Final 

Overland Pass Natural Gas Liquids Pipeline 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Volume I 

Wyoming State Office - Rawlins Field Office 

Bureau of Land Management

Cooperating Agency: U.S.D.A. Forest Service 

August 2007
MISSION STATEMENT 

It is the mission of the Bureau of Land Management to sustain the health, diversity, 

and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future 

generations. 

BLM/WY/PL-07/026+5101 

AS-06-01095 



ABSTRACT 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

OVERLAND PASS PIPELINE PROJECT 

( ) Draft (X) Final 

Lead Agency: The United States Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

Rawlins Field Office 

Project Location: Lincoln, Sweetwater, Carbon, Albany, and Laramie 

counties, Wyoming; Larimer, Weld, Morgan, Logan, 

Washington, and Yuma counties, Colorado; and 

Cheyenne, Rawlins, Thomas, Sheridan, Gove, Trego, 

Ellis, Russell, Barton, Ellsworth, Rice, and McPherson 

counties, Kansas 

Address Comments 

on this EIS to: Bureau of Land Management 

Attention: Chuck Valentine, Realty Specialist 

1300 North Third Street 

Rawlins, WY 82301 

or 

Email: Overland_Pipeline_WY@blm.gov 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has received a proposal from the Overland Pass 

Pipeline Company LLC (Overland Pass), a subsidiary of ONEOK and William’s Field Service 

Company, LLC (Williams), to construct and operate an approximately 760-mile-long pipeline that 

would begin at existing facilities in Opal, Wyoming, and end at existing facilities in Conway, 

Kansas. The project would transport up to 150,000 barrels per day of natural gas liquids. 

The project would cross federal lands managed by the BLM and U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service (USFS). The project would affect land in three BLM field offices in Wyoming: the 

Kemmerer, Rock Springs, and Rawlins field offices. The project also would cross National Forest 

System lands within the Flaming Gorge National Recreational Area in Wyoming and the Pawnee 

National Grassland in Colorado. 

The pipeline would be approximately 14-inch-diameter between Opal and Echo Springs, 

Wyoming, and 16-inch-diameter from Echo Springs, Wyoming, to Conway, Kansas. Overland 

Pass would construct the new pipeline within a temporary 75-foot-wide construction right-of-way 

(ROW). After construction and reclamation, the permanent ROW would be 50 feet wide, centered 

on the pipeline. 

In addition to the pipeline, the project would require additional aboveground facilities including 

2 pump stations (and 1 future pump station), 7 meter stations, 11 pigging facilities, and 

94 mainline valves. The pipeline and aboveground facilities would be constructed in accordance 

to federal pipeline safety regulations. 

New electrical service would be required for the pump and meter stations, though the powerlines 

would be permitted under a separate permitting process. 

Three alternatives were considered in detail. The No Action Alternative is required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act as a baseline against which other action alternatives can be analyzed. 
ii Abstract

Under this alternative, the BLM ROW grant to construct the pipeline and its ancillary facilities as 

requested by Overland Pass would not be authorized. Consequently, the No Action Alternative 

represents the continuation of the existing conditions. 

The Proposed Action would cause the surface disturbance of approximately 8,317 acres during 

construction. Of this total, approximately 4,619 acres would be maintained for permanent ROW 

and associated aboveground facilities. To minimize environmental impacts, the Proposed Action 

would be co-located with other existing utilities for approximately 623.7 miles (82 percent) of its 

length. The Proposed Action would cross federal lands managed by the BLM and USFS. 

Under the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative, the project would be the 

same as the Proposed Action except that approximately 25 miles of the proposed pipeline route 

in the Green River, Wyoming area would be shifted further south. The alternative route would 

primarily be located within an existing, BLM-designated utility window, thereby increasing the 

amount of co-located pipeline. While most aspects of this alternative (e.g., aboveground facility 

requirements) would be the same as the Proposed Action, this alternative would be 4.8 miles 

longer then the Proposed Action and would be located in steeper terrain, causing potential 

difficulties for construction and restoration. 

The BLM Preferred Alternative is the Proposed Action. 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Executive Summary 

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

differs from the corresponding text in the Draft EIS 

Introduction 

Overland Pass Pipeline Company LLC (Overland Pass), a subsidiary of ONEOK and William’s Field Service 

Company, LLC, is proposing to construct an approximately 760-mile-long, natural gas liquids (NGL) pipeline 

that will begin at existing facilities in Opal, Wyoming, and end at existing facilities in Conway, Kansas. The 

project would transport up to 150,000 barrels per day (bpd) of NGL. Overland Pass proposes to begin 

construction in October 2007 with service beginning by the second quarter of 2008. 

The project would cross federal lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS). The project would affect land in three BLM field offices in 

Wyoming: the Kemmerer, Rock Springs, and Rawlins field offices. The project also would cross National 

Forest System (NFS) lands within the Flaming Gorge National Recreational Area (FGNRA) in Wyoming and 

the Pawnee National Grassland (PNG) in Colorado. 

Based on the nature and scope of the Overland Pass project, preparation of an environmental impact 

statement (EIS) is required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The BLM is the primary 

agency responsible for granting rights-of-way (ROWs) across federal lands and is the designated lead federal 

agency responsible for the preparation of this EIS. The USFS is a cooperating federal agency. 

The project would consist of the pipeline plus ancillary aboveground facilities needed to support the pipeline. 

The pipeline would be approximately 14-inch-diameter between Opal and Echo Springs, Wyoming, and 

16-inch-diameter from Echo Springs, Wyoming, to Conway, Kansas. Overland Pass would construct the new 

pipeline within a temporary 75 foot-wide construction ROW. After construction and reclamation, the permanent 

ROW would be 50 feet wide, centered on the pipeline. 

Aboveground facilities would include 2 pump stations (and 1 future pump station), 7 meter stations, 11 pigging 

facilities, and 94 mainline valves. The pipeline and aboveground facilities would be constructed in accordance 

with federal pipeline safety regulations. New electrical service would be required for the pump and meter 

stations, though the powerlines would be permitted by independent electrical utility providers under a separate 

permitting process. 

Overland Pass’ Proposed Action includes applicant-committed mitigation measures for environmental 

resources, including soil, water, hazardous materials, fisheries, and wildlife resources. In addition, the BLM 

and USFS have developed additional mitigation measures to further reduce the environmental impact that 

would otherwise result from construction of the project. The BLM Authorized Officer will determine which 

mitigation measures would be attached as conditions to any Record of Decision. A summary of applicantcommitted mitigation and additional mitigation measures was added to this Final EIS as Appendix A. 

Three alternatives were considered in detail: the Proposed Action, the No Action Alternative, and the Southern 

Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative. The No Action Alternative is required by NEPA as a 

baseline against which other action alternatives can be analyzed. For this project, the No Action Alternative 

would not authorize the ROW grant and, consequently, the project would not be constructed. 

Under the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative, the project would be the same as the 

Proposed Action except that approximately 25 miles of the proposed pipeline route in the Green River, 

Wyoming, area would be shifted further south. The alternate route primarily would be located within an 

existing, BLM-designated utility window, thereby increasing the amount of co-located pipeline. While most 

aspects of this alternative (e.g., aboveground facility requirements) would be the same as the Proposed 

ES-1
Action, this alternative would be 4.8 miles longer then the Proposed Action and would be located in steeper 

terrain, causing potential difficulties for construction and restoration. 

The BLM preferred alternative is the Proposed Action. 

Alternative Impact Summary 

The following sections summarize the major findings of the EIS by alternative. 

Proposed Action 

The Proposed Action would include the construction and operation of the Overland Pass NGL pipeline and its 

associated aboveground facilities with the implementation of applicant-committed mitigation measures. The 

following discussion outlines the environmental effects of construction and operation of a 760-mile NGL 

pipeline permitted under this alternative. 

Air Quality 

While the construction of the proposed pipeline and ancillary facilities would result in intermittent and 

short-term fugitive emissions, these emissions are not expected to cause or substantially contribute to a 

violation of an applicable ambient air quality standard. 

No operational impacts to air quality are expected. Air emissions during pipeline operations would be minimal 

since the pumps are electric and thereby do not produce emissions. 

Geology 

Project construction would alter existing topography, but construction techniques would minimize impacts and 

restore surface contours. The project would not interfere with oil and gas drilling or any current active or 

planned mining operations. Because the pipeline primarily would be located adjacent to existing pipelines, 

construction of the Proposed Action would not further reduce access to underlying mineral resources (e.g., 

coal, trona). Due to the routing of the pipeline and engineering specifications, it is unlikely that the pipeline 

would sustain substantial damage from geological hazards. Further, the construction and operation of the 

project would not worsen unfavorable geological conditions in the area. The project would cross approximately 

475 miles of geological formations that contain vertebrate fossils, and noteworthy occurrences of invertebrate 

and plant fossils. Overland Pass has conducted pre-construction surveys and would monitor pipeline 

construction to protect or recover important fossils. 

Soils 

Much of the Proposed Action would cross soils that have shallow topsoil, are susceptible to erosion, have poor 

reclamation potential, or are prone to compaction and rutting. Approximately 2,903 acres of prime farmland or 

potentially prime farmland on highly productive agricultural soils would be affected by the proposed project. 

Applicant-committed measures to minimize soil impacts include erosion control measures, topsoil separation 

and handling procedures, remediation of compacted soils, and application of revegetation seed mixtures 

appropriate for the climate and land uses. Soil impacts from a pipeline spill would be short-term and low in 

magnitude due to the volatile nature of NGL, which disperses rapidly into the atmosphere. 

Water Resources 

The Proposed Action would require 94 perennial waterbody crossings. With the exception of the South Platte 

River and several irrigation ditches, which would be crossed by the horizontal directional drill (HDD) crossing 

method, all perennial waterbodies would be open-cut in accordance with the general procedures identified in 

the project-specific Plan of Development (POD) and site-specific waterbody crossing plans. While impacts to 

most waterbody crossings would be mitigated by the implementation of the project-specific POD, open-cut 

crossings at the Hams Fork, Blacks Fork, Green, and North Platte rivers would have the potential to cause 

ES-2
increased turbidity and sedimentation, channel and bank modifications, and associated impacts to fisheries 

and other habitats. 

For hydrostatic testing, dust control, and HDD purposes, Overland Pass would use approximately 18.1 and 

60.5 acre-feet of water from the Colorado and Platte river basins, respectively. An additional 120.1 acre-feet 

of water would be withdrawn from various municipal or private wells. Withdrawals of hydrostatic test water in 

the Laramie and Blacks Fork rivers during winter seasonal low flow periods could adversely affect fisheries 

and aquatic resources. Impacts to both surface water and groundwater quality resulting from a pipeline spill 

would be short-term and low in magnitude due to the volatile nature of NGLs. 

The project temporarily would affect approximately 81 acres of wetlands during construction. In general, 

wetland and riparian habitat would be allowed to regenerate to the original cover type, with the exception of 

0.5 acre of scrub-shrub and forested wetlands that would be maintained in an herbaceous state for pipeline 

inspection and maintenance purposes. While the recovery of most herbaceous wetlands are expected within 

3 years, recovery of scrub-shrub and palustrine forested wetlands could take more than 5 years. 

Vegetation 

During construction, the project would disturb approximately 4,759 acres of grasslands, 769 acres of 

shrublands, 2,472 acres of agricultural land, 61 acres of forest, and 81 acres of wetlands. Overland Pass 

would implement the project-specific POD to stabilize and re-seed disturbed areas to restore wildlife and 

livestock uses. While the recovery of grassland, shrubland, and forest vegetation would begin to re-establish 

within 3 years, full recovery of these native vegetation communities would be long-term (greater than 20 years) 

because of limited rainfall and high evaporation rates. Agricultural and wetland communities would recover 

more quickly. On federal lands, revegetation success would be monitored for several years by BLM and USFS 

staff. Mitigation to address the control and spread of weeds along the ROW includes the washing of 

construction equipment and continued weed control along the ROW for the life of the project. 

Wildlife, Aquatic Resources, and Special Status Species 

The Proposed Action would disturb wildlife habitat, displace individual animals, and contribute to habitat 

fragmentation by creating approximately 138 miles of new greenfield ROW and expanding approximately 

622 miles of existing pipeline corridors. The proposed pipeline route would cross crucial big game habitat in 

Wyoming and Colorado. Measures to minimize wildlife impacts include the co-location of the pipeline with 

existing ROWs where possible, use of minimum construction ROW width and workspace areas to reduce 

impacts to wildlife habitat, use of trench plugs on federal lands that would allow animals to cross over open 

ditch sections and escape from the trench, limitations on the amount of open trench allowed at any given time, 

spatial and timing restrictions near active raptor nests, and reclamation of disturbed areas. 

Overland Pass’ proposed construction schedule could overlap with the breeding season for many migratory 

birds. Overland Pass would conduct pre-construction nesting surveys and would abide by appropriate buffer 

zones and seasonal construction restrictions to prevent or minimize impacts on nesting raptors. Surveys would 

occur on federal and non-federal lands within 1 mile of the edge of the proposed construction ROW. Winter 

roost surveys for bald eagles also would occur. For other migratory bird species, particularly ground nesting 

species, nest sites could be lost because of surface disturbance, but would not result in long-term or 

population-level impacts. 

The Proposed Action would cross 33 waterbodies that support game fish species, including 12 that support 

warmwater species and 21 that support coldwater species. While impacts to most waterbody crossings would 

be mitigated by the implementation of the project-specific POD, open-cut crossings at the Hams Fork, Blacks 

Fork, Green, and North Platte rivers would have the potential to cause increased sedimentation; channel and 

bank modification, with subsequent changes to channel morphology; and impacts to fisheries. At the Green 

River, impacts to kokanee salmon and brown trout could occur depending on the date of construction. Pipeline 

construction also could affect amphibian species and their habitat in wetlands, streams, ponds, and seasonally 

flooded areas crossed by the route. Because NGLs dissipate quickly and have low environmental persistence, 

impacts to fisheries and amphibians resulting from a pipeline spill would be short-term and low in magnitude. 

ES-3
Fifteen federally threatened and endangered species and two candidate species were identified as potentially 

occurring within the project area. As required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, a draft 

Biological Assessment was prepared for the project to determine whether the Proposed Action is likely to 

affect any federally listed species. The project also could affect 46 BLM-sensitive species, nine USFS sensitive 

species, and 22 state listed species. These species were evaluated in the Biological Report/Biological 

Evaluation, currently being finalized by the BLM and USFS. 

Impacts to terrestrial special status species would include direct mortality, displacement, nest abandonment, 

the long-term loss or alteration of potential breeding and foraging habitats, and increased incremental habitat 

fragmentation until native vegetation became reestablished. Construction through Preble’s meadow jumping 

mouse habitat is an issue for this federally listed species, but the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

would require mitigation measures to protect this species. Construction through greater sage grouse habitat 

also is an issue, but the BLM would require mitigation measures to protect this species. For aquatic species, 

impacts could result from sedimentation, alteration of stream and bank habitat, open-cut trenching, and water 

depletions. Water depletions in the Colorado and Platte river basins associated with hydrostatic test and dust 

control water withdrawals are an issue for federally listed species that occur downstream, however the 

USFWS would require mitigation for water depletions in the Colorado and Platte river basins. Trenching of 

Hams Fork and Blacks Fork rivers could result in long-term adverse impacts to habitat for BLM-sensitive fish 

species (flannelmouth sucker, bluehead sucker, and roundtail chub) and may result in population level decline 

for one or more of these species. 

With the exception of the BLM-sensitive fish species in the Hams Fork and Blacks Fork rivers where adverse 

impacts are anticipated, the combination of Overland Pass’ committed mitigation measures and BLM 

recommended mitigation would prevent or minimize potential impacts to special status species. 

Land Use, Recreation, and Aesthetics 

The primary land uses crossed by the Proposed Action would be rangeland and agricultural lands. A total of 

4,619 acres would be dedicated to pipeline utility uses for the project life. Of this area, 10 acres would underlie 

aboveground facilities (pump stations, meter stations, pigging facilities, valves, and permanent access roads). 

The remainder of the land commitment would be for the operational pipeline ROW. During operations, the 

majority of previous land uses would continue unencumbered along the pipeline ROW, although forest land 

would be removed and the placement of aboveground facilities would not be allowed on the permanent ROW 

for safety reasons. The Proposed Action would conform to existing BLM and USFS land use plans. 

The project generally would be located in remote rural areas of Wyoming, Colorado, and Kansas, and would 

be located adjacent to existing pipeline utility corridors over nearly its entire route, thereby minimizing land use 

impacts. The proposed pipeline centerline would be located within 50 feet of 40 buildings. Overland Pass 

would determine if these buildings were occupied structures prior to construction. Traffic, noise, and dust 

impacts would occur to area residences and businesses during construction. 

Overland Pass would limit delays and damage to state and federal highways and heavily used county roads by 

boring beneath them. Smaller roads would be trenched, which would cause short-term delays. Construction of 

the Proposed Action would utilize a variety of secondary roads. Implementation of Overland Pass’ 

Transportation and Traffic Management Plan and applicant-committed mitigation would minimize 

transportation impacts. 

The project would be consistent with BLM Visual Resource Management (VRM) criteria and Scenery 

Management System (SMS) for the USFS. Aboveground facilities would be painted with a color(s) that 

conforms to visual resource criteria and nighttime lighting would be minimized. While temporary noise impacts 

may occur during construction, noise impacts during operations would be minimal due to the use of electric 

pumps and would be limited to the vicinity of the pump and meter stations. 

ES-4
Cultural Resources 

Cultural resource surveys have been conducted along the construction work areas associated with the 

Proposed Action. To date, these surveys identified 311 cultural resource sites in Wyoming, 69 in Colorado, 

and 47 in Kansas within the survey area. To date, 121 sites in Wyoming, 28 sites and the pre-historic 

component of one multi-component site in Colorado, and 6 sites in Kansas have been recommended, or are 

officially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Potential adverse effects to 

identified NRHP-eligible sites would be mitigated prior to pipeline construction, and a Memorandum of 

Agreement addressing adverse effects resulting from the project will be implemented. Unanticipated 

discoveries of cultural resources would be protected as described in the project-specific unanticipated 

discoveries plan. Therefore, all impacts to NRHP-eligible cultural resources from project construction would be 

mitigated. 

Native American Concerns 

The BLM invited tribal officials from 22 identified Native American tribes to participate in two informational 

meetings and three site visits. The purpose of these meetings was to discuss the Proposed Action, visit 

selected archaeological sites that were thought to have traditional, cultural, or religious importance to the 

tribes, solicit any concerns the tribes may have regarding tribal resources in the proposed project area, and 

discuss the Native American consultation process. Native American consultation regarding potential impacts to 

NRHP-eligible cultural resources, traditional cultural properties (TCPs), or places of cultural, traditional, or 

religious importance currently is taking place between the BLM and tribal representatives. The BLM intends to 

continue consultation throughout the environmental review and construction phase of the Proposed Action. 

Social and Economic Conditions 

Overland Pass proposes to employ approximately 1,300 to 1,500 workers to construct the pipeline and 

aboveground facilities. Overland Pass estimates that 80 percent of the workforce would consist of non-local 

personnel. The project would be completed using five separate workforces (spreads), with two spreads in 

Wyoming, one in Colorado, and two in Kansas. The dispersed construction would reduce the number of 

workers requiring temporary housing in the vicinity of pipeline work areas. In Wyoming and Colorado, 

demands for temporary housing would remain relatively constant due to the constant turnover of similar energy 

projects in the region. However, temporary housing could be more limited in rural areas of Kansas, since this 

region has not seen recent investment in temporary housing attributable to energy development. 

Short-term demands for public services, particularly emergency medical response, would increase. Long-term 

demands for public services would not occur because of the small operational workforce. Local communities 

would receive short-term benefits from worker goods and services expenditures, and long-term benefits from 

property taxes. For the first year of operation, Overland Pass estimates that $8.4 million ($2.2 million in 

Wyoming, $2.6 million in Colorado, and $3.6 million in Kansas) would be generated in property and ad 

valorem local taxes. These tax revenues typically would be used by local and state governments for 

infrastructure improvements such as roads, schools, and health facilities, and to meet other needs of the 

community. 

Overland Pass would acquire land for its pipeline through easement agreements with private landowners. 

Potential impacts on land values from construction of a new pipeline are highly site-specific. Permanent 

structures could not be built over the pipeline, but existing land uses, such as livestock grazing, could continue 

as before. There would be no disproportionate economic or public safety effects on minority or low-income 

communities because of the construction and operation of the Proposed Action. 

Public Health and Safety 

The Proposed Action would be constructed in compliance with U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) 

pipeline materials and construction standards for hazardous liquid pipelines. Where the Proposed Action was 

in a utility corridor with other pipelines, the proposed pipeline typically would be offset a minimum distance of 

50 feet from adjacent pipelines, which greatly reduces the risk of pipeline damage from any repair activities on 

adjacent pipelines. After construction, Overland Pass must initiate a pipeline integrity management plan, which 

ES-5
includes the identification of pipeline segments that could affect High Consequence Areas (HCAs). The 

portions of the pipeline that could affect HCAs must undergo periodic integrity assessments at a minimum of 

every 5 years. 

NGLs are highly volatile and flammable liquids. Historical incident rates indicate that the probability of a 

pipeline accident is low. However, an accident could result in fire or explosion. As part of its safety program, 

Overland Pass would consult with local emergency responders regarding the potential hazards associated 

with NGLs. 

No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative represents the continuation of the existing conditions. Under this alternative, the 

BLM ROW grant to construct the pipeline and its ancillary facilities as requested by Overland Pass would not 

be authorized. While the No Action Alternative would eliminate the environmental impacts identified in this EIS, 

it also would deny market access to the 150,000 bpd of NGLs the proposed pipeline would transport. The 

following discussion outlines the environmental effects of the No Action Alternative. 

Air Quality 

The project area would not experience intermittent and short-term fugitive emissions associated with Overland 

Pass pipeline construction. Existing air quality conditions would be unaffected. 

Geology 

No project-related disturbance would occur to geological resources. Impacts would continue at present levels 

as a result of natural conditions and existing development in the project area. Authorized regional oil and gas 

drilling or any current active or planned mining operations would continue. NGLs associated with expanding 

regional oil and gas development would require an alternative method of transportation from the area. 

Important paleontological resources along the proposed pipeline route would not be recovered for scientific 

study nor would these same resources be potentially damaged by pipeline construction activities. 

Soils 

No project-related disturbance would occur to soils. Impacts would continue at present levels as a result of 

natural conditions and existing development in the project area. 

Water Resources 

No project-related disturbance would occur to water resources. Impacts would continue at present levels as a 

result of natural conditions and existing development in the project area. 

Vegetation 

No project-related disturbance would occur to vegetation. Impacts would continue at present levels as a result 

of natural conditions and existing development in the project area. 

Wildlife, Aquatic Resources, and Special Status Species 

No project-related disturbance would occur to wildlife, fisheries, or special status species. Impacts would 

continue at present levels as a result of natural conditions and existing development in the project area. 

Land Use, Recreation, and Aesthetics 

No project-related disturbance would occur to land uses, recreation, and aesthetics. Impacts would continue at 

present levels as a result of natural conditions and existing development in the project area. 

ES-6
Cultural Resources 

No project-related disturbance would occur to cultural resources. Impacts would continue at present levels as 

a result of natural conditions and existing development in the project area. Additional knowledge of local or 

regional prehistory of the project area that would have been obtained through data recovery would not be 

collected. 

Native American Concerns 

Under the No Action Alternative, the project would not be constructed. As a result, none of the potential 

impacts to NRHP-eligible cultural resources, TCPs, or places of traditional, cultural, or religious importance to 

the tribes as identified for the Proposed Action would occur. 

Social and Economic Conditions 

Under the No Action Alternative, the project would not be constructed. As a result, short-term impacts to 

temporary housing and emergency services would not occur. Local and county governments would not receive 

payroll taxes, taxes on goods and services, and ad valorem property taxes, estimated to be valued at over 

$8.4 million in the first year of operation. Private landowners would not receive compensation for easement 

agreements with Overland Pass. There would be no impact on minority or low-income populations in 

communities along the proposed pipeline route. 

Public Health and Safety 

No project-related disturbance would occur to public safety. Impacts would continue at present levels as a 

result of natural conditions and existing development in the project area. 

Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative 

Pipeline construction and operation would be the same as the Proposed Action except that approximately 

25 miles of the proposed pipeline route in the Green River, Wyoming, area would be shifted further south. The 

alternative route primarily would be located within an existing, BLM-designated utility window. The following 

discussion outlines the environmental effects that would result from the construction and operation of a NGLs 

pipeline permitted under this alternative. 

Air Quality 

While the construction of the proposed pipeline and ancillary facilities would result in intermittent and 

short-term fugitive emissions, these emissions are not expected to cause or substantially contribute to a 

violation of an applicable ambient air quality standard. 

No operational impacts to air quality are expected. Air emissions during pipeline operations would be minimal 

since the pumps are electric and thereby do not produce emissions. 

Geology 

Project construction would alter existing topography, but construction techniques would minimize impacts and 

restore surface contours. The project would not interfere with oil and gas drilling or any current active or 

planned mining operations. Because the pipeline primarily would be located adjacent to existing pipelines, 

construction of the Proposed Action would not further reduce access to underlying mineral resources (e.g., 

coal, trona). Due to the routing of the pipeline and engineering specifications, it is unlikely that the pipeline 

would sustain substantial damage from geological hazards. Further, the construction and operation of the 

project would not worsen unfavorable geological conditions in the area. Geological formations along the 

Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative were classified as either Condition 1 or 

Condition 2 and are comparable to the Proposed Action through this same segment. Compared to the 

Proposed Action, the project would cross an additional 4.8 miles of geological formations that potentially 

contain vertebrate fossils, and noteworthy occurrences of invertebrate and plant fossils. Overland Pass has 

ES-7
conducted pre-construction surveys and would monitor pipeline construction to protect or recover important 

fossils. 

Soils 

The alternative would cross soils that have shallow topsoil, are susceptible to erosion, have poor reclamation 

potential, and are prone to compaction and rutting. Compared to the Proposed Action, there would be fewer 

acres of prime farmland or potentially prime farmland on highly productive agricultural soils affected. Measures 

to minimize soil impacts include erosion control measures, topsoil separation and handling procedures, 

remediation of compacted soils, and application of revegetation seed mixtures appropriate for the climate and 

land uses. Soil impacts from a pipeline spill would be short-term and low in magnitude due to the low 

probability of a spill and the volatile nature of NGL. 

Water Resources 

The Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative would require the crossing of two additional 

perennial streams compared to the Proposed Action. Perennial waterbody crossings would be open-cut in 

accordance with the general procedures identified in the project-specific POD. When compared to the same 

section of the Proposed Action, this alternative would require an estimated additional 0.9 acre-feet of Colorado 

River Basin water for hydrostatic testing purposes due to the increased length of the pipeline route. This 

additional hydrostatic test water would be withdrawn from the same sources as listed for the Proposed Action. 

Impacts to both surface water and groundwater quality resulting from a pipeline spill would be short-term and 

low in magnitude due to the low probability of a spill and the volatile nature of NGLs. 

Compared to the Proposed Action, the alternative would not substantially change the amount of wetlands 

affected during construction. Wetland and riparian habitat would be allowed to regenerate to the original cover 

type, with the exception of scrub-shrub and forested wetlands that would be maintained in an herbaceous 

state. While the recovery of most herbaceous wetlands are expected within 3 years, recovery of scrub-shrub 

and palustrine forested wetlands could take a decade or more. 

Vegetation 

Compared to the Proposed Action, this alternative would disturb an additional 4.8 miles of vegetation, resulting 

in an additional 44 acres of temporary disturbance. Steep and side slope construction would result in 35 acres 

of TWAs along the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative, compared to 17 acres for 

the Proposed Action. These areas would be more susceptible to erosion and would be more difficult to 

reclaim. 

Wildlife, Aquatic Resources, and Special Status Species 

Habitat along the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative has a similar composition to 

habitat along the Proposed Action route. Like the Proposed Action in this area, this alternative does not cross 

crucial big game habitat in Wyoming. Measures to minimize wildlife impacts include the co-location of this 

alternative with existing ROWs where possible, avoidance of construction within designated big game 

wintering areas during seasonal closure periods, installation of ditch plugs with ramps that would allow animals 

to cross over open ditch sections and escape from the trench, limitations on the amount of open trench 

allowed at any given time, spatial and timing restrictions near active raptor nests, and reclamation of disturbed 

areas. 

Overland Pass’ proposed construction schedule would overlap with the breeding season for many migratory 

birds. Overland Pass would conduct pre-construction nesting surveys and would abide by appropriate buffer 

zones and seasonal construction restrictions to prevent or minimize impacts on nesting raptors. For other 

migratory bird species, particularly ground nesting species, nests (eggs and young) could be lost because of 

surface disturbance, but would not result in long-term or population-level impacts. 

This alternative would cross the same waterbodies as the Proposed Action in Wyoming that support game fish 

species. Water depletions in the Colorado and Platte river basins associated with hydrostatic testing and dust 

ES-8
control are an issue for federally listed species that occur downstream. Impacts to fisheries resulting from a 

pipeline spill would be short-term and low in magnitude due to the low probability of a spill and the volatile 

nature of NGL. 

The impacts of this alternative would be similar to those discussed for the Proposed Action. Increased impacts 

to special status cliff obligate species potentially would result from the implementation of this alternative. No 

additional perennial streams with special status aquatic species would be crossed by the Southern Energy 

Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative. 

Land Use, Recreation, and Aesthetics 

The primary land uses crossed by the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative would be 

rangeland. Compared to the Proposed Action, approximately 23 additional acres would be dedicated to 

operational pipeline ROW for the project life, with no additional land required for aboveground facilities (pump 

stations, meter stations, pigging facilities, valves, and permanent access roads). During operations, the 

majority of previous land uses would continue unencumbered along the pipeline ROW, although any forested 

land would be removed and the placement of aboveground facilities would not be allowed on the permanent 

ROW for safety reasons. The Proposed Action would conform to existing BLM and USFS land use plans. 

The project generally would be located in remote rural areas of Wyoming, Colorado, and Kansas, and would 

be located adjacent to exiting pipeline utility corridors over nearly its entire route, thereby minimizing land use 

impacts. The alternative’s pipeline centerline would be located within 500 feet of 11 more occupied structures 

than the comparable segment of the Proposed Action. Overland Pass would confirm that these buildings were 

occupied structures prior to construction. Traffic, noise, and dust impacts would occur to area residences and 

businesses during construction. 

Overland Pass would limit delays and damage to state and federal highways by boring beneath them. Smaller 

roads would be trenched, which would cause short-term delays. Construction of the Southern Energy 

Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative would utilize a variety of secondary roads. Implementation of 

Overland Pass’ Transportation and Traffic Management Plan and applicant-committed mitigation would 

minimize transportation impacts. 

The project would be consistent with BLM VRM criteria and SMS criteria for the USFS. Aboveground facilities 

would be painted with a color(s) that conforms to visual resource criteria and nighttime lighting would be 

minimized. While temporary noise impacts may occur during construction, noise impacts during operations 

would be minimal due to the use of electric pumps and would be limited to the vicinity of the pump and meter 

stations. 

Cultural Resources 

At this time, Class III cultural resource surveys have not been completed along the Southern Energy Corridor – 

Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative route. However, a Class I survey of previously recorded sites identified nine 

sites within 100 feet of this alternative route. Of these nine sites, two are recommended as not eligible for the 

NRHP, five are unevaluated, one is eligible for the NRHP with SHPO concurrence, and one is an NRHPeligible linear feature (though the affected segment is unevaluated). If the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper 

Ridge Bypass Alternative was selected, 5 sites located within 100 feet of the segment of the Proposed Action 

that are classified as not eligible for the NRHP would be eliminated. Potential adverse effects to identified 

NRHP-eligible sites would be mitigated prior to pipeline construction. Unanticipated discoveries of cultural 

resources would be protected as described in the project-specific cultural resources unanticipated discoveries 

plan. Therefore, all impacts to NRHP-eligible cultural resources from project construction would be mitigated. 

Native American Concerns 

If the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative were chosen, Native American 

consultation would follow the same protocol as the Proposed Action. Potential impacts to NRHP-eligible sites, 

ES-9
TCPs, or places of traditional, cultural, or religious importance to the tribes, and measures to avoid or mitigate 

potential impacts, would be addressed as described above for the Proposed Action. 

Social and Economic Conditions 

Construction of the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative would not alter the number 

of employees or number of spreads required to construct the pipeline and aboveground facilities compared to 

the Proposed Action. Overland Pass estimates that 80 percent of the workforce would consist of non-local 

personnel. The entire project would be completed using five separate workforces (spreads), with two spreads 

in Wyoming, one in Colorado, and two in Kansas. The dispersed construction would reduce the number of 

workers requiring temporary housing in the vicinity of pipeline work areas. In Wyoming and Colorado, 

demands for temporary housing would remain relatively constant due to the constant turnover of similar energy 

projects in the region. However, temporary housing could be more limited in rural areas of Kansas, since this 

region has not seen recent investment in temporary housing attributable to energy development. 

Short-term demands for public services, particularly emergency medical response, would increase. Long-term 

demands for public services would not occur because of the small operational workforce. Local communities 

would receive short-term benefits from worker goods and services expenditures, and long-term benefits from 

property taxes. Compared to the Proposed Action, estimated taxes would increase slightly in Sweetwater 

County due to the 4.8-mile increase in pipeline length. Taxes for other counties would remain unchanged from 

the Proposed Action. Tax revenues typically would be used by local and state governments for infrastructure 

improvements such as roads, schools, and health facilities, and to meet other needs of the community. 

Overland Pass would acquire land for its pipeline through easement agreements with private landowners. 

Potential impacts on land values from construction of a new pipeline are highly site-specific. Permanent 

structures could not be built over the pipeline, but existing land uses, such as livestock grazing, could continue 

as before. There would be no disproportionate economic or public safety effects on minority or low-income 

communities because of the construction and operation of the Proposed Action. 

Public Health and Safety 

The Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative would be constructed in compliance with 

USDOT pipeline materials and construction standards for hazardous liquid pipelines. Where the alternative 

was in a utility corridor with other pipelines, the proposed pipeline typically would be offset a minimum distance 

of 50 feet from adjacent pipelines, which greatly reduces the risk of pipeline damage from any repair activities 

on adjacent pipelines. After construction, Overland Pass must initiate a pipeline integrity management plan, 

which includes the identification of pipeline segments that could affect HCAs. The portions of the pipeline that 

could affect HCAs must undergo periodic integrity assessments at a minimum of every 5 years. 

NGLs are highly volatile and flammable liquids. Historical incident rates indicate that the probability of a 

pipeline accident is low. However, an accident could result in fire or explosion. As part of its safety program, 

Overland Pass would consult with local emergency responders regarding the potential hazards associated 

with NGLs. 

Cumulative Impacts 

The primary cumulative impact study area consists of an existing utility corridor that the Overland Pass 

pipeline would traverse throughout its length. Up to eight existing natural gas, refined products, and NGL 

pipelines occupy this corridor, as well as Interstate 80, railroads, fiber optic cables, and low voltage 

transmission lines. Also included in this cumulative study area are pipeline projects under review or under 

construction. Cumulative impacts were based on existing (through 2006) and foreseeable project surface 

disturbances that occur within 1 mile of the proposed Overland Pass pipeline route. 

The cumulative area of previous surface disturbance within the study area from existing utility projects from 

Opal, Wyoming, to Conway, Kansas, is approximately 222 square miles. The Overland Pass pipeline would 

contribute about 5 percent of this total, and other new pipeline projects from 1 to 2 percent. 

ES-10
Air Quality 

Overland Pass and Overthrust Wamsutter projects could overlap very briefly in the same work area. 

Cumulative fugitive dust (particulate) increases may occur where these two projects are using the same 

access road system to construct their projects. Both projects would follow state and local requirements for dust 

control on roads and excavated surfaces. 

Overland Pass proposes to use electrical pumps at pump station locations in Wyoming, with a future pump 

station in Kansas. By using electrical pumps, Overland Pass would not directly contribute to hydrocarbon 

emissions from its facilities. Indirectly, the electricity used by Overland Pass would be produced by coal-fired 

and natural gas-fired power plants within the region. It is anticipated that demands for project electrical power 

would be met by existing and new generating capacity. The specific locations of new generating capacity 

presently are not known. 

Geology 

Cumulative impacts related to geological hazards are not anticipated. 

The proposed pipeline route, and many of those pipelines that parallel the proposed pipeline route, cross 

various mineral resources, including oil and gas producing reservoirs, trona mineral, and coal deposits. 

Although the presence of existing and proposed pipelines would preclude extraction of gravel and other 

minerals, the proposed pipeline route is primarily adjacent to other pipelines and therefore represents a very 

small increase in the cumulative effects. Oil and gas production would not be affected since it could be 

accomplished through well pad offsets and directional drilling. 

Construction of the Overland Pass, Enterprise Western Pipeline, and the Overthrust Wamsutter Pipeline would 

contribute approximately 1.7, 0.3, and 0.4 square miles, respectively, of surface and trench disturbance in 

Condition 1 units. In areas with high potential for important fossils, pre-construction paleontological surveys, 

trench monitoring, and fossil recovery have been, or would be completed for approved projects. Construction 

of the Overland Pass pipeline would contribute to the cumulative exposure and potential loss of scientifically 

valuable fossils, but construction monitoring would ensure that new scientific information would be collected 

and added to the existing body of knowledge. 

Soils 

The existing utility projects in the cumulative study area that have been installed for 10 years or more have 

been partially or completely restored to pre-existing conditions. Cumulative impacts where this line parallels 

older utilities would be minimal with the effective implementation of best management practices and 

mitigations. More recent utility projects may be in the process of rehabilitation. Potential cumulative impacts 

could occur where these disturbances overlap. These impacts would be highly localized and primarily limited 

to the time of construction and 3 to 5 years following construction with successful reclamation. Cumulative 

impacts would be minimized, however, with the effective implementation of erosion control and restoration 

measures. 

Some soils on previously revegetated ROWs may be re-disturbed by construction on adjacent new pipeline 

ROWs in the future. Pipeline projects scheduled for 2006 and 2007 construction (Overthrust Wamsutter 

Pipeline, Enterprise Western Expansion) would disturb 3.8 and 0.3 square miles where these projects parallel 

the proposed Overland Pass pipeline. The Proposed Action would disturb approximately 10.6 square miles in 

this utility corridor. 

Potential cumulative erosion impacts could occur where pipeline construction disturbance areas overlap or are 

located near each other between reference point (RP) 0 and RP 329. Best management practices for soil 

management and protection would be applied across all ownerships for these pipeline projects. Revegetation 

mixtures would be applied that are appropriate to soil conditions and expected future uses (grazing, wildlife 

habitat). As a consequence, the potential for cumulative erosion increases caused by one or more of these 

projects is low. 

ES-11
The primary sensitive soils cumulative impacts issue is the maintenance of agricultural soil productivity where 

these soils have been disturbed by multiple pipelines. To minimize cumulative impacts to agricultural soils, 

surface drainage should be restored across pipeline construction ROWs and soil compaction relieved in 

haylands and pasture. The Overland Pass, Overthrust Wamsutter Pipeline, and Enterprise Western Expansion 

projects have prepared, or would be required to prepare plans to restore and monitor irrigated soils. 

Application of these plans would ensure that agricultural productivity would be maintained indefinitely. 

Cumulative soil mixing and compaction could occur on other sensitive soils (shallow, wet, rocky, saline) during 

construction. Where these pipeline corridors overlap and compaction is not mitigated, a reduction in infiltration 

and runoff could result. These effects would be addressed on a site-specific basis by the various projects and 

would be minimized by proper implementation of soil protection measures and mitigations for decompaction. 

Water Resources 

Existing pipelines and other utility projects do not consume groundwater in general and will not use 

groundwater for hydrostatic testing. Surface water volumes used for hydrostatic testing would be returned to 

their sources. Based on currently available schedules, the various projects would not be conducting concurrent 

hydrostatic tests at the same locations and, consequently, these projects would not cause cumulative water 

withdrawal volume reductions on the Green, North Platte, and Laramie rivers. No cumulative impacts on water 

volumes or quality from these projects are expected. 

Overland Pass proposes to directionally drill the South Platte River and, consequently, there would be no 

cumulative sediment transport increases at this crossing. The proposed pipeline projects would follow the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) procedures and/or BLM stipulations for open-cut crossing of 

smaller perennial streams and intermittently flowing waterbodies. In most cases, the site-specific erosion 

control and bank stabilization measures would prevent cumulative sedimentation increases where the projects 

cross the same stream channel at the same location. 

There are existing channel and bank stability problems associated with other pipelines that share the pipeline 

corridor proposed for use by Overland Pass on the Hams Fork, Blacks Fork, Green, and Medicine Bow rivers. 

While the BLM would require additional mitigation to minimize these issues on the Green River, the remaining 

crossings are on private lands where the BLM does not have the authority to require an alternative crossing 

method or additional mitigation. Cumulative bank and channel stability impacts and sediment deposition 

impacts would be minimized by restoration and maintenance at these crossings. 

Cumulative impacts to wetlands would occur where the Rockies Express/Entrega, Enterprise Western 

Expansion, and Overland Pass projects would be co-located between Overland Pass’ RP 0 and RP 329 at the 

Cheyenne Hub. The natural gas pipeline projects would apply FERC wetland crossing procedures and/or BLM 

stipulations, and would be subject to conditions contained in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 permits and 

state water quality permits. None of the wetlands crossed would be permanently filled or drained. Therefore, 

cumulative effects to wetlands would be minor and short-term because of rapid recovery by grasses, sedges, 

and other herbaceous species. 

Vegetation 

The total amount of vegetation that may be affected by all of the proposed projects is substantial but still 

relatively small compared to the abundance of similar habitat in the project area. While these projects 

potentially could fragment vegetation habitat, this effect would be minimal because no densely forested areas 

would be crossed by the proposed pipelines. This effect would be further reduced by the co-location of many 

of these projects with existing ROWs. All of the projects would include mitigation measures designed to 

minimize the potential for long-term erosion, increase the stabilization of site conditions, and in many cases 

control the spread of noxious weeds, thereby minimizing the degree and duration of the cumulative impact of 

these projects. 

ES-12
Wildlife, Aquatic Resources, and Special Status Species 

The removal of forest land and shrubland habitats would result in a long-term habitat reduction because the 

regeneration of woody species is slow in the project region. Construction and operation of the proposed 

Overland Pass pipeline would incrementally add to the width of habitat discontinuities within existing utility 

corridors, which may affect the movement of species dependent on these habitats and cumulatively would 

reduce carrying capacity for woodland- and shrubland-dependent species. 

The Overland Pass pipeline would cross elk, mule deer, and pronghorn critical or crucial winter habitats in both 

Colorado and Wyoming, respectively. The incremental surface disturbance contributed by the Overland Pass 

pipeline to the cumulative projects would represent a small fraction (less than 1 percent) of the individual big 

game ranges crossed. 

Overland Pass plans to open-cut seven streams (Hams Fork River, Blacks Fork River, Green River, Bitter 

Creek, North Platte River, Medicine Bow River, and Laramie River) in Wyoming that contain game fisheries. 

Cumulative waterbody construction impacts would not occur in the same season. Channel armoring measures 

and sediment control measures proposed by Overland Pass for these crossings would reduce downstream 

sedimentation on fish habitats. Pre-existing bank and channel instability associated with previous pipeline 

projects are contributing to channel morphology changes and increased sedimentation downstream of the 

utility corridor at some crossings. BLM’s recommendation to reduce erosion and channel scouring would assist 

in minimizing impacts to fisheries that would otherwise be affected by the project. 

Habitat for special status species, including bald eagle, sage grouse, black-footed ferret, and prairie dog, 

occurs within the cumulative affects area. Pipeline projects would be subject to construction timing restrictions 

and other mitigation measures to avoid impacts to these species and their habitats. 

Within the cumulative effects area, bald eagles use winter roosts and occasionally nest along the Green, North 

Platte, and Medicine Bow rivers, Rock Creek, and Laramie River. Pipeline crossings for the Overthrust 

Wamsutter and Overland Pass pipelines would be subject to construction timing restrictions and other 

mitigation measures to avoid the loss of roost, nest trees, and foraging habitat. Therefore, these projects would 

not contribute to cumulative impacts to bald eagle winter or nesting habitat, nor would construction activities 

coincide with bald eagle critical use periods along these rivers. 

Land Use, Recreation, and Aesthetics 

The Overland Pass, Enterprise Western Expansion, Rockies Express/Entrega, and Overthrust Wamsutter 

pipeline projects incrementally would add to the acreage of aboveground oil and gas pipeline facilities in 

Wyoming. While installation of new pipelines in an existing corridor incrementally would reduce the area 

available for future development, use of established utility corridors concentrates cumulative land use impacts. 

With the exception of a rural residential area between Cheyenne and Laramie, Wyoming (Rockies 

Express/Entrega and Overland Pass), the Overland Pass, Overthrust Wamsutter, and Enterprise Western 

Expansion projects would not cumulatively affect residential land uses. The existing pipeline corridor between 

Laramie and Cheyenne pre-dates the subdivision of existing rangeland in this area, and recent deeds would 

have been subject to the pipeline easements. 

The Overland Pass and the Overthrust Wamsutter pipelines both cross the Continental Divide Trail at 

RP 178.5, but construction periods would not overlap at this location. Both projects would maintain recreational 

user access along this trail by providing short detours, and restoring existing roads and trails. 

The majority of the proposed pipeline route across federal lands where visual management standards have 

been established are already highly modified by existing utility projects. Two Class II VRM areas are located 

between RP 0 and RP 1.6 and between RP 59.2 and RP 60.4. Since no other proposed projects would be 

co-located with the proposed pipeline route at these locations, cumulative visual resource impacts caused by 

additional pipeline construction would not occur. 

ES-13
The Echo Springs and Laramie pump stations would be located in rural locations, and 1 mile or more from any 

residential locations. Each pump station would be sited at a new location, and therefore would not interact 

cumulatively with other nearby industrial sources. 

Cultural Resources/Native American Concerns 

Records searches and pedestrian surveys have been completed in Wyoming, Colorado, and Kansas. There is 

a potential for sites eligible to the NRHP to be affected by pipeline projects constructed adjacent to each other 

in the same utility corridor. Effects on eligible sites by the individual projects would be determined 

independently through reviews by the BLM and the State Historic Preservation Officers of the individual states. 

In some instances, the cumulative surface disturbance of multiple projects in the same corridor may require 

rerouting of one or more projects to minimize surface disturbance effects on cultural resources. 

Social and Economic Conditions 

Overland Pass and other pipeline projects in the area may be constructed in a similar timeframe. Workforces 

for these projects may place demands on local infrastructure (temporary housing, other services). The 

potential for the maximum cumulative workforce likely would occur in the vicinity of Green River and Rock 

Springs, Wyoming. Based on current high levels of oil and gas activity in this region, it is expected that there 

may be a shortage of temporary housing for non-local workers and increased demands on local emergency 

services. 

Pipeline projects would follow transportation plans to manage traffic. The BLM and USFS have defined 

minimum standards for maintenance of existing roads, and construction and operation of any new permanent 

roads on BLM- or USFS-administered land. 

The construction workforces for projects occurring in the same timeframe would contribute to short-term 

increases in local sales tax revenues and long-term increases in the property tax base. Few long-term 

employees would be needed to operate these new pipelines, and therefore no long term impacts to 

employment and demands on local services are expected. 

Public Health and Safety 

No cumulative operational safety impacts are expected among pipelines and other facilities located in the 

same general utility corridor because of the spacing between pipelines, the depth of soil cover, and 

requirements to meet USDOT Minimum Federal Safety Standards in Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) Part 195 and 43 CFR 2886.10. 

ES-14
Overland Pass Master Acronyms List 

°F degrees Fahrenheit 

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter 

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 

amsl above mean sea level 

ANF Ashley National Forest 

AOPL Associations of Pipe Lines 

APE area of potential effect 

AQCC Air Quality Control Commission 

ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 

ARS Agricultural Research Service 

BA biological assessment 

BE biological evaluation 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BMP Best Management Practices 

BO biological opinion 

bpd barrels per day 

BR biological report 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments 

CBM coal bed methane 

CBNG coal bed natural gas 

CDOW Colorado Division of Wildlife 

CDP Census-designated Place 

CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 

CDT Continental Divide National Scenic Trail 

CDTA Continental Divide Trail Alliance 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

CERCLIS CERCLA Information System 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

cfs cubic feet per second 

CGS Colorado Geological Survey 

CO carbon monoxide 

CR County Road 

CRP Conservation Reserve Program 

CWA Clean Water Act of 1972 

dBA decibels on the A-weighted scale 

EA environmental assessment 

EAC Environmental Advisory Committee 

EI Environmental Inspector 

EIS environmental impact statement 

EO Executive Order 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ERP Emergency Response Plan 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

FBE fusion bond epoxy 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

FGNRA Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 

FR Federal Register 

i 
Acronym List (Continued) 

FSA Farm Service Agency’s 

FSM USFS Manual 

GLO General Land Office 

H2S hydrogen sulfide 

HABS Historic American Buildings Survey 

HAER Historic American Engineering Record 

HAP hazardous air pollutant 

HCA high consequence areas 

HDD horizontal directional drilling 

HEL highly erodible lands 

hp horsepower 

I-25 Interstate 25 

I-70 Interstate 70 

I-80 Interstate 80 

ISO International Standard Operations 

KAQR&S Kansas Air Quality Regulations and Statues 

KDA Kansas Department of Agriculture 

KDHE Kansas Department of Health and Environment 

KDWP Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks 

KGS Kansas Geological Survey 

KSHS Kansas State Historical Society 

kV kilovolt 

LAER Lowest Achievable Emission Rate 

Ldn day-night (average sound) level 

Leq equivalent sound level 

LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan 

MACT Maximum Achievable Control Technology 

MAOP maximum allowable operating pressure 

MAPL Mid-America Pipeline Company, LLC 

mg/l milligram per liter 

mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter 

MIS Management Indicator Species 

MLA Mineral Leasing Act 

MLRA Major Land Resource Areas 

MLV mainline valve 

MMI Modified Mercalli Index 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MOP maximum operating pressure 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

MUID Map Unit Identifier 

mya million years ago 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NAGPRA Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NFS National Forest System 

NGHA Non-game Habitat Areas 

NGL Natural Gas Liquids 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1986 

NNSR Nonattainment New Source Review 

NO2 nitrogen dioxide 

NO3 nitrate 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NOx oxides of nitrogen 

ii 
Acronym List (Continued) 

NPA National Programmatic Agreement 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NPL National Priorities List 

NPS National Park Service 

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

NRG Natural Resource Group 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places 

NSA Noise Sensitive Area 

NSPS New Source Performance Standards 

NSR New Source Review 

NWI National Wetland Inventory 

NWIS National Water Information System 

NWP Nationwide Permits 

O3 ozone 

OAHP Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 

OHV off-highway vehicle 

ONRW Outstanding Natural Resource Water 

OPS Office of Pipeline Safety 

Overland Pass Overland Pass Pipeline Company LLC 

PAM Polyacrylamide 

Pb lead 

PEM palustrine emergent 

PFC Proper Functioning Condition 

PFO palustrine forested 

PLJV Playa Lakes Joint Venture 

PM10 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or less 

PM2.5 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less 

PNG Pawnee National Grassland 

POD Plan of Development 

ppm parts per million 

ppmw parts per million by weight 

PRRIP Platte River Recovery Implementation Program 

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

psig pounds per square inch, gauge 

PSS palustrine scrub-shrub 

RMP Resource Management Plan 

ROD Record of Decision 

ROW right-of-way 

RP reference point 

RV recreational vehicle 

SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition 

SEIS supplemental environmental impact statement 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office 

SIA Special Interest Area 

SMS Scenery Management System 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

SOX sulfur oxides 

SPCC Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan 

spp. species (plural) 

SPWRAP South Platte Water Related Activities Program 

STATSGO State Soil Geographic 

SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 

tcfy trillion cubic feet per year 

TCP Traditional Cultural Property 

iii 
Acronym List (Continued) 

tpy tons per year 

TSS Total Suspended Solids 

TWA Temporary Workspace Area 

U.S. United States 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USBOR U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

USC United States Code 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USDOE U.S. Department of Energy 

USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

USFS U.S. Forest Service 

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

V volt 

VRM Visual Resource Management 

WAQS&R Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations 

WDEQ Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

Williams William’s Field Service Company, LLC 

WSGS Wyoming State Geological Survey 

WYCRO Wyoming Cultural Records Office 

WYNDD Wyoming Natural Diversity Database 

iv 
Contents 

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................ES-1 

Overland Pass Master Acronyms List................................................................................................................. i 

1.0 Purpose and Need........................................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Purpose and Need for the Project ......................................................................................................1-3

1.3 Decisions to Be Made .........................................................................................................................1-4

1.3.1 Bureau of Land Management .................................................................................................1-4

1.3.2 U.S. Forest Service .................................................................................................................1-5

1.4 Federal Approval Process and Authorizing Actions...........................................................................1-5

1.4.1 Bureau of Land Management .................................................................................................1-5

1.4.2 U.S. Forest Service .................................................................................................................1-6

1.4.3 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation..............................................................................1-6

1.4.4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.................................................................................................1-6

1.4.5 Office of Pipeline Safety ..........................................................................................................1-7

1.4.6 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Nationwide Permits under the

Clean Water Act ......................................................................................................................1-7

1.5 Permits and Relationship to Non-federal Policies, Plans, and Programs .........................................1-7

1.6 Non-federal ROW Easement Acquisition Process...........................................................................1-11

1.7 Scoping and Public Involvement.......................................................................................................1-11

1.7.1 Public Involvement ................................................................................................................1-11

1.8 Issues.................................................................................................................................................1-12

1.9 Public Review and Comment............................................................................................................1-13

1.10 Changes since Issuance of the Draft EIS.........................................................................................1-14

2.0 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action ............................................................................................2-1

2.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Description of Alternatives ..................................................................................................................2-2

2.2.1 The Proposed Action...............................................................................................................2-2

2.2.1.1 Proposed Facilities .................................................................................................2-2

2.2.1.2 Land Requirements................................................................................................2-8

v 
2.2.1.3 Construction Processes Common to All Action Alternatives ..............................2-18

2.2.2 The No Action Alternative......................................................................................................2-34

2.2.3 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative...........................................2-34

2.2.3.1 Proposed Facilities ...............................................................................................2-35

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study..........................................................2-37

2.3.1 System Alternatives...............................................................................................................2-37

2.3.1.1 Trucking or Railroad Transport ............................................................................2-37

2.3.1.2 Enterprise Pipeline System..................................................................................2-38

2.3.1.3 Alternative Pipeline Configurations......................................................................2-40

2.3.2 Route Alternatives .................................................................................................................2-41

2.3.2.1 I-80 Energy Corridor.............................................................................................2-41

2.3.2.2 Northern Energy Corridor.....................................................................................2-41

2.3.2.3 Western Segment of the Southern Energy Corridor ...........................................2-42

2.3.2.4 MAPL Route .........................................................................................................2-42

2.3.3 Local Route Variations ..........................................................................................................2-43

2.3.3.1 Arrowhead Springs Subdivision Variation ...........................................................2-43

2.3.3.2 Green River Crossing Variation ...........................................................................2-43

2.3.3.3 Trona Mines Variations ........................................................................................2-43

2.3.4 Aboveground Facility Location Alternatives..........................................................................2-43

2.4 Comparison of Alternatives...............................................................................................................2-44

2.4.1 Summary and Comparison of Action Alternatives................................................................2-44

3.0 Affected Environment...............................................................................................................................3.1-1

3.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................3.1-1

3.2 Climate and Air Quality ....................................................................................................................3.2-1

3.2.1 Proposed Action ...................................................................................................................3.2-1

3.2.1.1 Regulatory Framework........................................................................................3.2-1

3.2.1.2 New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration Review................3.2-1

3.2.1.3 New Source Performance Standards.................................................................3.2-1

3.2.1.4 Title V Operating Permits ....................................................................................3.2-2

3.2.1.5 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants...............................3.2-2

3.2.1.6 Federal Class I Area Protection..........................................................................3.2-2

3.2.1.7 Conformity for General Federal Actions .............................................................3.2-2

3.2.1.8 State Regulations ................................................................................................3.2-3

3.2.1.9 Climate.................................................................................................................3.2-3

3.2.1.10 Air Quality ............................................................................................................3.2-3

3.2.2 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative..........................................3.2-4

3.3 Geology ............................................................................................................................................3.3-1

3.3.1 Proposed Action ...................................................................................................................3.3-1

3.3.1.1 Physiography and Geology.................................................................................3.3-1

3.3.1.2 Mineral Resources ..............................................................................................3.3-4

3.3.1.3 Geological Hazards .............................................................................................3.3-8

vi 
3.3.1.4 Paleontological Resources................................................................................3.3-12

3.3.2 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative........................................3.3-13

3.4 Soils ..................................................................................................................................................3.4-1

3.4.1 Proposed Action ...................................................................................................................3.4-2

3.4.2 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative..........................................3.4-9

3.5 Water Resources..............................................................................................................................3.5-1

3.5.1 Proposed Action ...................................................................................................................3.5-1

3.5.1.1 Surface Water......................................................................................................3.5-1

3.5.1.2 Groundwater........................................................................................................3.5-9

3.5.1.3 Floodplains, Wetlands, and Riparian Areas .....................................................3.5-17

3.5.2 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative........................................3.5-22

3.5.2.1 Surface Water....................................................................................................3.5-22

3.5.2.2 Groundwater......................................................................................................3.5-22

3.5.2.3 Floodplains, Wetlands, and Riparian Areas .....................................................3.5-22

3.6 Vegetation.........................................................................................................................................3.6-1

3.6.1 Proposed Action ...................................................................................................................3.6-1

3.6.1.1 Vegetation Communities.....................................................................................3.6-1

3.6.1.2 Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plant Species......................................................3.6-4

3.6.2 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass ............................................................3.6-5

3.7 Wildlife, Aquatic Resources, and Special Status Species ..............................................................3.7-1

3.7.1 Proposed Action ...................................................................................................................3.7-1

3.7.1.1 Wildlife..................................................................................................................3.7-1

3.7.1.2 Aquatic Resources ..............................................................................................3.7-4

3.7.1.3 Special Status Species........................................................................................3.7-9

3.7.2 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative........................................3.7-12

3.7.2.1 Wildlife................................................................................................................3.7-12

3.7.2.2 Aquatic Resources ............................................................................................3.7-13

3.7.2.3 Special Status Species......................................................................................3.7-13

3.8 Land Use, Recreation, and Aesthetics ............................................................................................3.8-1

3.8.1 Proposed Action ...................................................................................................................3.8-1

3.8.1.1 Land Ownership and Use....................................................................................3.8-1

3.8.1.2 Congressional Designations and Special Management Areas .........................3.8-7

3.8.1.3 Aesthetics ..........................................................................................................3.8-10

3.8.2 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative........................................3.8-12

3.9 Cultural Resources...........................................................................................................................3.9-1

3.9.1 Proposed Action ...................................................................................................................3.9-1

3.9.1.1 Regulatory Framework........................................................................................3.9-1

3.9.1.2 Qualifications for Listing Cultural Resources on the NRHP...............................3.9-1

3.9.1.3 Cultural Resources Investigations ......................................................................3.9-1

3.9.2 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative..........................................3.9-7

vii 
3.10 Native American Concerns ............................................................................................................3.10-1

3.10.1 Proposed Action .................................................................................................................3.10-1

3.10.1.1 Regulatory Framework......................................................................................3.10-1

3.10.1.2 Native American Consultation...........................................................................3.10-2

3.10.2 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative........................................3.10-3

3.11 Social and Economic Conditions ...................................................................................................3.11-1

3.11.1 Proposed Action .................................................................................................................3.11-1

3.11.1.1 Population, Employment, and Income..............................................................3.11-1

3.11.1.2 Infrastructure......................................................................................................3.11-4

3.11.1.3 Fiscal Relationships ..........................................................................................3.11-9

3.11.1.4 Environmental Justice .......................................................................................3.11-9

3.11.2 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative......................................3.11-13

3.12 Public Health and Safety................................................................................................................3.12-1

3.12.1 Proposed Action .................................................................................................................3.12-1

3.12.1.1 Hazardous Materials and Wastes.....................................................................3.12-1

3.12.1.2 Emergency Response.......................................................................................3.12-1

3.12.2 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative........................................3.12-1

4.0 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................................................4.1-1

4.1 Analysis Assumptions and Analysis Guidelines..............................................................................4.1-1

4.2 Climate and Air Quality ....................................................................................................................4.2-1

4.2.1 Proposed Action ...................................................................................................................4.2-1

4.2.2 No Action Alternative............................................................................................................4.2-2

4.2.3 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative..........................................4.2-2

4.3 Geology ............................................................................................................................................4.3-1

4.3.1 Proposed Action ...................................................................................................................4.3-1

4.3.1.1 Physiography and Geology.................................................................................4.3-1

4.3.1.2 Mineral Resources ..............................................................................................4.3-2

4.3.1.3 Geological Hazards .............................................................................................4.3-4

4.3.1.4 Paleontological Resources..................................................................................4.3-6

4.3.2 No Action Alternative............................................................................................................4.3-7

4.3.3 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative..........................................4.3-7

4.4 Soils ..................................................................................................................................................4.4-1

4.4.1 Proposed Action ...................................................................................................................4.4-1

4.4.2 No Action Alternative ..........................................................................................................4.4-10

4.4.3 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative........................................4.4-10

4.5 Water Resources..............................................................................................................................4.5-1

4.5.1 Proposed Action ...................................................................................................................4.5-1

4.5.1.1 Surface Water......................................................................................................4.5-1

viii 
4.5.1.2 Groundwater......................................................................................................4.5-15

4.5.1.3 Floodplains, Wetlands, and Riparian Areas .....................................................4.5-19

4.5.2 No Action Alternative ..........................................................................................................4.5-21

4.5.3 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative........................................4.5-21

4.6 Vegetation.........................................................................................................................................4.6-1

4.6.1 Proposed Action ...................................................................................................................4.6-1

4.6.1.1 Vegetation Communities and Special Status Plant Species .............................4.6-1

4.6.1.2 Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plant Species......................................................4.6-7

4.6.2 No Action Alternative............................................................................................................4.6-8

4.6.3 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative..........................................4.6-8

4.7 Wildlife, Aquatic Resources, and Special Status Species ..............................................................4.7-1

4.7.1 Proposed Action ...................................................................................................................4.7-1

4.7.1.1 Wildlife..................................................................................................................4.7-1

4.7.1.2 Aquatic Resources ..............................................................................................4.7-5

4.7.1.3 Special Status Species......................................................................................4.7-11

4.7.2 No Action Alternative ..........................................................................................................4.7-24

4.7.2.1 Wildlife................................................................................................................4.7-24

4.7.2.2 Aquatic Species.................................................................................................4.7-25

4.7.2.3 Special Status Species......................................................................................4.7-25

4.7.3 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative........................................4.7-25

4.7.3.1 Wildlife................................................................................................................4.7-25

4.7.3.2 Aquatic Resources ............................................................................................4.7-25

4.7.3.3 Special Status Species......................................................................................4.7-25

4.8 Land Use, Recreation, and Aesthetics ............................................................................................4.8-1

4.8.1 Proposed Action ...................................................................................................................4.8-1

4.8.1.1 Agricultural Lands................................................................................................4.8-1

4.8.1.2 Transportation......................................................................................................4.8-3

4.8.1.3 Residential / Commercial ....................................................................................4.8-6

4.8.1.4 Utilities..................................................................................................................4.8-8

4.8.1.5 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................4.8-9

4.8.2 No Action Alternative ..........................................................................................................4.8-12

4.8.3 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative........................................4.8-12

4.9 Cultural Resources...........................................................................................................................4.9-1

4.9.1 Proposed Action ...................................................................................................................4.9-1

4.9.2 No Action Alternative............................................................................................................4.9-3

4.9.3 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative..........................................4.9-3

4.10 Native American Concerns ............................................................................................................4.10-1

4.10.1 Proposed Action .................................................................................................................4.10-1

4.10.2 No Action Alternative ..........................................................................................................4.10-2

4.10.3 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative........................................4.10-2

ix 
4.11 Social and Economic Conditions ...................................................................................................4.11-1

4.11.1 Proposed Action .................................................................................................................4.11-1

4.11.1.1 Population, Employment, and Income..............................................................4.11-1

4.11.1.2 Infrastructure......................................................................................................4.11-3

4.11.1.3 Fiscal Relationships ..........................................................................................4.11-5

4.11.1.4 Environmental Justice .......................................................................................4.11-6

4.11.2 No Action Alternative ..........................................................................................................4.11-7

4.11.3 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative........................................4.11-8

4.12 Public Health and Safety................................................................................................................4.12-1

4.12.1 Proposed Action .................................................................................................................4.12-1

4.12.1.1 Hazardous Materials and Wastes.....................................................................4.12-1

4.12.1.2 Emergency Response.......................................................................................4.12-5

4.12.2 No Action Alternative ..........................................................................................................4.12-6

4.12.3 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative........................................4.12-6

5.0 Cumulative .................................................................................................................................................5.1-1

5.1 Cumulative Impacts..........................................................................................................................5.1-1

5.2 Cumulative Impacts to Resources...................................................................................................5.2-1

5.2.1 Climate and Air Quality.........................................................................................................5.2-1

5.2.2 Geology.................................................................................................................................5.2-1

5.2.2.1 Mineral Resources ..............................................................................................5.2-1

5.2.2.2 Geologic Hazards................................................................................................5.2-1

5.2.2.3 Paleontological Resources..................................................................................5.2-1

5.2.3 Soils.......................................................................................................................................5.2-2

5.2.3.1 Erosion.................................................................................................................5.2-2

5.2.3.2 Sensitive Soils .....................................................................................................5.2-2

5.2.4 Water Resources..................................................................................................................5.2-5

5.2.4.1 Surface Water......................................................................................................5.2-5

5.2.4.2 Groundwater........................................................................................................5.2-5

5.2.4.3 Wetlands..............................................................................................................5.2-6

5.2.5 Vegetation.............................................................................................................................5.2-6

5.2.5.1 Vegetation Communities.....................................................................................5.2-6

5.2.5.2 Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plant Species......................................................5.2-6

5.2.6 Wildlife, Aquatic Resources, and Special Status Species ..................................................5.2-6

5.2.6.1 Wildlife..................................................................................................................5.2-6

5.2.6.2 Aquatic Resources ..............................................................................................5.2-7

5.2.6.3 Special Status Species........................................................................................5.2-7

5.2.7 Land Use, Recreation, and Aesthetics ................................................................................5.2-8

5.2.7.1 Land Use..............................................................................................................5.2-8

5.2.7.2 Visual Resources.................................................................................................5.2-9

5.2.8 Cultural Resources ...............................................................................................................5.2-9

x 
5.2.9 Social and Economic Conditions .........................................................................................5.2-9

5.2.10 Public Health and Safety ....................................................................................................5.2-10

6.0 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ...................................................................................................................6-1

7.0 Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitment of Resources..............................................................................7-1

8.0 Relationship Between Local Short-term Uses of the Human Environment and the 

Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivity..................................................................8-1

9.0 Electric Powerlines ......................................................................................................................................9-1

9.1 Electrical Powerline Requirements.....................................................................................................9-1

9.2 Electrical Powerline Construction .......................................................................................................9-1

9.2.1 Powerline Construction ...........................................................................................................9-3

9.2.2 Restoration...............................................................................................................................9-3

9.3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ................................................................9-3

9.4 Cumulative Impacts.............................................................................................................................9-4

10.0 Public Comments and Responses ........................................................................................................10-1

List of Preparers and Reviewers 

References 

Glossary 

Index 

xi 
Appendix A – Mitigation Measures 

Appendix B – Site-specific Maps for Aboveground Facilities 

Appendix C – Construction, Reclamation, and Revegetation Plan 

Appendix D – Hydrostatic Test Plan 

Appendix E – Weed Management Plan 

Appendix F – Winter Construction Plan 

Appendix G – Comparison of Route Alternatives 

Appendix H – Waterbody and Wetland Crossing Tables 

Appendix I – Special Status Species Tables 

Appendix J – BLM Cultural Resources Protection Procedures 

Appendix K – Cultural Resources Site Summary Tables by State 

Appendix L – Risk Assessment 

Appendix M – Distribution List for the Final EIS 

xii 
List of Tables 

Table 1.1-1 Ownership of Land Crossed by the Overland Pass Pipeline Project (miles) .............................1-1

Table 1.5-1 Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Project .....................................................1-8

Table 1.7-1 Public Scoping Meetings............................................................................................................1-12

Table 2.2-1 Proposed Facilities Associated with the Project..........................................................................2-7

Table 2.2-2 Proposed Receipt and Delivery Laterals for the Project .............................................................2-8

Table 2.2-3 Summary of Land Requirements Associated with the Proposed Action....................................2-9

Table 2.2-4 Overland Pass Pipeline Segments of ROW that are Not Co-located with Other Utilities........2-13

Table 2.2-5 Dimensions and Acreage of Typical Additional Temporary Workspace Areas........................2-15

Table 2.2-6 Proposed Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards Associated with the Proposed Action.............2-16

Table 2.2-7 Construction Spreads for the Project.........................................................................................2-19

Table 2.2-8 Summary of Electrical Power Supply Requirements for Valves, Pump Stations, and 

Meter Stations.............................................................................................................................2-29

Table 2.2-9 Pipeline Construction Workforce and Proposed Schedule.......................................................2-30

Table 2.3-1 Relative Risk1 of Pipelines Compared to Other Transportation Methods ................................2-38

Table 2.3-2 Comparison of the Western Expansion Project to the Proposed Action..................................2-40

Table 2.4-1 Comparison of Differences Between Action Alternatives for Segment RP 62.3 to

RP 87.1 .......................................................................................................................................2-45

Table 3.2-1 National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards ..................................................................3.2-4

Table 3.3-1 Geologic Conditions Along the Proposed Pipeline Route........................................................3.3-1

Table 3.3-2 Oil and Gas Fields Crossed by the Proposed Project..............................................................3.3-5

Table 3.3-3 Mining Operations Within 1,500 Feet of the Proposed Project................................................3.3-6

Table 3.3-4 Potential Geologic Hazards Along the Proposed Pipeline Route............................................3.3-9

Table 3.4-1 Mileage Summary by State of Soil Characteristics for the Proposed Pipeline Route.............3.4-3

Table 3.4-2 Mileage Breakdown of Topsoil Depth and Average Slope Class Along the

Proposed Pipeline Route ..........................................................................................................3.4-5

Table 3.4-3 Mileage Summary of Soil Characteristics for the Alternative and Corresponding 

Segment of the Proposed Pipeline Route ..............................................................................3.4-10

Table 3.4-4 Mileage Summary of Topsoil Depth and Average Slope Class for the Alternative and 

Corresponding Segment of the Proposed Pipeline Route.....................................................3.4-10

Table 3.5-1 Watersheds Crossed by the Proposed Project ........................................................................3.5-2

Table 3.5-2 Summary of Major or Sensitive Waterbody Crossings Along the Proposed Project ..............3.5-6

Table 3.5-3 Summary of Impaired Waterbody Crossings Along the Proposed Project .............................3.5-6

Table 3.5-4 Surface Water Intakes Within 10 Miles Downstream of Proposed Crossings ........................3.5-9

Table 3.5-5 Aquifer Zones near the Land Surface.....................................................................................3.5-11

xiii 
Table 3.5-6 Private Water Supply Wells Occurring Along the Proposed Pipeline Route.........................3.5-16

Table 3.5-7 Major Floodplains Crossed by the Project..............................................................................3.5-20

Table 3.5-8 Riparian Areas on Federally Managed Lands Along the Proposed Pipeline Route .............3.5-20

Table 3.5-9 Summary of Wetland Types Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline Route................................3.5-21

Table 3.6-1 Miles of Vegetation Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline Route................................................3.6-1

Table 3.6-2 Vegetation Types and Sub-Communities that Occur Along the Proposed Pipeline Route....3.6-3

Table 3.6-3 Noxious Weeds

1 that Potentially Occur Along the Proposed Pipeline Route .........................3.6-4

Table 3.7-1 Common Wildlife Species in the Project Area..........................................................................3.7-1

Table 3.7-2 Big Game Crucial Winter Habitat with Timing Restrictions Affected by the Project................3.7-2

Table 3.7-3 Management Indicator Species for the Project ........................................................................3.7-4

Table 3.7-4 Game Fish Occurrence and Fishery Classifications for Waterbodies Crossed by 

the Project..................................................................................................................................3.7-6

Table 3.7-5 Game Fish Spawning Periods and Habitat ..............................................................................3.7-8

Table 3.8-1 Summary of Federal, State, and Locally Owned Land Crossed by the Proposed 

Pipeline Route ...........................................................................................................................3.8-1

Table 3.8-2 Summary of Structures Within 50 feet of the Construction Work Area for the

Proposed Action ........................................................................................................................3.8-2

Table 3.8-3 Summary of Land Use Types Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline Route (miles) ...................3.8-4

Table 3.8-4 Conservation Reserve Program Land Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline Route ..................3.8-7

Table 3.8-5 Recreation and Special Interest Areas Affected by the Proposed Pipeline Route .................3.8-8

Table 3.8-6 BLM VRM and USFS SMS Classifications for Areas Crossed by the Proposed 

Pipeline Route .........................................................................................................................3.8-10

Table 3.10-1 Status of Native American Consultation .................................................................................3.10-4

Table 3.11-1 States and Counties Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline Project...........................................3.11-1

Table 3.11-2 Affected Communities Along the Proposed Project ...............................................................3.11-2

Table 3.11-3 Socioeconomic Conditions in Affected Counties Along the Proposed Project......................3.11-3

Table 3.11-4 Total Housing for Counties along the Proposed Project........................................................3.11-4

Table 3.11-5 Available Housing Summary in Counties along the Proposed Project..................................3.11-6

Table 3.11-6 Existing Public Services and Facilities Along the Proposed Pipeline Route.........................3.11-7

Table 3.11-7 Environmental Justice Statistics in Affected Counties .........................................................3.11-11

Table 3.11-8 Environmental Justice Statistics in Affected Communities ..................................................3.11-12

Table 4.3-1 Areas Containing Shallow Bedrock where Blasting may be Required....................................4.3-1

Table 4.3-2 Comparison of Steep Slopes and Side Slopes Along the Proposed Action and

the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative ........................................4.3-7

xiv 
Table 4.4-1 Acreage Summary by State of Soil Characteristics for the Proposed Pipeline Route............4.4-2

Table 4.4-2 Acreage Breakdown of Topsoil Depth and Average Slope Class Along the

Proposed Pipeline Route ..........................................................................................................4.4-4

Table 4.4-3 Characteristics and Limitations of Soils at Pump and Meter Stations.....................................4.4-8

Table 4.4-4 Comparison of Soil Characteristics Affected by the Southern Energy Corridor – 

Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative and Corresponding Segment of the 

Proposed Action (acres)..........................................................................................................4.4-11

Table 4.4-5 Acreage Summary of Topsoil Depth and Average Slope Class Affected by the 

Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative and Corresponding 

Segment of the Proposed Pipeline Route ..............................................................................4.4-11

Table 4.5-1 Locations Where Active Erosion or Channel Incising is Occurring .........................................4.5-9

Table 4.5-2 Anticipated Water Sources for Construction of the Proposed Project...................................4.5-10

Table 4.6-1 Acres of Land Affected by Construction and Operation of the Project....................................4.6-2

Table 4.7-1 Big Game Crucial Winter Habitat Affected by the Proposed Action........................................4.7-2

Table 4.7-2 Impacts for Special Status Species ........................................................................................4.7-12

Table 4.7-3 Acres of Suitable Habitat Directly Impacted by Construction Activities for 

Special Status Wildlife Species...............................................................................................4.7-15

Table 4.7-4 Impacts for Management Indicator Species...........................................................................4.7-19

Table 4.7-5 Acres Impacted by Construction Activities for Special Status Plant Species........................4.7-22

Table 4.8-1 Structures Within 50 Feet of the Construction Work Area for the Proposed Action ...............4.8-6

Table 4.8-2 Estimated Construction Equipment Noise From the Proposed Aboveground Facilities.......4.8-10

Table 4.8-3 Estimated Sound Levels from Pump Stations........................................................................4.8-11

Table 4.11-1 Pipeline Construction Workforce.............................................................................................4.11-1

Table 4.12-1 Locations Where Heavier Wall Pipe Would Be Installed .......................................................4.12-3

Table 5.1-1 Projects with Potential Cumulative Impacts on Resources within the General Area of the 

Proposed Overland Pass Pipeline ............................................................................................5.1-2

Table 5.1-2 Estimated Cumulative Utility Use Area within the Existing Utility Corridor Occupied by the

Proposed Overland Pass Pipeline ............................................................................................5.1-4

Table 5.2-1 Overland Pass Project Cumulative Impacts for River Crossings and Streams Containing

Fisheries in Wyoming ................................................................................................................5.2-3

Table 6-1 Summary of Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ................................................................................6-1

Table 7-1 Summary of Irreversible, Irretrievable Commitment of Resources by the Proposed Action .....7-1

Table 9-1 Electrical Powerline Requirements for the Proposed Action ......................................................9-2

Table 10-1 Public Comment Index Codes........................................................................................................10-1

xv 
List of Figures 

Figure 1-1 Project Overview ..........................................................................................................................1-2

Figure 2.2-1 Project Overview ..........................................................................................................................2-3

Figure 2.2-2 Project Overview Wyoming..........................................................................................................2-4

Figure 2.2-3 Project Overview Colorado ..........................................................................................................2-5

Figure 2.2-4 Project Overview Kansas .............................................................................................................2-6

Figure 2.2-5 Typical Construction ROW.........................................................................................................2-11

Figure 2.2-6 Typical Construction ROW – Adjacent to Existing Pipeline......................................................2-12

Figure 2.2-7 Typical Pipeline Construction Sequence ...................................................................................2-20

Figure 2.2-8 Conceptual Horizontal Directionally Drilled Waterbody ............................................................2-25

Figure 2.2-9 Route Alternatives Rock Springs Area ......................................................................................2-36

Figure 2.3-1 Enterprise Pipeline System Alternative......................................................................................2-39

Figure 3.5-1 Regional Watersheds................................................................................................................3.5-7

Figure 3.5-2 Major Aquifer Systems ............................................................................................................3.5-14

Figure 3.5-3 Elk Mountain Sole Source Aquifer ..........................................................................................3.5-18

Figure 3.5-4 Casper Aquifer Protection Area ..............................................................................................3.5-19

Figure 3.6-1 Land Cover ................................................................................................................................3.6-2

Figure 3.8-1 Noise Sensitive Area Location Map........................................................................................3.8-13

Figure 4.5-1 Typical Incised Bank Stabilization – Profile View.....................................................................4.5-7

Figure 4.5-2 Typical Incised Bank Stabilization – Plan View........................................................................4.5-8

Figure 5.1-1 Utility Corridor Relationships with Sensitive Resources ..........................................................5.1-5

xvi