1-1

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 final 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). 

NEPA and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing the procedural 

provisions of NEPA in Title 4 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1501.6 (40 CFR 1501.6), call on 

federal state, and local government agencies to cooperate in the preparation of EISs. The U.S. 

Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), 

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 proposed Project would consist of approximately 27.6 miles of new 36-inch-diameter natural 

gas pipeline loop2 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 receivers3

; and 

 six mainline valves (MLVs) (four new and two existing that require modification). 

 

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

 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. 

3

 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. 

The vertical line in the margin identifies text that has been modified in this final EIS and 

differs materially from the corresponding text in the draft EIS. 
1-2

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.4

 Kern River proposes to begin construction on the Project in 

October 2010. 

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

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 

Kern River states that the transportation of natural gas to the Las Vegas area is currently 

constrained by available pipeline capacity, and that NV Energy5 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 Agreement6

 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. 

 

4

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

Bakersfield, California. 5

 NV Energy was formed in July 1999 by the merger of Nevada Power Company, Sierra Pacific Power, and 

Sierra Pacific Resources. 6

 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. 
"

"

"

"

"

Nevada

Clark

Millard

Utah

Uinta

Beaver

Davis

Salt Lake

Morgan

Utah

Nevada

Arizona

Colorado

Wyoming

California New Mexico

Milford

Elberta

Fillmore

Dry Lake

Coyote Creek

"

"

"

"

"

MT

CA

ID

AZ

NV

NM

OR

CO

WY

UT

WA

Date: July 2010 Figure 1-1

APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

GENERAL PROJECT LOCATION

 ̄

0 30 60 120

Miles

Legend

" Proposed/Existing Compressor Stations

Proposed Wasatch Loop

1-3
1-4

1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE EIS 

Our7

 principal purposes in preparing this final 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; 

 identify and recommend specific mitigation measures, as necessary, to minimize environmental 

impacts; 

 encourage and facilitate involvement by the public and interested agencies in the environmental 

review process; and 

 identify amendments to various land managing agency management plans and summarize 

potential impacts on those lands. 

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. 

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 CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA in 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 Reclamation served as cooperating agencies during 

preparation of the EIS because the proposed Project would cross federal lands and resources for which 

 

7

 The pronouns “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the FERC's Office of Energy Projects. 
1-5

those agencies have jurisdiction. In addition, the cooperating agencies have special expertise with respect 

to environmental issues and impacts associated with 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. The roles of these agencies in the 

Project review process are described in further detail below. 

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 the proposed pipeline, the proposed new Milford Compressor Station site, and one access 

road. Issuance of an amended Right-of-Way Grant for the proposed Project would not require 

amendments to BLM Resource Management Plans (RMPs). 

BLM would not issue a Right-of-Way Grant until the heads of the BLM, USFS, and the 

Reclamation 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 occupancy and use of National Forest 

System (NFS) lands. This includes issuing any permits for occupancy and use of NFS lands that might be 

required other than as authorized by the Right-of-Way Grant issued by the BLM. The USFS is also 

responsible for ensuring occupancy and use of NFS lands in accordance with the Wasatch-Cache National 

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP)8 which was developed in accordance with the 

National Forest Management Act. If the action to be implemented is not consistent with the LRMP, the 

USFS would have to amend the LRMP before the USFS could concur with the BLM’s issuance of a 

Right-of-Way Grant. The proposed action contains some elements that would require such an 

amendment (see section 1.6 for more information). 

Reclamation is the federal agency responsible for issuing consent documents for easement 

encroachments under Section 10 of the Reclamation Project Act. Four access roads being proposed for 

use during construction and two during operations would cross and be located on lands under the 

authority of Reclamation, and Reclamation would use information presented in the EIS as a part of its 

NEPA environmental review process. Reclamation would also issue any temporary use permits for any 

construction activities located on Reclamation lands. 

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 

 

8

 The USFS has separate LRMPs for the Uinta National Forest and the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. These 

plans are not yet merged. 
1-6

before an application is filed with the FERC. On March 13, 2009, the FERC granted Kern River’s 

request and established a pre-filing Docket Number (PF09-7-000) to place information filed by Kern 

River, 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 

NOI 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 

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 
1-7

Bountiful High School on June 9, 2009; the second was at the Morgan County Courthouse Auditorium on 

June 10, 2009. 

These scoping meetings provided an opportunity for the public to learn more about the proposed 

Project and to provide comments on environmental issues addressed in the 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).9

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; U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (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. 

 

9

 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. 
1-8

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 
1-9

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 

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 
1-10

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 

The 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 was included as Appendix A of the draft 

EIS. 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 had 45 days after the date 

of EPA’s notice in the Federal Register to review and comment on the draft EIS, ending on May 17, 

2010. 

The FERC held two public comment meetings during the draft EIS comment period. Public 

comment meetings were held in Bountiful, Utah on April 27, 2010 and in Morgan, Utah on April 28, 

2010. The meetings provided interested parties with an opportunity to present oral comments on the 

analysis of the environmental impacts of the proposed Project as described in the draft EIS. Additionally, 

a total of 14 letters were sent in response to the draft EIS. All timely environmental comments on the 

draft EIS have been addressed in this final EIS. A transcript of each meeting and copies of each written 

comment are part of the public record for this Project. The FERC staff’s responses to relevant comments 

are provided in Appendix Q of this final EIS. Substantive changes in the final EIS are indicated by 

vertical bars that appear in the margins. The changes were made both in response to comments received 
1-11

on the draft EIS and as a result of updated information that became available after the issuance of the 

draft EIS. 

This final EIS is being mailed to the agencies, individuals, and organizations on the mailing list in 

Appendix A, and was filed with the EPA for issuance of a formal public notice of availability in the 

Federal Register. In accordance with the CEQ’s regulations implementing NEPA, no agency decision on 

a proposed action may be made until 30 days after the EPA publishes a NOA for this final EIS. However 

the CEQ regulations provide an exception to this rule when an agency decision is subject to a formal 

internal process that allows other agencies or the public to make their views known. In such cases, the 

agency decision may be made at the same time the notice of this final EIS is published, allowing both 

periods to run concurrently. Should the FERC issue a Certificate to Kern River for the proposed action, it 

would be subject to a 30-day rehearing period. Therefore, the FERC could issue its decision concurrently 

with the EPA’s notice of availability. 

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); 

 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 
1-12

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 

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 
1-13

fish species;10 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. 

Kern River, as a non-federal party, began informal consultations with the FWS during the FERC 

pre-filing phase of this Project. Kern River included information regarding federally listed and candidate 

endangered and threatened species and their designated critical habitats in its application. Kern River 

continues to consult with the FWS regarding conservation and mitigation measures for sensitive species 

that may be affected by the Project. The FERC reviewed the information in Kern River’s application and 

also conducted a review of endangered and threatened species and critical habitat as part of this EIS. The 

FERC determined that federally listed species may occur in the Project area, and that the Project may 

affect, but is not likely to adversely affect these species. The FWS issued a letter of concurrence to the 

FERC supporting the determination that federally listed species in the Project area are not likely to be 

adversely affected by the proposed Project, thus concluding internal consultation. 

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, 

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 

 

10 Anadromous fish are fish that migrate up rivers from the ocean to spawn in fresh waters. 
1-14

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. Based on consultations with the COE, 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 

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 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 
1-15

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. 

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 
1-16

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) 

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 

complete 

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) 
1-17

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 grant that 

would be issued by the 

BLM and issuance of 

temporary use permits for 

Reclamation lands 

crossed. 

Ongoing 

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 . 

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) 
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 

FEDERAL (continued) 

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 

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. 

SHPO comments 

received April 12, 

2010; consultation ongoing 
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) 

Utah (continued) 

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. 

Compressor stations 

in Utah are not subject 

to Title I permit 

requirements, and the 

permit will not be 

obtained. 

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. 

Compressor stations 

in Utah are not subject 

to Title V permit 

requirements, and the 

permit will not be 

obtained. 

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. Approval orders 

issued March 22, 

2010 and March 29, 

2010 

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. 

Draft available for 

review April 2010 

NPDES Waste Water 

Discharge Permit under 

Section 402 of the CWA 

Consider authorizing 

hydrostatic test water 

discharges under the 

General Permit. 

Application submitted 

April 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 submitted 

April 2010 

UDEQ Division of 

Drinking Water 

Consultation Consultations regarding 

potential impacts on 

drinking water sources. 

In progress 
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 

STATE (continued) 

Utah (continued) 

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. 

Permit approved 

February 16, 2010 

Water Rights Transfer Consider issuance of a 

permit for the transfer of 

water rights for hydrostatic 

testing. 

Application submitted 

April 2010 

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. 

Draft available for 

review April 2010 

UDWR, 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 

Right-of-Way Grant Issues Right-of-Way for 

crossing East Canyon 

WMA in consultation with 

USFS and FWS 

In progress 

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 
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 

STATE (continued) 

Wyoming (continued) 

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 

April 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; Draft 

available for review 

April 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 2009) 

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. 

Draft available for 

review April 2010 

NPDES Discharge Permit 

under Section 402 of the CWA 

Consider authorizing 

hydrostatic test water 

discharges under the 

General Permit. 

Application submitted 

April 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 
1-22

TABLE 1.5-1 (continued) 

Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations 

for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Agency Permit/Approval/Consultation Agency Action Status 

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 July 2010 

Department of 

Building Services 

Building Permit Issuance of building permit 

for upgrades to the 

existing compressor 

station. 

Exempt from this 

permit. 

Beaver County, Utah 

Building Inspection 

Department 

Building Permit Issuance of a permit for 

the construction of the 

Milford Compressor 

Station. 

Application 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. 

Application to be 

submitted July 2010 

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 July 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 
1-23

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) 

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 

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 submitted 

May 2010 

North Salt Lake City, Utah 

Road Crossing Permit Issuance of a permit for 

crossing existing city 

roads. 

Application submitted 

May 2010 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

Road Crossing Permit Issuance of a permit for 

crossing existing city 

roads. 

Application 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.11 

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 

 

11 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). 
1-24

the BLM for crossing BLM-managed lands. On April 9, 2009, Kern River filed an application with the 

BLM, Utah State Office, to amend the existing Right-of-Way Grant CACA-17918 for the Project on 

federal lands. 

As described above, the USFS 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 LRMP, and if not, amending the LRMP before concurring with the BLM’s issuance of a 

Right-of-Way. Subgoal 12d of the LRMP states 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. 

In a meeting with Kern River and the USFS on February 25, 2010, Kern River provided the 

USFS with a report of the conformity of the proposed Project with the Wasatch-Cache LRMP guidelines. 

Additionally, Kern River provided a response to the comments submitted by the USFS on March 19, 

2010 regarding the proposed Project. The response was filed with the FERC on May 4, 2010 and was 

provided to the USFS. 

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. 

 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 
1-25

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; 

 (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.