PURPOSE AND NEED 
 

CHAPTER 1
 
1.0 Purpose and Need 

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 
 

1.1 Introduction 

On November 8, 2005, Overland Pass Pipeline Company LLC (Overland Pass), a subsidiary of ONEOK and 

William’s Field Service Company, LLC (Williams), submitted an application to the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) to construct an approximately 760-mile-long, natural gas liquids (NGL) pipeline that would 

begin at its existing facilities in Opal, Wyoming, and end at its existing facilities in Conway, Kansas 

(Figure 1.1-1). 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. The pipeline would 

transport up to 150,000 barrels per day (bpd) of NGL. Three electric pump stations would move the NGL at a 

maximum pressure of 1,440 pounds per square inch, gauge (psig). Pump stations are proposed near Echo 

Springs and Laramie, Wyoming, and near WaKeeney, Kansas. The pipeline would have manual or 

self-actuating shut-off valves at regular intervals, as well as pigging facilities and meter stations. The project is 

referred to as the Overland Pass Pipeline Project (Proposed Action). 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. The ownership of land crossed by the 

project is identified in Table 1.1-1. Overland Pass proposes to begin construction of the project in 

October 2007 and begin service by the second quarter of 2008. 

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

Federal – 

BLM 

Federal – 

USFS Tribal State Local Private Total 

Wyoming 98.8 2.0 0.0 21.4 3.9 201.1 327.2 

Colorado 0.0 22.4 0.0 11.3 0.4 137.7 171.8 

Kansas 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 260.9 260.9 

Pipeline 

Total 

98.8 24.4 0.0 32.7 4.3 599.7 759.9 

1

Slight discrepancies in total values due to rounding. 

Consistent with federal regulations found at 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 2804.25, the BLM is 

required to complete a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis before issuing a ROW grant. Due to 

the nature and scope of the proposed project, the BLM decided to prepare an environmental impact statement 

(EIS). 

Beginning in Wyoming, the proposed Overland Pass proposed pipeline route would traverse the state in a 

west-to-east direction across the lower half of the state. To the extent feasible, the pipeline would be routed 

from Opal to Echo Springs along various existing utility or pipeline corridors. From Williams’ existing facilities in 

Echo Springs, the proposed pipeline route would run in a southeasterly direction, paralleling the existing 

Southern Star Pipeline, and traverse to the south of Cheyenne, Wyoming, before entering Colorado. 

From the Colorado border, the proposed pipeline route would continue southeasterly into Kansas, paralleling 

the existing Southern Star Pipeline to the south of WaKeeney, Kansas. It would then follow an existing ROW 

to an existing BP Amoco (Wattenberg) pipeline to Bushton, Kansas. A new ROW would need to be cleared 

from Bushton to Mitchell, Kansas, where it would then follow a Williams pipeline corridor to Conway, Kansas. 

1-1
 

At Bushton and Conway, the transported NGL would be processed and distributed through the existing 

transportation infrastructure to consumer markets in the Midwest and Texas Gulf of Mexico coast. 

Approximately 82 percent of the proposed 760-mile-long pipeline would be co-located with existing pipeline 

corridors. 

Overland Pass’ proposed pipeline would cross federal lands managed by the BLM and U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service (USFS) as shown in Table 1.1-1. The BLM is the federal land management agency 

that regulates and manages public domain lands. The Proposed Action would affect public land administered 

by three BLM field offices in Wyoming: the Kemmerer, Rock Springs, and Rawlins Field Offices. The USFS 

administers National Forest System (NFS) lands of two units that would be affected: the Flaming Gorge 

National Recreational Area (FGNRA) in Wyoming and the Pawnee National Grassland (PNG) in Colorado. 

While the BLM would prepare and issue the ROW grant for the project components sites on federal lands, 

grant terms and conditions would be included for public and NFS lands. 

The Proposed Action also would require the construction of pump stations, meter stations, pigging facilities, as 

well as the installation of numerous valves. Pump stations would be placed along the pipeline at locations 

necessary to maintain adequate flow through the pipeline. Meter stations would measure the amount of 

product transported and delivered by the pipeline. Valves would be installed and located as dictated by the 

hydraulic characteristics of the pipeline, as required by federal regulations, and with the intent to maximize 

public safety and environmental protection as part of Overland Pass’s integrity management practices. 

Electrical powerlines would be constructed to provide power for the new pump stations and remotely activated 

valves located along the proposed pipeline route. 

The Overland Pass pipeline would require electrical powerlines and facility upgrades in multiple locations 

along its route. Local power providers would be responsible for obtaining any necessary approvals or 

authorizations from federal, state, and local governments for new electrical powerlines and facility construction 

activities required for the project. The permitting process for the electrical facilities is an independent process 

and no applications have been submitted for the electrical facilities to date. The construction and operation of 

these powerlines, however, are considered a connected action under NEPA, and are therefore evaluated 

within this EIS. The siting and construction assumptions set forth in this EIS would be subject to verification 

and/or correction by other regulatory agencies upon the agency’s receipt of any necessary electrical powerline 

and/or facility ROW or other permit requests. The electrical powerlines described in this EIS are not included in 

Overland Pass’s ROW Grant application for approval by the BLM. 

1.2 Purpose and Need for the Project 

NGLs are hydrocarbon liquids that are associated with the production and processing of natural gas. As 

natural gas production increases, typical NGL production also increases. When natural gas is removed from 

the ground, it is compositionally different than what is transported through natural gas transmission systems 

and ultimately used as an energy source for end uses such as home heating and cooking, and industrial 

energy. When removed from the ground, the mixture is predominately methane, but also includes heavier 

hydrocarbons and inert gases. Although the mixture can vary greatly, a typical stream may include 85 percent 

methane, 10 percent heavier hydrocarbons (NGLs), and 5 percent inert gases. Some of the NGLs and inert 

gases must be removed to make the natural gas salable and transportable. 

Currently, existing NGL pipelines are operating at or near capacity. The Proposed Action would address the 

needs of producers in Colorado and Wyoming by providing additional NGL pipeline capacity out of the Rocky 

Mountain region to new and existing markets. Downstream customers would thereby gain access to the Rocky 

Mountain supply basin. In summary, approval of the Proposed Action would meet the mutual needs of 

producers and downstream customers, and would further federal policy regarding the development of pipeline 

infrastructure in the Rocky Mountain region. 

In addition to being necessary, the removal of NGLs from the natural gas stream also can enhance the value 

of the components removed. Although only 10 percent of the stream by weight, the NGLs can contribute 

1-3
 
approximately 15 percent of the energy of the stream. This higher energy content of the NGLs makes them 

more useful in other applications, such as: 

•	 Ethane – primarily used for the production of plastics; 

•	 Propane – typically used for heating purposes in areas without access to natural gas, but also can be 

utilized in the production of plastics; and 

•	 Butanes and natural gasoline – primarily used for motor gasoline blending. 

Since NGLs must be removed up to a certain level and are often removed in greater quantities for economic 

purposes, regional NGL production tracks with regional natural gas production. Specifically in the Rocky 

Mountain region of the United States (U.S.), as natural gas production grows, NGL production also grows. 

According to the recently issued Environmental Assessment for the Mid-America Pipeline Company, LLC 

(MAPL) Western Expansion Project (2005), the Rocky Mountain region is a significant contributor to the supply 

of natural gas in the U.S., producing approximately 25 percent of the U.S. natural gas. Natural gas production 

in the Rocky Mountains increased 56 percent between 1999 and 2003. Some experts predict that the Rocky 

Mountain region’s gas production could increase from 3.3 trillion cubic feet per year (tcfy) in 2002 to 4.6 tcfy in 

2010 and 6.3 tcfy in 2025 (U.S. Department of Energy [USDOE] 2004). Notwithstanding the variance in supply 

predictions, industry experts agree that production from the Rocky Mountain region would be critical to serving 

the country’s increasing energy needs. Using typical average NGL content (2 gallons per thousand cubic feet) 

and an average NGL recovery factor (50 percent), this increase in natural gas would produce a significant 

increase in NGLs that would need to be moved. 

The Proposed Action is in the national interest in that it is a major energy facility that would provide significant 

and much needed NGL transmission capacity. The project would increase the flexibility and reliability of the 

interstate NGL pipeline grid by offering greater access to NGL supply sources and increased availability of 

NGL for anticipated projects. As an alternative to the existing MAPL NGL pipeline system, the project would 

ensure that the increased production of NGLs would reach the market and it would introduce 

pipeline-to-pipeline competition to the Rocky Mountain markets. 

The Proposed Action also would further the interests of national security because it would strengthen the 

energy infrastructure of the Rocky Mountain area by providing an additional transportation mode for NGLs 

beyond what currently exists. The Overland Pass pipeline would enhance the reliability and flexibility of the 

energy infrastructure and security of the NGL supply to existing and new markets. 

1.3 Decisions to Be Made 

The controlling guidance and source documents for preparation of this EIS include: 1) the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508); 2) the Resource Management 

Plans (RMPs) for regional BLM field offices; 3) Land and Resource Management Plans for the PNG and 

Ashley National Forest (ANF); and 4) Overland Pass’ Plan of Development (POD), which describes how and 

where the project would be constructed and operated and how the ROW would be reclaimed. The decision as 

to whether the Proposed Action would be authorized would be documented in the Record of Decision (ROD) 

prepared by BLM. The BLM would require a letter of concurrence from the USFS prior to approval of a ROD 

affecting USFS-administered land. 

1.3.1 Bureau of Land Management 

BLM decisions to be made include: 

•	 Whether or not to grant a 30-year ROW to Overland Pass to construct and operate a pipeline and 

associated aboveground facilities (e.g., pump stations, meter stations, pigging facilities, and valves), 

including permanent access roads; 

1-4
 
•	 Whether or not to approve temporary workspace areas (TWAs) associated with the construction of the 

pipeline including the temporary construction ROW, temporary work areas, pipe storage yards, and 

contractor yards; 

•	 Whether or not to approve the temporary use of access roads associated with the construction of the 

pipeline; and 

•	 If approved, what terms and conditions and mitigation requirements would be included in the grant 

authorization. 

1.3.2 U.S. Forest Service 

The applicant’s proposal is dependent on the use and occupancy of lands in the ANF and the PNG. Rather 

than duplicate NEPA processes and paperwork by considering the potential impacts of the Proposed Action on 

USFS lands, the USFS is participating as a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EIS. 

1.4 Federal Approval Process and Authorizing Actions 

In accordance with federal laws governing the management and use of federal lands and laws governing 

interstate commerce, federal agencies may grant long-term utility uses on federal land, subject to 

compensation and environmental stipulations. To reach decisions to grant utility uses, the agencies need to: 

1) evaluate project conformance with federal land management plans and policies, where applicable; 

2) determine whether Overland Pass’ committed measures are sufficient to adequately protect the natural and 

human environment; and 3) decide whether the project is in the public interest after consideration of any 

significant residual environmental impacts (i.e., after stipulations and mitigation measures have been applied). 

Projects operating on federal lands also may require additional plans and monitoring. The following sections 

describe the major federal authorizing actions required for the proposed project to proceed. 

1.4.1 Bureau of Land Management 

The BLM is responsible for issuing ROW grants across federal lands in accordance with 43 CFR 2880. 

Specifically, 43 CFR 2881.11 requires a BLM ROW grant for any oil or gas pipeline or related facility that 

crosses federal land under BLM’s jurisdiction or under the jurisdiction of two or more federal agencies. 

Subpart 2884 describes the application filing, content, processing, and decision steps in granting a ROW 

under these regulations. With respect to a proposal that would cross multiple federal land management 

agency jurisdictions, Subpart 2884.26 discusses the granting process when an application crosses lands 

managed by two or more federal agencies. 

Additionally, the BLM has the authority and responsibility under the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA) of 1920, as 

amended (30 United States Code [USC] Part 185) to grant ROWs for pipelines and is responsible for imposing 

stipulations and regulations to protect public safety and the environment. Recommended mitigation measures 

specific for federal lands identified by BLM and USFS are presented within this EIS. In order to obtain a ROW 

grant and Temporary Use Authorization from BLM, Overland Pass would be subject to terms of use that are 

specific to BLM and USFS lands. 

Absent specific statutory authority, however, BLM cannot require Overland Pass to comply with additional 

mitigation measures and use restrictions on private lands. Nonetheless, many of the mitigation measures 

proposed by Overland Pass for private lands, although less restrictive than the mitigation measures required 

by BLM and USFS for federal lands, are based on common pipeline construction techniques recently utilized 

on other regional pipeline projects, such as the Entrega Gas Pipeline. 

BLM would prepare a ROD to document its decision to either approve or deny the Proposed Action. If 

approved, the following documentation would be attached to the ROD and the subsequent ROW grant issued 

by the BLM, 1) environmental protection measures for federal lands; 2) a concurrence letter or Biological 

Opinion (BO) from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); 3) the Wyoming, Colorado, and Kansas State 

Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) and appropriate consulting parties concurrences with the proposed 

1-5
 
treatment of cultural resources; 4) additional mitigation measures or permit conditions required by the BLM, 

USFS, states, and USFWS; and 5) a concurrence letter from the USFS. 

1.4.2 U.S. Forest Service 

The proposed pipeline ROW traverses a portion of the FGNRA (ANF) in Wyoming and the PNG in Colorado. 

These areas are administered according to federal laws, Department of Agriculture regulations, and USFS 

policy and direction. Specific guidance is found in the Forest Plans, which provides direction, goals, and criteria 

for management, including standards and guidelines for resource use and land management practices. 

The MLA authorizes the issuance of permits and easements for oil and gas pipelines across NFS lands. 

Agency policy for managing special uses and occupancy of NFS lands is contained in 36 CFR Part 257 

Subpart B and in the USFS Manual (FSM), Chapter 2700. FSM 2702 directs USFS officers to manage special 

uses in a manner that protects natural resource values and public health and safety, consistent with forest 

plans. It provides a basis for administering special uses according to resource management objectives and 

sound business management principles. 

If there is a decision to approve a ROW grant on NFS lands, the USFS would issue a letter to BLM stating their 

concurrences. This letter would be referenced within the BLM’s ROD. The USFS’ concurrence decision would 

be based on consistency with the established forest plan for the affected National Forests and conformance 

with all other guidance and mandates. 

1.4.3 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as amended, requires the lead federal agency, 

BLM, to take into account the effects of its undertakings on historic properties on, or eligible for listing on, the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) also is 

afforded an opportunity to comment if there would be adverse effects to NRHP-eligible properties. Historic 

properties are prehistoric or historic districts, sites, buildings, structures, objects, or properties of traditional 

religious or cultural importance, that are listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP. 

To date, record reviews (i.e., Class I inventories) and field inventories (i.e., Class III surveys) have been 

completed for the Proposed Action’s route as well as the proposed new construction sites and temporary 

access roads. Information from record searches and field inventories have been compiled into reports. The 

BLM would continue to consult with each state’s SHPO to determine site eligibility for the National Register 

and the project’s effects on historic properties within the Area of Potential Effect (APE). If adverse effects to 

historic properties cannot be avoided, then a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) would be developed, which 

would outline the appropriate measures to mitigate the effect. 

In addition to Section 106 of the NHPA, the BLM also is responsible for compliance with the American Indian 

Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (AIRFA) and Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 

(NAGPRA). NAGPRA would apply if burials or objects of cultural patrimony are affected by the Proposed 

Action on federal lands; applicable state laws would apply if burials or objects of cultural patrimony are affected 

on state or private lands. Compliance with NHPA and AIRFA would require consultation with the Tribes on the 

effects of the Proposed Action to sites of tribal importance. Such sites include, but are not limited to, 

archaeological sites, Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs), and religious sites. 

1.4.4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

The USFWS is responsible for ensuring compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The BLM is 

responsible for initiating consultation with the USFWS to determine the likelihood of effects on federally listed 

species. Section 7 of the ESA, as amended, states that any project authorized, funded, or conducted by any 

federal agencies should not “...jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened 

species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species which is determined...to 

be critical...” [16 USC § 1536(a)(2)(1988)]. The BLM and the applicant as a non-federal party, are required to 

1-6
 
consult with the USFWS to determine whether any federally listed or proposed endangered or threatened 

species or their designated critical habitat occur in the vicinity of the proposed project. If, upon review of 

existing data, the BLM determines that these species or habitats may be affected by the proposed project, the 

BLM is required to prepare a Biological Assessment (BA) to identify the nature and extent of adverse impact, 

and to recommend mitigation measures that would avoid the habitat and/or species or that would reduce 

potential impact to acceptable levels. If, however, the BLM determines that no federally listed or proposed 

endangered or threatened species or their designated critical habitat would be affected by the proposed 

project, no further action by the BLM is necessary. 

A BA with the BLM’s findings has been prepared and submitted to the USFWS for review. Since the project is 

likely to adversely affect a listed species or critical habitat, the BLM has requested formal consultation with the 

USFWS. As a result, in conjunction with the BLM and the applicant, the USFWS must prepare and issue a BO 

and incidental take statement prior to the start of construction. 

Conclusions on effects to species are described with the EIS text and would be incorporated into conditions for 

project approval. 

1.4.5	 Office of Pipeline Safety 

The Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) within the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) is the primary 

enforcement agency that regulates interstate transportation of hazardous liquids by pipelines, including NGL. 

Federal regulations governing the construction and safe operation of pipelines are enforced by the OPS. 

The OPS would conduct regular audits of pipeline facilities in the future to enforce continual compliance with 

federal regulations, including the inspection of Overland Pass’ Integrity Management Plan for High 

Consequence Areas (HCAs). 

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

Act 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes a permit program administered by the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers (USACE) to regulate the discharge of dredge and fill materials into the waters of the U.S., 

including their adjacent wetlands. This project would be under the jurisdiction of multiple USACE districts for 

the issuance of a Nationwide Permit (NWP) 12 for utility construction. Overland Pass has submitted 

Section 404 permit applications to the appropriate USACE district offices. 

Nationwide 12 permits have been approved for the project by both the Omaha and Kansas City USACE 

districts, and accompanying Section 401 water quality certifications from Colorado and Kansas are in the 

review process (Wyoming has issued its certification). A number of general conditions must be complied with 

under these nationwide permits. Such conditions involve avoiding or minimizing impacts, or mitigating impacts 

to aquatic life movement, fish spawning areas, public water supply intakes, endangered species, and other 

resources. Soil erosion and sediment controls, management of water flows, removal of temporary fills, and 

compliance with regional or case-specific conditions are also required under the USACE permits issued for the 

project. 

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

Federal, state, or local agencies that have permit, approval, or consultation authority for portions of the 

proposed project are identified in Table 1.5-1. Individual road crossing and road use permits have not been 

included in this table, since such permits would be a standard requirement in all counties crossed. 

1-7
 
Table 1.5-1 Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Project 

Agency Permit/Approval/Consultations Agency Action 

Federal 1 

ACHP Section 106 Consultation, NHPA Has the opportunity to comment on 

the undertaking. 

U.S. Department of Interior 

BLM ROW Grant for the pipeline and all 

related facilities located on federal land 

Consider issuance of a ROW Grant 

for the portion of the project on federal 

land. 

Temporary Use Permit for temporary 

workspace areas and temporary 

access roads 

Consider the issuance of a 

Temporary Use Permit for the portion 

of the project on federal land. 

USFWS Section 7 Consultation under the ESA Consider lead agency finding of 

impact on federally listed or proposed 

species. Provide BO if the project is 

likely to adversely affect federally 

listed or proposed species, or their 

habitats. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

USFS 

Special Use Permit for Paleontological 

Resources 

Consider approval of the 

Unanticipated Discovery Plan for 

Paleontological Resources. 

Letter of concurrence to the BLM from 

the ANF and the PNG 

Consider issuance of Special Use 

Authorizations for the portion of the 

project on National Forest System 

land. Pursuant to Section 28 of the 

MLA, the BLM has been delegated 

authority to issue ROW authorizations 

across all federal lands for projects 

involving multiple federal jurisdictions 

with the concurrence from the agency 

head. 

Biological Report that includes a 

biological evaluation for threatened, 

endangered, proposed, and sensitive 

species and an analysis of effect for 

management indicator species 

Coordinate with the BLM to ensure 

pertinent information is included in the 

environmental impact statement, 

biological report, and biological 

evaluation. 

Natural Resource Conservation Service 

(NRCS) 

Wyoming, Colorado, and Kansas 

Consultation Consultation regarding erosion control 

recommendations, revegetation 

specifications, and identification of 

Conservation Reserve Program 

lands. 

U.S. Department of Defense 

USACE - Omaha District (Wyoming and 

Colorado) and Kansas City District 

Section 404, CWA Consider issuance of Section 404 

permits for working navigable waters 

of the U.S. and the placement of 

dredge or fill material into all waters of 

the U.S., including wetlands. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(USEPA) 

Regions 7 and 8 

Section 401, CWA, Water Quality 

Certification 

In conjunction with states, consider 

issuance of water use and water 

crossing permits. 

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

Agency Permit/Approval/Consultations Agency Action 

Section 402, CWA, National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) 

In conjunction with states, review and 

issue NPDES permit for discharge of 

hydrostatic test water and discharge 

of groundwater associated with 

construction activities. 

Section 404, CWA (veto power for 

wetland permits issued by the USACE) 

Review CWA, Section 404 wetland 

dredge-and-fill applications for the 

USACE with Section 404 veto power 

for permits issued by the USACE. 

Stormwater Discharge Permit In conjunction with states, review and 

issue stormwater permit for activities 

associated with pipeline and 

aboveground facilities construction. 

State - Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality 

Water Quality Division NPDES Storm Water Permit Program - 

General Permit for Construction Storm 

Water Discharge 

Consider issuance of a permit 

regulating discharge of stormwater 

from the construction work area. 

Water and Wastewater Program - 

General Permit for Temporary 

Discharge 

Consider issuance of a permit 

regulating temporary discharges of 

wastewaters to surface waters of the 

state associated with hydrostatic 

testing of pipes, tanks or other similar 

vessels; construction dewatering, 

other. 

Watershed Management Section Temporary Turbidity Increase Permit Consider issuance of a permit for 

temporary increases in turbidity as a 

result of construction activities. 

Section 401 Certification Consider issuance of a permit for 

stream and wetland crossings 

(blanketed under USACE Section 404 

authorization). 

State Engineer's Office Water Appropriation Permit Consider the issuance of a permit for 

the use of water for hydrostatic 

testing. 

Wyoming Department of State Parks and Cultural Resources 

SHPO Consultation under Section 106 of the 

NHPA 

Review and comment on activities 

potentially affecting cultural resources. 

Wyoming Game and Fish (WGFD) Consultations Consultations regarding state-listed 

species. 

State - Colorado 

Colorado Department of Natural Resources 

Division of Wildlife State Listed Species Consultation Review and comment on activities 

potentially affecting state-listed 

species. 

Temporary Use Permit Consider issuance of a Temporary 

Use Permit to conduct environmental 

and engineering surveys. 

1-9
 
Table 1.5-1 Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Project 

Agency Permit/Approval/Consultations Agency Action 

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) 

Air Quality Control Division Air Pollution Emission Notice Consider issuance of a permit to 

construct with the potential for fugitive 

dust. 

Division of Water Resources - Water 

Quality Control Division 

Section 401, CWA, Water Quality 

Certification 

Consider issuance of a permit for 

stream and wetland crossings 

(blanketed under USACE Section 404 

permits). 

 Construction Stormwater Discharge 

Permit 

Consider issuance of a permit 

regulating discharge of stormwater 

from the construction work area. 

Construction Dewatering Wastewater 

Discharge 

Consider issuance of a permit 

regulating dewatering of groundwater 

from the construction work area. 

Hydrostatic Test Water Discharge 

Permit 

Consider issuance of a permit 

regulating hydrostatic test water 

discharge, and construction 

dewatering to waters of the state. 

Division of Water Resources - State Engineers 

Office 

Application for Surface Water Right Consider use of surface waters for 

appropriations required for hydrostatic 

testing. 

Colorado Historical Society 

SHPO Consultation under Section 106 of the 

NHPA 

Review and comment on activities 

potentially affecting cultural resources. 

Colorado State Land Board Trust Land Permit Consider issuance of permit to occupy 

state-owned land. 

State - Kansas 

Kansas Corporation Commission Certificate of Convenience and 

Authority to Transport the Business of 

a Liquids Pipeline Carrier 

Certificate to construct pipeline and 

associated facilities across all land. 

Kansas Department of Agriculture 

Division of Water Resources Permit to Appropriate Water Consider the issuance of a permit for 

the use of water for hydrostatic 

testing. 

Permit for Stream Obstructions and 

Channel Changes 

Consider the issuance of a permit to 

cross waterbodies. 

Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) 

Bureau of Water Section 401, CWA, Water Quality 

Certification 

Consider issuance of a permit for 

stream and wetland crossings 

(Blanketed under USACE Section 404 

Permits). 

Stormwater Discharge Permit Consider issuance of a permit 

regulating discharge of stormwater 

from the construction work area. 

Hydrostatic Test Water Discharge 

Permit 

Consider issuance of a permit 

regulating hydrostatic test water 

discharge, and construction 

dewatering to waters of the state. 

1-10
 
Table 1.5-1 Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations for the Project 

Agency Permit/Approval/Consultations Agency Action 

Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks 

(KDWP) 

State Listed Species Consultation Review and comment on activities 

potentially affecting state-listed 

species. 

Kansas State Historical Society 

SHPO Consultation under Section 106 of the 

NHPA 

Review and comment on activities 

potentially affecting cultural resources. 

1

Federal agencies also must review the proposed project for consistency with the following Federal Executive Orders (EO): Invasive 
 

Species (FR 1999) and Migratory Birds (FR 2001). 
 

1.6 Non-federal ROW Easement Acquisition Process 

The private land easement, usually negotiated with the landowner, is the legal instrument used to convey a 

ROW easement to the pipeline company (Overland Pass). The easement gives the company the right to 

operate and maintain its pipeline in the permanent ROW and, in return, compensates the landowner for the 

use of the land. The easement negotiations between Overland Pass and the individual landowner would 

include compensation for loss of use during construction, loss of nonrenewable or other resources, and the 

restoration of unavoidable damage to property during construction. Although BLM does not have the legal 

authority to impose all stipulations on private lands, private landowners may negotiate with Overland Pass 

through their easement agreements to implement stipulations on their own land. 

If an easement cannot be negotiated with the landowner, Overland Pass may acquire the easement needed 

for pipeline construction under federal and state eminent domain laws prevailing in the affected states. State 

statutes have been enacted that define the ROW acquisition process on private and non-federal public lands 

for utilities engaged in interstate commerce. 

1.7 Scoping and Public Involvement 

1.7.1 Public Involvement 

Scoping is a process of actively acquiring initial input from the public and other interested federal, state, tribal, 

and local agencies to determine the scope of issues to be addressed. It is used to identify key issues related to 

a proposed action. Information gained during scoping assists the Lead Agency in identifying potential 

environmental issues, alternatives, and mitigation measures associated with development of the proposed 

project. The process provides a mechanism for “narrowing” the scope of issues so that the EIS can focus the 

analysis on areas of high interest and concern. 

On March 24, 2006, the Notice of Intent (NOI) for the project was published in the Federal Register (FR), 

which included a project description and BLM contact information. On this same date, the BLM issued a press 

release that described the proposed project and included information on the scoping meeting dates, times, 

locations, and BLM contact information. The press release was distributed to Congressional office staff, 

landowners, various media outlets throughout the project area, and interested groups via mailings and email. 

The BLM hosted four public meetings: Hays, Kansas; Greeley, Colorado; Cheyenne, Wyoming; and Rock 

Springs, Wyoming. The dates, location, and number of attendees at the scoping meetings are provided in 

Table 1.7-1. 

1-11
 
Table 1.7-1 Public Scoping Meetings 

Meeting Location Meeting Date Number of Attendees 

Hays, Kansas April 17, 2006 20 

Greeley, Colorado April 18, 2006 8 

Cheyenne, Wyoming April 19, 2006 14 

Rock Springs, Wyoming April 20, 2006 11 

The public meetings were conducted in an open house format. Attendees were provided information about the 

project and given an opportunity to ask resource specialists questions as well as express their concerns about 

the project. Applicant representatives were available to assist in answering specific questions regarding the 

proposed pipeline route. Display boards provided project information and a description of the NEPA process. A 

computer-aided presentation of the proposed pipeline route assisted in facilitating the exchange of information 

and answering route-specific questions. 

The 45-day public scoping period for the project ended on May 5, 2006. Comments received during the 

scoping period were compiled into a scoping report, which is available to the public upon request. 

BLM received 54 scoping comment submittals (e.g., letter, email) containing 276 comments. Of the total 

individual scoping comments, private individuals provided 40 comments, of which 33 individual comments 

were from residences in Arrowhead Springs Subdivision located south of Rock Springs, Wyoming. 

Additionally, residences of Arrowhead Springs Subdivision submitted a petition with 21 signatures expressing 

their opposition to the proposed project. Scoping comments also were received from federal, state, and county 

agencies, non-governmental organizations, and elected officials. 

1.8 Issues 

Based on comments received during scoping and public meetings, the BLM has identified the following key 

issues associated with the proposed pipeline construction. 

1. Proposed pipeline route and location: 

•	 Any deviations from existing pipeline ROWs would create new surface disturbance and an additional 

utility corridor that could adversely affect big game and other wildlife species of concern. 

•	 The original proposed action had the pipeline located adjacent to the southern boundary of the 

Arrowhead Springs Subdivision. Residents’ concerns include increased vehicle traffic and potential 

impacts to health and public safety. 

•	 Other issues for public health and safety include impacts of consolidating pipeline ROW within existing 

utility corridors. 

2. Construction impacts: 

•	 The following resources or land uses could be adversely affected by the pipeline construction: the 

Cherokee and Overland historic trails, livestock grazing, rangeland, and other vegetation communities. 

1-12
 
3. Impacts to water quality and quantity: 

•	 Pipeline construction and location could adversely impact riparian areas, wetlands, fisheries, and 

streams and rivers including the Green and North Platte rivers. The potential water quality impacts 

attributable to pipeline construction and operation include sedimentation, channel and bank 

modification, and water quality degradation due to hazardous material spills or pipeline rupture. 

•	 Use of water for pipeline construction and operations could result in contamination or depletion of the 

Colorado and Platte rivers. Excessive depletion can impact fisheries, water quality, and available 

quantities of water for agricultural use and other downstream users. 

4. Impacts to threatened and endangered and/or sensitive species: 

•	 Pipeline construction and location could adversely impact habitat and life cycle activities of threatened, 

endangered, and sensitive species including: black-footed ferret, burrowing owl, and swift fox. State 

sensitive species include: ferruginous hawk and western sage grouse. 

•	 Adverse impacts to fisheries: special status and native fish species including flannelmouth sucker and 

Colorado cutthroat trout. 

5. Socioeconomics: 

•	 Pipeline construction and operations would result in beneficial impacts to the local socioeconomic 

environment of communities. 

1.9 Public Review and Comment 

The Draft EIS was filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and mailed to 718 federal, 

state, and local agencies, elected officials, Native American tribes, newspapers, public libraries, and other 

interested parties (i.e., landowners, miscellaneous individuals, and environmental groups who provided 

scoping comments or asked to remain on the mailing list). A formal notice indicating that the Draft EIS was 

available for review and comment was published in the FR. The public was given 45 days from the date the 

USEPA published a Notice of Availability in the FR (70 FR 10,615) to review and comment on the Draft EIS in 

the form of written comments. 

The comment period for receiving comments closed on May 14, 2007. Written comments were received from 

two federal agencies, two state agencies, five county agencies, three elected officials, two businesses or 

private individuals, and the project applicant. The written comments and BLM’s responses are included as 

Chapter 10.0 of this Final EIS. 

This Final EIS was filed with the USEPA and mailed to approximately 720 federal, state, and local agencies, 

elected officials, Native American tribes, newspapers, public libraries, and other interested parties who 

provided scoping comments, commented on the Draft EIS, or wrote to the BLM asking to receive a copy of the 

document. The distribution list for the Final EIS is presented in Appendix M. A formal notice indicating that the 

Final EIS is available was published in the FR. 

The date the USEPA’s Notice of Availability appears in the FR initiates a 30-day period before the decision to 

issue a ROW grant is made. Comments received on the Final EIS during the 30-day period will be reviewed to 

determine if they have merit (e.g., identify significant issues not previously addressed or introduce significant 

new information). If no changes are warranted, a ROD is prepared that documents the selected alternative as 

well as mitigation measures. No action concerning a proposal may be taken on federal land until the ROD for 

the ROW grant has been issued. 

1-13
 
1.10 Changes since Issuance of the Draft EIS 

Since publication of the Draft EIS in April 2007, Overland Pass has made some refinements to its proposed 

action and provided supplemental information in a number of areas. These refinements are reflected in the 

analysis presented in this EIS. Notable changes include: 

Proposed Schedule: Overland Pass has revised its construction schedule (see Chapter 2.0). Due to the shift in 

schedule, construction of the pipeline may occur during winter months. Because winter construction can pose 

unique issues (e.g., snow removal), Overland Pass has updated its Winter Construction Plan (Appendix F). 

This EIS provides additional information regarding winter construction, its potential impacts, and identifies 

additional mitigation, as needed. 

General Construction Procedures: Based on comments received on the Draft EIS and continued consultation 

with the BLM, Overland Pass has modified or supplemented their construction methods to address specific 

topics, such as erosion control, streambank stabilization, and topsoil handling. 

Applicant-Committed Mitigation Measures: As a result of comments received on the Draft EIS and further 

review, Overland Pass has adopted many of the proposed mitigations identified in the Draft EIS. Key 

applicant-committed mitigation measures and additional mitigation measures that are recommended within this 

EIS are summarized in Appendix A. 

All of the changes proposed since the issuance of the Draft EIS have been incorporated into the EIS. Overall, 

the changes have been minor or have been adopted by Overland Pass as its proposed action for the purpose 

of avoiding or reducing potential impacts. 

1-14