

!A Milepost

Proposed Wasatch Loop

Staging Area

# Mainline Valve Location

Access Road Project Area
CA

AZ

NV

NM

OR

CO

WY

UT

!A

!A !A

!A

!A

#

Highway 66 Staging Area0.8 acre

9

8 7

6

MLV 103B

APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

PIPELINE AND FACILITY MAPS

Date: March 2010 Sheet 2 of 7

 ̄

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.1

Miles

Legend

!A Milepost

Proposed Wasatch Loop

Staging Area

# Mainline Valve Location

Access Road Project Area
CA

AZ

NV

NM

OR

CO

WY

UT

!A

!A !A

!A

!A

!A

Hardscrabble Staging Area0.6 acres

South Hardscrabble Staging Area1.9 acres

9

14

13

12

11 10

APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

PIPELINE AND FACILITY MAPS

Date: March 2010 Sheet 3 of 7

 ̄

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.1

Miles

Legend

!A Milepost

Proposed Wasatch Loop

Staging Area

# Mainline Valve Location

Access Road Project Area

!A

North Hardscrabble RoadStaging Area10.1 acres

8
CA

AZ

NV

NM

OR

CO

WY

UT

!A

!A

!A

!A

Questar Right-of-Way Staging Area4.1 acres

Skyline Staging Area4.6 acres

17

16

15

14

APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

PIPELINE AND FACILITY MAPS

Date: March 2010 Sheet 4 of 7

 ̄

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.1

Miles

Legend

!A Milepost

Proposed Wasatch Loop

Staging Area

# Mainline Valve Location

Access Road Project Area

!A

North Bountiful Staging Area3.2 acres

16
CA

AZ

NV

NM

OR

CO

WY

UT

!A

!A

!A

!A

21

20

19

18

APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

PIPELINE AND FACILITY MAPS

Date: March 2010 Sheet 5 of 7

 ̄

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.1

Miles

Legend

!A Milepost

Proposed Wasatch Loop

Staging Area

# Mainline Valve Location

Access Road Project Area
CA

AZ

NV

NM

OR

CO

WY

UT

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

!A

#

Forest Service Staging Area1.5 acre

26

25

24

23

22

21

MLV 121B

APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

PIPELINE AND FACILITY MAPS

Date: March 2010 Sheet 6 of 7

 ̄

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.1

Miles

Legend

!A Milepost

Proposed Wasatch Loop

Staging Area

# Mainline Valve Location

Access Road Project Area
CA

AZ

NV

NM

OR

CO

WY

UT

!A

!A

!#A

West Tie-In Staging Area1.5 acres

28

27

26

MLV 124B

APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

PIPELINE AND FACILITY MAPS

Date: March 2010 Sheet 7 of 7

 ̄

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.1

Miles

Legend

!A Milepost

Proposed Wasatch Loop

Staging Area

# Mainline Valve Location

Access Road Project Area
APPENDIX B2 

CONTRACTOR, PIPE, AND STORAGE YARD MAPS 
CA

AZ

NV

NM

OR

CO

WY

UT

Dennis WrightPrimary Yard (19.7 acres)Coalville, Summit County, Utah

APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

PIPE AND CONTRACTOR YARD MAPS

Date: March 2010

 ̄

0 0.3 0.6 0.15

Miles

Legend

Existing Kern River Pipeline

Contractor YardPipe Yard

Project Area

Sheet 1 of 8
CA

AZ

NV

NM

OR

CO

WY

UT

West Parrish LanePrimary Yard (20.9 acres)Centerville, Davis County, Utah

APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

PIPE AND CONTRACTOR YARD MAPS

Date: March 2010

 ̄

0 0.3 0.6 0.15

Miles

Legend

Existing Kern River Pipeline

Contractor YardPipe Yard

Project Area

Sheet 2 of 8
CA

AZ

NV

NM

OR

CO

WY

UT

Rees EnterprisesAlternative Yard (4.7 acres)Coalville, Summit County, Utah

APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

PIPE AND CONTRACTOR YARD MAPS

Date: March 2010

 ̄

0 0.3 0.6 0.15

Miles

Legend

Existing Kern River Pipeline

Contractor YardPipe Yard

Project Area

Sheet 3 of 8
CA

AZ

NV

NM

OR

CO

WY

UT

Business DepotPrimary Yard (29.4 acres)Ogden, Davis County, Utah

APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

PIPE AND CONTRACTOR YARD MAPS

Date: March 2010

 ̄

0 0.3 0.6 0.15

Miles

Legend

Existing Kern River Pipeline

Contractor YardPipe Yard

Project Area

Sheet 4 of 8
CA

AZ

NV

NM

OR

CO

WY

UT

Wasatch Rail SidingAlternative Yard (6.5 acres)Wasatch, Summit County, Utah 

APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

PIPE AND CONTRACTOR YARD MAPS

Date: March 2010

 ̄

0 0.3 0.6 0.15

Miles

Legend

Existing Kern River Pipeline

Contractor YardPipe Yard

Project Area

Sheet 5 of 8
CA

AZ

NV

NM

OR

CO

WY

UT

Henefer Frontage RoadAlternative Yard (43.8 acres)Henefer, Summit County, Utah

APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

PIPE AND CONTRACTOR YARD MAPS

Date: March 2010

 ̄

0 0.3 0.6 0.15

Miles

Legend

Existing Kern River Pipeline

Contractor YardPipe Yard

Project Area

Sheet 6 of 8
CA

AZ

NV

NM

OR

CO

WY

UT

Warehouse 500 N. Redwood RoadPrimary Yard (2.7 acres)North Salt Lake, Davis County, Utah

APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

PIPE AND CONTRACTOR YARD MAPS

Date: March 2010

 ̄

0 0.3 0.6 0.15

Miles

Legend

Existing Kern River Pipeline

Contractor YardPipe Yard

Project Area

Sheet 7 of 8
CA

AZ

NV

NM

OR

CO

WY

UT

1500 West 150 SouthAlternative Yard (11.3 acres)Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah

W. 900 S. Alternative Yard (37.2 acres)Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah

APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

PIPE AND CONTRACTOR YARD MAPS

Date: March 2010

 ̄

0 0.3 0.6 0.15

Miles

Legend

Existing Kern River Pipeline

Contractor YardPipe Yard

Project Area

Sheet 8 of 8
APPENDIX B3 

COMPRESSOR STATION MAPS 
CA

AZ

NV

NM

OR

CO

WY

UT

Milford Compressor StationKRMP 326.9Beaver County, Utah

APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

MILFORD COMPRESSOR STATION

Date: March 2010

 ̄

0 0.2 0.4 0.1

Miles

Legend

Existing Kern River PipelineCompressor Station

Project Area

Sheet 1 of 5
CA

AZ

NV

NM

OR

CO

WY

UT

Coyote Creek Compressor StationKRMP 60.1Uinta County, Wyoming

APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

COYOTE CREEK COMPRESSOR STATION

Date: March 2010

 ̄

0 0.2 0.4 0.1

Miles

Legend

Existing Kern River PipelineCompressor Station

Project Area

Sheet 2 of 5
CA

AZ

NV

NM

OR

CO

WY

UT

Elberta Compressor StationKRMP 191.6Utah County, Utah

APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

ELBERTA COMPRESSOR STATION

Date: March 2010

 ̄

0 0.2 0.4 0.1

Miles

Legend

Existing Kern River PipelineCompressor Station

Project Area

Sheet 3 of 5
CA

AZ

NV

NM

OR

CO

WY

UT

Fillmore Compressor StationKRMP 276.7Millard County, Utah

APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

FILLMORE COMPRESSOR STATION

Date: March 2010

 ̄

0 0.2 0.4 0.1

Miles

Legend

Existing Kern River PipelineCompressor Station

Project Area

Sheet 4 of 5
CA

AZ

NV

NM

OR

CO

WY

UT

Dry Lake Compressor StationKRMP 500.1Clark County, Nevada

APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

DRY LAKE COMPRESSOR STATION

Date: March 2010

 ̄

0 0.2 0.4 0.1

Miles

Legend

Existing Kern River PipelineCompressor Station

Project Area

Sheet 5 of 5
APPENDIX C 

LISTING OF EXTRA WORKSPACE BY MILEPOST 

C1 Access Roads 

C2 Additional Temporary Workspaces 
APPENDIX C1 

ACCESS ROADS 
TABLE C1 

Access Roads for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project

# Road Name County/ State MP 

Alignment 

Sheet/ 

Drawing 

No. Status 

Use 

(Permanent 

or 

Temporary) 

Surface 

Type 

Approx 

Length 

(miles) 

Approx 

Length 

(ft) 

Approx 

Width 

(ft) 

Improvement/ 

Modification 

PostConstruction 

Status 

Impact to Non-road 

Area 

(acres) 

Permanent 

Impact 

(acres) 

1 Richins Rd. Morgan, UT 0 1601.22 – 

100 

Existing Permanent Dirt 1.43 7,546 10 Grade, Widen 

2 ft 

Retain for access 

0.35 0.35 

2 Monument 

Rd. 

Morgan, UT 1.2 1601.22 – 

100 

Existing Temporary Dirt 0.78 4,141 10 Grade, Widen 

2 ft 

Restore 0.19 0 

3 Monument 

Rd. ByPass 

Morgan, UT 1.3 1601.22 - 

100 

Existing Temporary Dirt 0.11 603 8 Grade, Widen 

4 ft 

Restore 0.06 0 

4 Broad Hollow 

Pioneer Trail 

Morgan, UT 1.4 1601.22 – 

100 

Existing Temporary Dirt, 

Grass 

0.63 3,332 10 Grade, Widen 

2 ft 

Restore 0.15 0 

5 St. Park Rd. 

1 

Morgan, UT 1.7 1601.22 - 

101 

Existing Temporary Dirt, 

Grass 

0.91 4,812 10 Grade, Widen 

2 ft 

Restore 0.22 0 

6 St Park Rd. 2 

East 

Morgan, UT 2.1 1601.22 – 

101 

Existing Temporary Dirt, 

Grass 

0.18 963 8 Grade, Widen 

4 ft 

Restore 0.04 0 

7 St. Park Rd. 

2 West 

Morgan, UT 2.3 1601.22 - 

101 

Existing Permanent Dirt, 

Grass

2.14 11,293 10 Grade, Widen 

2 ft 

Retain for access 

0.52 0.52 

8 St Park Rd. 3 

East 

Morgan, UT 2.5 1601.22 – 

101 

Existing Temporary Dirt, 

Grass 

0.68 3,612 10 Grade, Widen 

2 ft 

Restore 0.17 0 

9 St Park Rd. 3 

West 

Morgan, UT 2.9 1601.22 - 

101 

Existing Permanent Dirt, 

Grass 

0.71 3,743 10 Grade, Widen 

2 ft 

Retain for access 

0.17 0.71 

10 St Park Rd. 4 Morgan, UT 3.4 N/A Existing Temporary Dirt, 

Grass 

1.02 5,404 10 Grade, Widen 

2 ft 

Restore 0.25 0 

11 St Park Rd. 4 

West 

Morgan, UT 3.4 1601.22 - 

102 

Existing Temporary Dirt, 

Grass 

0.44 2,310 10 Grade, Widen 

2 ft 

Restore 0.11 0 

12 DWR Rd. Morgan, UT 4.8 1601.22 - 

103 

Existing Permanent Gravel 0.08 405 12 None Retain for 

access 

0 0 

13 Lazy H 

Ranch Rd. 

Morgan, UT 5 1601.22 - 

103 

Existing Permanent Gravel 0.38 2,016 10 Grade, Widen 

2 ft 

Retain, Owner to Pave PreConstruction 

0.09 0.09 

14 Lazy H 

Ranch Rd. South 

Morgan, UT 5.3 1601.22 - 

103 

Existing Temporary Dirt 0.36 1,908 10 Grade, Widen 

2 ft 

Restore 0.09 0 

C1-1
TABLE C1 (continued) 

Access Roads for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project

# Road Name County/ State MP 

Alignment 

Sheet/ 

Drawing 

No. Status 

Use 

(Permanent 

or 

Temporary) 

Surface 

Type 

Approx 

Length 

(miles) 

Approx 

Length 

(ft) 

Approx 

Width 

(ft) 

Improvement/ 

Modification 

PostConstruction 

Status 

Impact to Non-road 

Area 

(acres) 

Permanent 

Impact 

(acres) 

15 Floyd HatchPrivate Rd. Morgan, UT 6 1601.22 - 104 Existing Temporary Gravel, Dirt 0.76 3,992 10 Grade, Widen 2 ft Restore 0.18 0 16 Sanders Rd. Morgan, UT 6.3 1601.22 – 

104 

Existing Temporary Dirt 1.16 6,133 10 Grade, Widen 

2 ft 

Restore 0.28 0 

17 Jones Hollow 

Rd. 

Morgan, UT 7 1601.22 – 

104 

Existing Temporary Dirt 0.53 2,793 10 Grade, Widen 

2 ft 

Restore 0.13 0 

18 Valve 103 

Rd. East 

Morgan, UT 7.2 1601.22 - 

104 

Existing Permanent Partial 

gravel 

0.17 905 10 Grade, Widen 

2 ft 

Retain for access 

0.04 0.04 

19 Valve 103 

Rd. West 

Morgan, UT 7.3 1601.22 – 

104 

Existing Temporary Dirt 0.4 2,108 10 Grade, Widen 

2 ft 

Restore 0.1 0 

20 Woods 

Creek Rd. 

Morgan, UT 7.9 1601.22 – 

105 

Existing Temporary Paved, 

Dirt 

0.52 2,720 10 Grade, Widen 

2 ft 

Restore 0.13 0 

21 Greenwood 

Loop 

Morgan, UT 8.5 1601.22 – 

105 

Existing Temporary Paved, 

Dirt 

1.26 6,665 10 Grade, Widen 

2 ft 

Restore 0.31 0 

22 Tom Adams 

Hollow Rd. 

Morgan, UT 8.1 1601.22 – 

105 

Existing Permanent Paved, 

Dirt 

1.77 9,366 10 Grade, Widen 

2 ft 

Retain for access 

0.43 0.43 

23 Tucker 

Hollow Rd. 

Morgan, UT 9.9 1601.22 – 

106 

Existing Permanent Paved, 

Dirt 

2.09 11,040 10 0.5 mi Grade & 

Widen 2', add temp. bridge 

Retain 0.51 0.51 

24 Hardscrabble 

ByPass Rd. 

Morgan, UT 11.8 1601.22 – 

107 

Existing Temporary Dirt 0.16 864 10 Grade, Widen 

2 ft, add temp. bridge 

Restore 0.04 0 

25 Hardscrabble 

Rd. 

Morgan, UT 11.9 1601.22 – 

107 

Existing Permanent Dirt 5.78 30,540 14 Grade, add 

temp. bridge 

Retain for access 

0 0 

26 Powerline 

Rd. (Alternate access road) 

Morgan, UT 14 1601.22 – 

109 

Existing Temporary Dirt 0.48 2,545 8 Grade, Widen 

4 ft 

Retain for access 

0.23 0.23 

27 Skyline Dr. Morgan/Davis, 

UT 

14.8 1601.22 – 

109 

Existing Permanent Gravel 11.93 62,967 12 Grade Retain for 

access 

0 0 

C1-2
TABLE C1 (continued) 

Access Roads for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project

# Road Name County/ State MP 

Alignment 

Sheet/ 

Drawing 

No. Status 

Use 

(Permanent 

or 

Temporary) 

Surface 

Type 

Approx 

Length 

(miles) 

Approx 

Length 

(ft) 

Approx 

Width 

(ft) 

Improvement/ 

Modification 

PostConstruction 

Status 

Impact to Non-road 

Area 

(acres) 

Permanent 

Impact 

(acres) 

28 Questar Rd. 

#1 

Morgan/Davis, UT 

15.6 1601.22 – 

110 

Existing Permanent Dirt 0.78 4,123 8 Grade, Widen 

4 ft 

Retain for access 

0.38 0.38 

29 Mueller Park 

Rd. / Mueller Park Trail 

Davis, UT 19 1601.22 – 

112 

Existing Permanent Paved 0.75 3,932 12 Grade Retain for 

access 

0 0 

30 Canyon 

Creek Dr. / North Canyon Trail 

Davis, UT 20.5 1601.22 – 

113 

Existing Temporary Gravel 0.51 2,672 12 Grade Restore 0 0 

31 Hidden Lake 

Dr. 

Davis, UT 21.4 1601.22 – 

114 

Existing Temporary Paved, 

Dirt 

1.06 5,613 10 Grade, Widen 

2 ft 

Restore 0.26 0 

32 Orvis Rd. Davis, UT 21.6 1601.22 – 

114 

Existing Temporary Dirt 0.51 2,705 10 Grade, Widen 

2 ft 

Restore 0.12 0 

33 Hidden Lake 

Circle 

Davis, UT 21.9 1601.22 – 

114 

Existing Permanent Dirt 0.39 2,081 10 Grade, Widen 

4 ft 

Retain for access 

0.19 0.19 

34 Questar Rd. 

#2 

Davis/Salt Lake, UT 

23.8 1601.22 – 

115 

Existing Permanent Dirt, 

Gravel 

0.64 3,377 10 Grade, Widen 

2 ft 

Retain for access 

0.16 0.16 

35 Open Space 

Ln. 

Davis, UT 24.5 1601.22 – 

116 

Existing Temporary Dirt 0.03 171 12 Grade Restore 0 0 

36 Edgewood 

Dr. 

Davis, UT 25.2 1601.22 - 

116 

Existing Permanent Paved 0.09 481 12 None Retain for 

access 

0 0 

37 DNR-ATV 

Park Rd. 

Salt Lake, UT 27.5 1601.22 - 

118 

Proposed Temporary Dirt 0.08 410 12 Create New 

Road 

Remove & Restore 

0.11 0 

38 City Drain 

Rd. 

Salt Lake, UT 27.6 1601.22 - 

118 

Existing Temporary Dirt 0.08 435 10 Grade, Widen 

2 ft 

Restore 0.02 0 

C1-3
APPENDIX C2 

ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY WORKSPACES 
C2-1

TABLE C2 

Additional Temporary Workspaces for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Facility County, State MP Description Approximate Dimensionsa Total Acresb,c Existing Land Use 

Pipeline Morgan Co., 

UT 

0.02 Cross existing Kern River and Questar 

pipelines 

1-50’x400’ 0.43 Rangeland 

Pipeline Morgan Co., 

UT 

0.36 Cross existing Kern River and Questar 

pipelines 

2-50’x400’ 0.87 Rangeland 

Pipeline Morgan Co., 

UT 

1.10 Road crossing (State Hwy. 65) 4-50’x200’ 0.89 Rangeland (Goldfleck Recreation Area) 

Pipeline Morgan Co., 

UT 

2.03 Side Slope 1-25’x380’ 0.21 Rangeland 

Pipeline Morgan Co., 

UT 

2.38 Stream crossing (Rocky Canyon) 2-50’x200’ 0.45 Rangeland/Forest/Woodland 

Pipeline Morgan Co., 

UT 

2.76-3.47 Side-slope 1-25’x1,321’ 

1-25’x2,450’ 

2.12 Rangeland/Forest/Woodland 

Pipeline Morgan Co., 

UT 

3.34 Stream Crossing (Tuscon Hollow) 2-50’x200’ 0.44 Rangeland 

Pipeline Morgan Co., 

UT 

3.58 Workspace for hydrotest 1-50’x100 0.11 Forest/Woodland 

Pipeline Morgan Co., 

UT 

3.74 Side Slope and Extra Ditch Depth 1-100’x200’ 0.51 Rangeland 

Pipeline Morgan Co., 

UT 

4.71 Stream crossing (Red Rock Canyon) 2-50’x200’ 0.46 Rangeland (East Canyon Wildlife 

Management Area) 

Pipeline Morgan Co., 

UT 

4.88 Road crossing (State Hwy. 66) 1-50’x450’ 

2-50’x200’ 

0.95 Rangeland (East Canyon Wildlife 

Management Area)

Pipeline Morgan Co., 

UT 

4.97 – 5.88 Saturate Soils and drilling of well 

points for ditch dewatering 

1-25’x1,644’ 0.94 Forest/Woodland 

Pipeline Morgan Co., 

UT 

5.33 Cross over existing Kern River 

pipeline; Stream crossing (East Canyon Creek) 

1-50’x411’ 1-50’x382’ 

0.94 Forest/Woodland 

Pipeline Morgan Co., 

UT 

5.44 Stream crossing (East Canyon Creek) 1-25’x200’ 

1-50’x200’ 

0.34 Rangeland 
C2-2

TABLE C2 (continued) 

Additional Temporary Workspaces for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Facility County, State MP Description Approximate Dimensionsa Total Acresb,c Existing Land Use 

Pipeline Morgan Co., 

UT 

5.28-6.02 Side Slope 1-25’x2,870’ 

1-25’x1,030’ 

2.31 Rangeland/Forest/Woodland 

Pipeline Morgan Co., 

UT 

6.01 Road crossing 1-25’x100’ 0.06 Rangeland 

Pipeline Morgan Co., 

UT 

6.20 Stream crossing (Sheep Creek) 4-50’x200’ 0.92 Rangeland 

Pipeline Morgan Co., 

UT 

6.44 Side Slope 1-100’x200’ 0.48 Rangeland 

Pipeline Morgan Co., 

UT 

6.44-6.85 Side-slope construction 1-25’x1,997’ 1.15 Rangeland/Forest/Woodland/ 

Agriculture Land 

Pipeline Morgan Co., 

UT 

6.84 Cross existing Kern River and Questar 

pipelines 

2-50’x200’ 1-50’x315’ 

0.84 Rangeland 

Pipeline Morgan Co., 

UT 

7.12 Installation of Mainline Valve 1-100’x500’ 1.15 Agricultural Land 

Pipeline Morgan Co., 

UT 

7.78 Stream crossing (Woods Creek) 2-50’x200’ 0.46 Rangeland 

Pipeline Morgan Co., 

UT 

8.01 Cross existing Kern River and Questar 

pipelines; Tributary crossing 

2-50’x200 1-50’x440 

1.03 Rangeland 

Pipeline Morgan Co., 

UT 

8.27 Workspace for hydrotest 1-50’x100’ 0.11 Forest/Woodland 

Pipeline Morgan Co., 

UT 

8.67 Side Slope; Cross existing Kern River 

and Questar pipelines 

1-25’x270’ 1-50’x300’ 1-50’x200’ 

0.79 Rangeland 

Pipeline Morgan Co., 

UT 

8.81-10.03 Side Slope 1-25’x979’ 

1-25’x5,453’ 

3.69 Rangeland/Forest/Woodland 

Pipeline Morgan Co., 

UT 

10.03 Stream Crossing (Tucker Hollow) 4-50’x200’ 0.92 Rangeland 
C2-3

TABLE C2 (continued) 

Additional Temporary Workspaces for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Facility County, State MP Description Approximate Dimensionsa Total Acresb,c Existing Land Use 

Pipeline Morgan Co., 

UT 

10.1411.18 Side Slope 1-25’x1,883’ 

1-25’x3,615’ 

3.15 Rangeland 

Pipeline Morgan Co., 

UT 

11.53 Cross existing Kern River and Questar 

pipelines 

1-50’x578’ 1-50’x200’ 

0.90 Rangeland 

Pipeline Morgan Co., 

UT 

11.78 Stream Crossing (Hardscrabble Creek) 3-50’x200’ 0.73 Rangeland 

Pipeline Morgan Co., 

UT 

12.15 Workspace for hydrotest 1-50’x100’ 0.11 Forest/Woodland 

Pipeline Morgan Co., 

UT 

13.68 Cross existing Kern River and Questar 

pipelines 

1-25’x120’ 1-25’x158’ 1-25’x266’ 

0.32 Rangeland (UWCNF) 

Pipeline Morgan Co., 

UT 

14.17-14.36 Side Slope 1-25’x997’ 0.57 Rangeland/Forest/.Woodland (UWCNF) 

Pipeline Morgan Co., 

UT 

14.61 Cross existing Kern River pipeline 2-25’x120’ 0.14 Forest/Woodland (UWCNF) 

Pipeline Morgan Co., 

UT 

14.80 Cross existing Kern River pipeline; 

Workspace for hydrotest 

1-50’x200’ 0.23 Rangeland (UWCNF) 

Pipeline Morgan Co., 

UT 

15.0915.84 Steep Grade 1-25’x4,011’ 2.35 Rangeland (UWCNF) 

Pipeline Davis Co., 

UT 

15.91 Cross existing Kern River and Questar 

pipelines 

1-25’x263 1-25’x125’ 

0.21 Rangeland (UWCNF) 

Pipeline Davis Co., 

UT 

15.8716.48 Steep Grade 1-25’x3,191’ 1.83 Rangeland/Forest/Woodland (UWCNF) 

Pipeline Davis Co., 

UT 

16.40 Side Slope; Equipment and material 

storage 

1-50’x100’ 0.11 Rangeland (UWCNF) 
C2-4

TABLE C2 (continued) 

Additional Temporary Workspaces for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Facility County, State MP Description Approximate Dimensionsa Total Acresb,c Existing Land Use 

Pipeline Davis Co., 

UT 

16.47 Stream crossing (Holbrook Canyon) 2-50’x200’ 

1-50’x150’ 1-50’x130’ 1-50’x50’ 1-50’x70’ 

0.91 Rangeland (UWCNF) 

Pipeline Davis Co., 

UT 

16.78 Steep Grade; Equipment and material 

storage 

1-200’x300’ 1.38 Forest/Woodland (UWCNF) 

Pipeline Davis Co., 

UT 

16.82 Steep Grade; Side Slope 1-50’x670’ 0.77 Forest/Woodland (UWCNF) 

Pipeline Davis Co., 

UT 

17.02 Equipment anchoring and material 

storage for helicopter 

1-300’x200’ 1-300’x300’ 

2.11 Forest/Woodland (UWCNF) 

Pipeline Davis Co., 

UT 

17.35 Cross existing Kern River pipeline 2-25’x320’ 0.53 Forest/Woodland (UWCNF) 

Pipeline Davis Co., 

UT 

17.56 Workspace for hydrotest 1-50’x100’ 0.11 Rangeland (UWCNF) 

Pipeline Davis Co., 

UT 

17.57 Stream Crossing (Kenney Creek) 2-25’x125’ 0.14 Forest/Woodland (UWCNF) 

Pipeline Davis Co., 

UT 

17.7818.66 Side Slope 1-25’x1,200’ 

1-25’x3,470’ 

2.68 Rangeland/Forest/Woodland (UWCNF) 

Pipeline Davis Co., 

UT 

18.97 Road Crossing (Mueller Park Rd.); 

Stream Crossing (Mill Creek) 

2-100’x200’ 0.84 Forest/Woodland (UWCNF) 

Pipeline Davis Co., 

UT 

19.5619.82 Side Slope 1x25’x1,363’ 0.78 Rangeland/Forest/Woodland (UWCNF) 

Pipeline Davis Co., 

UT 

19.96 Workspace for hydrotest 1-50’x100’ 0.11 Forest/Woodland (UWCNF) 

Pipeline Davis Co., 

UT 

20.50 Road Crossing (Canyon Crossing Dr.); 

Stream Crossing (North Canyon Creek) 

4-50’x120’ 0.87 Rangeland/Forest/Woodland (UWCNF) 
C2-5

TABLE C2 (continued) 

Additional Temporary Workspaces for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Facility County, State MP Description Approximate Dimensionsa Total Acresb,c Existing Land Use 

Pipeline Davis Co., 

UT 

20.79 Side Slope 1-25’x589’ 0.33 Rangeland (UWCNF) 

Pipeline Davis Co., 

UT 

21.40 Equipment ingress and regress 1-50’x100’ 0.11 Rangeland 

Pipeline Davis Co., 

UT 

21.59 Road Crossing (Orvis Rd.) 1-25’x200’ 

1-25’x120’ 

0.18 Forest/Woodland 

Pipeline Davis Co., 

UT 

21.6221.86 Side Slope 1-25’x1,279’ 0.73 Forest/Woodland (UWCNF) 

Pipeline Davis Co., 

UT 

22.05 Workspace for hydrotest 1-50’x100’ 0.11 Forest/Woodland (UWCNF) 

Pipeline Davis Co., 

UT 

22.19 Dry wash crossing (additional spoil) 2-25’x120’ 0.14 Forest/Woodland (UWCNF) 

Pipeline Davis Co., 

UT 

23.00 Dry wash crossing (additional spoil) 2-25’x120’ 0.14 Forest/Woodland (UWCNF) 

Pipeline Salt Lake 

Co., UT 

23.76 Side Slope; Road Crossing; Cross 

existing Questar pipeline 

2-25’x300’ 0.34 Rangeland (UWCNF) 

Pipeline Davis Co., 

UT 

24.54 Installation of mainline valve 1-100’x200’ 0.46 Residential Land 

Pipeline Davis Co., 

UT 

24.5825.23 Extra ditch depth 1-25’x1,858’ 1.05 Residential Land 

Pipeline Davis Co., 

UT 

25.23 Workspace for hydrotest 1-50’x100’ 0.11 Industrial/Commercial Land 

Pipeline Davis Co., 

UT 

25.28 Equipment and material staging 1-100’x100’ 0.23 Residential Land 

Pipeline Davis Co., 

UT 

25.38 Tope of slope – Wasatch Fault; 

Equipment and material staging 

1-50’x100’ 0.48 Residential Land 

Pipeline Davis Co., 

UT 

25.40-25.51 Ramp widening cut area 1-25’x337’ 

1-25’x141’ 

0.42 Residential Land 
C2-6

TABLE C2 (continued) 

Additional Temporary Workspaces for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Facility County, State MP Description Approximate Dimensionsa Total Acresb,c Existing Land Use 

Pipeline Davis Co., 

UT 

25.53 Ramp widening fill area 1-120’x464’ 1.16 Residential Land 

Pipeline Davis Co., 

UT 

25.67 East Side of bore of State Hwy. 89; 

East side of Frontage Rd. 

1-50’x300’ 1-50’x210’ 

0.58 Industrial/Commercial Land 

Pipeline Davis Co., 

UT 

25.68 East side of Interstate 15 crossing 1-25’x100’ 

1-100’x100’ 

0.21 Industrial/Commercial Land 

Pipeline Davis Co., 

UT 

25.76 West side of Interstate 15 crossing; 

(Interstate 15 ramp); Railroad Crossing (Union Pacific RR) 

5’x200’ 2-100’x200’ 

1.15 Industrial/Commercial Land 

Pipeline Davis Co., 

UT 

26.60 Installation of redundant delivery tap 1-50’x200’ 0.22 Industrial/Commercial Land 

Pipeline Davis Co., 

UT 

26.79 Canal Crossing (Northwest Oil Drain) 4-25’x120’ 0.28 Industrial/Commercial Land 

Pipeline Davis Co., 

UT 

26.94 Road Crossing (Redwood Rd) 2-25’x125’ 

1-50’x100’ 1-50’x200’ 

0.46 Industrial/Commercial Land 

Pipeline Davis/Salt 

Lake Co., UT 

27.09 Stream crossing (Jordan River) 3-50’x200’ 

1-50’x162’ 

0.80 Special Use Land (Jordan River and 

Jordan River Parkway Trail) 

Pipeline Salt Lake 

Co., UT 

27.26 Cross existing Kern River pipeline 2-25’x300’ 0.34 Special Use Land (Jordan River OffHighway Vehicle Park and Modelport) 

Pipeline Salt Lake 

Co., UT 

27.45 Canal Crossing (City Drain) 4-25’x125’ 0.29 Special Use Land (Jordan River OffHighway Vehicle Park and 

Modelport)/Agricultural Land 

Pipeline Salt Lake 

Co., UT 

27.55 Road crossing (Interstate 215) 3-25’x125’ 0.22 Residential Land/Agricultural Land 
C2-7

TABLE C2 (continued) 

Additional Temporary Workspaces for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Facility County, State MP Description Approximate Dimensionsa Total Acresb,c Existing Land Use 

Pipeline Salt Lake 

Co., UT 

27.95 Road crossing (N. 2200 W.) 4-25’x125’ 0.29 Agricultural Land/Industrial/Commercial 

Land 

Total 56.28 ____________ Notes: a Workspaces are irregular in shape, and dimensions provided are approximate. b Acreage calculations were determined using geographic information system (GIS) to capture curvature and angels not reflected in the dimensions. c All acreages are rounded to the nearest hundredth; slight differences in totals due to rounding. 
APPENDIX D 

KERN RIVER PLAN 

UPLAND EROSION CONTROL, REVEGETATION, AND MAINTENANCE PLAN 
Apex Expansion Project 

Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and 

Maintenance Plan 

Kern River Gas Transmission Company 

November 2009
 -iTABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. APPLICABILITY .............................................................................................................1

II. SUPERVISION AND INSPECTION ...............................................................................1

A. ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTION.........................................................................1

B. RESPONSIBILITIES OF ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTORS ...............................2

III. PRECONSTRUCTION PLANNING................................................................................4

A. CONSTRUCTION WORK AREAS ........................................................................4

B. DRAIN TILE AND IRRIGATION SYSTEMS..........................................................4

C. GRAZING DEFERMENT.......................................................................................4

D. ROAD CROSSINGS AND ACCESS POINTS.......................................................5

E. DISPOSAL PLANNING .........................................................................................5

F. AGENCY COORDINATION ..................................................................................5

G. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN ............................................5

IV. INSTALLATION..............................................................................................................5

A. APPROVED AREAS OF DISTURBANCE.............................................................5

B. TOPSOIL SEGREGATION....................................................................................7

C. DRAIN TILES ........................................................................................................8

D. IRRIGATION .........................................................................................................8

E. ROAD CROSSINGS AND ACCESS POINTS.......................................................8

F. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL....................................................................8

1. Temporary Slope Breakers...........................................................................8

2. Sediment Barriers.........................................................................................9

3. Mulch ..........................................................................................................10

V. RESTORATION ...........................................................................................................11

A. CLEANUP ...........................................................................................................11

B. PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL DEVICES.................................................12

1. Trench Breakers .........................................................................................12

2. Permanent Slope Breakers ........................................................................12

C. SOIL COMPACTION MITIGATION.....................................................................13

D. REVEGETATION ................................................................................................13

1. General.......................................................................................................13

2. Soil Additives ..............................................................................................14

3. Seeding Requirements ...............................................................................14

VI. OFF-ROAD VEHICLE CONTROL................................................................................15

VII. POST-CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.........................................................................15

A. MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE .................................................................15

B. REPORTING .......................................................................................................16
 -1- 

Apex Expansion Project 

Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan (Plan) 

I. APPLICABILITY

A. Kern River Gas Transmission Company (Kern River) has prepared this Apex 

Expansion Project (Project) Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and 

Maintenance Plan (Kern River Plan) to meet or exceed the best management 

practices and mitigation measures included in the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC) Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance 

Plan (FERC Plan). Mitigation measures have been included to address the 

greater potential for erosion and sediment transport in critical slope areas 

found along the alignment in the Wasatch Mountains. The intent of the Kern 

River Plan document is to identify baseline mitigation measures for 

minimizing erosion and enhancing revegetation. The Kern River Plan will also 

be provided to the contractor(s) and inspectors who will be constructing the 

pipeline on behalf of Kern River. 

 Where the Kern River Plan departs substantially from the FERC Plan, the 

Project specific text is highlighted as bold text and FERC Plan requirements 

noted in an adjacent boxed text. Other changes throughout the Kern River 

Plan are noted in italics. Very minor formatting changes (Project sponsor to 

Kern River, should to will, etc.) are not specifically called out in the Kern River 

Plan text. 

 Once the Project is certificated, changes to the Kern River Plan can be 

approved only upon Kern River submitting a written request to the Director of 

the Office of Energy Projects (Director), and if the Director finds that an 

alternative measure: 

1. provides equal or better environmental protection; 

2. is necessary because a portion of the Kern River Plan is infeasible or 

unworkable based on Project-specific conditions; or 

3. is specifically required in writing by another Federal, state, or Native 

American land management agency for the portion of the Project on 

its land or under its jurisdiction. 

Any requirements in the Kern River Plan to file material with the Secretary of 

the FERC (Secretary) do not apply to projects undertaken under the 

provisions of the blanket certificate program. This exemption does not apply 

to a request for alternative measures. 

Project-related impacts on wetland and waterbody systems are addressed in 

Kern River’s Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures 

(Kern River Procedures). 

II. SUPERVISION AND INSPECTION

A. ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTION 

1. At least one Environmental Inspector will be assigned to each 

construction spread during construction and restoration (as defined by 
 -2- 

Section V). The number and experience of Environmental Inspectors 

assigned to each construction spread will be appropriate for the length 

of the construction spread and the number/significance of resources 

affected. A full time inspector will assigned to each existing 

compressor station until initial ground work and temporary erosion 

control devices are installed. 

2. Environmental Inspectors shall have peer status with all other activity 

inspectors. 

3. Environmental Inspectors shall have the authority to stop activities 

that violate the environmental conditions of the Certificate of Public 

Convenience and Necessity (Certificate), state and Federal 

environmental permit conditions, or landowner agreements; and will 

have the necessary authority to order appropriate corrective action be 

taken. 

B. RESPONSIBILITIES OF ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTORS 

At a minimum, the Environmental Inspector(s) shall be responsible for: 

1. Ensuring compliance with the requirements of this Kern River Plan, 

the Procedures, the environmental conditions of the Certificate 

authorization, the mitigation measures proposed by Kern River and as 

approved and/or modified by the Certificate, other environmental 

permits and approvals, and environmental requirements made part of 

landowner easement agreements; 

2. Identifying, documenting, and overseeing corrective actions, as 

necessary to bring an activity back into compliance. Occurrences of 

noncompliance will be tracked in a data management system by type 

of noncompliance, the nature of corrective action described, and a 

timely follow-up noted to document that the corrective action fully 

resolved the non-compliance activity;

3. Verifying that the limits of authorized construction work areas and 

locations of access roads are properly marked before clearing; 

4. Verifying the location of signs and highly visible flagging marking the 

boundaries of sensitive resource areas, waterbodies, wetlands, or 

areas with special requirements along the construction work area; 

5. Identifying erosion/sediment control and soil stabilization needs in all 

areas; 

6. Ensuring that the location of dewatering structures and slope breakers 

will not direct water into known cultural resources sites or locations of 

sensitive species; 

7. Verifying that trench dewatering activities do not result in the 

deposition of sand, silt, and/or sediment near the point of discharge 

into a wetland or waterbody. If such deposition is occurring, the 

dewatering activity shall be stopped and the design of the discharge 

shall be changed to prevent reoccurrence; 
 -3- 

8. Ensuring that subsoil and topsoil are tested in agricultural and 

residential areas to measure compaction and determine the need for 

corrective action; 

9. Advising the Lead Inspector when conditions (such as wet weather) 

make it advisable to restrict construction activities to avoid excessive 

rutting; 

10. Ensuring restoration of contours and topsoil; 

11. Verifying that the soils imported for agricultural or residential use have 

been certified as free of noxious weeds and soil pests, unless 

otherwise approved by the landowner; 

12. Determining the need for and ensuring that erosion controls are 

properly installed, as necessary to prevent sediment flow into 

wetlands, waterbodies, sensitive areas, and onto roads; 

13. Inspecting and ensuring the maintenance of temporary erosion control 

measures at least: 

a. on a daily basis in areas of active construction or equipment 

operation; 

b. on a weekly basis in areas with no construction or equipment 

operation; and 

c. within 24 hours of each 0.5 inch of rainfall; 

14. Ensuring the repair of all ineffective temporary erosion control 

measures within 24 hours of identification; 

15. Keeping records of compliance with the environmental conditions of 

the FERC certificate, and the mitigation measures proposed by Kern 

River in the formal FERC 7(c) filing, and other applicable Federal, 

state or local environmental permits that may have been obtained 

post-certificate. These records will be maintained during active 

construction and restoration; and then provided to Kern River staff 

who will be operating and maintaining the pipeline and above-ground 

facilities. 

16. Identifying areas that should be given special attention to ensure 

stabilization and restoration after the construction phase. Some of the 

mitigation and/or restoration requirements will extend beyond the 

timeframe of construction. Specific areas requiring monitoring and the 

possibility of future corrective action will be noted and provided to 

Kern River operations and maintenance staff.
 -4- 

III. PRECONSTRUCTION PLANNING

To the maximum extent feasible, Kern River proposes to conduct all preconstruction 

planning prior to the formal FERC filing and submit documentation of preconstruction 

planning in the appropriate Resource Reports and their appendices. Kern River shall 

do the following prior to construction commencing: 

A. CONSTRUCTION WORK AREAS 

1. Identify all construction work areas (e.g., construction right-of-way, 

extra work space areas, pipe storage and contractor yards, borrow 

and disposal areas, access roads, etc.) that will be needed for safe 

construction. Kern River will ensure that appropriate cultural 

resources and biological surveys have been conducted. 

2. Kern River has expanded the cultural and ecological survey corridors 

in anticipation of the need for activities outside of certificated work 

areas that could not be identified during the certificate process.

3. Identify areas with potential for severe erosion problems prior to 

initiating construction. Kern River will develop a table during the 

engineering design phase indicating areas of historical, existing, or 

potential severe erosion problems. These areas will be noted on the 

construction alignment sheets so that contractors can properly plan to 

employ specialized construction techniques to minimize short- and 

long-term erosion. 

B. DRAIN TILE AND IRRIGATION SYSTEMS 

1. Kern River will attempt to locate all existing drain tiles and irrigation 

systems during the pre-filing process. 

2. Contact landowners and local soil conservation authorities to 

determine the locations of future drain tiles that are likely to be 

installed within 3 years of the authorized construction. 

3. Develop procedures for constructing through drain-tiled areas, 

maintaining irrigation systems during construction, and repairing drain 

tiles and irrigation systems after construction. 

4. Engage qualified drain tile specialists, as needed to conduct or 

monitor repairs to drain tile systems affected by construction. Use 

drain tile specialists from the Project area, if available. 

C. GRAZING DEFERMENT 

Develop grazing deferment plans with willing land owners, grazing 

permittees, and land management agencies to minimize grazing disturbance 

of revegetation efforts. Kern River will coordinate with landowners for any 

special grazing deferment plans and incorporate these agreements into the 

planning and construction phase of the Project. 
 -5- 

D. ROAD CROSSINGS AND ACCESS POINTS 

Plan for safe and accessible conditions at all roadway crossings and access 

points during construction and restoration. 

E. DISPOSAL PLANNING 

Determine methods and locations for the disposal of construction debris (e.g., 

timber, slash, mats, garbage, drilling fluids, excess rock, etc). Off-site 

disposal in other than commercially operated disposal locations is subject to 

compliance with all applicable survey, landowner permission, and mitigation 

requirements. 

F. AGENCY COORDINATION 

Kern River will consult and coordinate with all of the appropriate local, state, 

and Federal agencies as outlined in this Kern River Plan and in the Certificate 

prior to initiating any construction related activities to: 

1. Obtain written recommendations from the local soil conservation 

authorities or land management agencies regarding permanent 

erosion control and revegetation specifications. 

2. Develop specific procedures in coordination with the appropriate 

agency to prevent the introduction or spread of noxious weeds and 

soil pests resulting from construction and restoration activities. 

3. Consult with U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM), Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS) and Utah Department of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) for 

recommendations on native grass and forb mixture for revegetation. 

G. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN 

Make available on each construction spread the Stormwater Pollution 

Prevention Plan prepared for compliance with the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency's National Stormwater Program General Permit 

requirements. 

IV. INSTALLATION

A. APPROVED AREAS OF DISTURBANCE 

1. Project-related ground disturbance shall be limited to the construction

right-of-way, extra work space areas, pipe storage yards, borrow and 

disposal areas, access roads, and other areas approved in the 

Certificate. Any Project-related ground disturbing activities outside 

these Certificated areas, except those needed to comply with the 

FERC Plan and Procedures (e.g., slope breakers, energy-dissipating 

devices, dewatering structures, drain tile system repairs) will require 

prior Director approval. All construction or restoration activities outside 

of the Certificated areas are subject to all applicable survey and 

mitigation requirements. 
 -6- 

2. The nominal construction right-of-way width for the Kern River 

Project shall not exceed 100 feet in upland areas or that 

described in the FERC application unless otherwise modified by 

a Certificate condition. However, in limited, non-wetland areas, 

this construction right-of-way width may be expanded by up to 

25 feet without Director approval to accommodate full 

construction right-of-way topsoil segregation and to ensure safe 

construction where topographic conditions or soil limitations 

require it. Additional temporary workspaces will be required in 

site-specific instances where side-hill cuts are required, at HDD 

sites, foreign pipeline and road/railway crossings, and in 

instances of full-width topsoil segregation. These extra 

workspace areas will be noted on the alignment sheets and listed 

in an appendix to Resource Report 8 as part of the FERC NGA 7c 

Application filing. 

Applicable FERC Plan Text 

The construction right-of-way width for a project shall not exceed 75 

feet or that described in the FERC application unless otherwise 

modified by a Certificate condition. However, in limited, non-wetland 

areas, this construction right-of-way width may be expanded by up to 

25 feet without Director approval to accommodate full construction 

right-of-way topsoil segregation and to ensure safe construction 

where topographic conditions (such as side-slopes) or soil limitations 

require it. Twenty-five feet of extra construction right-of-way width 

may also be used in limited, non-wetland or non-forested areas for 

truck turn-arounds where no reasonable alternative access exists. 

Project use of these additional limited areas is subject to landowner 

approval and compliance with all applicable survey and mitigation 

requirements. When such additional areas are used, each one will be 

identified and the need explained in the weekly or biweekly 

construction reports to the FERC, if required. Any requests for ATWS 

identified during construction will be tracked in a data management 

system and categorized by type of variance request and outcomes or 

modifications to the request noted. 

The following material will be included in the reports: 

a. the location of each additional area by station number and 

reference to a previously filed alignment sheet, or updated 

alignment sheets showing the additional areas; 
 -7- 

b. identification of where the Commission's records contain 

evidence that the additional areas were previously surveyed; 

and. 

c. a statement that landowner approval has been obtained and is 

available in Project files. 

Prior written approval of the Director is required when the Certificated 

construction right-of-way width would be expanded by more than 25 

feet. 

B. TOPSOIL SEGREGATION 

1. Unless the landowner or land management agency specifically 

approves otherwise, prevent the mixing of topsoil with subsoil by 

stripping topsoil from either the full work area or from the trench and 

subsoil storage area (ditch plus spoil side method) in: 

a. actively cultivated or rotated croplands and pastures; 

b. residential areas; 

c. hayfields; 

d. rangeland restoration areas; and 

e. other areas at the landowner's or land managing agency’s 

request, where topsoil is available. 

2. In residential areas importation of topsoil is an acceptable alternative 

to topsoil segregation. 

3. In deep soils (more than 12 inches of topsoil), segregate at least 12 

inches of topsoil. In soils with less than 12 inches of topsoil make 

every effort to segregate the entire topsoil layer. In very shallow soils 

or soils with stony substrates, Kern River will reduce the depth for 

segregating the topsoil to approximately 4 to 6 inches; However, 

where soils have a high content of cobbles, rocks, or boulders, or 

when surface fines are less than 4 to 6 inches deep, segregation may 

not be possible.

4. Where topsoil segregation is required, maintain separation of 

salvaged topsoil and subsoil throughout all construction activities. 

5. Segregated topsoil may not be used for padding the pipe. 

6. Topsoil segregation will only occur when safe conditions can be 

maintained.
 -8- 

C. DRAIN TILES 

1. Mark locations of drain tiles damaged during construction. 

2. Probe all drainage tile systems within the area of disturbance to check 

for damage. 

3. Repair damaged drain tiles to their original or better condition. Do not 

use filter-covered drain tiles unless the local soil conservation 

authorities and the landowner agree. Use qualified specialists for 

testing and repairs. 

4. For new pipelines in areas where drain tiles exist or are planned, 

ensure that the depth of cover over the pipeline is sufficient to avoid 

interference with drain tile systems. For adjacent pipeline loops in 

agricultural areas, install the new pipeline with at least the same depth 

of cover as the existing pipeline(s). 

D. IRRIGATION 

Maintain water flow in crop irrigation systems, unless shutoff is coordinated 

with affected parties.

E. ROAD CROSSINGS AND ACCESS POINTS 

1. Maintain safe and accessible conditions at all road crossings and 

access points during construction. 

2. If crushed stone access pads are used in residential or active 

agricultural areas, place the stone on synthetic fabric to facilitate 

removal. 

F. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL 

Install temporary erosion controls immediately after initial disturbance of the 

soil. Temporary erosion controls must be properly maintained throughout 

construction (on a daily basis) and reinstalled as necessary (such as after 

backfilling of the trench) until replaced by permanent erosion controls or 

restoration is complete. 

1. Temporary Slope Breakers 

a. Temporary slope breakers are intended to reduce runoff 

velocity and divert water off the construction right-of-way. 

Temporary slope breakers may be constructed of materials 

such as soil, silt fence, or staked straw bales, or sand bags. 

b. Install temporary slope breakers on all disturbed areas, as 

necessary to avoid excessive erosion. Temporary slope 

breakers must be installed on slopes greater than 5 percent 

where the base of the slope is less than 50 feet from 

waterbody, wetland, and road crossings at the following 

spacing (closer spacing will be used if necessary): 
 -9- 

Slope (%) Spacing (feet)

5 – 15 300 

>15 – 30 200 

>30 100 

c. Direct the outfall of each temporary slope breaker to a stable, 

well vegetated area or construct an energy-dissipating device 

at the end of the slope breaker and off the construction rightof-way. 

d. Position the outfall of each temporary slope breaker to prevent 

sediment discharge into wetlands, waterbodies, or other 

sensitive resources. 

e. Kern River will apply stringent erosion and sediment control 

measures, aggressive slope stabilization measures, and 

conduct frequent monitoring during and after construction in 

critical slope areas. Critical slopes are characterized as steep 

approaches to stream and waterbody crossings where the 

pipeline trench is parallel to the slope angle, areas where bank 

erosion can destabilize slopes, drainage is concentrated, and 

areas where sediments can directly enter receiving waters. 

f. In areas designated as critical slope areas, the spacing of 

Temporary Slope Breakers will be adjusted to address the 

potential for increased erosion and sediment transport. 

2. Sediment Barriers 

a. Sediment barriers are intended to stop the flow of sediments 

and to prevent the deposition of sediments into sensitive 

resources. They maybe constructed of materials such as silt 

fence, staked straw bales, compacted earth (e.g., driveable 

berms across travelways), sandbags, or other appropriate 

materials. 

b. At a minimum, install and maintain temporary sediment 

barriers across the entire construction right-of-way at the base 

of slopes greater than 5 percent where the base of the slope is 

less than 50 feet from a waterbody, wetland, or road crossing 

until revegetation is successful as defined in this Plan. Leave 

adequate room between the base of the slope and the 

sediment barrier to accommodate ponding of water and 

sediment deposition. 

c. Where wetlands or waterbodies are adjacent to and 

downslope of construction work areas, install sediment 

barriers along the edge of these areas, as necessary to 

prevent sediment flow into the wetland or waterbody. 
 -10- 

3. Mulch 

a. Apply mulch on all slopes (except in actively cultivated 

cropland) concurrent with or immediately after seeding, where 

necessary to stabilize the soil surface and to reduce wind and 

water erosion. Spread mulch uniformly over the area to cover 

at least 75 percent of the ground surface at a rate of 2 

tons/acre of straw or its equivalent, unless the local soil 

conservation authority or landowner approves otherwise in 

writing. 

b. Mulch can consist of weed-free straw, wood fiber hydromulch, 

erosion control fabric, or some functional equivalent. 

c. Mulch before seeding if: 

(1) final grading and installation of permanent erosion 

control measures will not be completed in an area 

within 20 days after the trench in that area is backfilled 

(10 days in residential areas), as required in section 

V.A.1; or 

(2) construction or restoration activity is interrupted for 

extended periods, such as when seeding cannot be 

completed due to seeding period restrictions. 

d. If mulching before seeding, increase mulch application on all 

slopes within 100 feet of waterbodies and wetlands to a rate of 

3 tons/acre of straw or equivalent. 

e. If wood chips are used as mulch, do not use more than 1 

ton/acre and add the equivalent of 11 lbs/acre available 

nitrogen (at least 50 percent of which is slow release). 

f. Ensure that mulch is adequately anchored to minimize loss 

due to wind and water. 

g. When anchoring with liquid mulch binders, use rates 

recommended by the manufacturer. Do not use liquid mulch 

binders within 100 feet of wetlands or waterbodies. 

h. Install erosion control fabric on waterbody banks at the time of 

final bank recontouring. Anchor the erosion control fabric with 

staples or other appropriate devices. 
 -11- 

V. RESTORATION

A. CLEANUP 

1. Commence cleanup operations immediately following backfill 

operations. Complete final grading, topsoil replacement, and 

installation of permanent erosion control structures within 20 days 

after backfilling the trench (10 days in residential areas). If seasonal or 

other weather conditions prevent compliance with these time frames, 

maintain temporary erosion controls (temporary slope breakers and 

sediment barriers) until conditions allow completion of cleanup. 

Kern River will file with the Secretary for the review and written 

approval of the Director, a winterization plan if construction will 

continue into the winter season when conditions could delay 

successful decompaction, topsoil replacement, or seeding until the 

following spring. Kern River’s current construction schedule indicates 

construction will be completed in November, 2011. 

2. A travel lane may be left open temporarily to allow access by 

construction traffic if the temporary erosion control structures are 

installed (as specified in section IV.F.) and inspected and maintained 

(as specified in sections II.B.12 through14). When access is no longer 

required, the travel lane will be removed and the right-of-way restored. 

3. Rock excavated from the trench may be used to backfill the trench 

only to the top of the existing bedrock profile. Rock that is not returned 

to the trench will be considered construction debris, unless approved 

for use as mulch or for some other use on the construction work areas 

by the landowner. Rock not returned to the trench will be transported 

off of the right-of-way, used for other construction purposes or 

disposed of in an appropriate disposal location(s). 

4. Remove excess rock from at least the top 12 inches of soil in all 

actively cultivated or rotated cropland and pastures, hayfields, and 

residential areas, as well as other areas at the landowner's request. 

The size, density, and distribution of rock on the construction work 

area should be similar to adjacent areas not disturbed by construction. 

The landowner may approve other provisions in writing. 

5. Grade the construction right-of-way to restore pre-construction 

contours and leave the soil in the proper condition for planting. 

6. Remove construction debris from all construction work areas unless 

the landowner approves otherwise. 

7. Remove temporary sediment barriers when replaced by permanent 

erosion control measures or when revegetation is successful. 
 -12- 

B. PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL DEVICES 

1. Trench Breakers 

a. Trench breakers are intended to slow the flow of subsurface 

water along the trench. Trench breakers may be constructed 

of materials such as sand bags or polyurethane foam. Do not 

use topsoil in trench breakers. 

b. An engineer or similarly qualified professional will determine 

the need for and spacing of trench breakers. Otherwise, trench 

breakers shall be installed at the same spacing as and 

upslope of permanent slope breakers. 

c. In agricultural fields and residential areas where slope 

breakers are not typically required, install trench breakers at 

the same spacing as if permanent slope breakers were 

required. 

d. At a minimum, install a trench breaker at the base of slopes 

greater than 5 percent where the base of the slope is less than 

50 feet from a waterbody or wetland and where needed to 

avoid draining a waterbody or wetland. 

2. Permanent Slope Breakers 

a. Permanent slope breakers are intended to reduce runoff 

velocity, divert water off the construction right-of-way, and 

prevent sediment deposition into sensitive resources. 

Permanent slope breakers may be constructed of materials 

such as soil, sand bags, or some functional equivalent. 

b. Construct and maintain permanent slope breakers in all areas, 

except cultivated areas and lawns, using spacing 

recommendations obtained from the local soil conservation 

authority or land managing agency. 

In the absence of written recommendations, use the following 

spacing unless closer spacing is necessary to avoid excessive 

erosion on the construction right-of-way: 

Slope (%) Spacing (feet)

5 – 15 300 

>15 – 30 200 

>30 100 

c. Construct slope breakers to divert surface flow to a stable area 

without causing water to pool or erode behind the breaker. In 

the absence of a stable area, construct appropriate energydissipating devices at the end of the breaker. 
 -13- 

d. Slope breakers may extend slightly (about 4 feet) beyond the 

edge of the construction right-of-way to effectively drain water 

off the disturbed area. Where slope breakers extend beyond 

the edge of the construction right-of-way, they are subject to 

compliance with all applicable survey requirements. 

e. The spacing of permanent slope breakers in critical slope 

areas will mirror the spacing described for temporary 

slope breakers (see above at F.1.f). 

C. SOIL COMPACTION MITIGATION 

1. Kern River will test topsoil and subsoil for compaction at regular 

intervals in agricultural and residential areas disturbed by construction

activities. Kern River will conduct compaction tests on the same soil 

type under similar moisture conditions in undisturbed areas adjacent 

to the construction corridor to approximate preconstruction conditions. 

2. Plow severely compacted agricultural areas with a paraplow or other 

deep tillage implement. In areas where topsoil has been segregated, 

plow the subsoil before replacing the segregated topsoil. 

Alternatively, make arrangements with the landowner to plant and 

plow under a "green manure" crop, such as alfalfa, to decrease soil 

bulk density and improve soil structure. If subsequent construction 

and cleanup activities result in further compaction, conduct additional 

tilling. 

3. Perform appropriate soil compaction mitigation in severely compacted 

residential areas. 

D. REVEGETATION 

1. General 

a. Kern River will ensure successful revegetation of soils 

disturbed by project-related activities, except as noted in 

section V.D.1.b. Kern River will implement a monitoring 

compliance program as restoration progresses along the 

construction corridor and transition monitoring responsibilities 

to pipeline operations and maintenance when construction is 

complete. 

b. Kern River will restore all turf, ornamental shrubs, and 

specialized landscaping in accordance with the landowner's 

request, or compensate the landowner. Restoration work will 

be performed by personnel familiar with local horticultural and 

turf establishment practices. 
 -14- 

2. Soil Additives 

Fertilize and add soil pH modifiers in accordance with written

recommendations obtained from the local soil conservation authority, 

land management agencies, or landowner. Incorporate recommended 

soil pH modifier and fertilizer into the top 2 inches of soil as soon as 

possible after application. 

3. Seeding Requirements 

a. Prepare a seedbed in disturbed areas to a depth of 3 to 4 

inches using appropriate equipment to provide a firm seedbed. 

When hydroseeding, scarify the seedbed to facilitate lodging 

and germination of seed. 

b. Seed disturbed areas in accordance with written 

recommendations for seed mixes, rates, and dates obtained 

from the local soil conservation authority or as requested by 

the landowner or land management agency. Seeding is not 

required in actively cultivated croplands unless requested by 

the landowner. 

c. Perform seeding of permanent vegetation within the 

recommended seeding dates. If seeding cannot be done within 

those dates, use appropriate temporary erosion control 

measures discussed in section IV.F. and perform seeding of 

permanent vegetation at the beginning of the next 

recommended seeding season. Lawns may be seeded on a 

schedule established with the landowner. 

d. In the absence of written recommendations from the local soil 

conservation authorities, seed all disturbed soils within 6 

working days of final grading, weather and soil conditions 

permitting, subject to the specifications in section V.D.3.a-c. 

e. Base seeding rates on Pure Live Seed. Use seed within 12 

months of seed testing. 

f. Treat legume seed with an inoculant specific to the species 

using the manufacturer’s recommended rate of inoculant 

appropriate for the seeding method (broadcast, drill, or hydro). 

g. In the absence of written recommendations from the local soil 

conservation authorities, landowner, or land managing agency 

to the contrary, a seed drill equipped with a cultipacker is 

preferred for seed application. 

Broadcast or hydroseeding can be used in lieu of drilling at 

double the recommended seeding rates. Where seed is 

broadcast, firm the seedbed with a cultipacker or imprinter 

after seeding. In rocky soils or where site conditions may limit 
 -15- 

the effectiveness of this equipment, other alternatives may be 

appropriate (e.g., use of a chain drag) to lightly cover seed 

after application, as approved by the Environmental Inspector. 

VI. OFF-ROAD VEHICLE CONTROL

To each landowner offer to install and maintain measures to control unauthorized 

vehicle access to the right-of-way. These measures may include: 

A. Signs; 

B. Fences with locking gates; and, 

C. Slash and timber barriers, pipe barriers, or a line of boulders across the rightof-way. 

VII. POST-CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES

A. MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE 

1. Conduct follow-up inspections of all disturbed areas after the first and 

second growing seasons to determine the success of revegetation. 

2. Revegetation in non-agricultural areas will be considered successful if 

upon visual survey the density and cover of non-nuisance vegetation 

are similar in density and cover to adjacent undisturbed lands. In 

agricultural areas, revegetation will be considered successful if crop 

yields are similar to adjacent undisturbed portions of the same field. 

Continue revegetation efforts until revegetation is successful. 

3. Monitor and correct problems with drainage and irrigation systems 

resulting from pipeline construction in active agricultural areas until 

restoration is successful. 

4. Restoration will be considered successful if the right-of-way surface 

condition is similar to adjacent undisturbed lands, construction debris 

is removed (unless requested otherwise by the landowner or land 

managing agency), revegetation is successful, and proper drainage 

has been restored. 

5. Routine vegetation maintenance clearing will not be done more 

frequently than every 3 years. However, to facilitate periodic corrosion 

and leak surveys, a corridor not exceeding 10 feet in width centered 

on the pipeline may be maintained annually in an herbaceous state. In 

no case will routine vegetation maintenance clearing occur between 

April 15 and August 1 of any year. 

6. Efforts to control unauthorized off-road vehicle use, in cooperation 

with the landowner, will continue throughout the life of the Project. 

Maintain signs, gates, and vehicle trails as necessary. 
 -16- 

7. Monitoring of sediment control performance in critical areas (as 

identified by Kern River during preconstruction planning and at 

environmentally sensitive stream approach slopes will be conducted 

and documented on a routine basis prior to and after major storms 

during construction and following the first two growing seasons after 

construction ceases. 

B. REPORTING 

1. Kern River will maintain records that identify by milepost: 

a. method of application, application rate, and type of fertilizer, 

pH modifying agent, seed, and mulch used; 

b. acreage treated; 

c. dates of backfilling and seeding; 

d. names of landowners requesting special seeding treatment 

and a description of the follow-up actions; and 

e. any problem areas and how they were addressed. 

Kern River will file with the Secretary quarterly activity reports documenting 

problems, including those identified by the landowner, and corrective actions 

taken for at least 2 years following construction. 
APPENDIX E 

KERN RIVER PROCEDURES 

WETLAND AND WATERBODY CONSTRUCTION AND MITIGATION PROCEDURES 
Apex Expansion Project 

Wetland and Waterbody Construction and 

Mitigation Procedures 

Kern River Gas Transmission Company 

November 2009 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. APPLICABILITY...................................................................................................................1

II. PRECONSTRUCTION FILING ............................................................................................2

III. ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTORS......................................................................................3

IV. PRECONSTRUCTION PLANNING .....................................................................................3

V. WATERBODY CROSSINGS ...............................................................................................4

A. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES AND PERMITS.......................................................4

B. INSTALLATION...........................................................................................................5

1. TIME WINDOW FOR CONSTRUCTION............................................................5

2. EXTRA WORK AREAS ......................................................................................5

3. GENERAL CROSSING PROCEDURES............................................................7

4. SPOIL PILE PLACEMENT AND CONTROL ......................................................8

5. EQUIPMENT BRIDGES.....................................................................................8

6. DRY-DITCH CROSSING METHODS.................................................................9

7. CROSSINGS OF MINOR WATERBODIES .....................................................10

8. CROSSINGS OF INTERMEDIATE WATERBODIES.......................................11

9. CROSSINGS OF MAJOR WATERBODIES.....................................................11

10. TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ..................................11

11. TRENCH DEWATERING .................................................................................12

C. RESTORATION ........................................................................................................12

D. POST-CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE ...............................................................13

VI. WETLAND CROSSINGS ...................................................................................................13

A. GENERAL.................................................................................................................13

B. INSTALLATION.........................................................................................................15

1. EXTRA WORK AREAS AND ACCESS ROADS ..............................................15

2. CROSSING PROCEDURES............................................................................16

3. TEMPORARY SEDIMENT CONTROL.............................................................17

4. TRENCH DEWATERING .................................................................................18

C. RESTORATION ........................................................................................................18

D. POST-CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE ...............................................................19

VII. HYDROSTATIC TESTING.................................................................................................19

A. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES AND PERMITS.....................................................19

B. GENERAL.................................................................................................................19

C. INTAKE SOURCE AND RATE..................................................................................20

D. DISCHARGE LOCATION, METHOD, AND RATE....................................................20
1

Apex Expansion Project 

Kern River Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures 

I. APPLICABILITY

A. Kern River Gas Transmission Company (Kern River) has prepared this Projectspecific Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (Kern 

River Procedures) that meet or exceed the best management practices and 

mitigation measures included in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC) Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (FERC 

Procedures). The intent of the Kern River Procedures document is to identify 

baseline mitigation measures for minimizing erosion and sediment transport to 

wetlands and waterbodies, in addition to limiting adverse impacts to aquatic 

habitats and water quality downstream of waterbody crossings. The Kern River 

Procedures will also be provided to the contractor(s) and inspectors who will be 

constructing the pipeline on behalf of Kern River. 

 Where the Kern River Procedures depart substantially from the FERC 

Procedures, the Project-specific text is highlighted as bold text and FERC 

Procedures requirements noted in an adjacent boxed text. Other changes 

throughout the Kern River Procedures are noted in italics. Very minor formatting 

changes (project sponsor to Kern River, should to will, etc.) are not specifically 

called out in the Kern River Procedures text. 

 Once the Kern River Project is certificated, further changes can be approved only 

upon Kern River submitting a written request to the Director of the Office of 

Energy Projects (Director), and if the Director finds that an alternative measure: 

1. provides equal or better environmental protection; 

2. is necessary because a portion of the Kern River Procedures is infeasible 

or unworkable based on Project-specific conditions; or 

3. is specifically required in writing by another Federal, state, or Native 

American land management agency for the portion of the Project on its 

land or under its jurisdiction. 

Any requirements in the Procedures to file material with the Secretary of the 

FERC (Secretary) do not apply to projects undertaken under the provisions of the 

blanket certificate program. This exemption does not apply to a request for 

alternative measures. 

Project-related impacts on uplands are addressed in Kern River’s Upland Erosion 

Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan (Kern River Plan). 

B. DEFINITIONS 

1. "Waterbody" includes any natural or artificial stream, river, or drainage 

with perceptible flow at the time of crossing, and other permanent 

waterbodies such as ponds and lakes. 

a. "minor waterbody" includes all waterbodies less than or equal to 

10 feet wide at the water's edge at the time of crossing; 
2

b. "intermediate waterbody" includes all waterbodies greater than 10 

feet wide but less than or equal to 100 feet wide at the water's 

edge at the time of crossing; and 

c. "major waterbody" includes all waterbodies greater than 100 feet 

wide at the water's edge at the time of crossing. 

2. "Wetland" includes any area that is not in actively cultivated or rotated 

cropland and that satisfies the requirements of the current Federal 

methodology for identifying and delineating wetlands. In the Procedures, 

wetland(s) refers to those areas designated as wetlands in the 7c filing 

materials and in the Section 404 application package, as certificated or 

approved for Kern River. 

3. “Perceptible flow" would be determined as flow from high gradient at the 

outer boundaries of the construction ROW to low gradient at the other 

edge of the construction ROW. Standing water within a feature would not 

constitute perceptible flow. An Environmental Inspector (EI) will 

determine and document whether any perceptible flow is evident for 

streams identified as intermittent or ephemeral. 

II. PRECONSTRUCTION FILING

A. The following information shall be filed with the Secretary prior to the beginning 

of construction: 

1. the hydrostatic testing information specified in section VII.B.3. and a 

wetland delineation report as described in section VI.A.1., if applicable; 

and 

2. a schedule identifying when trenching or blasting would occur within each 

waterbody greater than 10 feet wide, or within any designated coldwater 

fishery. Kern River will revise the schedule as necessary to provide 

FERC staff at least 14 days advance notice. Changes within this last 14-

day period must provide for at least 48 hours advance notice. 

B. The following site-specific construction plans required by these Procedures must 

be filed with the Secretary for the review and written approval by the Director: 

1. plans for extra work areas that would be closer than 50 feet from a 

waterbody or wetland; 

2. plans for major waterbody crossings; 

3. plans for the use of a construction right-of-way greater than 100 feet wide 

in wetlands; and

4. plans for horizontal directional drill (HDD) "crossings" of wetlands or 

waterbodies. 
3

III. ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTORS

A. At least one Environmental Inspector having knowledge of the wetland and 

waterbody conditions in the project area is required for each construction spread. 

The number and experience of Environmental Inspectors assigned to each 

construction spread should be appropriate for the length of the construction 

spread and the number/significance of resources affected. 

B. The Environmental Inspector's responsibilities are outlined in the Upland Erosion 

Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan (Plan). 

IV. PRECONSTRUCTION PLANNING

A. A copy of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared for 

compliance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National 

Stormwater Program General Permit requirements must be available in the field 

on each construction spread. The SWPPP shall contain Spill Prevention and 

Response Procedures that meet the requirements of state and Federal agencies. 

1. Kern River assumes the responsibility for its contractors to structure 

operations in a manner that reduces the risk of spills or the accidental 

exposure of fuels or hazardous materials to waterbodies or wetlands. 

Kern River shall, at a minimum, ensure that: 

a. all employees handling fuels and other hazardous materials are 

properly trained; 

b. all equipment is in good operating order and inspected on a 

regular basis; 

c. fuel trucks transporting fuel to on-site equipment travel only on 

approved access roads; 

d. all equipment is parked overnight and/or fueled at least 100 feet 

from a waterbody or in an upland area at least 100 feet from a 

wetland boundary. These activities can occur closer only if the 

Environmental Inspector finds, in advance, no reasonable 

alternative and Kern River and its contractors have taken 

appropriate steps (including secondary containment structures) to 

prevent spills and provide for prompt cleanup in the event of a 

spill; 

e. hazardous materials, including chemicals, fuels, and lubricating 

oils, are not stored within 100 feet of a wetland, waterbody, or 

designated municipal watershed area, unless the location is 

designated for such use by an appropriate governmental authority. 

This applies to storage of these materials and does not apply to 

normal operation or use of equipment in these areas; and 

f. concrete coating activities are not performed within 100 feet of a 

wetland or waterbody boundary, unless the location is an existing 

industrial site designated for such use. 
4

2. Kern River assumes the responsibility for its contractors to structure their 

operations in a manner that provides for the prompt and effective cleanup 

of spills of fuel and other hazardous materials. At a minimum, Kern River 

and its contractors must: 

a. ensure that each construction crew (including cleanup crews) has 

on hand sufficient supplies of absorbent and barrier materials to 

allow the rapid containment and recovery of spilled materials and 

knows the procedure for reporting spills; 

b. ensure that each construction crew has on hand sufficient tools 

and material to stop leaks; 

c. know the contact names and telephone numbers for all local, 

state, and Federal agencies (including, if necessary, the U. S. 

Coast Guard and the National Response Center) that must be 

notified of a spill; and 

d. follow the requirements of those agencies in cleaning up the spill, 

in excavating and disposing of soils or other materials 

contaminated by a spill, and in collecting and disposing of waste 

generated during spill cleanup. 

B. AGENCY COORDINATION 

Kern River will coordinate with the appropriate local, state, and Federal agencies 

as outlined in these Procedures and in the Certificate.

V. WATERBODY CROSSINGS

A. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES AND PERMITS 

1. Apply to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), or its delegated 

agency, for the appropriate wetland and waterbody crossing permits. 

2. Provide written notification to authorities responsible for potable surface 

water supply intakes located within 3 miles downstream of the crossing at 

least 1 week before beginning work in the waterbody, or as otherwise 

specified by that authority. 

3. Apply for state-issued waterbody crossing permits and obtain individual or 

generic section 401 water quality certification or waiver. 

4. Notify appropriate state authorities at least 48 hours before beginning 

trenching or blasting within the waterbody, or as specified in state 

permits. 
5

B. INSTALLATION 

1. Time Window for Construction 

Unless expressly permitted and as further restricted 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 during the 

following time windows: 

a. coldwater fisheries – July 15 through February 28; and 

Work window based on consultation with the Utah Division of 

Wildlife Resources. 

b. coolwater and warmwater fisheries - June 1 through November 

30. 

 At the crossing of East Canyon Creek at approximately MP 5.40 

Kern River is proposing to construct the Pipeline using dam and 

pump or flume crossing in late fall or early winter during the period 

of lowest surface flow and groundwater levels for East Canyon 

Creek.

2. Extra Work Areas 

a. Generally locate extra work areas (such as staging areas and 

additional spoil storage areas) at least 50 feet away from 

water’s edge, except where the adjacent upland consists of 

actively cultivated or rotated cropland or other disturbed 

land. Extra workspace will be required within 50 feet of a 

stream in areas that are not active agriculture land at the 

following locations:

At the crossing of Tucson Hollow at approximately MP 3.38 ATWS 

will be located within 50 feet of the stream to provide safe and 

adequate workspace in a topographically constrained area. The 

ATWS will be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the water’s 

edge. In addition, 25 ft of ATWS is located across this stream to 

provide safe and adequate workspace along a steep side slope. 

At the crossing of Redrock Canyon Creek at approximately MP 

5.01 ATWS will be located within 50 feet of the stream to provide 

safe and adequate workspace for the crossing of Highway 66. 

The ATWS will be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the water’s 

edge. 

 At the crossing of East Canyon Creek at approximately MP 5.40 

ATWS will be located within 50 feet of the stream to provide safe 

and adequate workspace for crossing the existing Kern River 

mainline in a topographically constrained area. The ATWS will be 

set back a minimum of 10 feet from the water’s edge. 
6

 At the crossing of Sheep Canyon at approximately MP 6.25 ATWS 

will be located within 50 feet of the stream to provide safe and 

adequate workspace for the stream crossing in a topographically 

constrained area. The ATWS will be set back a minimum of 10 

feet from the water’s edge. 

 At the crossing of Holbrook Creek at approximately MP 16.52 

ATWS will be located within 50 feet of the stream to provide safe 

and adequate workspace in a topographically constrained area. 

The ATWS will be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the water’s 

edge. 

 At the crossing of Northwest Oil Drain at approximately MP 26.82 

ATWS will be located within 50 feet of the stream to provide safe 

and adequate workspace for a bored stream crossing. The 

Northwest Oil Drain has raised dikes on each side of the 

waterbody that will act to buffer the waterbody from construction 

activities. The ATWS will be set back a minimum of 10 feet from 

outer toe of the dike. 

 At the crossing of Jordan River at approximately MP 27.16 ATWS 

will be located within 50 feet of the stream to provide safe and 

adequate workspace for a bored stream crossing. The Jordan 

River has raised dikes on each side of the waterbody that will act 

to buffer the waterbody from construction activities. The ATWS 

will be set back a minimum of 10 feet from outer toe of the dike. 

 At the crossing of City Drain at approximately MP 27.48 ATWS will 

be located within 50 feet of the stream to provide safe and 

adequate workspace for a bored stream crossing. The City Drain 

has raised dikes on each side of the waterbody that will act to 

buffer the waterbody from construction activities. The ATWS will 

be set back a minimum of 10 feet from outer toe of the dike. 

Applicable FERC Procedures Text 

Locate all extra work areas (such as staging areas and additional spoil 

storage areas) at least 50 feet away from water’s edge, except where the 

adjacent upland consists of actively cultivated or rotated cropland or other 

disturbed land. 

 

b. Kern River will file with the Secretary for review and written 

approval by the Director, a site-specific construction plan for each 

extra work area with a less than 50-foot setback from the water's 

edge, (except where the adjacent upland consists of actively 

cultivated or rotated cropland or other disturbed land) and a sitespecific explanation of the conditions that will not permit a 50-foot 

setback.
7

c. Limit clearing of vegetation between extra work areas and the 

edge of the waterbody to the certificated construction right-of-way. 

d. Limit the size of extra work areas to the minimum needed to 

construct the waterbody crossing.

3. General Crossing Procedures 

a. Comply with the COE, or its delegated agency, permit terms and 

conditions. 

b. Construct crossings as close to perpendicular to the axis of the 

waterbody channel as engineering and routing conditions permit. 

c. If the pipeline parallels a waterbody, attempt to maintain at least 

15 feet of undisturbed vegetation between the waterbody (and any 

adjacent wetland) and the construction right-of-way. 

d. Where waterbodies meander or have multiple channels, route the 

pipeline to minimize the number of waterbody crossings. 

e. Maintain adequate flow rates to protect aquatic life, and prevent 

the interruption of existing downstream uses. 

f. Waterbody buffers (extra work area setbacks, refueling 

restrictions, etc.) must be clearly marked in the field with signs 

and/or highly visible flagging until construction-related ground 

disturbing activities are complete. 

g. Where the Project crosses intermittent or ephemeral streams that 

are dry, Kern River will use mainline construction techniques. To 

minimize downstream sedimentation in the event that stream flow 

may begin before the crossing is complete, Kern River will install 

hay bales across the streambed downstream of the crossing 

location. As a preventative BMP, Kern River will preclude refueling 

and handling of hazardous materials within an exclusion zone of 

100 feet from a dry drainage. These BMPs would be installed after 

clearing and before any construction takes place within the dry 

stream bed. 

. Should a rainfall event occur that leads to perceptible flow in an 

intermittent or ephemeral stream during the time period from 

clearing/grading to re-establishing pre-existing contours following 

pipe backfilling, Kern River EIs, working with the Contractor’s 

representative, will conduct an assessment to determine the best 

management practice necessary to augment the straw hay bales 

placed as a preventative measure in the dry stream bed. The 

decision on which BMP is appropriate will be based on the 

following factors: four-day weather forecast; size of drainage basin 

above the waterbody crossing point; and, anticipated longevity of 

the erosion control device. BMPs may include: silt fence; super-silt 

fence (steel pole and chain-link fence supports for silt fence); 

armored earthen berm with high flow spillway; flume pipe; and 

dam and pump. Storm water runoff along the construction ROW 
8

will be routed off ROW using temporary slope breakers. The 

banks of dry drainages will be stabilized immediately following the 

backfilling of a section of pipe that includes that dry drainage. 

Final restoration of the area surrounding the dry drainage will be 

conducted during the cleanup of the construction ROW 

surrounding the drainage. Kern River will conduct post-rain event 

monitoring to remedy any issues at dry drainages within 24 hours 

of precipitation events. Other than these measures previously 

described, construction across a previously dry stream bed would 

continue using standard mainline construction practices. 

4. Spoil Pile Placement and Control 

a. All spoil from minor and intermediate waterbody crossings, and 

upland spoil from major waterbody crossings, must be placed in 

the construction right-of-way at least 10 feet from the water's edge 

or in additional extra work areas as described in section V.B.2. 

Where practical, Kern River will place spoils at an elevation above 

top of bank. 

b. Use sediment barriers to prevent the flow of spoil or heavily siltladen water into any waterbody. 

5. Equipment Bridges 

a. Only clearing equipment and equipment necessary for installation 

of equipment bridges may cross waterbodies prior to bridge 

installation. Limit the number of such crossings of each 

waterbody to one per piece of clearing equipment. 

b. Construct equipment bridges to maintain unrestricted flow and to 

prevent soil from entering the waterbody. Examples of such 

bridges include: 

(1) equipment pads and culvert(s); 

(2) equipment pads or railroad car bridges without culverts; 

(3) clean rock fill and culvert(s); and 

(4) flexi-float or portable bridges. 

Additional options for equipment bridges may be utilized that 

achieve the performance objectives noted above. Do not use soil 

to construct or stabilize equipment bridges. 

c. Design and maintain each equipment bridge to withstand and 

pass the highest flow expected to occur while the bridge is in 

place. Align culverts to prevent bank erosion or streambed scour. 

If necessary, install energy dissipating devices downstream of the 

culverts. 
9

d. Design and maintain equipment bridges to prevent soil from 

entering the waterbody. 

e. Remove equipment bridges as soon as possible after permanent 

seeding unless the COE, or its delegated agency, authorizes it as 

a permanent bridge. 

f. If there will be more than 1 month between final cleanup and the 

beginning of permanent seeding and reasonable alternative 

access to the right-of-way is available, remove equipment bridges 

as soon as possible after final cleanup. 

g. Temporary equipment bridges will be installed at all drainages to 

accommodate flow and move construction across the spread. 

6. Dry-Ditch Crossing Methods 

a. Unless approved otherwise by the appropriate state agency, 

install the pipeline using one of the dry-ditch methods outlined 

below for crossings of waterbodies up to 30 feet wide (at the 

water's edge at the time of construction) that are state-designated 

as either coldwater or significant coolwater or warmwater 

fisheries. 

b. Dam and Pump 

(1) The dam-and-pump method may be used without prior 

approval for crossings of waterbodies where pumps can 

adequately transfer streamflow volumes around the work 

area, and there are no concerns about sensitive species 

passage. 

(2) Implementation of the dam-and-pump crossing method 

must meet the following performance criteria: 

(i) use sufficient pumps, including on-site backup 

pumps, to maintain downstream flows; 

(ii) construct dams with materials that prevent 

sediment and other pollutants from entering the 

waterbody (e.g., sandbags or clean gravel with 

plastic liner); 

(iii) screen pump intakes; 

(iv) prevent streambed scour at pump discharge; and 

(v) monitor the dam and pumps to ensure proper 

operation throughout the waterbody crossing. 
10

c. Flume Crossing 

The flume crossing method requires implementation of the 

following steps: 

(1) install flume pipe after blasting (if necessary), but before 

any trenching; 

(2) use sand bag or sand bag and plastic sheeting diversion 

structure or equivalent to develop an effective seal and to 

divert stream flow through the flume pipe (some 

modifications to the stream bottom may be required in to 

achieve an effective seal); 

(3) properly align flume pipe(s) to prevent bank erosion and 

streambed scour; 

(4) do not remove flume pipe during trenching, pipelaying, or 

backfilling activities, or initial streambed restoration efforts; 

and 

(5) remove all flume pipes and dams that are not also part of 

the equipment bridge as soon as final cleanup of the 

stream bed and bank is complete.

d. Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD) 

To the extent they were not provided as part of the precertification process, for each waterbody or wetland that would be 

crossed using the HDD method, provide a plan that includes: 

(1) site-specific construction diagrams that show the location 

of mud pits, pipe assembly areas, and all areas to be 

disturbed or cleared for construction; 

(2) a description of how an inadvertent release of drilling mud 

would be contained and cleaned up; 

(3) a contingency plan for crossing the waterbody or wetland 

in the event the directional drill is unsuccessful and how 

the abandoned drill hole would be sealed, if necessary; 

7. Crossings of Minor Waterbodies 

Where a dry-ditch crossing is not required, minor waterbodies may be 

crossed using the open-cut crossing method, with the following 

restrictions: 

a. except for blasting and other rock breaking measures, complete 

instream construction activities (including trenching, pipe 

installation, backfill, and restoration of the streambed contours) 

within 24 hours. Streambanks and unconsolidated streambeds 

may require additional restoration after this period; 
11

b. limit use of equipment operating in the waterbody to that needed 

to construct the crossing; and 

c. equipment bridges are not required at minor waterbodies that do 

not have a state-designated fishery classification (e.g., agricultural 

or intermittent drainage ditches). However, if an equipment bridge 

is used it must be constructed as described in section V.B.5. 

d. Pipe segments may be welded together and temporally strung 

above and across the waterbody feature until the pipeline is 

installed, where practical. The pipeline shall be placed in a 

manner that will not obstruct highest expected flows of the stream. 

8. Crossings of Intermediate Waterbodies 

Where a dry-ditch crossing is not required, intermediate waterbodies may 

be crossed using the open-cut crossing method, with the following 

restrictions: 

a. complete instream construction activities (not including blasting 

and other rock breaking measures) within 48 hours, unless sitespecific conditions make completion within 48 hours infeasible; 

b. limit use of equipment operating in the waterbody to that needed 

to construct the crossing; and 

c. all other construction equipment must cross on an equipment 

bridge as specified in section V.B.5. 

9. Crossings of Major Waterbodies 

Before construction, Kern River will file with the Secretary for the review 

and written approval by the Director a detailed, site-specific construction 

plan and scaled drawings identifying all areas to be disturbed by 

construction for each major waterbody crossing. This plan will be 

developed in consultation with the appropriate state and Federal agencies 

and will include extra work areas, spoil storage areas, sediment control 

structures, consideration of fish passage, where appropriate, as well as 

mitigation for navigational issues. 

The Environmental Inspector may adjust the final placement of the 

erosion and sediment control structures in the field to maximize 

effectiveness. 

10. Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control 

Install sediment barriers (as defined in section IV.F.2.a. of the Plan) 

immediately after initial disturbance of the waterbody or adjacent upland. 

Sediment barriers must be properly maintained throughout construction 

and reinstalled as necessary (such as after backfilling of the trench) until 

replaced by permanent erosion controls or restoration of adjacent upland 

areas is complete. Temporary erosion and sediment control measures 

are addressed in more detail in the Plan; however, the following specific 

measures must be implemented at stream crossings: 
12

a. install sediment barriers across the entire construction right-of-way 

at all waterbody crossings, where necessary to prevent the flow of 

sediments into the waterbody. In the travel lane, these may 

consist of removable sediment barriers or drivable berms. 

Removable sediment barriers can be removed during the 

construction day, but must be re-installed after construction has 

stopped for the day and/or when heavy precipitation is imminent; 

b. where waterbodies are adjacent to the construction right-of-way, 

install sediment barriers along the edge of the construction rightof-way as necessary to contain spoil and sediment within the 

construction right-of-way; and 

c. use trench plugs at all waterbody crossings, as necessary, to 

prevent diversion of water into upland portions of the pipeline 

trench and to keep any accumulated trench water out of the 

waterbody. 

d. On approaches to stream crossings and where practical, 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 routed via temporary 

conveyance structures to the base of the approach slope where it 

can infiltrate into the riparian zone). 

11. Trench Dewatering 

Dewater the trench (either on or off the construction right-of-way) in a 

manner that does not cause erosion and does not result in heavily siltladen water flowing into any waterbody. Remove the dewatering 

structures as soon as possible after the completion of dewatering 

activities. 

C. RESTORATION 

1. Use clean gravel or native cobbles for the upper 1 foot of trench backfill in 

all waterbodies that contain coldwater fisheries. 

2. For open-cut crossings, stabilize waterbody banks and install temporary 

sediment barriers within 24 hours of completing instream construction 

activities. For dry-ditch crossings, complete streambed and bank 

stabilization before returning flow to the waterbody channel. 

3. Return all waterbody banks to preconstruction contours or to a stable 

angle of repose as approved by the Environmental Inspector. 

4. Application of riprap for bank stabilization will comply with COE, or its 

delegated agency, permit terms and conditions. 

5. Unless otherwise specified by state permit, limit the use of riprap to areas 

where flow conditions preclude effective vegetative stabilization 

techniques such as seeding and erosion control fabric. 
13

6. Revegetate disturbed riparian areas with conservation grasses and 

legumes or native plant species, preferably woody species. 

7. Install a permanent slope breaker across the construction right-of-way at 

the base of slopes greater than 5 percent that are less than 50 feet from 

the waterbody, or as needed to prevent sediment transport into the 

waterbody. In addition, install sediment barriers as outlined in the Plan. 

In some areas, with the approval of the Environmental Inspector, an 

earthen berm may be suitable as a sediment barrier adjacent to the 

waterbody. 

8. Sections V.C.3. through V.C.6. above also apply to those perennial or 

intermittent streams not flowing at the time of construction. 

D. POST-CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE 

1. Limit vegetation maintenance adjacent to waterbodies to allow a riparian 

strip at least 25 feet wide, as measured from the waterbody's mean high 

water mark, to permanently revegetate with native plant species across 

the entire construction right-of-way. However, to facilitate periodic 

pipeline corrosion/leak surveys, a corridor centered on the pipeline and 

up to 10 feet wide may be maintained in a herbaceous state. In addition, 

trees that are located within 15 feet of the pipeline that are greater than 

15 feet in height may be cut and removed from the permanent right-ofway. 

2. Do not use herbicides or pesticides in or within 100 feet of a waterbody 

except as allowed by the appropriate land management or state agency. 

VI. WETLAND CROSSINGS

A. GENERAL 

1. Kern River will conduct a wetland delineation using the current Federal 

methodology and file a wetland delineation report with the Secretary 

before construction. This report shall identify: 

a. by milepost all wetlands that would be affected;

b. the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) classification for each 

wetland; 

c. the crossing length of each wetland in feet; and 

d. the area of permanent and temporary disturbance that would 

occur in each wetland by NWI classification type. 

The requirements outlined in this section do not apply to wetlands in 

actively cultivated or rotated cropland. Standard upland protective 

measures, including workspace and topsoiling requirements, apply to 

these agricultural wetlands. 
14

2. Route the pipeline to avoid wetland areas to the maximum extent 

possible. If a wetland cannot be avoided or crossed by following an 

existing right-of-way, route the new pipeline in a manner that minimizes 

disturbance to wetlands. 

3. Limit the width of the nominal construction right-of-way to 100 feet 

or less in wetlands. Prior written approval of the Director is required 

where topographic conditions or soil limitations require that the 

construction right-of-way width within the boundaries of a federally 

delineated wetland be expanded beyond 100 feet. Kern River has 

identified and included in the FERC NGA 7c Application the 

locations of higher value wetland crossings where a 75-foot or less 

construction corridor could be maintained. 

Applicable FERC Procedures Text 

Limit the width of the construction right-of-way to 75 feet or less. Prior written 

approval of the Director is required where topographic conditions or soil 

limitations require that the construction right-of-way width within the 

boundaries of a federally delineated wetland be expanded beyond 75 feet. 

Early in the planning process the project sponsor is encouraged to identify 

site-specific areas where existing soils lack adequate unconfined compressive 

strength that would result in excessively wide ditches and/or difficult to contain 

spoil piles. 

 

4. Wetland boundaries and buffers must be clearly marked in the field with 

signs and/or highly visible flagging until construction-related ground 

disturbing activities are complete. 

5. Implement the measures of sections V. and VI. in the event a waterbody 

crossing is located within or adjacent to a wetland crossing. If all 

measures of sections V. and VI. cannot be met, Kern River shall file with 

the Secretary a site-specific crossing plan for review and written approval 

by the Director before construction. This crossing plan shall address at a 

minimum: 

a. spoil control; 

b. equipment bridges; 

c. restoration of waterbody banks and wetland hydrology; 

d. timing of the waterbody crossing; 

e. method of crossing; and 

f. size and location of all extra work areas. 
15

6. Do not locate aboveground facilities in any wetland, except where the 

location of such facilities outside of wetlands would prohibit compliance 

with U.S. Department of Transportation regulations. 

B. INSTALLATION 

1. Extra Work Areas and Access Roads 

a. Generally locate extra work areas (such as staging areas and 

additional spoil storage areas) at least 50 feet away from 

wetland boundaries, except where the adjacent upland 

consists of actively cultivated or rotated cropland or other 

disturbed land.

ATWS will be located within Wetland WMO-006 at approximately 

MP 5.41. The ATWS is required to provide safe and adequate 

workspace for crossing the existing Kern River mainline and East 

Canyon Creek in a topographically constrained area. 

 ATWS will be located within Wetland WDA-101 at approximately 

MP 19.01. The ATWS is required to provide safe and adequate 

workspace for crossing Mill Creek in a topographically constrained 

area. 

 ATWS will be located within 50 feet of Wetland WDA-003A at

approximately MP 20.43. The ATWS is required to provide safe 

and adequate workspace for crossing North Canyon Creek in a 

topographically constrained area. 

 ATWS will be located within Wetland WDA-001 at approximately 

MP 26.72, MP 26.78 and MP 26.93. The ATWS is required to 

provide safe and adequate workspace for bored crossings of 

Northwest Oil Drain and Redwood Road, and the installation of a 

redundant delivery tap. 

Applicable FERC Procedures Text 

Locate all extra work areas (such as staging areas and additional spoil storage 

areas) at least 50 feet away from wetland boundaries, except where the adjacent 

upland consists of actively cultivated or rotated cropland or other disturbed land. 

 

b. Kern River will file with the Secretary for review and written 

approval by the Director, a site-specific construction plan for each 

extra work area with a less than 50-foot setback from wetland 

boundaries (except where adjacent upland consists of actively 

cultivated or rotated cropland or other disturbed land) and a sitespecific explanation of the conditions that will not permit a 50-foot 

setback. 
16

c. Limit clearing of vegetation between extra work areas and the 

edge of the wetland to the certificated construction right-of-way. 

d. The construction right-of-way may be used for access when the 

wetland soil is firm enough to avoid rutting or the construction 

right-of-way has been appropriately stabilized to avoid rutting 

(e.g., with timber riprap, prefabricated equipment mats, or terra 

mats). 

In wetlands that cannot be appropriately stabilized, all construction 

equipment other than that needed to install the wetland crossing 

shall use access roads located in upland areas. Where access 

roads in upland areas do not provide reasonable access, limit all 

other construction equipment to one pass through the wetland 

using the construction right-of-way. 

e. The only access roads, other than the construction right-of-way, 

that can be used in wetlands without Director approval, are those 

existing roads that can be used with no modification and no 

impact on the wetland. 

2. Crossing Procedures 

a. Comply with COE, or its delegated agency, permit terms and 

conditions 

b. Assemble the pipeline in an upland area unless the wetland is dry 

enough to adequately support skids and pipe. 

c. Use "push-pull" or "float" techniques to place the pipe in the trench 

where water and other site conditions allow. 

d. Minimize the length of time that topsoil is segregated and the 

trench is open. 

e. Limit construction equipment operating in wetland areas to that 

needed to clear the construction right-of-way, dig the trench, 

fabricate and install the pipeline, backfill the trench, and restore 

the construction right-of-way. 

f. Cut vegetation just aboveground level, leaving existing root 

systems in place, and remove it from the wetland for disposal. 

g. Limit pulling of tree stumps and grading activities to directly over 

the trenchline. Do not grade or remove stumps or root systems 

from the rest of the construction right-of-way in wetlands unless 

the Chief Inspector and Environmental Inspector determine that 

safety-related construction constraints require grading or the 

removal of tree stumps from under the working side of the 

construction right-of-way. 
17

h. Segregate the top 1 foot of topsoil from the area disturbed by 

trenching, except in areas where standing water is present or soils 

are saturated or frozen. Immediately after backfilling is complete, 

restore the segregated topsoil to its original location. 

i. Do not use rock, soil imported from outside the wetland, tree 

stumps, or brush riprap to support equipment on the construction 

right-of-way. 

j. If standing water or saturated soils are present, or if construction 

equipment causes ruts or mixing of the topsoil and subsoil in 

wetlands, use low-ground-weight construction equipment, or 

operate normal equipment on timber riprap, prefabricated 

equipment mats, or terra mats. 

k. Do not cut trees outside of the approved construction work area to 

obtain timber for riprap or equipment mats. 

l. Attempt to use no more than two layers of timber riprap to support 

equipment on the construction right-of-way. 

m. Remove all project-related material used to support equipment on 

the construction right-of-way upon completion of construction. 

3. Temporary Sediment Control 

Install sediment barriers (as defined in section IV.F.2.a. of the Plan) 

immediately after initial disturbance of the wetland or adjacent upland. 

Sediment barriers must be properly maintained throughout construction 

and reinstalled as necessary (such as after backfilling of the trench). 

Except as noted below in section VI.B.3.c., maintain sediment barriers 

until replaced by permanent erosion controls or restoration of adjacent 

upland areas is complete. Temporary erosion and sediment control 

measures are addressed in more detail in the Plan. 

a. Install sediment barriers across the entire construction right-ofway at all wetland crossings where necessary to prevent sediment 

flow into the wetland. In the travel lane, these may consist of 

removable sediment barriers or driveable berms. Removable 

sediment barriers can be removed during the construction day, but 

must be re-installed after construction has stopped for the day 

and/or when heavy precipitation is imminent. 

b. Where wetlands are adjacent to the construction right-of-way and 

the right-of-way slopes toward the wetland, install sediment 

barriers along the edge of the construction right-of-way as 

necessary to prevent sediment flow into the wetland. 

c. Install sediment barriers along the edge of the construction rightof-way as necessary to contain spoil and sediment within the 

construction right-of-way through wetlands. Remove these 

sediment barriers during right-of-way cleanup. 
18

4. Trench Dewatering 

Dewater the trench (either on or off the construction right-of-way) in a 

manner that does not cause erosion and does not result in heavily siltladen water flowing into any wetland. Remove the dewatering structures 

as soon as possible after the completion of dewatering activities. 

C. RESTORATION 

1. Where the pipeline trench may drain a wetland, construct trench breakers 

and/or seal the trench bottom as necessary to maintain the original 

wetland hydrology. 

2. For each wetland crossed, install a trench breaker at the base of slopes 

near the boundary between the wetland and adjacent upland areas. 

Install a permanent slope breaker across the construction right-of-way at 

the base of slopes greater than 5 percent where the base of the slope is 

less than 50 feet from the wetland, or as needed to prevent sediment 

transport into the wetland. In addition, install sediment barriers as 

outlined in the Plan. In some areas, with the approval of the 

Environmental Inspector, an earthen berm may be suitable as a sediment 

barrier adjacent to the wetland. 

3. Do not use fertilizer, lime, or mulch unless required in writing by the 

appropriate land management or state agency. 

4. Consult with the appropriate land management or state agency to 

develop a project-specific wetland restoration plan. The restoration plan 

should include measures for re-establishing herbaceous and/or woody 

species, controlling the invasion and spread of undesirable exotic species 

(e.g., purple loosestrife and phragmites), and monitoring the success of 

the revegetation and weed control efforts. Provide this plan to the FERC 

staff upon request. 

5. Until a project-specific wetland restoration plan is developed and/or 

implemented, temporarily revegetate the construction right-of-way with 

annual ryegrass at a rate of 40 pounds/acre (unless standing water is 

present). 

6. Ensure that all disturbed areas successfully revegetate with wetland 

herbaceous and/or woody plant species. 

7. Remove temporary sediment barriers located at the boundary between 

wetland and adjacent upland areas after upland revegetation and 

stabilization of adjacent upland areas are judged to be successful as 

specified in section VII.A.5. of the Plan. 
19

D. POST-CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE 

1. Do not conduct vegetation maintenance over the full width of the 

permanent right-of-way in wetlands. However, to facilitate periodic 

pipeline corrosion/leak surveys, a corridor centered on the pipeline and 

up to 10 feet wide may be maintained in an herbaceous state. In 

addition, trees within 15 feet of the pipeline and greater than 15 feet in 

height may be selectively cut and removed from the permanent right-ofway. 

2. Do not use herbicides or pesticides in or within 100 feet of a wetland, 

except as allowed by the appropriate land management agency or state 

agency. 

3. Monitor and record the success of wetland revegetation annually for the 

first 3 years after construction or until wetland revegetation is successful. 

At the end of 3 years after construction, file a report with the Secretary 

identifying the status of the wetland revegetation efforts. Include the 

percent cover achieved and problem areas (weed invasion issues, poor 

revegetation, etc.). Continue to file a report annually until wetland 

revegetation is successful. 

4. Wetland revegetation shall be considered successful if the cover of 

herbaceous and/or woody species is at least 80 percent of the type, 

density, and distribution of the vegetation in adjacent wetland areas that 

were not disturbed by construction. If revegetation is not successful at 

the end of 3 years, develop and implement (in consultation with a 

professional wetland ecologist) a remedial revegetation plan to actively 

revegetate the wetland. Continue revegetation efforts until wetland 

revegetation is successful. 

VII. HYDROSTATIC TESTING

A. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES AND PERMITS 

1. Apply for state-issued water withdrawal permits, as required. 

2. Apply for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) or 

state-issued discharge permits, as required. 

3. Notify appropriate state agencies of intent to use specific sources at least 

48 hours before testing activities unless they waive this requirement in 

writing. 

B. GENERAL 

1. Perform non-destructive testing of all pipeline section welds or hydrotest 

the pipeline sections, before installation under waterbodies or wetlands. 

2. If pumps used for hydrostatic testing are within 100 feet of any waterbody 

or wetland, these operations must be manned 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 must be provided. 
20

3. Kern River will include a list identifying the location of all waterbodies 

proposed for use as a hydrostatic test water source or discharge location 

in the FERC NGA 7c Application. 

C. INTAKE SOURCE AND RATE 

1. Screen the intake hose to prevent entrainment of fish. 

2. Do not use state-designated exceptional value waters, waterbodies which 

provide habitat for federally listed threatened or endangered species, or 

waterbodies designated as public water supplies, unless appropriate 

Federal, state, and/or local permitting agencies grant written permission. 

3. Maintain adequate flow rates to protect aquatic life, provide for all 

waterbody uses, and provide for downstream withdrawals of water by 

existing users. 

4. Locate hydrostatic test manifolds outside wetlands and riparian areas to 

the maximum extent practicable. 

D. DISCHARGE LOCATION, METHOD, AND RATE 

1. Regulate discharge rate, use energy dissipation device(s), and install 

sediment barriers, as necessary, to prevent erosion, streambed scour, 

suspension of sediments, or excessive streamflow. 

2. Do not discharge into state-designated exceptional value waters, 

waterbodies which provide habitat for federally listed threatened or 

endangered species, or waterbodies designated as public water supplies, 

unless appropriate Federal, state, and local permitting agencies grant 

written permission. 
APPENDIX F 

RECLAMATION PLAN 
KERN RIVER GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY 

Reclamation Plan 

Docket No. CP10-XX 

Kern River Gas Transmission 

Apex Expansion Project 

November 2009 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RECLAMATION PLAN

Page i

Table of Contents 

1. Introduction...........................................................................................................1-1

2. Plan Purpose.........................................................................................................2-1

3. Plan Goals and Objectives...................................................................................3-1

4. Project Description...............................................................................................4-1

5. Reclamation Schedule..........................................................................................5-1

6. Reclamation Process............................................................................................6-1

6.1 Reclamation Treatments.........................................................................................6-1

6.2 Reclamation Treatments for the Wasatch Loop Closure ........................................6-1

6.2.1 Clearing, Grading, and Topsoil Removal................................................................6-2

6.2.2 Right-of-Way Restoration........................................................................................6-4

6.2.3 Revegetation...........................................................................................................6-6

6.3 Reclamation Treatment for Steep Slopes and Erodible Soils...............................6-16

6.3.1 Reclamation Procedures ......................................................................................6-17

6.4 Reclamation Treatment for Stream/Wash/Wetland Crossings and Riparian 

Areas ....................................................................................................................6-19

6.5 Reclamation for Visually Sensitive Areas .............................................................6-21

6.6 Reclamation Treatment for Above Ground Facilities ............................................6-21

7. Post-Construction Monitoring and Maintenance...............................................7-1

7.1 Apex Expansion Project Monitoring and Maintenance ...........................................7-1

7.1.1 Revegetation Performance Criteria.........................................................................7-2

7.1.2 Remedial Action and Maintenance .........................................................................7-2

7.2 Reporting ................................................................................................................7-3

8. Off-Highway Vehicle Control ...............................................................................8-1

9. References.............................................................................................................9-1

Appendix A Typical Drawings ........................................................................................... A-1
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RECLAMATION PLAN

Page ii

List of Tables 

Table 6-1 Water Bars Spacing Guidelines .........................................................................6-6

Table 6-2 Mixture UT–1....................................................................................................6-10

Table 6-3 Mixture UT–2....................................................................................................6-10

Table 6-4 Mixture UT–3....................................................................................................6-11

Table 6-5 Mixture UT–3A..................................................................................................6-11

Table 6-6 Mixture UT–4....................................................................................................6-14

List of Figures 

Figure 4-1 Wasatch Loop Pipeline Overview.......................................................................4-3

Figure 4-2 Typical Pipeline Construction Sequence............................................................4-5

Figure 6-1 Typical Great Basin Sagebrush Community within the Project Corridor ............6-9

Figure 6-2 Typical Riparian and Canyon Woodland Community within Project Area..........6-9

Figure 6-3 Typical Mountain Mahogany – Oak Scrub Community ....................................6-12

Figure 6-4 Douglas Fir Community within the Project Corridor..........................................6-13
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RECLAMATION PLAN

Page iii

List of Acronyms 

ac acres 

ATWS Additional Temporary Work Space 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

Dth/d Dekatherms per day 

EI Environmental Inspector 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

ft feet/foot 

hp horsepower 

ISO International Organization for Standardization 

lbs pounds 

MP Milepost 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

OHV Off-highway Vehicle 

PLS Pure Live Seed 

ROWROWs Right(s)-of-Way 

UDWR Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USFS United States Forest Service 

UWCNF Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RECLAMATION PLAN

Page 1-1

1. INTRODUCTION 

This Reclamation Plan has been prepared by the Kern River Gas Transmission 

Company (Kern River) for the proposed Apex Expansion Project (Project). 

Kern River Gas Transmission Company (Kern River) is proposing to construct, own and 

operate facilities necessary to expand its existing interstate pipeline system, which extends from 

southwestern Wyoming to southern California. The expansion, referred to as the “Apex 

Expansion Project” (Project), will provide an additional 266,000 dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of 

incremental firm transportation service from existing receipt points in southwestern Wyoming to 

existing delivery points in southern Nevada. This incremental capacity will increase Kern 

River’s summer design capacity to 2,142,126 Dth/d. The increased capacity will serve new and 

existing electric generation facilities near Las Vegas, Nevada. The facilities required to provide 

this service include approximately 28.01 miles1 of 36-inch-diameter pipeline in an unlooped 

section of Kern River’s pipeline system through the Wasatch Mountains in northern Utah 

(Wasatch Loop), 78,000 horsepower (ISO hp) of additional compression at three existing 

compressor stations and one new compressor station. In order to maximize operational 

efficiency under the expansion design conditions, three existing boost compressors will be 

restaged and a fourth will be replaced. No new meter station facilities are required. Other 

aboveground facilities will include new mainline block valves, pig launchers/receivers and a 

branch connection to provide an existing meter facility with a redundant supply from the 

Wasatch Loop pipeline. There also will be non-jurisdictional facilities associated with this 

Project, which are discussed in Section 1.2. Specifically, the Project includes the following: 

■ Wasatch Loop (Morgan, Davis and Salt Lake Counties, Utah). Approximately 28.01 

miles of 36-inch diameter pipeline, looping the existing Kern River mainline; 

■ Coyote Creek Compressor Station (Uinta County, Wyoming). An additional 16,000 hp 

compressor unit at Kern River’s existing Coyote Creek compressor station and the restaging 

of the existing boost compressor; 

■ Elberta Compressor Station (Utah County, Utah). An additional 16,000 hp compressor 

unit at Kern River’s existing Elberta compressor station and the restaging of the existing 

boost compressor; 

■ Fillmore Compressor Station (Millard County, Utah). Replacement of a boost 

compressor at Kern River’s existing Fillmore compressor station; 

 

1

 The horizontal survey length of the proposed Wasatch Loop alignment is 28.01 miles. All documentation supporting this 

application (alignment sheets, feature tables, drawings and other related information) is based upon that alignment length and 

the associated milepost references. Exhibits G and G-II reflect a pipeline length of 28.7 miles, which includes an additional 0.69 

miles of pipeline that will be required to traverse dramatic elevation changes along that alignment. 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RECLAMATION PLAN

Page 1-2

■ Milford Compressor Station (Beaver County, Utah). A new single-unit 30,000 hp 

compressor station; and 

■ Dry Lake Compressor Station (Clark County, Nevada). An additional 16,000 hp 

compressor unit at Kern River’s existing Dry Lake compressor station and the restaging of 

the existing boost compressor. 

Construction is scheduled to begin in October 2010 with facilities placed in-service by 

November 1, 2011. Kern River proposes to begin construction at the Milford and Dry Lake 

compressor stations, on some of the lower-elevation portions of the pipeline route (MP 25.50 to 

MP 28.01), and the crossing of East Canyon Creek (MP 5.28) in late fall/early winter 2010. The 

remainder of the Project will be constructed during the 2011 construction season. Late 2010 

construction is proposed for the lower-elevation portions of the Wasatch Loop and the crossing 

of East Canyon Creek to coincide with periods of lowest water levels. The Milford and Dry Lake 

compressor station locations are not subject to winter climate conditions that would affect a 

construction stoppage. Kern River has prepared a detailed Winter Construction Plan for any 

portions of the Wasatch Loop and compressor stations that are planned for construction during 

winter months. Kern River expects to complete construction of the Project before the onset of 

winter 2011. 

Development of the Reclamation Plan included consultation with the United States 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), United 

States Forest Service (USFS) Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest (UWCNF) Ranger District, 

United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 

(UDWR) to address those portions of the Project that pass through their respective jurisdictions. 

This Reclamation Plan has been developed to address site-specific conditions found 

along the Wasatch Loop and addresses all pipeline-related disturbance, as described in 

Resource Report No. 1, General Project Description (Exhibit F-1). This Reclamation Plan

incorporates standard erosion, sediment control and restoration procedures or criteria that have 

been proven to be effective and are in widespread use by the natural gas pipeline industry. In 

addition, this Reclamation Plan is derived from previously permitted reclamation plans prepared 

and implemented for the original construction of the Kern River pipeline system in 1991 and as 

modified and implemented during the 2003 Kern River Expansion Project. This Reclamation 

Plan builds on specific measures that were proposed and successfully implemented by Kern 

River during the construction of their 2003 Expansion Project. In addition, Kern River has 

incorporated recent technical standards, experience and other information into this Reclamation 

Plan, obtained through consultation with the NRCS, USFS, BLM, and UDWR. This Reclamation
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RECLAMATION PLAN

Page 1-3

Plan also incorporates FERC’s Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan 

(the FERC Plan) and Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (the 

FERC Procedures) as included in Appendix 7B in Resource Report No. 7. Kern River has also 

incorporated restoration procedures and referenced other environmental information contained 

in Kern River’s Environmental Report and supporting materials filed with the FERC under 

Docket No. CP09-07 for the Project. 

Final site-specific plans for sensitive visual resource areas may be developed as part of 

the post-certificate final Implementation Plan(s) as required before construction. Kern River is in 

the process of developing a Visual Resources Assessment Plan for the proposed Project, in 

consultation with the USFS and BLM. This Visual Resources Assessment Plan will include the 

identification of visually sensitive areas or scenic resources that may be visually impacted by the 

proposed Project, and measures to be implemented to avoid, minimize, or mitigate for visual 

impacts during reclamation activities at selected locations. This Reclamation Plan will be 

supplemented with the additional site-specific visual mitigation treatment plans when completed 

in 2010. These visual resources mitigation plans may also include additional landowner or 

other land management agency requirements as well as any special conditions or 

recommendations of the FERC staff as incorporated into the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement.
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RECLAMATION PLAN

Page 2-1

2. PLAN PURPOSE 

The purpose of this Reclamation Plan is to describe and prescribe methods for topsoil 

handling, erosion and sediment control, reclamation monitoring, clean-up, and restoration of 

habitats. This Reclamation Plan is applicable to the pipeline construction right-of-way (ROW), 

areas of additional temporary work space (ATWS) along the ROW, staging areas, pipe yards, 

existing temporary access roads where modifications are necessary and compressor stations. 

Minor modifications to this Reclamation Plan may be approved by the Environmental Inspector 

(EI) when site-specific conditions warrant. For example, minor modifications may include but 

are not limited to permitted procedures such as the placement or type of mulch or erosion and 

sediment control structures at specific locations. Minor modifications may also include 

adjustments of ROW or work space configuration provided that the areas have been surveyed 

and cleared for biological and cultural resources, existing landowner concurrence is obtained 

and no new landowners are affected. Any major modifications to this Reclamation Plan, due to 

unforeseen conditions will be submitted to the FERC, USFS and BLM as appropriate for 

approval prior to implementing such modifications. For example, major modifications may 

include but are not limited to non-permitted route variations or necessary design changes that 

were not addressed in the original FERC certificate and UWCNF Plan Amendment, or further 

additional modifications required to the Kern River Reclamation Plan and Procedures based on 

actual site conditions encountered at the time of construction. 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RECLAMATION PLAN

Page 3-1

 3. PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 

Kern River is committed to the restoration of Project-related impacts on lands affected 

by the Project. As such, Kern River has developed short-term (0 to 1 year) and long-term (2 to 

3 year) reclamation goals for Project-related construction impacts. At a minimum, Kern River’s 

short-term goals include: 

■ reestablishing pre-construction contours and hydrologic patterns; 

■ minimization of on-site erosion; 

■ minimization of off-site sedimentation; 

■ re-establishment of the pre-construction vegetative communities, as appropriate; 

■ where possible, replacement and/or enhancement to wildlife habitats crossed; and 

■ establishment of post-construction vegetative monitoring stations. 

Kern River’s long-term goals include: 

■ soil stabilization; 

■ establishment of a sustainable vegetative cover; 

■ annual post-construction restoration monitoring for a minimum of three years; 

■ maintenance and repair of permanent erosion and sediment controls; 

■ a commitment to the restoration and protection of water resources; and 

■ a return to pre-existing land uses to the extent practical and consistent with Kern River’s 

operations and monitoring needs. 

At a minimum, Kern River will comply with the FERC Plan and the FERC Procedures as 

specifically modified for this Project and other applicable conditions as specified by the land 

management agencies. Kern River will meet its reclamation goals through implementation of 

this Reclamation Plan. 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RECLAMATION PLAN

Page 4-1

4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

Kern River selected its proposed route to follow its existing pipeline and other pipeline 

infrastructure, including the existing Questar pipeline, and the proposed UNEV pipeline (to be 

constructed in late 2009) where practical for 70% of its length. For the balance of the route, 

localized variations were incorporated to avoid or minimize crossing areas of more severe 

terrain and development which has occurred since the original Kern River mainline was 

constructed in 1991. Kern River plans to use a typical temporary construction ROW of 100 feet 

(ft) for installation of the 36-inch diameter pipe. Typically, the new pipeline loop will be offset 

35-ft from the existing pipeline and will use portions of the existing ROW as construction 

workspace to minimize new disturbance where possible. Construction will also require ATWS, 

staging areas, temporary pipe yards and access to the construction ROW. Kern River plans to 

use primarily existing public and private access roads. There is only one new temporary access 

road identified, in the vicinity of Interstate 215 and Redwood Road (MP 27.0), which will be 

removed and restored to pre-existing conditions following construction. Some of the existing 

access roads will require grading and maintenance to safely accommodate vehicles and 

equipment. 

Additional natural gas-fired turbine-driven centrifugal compressor units will be installed at 

the existing Coyote Creek, Elberta and Dry Lake compressor stations. Existing compressors at 

the Coyote Creek, Elberta and Dry Lake compressor stations will also be restaged (three 

compressor restages total) to accommodate the new units and improve operational efficiency. 

The boost compressor at the Fillmore compressor station will be replaced with a higher 

efficiency unit. In addition, a new compressor station will be constructed near Milford, Utah, on 

an approximately 33.16-acre site to include the installation of one new turbine/compressor unit. 

Two new mainline valves will be installed at locations along the proposed Wasatch Loop 

and two new mainline valves will be installed at the Milford compressor station. The mainline 

valves will be within the permanent ROW for the Wasatch Loop and within the proposed fence 

line for the Milford compressor station. 

The Project is located within three-major vegetation types (Albee et al. 1988), these 

include: Great Basin Sagebrush; Mountain Mahogany – Oak Scrub and Douglas Fir Forest. 

These vegetation types generally refer to the species or various combinations of species which 

have similar stature, morphology and appearance that dominate or appear to dominate 

(Stoddart 1975) the landscape. Environmental elements, such as climate, altitude, soils, 

hydrology, geology, wildlife and land use practices all influence these types. Within each of 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RECLAMATION PLAN

Page 4-2

these major-vegetative sub-divisions, isolated areas which support improved pastureland, 

annual crop production, wet meadow/emergent habitats, or riparian and canyon woodlands 

may also be included. 

Kern River also plans to construct two mainline valves along the Wasatch Loop at MP 

7.12 and MP 24.55, remove an existing launcher barrel at MP 28.01 and re-install that launcher 

barrel at MP 0.00. Figure 4-1 provides a general overview of the location of the proposed 

Wasatch Loop and compressor stations along the existing Kern River pipeline system. The 

proposed Project facilities are depicted on the Preliminary Alignment Sheets and other maps 

and drawings in the Mapping Supplement (Volume 3) of the Environmental Report in Exhibit F-1 

of Kern River’s Application to the FERC. 

Typical stages of pipeline construction for the Project will include, in chronological order: 

■ Surveying – the outside limits of the construction workspace will be staked and with all 

activities restricted, to the extent practicable, within a typical 100-ft-wide construction ROW 

that typically overlaps the existing Kern River ROW. In addition, all laydown yards, 

pipeyards, and ATWS location limits will also be staked. 

■ Clearing and grading – the construction corridor will be cleared of trees, rocks, brush and 

logs, and graded where necessary to provide a safe working surface. 

■ Trenching – excavation of the pipeline trench will be accomplished with a rotary trenching 

machine, a track-mounted backhoe, or similar equipment. Blasting will be used as 

necessary in areas where resistant rock substrates are found at depths that restrict using 

conventional excavation or trenching methods. 

■ Stringing – construction of pipeline segments (strings), including bending, welding and 

joint-coating. 

■ Lowering-in – select fill is placed in trenchline to cushion the pipe, pipeline segments are 

placed in the trench and connected with girth welds at tie-in points. 

■ Hydrostatic testing – strength and leak testing are conducted on the pipeline using 

standard hydrostatic test procedures and a specific test plan. 

■ Backfilling – excavated spoils are replaced in the ditch followed by topsoil replacement, 

and the site is returned to approximate natural contours. 

■ Clean-up and restoration – mats debris and all construction equipment are removed from 

the construction corridor. Bulldozers, graders and backhoes may be used to return the 

workspace to approximate natural contours. 

A schematic depiction of the pipeline construction stages are shown in Figure 4-2. 
SOURCE: Mojave-Kern River-El Dorado Natural Gas Pipeline Projects, Final Environmental Impact Report/Statement, Volume 1, Chambers Group, December, 1987

Figure 1.4-1 Typical Pipeline Construction Sequence

02:002816_KK07_03-B2759\Fig1.4-1.CDR-4/9/09-GRA

Right-of-Way

Acquisition

and Survey

Fencing

Stringing

As-Built

Footage

X-ray and

Weld Repair

Coating Field

and Factory Welds

Inspection (Jeeping)

and Repair of Coating

Lowering In 

and Tie-Ins

As-Built

Survey

Pad and

Backfill

Test and

Final Tie-In

Replace Topsoil

and Revegetate

Bending

Line Up, Stringer Bead, and Hot Pass Fill and Cap Weld

Centerline Survey

of Ditch

Ditching

(Rock-Free)

Topsoil 

Removal

and Windrowing

Ditching

(Rock)

Padding

Ditching Bottom

SpoilTopsoil

Figure 4-1 Typical Pipeline Construction Sequence
02:002816.KK07.03-Kern River RR10-B2759\Fig1.1-2.cdr - 7/9/09 

Figure 1.1-2 Wasatch Loop Pipeline Overview

Figure 4-2 Wasatch Loop Pipeline Overview
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RECLAMATION PLAN

Page 5-1

5. RECLAMATION SCHEDULE 

Construction is scheduled to begin in October 2010 with facilities placed in-service by 

November 1, 2011. Kern River proposes to begin construction at the Fillmore, Milford and Dry 

Lake compressor stations, on some of the lower-elevation portions of the pipeline route (MP 

25.50 to MP 28.01), and the crossing of East Canyon Creek (MP 5.28) in late fall/early winter 

2010. In addition, Kern River proposes to prepare two laydown yards and install equipment 

bridges at two creeks. The remainder of the Project will be constructed during the 2011 

construction season. Kern River expects to complete construction of the Project before the onset of winter 2011. 

Late 2010 construction is proposed for the lower-elevation portions of the pipeline route 

and the crossing of East Canyon Creek to coincide with periods of lowest water levels. The 

Milford and Dry Lake compressor station locations are not subject to winter climate conditions 

that would affect a construction stoppage. Kern River has prepared a detailed Winter 

Construction Plan for any portions of the pipeline route that are planned for construction during 

winter months. 

This schedule includes clearing, grading, topsoil removal, installation of temporary 

erosion control structures, pipe installation, cleanup, finish grading, installation of permanent 

erosion control structures and re-seeding. Kern River’s objective is to complete the reclamation 

work before the on-set of adverse winter weather and to take advantage of the optimal periods 

for dormant seeding. It is anticipated that most of the seeding will be done in October, which is 

within the optimal period for dormant seeding in most of Utah. This schedule provides the 

advantage of having the basic restoration in place that allows for optimal seed germination 

before the spring 2012 runoff periods and avoids entry under wet conditions unless remedial 

work is needed. Kern River anticipates that any additional plantings of woody materials for 

visual and habitat restoration primarily will be done in the spring of 2012. Reclamation activities 

that include clean-up, finish grading and installation of permanent erosion controls will be 

performed in advance of dormant seeding and will follow the progress of construction. Except 

for tie-in locations to complete road or railroad crossings, stream crossings, valve sites, or other 

similar sites, construction will proceed along the pipeline in one continuous operation. 

Construction at any single point along the pipeline, from initial clearing and grading to backfilling 

and finish grading, including installation of temporary and permanent erosion control measures 

or structures, is expected to last from 6 to 10 weeks. The entire construction process will be 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RECLAMATION PLAN

Page 5-2

coordinated to minimize the total time in which a tract of land is disturbed and therefore exposed 

to erosion and precluded temporarily from normal use. 

In addition, Kern River will complete a Stormwater Pollution and Prevention Plan

(SWPPP) which identify the best management practices for erosion and sediment control and 

Project-specific Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (Procedures) 

for construction and restoration of perennial and intermittent stream and wetland crossings. 

These Procedures are found in Resource Report 7, Volume 2 – Appendix 7B and Resource 

Report 2, Volume 2 – Appendix 2B, respectively. 

Final seedbed preparation, as required, and seeding and planting are planned for 

September and October of the 2011 construction period and will coincide with the optimal 

periods for dormant seeding/planting. In addition, any treatment of designated locations of 

noxious weeds will be treated prior to construction and prior to reclamation in accordance with 

the Noxious Weed Control Plan (submitted as Appendix 7C of Resource Report 7). Seeding will 

be completed, along with other erosion control, by the on-set of winter conditions. It is 

anticipated that additional plantings for enhanced visual and habitat restoration will be 

completed during the spring of 2012. 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RECLAMATION PLAN

 Page 6-1 

6. RECLAMATION PROCESS 

The intent of reclamation is to restore disturbed areas to pre-existing land use, to 

minimize and mitigate for construction impacts and to reclaim all lands disturbed by construction 

so they are visually and functionally compatible with the adjacent landscape, to the extent 

practicable, while meeting operational needs. The following sections describe the sequential 

steps for reclaiming Project-related disturbances. 

6.1 RECLAMATION TREATMENTS 

The basis for the development of general reclamation treatments and the selection of 

site-specific techniques follows previously developed reclamation plans for the Kern River 2003 

Expansion Project. This Reclamation Plan incorporates industry-accepted successful 

revegetation and reclamation treatments for the Intermountain region, as well as site-specific 

techniques/treatments for problematic or highly sensitive areas. Although the 2003 Kern River 

Expansion Project did not cross the Wasatch Mountains, the experiences gained from 

implementation and long-term monitoring of the 2003 Kern River Expansion Project, including 

portions of Morgan, Salt Lake and Beaver counties in Utah, have direct applicability for the 

reclamation effort associated with the Project. Specific problematic areas that are addressed in 

this Reclamation Plan include areas with steep slopes, erodible soils, wash crossings, offhighway vehicle (OHV) access, sensitive plant habitats and visually-sensitive locations. 

For the development of standardized revegetation and reclamation treatments, as well 

as for site-specific mitigation for more critical areas, Kern River used and adopted the 

monitoring protocols, restoration performance standards and data collected from the 

reclamation monitoring effort developed and implemented for the 2003 Kern River Expansion 

Project where appropriate. 

The original reclamation treatments and site-specific measures were updated based on 

input and comments received to-date from other local experts and appropriate federal, state and 

local agencies and Kern River’s experience during the 2003 Kern River Expansion Project 

construction and are based on proven and accepted reclamation practices. 

6.2 RECLAMATION TREATMENTS FOR THE WASATCH LOOP CLOSURE 

This section describes the reclamation procedures and measures that will be used to 

reclaim and revegetate disturbed areas along the Wasatch Loop ROW. 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RECLAMATION PLAN

 Page 6-2 

6.2.1 Clearing, Grading, and Topsoil Removal 

Pre-construction measures will include surveying and flagging the construction ROW 

and other ATWS and staging areas, clearing of vegetation, stripping and stockpiling available 

topsoil where required and grading the sites to provide safe work surfaces. Through 

coordination with landowners, temporary gates will be installed where livestock fences are 

crossed. 

The construction workspace limits, ATWS locations, wetlands and waterbody crossings, 

and sensitive resource areas will be staked or flagged prior to clearing operations. The stakes 

or flags will indicate the width of the construction workspace within the ROW, including the tops 

of cut slopes and the bottoms of fill slopes. Vehicle travel and equipment operation will be kept 

within all approved work areas. Large vegetation, such as large shrubs or trees, will be cleared 

from the staked ROW and stockpiled for later use as vegetative mulch, brushpile habitat 

development, OHV barriers, or staged for landowner use. All bladework on the ROW will be 

kept at a minimum, and, where practical, vegetation will be crushed in-place in areas where 

slopes and contours are lower and the ROW does not have to be further graded for access and 

construction. To minimize the fire hazard potential, damage to construction equipment and the 

need for a stable and safe working surface for construction activities, Kern River proposes to 

scalp or blade previously undisturbed portions of the construction ROW where shrub or similar 

vegetation densities pose a safety hazard. This method of scalping or blading will otherwise 

leave the remainder of the surface soil and root systems intact, except where topsoil is removed 

for trench excavation and excavating and grading is required for access and to provide safe 

construction workspace on the moderate-to steep terrain which occurs on most of the route east 

of MP 25.5. 

Topsoil and vegetative debris will be removed from the area between the survey stakes 

to a maximum depth of 12 inches over the trench and spoil storage areas, as well as any areas 

involving cut and fill, such as on side-slopes. In agricultural and residential areas, topsoil 

segregation will occur across the full width of the construction workspace. Topsoil may also be 

segregated if requested by the landowner or land management agency. Topsoil may also be 

segregated elsewhere to enhance restoration on rangelands and Forest Service lands in 

accordance with the site-specific plans that will be completed in consultation with the USFS, 

BLM and other managing agencies or land owners. Subsoil will be stockpiled separately from 

topsoil. Outside of agricultural and residential areas, topsoiling will be conducted on a site-bysite basis, based on discussions with land owners. Where additional topsoiling is requested, 

topsoil and vegetative debris will be removed to a typical depth of 12 inches over the trench and 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RECLAMATION PLAN

 Page 6-3 

spoil storage areas, as well as any areas involving cut and fill, such as on side-slopes. Topsoil 

will only be segregated on USFS and UDWR lands where topsoil is available, as well as on 

privately-owned lands as requested by the landowner. Where shallow soils or soils with stony 

substrates are encountered, Kern River will reduce the depth for segregating the topsoil to 

approximately 4 to 6 inches, instead of the typical 12 inches for deeper soils as specified in the 

FERC Plan. When soils have a high content of cobbles, rocks, or boulders, or when surface 

fines are less than 4 to 6 inches deep, topsoil salvaging may not be possible. Kern River will 

only attempt to topsoil when safe construction conditions can be maintained. Kern River will 

make every effort to segregate the entire topsoil layer, avoiding mixing with the underlying 

horizons, and to stockpile separately from all subsoil material. The segregated topsoil and 

subsoil stockpiles will be replaced in the proper order during backfilling and final grading (see 

Figure 4-2). 

The width of the surface disturbance will be kept to the minimum necessary for safe 

construction. Whenever possible, the existing soil surface will not be disturbed over the 

remainder of the ROW. Where existing vegetation requires cutting or crushing for safety 

reasons, plant roots will be left intact. Additionally, if mowing or scalping is required in these 

areas, plant root systems will also be left intact. 

Surface boulders, where present and where it is useful for reclamation, will be 

windrowed along the construction ROW or ATWS edge, final placement will be coordinated with 

the appropriate land management agency or landowner. Once trench backfilling and topsoil 

replacement is complete, the boulders will be placed over the construction ROW or ATWS in a 

pattern that visually blends with the undisturbed adjacent areas, or will be utilized as an erosion 

control (rock) mulch, or to control OHV access. Cobbles brought to the surface in agricultural 

land will be removed and disposed of at approved locations, generally an existing 

construction/demolition waste area, or at a landowner-approved site. 

There are also other special provisions for ROW clearing, grading and topsoil 

management for crossing wetlands and streams and washes which are addressed in Section 

6.4 of this Reclamation Plan. 

During construction, all vehicle travel will be limited to the approved construction ROW, 

ATWS, staging areas and on approved access roads. Kern River plans to use primarily existing 

public and private access roads. Only one new temporary access road has been identified for 

the Project, located in the vicinity of Interstate 215 and Redwood Road near MP 27.0, which will 

be removed and restored to pre-existing conditions following construction. Some of the other 

existing access roads will require grading and maintenance to safely accommodate vehicles 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RECLAMATION PLAN

 Page 6-4 

and equipment. Project vehicle travel outside the approved construction corridor or on 

unapproved access roads will not be permitted. 

6.2.2 Right-of-Way Restoration 

After pipeline sections are assembled and lowered into the trench, trench backfilling and 

ROW clean-up will begin as soon as practicable. Clean-up will include removal of all 

construction-related materials. This refuse will then be hauled to an approved disposal site or 

recycled by the contractor for other uses. Clean-up and restoration involve completion of 

backfilling, final grading (including replacement of the stockpiled topsoil, boulders, etc.), 

restoration of pre-construction contours, installation of permanent erosion control structures 

(typically water bars [slope breakers], as described below) and reseeding. Repair or 

replacement of existing livestock fences is also done with the completion of the final erosioncontrol work and revegetation. Livestock protection or exclusion fencing may also be installed if 

required by the USFS or UDWR within current grazing allotments, or other landowner 

conditions. 

a) Backfilling 

The excavated trench material (subsoil) will be used to backfill the trench, except for use 

of bedding and padding material where necessary to protect the pipe coating from contact with 

rocks. When there is excess backfill material or when the material is unsuitable for use in 

backfilling, these materials will be spread and contoured into the ROW before replacement of 

topsoil, or otherwise will be disposed of in a manner acceptable to the land management 

agency or landowner. Trench crowns will not be used on this Project. 

Topsoil or surface fines saved before construction will be spread evenly over the bladed 

area from which they were collected after trench backfilling is completed. Care will be taken to 

not mix topsoil with the fill material. Drainages will be kept free of soil material and all existing 

drainage patterns will be restored during this process. 

b) Decompaction 

Compacted soils, as determined through compaction tests by the Kern River 

Environmental Inspector (EI) during construction activities, will be decompacted in accordance 

with Section V.C.2. of the Kern River Plan. Decompaction will occur to a minimum depth of 6 

inches in non-agricultural areas and to a minimum depth of 18 inches in active agricultural lands 

using heavy-duty disks, chisel plows, or similar deep tillage decompaction equipment in a multidirectional pattern. Appropriate decompaction will be performed in severely compacted 

residential areas. 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RECLAMATION PLAN

 Page 6-5 

c) Recontouring 

All graded or excavated areas on the construction ROW and ATWS will be recontoured 

to blend with the surrounding topography. The emphasis during recontouring will be to restore 

the existing drainage patterns and contours to as near pre-construction condition as possible. 

Reshaping the land surface using tractors, bulldozers, backhoes, or graders, along with 

restoring natural drainage patterns and contours to promote restoration and revegetation is in 

itself an effective erosion control measure. 

d) Rock Mulch 

Any cobbles, boulders, or cleared vegetation that was separated for use as mulch in 

specified areas will be re-spread over the replaced topsoil surface. Larger rocks and boulders 

removed to the side of the construction ROW will be re-placed, where possible, in naturallyoccurring patterns. 

e) Imprinting 

The use of an imprinting device will aid in the restoration of erodible soils by firming 

loosened soils to a minor degree. Imprinting leaves small depressions on the soil surface that 

slows wind velocities at the surface. More importantly, the depressions will provide a microenvironment for the collection of windblown seeds and moisture, and some shading or microrelief against direct sunlight. The imprinter should leave a non-directional depression pattern 

and should not leave furrows trending downslope, which can channelize stormwater. If seed is 

not direct drilled, the seed mixture will be broadcast prior to imprinting operations. A broadcast 

seeder may be positioned on the imprinter equipment in a location that places the seed in 

advance of imprinting. Imprinting helps place the broadcasted seed in close contact with the 

soil in addition to providing a favorable micro-environment. 

f) Water Bars (Slope Breakers) 

Water bars are an effective means of erosion control on longitudinal slopes to control 

runoff from creating gulley erosion by dispersing the runoff away from the exposed slope. In 

general, water bars are a 1-ft or at times higher berm with an uphill-side swale that is angled 

very gently downslope. 

Permanent water bars will be constructed on ascent/descent slopes and in areas of 

erodible soils to direct runoff from the disturbed areas to an adjacent stabilized well-vegetated 

or rocky outfall, thereby minimizing the potential of erosional channels and sediment transport 

(see Appendix A, TYP-19). Water bars will be constructed to meet USFS standards and in 

accordance with Section V.B.2. of the Kern River Reclamation Plan. Kern River will install water 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RECLAMATION PLAN

 Page 6-6 

bars along contours with a maximum downslope gradient of approximately 2%. In addition, 

runoff from the water bar will be directed toward a stable, undisturbed area at the edge of the 

construction corridor, and will be constructed of sufficient size, generally 12 to 18 inches in 

depth and with a minimum 12-inch berm above grade. Water bars will be installed using the 

following spacing guidelines as shown in Table 6-1. 

Table 6-1 

Water Bars Spacing Guidelines 

Percent Slope Spacing Interval 

1 – 5 % only as needed 

5 – 15% 300 ft 

15 – 30% 200 ft 

+30% 100 ft 

The actual spacing and configurations of water bar placement, however, will be further 

based upon field conditions to accommodate site-specific conditions, such as slope contours, 

runoff areas and locations of stable outfall areas, or as determined by the land managing 

agency. Water bars also will be installed at the entrance and exit of all stream and wetland 

crossings and on slopes adjacent to road crossings depending upon local topographic 

conditions. Topsoil will not be used in the construction of water bars. 

6.2.3 Revegetation 

The Project traverses three-major vegetation types (Albee et al. 1988), these include: 

Great Basin Sagebrush; Mountain Mahogany – Oak Scrub and Douglas Fir Forest. 

It is noted that based on field surveys conducted in the spring of 2009, no known 

threatened or endangered plant species were observed within the 400 to 600-ft-wide surveyed 

corridor. Species of concern are further addressed in Resource Report No. 3, Vegetation and 

Wildlife and follow-up survey reports to be included in Kern River’s supplemental information 

submittals to the FERC and other involved agencies. The following seedbed preparation 

procedures, seed mixtures, seeding rates and seeding methods were compiled based on Best 

Management Practice procedures, existing vegetative communities, and in coordination with 

USFS, BLM, UDWR, and NRCS offices, in addition to Kern River’s Reclamation Plan. Where 

any site requires treatment for noxious weeds, pre-treatment will occur prior to construction and 

if needed prior to seeding in accordance with Kern River’s Noxious Weed Control Plan. 

a) Seedbed Preparation 

For most of the ROW (except in steep/erodible soils, stream/wetland/riparian crossing 

areas and active agricultural lands where additional measures will be required), the seedbed 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RECLAMATION PLAN

 Page 6-7 

preparation will consist of decompaction of severely compacted soils and recontouring and 

topsoil replacement activities described in Section 6.2.2. 

In areas where straw punching is used, such as visually-sensitive areas or areas 

adjacent to streams, the first application of straw punch will serve as seedbed preparation. 

Imprinting, seed drilling, or harrowing will be deleted from the treatment when straw punching is 

used. Where a native rock surface exists over fine soils, rock mulching may be used. The rock 

will be applied after topsoil replacement. This technique functions similarly to the imprinting 

process in that the rocky surface provides micro-environments in which seed and moisture can 

collect, thereby providing an avenue for natural plant recruitment. Imprinting will typically not be 

used when rock mulch is used, rather broadcast seeding methods will be used. 

b) Seeding Mixtures and Rates 

All construction-related disturbed areas will be re-seeded in accordance with agency 

recommendations and existing vegetative types at appropriate seeding rates. The vegetation 

types typically indicate the growing regime at a particular site. The criteria used for selecting 

the species were based on: 

■ erosion control capability; 

■ species presence within the vegetation type; 

■ ease of propagation; 

■ availability and cost of seed; and 

■ wildlife habitat value or landowner preference in active agricultural areas. 

The proposed seed mixtures are compatible with the major vegetative types described 

above and existing vegetative communities observed, as well as restoration monitoring data 

collected along the 2003 Kern River Expansion Project ROW through the Intermountain region. 

The seed mixture will be acquired from commercial seed vendors using regional seed sources, 

if available. The seed will be certified weed-free by the vendor to ensure compliance with state 

and federal requirements. If availability of the proposed seed from commercial vendors is an 

issue, alternative species will be developed. Any seed variations will be approved by the 

appropriate land management agency prior to their use. 

Great Basin Sagebrush Community

As described in the Atlas of the Vascular Plants of Utah (Albee et al. 1988), this 

vegetation type dominates dry areas of valleys and lower slopes of mountains and plateaus in 

which the vegetation has adapted to the temperature climates of moderate elevations (above 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RECLAMATION PLAN

 Page 6-8 

3,300 ft and below 6,600 ft). Figure 6-1 provides a visual example of the Great Basin 

Sagebrush Community traversed by the Project corridor. In addition, Riparian and Canyon 

Woodlands are primarily associated with perennial drainages within this community (1988). 

Figure 6-2 provides a visual illustration of a typical Riparian and Canyon Woodland type located 

in the Project area. 

The predominant flora identified along the Project ROW through this vegetative type 

were sagebrush, rabbitbrush, wheatgrass and bromes. In addition, perennial drainages and wet 

meadows (typically associated with livestock watering areas) were identified and included 

cottonwood, willow, alder, birch dogwood, sedge and rush. Improved pasture land and annual 

crop production land, totaling approximately 1% of the Wasatch Loop, was observed to be in 

winter wheat, flood irrigated alfalfa and crested wheatgrass production. 

Kern River has developed Seed mixture UT-1 to be compatible with the Great Basin 

Sagebrush vegetative type and in compliance with Utah’s Standards and Guidelines for Healthy 

Rangelands (see Table 6-2). Sagebrush was included to provide an initial jump-start in 

mitigating visual and wildlife habitat impacts. The mixture may be altered depending on seed 

availability or landowner preference. For example, UDWR has suggested the addition of the 

following species to seed mixture UT-1 for their managed lands, these include: bluebunch 

wheatgrass (2 pounds/acre/pure live seed [lds/ac/PLS]); thickspike wheatgrass (2 lbs/ac/PLS); 

Great Basin wildrye (2 lbs/ac/PLS); Utah sweet vetch (2 lbs/ac/PLS); western yarrow (2 

lbs/ac/PLS); and rocky mountain penstemon (0.25 lbs/ac/PLS). Any further modifications to 

these seed mixtures that may be required due to availability or other factors will first be 

reviewed with the appropriate land management agency. 

Additional nursery stock shrub species appropriate for mitigating visual impacts within 

this vegetation type include rabbitbrush, serviceberry or ninebark. Propagation and 

transplanting protocols are provided below (Section 6.2.3 d). 

Seed mixture UT-2 provides seeding recommendations for the restoration of the 

Riparian and Canyon Woodlands community crossed by the Project (see Table 6-3). Riparian 

zone restoration may include cuttings, rootings, or nursery stock. Ninebark, chokecherry, 

snowberry, elderberry, serviceberry, or twinberry may be added or substituted into the mix to 

mitigate visual impacts. To maintain pipeline integrity and offset visual impacts, Kern River 

agrees to allow natural recruitment of adjacent tree species, typified by narrowleaf cottonwood 

and river birch, to within 10 ft of the pipeline. 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RECLAMATION PLAN

 Page 6-9 

Figure 6-1 

Typical Great Basin Sagebrush Community within the Project Corridor 

Figure 6-2 

Typical Riparian and Canyon Woodland Community within Project Area 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RECLAMATION PLAN

 Page 6-10 

Table 6-2 

Mixture UT–1 

Seed Mixture for the Great Basin Sagebrush Community 

Common Species Name (cultivar) Seed Application Rate (lbs/ac/PLS)a

Mountain brome (Garnet) 2 

Orchard grass (Paiute) 2 

Slender wheatgrass (Native) 5 

Small burnet (Delar) 3 

Lewis flax (Appar) 0.5 

Alfalfa (Ranger) 2 

Serviceberry 1 

Sagebrush (Hobblecreek) 0.5 

Note: 

a

 Seeding rate is listed as lbs/ac/PLS. Seeding rate is doubled if hydroseeded or broadcast. The seed mix may be modified based 

on site-specific conditions, identification of additional useful species for rapid site stabilization, species’ success in past

revegetation efforts, seed availability and cost. An alternative seeding rate may be applied in areas deemed appropriate by the 

land management agency or the landowner. 

Table 6-3 

Mixture UT–2 

Seed Mixture for the Riparian and Canyon Woodlands Community 

Common Species Name 

(cultivar) Seed Application Rate (lbs/ac/PLS)a

Utah sweetvetch (Timp) 3 

Basin wildrye (Trailhead) 5 

Willow (cuttings) Average of 10-ft centers 

Red-osier dogwood (rooted cuttings) Average of 15-ft centers 

Note: 

a

 Seeding rate is listed as lbs/ac/PLS. Seeding rate is doubled if hydroseeded or broadcast. The seed mix may be modified based 

on site-specific conditions, identification of additional useful species for rapid site stabilization, species’ success in past

revegetation efforts, seed availability and cost. An alternative seeding rate may be applied in areas deemed appropriate by the 

land management agencies or the landowner. 

For wet meadow habitat areas located within the Great Basin Sagebrush community of 

the Project, the restoration seed mixture and application rates are listed under Mixture UT-3 

(see Table 6-4). This habitat type was found within the Project corridor associated only with the 

Tom Porter Spring outflow channel at approximate milepost (MP) 0.53, which was dominated by 

Baltic rush. During construction, soils that occur above the water table will be salvaged and 

stockpiled separately. The soils will then be replaced and worked as little as possible to reduce 

compaction. The seeding will be lightly raked into the top 0.25-inch of the soil using low-ground 

weight equipment that avoids rutting and compaction, or by hand. 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RECLAMATION PLAN

 Page 6-11 

Table 6-4 

Mixture UT–3 

Seed Mixture for Wet Meadow Communities 

Common Species Name 

(cultivar) Seed Application Rate (lbs/ac/PLS)a

Redtop bentgrass (Streaker) 8 

Baltic rush 0.25 

Note: 

a

 Seeding rate is listed as lbs/ac/PLS. Seeding rate is doubled if hydroseeded or broadcast. The seed mix may be modified based 

on site-specific conditions, identification of additional useful species for rapid site stabilization, species’ success in past

revegetation efforts, seed availability and cost. An alternative seeding rate may be applied in areas deemed appropriate by the 

land management agencies or the landowner. 

For wetland areas where the soils are considered saline and/or alkaline, Kern River will 

use the seeding mixture and rates that are listed under Mixture UT-3A (see Table 6-5). Within 

the Project corridor, only the Chevron Refinery property [MP 26.43 to MP 26.85] was found 

supporting this habitat type. Because of the potential high soil salinity/alkalinity in this area, only 

plants that are tolerant of such conditions are recommended for use. During construction, soils 

that occur above the water table will be salvaged. The soils will then be replaced and worked 

as little as possible to reduce compaction. The seeding will be raked or harrowed into the top 

0.5 inch of the soil using low-ground weight equipment. 

Table 6-5 

Mixture UT–3A 

Seed Mixture for Saline/Alkaline Wetland Community 

located within the Chevron Refinery Crossing 

[MP 26.43 to MP 26.85] 

Common Species Name 

(cultivar) Seed Application Rate (lbs/ac/PLS)a

Alkaligrass (Fults) 3 

Alkali sacaton 2 

Iodinebush 0.5 

Shadscale 1 

Note: 

a

 Seeding rate is listed as lbs/ac/PLS. Seeding rate is doubled if hydroseeded or broadcast. The seed mix may be modified based 

on site-specific conditions, identification of additional useful species for rapid site stabilization, species’ success in past

revegetation efforts, seed availability and cost. An alternative seeding rate may be applied in areas deemed appropriate by the 

land management agencies or the landowner. 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RECLAMATION PLAN

 Page 6-12 

Mountain Mahogany – Oak Scrub Community

This vegetation type dominates the lower slopes of the Wasatch Range (1988) which 

include hills, canyons, rocky slopes and rocky ridges at altitudes of 3,900 ft to 9,900 ft 

(Stubbendieck et al. 2003). In addition, Riparian and Canyon Woodlands communities also are 

found here. Figure 6-3 presents a visual image of a typical Mountain Mahogany – Oak Scrub 

community traversed by the Project. 

The principal flora identified along the Project corridor through this vegetative type were 

Gambel oak, curlleaf mountain mahogany, bigtooth maple, sagebrush, ninebark and bromes. In 

addition, perennial drainageways dominated by cottonwood, willow, dogwood, twinberry, or 

birch also were identified. 

Seed mixtures UT-1 and UT-2 are prescribed for restoration in this community based on 

field surveys that indicated a similar species make-up (see Figure 6-3). In addition, because 

this habitat type is used extensively for livestock grazing and wildlife winter range, this seed 

mixture should provide a balanced nutritional forage base capable of withstanding potential 

grazing impacts and accommodate ROW surveillance. 

Figure 6-3 

Typical Mountain Mahogany – Oak Scrub Community 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RECLAMATION PLAN

 Page 6-13 

Douglas Fir Community

This vegetation type dominates the higher elevations of the Project corridor through the 

Wasatch Range within the UWCNF and is typically found associated with north aspect slopes 

and in association with stands of aspen. In addition, open grassland and meadows are 

scattered throughout the area. Figure 6-4 provides a visual example of the Douglas Fir 

Community traversed by the Project corridor. 

Figure 6-4 

Douglas Fir Community within the Project Corridor 

Major flora identified along the Project corridor through this vegetative type included 

Douglas fir, aspen, Gambel oak, curlleaf mahogany, bigtooth maple, Utah honeysuckle, 

ninebark, balsamroot, mulesear, American vetch, bromes and larkspur with other interspersed 

herbaceous species. 

Kern River has developed Seed mixture UT-4 to be compatible with the Douglas Fir 

vegetative type and in compliance with the 2003 Revised Forest Plan for the UWCNF (see 

Table 6-6). Rootings or nursery stock of ninebark, chokecherry, snowberry, elderberry, or 

serviceberry may be added or substituted into the mix to mitigate visual impacts. 

To maintain pipeline integrity and off-set visual impacts, Kern River may selectively allow 

natural recruitment of adjacent tree species, typified by Douglas fir, aspen, mahogany, Gambel 

oak and bigtooth maple to within 10 ft of the pipeline. 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RECLAMATION PLAN

 Page 6-14 

Table 6-6 

Mixture UT–4 

Seed Mixture for the Douglas Fir Community within the WCNF 

Common Species Name 

(cultivar) Seed Application Rate (lbs/ac/PLS)a

Mountain brome (Garnet) 5 

Beardless wheatgrass (Whitmar) 5 

Blue wildrye (Arlington) 7 

Utah sweetvetch (Timp) 3 

Penstemon (Rocky Mountain) 1 

Balsamroot 1 

Snowberry 1 

Serviceberry 1 

Sagebrush (Mountain) 0.5 

Note: 

a

 Seeding rate is listed as pounds lbs/ac/PLS. Seeding rate is doubled if hydroseeded or broadcast. The seed mix may be 

modified based on site-specific conditions, identification of additional useful species for rapid site stabilization, species’ success in 

past revegetation efforts, seed availability and cost. An alternative seeding rate may be applied in areas deemed appropriate by 

the land management agency or the landowner. 

c) Seeding Methods 

The main purpose of all seeding methods is to place the seed in direct contact with the 

soil at average depths of 0.5-inch, but not exceeding a depth of 1 inch, to cover the seed with 

soil, and to firm the soil around the seed in order to eliminate air pockets. Some methods of 

seeding are more effective at seed placement than others. The type of terrain is a major 

determinant for the type of seeding method that is practicable; therefore, the method of seeding 

will be based on site-specific conditions, such as slope and on associated equipment limitations. 

Seeding will occur in all areas that have replaced topsoil or surface fines, which will include all 

disturbed areas except exposed rock faces. Dormant seeding will be conducted in the fall 

following clean-up and after final grading to take advantage of winter and early spring moisture 

and in conjunction with the completion of erosion control work before the spring runoff. 

Broadcast seeding may be accomplished with a hand-operated, cyclone-type seeder; a 

mechanical broadcast seeder attached to the imprinting device; or a specially-designed blower. 

This method distributes the seed on top of the surface without mulch. The seeds must be 

covered by raking or dragging a chain or harrow over the seedbed. Imprinting with straw punch 

treatment also may be used to place seed in the soil. The cyclone-type seeder can be used on 

any slope that can be reached by foot; however, the blow seeder is limited by equipment 

access. Drill seeding places seed into the soil at a uniform depth, but can be used only on 

moderate slopes. While drill seeding is the best method for seed placement, broadcast seeding 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RECLAMATION PLAN

 Page 6-15 

followed by imprinting or straw punching also will provide effective seed placement where slope 

conditions prevent the use of drill seeding. 

Hydroseeding/hydromulching uses water with a slurry of seed, mulch and tackifier, which 

is sprayed over the restored topsoil surface. This method often does not allow for good soil-toseed contact, leaves seed exposed to desiccating wind and temperatures, increases seed loss 

by rodent and avian foraging and is limited by equipment access. While 

hydroseeding/hydromulching may be utilized, its use is limited mainly to road slopes or sites that 

are readily accessible for the equipment utilized. Much of the ROW will be inaccessible for this 

equipment once finish grading has been completed. 

Seed will either be broadcast to the surface before the imprinting or dragging process or 

will be drill seeded, except for areas with steep/erodible soils and stream/wetland/riparian 

crossing areas, where other methods will be used. In visually sensitive areas or areas above 

streams, initial seeding will be applied using straw punching. Additional seed may be applied by 

either broadcasting or hydroseeding following the first straw punching application. On slopes 

that cannot be punched with straw, but that can be reached with a hydromulcher, seed will be 

applied to the slope in a slurry with mulch. A soil tackifier will be added to the hydromulch 

application if slopes are in excess of 25%, in accordance with applicable standards. Slopes that 

cannot be straw punched or hydroseeded/hydromulched may be aerial broadcast seeded and 

hand-raked. Such slopes may also be chain harrowed where conditions allow safe equipment 

operations. 

d) Vegetative Propagation and Transplanting 

This section describes the methods to be used to place cuttings or containerized nursery 

plants along the ROW. 

Areas that have been determined to be visually sensitive (see Section 6.5) may have 

recommended limited shrub and tree species planted within the ROW in such a manner as to 

off-set the “distinct linear edge” of a newly installed pipeline. Tree species, that tend to develop 

taproots, will not be planted within 10 ft of the pipeline. As identified above, appropriate nursery 

stock species for planting may include but are not limited to sagebrush, rabbitbush, 

serviceberry, curlleaf mahogany or bitterbrush. These containerized contract grown plant 

materials shall be hardened-off at their prospective planting area or similar area for at least two 

weeks before planting. This step is especially critical when the environment of the growing 

nursery may be different from that of the planting area. All propagated plants will be placed in a 

concave basin to increase soil moisture near the plant’s root structure. Site-specific plans for 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RECLAMATION PLAN

 Page 6-16 

use of propagated plants are currently being developed in consultation with land management 

agencies and other affected landowners. 

e) Soil Amendments/Fertilizer 

Soil amendments consist of fertilizers, wood or straw mulches, tackifying agents, if 

allowed, or soil stabilizing emulsions. Based on NRCS recommendations and recent 

experiences of other large-diameter-pipeline restoration efforts, which have met established 

success criteria, Kern River is not currently proposing the application of fertilizers as part of its 

post-construction restoration activities as the use of fertilizers tend to benefit annual (invasive) 

plant growth over the preferred perennial species being recommended. Kern River may, 

however, include use of a pre-emergent herbicide, such as OustR or PlateauR, to retard 

cheatgrass germination which will allow time for the perennial herbaceous species to become 

established (Connelly et al. 2000). 

6.3 Reclamation Treatment for Steep Slopes and Erodible Soils 

Soil types along the Wasatch Loop and at aboveground facilities are identified in 

Resource Report No. 7 - Soils, along with their erosion and revegetation potentials. 

Approximately 90% of the proposed Project facilities have moderate to high erosion, shallow 

bedrock, or poor revegetation potentials (see Resource Report No. 7, Soils, Table 7.5-2 and 

Volume 2 – Appendix 7A, Table 7A-2). Total acreage estimates for soils with these limitations 

are: 

■ Soils with high water erosion potential: 341 acres 

■ Soils with high wind erosion potential: 28 acres 

■ Soils with shallow bedrock: 221 acres 

The majority of the Wasatch loop will cross landforms exhibiting steep slopes and/or 

erodible soils. The objective of this reclamation treatment is to stabilize the soil resource and 

minimize erosion by wind or water. 

Punching in of straw mulch is useful in retaining seed and in minimizing the soil erosion 

potential on slopes greater than 25%. In this process, which is detailed below (Section 6.3. 

1.e), weed-free straw is placed in two layers with the seed application following the first layer. 

Hydroseeding/hydromulching maybe used on sites that cannot be straw punched but are 

accessible for this type of equipment. Where this method is used, the mulch and seed mix will 

be well-blended in a slurry and applied to the slope. The application rate will be approximately 

2,000 pounds of wood fiber mulch per acre. A tackifier or soil stabilizer may be added to the 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RECLAMATION PLAN

 Page 6-17 

hydroseed/hydromulch slurry when the slurry is applied to slopes in excess of 25%. 

Biodegradable tackifiers and soil stabilizers tack the seed and mulch to the slope. Organic 

tackifiers are non-toxic to plants and animals and degrade within approximately two years. 

On side hill slopes of 30% or greater and at designated stream banks, erosion control 

matting/netting will also be installed after seeding to afford a greater level of erosion control until 

vegetation can become established. Degradable products such as North American GreenTM will 

be used as shown in Figure TYP-22 in Appendix A. 

6.3.1 Reclamation Procedures 

The procedures necessary to achieve soil stabilization will be in addition to the 

procedures outlined above and will include one or more of the following measures. 

a) Recontouring 

Recontouring, as described in Section 6.2.2, is especially important in steep and 

erodible terrain. Shaping the land surface to the approximate original contours and directing 

runoff into existing drainageways or stable outlets will be a priority objective in all steep-slope 

and erodible areas. 

b) Water Bars (Slope Breakers) 

Water bars, described in Section 6.2.2 and Figure TYP-19 in Appendix A, also will be an 

important reclamation measure in steep and erodible terrain. Bar spacing generally is reduced 

in steep-slope and erodible areas in accordance with FERC guidelines. Water bars may be 

omitted when the surface is predominantly rocky and resistant to water erosion. 

c) Trench Breakers 

On slopes where natural drainages parallel the pipeline alignment, trench breakers will 

be used. Trench breakers are typically sandbags, foam plugs, or bentonite packed in and 

around the pipeline to minimize the piping of water along the pipeline trench and to prevent 

gullying and pipeline exposure. Trench breakers are described in Figure TYP-21 in Appendix A 

and are included in Section VI.B.1 of the FERC Plan. 

d) Stockpiling 

For slopes too steep to maintain windrowed trench spoil material, stockpile areas will be 

identified by Kern River and identified as ATWS, as shown in the construction alignment sheets. 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RECLAMATION PLAN

 Page 6-18 

e) Straw Crimping or Punching 

The use of a straw mulch and a crimping or punching device will aid in stabilizing 

erodible soils and minimize sedimentation in wetlands/waterbodies by binding loosened soils 

and providing the area with an instant soil cover. This method is applicable on slopes greater 

than 25% and in areas adjacent to wetlands/streams. As a rule, the straw is blown or handspread, then crimped or punched into the soil with shovels or a sheeps-foot roller pulled by a 

tractor. The spreading and punching process is conducted in two applications. The first 

application, spread at a rate of 1.5 tons per acre, is placed prior to punching-in. The second 

application, spread at a rate of 1.5 tons per acre, is spread following the punching-in operation. 

This will allow for a total of 3 tons per acre of straw mulch cover. Straw used will be free of 

noxious weeds. The soil holds the straw in place, and the straw in turn reduces the wind and 

water erosion potential and provides an environment conducive to water retention and seed 

collection/germination. This process leaves small depressions in the soil surface, which aid in 

decreasing wind velocities at the soil surface. This process also helps to place the broadcasted 

seed in close contact with the soil, provides a micro-environment for the recruitment of 

windblown seed, aids in the collection and retention of moisture, helps reduce the water erosion 

potential and provides some shading against direct sunlight impacts. 

The crimper should leave a non-directional depression pattern and not leave furrows 

trending downslope, which can channelize stormwater flows. If water bars (slope breakers) are 

to be installed, they should be built before crimper use, then inspected and repaired by hand 

afterward because equipment use may flatten portions of the water bars making them 

ineffective. 

f) Rock Mulch 

Saving and replacing a layer of rock or importing rock for use on the surface of erodible 

soils is an appropriate erosion control measure in some critical areas. Suitable sites include 

areas that naturally support a gravel, cobble, or boulder veneer on the surface (lag layer) and 

rocky slopes. Rock mulch over erodible soils slows wind velocities at and above the soil 

surface and creates wind eddies behind the cobble where windblown seed may accumulate. It 

also provides micro-environments beneficial to plant re-establishment because they allow 

moisture to collect and provide shade and protection from direct sunlight and desiccating winds 

thereby protecting newly established plants. Rock mulch, while protecting against raindrop 

impact on erodible soils, does not provide adequate surface water erosion protection. 

Therefore, steep areas also may require construction of water bars. Rock mulch also helps in 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RECLAMATION PLAN

 Page 6-19 

visually approximating the native surface before disturbance, as long as the rock color does not 

contrast with the natural surface. 

g) Matting/Netting 

On side hills and slopes approximately 30% or greater and at designated stream banks 

or road slopes and embankments, erosion control matting or netting will be installed following 

seeding as shown in Figure TYP-22 in Appendix A. The purpose of this matting or netting is to 

provide a greater degree of soil erosion protection until vegetation can become established. 

Degradable products such as North American Green TM will be used. 

6.4 RECLAMATION TREATMENT FOR STREAM/WASH/WETLAND CROSSINGS 

AND RIPARIAN AREAS 

Wetland communities and waterbody crossings along the pipeline route are summarized 

in Resource Report No. 2, Water Use and Quality. Individual wetlands are identified by MP in 

Resource Report No. 2, Volume 2 – Appendix 2A, Table 2A-2 and will be further addressed in 

the Application to the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for Authorization under 

the Nationwide Permit 12. The total acreage of wetlands affected by the construction ROW is 

5.46 acres, and all are classified as emergent palustrine scrub/shrub wetlands. 

This section provides a discussion of reclamation techniques that will be used in the 

reclamation of streams and wetlands. The objective of this treatment is to minimize 

sedimentation and degradation of the stream or wetland; to restore riparian and wetland 

vegetation; to stabilize the streambed, stream banks and flood zones; and to prevent pipeline 

exposure. 

This treatment will require additional measures to minimize the transport of sediment 

from the adjacent workspace into streams. Where possible, alignment width and vegetation 

clearing will be minimized. 

In addition, the objectives of this treatment will be achieved by applying one or more of 

the following measures: 

■ Omit imprinting in active wash areas, but restore contours and perform bank stabilization. 

■ Burial of the pipeline to ensure that flash flood erosion action will not expose the pipeline or 

jeopardize pipeline integrity. The pipeline will be placed below the estimated depth of scour 

as estimated by the SHB studies. For those stream crossings that were not previously 

studied by SHB, the pipe should be buried with a minimum depth of cover of 10 feet or into 

bedrock, whichever is shallower. As an alternative, Kern River can commission a site-
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RECLAMATION PLAN

 Page 6-20 

specific scour analysis to determine prospective depth of scour. The presence of bedrock 

will be evaluated at the time of construction by a qualified professional. 

■ Where designated, install erosion control matting or netting (as identified in Section 6.3-1) 

on stream banks from approximately the water’s edge and extended and secured over the 

top of the banks (see Figure TYP-22 in Appendix A). 

■ Where there may be potential for higher energy hydraulic erosion, armor the banks with a 

rock size larger than the carrying capacity of the anticipated worst-case water flow or where 

erosion is naturally active. The upper reaches of riprap armor will be covered with topsoil 

and seeded. In general, re-contour banks to their natural, stable contours. Revegetation 

will be the preferred method when a higher order of erosion protection is not required. 

■ Re-establish original contours of wetlands and stream channels. 

■ Minimize perennial streambed disturbance where there is flowing water by using temporary 

equipment bridges or culvert equipment crossings (see Figure TYP-16 and TYP-17 in 

Appendix A), or another appropriate method for access along the ROW during construction. 

Limit in-stream disturbance to installation of the pipeline crossing itself. See Figure TYP-15 

in Appendix A for typical construction across dry washes/stream beds. 

■ Minimize ROW width to the approved construction ROW and locate ATWS 50 ft from the 

edge of the wetland or stream crossing except where topography or other constraints 

require a modification as described in Kern River’s Procedures and which will be identified in 

the construction alignment sheets or other site-specific drawings. 

■ Control sedimentation by means of silt fences (see Figure TYP-15 in Appendix A), straw 

bale filters (see Figure TYP-20 in Appendix A), or straw mulching. 

■ Minimize duration of the crossing, complete cleanup and restoration and re-establish 

riparian and wetland vegetation as soon as possible. 

■ Implement special conditions that may be included with the USACE Nationwide Permit 12 

authorizations and stream alteration permits to be issued by the Utah Division of Water 

Rights. 

Restoration of stream crossings and washes generally will be accomplished by using 

Kern River’s typical or site-specific crossing plans and by implementing Kern River’s Procedures

and by adopting procedures in accordance with the terms of USACE Nationwide Permit 12 for 

utility crossings. The locations of wetland/waterbodies, construction, and restoration 

procedures are addressed further in Resource Report No. 2, Water Use and Quality, and in 

Kern River’s joint application to USACE and the Utah Division of Water Rights for authorization 

for water body and wetland crossings and issuance of individual Stream Alteration Permits 

where required. 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RECLAMATION PLAN

 Page 6-21 

6.5 RECLAMATION FOR VISUALLY SENSITIVE AREAS 

One of the objectives of reclamation will be to minimize the effects of construction within 

visually sensitive areas or within viewsheds of, or from, scenic resources. Kern River is in the 

process of conducting a visual resources assessment for the proposed Project, in consultation 

with the USFS and BLM. This visual resources assessment will include the identification of 

visually sensitive areas or scenic resources that may be visually impacted by the proposed 

Project, and measures to be implemented to avoid, minimize, or mitigate for any visual impacts 

during reclamation activities. Results of the visual resources assessment will be included in 

Section 8.6 of Resource Report 8. 

Kern River’s reclamation procedures for the pipeline loop, which has been sited parallel 

with and adjacent to existing utility corridors and ROW to the extent practicable, will be 

consistent with those measures identified to avoid, minimize, or mitigate for visual impacts. The 

presence of visually sensitive or scenic resource areas may alter the reclamation treatment to 

include, but not be limited to, one or more of the following: 

■ additional revegetation requirements, including planting of woody species of similar 

composition to those of the adjacent areas; 

■ intensive erosion control measures; 

■ variations in plantings after construction associated with construction ROW edges (i.e., 

feathering, scalloping) to reduce the visual impact of a linear boundary where large shrub 

and forest communities adjoin the ROW; 

■ placing topsoil and seed on upper reaches of streambank armoring and planting nursery 

stock or cuttings of appropriate species above the normal high-water line at drainage 

crossings; and 

■ restoring other rock faces/outcrops following construction. 

Additional measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts on visually sensitive areas 

or scenic resources may also be identified and implemented as a result of consultation with land 

management agencies and/or landowners. 

6.6 RECLAMATION TREATMENT FOR ABOVE GROUND FACILITIES 

Major aboveground facilities include construction of the new Milford compressor station 

and modifications to the existing Coyote Creek, Fillmore and Dry Lake compressor stations and 

restaging of the Elberta compressor station. A summary of compressor station activities is 

provided in Resource Report 1 Table 1.1-1. 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RECLAMATION PLAN

 Page 6-22 

All work at the existing compressor stations will be within the existing, fenced station 

yards where the surface is maintained vegetation or gravel cover. Kern River will restore these 

areas to similar cover. Kern River will implement erosion and sediment control measures during 

construction in accordance with the Kern River Reclamation Plan. Dust control measures will 

also be utilized during construction including watering of disturbed areas as necessary. 

Kern River will implement the Kern River Reclamation Plan for erosion and sediment 

control during construction of the Milford compressor station. Since the slopes on the site 

average less than two percent, the potential for water erosion is low. Temporary mulching may 

be utilized to control wind erosion from stockpiled material and watering utilized for dust control. 

Following construction, portions of the approximately 33.16-acre site and perimeter area not 

maintained in gravel cover for operations will be seeded with Seed Mix Ut-1, appropriate for the 

Great Basin Sagebrush Community. 

Minor above ground facilities include a relocated pig launcher at an existing 

fenced/graveled site located at MP 0.00 (Main Line Valve 96) that currently contains two 

mainline block valves, two receivers and one launcher. The new launcher will be located in the 

existing fenced/graveled area so that no additional reclamation is planned beyond clean-up, 

finish grading, surfacing and reclamation of the ATWS and adjoining ROW. Mainline valves will 

also be installed at MP 7.12 and 24.55. These valve sites will also be fenced and surfaced with 

gravel. The adjacent ATWS and ROW will be otherwise restored in accordance with this 

Reclamation Plan. 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RECLAMATION PLAN

 Page 7-1 

7. POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE 

Construction and reclamation are planned for 2011. Temporary and permanent 

reclamation measures will be monitored and success evaluated beginning the growing season 

following construction (2012). Monitoring is necessary to periodically evaluate recovery status 

of restored areas, identify the need for additional remediation and to make a final determination 

regarding success. This section describes monitoring protocols and revegetation performance 

criteria that will be used to assess the restored pipeline ROW. 

To monitor the recovery of the restored ROW, Kern River will use both qualitative and 

quantitative monitoring procedures and protocols used previously for the 2003 Kern River 

Expansion Project. The following sections were adopted from the 2003 Kern River Expansion 

Project and provide a summary of the performance success standards and monitoring protocols 

used. 

7.1 APEX EXPANSION PROJECT MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE 

The purpose of a monitoring program is to document whether areas that have been 

restored are progressing toward the long-term goal of soil stability, appropriate vegetative cover, 

diversity, habitat enhancement, and noxious weed control. Post-construction monitoring for the 

Project will include both qualitative and quantitative analysis of the restoration effort as well as 

monitoring for noxious weed infestations and treatment of these sites in accordance with the 

Noxious Weed Control Plan. First year post-reclamation monitoring will focus on performing a 

qualitative analysis of the ROW reclamation effort. Locations where additional remedial work 

may be required should be apparent and will be identified by MP for additional restorative 

actions. It should be noted, however, that monitoring of the ROW for significant or new erosion, 

other third-party damage, or noxious weed infestations is an element of Kern River’s routine 

aerial surveillance along the existing ROW and will be conducted throughout the life of the 

pipeline. It is anticipated that any active erosional areas would be apparent during the first two 

years following reclamation or after the first major storm or runoff event. Significant erosion 

would also be identified for corrective action during routine aerial surveillance. 

The primary objectives of Kern River’s monitoring program will be to: 

■ Assess the effectiveness of temporary and permanent erosion-control structures (e.g., slope 

breakers) to ensure the stability of the ROW and ATWS areas, and to ensure that runoff is 

naturally controlled with erosion-control structures in place and functioning with no 

accelerated erosion or wash-outs. 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RECLAMATION PLAN

 Page 7-2 

■ Monitor and assess, through quantitative analysis, success of the reseeding effort during the 

second growing season, with subsequent follow-up surveys in the third growing season 

post-restoration. 

■ Monitor the survival of special plantings for visual restoration, if applicable, and qualitatively 

determine how well the restored ROW blends in with the adjacent undisturbed landscape. 

■ Monitor and assess targeted noxious weeds in accordance with Kern River's Noxious Weed 

Control Plan. 

■ Monitor and identify other disturbances on the ROW that may hinder reclamation success, 

such as excessive grazing or unauthorized OHV use. 

■ Identify places where other vegetation control may be needed. With the exception of 

noxious weed control, vegetative maintenance including mowing of non-agricultural lands or 

large sapling or tree removal is not anticipated. Kern River will, however, selectively remove 

large brush from the permanent ROW to facilitate aerial surveillance and inspection. 

7.1.1 Revegetation Performance Criteria 

A quantitative vegetative monitoring program will be developed by Kern River, in 

association with the land management agencies, to document the restoration progress along 

the Project corridor. The performance criteria is based on Kern Rivers’ previous monitoring 

efforts along the 2003 Kern River Expansion Project ROW and performance criteria established 

for the same. Restoration will be considered successful when the ROW and ATWS supports 

40% total cover of desirable plants in the Great basin areas and 60% through the mountains, 

when compared against an adjacent undisturbed (control) plot, by the third growing season 

following construction, and no accelerated erosion is occurring by the third growing season. 

As stated above, Kern River will quantitatively document restoration success along the 

Project ROW and adjacent undisturbed areas following the line transect/point intercept method 

of range analysis. This method was successfully used during monitoring efforts along the 2003 

Kern River Expansion Project corridor. Parameters surveyed typically include a species list and 

estimates of density and cover. Observations of soil disturbance, natural recruitment of 

native/invasive species, plant growth stages, animal use and grazing impacts are also recorded. 

Qualitative analysis methods will be incorporated at established monitoring locations to provide 

visual documentation of all quantitative data (Herrick et al. 2003 and 2005). 

7.1.2 Remedial Action and Maintenance 

Kern River will address active erosional areas as soon as practical. Additional erosion 

control work may be performed by applying the same basic techniques identified in this 

Reclamation Plan or modified based on site-specific conditions. It is also noted that some 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RECLAMATION PLAN

 Page 7-3 

temporary erosion control structures, such as straw bale sediment filters, will be allowed to 

decompose in place. 

Where a seeding failure is noted during monitoring, particularly where accompanied by 

observed increases in water or wind erosion or excessive OHV use, reseeding or replanting 

efforts, including supplemental mulching, will be performed in accordance with agreements with 

the land management agency or current landowner. 

Noxious weed control is also included in maintenance and will be performed in 

accordance with Kern River’s Noxious Weed Control Plan. 

7.2 REPORTING 

Kern River will document its observations of reclamation and revegetation success 

following the field inspections and provide summary reports to the FERC, USFS, UDWR, BLM 

and other land management agencies, as required. Areas that require remedial action will also 

be identified by MP and will include a description of additional erosion controls or reclamation 

work anticipated. Reports, to be submitted during the three years of monitoring, will include a 

summary of corrective actions proposed and will be submitted within three months of identifying 

these conditions. Areas where control applications for noxious weeds are needed will also be 

reported. 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RECLAMATION PLAN

 Page 8-1 

8. OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE CONTROL 

In addition to restoring contours and slopes, installing permanent erosion control 

structures (i.e. slope breakers) and replacing fences, Kern River will leave the restored ROW 

surface in a roughened condition to discourage OHV activity. Signage will also be placed in key 

areas in an attempt to restrict OHV use. Additionally, Kern River may install rock barriers, 

earthen berms or other barricades at the intersections of existing access roads or trails crossed 

by the ROW, as determined in consultation with and at the direction of agency specialists or 

other landowners. Illegal OHV use is not expected to increase due to the construction of the 

Milford compressor station as no new roads are necessary to access the site, and the site area 

will be fenced and secured. 

Kern River does discourage OHV use of its ROW in order to prevent re-disturbance and 

damage to erosion-control structures (most commonly water bars/slope breakers) and 

vegetation and to protect biological and cultural resources. As an easement holder and not the 

landowner, Kern River cannot control all activities of other parties on its ROW. However, Kern 

River will consult with agencies and other landowners to control unauthorized OHV use where 

possible. 

In addition to restoring contours, removing temporary gates at fence lines, installing 

erosion-control structures and revegetation, Kern River will install additional OHV controls at 

intersections of existing roads or trails as directed by the land management agency or 

landowner. 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RECLAMATION PLAN

 Page 9-1 

9. REFERENCES 

Albee, Beverly J., Leila M. Shultz, Sherel Goodrich, 1988, Atlas of the Vascular Plants of Utah, 

Utah Museum of Natural History, Occasional Publication No. 7. 

Connelly, John W., Michael A. Schroeder, Alan R. Sands, and Clait E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines 

to Manage Sage Grouse Populations and their Habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28(4): 

967-985. 

Ecology and Environment, Inc. March 2002. Reclamation Plan, Utah Portion 2003 Expansion 

Project. Prepared for Kern River Gas Transmission Company. 

__________. September 2007. Right-of-Way Reclamation Monitoring Report Year 2007. 

Prepared for Kern River Gas Transmission Company. 

Herrick, J., Van Zee, J., Havstad, K., and Whitford, W. 2003. Draft: Monitoring Manual for 

Grassland, Shrubland and Savanna Ecosystems. New Mexico Agricultural Research 

Station, Jornada Experimental Range, New Mexico State University. Las Cruces, New 

Mexico. 

__________. 2005. Monitoring Manual for Grassland, Shrubland and Savanna Ecosystems. 

New Mexico Agricultural Research Station, Jornada Experimental Range, New Mexico 

State University. Las Cruces, New Mexico. 

Kramer, Pam, UDWR, 20 August 2009, personal communication with Paul E. Smith, Ecology 

and Environment, Inc. 

Stoddart, Laurence A., Arthur D. Smith, Thadias W. Box, 1975, Range Management Third 

Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company. 

Stubbendieck, Stephan L. Hatch, & L.M. Landholt, 2003, North American Wildland Plants A 

Field Guide, University of Nebraska Press. 

Vince, Brock, USDA NRCS, 3 August 2009, personal communication with Paul E. Smith, 

Ecology and Environment, Inc. 
KERN RIVER GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY 

Reclamation Plan 

Appendices 

Kern River Gas Transmission 

Apex Expansion Project 

November 2009 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RECLAMATION PLAN

 Page A-1 

Appendix A 

Typical Drawings 








APPENDIX G 

NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN 

KERN RIVER GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY

Noxious Weed Control Plan

Kern River Gas Transmission

Apex Expansion Project

November 2009
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

Page i

Table of Contents

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

1.1 Plan Purpose........................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Goals and Objectives .............................................................................................. 2

1.3 Project Description .................................................................................................. 2

2. NoxiOus Weed Inventory.......................................................................................3

2.1 Cooperative Weed Management Areas................................................................... 9

3. Noxious Weed Management................................................................................11

3.1 Identification of Problem Areas...............................................................................11

3.2 Preventive Measures..............................................................................................11

3.3 Post Construction Treatment Methods ...................................................................13

3.4 Agency-Specific Requirements ..............................................................................13

4. Monitoring.............................................................................................................15

4.1 Reclamation Monitoring..........................................................................................15

4.2 Monitoring of Known Infestation Areas ...................................................................15

5. Herbicide Application, Handling, Spills, Reporting and Cleanup .....................17

5.1 Herbicide Application and Handling........................................................................17

5.2 Herbicide Spills and Reporting ...............................................................................18

5.2.1 Worker Safety and Spill Reporting..........................................................................19

6. References............................................................................................................21

KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

Page iii

List of Tables

Table 2-1 Existing Noxious Weed Inventory for the Proposed Wasatch Loop .............................3

Table 2-2 Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest Noxious Weed List..........................................4

Table 2-3 Wyoming Designated Noxious Weed List....................................................................5

Table 2-4 Utah Noxious Weed List..............................................................................................6

Table 2-5 Nevada Noxious Weed List .........................................................................................7

KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

Page v

List of Acronyms

ATWS Additional Temporary Workspaces

BLM United States Bureau of Land Management

CWMA Cooperative Weed Management Area

EI Environmental Inspector

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

mph miles per hour

MSDS Material Safety Data Aheets

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

PUP Pesticide Use Proposal

PUPs Pesticide Use Permits

ROW/ROWs Right(s)-of-Way

SPCC Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures

UDNR Utah Department of Natural Resources

UDWR Utah Division of Wildlife Resources

USFS United States Forest Service

UWCNF Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

Page 1

1. INTRODUCTION

Noxious weed control practices for the Apex Expansion Project (Project) as described in

this plan have been developed utilizing the following sources:

■ Field surveys performed in 2009 by the Kern River Gas Transmission Company (Kern

River);

■ Wasatch-Cache National Forest Noxious Weed Treatment Program, Draft Environmental

Impact Statement (March 2006);

■ Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2003 Revised Forest Plan, Noxious Weed Management

Guidelines;

■ Utah Department of Agriculture and Food; Section 4-17-3:

■ 2008 Utah Noxious Weed Act Official Designation and Published Noxious Weed List; and

■ Noxious Weed Field Guide for Utah.

1.1 PLAN PURPOSE

The purpose of this Noxious Weed Control Plan (Plan) is to prescribe methods to

prevent and control the spread of noxious weeds before, during and following construction of

the Project. Kern River and its contractors will be responsible for carrying out the methods

described in this Plan.

This Plan is applicable to the pre-construction, construction and operation of the

proposed pipeline facilities, including the pipeline rights-of-way (ROWs), the proposed

compressor stations, meter stations, areas of additional temporary workspaces (ATWS) and any

other locations disturbed during construction, including interaction with the existing pipeline

ROW.

This plan has been prepared to address the pipeline portion of the proposed Project and

related temporary use areas. The preventive measures including equipment cleaning prior to

mobilization prescribed in Section 3.2 of this Plan will also be followed prior to mobilization for

construction to the existing and proposed Milford compressor station. Since the compressor

station sites are, or will be largely maintained as gravel surface during operations, noxious weed

control requirements are anticipated to be limited mainly to spot mowing, mechanical removal,

or approved herbicide application during operations.
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

Page 2

1.2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The goal of noxious weed control is to implement preventive measures to minimize the

establishment and spread of noxious weeds during ground disturbing activities associated with

construction of the proposed facilities. The term Noxious weed is defined in Utah Code

4-17-2(4) as any plant the Commissioner of Agriculture determines to be especially injurious to

public health, crops, livestock, land, or other property. Noxious weeds are typically opportunistic

plant species that tend to readily colonize disturbed areas and compete with desirable

vegetation. Monitoring and maintenance during the construction and operational phases will

include identification of any local infestation areas on and adjacent to the ROW and other areas

disturbed during construction. By identifying and treating infestation areas, Kern River will

minimize the opportunity for noxious weeds to spread and out-compete the specifically selected

desirable species included in Kern River’s reclamation seed mixes. An evaluation of the

efficiency of the prescribed control measures will also be implemented during the growing

season immediately following construction as well as during continued operations.

1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Kern River proposes to construct and operate facilities to expand the existing Kern River

interstate pipeline system by installing approximately 28 miles of new pipeline through portions

of the Wasatch Mountains into the Salt Lake Valley (Wasatch Loop) as well as addition of

compression at one existing compressor station in Wyoming, two in Utah, one in Nevada, and

construction of one new compressor station in Beaver County, Utah. For more detailed

information regarding the proposed facilities, see Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Docket No. PF09-07, Resource Report No. 1.
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

Page 3

2. NOXIOUS WEED INVENTORY

Preconstruction field surveys were conducted as part of the wetlands and biological

surveys in the spring and early summer of 2009 to identify existing noxious weeds, as listed

under the State of Utah Classification System for Noxious Weeds (Utah Code 4-17-3), along the

pipeline ROW, and at the proposed facilities. Preconstruction survey results are presented in

Table 2-1.

Table 2-1

Existing Noxious Weed Inventory for the Proposed Wasatch Loop

Species Common Name

(scientific) Mileposts

State

Classification2 Comment

Dalmatian toadflax

(Linaria dalmatica)

18.3; 18.5; 18.6;

20.0; 20.4

B Also located along Richens and Hardscrabble

access roads.

Houndstounge (Cynoglossum

offinale)

20.4; 20.6 C Also located along Richens, Tom Tucker,

Hardscrabble, Mueller Park and Canyon Creek

access roads.

Leafy spurge

(Euphorbia esula)

17.9 A Small community.

Scotch thistle

(Onopordum acanthium)

9.0, 20.4 B Also located along Richens and Hardscrabble

access roads.

Yellow starthistle

(Centaurea solstitialis)

21.8 A Also located along the Hidden Lake Circle access

road.

Whitetop (hoary cress)

(Cardaria draba)

18.5; 20.7; 26.6;

27.0; 27.3; 27.9

B Also located along Tom Tucker access road.

Notes:

1 Noxious Weed Inventory completed during spring/summer 2009 field surveys.

2 State of Utah Classification systems for noxious weeds, where: Class A requires early detection rapid response and is given a

very high control priority; Class B considered high priority for control; and Class C focus is on containment.

The United States Forest Service (USFS) and the states of Wyoming, Utah and Nevada

maintain official listings of weed species that are designated noxious. Local Weed Supervisors

may designate additional weed species as noxious within individual counties. Kern River is

consulting with county weed control representatives. Weed species, as defined in the

publication Weeds of the West (Ball et.al., 2002), are described as “A plant that interferes with

management objectives for a given area of land at a given point in time –J.M. Torell.” Noxious

weeds listed for the Wasatch-Cache National Forest now the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National

Forest (UWCNF) and the states of Wyoming, Utah and Nevada where Project impacts occur are

presented in Tables 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, and 2-5, respectively.
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

Page 4

Table 2-2

Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest Noxious Weed List

Common Name Scientific Nomenclature

Bermuda grass Cynodon dactylon

Black henbane Hyoscyamus niger

Blue spurge Euphorbia myrsinites

Canada thistle Circium arvense

Common burdock Arctium minus

Dalmatian toadflax Linaria dalmatica

Dyer’s woad Isatis tinctora

Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis

Hemlock Conium maculatum

Houndstounge Cyonoglossum officinale

Jointed goatgrass Aegilops cylindrica

Knapweed, Diffuse Centaurea diffusa

Knapweed, Russian Centaurea repens

Knapweed, Spotted Centaurea maculosa

Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula

Medusahead Taeniatherum caput-medusae

Musk thistle Carduus nutans

Perennial pepperweed Lepidium latifolium

Puncturevine Tribulus terrestris

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria

Salt Cedar Tamarix spp.

Scotch thistle Onopordum acanthium

St. Johnswort Hypericum perforatum

Wand mullein Verbascum virgatum

Whitetop/hoary cress Cardaria draba

Yellow starthistle Centaurea solstitialis

Yellow toadflax Linaria vulgaris

Note:

1 Wasatch-Cache National Forest Noxious Weed List from Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix H of the February

2003 Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land Resource Management Plan (Revised Forest Plan).
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

Page 5

Table 2-3

Wyoming Designated Noxious Weed List

Common Name Scientific Nomenclature

Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis

Canada thistle Circium arvense

Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula

Perennial sowthistle Sonchus arvensis

Quackgrass Agropyron repens

Hoary Cress (Whitetop) Cardaria draba and C. pubescens

Perennial pepperweed (giant Whitetop) Lepidium latifolium

Ox-eye daisy Chrysanthemum leucantheumum

Skeletonleaf bursage Franseria discolor

Russian knapweed Centaurea repens

Yellow toadflax Linaria vulgaris

Dalmatian toadflax Linaria dalmatica

Scotch thistle Onopordum acanthium

Musk thistle Carduus nutans

Common burdock Arctium minus

Plumeless thistle Carduus acanthoides

Dyers woad Isatis tinctora

Houndstounge Cyonoglossum officinale

Spotted knapweed Centaurea maculosa

Diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria

Saltcedar Tamarix spp.

Common St. Johnswort Hypericum perforatum

Common tansy Tanacetum vulgare

Note:

1 Wyoming Weed & Pest Control Act Designated Noxious Weeds .S. 11-5-102 (a)(xi).
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

Page 6

Table 2-4

Utah Noxious Weed List

Common Name Scientific Nomenclature

Class A2

Blackhenbane Hyoseyamus niger

Diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa

Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula

Medusahead Taeniatherum caput-medusae

Ox-eye daisy Chrysanthemum leucantheumum

Perennial sorgham Sorgham halepense and S. almum

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria

Spotted knapweed Centaurea maculosa

St. Johnswort Hypericum perforatum

Sulfer cinquefoil Potentilla recta

Yellow starthistle Centaurea solstitialis

Yellow toadflax Linaria vulgaris

Class B3

Bermudagrass Cynodon dactylon

Broad-leaved perppergrass (tall Whitetop) Lepidium latifolium

Dalmatian toadflax Linaria dalmatica

Dyers woad Isatis tinctora

Hoary Cress Cardaria spp.

Musk thistle Carduus nutans

Poison hemlock Conium maculatum

Russian knapweed Centaurea repens

Scotch thistle Onopordum acanthium

Squarrose knapweed Centaurea virgata ssp. squarrosa

Class C4

Field bindweed (wild morning-glory) Convolvulus spp.

Canada thistle Circium arvense

Houndstounge Cyonoglossum officinale

Saltcedar Tamarix ramosissima

Quackgrass Agropyron repens

Note:

1 Utah Noxious Weed Act section 4-17-3.

2 Class A: Early Detection Rapid Response (EDRR) Declared noxious weeds not native to the state of Utah that pose a serious

threat to the state and should be considered as a very high priority.

3 Class B: (Control) Declared noxious weeds not native to the state of Utah, that pose a threat to the state and should be

considered a high priority for control.

4 Class C: (Containment) Declared noxious weeds not native to the state of Utah that are widely spread but pose a threat to the

agricultural industry and agricultural products with a focus on stopping expansion.
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

Page 7

Table 2-5

Nevada Noxious Weed List

Common Name Scientific Nomenclature

Class A2

African rue Peganum harmala

Austrian fieldcress Rorippa austriaca

Austrian peaweed Sphaerophysa salsola and Swainsona salsula

Blackhenbane Hyoseyamus niger

Camelthorn Alhagi camelorum

Common crupina Crupina vulgaris

Dalmatian toadflax Linaria dalmatica

Dyers woad Isatis tinctora

Eurasian water-milfoil Myriophyllum spicatum

Giant reed Arundo donax

Giant salvinia Salvinia molesta

Green fountain grass Pennisetum setaceum

Houndstounge Cyonoglossum officinale

Hydrilla Hydrilla verticillata

Iberian starthistle Centaurea iberica

Klamath weed Hypericum perforatum

Malta star thistle Centaurea melitensis

Mayweed chamomile Anthemis cotula

Mediterranean sage Salvia aethiopis

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria

Purple star thistle Centaurea calcitrapa

Rush skeletonweed Chondrilla juncea

Spotted knapweed Centaurea maculosa

Squarrose knapweed Centaurea virgata

Sulfer cinquefoil Potentilla recta

Syrian bean caper Zygophyllum fabago

Yellow starthistle Centaurea solstitialis

Yellow toadflax Linaria vulgaris

Class B3

Carolina horse-nettle Solanum carolinense

Diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa

Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula

Medusahead Taeniatherum caput-medusae

Musk thistle Carduus nutans

Russian knapweed Acroptilon repens

Sahara mustard Brassica tournefortii

Scotch thistle Onopordum acanthium

White horse-nettle Solanum elaeagnifolium

Class C4

Canada thistle Circium arvense

Hoary Cress Cardaria draba.

Johnson grass Sorgham halepense

Perennial pepperweed Lepidium latifolium

Poison hemlock Conium maculatum
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

Page 8

Puncture vine Tribulus terrestris

Salt cedar (tamarisk) Tamarix spp.

Water hemlock Cicuta maculata

Note:

1 Nevada Department of Agriculture Plant Industry Division Noxious Weed List, NAC 555.010 (amended March 24, 2005).

2 Class A: Weeds not found or limited in distribution throughout the state; actively excluded from the state and actively eradicated

wherever found; actively eradicated from nursery stock dealer premises; control required by the state in all infestations.

3 Class B: Weeds established in scattered populations in some counties of the state; actively excluded where possible, actively

eradicated from nursery stock dealer premises; control required by the state in areas where populations are not well established

or previously unknown to occur.

4 Class C: Weeds currently established and generally widespread in many counties of the state; actively eradicated from nursery

stock dealer premises; abatement at the discretion of the state quarantine officer.

Kern River, the USFS and other regulatory agencies recognize that there are species

that because of their widespread distribution are not considered feasible for general control. In

addition, Kern River’s primary objective is to prevent the spread of noxious weeds, and treat

selected areas along its ROW where target species are problematic and form a significant

portion of the vegetation community in comparison to adjacent undisturbed areas. Repeated

control measures on the ROW are generally not considered feasible where those species are

already established and abundant in the adjacent areas.

The preventive measures identified in Section 3.2 will be implemented along the pipeline

ROW and at all of the proposed facilities to minimize the spread of noxious weeds during

construction activities.

Wyoming

Under the authority of the Wyoming Weed and Pest Control Act of 1973 (S. 11-5-102

(a)(xi) and W.S. 11-12-104), 24 plant species officially have been designated as noxious. The

list of noxious weed species applies to the entire state (unless otherwise noted), and is

presented in Table 2-3.

Utah

The UWCNF weed list, as presented in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2003

Revised Forest Plan is presented in Table 2-2. Included in this listing are 16 species that may

not be classified as noxious weeds by the State, but are of concern because of their status in

adjacent States, potential to become state noxious weeds, or because of their poisonous or

other undesirable characteristics.

Twenty-seven plant species officially have been designated as noxious for the State of

Utah, per the authority vested in the Commissioner of Agriculture under Section 4-17-3 of the

Utah Noxious Weed Act. The state list of noxious weeds, which also includes noxious weeds

listed as being of special concern (species targeted for control), is presented in Table 2-4.
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

Page 9

Nevada

The Nevada Control of Insects, Pests and Noxious Weeds Act (Nevada Revised

Statutes: Chapter 555) grants the Director of the Nevada Department of Agriculture the authority

to investigate and control noxious plants. Forty-seven species officially have been designated

as noxious in the State of Nevada. The state list of noxious weeds, which includes noxious

weeds listed as being of special concern (species targeted for control), is presented in Table 2-

5.

2.1 COOPERATIVE WEED MANAGEMENT AREAS

Cooperative Weed Management Areas (CWMAs) are one of the newest and most

effective ways to battle noxious and invading weeds in the United States. A CWMA is a

cooperative effort among land managers and owners within a given area, such as a watershed.

These areas replace jurisdictional boundaries with natural boundaries that facilitate cooperation,

coordination and implementation of effective integrated weed management programs for listed

noxious weeds (Salt Lake CWMA 2009). Kern River will work closely with each of the CWMAs

where the Project facilities are located. The Project overlaps with the following CWMAs:

■ Bear River Divide CWMA (Uinta and Lincoln Counties, Wyoming);

■ Beaver CWMA (Beaver County, Utah);

■ Salt Lake CWMA (Salt Lake County, Utah);

■ Weber River CWMA (Morgan and Davis Counties, Utah); and

■ Clark CWMA (Clark County, Nevada).

KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

Page 11

3. NOXIOUS WEED MANAGEMENT

Regulatory jurisdictions (i.e., USFS, UDNR [Utah Department of Natural Resources],

etc.) along the pipeline ROW and at the proposed facilities have varying requirements for weed

management. However, all generally agree that the following combination of efforts is the most

cost-effective and practical approach to managing noxious weed populations:

■ implementation of preventive measures, which includes early detection and treatment;

■ following best management practices (BMPs)during construction; and

■ implementing an integrated weed management program to control the spread of noxious

weeds.

Kern River has and will continue to work closely with all regulatory agencies to prevent

noxious weeds from becoming established or spreading due to Kern River’s construction and

operations activities.

3.1 IDENTIFICATION OF PROBLEM AREAS

Prior to construction, Kern River will provide information and training regarding noxious

weed management; identification; and the impacts on agriculture, livestock and wildlife as part

of the preconstruction environmental training The importance of preventing the spread of

noxious weeds into areas not already infested, and controlling the proliferation of weeds already

present, will be explained. During construction, areas of concern for noxious weeds will be

identified and flagged in the field by Kern River’s environmental contractor. The flagging will

alert construction personnel and prevent access into areas until noxious weed management

control measures have been properly implemented.

3.2 PREVENTIVE MEASURES

To avoid spreading existing noxious weeds and prevent the introduction of new noxious

weeds, prior to construction, appropriate treatment will be used to the treat identified weed

infestations to reduce the potential spread or proliferation of noxious weeds during construction.

Pre-construction control measures may include one or more of the following methods:

■ Treatment methods and timing will be based on species-specific and area-specific

conditions (e.g., proximity to water or riparian areas, agricultural areas, topography, land use

and time of year) and will be coordinated with the local regulatory offices. Additionally, all

treatment methods will follow requirements and guidelines of respective agency regulations

and plans.
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

Page 12

■ Mechanical methods which rely on equipment that is used to mow or disc weed populations.

Mechanical treatments that would disturb the soil surface within sensitive native habitats will

be avoided or minimized to the extent possible

■ Chemical application is an effective method of reducing the size of noxious weed

populations. Applications will be controlled, as described in Section 5.1, to minimize the

impacts to the adjacent vegetation and land usage. In areas of dense infestation, a broader

application will be used. The timing of the application will be based on the extent of

infestation, landowner/agency requests and the construction schedule.

To avoid spreading existing noxious weeds and prevent the introduction of new noxious

weeds during construction, preventive measures will be implemented that follow BMSs. At a

minimum, the following practices will be adhered to:

■ All contractor vehicles and equipment will be thoroughly cleaned of soil and plant material

prior to mobilization to the Project site(s) and all clearing and grading equipment will be

cleaned prior to leaving an identified noxious weed site. Cleaning will include mechanical

removal of clumps of sod or soil and high pressure air spraying. The contractor will deploy

cleaning stations at each spread or construction site, using a non-permeable poly-fabric,

similar to VisqueenTM, so that the soil and plant material from the cleaning operation can be

removed and disposed of without contaminating the underlying soil. Equipment cleaning will

concentrate on tracks, feet, or tires and on equipment undercarriages. Special emphasis

will be placed on axles, frame, cross members, motor mounts, and on steps, running boards

and front bumper/brush guard assemblies. In addition, equipment air filters and housings will

be clean of fine vegetative material. Vehicle cabs will be swept out and refuse will be

disposed of in waste receptacles. The contractor will certify in writing that vehicles and

equipment are free of soil and debris capable of transporting noxious weed material prior to

delivery to and mobilizing from contractor yards, and those plant materials which include but

are not limited to seeds, roots, or rhizomes have been removed prior to entry on to the

ROW. Kern River’s Environmental Inspector (EI) or other delegated representative will have

the authority to refuse entry on to the ROW or to prevent movement beyond a designated

cleaning station if equipment has not been satisfactorily cleaned.

■ Once the ROW has been cleared of all identified weed infestations and graded, pipeline

installation (i.e., trenching, stringing, etc.) may proceed without further equipment cleaning

activities.

■ Prior to the off-site transport of ROW restoration equipment, the contractor will ensure all

equipment is clean of soil and vegetative matter to minimize the potential for spreading

weed seeds. Cleaning sites will be inspected and their locations recorded by the EI. This

information will be made available to the appropriate regulatory agencies.

■ The contractor will ensure and certify in writing that all straw bales used for sediment and

erosion controls, mulch distribution, and restoration seed mixes are certified as weed-free

from the supplier;

■ The contractor will implement the reclamation of disturbed lands as soon as practicable

following construction as specified in Kern River’s Reclamation Plan. Appropriate

restoration efforts will ensure an adequate vegetative cover that minimizes the potential of

noxious weed development.
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

Page 13

3.3 POST CONSTRUCTION TREATMENT METHODS

Kern River will implement noxious weed control measures that are in accordance with

existing state and federal regulations and jurisdictional land management agencies or

landowner agreements. Post-construction control measures may include one or more of the

following methods:

■ Treatment methods will be based on species-specific and area-specific conditions (e.g.,

proximity to water or riparian areas, agricultural areas, topography, land use, and time of

year) and will be coordinated with the local regulatory offices. Additionally, all treatment

methods will follow requirements and guidelines of respective agency regulations and plans.

■ Mechanical methods rely on equipment that is used to mow or disc weed populations. If

such a method is used, subsequent seeding will be conducted to re-establish a desirable

vegetative cover that will stabilize the soils and slow the potential re-introduction of noxious

weeds. Seed selection will be based on site-specific conditions, agency and landowner

preferences to identify the appropriate seed mix identified for those conditions, as presented

in the Reclamation Plan.

■ Mechanical treatments that would disturb the soil surface within sensitive native habitats will

be avoided or minimized to the extent possible.

■ Chemical application is an effective method of reducing the size of noxious weed

populations. Applications will be controlled, as described in Section 5.1, to minimize the

impacts to the adjacent vegetation and land usage. In areas of dense infestation, a broader

application will be used and a follow-up seeding program implemented. Supplemental

seeding will be based on the criteria in the Reclamation Plan. The timing of subsequent

revegetation efforts will be based on the extent of infestation, landowner/agency requests,

and the success of previous revegetation efforts.

■ If areas are not seeded until the following spring because of weather or scheduling

constraints, all annuals and undesirable vegetation that have become established will be

eradicated through mechanical or chemical means before seeding.

3.4 AGENCY-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS

Occurrence of weed infestations within the pipeline ROW and at Project facilities will be

reported to the appropriate regulatory agency office with jurisdiction where the weeds are found.

Proper weed control procedures, including target species, timing of control and method of

control, will be determined in consultation with USFS, United States Bureau of Land

Management (BLM) or CWMAs personnel. Kern River may be able to utilize existing

Cooperative Agreements between USFS, BLM and the CWMAs for noxious weed control by

providing funds to these organizations to implement the necessary weed control procedures. If

not, Kern River will be responsible for providing the necessary personnel or hiring a contractor
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

Page 14

to execute the weed control procedures in accordance with Kern River’s herbicide application,

handling, spills and clean-up guidelines described in Section 5.0 of this Plan.

In addition, Kern River’s noxious weed management activities will be consistent with the

policies, goals and mitigation practices presented in the USFS (Region 4) Appendix III: Noxious

Weed Management Guidance of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest 2003 Revised Forest

Plan, the BLM Integrated Vegetation Management Handbook (H-1740-2), and other state and

local laws. Additionally, Kern River currently holds pesticide use permits (PUPs) with the BLM

in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada and California for its existing interstate facilities.
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

Page 15

4. MONITORING

Noxious weed surveys will be conducted during Kern River’s reclamation monitoring

effort, as well as on an annual basis in areas of known infestations.

4.1 RECLAMATION MONITORING

Kern River intends to commence restoration monitoring during the first growing season

following construction. Reporting of noxious weed infestations will be included with evaluations

of revegetation success. Kern River will continue to monitor revegetation success on all lands

on an annual basis as part of their routine annual ROW surveillance.

Kern River will document its observations following the monitoring effort and make these

reports available to the USFS, BLM, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), counties and

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as required.

For sites where noxious weed infestations are identified, particularly in previously

unaffected areas, Kern River will evaluate these specific areas to determine if remedial actions

and additional treatment are required. Kern River will identify such areas to the appropriate

regulatory agencies by milepost and will record any noxious weed control treatments anticipated

for use. A reclamation report summarizing ROW stability, revegetation progress, percent cover

and weed infestation will be provided to the land management agencies every year, for the first

three years..

Kern River regularly communicates with individual landowners, counties and land

management agencies if they have concerns pertaining to noxious weeds on the pipeline ROW

within their jurisdiction(s). These parties may also contact Kern River to report the presence of

noxious weeds within the Kern River ROW. Kern River will control weed infestations on their

ROW on a case-by-case basis and include a summary of actions taken in their annual reporting

process. Furthermore, Kern River operations personnel are trained in the identification of

specific noxious weed species and provide Kern River’s Land and Environment Department a

report of their findings during the normal course of maintenance activities. Therefore, the ROW

is essentially monitored on an on-going basis.

4.2 MONITORING OF KNOWN INFESTATION AREAS

In addition to the on-going noxious weed monitoring (as noted by counties/landowners or

by Kern River’s pipeline maintenance and operations team) Kern River will conduct annual site

visits during the first three years post-construction (USDOI 2007) to monitor known infestation
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

Page 16

areas. Subsequently, Kern River will continue to monitor and treat these infestation areas on an

on-going basis as part of their routine annual ROW surveillance and until adequate control of

the noxious weeds population is successful or until it is determined that additional treatment

would not be effective due to factors such as widespread establishment in adjacent areas.
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

Page 17

5. HERBICIDE APPLICATION, HANDLING, SPILLS, REPORTING AND CLEANUP

5.1 HERBICIDE APPLICATION AND HANDLING

Herbicide application will be in accordance with local CWMAs, USFS and BLM

guidelines and protocols. When a noxious weed infestation is identified during regular

monitoring of Kern River’s facilities, Kern River will submit a completed Pesticide Use Proposal

(PUP) form to the appropriate land management agency in which the infestation occurs. No

application of herbicides will take place until the agency has reviewed and approved (in writing)

the PUP. Before herbicide application, Kern River or its contractor will obtain any required

permits from local, state, or federal authorities. A licensed contractor will perform the

application in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.

Only those herbicides registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),

which have been properly evaluated under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

(USDOI 2007), and are approved by the land management agency will be used. All product

label and advisory statements will be complied with. Generally, application of herbicides will not

occur when the following conditions exists:

■ wind velocity exceeds 10 miles per hour (mph) for ground application or exceeds 6 mph for

aerial applications (USDOI 2007);

■ snow or ice covers the foliage of target species; or

■ adverse weather conditions are imminent.

Vehicle-mounted sprayers (e.g., handgun, boom and injector) will be used mainly in

open areas that are readily accessible by vehicle. Hand application methods (e.g., backpack

spraying) or aerial applications may be used in roadless or rough terrain. Calibration checks of

equipment will be conducted at the beginning of spraying and periodically to ensure that proper

application rates are achieved.

Herbicides will be transported to the project site daily with the following provisions:

■ Only the quantity needed for that day’s work will be transported.

■ Concentrate will be transported in approved containers only and in a manner that will

prevent tipping or spilling, and in a compartment that is isolated from food, clothing and

safety equipment.

■ Mixing will be done off site and at a distance greater than 200 feet from open or flowing

water, wetlands, or other sensitive resources. No herbicides will be applied at these areas

unless authorized by the appropriate regulatory agencies.

■ All herbicide equipment and containers will be inspected for leaks daily.
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

Page 18

■ Herbicides use will be in accordance with all manufacture label recommendations and

warnings.

5.2 HERBICIDE SPILLS AND REPORTING

All reasonable precautions will be taken to avoid herbicide spills. In the event of a spill,

cleanup will be immediate. Contractors will keep spill kits in their vehicles and in appropriate

storage areas to allow for quick and effective response to spills. Items to be included in the spill

kit are:

■ protective clothing and gloves;

■ adsorptive clay, “kitty litter,” or other commercial adsorbent;

■ plastic bags and bucket;

■ plastic sheeting;

■ shovel;

■ fiber brush and screw-in handle;

■ dust pan;

■ caution tape;

■ highway flares (use on existing hard-top roads only); and

■ detergent.

Response to a herbicide spill will vary with the size and location of the spill, but general

procedures include:

■ traffic control;

■ dressing the clean-up team in protective clothing;

■ stopping the leak;

■ containing the spilled material;

■ cleaning up and removing the spilled herbicide and contaminated adsorptive material and

soil; and

■ transporting the spilled pesticide and contaminated material to an authorized disposal site.
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

Page 19

5.2.1 Worker Safety and Spill Reporting

All herbicide contractors will obtain and have readily available copies of the appropriate

material safety data sheets (MSDS) for the herbicides used and will keep copies of the MSDS in

the applications vehicle. All herbicide spills will be reported in accordance with applicable laws

and requirements. In each case, the appropriate regulatory agency and hazardous materials

coordinator will be notified immediately as specified in the Spill Prevention Control and

Countermeasures (SPCC) plan for the Project and an incident report will be completed and filed

with Kern River in accordance with PUP requirements.

General Requirements Regarding Herbicides and Pesticides

When handled, prepared and used as directed, most herbicides have little potential to

cause environmental harm or personal injury. Measures such as the use of proper protective

clothing, understanding the nature and chemical properties of the herbicide, and knowledge of

appropriate first-aid procedures are fundamental to applying herbicides in a safe manner.

Herbicide Storage

Pesticides should be stored in fire resistant metal storage cabinets in a pre-designated

area that is also fire resistant. The area chosen should be kept dry, cool and have an exhaust

fan for proper ventilation. Furthermore, the area should be secured with a lock and posted with

warning signs. Bottles of pesticide should have the date they were received and the date of

each use written on the label.

Transport

Containers of herbicide should be transported in a cushioned, leak proof box with

securable lid. The box should be firmly secured to the non-wooden open bed of a pickup truck

or utility trailer. Pesticides are not to be transported in the truck cab or inside of a passenger

car. The load should be checked periodically when transporting over long distances to a

treatment site.

Mixing and Application

Appropriate tools and containment structures will be on hand and deployed where

mixing is to take place. Also, the appropriate absorbents will be readily available in the event of

an uncontrolled spill. Proper protective clothing will be worn during all mixings and applications.
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL PLAN

Page 20

Spills

If an incident should occur resulting in a spill on an individual, the soil or into a

waterbody, the following procedure will be followed in each case:

Body Contact Spill

The contaminated clothing should be removed and the affected area flushed with water.

Immediate transport to a predetermined hospital or clinic should be made if the herbicide has

been ingested or inhaled.

Soil Spill

The contaminated soil should be shoveled into a leak-proof container or can be spread

on heavy plastic sheets. However, every attempt should be made to prevent the herbicide from

spreading over the soil surface. Contaminated soil should be disposed of as a hazardous

material.

Spill in Waterbodies

At concentrations normally used during the application process, most herbicides will be

diluted to below threshold limits if accidentally spilled into a waterbody. Spill control materials

such as Hazsorb, WYC, Haz-Mat Pig, Wolf Absorbent Socks and Polysorb Oil Absorbent Fabric

are commercially available to assist with containment and cleanup. Once deployed, the used

materials can then be properly containerized and disposed of in accordance with all applicable

local, state, and federal laws and regulations. Appropriate County and state water quality

departments will be contacted immediately.
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT DRAFT RECLAMATION PLAN

Page 21

6. REFERENCES

Kern River Gas Transmission Company, 2003, Procedures Spill Prevention and Response

Planning, 35.06.01.02.

National Network of Invasive Plant Centers, 2009, Cooperative Weed Management Areas,

http://www.invasiveplantcenters.org

Nevada Department of Agriculture Plant Industry Division, 2005, Nevada Agricultural Code

555.010 Noxious Weed List.

Salt Lake County, 2009, Weed Control Program, http://www.weeds.slco.org/

The University of Montana-Missoula, 2009, Invaders Database System, http://invader.dbs.umt.

edu/Noxious_Weeds/

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, 2003, Wasatch-Cache National Forest

Land and Resource Management Plan (Revised Forest Plan).

__________, 2009, Intermountain Region Noxious Weeds Cooperative Weed Management

Areas USDA Forest Service Region 4, http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/resources/noxious_

weeds/cwmas.shtml

U. S. Department of the Interior (USDOI), 2007. Final Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides

on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic

Environmental Impact Statement, two volumes, publication FES 07-21. Washington,

D.C.

__________, 2007, Record of Decision, Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of

Land Management Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact

Statement, Washington, D.C.

__________, 2008, Integrated Vegetation Management Handbook, Publication H-1740-2.

Utah Agricultural Code, 2008, Utah Noxious Weed Act, Title 4 Chapter 17 section 3 Designation

and Publication of State Noxious Weeds.

Utah Weed Control Association, 2009, Cooperative Weed Management Areas, http://www.utah

weed.org/cwma.htm

Weber River Cooperative Weed Management Area, 2009, http://www.weberrivercwma.org

Wyoming Department of Agriculture, 2003, Designated Noxious Weeds and Prohibited Noxious

Weeds .S. 11-5-102 (a)(xi) and W.S. 11-12-104.

APPENDIX H 

SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL AND COUNTERMEASURE PLAN 

FOR OIL & HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES 

KERN RIVER GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY 

DRAFT 

SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL AND COUNTERMEASURE 

PLAN FOR OIL & HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES 

Docket No. CP10-XX 

Kern River Gas Transmission 

Apex Expansion Project 

November 2009 

This document is not complete until the site/job specific 

information has been provided. The information requested 

(notes and blank spaces) must be completed for this plan to 

meet the requirements of 40 CFR 112. 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT DRAFT SPCC PLAN

Page i 

Table of Contents 

1. General Information .........................................................................................1-1

1.1 Site Description ..................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Security ..............................................................................................................1-2

1.3 Kern River Personnel .........................................................................................1-2

1.4 Material & Waste Inventory ................................................................................1-3

2. Training .............................................................................................................2-1

3. Facility Drainage & Spill Prevention Practices..............................................3-1

3.1 Facility Drainage.................................................................................................3-1

3.2 Spill Prevention ..................................................................................................3-1

4. Emergency Response Procedures .................................................................4-1

4.1 Contractor Responsibilities.................................................................................4-1

4.2 Kern River Responsibilities.................................................................................4-1

4.3 Emergency Coordinator and Chain-of-Command ..............................................4-2

4.4 Duties of Chief Inspector ....................................................................................4-2

5. Emergency And Personnel Protection Equipment .......................................5-1

6. Release Notification Procedures ....................................................................6-1

6.1 Internal Notifications...........................................................................................6-1

6.2 External Notifications..........................................................................................6-1

6.3 Emergency Response Contractors.....................................................................6-2

6.4 Local Emergency Response Teams...................................................................6-2

7. Clean-Up Procedures.......................................................................................7-1

7.1 Oil/Fuel Spills .....................................................................................................7-1

7.2 Hazardous Substance Releases ........................................................................7-2

7.3 Equipment Cleaning/Storage .............................................................................7-2

7.4 Disposal of Contaminated Materials/Soils..........................................................7-3

Appendix A Hazardous Substance Inventory MSDS Sheets............................................ A-1

Appendix B List of Emergency Response Personnel....................................................... B-1

Appendix C Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan .......................................................... C-1

Appendix D Spill Report Form ............................................................................................ D-1
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT DRAFT SPCC PLAN

Page ii 

List of Acronyms 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CI Chief Inspector 

DM District Manager 

DOT United States Department of Transportation 

Dth/d Dekatherms per day 

EC Emergency Coordinator 

EI Environmental Inspector 

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency 

hp horsepower 

I.D. Identification 

ISO International Organization for Standardization 

L&E Land and Environment 

LEPC Local Emergency Planning Committees 

MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet 

PVC polyvinyl chlorine 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

ROW/ROWs Right(s)-of-Way 

RQ Reportable Quantity 

SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act 

SPCC Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure 

SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT DRAFT SPCC PLAN

Page 1-1 

1. GENERAL INFORMATION 

1.1 SITE DESCRIPTION 

The following Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC)1 Plan for Oil & 

Hazardous Substances was developed for implementation during the construction activities of 

Kern River Gas Transmission Company’s (Kern River) Apex Expansion Project (Project). A 

location description of the project is provided below. 

Kern River is proposing to construct, own and operate facilities necessary to expand its 

existing interstate pipeline system, which extends from southwestern Wyoming to southern 

California. The expansion, referred to as the Project, will provide an additional 266,000 

dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of incremental firm transportation service from existing receipt 

points in southwestern Wyoming to existing delivery points in southern Nevada. This 

incremental capacity will increase Kern River’s summer design capacity to 2,142,126 Dth/d. The 

increased capacity will serve new and existing electric generation facilities near Las Vegas, 

Nevada. The facilities required to provide this service include approximately 28.012

 miles of 36-

inch-diameter pipeline in an unlooped section of Kern River’s pipeline system through the 

Wasatch Mountains in northern Utah (Wasatch Loop), 78,000 horsepower (ISO hp) of additional 

compression at three existing compressor stations and one new compressor station, as well as 

replacement of a compressor at a fourth existing compressor station. In order to maximize 

operational efficiency under the expansion design conditions, three existing boost compressors 

will be restaged and a fourth will be replaced. No new meter station facilities are required. 

Other aboveground facilities will include new mainline block valves, pig launchers/receivers and 

a branch connection to provide an existing meter facility with a redundant supply from the 

Wasatch Loop pipeline. There also will be non-jurisdictional facilities associated with this 

Project, which are discussed in Section 1.2. Specifically, the Project includes the following: 

■ Wasatch Loop (Morgan, Davis and Salt Lake Counties, Utah). Approximately 28.01 

miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline, looping the existing Kern River mainline; 

■ Coyote Creek Compressor Station (Uinta County, Wyoming). An additional 16,000 hp 

compressor unit at Kern River’s existing Coyote Creek compressor station and the restaging 

of the existing boost compressor; 

 

1

 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 112 

2

 The horizontal survey length of the proposed pipeline alignment is 28.01 miles. Documentation supporting this application 

(alignment sheets, feature tables, drawings and other related information) is based upon that alignment length and the associated 

milepost references. Exhibits G and G-II reflect a pipeline length of 28.7 miles, which includes an additional 0.69 miles of pipeline 

required to traverse dramatic elevation changes along the alignment. 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT DRAFT SPCC PLAN

Page 1-2 

■ Elberta Compressor Station (Utah County, Utah). An additional 16,000 hp compressor 

unit at Kern River’s existing Elberta compressor station and the restaging of the existing 

boost compressor; 

■ Fillmore Compressor Station (Millard County, Utah). Replacement of a boost 

compressor at Kern River’s existing Fillmore compressor station; 

■ Milford Compressor Station (Beaver County, Utah). A new single-unit 30,000 hp 

compressor station; and 

■ Dry Lake Compressor Station (Clark County, Nevada). An additional 16,000 hp 

compressor unit at Kern River’s existing Dry Lake compressor station and the restaging of 

the existing boost compressor. 

Alignment sheets depicting the location(s) of proposed facilities are located [will be 

updated prior to construction]. 

1.2 SECURITY 

Any hazardous materials located on site will be stored in a secure, locked location. Any 

temporary storage of hazardous wastes, other than those utilized and recycled by the 

Contractor radiographic inspection crew will be secured in a locked location with lighting at the 

approved contractor yard or compressor station site. 

1.3 KERN RIVER PERSONNEL 

Both Kern River and Contractor personnel are to be thoroughly familiar with this SPCC 

Plan and its contents prior to the construction of any Kern River pipeline facilities. The SPCC 

Plan will be followed to prevent or mitigate any releases which may occur. 

The following Kern River representatives assigned to this Project include: 

Chief Inspector (CI): [will be completed prior to construction]

Environmental Inspector (EI): [will be completed prior to construction]

District Manager (DM): [will be completed prior to construction]
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT DRAFT SPCC PLAN

Page 1-3 

1.4 MATERIAL & WASTE INVENTORY 

Table 1 (Appendix A) provides an anticipated inventory of oils and hazardous 

substances to be utilized during construction activities which, if released, may pose a threat to 

human health or the environment. In addition, Table 1 provides the Reportable Quantity (RQ)3

for each of these materials. Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for each of these chemicals is 

presented in Appendix A following Table 1. [Table 1 and MSDS sheets must be completed by 

the Contractor prior to beginning work and updated as required during the Project.]

Contract personnel will be familiarized with this SPCC Plan prior to initiating any on-site 

activities. Any materials brought to the site by contract crews will be inventoried, reported to the 

EI and managed in accordance with the guidelines in this SPCC Plan. 

 

3

 RQ-s for specific constituents can be found from one or more of the following: 

1) 49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 172; 

2) 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 302; 

3) MSDS documents; or 

4) Kern River’s Environmental Permit Manual to be completed prior to construction. 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT DRAFT SPCC PLAN

Page 2-1 

2. TRAINING 

The Contractor will instruct personnel prior to construction on the operation and 

maintenance of equipment to prevent the accidental discharge or spill of fuel, oil, and lubricants. 

Personnel will also be made aware of the pollution control laws, rules, and regulations 

applicable to their work. 

Spill prevention briefings with the construction crew will be scheduled and conducted by 

the Contractor to insure adequate understanding of spill prevention measures. These briefings 

will highlight procedures outlined in this plan, including: 

■ precautionary measures to prevent spills; 

■ sources of spills, such as equipment failure or malfunction; 

■ standard operating procedures in case of a spill; 

■ equipment, materials, and supplies available for clean-up of a spill; and 

■ a list of known spill events. 

A spill is an unpermitted release of product, raw materials, or chemicals outside any 

secondary containment into the environment. Spills can occur as a result of leaks, accidents, or 

third party incidents. 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT DRAFT SPCC PLAN

Page 3-1 

3. FACILITY DRAINAGE & SPILL PREVENTION PRACTICES 

3.1 FACILITY DRAINAGE 

A site plan depicting the topography and surface water flow direction is presented in the 

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in Appendix C [to be completed prior to 

construction]. 

3.2 SPILL PREVENTION 

The Contractor shall take the following precautions to ensure that a release of oil and 

hazardous substances is prevented or contained: 

a) Containers 

(1) All containers 55-gallons or greater shall be stored on pallets or indoors 

and surrounded with secondary containment. 

(2) Secondary containment will include, but will not be limited to: temporary 

earthen berms with polyethylene underlining the entire contained area 

with a minimum of 10 mil thickness or a portable containment system 

constructed of steel, PVC or other suitable material. 

(3) Containment areas shall be capable of containing 110% of the volume of 

the largest container in the area. 

(4) All container storage areas shall be inspected daily for leaks and 

deterioration. 

(5) Leaking and/or deteriorated containers shall be replaced as soon as the 

condition is first detected and cleanup measures must be implemented to 

remediate all contamination. 

(6) No incompatible materials shall be stored in the same containment area. 

(7) No storage area shall be unattended for periods longer than one (1) day. 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT DRAFT SPCC PLAN

Page 3-2 

b) Tanks 

(1) The Contractor shall operate only those tanks for fuel and material 

storage which meet the requirements and regulations specified in the 

contract agreement and shall be surrounded with secondary containment. 

(2) Self-supporting tanks shall be constructed of carbon steel or other 

materials compatible with the contents of each tank. 

(3) All tanks will be elevated a minimum of two feet above grade and 

inspected daily for leaks and/or deterioration. 

(4) Vehicle mounted tanks shall be equipped with flame/spark arrestors on 

vents to ensure that self ignition does not occur. 

(5) Tanks will not be used to store incompatible materials in sequence unless 

first thoroughly decontaminated. 

(6) Any tank utilized for storing different products between construction 

locations will be thoroughly decontaminated prior to refilling. 

c) Unloading/Loading Areas 

(1) Transferring of liquids and refueling shall only occur in pre-designated 

locations at least 100 ft from all water bodies and 200 ft from any water 

well. Where conditions require that construction equipment (e.g., trench 

dewatering pumps or hydrostatic test water pumps) be refueled within 

100 ft of water bodies or wetlands, these operations must be manned 

continuously to ensure that over filling, leaks or spills do not occur. 

Where stationary equipment must remain within 100 ft of a waterbody or 

wetland, adequate secondary containment must be provided. 

(2) All service vehicles used to transport lubricants and fuel must be 

equipped with an emergency response kit. At a minimum this kit must 

include: 

- ten, 48"x3" oil socks, 

- five, 17"x17" oil pillows, 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT DRAFT SPCC PLAN

Page 3-3 

- one, 10'x4" oil boom, 

- twenty, 24"x24" oil mats, 

- garden size, 6 mil, polyethylene bags, 

- ten pair liquid proof gloves compatible with materials on site, and 

- one, 55-gallon polyethylene open-head drum. 

In addition, a smaller chemical response kit shall be available which 

contains: 

- one bag of loose chemical pulp, 

- two to three, 17"x 17" chemical pillows, 

- two, 48"x3" chemical socks, 

- five, 18"x18" adsorbent mats, 

- garden size, 6 mil, polyethylene bags, 

- ten pair liquid proof gloves compatible with materials on site, 

- one, 30-gallon polyethylene open-head drum, and 

- hazardous waste labels. 

Finally, each refueling vehicle shall have a sufficient number of shovels, 

brooms, 10 mil polyethylene sheeting, and fire protection equipment to 

contain a moderate oil/fuel spill. 

(3) The area beneath loading/unloading locations shall be inspected by the 

contractor for spills before and after each use. Corrective measures shall 

be implemented if spills occur. 

d) Horizontal Drilling Operations 

Precautions must be in place to ensure that a release of fuels and/or oils of any 

kind from all horizontal drilling equipment is prevented or contained including: 

(1) Conduct periodic inspections of all hoses transporting hydraulic oils, 

lubricants and/or other oils and fuel hoses for any leaks. 

(2) Provide appropriate containment or replacement of hoses/lines which 

release hydraulic oils, lubricants and/or other oils and fuels regardless of 

the cause of the release is a leak, spill, drain or other release. 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT DRAFT SPCC PLAN

Page 3-4 

(3) Assure the necessary precautions are in place to ensure that drilling mud 

pressure in the drill hole does not exceed that which can be contained by 

the overburden soil to prevent any leakage into any water bodies or onto 

adjacent banks. 

(4) Implement corrective measures to contain, collect, and/or recover drilling 

mud lost during a frac-out occurrence, if possible. 

(5) Address all spills/leaks of hydraulic oils, lubricants and/or other oils and 

fuels which occur from the horizontal drilling operations and supply the 

necessary manpower and spill response equipment as needed. 

(6) Immediately notify the Kern River Chief Inspector (CI) of any spills. 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT DRAFT SPCC PLAN

Page 4-1 

4. EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROCEDURES 

This section provides a generic description of emergency response procedures to be 

performed to address oil and hazardous substance releases at the site. Each response will vary 

depending upon the nature and extent of the incident. However, the general protocols outlined 

in this document will be followed. 

4.1 CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITIES 

(1) The Contractor must designate both an Emergency Coordinator (EC) and an Alternate 

EC for the site. 

(2) The Contractor is responsible for cleaning and addressing all spills which occur as a 

result of their operations. 

(3) For small or de minimis spills, less than the RQ, external notification requirements of this 

SPCC Plan need not be followed. However, this does not relieve the Contractor from 

correcting these releases in an environmentally sound manner. 

(4) The Contractor shall supply necessary manpower and equipment to address releases 

resulting from their operations. 

(5) The Contractor is responsible for immediately notifying the Kern River CI of any spills. 

4.2 KERN RIVER RESPONSIBILITIES 

(1) Kern River will designate both an EC and an Alternate EC for the site. 

(2) Kern River representatives shall be responsible for notifying appropriate agencies of 

releases in excess of RQ’s, including follow-up written notification. 

(3) Kern River will provide supporting personnel and equipment to address RQ releases. 

(4) Kern River shall be responsible for contracting outside remedial response firms and 

emergency response teams if their services are required. 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT DRAFT SPCC PLAN

Page 4-2 

4.3 EMERGENCY COORDINATOR AND CHAIN-OF-COMMAND 

The Kern River CI or the DM (if construction at station), as appropriate, shall be 

designated as the EC for the site. The Environmental Inspector, if applicable, shall assist the CI 

as the Alternate EC. Table 2 (Appendix B) provides a list of Kern River’s and the contractor’s 

primary and alternate ECs for the locations, including their duties, home addresses and phone 

numbers. In addition, the table provides a list of the Contractor’s employees who may be called 

upon to address small and contained releases as part of normal operating practices. [This table 

to be completed by both Kern River and the Contractor prior to beginning construction.]

4.4 DUTIES OF CHIEF INSPECTOR 

The duties of the CI or his Alternate are: 

(1) Determine the source, character, amount and extent of the release or incident. 

(2) Assess the potential hazards to the site, environment and neighboring community due to 

the incident, including possible toxic gases, hazardous runoff, etc. 

(3) Sound an alarm and/or evacuation command to alert personnel, when required. 

(4) Report releases to the Kern River Construction & Environmental Project Managers, the 

Land and Environment (L&E) Manager or Gas Control in accordance with Internal 

Notification in Section 5. 

(5) Contact outside remediation services or local emergency response teams to assist with 

incident or injuries too serious to be addressed by the contractor or Kern River 

personnel. 

(6) Contact Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPC) and neighboring industries, if 

necessary, for assistance or to report off-site releases. 

(7) Commit manpower and equipment for minor incidents which can be reasonably 

corrected by Kern River and Contractor personnel. 

(8) Direct remediation efforts to contain and control releases in accordance to this SPCC 

Plan. 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT DRAFT SPCC PLAN

Page 4-3 

(9) Document the remedial effort, including taking photographs wherever possible. 

(10) Coordinate cleaning and disposal activities, including recovering usable products from 

the release. 

(11) Ensure that all emergency equipment used during the incident is clean and fit for use 

prior to placing these devices back into service. Replace spent response equipment and 

materials when necessary. 

(12) Generate the Spill Report Form (Appendix D). 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT DRAFT SPCC PLAN

Page 5-1 

5. EMERGENCY AND PERSONNEL PROTECTION EQUIPMENT 

Table 4 (Appendix B) provides a list of both Emergency Response and Personnel 

Protection Equipment located in the Project area which can be used in the event of a major spill 

or fire. [This table will be completed by the Contractor prior to beginning work.]
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT DRAFT SPCC PLAN

Page 6-1 

6. RELEASE NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES 

6.1 INTERNAL NOTIFICATIONS 

Oil spills and hazardous substance releases in excess of the RQ are to be immediately 

reported to the Kern River Construction and Environmental Project Managers and the L&E 

Manager. All spills over one gallon must be reported internally. Should the L&E Manager be 

unavailable, releases will be reported to Kern River Gas Control (Gas Control), who, in turn, will 

contact the L&E Manager. Appendix B, Environmental Assistance Contact Sheet, lists L&E 

department staff, as well as Gas Control. 

A Spill Report Form (Appendix D), will also be completed and forwarded to the L&E 

Manager as soon as technically feasible by the EC. The L&E Manager, will determine if the 

release constitutes a: 

(1) Reportable Quantity under CERCLA, 

(2) Reportable release under the Clean Water Act or RCRA, or 

(3) Reportable Threshold Quantity under SARA Title III. 

If reporting is necessary, the L&E Manager or his designee shall be responsible for 

immediately contacting the appropriate federal and state authorities, listed in Table 3 (Appendix 

B). 

6.2 EXTERNAL NOTIFICATIONS 

All off-site releases of hazardous materials shall be reported verbally to the Local 

Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) by Kern River’s EC. In making a determination 

whether an off-site release has occurred, the EC will also consider all resulting air emissions. 

[Names, addresses, and phone numbers of the appropriate LEPC parties will be completed and 

updated prior to construction.]

Name:

Organization:

Phone Number:

The L&E Manager is responsible for making follow-up written notification to the LEPC. 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT DRAFT SPCC PLAN

Page 6-2 

6.3 EMERGENCY RESPONSE CONTRACTORS 

Kern River has completed agreements with several emergency response contractors to 

address emergency responses beyond the capabilities of the construction contractors and Kern 

River personnel. For this project the contractor listed below should be utilized as needed: 

COMPANY/CONTACT NAME: [To be identified prior to construction.] 

Address:

 

Telephone Number:

6.4 LOCAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAMS 

The CI or his or delegated person may also call on the following local emergency 

response teams should their assistance be required. [These organization and contacts below 

will be identified prior to construction]. 

Organization Name Telephone Number 

Emergency Medical Services: 

Ambulance: 

Hospital: 

Fire Department: 

Police or Sheriff’s Department: 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT DRAFT SPCC PLAN

Page 7-1 

7. CLEAN-UP PROCEDURES 

The following section outlines specific procedures to be followed by the contractor and 

Kern River when addressing releases. 

7.1 OIL/FUEL SPILLS 

(1) Small spills and leaks must be remediated as soon as feasible. Use absorbent pads 

wherever possible to reduce the amount of contaminated articles. 

(2) Restrict spills to the containment area if possible by stopping or diverting flow from the 

oil/fuel tank. 

(3) If the release exceeds the containment system capacity, immediately construct 

additional containment using sandbags or fill material. Every effort must be made to 

prevent the seepage of oil into soils and waterways. 

(4) If a release occurs into a facility drain or nearby stream, immediately pump any floating 

layer into drums. For streams, place a barrier between the release area and the site 

boundary. This barrier may include but is not limited to oil booms, straw bales, under 

flow dams or means to contain the release. As soon as possible, excavate 

contaminated soils and sediments. 

(5) After all recoverable oil has been collected and drummed, place contaminated soils and 

articles in containers. 

(6) For larger quantity of soils, construct temporary waste piles using plastic liners. Plasticlined roll-off bins should be leased for storing this material as soon as feasible. 

(7) Dispose of oily soils and contaminated articles in accordance with applicable federal, 

state and local regulations. 

(8) Decontaminate all emergency response equipment used during the incident before 

storing (See part 6.4 of this SPCC Plan for disposal). 

(9) Document and report activities to the L&E Manager as soon as feasible. 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT DRAFT SPCC PLAN

Page 7-2 

7.2 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE RELEASES 

(1) Identify the material and quantity released. 

(2) Block off drains and containment areas to limit the extent of the spill. Never use water to 

disperse the spill. 

(3) Ensure that Personnel Protection Equipment and containers are compatible with the 

material released. 

(4) Collect and reclaim, if possible, as much of the spill using a hand pump or similar device. 

Containerize contaminated soils. Never place incompatible materials in the same drum 

or other container. 

(5) Take a sample of the substance for analysis and waste profiling. Contact the L&E 

Manager (See Appendix B) for scheduling analytical work. 

(6) Place a hazardous waste label with appropriate waste code on the drums containing 

hazardous waste contaminated materials. Move drum to secure staging or storage area. 

(7) Decontaminate all equipment in a contained area. Collect and containerize 

decontamination fluids (see part 6.4 of this SPCC Plan for disposal). 

(8) Document and report activities to the L&E Manager as soon as feasible. 

7.3 EQUIPMENT CLEANING/STORAGE 

(1) Upon completion of remedial activities, the Contractor shall be responsible for disposing 

and/or decontaminating emergency response equipment. An approved waste 

management plan must be followed. 

(2) The Contractor shall be responsible for replacing all spent emergency response 

equipment prior to resuming construction activities. 

(3) Decontamination rinse fluids shall be collected and managed in the same manner as 

wastes generated, including performing necessary analyses. 

(4) Reusable personnel protection equipment will be tested and inventoried prior to being 

placed back into service. 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT DRAFT SPCC PLAN

Page 7-3 

7.4 DISPOSAL OF CONTAMINATED MATERIALS/SOILS 

(1) The Contractor shall be responsible for the proper disposal of wastes generated by their 

actions, including obtaining applicable authorizations, registrations, and/or EPA/State 

I.D. Numbers. An approved waste management plan must be followed. 

(2) All contaminated articles and soils recovered during a release event shall be properly 

handled and stored in approved United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) 

containers. 

(3) In accordance with Kern River’s policy, all wastes generated as a result of spill response 

activities shall be analyzed to determine if hazardous, unless knowledge of 

contaminant(s) is applied to classify these wastes/spill materials as hazardous. 

(4) Those wastes determined to be hazardous shall be properly labeled, profiled and 

manifested to an authorized hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility. 

(5) Kern River may utilize a remediation firm or a waste management firm to initiate waste 

disposal activities. At no time will hazardous waste be stored on-site for a period 

exceeding 90 days. 

(6) Hazardous wastes shall be stored in a secured location (i.e. fenced, locked, etc) until 

such time as this material is transported off-site. At no time will hazardous waste be 

stored for a period exceeding 90 days. 

(7) Non-hazardous, oil-contaminated soils and articles shall be properly disposed at 

authorized non-hazardous land disposal facilities. While on-site, these materials will be 

managed in accordance with the procedures outlined previously, and with applicable 

federal, state and local regulations. 

(8) Depending upon quantity, lined roll-off bins shall be leased to temporarily store 

contaminated soils prior to disposal. 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT DRAFT SPCC PLAN

Page A-1 

Appendix A 

Hazardous Substance Inventory 

MSDS Sheets 

[To be completed by Contractor prior to beginning work]

KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT DRAFT SPCC PLAN

Page A-3 

Material Quantity (gallons) Storage Location Reportable Quantity 

(include reference) 

Oil/Fuel: 

Commercial 

Chemicals: 

Hazardous Wastes: 

[MSDS Sheets to be provided in this appendix by the contractor prior to beginning work.]
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT DRAFT SPCC PLAN

Page B-1 

Appendix B 

List of Emergency Response Personnel 

KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT DRAFT SPCC PLAN

Page B-3 

Name Job Description Address Phone Number 

EMERGENCY COORDINATOR 

Kern River 

[TBD] Chief Inspector [TBD] [TBD] 

Contractor: 

[TBD] [TBD] [TBD] [TBD] 

ALTERNATIVE EMERGENCY COORDINATOR 

Kern River

[TBD] Environmental 

Inspector 

[TBD] [TBD] 

Contractor: 

[TBD] [TBD] [TBD] [TBD] 

EMERGENCY RESPONSE PERSONNEL 

Table 3: Federal, State and Local Contacts to be contacted by Emergency Coordinator 

Authority Agency Phone Number 

Federal National Response 

Center 

1-800-424-8802 

State of Wyoming [TBD] [TBD] 

State of Utah [TBD] [TBD] 

State of Nevada [TBD] [TBD] 

Local [TBD] [TBD] 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT DRAFT SPCC PLAN

Page B-4 

TABLE 4 

 EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND PERSONNEL PROTECTION EQUIPMENT 

Equipment Quantity Location 

SPILL RESPONSE EQUIPMENT: 

FIRE PROTECTION EQUIPMENT: 

PERSONNEL PROTECTION EQUIPMENT: 

THIS PAGE TO BE COMPLETED BY CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT DRAFT SPCC PLAN

Page B-5 

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSISTANCE CONTACT SHEET 

Name/Location: Phone Numbers

District Manager/Address: 

Office: Home: Cell: 

Assistant District 

Manager/Address: 

Office: Home: Cell: 

District Contacts:

Evanston District (WY, UT) 

Office Home: Cell:

Office Home: Cell:

Fillmore District (UT)

Office Home: Cell:

Office Home: Cell:

Las Vegas District (NV) Office:

Office Home: Cell:

Office Home: Cell:

Kern River Contacts:

Environmental and Engineerging

Office: Home: Cell:

Office: Home: Cell:

Office: Home: Cell:

Office: Home: Cell:

Office: Home: Cell: 

IF IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO LOCATE ANY OF THE ABOVE, CALL GAS CONTROL AT 800/272-4817 or 713/215-2550 FOR ASSISTANCE 

IN LOCATING THE ABOVE INDIVIDUALS. 

Last Revised: April 24, 2009
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT DRAFT SPCC PLAN

Page C-1 

Appendix C 

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 

TBD 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT DRAFT SPCC PLAN

Page D-1 

Appendix D 

Spill Report Form 
KRGT-0187 Distribution: see KRGT forms matrix

Rev. 09/08 Page 1 of 1 

ENVIRONMENTAL INCIDENT REPORT 

CALL 1-801-937-6100 or 1-800-420-7500 x 6100 (SLC Gas Control) 

Gas Control is manned 24-7 and contact information for Kern River personnel is accessible to the Gas Control Operator on duty. Gas 

Control will ensure that the District Manager, Engineering Manager, Land & Environment Manager, and other personnel are contacted 

as appropriate. 

ES Incident # ________Date, time, and duration of release (or discovery): ______________________________ 

Injuries involved? Yes No Emergency Services Involved (fire, police, hazmat)? Yes No 

Customer vehicle or building involved? Yes No Fire Accident Storm damage Other 

Media involved: Air Water Soil Concrete/asphalt Equipment Other Estimated extent of release (sq ft)

Storm drain involved? Yes No Farm field or garden? Yes No Food or feed storage? Yes No 

Property owner: _________________________________________ Owner phone #: ___________________________ 

Street: _________________ City ___________________ County _______________State ___________ 

Type of area: Residential Commercial Industrial MEC Facility Rural Other 

Material released: Source of release: Sub-source: 

 Lube Oil/ Used Oil Demister Primary bushing 

 Glycol/water-glycol mix Blowdown/ valve Secondary bushing 

 Oily water Turbine/Generator/Recip Engine Truck 

 Pipeline liquids Tank ___________________ Tank 

 Other____________________________ Vehicle # _____________ Hose/coupling 

 Unknown material Other ________ Leaking seal 

 

Quantity of material released: Liquids (gallons) _________ Solids (lbs) __________ Gases (cu ft) _________ 

Quart = .25 gallons Pint = .125 gallons Cup =.0625 gallons 

Tablespoon = .0039 gallons Teaspoon = .0013 gallons Ounce = .0078 gallons 

Cause of release: 

 Operator error Damage by others Adverse weather Equipment failure Other ___________________ 

Describe release: 

 

Containment and clean up measures: 

 

Cleanup started: Time (24 hr clock) ___ Date ____Cleanup completed: Time (24 hr clock) ____Date ______ 

Cleanup Performed by __________________________ Debris transported to: ______________________________ 

Temperature: ____ Wind speed: ___ Wind Direction: ___ Type of day (clear, cloudy, etc) ___________ 

Photos available? Yes No Drawing available? Yes No (Send drawings and photos as separate e-mail attachments.) 

Special information (include any special precautions, public involved, etc.): 

Legal department notified? Yes No Insurance department notified? Yes No 

Comments: 

 _________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Supervisor in charge of cleanup: __________________________T# ______ Date of Report: ____________ 

Location _____________________________________ Phone # __________________________ 

By submitting this form I certify that all appropriate steps have been taken to clean up this incident. 

NOTE: No hard copy is necessary unless requested by environmental services.

APPENDIX I 

BLASTING PLAN 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 6 

Page 6E-3 

BLASTING PLAN 

1. PURPOSE 

The purpose of this Blasting Plan is to provide guidelines for the safe use and storage of 

blasting materials on the Project. This Blasting Plan is intended to protect the safety of 

personnel and nearby facilities. This Blasting Plan does not relieve the Pipeline Contractor of 

the responsibility for developing site-specific blasting plans. A site-specific blasting plan must 

be prepared by the Contractor and submitted to Kern River for review prior to any blasting. 

2. GENERAL 

Blasting-related operations, including obtaining, transporting, storing, handling, loading, 

detonating and disposing of blasting material, drilling and ground-motion monitoring, shall 

comply with applicable federal, state and local regulations, permit conditions and the 

construction Contract. Blasting for grade or trench excavation shall be utilized only after all 

other reasonable means of excavation have been used and are unsuccessful in achieving the 

required results. Kern River may specify locations (foreign line crossings, near-by structures, 

etc.) where consolidated rock shall be removed by approved mechanical equipment such as 

rock-trenching machines, rock saws, hydraulic rams, or jackhammers in lieu of blasting. Before 

blasting, a site-specific blasting plan must be submitted to the Kern River district manager or his 

designee for approval. The site-specific blasting plan must be reviewed by the appropriate Kern 

River engineer. The Kern River engineering department will analyze the data to determine the 

combined stress level of each affected pipeline and will make recommendations and/or forward 

approval to Kern River before blasting may commence. Drilling and blasting shall be done with 

a safety or other designated Kern River inspector present who has been determined to be 

qualified to oversee and direct the handling or use of the explosive materials for these 

applications during construction. The Kern River representative’s approval is required to 

proceed prior to each blast. Approval does not relieve Contractor from responsibility or liability. 

3. QUALIFICATIONS OF BLASTING CONTRACTOR 

Blasting operations shall be conducted by or under the direct and constant supervision 

of experienced personnel legally licensed and certified to perform such activity in the jurisdiction 

where blasting occurs. Contractor shall provide Kern River with evidence of experience and 

such licenses and permits prior to any blasting activities. 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 6 

Page 6E-4 

4. PRE-BLASTING REQUIREMENTS 

Contractor shall place all necessary "one calls" 72 hours prior to construction or as 

required by one-call system(s). Any costs incurred resulting from failure to comply with this 

Specification shall be at Contractor’s expense. Contractor shall be responsible for protection of 

existing underground facilities. Before performing any ROW work, Contractor shall verify with 

Kern River that all property owners have been notified of impending construction in accordance 

with landowner agreements, as applicable. Contractor shall acquire all required federal, state 

and local permits relating to transportation, storage, handling, loading and detonation of 

explosives. Contractor shall furnish a site-specific blasting plan (including completion of the 

Kern River Pre-Blasting Data Sheet Form – KRGT 0142) to Kern River at least five working 

days prior to any proposed blasting-related activity and shall obtain Kern River approval in 

writing prior to drilling. Any changes to the Blasting Plan that could increase the particle velocity 

or ground movement shall require prior written approval by Kern River. 

Prior to blasting near existing pipelines, the blasting contractor shall simulate their 

Blasting Plan to verify peak particle velocity and frequency of the blast. 

5. SITE-SPECIFIC BLASTING PLANS 

The site-specific blasting plan provided by Contractor shall include the following: 

 name, address and telephone number of the blasting contractor; 

 blaster's name, company, copy of license and statement of qualifications; 

 explosive type, product name and size, weight per unit and density (g/cc); 

 method of detonation; 

 delay type, sequence and delay (milliseconds [ms]- not less than 25 ms); 

 initiation method (detonating cord, blasting cap or safety fuse); 

 stemming material and tamping method; 

 blast location map; 

 hole spacing; 

 hole depth, diameter and pattern; 

 explosive depth, distribution and maximum weight per delay; 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 6 

Page 6E-5 

 number of holes per detonation and interval time; 

 date and time of proposed blasts; 

 distance from pipeline to the center of the explosive pattern; 

 angle between pipeline and explosive line; 

 distance from pipeline to nearest explosive line; 

 distance from nearest facility aboveground structure, if applicable; 

 distance and orientation to nearest aboveground structure; 

 distance and orientation to nearest underground structure, including pipeline; 

 procedures for storing, handling, transporting, loading and firing explosives, fire prevention, 

inspections after each blast, misfires, flyrock and noise prevention, stray current accidentaldetonation prevention, signs and flagmen, warning signals prior to each blast, notification 

prior to blasting and disposal of waste blasting material; 

 seismograph company, names, equipment and sensor location; 

 copies of all required federal, state and local permits; 

 magazine type and locations for explosives and detonating caps; 

 typical rock type and geology structure (solid, layered or fractured); 

 pipeline location (MP and Stationing); 

 applicable construction alignment sheet numbers; 

 type of rock being blasted (if known); and 

 is the explosive to be detonated under standing water or groundwater. 

Approval of the Blasting Plan by Kern River does not limit or reduce the Contractor’s 

responsibility for safety, damages, compliance with permits and regulations and the accuracy 

and adequacy of the Blasting Plan for obtaining adequate rock breakage. 

Restrictions on Blasting Methods/Techniques (to be considered when developing the 

Blasting Plan): 

 The blasting agent Ammonium Nitrate and Fuel Oil (ANFO) shall not be allowed. 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 6 

Page 6E-6 

 The frequency caused by the detonation of the explosive charge shall not drop below a 

frequency of 25 Hz. 

 The minimum time delay between the detonation of charges shall not be less than 25 ms. 

 There will be no more than one shot/delay. 

 Explosive cords shall not be used without written permission of the land management 

agency. The agency may specify conditions under which such explosives may be used, 

precautions to be taken and similar measures. 

 Contractor may select and use any commercial explosives and explosive agents available 

consistent with the conditions of the Blasting Plan except as noted above (i.e., ANFO). 

6. MONITORING OF BLASTING 

Contractor shall provide seismograph equipment to measure the peak particle velocity 

(PPV) of all blasts in the vertical, horizontal and longitudinal directions. Seismic monitoring can 

only be discontinued if: (a) the blasting schedule and blasting performance consistently produce 

PPVs at the pipeline that are lower than the maximum allowable limit; and (b) as the designated 

Kern River representative authorizes. Contractor shall measure the peak particle velocity at the 

adjacent pipeline, at any water wells, potable springs and at any above ground structure within 

150 feet of the blasting. Contractor shall complete the Kern River Blasting Log Record form 

KRGT 0142 immediately after each blast and submit a copy to the designated Kern River 

representative. 

7. LIMITS ON PEAK PARTICLE VELOCITY 

Contractor is limited to a peak particle velocity of 4 inches/sec measured adjacent to an 

underground pipeline, unless Kern River approves otherwise. For any aboveground structure 

(including water wells), the peak particle velocity shall not exceed 2 inches/sec. For all above 

ground facilities within 150 ft of the blasting, Contractor shall provide additional seismograph 

equipment to determine the PPV at the aboveground facility. If the measured peak particle 

velocity at an existing pipeline or other structure exceeds the above limits, Contractor shall stop 

blasting activities immediately and notify Kern River. The Blasting Plan must be modified to 

reduce the peak particle velocity prior to any further blasting. 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 6 

Page 6E-7 

8. SAFETY 

8.1 Protection of Aboveground and Underground Structures 

Contractor must exercise control to prevent damage to aboveground and underground 

structures including buildings, pipelines, utilities, springs and water wells. If blasting occurs 

within 150 ft of identified water well or potable springs, water flow performance and water quality 

testing will be conducted before blasting. If the water well is damaged, the well owner will either 

be compensated for damages or a new well will be provided. If blasting occurs within 150 ft of 

any aboveground structures, Contractor and Kern River will inspect structures before and after 

blasting. In the unlikely event that damage occurs to an aboveground structure, the owner will 

be compensated. Damage claims resulting from blasting shall be Contractor's responsibility. 

Blasting is not allowed within 10 ft of an existing pipeline unless authorized by Kern River. 

Holes shall not be re-drilled, which have contained explosive material. Holes shall not be drilled 

where danger exists of intersecting another hole containing explosive material. Blasting mats or 

padding shall be used on all shots where necessary to prevent scattering of loose rock onto 

adjacent property and to prevent damage to nearby structures and overhead utilities. Blasting 

shall not begin until farmers and occupants of nearby buildings, stores, residences, places of 

business and places of public gathering have been notified by Contractor sufficiently in advance 

to protect personnel, property and livestock. Contractor shall notify all such occupants at least 

72 hours prior to blasting. Blasting in or near environmentally sensitive areas such as streams 

and wildlife areas may include additional restrictions as identified in ROW or other permit 

stipulations or conditions. 

8.2 Protection of Personnel 

Only authorized, qualified and experienced personnel shall handle explosives. 

Smoking, firearms, matches, open flames and heat-and-spark-producing devices shall 

be prohibited in or near explosive magazines or while explosives are being handled, transported 

or used. No explosive material shall be located where they may be exposed to flame, excessive 

heat, sparks, or impact. 

A code of blasting signals shall be established and posted in conspicuous places. 

Employees shall learn and use this code. 

Contractor shall use every reasonable precaution including, but not limited to, visual and 

audible warning signals, warning signs, flag person and barricades to ensure personnel safety. 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 6 

Page 6E-8 

Warning signs, with lettering a minimum of 4 inches in height on a contrasting 

background, will be erected and maintained at all approaches to the blast area. 

Flaggers will be stationed on all roadways passing within 1,000 ft of the blast area to 

stop all traffic during blasting operations 

All personnel not involved in the actual detonation shall stand back at least 1,000 ft, and 

workers involved in the actual detonation shall stand back at least 650 ft from the time the blast 

signal is given until the “ALL CLEAR” has been sounded. 

An audible blasting signal (air horn or siren) shall be sounded 5 minutes before and after 

each blast. 

Blasting operations shall be conducted during daylight hours. 

No loaded holes shall be left unattended or unprotected. No explosives or blasting 

agent shall be abandoned. No loaded holes shall be left overnight.

In the case of a misfire, the blaster shall provide proper safeguards for personnel until 

the misfire has been re-blasted or safely removed. 

Kern River employs electrical cathodic protection on the existing pipeline, and fault; 

currents may be present anywhere along the pipeline. 

Kern River employs two-way radios for communication between vehicles and office 

facilities. Contractor shall advise Kern River of any need to cease use of such equipment during 

blasting activities. 

All loading and blasting activity shall cease and personnel in and around the blast area 

will retreat to a position of safety, during the approach and progress of an electrical storm 

irrespective of the type of explosives or initiation system used. This is a major safety precaution 

and will always be observed. All explosive materials, all electrical initiation systems and all 

nonelectric initiation systems are susceptible to premature initiation by lightning. 

No drilling may commence near a previous blast area until such blast area has been 

inspected to verify the absence of misfires. If a misfire occurs adjacent to a hole to be drilled, 

the misfire is cleared by the blaster using whatever techniques are called for by the situation 

prior to commencement of drilling. Should a misfire occur at some distance from the drilling 

area, drilling may be stopped while clearing preparations are underway. When the misfire is to 

be cleared by reshooting, drilling will be shutdown and personnel evacuated to a place of safety 

prior to detonation. 

All transportation of explosives will be in accordance with applicable federal, state and 

local laws and regulations. Any vehicle used to transport explosives shall be in proper working 

condition and equipped with tight wooden or non-sparking metal floor and sides. If explosives 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 6 

Page 6E-9 

are carried in an open-bodied truck, they will be covered with a waterproof and flame-resistant 

tarpaulin. Wiring will be fully insulated to prevent short-circuiting, and at least two (2) fire 

extinguishers will be carried. The truck will be plainly marked as to its cargo so that the public 

may be adequately warned. Metal, flammable, or corrosive substances will not be transported 

in the same vehicle with explosives. There will be no smoking, and unauthorized or 

unnecessary personnel will not be allowed in the vehicle. Loading and unloading of explosives 

will be done carefully by competent, qualified personnel. 

No sparking metal tools will be used to open kegs or wooden cases of explosives. 

Metallic slitters will be used to open fiberboard cases, provided the metallic slitter does not 

come in contact with the metallic fasteners of the case. There will be no smoking, no matches, 

no open lights, or other fire or flame nearby while handling or using explosives. Explosives will 

not be placed where they are subject to flame, excessive heat, sparks, or impact. Partial cases 

or packages of explosives will be reclosed after use. No explosives will be carried in the 

pockets or clothing of personnel. The wires of an electric blasting cap shall not be tampered 

with in any way. Wires will not be uncoiled. The use of electric blasting caps will not be 

permitted during dust storms or near any other source of large charges of static electricity. 

Uncoiling of the wires or use of electric caps will not be permitted near radio-frequency 

transmitters. The firing circuit will be completely insulated from the ground or other conductors. 

No electric wires or cables of any kind will be permitted near electric blasting caps or 

other explosives except at the time and for the purpose of firing the blast. All electric-blasting 

caps, either singly or when connected in a series circuit, will be tested using a blasting 

galvanometer specifically designed for the purpose. Different types of blasting caps will not be 

used in the same circuit unless approved by the manufacturer. No attempt will be made to fire a 

circuit of electric blasting caps with less than the minimum current specified by the 

manufacturer. All wires to be connected will be bright and clean. All electric blasting cap wires 

will be short-circuited until ready to fire. 

No blast will be fired without a positive signal from the person in charge. This person will 

have made certain that all surplus explosives are in a safe place; all persons, vehicles and/or 

boats are at a safe distance; and adequate warning has been given. Adequate warning of a 

blast will consist of but not be limited to the following: 

 Notification of day and time given to Bureau of Land Management (BLM)/United States 

Forest Service (USFS), railroads, highway departments, city engineer, etc. Notification must 

be given at least 72 hours prior to blasting. 

 Notification of homeowners nearby. 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 6 

Page 6E-10 

 Stopping vehicular and/or pedestrian traffic near the blast site. 

 Signal given by an air horn, whistle, or similar device using standard warning signals. 

Only authorized and necessary personnel will be present where explosives are being 

handled or used. 

Condition of the hole will be checked with a wooden tamping pole prior to loading. 

Surplus explosives will not be stacked near working areas during loading. Detonating fans will 

be cut from spool before loading the balance of charge into the hole. No explosives will be 

forced into a borehole past an obstruction. Loading will be done by a blaster holding a valid 

license or by personnel under his direct supervision. 

9. IN-WATER BLASTING 

It is not anticipated that any underwater blasting will be required for the Project. 

However, in the event it is required, the following shall be the minimum requirements for inwater blasting. The pipeline contractor shall develop a detailed blast plan for in-water blasting. 

If in-water blasting is required, all applicable parts of non-water blasting shall apply. 

Blast holes will be held open by some device, such as wooden plugs, sleeves, casings 

extending above the water surface, or other suitable methods submitted to and approved by 

Kern River. All holes to be shot at the same time will be loaded immediately prior to blasting. 

Loading will be by means of a non-sparking metal loading tube or similar device. Water 

resistant electric blasting caps will be used except at power line locations. 

Explosives used under water will have waterproof paper shells or otherwise be protected 

from the effects of water. Type of explosive, size of charges, sequence of firing, etc. will be 

selected to minimize shock wave stresses on aquatic life adjacent to the blasting area. All 

appropriate resource agency notifications will be made. 

10. STORAGE REQUIREMENTS 

Explosive materials shall not be stored on Federal land without prior written permission 

from the BLM/USFS. Copies of this permission shall be posted on each magazine and copy 

given to the Kern River Construction Manager. 

All explosives, blasting agents and initiation devices shall be stored in locked magazines 

that have been located, constructed, approved and licensed in accordance with local, state and 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 6 

Page 6E-11 

federal regulations. Magazines shall be dry, well ventilated, reasonably cool (painting of the 

exterior with a reflective color) bullet and fire resistant and kept clean. 

Initiation devices shall not be stored in the same box, container, or magazine with other 

explosives. Explosives, blasting agents or initiation devices shall not be stored in wet or damp 

areas; near oil, gasoline, cleaning solvents; near sources of heat radiators, steam pipes, stoves, 

etc. No metal or metal tools shall be stored in the magazine. There shall be no smoking, 

matches, open lights, or other fire or flame inside or within 50 ft of storage magazines or 

explosive materials. The loading and unloading of explosive materials into or out of the 

magazine shall be done in a business-like manner with no loitering, horseplay or prank-playing. 

Magazines shall be kept locked at all times unless explosives are being delivered or 

removed by authorized personnel. Admittance shall be restricted to the magazine keeper, 

blasting supervisor, or licensed blaster. Magazine construction shall meet the requirements of 

ATF P5400.7 “Explosives Law and Regulations” (Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Fire Arms) 

and be in accordance with local, state, or federal regulations and the Blasters Handbook. 

Accurate and current records shall be kept of the explosive material inventory to ensure 

that oldest stocks are utilized first, satisfy regulatory requirements and for immediate notification 

of any loss or theft. Magazine records shall reflect the quantity of explosions removed, the 

amount returned and the net quantity used at the blasting site. 

When explosive materials are taken from the storage magazine, they shall be kept in the 

original containers until used. Small quantities of explosive materials may be placed in day 

boxes, powder chests or detonator boxes. Any explosive material not used at the blast site 

shall be returned to the storage magazine and replaced in the original container as soon as 

possible. Magazine location shall be in accordance with local, state, or federal regulations. 

Where no regulations apply, magazines shall be located in accordance with the latest edition of 

the 175th anniversary edition of the Blaster’s Handbook and ATF P5400-7 “Explosives Law and 

Regulations” (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Fire Arms). 

Magazines shall be marked in minimum 3-inch high letters with the words “DANGER - 

EXPLOSIVES” prominently displayed on all sides and roof. 

11. GENERAL BLASTING PROCEDURE 

The following lists of steps will be performed in all cases. These steps represent a 

minimum requirement and give a general order to the blasting procedure: 

 A safety meeting will be held prior to any blasting activities. Everyone who is involved with 

the blasting in any form must attend. Safety rules and signaling should be reviewed. 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 6 

Page 6E-12 

 Warning signs should be erected. 

 Lightning detectors should be set up. 

 Drilled holes should be measured accurately for depth and location. 

 Seismic equipment should be set-up to measure velocities near the pipeline and any 

structures 150 ft or less from blast. 

 Distances to any nearby structure (aboveground or belowground) suspected of being less 

than 300 ft from the blast shall be measured. 

 Clear the blasting affected zone. 

 Give the warning signal. 

 Give the blast signal. 

 Detonate the blast. 

 After blaster has checked for misfires and given the “ALL CLEAR” signal, inspectors will 

inspect any aboveground or underground facilities for damage. 

 Complete the Kern River Blasting Log Record - KRGT 0142. 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 6 

Page 6E-13 
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT RESOURCE REPORT 6 

Page 6E-14 
APPENDIX J 

WINTER CONSTRUCTION PLAN 
KERN RIVER GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY

Appendix 1F

Winter Construction Plan

Docket No. CP10-14

Kern River Gas Transmission

Apex Expansion Project

November 2009
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT WINTER CONSTRUCTION PLAN

Page i

Table of Contents

1. Introduction.................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Purpose ........................................................................................................... 1-5

1.2 Overview of Winter Construction Plan.............................................................. 1-5

2. Winter Construction Procedures .................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Snow Removal and Site Preparation................................................................ 2-1

2.2 Excavation and Backfilling ............................................................................... 2-1

2.2.1 East Canyon Creek (MP 5.40) ......................................................................... 2-2

2.2.2 I-15 Corridor Crossing, Jordan River and City Drain Canal (MPs 25.66,

27.16 and 27.48).............................................................................................. 2-3

2.3 Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Measures....................................... 2-4

2.3.1 Equipment Bridges........................................................................................... 2-4

2.3.2 Sediment Barriers ............................................................................................ 2-4

2.3.3 Trench Breakers .............................................................................................. 2-5

2.3.4 Waterbars ........................................................................................................ 2-5

2.3.5 Temporary Mulch and Erosion Control Matting ................................................ 2-6

2.4 Access Road Usage ........................................................................................ 2-6

3. Environmental Management ......................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Winter Inspection and Monitoring Procedures.................................................. 3-1

3.2 Training............................................................................................................ 3-2

3.3 Staffing and Contacts....................................................................................... 3-2

3.4 Reporting ......................................................................................................... 3-3

4. References ..................................................................................................... 4-1
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT WINTER CONSTRUCTION PLAN

Page ii

List of Tables

Table 2-1 Water Bars Spacing Guidelines............................................................................... 2-5

Table 3-1 Winter Construction Contact Information................................................................. 3-3
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT WINTER CONSTRUCTION PLAN

Page iii

Acronym List

ATWS Additional Temporary Workspace

cfs cubic feet per second

Dth/d Dekatherms per day

EI Environmental Inspector

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

ft feet/foot

hp horsepower

MP Milepost

ROW/ROWs Right(s)-of-Way

USGS United States Geological Survey
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT WINTER CONSTRUCTION PLAN

Page 1-1

1. INTRODUCTION

Kern River Gas Transmission Company (Kern River) is proposing to construct, own and

operate facilities necessary to expand its existing interstate pipeline system, which extends from

southwestern Wyoming to southern California. The expansion, referred to as the “Apex

Expansion Project (Project),” will provide an additional 266,000 dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of

incremental firm transportation service from existing receipt points in southwestern Wyoming to

existing delivery points in southern Nevada. The incremental capacity will increase Kern River’s

summer design capacity to 2,142,126 Dth/d. The increased capacity will serve new and existing

electric generation facilities near Las Vegas, Nevada. The facilities required to provide this

service include approximately 28.01 miles1 of 36-inch-diameter pipeline in an unlooped section

of Kern River’s pipeline system through the Wasatch Mountains in northern Utah (Wasatch

Loop), 78,000 horsepower (ISO hp) of additional compression at three existing compressor

stations and one new compressor station. In order to maximize operational efficiency under the

expansion design conditions, three existing boost compressor will be restaged and a fourth will

be replaced. No new meter station facilities are required. Other aboveground facilities will

include two mainline block valves, pig launchers/receivers and a branch connection to provide

an existing meter facility with a redundant supply from the Wasatch Loop pipeline. Specifically,

the Project includes the following:

■ Wasatch Loop (Morgan, Davis and Salt Lake Counties, Utah). Approximately 28.01

miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline, looping the existing Kern River mainline;

■ Coyote Creek Compressor Station (Uinta County, Wyoming). An additional 16,000 hp

compressor unit at Kern River’s existing Coyote Creek compressor station and the restaging

of the existing boost compressor;

■ Elberta Compressor Station (Utah County, Utah). An additional 16,000 hp compressor

unit at Kern River’s existing Elberta compressor station and the restaging of the existing

boost compressor;

■ Fillmore Compressor Station (Millard County, Utah). Replacement of a boost

compressor at Kern River’s existing Fillmore compressor station;

■ Milford Compressor Station (Beaver County, Utah). A new single-unit 30,000 hp

compressor station; and

1

The horizontal survey length of the proposed Wasatch Loop alignment is 28.01 miles. All documentation supporting this

application (alignment sheets, feature tables, drawings and other related information) is based upon that alignment length and the

associated milepost references. Exhibits G and G-II reflect a pipeline length of 28.7 miles, which includes an additional 0.69

miles of pipeline that will be required to traverse dramatic elevation changes along that alignment.
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT WINTER CONSTRUCTION PLAN

Page 1-2

■ Dry Lake Compressor Station (Clark County, Nevada). An additional 16,000 hp

compressor unit at Kern River’s existing Dry Lake compressor station and the restaging of

the existing boost compressor.

Construction is scheduled to begin in October 2010, with all facilities placed in-service by

November 1, 2011. Along with this in-service date, Kern River intends to complete all of the

primary reclamation work including clean-up, finish grading, permanent erosion and sediment

control work and dormant seeding by the end of the fall of 2011 for the Wasatch Loop in

accordance with its Reclamation Plan (Resource Report 7, Appendix 7D). While the bulk of the

compression and pipeline construction work will occur during the spring/summer/fall of 2011,

there are definite advantages to performing certain construction activities in advance. Having

the flexibility to schedule compression and pipeline construction activities during this full 13-

month construction period provides Kern River with opportunities to 1) minimize localized

environmental impacts; 2) take advantage of the best construction weather available across the

system; 3) reduce the scope of work to be performed and lessen the strain on available

construction and Project support resources in 2011; 4) tie-in new facilities and modify existing

facilities with minimum impact to on-going operations and available capacity; and 5) to maximize

the probability of completing the Project in time to meet contractual service commitments. To

realize these benefits, Kern River will endeavor to perform Project construction activities as

described in the paragraphs that follow.

The work at the Fillmore compressor station involves the replacement of an existing

boost compressor and associated piping modifications. This unit has a high utilization, and its

availability is critical to Kern River operations. As such, it is important to schedule the

construction work during an operational window that minimizes system impact during the fall of

2010 or the early spring of 2011. Because all of the work at Fillmore will be within the existing

fenced yard and most of it will be inside of the compressor building, inclement weather will have

little impact on construction activities and will not increase environmental impacts.

The Milford compressor station is a greenfield facility and has the longest construction

schedule of the compressor station additions associated with the Project. Any civil site work

that can be accomplished in advance of the winter of 2010/2011 will expedite construction in the

spring/summer/fall of 2011, reduce the risk of schedule slip and increase operational flexibility

when the balance of the expansion facilities are being commissioned and tested.

The Dry Lake compressor station location is not subject to climate conditions that would

require special measures to work during the winter months, nor does it have the potential for

additional environmental impact or incremental mitigation requirements in the winter. In fact,
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT WINTER CONSTRUCTION PLAN

Page 1-3

given the high ambient temperatures that occur in southern Nevada, there are numerous

benefits from avoiding summer construction. Kern River intends to commence construction

activities at Dry Lake during the fall of 2010 and work through the winter to complete

construction activities in the spring of 2011.

Kern River intends to proceed with construction of certain Wasatch Loop pipeline

facilities in the late fall/early winter of 2010 to take advantage of favorable conditions, reduce

environmental impacts and realize construction efficiencies. While construction in these

locations presents constraints due to winter conditions, there are also potential advantages

associated with construction in the fall or early winter. Specific areas where work will occur and

the reasons for performing construction during late fall/early winter of 2010 are identified below.

■ East Canyon Creek crossing (MP 5.40)

- Installing the East Canyon Creek crossing during the late fall/early winter provides the

advantage of working during the period when groundwater levels and surface flow at

East Canyon Creek are historically lowest. United States Geological Survey (USGS)

flow records over the previous 10 years show the lowest in-stream flows occur in the

late-fall and early winter. In-stream flows from November to January averaged 6.3 cubic

feet per second (cfs) compared to an average flow of 98 cfs during May through August

(USGS 2009).

- This timing would avoid the spring spawning season for the Bonneville cutthroat trout, a

fish species of concern, and would also avoid clearing and grubbing of vegetation during

spring nesting season for migratory birds.

- Installing the East Canyon Creek crossing under partially frozen or frozen soil conditions

and with an insulating base of snow cover may result in less impact to the adjacent

wetland area than would be expected under wetter conditions. Impacts in this area

would be associated with the additional temporary workspace (ATWS) within the wetland

that is required for the crossing.

■ Jordan River crossing (MP 27.16) and City Drain Canal crossing (MP 27.48)

- While flow at the Jordan River and City Drain Canal is relatively uniform throughout the

year, working while groundwater levels are low in the Salt Lake Valley is advantageous.

Construction of the Jordan River and City Drain Canal crossings in late-fall, when

groundwater levels are low, would result in better bore pit stability and less disturbance

to the vegetative matter and topsoil in the adjacent wetlands.

■ Interstate 15/Highway 89/Frontage Road crossing (MP 25.66)

- This area includes a series of conventional bores that cross major north/south

transportation infrastructure. Since boring operations are not significantly impacted by

winter weather and boring equipment will already be in the area to make river and canal

crossings described above, some construction efficiencies will be realized.

■ Agriculture Lands between Interstate 215 (MP 27.59) and the western tie-in (MP 28.01)

- Crossing irrigated cropland used for alfalfa production between Interstate 215 and the

western tie-in during the non-growing season would minimize impacts to agricultural

activities. Construction in fall of 2010, after the harvest and when irrigation activities are
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT WINTER CONSTRUCTION PLAN

Page 1-4

not occurring, would avoid impacts to a greater portion of the field and would avoid

impacts during the 2011 growing season.

Kern River also intends perform certain preparatory activities during the late fall and

early winter of 2010 to facilitate pipeline construction in the following year. Those activities may

include installing temporary equipment bridges across more sensitive stream crossings and

riparian areas, preparing laydown yards, establishing a construction grade at the Wasatch Fault

crossing, and clearing and grubbing along the pipeline route.

■ Equipment Bridges at Sheep Creek (MP 6.25) and Hardscrabble Creek (MP 11.82)

- Kern River proposes to install equipment bridges at two creeks outside of the July 15 to

September 30 in-water work window for streams to maximize the efficiency in

constructing the pipeline through these areas, while minimizing adverse impacts to these

streams. The proposed bridges would be constructed from railcars (or similar type of

portable bridge) stretching from bank to bank, thus limiting any disturbance to the stream

channel.

■ Laydown Yards at Hardscrabble Road and Bountiful Boulevard

- Kern River proposes to prepare a laydown yard approximately 1.6 miles directly north of

MP 8.7, or 4.1 miles northeast of MP 11.9, along Hardscrabble Road; these locations

are along Hardscrabble Road in existing open areas. Kern River also proposes to

prepare a laydown yard near Bountiful Boulevard, approximately 2.6 miles directly west

of MP 16. This location is at the base of the mountains, where pipe can be readily

trucked in and then lifted via helicopter to the right-of-way (ROW). Preparation would

include establishing grade, installing erosion control measures and putting up perimeter

fencing.

■ Wasatch Fault Crossing Area between MP 25.42 and MP 25.64

- Significant earthwork must be performed prior to installing the pipeline through the

Wasatch Fault crossing area. Accomplishing the cut/fill work in late 2010 to establish a

working grade will facilitate pipeline construction in 2011. This earthwork would be

performed at a time when local construction equipment and personnel are readily

available.

■ General Clearing and Grubbing

- Kern River may proceed with clearing and grubbing along the portions of the Wasatch

Loop in the fall of 2010 to the extent possible to minimize impacts to nesting migratory

birds. Based on discussions with USFWS and UDNR, clearing in the fall is preferred to

avoid impacting active nests of migratory birds; however, these agencies recognize it is

impractical to clear the entire 28.01-mile route in the late fall of 2010. While it is

probably not possible to clear and grub the entire pipeline ROW before weather that

prohibits clearing sets in, Kern River will continue to coordinate with USFWS, UDNR and

USFS to determine which areas have the highest potential benefit to minimize the

impacts to migratory birds.

While Kern River intends to complete all primary reclamation work by the end of the fall

of 2011, it is recognized that this may not be possible at some locations along the Wasatch

Loop, at due to weather conditions. Factors affecting work cessation for the winter include early

freezing of soils, snow accumulation on slopes and the effect these have on safe access. In
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT WINTER CONSTRUCTION PLAN

Page 1-5

such cases, the measures specified in Sections 2.2 and 2.3 of this Winter Construction Plan

shall apply for stabilization and temporary erosion control until the final reclamation can be

completed as needed in the spring/early summer of 2012. These areas will be limited and

would only be known based upon actual construction and weather patterns going into the fall of

2011.

1.1 PURPOSE

Kern River has developed this Winter Construction Plan for the following purposes:

■ to provide guidelines for addressing the special considerations and concerns associated

with construction and reclamation efforts conducted during winter conditions at the above

locations;

■ to describe the ROW stabilization and temporary erosion control measures Kern River will

implement where final clean-up and reclamation activities, including tie-ins are postponed

until the spring, summer or fall of 2011 or may be delayed until the spring of 2012 at specific

locations in the higher elevation segments of the Wasatch Loop due to weather; and

■ to describe the environmental program that Kern River will implement during the winter

months.

The Winter Construction Plan also describes the approach and approximate schedule

Kern River will follow in the spring/summer/fall of 2011 to:

■ identify and repair any conditions on the ROW, ATWS, or access roads that occur during the

winter as required (e.g., erosion, bank, ditchline or bore pit settlement, etc.), and

■ complete final clean-up and reclamation that was not completed during the winter due to

unfavorable soil and ROW conditions (e.g., partially frozen soil, residual snow cover or

wetness) and associated with tie-ins and hydrostatic testing of the remainder of the Wasatch

Loop.

1.2 OVERVIEW OF WINTER CONSTRUCTION PLAN

The components of the Winter Construction Plan are presented in the following sections:

■ Section 1 describes the scope and purpose of the Winter Construction Plan.

■ Section 2 addresses winter construction procedures and special concerns, including snow

removal and site stabilization measures that will be implemented where tie-ins, clean-up and

reclamation activities are delayed until the summer of 2011.

■ Section 3 presents the Environmental Program that Kern River will implement.
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT WINTER CONSTRUCTION PLAN

Page 2-1

2. WINTER CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES

2.1 SNOW REMOVAL AND SITE PREPARATION

Snow will be removed from the construction workspace where necessary to provide safe

and efficient working conditions and to expose soils for grading and excavation. Snow will also

be removed where necessary along Project access roads to allow safe access to the ROW.

The snow will typically be bladed or pushed off the access roads and ROW with a motorgrader,

snowplow, or bulldozer and stockpiled along the outer portions of the construction ROW or

ATWS. Care will be taken when removing snow from the access roads and ROW to avoid or

minimize mixing of soil with snow (some limited mixing of soil with snow may not be

preventable). The Environmental Inspector (EI) will evaluate snow storage locations with

consideration for thaw and runoff. Snow will be stockpiled in a manner that prevents

uncontrolled runoff, and resulting erosion and sediment loss. If snow removal is the first

construction activity, installation of gates at livestock fence crossings will be done at this time in

accordance with landowner requirements to facilitate movement through these areas for snow

removal while maintaining the function of livestock enclosures.

Other site preparation activities will then proceed as presented in Section 1.4 –

Construction Procedures and Schedule in Resource Report 1 and in the site-specific crossing

plan for East Canyon Creek (Drawing No. 1601.25-100) attached to this Winter Construction

Plan. These procedures include installation of temporary erosion and sediment control

measures according to Kern River Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation

Procedures (Kern River’s Procedures or Procedures), and include sediment barriers and

temporary equipment bridges at East Canyon Creek and the City Drain Canal. A temporary

equipment bridge is not planned for the Jordan River Crossing. The temporary bridges at

Sheep Creek and Hardscrabble Creek will also be installed during this time. The bridges will

span the crossings utilizing a flat railroad car frame or similar type of portable bridge.

2.2 EXCAVATION AND BACKFILLING

The East Canyon Creek crossing will utilize the flume and trench crossing (see sitespecific crossing plan attached) method. The crossing of the Jordan River and City Drain Canal

will use conventional boring methods. Conventional construction will be utilized for other

segments between 25.50 to 28.01 which do not involve bored crossings, similar to summer

construction, except for mechanical removal of snow accumulations in the pipeline trench prior
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT WINTER CONSTRUCTION PLAN

Page 2-2

to lowering-in and backfilling. Excavation and backfill procedures are further addressed below

for these crossings.

2.2.1 East Canyon Creek (MP 5.40)

It is anticipated that the crossing of East Canyon Creek will require a total of two to three

weeks, with the period of in-stream disturbance from trenching limited to that necessary to

excavate the trench, install the pipe section and backfill the trench. Prior to excavation, Kern

River will assess the weather conditions and forecasts to minimize the risk of a storm or major

thaw event affecting the critical period for trenching, lowering-in the pipe section and backfilling.

Flume pipes of sufficient number and size to accommodate flows of at least 30 cfs will

be installed. Temporary flow diversion or dam structures will be constructed utilizing sand bags

with select clean fill material. In-stream disturbance will be limited only to installation of these

temporary flow control structures. The remainder of the work will be conducted within the

stream bed once the flow has been diverted.

The trench and banks will be excavated using excavators working from the construction

ROW on the sides of the crossing. The pipe section will have been fabricated in the ATWS prior

to trenching. The excavated material will be stockpiled at least 10 feet (ft) back from the stream

bank. Sediment control barriers will be used. Trench dewatering will be done as needed, and

water will be released to the adjoining upland area through a sediment barrier. The trench will

be inspected and padded as necessary prior to lowering in the pipe. The pipe will be lowered in

from the construction ROW outside of the stream and/or temporary equipment bridge. The

ends of the pipe section near the beginning of the sag bend will be capped until tie-ins can be

completed later in 2011.

Trench/ditch breakers will be installed on each side of the East Canyon Creek crossing

and the trench and banks will be backfilled to restore the channel and banks to stable slopes

and contours. Where the backfill material may have become partially frozen, portable dieselfired heating units may be used for thawing and removing ice and snow prior to backfill to avoid

the potential for excessive settling or clean fill will be imported. The banks will be stabilized with

cobbles or boulders to provide protection from hydraulic erosion in higher flow periods until

permanent seeding and installation of erosion control matting is completed in the 2011

construction season. The temporary equipment bridge will remain in place for the 2011

construction season. The bridge will be removed when reclamation of adjacent portions of the

ROW and ATWS has been completed. Leaving the bridge in place is not expected to result in
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT WINTER CONSTRUCTION PLAN

Page 2-3

increased risk of disturbance by unauthorized third-parties because the existing access road to

East Canyon Creek crossing area is locked and secured by the landowner.

Temporary mulch will be applied to the disturbed portion of the construction ROW and

ATWS as further addressed in Section 2.3. The sediment barriers will be left in place and

inspected as described in Kern River’s Upland Erosion Control, Revegetation and Maintenance

Plan (Kern River’s Plan, or Plan) and Procedures or during and immediately following a period

of thawing and higher runoff, and will be maintained as necessary.

2.2.2 I-15 Corridor Crossing, Jordan River and City Drain Canal (MPs 25.66, 27.16 and

27.48)

Excavation of bore pits is expected to proceed similarly to that for conventional nonwinter construction. Frozen soils near the surface are not expected to impede excavation or

use of conventional equipment. Topsoil and subsoil will be stockpiled separately within the

ATWS or construction ROW. The bore pits will be located on the outside of existing levees and

the levees will not be disturbed during construction. Dewatering of the bore pits will be

accomplished as described above for East Canyon Creek.

In areas where snow accumulates in the bore pits, the Contractor will be responsible for

removing it to allow visual inspection of the trench and bore pits and to allow safe working

conditions in the bore pits. The spoil may be covered with Visqueen or a similar product to

protect it from excessive snow accumulation and from mixing with the snow removed from the

bore pits. As noted above for East Canyon Creek, portable heating units may be used to thaw

and remove snow and ice from the spoil prior to backfilling the bore pits to prevent excessive

settling or clean topsoil material will be imported if required to restore the original contours. The

ends of the pipe section will be capped and marked and the bore pits backfilled. They will be reexcavated later in 2011 to complete tie-ins with the adjacent pipe segments and restored with

the adjacent segments of the ROW and ATWS in accordance with Kern River’s Reclamation

Plan.

Final clean-up and reclamation efforts will not be completed until the 2011 construction

season, when the surrounding pipeline has been installed and the segments have been tied-in.

Until that time, the ROW and ATWS will be left in a roughened condition with temporary mulch

applied to reduce the potential for erosion during snowmelt and other runoff.

These same procedures will apply if final tie-in areas need to be restored in the spring of

2012 because conditions would not allow them to be completed in the fall of 2011. In no cases

will sections of trench be left in an open condition throughout the winter and early spring. In

such cases, the trench will be backfilled and temporary erosion control measures applied as
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT WINTER CONSTRUCTION PLAN

Page 2-4

specified in Section 2.3 of this Winter Construction Plan. Final reclamation will be performed

when conditions permit in the following season.

2.3 TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES

Temporary erosion and sediment control measures will be installed and maintained

during construction in all areas where final clean-up and reclamation efforts have not been

completed. The goal of the temporary erosion and sediment control measures is to protect

against accelerated erosion and sedimentation of waterbodies and other off ROW areas.

Temporary erosion and sediment control measures will include installation of sediment

barriers (such as silt fence and straw bale barriers), temporary slope breakers (waterbars),

application of mulch or installation of erosion control matting, temporary seeding and installation

of other sediment control measures where necessary and where identified by the EI and

described in the Kern River Plan. These areas will be monitored until reclamation has been

completed and the ROW has been stabilized. The erosion and sediment controls will be

maintained and repaired as necessary as identified in Kern River’s Plan and Procedures.

2.3.1 Equipment Bridges

During construction, a temporary bridge will be installed at East Canyon Creek, Sheep

Creek, Hardscrabble Creek and the City Drain. No temporary equipment bridge is required for

the Jordan River. The temporary equipment bridges across East Canyon Creek, Sheep Creek

and Hardscrabble Creek will be maintained and monitored for continued use for construction

access throughout the 2011 construction season. The temporary equipment bridge across the

City Drain will be removed immediately after the bored crossing is completed. Installation and

maintenance of the temporary bridges will be in accordance with Kern River’s Procedures and

will not involve in-stream disturbance. Mats will be installed across the wetlands adjacent to

East Canyon Creek and the Jordan River to prevent excessive rutting and to protect the

vegetative mat and topsoil.

2.3.2 Sediment Barriers

Sediment barriers (i.e., silt fence, straw bales, earthen berms) will be installed and

maintained across the ROW at all waterbodies, wetlands and paved road crossings where a

slope greater than five percent exists adjacent to these areas, as specified in Kern River’s Plan

and Procedures and Reclamation Plan. Additional sediment barriers and erosion control

measures will be installed at the direction of the EI and will be fortified as necessary (e.g., extra

stakes, straw bale backing, etc.) to withstand potential sediment loads during the spring thaw
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT WINTER CONSTRUCTION PLAN

Page 2-5

and runoff. Sediment barriers will be left in place and maintained according to the Kern River

Plan until final clean-up and reclamation can be completed.

2.3.3 Trench Breakers

On slopes where natural drainages parallel the pipeline alignment, trench breakers will

be installed prior to backfilling the trench. Trench breakers are typically sandbags, foam plugs,

or bentonite packed in and around the pipeline to minimize the movement of water along the

pipeline trench and to prevent gulley erosion and pipeline exposure. These are described in

Section 6.3 of Kern River’s Reclamation Plan.

2.3.4 Waterbars

Temporary waterbars or earthen berms will be constructed on slopes greater than five

percent or where beneficial to divert snow melt and spring runoff. These will function as

temporary erosion control measures where final clean-up and installation of permanent erosion

and sediment control measures are to be completed in the spring of the following season. The

temporary waterbars used to winterize the ROW will be installed using the spacing guidelines in

Table 2-1. This spacing will be used as a guide, but actual spacing and configuration of

waterbars will be based upon field conditions to accommodate site-specific conditions, such as

slope contours, runoff areas and locations of stable outfall areas, or as determined by the land

managing agency.

Table 2-1

Water Bars Spacing Guidelines

Percent Slope Spacing Interval

1 – 5 % only as needed

5 – 15% 300 ft

15 – 30% 200 ft

+30% 100 ft

The outfall of each waterbar will be directed to a stable, well vegetated area or an

energy dissipating device will be constructed at the end of the waterbar and off the construction

ROW. The outfall will be positioned to prevent the discharge of sediment into wetlands,

waterbodies, or other sensitive resources. These temporary waterbars will be installed adjacent

to East Canyon Creek as needed based on field determinations at the time of completion of the

crossing.
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT WINTER CONSTRUCTION PLAN

Page 2-6

2.3.5 Temporary Mulch and Erosion Control Matting

Temporary mulch will be applied to disturbed areas on all slopes greater than five

percent and within 100 ft of waterbodies and wetlands where final clean-up and reclamation

need to be deferred until the following season. Kern River will use straw mulch and a crimping

or punching device to aid in stabilizing soils and to minimize sedimentation in wetlands and

waterbodies by binding loosened soils and providing that area with an instant soil cover. The

straw will be blown or hand spread onto erodible soils, then crimped or punched into the soils

with shovels or a sheepsfoot roller pulled by a tractor. The spreading and punching process will

be conducted in two applications. The first application, spread at a rate of 1.5 tons per acre, will

be placed prior to punching in. Following the punching in procedure, a second application,

spread at a rate of 1.5 tons per acre, will take place. This will result in a total of 3 tons per acre2

of straw mulch cover. If significant snow cover exists on the ROW, the decision to apply straw

mulch to the ROW will be determined by the EI. The soil will hold the straw in place, and the

straw in turn reduces wind and water erosion potential, and provides an environment conducive

to water retention. This process leaves small depressions in the soil surface, which aid in

decreasing the wind velocity at the soil surface.

The crimper should leave a non-directional depression pattern and not leave furrows

trending downslope, which can channelize stormwater flows. If waterbars are to be installed,

they should be built prior to crimper use, then inspected and repaired afterward because

equipment use may flatten portions of the water bars making them ineffective.

Erosion control matting will be installed on the banks of East Canyon Creek following

permanent seeding in 2011. As specified in Section 2.2.1 of this plan, Kern River will armor the

banks of East Canyon Creek with cobbles or boulders to protect the banks until final reclamation

is completed in 2011.

2.4 ACCESS ROAD USAGE

The areas planned for winter construction will be accessed using private and public

roads and highways. The access roads identified by Kern River will be used during winter

construction. Kern River will maintain all access roads in accordance with applicable permit and

landowner requirements. An approximately 400-ft temporary access road will be constructed at

MP 27.5 from the Utah Department of Natural Resources ATV Road. Temporary sediment

erosion control measures will remain on place and the temporary access road will be removed

2 Mulch rates for final cleanup are 2 tons per acre. However, heavier mulch rates (3 tons per acre) will be used for temporary

erosion control due to the limited success anticipated with the crimping effort, or as otherwise specified in Kern River’s

Reclamation Plan.
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT WINTER CONSTRUCTION PLAN

Page 2-7

and restored following completion of all construction in 2011. All other access roads are

existing and will require relatively little or no maintenance. Access roads and maintenance

requirements are identified in Table 1.3-3 of Resource Report 1. Snow removal activities will

take special care to avoid grading into the existing road beds or damaging culverts.
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT WINTER CONSTRUCTION PLAN

Page 3-1

3. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

Kern River is committed to executing its Winter Construction Plan and performing the

construction of the entire Project to ensure environmental protection, compliance with all

conditions of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) certificate, compliance with

other permit conditions and to ensure the safety of workers and the public. Kern River will

reinforce these commitments through implementation of inspection, training and reporting

procedures as summarized below.

3.1 WINTER INSPECTION AND MONITORING PROCEDURES

Kern River will maintain at least one EI for winter pipeline construction in addition to a

chief and other craft inspectors. The EI will coordinate with the agencies as necessary

regarding spring remediation activities. The EI will work closely with the construction inspectors,

the contractor and Kern River’s management to ensure that activities remain in full compliance

with Project permits and conditions, to ensure that corrective actions are promptly initiated in

non-compliance situations and to ensure that appropriate action is taken in the event of other

external factors such as major storm events.

The Kern River ROW and temporary use areas will be inspected on a regular basis

throughout the winter months to verify that erosion control measures are maintained. Damage to

existing erosion control measures will be noted and repaired, as necessary.

Inspection will be prioritized based on weather conditions and precipitation amounts (i.e.,

significance and duration of periods of thaw and runoff) and the actual schedule of construction

work activities. Monitoring will also be prioritized for the sensitive water resources associated

with the East Canyon Creek crossing. In areas where the contractor has completed work and

demobilized for the winter, after necessary erosion controls are put in place and approved by

the EI, the ROW will not be continually inspected. Once the soil becomes frozen and snow

covered, the need for frequent inspection is reduced since ROW conditions will either be hidden

from view or stabilized in a frozen state. Once winter work is complete, Kern River will

discontinue snow removal along the access roads. However, these areas will be monitored biweekly. When the snow cover melts, the ground thaws or the ground becomes saturated during

winter thaws, the potential for erosion will increase and these sites will be inspected to

determine if maintenance or remedial erosion control efforts are needed.

Areas requiring maintenance or remedial activities will be repaired as soon as possible,

but in no case more than one week from the time the issue is identified. This will provide
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT WINTER CONSTRUCTION PLAN

Page 3-2

adequate time for Kern River to coordinate with its contractor and to mobilize crews to the

locations requiring repairs. Best management practices will be implemented to ensure that

repairs do result in increased erosion and sedimentation during spring runoff.

The EI will cover all other environmental permit conditions, plans and general

housekeeping including fuel handling, as is done under a normal construction schedule.

Kern River will monitor weather forecasts as far in advance as possible to plan for work

suspensions and securing the work areas in the event of an impending major winter storm or

increased monitoring and maintenance of erosion controls in the event of a winter thaw.

Securing the work areas will include removal of equipment, including pumps, at least 100 ft from

the waterbody crossing or wetland. Kern River will particularly monitor the weather forecast to

determine the opportune time for installation of the East Canyon Creek crossing, where the

actual excavation, installation and backfilling are expected to be accomplished in a limited time

period.

Similarly, Kern River will closely monitor weather and soil condition into the fall of 2011

for the Wasatch Loop, particularly in the higher elevation sections and where safe access may

become limited. The amount of open trench will be monitored against current construction to

ensure that all backfilling, including temporary backfill as necessary, can be completed and the

temporary erosion control measures installed before access is restricted.

3.2 TRAINING

All project personnel involved in winter construction will be required to participate in a

focused environmental training program presented by Kern River that will address

environmental requirements and responsibilities specific to the construction program and sites.

This training will be supplemented with tail gate briefings provided by the EI.

3.3 STAFFING AND CONTACTS

At least one Kern River EI will be assigned to the Project to monitor the ROW for erosion

and the continued effectiveness of erosion and sediment control measures and compliance with

other permit conditions and Kern River plans. Due to the location of the East Canyon Creek

crossing with respect to construction in the Salt Lake Valley, it is expected that two EIs may be

utilized at periods of peak activity to provide full coverage of the in-stream work.

In the case of the 2011 construction on the Wasatch Loop, the EIs will remain full-time

until all construction, temporary erosion control work and permanent reclamation work are

complete. An EI, supplemented by Kern River’s regular aerial patrols will further observe the
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT WINTER CONSTRUCTION PLAN

Page 3-3

adequacy of the erosion control measures along other portions of the Wasatch Loop, and

determine if additional stabilization measures may be necessary in advance of spring runoff.

The EI will be fully supported by Kern River management. Personnel will be identified

and the contact information in Table 3-1 will be completed when the contractor environmental

training is conducted.

Table 3-1

Winter Construction Contact Information

Name Role Location Contact Number

To be completed Construction Manager Salt Lake City, Utah TBD

Craig Fantozzi Project Manager Salt Lake City, Utah (801) 937-6052 (office)

(307) 708-2545 (mobile)

Doug Gibbons Project Manager –

Land, Environment & Public Involvement Salt Lake City, UT (801) 937-6347 (office)(801) 209-7261 (mobile)

To be completed Environmental Inspector(s) Salt lake City, Utah TBD

3.4 REPORTING

Kern River will prepare a weekly summary of winter construction activities to keep the

FERC and other involved agencies informed of the progress of construction activities, incidents

involving potential non-compliance or other problems and corrective actions taken or scheduled.

These weekly reports will continue and extend through construction during 2011 and until the

reclamation work is completed.

The Kern River Landowner Hotline (1-888-222-1897) will continue to operate throughout

the winter and through the duration of spring remediation activities. Landowners will have

continued access to Kern River land representatives.
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT WINTER CONSTRUCTION PLAN

Page 4-1

4. REFERENCES

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2009. USGS water data for the nation.

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis (accessed August 2009).

APPENDIX K 

DRAFT WETLAND REMEDIAL REVEGETATION PLAN 
Kern River Gas Transmission Company

Apex Expansion Project

DRAFT Wetland Remedial Revegetation Plan

Kern River will, in general, follow the procedures specified in the Reclamation Plan

(Volume 4B – Appendix 7D), and based on the criteria or goals as referenced in Section VI.D(4) 

of Kern River’s Wetland and Waterbody Construction and Mitigation Procedures (Volume 4B –

Appendix 2B) for wetland revegetation. This Wetland Remedial Revegetation Plan outlines 

methods Kern River will utilize in the unlikely event that restoration of wetlands does not meet 

the stated goals. The stated goals are that wetland revegetation will be considered successful 

when the restored right-of-way (ROW) and associated temporary work space reaches 80 

percent of the type, density, and distribution of vegetation, when compared to an adjacent 

wetland area, after three years (with the exception of large rooted trees which will not be 

allowed to grow back within 10 feet of the pipeline centerline. Kern River notes that based upon 

qualitative and quantitative revegetation monitoring following the Kern River 2003 Expansion, 

remedial revegetation efforts are not anticipated within the wetlands to be traversed by the 

Project. Data from the 2003 Expansion Project demonstrated that, within three years of 

construction, wetland success criteria had been met or exceeded in all wetlands in similar 

areas, including wetlands in Summit, Morgan and Salt Lake counties, Utah.

Remedial Revegetation Measures

In the event that post-construction restoration of wetland habitats does not meet the 

stated success criteria by the third year post-reclamation, Kern River will conduct a site-specific 

assessment to determine the basis for the lack of plant performance in not meeting the stated 

goals. Based on this assessment, appropriate remedial measures will be implemented. 

Remedial restoration measures must address the requests and requirements of 

landowners or the appropriate land management agency, and will be based upon assessed field 

conditions at that time. While Kern River cannot completely control the actions of the 

landowners or other third parties who may use Kern River’s ROW or areas of temporary work 

space following construction and reclamation activities, Kern River will implement the necessary

steps required to remediate those areas where site-specific restoration monitoring surveys have 

determined that failure to meet stated success criteria is a direct result of inadequate 

revegetation following Kern River’s construction and initial reclamation activities. 

A combination of the following measures may be utilized where wetland revegetation 

does not meet the stated success criteria as follows:

Plant Protection Measures

If site-specific field surveys determine that livestock or wildlife grazing impacts have 

negatively affected the reestablishment of wetland communities, Kern River will implement plant 

protection measures such as exclusion fencing, to the extent possible, upon consultation with 

the landowner or land managing agency. In addition, based upon field conditions at that time, 

exclusion fencing may be utilized in combination with soil decompaction, direct seeding and/or 

noxious weed control as further provided below. 
Soil Decompaction

If site-specific field surveys determine that post-construction wetland restoration does 

not meet stated goals in wetlands due to incomplete decompaction as part of restoration 

activities, Kern River will decompact the soils to a minimum depth of 12 inches using a standard 

sub-soiler/heavy duty chisel plow or similar type of decompaction equipment, and supplement 

with additional direct seeding as necessary. Decompaction will only be proposed if wetland 

conditions can support the necessary equipment without excessive rutting of the soils.

Direct seeding

If site-specific field surveys determine that revegetation does not meet the stated 

success criteria of type, density and distribution, when compared to an adjacent area, Kern 

River will assess the need to reseed the affected area with an approved seed mixture as 

specified in Section 6 of the Reclamation Plan (Seed Mixtures UT-3, wet meadow communities; 

or UT-3A, saline/alkaline communities). Kern River will also coordinate with the local soil 

conservation district and the landowner or land management agency to assess an alternate sitespecific seed mix specifically developed for the existing offsite conditions.

Noxious Weed Control

If site-specific field surveys determine that restoration of Project impacts does not meet 

stated goals due to an infestation of federal, state or locally listed noxious weeds, Kern River will 

implement specific methods outlined in the Noxious Weed Control Plan, included as Appendix 

7C in Volume 4B, and overseed the affected area with an approved seed mixture as specified in 

Section 6 of the Reclamation Plan (Seed Mixtures UT-3, wet meadow communities; or UT-3A, 

saline/alkaline communities).
APPENDIX L 

RESIDENCE PROXIMITY MAPS 


APPENDIX M 

DRAFT ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLE AND OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE BARRIER PLAN 
KERN RIVER GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY

Draft ATV and OHV Barrier Plan

for the

Wasatch Loop

of the

Apex Expansion Project

December 2009
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT DRAFT ATV AND OHV BARRIER PLAN

Page i

Table of Contents

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

1.1 Description of the Proposed Action ..................................................................... 1

2. ATV/OHV Barrier Goals and Objectives ...........................................................2

3. Implementation Plan..........................................................................................3

3.1 Description of Proposed Barrier Alternatives....................................................... 3

4. Monitoring ..........................................................................................................7

Appendix A ATV/OVH Barrier Location Mapping...............................................................A-1
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT DRAFT ATV AND OHV BARRIER PLAN

Page ii

List of Tables

Table 3-1 ATV/OHV Proposed Barrier Locations ........................................................................4
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT DRAFT ATV AND OHV BARRIER PLAN

Page iii

List of Acronyms

ATV All-terrain Vehicle

MP Milepost

OHV Off-highway Vehicle

ROW Right-of-Way

USFS United States Forest Service

UWCNF Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT DRAFT ATV AND OHV BARRIER PLAN

Page 1

1. INTRODUCTION

This report provides a conceptual plan to discourage and prevent All-terrain Vehicle

(ATV) and Off-highway Vehicle (OHV) usage within the right-of-way (ROW) required for the

construction and operation of the Kern River Gas Transmission Company’s (Kern River)

proposed Apex Expansion Project (Project). The Project includes approximately 28.01 miles of

36-inch diameter pipeline through the Wasatch Mountains (Wasatch Loop) in Morgan, Davis

and Salt Lake counties, Utah. This report has been prepared at the request of the United States

Forest Service (USFS) to support an amendment to the Forest Plan.

Ecology and Environment, Inc. (E & E) conducted environmental field studies for the

Project between April and July of 2009. These studies included the identification of trails and

access roads crossing the proposed ROW of the Wasatch Loop that may provide ATV/OHV

access to the ROW (see mapping in Appendix A).

This document provides background information on existing conditions in the Project

area and the barriers that are proposed to limit access to the Kern River ROW. Kern River has

developed this barrier plan to provide the barrier locations and barrier methods to minimize

potential impacts from unauthorized ATV/OHV use.

1.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

Kern River is proposing to install rock barriers, earthen berms, or other suitable barriers,

at the intersections of existing access roads or trails crossed by the ROW. The proposed

pipeline route for the Wasatch Loop is crossed by multiple existing access roads and multiple

use trails as shown in the mapping in Appendix A. The USFS has expressed concern that

clearing and construction of the ROW may create new opportunities for unauthorized ATV/OHV

use within the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest (UWCNF). The proposed installation of

barriers is in an effort to discourage ATV/OHV use within the entire 28.01 mile ROW and to

prevent impacts to restoration efforts and biological and cultural resources.
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT DRAFT ATV AND OHV BARRIER PLAN

Page 2

2. ATV/OHV BARRIER GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Kern River recognizes preventing and discouraging the use of unauthorized ATVs and

OHVs within the ROW of the proposed Wasatch Loop Project area (as well as the existing

ROW) is an integral component of the success of the Project. To help ensure success of the

Project, the goals of ATV/OHV barrier plan are as follows:

protect revegetation and restoration efforts within the reclaimed ROW;

prevent disturbance and damage to erosion-control structures (e.g., water bars/slope

breakers);

prevent site disturbance resulting in the creation of noxious weed habitat; and

prevent wildlife displacement and destruction of wildlife habitat.

The design objectives that will be implemented to discourage and prevent ATV/OHV use

include:

creation of new ATV/OHV barriers where access roads and trails intersect or are within 100

yards of the proposed ROW;

improve existing rock, earthen berm, and buck rail fencing barriers already in place at

various access road crossings; and

install signage at all barrier locations indicating that ATV/OHV usage is not permitted within

the ROW.

A more detailed discussion of proposed barrier types is discussed in Section 3 below.

Kern River discourages ATV/OHV use of its ROW to prevent re-disturbance and

damage to erosion-control structures (e.g., water bars/slope breakers) and vegetation and to

protect biological and cultural resources. As an easement holder and not the landowner, Kern

River has limited control over activities of other parties on its ROW. As such, Kern River is

coordinating with the USFS and other land owners for approval of barrier installation methods

and locations to control unauthorized ATV/OHV use where possible.
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT DRAFT ATV AND OHV BARRIER PLAN

Page 3

3. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Good planning and associated design are necessary to Project success. The goal of the

Implementation Plan is to identify potential design factors for the selected barriers, as well as

any constraints that would interfere with successful utilization. The key tasks to attain this goal

include: determining the most efficient and effective location for barrier placement; examining

current barriers (natural or man-made) to assess their effectiveness; and examining the

potential for using existing materials (cleared vegetation and/or excavated rock) to efficiently

construct effective barriers. Table 3-1 provides a list of the locations best suited for barrier

placement within the ROW and includes discussion on existing conditions and barrier selection.

A description of proposed barrier alternatives is provided below.

3.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED BARRIER ALTERNATIVES

Rock Barriers. Rock barriers are an effective means of preventing ATV/OHV access as

their construction makes it difficult for these vehicles to cross them. To the extent practible,

Kern River may utilize excavated rock material to construct these barriers.

Earthen Berms. Earthen Berms are less effective than rock barriers in preventing

ATV/OHV usage because they may still be crossed by vehicles in some instances; however,

they may still be utilized where rock barrier construction is not feasible due to lack of suitable

material.

Buck Rail Fencing. Fencing is a cost-effective measure that can be utilized to deter

ATV/OHV usage. However, wooden fencing materials will break down over extended

periods of time and may require more routine maintenance than rock or earthen barriers. To

the extent practible Kern River may utilize timber obtained from proposed ROW clearing for

fence construction.

Brush Piles. Brush material generated from proposed ROW clearing may be utilized to

create brush pile barriers which also create wildlife habitat. Kern River will coordinate with

the USFS to ensure that brush piles do not create an unwanted fire hazard or create habitat

for pest insects.

Planted Vegetative Barriers. Spiny Horse Brush, a native plant to this region of Utah may

prove effective in discouraging ATV/OHV trail usage.

Appropriate Signage. Kern River will coordinate with the appropriate management agency

or landowner to locate signage to supplement constructed barriers at appropriate locations.
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT DRAFT ATV AND OHV BARRIER PLAN

Page 4

The proposed barrier locations referenced by Milepost (MP), barrier type, and existing

conditions are included in Table 3-1. The locations are depicted in relation to construction

ROW, existing trails and access roads on mapping included in Appendix A. The final sitespecific barrier design for each barrier location will be determined based on consultation with

the USFS and private landowners. Barriers will be installed prior to construction or following

construction based on location and the level of disturbance or access use expected during

construction in the barrier location.

Table 3-1

ATV/OHV Proposed Barrier Locations

Feature ID Panel

Map No.

Approximate MP of

Proposed Barrier

Location

Comments1

DWR Road and Redrock Canyon Drain 1 of 21 4.8 Install rock barrier or buck-rail fencing on northeast

side of DWR Road where it’s crossed by the ROW.

Sanders Rd. 2 of 21 6.35

Install rock barriers or fencing across ROW on west

side of Sanders Rd. Also add signage at the

beginning of Sanders Rd. near private residence.

Power line ROW crossing proposed ROW east

of Jones Hallow Rd. 3 of 21 6.8

Install fencing or planted vegetative brush across the

existing power line ROW and access road going west

from Sanders Rd.

Jones Hollow Rd. 3 of 21 6.9 Install fencing or planted vegetative brush across

ROW on east and west sides of Jones Hollow Rd.

Valve 103 Rd. East & Valve 103 Rd. West 3 of 21 7.3

Area is open and expansive and may be difficult to

control with barriers. On the east side of Valve 103

Rd. east, install rock barriers and/or fencing across

the existing power line ROW and across the

proposed Project ROW. On the west side of the tw0-

track spur road from Valve 103 Rd. West, install rock

barriers and/or fencing across the Project ROW.

Coordinate with landowners to minimize

unauthorized ATV/OHV use, suggest posting signage

at beginning of road near private residence.

Wood Creek Rd. 4 of 21 7.9 Install fencing or rock barrier across ROW on east

and west sides of Wood Creek Rd.

Tom Adams Hollow Rd. 4 of 21 8.1 Install fencing across open space of ROW along east

and west sides of road.

Greenwood Loop 5 of 21 8.5 Install rock barrier and/or fencing across Greenwood

Loop two-track road at edge of ROW>

Tom Adams Hollow Rd. 5 of 21 8.8

Install rock barriers or fencing across top of ridge,

east side of road and at the bottom of the hill on the

west side of road.

Tucker Hollow Rd. 6 of 21 10.0

Improve apparent existing earthen berms across

ROW with additional earthen material, excavated

rock to span entire open space between forested

areas.

Hardscrabble Creek Rd. 7 of 21 11.3 Utilize excavated rock for barrier across ROW.

Hardscrabble Creek Rd. 8 of 21 12.05

Utilize excavated rock and fencing for barrier across

ROW. Coordinate with landowners to minimize

unauthorized ATV/OHV use in this area.

Hardscrabble Creek Rd. 9 of 21 NA

Proposed barrier location is approximately 0.4 mile

west of Hardscrabble Road within the existing ROW.

Install fencing across ROW and existing 2-track road.

Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest Areas
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT DRAFT ATV AND OHV BARRIER PLAN

Page 5

Table 3-1

ATV/OHV Proposed Barrier Locations

Feature ID Panel

Map No.

Approximate MP of

Proposed Barrier

Location

Comments1

Utility ROW 10 of 21 NA

Proposed barrier across all existing ROWs at ridge

top approximately 0.75 mile north of MP 14. Install

rock and fencing from cliff edge on north to cliff edge

on east.

Hardscrabble Ridge 11 of 21 13.8

Utilize rock and logs for fencing across ROW at

junction of proposed ROW and existing ROW. Install

a second rock barrier across proposed ROW through

forested area between existing cliff and add fencing

north of ROW across clearing between forest edge

and existing cliff. Area was noted as a high

ATV/motorcycle use area during field studies.

Skyline Dr. 12 of 21 14.6

Improve the existing rock, earthen berm, and fencing

with more excavated rock material (to the extent

practible), fencing, and abundant signage. This area

was also noted as a high ATV use area during field

studies.

Questar Rd. #1 13 of 21 15.6 Improve existing rock barrier with the addition of

more excavated material.

Existing 2-track Rd. identified by Kern River 14 of 21 17.3

Effective barrier placement may be difficult in this

area due to vast openness. Suggest installing

fencing or planted vegetative barriers across

proposed and existing ROWs.

Mueller Park Kenney Creek trail & Kern River

identified trail 15 of 21 18.7

Improve existing earthen berms and planted

vegetative barrier across ROW. Also add planted

vegetation and signage at Kenny Creek trail.

Mueller Park trail 16 of 21 19.3 Utilize cleared brush or planted vegetation across

ROW on north and south sides of Mueller Park trail.

Kern River Identified trail 17 of 21 19.8 and 20.15 Utilize cleared brush or planted vegetation across

existing trail at both locations.

Canyon Creek Dr. 18 of 21 20.5

Canyon Creek Dr. will be used by Kern River during

construction and returned to existing conditions

following construction activities. The road is currently

gated north of the ROW where it meets Forest

Service Rd. 141.

Kern River identified trail 19 of 21 21.3 Install rock barriers or fencing across ROW.

Hidden Lake Dr.2 19 of 21 21.4

Hidden Lake Dr. will be used by Kern during

construction as well as post construction in limited

and episodic intervals. As such, suggest installing

rock barrier and gate across Hidden Lake Dr. and

coordinating with landowners to minimize

unauthorized ATV/OHV use.

Orvis Rd.2 19 of 21 21.5

Orvis Rd. will be used by Kern River during

construction as well as post construction in limited

and episodic intervals. As such, suggest installing

rock barrier and gate across Orvis Rd. and existing

ROW and coordinating with landowners to minimize

unauthorized ATV/OHV use.

Kern River identified Trail 20 of 21 23.4 Utilize cleared brush or planted vegetation on east

and west side of trail to prevent ROW access.

Kern River identified Trail 20 of 21 23.5 Utilize cleared brush or planted vegetation on east

and west side of trail to prevent ROW access.
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT DRAFT ATV AND OHV BARRIER PLAN

Page 6

Table 3-1

ATV/OHV Proposed Barrier Locations

Feature ID Panel

Map No.

Approximate MP of

Proposed Barrier

Location

Comments1

Questar Rd. #2 21 of 21 23.8

Questar Rd. #2 will be used by Kern River during

construction as well as post construction in limited

and episodic intervals. Adjacent landowners

currently restrict the use of ATV/OHVs in the area.

However, cleared brush piles and/or planted

vegetation may by used at the 6 proposed barrier

locations to ensure prevention of ROW access.

Additionally, Kern River will coordinate with

landowners to minimize unauthorized ATV/OHV use.

Notes:

1 It is assumed that appropriate signage is used at each barrier installment.

2 Barriers are located adjacent to but outside of Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest area.

3 Kern River will coordinate with all parallel utilities if barriers require location on their ROWs.
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT DRAFT ATV AND OHV BARRIER PLAN

Page 7

4. MONITORING

To assess the condition and functionality of the ATV/OHV barriers, monitoring will

consist of surveys conducted for 5 years following construction. The first 3 years of monitoring

will be annual foot surveys performed in conjunction with restoration monitoring for the Project

and 2 additional years of surveys will be conducted in conjunction with annual aerial surveys.

The monitoring will assess the success of the barriers and the status of ATV/OHV use on the

ROW. During this time period, Kern River will report any identified unauthorized ATV/OHV

access on the ROW and will work with the appropriate management agency and/or landowner

to prevent, to the degree practicable, unauthorized ATV/OHV access onto the reclaimed ROW.
KERN RIVER GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY

Draft ATV and OHV Barrier Plan

for the

Wasatch Loop

of the

Apex Expansion Project

APPENDICES

December 2009
KERN RIVER APEX EXPANSION PROJECT DRAFT ATV AND OHV BARRIER PLAN

Page A-1

Appendix A

ATV/OVH Barrier Location Mapping
© Ecology & Environment, Inc. GIS Department Project #

L:\Buffalo\Kern_FS\Maps\MXDs\Workarea\FINAL_APP_RESOURCE_REPORTS\Misc\Index_Unauthorized_Trails_and_Fire Pits_112009.mxd 11/20/2009

PANEL INDEX

KERN RIVER IDENTIFIED TRAILS AND FIRE PITS WITHIN

THE UWCNF BASED ON 2009 FIELD SURVEYS

NOVEMBER 19 2009

Mueller Park

Hogsback Farmington

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

21.39

14.63

15.84

13

20.38

23.47

14

15

18.76

Panel 4

Panel 5

Panel 6

Panel 7

Panel 8

Panel 9

Panel 10

Panel 11

Panel 12

Panel 1

Panel 2

Panel 3

MilepostProposed Wasatch Loop Alignment (09-29-2009)200 yard Centerline Corridor

Proposed Access RoadNational Forest System TrailUSFS Classified Road

Fire PitsTrails Identified by KernUWCNF Management AreaMap Panel

Roadless Area

FarmingtonHogsbackMueller Park

012 0.5

Miles
© Ecology & Environment, Inc. GIS Department Project #

L:\Buffalo\Kern_FS\Maps\MXDs\Workarea\FINAL_APP_RESOURCE_REPORTS\Misc\Unauthorized_Trails_and_Fire Pits_112009.mxd 11/20/2009

PANEL OF 12

KERN RIVER IDENTIFIED TRAILS AND FIRE PITS WITHIN

THE UWCNF BASED ON 2009 FIELD SURVEYS

NOVEMBER 19 2009

Hogsback Powerline Road

Mueller Park

14

1

MilepostProposed Wasatch Loop Alignment (09-29-2009)200 yard Centerline Corridor

Proposed Access RoadNational Forest System TrailUSFS Classified Road

Fire PitsTrails Identified by KernUWCNF Management Area

Roadless Area

FarmingtonHogsbackMueller Park

1 inch = 200 feet

0 200 400 100

Feet
© Ecology & Environment, Inc. GIS Department Project #

L:\Buffalo\Kern_FS\Maps\MXDs\Workarea\FINAL_APP_RESOURCE_REPORTS\Misc\Unauthorized_Trails_and_Fire Pits_112009.mxd 11/20/2009

PANEL OF 12

KERN RIVER IDENTIFIED TRAILS AND FIRE PITS WITHIN

THE UWCNF BASED ON 2009 FIELD SURVEYS

NOVEMBER 19 2009

Hogsback

Mueller Park

Skyline Drive

Powerline Road

SESSION MOUNTAIN 4X4

14.63

NORTH

HOLBROO

K

ROUTE

2

MilepostProposed Wasatch Loop Alignment (09-29-2009)200 yard Centerline Corridor

Proposed Access RoadNational Forest System TrailUSFS Classified Road

Fire PitsTrails Identified by KernUWCNF Management Area

Roadless Area

FarmingtonHogsbackMueller Park

1 inch = 200 feet

0 200 400 100

Feet
© Ecology & Environment, Inc. GIS Department Project #

L:\Buffalo\Kern_FS\Maps\MXDs\Workarea\FINAL_APP_RESOURCE_REPORTS\Misc\Unauthorized_Trails_and_Fire Pits_112009.mxd 11/20/2009

PANEL OF 12

KERN RIVER IDENTIFIED TRAILS AND FIRE PITS WITHIN

THE UWCNF BASED ON 2009 FIELD SURVEYS

NOVEMBER 19 2009

Mueller Park

Skyline Drive

Skyline Drive

Questar Rd #1

IOSSES N TNUOM IN A4X4

SESSION

MOUNTAIN

4X4

15

NORTH HOLBROOK ROUTE

3

MilepostProposed Wasatch Loop Alignment (09-29-2009)200 yard Centerline Corridor

Proposed Access RoadNational Forest System TrailUSFS Classified Road

Fire PitsTrails Identified by KernUWCNF Management Area

Roadless Area

FarmingtonHogsbackMueller Park

1 inch = 200 feet

0 200 400 100

Feet
© Ecology & Environment, Inc. GIS Department Project #

L:\Buffalo\Kern_FS\Maps\MXDs\Workarea\FINAL_APP_RESOURCE_REPORTS\Misc\Unauthorized_Trails_and_Fire Pits_112009.mxd 11/20/2009

PANEL OF 12

KERN RIVER IDENTIFIED TRAILS AND FIRE PITS WITHIN

THE UWCNF BASED ON 2009 FIELD SURVEYS

NOVEMBER 19 2009

Questar Rd #1

16

15.84

NORTH HOLBROOK ROUTE

4

MilepostProposed Wasatch Loop Alignment (09-29-2009)200 yard Centerline Corridor

Proposed Access RoadNational Forest System TrailUSFS Classified Road

Fire PitsTrails Identified by KernUWCNF Management Area

Roadless Area

FarmingtonHogsbackMueller Park

1 inch = 200 feet

0 200 400 100

Feet
© Ecology & Environment, Inc. GIS Department Project #

L:\Buffalo\Kern_FS\Maps\MXDs\Workarea\FINAL_APP_RESOURCE_REPORTS\Misc\Unauthorized_Trails_and_Fire Pits_112009.mxd 11/20/2009

PANEL OF 12

KERN RIVER IDENTIFIED TRAILS AND FIRE PITS WITHIN

THE UWCNF BASED ON 2009 FIELD SURVEYS

NOVEMBER 19 2009

17

5

MilepostProposed Wasatch Loop Alignment (09-29-2009)200 yard Centerline Corridor

Proposed Access RoadNational Forest System TrailUSFS Classified Road

Fire PitsTrails Identified by KernUWCNF Management Area

Roadless Area

FarmingtonHogsbackMueller Park

1 inch = 200 feet

0 200 400 100

Feet
© Ecology & Environment, Inc. GIS Department Project #

L:\Buffalo\Kern_FS\Maps\MXDs\Workarea\FINAL_APP_RESOURCE_REPORTS\Misc\Unauthorized_Trails_and_Fire Pits_112009.mxd 11/20/2009

PANEL OF 12

KERN RIVER IDENTIFIED TRAILS AND FIRE PITS WITHIN

THE UWCNF BASED ON 2009 FIELD SURVEYS

NOVEMBER 19 2009

Mueller Park

18.76

KENNY CREEK

6

MilepostProposed Wasatch Loop Alignment (09-29-2009)200 yard Centerline Corridor

Proposed Access RoadNational Forest System TrailUSFS Classified Road

Fire PitsTrails Identified by KernUWCNF Management Area

Roadless Area

FarmingtonHogsbackMueller Park

1 inch = 200 feet

0 200 400 100

Feet
© Ecology & Environment, Inc. GIS Department Project #

L:\Buffalo\Kern_FS\Maps\MXDs\Workarea\FINAL_APP_RESOURCE_REPORTS\Misc\Unauthorized_Trails_and_Fire Pits_112009.mxd 11/20/2009

PANEL OF 12

KERN RIVER IDENTIFIED TRAILS AND FIRE PITS WITHIN

THE UWCNF BASED ON 2009 FIELD SURVEYS

NOVEMBER 19 2009

Mueller Park

Mueller

Park Rd

MILL CANYON ROAD

19

MUELLER PARK

MUELLER PARK

7

MilepostProposed Wasatch Loop Alignment (09-29-2009)200 yard Centerline Corridor

Proposed Access RoadNational Forest System TrailUSFS Classified Road

Fire PitsTrails Identified by KernUWCNF Management Area

Roadless Area

FarmingtonHogsbackMueller Park

1 inch = 200 feet

0 200 400 100

Feet
© Ecology & Environment, Inc. GIS Department Project #

L:\Buffalo\Kern_FS\Maps\MXDs\Workarea\FINAL_APP_RESOURCE_REPORTS\Misc\Unauthorized_Trails_and_Fire Pits_112009.mxd 11/20/2009

PANEL OF 12

KERN RIVER IDENTIFIED TRAILS AND FIRE PITS WITHIN

THE UWCNF BASED ON 2009 FIELD SURVEYS

NOVEMBER 19 2009

20

8

MilepostProposed Wasatch Loop Alignment (09-29-2009)200 yard Centerline Corridor

Proposed Access RoadNational Forest System TrailUSFS Classified Road

Fire PitsTrails Identified by KernUWCNF Management Area

Roadless Area

FarmingtonHogsbackMueller Park

1 inch = 200 feet

0 200 400 100

Feet
© Ecology & Environment, Inc. GIS Department Project #

L:\Buffalo\Kern_FS\Maps\MXDs\Workarea\FINAL_APP_RESOURCE_REPORTS\Misc\Unauthorized_Trails_and_Fire Pits_112009.mxd 11/20/2009

PANEL OF 12

KERN RIVER IDENTIFIED TRAILS AND FIRE PITS WITHIN

THE UWCNF BASED ON 2009 FIELD SURVEYS

NOVEMBER 19 2009

Mueller Park

Canyon Creek Dr

20.38

NORTH COUNTY LINE

9

MilepostProposed Wasatch Loop Alignment (09-29-2009)200 yard Centerline Corridor

Proposed Access RoadNational Forest System TrailUSFS Classified Road

Fire PitsTrails Identified by KernUWCNF Management Area

Roadless Area

FarmingtonHogsbackMueller Park

1 inch = 200 feet

0 200 400 100

Feet
© Ecology & Environment, Inc. GIS Department Project #

L:\Buffalo\Kern_FS\Maps\MXDs\Workarea\FINAL_APP_RESOURCE_REPORTS\Misc\Unauthorized_Trails_and_Fire Pits_112009.mxd 11/20/2009

PANEL OF 12

KERN RIVER IDENTIFIED TRAILS AND FIRE PITS WITHIN

THE UWCNF BASED ON 2009 FIELD SURVEYS

NOVEMBER 19 2009

Mueller Park

Hidden Lake Dr

Orvis Road

21.39

10

MilepostProposed Wasatch Loop Alignment (09-29-2009)200 yard Centerline Corridor

Proposed Access RoadNational Forest System TrailUSFS Classified Road

Fire PitsTrails Identified by KernUWCNF Management Area

Roadless Area

FarmingtonHogsbackMueller Park

1 inch = 200 feet

0 200 400 100

Feet
© Ecology & Environment, Inc. GIS Department Project #

L:\Buffalo\Kern_FS\Maps\MXDs\Workarea\FINAL_APP_RESOURCE_REPORTS\Misc\Unauthorized_Trails_and_Fire Pits_112009.mxd 11/20/2009

PANEL OF 12

KERN RIVER IDENTIFIED TRAILS AND FIRE PITS WITHIN

THE UWCNF BASED ON 2009 FIELD SURVEYS

NOVEMBER 19 2009

23.47

11

MilepostProposed Wasatch Loop Alignment (09-29-2009)200 yard Centerline Corridor

Proposed Access RoadNational Forest System TrailUSFS Classified Road

Fire PitsTrails Identified by KernUWCNF Management Area

Roadless Area

FarmingtonHogsbackMueller Park

1 inch = 200 feet

0 200 400 100

Feet
© Ecology & Environment, Inc. GIS Department Project #

L:\Buffalo\Kern_FS\Maps\MXDs\Workarea\FINAL_APP_RESOURCE_REPORTS\Misc\Unauthorized_Trails_and_Fire Pits_112009.mxd 11/20/2009

PANEL OF 12

KERN RIVER IDENTIFIED TRAILS AND FIRE PITS WITHIN

THE UWCNF BASED ON 2009 FIELD SURVEYS

NOVEMBER 19 2009

Questar Rd #2

24

12

MilepostProposed Wasatch Loop Alignment (09-29-2009)200 yard Centerline Corridor

Proposed Access RoadNational Forest System TrailUSFS Classified Road

Fire PitsTrails Identified by KernUWCNF Management Area

Roadless Area

FarmingtonHogsbackMueller Park

1 inch = 200 feet

0 200 400 100

Feet
Photo 1: Kern River Identified Trail along existing ROW near MP 14.0

Photo 2: Kern River Identified Trail along existing ROW near MP 14.0
Photo 3: Kern River Identified Road along existing ROW near MP 14.5

Photo 4: Kern River Identified Trail along existing ROW near MP 18.5
Photo 5: Kern River Identified Fire Pit near MP 18.5

Photo 6: Kern River Identified Road near MP 20.5
APPENDIX N 

ROADLESS AREA WORKSHEETS 
WORKSHEET 1 – Wilderness Qualities or Attributes 

Evaluating the Effects of Project Activities on Wilderness Attributes Date: 02 November 2009 Roadless Area: Mueller Park (MP 13.31 - 13.70, MP 20.66-20.83, and MP 21.76-22.54) Description of Project Activity or Impact to Roadless Area:  Kern River is proposing to expand its existing pipeline through the Wasatch Mountains. The proposed pipeline will cross the Mueller Park Roadless Area with road constr

Park Roadless Area is not identified in the set of inventoried roadless area maps contained in the Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Final Environmental Impact S

2000. It was identified in the 2003 W-CNF LRMP. 

Effect to Wilderness Quality or Attributes Wilderness Quality or Attribute (Note: delete attribute descriptions after data is entered to save space if desired.) 

Is there an effect? Yes or No 

Which direction is the effect? Improving, Stable or Degrading? 

Describe the actual effect. Use descriptive terms that discuss the effect, not the activityRoads, etc...) to quantify effects.

Untrammeled This quality monitors modern human activities that directly control or manipulate the components or processes of ecological systems inside wilderness. In summary, wilderness is essentially unhindered and free from modern human control or manipulation. A measure of whether the long-term ecological processes of the area are intact and operating. It describes the extent to which human influences have altered natural processes away from what one would expect without those impacts. Address this attribute by describing the impact your project activities may have on natural processes in the area and by describing any effects these changes may cause within the area. Consider linking to PFC.

Yes Stable MP 13.31 - 13.70 - The proposed pipeline route 

comprised of Douglas fir forest which has not bhuman activity. There will be a total of 4.7 acres install the pipeline and maintained after construsurveys. However, trees will be allowed to grow 

pipeline to offset impacts from forest clearing. MP 20.66-20.83 - The proposed pipeline route i

ROW for 0.13 mile of the 0.17 mile crossing wiPark Roadless Area. The portion that is not co-lreconnects with the existing ROW just outside o0.90 acre of forested and scrub areas to be cleare

adjacent to the existing ROW and 0.51 acre of scleared and revegetated as part of the restoration 

are generally located directly adjacent to the exiMP 21.76-22.54 - The proposed pipeline route iMueller Park Roadless Area comprised of mounThere will be a total of 9.6 acres of trees cleared maintained after construction for pipeline inspecvegetation will be allowed to grow to within 10 impacts from the forest clearing. The effect to the untrammeled character will be cleared area will be revegetated. Along the lengROW, vegetation will be manipulated to allow faffect the natural processes along the boundary 
Natural 

This quality monitors both intended and unintended effects of modern people on ecological systems inside wilderness since the time the area was designated. In summary, wilderness ecological systems are substantially free from the effects of 

modern civilization.

A measure of past and proposed activities on the appearance of naturalness of the area to the casual observer. This is a measure of the degree of environmental modification that will occur because of your project. Address this attribute by describing the extent of modification that will occur in the Roadless area,(ie. length of roads built, facilities constructed) and how apparent the impact will be to the visitors of the area in both the short-term and the long-term. Effects should be judged from a layman’s point of view. Consider existing scenic integrity and ROS layers. 

Yes Stable MP 13.31 - 13.70 - The proposed pipeline route 

Mueller Park Roadless Area comprised of Dougbeen previously impacted by human activity. Ththe pipeline and maintained after construction foMP 20.66-20.83 -The proposed pipeline route is ROW. The effect of the pipeline route will be a Additionally, there is a permanent power line loexisting ROW. MP 21.76-22.54 - The proposed pipeline route iMueller Park Roadless Area comprised of Dougcleared to install the pipeline and maintained aftinspection surveys. Overall there will be a minor impact on the integbut the trees and vegetation that are cleared will revegetate to within 10 feet of the centerline as pwhich will offset some of the human impacts. Tlimited to the pipeline ROW along the boundary 

Undeveloped

This quality monitors the presence of structures, 

construction, habitations, and other evidence of modern human presence or occupation. In summary, wilderness is essentially without permanent improvements or modern human occupation.

A measure of the presence of the sights and sounds of civilization. It tries to indicate whether the visitor will experience a setting that is removed from civilization. Address this attribute by describing any sights or sounds of civilization that will occur during the projects duration or resulting after the project is finished. Also address any change in how a visitor might access the area. Consider using ROS maps layers. 

Yes Stable MP 13.31 - 13.70 -The proposed pipeline route 

of Douglas fir forest which has not been previouROW established and maintained where the pipwill be allowed to revegetate to within 10 feet oMP 20.66-20.83 - The proposed pipeline route iROW located entirely within a mountain mahogcommunity. MP 21.76 – 22.54 -The proposed pipeline route of mountain mahogany – oak scrub. There will bmaintained where the pipeline is constructed. Threvegetate to within 10 feet of the pipeline. Therand existing road located nearby the proposed pWithin all segments there will be no sights or soconstruction has been completed. There will not habitations erected during construction. There wmaintained. 

Outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreationThis quality monitors conditions that affect the opportunity for people to experience solitude or 

Solitude - Described as 

opportunities to experience solitude, or the isolation from the sights, sounds, and presence of others and from the developments and evidence of man. Solitude is measured by looking at the size of the area, the presence of screening, distance from impacts to the rest of the area, and degree of permanent intrusions. Address solitude by discussing how the project 

No N/A MP 13.31 - 13.70 -The proposed pipeline route 

fir forest which has not been previously impacteroadless area that the opportunity to experience MP 20.66-20.83 - The proposed pipeline route iROW. The only impacts in this area will be a wAdditionally, this segment of the pipeline is locaand road. MP 21.76 – 22.54 - The proposed pipeline route 

mountain mahogany – oak scrub. There will be maintained where the pipeline is constructed. 
primitive, unconfined

recreation in a wilderness setting, rather than monitoring visitor experiences per se. In summary, 

wilderness provides outstanding opportunities for people to experience solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation, including the values of inspiration and physical and mental challenge.

activities affect the ability of a visitor to escape project impacts on solitude within the area. Consider linking to ROS mapping for size and remoteness criteria for Primitive and SPMN. 

Within all three segments there will be a ROW ethe pipeline is constructed. Where the ROW alreThe ability to experience solitude will be tempoconstruction of the Project. After construction acompleted, annual monitoring will occur, which disturb the solitude of the area. There will be littopportunities to experience solitude. 

Opportunities for Primitive Recreation -A measure 

of the experiences available to be isolated from the evidence of man, to feel a part of nature, to have a vastness of scale, and a high degree of challenge and risk while using outdoor skills. Address this attribute by describing how the project activities might affect the size of the area, the number and type of opportunities available, the challenge of the opportunities, and the addition or absence of facilities. 

No N/A While some hunting, camping and hiking occurs 

opportunities for primitive recreation within the 

This opportunity is constrained by the small size urban development. The placement of the pipeliopportunity. 

Special Features (Ecological, Geologic, Scenic or Historical) An attribute that recognizes that wilderness may contain other values of ecological, geologic, scenic or historical or cultural significance. Unique fish and wildlife species, unique plants or plant communities, potential or existing research natural areas, outstanding landscape features, and significant cultural resource sites should all be considered as types of values that might exist. Identify any of these values that exist within the project area. Address this attribute by describing the effect proposed activities would have on these values. Consider Scenic Attractiveness link.

No N/A There are no special ecological, geologic, or his

Mueller Park Roadless Area. The placement of tspecial features. 

Manageability (as Wilderness) A measure of the ability to manage an area to meet the size criteria (5,000 + acres), the resulting configuration of the potential wilderness, and the interaction of the other elements above. Changes in the shape of the Inventoried Roadless Area may have significant consequences to its wilderness potential. Consider also boundary management impacts such as changing wilderness boundaries to different terrain features or for how access would be provided if project activities cause adjustments in the Inventoried Roadless Area. Address this attribute by discussing how the proposed activities may affect the boundary location, the size, the shape, and the access to the area. Consider ROS mapping. 

No N/A MP 13.31 - 13.70 - The proposed pipeline will c

Mueller Park Roadless Area. There will be a totimpacted as a result of the proposed pipeline. MP 20.66 and 20.83.- The proposed pipeline is ROW. The impacts will be an increase in the wia total of 1.62 acres. MP 21.76 – 22.54 -The proposed pipeline will cMueller Park Roadless Area. There will be a tot

The Mueller Park Roadless Area is 7,752 acres pipeline a total of 16 acres or 0.2 % of the Muel

be impacted as a result of the proposed pipelineis located along the boundary of the Mueller Par
Summary Will the proposed project affect the 

areas suitability for wilderness designation? 

No Yes If Yes, Explain how the project would affect wiX The proposed pipeline will affect the Mueller Park Roadl

of Douglas fir forest for a permanent ROW. It will not, h

manageability, special features, or solitude attributes of t
WORKSHEET 2 – Roadless Area Characteristics 

Evaluating the Effects of Project Activities on Roadless Area Characteristics Date: 02 November 2009 Roadless Area: Mueller Park (MP 13.31 - 13.70, MP 20.66-20.83, and MP 21.76-22.54) Description of Project Activity or Impact to Roadless Area: Kern River is proposing to expand its existing pipeline through the Wasatch Mountains. The proposed pipeline will cross the Mueller Park Roadless Area with road constru

Park Roadless Area is not identified in the set of inventoried roadless area maps contained in the Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Final Environmental Impact S

2000. It was identified in the 2003 W-CNF LRMP. 

Effect to Roadless Characteristics Roadless Characteristics Is there 

an effect? Yes or No 

Which direction is the effect? Improving, Stable or Degrading? 

Describe the actual effect. Use descriptive terms that discuss the effect, not the activityExplain if the proposal would Alter or Modify the landscape

Soil, water and Air resources Identify any unique or critical watershed resources. Describe how the project will affect these key resources areas and the habitats that depend on them.

No N/A There are few small wetlands along narrow strea

Roadless area. These wetlands and streams are limpact for the proposed pipeline. As such, no stimpacted within the Mueller Park Roadless AreMitigation measures have been included in the KPollution Prevention Plan to address the potentitransport on slope areas found along the alignme

Sources of public drinking water Identify any public drinking water systems or sources within the project area or that would be affected by the project. Describe how the project would affect water quality and quantity of the public drinking water source. 

No N/A The Mueller Park Roadless Area between MP 1

Weber River Watershed. The other two portions roadless area are within the Jordon River watersis located approximately 0.4 miles southeast of Mimpacts due to the pipeline occur greater than 10source. Therefore, there will be no impacts to sodue to the proposed pipeline. 

Diversity of plant and animal communities Discuss the diversity of plant and animal communities. Identify any unique plant and animal communities within the area. Describe effects to the diversity of communities and impacts to populations in the areas. 

No N/A MP 13.31 - 13.70 -The vegetative communi

pipeline in this area includes Douglas fir forest. acres of impacts in which the trees will be cleareproposed pipeline. This represents less than 0.0fir forest within the Wasatch-Cache National Fo
MP 20.66-20.83 -The vegetative community 

pipeline is mountain mahogany – oak scrub. Temtree clearing will occur on 1.41 acres. This repremountain mahogany – oak scrub available in the MP 21.76-22.54-The vegetative community impis mountain mahogany – oak scrub. Temporary clearing will occur on 9.6 acres. This represents mountain mahogany – oak scrub available in the Both of these communities have a large diversitof the site-specific restoration plan, Kern River naturally revegetate to within 10 feet of the centeffects during construction. Because the acres plong-term effects will be minimal 

Habitat for TES and species dependent on large undisturbed areas of land Identify any TES or sensitive species within the Roadless area. 

Describe how the project would affect the habitats or populations and whether this effect is significant across the normal range and distribution of these habitats and populations.

Yes Stable MP 13.31 - 13.70 -Northern goshawk (Accip

species and state-listed conservation species, waaspen and Engelmann’s spruce/Douglas fir mixelocated, but it is apparent that northern goshawkproposed route. Northern goshawks use the Dounesting habitat. However, the area to be impacteexisting ROW and power line and thus, already will be co-located with, and directly adjacent tominimize impacts to the northern goshawk habitsurveys for the northern goshawk in 2010. 

MP 20.66-20.83 and MP 21.76-22.54-Base

performed in 2009 and agency consultations, theany Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive speciealong the proposed pipeline route. 

Primitive and semi-primitive classes of recreation Describe current recreation opportunities within the Roadless area. Identify the effects of your project of the area and these activities. Describe the effect in terms of availability for similar experiences in surrounding areas or within the region of use. Consider link to ROS mapping. 

Yes Stable Based on Appendix C-2 of the Wasatch-Cache N

the Mueller Park Roadless Area is categorized a

recreation. Though it is not documented, huntinlikely recreation activities that occur in this areathe Douglas fir forest and mountain mahogany asemi-primitive opportunities in the long term in the cleared ROW improve the access for huntingon its small size there are no primitive recreation Park Roadless Area that will be affected by the p

Reference landscapes for research study or interpretation Describe the landscape that is present. Describe any unique reference landscapes that exist within the Roadless area. Describe how the project activities might affect the reference landscape values of the Roadless area. Consider how the 

No N/A The landscape in the area consists of Douglas fi

oak scrub. This landscape is not unique as it is fthe Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Ther

any reference landscapes. 
landscapes within the Inventoried Roadless area fits within the 

broader landscape and if the project creates any overall change. Consider landscape character descriptions in SMS. Landscape character and integrity Describe the current scenic quality and character of the area. Describe project effects to the scenic integrity of the area and changes to the character of the area. Consider existing scenic integrity. 

Yes Degrading Based on Appendix C-2 of the Wasatch-Cache N

some user-created roads within the Mueller Park Between MP 13.31 and 13.70 the proposed routDouglas fir forest to be permanently cleared for the pipeline. In addition, there will be 2.38 acres cleared for construction but will be allowed to nfeet of the centerline. There will be a little more mountain mahogany and scrub oak communitiesTo mitigate visual impacts woody vegetation wi10 feet of the centerline. Because the proposed p

located next to the Mueller Park Roadless Area 

character and integrity of the entire area will be 

Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites Identify generically any significant cultural resources within the Roadless area and describe the effect of the project on these resources. Typically mitigation will be designed to prevent significant effects to these resources. 

No N/A There is moderate potential for cultural resource

Roadless Area. Archaeological studies/surveys wproposed route and no significant cultural resou

Other locally unique characteristics Identify any locally unique characteristics and describe how the project would affect these values. 

No N/A There are no unique characteristics within the M
WORKSHEET 1 – Wilderness Qualities or Attributes 

Evaluating the Effects of Project Activities on Wilderness Attributes Date: November 2, 2009 Roadless Area: Hogsback (MP 13.72 - 14.06 and 14.12 - 14.65) Description of Project Activity or Impact to Roadless Area: Kern River is proposing to expand its existing pipeline through the Wasatch Mountains. The proposed pipeline will affect 4.9 acres of the Hogsback Roadless Area with roHogsback Roadless Area is identified in the set of inventoried roadless area maps contained in the Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Final Environmental Impact 

2000. It was further identified in the 2003 W-CNF LRMP. 

Effect to Wilderness Quality or Attributes Wilderness Quality or Attribute (Note: delete attribute descriptions after data is entered to save space if desired.) 

Is there an effect? Yes or No 

Which direction is the effect? Improving, Stable or Degrading? 

Describe the actual effect. Use descriptive terms that discuss the effect, not the activityRoads, etc...) to quantify effects.

Untrammeled This quality monitors modern human activities that directly control or manipulate the components or processes of ecological systems inside wilderness. In summary, wilderness is essentially unhindered and free from modern human control or manipulation. A measure of whether the long-term ecological processes of the area are intact and operating. It describes the extent to which human influences have altered natural processes away from what one would expect without those impacts. Address this attribute by describing the impact your project activities may have on natural processes in the area and by describing any effects these changes may cause within the area. Consider linking to PFC.

No N/A The proposed pipeline route is co-located with t

minimize impacts to the roadless area. While 4.9 within the forested area, these trees are located d

ROW between the ROW and an existing power 

located on the edge of the Hogsback Roadless Anatural processes of the roadless area 

Natural This quality monitors both intended and unintended effects of modern people on ecological systems inside wilderness since the time the area was designated. In summary, wilderness ecological systems are substantially free from the effects of 

modern civilization.

A measure of past and proposed activities on the appearance of naturalness of the area to the casual observer. This is a measure of the degree of environmental modification that will occur 

Yes Stable The proposed pipeline route is co-located with t

the pipeline route will be a widening of the exisintegrity of the natural landscape will be negligiexisting utilities and minimization of clearing. Tback to within 10 feet of the centerline as part ooffset some of the human impacts. Additionallyline located directly to the west of the existing R
because of your project. Address this attribute by describing the 

extent of modification that will occur in the Roadless area,(ie. length of roads built, facilities constructed) and how apparent the impact will be to the visitors of the area in both the short-term and the long-term. Effects should be judged from a layman’s point of view. Consider existing scenic integrity and ROS layers. Undeveloped

This quality monitors the presence of structures, 

construction, habitations, and other evidence of modern human presence or occupation. In summary, wilderness is essentially without permanent improvements or modern human occupation.

A measure of the presence of the sights and sounds of civilization. It tries to indicate whether the visitor will experience a setting that is removed from civilization. Address this attribute by describing any sights or sounds of civilization that will occur during the projects duration or resulting after the project is finished. Also address any change in how a visitor might access the area. Consider using ROS maps layers. 

Yes Stable The proposed pipeline route is co-located with, 

cleared, existing ROW. Additionally, there is a 

of the existing ROW. There will not be any abosounds associated with civilization after the con

Outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreationThis quality monitors conditions that affect the opportunity for people to experience solitude or primitive, unconfinedrecreation in a wilderness setting, rather than monitoring visitor experiences per se. In summary, 

wilderness provides outstanding opportunities for people to experience solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation, including the values of inspiration and physical and mental challenge.

Solitude - Described as 

opportunities to experience solitude, or the isolation from the sights, sounds, and presence of others and from the developments and evidence of man. Solitude is measured by looking at the size of the area, the presence of screening, distance from impacts to the rest of the area, and degree of permanent intrusions. Address solitude by discussing how the project activities affect the ability of a visitor to escape project impacts on solitude within the area. Consider linking to ROS mapping for size and remoteness criteria for Primitive and SPMN. 

Yes Stable The proposed pipeline route is co-located within 

impacts in this area will be a widening of the expipeline will be located between the existing ROAdditionally, Skyline Drive, which is accessible located less than 1 mile from the roadless area. experience solitude is affected by this existing usolitude will be temporarily impacted during coconstruction and restoration has been completed

which is the only time humans will disturb the sbe little long-term effect on the opportunities to 

Opportunities for Primitive Recreation -A measure 

of the experiences available to be isolated from the evidence of man, to feel a part of nature, to have a vastness of scale, and a high degree of challenge and risk while using outdoor skills. Address this attribute by describing how the project activities might affect the size 

No N/A While some hunting, camping and hiking occurs 

opportunities for primitive recreation within the opportunity is constrained by the small size of thfrom the evidence of man. The placement of the opportunity within the Hogsback Roadless Area
of the area, the number and 

type of opportunities available, the challenge of the opportunities, and the addition or absence of facilities. 

Special Features (Ecological, Geologic, Scenic or Historical) An attribute that recognizes that wilderness may contain other values of ecological, geologic, scenic or historical or cultural significance. Unique fish and wildlife species, unique plants or plant communities, potential or existing research natural areas, outstanding landscape features, and significant cultural resource sites should all be considered as types of values that might exist. Identify any of these values that exist within the project area. Address this attribute by describing the effect proposed activities would have on these values. Consider Scenic Attractiveness link.

No N/A There are no special ecological, geologic, or his

proposed pipeline will cross the Hogsback Roadecological communities will be minimized by coutilities and minimal widening of the ROW. 

Manageability (as Wilderness) A measure of the ability to manage an area to meet the size criteria (5,000 + acres), the resulting configuration of the potential wilderness, and the interaction of the other elements above. Changes in the shape of the Inventoried Roadless Area may have significant consequences to its wilderness potential. Consider also boundary management impacts such as changing wilderness boundaries to different terrain features or for how access would be provided if project activities cause adjustments in the Inventoried Roadless Area. Address this attribute by discussing how the proposed activities may affect the boundary location, the size, the shape, and the access to the area. Consider ROS mapping.

No N/A The proposed pipeline is co-located with existin

Roadless Area is 7,931 acres, of which only 4.9 Project. The existing cleared areas associated w

the boundary of the Hogsback Roadless Area. AProject will affect the edge of the roadless area. fragmentation of the roadless area and access to 

Summary Will the proposed project affect the 

areas suitability for wilderness designation? 

No Yes If Yes, Explain how the project would affect wiX 
WORKSHEET 2 – Roadless Area Characteristics 

Evaluating the Effects of Project Activities on Roadless Area Characteristics Date: November 2, 2009 Roadless Area: Hogsback (MP 13.72 - 14.06 and 14.12 - 14.65) Description of Project Activity or Impact to Roadless Area: Kern River is proposing to expand its existing pipeline through the Wasatch Mountains. The proposed pipeline will affect 4.9 acres of the Hogsback Roadless Area with roHogsback Roadless Area is identified in the set of inventoried roadless area maps contained in the Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Final Environmental Impact 

2000. It was further identified in the 2003 W-CNF LRMP. 

Effect to Roadless Characteristics Roadless Characteristics Is there 

an effect? Yes or No 

Which direction is the effect? Improving, Stable or Degrading? 

Describe the actual effect. Use descriptive terms that discuss the effect, not the activityExplain if the proposal would Alter or Modify the landscape

Soil, water and Air resources Identify any unique or critical watershed resources. Describe how the project will affect these key resources areas and the habitats that depend on them.

No N/A Based on Appendix C-2 of the Wasatch-Cache N

few small wetlands along narrow streams within There are no wetlands or streams that will be imRoadless Area due to the proposed pipeline. Mitigation measures have been included in the KPollution Prevention Plan to address the potentitransport on slope areas found along the alignme

Sources of public drinking water Identify any public drinking water systems or sources within the project area or that would be affected by the project. Describe how the project would affect water quality and quantity of the public drinking water source.

No N/A Based on Appendix C-2 of the Wasatch-Cache N

River’s Resource Report 2 – Water Use and Qupublic drinking water that will be impacted by thas no surface sources of public drinking water aRoadless Area. 

Diversity of plant and animal communities Discuss the diversity of plant and animal communities. Identify any unique plant and animal communities within the area. Describe effects to the diversity of communities and impacts to populations in the areas. 

No N/A The vegetative community impacted by the prop

fir forest. This community has a large diversity proposed pipeline route is co-located along the epossible to minimize impact. Temporary impactwill occur on 4.44 acres. As part of the site-specRiver will allow woody vegetation to naturally rthe centerline. This represents less than 0.01% o

in the UWCNF. 

Habitat for TES and species dependent Yes Stable Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), a USFS s
on large undisturbed areas of land 

Identify any TES or sensitive species within the Roadless area. 

Describe how the project would affect the habitats or populations and whether this effect is significant across the normal range and distribution of these habitats and populations.

conservation species, was identified at MP 14.3 spruce/Douglas fir mixed forest. The nest was nnorthern goshawks utilize the area near the propuse the Douglas fir forest as their primary nestinbe impacted is located between the existing ROW already disturbed. The proposed route will be coadjacent to, the existing ROW which will minimgoshawk habitat. 

Primitive and semi-primitive classes of recreation Describe current recreation opportunities within the Roadless area. Identify the effects of your project of the area and these activities. Describe the effect in terms of availability for similar experiences in surrounding areas or within the region of use. Consider link to ROS mapping. 

No N/A Based on Appendix C-2 from the Wasatch-Cach

the Hogsback Roadless Area is categorized as se

recreation. Camping, hunting, and hiking are recproposed pipeline will widen the existing ROWprimitive non-motorized recreation options withArea. 

Reference landscapes for research study or interpretation Describe the landscape that is present. Describe any unique reference landscapes that exist within the Roadless area. Describe how the project activities might affect the reference landscape values of the Roadless area. Consider how the landscapes within the Inventoried Roadless area fits within the broader landscape and if the project creates any overall change. Consider landscape character descriptions in SMS. 

No N/A The landscape in the area consists of Douglas fi

unique as it is found extensively throughout the Forest. Additionally, the proposed route has beeutilities. Therefore, there will be no impact to a

Landscape character and integrity Describe the current scenic quality and character of the area. Describe project effects to the scenic integrity of the area and changes to the character of the area. Consider existing scenic integrity. 

No N/A The proposed route is co-located with the existin

Roadless Area. There will be 4.44 acres of impa

down directly adjacent to the existing ROW. To mitigate visual impacts woody vegetation wi10 feet of the centerline. Because the proposed plocated next to the roadless area boundary, the lof the entire area will be kept intact. 

Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites Identify generically any significant cultural resources within the Roadless area and describe the effect of the project on these resources. Typically mitigation will be designed to prevent significant effects to these resources. 

No N/A Based on Appendix C-2 from the Wasatch-Cach

are no known significant cultural resources withRiver performed archaeological studies/surveys no significant cultural resources were identified

Other locally unique characteristics Identify any locally unique characteristics and describe how the project would affect these values. 

No N/A There are no identified locally unique characteri

Roadless area based on Appendix C-2 from the Plan. 
APPENDIX O 

REFERENCES 
APPENDIX O - REFERENCES 

O-1 

American Hospital Directory. 2009. Hospital Statistics by State. Available at: 

http://www.ahd.com/state_statistics.html.

American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). 2009. U.S. Wind Energy Industry Installs Over 1,600 

MW in Third Quarter. Available at: http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/10-20-

09_AWEA_Q3_market_report.html. Accessed on 12/10/2009. 

Andrews, B., Guilfoyle, D., Pfertsh, J., Neely, B., Backer, A., and Eckman, J. 2005. A Class III Cultural 

Resource Inventory of the Wasatch Loop Project in Davis, Morgan, and Salt Lake Counties, 

Utah. Alpine Archaeological Consultants, Inc., Montrose, Colorado. 

Biomass Research and Development Board (BRDB). 2008. National Biofuels Action Plan. Available at: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/nbap.pdf. 

Braun, C.E., J.W. Connelly, and M. A. Schroeder. 2001. Seasonal habitat requirements for sage-grouse: 

spring, summer, fall, and winter. In: Sage-grouse habitat restoration symposium proceedings. 

June 4-7, 2001, Boise, ID. Proc. RMRS-P-38. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 130 pp. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2007. Moxa Arch Area Infill Gas Development Project: Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement. October 2007. BLM/WY/PL-07/034+1310. Available at: 

http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/kfodocs/moxa_arch.html. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2008a. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the UNEV 

Pipeline. November 2008. Available at: 

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ut/lands_and_minerals/lands/major_projects/unev_

pipeline.Par.91298.File.dat/12-23UNEV_DEIS_103108.pdf. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2008b. Notification Bulletin Board: NEPA # UT-040-07-20. 

Available at: https://www.blm.gov/ut/enbb/search.php. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2008c. Milford Wind Corridor Project Environmental 

Assessment. UT-040-07-20. October 15, 2008. Available at: 

https://www.blm.gov/ut/enbb/files/COMPLETE_FINAL_FIRSTWIND_EA_101408E.pdf. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2009a. Environmental Notification Bulletin Board: NEPA # DOIBLM-UT-W020-2010-001-DNA. Available at: https://www.blm.gov/ut/enbb/search.php. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2009b. Environmental Notification Bulletin Board: NEPA # DOIBLM-UT-C010-0003-DNA. Available at: https://www.blm.gov/ut/enbb/search.php. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2009c. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Mona to 

Oquirrh Transmission Corridor Project and Draft Pony Express Resource Management Plan 

Amendment. Volume 1. April 2009. DES 09-24. UT-020-2008-009. Available at 

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ut/salt_lake_fo/planning/monatransmission.Par.686

93.File.dat/Volume%20I.pdf. 

California Biomass Energy Alliance (CBEA). 2008. California Biomass Energy Alliance. Available at: 

http://www.calbiomass.org. 
APPENDIX O – REFERENCES (continued) 

O-2

California Energy Commission. 2008. Background About Geothermal Energy in California. Available 

at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/geothermal/background.html. Accessed on 12/7/2009. 

Capitol Impact Government Gateway. 2009. Available at: 

http://www.ciclt.net/sn/clt/capitolimpact/gw_default.aspx.

Colman, A., Colman, Q.A., Allison, J.R., Eckerle, W., Hughes, C.E., and Miller, W.E. 1998. A Cultural 

Resource Inventory of the Proposed Legacy-West Davis Highway in Davis and Salt Lake 

Counties, Utah. Baseline Data, Inc., Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Connelly, J.W., S.T. Knick, M.A. Schroeder, and S.J. Stiver. 2004. Conservation assessment of greater 

sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats. Unpublished report. Western Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies, Cheyenne, Wyoming. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. The 1997 Annual Report of the Council on 

Environmental Quality. Available at: http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/reports/1997/index.html. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2005. Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in 

Cumulative Effects Analysis. Available at: 

http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contentType=GSA_DOCUMENT&contentId

=19138&noc=T. 

Cowardin, L.W., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and 

Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Washington, DC. 

Ecogeek. 2009. 203 MW Wind Farm Completed in Utah. Available at: 

http://www.ecogeek.org/component/content/article/2997. 

Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2009a. Natural Gas Pipelines in the Western Region. 

Available at: 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/ngpipeline/western.html. 

Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2009b. U.S. Overview: State Energy Profiles. Available at: 

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/. Accessed on 12/10/2009. 

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report 

Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2004. Research of Wetland Construction and 

Mitigation Activities for Certificated Section 7(c) Pipeline Projects. Washington, DC. 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2008. Mid Continent Express Final Environmental 

Impact Statement. (Docket No. CP08-6.). Washington, DC. 

Federal Energy Regulatory Department (FERC). 2009. Personal communication on November 5, 

between K. Nguyen (FERC) and J.Ward (ENTRIX) concerning hydrokinetic projects licensed 

under FERC. 

Federal Register (FR). 1994. Available at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/multidb.cgi. 
APPENDIX O – REFERENCES (continued) 

O-3

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2002. Utah Field Office Guidelines for Raptor Protection from Human 

and Land Disturbances. Utah Field Office, Salt Lake City. January 2002 Update. 

Fitzhugh, D.D. 1983. Geologic Map of the Central Wasatch Front, Utah. Utah Geological and Mineral 

Survey, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Harty, K.M., and Lowe, M. 2003. Geologic evaluation and hazard potential of liquefaction-induced 

landslides along the Wasatch Front, Utah: Utah Geological Survey Special Study 104, 40 p., 16 

plates, scale 1:24,000. Available online at: http:ugspub.nr.utah.gov/publications/special 

studies/SS-104LiqueLndslds.pdf.

Heron, Melonie, D.L. Hoyert, S.L. Murphy, J.Xu, K.D. Kochanek, and B.Tejada-Vera. 2009. Deaths: 

Final Data for 2006. CDC National Vital Statistics Reports, Volume 57, No. 14. April 17. 

Horn, J.C. and J. Omvig. 2009. Apex Expansion Project Addendum 1 Report: Class III Cultural 

Resource Inventory of Contractor Yards, Stockpiling Areas, and Additional Centerline for the 

Wasatch Loop Component of Apex Expansion Project in Davis, Morgan, and Salt Lake Counties, 

Utah. Alpine Archaeological Consultants, Inc., Montrose, Colorado. 

Hupp, J.W., and C.E. Braun. 1989. Topographic Distribution of Sage Grouse Foraging in Winter. 

Journal of Wildlife Management 53:823-829. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR4). 2007. Working Group I – AR4 Report. 

Available at: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html. 

Intermountain Realty Group. 2009a. East Canyon Ranchettes – Property Overview. Available at: 

http://www.intermountainrealtygroup.com/index.php/properties/available/east-canyon-ranchettes

(Accessed on November 3, 2009). 

Intermountain Realty Group. 2009b. Marketing Package for East Canyon Ranchettes Brochure. 

Available at: 

http://www.intermountainrealtygroup.com/files/docs/35/East%20Canyon%20Ranchettes.pdf. 

Jennejohn, Dan. September 2009. U.S. Geothermal Power Production and Development Update. 

Available at: http://www.geoenergy.org/publications/reports/US_Geothermal_Industry_Update_Sept_29_2009_Final.pdf. 

Jensen, Mark. 2009a. Utah Division of Drinking Water. Personal communication, email transmittal of 

water data, Joanna Craigmile, Ecology and Environment, Inc. 2009 February 12. 

Jensen, Mark. 2009b. Utah Division of Drinking Water. Personal communication, phone conversation 

of water data, Anne Allen, ENTRIX, Inc. 2009 October 9. 

Jones, D. J., G. S. Kramer, D. N. Gideon, and R. J. Eiber. 1986. An Analysis of Reportable Incidents for 

Natural Gas Transportation and Gathering Lines 1970 through June 1984. (NG-18 Report No. 

158.) Pipeline Research Committee of the American Gas Association. 

Keinath, Douglas A. and Matthew McGee. 2004. Species assessment for pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus 

idahoensis) in Wyoming. United States Department of the Interior. Cheyenne, Wyoming. 
APPENDIX O – REFERENCES (continued) 

O-4

Kern River. 2009. Application to Construct and Operate the Apex Expansion Project. Sent to FERC 

November 2009. 

Knight, D. H. 1994. Mountains and Plains: The Ecology of Wyoming Landscapes. Yale University. 

Krueper, D. J. 2000. Conservation priorities in naturally fragmented and human altered riparian habitats 

of the arid west. In R. Bonney, D. N. Pachley, R. J. Cooper, and L. Niles (eds.). Strategies for 

bird conservation: the Partners in Flight planning process 88–90. (USDA Forest Service 

Proceedings RMRS-P-16.). 

Mullen, J. 2009a. Cultural Resource Inventory of the Proposed Kern Apex Milford Compressor Station 

Electrical Distribution Line Extension, Beaver County, Utah. Alpine Archaeological Consultants, 

Inc., Montrose, Colorado. 

Mullen, J. 2009b. Cultural Resource Inventory of Two Parcels for the Proposed Kern Apex Milford 

Compressor Station, Beaver County, Utah. Alpine Archaeological Consultants, Inc., Montrose, 

Colorado. 

Mullen, J., and Zachman, J. 2009. Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of Pipeline Corridors, Access 

Roads, and Additional Construction Workspace Areas for the Wasatch Loop Component of Apex 

Expansion Project in Davis, Morgan, and Salt Lake Counties, Utah. Revised December 2009. 

Alpine Archaeological Consultants, Inc., Montrose, Colorado. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 

Southwest Regional Office. 2009. Essential Fish Habitat – F.A.Q. Available at: 

http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/hcd/HCD_webContent/EFH/faq_efh.htm. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2009. Artemisia tridentate Nutt. Plant Profile. 

Available at: http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=ARTR2. 

Nevada Administrative Code (NAC). 2009. NAC445B.22097. Available at 

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NAC/NAC-445B.html#NAC445BSec22097. 

Nevada Workforce Informer. 2009. Available at: 

http://www.nevadaworkforce.com/?PAGEID=4&SUBID=162. 

Pacific Power. 2009. Energy Gateway: Bringing new transmission to the West. Available at: 

http://www.pacificpower.net/ed/tp/eg.html. 

Salt Lake City-County Board of Health (SLBH). 2001. Health Regulations #21 – Noise Control. 

Available at: http://www.nonoise.org/lawlib/cities/saltlakecity.htm#1. 

Stokes, W.L. 1988. Geology of Utah: Occasional Paper Number 6, Utah Museum of Natural History, 

Utah Geological and Mineral Survey. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). 2008a. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers 

Manual: Arid West Region, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). 2008b. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers 

Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region, Washington, D.C. 
APPENDIX O – REFERENCES (continued) 

O-5

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 2009. BEA Regional Fact Sheets (BEARFACTS). Available 

at: http://www.bea.gov/regional/index.htm.

U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1997. Standards and Guidelines for Healthy Rangelands. 

U.S. Department of Interior. Utah State Office. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2009a. State and County Quickfacts. Available at: 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2009b. American Factfinder. Available at: 

http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1993. Soils. Available at: 

http://soils.usda.gov/technical/handbook/contents/part622.html. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2003. Land and Resource Management Plan. Available at: 

http://fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5076971.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2008a. States with Renewable Portfolio Standards. Available at: 

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/states/maps/renewable_portfolio_states.cfm. 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2008b. DOE Announces Loan Guarantee Applications for Nuclear 

Power Plant Construction. Available at: http://www.lgprogram.energy.gov/press/100208.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2008c. Annual Report on U.S. Wind Power Installation, Cost, and 

Performance Trends: 2007. Available at: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/43025.pdf. 

Accessed 12/10/2009. 

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2009. Energy Policy Act of 2005: New Plant Incentives within the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005). Available at: 

http://www.ne.doe.gov/energyPolicyAct2005/neEPACt2a.html. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2007. Biological Opinion for Existing Utah BLM Resource 

Management Plans (RMP). Memo to Director. BLM. Utah State Office. 255 Pages 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (USDOT). 2006. Highway 

Construction Noise Handbook. Available at: 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/handbook/index.htm. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999. Consideration of Cumulative Impacts on EPA 

Review of Federal Activities (2252A). (EPA 315-R-99-002.) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. Primary Distinguishing Characteristics of Level III 

Ecoregions of the Continental United States. Available online at: 

http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/level_iii.htm. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009a. 40 CFR 50. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/search/40cfr.html. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009b. Technology Transfer Network. Ambient 

Monitoring Technology Information Center. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/amtic/. 
APPENDIX O – REFERENCES (continued) 

O-6

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009c. Table of Global Warming Potential for 

Greenhouse Gases. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html#G. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2009d. 2007 Draft U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory 

Report. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport07.html. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. Sole Source Aquifer Protection Program. 

Available online at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/safewater/sourcewater/sourcewater.cfm?action=SSA. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2009. Eagle Permits; Take Necessary to Protect Interests in 

Particular Localities; Final Rules. Federal Register 50 CFR parts 13 and 22. September 11. 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2009. October 26, 2009 Letter from USFS Brian Ferebee to Chris Bias 

Kern River Gas Transmission Company. Available online at: http://www.ferc.gov/docsfiling/eLibrary.asp. Docket Number: CP10-14-000. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2008. Water Resources of the United States. Hydrologic Unit 

Available online at: http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/regions.html. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2009a. Ground Water Atlas of the United States Arizona, Colorado, 

New Mexico, Utah HA 730-C. Available online at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_c/Ctext3.html. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2009b. Ground Water Atlas of the United States Montana, North 

Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming HA 730-I. Available online at: 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_i/I-text2.html. 

University of Utah (UU). 2004. Great Salt Lake Basin Hydrologic Observatory. Weber River 

Watershed. Available online at: http://greatsaltlake.utah.edu/description/weberriver/. 

Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ). 2007. Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System Permit No. UT0000175 Major Industrial . Available online at: 

http://www.waterquality.utah.gov/PublicNotices/chevron_permit_2007.pdf

Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ). 2009. Source Water Protection Program. Water 

Systems Classification. Available online at: 

http://www.drinkingwter.utah.gov/system_classifications.htm. 

Utah Department of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 1997. Conservation Agreement and Strategy for the 

Bonneville Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki utah) in the State of Utah. Publication 97-19. 

Utah Department of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 2004 . Surveying for Pygmy Rabbits (Brachylagus 

idahoensis). Approved June 3, 2004. Available at: 

http://sagemap.wr.usgs.gov/docs/DraftPygmy%20RabbitProtocol6_10_04.doc. 

Utah Department of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 2005. Utah Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation 

Strategy. Publication 05-19. 

Utah Department of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 2009. Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Management Plan 

2009. Publication 09-17. 
APPENDIX O – REFERENCES (continued) 

O-7

Utah Department of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). 2010. Ute Ladies’-Tresses. Available online at: 

http://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/rsgis2/search/Display.asp?FlNm=spirdilu. Accessed February 2010. 

Utah Department of Workforce Services. 2009. Available at: 

http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en. 

Utah Division of Administrative Rules (UDAR). 2009a. Utah Administrative Code R309-600: Source 

Protection: Drinking Water Source Protection for Groundwater Sources. Available online at: 

http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r309/r309.htm. 

Utah Division of Administrative Rules (UDAR). 2009b. Utah Administrative Code R317-2: Standards 

of Quality Waters of the State. Available online at: 

http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r317/r317-002.htm#T14

Utah Division of Administrative Rules (UDAR). 2009c. Utah Administrative Code R309-605: Source 

Protection: Drinking Water Source Protection for Surface Water Sources. Available online at: 

http://www.drinkingwater.utah.gov/documents/rules_ddw_version/R309-605_8-27-01.pdf. 

Utah Division of Air Quality (UDAQ). 2008. 2005 State Summary of Emissions by Source. Updated 

September 22, 2008. 

Utah Division of Water Quality (UDWQ). 2006. Utah’s 2006 Integrated Report Volume II—303(d) List 

of Waters. Available online at: 

http://www.waterquality.utah.gov/documents/200_303d_submittal_3-31-06.pdf. 

Utah Division of Wildlife (UDWR). 2009. Personal correspondence between Pam Kramer (UDWR) and 

Laurie Weaver (Ecology and Environment) regarding the timing of migratory bird presence in 

Utah. 

Utah State University (USU). 2008. Improving Utah’s Water Quality - Beaver River Watershed. 

Available online at: 

http://www.uacd.org/pdfs/factsheets/Beaver%20River%20watershed%20fact%20sheet.pdf.

Utah.com. 2009. Mueller Park Trail. Available at: http://www.utah.com/bike/trails/mueller_park.htm. 

Wardell, J. 2008. Groundwork Progressing for Eaglewood. Davis County Clipper. May 29, 2008. 

Available at: http://www.eaglewoodvillage.net/may-29-08.html. 

Wardell, J. 2009. Eaglewood Village waiting, not dead. Davis County Clipper. October 29, 2009. 

Available at: http://www.clippertoday.com/pages/full_story/push?articleEaglewood+Village+waiting-+not+dead%20&id=4201359-Eaglewood+Village+waiting-

+not+dead&instance=secondary_stories_left_column. 

Wasatch Wind, Inc. 2007. Spanish Fork Wind Park. Available at: 

http://www.wasatchwind.com/sfwp.html. 

Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2009. Available at: 

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/slimsum.html. 

Wyoming Department of Employment, Research, and Planning. 2009. Available at: 

http://doe.state.wy.us/lmi/. 
APPENDIX O – REFERENCES (continued) 

O-8

Wyoming Department of Environmental, Air Quality Division (WYDEQ). 2009. Standards and 

Regulations, Chapter 2. Available at: 

http://deq.state.wy.us/aqd/stnd/Chapter2_2-3-05FINAL_CLEAN.doc. 

Ziff Energy Group. 2009. North American Natural Gas supply and transportation study. Available at: 

http://www.nvenergy.com/company/rates/filings/IRP/NPC_IRP/2009%20Resource%20Plan/Vol

%2023%20ESP%20TA.pdf. 
APPENDIX P 

LIST OF PREPARERS 

APPENDIX P – LIST OF PREPARERS 

P-1

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Hanobic, David – Project Manager, Groundwater, Surface Waters, Wetlands, Socioeconomics

B.S., Biology, 2003 Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania 

Fernandez-Johnson, Gertrude – Deputy Project Manager, Air Quality, Noise, Reliability and Safety 

B.S., Mechanical Engineer, 2003Virginia Commonwealth University 

Allen, Christine E. – Fisheries, Vegetation, Wildlife, Threatened and Endangered Species

B.S., Marine Biology, 2005 University of North Carolina at Wilmington 

Boros, Laurie – Cultural Resources

B.A., Anthropology/Archaeology, 1980, Queens College, C.U.N.Y. 

Crosley, Shannon – Land Use, Alternatives

B.S., Natural Resources Management, 1998, University of Maryland 

Harris, Kara – Geology

M.P.A., Environmental Science and Policy, 2006, Columbia University 

B.S., Environmental Science, 2003, Alabama Agricultural and Mechanical University 

Kopka, Robert – Soils

M.S., Soil Science, 1990, Cornell University 

B.S., Agronomy, 1987, Delaware Valley College of Science and Agriculture 

ENTRIX, Inc.

Loveday, H. Trevor – Project Manager, Project Scope Task Lead

M.S., Aquatic Biology, Stephen F. Austin State University, 1995 

B.B.A., Finance, Baylor University, 1990 

DiSanto, Lavinia – Deputy Project Manager, Physical Resources Task Lead 

B.A., Biological Sciences, University of Delaware, 1999 

Allen, Anne – Water Resources 

B.S., Business Administration, Minor Philosophy, University of Florida, 2001 

Ayala, Chelsea – Air Quality and Noise, Land Use 

B.A., Environmental Studies, California State University, Sacramento, 1992

Haring, Lauren – Land Use 

M.A., Urban and Environmental Policy and Planning, Tufts University, 2007 

B.A., Urban Studies and Planning, University of California, 2005 

Kling, Craig – Wildlife, Fisheries, Vegetation, Threatened and Endangered Species

M.S., Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, 1980 

B.A., Zoology/Wildlife Biology, North Dakota State University, 1973 

Lammons, Louise – Wetlands

M.S., Biology, The College of William and Mary, 2009 

B.S., Biology, Wake Forest University, 2007
APPENDIX P – LIST OF PREPARERS (continued) 

P-2

Lawrence, Deron – Biological Resources Lead, Vegetation 

M.A., Philosophy, St. Louis University, 2001 

M.S., Ecology, Idaho State University, 1991 

B.S., Ecology, Idaho State University, 1988 

McNees, Lance – Cultural Resources

M.A., Philosophy, University of Utah, 1987 

B.A., Philosophy, University of Utah, 1983 

Sechrist, Kim – Land Use

M.S., Environmental Science, Towson University, 2006 

B.S., Biology, McDaniel College, 2004 

Slate, Jennifer– Wildlife, Threatened and Endangered Species 

B.S., Marine Biology, Texas A&M University – Galveston, 2004 

Staeger, William – Introduction, Project Description, Reliability and Safety

M.S., Oregon State University, 1974 

B.A., Lafayette College, 1967 

Todd, Bridget – Geology, Soils

B.S., Geology, Sam Houston State University, 2005 

Wakefield, Jeffery – Purpose and Need 

Ph.D., Economics, University of Delaware, 2001 

M.A., Environmental Economics, University of Delaware, 1998 

M.S., Marine Biology and Biochemistry, University of Delaware, 1996 

B.S. Biology, Rochester Institute of Technology, 1994 

Ward, Jennifer – Social Sciences Task Lead, Alternatives, Cumulative Impacts

M.S., Resource Economics and Policy (Environmental), University of Maine, Anticipated 2010 

B.A., Mathematics, University of North Carolina – Ashville, 2001 

Layton, Jackie - Editor 

A.A.S., Architectural Engineering, Delaware Technical and Community College, 1992 

Lynn, Joan (Egret, Inc.) - Editor