EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce adverse impacts. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PROPOSED ACTION 

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

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

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

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

operate: 

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

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

er compressor station (known as the Milford Compressor Station) 

 

County; 

 one new 30,000-horsepow

in Beaver County, Utah; 

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

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

1

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

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

through that portion of the system. 

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

ocated in Clark County, Nevada); 

 six mainline valves; and 

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

under the FERC’s jurisdiction, we3

 include it in our environmental review. 

formation related to the Project into the 

public r

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

any con

 and 

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

nvironmental mailing list included in Appendix A. 

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

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

actions in the Project area. 

 

County, Utah; and the Dry Lake Compressor Station l

 three pig launcher and two pig receiver facilities.2

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

the Milford Compressor Stat

transmission line does not fall 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

officials, and the general public 

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

environmental review process. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

endangered species, safety, alternatives, air qua

draft EIS is being mailed to the Commission’s e

PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 

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

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

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

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

safety. Where necessary, w

2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mitigation measures. 

Geology, Paleontology, and Soils 

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

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

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

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

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

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

material underneath and surrounding the pipeline near the fault. 

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

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

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

procedures for unanticipated discovery of fossils during construction. 

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

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

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

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

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

revegetation efforts. 

Waterbody Crossings, Water Use, and Wetlands 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

applicable National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vegetation, Wildlife, and Federally Listed Species 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

of time to reach pre-construction condition. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

on each waterbody during construction. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ES-4 
Land Use and Visual Resources 

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

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

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

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

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

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

section centered over the pipeline. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

impacts on the Hogsback Roadless Area. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

before the end of the draft EIS comment period. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

impacts of crossing public and recreational lands. 

Cultural Resources 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ES-5 
Air Quality and Noise 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

quality standards. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

anticipated that construction and operational impacts associated with system alternatives involving 

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

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

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

proposed Project. 

ES-6 
ES-7 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

proposed Project. 

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

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

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

significant environmental advantage to the proposed site. 

MAJOR CONCLUSIONS 

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

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

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

conditions to any authorization issued by the Commission. 

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

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

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

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

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

conclusions are supported by the following: 

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

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

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

authorizations prior to commencement of construction; 

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

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

natural resources during construction and operation of the proposed Project; 

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

construction; and 

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

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

would be completed before initiating construction.