Letter F2 Responses to Letter F2

10-7
Letter F2 Continued Letter Responses to Letter F2 

F2-1 

F2-2 

F2-3 

F2-4 

F2-5 

F2-6 

F2-1 Refer to response to comment F1-3.

F2-3 Refer to response to comment F1-3.

F2-4 The transfer of diseases and nuisance organisms from hydrostatic testing is not 

a concern because test water will be discharged back to the source water or 

upland area located in close proximity of the source water.

F2-5 Text has been modified to clarify where such placements might be used and 

further examine crossing stabilization to account for bio-engineered stabilization 

approaches on major/sensitive crossings.

F2-6 Detailed information on crossing techniques and practices intended to 

minimize impacts to streams are provided in Overland Pass’ Stream Crossing and

Wetland Protection Plan and in site-specific crossing plans as part of the POD. 

This information can be reviewed on the BLM website at 

www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/NEPA/rfodocs/overland_pipeline.html.

F2-2 Updated versions of the waterbody crossing tables (Appendix H in the Final 

EIS) have been obtained from Overland Pass and the text has been modified 

accordingly.

10-8
Letter F2 Continued Responses to Letter F2

F2-6 

F2-7 

F2-8 

F2-8 Text had been modified to further discuss the role of the USACE in regulating 

wetland impacts.

F2-7 Tables of wetlands crossed by the Proposed Action have been added to the 

Final EIS as part of Appendix H - Waterbodies and Wetlands Crossed by the 

Project (Appendix F in the Draft EIS).

10-9
Letter 

F2-9

F2-10

F2-11

F2-12

F2-13

F2-14

Responses to Letter F2 

F2-12 Additional information on BLM tribal consultation has been added to the 

Final EIS as appropriate.

F2-14 Text has been added at the beginning of Chapter 4 to explain that the BLM has 

no jurisdiction on non-federal lands. Recommended mitigation will remain 

unchanged.

Letter F2 Continued

F2-9 Overland Pass indicates that no facility upgrades or expansions are needed 

at the existing Opal or Conway facilities aside from the custody transfer meter 

stations and interconnect piping discussed in the Proposed Action 

(Section 2.2.1).

F2-10 As identified in Table 2.2-4, there are multiple areas of new ROW. Deviations 

from existing ROWs are limited to areas where site-specific environmental or

engineering constraints justify routing away from the existing ROW or where 

it is necessary to proceed cross-country from one ROW to another to 

maintain the general direction of the pipeline (page 2-13 of the Draft EIS).

F2-11 Restrictions and limitations specific to each Nationwide permit are defined in 

the permits themselves when issued. The responsible USACE Districts are 

identified in Table 1.5-1.

F2-13 The future electric pump station at WaKeeney would not increase noise levels 

at NSA#1 beyond what is projected.

10-10
F2-15

F2-16

F2- 17 

F2-18

F2-19

F2-20

F2-21 

Letter F2 Continued Responses to Letter F2

F219 The REX-West project is included in cumulative impacts as the Rockies 

Express/Entrega Pipeline.

F2-20 The cumulative effects of multiple open cut crossings on surface water are 

discussed in Section 5.2.4.1.

F2-15 Refer to response to comment F1-3.

F2-17 A key is located at the end of the table.

F2-18 Text has been modified to reflect that landowners will be notified per 

commitments made in their easement agreements.

F2-16 The comment is noted regarding the suggestion for an increased buffer from 

10 to 50 feet on private land as well as on federal land. Although this buffer 

distance can be suggested to Overland Pass, the BLM has no jurisdiction to 

enforce this protection measure on private land. Overland Pass has committed 

to installing erosion control measures (e.g., a silt fence or straw bales) where 

TWAs are located near waterbodies on all lands.

F2-21 The waterbody crossing table (Appendix F, Table F-1 in the Draft EIS) has been

updated for the Final EIS (Appendix H, Table H-1). Additionally, text has been 

modified to provide more detailed impact assessments and recommended 

mitigation measures for the crossings in Table 3.5-2. A similar assessment for 

each crossing as listed in the appendix is unwarranted, given the resources 

involved, proposed practices, and degree of potential impacts.

10-11
F2-21

Letter F2 Continued Responses to Letter F2 

10-12