ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE 

PROPOSED ACTION 

CHAPTER 2 
2.0 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 

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 

2.1 Introduction 

The BLM has identified a range of alternatives based on issues and concerns raised from public comments, 

through interdisciplinary interaction between resource professionals, and in collaboration with the cooperating 

state agencies and tribal governments. The alternatives considered and analyzed in detail include: 

• The Proposed Action; 

• The No Action Alternative; and 

• The Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative. 

The BLM’s preferred alternative is the Proposed Action. 

All possible activities associated with each alternative including the No Action Alternative are assumed to apply 

to BLM-administered and NFS lands only. All activities associated with this project are consistent with the 

following land use plans from west to east: 

• ANF Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), USFS (1986a); 

• Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area Management Plan, USDA Forest Service (1986b); 

• Kemmerer Resource Management Plan (RMP), BLM (1986); 

• Green River RMP, BLM (1997); 

• Great Divide (Rawlins) RMP, BLM (1990), under revision; and 

• Revision of the LRMP, Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and PNG, USFS (1997). 

Any future implementation activity associated with this project based on this EIS must conform to the 

applicable land use plan in effect. 

2-1
2.2 Description of Alternatives 

Numerous minor deviations and variations from the original proposed pipeline route described in the 

application submitted by Overland Pass were considered. Three alternatives, including the Proposed Action, 

were studied in detail. A description of alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study may be found 

in Section 2.3. 

2.2.1 The Proposed Action 

Overland Pass proposes to construct and operate a 760-mile-long interstate NGL transmission system that 

would begin at existing NGL facilities in Opal, Wyoming, and end at existing storage and processing facilities in 

Bushton and Conway, Kansas. In addition to the pipeline, Overland Pass would construct 3 pump stations 

(including 1 future pump station), 7 meter stations, 11 pigging facilities, 94 mainline valves (MLVs), and related 

ancillary facilities. Of the 94 MLVs, 75 are block valves (17 are remotely activated and 58 are manual) and 

19 are check valves. One remotely activated block valve and one check valve are located at each of the seven 

meter stations. An overview map of the project location and facilities is provided in Figure 2.2-1. State maps 

showing the pipeline route and aboveground facilities are provided in Figures 2.2-2 to 2.2-4. Site-specific 

maps for major aboveground facilities (pump stations, meter stations, pigging facilities, pipe storage, and 

contractor yards) are provided in Appendix B. 

Overland Pass proposes to begin construction of the pipeline and associated facilities (e.g., pump stations, 

valves) in October of 2007. The project would take approximately 6 months to complete. Service is projected 

to begin in the second quarter of 2008. 

2.2.1.1 Proposed Facilities 

Pipeline Facilities 

Between Opal Meter Station (Reference Point [RP]1

 0.0) and the Echo Springs Pump Station (RP 146.5), the 

Overland Pass pipeline would consist of 14-inch-diameter pipe; between Echo Springs Pump Station and 

Conway Meter Station (RP 749.4), the proposed pipeline would consist of 16-inch-diameter pipe. The 

maximum operating pressure (MOP) of the system would be 1,440 psig. 

The pipeline would be constructed in accordance with applicable USDOT regulations (49 CFR Part 195). For 

normal mainline construction, the 14-inch pipe would have a wall thickness of 0.219 inch, while the 16-inchdiameter pipe would have a wall thickness of 0.250 inch. Slightly thicker walled pipe would be used at 

aboveground facilities, under road and rail crossings, within HCAs, or as required by federal regulation. The 

pipeline would be constructed of high-strength steel pipe (grade 5L X70) with factory applied fusion bond 

epoxy (FBE) external coating. Cathodic protection would be provided by an impressed current system. All pipe 

would be manufactured, constructed, and operated in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal 

regulations. 

Pump Stations and Ancillary Facilities 

Aboveground facilities associated with the Proposed Action would include 3 pump stations (2 proposed, 

1 future), 7 meter stations, 94 MLVs, and 11 pigging facilities (Table 2.2-1). The new pump stations would 

enable Overland Pass to maintain the required pressure for firm NGL deliveries and to restore the drop in 

pressure that would otherwise occur as the NGL flows through the pipeline. Overland Pass would construct 

the meter stations at interconnections with other pipelines. 

1 RPs refer to fixed locations along the proposed pipeline route that are used as markers to identify resources and features along the 

route. The spacing interval between any two adjacent RPs is typically 1 mile; however, the distance may be as little as 1,425 feet or as 

great as 7,200 feet due to localized adjustments that have occurred in the proposed route alignment since the original route was 

proposed. Some specific plans prepared by Overland Pass and contained in the appendices to this Final EIS are based on actual 

mileposts and may vary slightly due to reroutes and minor alignment shifts. 

2-2




Table 2.2-1 Proposed Facilities Associated with the Project 

Facility Name1 RP2 County, State 

PIPELINE 

Opal, Wyoming, to Echo Springs Pump Station 

(14 inches in diameter) 

0.0 – 146.5 Lincoln, Sweetwater, and Carbon counties, 

Wyoming 

Echo Springs Pump Station to Conway, Kansas 

(16 inches in diameter) 

146.5 – 

749.4 

Sweetwater, Carbon, Albany, and Laramie 

counties, Wyoming; Weld, Morgan, Logan, 

Washington, Yuma counties, Colorado; 

Cheyenne, Rawlins, Thomas, Sheridan, 

Graham, Grove, Trego, Ellis, Russell, Barton, 

Ellsworth, Rice, McPherson counties, Kansas 

PUMP STATIONS 

Echo Springs Pump Station 

(Two 1,250 International Organization of Standardization 

[ISO] horsepower [hp] pumps, one is a backup unit) 

146.5 Carbon County, Wyoming 

Laramie Pump Station 

(Two 2,000 ISO hp pumps, one is a backup unit) 

271.7 Albany County, Wyoming 

WaKeeney Pump Station (future) 

(estimate total of 3,000 ISO hp) 

606.0 Sheridan County, Kansas 

METER STATIONS 

Opal Meter Station (Receipt – Williams) 

(interconnect facility sized for receipt of 80,000 bpd of 

NGL) 

0.0 Lincoln County, Wyoming 

Echo Springs Meter Station (Receipt – Williams) 

(interconnect sized for delivery of up to 40,000 bpd of 

NGL) 

146.5 Carbon County, Wyoming 

Laramie Meter Station 271.7 Albany County, Wyoming 

Washington County Meter Station 447.8 Washington County, Colorado 

WaKeeney Meter Station 606.0 Sheridan County, Kansas 

Bushton Meter Station (Delivery – ONEOK) 

(interconnect sized for delivery of up to 109,000 bpd of 

NGL) 

717.5 Ellsworth County, Kansas 

Conway Meter Station (Delivery – Williams) 

(interconnect sized for delivery of up to 109,000 bpd of 

NGL) 

749.4 McPherson County, Kansas 

MLVs 

Block Valves #1 to #34 

Check Valves #1 to #7 

0.0 – 307.4 Lincoln, Sweetwater, Carbon, Albany and 

Laramie counties, Wyoming 

Block Valves #35 to #51 

Check Valve #8 

322.7 – 

488.7 

Weld, Morgan, Logan, Washington, Yuma 

counties, Colorado 

Block Valves #52 to #75 

Check Valves #9 to #12 

493.5 – 

749.4 

Cheyenne, Rawlins, Thomas, Sheridan, 

Graham, Grove, Trego, Ellis, Russell, Barton, 

Ellsworth, Rice, McPherson counties, Kansas 

PIGGING FACILITIES 

Opal Plant – Launcher 0.0 Lincoln County, Wyoming 

Sweetwater Pigging Facility – Launcher and Receiver 72.1 Sweetwater County, Wyoming 

Echo Springs Pump Facility – Launcher and Receiver 146.5 Carbon County, Wyoming 

Albany Pigging Facility – Launcher and Receiver 257.9 Albany County, Wyoming 

Weld Pigging Facility – Launcher and Receiver 342.7 Weld County, Colorado 

Washington County Pigging Facility – Launcher and Receiver 447.8 Washington County, Colorado 

Thomas Pigging Facility – Launcher and Receiver 552.9 Thomas County, Kansas 

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

Facility Name1 RP2 County, State 

Ellis Pigging Facility – Launcher and Receiver 654.7 Ellis County, Kansas 

Bushton Plant (adjacent) – Launcher and Receiver 717.5 Ellsworth County, Kansas 

Mitchell Plant – Launcher and Receiver 736.2 Rice County, Kansas 

Conway Plant – Receiver 749.4 McPherson County, Kansas 

1

Aboveground facilities are illustrated in Appendix B. 

2

All reference points are based on Overland Pass’ reference system and are approximate. 

The two proposed pump stations are capable of delivering up to 109,000 bpd. In the future, Overland Pass 

could increase its delivery volume to 150,000 bpd with the construction of a pump station at WaKeeney, 

Kansas. Because the construction of the WaKeeney Pump Station is likely within the foreseeable future, it is 

included in the Proposed Action for this EIS analysis as a future pump station. 

Meter stations consist of custody transfer meter stations and system check meter stations. Three meter 

stations (Opal, Bushton, and Conway) would occur within existing previously disturbed commercial/industrial 

areas. The Echo Springs Pump and Meter Station, Laramie Pump Station and Meter Station, Washington 

County Meter Station, and WaKeeney Meter Station would each disturb new areas. 

The Proposed Action would include construction of four custody transfer meter stations (Opal, Echo Springs, 

Bushton, and Conway). The Opal Meter Station would be adjacent to the Williams Opal Plant (RP 0.0) and 

would require a 930-foot 12-inch-diameter lateral on Williams’ property to interconnect the Opal Plant mainline 

piping with the Overland Pass mainline. The Echo Springs Meter Station would be at Williams’ Echo Springs 

Plant (RP 146.5) and would require approximately 1,260-foot 12-inch-diameter lateral from the Echo Springs 

Plant to Overland Pass. Bushton’s Meter Station would be located on ONEOK’s Bushton Plant property 

(RP 717.5) and would require a 340-foot 12-inch-diameter lateral to deliver to the Bushton Plant. Finally, the 

Conway Meter Station would be located in Williams’ Conway Plant property (RP 749.4) and would require a 

short 12-inch-diameter lateral to deliver to the Williams’ Conway Plant piping adjacent to the meter station site. 

The exact tie-in point has not yet been determined. The systems to which Overland Pass would interconnect 

and the proposed lateral lengths and diameters are summarized in Table 2.2-2. 

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

Station/Interconnection With 

Lateral Length1 

(feet) 

Lateral diameter 

(inches) 

Opal Custody Transfer Meter Station 

 Delivery from Williams 

930 12 

Echo Springs Custody Transfer Meter Station

 Delivery from Williams 

1,260 12 

Bushton Custody Transfer Meter Station 

 Receipt by Oneok 

340 12 

Conway Custody Transfer Meter Station 

 Receipt by Williams 

Not determined 12 

1

Lateral lengths are approximate. 

2.2.1.2 Land Requirements 

Table 2.2-3 summarizes the land requirements for the Proposed Action. Overland Pass proposes to use a 

75-foot-wide construction ROW for the majority of the proposed pipeline route and for all receipt and delivery 

laterals. Figure 2.2-5 illustrates the typical construction ROW and equipment work locations where the 

proposed pipeline route would not be located near an existing pipeline; Figure 2.2-6 illustrates the proposed 

2-8 
construction ROW where the pipeline would be located parallel to an existing pipeline. Overland Pass also has 

requested that 50 feet of the construction ROW (centered on the proposed pipeline) be retained as part of 

Overland Pass’ permanent easement, which would be permanently maintained (e.g., by periodic clearing) 

during operation of the new facilities. At steep slopes or sideslope areas, an additional 25 feet could be 

needed and additional temporary workspace would be required at roads, railroad, pipeline, powerline, 

waterline, and waterbody crossings. 

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

State/Facility RP 

Land Affected During Construction 

(acres) 

Land Affected During Operation 

(acres) 

Federal Other Federal Other 

BLM USFS State Private BLM USFS State Private 

Wyoming 

Pipeline Facilities 

Pipeline ROW 1 0.0 to 321.1 898.3 17.8 228.2 1,829.6 598.9 11.9 152.1 1,219.8 

Additional TWAs Various 185.2 1.7 68.0 345.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Laterals 0.0, 146.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 

Aboveground Facilities2 

Pump Stations 146.5, 271.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 

Meter Stations 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 

MLVs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 

Launcher/Receivers 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 

Yards 0, 18, 84, 146 

(2), 178, 281 

(2) 

0.0 0.0 0.0 66.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Permanent Access 

Roads Various 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.9 0.0 0.0 67.3 

Wyoming Subtotal 1,083.5 19.5 296.2 2,258.4 614.9 11.9 152.2 1,294.7 

Colorado 

Pipeline Facilities 

Pipeline ROW 1 321.1 to 492.3 0.0 204.1 106.4 1,252.2 0.0 136.1 70.9 834.8 

Additional TWAs Various 0.0 14.1 19.2 141.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Laterals None 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Aboveground Facilities2 

Pump Station NA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Meter Stations 447.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 

MLVs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.1 

Launcher/Receivers 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 

Yards 330, 437, 438 

(2), 439 

0.0 0.0 0.0 39.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Permanent Access 

Roads 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Colorado Subtotal 0.0 218.3 125.6 1,435.2 0.0 136.6 70.9 835.5 

Kansas 

Pipeline Facilities 

Pipeline ROW 1 492.3 to 749.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,371.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,581.1 

Additional TWAs Various 0.0 0.0 0.0 445.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Laterals 717 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 

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

State/Facility RP 

Land Affected During Construction 

(acres) 

Land Affected During Operation 

(acres) 

Federal Other Federal Other 

BLM USFS State Private BLM USFS State Private 

Aboveground Facilities2 

Pump Stations 606.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.03 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.03 

Meter Stations 606.0, 717.5, 

749.4 

0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 

MLVs 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 

Launcher/Receivers 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 

Yards 524, 562, 566, 

590 (2), 591 

(2), 692, 749 

0.0 0.0 0.0 55.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Permanent Access 

Roads 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Kansas Subtotal 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,880.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,584.2 

Project Total 4 1,083.5 237.8 421.8 6,574.0 614.0 148.1 223.1 3,715.4 

1

Assumes a 75-foot-wide construction ROW and 50-foot-wide operational ROW in all locations. 

2

Construction and operational land use impacts for several aboveground facilities (e.g., MLVs) would occur entirely within the ROW and 

therefore are included with the pipeline ROW totals. 

3

Does not include a potential disturbance of 3.6 acres (construction) and 1.9 acres (operation) for the future WaKeeney Pump Station. 

4

Slight discrepancies in total values are due to rounding. 

Construction of the Proposed Action would disturb approximately 8,317 acres of land, including the pipeline 

construction ROW, additional temporary workspace areas, pump stations, and other aboveground facilities. Of 

this total, about 6,908 acres would be disturbed by the pipeline construction ROW, about 1,220 acres would be 

disturbed by additional TWAs, and 24 acres would be disturbed for aboveground facilities. Overland Pass also 

would require 24 pipe storage and contractor yards, resulting in a total of 160 acres of additional disturbance. 

Disturbance due to construction of powerlines is quantified separately (Chapter 9.0). 

These totals do not include the short-term use of about 582 access and haul roads totaling 2,577 miles in 

length to access the ROW, many of which would require minor upgrading or maintenance. 

Approximately 4,619 acres of the 8,317 acres used for construction would be required for operation of the 

project. Of this total, about 4,606 acres would be for the pipeline permanent ROW, 3 acres for lateral 

permanent ROW, an additional 10 acres would be utilized for the aboveground facilities. Disturbed lands 

would be restored and allowed to revert to former use. 

Approximately 13 percent of the land affected by construction and operation of the project would be 

BLM-managed lands and about 3 percent are administered by the USFS. Approximately 3 percent of the land 

affected by construction and operation of the Proposed Action would be on State of Wyoming and Wyoming 

local government lands, and less than 2 percent on State of Colorado lands. There is no federally managed or 

state owned land traversed by the proposed pipeline in Kansas. The remainder of the land that would be 

affected (79 percent) is privately owned. A detailed description of land ownership is presented in Section 3.8. 

2-10


Pipeline ROW 

Approximately 623.7 miles of the 759.9 miles of pipeline (82 percent) would be co-located with existing 

pipeline, utility, or road ROWs. Overland Pass considers its proposed pipeline to be “co-located” with existing 

ROWs where its proposed construction ROW abuts an existing pipeline, utility, or road ROW; or its proposed 

pipeline route is located generally parallel to a pipeline, utility, or road ROW and does not stray from this 

general alignment. 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. 

Approximately 136.1 miles (18 percent) of the route proposed for construction would be newly created ROW 

(Table 2.2-4). Where the proposed pipeline route would parallel existing utilities, Overland Pass’ new 

permanent ROW would be adjacent to the existing permanent ROWs except where minor deviations are 

required for site-specific environmental or engineering constraints. As proposed, the new pipeline generally 

would be installed with a 50-foot offset from the nearest existing pipeline centerline. Deviations from co-located 

ROW are limited to areas where it is necessary to proceed cross-country from one ROW to another to 

maintain the general direction of the pipeline. 

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

Utilities1

Begin RP End RP Length (miles) 

0.0 0.6 0.6 

62.0 67.7 5.8 

75.5 103.0 27.5 

107.9 108.4 0.4 

116.6 118.5 1.9 

120.1 137.2 17.1 

145.9 147.1 1.2 

147.7 153.6 5.9 

180.3 181.3 1.0 

194.8 195.8 1.0 

199.7 200.4 0.7 

227.0 228.4 1.5 

243.5 244.8 1.3 

292.4 292.6 0.2 

293.3 293.5 0.1 

306.5 308.8 2.3 

315.5 315.8 0.3 

323.4 324.0 0.6 

337.2 337.6 0.4 

340.5 340.6 0.1 

342.1 342.4 0.3 

362.4 362.6 0.2 

363.2 363.3 0.1 

379.2 379.4 0.2 

380.1 380.4 0.2 

382.8 382.9 0.1 

386.0 386.1 0.1 

388.2 388.5 0.4 

410.2 413.6 3.4 

416.4 416.6 0.2 

430.6 431.1 0.5 

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

Utilities1 

Begin RP End RP Length (miles) 

434.9 436.0 1.1 

452.9 454.9 2.0 

455.6 456.1 0.5 

458.5 464.2 5.7 

475.5 478.0 2.5 

480.1 480.5 0.4 

482.8 483.1 0.3 

487.5 487.8 0.3 

488.5 488.8 0.3 

494.4 494.7 0.3 

498.7 499.1 0.4 

503.1 503.2 0.1 

504.6 504.7 0.0 

509.9 510.3 0.4 

514.4 515.0 0.6 

538.7 538.8 0.1 

542.7 544.3 1.6 

549.5 550.4 0.9 

560.9 562.5 1.6 

564.0 564.1 0.1 

566.4 567.7 1.3 

572.2 572.7 0.5 

575.2 575.4 0.2 

582.3 582.5 0.2 

586.8 587.2 0.4 

588.7 589.0 0.3 

595.3 595.5 0.2 

608.3 609.0 0.7 

610.7 610.8 0.1 

612.4 613.4 1.0 

614.9 615.1 0.2 

615.3 615.4 0.1 

621.4 622.1 0.7 

623.6 624.2 0.6 

635.1 635.4 0.3 

645.2 645.8 0.6 

650.5 650.7 0.2 

656.4 657.0 0.6 

659.7 660.2 0.5 

662.4 662.9 0.5 

668.9 669.7 0.8 

696.6 697.0 0.4 

700.8 701.3 0.5 

703.3 703.6 0.3 

705.5 706.1 0.6 

707.8 709.8 2.0 

715.5 736.1 20.6 

748.5 749.4 0.9 

 New ROW total 130.1 

1

Co-located ROWs are considered to be any ROW (e.g., utility) that is adjacent to the proposed pipeline route. Minor pipeline deviations 

from an adjacent facility to avoid and accommodate feature crossings still are considered to be co-located. 

2-14 
Additional Temporary Workspace Areas 

In addition to the construction ROW, Overland Pass has identified the types of additional TWAs that would be 

required and where these sites would be located. Dimensions and acreages of typical TWAs are identified in 

Table 2.2-5. These additional TWAs would be needed for areas requiring special construction techniques 

(e.g., river, wetland, and road crossings; horizontal directional drill entry and exit points; steep slopes; rocky 

soils) and construction staging areas. Prior to construction, Overland Pass would be required to file a complete 

and updated list of TWAs with the BLM for review and approval prior to use. Additional TWAs on federal land 

would require authorization from the BLM. 

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

Feature 

Dimensions 1

 (length by width in feet at 

each side of crossing) Acreage 1 

Steep hill or side slopes Length of area x 75 to 100, dependent upon 

hill and/or side slope grade 

Varies 

Spread mobilization/demobilization and 

staging 

300 x 300 2.1 

Foreign pipeline crossovers L-shaped Varies 

Foreign pipeline/utility/other buried 

feature2 

150 x 25 0.1 

Stringing truck turnarounds 100 x 150 0.3 

Two-lane roads/single railroad2 200 x 75 0.3 

Four-lane roads/multiple 

railroads/Interstate2 

(Length of feature + 50) x (50 to 75) Varies 

Open-cut waterbodies <25 feet wide2 200 x 50 and 200 x 100 0.2 + 0.5 

Open-cut waterbodies 25 to 50 feet 

wide2 

200 x 75 and 200 x 125 0.3 

Open-cut waterbodies 50 to 100 feet 

wide2 

250 x 75 and 250 x 125 0.4 

Directionally drilled waterbodies2 300 x 25 to 100 + the length of the drill +0.7 1

Dimensions and acreage are for each workspace; some crossings require workspace on both sides of the feature. 

2

Multiple TWAs could be required at a single feature. Dimensions presented are the minimum required; actual dimensions would

depend upon site-specific conditions. 

Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards 

Off-ROW extra workspace areas that would be used during the construction phase of the project include pipe 

storage yards and contractor yards. Pipe storage yards are where pipe would be delivered, inventoried, and 

stored prior to stringing it on the ROW. Contractor yards would be used to stage construction, store materials, 

park equipment, and set up temporary construction offices. Pipe storage and contractor yards range in size, 

depending upon the amount of material proposed to be stored at each location. 

Overland Pass currently intends to use 24 pipe storage and contractor yards during construction (6 yards 

would be shared between two different spreads). Each yard is located on non-federal land. Overland Pass has 

selected, to the extent practical, existing commercial/industrial sites or sites that previously were used for 

construction. Existing public or private roads would be used to access each yard. Where yards would not be 

located on previously used sites, Overland Pass selected sites on the best available terrain to minimize the 

need for grading or filling. Generally, yard preparation would be limited to a small amount of grading and 

leveling, and possibly importing some fill. Both pipe storage yards and contractor yards would be used on a 

temporary basis and would be restored upon completion of construction. Table 2.2-6 lists the locations for 

each pipe storage and contractor yard, while Appendix B provides maps of the yard locations. 

2-15
Table 2.2-6 Proposed Pipe Storage and Contractor Yards Associated with the Proposed Action 

Spread and Name1 

Approximate 

Reference 

Point Acres County, State Land Use 

Opal (3) 0 0.9 Lincoln County, Wyoming Developed 

Black's Fork 18 8.0 Lincoln County, Wyoming Rangeland 

Thayer Junction 84 18.9 Sweetwater County, Wyoming Developed 

Echo Springs 146 4.3 Carbon County, Wyoming Rangeland 

Echo Springs 146 3.0 Carbon County, Wyoming Rangeland 

Rawlins 178 10.8 Carbon County, Wyoming Developed 

Laramie 281 12.5 Albany County, Wyoming Developed 

Laramie 281 6.8 Albany County, Wyoming Developed 

Carr 330 12.4 Weld County, Colorado Rangeland 

Unnamed #1 437.1 1.3 Washington County, Colorado Agricultural 

Otis (2) 438 23.8 Washington County, Colorado Developed 

Unnamed #2 438.9 1.7 Washington County, Colorado Agricultural 

Bird City 524 8.2 Cheyenne County, Kansas Agricultural/ 

Developed 

Gem 562 12.2 Thomas County, Kansas Agricultural 

Rexford 566 4.1 Thomas County, Kansas Agricultural 

Hoxie (2) 590 10.0 Sheridan County, Kansas Agricultural 

Unnamed Hoxie #1 591.3 3.1 Sheridan County, Kansas Agricultural 

Unnamed Hoxie #2 591.3 3.1 Sheridan County, Kansas Agricultural 

Hoisington 692 13.0 Barton County, Kansas Developed 

Conway 749.2 2.1 McPherson County, Kansas Agricultural 

1

Maps available in Appendix B. 

Access Roads 

Overland Pass plans to use 582 existing access roads on a temporary basis to transport personnel, 

equipment, vehicles including high clearance vehicles and heavy trucks, and materials to the work areas. 

Approximately 139 access roads would be used in Wyoming, 107 roads would be used in Colorado, and 

336 roads would be used in Kansas. These access roads include federal and state highways, and numerous 

county, BLM, USFS, and private roads. Most paved and many gravel roads may not require improvement or 

maintenance prior to or during construction unless the road base deteriorated or became unsafe or 

impassable. For this project, “maintenance” is defined as blading or filling activities that would be required to 

maintain the current condition of the road at the start of use, while “improvement” consists of grading, blading, 

or straightening activities that would result in changing the roads’ condition at the start of use. 

Overland Pass has indicated that it would need to improve and maintain approximately 95 existing roads in 

order to provide a safe and level transportation surface for construction vehicles (37 in roads in Wyoming, 

11 roads in Colorado, and 47 roads in Kansas). These existing roads consist mostly of dirt roads, such as 

farm, ranch, BLM, or USFS access roads and two-track trails. These roads would probably require some level 

of improvement to support construction equipment, vehicles and ongoing maintenance during the construction 

period, especially when rain occurs and travel over the roads degrades their condition. Road improvements 

such as blading and filling would be restricted to the existing road footprint (i.e., the road may not be widened) 

wherever possible where there is evidence that the road was previously graded. Overland Pass also has 

proposed that where there is no evidence of previous grading or if the road required widening, road 

maintenance only would be allowed after completing biological and cultural resources surveys, and completing 

appropriate consultations with the SHPO and USFWS. In all cases, roads would be used and maintained only 

with permission of the landowner or land management agency. 

2-16
As a part of its permanent aboveground facilities, Overland Pass also would construct short, permanent 

access roads from public roads to the proposed pump stations, meter stations, and MLVs. The estimated 

acres of disturbance associated with proposed permanent access roads are included in the Aboveground 

Facilities discussion below. Prior to construction, Overland Pass would finalize proposed permanent access 

roads along with any additional temporary access roads and submit them to the BLM for review and approval. 

At a minimum, construction of new access roads would require completion of cultural resources and biological 

surveys, along with the appropriate SHPO and USFWS consultations and approvals. Other state and local 

permits also may be required prior to construction. In the future, maintenance of newly created access roads 

would be the responsibility of Overland Pass, with jurisdiction over the road remaining with the affected land 

management agency or private landowner. Any permanent access roads on federal land would be considered 

an ancillary facility to the ROW and added to any grant or special use permit from the BLM or USFS, 

respectively. 

Aboveground Facilities 

Overland Pass would use a total of approximately 24 acres of land for construction of aboveground facilities, 

including pump stations, meter stations, MLVs, pigging facilities, and permanent access roads. Of these 

24 acres, 10 acres would be retained and used during operation. The remaining acres of land would be 

restored and would revert to its previous use. 

Overland Pass would construct three new electrical pump stations: Echo Springs, Laramie, and in the future, 

WaKeeney (Table 2.2-1). Each station would consist of a pump building, utility building, and parking area for 

station personnel. Stations would operate on locally purchased power for electricity for pumps, lights, and 

heating in the buildings and would be fully automated for unmanned operation. Remote start/stop, set point 

controls, unit monitoring equipment, and station information would be installed at each location. Pipeline 

entering and exiting the pump facilities would be below grade as practicable, but would come above ground 

prior to entering and exiting the pump buildings. 

Overland Pass would install seven meter stations along the proposed pipeline route, including four custody 

transfer meter stations and three system check meter stations. The Opal, Bushton, and Conway Custody 

Transfer meter stations would occur within existing, previously disturbed commercial/industrial areas, while the 

Echo Springs, Laramie, Washington County, and WaKeeney System Check meter stations would each disturb 

new areas (Table 2.2-1). 

Overland Pass would construct 94 MLVs along the proposed route (Table 2.2-1). Valves were located along 

existing access points where possible. Seventeen of the MLVs would be equipped with electric actuators. 

These valve facilities would have the capability to be quickly and remotely closed by the master control 

center’s Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system. Fifty-eight of the MLVs would be block 

valves that would be manually operated by Overland Pass to shut down the NGL flow in both directions. 

Seventeen MLVs would be check valves that are designed to prevent backflow of NGL. Seven of these valves 

are associated with meter stations. Check valves operate automatically each time the pipeline is shut down or 

when flow stops. MLVs would be constructed within the 75-foot construction ROW. The block and check 

valves would be operated within a 25-foot-wide by 25-foot-long site, while remotely activated valves would 

operate within a 100-foot by 25-foot site. In either situation, all MLVs would be located within the permanent 

50-foot-wide ROW. The MLVs would be located based on engineering hydraulic considerations and in 

accordance with current USDOT regulations. 

A total of 11 pigging facilities would be constructed and operated along the pipeline route (Table 2.2-1). Nine 

of these pigging facilities would have both launcher and receiver capabilities, one would have launcher 

capabilities only, and one would have receiver capabilities only. Launchers and receivers would allow the 

pipeline to accommodate a high-resolution internal line inspection tool known as a smart pig. Smart pigs and 

cleaning pigs would periodically move through the pipeline to inspect and clean it. 

The aboveground facilities would be painted a color that would be compatible with the existing character of the 

surrounding landscape based on consultation with the land management agency or landowner. 

2-17
2.2.1.3 Construction Processes Common to All Action Alternatives 

This section describes the design, layout, and general sequence of actions required to construct a pipeline 

project. The descriptions in this section would be the same for the Proposed Action and for the Southern 

Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative. 

Construction Planning 

At a minimum, the proposed facilities would be designed, constructed, tested, and operated in accordance 

with all applicable requirements included in the USDOT regulations in 49 CFR 195, Transportation of 

Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline, and other applicable federal and state regulations. These regulations are 

intended to ensure adequate protection for the public and to prevent natural gas pipeline accidents and 

failures. Among other design standards, Part 195 specifies pipeline material and qualification, minimum design 

requirements, and protection from internal, external, and atmospheric corrosion. 

Overland Pass has prepared a draft POD that outlines federal-specific construction procedures, environmental 

requirements, project plans, and mitigation measures that would be implemented by Overland Pass during 

construction of the Proposed Action on federally managed land. This document describes routine construction 

and reclamation procedures in upland areas as well construction methods for crossing wetlands and 

waterbodies. Applicant-proposed mitigation measures also are contained in Overland Pass’ POD. Overland 

Pass has submitted a draft POD that is available for viewing on the BLM website at: www.blm.gov/wy/ 

st/en/info/NEPA/rfodocs/overland_pipeline.html. Overland Pass will prepare a final POD that includes 

mitigation measures that are described in this EIS. In addition, site-specific stipulations not included in the 

POD but determined to be necessary on federal lands would be included in any ROW grant issued by the 

BLM. The site-specific measures included in the POD would not contradict the mitigation measures of this EIS. 

Included in its draft POD, Overland Pass has prepared several specific plans that include measures to mitigate 

for potential impacts. These plans are intended to serve as overall best management practices (BMPs) for 

construction and operation of the entire project, on both federally managed and non-federally managed lands. 

The mitigation plans include: 

• Construction, Reclamation, and Revegetation Plan (Appendix C); 

• Site-specific Waterbody Crossing Plans; 

• Traffic and Transportation Management Plan; 

• Emergency Response Plan; 

• Fire Prevention and Suppression Plan; 

• Conservation Measure Plan; 

• Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan; 

• Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan; 

• Blasting Plan; 

• Hydrostatic Test Plan (Appendix D); 

• Horizontal Directional Drilling Inadvertent Release Control Plan; 

• Weed Management Plan (Appendix E); and 

• Winter Construction Plan (Appendix F). 

For example, Overland Pass’ Weed Management Plan includes site-specific measures that would be 

implemented to control noxious weeds and invasive plant species, including the use of cleaned, weed-free 

equipment; the use of high-pressure water to remove seeds and other propagules from equipment prior to 

transport from a site (except during freezing conditions when compressed air and mechanical means would be 

2-18
used for cleaning equipment); and the use of certified weed-free straw bales to control erosion. Details of the 

Weed Management Plan including important committed mitigation measures are discussed in Section 4.6. 

Because many plans within the POD are in various stages of development, the most current key applicantcommitted mitigation measures are provided in Appendix A along with a summary of recommended additional 

mitigation measures identified within this EIS. 

General Pipeline Construction Procedures 

Before starting construction, Overland Pass would finalize engineering surveys of the ROW centerline and 

extra workspaces, and complete land or easement acquisition on private and state land. On federal land, 

Overland Pass would need to obtain a ROW grant from the BLM. Overland pipeline construction generally 

proceeds as a moving assembly line as shown in Figure 2.2-7. Construction of the main pipeline is planned for 

five simultaneous construction areas, called spreads, averaging about 150 miles each (Table 2.2-7). The 

pump stations each would be constructed by separate construction crews. Overland Pass plans to initiate 

construction in October 2007, and service is anticipated by the second quarter of 2008. This schedule is 

contingent on Overland Pass receiving the necessary approvals to construct the pipeline. 

Table 2.2-7 Construction Spreads for the Project 

Spread Name Reference Points State 

Spread 1 0.0 to 147.0 Wyoming 

Spread 2 147.0 to 281.0 Wyoming 

Spread 3 281.0 to 438.0 Wyoming/Colorado 

Spread 4 438.0 to 591.0 Colorado/Kansas 

Spread 5 591.0 to 749.4 Kansas 

Standard pipeline construction is composed of specific activities including survey and staking of the ROW, 

clearing and grading, trenching, pipe stringing, bending, welding, lowering-in, backfilling, hydrostatic testing, 

and cleanup. In addition to standard pipeline construction methods, Overland Pass would use special 

construction techniques where warranted by site-specific conditions. These special techniques would be used 

when constructing across rugged terrain, waterbodies, wetlands, paved roads, highways, and railroads (see 

Special Construction Procedures subsection below). 

Survey and Staking. The first step of construction would involve marking the limits of the approved work area 

(i.e., the construction ROW boundaries, additional temporary workspace areas) and flagging the location of 

approved access roads and foreign utility lines. Wetland boundaries and other environmentally sensitive areas 

also would be marked or fenced for protection at this time. Before the pipeline trench is excavated, a survey 

crew would stake the centerline of the proposed trench. 

Clearing and Grading. Before clearing and grading activities were conducted, landowner fences would be 

braced and cut, and temporary gates and fences would be installed to contain livestock, if present. A clearing 

crew would follow the fence crew and would clear the work area of vegetation and obstacles (e.g., trees, logs, 

brush, rocks). Temporary erosion control measures such as silt fences or straw bales would be installed prior 

to vegetation removal along wetlands and riparian areas. Grading would be conducted where necessary to 

provide a reasonably level work surface. Where the ground is relatively flat and does not require grading, 

rootstock would be left in the ground. More extensive grading would be required in steep side-slopes or vertical 

areas and where necessary to prevent excessive bending of the pipeline. Temporary erosion controls (e.g., silt 

fencing or certified weed-free straw bales) would be installed prior to vegetation removal adjacent to wetlands 

and riparian areas. 

2-19

Trenching. The trench would be excavated to a depth that provides sufficient cover over the pipeline after 

backfilling. Typically, the trench will be about 4.5 to 5 feet deep (to allow for about 3 feet of cover) and about 

3.5 to 4 feet wide in stable soils. Additional cover would be provided at road and waterbody crossings. Less 

cover is required in rocky areas (18 inches) in open areas. In sandy, unstable soils, the trench could be 

considerably wider because the walls could cave or slough during trenching. 

When rock or rocky formations were encountered, tractor-mounted mechanical rippers or rock trenchers would 

be used for fracturing the rock prior to excavation. In areas where mechanical equipment could not break up or 

loosen the bedrock, blasting would be required (see Blasting subsection below). Excavated rock would be 

used to backfill the trench to the top of the existing bedrock profile. 

Unless otherwise requested by the landowner, topsoil generally would be separated from subsoil only over the 

trench itself. Separated topsoil would be stored on the working side of the trench and in a pile separate from 

subsoil (which would be stored on the spoil side of the trench) to allow for proper restoration of the soil during 

the backfilling process (Figure 2.2-5). In areas where the ROW would be graded to provide a level working 

surface and where there was a need to separate topsoil from subsoil, the ROW would be graded to collect 

topsoil before any subsoil was disturbed. Again, topsoil would be piled such that the mixing of subsoil and 

topsoil would not occur. Gaps would be left between the spoil piles to prevent storm water runoff from backing 

up or flooding. Topsoil would be returned to its original horizon after subsoil was backfilled in the trench. 

In areas where rangeland is used for grazing and livestock could not be temporarily relocated by the 

landowner, construction activities could potentially hinder the movement of livestock across those allotments. 

Wildlife accustomed to freely moving through the area in search of food and water also could be hindered by 

construction activities. To minimize impact on livestock and wildlife movements during construction, Overland 

Pass would install trench plugs (areas where the trench is excavated and replaced with minimal compaction) 

to allow livestock and wildlife to safely cross the open trench. Trench plugs would be constructed with a ramp 

on each side to enable animals that fall into the trench an avenue of escape. To allow for safe passage, trench 

plugs would be constructed at 0.5-mile intervals and where the trench is intersected by visible livestock or 

wildlife trails or as directed by the Environmental Inspectors (EI). 

Pipe Stringing, Bending, and Welding. Prior to or following trenching, sections of externally coated pipe up 

to 80 feet long (also referred to as “joints”) would be transported by truck over public road networks and along 

authorized private access roads to the ROW and placed or “strung” along the trench in a continuous line. 

After the pipe sections were strung along the trench and before joints were welded together, individual 

sections of the pipe would be bent where necessary to allow for uniform fit of the pipeline with the varying 

contours of the bottom of the trench. A track-mounted, hydraulic pipe-bending machine would shape the pipe 

to conform to the contours of the terrain. Where multiple or complex bends were required in a section of pipe, 

that section of the pipeline would be bent at the factory. 

After the pipe sections were bent, the joints would be welded together into long strings and placed on 

temporary supports. The pipeline joints would be lined up and held in position until securely joined by welding. 

Welds would be inspected by quality control personnel and non-destructive examination to determine the 

quality of the weld. Federal regulations require nondestructive testing of all welds in areas such as inside 

railroad or public road ROWs and in certain other areas. Overland Pass has agreed to nondestructively test 

100 percent of the girth welds using radiographic examination or other USDOT-approved method prior to 

hydrostatic testing. Radiographic examination is one example of a nondestructive method of inspecting the 

inner structure of welds and determining the presence of defects. Welds that do not meet established 

specifications would be repaired or removed. Once the welds were approved, a protective epoxy coating 

would be applied to the welded joints. The pipeline would then be electronically inspected or “jeeped” for faults 

or voids in the epoxy coating, and visually inspected for any faults, scratches, or other coating defects. 

Damage to the coating would be repaired before the pipeline was lowered into the trench. 

On federal lands, 20-foot-wide gaps in the strung pipe string and topsoil piles would be left at least every 

0.5 mile and at major game crossing trails or livestock watering trails that intersect the trench line. A 

2-21
corresponding soft plug that would be at least 5 feet wide would be installed to allow passage to livestock and 

wildlife. Prior to lowering-in of the pipe into the trench, multiple sections of pipeline may be welded together 

above the ditch to create welded lengths of pipe. These sections of pipeline would be lowered into the ditch 

after they were joined. 

Lowering-in and Backfilling. Before the pipeline is lowered in, the trench would be inspected to be sure it is 

free of livestock or wildlife, as well as rocks and other debris that could damage the pipe or protective coating. 

In areas where water accumulated, dewatering could be necessary to inspect the bottom of the trench. The 

pipeline then would be lowered into the trench. On sloped terrain, trench breakers (stacked sand bags or 

foam) would be installed in the trench at specified intervals to prevent subsurface water movement along the 

pipeline. The trench would then be backfilled using the excavated material. In rocky areas, the pipeline would 

be protected with a rock shield (fabric or screen that is wrapped around the pipe to protect the pipe and its 

coating from damage by rocks, stones, and roots). Alternatively, the trench bottom would be filled with padding 

material (e.g., finer grain sand, soil, or gravel) to protect the pipeline. No topsoil would be used as padding 

material. 

Overland Pass estimates that reasonable construction progress will leave 10 to 12 miles of trench per spread 

open at a time. Except on the PNG where the amount of open trench would be restricted by the USFS, 

Overland Pass does not propose to limit the length of trench open at any one time due to practical concerns 

regarding the rate of construction, estimated to move at a rate of approximately 2 miles per day. 

Hydrostatic Testing. The pipeline would be hydrostatically tested in sections to ensure the system was 

capable of withstanding the operating pressure for which it was designed. This process involves isolating the 

pipe segment with test manifolds, filling the line with water, pressurizing the section to a pressure 

commensurate with the MOP, and then maintaining that pressure for a period of 8 hours. The hydrostatic test 

would be conducted in accordance with Title 49 CFR Part 195. Overland Pass proposes to obtain water for 

hydrostatic testing from a combination of groundwater and surface water sources through specific agreements 

with landowners and in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations. The pipeline would be 

hydrostatically tested after backfilling and all construction work that would directly affect the pipe has been 

completed. If leaks are found, they would be repaired and the section of pipe retested until specifications were 

met. Water used for the testing would then be transferred to another pipe section for subsequent hydrostatic 

testing or the water would be discharged in compliance with the NPDES discharge permit requirements, and 

treated if necessary. Hydrostatic testing is discussed further in Section 4.5. 

Final Tie-in. Following successful hydrostatic testing, test manifolds would be removed and the final pipeline 

tie-ins would be made and inspected. 

Commissioning. After final tie-ins are complete and inspected, the pipeline would be cleaned and dried using 

mechanical tools (pigs) that are moved through the pipeline with pressurized, dry air. The pipeline would be 

dried to minimize the potential for internal corrosion. Once the pipe has dried sufficiently, pipeline 

commissioning would commence. Commissioning involves activities to verify that equipment has been 

properly installed and is working, the controls and communications systems are functional, and that the 

pipeline is ready for service. In the final step, the pipeline is prepared for service by purging the line of air and 

loading the line with natural gas liquids. 

Cleanup and Restoration. During cleanup, construction debris on the ROW would be disposed of and work 

areas would be final graded. Preconstruction contours would be restored. Segregated topsoil would be spread 

over the surface of the ROW and permanent erosion controls would be installed. After backfilling, final cleanup 

would begin as soon as weather and site conditions permit. Every reasonable effort would be made to 

complete final cleanup (including final grading and installation of erosion control devices) within 20 days after 

backfilling the trench (10 days in residential areas). Construction debris would be cleaned up and taken to a 

state-approved disposal facility. 

After permanent erosion control devices are installed and final grading has occurred, all disturbed work areas 

would be seeded as soon as possible. Seeding is intended to stabilize the soil, revegetate areas disturbed by 

2-22
construction, and, depending upon land use, restore native flora. Timing of the reseeding efforts would depend 

upon weather and soil conditions and would be subject to the prescribed dates and seed mixes specified by 

the landowner, land-managing agency, or NRCS recommendations. Refer to the Construction, Reclamation, 

and Revegetation Plan (Appendix C) for seed mixes. 

Pipeline markers would be installed at fence, road, and railroad crossings and other locations (as required by 

49 CFR 195) to show the location of the pipeline. Markers would identify the owner of the pipeline and convey 

emergency information. Special markers providing information and guidance to aerial patrol pilots also would 

be installed. 

Special Construction Procedures 

In addition to standard pipeline construction methods, Overland Pass would use special construction 

techniques where warranted by site-specific conditions. These special techniques would be used when 

constructing across paved roads, highways, railroads, steep terrain, waterbodies, wetlands, and when blasting 

through rock. These are described below. 

Road, Highway, and Railroad Crossings. Construction across paved roads, highways, and railroads would 

be in accordance with the requirements of Overland Pass’ road and railroad crossing permits and approvals 

obtained by Overland Pass. In general, major paved roads, highways, and railroads would be crossed by 

boring beneath the road or railroad. Boring requires the excavation of a pit on each side of the feature, the 

placement of boring equipment in the pit, then boring a hole under the road at least equal to the diameter of 

the pipe. Once the hole was bored, a prefabricated pipe section would be pushed through the borehole. For 

long crossings, sections could be welded onto the pipe string just before being pushed through the borehole. 

Boring would result in minimal or no disruption to traffic at road, highway, or railroad crossings. Each boring 

would be expected to take 2 to 10 days. 

Most smaller, unpaved roads and driveways would be crossed using the open-cut method where permitted by 

local authorities or private owners. The open-cut method would require temporary closure of the road to traffic 

and establishment of detours. If no reasonable detour is feasible, at least one lane of traffic would be kept 

open, except during brief periods when it is essential to close the road to install the pipeline. Most open-cut 

road crossings would be completed and the road resurfaced within a few days. Overland Pass would take 

measures, such as posting signs at open-cut road crossings, to ensure safety and minimize traffic disruptions. 

Steep Terrain. Additional grading may be required in areas where the proposed pipeline route would cross 

steep slopes. Steep slopes often need to be graded down to a gentler slope to accommodate pipe-bending 

limitations. In such areas, the slopes would be cut away, and, after the pipeline is installed, reconstructed to 

their original contours during restoration. Overland Pass may use up to 25 feet of extra ROW in areas with 

steep terrain. 

In areas where the proposed pipeline route crosses laterally along the side of a slope, cut and fill grading may 

be required to obtain a safe, flat work terrace. Topsoil would be stripped from the entire ROW and stockpiled 

prior to cut and fill grading on steep terrain. Generally, on steep side-slopes, soil from the high side of the 

ROW would be excavated and moved to the low side of the ROW to create a safe and level work terrace. After 

the pipeline is installed, the soil from the low side of the ROW would be returned to the high side, and the 

slope’s original contours would be restored. Topsoil from the stockpile would be spread over the surface, 

erosion control features installed, and seeding implemented. 

In steep terrain, temporary sediment barriers such as silt fence and certified weed-free straw bales would be 

installed during clearing to prevent the movement of disturbed soil off the ROW. Temporary slope breakers 

consisting of mounded and compacted soil would be installed across the ROW during grading, and permanent 

slope breakers would be installed during cleanup. Following construction, seed would be applied to steep 

slopes, and the ROW would be mulched with certified weed-free straw or covered with erosion-control fabric. 

Fabric would be installed on all slopes leading to waterbodies, immediately after the bank was recontoured. 

Overland Pass would use mulching materials approved by the BLM or the USFS, as appropriate on the portion 

2-23
of the route that is under their jurisdictions. Sediment barriers would be maintained across the ROW until 

permanent vegetation is established. 

Waterbody Crossings. Perennial waterbodies would be crossed using one of three techniques: the wet 

open-cut crossing method (Overland Pass’ preferred method), horizontal directional drill (HDD) method, or dry 

open-cut crossing (i.e., flume method or dam-and-pump method) as described below. 

If a waterbody was flowing at the time of construction, Overland Pass’ preferred crossing method would be to 

use a wet open-cut crossing. The wet open-cut method involves trenching through the waterbody while water 

continues to flow through the construction work area. Pipe segments for the crossing would be fabricated 

adjacent to the waterbody. Backhoes generally operating from one or both banks would excavate the trench 

within the streambed. In wider rivers, in-stream operation of equipment may be necessary. Trench plugs 

(stacked, compacted sand bags) would be placed to prevent the flow of water into the upland portions of the 

trench. Trench spoil excavated from the streambed generally would be placed at least 10 feet away from the 

water’s edge. Sediment barriers would be installed where necessary to control sediment and to prevent 

excavated spoil from entering the water. After the trench is dug, the prefabricated pipeline segment would be 

carried, pushed, or pulled across the waterbody and positioned in the trench. The trench would then be 

backfilled with native material or with imported material if required by applicable permits. Following backfilling, 

the banks would be restored and stabilized. 

Overland Pass evaluated the use of the HDD method of construction to reduce overall environmental impacts 

at major river crossings. Based on the results of geotechnical investigations and the physical layout of the 

crossing locations, Overland Pass proposes to HDD the South Platte River and five minor waterways. The 

HDD method involves drilling a pilot hole under the waterbody and banks, then enlarging the hole through 

successive reamings until the hole is large enough to accommodate a prefabricated segment of pipe. 

Throughout the process of drilling and enlarging the hole, a slurry made of non-toxic fluids, such as naturally 

occurring bentonite and water, would be circulated through the drilling tools to lubricate the drill bit, remove drill 

cuttings, and hold the hole open. This slurry is referred to as drilling mud. Pipe sections long enough to span 

the entire crossing would be staged and welded along the construction work area on the opposite side of the 

waterbody and then pulled through the drilled hole. Ideally, use of the HDD method results in no impact on the 

banks, bed, or water quality of the waterbody being crossed. Figure 2.2-8 shows a conceptual HDD 

waterbody crossing. 

Flume and dam-and-pump methods represent dry open-cut crossing methods. The flume method involves 

diverting the flow of water across the trenching area through one or more flume pipes placed in the waterbody. 

The dam-and-pump method is similar to the flume method except that pumps and hoses would be used 

instead of flumes to move water around the construction work area. In both methods, trenching, pipe 

installation, and backfilling are done within the streambed in a relatively dry condition while water flow is 

maintained for all but a short reach of the waterbody at the actual crossing. Once backfilling is completed, the 

flume or pump hoses are removed and the streambanks restored and stabilized. 

The project also would cross intermittent waterbodies. Many of these intermittent waterbodies are dry washes. 

If these intermittent waterbodies are dry at the time of crossing, Overland Pass proposes to use conventional 

upland cross-country construction techniques. If an intermittent waterbody is flowing when crossed, Overland 

Pass may install the pipeline using one of the waterbody crossing methods discussed above (typically 

open-cut) or wait until water is not flowing. At ditches lined with concrete and aqueducts made out of pipe, 

Overland Pass would use the HDD crossing method described above. When crossing waterbodies, Overland 

Pass would adhere to the guidelines outlined in Overland Pass’ POD and the requirements of its waterbody 

crossing permits. For major waterbodies (greater than 100 feet wide measured from bank-to-bank) and 

sensitive waterbodies, Overland Pass has prepared site-specific crossing plans (Overland Pass 2007). 

2-24
Overland Pass

Pipeline Project 

Figure 2.2-8

Conceptual Horizontal

Directionally

Drilled Waterbody 

Waterbody 

Conceptual 

Pipe Profile 

Entry 

Point 

Required Depth 

Exit 

Point 

PROFILE 

 2-25
Additional TWAs would be required on both sides of all waterbodies to stage construction, fabricate the 

pipeline, and store materials. On federal lands, these workspaces would be located at least 50 feet away from 

the water’s edge. Before construction, temporary bridges (e.g., clean rock fill over culverts, timber mats 

supported by flumes, railcar flatbeds, flexi-float apparatus) would be installed across all perennial waterbodies 

to allow construction equipment to cross. Construction equipment would be required to use the bridges, except 

the clearing crew who would be allowed one pass through the waterbodies before the bridges were installed. 

Clearing adjacent to waterbodies would involve the removal of vegetation from the construction ROW and 

additional TWAs. If no herbaceous strip existed, sediment barriers would be installed at the top of the 

streambank. Initial grading of the herbaceous strip would be limited to the extent needed to create a safe 

approach to the waterbody and to install bridges. 

During clearing, sediment barriers would be installed and maintained across the ROW adjacent to waterbodies 

and within additional temporary workspace areas to minimize the potential for sediment runoff. Silt fence 

and/or certified weed-free straw bales located across the working side of the ROW would be removed during 

the day when vehicle traffic is present and would be replaced each night. Alternatively, drivable berms could 

be installed and maintained across the ROW in lieu of silt fence and/or straw bales. 

In general, equipment refueling and lubricating at waterbodies would take place in upland areas that are 

500 feet or more from the edges of the water on federal lands. On non-federal land, refueling and lubrication of 

construction equipment would be restricted to upland areas at least 100 feet from the edge of any stream, 

wetland, ditch, or other waterbody; 200 feet from private water supply wells; and 400 feet from public water 

supply wells, whenever possible. When circumstances dictate that equipment refueling and lubricating would 

be necessary in or near waterbodies, Overland Pass would follow its SPCC Plan to address the handling of 

fuel and other hazardous materials. 

After the pipeline is installed beneath the waterbody using one of the methods described above, restoration 

would begin. Waterbody banks would be restored to preconstruction contours or to a stable angle of repose. 

Erosion-control fabrics would be installed immediately after the bank is recontoured. Rock riprap or gabion 

baskets (rock enclosed in wire bins) would be installed as necessary on steep waterbody banks in accordance 

with permit requirements. Waterbody banks temporarily would be stabilized within 24 hours of completing 

in-stream construction. Sediment barriers, such as silt fence and/or certified weed-free straw bales or drivable 

berms would be maintained across the ROW at all waterbody approaches until permanent vegetation was 

established. Temporary equipment bridges would be removed following construction. 

Wetland Crossings. Pipeline construction across wetlands would be similar to typical conventional upland 

cross-country construction procedures, with several modifications and limitations to reduce the potential for 

pipeline construction to affect wetland hydrology and soil structure. To minimize impacts to the environment, 

Overland Pass would cross wetlands using the procedures outlined in Overland Pass’ POD. To precisely 

identify the wetlands that would be affected by the proposed project, Overland Pass conducted field 

delineation of wetlands. Overland Pass has provided final wetland delineation reports to the USACE. 

Overland Pass proposes to use a 75-foot-wide construction ROW through wetlands. Additional TWAs would 

be required on both sides of wetlands to stage construction, fabricate the pipeline, and store materials. These 

additional TWAs would be located in upland areas a minimum of 50 feet from the wetland edge on federal 

lands, and a minimum of 10 feet on private land. 

Construction equipment working in wetlands would be limited to that essential for ROW clearing, excavating 

the trench, fabricating and installing the pipeline, backfilling the trench, and restoring the ROW. In areas where 

there is no reasonable access to the ROW except through wetlands, non-essential equipment would be 

allowed to travel through wetlands only if the ground was firm enough or had been stabilized to avoid rutting. 

Otherwise, non-essential equipment would be allowed to travel through wetlands only once. 

Clearing of vegetation in wetlands would be limited to trees and shrubs, which would be cut flush with the 

surface of the ground and removed from the wetland. To avoid excessive disruption of wetland soils and the 

2-26
native seed and rootstock within the wetland soils, stump removal, grading, topsoil segregation, and 

excavation would be limited to the area immediately over the trenchline. A limited amount of stump removal 

and grading could be conducted in other areas if dictated by safety-related concerns. 

During clearing, sediment barriers, such as silt fence and certified weed-free staked straw bales, would be 

installed and maintained adjacent to wetlands and within additional TWAs as necessary to minimize the 

potential for sediment runoff. Sediment barriers would be installed across the full width of the construction 

ROW at the base of slopes adjacent to wetland boundaries. Silt fence and/or certified weed-free straw bales 

installed across the working side of the ROW would be removed during the day when vehicle traffic was 

present and would be replaced each night. Alternatively, drivable berms could be installed and maintained 

across the ROW in lieu of silt fence or certified weed-free straw bales. Sediment barriers also would be 

installed within wetlands along the edge of the ROW, where necessary, to minimize the potential for sediment 

to run off the construction ROW and into wetland areas outside the work area. 

The method of pipeline construction used in wetlands would depend largely on the stability of the soils at the 

time of construction. If wetland soils are not excessively saturated at the time of construction and can support 

construction equipment on equipment mats, timber riprap, or straw mats, construction would occur in a 

manner similar to conventional upland cross-country construction techniques. In unsaturated wetlands, topsoil 

from the trenchline would be stripped and stored separately from subsoil. Topsoil segregation generally would 

not be possible in saturated soils. 

Where wetland soils were saturated and/or inundated, the pipeline could be installed using the push-pull 

technique. The push-pull technique would involve stringing and welding the pipeline outside of the wetland and 

excavating and backfilling the trench using a backhoe supported by equipment mats or timber riprap. The 

prefabricated pipeline would be installed in the wetland by equipping it with buoys and pushing or pulling it 

across the water-filled trench. After the pipeline is floated into place, the floats would be removed and the 

pipeline would sink into place. Most pipe installed in saturated wetlands would be coated with concrete or 

equipped with set-on weights to provide negative buoyancy. 

Because little or no grading would occur in wetlands, restoration of contours would be accomplished during 

backfilling. Prior to backfilling, trench breakers would be installed where necessary to prevent the subsurface 

drainage of water from wetlands. Where topsoil has been segregated from subsoil, the subsoil would be 

backfilled first, followed by the topsoil. Topsoil would be replaced to the original ground level leaving no crown 

over the trenchline. In some areas where wetlands overlie rocky soils, the pipe would be padded with rock-free 

soil or sand before backfilling with native bedrock and soil. Equipment mats, timber riprap, gravel fill, geotextile 

fabric, and/or certified weed-free straw mats would be removed from wetlands following backfilling. 

Where wetlands are located at the base of slopes, permanent slope breakers would be constructed across the 

ROW in upland areas adjacent to the wetland boundary. Temporary sediment barriers would be installed 

where necessary until revegetation of adjacent upland areas was successful. Once revegetation is successful, 

sediment barriers would be removed from the ROW and disposed of properly. 

In wetlands where no standing water is present, the construction ROW would be seeded in accordance with 

the recommendations of the local soil conservation authorities or land management agency. Lime, mulch, and 

fertilizer would not be used in wetlands. 

Blasting. Overland Pass has stated that blasting might be required in areas where competent shallow bedrock 

or boulders were encountered that could not be removed by conventional excavation methods. If blasting were 

required to clear the ROW and to fracture the ditch, strict safety precautions would be followed. Overland Pass 

would exercise extreme care to avoid damage to underground structures, cables, conduits, pipelines, and 

underground watercourses or springs. To protect property or livestock, Overland Pass would provide adequate 

notice to adjacent landowners or tenants in advance of blasting. Blasting activity would be performed during 

daylight hours and in compliance with federal, state, and local codes and ordinances and manufacturers’ 

2-27
prescribed safety procedures and industry practices. Overland Pass has provided a Blasting Plan within the 

POD. 

Residential Construction. Based on aerial alignment sheets, no residences would be located within 50 feet 

of the Proposed Action area. Additionally, no commercial buildings were identified within 50 feet of the 

proposed construction work area. Should reroutes be required that would place the pipeline within 50 feet of 

an occupied home or building, Overland Pass would develop site-specific construction plans to mitigate the 

impacts of construction on residential and commercial structures located within 50 feet of the proposed project 

area. 

Fences and Grazing. Fences would be crossed or paralleled by the construction ROW. Overland Pass would 

contact grazing lessees prior to crossing any fence on public lands or any fence between public and private 

land, and would offer the lessee the opportunity to be present when the fence is cut so that the lessees can be 

satisfied that the fence is adequately braced and secured. The grazing permitees would be contacted prior to 

the start of construction and reclamation on their allotments. Before cutting the wires for pipeline construction, 

each fence crossed by the ROW would be braced and secured to prevent the slacking of the wire. To prevent 

the passage of livestock, the opening in the fenceline would be temporarily closed when construction crews left 

the area. If gaps in natural barriers used for livestock control were created by the pipeline construction, the 

gaps would be fenced according to the landowners or land management agency requirements. 

All existing improvements, such as fences, gates, irrigation ditches, cattle guards, and reservoirs would be 

maintained during construction and repaired to pre-construction conditions or better. If pipelines transporting 

water for livestock and wildlife were damaged by construction activities, Overland Pass would repair the 

pipelines to the landowner or land management agency specifications. If needed, Overland Pass has 

committed to providing an emergency source of agricultural-use water. 

Aboveground Facility Construction Procedures 

Construction activities at the pump stations would follow a standard sequence of activities: clearing and 

grading, installing foundations for the pump and control buildings, and erecting the structures to house the 

pumps and associated facilities. A MLV would be required at each station. In addition, a pipeline pig launcher 

and/or pig receiver facility would be installed at each of the pump stations. Construction activities and the 

storage of building materials would be confined to the pump station construction sites. 

The sites for the pump stations would be cleared of vegetation and graded as necessary to create a level 

surface for the movement of construction vehicles and to prepare the area for the building foundations. 

Foundations would be constructed for the buildings, and soil would be stripped from the area of the building 

foundations. 

Each pump station would include two buildings: one utility building and one pump building. The utility building 

would include control equipment to filter, measure, and regulate fuel gas. The pump building at each station 

would house the pumps. The NGL piping, both aboveground and belowground, would be installed and 

pressure-tested using methods similar to those used for the main pipeline. After testing is successfully 

completed, the piping would be tied in to the main pipeline. Piping installed below-grade would be coated for 

corrosion protection prior to backfilling. In addition, all below-grade facilities would be protected by a cathodic 

protection system. Before being put into service, pumps, controls, and safety devices would be checked and 

tested to ensure proper system operation and activation of safety mechanisms. 

Electrical power would be required at each of the major aboveground facilities (pump stations and meter 

stations) and at each of the remotely operated valves. Currently, Overland Pass anticipates that a 4,160-volt 

(V) powerline would be extended from a nearby high voltage transmission powerline into the Echo Springs 

Pump Station and Meter Station site, within the proposed ROW. Additionally, a 480-V powerline would be 

extended from a nearby high voltage transmission powerline into the proposed Opal Meter Station site, within 

the proposed pipeline ROW. The remaining pump stations and meter stations would be located at sites in 

close proximity to high voltage transmission powerlines to operate the proposed facilities. Powerlines would be 

2-28
constructed and operated by independent electrical utility providers, not Overland Pass. The specific details of 

the powerlines that would be extended are currently being determined and would undergo a separate 

permitting process. Table 2.2-8 summarizes electrical power and distribution lines requirements. Chapter 9.0 

discusses powerlines in greater detail. 

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

Meter Stations 

Facility 

Reference 

Point Utility Company 

Length of 

Connection 

Line 

Voltage 

Opal Meter Station with 

Remote Valve 

0.0 Power to be provided by Williams at 

the Opal Plant, power to be run 

underground 

<0.25 mile 480 V 

Remote Valve and 

Sweetwater Pigging 

Facility 

72.1 Pacific Power and Light (Rocky 

Mountain Power) 

100 feet 12,240 V 

Echo Springs Pump 

Station and Meter Station 

with Remote Valve 

146.5 Power to be provided by Williams at 

the Echo Springs Plant 

<0.25 mile 34.5 

kilovolt (kV) 

Remote Valve 207.0 Carbon Power and Light 2.9 miles 13.2 kV 

Laramie Pump Station 

and Meter Station with 

Remote Valve 

271.7 Laramie Pump Station, power to be 

provided by Carbon Power and Light 

as part of the entire station 

2.4 miles 34.5 kV 

Remote Valve 307.4 High West Energy 0.2 mile 12,470 V 

Remote Valve 323.0 Poudre Valley REA Powerline crosses 

valve site 

15 kV 

Remote Valve 342.7 High West Energy <1 mile (within 

0.5) 

12,470 V 

Remote Valve 389.8 Xcel Energy 1 to 1.5 miles 13.2 kV 

Washington County 

Meter Station with 

Remote Valve 

447.8 YW Electric 1 to 1.5 miles 12,470 V 

Remote Valve 507.9 Prairieland Electric 1 to 1.5 miles 13.2 kV 

Remote Valve and 

Thomas Pigging Facility 

552.9 Midwest Energy <0.5 mile (within 

0.25) 

13.2 kV 

WaKeeney Meter Station 

with Remote Valve; 

Future Pump Station 

606.0 Western COOP 0.5 mile 13.2 kV 

Remote Valve and Ellis 

Pigging Facility 

654.7 Western COOP <0.5 mile (within 

0.25) 

13.2 kV 

Bushton Meter Station 

with Remote Valve 

717.5 Power to be provided by ONEOK at 

the Bushton Plant 

<0.25 mile 480 V 

Remote Valve 736.2 Power to be provided by Williams at 

the Mitchell Plant 

0.1 mile 480 V 

Conway Meter Station 

with Remote Valve 

749.4 Power to be provided by Williams at 

the Conway Plant 

0.1 mile 480 V 

After the completion of startup and testing, the pump station sites would be graded and landscaped. A 

permanent security fence would be installed around each pump station site. Because each of the pump station 

sites would be located in remote, undeveloped areas and/or adjacent to existing commercial/industrial 

2-29 
facilities, the station buildings would be designed to be as consistent as possible with the character of the 

surrounding land uses. The pump stations would be painted a color to enable the structures to blend into the 

surrounding landscape, native vegetation would be used for landscaping, and the minimum lighting necessary 

for safe operation of the facilities would be installed. Overland Pass proposes to construct the stations in late 

2007; any landscaping would occur in the spring or early summer of 2008. 

Construction activities would include clearing, grading, trenching, installing piping, erecting buildings, fencing 

the facilities, cleanup, and restoration. The meter stations would operate on locally provided power. 

MLV construction would be concurrent with the construction of the pipeline with valves installed at spacings as 

required by the USDOT (49 CFR 195). Where practical, MLVs typically would be located near public roads to 

allow year-round access. Permanent access roads or approaches may be constructed within the permanent 

ROW to some MLV sites. 

The construction of pig launchers and receivers would be concurrent with the construction of the meter 

stations and MLVs. Activities such as clearing, grading, trenching, and clean-up and restoration would occur 

simultaneously with construction activities associated with the pipeline and pump stations. 

Corrosion Protection 

An external coating would be applied to the pipeline and all buried facilities to protect against corrosion. 

Cathodic protection would be provided by an impressed current. 

Construction Workforce and Schedule 

Overland Pass proposes to begin construction in October 2007; construction would last 6 months. Overland 

Pass proposes to complete construction and begin service by the second quarter of 2008. Overland Pass 

anticipates a peak workforce of approximately 1,300 to 1,500 construction personnel. Construction personnel 

would consist of Overland Pass employees, contractor employees, construction inspection staff, and 

environmental inspection staff. Overland Pass is planning to build the pipeline in five spreads, with 

construction activity occurring simultaneously in each spread. Overland Pass anticipates 200 to 

300 construction and inspection personnel associated with each spread. The construction of the aboveground 

facilities would require an additional 200 to 300 workers. The workforce needed to construct the aboveground 

facilities within each spread is included in these estimates. The construction of the potential future pump 

station at WaKeeney would require an additional 20 to 28 workers. During construction, personnel would work 

during daylight hours, 6 to 7 days per week depending on schedule constraints. Table 2.2-9 outlines Overland 

Pass’ proposed construction schedule and workforce requirements by spread for the proposed project. 

Table 2.2-9 Pipeline Construction Workforce and Proposed Schedule 

Spread 

Associated Aboveground 

Facilities (RP) 

Begin 

RP 

End 

RP 

Estimated 

Workforce County and State 

1 Echo Springs Pump Station 

(146.5) 

0.0 147.0 300 Lincoln, Sweetwater and Carbon 

counties, Wyoming 

Opal and Echo Springs Meter 

Stations (0.0 and 146.5) 

2 Laramie Pump Station (271.7) 147.0 281.0 300 Sweetwater, Carbon and Albany 

Laramie Meter Station (271.7) counties, Wyoming 

3 No pump or meter stations 281.0 438.0 800 Albany and Laramie counties, 

Wyoming; Weld, Morgan, Logan, 

and Washington counties, Colorado 

4 Washington County Meter 

Station (RP 447.8) 

438.0 591.0 200 Washington and Yuma counties, 

Colorado; Cheyenne, Rawlins, 

Thomas, and Sheridan counties, 

Kansas 

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

Spread 

Associated Aboveground 

Facilities (RP) 

Begin 

RP 

End 

RP 

Estimated 

Workforce County and State 

5 WaKeeney Meter Station 

(606.0) 

591.0 749.4 200 Sheridan, Graham, Gove, Trego, 

Ellis, Russell, Barton, Ellsworth, 

Rice, and McPherson counties, 

Kansas 

Bushton and Conway Meter 

Stations (717.5 and 749.4) 

Potential 

Future 

WaKeeney Pump Station 

(606.0) 

NA NA 20 to 28 Sheridan County, Kansas 

Overland Pass, through its construction contractors and subcontractors, would attempt to hire temporary 

construction staff from the local population, if the local population offers skilled workers in fields related to 

pipeline construction. At peak workforce, Overland Pass anticipates that up to about 20 percent of the total 

construction workforce could be hired locally (currently residing in Kansas, Colorado, or Wyoming). The 

remaining portion of the workforce (80 percent or more) would include non-local personnel. Based on the 

specialized nature of the position, environmental inspection staff most likely would consist entirely of non-local 

employees. 

Overland Pass estimates that 5 to 20 permanent employees would be required to oversee the operation and 

maintenance of the pipeline, including the pumping stations. These employees most likely would be non-local, 

as they would have specialized responsibilities or have current employment with Overland Pass. No additional 

personnel would be hired to operate and maintain the pumping stations as these facilities would be 

constructed to operate automatically. Any specific operation and maintenance task which could not be 

completed by the existing staff would be completed on a contractual and as-need basis. 

Only work vehicles would be allowed on the construction ROW or additional temporary workspace areas 

during construction. Equipment operators would drive a company-owned or personal pick-up truck to the 

construction site. Parking would be limited to the construction ROW, additional temporary workspace areas, or 

along existing authorized access roads. Adjacent ROWs would not be used for parking. Construction workers 

would not be permitted to travel cross-country during construction of the project. 

Environmental Inspection, Compliance Monitoring, and Post-approval Variances 

Environmental Inspection. The environmental inspection and compliance monitoring programs for the 

project would address requirements placed on the project by the federal and other agencies. 

Overland Pass proposes to assign EIs to each construction spread on federal and non-federal lands. The EIs 

would likely be hired from a qualified third-party contractor. The responsibilities of the EIs are outlined in 

Overland Pass’ POD and would include ensuring that the ROW Grant and environmental conditions attached 

to other permits and authorizations are met. During the construction phase, Overland Pass’ EIs would inspect 

all construction and mitigation activities to ensure compliance with the requirements of environmental plans, 

permits, and conditions. EIs also may oversee cultural resource monitors and/or biological monitors that may 

be required to monitor and evaluate construction impacts on resources as specified in this EIS. 

Inspectors from the BLM and USFS, as appropriate, also would conduct field inspections during construction 

on federal lands. Other federal and state agencies also may conduct oversight of inspection to the extent 

determined necessary by the individual agency. 

After construction is completed on federal lands, the BLM and USFS, as appropriate, would continue to 

conduct oversight inspection and monitoring. If it is determined that any of the proposed monitoring timeframes 

are not adequate to assess the success of restoration, Overland Pass would be required to extend its postconstruction monitoring programs. The BLM would retain Overland Pass’ bond or other security until the BLM 

is satisfied with Overland Pass’ reclamation efforts on federal lands. 

2-31
Compliance Monitoring. In addition to the EI program, Overland Pass would provide funding to implement a 

third-party compliance monitoring program during construction of the project. The compliance monitoring 

program would be implemented on federal lands under the direction of the BLM and USFS. 

The overall objective of the compliance monitoring program is to monitor and document Overland Pass’ 

compliance and/or noncompliance with environmental requirements on federal lands during construction of the 

project. The environmental requirements to be monitored would be limited to those requirements and 

conditions that are either located on federal land (BLM and NFS) or those conditions that result from a federal 

permit requirement including: 

• The environmental mitigation measures that were proposed by Overland Pass throughout the

permitting phase of the project; 

• The Overland Pass POD, which would be appended to the BLM ROW Grant; 

• The conditions contained in the BLM ROD and the BLM ROW Grant and Temporary Use Permits; 

• The USFWS BO concerning listed endangered or threatened federal species or their habitat; and 

• The approved treatment plan(s) and MOA for the treatment and protection of cultural resources. 

During construction, full-time Compliance Monitors would conduct daily ongoing inspections of construction 

activities and mitigation measures and provide regular feedback on compliance issues to the BLM, Overland 

Pass, and Overland Pass’ EI team. Construction progress and environmental compliance would be tracked 

and documented by the preparation and submittal of daily and weekly reports. The Compliance Monitors 

would report directly to a Compliance Manager. The Compliance Manager would report directly to the 

designated BLM Project Manager and USFS Project Manager. 

Other objectives of the compliance monitoring program are to: 

• Facilitate the timely resolution of compliance-related issues in the field; 

• Provide continuous information to the BLM and USFS regarding noncompliance issues and their 

resolution; and 

• Review, process, and track construction-related variance requests in a timely manner. 

On federal lands, Compliance Monitors would assist with implementation of the variance process in 

accordance with a predetermined level of decision-making authority granted by the BLM and USFS. 

Post-approval Variance Process. Surface disturbance locations and acreages identified in this EIS are 

anticipated to be sufficient for the construction and operation (including maintenance) of the project and all 

ancillary improvements. However, route realignments and other project refinements often continue past the 

project review phase and into the construction phase. As a result, work area locations and disturbed acreages 

documented in the EIS often change after project approval. These changes frequently involve minor route 

realignments or moving approved temporary workspace, adding new temporary workspace, and adding 

access routes to work areas and associated temporary use areas. This section describes the procedure used 

for assessing impact on workspace areas outside those specifically listed in this EIS and for approving their 

use. 

Subsequent to project approval, when work areas outside those evaluated in this EIS are found to be needed 

(whether on federal or non-federal lands), additional inventory and evaluation would be performed to ensure 

that the impact on biological, cultural, and other resources would be avoided or minimized to the maximum 

extent practicable. New workspace location and survey results would be documented and forwarded to the 

BLM (and USFS, as applicable) in the form of a “variance request;” one of the two federal agencies would take 

the lead on reviewing the request, depending on the ownership status of the subject land. Appropriate agency 

consultations/approvals would be conducted/obtained prior to approval of the variance. At the conclusion of 

the project, as-built drawings would be provided to the BLM and the USFS. 

2-32
Operation and Maintenance 

Overland Pass would operate and maintain the project facilities in accordance with the USDOT regulations in 

49 CFR 195 and other applicable federal and state regulations. Operation and maintenance of the pipeline 

system would, in most cases, be accomplished by Overland Pass personnel. Overland Pass estimates that 

operation of the pipeline would require up to 20 additional employees. Operation of the pipeline would require 

access along the pipeline ROW by Overland Pass personnel. While Overland Pass would make an effort to 

notify landowners prior to entering private property, landowner notification is not required for entry along the 

ROW, particularly in emergency situations. 

ROW Monitoring and Maintenance. In order to maintain accessibility of the ROW and to accommodate 

pipeline integrity surveys, woody vegetation that might affect the integrity of the pipeline would periodically be 

cleared over the pipeline. In most areas, the ROW would be maintained in an herbaceous state. Large trees 

would be removed from the permanent ROW. Overland Pass would use only mechanical mowing or cutting 

along its ROW for normal vegetation maintenance. 

Noxious weeds and invasive plant monitoring and control activities would occur during routine ROW 

monitoring and maintenance activities. Noxious weeds and invasive plants discovered within the ROW would 

be controlled according to the measures specified in Overland Pass’ Weed Management Plan (Appendix E). 

In the future, pipeline integrity surveys and vegetation maintenance could identify areas on the ROW where 

permanent erosion control devices need to be repaired or additional erosion control devices may be needed. If 

problem areas were evident, erosion control devices would be repaired or installed as necessary and the 

ROW would be stabilized to prevent future degradation. 

In the vicinity of waterbodies, wetlands, and upland areas, Overland Pass would adhere to the operation and 

maintenance procedures described in the Overland Pass POD and its appendices (Overland Pass 2007). 

Operation and maintenance procedures, including record keeping, would be performed in accordance with the 

USDOT requirements. 

Pipeline Integrity 

Overland Pass’s pipeline facilities would be operated and maintained in accordance with the federal safety 

standards (49 CFR 195). Operation and maintenance of project facilities would be performed by or at the 

direction of Overland Pass. The pipeline would be inspected periodically from the air and on foot as operating 

conditions permit, but no less frequently than as required by 49 CFR 195. These surveillance activities would 

provide information on possible encroachments and nearby construction activities, erosion, exposed pipe, and 

other potential concerns that may affect the safety and operation of the pipeline. Evidence of population 

changes would be monitored and class locations changed as necessary. MLVs also would be inspected 

annually and the results documented. 

Future Plans and Abandonment 

A recent news release (March 28, 2007) indicates that Overland Pass plans to build a $120 million natural gas 

liquids pipeline lateral connecting the Piceance Basin in northwestern Colorado with the previously announced 

Overland Pass Pipeline. On June 21, 2007, Overland Pass submitted a ROW application to the BLM for the 

Piceance Lateral Project. The Piceance Lateral Project is 150-mile lateral pipeline designed to transport as 

much as 100,000 bpd of raw NGLs from the Piceance Basin to the Echo Springs meter station on the 

Overland Pass Pipeline. The proposed pipeline lateral will transport natural gas liquids from an existing 

Williams natural gas processing plant and a new processing plant that Williams plans to build and operate in 

the Piceance Basin (also announced on March 28, 2007). 

The lateral is considered a reasonably foreseeable project, but not a connected action because the Overland 

Pass Pipeline is not dependent on the proposed lateral pipeline. The Piceance Lateral Project would require a 

separate NEPA analysis. 

2-33
Properly maintained, the proposed pipeline is expected to operate for 50 or more years. If and when Overland 

Pass abandons any of the proposed facilities, the abandonment would be subject to separate approvals by the 

BLM, USFS, and other land management agencies. On federal lands, the BLM would require Overland Pass 

to submit an abandonment plan at least 90 days prior to anticipated abandonment. Overland Pass has no 

plans for abandonment of the pipeline system. 

Upon abandonment of the pipeline, in part or in whole, the ROWs associated with the abandoned facilities 

normally would be returned to the landowners/land management agencies according to the specific easement 

agreements between the landowners/land managing agencies. However, on federal lands, the pipeline ROW 

could be used for other utility ROW (e.g., fiber optic lines) depending upon future decisions made by the BLM. 

2.2.2 The No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, the BLM would reject the project as proposed. The BLM would not issue a 

ROW grant for the project. Without a ROW grant across federal lands, the Overland Pass pipeline could not be 

constructed due to the federal land ownership patterns in the region. 

Since it is not possible to construct an interstate pipeline without crossing BLM-administered land as proposed, 

the Overland Pass pipeline could not be constructed. There is an existing pipeline system (Enterprise NGL 

Pipeline) that is currently operating near its capacity (225,000 bpd). The Enterprise Pipeline system 

(Enterprise) transports NGL to Mont Belvieu, Texas. The recently approved Western Expansion Project (MAPL 

2005) could expand the capacity of Enterprise by accommodating up to 50,000 bpd of additional capacity. 

Despite these expansions, regional gas development is expected to outpace the pipeline capacity in the near 

future. Consequently, Enterprise, including the Western Expansion Project, was evaluated as a System 

Alternative, but was eliminated from detailed evaluation because it did not meet the purpose and need 

(Section 2.3.1.2). 

Despite the lack of sufficient transportation capacity, the extraction of natural gas (and associated NGLs) 

would continue unabated due to the nationwide demand for these products. Since the amount of NGLs being 

produced in the region is expected to exceed the existing pipeline transportation capacity and given the market 

values of NGL, alternative proposals to transport or store the NGL likely would be developed. 

If the project were not approved, other pipeline projects may be proposed in the future. Given the market value 

of the volumes of natural gas liquids being produced in the region, ONEOK, Williams, Overland Pass, or other 

companies could submit a new ROW grant application to the BLM for a different pipeline route. This would 

initiate a new and separate NEPA process. To date, the BLM has not received any other NGL transmission 

pipeline applications in this region. 

As a consequence of the No Action Alternative, pipeline transportation alternatives for regional natural gas 

liquid producers would not exist in the foreseeable future. The No Action Alternative would eliminate 

pipeline-to-pipeline shipping competition between Enterprise and Overland Pass pipeline systems for the 

Rocky Mountain NGL markets. In addition, the No Action Alternative would not increase the regional NGL 

pipeline system diversity, which can help stabilize national supplies. 

2.2.3 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative 

The Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative is a ROW window identified in the Green 

River RMP. Depending on the map base used, this ridge is sometimes referred to as Cooper Ridge. The BLM 

encourages, but does not require, new linear projects (e.g., pipelines, electrical transmission powerlines, 

communication cables) to construct within these windows. Based on a number of issues, including physical 

constraints and constructability issues, this route alternative would follow a portion of the Southern Energy 

Corridor as described below. 

The Southern Energy Corridor diverges from the Proposed Action at approximately RP 62 to avoid potential 

future development of the City of Green River and eventually follows the Mid-America Pipeline System (MAPL 

2-34
System) from approximately RP 92 to RP 120. In contrast to the Proposed Action, the Southern Energy 

Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative generally follows the MAPL pipeline southeast until it intersects 

with County Road 430 where the corridor then begins to head back northeast toward Interstate 80 (I-80) 

(Figure 2.2-9). The Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative would diverge from the 

MAPL route and rejoin the Proposed Action at approximately RP 87, thereby skirting around the north edge of 

Copper Ridge in a relatively flat valley (Cutthroat Draw). This would avoid extremely steep terrain associated 

with Copper Ridge. The Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass is approximately 4.8 miles longer 

than the corresponding segment of the Proposed Action. 

2.2.3.1 Proposed Facilities 

The proposed facilities for this alternative would not change substantially from the Proposed Action. Overland 

Pass would still construct a 14-inch-diameter pipeline. The pump station configuration would not be changed 

and meter station locations would not change. The Sweetwater pigging facility at RP 72.1 would be shifted to 

an accessible location along the alternative route. 

2-35

2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study 

The NEPA process requires that the lead federal agency evaluate reasonable alternatives to the Proposed 

Action, including the No Action Alternative. With the exception of the No Action Alternative, alternatives would 

need to meet the project objective of delivering NGL volumes of 150,000 bpd from the project origins at Opal 

and Echo Springs to midstream delivery points at Bushton and Conway. Key issues identified in the scoping 

process are used to identify alternatives that could potentially reduce environmental impacts. Alternatives 

evaluated in detail within the EIS must be reasonable, feasible, and result in similar or reduced impacts 

compared to the Proposed Action. 

Based on these considerations, the BLM considered but eliminated many variations to the original proposed 

route including: 

• System Alternatives 

- Trucking or Railroad Transport; 

- Enterprise Pipeline System; 

- Alternative pipeline configurations; 

• Route Alternatives 

- I-80 Energy Corridor Route Alternative; 

- Northern Energy Corridor Route Alternative; 

- Western Segment of the Southern Energy Corridor Route Alternative; 

- MAPL Route Alternative; and 

• Local Route Variations. 

2.3.1 System Alternatives 

System alternatives are alternatives to the Proposed Action that would make use of other existing, modified, or 

proposed transmission systems to meet the stated objectives of the project. A system alternative would make 

it unnecessary to construct all or part of the proposed project, although some modifications or additions to one 

or more pipeline systems may be required to increase existing capacity, or another entirely new system may 

need to be constructed. Such modifications or additions would result in environmental impacts; however, the 

impacts could be less than, similar to, or greater than that associated with construction of the Proposed Action. 

2.3.1.1 Trucking or Railroad Transport 

While NGLs potentially could be transported via trucking or by rail transport, both alternative forms of transport 

would be more costly than shipping by pipeline. Moreover, statistics indicate that pipelines tend to be safer 

modes of transport. 

Pipelines operate more safely than other transportation modes as indicated in Table 2.3-1. These statistics 

indicate that trucking is 87 times more likely to result in human fatalities than by pipeline. Similarly, trucking 

results in 35 times more fires and explosions than pipelines (Associations of Pipe Lines [AOPL] 2006). 

Assuming one truck could load and unload every 2 minutes, it is estimated that a fleet of over 2,500 trucks 

would be necessary to transport a volume of NGLs similar to the Overland Pass Pipeline (Allegro Energy 

Group 2001). Because trucks shared the same highways and roads as the general public, this large number of 

trucks transporting NGLs poses a greater safety hazard than pipelines and railroads that utilize a different set 

of ROWs. In addition to the potential hazards to public safety, this large number of trucks also would increase 

the cost of transportation; increase fuel consumption; increase emissions; increase local traffic congestion 

2-37
(particularly in rural areas such as Opal, Bushton, and Conway); and increase the number of animal-vehicle 

collisions when compared to transport by pipeline. 

Table 2.3-1 Relative Risk1

 of Pipelines Compared to Other Transportation Methods 

 Fatalities Injuries Fire/Explosion 

Truck 87 2 35 

Rail 3 0.1 9 

Barge 0.2 4 4 

Tank Ship 4 3 1 

Pipeline 1 1 1 

1

Relative risk is calculated on incidents per ton*mile for each transportation mode (AOPL 2006). 

Similarly, replacement of the Overland Pass pipeline would require the daily arrival and departure of 

75 pressurized railcars (assuming 2,000 barrel capacity)3

. While substantially safer than trucking, rail transport 

is not as safe as pipeline transport in terms of fatalities and fires and explosions. Moreover, the significant 

increase in railcars would increase the cost of NGL transportation, increase fuel consumption; increase 

emissions; increase local rail traffic (particularly in rural areas such as Opal, Echo Springs, Bushton, and 

Conway); and increase animal-railcar collisions when compared to transport by pipeline. 

Given the increased number of trucks or pressurized railcars that would be required to transport similar 

volumes of NGLs and the associated increased public safety risk and environmental impacts, truck and rail 

transport were not considered viable alternatives to the Proposed Action. 

2.3.1.2 Enterprise Pipeline System 

Enterprise, an existing pipeline system, was evaluated as a system alternative to the proposed Overland Pass 

Pipeline route. Enterprise is the only pipeline system that currently moves NGL from southwestern Wyoming. 

Enterprise operates the MAPL System and the Seminole Pipeline System (Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission [FERC] 2005; MAPL 2005a) (Figure 2.3-1). The MAPL system includes the Rocky Mountain 

Pipeline and the Conway South Pipeline (MAPL 2005a). The Rocky Mountain Pipeline is approximately 

2,548 miles long and transports NGL from points in Wyoming to Hobbs-Gains, Texas. The Conway South 

Pipeline is a bi-directional pipeline approximately 1,938 miles long that extends between Hobbs-Gains, Texas, 

and Conway, Kansas. 

Enterprise currently does not transport NGL from the Rocky Mountains to the Conway Hub. Instead, it 

transports mixed NGL via the Rocky Mountain Pipeline from the Rocky Mountain Overthrust and San Juan 

basins to the Hobbs Hub located on the Texas-New Mexico border. It also connects the Conway Hub to the 

Hobbs Hub via the Conway South Pipeline. Under normal operations, the Conway South pipeline moves NGL 

from Kansas refineries toward Hobbs Hub, and does not move mixed NGL toward Conway (MAPL 2005a). 

NGL in the Enterprise system is shipped from Hobbs via the Seminole Pipeline to Mont Belvieu, where it is 

fractionated into its constituents for commercial and residential uses. 

Enterprise reports that because of strong drilling activity and increasing production of rich natural gas and 

associated NGL in the Upper Green River, Piceance, and San Juan basins, the Rocky Mountain Pipeline is 

operating near full capacity and that NGL dedicated to the Enterprise-affiliated Mont Belvieu NGL fractionator 

continue to exceed the capacity of the fractionator (MAPL 2005b). As a result, Enterprise has begun two 

expansion projects to increase NGL capacity, one of which is the Western Expansion Project, the other is 

expansion of the Mont Belvieu fractionator facility. 

3 Estimate based on 2,000 barrel capacity per railcar, traveling 500 miles per day of travel, and transporting 150,000 bpd. 

2-38

The proposed Western Expansion Project would increase the capacity of the Rocky Mountain segment of the 

Enterprise Alternative from its current capacity of 225,000 bpd to 275,000 bpd. Because of the Western 

Expansion Project and increasing NGL production, the Enterprise-affiliated Mont Belvieu complex is 

considering the construction of a new NGL fractionator that could increase the facility’s fractionation capacity 

by an additional 60,000 bpd. 

Currently, the Rocky Mountain region produces approximately 25 percent of the natural gas in the U.S., and 

experts predict that gas production in the Rocky Mountain region could increase from 3.3 tcfy in 2002 to 

6.3 tcfy in 2025 (USDOE 2004). Given this relatively significant increase in natural gas production, NGL 

available for transport also would increase. Despite the added 50,000 bpd capacity brought by the proposed 

Western Expansion Project, further expansion would be needed to accommodate the forecast NGL production 

from the Rocky Mountain area. 

In order to transport additional volumes of NGL proposed by the project, the Enterprise system would require 

further expansion through construction of pipeline loops on the Rocky Mountain Pipeline. In addition to a new 

loop pipeline, its pumping capacity would have to be increased by constructing new pumping stations or 

upgrading the many existing pumping stations. 

The Rocky Mountain Western Expansion Project is compared to the Proposed Action in Table 2.3-2. Because 

the Enterprise Alternative would not meet Overland Pass’ capacity, infrastructure diversity, schedule, or 

delivery to Conway Hub goals, it was eliminated as a viable alternative to the Proposed Action. 

Table 2.3-2 Comparison of the Western Expansion Project to the Proposed Action 

Comparison Factor 

Enterprise Western 

Expansion Project Proposed Action 

Proposal About 202 miles of pipeline 

broken into 12 loops connected 

to existing MAPL System, 

between Wamsutter, Wyoming 

and Hobbs, New Mexico 

About 760 miles of new, 

contiguous pipeline between 

Opal, Wyoming and Conway, 

Kansas 

Services Echo Springs and Opal? Yes Yes 

Takes advantage of existing fractionation 

facilities near the Conway Hub? 

No Yes 

Adds alternative means to transport NGL 

from Rockies? 

No Yes 

Proposed in-service date December 2006 Second quarter 2008 

Additional capacity offered 50,000 bpd 150,000 bpd 

Federal lands crossed 53.4 miles 123.2 miles 

Co-location with other transportation or 

energy facilities 

100 percent 83 percent 

2.3.1.3 Alternative Pipeline Configurations 

Alternative pipeline configurations were considered that included a pipeline diameter configuration of 16 to 

18 to 20 inches in diameter, changing the diameter from 16 to 18 inches at Echo Springs and from 18 to 

20 inches at Laramie. The larger diameter pipeline would require less pump capacity to move the 150,000 bpd 

of NGL proposed by Overland Pass. However, increasing pipe diameter and wall thickness would increase 

capital costs that eventually become economically infeasible. Conversely, utilizing small diameter pipe for the 

project would require more pumping capacity due to hydraulic friction to move the 150,000 bpd of NGL through 

a smaller pipe. Overland Pass conducted an analysis and determined that the 14-inch- and 16-inch-diameter 

pipeline would balance efficiency and cost in moving 150,000 bpd along this pipeline route. 

2-40
The amount of surface disturbance would be comparable for all pipe diameters considered since the 

construction ROWs for 12- to 20-inch-diameter pipe would be the same (i.e., 75 feet wide). 

2.3.2 Route Alternatives 

Due to the concerns expressed during scoping by agency personnel and by the public in the Green River and 

Rock Springs area, route alternatives were examined for this portion of the pipeline. Major route alternatives 

are substantially different route alignments that still fulfill the project’s purpose. Across the Green River area, 

the Proposed Action currently follows portions of Enterprise’s existing east-west MAPL pipeline and I-80 

(Figure 2.2-9). 

Appendix G provides a summary table that compares the various route alternatives in terms of length of 

pipeline, amount of side-slope construction, additional surface disturbance, waterbody crossings, the number 

of occupied structures within 500 feet, and other relevant factors. 

2.3.2.1 I-80 Energy Corridor 

To minimize surface disturbance, the most direct west-to-east pipeline route was evaluated. This route would 

follow the I-80 Energy Corridor through the Green River area. Overland Pass provided a preliminary route that 

would utilize the I-80 Energy Corridor to the extent practical. This route alternative would avoid the City of 

Green River by initially following the Proposed Action until it intersects U.S. Highway 191. The I-80 Energy 

Corridor route alternative then heads north primarily along U.S. Highway 191 in a designated corridor, and 

then reconnects with the I-80 Energy Corridor (Figure 2.2-9). 

The I-80 Energy Corridor passes through portions of the cities of Green River and Rock Springs and is highly 

congested with existing pipelines. There are two areas in particular that are physically constrained from further 

corridor expansion. The first is located around the City of Green River. In this area, the I-80 Energy Corridor is 

constrained to the north by difficult terrain and by residential development to the south. Due to the recognized 

lack of space within this corridor, the Green River RMP recommends that any remaining space within the 

corridor be used for local pipelines dedicated to local transportation of natural gas. The second severely 

constrained portion of the I-80 Energy Corridor is located further east near Black Butte and BBC Mine Permit 

areas. In this area, the I-80 Energy Corridor already is heavily congested and is constrained from expansion to 

the north and south by these coal leases. 

This I-80 Energy Corridor route alternative is approximately 8.2 miles longer than the Proposed Action, 

including 0.4 mile of land with greater than 30 percent slope. The route would cross or closely approach areas 

with documented subsidence near the town of Rock Springs and near Point of Rocks. The I-80 Energy 

Corridor already is close to carrying capacity with 8 to 22 existing utility lines in place depending on location 

along the corridor. Finally, the route would be located in 9.4 more miles of populated areas than compared with 

the Proposed Action route. 

In the Green River RMP, the BLM states that the I-80 corridor is “an avoidance area for major utility lines” 

between Green River and Point of Rocks and suggests that the area be restricted to local distribution service 

lines. This decision was based on the congestion in the area as well as surface mining. In order to avoid the 

over-congestion and physical constraints of the I-80 Energy Corridor, a pipeline potentially could be routed 

further north along the Northern Energy Corridor or south along the Southern Energy Corridor. 

As a result of the utility line congestion, the 8.2 miles of additional pipeline required (and greater land 

disturbance), and the two physical constraints along the I-80 Energy Corridor, this route alternative was 

considered but eliminated from more detailed consideration (Appendix G). 

2.3.2.2 Northern Energy Corridor 

The Northern Energy Corridor primarily follows a pipeline and the electrical transmission powerline associated 

with the Jim Bridger power plant located north of Rock Springs. This route heads northeast from approximately 

2-41
RP 28, just west of the U.S. Highway 30 interchange, crossing approximately 20 miles of mineable trona 

deposits, including FMC Corporation’s (FMC’s) Westvaco trona mine. The route reaches the Table Mountains, 

then heads southeast back toward I-80, reconnecting with the I-80 corridor near the Bitter Creek Road 

interchange. This route bypasses the congestion and geographic constraints associated with the I-80 corridor. 

However, the route is approximately 14.4 miles longer than the Proposed Action, would intersect 0.1 mile of 

slopes greater than 30 percent, and bisects 20 miles of trona mine leases. 

This route was eliminated as a reasonable alternative due to its overall length, amount of surface disturbance, 

construction difficulty and cost (i.e., amount of side-slope and steep slopes), number of perennial waterbodies 

crossed, conflicts with trona mine leases, and increased proximity to populated areas and occupied structures 

(Appendix G). 

2.3.2.3 Western Segment of the Southern Energy Corridor 

At about RP 62, the Southern Energy Corridor diverges south of the Proposed Action, avoiding the southern 

portion of the City of Green River Development Area, an area identified for potential future development by the 

City of Green River. Within this western portion of the Southern Energy Corridor, the route alternative would 

not be co-located with other existing utilities. Construction access and existing slopes at this alternative’s 

Green River crossing would pose a serious construction issue. It also would require the construction of a 

separate roadway. This alternative would cost an additional $3 million and would require an additional work 

crew. Additionally, the length (7.4 miles) of the Western Segment would be more than twice the length of the 

Proposed Action through this area (3.2 miles), causing greater surface disturbance. This alternative was 

eliminated due to poor construction feasibility, increased surface disturbance, increased need for reclamation, 

and increased potential for future maintenance issues. 

2.3.2.4 MAPL Route 

Preliminary routing efforts along the Southern Energy Corridor attempted to co-located the new Overland Pass 

Pipeline ROW with existing utilities to the maximum extent practical. The MAPL route would diverge from the 

Proposed Action at RP 62.3, follow the Southern Energy Corridor, and rejoin the Proposed Action at RP 92.2. 

Similarly, the MAPL route would diverge from the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass 

Alternative near County Road 430. The MAPL route would follow the existing MAPL pipeline up a steep slope 

that crosses Copper Ridge (Figure 2.2-9). The MAPL Route Alternative generally lies within the Southern 

Energy Corridor and would be approximately 4.8 miles longer than the Proposed Action. It would cross 

4 perennial streams and be located within 500 feet of 14 buildings. 

The Southern Energy Corridor, including the MAPL route, is broadly characterized by rocky and rough terrain 

and would require substantial portions to be constructed using steep and side slope construction techniques. 

In particular, Copper Ridge, with slopes in excess of 50 degrees, would pose extreme challenges for pipeline 

construction, operations, and maintenance. Because of the severity of the steep slopes in areas such as 

Copper Ridge, large earth-moving equipment would need to be suspended from cables and winches in order 

to construct the pipeline, posing an elevated risk to the construction workers and equipment. Along this 

alternative, 7 miles of rocky soils may require blasting to construct the pipeline. 

When compared to other routes, the MAPL route has an elevated potential for landslide activity because it 

closely approaches small landslide deposits in Circle Creek Canyon (Township 16 North [T16N] Range 105 

West [R105W]). In 1981, a landslide on Copper Ridge caused the complete rupture of the existing MAPL 

pipeline. Slope instability may have been partially attributable to the difficulty of maintaining the pipeline ROW 

in extreme slopes with unstable soils and poor reclamation potential. Consequently, this alternative was 

eliminated from more detailed analysis. 

2-42
2.3.3 Local Route Variations 

2.3.3.1 Arrowhead Springs Subdivision Variation 

During scoping, comments were received from residents of the Arrowhead Springs subdivision. Many 

comments focused on issues related to the proximity of the pipeline to the residential area and concerns about 

impacts to water quality, particularly in a nearby spring that flows north towards the subdivision. Based on 

these scoping comments, Overland Pass evaluated whether the pipeline could be routed approximately 1 mile 

south of the Arrowhead Springs subdivision (Figure 2.2-9). After conducting field reconnaissance and based 

on BLM’s recommendation, Overland Pass revised their proposed route to address concerns of the Arrowhead 

Springs Subdivision. 

The Arrowhead Springs Subdivision Variation represents Overland Pass’ original route through this area. 

Because the potential impacts associated with the revised Proposed Action are less than those associated 

with the original route through the area, the Arrowhead Springs Subdivision Variation was eliminated from 

further analysis. 

2.3.3.2 Green River Crossing Variation 

Concerns were initially expressed regarding the Proposed Action’s Green River crossing, located at the upper 

end of the Flaming Gorge reservoir. Preliminary evaluations raised the possibility of the Proposed Action being 

located within an area subject to potential scour due to the fluctuations in the full pool of Flaming Gorge 

Reservoir. A route variation was suggested that would be further north of the Proposed Action location, but 

would be closer to residential areas near the City of Green River. 

The USFS conducted a site visit and concluded that the proposed Green River crossing location minimized 

potential environmental impacts and was preferable to the location of the proposed variation because access 

to the proposed site was better, it was further from residential development and the town of Green River and 

that scour potentials were likely comparable at both locations. In addition, the variation does not parallel 

existing pipeline facilities and would create a second potential corridor and crossing for any future projects. 

Consequently, the Green River Crossing Location Variation was eliminated from further consideration. 

2.3.3.3 Trona Mines Variations 

Mineable trona deposits are located to the west of the City of Green River. The original proposed pipeline 

route would bisect trona mine leases in this area, including General Chemical and FMC leases. During 

scoping, concerns were raised about the pipeline’s route through this area, potential conflicts with use in the 

future, and potential mine-induced subsidence issues. FMC plans to mine these deposits in 2009 and General 

Chemical mining activity is schedule for 2020. As a result of these issues, Overland Pass evaluated an 

alternative route that would bypass these areas approximately 1 mile to the north to eliminate conflicts with 

future mining activities. Overland Pass incorporated this reroute into their Proposed Action that added 

1.1 miles to the entire project length between RP 33.5 and RP 36.2. 

After Overland Pass developed a reroute for this area, it was determined that the reroute would interfere with a 

planned ventilation shaft associated with mining activities near Little America. Based on this additional issue, 

Overland Pass subsequently revised their proposed route to avoid this area. 

The Trona Mines Variation represents the original routes through the mine lease areas. Because the potential 

impacts associated with the revised Proposed Action are less than those associated with the original routes 

through the area, the Trona Mines Variations was eliminated from further analysis. 

2.3.4 Aboveground Facility Location Alternatives 

Review of the proposed aboveground facility locations did not identify any significant issues. Consequently, no 

alternative facility locations were identified. 

2-43
2.4 Comparison of Alternatives 

2.4.1 Summary and Comparison of Action Alternatives 

Land requirements and aboveground facilities required for the construction and operation of the Proposed 

Action are described in Section 2.2.1. 

The Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative (Section 2.2.3) would have the similar 

facility requirements as the Proposed Action, with the number and location of pump stations, meter stations, 

pigging facilities, valves, and pipe storage and contractor yards remaining the same. While many impacts to 

environmental resources from the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative would be 

similar in magnitude and duration compared to the Proposed Action, the alternative would cause greater 

surface disturbance, be more difficult to construct and reclaim, be in close proximity to a greater number of 

buildings, and be more costly to construct. The Proposed Action would cross more miles of OPS-designated 

High Consequence Areas (HCAs) due to its proximity to the Rock Springs area. The primary differences 

between the Proposed Action and the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative are 

identified in Table 2.4-1. 

Under the No Action Alternative, the proposed project would not be constructed and the resources discussed 

in Table 2.4-1 would not be affected. Because natural gas development would continue in the region, 

regardless of whether this project was constructed or not, the supply of natural gas liquids would exceed the 

existing, regional NGL transportation capacity. As a result, other NGL transportation projects likely would be 

proposed in the foreseeable future. 

2-44
Table 2.4-1 Comparison of Differences Between Action Alternatives for Segment RP 62.3 to RP 87.1 

Proposed Action 

Southern Energy 

Corridor— Copper 

Ridge Bypass Additio

Construction Impacts

 Length of Route (miles) 26.0 30.8 Chapter 2 

 Co-located ROW (estimated miles) 7.8 26.4 Table 2.2-4 

 Surface Disturbance: Table 4.8-1

 Temporary (acres) 236 280 

 Permanent (acres) 158 181 

Additional surface disturbance associated 

with side-slope construction (acres) Base case Base case + 18 acres Sections 3.4 an

 TWAs (acres) 73.7 87.3 Sections 3.8 an

Access Roads (#) 11 23 Sections 3.8 an

 Road crossings: Sections 3.8 an

 Paved (#) 1 1 

 Gravel/Dirt (#) 20 19 

Installation Costs ($millions) Base Case Base Case + $4.4 M 

 Major Constraints for Construction None More steep and difficult 

terrain 

Sections 4.3 or 

Water Resources

 Waterbody Crossings: Sections 3.5 an

 Intermittent (#) 46 47 

 Perennial (#) 2 4 

 Total (#) 48 51 

 Water Depletions: Sections 4.5 an

 Hydrostatic Test Water (estimated 

gallons) Base Case Base Case + 300,000 

 Dust Control Water (estimated gallons) 764,263 905,359 

Vegetation

 Wetland Habitat (estimated acres) <0.01 0.2 Sections 3.5, 3

2-45 
Table 2.4-1 Comparison of Differences Between Action Alternatives for Segment RP 62.3 to RP 87.1 

Proposed Action 

Southern Energy 

Corridor— Copper 

Ridge Bypass Additio

Wildlife, Fisheries, and Special Status Species 

Big Game Crucial Habitat (acres) 0 5.4 Sections 3.7 an

 Threatened and Endangered Species  Habitat (acres) 

Base Case No substantial difference 

from Base Case with 

exception of cliffassociated species (e.g., 

golden eagles) 

Sections 3.7 an

Land Use

 Federal Land Ownership (miles) 10.9 18.5 Sections 3.8 an

Cultural Resources 

Eligible Sites (Unevaluated Sites) (#) 0 (0) 1 (6) Sections 3.9 an

Public Health and Safety

 OPS-designated HCAs: Sections 3.12 a

 Drinking water (miles) 6.4 0 

 Ecological Areas (miles) 0 0 

 Populated Areas (miles) 3.5 0 

Buildings within 500 feet of the ROW (#) 3 14 Sections 3.12 a

Note: Distance between Reference Points may not equal 1 mile. 

2-46