3-1 

3.0 ALTERNATIVES 

As required by NEPA and the FERC policy, we have evaluated alternatives to the Apex Expansion 

Project to determine whether they would be technically and economically feasible, and environmentally 

preferable to the proposed action. These alternatives include the No Action and Postponed Action 

alternatives, energy alternatives, system alternatives, major route alternatives, route variations, and 

aboveground facility site alternatives. The purpose of this evaluation was to determine whether there are 

reasonable alternatives that would result in less environmental impact than the Project as proposed while still 

meeting the Project’s objectives. Kern River has indicated the following proposed Project objectives: 

 provide additional natural gas pipeline capacity to growing electric generation requirements of 

NV Energy in southern Nevada; 

 provide supply diversity and enhanced reliability, which would minimize the reliance on more 

costly energy sources to the southern Nevada market; 

 efficiently meet the first two objectives with minimal pipeline construction and environmental 

impacts by using existing available pipeline capacity on the Kern River pipeline system; and 

 meet a November 2011 in-service date. 

Identification of alternatives to the proposed Project incorporated public comments and input received 

from federal and state regulatory agencies. The analysis of alternatives is based on information provided by 

Kern River and our review of aerial photographs, USGS topographic maps, other publicly available 

information, input from cooperating agencies, and our site visits. 

We used the following evaluation criteria to determine whether an alternative would be 

environmentally preferable: 

 significant environmental advantage over the proposed Project; 

 ability to meet the proposed Project objectives; and 

 technical and economic feasibility and practicability. 

It is important to recognize that not all conceivable alternatives are technically and economically 

practical and feasible. Some alternatives may be impracticable because the sites are unavailable and/or 

incapable of being implemented after taking into consideration costs, existing technologies, constraints of 

existing system capacities, and logistics in light of the overall Project objectives. In conducting a reasonable 

analysis, it is also important to consider the environmental advantages and disadvantages of the proposed 

action and to focus the analysis on those alternatives that may reduce impacts and/or offer a significant 

environmental advantage. 

Through the application of evaluation criteria and subsequent environmental comparisons, each 

alternative was considered until it was clear that the alternative was not reasonable or would result in 

significantly greater environmental impacts that could not be readily mitigated. Those alternatives that 

appeared to be the most reasonable with less than or similar levels of environmental impact are reviewed 

below in the greatest detail. 

3.1 NO ACTION OR POSTPONED ACTION ALTERNATIVES 

The Commission has three possible courses of action in processing applications under Section 7 of 

the NGA: (1) the requested authorization could be denied (e.g. the No Action Alternative); (2) the proposed 
3-2 

action could be postponed pending additional filings or studies (e.g. the Postponed Action Alternative); or 

(3) the Certificate could be granted with or without conditions. 

As discussed in section 1.1.2, the proposed Project would supply an additional 266 MMcf/d of natural 

gas from the Rocky Mountains supplies to southwest markets through an expansion of the existing Kern River 

pipeline system. The proposed looping of the existing Kern River system and the proposed compression 

would meet the additional needs of NV Energy in southern Nevada. The addition of incremental supply to 

the Kern River pipeline system would help meet growing energy demands, enhance reliability, and result in 

supply diversification by providing access to a larger share of domestic natural gas supplies. 

If the FERC were to deny Kern River’s application, the short- and long-term environmental impacts 

identified in this EIS would not occur. If the Commission postpones action on the application, the 

environmental impacts identified in this EIS would be delayed. If Kern River decided not to pursue the 

Project, the impacts would not occur at all. However, if the FERC were to select the No Action or Postponed 

Action Alternative, the objectives of the proposed Project as described in section 1.1 would not be met, and a 

new source of natural gas to markets that can be accessed through the existing Kern River pipeline system 

would not be developed. 

Although it would be purely speculative and beyond the scope of this analysis to attempt to predict 

what actions might be taken by policymakers or end users in response to the No Action or Postponed Action 

Alternative, it is likely that potential end users (i.e., NV Energy) would make other arrangements to obtain 

natural gas service or make use of alternative fossil fuel energy sources (such as fuel oil or coal), other 

traditional long-term fuel source alternatives (such as nuclear power or hydropower), and/or renewable energy 

sources (such as wind or solar power) to compensate for the reduced availability of natural gas that would be 

supplied by the proposed Project. It is also possible that energy conservation practices would be used to 

offset the demand for natural gas in the markets that would be supplied by the proposed Project. 

In combination or as individual sources, specific energy alternatives or conservation measures could 

have one of three end results. The projected energy needs of the target market area could: (1) not be 

provided; (2) be met with equal or less environmental impact than that of the proposed Project; or (3) be met 

with greater environmental impact than those of the proposed Project if implemented. Section 3.2 discusses 

energy alternatives, including increased efficiency, conservation, renewable energy sources, and use of other 

non-renewable fuels. 

3.2 ENERGY ALTERNATIVES 

3.2.1 Energy Conservation and Increased Efficiency 

A decision to deny or postpone Kern River’s application could result in higher natural gas prices over 

time due to limited access to new natural gas supplies. In turn, these higher prices may motivate consumers to 

conserve or reduce their use of natural gas. The acts of conservation and increased efficiency are undoubtedly 

important components of future energy portfolios for southern Nevada, as well as for the country as a whole. 

Energy conservation and increased efficiency in energy have been of national concern since the 1973 

oil crisis. Since then, most states have implemented conservation and efficiency programs. The California 

Energy Commission, established in 1974, is tasked with promoting energy efficiency standards, as well as 

public interest through research and technology. The Nevada Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation 

Task Force was established in 2001 by the Nevada Legislature to assist the Nevada State Office of Energy in 

developing and implementing conservation measures and procedures to reduce the demand for energy. A 

private-public partnership between the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) and the state’s 
3-3 

private utilities promotes energy conservation and efficient energy use in homes and both private and public 

businesses. 

Energy conservation could help alleviate some of the nation’s growing demand for energy and, 

therefore, offset the need for increased natural gas supplies. Due to increased energy efficiency, energy use 

per capita will decrease between 2007 and 2030 (EIA 2009a). Despite this per capita decrease, overall energy 

demand in the United States will increase as population increases, with total energy consumption estimated to 

increase by 11 percent between 2007 and 2030 (EIA 2009a). Under the State Energy Program that is 

administered by the Department of Energy (DOE) (2008a) and required under Section 123 of the EPAct of 

2005, state energy programs are required to develop an energy conservation plan to participate in the State 

Energy Program. California, Nevada, and Utah have developed energy conservation plans for their states. 

Although conservation under the state energy plans and other energy conservation measures will be important 

elements in addressing future energy demands, energy conservation would not preclude the need for natural 

gas infrastructure that would supply Kern River’s proposed volumes to NV Energy’s new 500-MW electric 

generation unit (currently under construction). 

3.2.2 Renewable Energy 

Renewable energy sources are another long-term fuel source alternative to natural gas, including 

hydropower and other renewable energy sources (e.g., wind, biomass, solar, tidal, and geothermal energy). 

Renewable energy projects will likely play an increasingly prominent role in meeting the U.S. energy 

demands in the coming years. Each of these energy sources discussed below have associated environmental 

impacts. For technologies currently in use, these impacts are more clearly defined (e.g., wind turbines may 

affect birds and bats); however, the impacts of newer technologies have yet to be determined (e.g., the 

potential impacts of hydrokinetic energy). 

Electricity generated from the flow of water through turbines that was previously stored behind dams 

is called “hydropower”. Currently, this energy source is a significant contributor to the U.S. energy mix, and 

non-tidal hydropower electricity generation is expected to remain steady (approximately 3 percent of all 

energy production) through 2030 (EIA 2009a). Although efficiency upgrades at existing hydropower 

facilities are expected to produce incremental additions of power in the coming years, it is unlikely that new 

or significant sources of hydropower could be developed in a timeframe to be considered an alternative to NV 

Energy’s new 500-MW project. 

Heat sources from the earth, including hot springs, geysers, and volcanoes, can be used to generate 

energy known as geothermal energy. According to the 2009 U.S. Geothermal Power Production and 

Development Update, the United States is leading the world in online geothermal energy capacity, with about 

4 percent of renewable energy-based electricity as geothermal energy in 2007. Eight states, including 

California, Nevada, and Utah, currently have facilities generating geothermal electricity, as of August 2009, 

the on-line capacity of geothermal power facilities in California, Nevada, and Utah were 2,605.3 MW, 

448.4 MW, and 47 MW, respectively (Jennejohn 2009). In California, 4.5 percent of total electricity is 

produced by geothermal power plants (California Energy Commission 2008). According to the Energy 

Information Administration (EIA), less than 1 percent of Nevada’s energy is supplied from a mix of 

hydroelectric and geothermal, while the contribution of geothermal in Utah is minimal. The primary barriers 

to further development of this renewable resource include resource uncertainty, and high development and 

exploration costs, in addition to the resource’s location in environmentally sensitive areas, which makes siting 

facilities challenging. Given the physical limitations of geothermal sites and the overall negligible 

contribution to energy production, this type of renewable resource could not provide the additional energy 

supply in the timeframe proposed by NV Energy’s 500-MW project. 
3-4 

Biomass energy production (including biofuels, waste, and wood-derived fuels) now accounts for 

37 percent of all non-hydropower renewable resource energy production (EIA 2009a). The production and 

consumption of biofuels (such as ethanol and biodiesel) drive a large portion of this production. The 

Renewable Fuel Standards that was passed under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 requires 

the production of 36 billion gallons of biofuels per year by 2022 (BRDB 2008). Further, DOE (2008b) 

announced a $1 billion partnership with industry to research, develop, and implement advanced biofuel 

production by 2012. Nationally, biomass consumption is projected to increase by 4.4 percent per year 

between 2007 and 2030, resulting in biomass energy accounting for approximately 53 percent of the nonhydropower renewable resources energy production by 2030 (EIA 2009a). However, uncertainty regarding 

biomass output, the high costs of transportation of inputs to energy conversion facilities, and the lack of 

private capital investment in new facilities make this energy source an infeasible and unforeseeable alternative 

to NV Energy’s 500-MW project (CBEA 2008). 

Solar energy production accounted for approximately 1 percent of all non-hydropower renewable 

energy production in the United States in 2007 (EIA 2009a). Solar energy can be produced in three ways: 

passive solar energy involves use of direct sunlight through windows to warm and/or light interior spaces, 

water can be heated through solar means, or the sunlight can be converted into electricity via solar panels. 

Large-scale commercial and small-scale and customer applications are anticipated to increase (EIA 2009a) but 

are not expected to represent a significant replacement of current natural gas energy resources for several 

years. Therefore, we do not consider solar energy to be a reasonable or feasible alternative since it could not 

off-set the energy proposed by the NV Energy’s new 500-MW project in the same timeframe. 

The American Wind Energy Association reports that as of October 2009, 1.2 percent of U.S.-

generated electricity came from wind sources. California is ranked third in the United States in total operating 

capacity with 2,787 MW, or about 9 percent of the total U.S. capacity wind power contributes approximately 

2.8 of the state’s total power (AWEA 2009, DOE 2008b). According to the EIA, Nevada has substantial 

wind-based energy potential; however, there is currently no active energy production based on wind sources 

in Nevada (EIA 2009b). The largest renewable facility in Utah, a 203-MW wind farm in Millard and Beaver 

Counties, was completed in November 2009 (Ecogeek 2009). Power generated by wind is dependent upon a 

variety of factors, such as cost of fossil fuels, state renewable energy programs, technology improvements, as 

well as public concerns for environmental and other impacts. Currently, the foremost barrier to future 

development of wind farms stems from the lack of existing transmission distribution lines. As such, we do 

not believe that wind power represents a reasonable, feasible alternative on the same timeframe as NV 

Energy’s 500-MW project and the proposed Project. 

Renewable energy sources, including wind and solar power, will increasingly play an important role 

in power generation for the western market, especially as it relates to electrical demand. All three states in the 

region of influence have established Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS). According to the EIA, California 

and Nevada have RPS with goals of increased electricity generation from renewables by the years 2020 

(33 percent) and 2025 (25 percent), respectively1

. Utah has a voluntary program, with a target of 20 percent 

increase in renewables by 2025 (EIA 2009b). However, these sources represent a small fraction of the 

projected energy demands for this market for the foreseeable future, especially related to providing refined 

petroleum products for the transportation sector. 

Overall, the percentage of electricity generated from hydropower and non-hydropower renewable 

energy sources is projected to increase from approximately 6.7 percent in 2007 to about 12.6 percent of total 

energy use through 2030 (EIA 2009a). Despite the current and future promotion of renewable energy use, as 

 

1

 California also has an intermediate goal for investor-owned utilities, electric service provides, small and multijurisdictional utilities, and community choice aggregators to meet at least 20 percent by 2010 (EIA 2009b). 
3-5 

described above, increases in renewable energy supplies cannot be fully implemented on the same timeline to 

provide comparable generation capability as NV Energy’s 500-MW project and the proposed Project. 

3.2.3 Nuclear Energy 

Another traditional, non-renewable fuel source alternative to natural gas for electric generation is 

nuclear power. Several incentive and partnership programs aimed at promoting increased nuclear power 

generation infrastructure in the United States have recently been developed to promote fossil fuel alternatives 

for power generation (EIA 2009a, DOE 2008b). The DOE (2008c) has implemented a loan guarantee 

program with the U.S. nuclear industry to license and construct new nuclear power plants throughout the 

country (DOE 2008b). Further, under the EPAct, several incentives for the development of new nuclear 

reactor facilities and improved technology are designed to promote the operation of new nuclear power 

systems (DOE 2009). With projected new nuclear generating facilities and upgrades to existing nuclear 

infrastructure, nuclear power generation is expected to increase in the United States by approximately 

0.5 percent annually between 2007 and 2030 (EIA 2009a). Despite this projected growth in nuclear power 

generation, the EIA estimates that nuclear power will account for about 18 percent of total U.S. generating 

capacity by 2030 (EIA 2009a). Use of nuclear energy results in spent nuclear fuel that requires long-term 

management or disposal, which is not available. Additionally, regulatory requirements, cost considerations, 

and public concerns make new nuclear power plants an infeasible alternative to serve NV Energy’s targeted 

markets within a timeframe that would meet the objectives of the proposed Project. 

3.2.4 Fossil Fuels 

Denying or postponing a decision on the proposed Project would eliminate the increase in natural gas 

availability in the targeted market regions intended to satisfy future demand. Therefore, NV Energy would 

either need to obtain natural gas supplies from an alternative source or convert its new unit to another fuel 

source. A likely consequence could be an increased reliance on fuel oil, coal, and other non-renewable fuel 

supply sources. EIA (2009b) reported that, between 2007 and 2030, primary energy production is likely to 

increase (see section 3.1). While fuel oil and coal may provide an alternative to natural gas, the 

environmental impacts associated with the extraction and increased consumption of oils would not be 

preferable to natural gas. Natural gas is the cleanest burning of the fossil fuels. Relative to natural gas, 

reliance on coal or fuel oil to power electric generation would likely result in substantial increases in the 

emissions of pollutants, such as nitrous oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and carbon dioxide, and 

associated reductions in air quality. In addition, increased reliance on other fossil fuels would result in 

secondary impacts associated with their production (such as oil drilling and coal mining); transportation via 

truck, rail cars, and/or pipelines; and crude oil refinement. The use of fossil fuels like coal also results in 

higher emission of pollutants such as mercury into both the atmosphere and surrounding environment through 

deposition. In addition, unlike natural gas, coal use results in waste coal ash that requires disposal. 

Therefore, we believe that use of this energy source is not preferable to the proposed Project. 

3.3 SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES 

System alternatives are alternatives to the proposed action that would make use of existing, modified, 

or proposed pipeline systems to meet the stated objectives of the Apex Expansion Project. Implementation of 

a system alternative would make it unnecessary to construct all or a part of the proposed Project, although 

some modifications or additions to existing or proposed pipeline systems may be required to satisfy the 

proposed Project objectives. These modifications or additions would result in environmental impacts that 

may be less than, similar to, or greater than those associated with construction and operation of the proposed 

Project. The purpose of identifying and evaluating system alternatives is to determine whether the 

environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project could be avoided or 

reduced by using another pipeline system, while still meeting the objectives of the proposed Project. 
3-6 

A viable system alternative to the proposed Apex Expansion Project would have to supply an 

additional 266 MMcf/d of natural gas to southern Nevada and other southwest markets in the same general 

timeframe as the proposed Project. 

Our analysis of system alternatives includes an examination of existing and proposed natural gas 

systems that currently or would eventually serve the markets targeted by the proposed Project, and considers 

whether those systems would meet the proposed Project’s objectives while offering an environmental 

advantage over the proposed Project. The remainder of this section includes a discussion of existing overland 

natural gas pipeline systems and proposed pipeline systems that extend from the general Project area to target 

markets. Figure 3.3-1 depicts the location of the existing pipeline system alternatives in relation to the 

proposed Project route. 

In addition to the Kern River System, El Paso and Transwestern currently transport natural gas to 

southern Nevada. While the Kern River system supplies natural gas to southern Nevada from Rocky 

Mountain sources, the natural gas supplied by El Paso and Transwestern originates from the Permian and San 

Juan basins in New Mexico and Texas, respectively. The connection to these natural gas supplies via the El 

Paso and Transwestern lines is not direct, but rather relies on an interconnection with Southwest Gas 

Corporation’s pipeline system and local distribution system. Since Southwest Gas Corporation’s existing 

system is currently at capacity, significant modifications to the system would be required in order for either 

the El Paso or Transwestern pipeline systems to meet the proposed Project objectives. Currently, the FERC is 

not aware of any proposal by Southwest Gas Corporation to make modifications to their existing system to 

meet the additional demand for gas in southern Nevada or any other market. However, in order to meet the 

objectives of the proposed Project, typical expansion of system infrastructure would include the construction 

of 140 miles of new pipeline in addition to the need for additional compression and construction of other 

appurtenant facilities. These types of modifications would have a significantly larger impact on the 

environment than Kern River’s proposed 28-mile loop. While expansions to the El Paso or Transwestern 

pipeline systems may enhance the reliability to the southern Nevada markets, they would not provide supply 

diversity, which is a key goal of the proposed Project. 

In April 2009, an interconnect between the Kern River system and that of the Mojave Pipeline 

Company allowed for increased supply of natural gas from the Permian and San Juan basins. While this 

interconnect has improved the reliability of the gas supply in this market, it does not provide for supply 

diversity and thus does not meet the proposed Project goals. Therefore, the Mojave Pipeline existing system 

is not a viable system alternative to the proposed Apex Expansion Project. 

Projects that are proposed to transport natural gas but are not yet constructed and systems that are 

recently put into service are also possible alternatives to the proposed Project. We have identified seven 

recently proposed or certificated interstate pipeline projects that would transport natural gas from the Rocky 

Mountain region (table 3.3-1). The discussion that follows is organized to discuss system alternatives based 

on their state of completion; those that are most complete are discussed first. 
Texas

Utah

Montana

Idaho

Nevada

Arizona

California

Iowa

Colorado

Wyoming

Kansas

Oregon

New Mexico

Nebraska

Minnesota

Missouri

Oklahoma

South Dakota

Arkansas

Washington North Dakota

Louisiana

Wisconsin

Illinois

Mississippi

Mexico

CA

AZ

NV

NM

OR

CO

WY

UT

Date: July 2010 Figure 3.3-1

APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES

0 105 210 420

Miles

Legend

Proposed Wasatch Loop

Bison Pipeline Project

Kanda Lateral and Mainline Expansion Project

Loop Expansion Project

Rex-West Pipeline Project

Ruby Pipeline Project

El Paso Natural Gas

Mojave Pipeline

Southwest Gas Pipeline

Transwestern Pipeline

Kern River Gas Pipeline

Project Area

 ̄

3-7
3-8 

TABLE 3.3-1 

Proposed or Recently Certificated Interstate Pipeline Projects 

Proposed to Transport Rocky Mountain Natural Gas

Project Name Project Status Proposed In-Service Date

Kanda Lateral and Mainline Expansion Certificated In service

Rex-West Project Certificated In service 

Kern River 2010 Expansion Project Certificated November 2010 

Bison Pipeline Project Certificated November 2010 

Ruby Pipeline Project Certificated Spring 2011 

Loop Expansion Project Application submitted November 2010 

Two of the eight systems are currently in service: the Kanda Lateral and Mainline Expansion and the 

Rex-West Project. The Kanda Lateral and Mainline Expansion transports up to 0.15 Bcf/d of natural gas via a 

124-mile-long pipeline that extends from the Natural Buttes Fields in Uintah County, Utah to Sweetwater 

County, Wyoming. The Rex-West Project transports up to 1.5 Bcf/d of natural gas via a 713-mile-long, 

42-inch-diameter pipeline extending from the Cheyenne Hub in Weld County, Colorado to Audrain County, 

Missouri. These system alternatives would require connections to the proposed Project’s target markets via 

additional pipeline systems or new pipe. As such, it would be necessary to significantly expand or modify the 

pipeline systems to meet the proposed Project’s objectives. While the specific details of expansion or 

modifications to meet the proposed Project goals are not known, as the systems are currently not proposing to 

do so, we estimate that the systems would require new pipe of approximately 125 miles to more than 

350 miles. Environmental impacts associated with the expansions of these pipeline systems and the 

construction of new pipelines to connect the system alternative to the targeted market would result in greater 

impacts than those associated with the proposed Project. For these reasons, we do not consider the Kanda 

Lateral and Mainline Expansion or the Rex-West System Alternatives to provide environmental benefits 

superior to the proposed Project, and we have eliminated these from further consideration. 

There is one certificated/approved project currently under construction that utilizes natural gas from 

the Rocky Mountain region. The Kern River 2010 Expansion Project (Docket No. CP08-429-001), which 

involved the addition of compression and upgrades at existing aboveground facilities, would enhance the 

existing system to transport up to an additional 0.14 Bcf/d of natural gas via the existing 1,680-mile-long 

pipeline that extends from southwestern Wyoming to southern California. While these projects would 

increase the infrastructure that transports Rocky Mountain supplies, thus helping to reduce the bottlenecking 

that occurs in that area, neither project would serve the southern Nevada market. Further, these projects 

would not enhance the reliability of the Kern River system, which currently serves customers in Utah, 

Nevada, Arizona, and California. Therefore, we do not believe that these projects are viable alternatives to 

the proposed Apex Expansion Project. 

Questar’s Loop Expansion Project (Docket No. CP10-03-000) would transport up to 0.78 Bcf/d of 

natural gas via a 43-mile-long pipeline that extends from Sweetwater County, Wyoming to Uinta County, 

Wyoming. This proposed project is currently under review by the FERC. The proposed Bison Pipeline 

Project and Ruby Pipeline Project are new pipeline projects that have been certificated by the FERC under 

Docket Nos. CP09-161-000 and CP09-54-000, respectively. The Bison Pipeline Project would transport 0.5 

Bcf/d of natural gas from the Rocky Mountain region to Midwestern markets through an interconnect with the 

Northern Border pipeline system. The Bison Pipeline Project would consist of a 301.2-mile-long, 30-inchdiameter natural gas transmission pipeline that would extend northeast from a point near Dead Horse 
3-9 

(Campbell County), Wyoming, through southeastern Montana and southwestern North Dakota. It would 

connect with Northern Border’s pipeline system near Northern Border’s Compressor Station #6 in Morton 

County, North Dakota, which would ship the gas to markets in the Midwestern United States (primarily Iowa, 

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois). The purpose of the Bison Pipeline Project would be to transport natural 

gas produced in the Rocky Mountain region to markets in the Midwest. Similarly the Ruby Pipeline Project 

would transport Rocky Mountain gas. This project would transport 1,455 cubic feet per day (cf/d) of natural 

gas via a 675.2-mile-long, 42-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline that would extend west across 

northern Utah and Nevada to the Malin Market Center in Oregon. The purpose of this pipeline system would 

be to serve markets in northern Nevada and consumers on the west coast (northern California, Oregon, and 

Washington). While these projects would increase the infrastructure that transports Rocky Mountain supplies, 

thus helping to reduce the bottlenecking that occurs in that area, none would serve the southern Nevada 

market. Further, these projects would not enhance the reliability of the Kern River system, which currently 

serves customers in Utah, Nevada, Arizona, and California. Therefore, we do not believe that these projects 

are viable alternatives to the proposed Apex Expansion Project. 

3.4 MAJOR ROUTE ALTERNATIVES 

Kern River’s preliminary route for the Wasatch Loop was selected to follow its existing pipeline 

system across the Wasatch Mountains in northern Utah. Subsequent deviations from this existing corridor 

were developed through consultation and coordination with Kern River’s engineering team, as well as 

consideration of public comments and input received from federal, state, and local agency representatives. As 

noted in section 1.3, Kern River held a variety of public open houses as well as agency and stakeholder 

meetings while developing the proposed route. In addition, the FERC held two scoping meetings during 

development of the proposed Project to identify and evaluate alternatives that could avoid or minimize 

potential impacts. 

In the initial stages of route selection studies for the Apex Expansion Project, Kern River based its 

evaluations on one primary routing objective, to collocate the proposed pipeline with the existing pipeline. 

Since the loop would have the same origination and destination points along the existing Kern River pipeline 

in this area, installing it adjacent to the existing pipeline would be preferable to constructing a new route 

through undisturbed areas. As described in section 2.0, the origin of the loop is at KRMP 96.4 (Loop MP 0.0) 

on Kern River’s existing pipeline and the terminus of the loop is at KRMP 124.5 (Loop MP 28.0). The 

majority of the original Kern River Gas Transmission System has been looped to increase transport capacity, 

resulting in a two-pipeline delivery system along most of the pipeline route. However, there is not a loop in 

the system through the Wasatch Mountains in Utah and also near the Las Vegas area in Nevada. A route 

along the existing Kern River pipeline corridor would also result in more efficient and effective management 

of operation and maintenance of the loop compared to a route that would not be adjacent to the existing 

pipeline. This analysis resulted in the subsequently proposed Project that is described throughout sections 2.0 

and 4.0 of this EIS. The currently proposed route incorporates eight deviations from the existing right-ofway, which are described in table 3.4-1. 

We considered major route alternatives for the proposed Apex Expansion Project to determine 

whether these alternatives would avoid or reduce impacts to environmentally sensitive resources that would 

be crossed by the proposed pipeline and in response to suggestions by the public. The origin and delivery 

points of a major route alternative are generally the same as for the corresponding portion of a proposed 

pipeline. However, the alternatives would follow routes significantly different from the proposed pipeline. 

Major route alternatives would not modify or make use of other existing or new pipeline systems. 
3-10

TABLE 3.4-1 

Deviations from Kern River’s Existing Right-of-Way Incorporated into the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project Route 

Variation County 

Beginning 

Mileposta

Ending 

Mileposta

Total 

Length 

(Miles) 

Change 

in 

Proposed 

Route 

Lengthb

 Description/Rationalec

Rocky Canyon Morgan 2.3 2.6 0.3 +0.05 More perpendicular 

waterbody crossing; 

avoids narrow ridge and 

steep slopes. 

Tucson Hollow Morgan 3.4 3.7 0.3 +0.01 Avoids steep slopes. 

Hardscrabble Morgan 11.6 13.7 2.1 -0.2 Avoids steep side slope 

construction on ridge 

confined with multiple 

rights-of-way. 

Saddle Morgan 15.0 15.4 0.4 -0.02 Avoids narrow ridge and 

steep slopes. 

Sessions 

Mountains 

Morgan 17.0 17.4 0.4 -0.1 Follows a shorter, more 

linear path, minimizes 

visual impacts, and 

improves construction 

safety. 

Cave Peak Davis 18.8 20.5 1.8 -0.1 Avoids steep side slope 

construction on a narrow 

ridge with unstable slopes 

and minimizes visual 

impacts. 

Wasatch Front Davis and 

Salt Lake 

21.6 25.4 3.8 +0.4 Avoids steep slope and 

existing residential 

development, minimizes 

visual impacts, and 

accommodates a 

landowner request for a 

portion of the variation. 

Chevron 

Refinery 

Salt Lake 25.6 26.9 1.8 +0.03 Avoids location of planned 

future projects and 

crosses Interstate 15 at 

location approved by Utah 

Department of 

Transportation. 

____________ 

Notes: 

a

 The beginning and ending mileposts correspond to the locations where the proposed route deviates from and rejoins the 

existing Kern River right-of-way. 

b

 This value is positive for variations that add length to the proposed route or negative for variations that reduce the overall

length of the proposed route. 

c

 Provided by Kern River in their application (November 2009). 
3-11

 Commission regulations (18 CFR 380.15[d][1]) give primary consideration to the use, enlargement, 

or extension of existing rights-of-way to reduce potential impacts on sensitive resources. Installation of new 

pipeline along existing, cleared rights-of-way (such as pipelines, power lines, roads, and railroads) may be 

environmentally preferable to construction along new rights-of-way; and construction effects and cumulative 

impacts can normally be reduced by use of previously cleared rights-of-way. Likewise, long-term or 

permanent environmental impacts can normally be reduced by avoiding the creation of new rights-of-way 

through undisturbed areas. 

We received comments from the public and federal and state resource agencies during the scoping 

period for the proposed Project requesting the evaluation of various route alternatives. Based on input 

provided to us by the general public and federal and state resource agencies, and based on our review of the 

proposed Project, we identified and evaluated five major route alternatives: the Kern River Right-of-Way 

Route Alternative (section 3.4.1), the Legacy Highway Route Alternative (section 3.4.2), the Pages 

Lane/Porter Road Route Alternative (section 3.4.3), the Bountiful Boulevard Route Alternative (section 

3.4.4), and the Wasatch Mountains Route Alternative (section 3.4.5). 

3.4.1 Kern River Right-of-Way Route Alternative 

The Kern River Right-of-Way Route Alternative would follow Kern River’s existing system from the 

point of origin at MP 0.0 through to the tie-in point at MP 28.0 as depicted in figure 3.4.1-1. The major 

advantage of this alternative route would be its complete collocation with the existing pipeline, which could 

potentially minimize environmental and land use impacts. 

Impacts of the proposed Project route and the Kern River Right-of-Way Route Alternative are 

compared in table 3.4.1-1. Quantitative data are based on a comparative desktop analysis using a combination 

of United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps, National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps, 

and USGS land cover land use data. 

The Kern River Right-of-Way Route Alternative would impact approximately 39.2 acres less than the 

proposed Project route. The alternative route would have greater impacts on forest lands, while the proposed 

route would have greater impacts on sage grouse and pygmy rabbit habitat (sage brush habitat). The terrain 

along the alternative route also presents significant construction challenges and would impact more residences 

within 50 feet of the permanent right-of-way. While the Kern River Right-of-Way Route Alternative 

conceptually represents a route that would eliminate the need for new right-of-way, the original pipeline was 

constructed along ridge lines and across several steep slopes. Construction of a loop along the existing 

pipeline at these locations raises construction challenges and construction safety concerns. In several 

locations there would be insufficient room to allow for safe installation of the proposed pipeline. Further, due 

to the constrained nature of the topography along Kern River’s existing right-of-way, there is an increased 

chance of soil erosion and sedimentation issues, which have both environmental and visual implications. As a 

result of these impediments along the existing pipeline, Kern River has incorporated the route deviations 

described in table 3.4-1 into its proposed route. Construction of the loop entirely along the existing pipeline 

is not technically feasible for these reasons. In addition, this alternative would require construction within 50 

feet of 27 additional residences. Therefore, we believe that the alternative route does not present a clear 

environmental advantage over the proposed route, and we have eliminated the Kern River Right-of-Way 

Route Alternative from further consideration. While we do not believe it is technically feasible for Kern 

River to follow its existing pipeline entirely, we did evaluate several variations in section 3.5 to determine 

possible locations where Kern River could increase its collocation with the existing pipeline right-of-way. 
A!

A!

0

28

CA

AZ

NV

NM

OR

CO

WY

UT

Date: July 2010 Figure 3.4.1-1

APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

KERN RIVER 

RIGHT-OF-WAY ROUTE ALTERNATIVE

0 1.5 3 6

Miles

Project Area

 ̄

Legend

Existing Kern River Pipeline

Proposed Wasatch Loop

Utility Corridor

UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Private lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

USFS-managed lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Roadless Areas

A! Milepost

3-12
3-13

TABLE 3.4.1-1 

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

Proposed Apex Expansion Project Route

Evaluation Criterion 

Proposed Project 

Route 

Alternative 

Route 

Total length (miles) 27.6 29.4 

Construction impacts (acres) 395.2 356 

Permanent impacts (acres) 167.2 178 

Residences within 50 feeta (number) 3 30 

Agricultural land (acres) 21.2 14.2 

Forested land (acres) 84.5 150.2 

Wetlands crossed (miles) 0.4 0.2 

Coldwater fisheries (number) 5 20 

Category 1 high-quality waters crossed (number) 6 8 

Adjacent to existing rights-of-way (miles) 18.5 29.4 

U.S. Forest Service Lands (miles) 6.4 6.0 

National Forest Service trail crossings (number) 5 3 

Proposed special management areas crossedb

(number) 

4 6 

Douglas fir stands crossed (acres) 43.5 46.7 

Mountain mahogany-oak stands crossed (acres) 216.4 159.4 

Sage brush habitat crossedc (miles) 12.0 3.6 

____________ 

Notes: 

a

 The number of residences reported would be within 50 feet of the permanent right-of-way. 

b

 Special management areas are comprised of wildlife management areas, national forests, preserves and other public use 

lands. 

c

 Identified as sensitive communities and/or species of concern. 

3.4.2 Legacy Highway Route Alternative 

The Legacy Highway Route Alternative would follow Kern River’s existing system, and the proposed 

route, for the first 16.1 miles west of the origin. Between MP 15.9 and 16.0, the alternative route would then 

deviate from the Kern River right-of-way and head northwest within the USFS Ward Canyon utility corridor. 

 The Legacy Highway Route Alternative would then take a generally northern route along the Bonneville 

Bench through the eastern foothills of Bountiful and Centerville cities. To cross Interstate 15, the alternative 

route would head west after which it would turn south to follow an existing transmission corridor and the 

Legacy Highway through the Legacy Nature Preserve (LNP) before terminating at the proposed Project tie-in 

point at MP 28.0 (figure 3.4.2-1). 
A!

A!

0

28

CA

AZ

NV

NM

OR

CO

WY

UT

Date: July 2010 Figure 3.4.2-1

APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

LEGACY HIGHWAY ROUTE ALTERNATIVE

0 1.5 3 6

Miles

Project Area

 ̄

Legend

Legacy Highway Route Alternative

Proposed Wasatch Loop

Utility Corridor

UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Private lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

USFS-managed lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Roadless Areas

A! Milepost

3-14
3-15

Impacts of the proposed Project route and the Legacy Highway Route Alternative are compared in 

table 3.4.2-1. Quantitative data are based on a comparative desktop analysis using a combination of USGS 

topographic maps, NWI maps, and USGS land cover use data. 

TABLE 3.4.2-1 

Comparison of Legacy Highway Route Alternative and the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project Route

Evaluation Criterion 

Proposed Project 

Route 

Alternative 

Route 

Total length (miles) 27.6 34.8 

Construction impacts (acres) 395.2 422 

Permanent impacts (acres) 167.2 211 

Residences within 50 feeta (number) 3 7 

Agricultural land (acres) 21.2 90.7 

Forested land (acres) 84.5 109.5 

Wetlands crossed (miles) 0.4 1.4 

Coldwater fisheries (number) 5 22 

Category 1 high-quality waters crossed (number) 6 21 

Adjacent to existing rights-of-way (miles) 18.5 29.0 

U.S. Forest Service lands (miles) 6.4 3.9 

National Forest Service trail crossings (number) 5 3 

Proposed special management areas crossedb

(number) 

4 7 

Douglas fir stands crossed (acres) 43.5 35.8 

Mountain mahogany-oak stands crossed (acres) 216.4 126.7 

Sage brush habitat crossedc (miles) 12.0 3.6 

____________ 

Notes: 

a

 The number of residences reported would be within 50 feet of the permanent right-of-way. 

b

 Special management areas are comprised of wildlife management areas, national forests, preserves and other public use 

lands. 

c Identified as sensitive communities and/or species of concern. 

The Legacy Highway Route Alternative would be about 7.2 miles longer than the proposed Project 

alignment. Despite the alternative route’s greater collocation with existing rights-of-way, which allows for 

smaller permanent footprint as compared to the proposed route, the longer length of the alternative route 

would result in more construction impacts than the proposed Project. The alternative would avoid crossing 

the urbanized areas of Bountiful and Centerville cities, and in some cases, impacts on certain habitat would be 

reduced. Construction of this alternative, however, would be within 50 feet of 4 additional residences than 

the proposed route. The alternative route has several constrained areas due to the extreme topography and 

existing features (e.g., the Davis County Aqueduct), that present construction limitations and safety concerns. 

 The location of the route within the Salt Lake Valley poses concerns for a high water table, which would 

slow construction, require specialized construction equipment, and impact more wetlands and waterbodies. 
3-16

Kern River has indicated that this alternative has the potential for exposure to artesian water pressure, which 

raises concerns for soil liquefaction during construction and could reduce the success of post-construction 

restoration in affected areas. 

The alternative would cross the LNP, which would result in an increased risk of impacts on highquality habitat supporting a variety of species as compared to the proposed route. The LNP was established to 

mitigate impacts from construction of the Legacy Highway, including wetland mitigation sites that would fall 

within the construction workspace of this alternative route. The FERC received comments from stakeholders 

regarding potential impacts of this alternative route to local businesses/commercial areas; recreation; and 

other sensitive areas, including the Farmington Bay Waterfowl Management Area, the LNP, and the 

Bonneville Shoreline Trail. Additional concerns for this alternative route included concern regarding the 

proposed expansion of an airport nearby and its location within an already highly congested utility corridor. 

Due to the potential impact on special management areas, construction feasibility and safety concerns along 

this alternative route, as well as the issues raised by stakeholders, we believe that the alternative route does 

not present a clear environmental advantage over the proposed route. Therefore, we have eliminated the 

Legacy Highway Route Alternative from further consideration. 

3.4.3 Pages Lane/Porter Road Route Alternative 

Similar to the Legacy Highway Route Alternative, the Pages Lane/Porter Road Alternative would 

follow Kern River’s proposed route between MP 0.0 and 15.9. The Pages Lane/Porter Road Alternative 

would then follow the Legacy Highway Alternative for about 3.5 miles from MP 15.9 to the foothills of 

Centerville, Utah (figure 3.4.3-1). In Centerville the alternative route would follow either Pages Lane or 

Porter Road to cross the Salt Lake Valley. The alternative route would meet up with the Legacy Highway 

Route Alternative near the Legacy Highway and follow a similar route to the terminus. 

Impacts of the proposed Project route and the Pages Lane/Porter Road Route Alternative are 

compared in table 3.4.3-1. Quantitative data are based on a comparative desktop analysis using a combination 

of USGS topographic maps, NWI maps, and USGS land cover use data. 

The Pages Lane/Porter Road Alternative would impact approximately 29.2 acres less than the 

proposed Project route. This alternative would have greater impacts than the proposed route on agricultural 

and forested land but less impacts on other habitat types (Douglas fir stands, mountain mahogany-oak stands, 

and sage brush habitat). While the Pages Lane/Porter Road Route Alternative would have some of the same 

construction constraints as the Legacy Highway Route Alternative due to the terrain, they would be less 

significant. Further, the alternative route’s collocation with Pages Lane or Porter Road to cross Salt Lake 

Valley would reduce the crossing length of the LNP. Alternatively, this segment of the alternative route is in 

a residential area with 45 residences within 50 feet of the permanent right-of-way, compared to two 

residences within 50 feet of the proposed permanent right-of-way. This alternative would also require 

multiple utility crossings, both underground at various depths and overhead, resulting in traffic control issues. 

 Specialized construction techniques due to the limited area for temporary workspace along this alternative 

would also cause construction to occur at a slow pace. The FERC received comments regarding concerns 

from stakeholders similar to those received for the Legacy Highway Route Alternative, in addition to 

comments regarding traffic-related issues and other disruptions to the various local communities along this 

alternative route. Due to greater landowner impacts, we do not believe that this alternative provides a clear 

environmental advantage over the proposed route; therefore, we have eliminated the Pages Lane/Porter Road 

Route Alternative from further consideration. 
A!

A!

0

28

CA

AZ

NV

NM

OR

CO

WY

UT

Date: July 2010 Figure 3.4.3-1

APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

PAGES LANE / PORTER ROAD 

ROUTE ALTERNATIVE

0 1.5 3 6

Miles

Project Area

 ̄

Legend

Pages Lane / Porter Road Route Alternative

Proposed Wasatch Loop

Utility Corridor

UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Private lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

USFS-managed lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Roadless Areas

A! Milepost

3-17
3-18

TABLE 3.4.3-1 

Comparison of Pages Lane/Porter Road Route Alternative and the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project Route

Evaluation Criterion 

Proposed Project 

Route 

Alternative 

Route 

Total length (miles) 27.6 30.2 

Construction impacts (acres) 395.2 366 

Permanent impacts (acres) 167.2 183 

Residences within 50 feeta (number) 3 45 

Agricultural land (acres) 21.2 61.0 

Forested land (acres) 84.5 107.5 

Wetlands crossed (miles) 0.4 0.3 

Coldwater fisheries (number) 5 16 

Category 1 high-quality waters crossed (number) 6 33 

Adjacent to existing rights-of-way (miles) 18.5 24.6 

U.S. Forest Service lands (miles) 6.4 3.7 

National Forest Service trail crossings (number) 5 2 

Proposed special management areas crossedb

(number) 

4 7 

Douglas fir stands crossed (acres) 43.5 35.8 

Mountain mahogany-oak stands crossed (acres) 216.4 126.7 

Sage brush habitat crossedc (miles) 12.0 3.6 

____________ 

Notes: 

a

 The number of residences reported would be within 50 feet of the permanent right-of-way. 

b

 Special management areas are comprised of wildlife management areas, national forests, preserves and other public use 

lands. 

c Identified as sensitive communities and/or species of concern. 

3.4.4 Bountiful Boulevard Route Alternative 

Similar to the Legacy Highway Alternative, the Bountiful Boulevard Route Alternative would follow 

Kern River’s proposed pipeline route between MP 0.0 and 15.9. The Bountiful Boulevard Route Alternative 

would also follow the Legacy Highway Alternative for about 2.5 miles from MP 15.9, at the east tie-in point, 

to the foothills of Bountiful, Utah (figure 3.4.4-1). In Bountiful, the alternative route would turn south 

following Bountiful Boulevard for about 6 miles to reach Kern River’s existing system near MLV 121 and 

then following the existing right-of-way to the terminus at MP 28.0. 
A!

A!

0

28

CA

AZ

NV

NM

OR

CO

WY

UT

Date: July 2010 Figure 3.4.4-1

APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

BOUNTIFUL BOULEVARD ROUTE ALTERNATIVE

0 1.5 3 6

Miles

Project Area

 ̄

Legend

Bountiful Boulevard Route Alternative

Proposed Wasatch Loop

Utility Corridor

UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Private lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

USFS-managed lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Roadless Areas

A! Milepost

3-19
3-20

Impacts of the proposed Project route and Bountiful Boulevard Route Alternative are compared in 

table 3.4.4-1. Quantitative data are based on a comparative desktop analysis using a combination of USGS 

topographic maps, NWI maps, and USGS land cover use data. 

TABLE 3.4.4-1 

Comparison of Bountiful Boulevard Route Alternative and the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project Route

Evaluation Criterion 

Proposed Project 

Route 

Alternative 

Route 

Total length (miles) 27.6 28.3 

Construction impacts (acres) 395.2 293 

Permanent impacts (acres) 167.2 172 

Residences within 50 feeta (number) 3 245 

Agricultural land (acres) 21.2 16.2 

Forested land (acres) 84.5 107.3 

Wetlands crossed (miles) 0.4 0.2 

Coldwater fisheries (number) 5 17 

Category 1 high quality waters crossed (number) 6 2 

Adjacent to existing rights-of-way (miles) 18.5 21.6 

U.S. Forest Service lands (miles) 6.4 2.8 

National Forest Service trail crossings (number) 5 3 

Proposed special management areas crossedb

(number) 

4 6 

Douglas fir stands crossed (acres) 43.5 35.8 

Mountain mahogany-oak stands crossed(acres) 216.4 126.7 

Sage brush habitat crossedc (miles) 12.0 3.6 

____________ 

Notes: 

a

 The number of residences reported would be within 50 feet of the permanent right-of-way. 

b

 Special management areas are comprised of wildlife management areas, national forests, preserves and other public use 

lands. 

c Identified as sensitive communities and/or species of concern. 
3-21

The alternative route would cross through a residential area along Bountiful Boulevard, impacting a 

significant number of residences within 50 feet of the proposed permanent right-of-way (245 residences). 

Impacts associated with this alternative through residential areas would be similar to those discussed for the 

Pages Lane/Porter Road Route Alternative but would be greater due to the larger number of residences. The 

FERC received several comments regarding concerns from stakeholders about potential impacts during 

construction to utility lines, water lines, sewers/drains, as well as potential challenges with maintenance of 

these utilities following construction. Commentors also pointed to potential traffic control issues since 

Bountiful Boulevard is the only access road for residences of the area and access to two golf courses and a 

fire station. In addition, the alternative route would be in proximity to areas utilized for flood control, which 

may require additional specialized construction designs and/or further refinement of the identified route. Due 

to the greater number of affected landowners and the associated impacts from construction, we do not believe 

that the alternative provides an environmental advantage over the proposed route. Therefore, we have 

eliminated the Bountiful Boulevard Route Alternative from further consideration. 

3.4.5 Wasatch Mountains Route Alternative 

The Wasatch Mountains Route Alternative would run southwest from the east tie-in point of the 

corresponding segment of the proposed route at MP 0.0, following an existing utility corridor and other 

pipelines through Emigration Canyon, which would also be partly located within the USFS-designated Little 

Mountain utility corridor (figure 3.4.5-1). Upon exiting the canyon, the alternative route would then turn 

north along the Bonneville Bench to parallel the existing Questar pipeline right-of-way to Kern River’s 

existing pipeline system near MLV 121, and then follow the existing right-of-way to the terminus at MP 28.0. 

Impacts of the proposed Project route and Wasatch Mountains Route Alternative are compared in 

table 3.4.5-1. Quantitative data are based on a comparative desktop analysis using a combination of USGS 

topographic maps, NWI maps, and USGS land cover use data. 

The Wasatch Mountains Route Alternative would require the most greenfield2

 construction 

(13.1 miles) of any of the alternative routes considered and 3.6 miles more length than the proposed loop, 

including lands within the UWCNF. Also, this alternative route would encumber all of the issues previously 

identified across the other four major alternatives, including construction challenges, residences in close 

proximity (45 within 50 feet of the permanent right-of-way), traffic concerns (especially at the crossing of 

Canyon Creek Road where steep slopes may prohibit a road bore), and limited area for temporary workspace, 

and associated safety concerns. Further, since the Wasatch Mountains Route Alternative would be 

constructed on lands not previously disturbed, the majority of the route has not been surveyed to identify 

cultural resources (only 4.9 percent of the first 27.7 miles has previously been surveyed). Given the 

proximity of this route to areas identified as important historical, cultural, or recreational areas, it is likely that 

the corridor of the alternative route would be of moderate to high density for potential cultural/historic sites. 

Given the amount of greenfield associated with the alternative, in addition to the other factors discussed 

above, we do not believe that the alternative provides an environmental advantage over the proposed route. 

Therefore, we have eliminated the Wasatch Mountains Route Alternative from further consideration. 

 

2

 Greenfields are lands that do not contain existing utility rights-of-way. 
A!

A!

0

28

CA

AZ

NV

NM

OR

CO

WY

UT

Date: July 2010 Figure 3.4.5-1

APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

WASATCH MOUNTAINS ROUTE ALTERNATIVE

0 1.5 3 6

Miles

Project Area

 ̄

Legend

Wasatch Mountains Route Alternative

Proposed Wasatch Loop

Utility Corridor

UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Private lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

USFS-managed lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Roadless Areas

A! Milepost

3-22
3-23

TABLE 3.4.5-1 

Comparison of Wasatch Mountains Alternative and the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project Route

Evaluation Criterion 

Proposed Project 

Route 

Alternative 

Route 

Total length (miles) 27.6 31.2 

Construction impacts (acres) 395.2 378 

Permanent impacts (acres) 167.2 189 

Residences within 50 feeta (number) 3 45 

Agricultural land (acres) 21.2 16.8 

Forested land (acres) 84.5 135.2 

Wetlands crossed (miles) 0.4 0.1 

Coldwater fisheries (number) 5 22 

Category 1 high-quality waters crossed (number) 6 33 

Adjacent to existing rights-of-way (miles) 18.5 18.1 

U.S. Forest Service lands (miles) 6.4 4.8 

National Forest Service trail crossings (number) 5 4 

Proposed special management areas crossedb

(number) 

4 4 

Douglas fir stands crossed (acres) 43.5 19.4 

Mountain mahogany-oak stands crossed (acres) 216.4 100.6 

Sage brush habitat crossedc (miles) 12.0 6.6 

____________ 

Notes: 

a

 The number of residences reported would be within 50 feet of the permanent right-of-way. 

b

 Special management areas are comprised of wildlife management areas, national forests, preserves and other public use 

lands. 

c Identified as sensitive communities and/or species of concern. 

3.5 ROUTE VARIATIONS 

Route variations differ from system or major route alternatives in that they are identified to resolve or 

reduce construction impacts to localized, specific resources such as cultural resources sites, wetlands, 

recreational lands, residences, and terrain conditions. While route variations may be a few miles in length, 

most are relatively short and in close proximity to the proposed route. Because route variations are identified 

in response to specific local concerns, they are often the result of landowner comments. A variety of factors 

are considered in identifying and evaluating route variations, including length, land requirements, and 

potential for reducing or minimizing impacts on natural resources. 

In the draft EIS, the FERC analyzed seven route variations. In the draft EIS, we recommended that 

Kern River incorporate two of those route variations into its proposed Project, the Mueller Park and North 

Salt Lake III Route Variations. The Mueller Park Route Variation (from MP 13.7 to 14.7) was identified to 
3-24

avoid impacts on the Hogsback Roadless Area. Impacts on the Hogsback Roadless Area may require 

approval from the Secretary of Agriculture due to more stringent restrictions of the Hogsback Roadless Area. 

This variation would generally utilize previously cleared areas along existing rights-of-way. Due to 

challenging terrain, a minor deviation from the existing rights-of-way would be required resulting in less than 

0.1 acre of greenfield construction within the UWCNF and the Mueller Park Roadless Area. The Mueller 

Park Route Variation would impact 0.5 mile, or about 6.1 acres, of the Mueller Park Roadless Area during 

construction. While the Mueller Park Route Variation would not be entirely collocated with the existing 

rights-of-way, some portions would be located within a designated utility corridor through the area. It is 

likely that some tree clearing would be required within this portion of the crossing; however, these lands 

would be able to revegetate upon completion of pipeline construction. While this variation would require 

0.4 mile of greenfield construction within the UWCNF, the USFS, the managing agency for the UWCNF and 

the associated roadless areas, has stated that they prefer the Mueller Park Route Variation over the originally 

proposed route. We agree, and in conjunction with the reduced impacts from workspace design along this 

variation, we believe this route offers an environmentally preferable alternative to the originally proposed 

route. 

The North Salt Lake III Route Variation also offers an environmentally preferable alternative to the 

originally proposed route. The North Salt Lake III Route Variation would be shorter than the corresponding 

segment of the original pipeline route and would be collocated more with Kern River’s existing right-of-way. 

 Further, the variation would have a shorter crossing of USFS lands and would avoid crossing the historic 

Civil Conservation Corps (CCC) terracing. Subsequent to the publication of the draft EIS, a landowner 

requested that Kern River modify the variation in the vicinity of Sugar Plum Court to collocate the pipeline 

with the existing Kern River easement held by said landowner so that undeveloped neighboring parcels would 

not be subject to an easement and could therefore be developed. This realignment of the North Salt Lake III 

Variation results in a route that avoids impacts to one residence at MP 24.5 of the originally proposed route. 

However, the resulting proposed route would result in the construction easement being within 50 feet of the 

residence occupied by the landowner who requested the modification (MP 24.1A) and a second residence at 

MP 24.2A. See section 4.8.2.3 for additional discussion on residences within 50 feet of construction work 

areas. 

Our analysis of route variations is based on information provided by Kern River, input provided to us 

by the general public, as well as federal and state resource agencies. In addition, we have reviewed aerial 

photography and USGS topographic maps of the proposed route, and have conducted site visits. Seven route 

variations for the proposed Apex Expansion Project are described below. Table 3.5-1 lists the seven 

variations, the associated segments along the proposed route that they would replace, and the rationale for the 

variation we have taken into consideration in our analysis. 
3-25

TABLE 3.5-1 

Summary of Route Variations Identified for the Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Route Variation 

Proposed 

Project Route 

Milepost Range 

(approximate) Reason for Variation Status 

East Canyon 5.0 – 5.6 Provides a more perpendicular 

crossing of the East Canyon Creek 

and riparian area 

Not recommended 

Hogsback 13.7 – 14.7A Avoids the Hogsback Roadless 

Areaa Not Recommended 

Holbrook Canyon 15.9 – 17.1 Avoids the steep slopes of Holbrook 

Canyon and coniferous habitat 

Not Recommended 

Sitka Holdings 21.0 – 22.5 Avoids private land holding but 

impacts more U.S. Forest Service 

land and forest habitat 

Not recommended 

Bonneville 

Shoreline 

Preserve 

22.0A – 24.9A Avoids the Bonneville Shoreline 

Preserve but impacts the Civilian 

Conservation Corps (CCC) 

terracing 

Not Recommended 

North Salt Lake I 23.9 – 25.0 Avoids steep slope and recent 

residential development but 

encroaches on the Bonneville 

Shoreline Preserve 

Not recommended 

North Salt Lake II 23.9 – 25.0 Avoids Eaglepointe residential 

development area and the 

Bonneville Shoreline Preserve 

Not recommended 

____________ 

Note: 

a

 At the time this variation was developed it was thought to avoid impacts to the Hogsback Roadless area. 

Section 3.5.2 offers additional discussion. 

3.5.1 East Canyon Route Variation 

The East Canyon Route Variation was developed to allow for a more perpendicular crossing of the 

East Canyon Creek (see section 4.3). The East Canyon Route Variation would deviate from the proposed 

Project alignment at MP 5.0, shifting the alignment southwest and then east before resuming the proposed 

Project alignment at MP 5.6 (figure 3.5.1-1). 
A!

A!

A!

A!

5

4

6

NV UT

Date: July 2010 Figure 3.5.1-1

APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

EAST CANYON ROUTE VARIATION

0 0.1 0.2 0.4

Miles

Project Area

 ̄

Legend

A! Milepost

East Canyon Route Variation

Proposed Wasatch Loop

Utility Corridor

UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Private lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

USFS-managed lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Roadless Areas

3-26
3-27

The East Canyon Route Variation would be approximately the same length as the proposed Project 

alignment (table 3.5.1-1). However, the route variation would cross topography that would make construction 

difficult. Further, the route variation would not be collocated with Kern River’s existing right-of-way, while 

the corresponding segment of the proposed alignment would be collocated and would cross one less 

waterbody than the route variation. The East Canyon Route Variation would traverse both sagebrush/grass 

(0.3 mile) and mahogany-oak scrub (0.3 acre), while the proposed Project route would avoid these habitats 

but would instead cross 0.01 mile of wetlands. However, this segment of the proposed route alignment would 

be contained entirely within an existing right-of-way. Both the proposed Project route and the route variation 

do not cross USFS property, and both would result in similar impacts to private landowners. 

TABLE 3.5.1-1 

Comparison of Features of the Proposed Project Route and 

the East Canyon Route Variation 

Feature Unit 

Proposed Project 

Route Route Variation 

Total length Miles 0.6 0.7 

Collocation Miles 0.6 0.0 

Construction impacts Acres 6.8 8.1 

Residences within 50 feeta Number 0 0 

Private land holdings Miles 0.6 0.7 

U.S. Forest Service lands Miles 0.0 0.0 

Waterbody crossings Number 3 4 

Wetland crossingsb Miles 0.1 0.0 

____________ 

Notes: 

a The number of residences reported would be within 50 feet of construction workspaces. 

b

 National Wetlands Inventory wetlands. 

Kern River stated that this route variation would have terrain constraints and conflicts with the 

landowners use of the area. While the East Canyon Route Variation would allow for a more perpendicular 

crossing of East Canyon Creek, Kern River has developed specialized construction techniques along the 

proposed route, discussed in section 4.3.2.6, that would minimize impacts on this waterbody. For these 

reasons, along with the decreased collocation with existing rights-of-way, we do not consider the East Canyon 

Route Variation to be environmentally preferable to the proposed Project alignment. Therefore, we have 

eliminated the East Canyon Route Variation from further consideration. 

3.5.2 Hogsback Route Variation 

The Hogsback Route Variation was the proposed route evaluated in the draft EIS prior to Kern 

River’s adoption of the Mueller Park Route Variation. Kern River’s originally proposed pipeline alignment in 

this area followed their existing pipeline and the Questar Line on the north side of the existing rights-of-way 

(figure 3.5.2-1). At the time Kern River developed the route analyzed in the draft EIS, they believed there 

was a 33-foot area north of the existing right-of-way that was not a designated part of the Hogsback Roadless 

Area. However, during a meeting between Kern River and the USFS on November 5, 2009, it was 
A!

14A

NV UT

Date: July 2010 Figure 3.5.2-1

APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

HOGSBACK

ROUTE VARIATION

0 0.0375 0.075 0.15

Miles

Project Area

 ̄

Legend

Existing Kern River Pipeline

Proposed Wasatch Loop

Questar Gas Line

Existing Power Line

Utility Corridor

UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Private lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

USFS-managed lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Hogsback Roadless Area

Mueller Park Roadless Area

Hogsback Route Variation

Milepost A!

3-28
3-29

determined that the boundary assumption used by Kern River in the routing analysis was not accurate. 

Therefore, the Hogsback Route Variation, which was specifically developed to avoid impacts to the roadless 

area, would indeed impact the Hogsback Roadless Area. Construction through this roadless area would 

require jurisdictional approval from the Secretary of Agriculture according to the Secretary’s memorandum 

1042-1543, which prohibits development of inventoried roadless areas. 

While the currently proposed route avoids impact on the Hogsback Roadless Area, it is aligned within 

the Mueller Park Roadless Area. Since the Mueller Park Roadless Area was not identified in the set of 

inventoried roadless area maps contained in the Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation FEIS, Volume 2, 

dated November 2000, removal of timber and road construction would not be subject to approval from the 

Secretary of Agriculture. It is likely that some tree clearing would be required within this portion of the 

crossing; however, these lands would be able to revegetate upon completion of pipeline construction. While 

the proposed route would require 0.4 mile of greenfield construction within the UWCNF, the USFS, the 

managing agency for the UWCNF and the associated roadless areas, has stated that they prefer the proposed 

route over the Hogsback Route Variation. We believe this route does not offer an environmentally preferable 

alternative to the proposed route; therefore, we have eliminated the Hogsback Route Variation from further 

consideration. 

The Hogsback Route Variation would be 0.1 mile longer than the proposed route, but would be 

collocated with existing rights-of-way. Alternatively, while the proposed route would not be entirely 

collocated with the existing rights-of-way, some portions would be located within a designated utility corridor 

through the area. The proposed route would deviate from the existing right-of-way at MP14.2A due to 

challenging terrain. Both routes would impact about the same amount of private lands, but the proposed route 

would impact slightly less USFS lands (table 3.5.2-1). 

TABLE 3.5.2-1 

Comparison of Features of the Proposed Project Route and 

the Hogsback Route Variation 

Feature Unit Proposed Project Route Route Variation 

Total length Miles 1.0 1.1 

Collocation Miles <0.1 0.1 

Construction impacts Acres 12,7 13.8 

Residences within 50 feeta Number 0 0 

Private land holdings Miles 0.2 0.12 

U.S. Forest Service lands Miles <0.1 0.11 

Waterbody crossings Number 0 0 

Wetland crossingsb Miles 0.0 0.0 

____________ 

Notes: 

a The number of residences reported would be within 50 feet of construction workspaces. 

b

 National Wetlands Inventory wetlands. 

 

3

 A copy of the Secretary’s memorandum 1042-154 is available at: http://www.ocio.usda.gov/directives/doc/SM1042-

154.pdf. 
3-30

3.5.3 Holbrook Canyon Route Variation 

The Holbrook Canyon Route Variation was considered due to construction constraints from steep 

terrain and an area of mature spruce-fir habitat along a segment of the proposed route between MP 15.9 to 

17.1 (figure 3.5.3-1). The Holbrook Canyon Route Variation would deviate from the proposed Project 

alignment at MP 15.9, continuing west within the Ward Canyon Utility Corridor and then south before 

resuming the proposed Project alignment at MP 17.1. 

The Holbrook Canyon Route Variation would be slightly longer than the proposed Project alignment 

(table 3.5.3-1) and would not be collocated with Kern River’s existing right-of-way. Additionally, the route 

variation would have more construction impacts than the proposed alignment and would also impact more 

USFS property. 

TABLE 3.5.3-1 

Comparison of Features of the Proposed Project Route and 

the Holbrook Canyon Route Variation 

Feature Unit Proposed Project Route Route Variation 

Total length Miles 1.3 1.8 

Collocation Miles 1.3 0.0 

Construction impacts Acres 15.2 21.9 

Residences within 50 feeta Number 0 0 

Private land holdings Miles 0.1 0.3 

U.S. Forest Service lands Miles 0.3 1.1 

Waterbody crossings Number 2 2 

Wetland crossingsb Miles 0.0 0.0 

____________ 

Notes: 

a The number of residences reported would be within 50 feet of construction workspaces. 

b

 National Wetlands Inventory wetlands. 

Both the proposed route and the Holbrook Canyon Route Variation have similar terrain challenges 

but the Holbrook Canyon Route Variation would be approximately 0.5 mile longer, would not be collocated 

with the existing pipeline, and would impact more private and USFS land. Further, while the Holbrook 

Canyon Route Variation would avoid clearing of mature spruce-fir habitat along the corresponding segment 

of the proposed route; this impact does not outweigh the additional construction disturbance resulting from 

this variation. Therefore, we believe that the variation does not offer an environmentally preferable 

alternative to that of the proposed Project alignment. Therefore, we have eliminated the Holbrook Canyon 

Route Variation from further consideration. 
A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

19

18

17

16

15

14

NV UT

Date: July 2010 Figure 3.5.3-1

APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

HOLBROOK CANYON ROUTE VARIATION

0 0.25 0.5 1

Miles

Project Area

 ̄

Legend

A! Milepost

Holbrook Canyon Route Variation

Proposed Wasatch Loop

Utility Corridor

UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Private lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

USFS-managed lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Roadless Areas

3-31
3-32

3.5.4 Sitka Holdings Route Variation 

The Sitka Holdings Route Variation was identified during meetings with landowners and based on 

comments received at the FERC scoping meetings. A request was made on behalf of a private landowner to 

re-route the pipeline alignment to circumvent his property between MP 21.0 and 22.5. To address the 

landowner’s concern, we considered a variation known as the Sitka Holdings Route Variation. At MP 21.0, 

the variation would deviate south of the proposed route to avoid the private landholding and then turn 

southwesterly to rejoin the proposed route at MP 22.5 (figure 3.5.4-1). 

We reviewed the Sitka Holdings Route Variation in detail, including the maps provided by the 

commentor. While this variation would meet the landowner’s request to avoid the property, the variation is 

not collocated with the existing pipeline and would require 0.8 mile of greenfield construction across USFS 

lands which would result in an additional 9.7 acres4 of impacts on forest habitat (table 3.5.4-1). 

TABLE 3.5.4-1 

Comparison of Features of the Proposed Project Route and 

the Sitka Holdings Route Variation 

Feature Unit Proposed Project Route Route Variation 

Total length Miles 0.6 0.8 

Collocation Miles 0.4 0.0 

Construction impacts Acres 7.3 17.1 

Residences within 50 feeta Number 0 0 

Private land holdings Miles 0.5 0.0 

U.S. Forest Service lands Miles 0.1 0.8 

Waterbody crossings Number 0 0 

Wetland crossingsb Miles 0.0 0.0 

____________ 

Notes: 

a The number of residences reported would be within 50 feet of construction workspaces.

b

 National Wetlands Inventory wetlands. 

Despite the slightly shorter overall route of the Sitka Holdings Route Variation, the variation would 

have increased impacts on previously undisturbed areas by creating new right-of-way and would increase 

impacts on forest habitat on USFS-managed land. We believe that this route alternative does not offer an 

environmental advantage over the corresponding segment of the proposed Project alignment; therefore, we 

have eliminated the Sitka Holdings Route Variation from further consideration. 

 

4

 This impact area was calculated based on the additional 0.8 mile of forest land and a 100-foot-wide construction 

right-of-way. 
A!

A!

A!

A!

21

23A

22A

NV UT

Date: July 2010 Figure 3.5.4-1

APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

SITKA HOLDINGS ROUTE VARIATION

0 0.15 0.3 0.6

Miles

Project Area

 ̄

Legend

A! Milepost

Sitka Holdings Route Variation

Proposed Wasatch Loop

Utility Corridor

UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Private lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

USFS-managed lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Roadless Areas

3-33
3-34

3.5.5 Bonneville Shoreline Preserve Route Variation 

The Bonneville Shoreline Preserve Route Variation was the proposed route evaluated in the draft EIS 

prior to Kern River’s adoption of the North Salt Lake City III Route Variation. It was originally proposed to 

avoid impact on the Bonneville Shoreline Preserve and is now analyzed as an alternative. This variation 

would deviate from the proposed route at MP 22A and take a southwesterly route for approximately two 

miles, then turn north to rejoin the proposed route at MP 24.9A (figure 3.5.5-1 and table 3.5.5-1). 

TABLE 3.5.5-1 

Comparison of Features of the Proposed Project Route and 

the Bonneville Shoreline Preserve Route Variation 

Feature Unit Proposed Project Route Route Variation 

Total length Miles 2.6 3.0 

Collocation Miles 1.6 0.0 

Construction impacts Acres 32.4 40.4 

Residences within 50 feeta Number 2 1 

Private land holdings Miles 1.0 0.5 

U.S. Forest Service lands Miles 1.2 2.4 

Waterbody crossings Number 0 0 

Wetland crossingsb Miles 0.0 0.0 

____________ 

Notes: 

a The number of residences reported would be within 50 feet of construction workspaces. 

b

 National Wetlands Inventory wetlands. 

The Bonneville Shoreline Preserve Route Variation would be longer than the corresponding segment 

of the proposed route and would not be collocated with Kern River’s existing right-of-way. The variation 

would have a longer crossing of USFS lands and would cross the historic CCC terracing. However, similar to 

the corresponding segment of the proposed route, this variation would avoid impact on the Bonneville 

Shoreline Preserve. Since this variation would not be collocated with the existing Kern River pipeline, it 

would have more visual impacts than the corresponding segment of the proposed route. In addition, the USFS 

has indicated their preference for Kern River’s proposed route in this area. 

The variation would have increased impacts on previously undisturbed areas by creating new right-ofway and would increase impacts on forest habitat on USFS-managed land. We believe that this route 

alternative does not offer an environmental advantage over the corresponding segment of the proposed Project 

alignment; therefore, we have eliminated the Bonneville Shoreline Preserve Variation from further 

consideration. 
A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

26

25

21

24A

23A

22A

NV UT

Date: July 2010 Figure 3.5.5-1

APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

BONNEVILLE SHORELINE PRESERVE 

ROUTE VARIATION

0 0.3 0.6 1.2

Miles

Project Area

 ̄

Legend

A! Milepost

Proposed Wasatch Loop

Utility Corridor

UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Private lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Roadless Areas USFS-managed lands within the UWCNF-proclaimed boundary

Bonneville Shoreline Preserve Route Variation

3-35
3-36

3.5.6 North Salt Lake I Route Variation 

The North Salt Lake I Route Variation was considered as an alternative to the corresponding segment 

of the originally proposed route to avoid steep terrain and the presence of recent development of residential 

communities along Kern River’s existing right-of-way between MP 24 and 25 (as presented in the draft EIS). 

 This variation, which was slightly longer than the corresponding segment of the originally proposed route, 

deviated from the existing right-of-way at MP 23.9 and took a southwest path to follow the prehistoric 

Bonneville Bench shoreline. The North Salt Lake I Route Variation then continued west about 1 mile before 

heading in a northwesterly direction for 0.8 mile to rejoin the originally proposed route at MP 25.0. 

Subsequent to the publication of the draft EIS, Kern River incorporated the North Salt Lake III 

variation into their proposed route. As a result, the North Salt Lake I Variation analyzed in the draft EIS is no 

longer viable because the route that this variation follows would not connect with the proposed route. 

However, if the route of the North Salt Lake I Variation was extended to connect to the proposed route, the 

variation would cross lands under the jurisdiction of Salt Lake and North Salt Lake Cities, known as the 

Bonneville Shoreline Preserve. This geological formation represents the shoreline of prehistoric Lake 

Bonneville and has been protected as a preserve in perpetuity by a conservation easement. Further, 

commentors expressed concern with and opposition to any route alignment impacting the Bonneville 

Shoreline Preserve during Kern River’s open houses and the FERC scoping period. Due to the public 

opposition to any route alignment within the Bonneville Shoreline Preserve and since the variation is no 

longer viable, we have eliminated the North Salt Lake I Route Variation from further consideration. 

3.5.7 North Salt Lake II Route Variation 

The North Salt Lake II Route Variation was considered as an alternative to the previous route 

variation (North Salt Lake I) and as an alternative to the corresponding segment of the originally proposed 

route to avoid the Edgewood/Eaglepointe residential development along Kern River’s existing right-of-way. 

This variation deviated from the existing right-of-way at MP 23.9 (as presented in the draft EIS) and generally 

took the same route as the North Salt Lake I Route Variation for 0.3 mile and a different route for the last 0.8 

mile before rejoining the originally proposed route at MP 25.0. 

Subsequent to the publication of the draft EIS, Kern River incorporated the North Salt Lake III 

variation into their proposed route. As a result, the North Salt Lake II Variation analyzed in the draft EIS is 

no longer viable because the route that this variation follows would not connect with the proposed route. 

Even if the route of the North Salt Lake II Variation was extended to connect back to the proposed route, the 

variation would cross the Bonneville Shoreline Preserve, under the jurisdiction of Salt Lake and North Salt 

Lake Cities. As with the North Salt Lake I Route Variation, due to the public opposition to any route 

alignment within the Bonneville Shoreline Preserve and since the variation is no longer viable, we have 

eliminated the North Salt Lake I Route Variation from further consideration. 

3.6 ABOVEGROUND FACILITY ALTERNATIVES 

We evaluated the proposed locations of the new aboveground facilities to determine whether 

environmental impacts would be reduced or mitigated by use of alternative facility sites. Our evaluation 

involved inspection of aerial photography and mapping, as well as site visits along the proposed Project 

corridor. The aboveground facilities for the proposed Project include one new compressor station, upgrades 

at four existing compressor stations, three pig launchers, two pig receivers, and six MLVs (two MLVs are 

existing and two of the MLVs and the two pig launchers/pig receivers would be located at the proposed 

Milford Compressor Station). 
3-37

Because the locations of MLVs would be linked to the location of the existing pipeline MLVs, the 

search for alternatives was constrained to sites located adjacent to the intersection of the proposed Project 

route and the existing pipeline facility locations. The proposed locations of MLVs along the proposed Project 

route were also largely determined based on USDOT safety regulations that specify the maximum distance 

between sectionalizing block valves and require that these facilities be located in readily accessible areas. 

Additionally, we did not identify any alternative sites for the proposed MLV or pig launcher/pig receiver 

facilities that would offer a significant environmental advantage to the proposed sites for these facilities. 

As with the other proposed aboveground facilities, the proposed upgrades at the compressor station 

locations would be constrained to sites at existing compressor stations. As described in section 2.1, the 

upgrades at the existing compressor stations would consist of restaging and/or additional compression that 

would be confined within the existing site boundary. Since the proposed upgrades at these compressor 

stations would occur within the boundary of existing facilities, we did not evaluate alternative locations for 

these compressor stations. We did, however, consider an alternative site for the new Milford Compressor 

Station. 

3.6.1 Milford Compressor Station Site Alternative 

The proposed compressor station site in Beaver County, Utah along the existing Kern River pipeline 

route (MP 326.9) was largely dictated based on engineering and economic design standards. As described in 

section 4.8, construction and operation of the proposed compressor station would result in the permanent 

conversion of 33.2 acres of rangeland to an industrial land use for the life of the proposed Project. We have 

determined that operation of this facility would not result in significant air quality degradation or noise 

impacts to any nearby residents, given the measures proposed by Kern River and our recommendation (see 

section 4.11). 

We reviewed the area within a five mile radius of the proposed site, the general distance at which an 

alternative site would be viable based on the design of the proposed Project, and found the terrain to be 

generally similar with comparable land uses. In addition to the proposed compressor station site at 

KRMP 326.9 on Kern River’s existing system, we evaluated one alternative site for the proposed Milford 

Compressor Station (KRMP 326.5) (see figure 3.6.1-1). Project noise and air emission impacts at the 

proposed Milford Compressor Station, and plans to minimize and mitigate those impacts, are discussed in 

section 4.11. As shown in table 3.6.1-1, the proposed compressor site and the alternative site are similar in 

land use. No noise-sensitive areas would be located within 0.5 mile of either the proposed or alternative sites. 

 The proposed Milford Compressor Station site and the alternative site are both located on BLM land and are 

currently managed as rangeland. In general, conditions at the proposed and alternative site are similar and as 

such would have similar environmental consequences. The one exception is that the proposed site has more 

direct access via existing improved roads, whereas the alternative site would require construction of a 0.2-

mile access road resulting in additional acres of impact. Therefore, in the absence of a site that would clearly 

be environmentally preferable to the proposed site, we have eliminated any sites for further analysis. We 

have determined that the alternative site as discussed above would be environmentally acceptable. 
3-38

TABLE 3.6.1-1 

Comparison of Milford Compressor Station Site Alternative and the 

Proposed Apex Expansion Project 

Evaluation Criterion 

Proposed Project 

Site Alternative Site 

Construction impacts (acres) 33.2 33.2 

Permanent impacts (acres) 33.2 33.2 

Prime farmland (acres) 0.0 0.0 

Noise-sensitive areas within 0.25 mile 

(number) 

0 0 

Noise-sensitive areas within 0.5 mile 

(number) 

0 0 

Land availability Available Available 

Land uses Rangeland Rangeland 
NV UT

Date: July 2010 Figure 3.6.1-1

APEX EXPANSION PROJECT

MILFORD COMPRESSOR STATION 

SITE ALTERNATIVES

0 0.2 0.4 0.8

Miles

Legend

Proposed Wasatch Loop

Existing Kern River Pipeline

Proposed Location

Alternative Location

Project Area

 ̄

3-39