5-1

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 final 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 the PRMP that was developed for the Apex Expansion Project to 

mitigate impacts on paleontological resources. The PRMP would provide procedures for obtaining preconstruction 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. 
5-2

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. No other water 

supply wells or springs have been identified within 150 feet of the proposed pipeline construction rightof-way or within 200 feet of the proposed Milford Compressor Station. 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 post-construction 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. Kern River would be required by permit to ensure 

that base flows are maintained during the water withdrawal process. 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. 
5-3

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. 

We evaluated and agree with Kern River’s position that it requires a wider right-of-way than 

75 in wetlands in specified locations due to site-specific conditions. However, since issuance of the draft 

EIS, Kern River has agreed to limit the construction right-of-way width in the wetland located at MP 26.4 

to 75 feet unless soil conditions warrant a wider right-of-way. If wetland conditions are saturated at the 

time of construction, Kern River would provide site-specific soil conditions and request approval from the 

Director of OEP for a wider right-of-way at this location prior to construction. 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 (4.9 and 0.5 acres respectively) resulting from the proposed 

Project would be temporary and short-term as wetlands would be expected to return to their preconstruction 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 (89.0 acres), Douglas fir (19.4 acres), 

riparian canyon woodlands (0.9 acres), open grassland (4.1 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. Some 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 a 10-foot-wide corridor 

centered over the pipeline resulting in a permanent conversion of cover type in that area to an herbaceous 

or scrub-shrub state. 

Kern River would leave a riparian vegetation buffer within the floodplain/backwater area in all 

waterbodies crossed by the Project. In riparian areas where woody vegetation exists, Kern River would 

replant these areas with woody vegetation to within 10 feet of the pipeline centerline. Erosion control 

matting or netting would also be used at streambanks following seeding in order to provide soil erosion 

protection until vegetation has been established. 
5-4

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 

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. Since issuance of the draft EIS, Kern River has revised its Blasting Plan 

in consultation with USFS, BLM, and UDWR to include a process of scare charges, or small non-lethal 

charges, prior to any blasting in the areas of concern to minimize the potential for big game to be 

impacted by flyrock during actual blasting activities. 

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. In addition, Kern River has 

proposed to acquire and donate land adjacent to the East Canyon WMA to UDWR, as well as to install or 

maintain a big game watering facility in an area of limited water access to mitigate for temporary and 

permanent impacts on big game habitat. 

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 conducted multiple raptor surveys in 2010 to 

determine the presence and locations of wintering eagles, burrowing owls, and raptor nests, and provided 

a Biological Resources Mitigation Plan that discusses species- and site-specific mitigation for raptors that 

could be impacted during construction. However, as Kern River’s proposed mitigation measures were 

inconsistent with those recommended by FWS’s Guidelines for Raptor Protection, we are further 
5-5

recommending that Kern River provide copies of consultations with the FWS, UDWR, USFS, and BLM 

that document concurrence with the proposed measures. 

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 

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 state 

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. To further minimize impacts on fishery resources, Kern River would 

adhere to the FERC and agency construction windows for coolwater and warmwater fisheries. Kern 

River has received approval from the FWS and the UDWR for its proposed deviation in order to install 

equipment bridges at Sheep Canyon Creek and Hardscrabble Creek and cross East Canyon Creek outside 

of the timing window. 

For water removed from East Canyon Creek, Kern River has agreed to discharge directly back 

into the East Canyon Creek drainage as a measure to prevent the spread of the New Zealand Mud Snail, 

an invasive aquatic species. Additionally, equipment used for hydrostatic testing within East Canyon 

Creek would be cleaned thoroughly with hot water (greater than 140 degrees Fahrenheit [°F]) before 

leaving the drainage area to prevent the spread of invasive aquatic species. 

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 
5-6

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 (which are both 

federally threatened species). On April 27, 2010, the FWS concurred with our determinations that the 

proposed Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Utah prairie dog and Ute Ladies’-tresses 

with the understanding that the FERC would re-initiate Section 7 consultation if either species is found in 

the Project area during surveys. No Utah prairie dogs were found during Kern River’s May 2010 surveys. 

In addition, Kern River proposed to reroute the pipeline route to avoid potential habitat for the Ute 

ladies’-tresses. Therefore, Section 7 consultation is complete for the proposed Project. 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. In addition, Kern River has proposed compensatory mitigation for the 

disruption of crucial sage-grouse habitat and would conduct pre-construction clearance surveys within 

known habitat for the northern leopard frog. 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 requested that the FWS consider the draft EIS as the BA for the 

proposed Project. 

In addition to the federally listed, federally petitioned, and federal candidate species, 64 USFS- or 

state –identified special status species could occur within the vicinity of the proposed 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 are recommending that outstanding surveys for special-status amphibians, the American pika, 

and sensitive plant species be filed prior to construction and that final mitigation measures be provided as 

applicable. We believe that implementation of our recommendations and Kern River’s proposed 

mitigation would minimize impacts on special-status species. Kern River would continue to consult with 

federal and state agencies regarding sensitive habitats and species. Kern River would file any agency 

recommendations with the FERC upon completion of the permitting phase of the Project. 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 695.1 acres 

of land, including 395.2 acres for the pipeline construction right-of-way and ATWSs; 145.2 acres for pipe 

storage and contractor yards; 95.1 acres for aboveground facilities; and 60.4 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 243.6 acres. 

Kern River would retain the easement for a 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way along the proposed 

Project route which would overlap Kern River’s existing easement by at least 15 feet where the facilities 
5-7

are collocated. Kern River would maintain in an herbaceous or scrub–shrub state a 20-foot-wide area 

centered over the pipeline in uplands and a 10-foot-wide area centered over the pipeline in wetlands and 

areas adjacent to waterbodies. The right-of-way maintenance, if determined to be necessary to facilitate 

aerial surveys of the pipeline for leaks, would occur no more frequently than every three years. 

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. Three 

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. 

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 in the UWCNF roadless areas, which would be crossed 

between MP 13.3 and 21.3 and between 21.8 to 22.5A. Kern River’s originally proposed route, as 

analyzed in the draft EIS would have impacted two roadless areas within the UWCNF: the Mueller Park 

Roadless Area and the Hogsback Roadless Area. The USFS, the managing agency for both roadless 

areas, stated the agency’s preference that the proposed Project avoid impacts to the Hogsback Roadless 

Area. Following consultation with the USFS and our recommendation in the draft EIS, Kern River 

adopted a route variation, which would avoid crossing the Hogsback Roadless Area. 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 the Mueller 

Park Roadless Area. 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. In consultation with the USFS, Kern River is conducting a visual 

assessment for USFS lands crossed by the proposed Apex Expansion Project. At this time Kern River has 

provided a visual resource technical report which states that a supplemental document assessing the 

appropriate visual mitigation techniques would not be completed until after the publication of the final 

EIS. Because the assessment is not finalized and the supplemental document would contain Kern River’s 

proposed mitigation measures, we are recommending that Kern River complete and file with the 

Secretary and the USFS, the visual assessment report with specific mitigation strategies for USFSmanaged lands. 

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 
5-8

Lake County, Utah. Five of the eight affected counties have population densities above that of their 

respective state. 

Construction is 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. 

In total, the surveys have identified 25 historic or archaeological sites. Nineteen sites are historic, 

three sites are prehistoric, and three 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 one site. Kern River would mitigate impacts on the eligible site in 

accordance with a treatment plan which is currently under review. 

The USFS, the BLM-SLFO, the UDNR, and the UDOT have reviewed the reports for the 

proposed pipeline route and related facilities, including the Milford, Elberta, and Fillmore Compressor 

Stations, and agreed with Kern River’s NRHP-eligibility evaluations. We have sent combined agency 

determinations to the Utah SHPO, and the SHPO has concurred with the FERC’s determinations, 

including the determination of adverse effect for the Reclamation Ditch. The BLM-CCFO has reviewed 

the cultural resources survey report for the PacifiCorp electrical distribution line, and would require 

mitigation for one eligible site if it cannot be avoided. 

The USFS and Reclamation have reviewed the report for the adopted Salt Lake III Route 

Variation, on which no cultural resources were identified. The USFS indicated that no historic properties 

would be affected by the reroute. Reclamation indicated it had no cultural resources concerns for the 

portion of the access road (included in the report) crossing its lands. We are currently awaiting the Utah 

SHPO’s comments on the report for this variation, and the USFS’s and SHPO’s comments on the 

addendum report for the Mueller Park Route Variation, on which no cultural resource sites were 

identified. 

We sent our NOI to 22 federally recognized Native American tribes. No responses to our NOI or 

comments on the draft EIS 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 
5-9

Indian Tribe did not have any 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 any additional required surveys are completed, survey 

reports, and the treatment plan 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 
5-10

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 final 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/approved 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. In the draft EIS, we recommended that Kern River 

incorporate the Mueller Park Route Variation and the North Salt Lake III Route Variation into the 

proposed Project because these variations would avoid the Hogsback Roadless Area, the historic CCC 

terraces, and impact less USFS lands overall. Kern River has subsequently adopted both variations into 

the Project. 

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 
5-11

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. 

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 (EI), and contractor 

personnel will be informed of the EI’s 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. 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 

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 
5-12

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 EIs 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; 

d. company personnel, including EIs 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 
5-13

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 environmental compliance 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 

EIs during the reporting period (both for the conditions imposed by 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; 
5-14

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 

respective state. 

10. Kern River must receive written authorization from the Director of OEP before placing the Apex 

Expansion Project facilities into service. 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 construction, Kern River shall file the results of any outstanding biological surveys and 

update the Biological Resources Mitigation Plan including any additional mitigation measures 

developed in consultation with UDWR, FWS, BLM, and USFS, as applicable. (Section 4.5.4, 

4.7.1.5, and 4.7.2) 

13. Prior to construction, Kern River shall complete and file with the Secretary and the USFS, the 

final visual assessment report developed in consultation with the USFS that contains the specificmitigation strategies for the USFS-managed lands. (Section 4.8.4.1)

14. 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 North Salt Lake III Route Variation 

survey report and treatment plan; 

(2) the Utah SHPO’s and USFS’s comments on the Mueller Park Route 

Variation survey report; and 

(3) a survey report for any newly identified areas that require survey, and the 

Utah SHPO’s, USFS’s, and BLM’s comments (as appropriate) on the 

report; 

b. the ACHP is afforded an opportunity to comment; and 
5-15

c. the FERC staff reviews and the Director of OEP approves the cultural resource reports 

and plans, and notifies Kern River in writing that treatment plans/mitigation measures 

(including archaeological data recovery) may be implemented and/or construction may 

proceed. 

All material filed with the Commission that contains location, character, and ownership 

information about cultural resources must have the cover and any relevant pages therein clearly 

labeled in bold lettering ―CONTAINS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION – DO NOT 

RELEASE. (Section 4.10.4)

15. 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 

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)