5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

5.1 CONCLUSIONS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 

The conclusions and recommendations presented in this section are those of the FERC 

environmental staff. Our conclusions and recommendations were developed with input from the USFS, 

BLM, and Reclamation as cooperating agencies. The USFS, BLM, and Reclamation could adopt this EIS 

per 40 CFR 1506.3 if, after an independent review of the document, they conclude that their permitting 

requirements have been satisfied. However, these agencies would present their own conclusions and 

recommendations in their respective RODs. Otherwise, they may elect to conduct their own supplemental 

environmental analysis. 

Based on our review of information provided by Kern River; literature research; alternatives 

analysis; comments from federal, state, and local agencies; and input from public groups and individual 

citizens, we have determined that construction and operation of the proposed Apex Expansion Project 

would result in some adverse environmental impacts. However, we believe that environmental impacts 

would be reduced to less than significant levels if the proposed Project is constructed and operated in 

accordance with applicable laws and regulations, Kern River’s proposed mitigation, and additional 

measures we recommend in this draft EIS. Most impacts would be temporary and short-term; however, 

the Project could result in some long-term and potentially permanent impacts on sagebrush, upland forest, 

forested wetland vegetation, and individual wildlife species. Although the mitigation proposed by Kern 

River would reduce most of these impacts, as part of our review, we developed specific mitigation 

measures that we determined would appropriately and reasonably minimize the environmental impacts 

resulting from construction and operation of the proposed Project. We are therefore recommending that 

our mitigation measures be attached as conditions to any authorization issued by the Commission. A 

summary of the anticipated Project impacts and our conclusions is provided below by resource. 

5.1.1 Geology 

Potential geologic hazards in the Project area include faults, landslides, and subsidence. The 

proposed Project would cross four faults near MPs 2.0, 2.3, 19.2, and 25.6. Potential hazards associated 

with faults would be mitigated through the use of extra wall thickness steel pipe and placement of 

granular/sand backfill material underneath and surrounding the pipeline near the active fault at MP 25.6. 

Kern River has mitigated for landslide hazards by re-routing the pipeline to areas of low risk. Kern River 

anticipates that blasting may be necessary between MP 0.0 to 19.0 where hard bedrock occurs at depths of 

five feet or less. Kern River would follow all applicable state, federal and local regulations regarding 

blasting as specified in its blasting plan. 

Kern River would utilize its PRMP that was developed for the 2003 Kern River Expansion 

Project to mitigate impacts on paleontological resources. The PRMP would be adapted for the proposed 

Project and provides procedures for obtaining pre-construction approvals, monitoring identified 

significant fossil locations during construction and addresses procedures for unanticipated discovery of 

fossils during construction. 

Construction and operation of the Project would cause minimal impact on geological resources. 

The primary geological effect of the Project construction would be disturbances to the existing 

topography along the proposed pipeline construction right-of-way, but all areas disturbed during pipeline 

construction would be finish-graded and restored as closely as possible to pre-construction contours 

during cleanup and restoration. With the implementation of Kern River’s Plan and Procedures, impacts 

on geological resources would be adequately minimized. 

5-1
5.1.2 Soils 

The Project would traverse a variety of soil types and conditions. Construction activities 

associated with the proposed Project, such as clearing, grading, trenching, and backfilling, could 

adversely affect soil resources by causing erosion, compaction, and loss of soil productivity and fertility 

by mixing of topsoil and subsurface soil horizons and changing drainage patterns. However, Kern River 

would implement the mitigation measures contained in its Plan, Procedures, and Reclamation Plan to 

control erosion, enhance successful revegetation, and minimize any potential adverse impacts on soil 

resources. Specifically, potential soil impacts would be mitigated through measures such as topsoil 

stripping, compaction treatment, and monitoring of revegetation to ensure that density and cover of nonnuisance vegetation were similar in density and cover to adjacent undisturbed lands. Additionally, Kern 

River would implement an SPCC Plan during construction and operation to prevent and contain, if 

necessary, accidental spills of any material that may contaminate soils and to ensure that any inadvertent 

spills of fuel, lubricant, or solvents are contained and cleaned up in an appropriate manner. 

Permanent impacts on soils would mainly occur at the existing and proposed compressor stations 

and other aboveground facilities where the sites would be graveled and converted to natural gas facility 

use. 

5.1.3 Water Resources 

The Apex Expansion Project would transverse portions of two major aquifer systems: the Basin 

and Range aquifer system in Utah and Nevada and the Upper Colorado River Basin aquifer system in 

Wyoming. 

The Wasatch Loop would be within 150 feet of three public water supply wells. Because all 

active water wells within 150 feet of the proposed pipeline route have not been identified, we are 

recommending that Kern River file completed surveys for all potable water supply wells and springs. 

Kern River would implement measures in its Groundwater Monitoring Plan to address the preventative 

and mitigative measures that would be implemented to avoid or minimize the potential impacts of 

construction on wells and springs. This includes Kern River’s commitment to perform pre- and postconstruction monitoring for well yield and water quality for private wells and springs within 200 feet and 

public wells and springs within 400 feet of the proposed construction right-of-way and repair or replace 

any damaged wells or springs or provide an alternate water source. 

No surface waters would be located within or immediately adjacent to the boundaries of the 

existing and proposed new aboveground facilities, including the proposed Milford Compressor Station. 

The pipeline would cross 12 perennial waterbodies, 7 intermittent waterbodies, and 2 ephemeral 

waterbodies. If water is flowing at the time of construction, Kern River would cross the waterbodies 

using a dry crossing method. If water is not present at the time of construction, these waterbodies would 

be crossed using open-cut methods. All waterbody crossings would be accomplished in accordance with 

Kern River’s Procedures and the terms of any applicable federal and state permits that may be granted. 

Kern River proposes to withdraw water from two rivers, one reservoir, and municipal sources for 

the purposes of hydrostatic testing and dust abatement. Test water would not be chemically treated and 

would be released within the same hydrologic basin from which it was withdrawn. In addition, Kern 

River would obtain appropriate NPDES discharge permits prior to conducting hydrostatic testing. 

Accidental spills during construction and operations would be prevented or adequately minimized through 

implementation of Kern River’s Procedures and SPCC Plan. 

5-2
The pipeline would cross approximately 2,027 feet of land classified as wetlands. No wetlands 

would be impacted by construction of the Milford Compressor Station or modifications to the existing 

compressor stations. All wetland crossings would be subject to review by the COE. Kern River would 

also comply with all conditions of the Section 404 authorizations that may be issued by the COE. 

Kern River proposes to use a construction right-of-way width of up to 100 feet in wetlands. We 

are recommending that Kern River limit the construction right-of-way width to 75 feet in the wetland at 

MP 26.4 unless it is determined at the time of construction, that soils within this wetland are saturated to 

warrant a wider right-of-way. We are allowing a wider right-of-way than 75 in wetlands in specified 

locations due to site-specific conditions. Additionally, according to Kern River’s Procedures, which are 

consistent with the our Procedures, extra work areas should be located a minimum of 50 feet away from 

wetland boundaries, except where approved of otherwise. Kern River proposes to locate three ATWSs 

within wetlands and one ATWS within 50 feet of a wetland boundary and we believe Kern River has 

provided adequate justification for these sites. With adherence to Kern River’s Plan and Procedures, Kern 

River’s Reclamation Plan, our recommended mitigation, and COE permit requirements, overall impacts 

on water resources would be adequately minimized. Impacts on herbaceous and scrub-shrub wetlands 

resulting from the proposed Project would be temporary and short-term as wetlands would be expected to 

return to their pre-construction status within 3 to 5 years. Impacts on the 0.6 acre of forested wetland 

affected would be long-term due to the length of time for forested species to regenerate. However, 0.1 

acre of forested wetland would be permanently impacted by the Apex Expansion Project because it is 

located within the permanent right-of-way and would permanently be converted from forested to 

emergent or scrub-shrub wetland. 

5.1.4 Vegetation 

The Apex Expansion Project would permanently impact eight vegetative cover types: Great 

Basin sagebrush (65.3 acres), mountain mahogany-oak scrub (87.1 acres), Douglas fir (19.3 acres), 

riparian canyon woodlands (0.9 acres), open grassland (8.5 acres), saline-alkaline wetlands (3.6 acres), 

improved pasture (7.9 acres), and industrial/disturbed lands (10.1 acres). 

Impacts on agricultural lands would be short-term as these lands would revert to pervious 

conditions following restoration. Lands currently dominated by herbaceous growth may revegetate 

quickly or may require more than 1 year, depending on a number of factors such as resumption of normal 

hydrologic inputs following restoration and planting of the right-of-way. Lands with scrub-shrub 

vegetation that would be cleared during construction would likely require 3 to 10 years to regain their 

woody composition and may require decades to develop a mature seral stage. 

Forested lands that are cleared would constitute the most significant impact due to the 

pronounced change in appearance, structure, and function as mature trees would be replaced by earlier 

successional stage species and would require decades for mature trees to be restored. During the 

operation of the proposed pipeline, trees would not be allowed to grow within the permanent right-of-way 

corridor, resulting in a permanent conversion of cover type in that area to an herbaceous or scrub-shrub 

state. 

During noxious weed surveys conducted for the proposed Project, six noxious weed species were 

encountered within the right-of-way. The potential spread of these weeds would be controlled by 

implementation of Kern River’s Noxious Weed Control Plan. 

Kern River would restore all disturbed areas in accordance with its Plan and Procedures and the 

specific recommendations of USFS, BLM, Reclamation, and state and local agencies. Given the 

5-3
measures in Kern River’s Plan, Procedures, and Reclamation Plan, effects to upland vegetation would be 

effectively minimized. 

5.1.5 Wildlife 

The wetlands and upland vegetation communities crossed by the proposed Project route support 

habitats that provide cover and forage for a variety of wildlife species, including birds, mammals, reptiles, 

and amphibians. The Apex Expansion Project would affect wildlife and wildlife habitats along the 

proposed route; these impacts could be temporary, short-term, long-term, or permanent. Specifically, 

wildlife could be displaced, injured, or killed by construction activities; but these impacts would not result 

in population level effects. Construction of the Project would cause habitat fragmentation, especially in 

forested areas and shrub habitats where the proposed right-of-way deviates from the existing right-ofway. To minimize potential impacts on wildlife, the pipeline would be collocated or constructed adjacent 

to existing rights-of-way for much of its length using previously disturbed areas to the extent practical. 

This would reduce habitat fragmentation and the potential impact on wildlife habitat for many species. 

Kern River anticipates that blasting would likely be required, and that some blasting would occur 

between April 15 and August 31 within crucial habitat, including portions of mule deer summer and 

moose year-long crucial habitat. To minimize impacts, we are recommending that Kern River conduct all 

blasting within crucial habitat outside of the season of highest use or develop site-specific measures to 

minimize blasting impacts in coordination with the applicable agencies. 

Four big game species occur within the proposed Project area: mule deer, elk, pronghorn, and 

moose. Kern River’s proposed construction time-frame, between late spring and early fall, would result 

in active construction occurring in crucial summer, summer/fall, and year-long habitats for big game 

species. As a result, it is likely that big game would experience some adverse effects during these 

periods. However, Kern River would conduct clearing activities during fall/winter which would cause 

active construction during spring/summer to be of a slightly shorter duration. 

A variety of migratory bird species, including both songbirds and raptors, are associated with the 

habitats identified along the proposed Project. Construction could cause direct and indirect impacts on 

raptors and other migratory birds. In order to minimize these impacts, Kern River has collocated much of 

the right-of-way adjacent to other pipelines or proposed pipelines which minimizes fragmentation of 

habitat and the potential for predaceous species to invade large contiguous habitats where some obligate 

bird species breed and fledge young. In addition, Kern River would conduct clearing and grading in late 

fall/winter, outside of the bird breeding season. Kern River is continuing to coordinate with resource 

agencies regarding implementation of protective measures for birds protected by the MBTA and will 

resume coordination after their 2010 surveys have been completed; however, Kern River’s currently 

proposed mitigation measures are inconsistent with those recommended by FWS’s Guidelines for Raptor 

Protection. Therefore, we are recommending that Kern River provide the results of the raptor surveys to 

FWS, UDWR, USFS, and BLM and provide any buffers or other mitigation developed. 

Implementation of Kern River’s Plan, Procedures, Reclamation Plan, our recommendations, and 

maximizing collocation with existing rights-of-way would minimize impacts on wildlife species. 

5.1.6 Fisheries and Aquatic Resources 

According to UDWR, six of the perennial streams crossed are capable of supporting a fish, 

including one warmwater fishery and five coldwater fisheries. There are no fisheries at any of the 

compressor station sites (proposed and existing), staging areas, construction support yards, or access 

roads. Construction of the proposed Project could result in impacts on waterbodies and fisheries from 

5-4
sedimentation and turbidity, habitat alteration, streambank erosion, fuel and chemical spills, water 

depletions, entrainment or entrapment due to water withdrawals. The extent of impact on aquatic 

resources from pipeline construction would depend on the waterbody crossing method, the existing 

conditions at each crossing location, the restoration procedures and mitigation measures employed, and 

the timing of construction. Kern River proposes to cross all waterbodies either when they are dry or using 

a dry-crossing method to minimize impacts on aquatic resources. All waterbody crossings would be 

accomplished in accordance with Kern River’s Procedures and the terms of any applicable federal or sate 

permits that may be granted. 

Intake screening to limit entrainment of fishes and maintenance of adequate streamflow rates to 

protect aquatic life during hydrostatic test water withdrawals would further minimize Project-related 

impacts on aquatic resources. 

Kern River would adhere to the FERC and agency timing windows for coolwater and warmwater 

fisheries to further minimize impacts on fishery resources. We are recommending that it adhere to the 

timing windows for coldwater fisheries unless it receives state agency concurrence to cross coldwater 

fisheries outside of the timing window. 

If blasting is required within waterbodies, Kern River would adhere to its Blasting Plan which 

outlines conditions for blasting and protections for the environment during and following blasting. These 

protections include using a scare charge to disperse fish, and immediately removing any debris that could 

impede flow in a waterbody. Kern River would provide additional blasting details for specific crossings 

where blasting may be required, and would obtain any additional required permits prior to construction. 

Overall, construction impacts on fisheries would be temporary and minor due to the relatively 

small area within each waterbody that would be affected. By adhering to the measures in Kern River’s 

Procedures, there would be no significant impacts on fisheries as a result of Project construction and 

operations. 

5.1.7 Special Status Species 

Special status species are those species for which state or federal agencies afford an additional 

level of protection by law, regulation, or policy. Included in this category are species federally listed as 

endangered or threatened, considered as candidates for such listing by the FWS, or petitioned for listing 

under the ESA; species managed by the BLM or USFS to prevent listing under the ESA; and those 

species that are state-listed as threatened or endangered or designated as a state species of concern. 

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

listed threatened or endangered species, or species that are candidates or petitioned for listing, are 

reported to potentially occur in the vicinity of the proposed Project. Based on our review of the 

six federally listed species, we have determined that construction and operation of the proposed Project 

may affect but would not likely adversely affect, Utah prairie dog and Ute ladies’ tresses. The remaining 

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

proposed or candidate species. Known habitat for these species would be crossed by the proposed 

Project, and individuals could be impacted or lost; however, the Project would not cross any FWSdesignated critical habitat. Therefore, should the FWS determine that these species warrant listing under 

the ESA prior to construction of the proposed Project, formal Section 7 consultation under the ESA would 

be required. We have requested that the FWS consider this draft EIS as the BA 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 proposed Project. We believe 

5-5
that, given the nature of the species occurrence and the measures that would be implemented as part of the 

proposed Project, impacts on special-status species would be adequately avoided or minimized. 

We are recommending additional mitigation to avoid or reduce impacts on certain federally listed 

and other special status species that may be affected by the Project. We are also recommending that 

construction not begin until after we complete our ESA consultation with the FWS. The analysis in this 

EIS will also be used by other federal cooperating agencies, as applicable, to fulfill their permitting 

requirements. For these reasons, impacts on special-status species have been adequately minimized. 

5.1.8 Land Use and Visual Resources 

As proposed, construction of the Apex Expansion Project would affect approximately 766.4 acres 

of land, including 395.5 acres for the pipeline construction right-of-way and ATWSs; 213.5 acres for pipe 

storage and contractor yards; 95.1 acres for aboveground facilities; and 62.3 acres for access roads. For 

most of the Project, collocation of the pipeline with existing rights-of-way would help to reduce land use, 

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

Following construction, all affected areas outside the permanent right-of-way and aboveground facility 

sites would be restored and allowed to revert to pre-construction conditions and uses. Lands within the 

permanent right-of-way would be restored; however, this land would be subject to routine maintenance as 

discussed in Kern River’s Plan. During operation of the proposed Project, the permanent pipeline rightof-way, aboveground facilities, and permanent access roads would encumber approximately 246.6 acres. 

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

Project route. Kern River would annually maintain a 10-foot-wide area centered over the pipeline and 

would conduct maintenance mowing the 50-foot-wide permanent right-of-way every three years in nonriparian areas. 

Kern River would mitigate any unavoidable impacts on structures located within construction 

work areas per the terms of the agreements negotiated during the easement acquisition process. Two 

existing residences and a barn would be located within 50 feet of proposed construction workspaces. 

Kern River proposes specific measures to reduce residential impacts at these locations including: ensuring 

construction activities progress in a timely manner; maintaining access and traffic flow to the property; 

installing safety fence; and restoring all areas disturbed by construction work areas to “as before or better” 

conditions. We are recommending that Kern River adopt the North Salt Lake III Route Variation which 

would avoid impacts on one of the residences within 50 feet of the proposed construction workspace. 

The Apex Expansion Project would cross several recreation and special interest areas, including, 

a National Forest, BLM land, two state parks, two gravel pits, hunting land, and other recreation areas. 

The most prominent of these special use areas is the UWCNF, which would be crossed between MP 13.3 

and 24.5. Kern River would use special construction methods such as boring to avoid impacts, or time 

the construction to occur when the area is least utilized, such as avoiding certain hunting seasons to 

minimize impacts on these areas. Kern River would consult with the managing agencies to identify 

appropriate avoidance and minimization measures, as appropriate. 

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

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

order to minimize visual impacts, Kern River would reseed all areas affected by construction in 

accordance with their Reclamation Plan to return the impacted vegetation outside of the permanent rightof-way to pre-existing conditions. We are recommending that Kern River submit its visual assessment 

report to the USFS and FERC. 

5-6
With adherence to Kern River’s Plan and Procedures, and Kern River’s Reclamation Plan, overall 

impacts on land use would be adequately minimized. 

5.1.9 Socioeconomics 

The proposed pipeline route and the proposed Milford Compressor Station would affect four 

counties in Utah (Morgan, Davis, Salt Lake, and Beaver), and upgrades to existing facilities would occur 

in two counties in Utah (Utah and Millard), one county in Wyoming (Uinta), and one county in Nevada 

(Clark). For the purposes of our socioeconomic analysis, these counties are defined as the “region of 

influence” for the proposed Project. Population densities in the region of influence range from a low of 

1.9 persons per square mile in Millard County, Utah to a high of 1,219 persons per square mile in Salt 

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

respective state. 

Kern River proposes to utilize one construction spread for the Wasatch Loop with construction 

expected to begin in October 2010 and an in-service date of November 2011. Kern River estimates that 

the peak construction workforce would be 871 workers, with 541 workers associated with the proposed 

Wasatch Loop and 330 workers associated with upgrades at four compressor stations and construction of 

the one new compressor station (Milford Compressor Station). Due to the large number of hotel/motels 

and vacant rental units available in Salt Lake County, especially in Salt Lake City, it is anticipated that the 

majority of the workforce for the proposed Wasatch Loop would be housed within Salt Lake County, 

generally limiting housing impacts on Morgan and Davis Counties. It is anticipated that the majority of 

the workers for the compressor stations would temporarily relocate to the county where the compressor 

station is located to avoid long commutes. Because the workforces would be small, there would be 

adequate housing for the compressor station workforces. 

There is no evidence that the proposed Project would result in disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects to minority or low-income communities. 

5.1.10 Cultural Resources 

Kern River has conducted cultural resources surveys and prepared reports covering the entire 

proposed Wasatch Loop. Kern River also has completed cultural resources surveys at the proposed 

Milford Compressor Station and along the associated electrical distribution line; at pipe yards/offloading 

areas; and along Project access roads. Surveys remain to be completed for the two recommended route 

variations, some laydown areas and contractor yards, one extra work space, and one access road. 

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

three sites are prehistoric, and two sites are both historic and prehistoric. Fourteen sites are considered 

eligible and 11 are considered not eligible for listing on the NRHP. Of the 14 eligible sites, Kern River 

would avoid impacts on all but two sites. Kern River would mitigate impacts on one of the eligible sites 

and it would either avoid or mitigate impacts on the remaining site.

Cultural resources survey reports for the Project have been submitted to the FERC, USFS, BLM, 

UDOT, UDNR, (as appropriate by jurisdiction) and Utah SHPO for review, and we have received 

comments and concurrence from the USFS, BLM, UDOT, and UDNR. 

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

from Native American tribes were received. Kern River also contacted these groups. To date, the Moapa 

Band of Paiute Indians and Colorado River Indian Tribes have responded, indicating that they had no 

interest in the Project. The Las Vegas Paiute Tribe and the Chemehuevi Indian Tribe did not have any 

5-7
concerns, but requested to be contacted in the event of Project changes or significant discoveries, 

respectively. No other responses have been received to date. 

No historic properties would be affected at the Coyote Creek and Dry Lake Compressor Stations. 

The Section 106 process is complete for these Project components. 

To ensure that our responsibilities under Section 106 of the NHPA are met, we are recommending 

that Kern River not begin construction until all required surveys are completed, survey reports, and any 

necessary treatment plans have been reviewed by the appropriate parties, and we provide written 

notification to proceed. 

5.1.11 Air Quality and Noise 

Air quality impacts associated with construction of the proposed Project would include emissions 

from fossil-fueled construction equipment and fugitive dust. Such air quality impacts would generally be 

temporary and localized, and are not expected to cause or contribute to a violation of applicable air 

quality standards. Operation of the proposed Project would be expected to result in long-term minor 

impacts on air quality at the proposed Milford Compressor Station and the existing compressor stations. 

All of the air emissions associated with operation of the compressor stations would meet federal and state 

ambient air quality standards and would be subject to the conditions of any respective air quality permits 

each state would issue, including emission limits for each of emission-generating source. 

With implementation of the measures proposed by Kern River, impacts related to noise during 

construction would be minor and temporary. If the proposed Project is approved and constructed, we are 

recommending that Kern River measure actual noise levels associated with the Coyote Creek, Elberta, 

and Milford Compressor Stations to confirm that noise levels are below an Ldn of 55 dBA at the nearest 

NSA, or implement the necessary mitigation to ensure that it is. Based on estimated sound levels and our 

recommendation, noise levels attributable to operation of the existing compressor stations and the new 

Milford Compressor Station would not have a significant impact on the surrounding environment. 

5.1.12 Reliability and Safety 

The proposed Project would be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to meet or 

exceed all USDOT safety standards for natural gas pipelines. Following construction, Kern River also 

would initiate a pipeline integrity management plan to ensure public safety during operation. The Project 

would result in only a slight increase in risk to the nearby public. 

5.1.13 Cumulative Effects 

Three types of projects (past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects) could potentially 

contribute to a cumulative impact when considered with the proposed Project. These projects include 

other oil and natural gas gathering and transmission pipelines in the Project area, non-jurisdictional 

facilities associated with the proposed Project, and unrelated projects in the vicinity of the proposed 

pipeline route. We considered the region of influence for the cumulative impact analysis to be the 

counties traversed by the proposed Project. The environmental impacts associated with these projects that 

would be most likely to be cumulatively significant are related to wetlands and waterbodies, vegetation 

and wildlife (including federally and state listed endangered and threatened species), land use, air quality, 

and noise. 

Impacts associated with the proposed Project would be relatively minor overall, and we have 

included recommendations in this EIS to further reduce the environmental impacts associated with the 

5-8
proposed Apex Expansion Project, as summarized in section 5.2. Additionally, Kern River has selected a 

route that collocates with its existing right-of-way to the largest extent possible considering terrain 

constraints, safety, and recent development since the existing pipeline was installed. Similarly, each of 

the other projects considered in our cumulative impacts analysis have been designed to avoid or minimize 

impacts on sensitive environmental resources. Additionally, it is anticipated that any significant impacts 

on sensitive resources resulting from these projects would be mitigated. Mitigation generally leads to 

avoidance or minimization of cumulative impacts. Consequently, only a small incremental cumulative 

effect would be anticipated after the impacts of the proposed Project are added to those of past, present, or 

reasonably foreseeable projects. 

5.1.14 Alternatives Considered 

As an alternative to the proposed action, we evaluated the No Action or Postponed Action 

Alternatives, system alternatives, major route alternatives, route variations, and aboveground facility site 

alternatives. While the No Action or Postponed Action Alternative would eliminate or delay the short 

and long-term environmental impacts identified in this draft EIS, the objectives of the proposed Project 

would not be met, and Kern River would not be able to provide a new source of natural gas to markets 

that can be accessed through the proposed Project. We also evaluated the use of alternative energy 

sources and the potential effects of energy conservation, but these measures would not satisfy the need for 

the proposed Project. 

Our analysis of system alternatives included an evaluation of whether existing or proposed 

natural gas pipeline systems could meet the proposed Project objectives while offering an environmental 

advantage over the proposed Project. In addition to the Kern River System, there are two other existing 

pipeline systems that currently transport natural gas to southern Nevada: El Paso and Transwestern. Both 

would not meet the capacity requirements of the proposed Apex Expansion Project without substantial 

system upgrades, such as new or increased compression and new pipeline looping, or construction of 

additional pipelines. Similarly, it is anticipated that construction and operational impacts associated with 

other system alternatives involving existing/proposed pipelines in the region (Bison Pipeline Project, 

Kanda Lateral and Mainline Expansion, Loop Expansion Project, Rex-West Project, Ruby Pipeline 

Project, and Sunstone Project) would be greater than those of the proposed Project due to the amount of 

looping and new construction required to connect the systems to the Project origin and terminus. 

Consequently, no system alternatives are considered available that are environmentally preferable to the 

proposed Project. 

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

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

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

impacts on localized, specific resources. These minor variations were developed based on comments 

from landowners, resource agencies, and land-managing agencies to avoid or minimize impacts on natural 

and cultural resources, reduce or eliminate engineering and constructability concerns, and avoid or 

minimize conflicts with existing or proposed residential and agricultural land uses. It also is anticipated 

that minor alignment shifts would be made prior to and during construction to accommodate such sitespecific circumstances as landowner concerns. We are recommending that Kern River incorporate the 

Mueller Park Variation into the proposed Project to avoid an inventoried roadless area within USFS 

lands. We are also recommending that Kern River incorporate the North Salt Lake III Variation into the 

proposed Project because it would result in a shorter crossing of USFS lands and would avoid crossing 

the historic CCC terraces. 

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

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

5-9
not identify any alternative sites for the proposed Milford Compressor Station that would offer a 

significant environmental advantage to the proposed site. 

In summary, we have determined that Kern River’s proposed Project, as modified by our 

recommended mitigation measures and route variations, is the preferred alternative that can meet the 

Project objectives. 

5.2 FERC STAFF’S RECOMMENDED MITIGATION 

If the Commission authorizes the Apex Expansion Project, we recommend that the following 

measures be included as specific conditions in the Commission’s Order. We believe that these measures 

would further mitigate the environmental impact associated with construction and operation of the 

proposed Project. In the following section, “file” means to file with the Secretary at the FERC. Certain 

recommendations listed below request that Kern River provide information to assist us in the 

development of the final EIS. Any recommendations that are satisfied by Kern River prior to issuance of 

the final EIS will not be included as recommended conditions in the final EIS. 

1. Kern River shall follow the construction procedures and mitigation measures described in its 

application and supplemental filings (including responses to staff information and data requests), 

and as identified in the EIS, unless modified by the Commission’s Order. Kern River must: 

a. request any modification to these procedures, measures, or conditions in a filing; 

b. justify each modification relative to site-specific conditions; 

c. explain how that modification provides an equal or greater level of environmental 

protection than the original measure; and 

d. receive approval in writing from the Director of OEP before using that modification. 

2. The Director of OEP has delegated authority to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure the 

protection of all environmental resources during construction and operation of the Project. This 

authority shall allow: 

a. the modification of conditions of the Commission’s Order; and 

b. the design and implementation of any additional measures deemed necessary (including 

stop-work authority) to assure continued compliance with the intent of the environmental 

conditions as well as avoidance or mitigation of adverse environmental impact resulting 

from Project construction and operation. 

3. Prior to any construction, Kern River shall file an affirmative statement, certified by a senior 

company official, that all company personnel, Environmental Inspectors, and contractor 

personnel will be informed of the Environmental Inspectors’ authority and have been or will be 

trained on the implementation of the environmental mitigation measures appropriate to their jobs 

before becoming involved with construction and restoration activities. 

4. The authorized facility locations shall be as shown in the EIS, as supplemented by filed alignment 

sheets, and shall include the Mueller Park and North Salt Lake III Variations as described in 

section 3.5.7. As soon as they are available, and before the start of construction, Kern River 

shall file any revised detailed survey alignment maps/sheets at a scale not smaller than 1:6,000 

with station positions for all facilities approved by the Order. All requests for modifications of 

5-10
environmental conditions of the Order or site-specific clearances must be written and must 

reference locations designated on these alignment maps/sheets. 

 Kern River’s exercise of eminent domain authority granted under NGA section 7(h) in any 

condemnation proceedings related to the Order must be consistent with these authorized facilities 

and locations. Kern River’s right of eminent domain granted under NGA Section 7(h) does not 

authorize it to increase the size of its natural gas pipeline to accommodate future needs or to 

acquire a right-of-way for a pipeline to transport a commodity other than natural gas. 

5. Kern River shall file detailed alignment maps/sheets and aerial photographs at a scale not smaller 

than 1:6,000 identifying all route realignments or facility relocations, and staging areas, pipe 

storage yards, new access roads, and other areas that would be used or disturbed and have not 

been previously identified in filings. Approval for each of these areas must be explicitly 

requested in writing. For each area, the request must include a description of the existing land 

use/cover type, documentation of landowner approval, whether any cultural resources or federally 

listed threatened or endangered species would be affected, and whether any other 

environmentally sensitive areas are within or abutting the area. All areas shall be clearly 

identified on the maps/sheets/aerial photographs. Each area must be approved in writing by the 

Director of OEP before construction in or near that area. 

 This requirement does not apply to extra workspace allowed by the Kern River’s Upland Erosion 

Control, Revegetation, and Maintenance Plan, and/or minor field realignments per landowner 

needs and requirements which do not affect other landowners or sensitive environmental areas 

such as wetlands. 

 Examples of alterations requiring approval include all route realignments and facility location 

changes resulting from: 

a. implementation of cultural resources mitigation measures; 

b. implementation of endangered, threatened, or special concern species mitigation 

measures; 

c. recommendations by state regulatory authorities; and 

d. agreements with individual landowners that affect other landowners or could affect 

sensitive environmental areas. 

6. Within 60 days of the acceptance of the Certificate and before construction begins, Kern 

River shall file an Implementation Plan for review and written approval by the Director of OEP. 

Kern River must file revisions to the plan as schedules change. The plan shall identify: 

a. how Kern River will implement the construction procedures and mitigation measures 

described in its application and supplements (including responses to staff data requests), 

identified in the EIS, and required by the Order; 

b. how Kern River will incorporate these requirements into the contract bid documents, 

construction contracts (especially penalty clauses and specifications), and construction 

drawings so that the mitigation required at each site is clear to onsite construction and 

inspection personnel; 

c. the number of Environmental Inspectors assigned for the Wasatch Loop and aboveground 

facility sites, and how the company will ensure that sufficient personnel are available to 

implement the environmental mitigation; 

5-11
d. company personnel, including Environmental Inspectors and contractors, who will 

receive copies of the appropriate material; 

e. the location and dates of the environmental compliance training and instructions Kern 

River will give to all personnel involved with construction and restoration (initial and 

refresher training as the Project progresses and personnel change), (with the opportunity 

for OEP staff to participate in the training session(s)); 

f. the company personnel (if known) and specific portion of Kern River's organization 

having responsibility for compliance; 

g. the procedures (including use of contract penalties) Kern River will follow if 

noncompliance occurs; and 

h. for each discrete facility, a Gantt or PERT chart (or similar Project scheduling diagram), 

and dates for: 

(1) the completion of all required surveys and reports; 

(2) the mitigation training of onsite personnel; 

(3) the start of construction; and 

(4) the start and completion of restoration. 

7. Kern River shall employ a team of two or more Environmental Inspectors for the Wasatch Loop. 

The Environmental Inspectors shall be: 

a. responsible for monitoring and ensuring compliance with all mitigation measures 

required by the Order and other grants, permits, certificates, or other authorizing 

documents; 

b. responsible for evaluating the construction contractor's implementation of the 

environmental mitigation measures required in the contract (see condition 6 above) and 

any other authorizing document; 

c. empowered to order correction of acts that violate the environmental conditions of the 

Order, and any other authorizing document; 

d. a full-time position, separate from all other activity inspectors; 

e. responsible for documenting compliance with the environmental conditions of the Order, 

as well as any environmental conditions/permit requirements imposed by other federal, 

state, or local agencies; and 

f. responsible for maintaining status reports. 

8. Beginning with the filing of its Implementation Plan, Kern River shall file updated status reports 

on a weekly basis until all construction and restoration activities are complete. On request, 

these status reports will also be provided to other federal and state agencies with permitting 

responsibilities. Status reports shall include: 

a. an update on Kern River’s efforts to obtain the necessary federal authorizations; 

b. the construction status of the Project work planned for the following reporting period, and 

any schedule changes for stream crossings or work in other environmentally-sensitive 

areas; 

c. a listing of all problems encountered and each instance of noncompliance observed by the 

Environmental Inspectors during the reporting period (both for the conditions imposed by 

5-12
the Commission and any environmental conditions/permit requirements imposed by other 

federal, state, or local agencies); 

d. a description of the corrective actions implemented in response to all instances of 

noncompliance, and their cost; 

e. the effectiveness of all corrective actions implemented; 

f. a description of any landowner/resident complaints which may relate to compliance with 

the requirements of the Order, and the measures taken to satisfy their concerns; and 

g. copies of any correspondence received by Kern River from other federal, state, or local 

permitting agencies concerning instances of noncompliance, and Kern River’s response. 

9. Prior to receiving written authorization from the Director of OEP to commence 

construction of any Project facilities in each state, Kern River shall file documentation that it 

has received all authorizations required under federal law (or evidence of waiver thereof) in each 

state. 

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

service the Apex Expansion Project facilities. Such authorization will only be granted following 

a determination that rehabilitation and restoration of the right-of-way and other areas affected by 

the Project are proceeding satisfactorily. 

11. Within 30 days of placing the authorized facilities in service, Kern River shall file an 

affirmative statement, certified by a senior company official: 

a. that the facilities have been constructed in compliance with all applicable conditions, and 

that continuing activities will be consistent with all applicable conditions; or 

b. identifying which of the Certificate conditions Kern River has complied with or will 

comply with. This statement shall also identify any areas affected by the Project where 

compliance measures were not properly implemented, if not previously identified in filed 

status reports, and the reason for noncompliance. 

12. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Kern River shall incorporate the Mueller 

Park Variation (MP 13.7-14.7) into the proposed route. In addition, Kern River shall complete 

and file with the FERC all required biological and cultural resources surveys and consultations 

for this recommended variation and provide updated alignment sheets. (Section 3.5.6) 

13. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Kern River shall incorporate the North Salt 

Lake III Variation (MP 22.0-24.9) into the proposed route. In addition, Kern River shall 

complete and file with the FERC all required biological and cultural resources surveys and 

consultations for this recommended variation and provide updated alignment sheets. (Section 

3.5.7) 

14. Prior to construction, Kern River shall file completed surveys for all potable water supply wells 

and springs identified within 150 feet of the proposed construction right-of-way and list any sitespecific measures that it would implement to avoid, minimize, or mitigate for potential impacts 

on water supply wells and springs. (Section 4.3.1.2) 

15. Kern River shall limit the construction right-of-way width in the wetland at MP 26.4 to 75 feet 

unless Kern River files evidence that the soil conditions within this wetland at the time of 

5-13
construction warrant a wider right-of-way, and Kern River receives written approval from the 

Director of OEP to expand the construction right-of-way. (Section 4.3.3.3) 

16. Prior to construction, Kern River shall file a revised blasting plan that either stipulates that any 

blasting within big game crucial habitat would occur outside of the season of highest use or

includes site-specific measures developed in consultation with the USFS, BLM, and UDWR that 

would minimize impacts on big game species during blasting activities. (Section 4.5.3) 

17. Prior to construction, Kern River shall file the results of the raptor surveys and copies of 

consultations with the FWS, UDWR, USFS, and BLM, as applicable, to develop appropriate 

spatial buffers and/or other mitigation measures to protect raptors. (Section 4.5.4) 

18. Prior to construction, Kern River shall file a revised version of its Procedures specifying that the 

time window for crossing coldwater fisheries is between June 1 and September 30, unless 

expressly permitted by the appropriate agencies. (Section 4.6.1.2) 

19. Kern River shall not begin construction of the proposed Project facilities until: 

a. it consults with USFS and FWS regarding potential habitat for the Ute ladies’-tresses 

within the proposed Project area and, if applicable, develop a survey protocol that would 

promote identification of the species; 

b. files the results of any surveys completed for the Ute ladies’-tresses; 

c. the FERC staff completes any necessary consultations with the FWS; and 

d. Kern River has received written notification from the Director of OEP that construction 

and/or use of mitigation (including implementation of conservation measures) may begin. 

(Section 4.7 and Section 4.7.1.6) 

20. Kern River shall adopt the following measures to minimize impacts on greater sage-grouse: 

a. identify all areas of Great Basin sagebrush within the right-of-way and access roads that 

are potential habitat for sage-grouse, regardless of slope gradient, and include those areas 

in the lek surveys proposed for spring 2010; 

b. avoid clearing and construction activities between March 1 and July 31 within a 4-mile 

radius of any active leks encountered during its 2010 surveys; 

c. file a site-specific blasting plan developed in consultation with the FWS and UDWR for 

the sagebrush habitat between MP 3.8 and 4.6 that includes measures for both sagegrouse and pygmy rabbit; and 

d. plant Great Basin sagebrush within the construction work area during restoration at MP 

0.0-2.5, 3.8-4.6, and 11.5-11.8. (Section 4.7.1.1) 

21. If construction is to occur through suitable yellow-billed cuckoo habitat at MP 0.9, 5.0-5.4, 17.3, 

19.8, and 21.2 during the breeding season, Kern River shall conduct audio surveys immediately 

prior to such construction. If individuals or evidence of yellow-billed cuckoos are found, Kern 

River shall not begin construction in these areas until we have reviewed Kern River’s proposed 

avoidance and/or mitigation measures, as well as any agency comments on these measures, and 

Kern River has received written notification from the Director of OEP that construction or use of 

mitigation may begin. (Section 4.7.1.2) 

5-14
5-15

22. Prior to construction, Kern River shall file the results of its 2010 pygmy rabbit surveys and 

Utah prairie dog surveys, and submit the results to the FWS, BLM, and UDWR. If individuals or 

evidence of pygmy rabbits or Utah prairie dogs are found, Kern River shall file a plan detailing 

pygmy rabbit and/or Utah prairie dog avoidance/mitigation measures developed in consultation 

with the applicable agencies, for review and written approval of the Director of OEP. (Section 

4.7.1.3 and 4.7.1.4) 

23. Prior to the end of the draft EIS comment period, Kern River shall complete and file with the 

Secretary and the USFS, a visual assessment report for the USFS-managed lands. (Section 

4.8.4.1) 

24. Kern River shall not begin construction of facilities and/or use of staging, storage, or temporary 

work areas, and new or to-be-improved access roads until: 

a. Kern River files: 

(1) the Utah SHPO’s comments on the survey reports; 

(2) the Utah SHPO’s comments on the Milford, Elberta, and Fillmore 

Compressor Stations; 

(3) a survey report for the Mueller Park and North Salt Lake III Route 

Variations, any outstanding areas and newly identified areas that remain 

to be surveyed, and the Utah SHPO’s, USFS’s, and BLM’s comments (as 

appropriate) on the report; and 

(4) any required avoidance and/or mitigation/treatment plan, and the 

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

b. the ACHP is afforded an opportunity to comment if historic properties would be 

adversely affected; and 

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

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

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

proceed. 

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

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

labeled in bold lettering ―CONTAINS PRIVILEDGED INFORMATION – DO NOT 

RELEASE. (Section 4.10.4)

25. Kern River shall file noise surveys no later than 60 days after placing the Milford Compressor 

Station and the authorized units at the Coyote Creek and Elberta Compressor Stations in service. 

If the noise attributable to the operation of all of the equipment at the identified compressor 

stations at full load exceeds an Ldn of 55 dBA at any nearby NSAs, Kern River shall install the 

additional noise controls to meet the level within 1 year of each station’s in-service date. Kern 

River shall confirm compliance with the above requirement by filing a second set of noise 

surveys no later than 60 days after it installs the additional noise controls. (Section 4.11.2.4)