EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce adverse impacts. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PROPOSED ACTION 

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

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

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

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

operate: 

 approximately 27.6 miles of 36-inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline loop1

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

County; 

 one new 30,000-horsepower compressor station (known as the Milford Compressor Station) 

in Beaver County, Utah; 

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

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

 

1

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

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

through that portion of the system. 

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

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

 six mainline valves (four new and two existing that require modifications); and 

 three pig launcher and two pig receiver facilities.2

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

the Milford Compressor Station would be constructed by PacifiCorp (doing business as Rocky Mountain 

Power). Although the approximately 1.4-mile electric transmission line does not fall under the FERC’s 

jurisdiction, we3

 include it in our environmental review. 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

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

established a pre-filing docket number (PF09-07-000) to place information related to the Project into the 

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

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

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

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

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

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

officials, and the general public about the Project. Attendees were invited to ask questions and submit 

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

environmental review process. 

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

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

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

and sent to our environmental mailing list that includes affected landowners; federal, state, and local 

government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; 

local libraries; newspapers; and other interested parties. In response to our notice, public site visits, and 

two public scoping meetings held along the proposed pipeline route, we received numerous comments 

from landowners, concerned citizens, public officials, and government agencies regarding the proposed 

Project. These comments expressed concerns with the location of the proposed pipeline and the effects of 

the proposed Project on resources and land uses, including soils, geology, waterbodies, wetlands, wildlife, 

vegetation, threatened and endangered species, safety, alternatives, air quality, noise, and state- and 

federally managed lands. The draft EIS was filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

and a formal notice of availability was issued in the Federal Register on April 2, 2010. A copy of the 

draft EIS was mailed to those agencies, tribes organizations, and individuals that attended meetings or 

submitted written comments on the Project, as well as to our environmental mailing list. The Federal 

Register notice established a 45-day comment period on the draft EIS that ended May 17, 2010. 

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

provided interested parties with an opportunity to present oral comments on our analysis of the 

environmental impacts of the proposed Project as described in the draft EIS. One person commented at 

the meetings. In addition, we received 14 written comment letters on the draft EIS from federal, state, 

 

2

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

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

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

ES-2 
and local agencies; potentially affected landowners; and other interested parties. All timely 

environmental comments on the draft EIS have been addressed in this final EIS. 

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

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

Register. 

PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 

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

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

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

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

safety. Where necessary, we recommended additional mitigation to minimize or avoid these impacts. We 

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

actions in the Project area. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mitigation measures. 

Geology, Paleontology, and Soils 

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

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

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

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

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

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

material underneath and surrounding the pipeline near the fault. 

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

River would utilize its Paleontological Resource Management Plan (PRMP) that was developed for the 

Apex Expansion Project. The PRMP contains procedures for obtaining pre-construction approvals, 

monitoring of identified significant fossil locations during construction, and procedures for unanticipated 

discovery of fossils during construction. 

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

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

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

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

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

revegetation efforts. 

ES-3 
Waterbody Crossings, Water Use, and Wetlands 

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

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

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

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

by following measures identified in its Procedures. 

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

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

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

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

applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements. 

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

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

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

minimized. 

Vegetation, Wildlife, and Federally Listed Species 

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

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

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

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

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

River’s experience from previous construction and expansion projects in the vicinity. Kern River 

prepared a Reclamation Plan that incorporates new technical standards or information in consultation with 

the BLM, the USFS, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Impacts on vegetation would 

range from short term to long term depending on vegetation type impacted and amount of time to reach 

pre-construction condition. 

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

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

Project would avoid or minimize impacts on migratory birds by maximizing collocation and by 

conducting clearing activities in fall 2010, outside of the breeding season. Implementation of Kern 

River’s Plan and Procedures and timing restrictions would minimize the effects of the proposed Project 

on wildlife in general. Kern River has also proposed habitat mitigation in the form of land acquisition for 

the short- and long-term loss of big game crucial habitat. Kern River conducted surveys for raptors in 

2010 and observed individuals as well as nests and roosts and would employ qualified biologists to 

monitor active nests occurring within 0.5-mile of active construction during the nesting season. Preconstruction raptor and bald eagle winter roost surveys would be conducted prior to construction and we 

are recommending that Kern River be required to file the results of those surveys, file a revised Biological 

Resources Mitigation Plan (Appendix M) as appropriate, and file written correspondence with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), USFS, and BLM 

regarding all species-specific mitigation. Kern River has revised its Blasting Plan in consultation with 

USFS, BLM, and UDWR to include the detonation of scare charges, 3 days, 1 day, and 1 hour prior to 

any blasting in the areas of concern to minimize the potential for big game to be impacted by flyrock 

during actual blasting activities. 

ES-4 
Construction of the proposed waterbody crossings could result in impacts on fisheries from 

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

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

blasting. Kern River would employ dry-ditch crossing methods and implement the mitigation measures 

included within its Procedures to minimize aquatic resource impacts. Overall, construction impacts on 

fisheries would be temporary due to the relatively small area in which each waterbody would be affected 

and the measures that Kern River would follow to minimize impacts on each waterbody during 

construction. 

Based on Kern River’s consultation with the FWS and our review of existing records, six 

federally listed threatened or endangered species, or species that are candidates or petitioned for federal 

listing, are reported to potentially occur in the vicinity of the proposed Project. We have determined that 

construction and operation of the proposed Project may affect but would not likely adversely affect the 

Utah prairie dog and Ute Ladies’-tresses. We requested that the FWS consider the draft EIS as the 

Biological Assessment for the proposed Project. On April 27, 2010, the FWS concurred with our 

determinations with the understanding that the FERC would re-initiate Section 7 consultation if either 

species is found in the Project area during surveys. The remaining species (greater sage-grouse, yellowbilled cuckoo, pygmy rabbit, and Northern leopard frog) are proposed or candidate species. Known 

habitat for these species would be crossed by the Project, and individuals could be impacted or lost. Kern 

River has proposed compensatory mitigation for the disruption of crucial sage-grouse habitat and would 

conduct pre-construction clearance surveys within known habitat for the northern leopard frog. 

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

state-identified special status species could occur within the vicinity of the Project. We are 

recommending that outstanding surveys for special-status amphibians, the American pika, and sensitive 

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

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

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

minimized. 

Land Use and Visual Resources 

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

agricultural land, forest, and special use areas. The majority of the pipeline (71.5 percent) would be 

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

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

right-of-way along the approximately 27.6 miles of the Project route which would overlap Kern River’s 

existing easement where the facilities are collocated. Kern River would maintain, in an herbaceous or 

scrub-shrub state centered on the pipeline, a 10-foot-wide corridor within wetlands and areas adjacent to 

waterbodies and a 20-foot-wide corridor in uplands. Vegetation maintenance within the permanent rightof-way would not occur more frequently than every 3 years. 

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

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

inventoried roadless areas on National Forest System lands. Kern River’s originally proposed route, as 

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

Roadless Area and the Hogsback Roadless Area. The Hogsback roadless area is identified in the set of 

inventoried roadless area maps contained in the November 2000 Forest Service Roadless Area 

Conservation Final Environmental Impact Statement. Since the issuance of the draft EIS, Kern River 

revised its proposed pipeline route to avoid impacts on the Hogsback Roadless Area completely. No 

ES-5 
reasonable alternative was identified to avoid the Mueller Park Roadless Area. A total of approximately 

15.7 acres of forested land would be cleared within the Mueller Park Roadless Area for construction of 

the proposed pipeline. With the implementation of Kern River’s Reclamation Plan, approximately 

11 acres of forested land within this roadless area would be able to re-grow upon completion of pipeline 

construction. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

has conducted an initial visual assessment for USFS lands crossed by the proposed Project. Because this 

assessment is not completed we recommended that Kern River file its final visual assessment report that 

contains the specific mitigation strategies before the start of construction. 

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

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

and visual impacts by decreasing the need for new rights-of-way across these areas. Kern River also 

incorporated the FERC-recommended North Salt Lake III Route Variation to further collocate the 

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

residence at the original MP 24.5. While this avoided impacts on the residence at the original MP 24.5, a 

modification to the route variation at the request of an already encumbered landowner, places the 

proposed workspace within 50 feet of said landowner at MP 24.1A and a second residence at MP 24.2A. 

Cultural Resources 

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

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

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

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

archaeological sites. Twenty-four of the sites are either not eligible for the National Register of Historic 

Places, or would be avoided. Kern River would mitigate impacts on the remaining eligible site. The 

review process under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is on-going for the North Salt 

Lake III and Mueller Park Route Variations. Survey reports are currently under review. We 

recommended that no construction activities begin until all required surveys are completed, reports and 

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

Air Quality and Noise 

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

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

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

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

and construction activities would be controlled to the extent required by state and local agencies. We 

conclude that emissions from construction-related activities would not significantly affect local or 

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

standards. 

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

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

ES-6 
Station. The modification at the Fillmore Compressor Station would not result in an increase in operating 

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

operation for each station prior to commencing construction. The new emission sources proposed would 

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

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

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

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

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

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

presented in the acoustical analysis, noise levels would remain below a day-night sound level (Ldn) of 55 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

anticipated that construction and operational impacts associated with system alternatives involving 

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

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

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

proposed Project. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

the draft EIS and were found to offer environmental advantages. Subsequently, Kern River incorporated 

these route variations into the proposed Project. 

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

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

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

significant environmental advantage to the proposed site. 

ES-7 
ES-8 

MAJOR CONCLUSIONS 

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

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

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

conditions to any authorization issued by the Commission. 

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

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

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

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

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

supported by the following: 

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

approximately 20 miles, or about 71.5 percent of the route; 

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

authorizations prior to commencement of construction; 

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

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

natural resources during construction and operation of the proposed Project; 

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

construction; 

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

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

would be completed before initiating construction; and 

 Kern River would finalize its visual assessment report to include the mitigation measures that 

would be implemented in consultation with the USFS prior to commencement of 

construction.