AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

CHAPTER 3 
3.0 Affected Environment 

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 

3.1 Introduction 

The Affected Environment is described from existing environmental resource information and Overland Pass’ 

responses to BLM and USFS data requests. BLM and USFS staff have evaluated and verified information 

supplied by Overland Pass and have conducted additional independent data collection efforts and data 

reviews. 

The Affected Environment addresses the natural and human resources potentially affected by the proposed 

pipeline route and aboveground facilities associated with the proposed pipeline. Affected environment for the 

electrical powerlines is presented in Chapter 9.0. Environmental resources addressed include air quality and 

climate, geology, soils, surface water and groundwater resources, wetlands, vegetation, wildlife, aquatic 

resources, and special status species. Human resources addressed include land use and recreation as well as 

aesthetic, cultural, and socioeconomic resources. This chapter contains descriptions of affected resources for 

both the Proposed Action and the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative. 

3.1-1
3.2 Climate and Air Quality 

3.2.1 Proposed Action 

3.2.1.1 Regulatory Framework 

Air emission sources in Colorado, Wyoming, and Kansas are regulated at the federal level by the Clean Air Act 

(CAA), as amended, and at the state level by the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) 

Regulations, the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations (WAQS&R), and the Kansas Air Quality 

Regulations and Statues (KAQR&S). The significant federal regulations established as a result of the CAA and 

incorporated in the AQCC Regulations, the WAQS&R, and the KAQR&S that are potentially applicable to the 

project include: 

• New Source Review (NSR)/Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD); 

• New Source Performance Standards (NSPS); 

• Title V Operating Permits; 

• National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs); 

• Federal Class I Area Protection; 

• Conformity of General Federal Actions; and 

• State regulations. 

3.2.1.2 New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration Review 

Separate procedures have been established for federal pre-construction review of certain large proposed 

projects in attainment areas versus nonattainment areas. In attainment areas, the PSD/NSR process 

constitutes the federal pre-construction review for new or modified major sources. The review process is 

intended to prevent the new source from causing existing air quality to deteriorate beyond acceptable levels. 

The federal pre-construction review for new or modified major sources located in nonattainment areas is 

commonly called Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR). NNSR only applies to the pollutants that are 

classified as nonattainment; therefore, a new facility can undergo both types of review, depending on the 

emissions of the various pollutants and the attainment status. 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

The emission threshold for “major stationary sources” varies under PSD according to the type of facility. As 

defined by Title 40 CFR Part 52.21(b)(1)(i), a facility is considered major under PSD if it emits or has the 

potential to emit 250 tons per year (tpy) or more of any criteria pollutant, or 100 tpy for specified source 

categories. The pump station sources are not one of the specified source categories; therefore, the PSD 

threshold for these facilities is 250 tpy. 

Nonattainment New Source Review 

All facilities located in nonattainment areas with proposed emissions that exceed the applicable major source 

thresholds are subject to NNSR provisions, particularly the application of lowest achievable emission rate 

(LAER) and a requirement to obtain emission offsets. The facilities associated with this project would be 

located in attainment or maintenance areas; therefore; the project sources would not be subject to NNSR 

permitting. 

3.2.1.3 New Source Performance Standards 

NSPS, codified in Title 40 CFR 60, establish pollutant emission limits and monitoring, reporting, and 

recordkeeping requirements for various emission sources based on source type and size. The NSPS apply to 

3.2-1
new, modified, or reconstructed sources. There are no NSPS regulations that apply to the emissions sources 

associated with this project. 

3.2.1.4 Title V Operating Permits 

Title V of the CAA requires states to establish an air operating permit program. The requirements of Title V are 

outlined in Title 40 CFR 70 and the permits required by these regulations are often referred to as Part 70 

permits. 

If a facility’s potential to emit exceeds the criteria pollutant or hazardous air pollutant (HAP) thresholds, the 

facility is considered a major source. The major source threshold level for an air emission source is 100 tpy for 

criteria pollutants. The major source HAP thresholds for a source are 10 tpy of any single HAP or 25 tpy of all 

HAPs in aggregate. Potential HAP emissions estimates from the proposed pump station facilities would not 

exceed the 10/25 tpy major source thresholds. The potential emissions for each pollutant at the pump stations 

would not exceed the Title V thresholds; therefore, the proposed stations would not be major sources of air 

emissions requiring a Part 70 permit. 

3.2.1.5 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

The NESHAPs, codified in 40 CFR Parts 61 and 63, regulate HAP emissions. Part 61 was promulgated prior 

to the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) and regulates only eight types of hazardous substances: 

asbestos, benzene, beryllium, coke oven emissions, inorganic arsenic, mercury, radionuclides, and vinyl 

chloride. 

The 1990 CAAA established a list of 189 HAPs (currently 187 HAPs), resulting in the promulgation of Part 63. 

Part 63, also known as the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards, regulates HAP 

emissions from major sources of HAP emissions and specific source categories that emit HAPs. Part 63 

defines a major source of HAPs as any source that has the potential to emit 10 tpy of any single HAP or 25 tpy 

of HAPs in aggregate. 

The proposed pump stations are not one of the source categories regulated by Part 61; therefore, the 

requirements of Part 61 are not applicable. Additionally, there are no MACT standards that apply to the 

facilities proposed as a part of this project; therefore the requirements of Part 63 do not apply. 

3.2.1.6 Federal Class I Area Protection 

The U.S. Congress designated certain lands as mandatory federal Class I (Class I) areas in 1977. Class I 

areas were designated because air quality was considered a special feature of the area (e.g., national parks or 

wilderness area). Class I areas are given special protection under the PSD program. The PSD program 

establishes air pollution increment increases that are allowed by new or modified air emission sources. If the 

new source is a major PSD source and is near a Class I area, the source is required to determine its impacts 

on the nearby Class I area(s). The source also is required to notify the appropriate federal land manager(s) for 

the nearby Class I area(s). 

As determined previously, the proposed pump stations are not anticipated to be subject to the PSD 

regulations. Therefore, the federal Class I area protection provisions would not apply to this project. 

3.2.1.7 Conformity for General Federal Actions 

According to Section 176(c) of the CAA (Title 40 CFR Section 51.853), a federal agency must make a 

conformity determination in the approval of a project having air emissions that exceed specified thresholds in 

nonattainment and/or maintenance areas. The project does not pass through nonattainment or maintenance 

areas. Consequently, general conformity analysis would not be required for this project. 

3.2-2
3.2.1.8 State Regulations 

Wyoming 

Wyoming air emissions are regulated by the WAQS&R. Chapter 3 of the WAQS&R addresses emissions of 

particulates, nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds, 

hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and asbestos. There would be no quantifiable emissions of the regulated pollutants 

from the proposed pump stations during normal operation. This regulation also requires the control of fugitive 

dust generated during the construction. Overland Pass would comply with the fugitive dust requirements by 

implementing the dust control measures outlined in the Traffic and Transportation Management Plan. 

Chapter 6 of WAQS&R requires construction permits for any source of air emissions; however, emergency 

equipment generally receives waivers of permit requirements. Overland Pass would submit a letter describing 

the proposed pump stations and would request a written notice of a waiver for emergency flaring. 

Colorado 

Colorado air emissions are regulated by the AQCC per AQCC-1001. The Colorado regulations incorporate 

much of the federal regulatory requirements for air quality. 

Regulation 1 of AQCC-1001 addresses emissions of particulates, smoke, CO, and SOx. Specific requirements 

in this regulation can potentially apply to the operation and construction of the proposed Overland Pass pump 

stations. Such requirements address opacity emissions from stationary sources, particulate matter from fuel 

burning sources, roadway emissions, and construction activities. The proposed pipeline construction would 

require a fugitive dust permit under Regulation 3 of the Colorado AQCC. Therefore, Overland Pass would be 

required to submit a fugitive particulate dust control plan as part of the construction permit application. 

Kansas 

Kansas air regulations 28-19-20 through 28-19-31 contain specific emissions limitations for particulate matter,

sulfur compounds, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons, in addition to general emissions limitations. The

emission limitations and restrictions generally apply to full time operation of process equipment or combustion

units. The emergency flares would not emit pollutants that exceed the allowable emission rates.

Regulation 28-19-300 contains the requirements for construction permits. Flaring at the pump stations are

exempt from the construction permit requirements based on emission rates. 

3.2.1.9 Climate 

The regional climate of the proposed project area is predominantly classified as continental with some areas in 

Wyoming and Kansas classified as temperate semi-arid. Surface wind direction and precipitation vary in the 

proposed project area due to significant geographical features. However, the specific characterization of the 

local weather based on data from Fort Collins, Colorado, indicates an average annual maximum temperature 

of 63 degrees Fahrenheit (oF) and an average annual minimum temperature of 35.8oF with an average annual 

precipitation of 15.8 inches. The average annual snowfall in Fort Collins from January 1900 through December 

2001 was 47.1 inches. A representative station in Cheyenne, Wyoming, with wind observations from 1930 to 

1996 indicates an annual average wind speed of 13 miles per hour and a predominant wind direction of 

west-northwest. 

3.2.1.10 Air Quality 

Federal and state air regulations are designed to ensure that ambient air quality, including background, 

existing, and new sources are in compliance with the ambient standards. The USEPA has designated all areas 

of the U.S. as “attainment,” “non-attainment,” or “unclassified” with respect to ambient air quality standards. 

3.2-3
Air Quality Data Reports from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), Wyoming 

Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ), Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), and 

monitoring data provided by the USEPA were reviewed to characterize background air quality related to 

regulated criteria pollutants. The criteria pollutants are sulfur dioxide (SO2), CO, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone 

(O3), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and lead (Pb). The USEPA has established National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) for these seven pollutants. The NAAQS were set at levels the USEPA believed 

were necessary to protect human health (primary standards) and human welfare (secondary standards). The 

federal NAAQS for criteria pollutants are the same as the state standards established by the CDPHE, KDHE, 

and WDEQ, except the WDEQ regulates SOx instead of SO2. All parts of Colorado, Wyoming, and Kansas, 

through which the proposed project would be located, are classified as attainment for all criteria pollutants. The 

USEPA classifies the southern portion of Weld County, Colorado, as non-attainment for 8-hour O3. However, 

the proposed pipeline route and associated facilities would be located only in the northern portion of Weld 

County outside of the non-attainment area. Weld County also was redesignated from “non-attainment” to 

“maintenance” for CO in 2003. The federal and state air quality standards are listed in Table 3.2-1. 

Table 3.2-1 National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Air Pollutant Averaging Period 

NAAQS/CDPHE/ 

KDHE Standards WDEQ Standards 

Significant Impact 

Level (μg/m3

) 

SO2 3-Hour 1 0.5 ppm 1,300 μg/m3 / 

0.5 ppm 

NA 

24-Hour 1 0.14 ppm 260 μg/m3 / 

0.10 ppm 

25 

Annual 2 0.03 ppm 60 μg/m3 / 

0.02 ppm 

5 

CO 1-Hour 1 35 ppm 40 mg/m3 / 35 ppm 2,000 

8-Hour 1 9 ppm 10 mg/m3 / 9 ppm 500 

NO2 Annual 2 0.05 ppm 100 μg/m3 / 

0.05 ppm 

1 

O3 8-Hour 0.08 ppm 0.08 ppm NA 

PM10 24-Hour 1 150 μg/m3 150 μg/m3 5 

Annual 2 50 μg/m3 50 μg/m3 1 

PM2.5 24-Hour 1 35 μg/m3 35 μg/m3 NA 

Annual 2 15 μg/m3 15 μg/m3 NA 

Pb3 1-Month 1.5 μg/m3 Not Applicable NA 

3-Month 1.5 μg/m3 1.5 μg/m3 NA 1

The second high designation indicates that the concentration listed is representative of the second high concentration measured at the 

monitoring station. 

2

Annual average concentration. NAAQS annual PM10 standard revoked 12/17/2006. 

3

The Colorado lead standard is a 1-month average. The federal lead standard is a 3-month average. 

μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter. 

mg/m3

 = milligrams per cubic meter. 

ppm = parts per million. 

NA = Not Available. 

3.2.2 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative 

Climate and air quality are the same as the Proposed Action. 

3.2-4
3.3 Geology 

3.3.1 Proposed Action 

3.3.1.1 Physiography and Geology 

Physiography 

The Proposed Action would be located within three major physiographic provinces: the Wyoming Basin, the 

Southern Rocky Mountains, and the Great Plains (Howard and Williams 1972). (Table 3.3-1). Each of these 

major physiographic provinces is defined as having common topography, rock types and structure, and 

geologic and geomorphic history, although the boundaries between the provinces are transitional. Within these 

physiographic provinces, the landscape has been modified to its present form and character through erosion, 

deposition, and mass wasting by the actions of glaciers, flowing water, wind, and gravity. 

Table 3.3-1 Geologic Conditions Along the Proposed Pipeline Route 

Physiographic 

Province/ 

Section RP Range1 General Surface Geology/Physiography 

Wyoming Basin Province, RP 0.0 to RP 217.0 and RP 258.0 to RP 286.0 

Green River Basin 0.0 to 62.0 Unconsolidated alluvial and colluvial Quaternary deposits along 

drainages. Tertiary sedimentary bedrock comprised of shale, oil shale, 

mudstone, sandstone, trona, halite, and limestone. Land forms consist 

of gently rolling uplands; isolated, rugged badlands; shallow and 

incised drainages associated with intermittent streams; and welldefined floodplains associated with perennial streams. The majority of 

the proposed pipeline route would traverse slopes of less than 

3 percent grade, although isolated slopes of 20 to 50 percent exist 

where the proposed pipeline route crosses escarpments, major 

streams, or the walls of incised drainages. 

Rock Springs Uplift 62.0 to 107.0 Unconsolidated alluvial and colluvial Quaternary deposits along 

drainages. Tertiary and Cretaceous sedimentary bedrock comprised of 

shale, coal, limestone, siltstone, and sandstone. Physiography similar 

to Green River Basin above. 

Wamsutter Arch 107.0 to 201.0 Unconsolidated alluvial and colluvial Quaternary deposits along 

drainages. Tertiary and Cretaceous sedimentary bedrock comprised of 

shale, coal, limestone, siltstone, chalk, and sandstone. Physiography 

similar to Green River Basin above. 

Hanna-Carbon 

Basin 

201.0 to 217.0 Unconsolidated alluvial and colluvial Quaternary deposits along 

drainages. Tertiary and Cretaceous sedimentary bedrock comprised of 

shale, carbonaceous shale, coal, limestone, siltstone, and sandstone. 

Physiography similar to Green River Basin above. 

Laramie Basin 258.0 to 286.0 Unconsolidated alluvial and colluvial Quaternary deposits along 

drainages. Permian and Cretaceous sedimentary bedrock comprised of 

shale, limestone, mudstone, and sandstone. Physiography similar to 

Green River Basin above. 

3.3-1
Table 3.3-1 Geologic Conditions Along the Proposed Pipeline Route 

Physiographic 

Province/ 

Section RP Range1 General Surface Geology/Physiography 

Southern Rocky Mountain Province, RP 217.0 to RP 258.0 and RP 286.0 to RP 308.0 

Medicine Bow 

Mountains 

217.0 to 258.0 Quaternary unconsolidated deposits comprised of alluvium and 

colluvium located along drainages and river beds; and gravel, 

pediment, and fan deposits located adjacent to areas of greater 

topographic relief. Sedimentary formations range in age from 

Cretaceous to Eocene and are comprised primarily of shale, mudstone, 

siltstone, sandstone, and limestone. The Medicine Bow Mountains, 

particularly from approximately RP 239.0 to RP 258.0, present the most 

rugged terrain crossed by the project. The overall relief along the 

proposed pipeline route through the Medicine Bow Mountains is 

moderate, although the pipeline would cross isolated slopes of greater 

than 30 percent. 

Laramie Range 286.0 to 308.0 Proposed pipeline route is underlain by sedimentary (7.4 miles), 

igneous (11.5 miles), and metamorphic (3.1 miles) rock formations. 

Sedimentary rocks consist of Pennsylvanian to Permian sandstone, 

shale, and carbonates. Early Proterozoic metamorphic rocks consist 

primarily of schist with some quartzite and marble. The igneous 

bedrock consists of the Sherman Granite of Proterozoic age. The area 

of the Laramie Mountains crossed by the proposed pipeline route is 

characterized as rolling hills with less than 10 percent slopes, resulting 

in a notably less rugged landscape than the proposed pipeline route 

along the flanks of the Medicine Bow Mountains. 

Great Plains Province, RP 308.0 to RP 749.4 

Colorado Piedmont 308.0 to 425.0 Unconsolidated deposits, primarily wind-blown sand and silt, underlie 

approximately 28 percent of the proposed pipeline route. Cretaceous 

and Tertiary sedimentary bedrock units consist of shale, sandstone, 

and volcaniclastic deposits. Physiography is characterized as isolated 

badlands, broad plains, and rolling hills separated by drainages where 

slopes can approach 15 percent. 

High Plains 425.0 to 540.0 Unconsolidated deposits, primarily wind-blown sand and silt, underlie 

approximately 49 percent of the proposed pipeline route. Cretaceous 

and Tertiary sedimentary bedrock units consist of shale, sandstone, 

and volcaniclastic deposits. Physiography is characterized as isolated 

badlands, broad plains, and rolling hills separated by drainages where 

slopes can approach 15 percent. 

Plains Border 540.0 to 749.4 Unconsolidated deposits, primarily wind-blown sand and silt, underlie 

approximately 61 percent of the proposed pipeline route. Cretaceous 

and Tertiary sedimentary bedrock units consist of shale, sandstone, 

limestone and chalk. Physiography is characterized as broad plains 

and rolling hills separated by drainages where slopes can approach 

15 percent. 

1

Boundaries between physiographic provinces and sections are transitional. 

Sources: NRG 2006; Howard and Williams 1972; Kansas Geological Survey 1991; Love and Christensen 1985; Trimble 1980; 

Tweto 1979. 

3.3-2 
Wyoming Basin Province. The western portion of the proposed pipeline route is located within the Wyoming 

Basin Province (Table 3.3-1). The province occupies southwestern and south-central Wyoming and part of 

northwestern Colorado and is comprised of broad, downwarped, sedimentary basins separated by 

basement-cored uplifts, some of which have little or no surface expression. These structures formed during the 

Laramide orogeny, which was a series of mountain-building events that affected much of western North 

America from Late Cretaceous (70 million years ago [mya]) to Early Tertiary time (40 mya). Most peaks within 

the province lie between 6,000 to 8,000 feet above mean sea level (amsl) and basin floors are at typically 

3,000 to 5,000 feet amsl. 

Nomenclature for individual physiographic areas within the Wyoming Basin Province varies, but from west to 

east the proposed pipeline route generally crosses the Green River Basin Rock Springs Uplift, Wamsutter 

Arch, Hanna-Carbon Basin, and Laramie Basin (Table 3.3-1). Land forms in these areas consist of gently 

rolling uplands; isolated, rugged badlands; shallow and incised drainages associated with intermittent streams; 

and well-defined floodplains associated with perennial streams. Based on a review of U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) topographic maps for the area, the majority of the proposed pipeline route through the Wyoming Basin 

Province would traverse slopes of less than 3 percent grade, although isolated slopes of 20 to 50 percent exist 

where the proposed pipeline route crosses escarpments, major streams, or the walls of incised drainages 

(Natural Resource Group [NRG] 2006). 

In general, approximately 57.7 miles (24 percent) of the proposed pipeline route in the Wyoming Basin 

Province is underlain by unconsolidated Quaternary deposits (1.8 mya to present) (NRG 2006). These 

unconsolidated deposits are comprised of alluvium and colluvium located along drainages and river beds; and 

gravel, pediment, and fan deposits located adjacent to areas of greater topographic relief. The remainder of 

the proposed pipeline route in the Wyoming Basin Province, approximately 187.5 miles, is underlain by 

sedimentary rocks deposited in marine, marginal marine, terrestrial, and lacustrine (lake) environments. These 

sedimentary formations range in age from Permian (286 to 245 mya) to Eocene (54 to 38 mya) and are 

comprised primarily of shale, mudstone, siltstone, sandstone, and limestone. 

Southern Rocky Mountains Province. The proposed pipeline route crosses portions of the Southern Rocky 

Mountains Province in Albany, Carbon, and Laramie counties, Wyoming (Table 3.3-1). Within the province the 

proposed pipeline route crosses approximately 5.1 miles of federally managed land. 

The province extends from southeastern Wyoming through central Colorado and consists of linear, rugged, 

basement-cored mountain ranges separated by intermontane basins, with hogbacks and cuestas often located 

along the flanks of mountains. Most peaks within the province lie between 6,000 to 8,000 feet amsl, although 

some reach 14,000 feet amsl, and basin floors are typically at 3,000 to 5,000 feet amsl. Thus, the province 

exhibits from 3,000 to 11,000 feet of relief. Since the Miocene (5 to 23 mya), the Southern Rocky Mountains 

have undergone substantial vertical uplift of at least one mile, and deep erosion by streams and glaciers has 

carved the modern topography. 

Within the Southern Rocky Mountains Province, the proposed pipeline route crosses the northern flank of the 

Medicine Bow Mountains and the Red Buttes area of the Laramie Mountains (Table 3.3-1). The Medicine Bow 

Mountains, particularly from approximately RP 239.0 to RP 258.0, present the most rugged terrain crossed by 

the Proposed Action. Peaks in the core of the Medicine Bow Mountains exceed 11,000 feet amsl. However, 

the proposed pipeline route would cross a maximum elevation of approximately 8,000 feet amsl near RP 239.2 

along the north flank of Mount Arlington. The overall relief along the proposed pipeline route through the 

Medicine Bow Mountains is moderate, although the pipeline would cross isolated slopes of greater than 

30 percent (Table 3.4-2). 

The highest elevation along the entire proposed pipeline route occurs in the Laramie Mountains: approximately 

8,360 feet amsl near RP 294.5. However, the area of the Laramie Mountains crossed by the proposed pipeline 

route is characterized as rolling hills with less than 10 percent slopes, resulting in a notably less rugged 

landscape than the proposed pipeline route along the flanks of the Medicine Bow Mountains (NRG 2006). 

3.3-3
Unconsolidated Quaternary deposits underlie approximately 7.3 miles (24 percent) of the proposed pipeline 

route through the Medicine Bow Mountains (Love and Christensen 1985). These unconsolidated deposits are 

comprised of alluvium and colluvium located along drainages and river beds; and gravel, pediment, and fan 

deposits located adjacent to areas of greater topographic relief. The remainder of the proposed pipeline route 

in the Medicine Bow Mountains, approximately 33.7 miles, is underlain by similar sedimentary rocks as 

encountered in the Wyoming Basin Province. These sedimentary formations range in age from Cretaceous 

(146 to 65 mya) to Eocene (54 to 38 mya) and are comprised primarily of shale, mudstone, siltstone, 

sandstone, and limestone. 

The proposed pipeline route in the Laramie Mountains is underlain by sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic 

rock formations (Love and Christensen 1985). The igneous Sherman Granite underlies approximately 

11.5 miles of the proposed pipeline route and is of Proterozoic age (2,500 to 544 mya). Early Proterozoic 

(2,500 to 1,600 mya) metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks comprised primarily of schist with some 

quartzite and marble underlie approximately 3.1 miles of the proposed pipeline route. The remainder of the 

proposed pipeline route through the Laramie Mountains, approximately 7.4 miles, is underlain by sedimentary 

sandstone, shale, and carbonates dating from the Pennsylvanian to Permian (325 to 245 mya). Available 

geologic maps do not identify any significant unconsolidated deposits crossed by the proposed pipeline route 

in the Laramie Mountains, although shallow, localized, unconsolidated deposits likely exist along drainages 

and stream beds. 

Great Plains Province. The remainder of the proposed pipeline route crosses the Great Plains province 

beginning in southeastern Wyoming to central Kansas. Physiographic sections within the Great Plains 

Province that are generally crossed by the proposed pipeline route from west to east are the Colorado 

Piedmont, High Plains, and the Plains Border (Table 3.3-1). The Great Plains Province is a remnant fluviatile 

plain that stretches from the Rocky Mountains on the west to the Central Lowlands Province on the east 

(Trimble 1980). The province formed as overloaded streams deposited unconsolidated silt, sand, and gravel 

ranging in thickness from nearly zero where the underlying bedrock is exposed in isolated hills, to more than 

500 feet where the underlying bedrock surface was eroded prior to being covered. Elevations along the 

proposed pipeline route in the Great Plains Province gradually decrease from west to east, from approximately 

7,400 feet amsl near the eastern flank of the Laramie Mountains to the lowest elevation along the entire 

proposed pipeline route, 1,565 feet amsl, at the crossing of the Little Arkansas River near RP 740.6 in Rice 

County, Kansas. Physiography along the proposed pipeline route is characterized as broad plains and rolling 

hills separated by drainages where slopes can approach 15 percent. 

Quaternary (1.8 mya to today) unconsolidated deposits underlie approximately 217.8 miles (49 percent) of the 

proposed pipeline route in the Great Plains Province. These unconsolidated deposits are comprised of windblown deposits (208.0 miles) and alluvium and terrace deposits located along drainages and river beds 

(9.8 miles). The remainder of the proposed pipeline route in the Great Plains Province, approximately 

223.7 miles, is underlain by sedimentary rocks which range in age from Early Cretaceous to Miocene (146 to 

5 mya) (Tweto 1979; Kansas Geological Survey 1991). The predominant bedrock unit is the Ogallala 

Formation, which underlies approximately 92.4 miles (41 percent of the sedimentary bedrock formations) of 

the proposed pipeline route in the Great Plains Province. The Ogallala Formation is primarily composed of 

sandstone and conglomerate beds deposited in alluvial environments. An additional 53.9 miles (24 percent of 

the bedrock formations) of the proposed pipeline route is underlain by predominantly shale units deposited in 

shallow marine environments. The remainder of the sedimentary bedrock formations underlying the proposed 

pipeline route in the Great Plains Province consist of sandstone, siltstone, limestone, chalk, and volcaniclastic 

claystone, siltstone, and ash deposited in terrestrial, marginal marine, and shallow marine environments. 

3.3.1.2 Mineral Resources 

Wyoming 

Oil and Natural Gas. The proposed pipeline route and its associated aboveground facilities in Wyoming are 

located in sedimentary basins with oil and gas production. The proposed pipeline route crosses oil and gas 

producing areas of the Moxa Arch, Rock Springs Uplift, Washakie Basin, Wamsutter Arch, Great Divide Basin, 

3.3-4
Hanna Basin, Laramie Basin, and the Denver-Julesburg (D-J) Basin (DeBruin 2002). The location of oil and 

gas fields that are crossed by the proposed pipeline route are listed on Table 3.3-2. The proposed pipeline 

route crosses 12 oil and gas fields in Wyoming. 

Table 3.3-2 Oil and Gas Fields Crossed by the Proposed Project 

State/County Approximate RP Field Name Status 

Wyoming 

Lincoln 13.0-25.0 Wilson Ranch, Zeglers Wash, and Moxa Active 

Sweetwater 74.0-76.5 South Baxter Basin Active 

 98.0-99.0 Brady South Active 

106.8 to 110.0 Patrick Draw Active 

 110.0-112.0 Monell Unit Active

 115.0-118.0 Table Rock Active 

143.0 to 153.0 Echo Springs Active 

Carbon 229.0-230.0 Elk Mountain Active 

245.4 to 246.4 Dutton Creek Active 

Albany 248.5 to 249.5 Copper Cove Active 

264.7 to 265.1 Little Laramie Active 

Laramie 315.0-316.0 Brush Abandoned 

Colorado 

Weld 333.0-3334.0 Longs Peak Active

 346.0-346.5 Pawnee Pioneer Active

 377.0-378.0 Active Pommel Active

 399.0-400.0 Tepee Abandoned

 410.0-411.0 Merino Active 

 415.0-415.5 Prewitt Abandoned 

Yuma 453.5-454.5 Whisper Active

 460.0-463.0 Shout Active 

Kansas 

Cheyenne 514.0-515.0 Orlando, Orlando East Abandoned 

Sheridan 582.0 Sequin Abandoned

 583.0-584.0 Koster Active 

 602.0-603.0 Tilton, Northeast Active 

Trego 615.0-616.0 Garner West Active 

617.0-617.5 Garner South Abandoned 

 619.0-620.0 Joe K Active 

 639.0-640.0 Locker North Active 

 644.0 Kroeger South Active 

Ellis 647.0 to 648.0 Solburn/Springhill Active 

 653.5 to 656.0 Kraus/Antonino Active 

 658.0-659.0 Lookout Hollow Abandoned

 659.0-660.0 Engel West Active 

662.2 to 663.7 Linges Active 

 654.0 Wheatland Active 

Russell 678.0-678.5 Odom North Abandoned 

3.3-5
Table 3.3-2 Oil and Gas Fields Crossed by the Proposed Project 

State/County Approximate RP Field Name Status 

Barton 682.0-683.0 Galatia North Active 

 683.5 Galatia Active 

 685.0-686.0 Herman Northeast Abandoned

 688.0-689.0 Templing Active 

 688.5 to 696.5 Trapp Active 

698.8 to 699.3 Braver South Active 

 700.6 to 701.0 Odin Active 

Barton/Ellsworth 704.0 to 711.0 Kraft, Prusa West Active 

Ellsworth 715.0 to 716.0 Heiken Active 

 718.0 Prosper Active 

Rice 720.5 to 721.5 Frederick Active 

726.0-729.0 Lyons Gas Area Active

 729.0-730.5 Geneseo/Edwards Active 

730.5-731.0 Lyons Gas Area Active 

Rice/McPherson 743.0 to 745.0 Welch-Bornholdt Active 

Sources: DeBruin (2002); Kansas Geological Survey (2006a); Wray et al. (2002). 

Coal. The proposed pipeline route also crosses surface and subsurface coal-bearing formations that are 

potentially mineable in the Green River, Hanna, and Rock Creek coal fields of Sweetwater, Carbon, and 

Albany counties (Averitt 1972). The operations of the Black Butte Coal Mine are 2,500 feet north of the 

proposed pipeline route at RP 96.0. The recently approved Pit 14 coal mining project is located north of the 

proposed pipeline at RP 92. 

Trona. From approximate RP 21.0 to RP 54.0, the proposed pipeline route crosses one of the largest trona 

(natural sodium carbonate) deposits in the world, in western Sweetwater County, and the mineral is currently 

mined at five underground mines in the region (Wyoming Mining Association 2006). Underground workings 

associated with trona mining are present beneath the proposed pipeline route (NRG 2006). The proposed 

pipeline route avoids trona mine leases near RP 33.5 to RP 36.2 that will be mined in the foreseeable future 

(Section 2.3.3.3). 

Sand and Gravel. Where the proposed pipeline route crosses drainages, the surface materials (alluvium, 

colluvium, and fan deposits) are potentially mineable. Sand and gravel operations within 1,500 feet of the 

Proposed Action in Wyoming are listed in Table 3.3-3. Eighteen sand and gravel operations are located within 

1,500 feet of the proposed project in Wyoming (NRG 2006). Three of these operations, located at RP 27.9, 

RP 169.2, and RP 228.8 to RP 229.0, may be affected by construction due to their proximity to the proposed 

pipeline route. 

Table 3.3-3 Mining Operations Within 1,500 Feet of the Proposed Project 

State/County Approximate RP Offset and Direction Operation/Notes 

Wyoming 

Sweetwater 27.9 South-adjacent Gravel pit 1 

32.5-36.1 1,300-4,200 feet north Underground trona mine 

99.0 500 feet south Gravel pit 1 

106.8 1,400 feet northwest Gravel pit 

106.9 200 feet northwest Gravel pit 

107.0 900 feet northwest Gravel pit 

3.3-6
Table 3.3-3 Mining Operations Within 1,500 Feet of the Proposed Project 

State/County Approximate RP Offset and Direction Operation/Notes 

Carbon 142.2 200 feet north Gravel pit 

169.2 50 feet south Gravel pit 

 181.4 700 feet north Tailing 1 

195.5 1,000 feet north Gravel pit, North Platte River 

196.2 800 feet north Gravel pit, North Platte River 

208.3 400 feet north Gravel pit 

223.6 to 224.8 1,200 feet south Carbon Basin Mine (surface coal mine) 

224.2 to 224.8 Crosses Carbon Pass Coal Area 

228.8 to 229.0 Crosses Gravel pit 

246.3 1,500 feet northeast Gravel pit 

Albany 256.6 900 feet southwest Gravel pit 

266.2 to 266.5 1,100 feet northeast Gravel pit 

279.9 100 feet northeast Possible gravel pit 

298.2 to 298.6 1,000 feet south Gravel pit 

300.0 to 301.0 Crosses Granite quarry 

Laramie 303.8 100 feet north Gravel pit 

303.8 1,000 feet north Gravel pit 

Colorado 

Weld 379.3 800 feet north Gravel pit 

Kansas 

Rawlins 532.5 1,500 feet north Quarry 

536.5 1,500 feet south Possible quarry or gravel pit 

Thomas 570.2 300 feet north Possible gravel pit 

570.2 500 feet south Possible gravel pit 

Ellis 674.7 1,000 feet south Gravel pit 

Russell 677.1 1,300 feet north Possible gravel pit 

1

Mineral material operations on federally managed lands. 

Source: NRG (2006). 

Other Minerals. One granite quarry is located within 1,500 of the proposed pipeline route at RP 300.0 to 

RP 301.0 (NRG 2006). Other areas of known or potential mineral resources include uranium in the Medicine 

Bow Mountains, and copper, gypsum, and carbonates along the flanks of the Laramie Range. None of these 

mineral resources are crossed by the proposed pipeline route. The proposed pipeline route does not cross any 

active mining claims in Wyoming (BLM 2006a). 

Colorado 

Oil and Natural Gas. The primary mineral resources in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline route in Colorado 

are oil and natural gas. Within Colorado, the proposed pipeline route is entirely located in the D-J Basin 

(Wray et al. 2002). The proposed pipeline route crosses eight fields, six of which are still in production 

(Table 3.3-2). Weld County produces more oil and gas than any other county in Colorado. The great majority 

of petroleum production in Weld County comes from the giant Wattenberg Field, but its northernmost-extent is 

approximately 20 miles to the south of the proposed pipeline route. In the general project area, oil and natural 

gas is produced from smaller, widely scattered fields throughout northeastern Colorado. 

3.3-7
Coal. The proposed pipeline route crosses the Denver Coal Region between approximate RP 321.2 and 

RP 380.0 in Weld County. The coal is found primarily in the upper Cretaceous Laramie Formation (Kirkham 

and Ladwig 1980). However, based on information from the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS), review of 

USGS topographic maps and aerial photographs of the proposed pipeline route, there are no active surface or 

underground coal mines in the project area (Cappa et al. 2005). 

Sand and Gravel. Construction sand and gravel is recovered from numerous surface pits throughout the 

project area in Colorado (Guilinger and Keller 2004). As indicated in Table 3.3-3, one gravel pit was identified 

approximately 800 feet north of the proposed pipeline route near RP 379.3 in Weld County (NRG 2006). 

Other Minerals. Other mineral commodities are produced in Colorado, including marble, gypsum, limestone, 

dimension stone, uranium, and precious metals. However, according to the CGS, there are no significant 

mining operations for these minerals in the counties crossed by the proposed pipeline route (Guilinger and 

Keller 2004). 

Kansas 

Oil and Gas Fields. The proposed pipeline route in Kansas crosses approximately 60 miles (23 percent) of oil 

and gas fields, with the greatest concentration of fields in Ellis, Barton, and Rice counties (Kansas Geological 

Survey [KGS] 2006a). The proposed pipeline route does not cross existing oil and gas fields in Rawlins, 

Thomas, or Gove counties. 

Coal. There are no mineable coal resources in the proposed pipeline route area (USGS 2006a). 

Sand and Gravel. There are 366 active mineral recovery operations located in those Kansas counties crossed 

by the proposed pipeline route (KGS 1998). Of these operations, 257 (70 percent) are sand and gravel; 

82 (22 percent) are limestone or dolomite; 19 (5 percent) are clay and/or shale; 6 (2 percent) are salt; and 

2 (less than 1 percent) are sandstone. The nearest mining operation to the proposed pipeline route is an 

apparent gravel pit approximately 300 feet north of RP 570.2 in Thomas County (NRG 2006) (Table 3.3-3). 

Other Minerals. Salt occurs in layers that, in aggregate, can be approximately 300 feet thick and are located 

300 to 600 feet below the land surface throughout central Kansas (Swain and Buchanan 2002). Salt has been 

mined by underground dissolution mining in Barton, Ellsworth, Rice, and McPherson counties. 

3.3.1.3 Geological Hazards 

Seismic-Related Hazards 

Primary and secondary seismic-related hazards potentially could impact the proposed pipeline. Primary 

seismic hazards consist of strong ground motions (earthquakes) and surface faulting, and secondary effects 

include soil liquefaction and related slope failures. As discussed in the following sections, the potential for 

prolonged, strong ground shaking and surface faulting is low along the proposed pipeline route and, therefore, 

the potential for secondary seismic-related impacts to develop also is low. 

Earthquakes. Earthquakes are characterized by magnitude (a measure of the amount of energy released 

during the event) and intensity (a measure of the effects of the event at the land surface). Generally, the area 

crossed by the proposed pipeline route historically has experienced low-magnitude and low intensity 

earthquakes. From 1534 to 1986, most earthquakes in the proposed project vicinity were magnitude 4.0 or 

less (USGS 2006b). The strongest earthquake occurred in southern Larimer County, Colorado, approximately 

45 miles south of RP 300.0 on November 7 and 8, 1882, with an estimated magnitude of 6.2 to 6.5. This 

earthquake resulted in category VI damage on the Modified Mercalli Index (MMI) in Laramie, Wyoming, which 

is characterized as “slight.” 

Ground Motion. An earthquake generates waves of energy that cause the ground to shake. Surface 

structures are susceptible to ground motion, but buried pipelines also may be at risk of rupture or damage, but 

3.3-8
to lesser degree depending on site-specific conditions (Pelmulder 1995). Ground motion hazard mapping 

indicates that along the proposed pipeline route there is a low potential for ground motion to cause serious 

damage from a maximum quake. 

Surface Faults. Surface faults that have demonstrated significant historical seismicity or geologic 

displacement during the last 11,000 years (Holocene) are considered to be active (USGS 2006c). Faults that 

displace Quaternary deposits are considered potentially active. The proposed pipeline route does not cross 

any active or potentially active faults (USGS 2006d). 

Soil Liquefaction. Secondary seismic effects often are more damaging than shaking or surface faulting. Soil 

liquefaction is a phenomenon which occurs when saturated, cohesionless soils are subjected to strong and 

prolonged shaking from seismic events. Liquefaction can lead to loss of load bearing strength and can result in 

lateral spreading, flow failures, and flotation of buried pipelines. 

For soil liquefaction and the related effects to occur, a relatively shallow water table, rapid, strong ground 

motions, and susceptible soils all must be present. Unconsolidated materials and shallow water tables occur 

coincidentally where the proposed pipeline route crosses streams and waterbodies. As previously discussed in 

this section, the potential for strong ground shaking to occur along the proposed pipeline route is low, resulting 

in a low potential for soil liquefaction and related effects to develop. In Wyoming, where predicted ground 

motions are the highest along the entire proposed pipeline route (but there is still a low overall potential for 

ground motion), there are no liquefaction-prone areas within at least 25 miles of the project (Wyoming State 

Geological Survey [WSGS] 1986). 

Landslides and Steep Slopes 

Landslide refers to the downward and outward movement of slope-forming materials reacting under the force 

of gravity and usually consists of natural soil, rock, artificial fill, or a combination of those items. The term 

covers a range of events including mudflows, mudslides, rock flows, rockslides, debris flows, debris 

avalanches, debris slides, and earth flows. Landslides can be initiated by natural events or by human activity. 

Naturally occurring landslides are more likely to occur in areas where high average annual precipitation and 

steep slopes contribute to slope instability. The type of geologic formation exposed at the surface also 

influences landslide occurrence, as does the intensity and frequency of seismic activity. 

No landslide areas were identified along the proposed pipeline route (NRG 2006; Radbruch-Hall et al. 1982; 

WSGS 2006). In west-central Kansas, there is an increased susceptibility to landslides where loess and 

unconsolidated materials are underlain by Cretaceous shale exposed in drainages river valleys (Radbruch-Hall 

et al. 1982). Cretaceous shale is exposed in various places between RP 674.0 and RP 696.0. 

Pipeline construction on steep slopes could initiate localized landslides. Based on review of USGS topographic 

maps for the area, there are several areas of isolated slopes of more than 20 percent grade (Table 3.3-4). Due 

to steeper slopes, the risk of landslides is higher in these areas when compared to the remainder of the 

proposed pipeline route. 

Table 3.3-4 Potential Geologic Hazards Along the Proposed Pipeline Route 

State Approximate RP Potential Geologic Hazard 

Wyoming 1.8, 29.6, 50.9, 51.2, 55.7, 

62.2, 85.4, 86.7, 226.5, 

229.2, 239.8, 251.7 

Increased potential for construction-related landslides to occur on 

isolated slopes of greater than 20 percent (slope estimates based on 

USGS topographic maps). Construction-related landslides could 

impact workers and cause project delays. 

21.0 to 54.0 Elevated potential for broad subsidence to occur gradually over 

underground trona mine workings. Subsidence could potentially 

damage pipeline facilities by subjecting them to undue stress. 

3.3-9
Table 3.3-4 Potential Geologic Hazards Along the Proposed Pipeline Route 

State Approximate RP Potential Geologic Hazard 

Wyoming 

(continued) 

49.0 to 71.0 High susceptibility but low incidence of landslides in proximity to the 

Flaming Gorge Reservoir; no actual landslide deposits mapped in the 

area. Landslides could damage pipeline facilities. 

235.0 to 250.0 Moderate incidence of landslides in the area. Proposed pipeline route 

crosses near documented landslide deposits from RP 239.2 to 

RP 239.4. 

0.0 to 321.1 Stream bed scour may occur in conjunction with seasonal and flash 

flooding of perennial and intermittent stream crossings, potentially 

exposing the pipeline. 

0.0 to 38.0, 66.0 to 94.0, 

140.0 to 230.0, 245.0 to 

280.0, 310.0 to 321.1 

Expansive soils are documented in the Green River Basin and may 

exist in other sedimentary basins in Wyoming. Expansive soils 

increase the potential for slope instability and reduce traction for heavy 

equipment if soils become wet. 

Colorado 323.7 Increased potential for construction-related landslides to occur on 

isolated slopes of greater than 20 percent (slope estimates based on 

USGS topographic maps). Construction-related landslides could 

impact workers and cause project delays. 

321.1 to 492.2 Stream bed scour may occur in conjunction with seasonal and flash 

flooding of perennial and intermittent stream crossings, potentially 

exposing the pipeline. 

321.1 to 492.2 Expansive soils may exist in surficial deposits throughout the project 

area in Colorado. Expansive soils increase the potential for slope 

instability and reduce traction for heavy equipment if soils become wet. 

Swelling soil potential may be very high from RP 320.0 to RP 460.0. 

Kansas 674.0 to 674.9, 679.6 to 

684.0, 685.0 to 694.3, 

695.0 to 696.0 

Elevated potential for landslides and slumps to occur on steep slopes 

and bluffs where the Blue Hill Member of the Carlile Shale is exposed 

at the land surface. 

608.0 to 644.0 Underlain by outcrops or thinly buried Niobrara Formation, potential for 

solution and surface subsidence. 

494.2 to 749.4 Stream bed scour may occur in conjunction with seasonal and flash 

flooding of perennial and intermittent stream crossings, potentially 

exposing the pipeline. 

494.2 to 749.4 Expansive soils may exist in surficial deposits throughout the project 

area in Kansas. Expansive soils increase the potential for slope 

instability and reduce traction for heavy equipment if soils become wet. 

675.0 to 749.4 Potential subsidence hazards areas associated with mining or 

dissolution of salt. 

Subsidence 

Subsidence is the loss of surface elevation due to removal of subsurface support and is one of the most 

diverse forms of ground failure, ranging from small or local collapses to broad regional lowering of the earth's 

surface. Potential causes of subsidence along the proposed pipeline route include underground mining and 

dissolution of soluble formations (salt). 

In Wyoming, a common form of subsidence occurs over abandoned underground coal mines. The proposed 

pipeline route does not cross abandoned underground coal mines or mined-out areas that have experienced 

subsidence (Case 1986). The proposed pipeline route does not cross areas susceptible to other causes of 

subsidence (Davies et al. 1984). 

3.3-10
The proposed pipeline route avoids underground trona mine workings that are located between approximate 

RP 32.5 to RP 36.1 in Sweetwater County, Wyoming (Table 3.3-3). Subsidence has been documented over 

some underground trona mines. Subsidence over trona mines can be on the order of 6 feet and generally 

occurs gradually over a broad area, rather than as a sudden, localized collapse. 

Similarly, subsidence in northeastern Colorado is commonly associated with underground mines. No areas 

along the proposed pipeline route in Colorado were identified to have the potential for subsidence resulting 

from underground mining activities (Turney and Murray-Williams 1983). Other types of subsidence in Colorado 

such as dissolution of soluble rocks (gypsum) and collapsible soil are not present along the proposed pipeline 

route (CGS 2001). 

The proposed pipeline route crosses potential subsidence hazard areas in central Kansas (Table 3.3-4). One 

potential subsidence hazard involves the natural dissolution of salt beds that lie several hundred feet below the 

surface. An example of natural subsidence is Lake Inman in MacPherson County (Swain and Buchanan 

2002). Lake Inman is in an area of natural salt dissolution that occurs from a line north of Conway, Kansas 

(just west of MacPherson) to Colwich (4 miles northwest of Wichita). This area is just a few miles east of the 

end of the proposed pipeline route and is thought to coincide with the eastern margin of the salt deposits that 

underlie the area (Williams and Lohman 1949). 

Another cause of subsidence associated with salt beds in central Kansas involves salt mining and oil and gas 

production water disposal wells (Walters 1978). Surface collapse has occurred at salt mines in Reno and 

Ellsworth counties associated with removal of salt either by mining or solution. Another cause of salt solution 

results from oil field brine disposal wells where annular displacement of water migrates into salt layers and 

dissolves them. The dissolution can result in surface subsidence manifested as sinkholes or broad 

depressions (Swain and Buchanan 2002). An example of this type of subsidence generated by brine disposal 

has occurred at the Gorham Oil Field near Russell, Kansas, that has resulted in heavy damage to Interstate 

(I)-70. Other subsidence incidents related to oil wells have been documented in central Kansas, but the 

incidence is extremely rare given the thousands of wells and small number of associated subsidence incidents 

(Walters 1978). Subsidence features have not been identified along the proposed pipeline route in McPherson 

County (NRG 2006). The proposed pipeline route does not cross salt mining areas in Kansas although it 

passes approximately 2 miles south of the abandoned Little River Salt Mine in Section 18, T19S, R6W in Rice 

County Kansas. Some collapse features have been reported at the main shaft of the mine, but remedial work 

was conducted to convert the mine voids into underground liquefied petroleum gas storage (Walters 1978). 

Another potential subsurface solution involves the Niobrara Formation which is largely composed of chalk. 

Small fissures may form in the Niobrara Formation and if the covering Ogallala or surficial materials are thin, 

these fissures may be manifested by depressions on the surface (Davies et al. 1984). The proposed pipeline 

route crosses areas of thinly covered or exposed Niobrara Formation in Trego County (RP 608.0 to RP 644.0). 

Flooding 

In general, seasonal flooding hazards exist where the proposed pipeline route would cross major streams and 

rivers, and flash flooding hazards exist where it would cross localized drainages. The proposed pipeline route 

would cross perennial and intermittent waterbodies, all of which are locations where seasonal or flash flooding 

could occur (Appendix H). 

Expansive Soils 

Expansive, or swelling, soils are geologic deposits that expand when wet and shrink when dry. Depending on 

the mineralogy and physical conditions, an expansive soil may swell to as much as 13 times its dry volume 

when wet (Gillott 1968). Site-specific information regarding expansive soils is not available for the entire length 

of the proposed pipeline route, but expansive soils are known to exist in portions of the Green River Basin of 

southwest Wyoming and the Great Plains Province (Colorado and Kansas) crossed by the proposed pipeline 

route. Areas crossed that have a high shrink-swell potential area shown in Table 3.3-4. An area of very high 

potential for shrink-swell soils is in northeastern Colorado (Olive et al. 1989). 

3.3-11
3.3.1.4 Paleontological Resources 

A paleontological study was conducted to review existing data and identify geological units and known fossil 

localities crossed by the proposed pipeline route (Uinta Paleontological Associates, Inc. 2006). The study 

examined geologic maps, publications, and paleontological site information obtained from the University of 

Colorado Museum at Boulder, Denver Museum of Nature and Science, University of Wyoming, Carnegie 

Museum in Pittsburgh, University of California Museum of Paleontology, as well as Colorado and Wyoming 

BLM state and district offices. In addition to literature review, field surveys were conducted to identify areas of 

relative paleontological importance crossed by the proposed pipeline route. 

In Wyoming, the geologic study identified 33 formal geological formations ranging in age from Precambrian to 

Quaternary informal units along the proposed pipeline route (Uinta Paleontological Associates, Inc. 2006). In 

Colorado and Kansas, the study identified 12 formations and 4 Quaternary informal units along the proposed 

pipeline route. Many of the Mesozoic and Cenozoic units have vertebrate, invertebrate, and plant fossil 

localities sites in the vicinity of the proposed project. There is little information on paleontological resources for 

the proposed pipeline route in Colorado and Kansas because much of that portion of the route is covered with 

undetermined thicknesses of well-vegetated Quaternary deposits that are not known to be fossiliferous. 

Evaluation of the paleontological sensitivity of all geological formations along the ROW on federal lands is 

mandated in the following statutes and guidance: 

• The NEPA of 1969 (P.L. 91-190; 31 Stat. 852, 42 USC 4321-4327); 

• The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) of 1976 (P.L. 94-579; 90 Stat. 2743, 

USC 1701-1782); and 

• BLM Paleontology Resources Management Manual and Handbook H-8270-1 (1998). 

Similar guidelines also are outlined by Wyoming and Colorado state laws and regulations regarding 

paleontological resource protection: Wyoming Title 36-1-114 through 36-1-116 (as of 2003) and Colorado 

Revised Statute 1973, 24-80-401 through 409. 

The BLM Paleontology Resources Management Manual establishes a classification system for ranking 

paleontological areas as to their potential for noteworthy occurrences of fossils (BLM 1998). The BLM 

classifies areas as: 

• Condition 1 – Areas that are known to contain vertebrate fossils or noteworthy occurrences of 

invertebrate or plant fossils. Consideration of paleontological resources would be necessary if the 

Field Office review of available information indicates that such fossils are present in the area. 

• Condition 2 – Areas with exposures of geological units or settings that have high potential to contain 

vertebrate fossils or noteworthy occurrences of invertebrate or plant fossils. The presence of geologic 

units from which fossils have been recovered elsewhere may require further assessment of these 

same units where they are exposed in the area of consideration. 

• Condition 3 – Areas that are very unlikely to produce vertebrate fossils or noteworthy occurrences of 

invertebrate or plant fossils based on their surficial geology, igneous or metamorphic rocks, extremely 

young alluvium, colluvium, or aeolian deposits or the presence of deep soils. However, if possible, it 

should be noted at what depth bedrock may be expected to determine if fossiliferous deposits may be 

uncovered during surface disturbing activities. 

Either Condition 1 or Condition 2 may trigger the initiation of a formal analysis of existing data prior to 

authorizing land-use actions involving surface disturbance or transfer of title. Condition 3 suggests that further 

paleontological consideration is generally unnecessary. 

Based on review of paleontological literature, geologic formations along the proposed pipeline route were 

classified accordingly (Uinta Paleontological Associates, Inc. 2006): 

3.3-12
• Condition 1: 122.0 miles in Wyoming (54.0 miles on BLM and 1.6 miles on USFS); 73.3 miles in 

Colorado (17.5 miles on USFS); and 4.4 miles in Kansas; 

• Condition 2: 142.1 miles in Wyoming (42.4 miles on BLM); 38.7 miles in Colorado (4.9 miles on 

USFS); and 94.0 miles in Kansas; and 

• Condition 3: a total of 274.66 miles along the entire proposed pipeline route. 

Field surveys conducted in the summer of 2006 provided the following findings: 

• Within the survey corridor, 199 new occurrences of fossils were identified, many of which were 

grouped into 33 new formal localities; 

• 22 localities with 171 occurrences were found in Wyoming, 9 localities with 19 occurrences in 

Colorado, and 2 localities with 9 occurrences in Kansas; and 

• Within 1 mile of the corridor, 201 localities were identified in Wyoming, 3 in Colorado, and 7 in Kansas. 

3.3.2 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative 

The underlying geology along the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative would be the 

same as the Proposed Action. The Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative would cross 

approximately 5.9 miles more of steep and side slopes compared to the Proposed Action (Appendix G). 

Geological formations along the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative were classified 

as either Condition 1 or Condition 2 and are comparable to the Proposed Action through this same segment. 

3.3-13
3.4 Soils 

The State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) database was used to obtain information regarding soils that occur 

along the proposed pipeline route. STATSGO data contain physical and chemical properties, as well as 

interpretative groupings for approximately 18,000 soil series recognized in the U.S. These data apply to the 

whole soil (e.g., hydric or prime farmland soils, estimated crop yields, soil classification, slope class) as well as 

soil horizons (e.g., particle size, available water-holding capacity, permeability). These data can be used in 

conjunction with spatial data to quantitatively describe the soils in a particular area. 

Soils data were grouped and evaluated according to characteristics that could affect construction or increase 

the potential for soil impacts. These sensitive soil characteristics include: highly erodible soils; prime farmland 

and hydric soils; compaction-prone soils; stony/rocky soils and shallow bedrock; droughty soils; depth of 

topsoil; and percent slope as defined below. Additional soil-related issues considered in the analysis include 

revegetation and soil contamination. 

Highly Water and Wind Erodible Soils 

Highly erodible soils along the proposed pipeline route were identified based on soil parameters that are 

directly related to water or wind soil erosion susceptibility. Highly erodible lands (HEL) include soils with severe 

to extreme erosion limitations for agricultural use as well as soils with slopes of 9 percent or greater that are 

susceptible to erosion. Soils susceptible to wind erosion include soils that have surface-soil properties that 

affect their resistance to soil blowing, including texture, organic matter content, and aggregate stability. 

Sandy-textured soils with poor aggregation are particularly susceptible to wind erosion. Because management 

and construction mitigation techniques used to minimize wind erosion hazards are different from those used to 

minimize water erosion, separate groupings for water and wind erosion were developed. Some overlap 

between these two interpretive groupings is expected. 

Prime Farmland and Hydric Soils 

Percentage and length of prime farmland and hydric soils along the proposed pipeline route were quantified 

using STATSGO data. Hydric soils may indicate the presence of wetlands or agricultural drain tiles. 

Compaction-prone Soils 

Compaction-prone soils along the proposed pipeline route were identified by soil series that have both: 1) a 

surface texture of sandy clay loam or finer and 2) a drainage class of somewhat poorly drained through very 

poorly drained. 

Stony/Rocky Soils 

Soils with significant quantities of stones in the surface were identified by soil series that have either: 1) a 

cobbley, stony, bouldery, gravelly, or shaly modifier to the textural class of the surface layer or 2) have a 

surface layer that contains greater than 5 percent (weight basis) stones larger than 3 inches. 

Shallow Bedrock 

Shallow-to-bedrock soils (shallow soils) were identified by soil series that have a bedrock contact listed above 

60 inches in depth. The analysis also identified whether the near surface bedrock is hard and would require 

blasting to excavate or is soft and could be ripped and dug without blasting. 

Droughty Soils 

Droughty soils along the proposed pipeline route were identified by soil series that have: 1) a surface texture of 

sandy loam or coarser and 2) are moderately well to excessively drained. 

3.4-1
Topsoil Depth 

Topsoil depths along the proposed pipeline route were quantified by grouping the lower limit of the component 

soil-series A horizons into one of five groups: 0 to 6 inches, greater than 6 to 12 inches, greater than 12 to 

18 inches, greater than 18 to 24 inches, and greater than 24 inches. 

Slope Class 

Because of the importance of slope to assess erosion hazards, a separate evaluation of slope of soils along 

the ROW was conducted. A complex query was used to reduce the large number of slope classes used by the 

NRCS to a more useable grouping. The analysis identified the average of the slope range provided for each 

soil series into one of five classes: 0 to 5 percent, greater than 5 to 8 percent, greater than 8 to 15 percent, 

greater than 15 to 30 percent, and greater than 30 percent slopes. 

3.4.1 Proposed Action 

Many of the soils crossed by the proposed pipeline route are considered susceptible to water (417.4 miles) 

and wind erosion (56.6 miles). Approximately 323.3 miles (approximately 43 percent) of the soils crossed by 

the proposed pipeline route are considered prime farmland or potentially prime farmland (Table 3.4-1). Most of 

the prime farmland is located in Colorado and Kansas with minimal prime farmland in Wyoming. Roughly 

4 percent of prime farmland would be on federally managed lands. 

Approximately 8.1 miles of the soils crossed by the proposed pipeline route are characterized as hydric soils. A 

total of 1.4 miles of the soils crossed by the proposed pipeline route are considered compaction prone; 

77.4 miles of the soils crossed by the proposed pipeline route are considered to be stony/rocky soils; 

approximately 197.0 miles of the soils crossed by the proposed pipeline route are considered to have a 

bedrock contact listed above 60 inches in depth; and approximately 102.2 miles of the soils crossed by the 

proposed pipeline route are considered droughty. 

Approximately 365 miles of soils (approximately 49 percent) crossed by the proposed pipeline route have 

between 6 and 12 inches of topsoil. Another 300 miles of soils crossed have between 0 and 6 inches of 

topsoil. Only approximately 85 miles of the proposed pipeline route would cross soils with more than 12 inches 

of topsoil. A majority of the proposed pipeline route (approximately 489 miles) crosses lands within the 

average slope class of 0 to 5 percent. An additional 242 miles of soils crossed fall within the average slope 

class of 5 to 30 percent. Only 19 miles of soils crossed exhibit an average slope of greater than 30 percent. 

Table 3.4-2 lists topsoil depth and slope presented as classes based on the aggregate percentages of 

component soil series that are within a particular class. 

The following text provides information on the Major Land Resource Areas (MLRAs) crossed and identifies 

sensitive soil locations along the Proposed Action and the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass 

Alternative by state. Table 3.4-1 summarizes the soil characteristics by county crossed by the proposed 

pipeline route. 

Wyoming 

In Wyoming, the proposed pipeline route would cross three MLRAs recognized by the NRCS: The Central 

Desertic Basins, Mountains, and Plateaus (MLRA 34), the Wasatch and Uinta Mountains (MLRA 47), and the 

Southern Rocky Mountain Foothills (MLRA 49). 

Central Desertic Basins, Mountains, and Plateaus (MLRA 34). Slightly more than half of the Central 

Desertic Basins, Mountains, and Plateaus MLRA in Wyoming are federally owned. The remainder is occupied 

by sheep and cattle ranches. Land along the few large streams that cross the area (approximately 2 to 

5 percent of this MLRA) is irrigated. The physiography of the area is characterized by alluvial fans, piedmont 

plains, and pediments slope from the surrounding mountains that form broad intermountain basins. Elevations 

3.4-2
Table 3.4-1 Mileage Summary by State of Soil Characteristics for the Proposed Pipeline Route1 

State/County 

Highly 

Erodible 

Water2 

Highly 

Erodible 

Wind3 

Prime 

Farmland4 Hydric5 

Compaction 

Prone6 

Stony – 

Rocky7 

Shal

Bed

Federal 

Other

Federal 

Other

Federal 

Other

Federal 

Other

Federal 

Other

Federal 

Other

Federal 

Wyoming 

Lincoln 8.2 7.2 2.3 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.9 5.7 Sweetwater 43.1 63.1 5.6 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.7 0.0 0.0 6.2 8.9 35.1 Carbon 24.7 57.0 3.7 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 11.8 9.6 Albany 1.9 36.8 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.8 0.8 15.3 1.4 Laramie 0.0 20.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.7 0.0 

Wyoming Subtotal 77.9 184.3 11.6 14.8 0.0 1.4 0.9 4.6 0.0 0.8 14.5 51.6 51.8 

Colorado 

Larimer 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Weld 17.5 43.4 0.6 3.6 13.0 23.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.3 4.1 Morgan 0.0 5.4 0.0 2.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Logan 0.0 5.8 0.0 2.9 0.0 7.3 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 Washington 0.0 10.9 0.0 5.2 0.0 22.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Yuma 0.0 24.6 0.0 28.4 0.0 23.2 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 3.3 0.0 

Colorado Subtotal 17.5 90.2 0.6 28.4 13.0 83.1 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 7.0 4.1 

Kansas 

Cheyenne 0.0 14.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 26.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 Rawlins 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 14.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Thomas 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sheridan 0.0 7.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 27.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gove 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Trego 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 26.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 Ellis 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 Russell 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 Barton 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ellsworth 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rice 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 

3.4-3
Table 3.4-1 Mileage Summary by State of Soil Characteristics for the Proposed Pipeline Route1 

State/County 

Highly 

Erodible 

Water2 

Highly 

Erodible 

Wind3 

Prime 

Farmland4 Hydric5 

Compaction 

Prone6 

Stony – 

Rocky7 

Shal

Bed

Federal 

Other

Federal 

Other

Federal 

Other

Federal 

Other

Federal 

Other

Federal 

Other

Federal 

McPherson 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Kansas Subtotal 0.0 47.5 0.0 1.2 0.0 211.3 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 4.2 0.0 

Project Total10 95.4 322.0 12.2 44.4 13.0 310.3 0.9 7.2 0.0 1.4 14.6 62.8 55.9 1Federal lands data based on BLM-provided land layers and USFS jurisdictional boundaries for the FGNRA and PNG. 2Includes land in capability subclasses 4E through 8E and soils with slopes greater than or equal to 9 percent. 3Includes soils in wind erodibility groups 1 and 2. 4Includes land listed by the NRCS as potential prime farmland if adequate protection from flooding and adequate drainage are provided. 5As designated by the NRCS. 6Includes soils that have clay loam or finer textures in somewhat poor, poor and very poor drainage classes. 7Includes soils that have either: 1) a cobbley, stony, bouldery, gravelly, or shaly modifier to the textural class, or 2) have greater than 5 percent (weight basis) of 

3 inches in the surface layer. 

8Includes soils that have bedrock within 60 inches of the soil surface. 9Includes coarse-textured soils (sandy loams and coarser) that are moderately well to excessively drained. 10Slight discrepancies in state and project totals are due to rounding. 

3.4-4
Table 3.4-2 Mileage Breakdown of Topsoil Depth and Average Slope Class Along the Proposed Pipeline Route 

 Topsoil Depth1 (inches) Slope Class2 (percent) 

0 – 6 >6 – 12 >12 – 18 >18 – 24 >24 0 – 6 >6 – 12 >12 – 18 >

Federal

3 

Other State/County 

Wyoming 

Lincoln 7.7 8.0 2.2 3.2 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.3 8.9 0.0 0.0 2.2 2.0 0.7 

Federal 

Sweetwater 41.8 59.0 10.0 11.9 7.1 10.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.5 36.9 4.5 6.0 11.4 16.8 11.8 Carbon 20.7 44.6 8.6 17.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.2 22.1 5.4 10.5 5.4 14.5 4.9 Albany 

Other

1.7 36.5 0.4 7.5 0.0 5.3 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.6 25.3 0.1 3.3 0.2 8.4 0.6 

Laramie 0.0 9.6 0.0 9.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 2.8 0.0 4.0 0.0 

Wyoming 71.8 157.7 21.2 49.2 7.7 17.6 0.0 1.8 0.0 0.0 49.6 97.1 10.0 22.6 19.2 45.7 18.0 

Federal 

Subtotal 

Colorado 

Other 

Larimer 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Weld 9.4 20.0 11.8 36.1 1.3 2.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 17.6 42.2 3.5 9.9 11.0 4.1 0.4 

Federal 

Morgan 0.0 2.6 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Logan 0.0 5.3 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.8 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Washington 

Other

0.0 11.7 0.0 17.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.5 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 

Yuma 0.0 19.9 0.0 22.7 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.1 0.0 3.2 0.0 4.2 0.0 

Federal 

Colorado 9.4 59.5 11.8 84.3 1.3 5.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 17.6 105.7 3.5 17.3 1.0 8.5 0.4 

Subtotal 

Kansas 

Other 

Cheyenne 0.0 10.9 0.0 22.1 0.0 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 7.9 0.0 Rawlins 0.0 3.7 0.0 13.5 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.6 0.0 

Federal 

Thomas 0.0 2.6 0.0 20.8 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.1 0.0 Sheridan 0.0 4.3 0.0 27.2 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 4.5 0.0 Gove 

Other

0.0 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 

Trego 0.0 1.3 0.0 28.1 0.0 4.7 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.4 0.0 1.8 0.0 4.7 0.0 Ellis 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.2 0.0 3.6 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.6 0.0 0.9 0.0 1.8 0.0 

Federal 

Russell 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 Barton 0.0 0.3 0.0 25.1 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 Ellsworth 0.0 0.1 0.0 7.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 

Other

Federal 

Other

Federal 

3.4-5
Table 3.4-2 Mileage Breakdown of Topsoil Depth and Average Slope Class Along the Proposed Pipeline Route 

 Topsoil Depth1 (inches) Slope Class2 (percent) 

0 – 6 >6 – 12 >12 – 18 >18 – 24 >24 0 – 6 >6 – 12 >12 – 18 >

Federal

3 

Other State/County 

Rice 0.0 0.8 0.0 23.6 0.0 2.4 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 27.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 McPherson 0.0 0.4 0.0 4.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Federal 

Kansas 0.0 24.7 0.0 202.4 0.0 24.9 0.0 9.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 223.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 25.3 0.0 

Subtotal 

Project Total4

Other

Federal 

Other

Federal 

Other

Federal 

Other

Federal 

 81.2 241.9 33.0 335.9 9.0 48.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 67.2 425.8 13.5 44.2 20.2 79.5 18.4 

Other

Federal 

Other

Federal 

Other

Federal 

1Topsoil includes A-horizons (layers 1, 11, and 12) listed in the STATSGO database layer table. 2Slopes are grouped by the averages of the high and low slope ranges provided in the STATSGO database for each Map Unit Identifier (MUID) component soil series. For example, Tresan

20 percent of MUID CO010. Its average slope is 6.5 percent. The representative acreage, calculated by multiplying percent composition by the total MUID acreage, is included in the >5 to 

3Federal lands data based on BLM-provided land layers and USFS jurisdictional boundaries for the FGNRA and PNG. 4Slight discrepancies in state and project totals are due to rounding. 

3.4-6
throughout this MLRA range from 6,200 to 7,200 feet amsl. The dominant soils are Orthents. They are shallow 

to very deep and medium to fine textured and have a frigid temperature regime, an aridic moisture regime, and 

mixed or montmorillonitic mineralogy. Torriorthents (Patent and Garsid series) and Haplargids (Diamondville 

and Fraddle series) are on piedmont plains, alluvial fans, and pediments. Torrifluvents are on floodplains. 

Shallow Torriorthents (Blazon and Haterton series) are on rough, broken slopes. Some Torriorthents (Elkol 

series) and Torrifluvents (Laney series) have a high content of exchangeable sodium (USDA 1978). 

Wasatch and Uinta Mountains (MLRA 47). Most of the Wasatch and Uinta Mountains MLRA are federally 

owned. Elevations throughout this MLRA range from 4,900 to 8,900 feet amsl but may reach as high as 

13,451 feet on some peaks. Orthents, Fluvents, Aquolls, and Xerolls are common soils in the valleys, while 

Ochrepts, Xerolls, Borolls, Boralfs, and Xeralfs are on mountain slopes. These soils have a frigid or cryic soils 

temperature regime and mixed, montmorillonitic, or carbonatic mineralogy. They formed in mixed parent 

materials of sedimentary and igneous rocks. Deep, wet soils in the valley are Haplaquolls (Crooked Creek, 

Canburn, and Kovich series). Well Drained Ustifluvents (Neto, Shupert, and Winetti series), Ustorthents (Podo 

and Ruko series), Xerorthents (Redcan series), and Calcixerolls (Calita and Lundy series) are in valleys. 

Palexerolls (Borvant series) are on old alluvial fans and low mountain foot slopes; they have a limecemented 

hardpan. On mountain slopes are shallow to deep Haploxerolls (Aggasiz, Bradshaw, and Foxol series), 

Haploborolls (Bryean and Datino series), Argixerolls (Henefer, Smarts, and Wallsburg series), Argiborolls 

(Barfuss and LaPlatta series), and Palexerolls (Harkers, Goring, and Norcan series). In the high mountain 

areas are deep Paleborolls (Lucky Star, Elzinga, and Flygare series), Paleboralfs (Fitzgerald series), 

Cryoborolls (Bickmore, Daybell, and Dateman series), Cryoboralfs (Cliff, Duchesne, and Condie series), 

Cryochrepts (Scout, Lake Janee, and Marsell series), and Cryorthents (Mirrow Lake series). 

Southern Rocky Mountain Foothills (MLRA 49). Approximately 80 percent of Southern Rocky Mountain 

Foothills MLRA is occupied by farms and ranches, the remaining area is federally owned. Major streams 

dissect the area and provide irrigation water for narrow belts of cropland in their valleys. Water in the remaining 

areas is scarce. The physiography is characterized by rugged hills and low mountains occurring in narrow 

bands along the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains; elevations range from approximately 5,600 to 

7,900 feet amsl. The soils in this MLRA are described Ustolls, Borolls, and Boralfs. They are mostly deep and 

have an ustic moisture regime, a mesic or frigid temperature regime, and mixed mineralogy. Deep loamy 

Argiustolls (Bresser series), Argiborolls (Peyton series), and Eutroboralfs are dominant. They formed mainly in 

locally transported sediments on the more smoothly sloping sites. Shallow Haplustolls and Torriorthents are on 

steep and broken hill slopes. 

Sensitive Soils. The majority of Wyoming soils crossed by the proposed pipeline route would be susceptible 

to water and wind erosion. In Wyoming, 1.4 miles of prime farmland would be crossed, all of which is on 

private land. There are 18.2 miles of soils on slopes greater than 30 percent, approximately 4 miles of which 

are on federal land. Droughty soils are found on approximately 82.5 miles, approximately one-third of these 

are on federal land. 

Localized areas in Wyoming contain hydric or compaction prone soils. Stony/rocky soils and shallow bedrock 

commonly occur along the proposed pipeline route in Wyoming. 

Colorado 

The proposed pipeline route in Colorado would cross three MLRAs: the Southern Rocky Mountain Foothills 

(MLRA 49), the Central High Plains (MLRA 67), and the Central High Tableland (MLRA 72). MLRA 49 

(Southern Rocky Mountain Foothills) is described previously in the Wyoming soils section. 

Central High Plains (MLRA 67). Most of the Central High Plains MLRA is made up of farms and ranches 

utilized for cattle and sheep grazing. Larger rivers and local wells provide water for irrigation across an 

extensive acreage. Irrigated areas are used for production of agricultural crops such as corn, alfalfa, sugar 

beets, and vegetables. A small portion of this MLRA is dry-farmed of wheat and other grains. The 

physiography of the area is characterized as undulating to rolling plains which are moderately dissected by 

3.4-7
streams, with steep slopes bordering the valleys of larger streams. Elevations range from approximately 

3,600 to 5,900 feet amsl, increasing east to west. The soils are Ustolls and Argids that are deep and medium 

textured to fine textured with mixed or montmorillonitic mineralogy. They have an aridic moisture regime that is 

borderline to ustic and a mesic temperature regime. The nearly level to gently sloping, fine Paleustolls (Weld 

and Platner series) and loamy Haplargids (Fort Collins and Vona series) on uplands formed in eolian and 

alluvial materials under a cover of grass. Torriorthents, Haplustolls, and Argiustolls are the major included 

soils. 

Central High Tableland (MLRA 72). The majority of the Central High Tableland MLRA is used for farming 

and ranches with 60 percent or more in cropland used mainly for dry-farming of winter wheat and other small 

grains. Good-quality groundwater is used for irrigation in uplands where crops such as corn, grain sorghum, 

and sugar beets are grown extensively. The remainder of the area is made up of hilly and steep slopes 

bordering drainageways; these areas are primarily used for grazing of native grasses and shrubs. The 

physiography of the area is characterized as smooth loess-mantled tableland with gently rolling to nearly level 

slopes; slope grade increases along the borders of major valleys. Broad level floodplains and terraces are 

found along the Arkansas and Platte rivers and their larger tributaries. Elevations range from 2,600 to 

3,900 feet amsl, increasing from east to west. The soils in this MLRA are mostly Ustolls (USDA 1978). They 

are well drained and medium to moderately fine textured. They have a mesic temperature regime, an ustic 

moisture regime, and mixed or montmorillonitic mineralogy. On loess-mantled uplands, well drained Argiustolls 

(Keith, Kuma, Rago, and Richfield series) are in nearly level and gently sloping areas, Haplustolls (Ulysses 

series) in gently sloping and moderately sloping areas, and Torriorthents (Colby series) in steeper areas. 

Torriorthents (Canyon series) and Ustorthents (Canlon series) are shallow over caliche and are on the steeper 

and more broken slopes. Torripsamments (Valent series), on hummocky and duned eolian sands, are 

associated with Argiustolls (Haxtun series) and Haplustolls (Anselmo series). Haplustolls (Bridgeport, McCook, 

and Duroc series) are on floodplains and terraces. 

Sensitive Soils. The majority of Colorado soils crossed by the proposed pipeline route are susceptible to 

water and wind erosion. Approximately 56 percent of the proposed pipeline route in Colorado crosses prime 

farmland. Most of the soils crossed in Colorado have thin topsoil horizons, so a decline in soil productivity is a 

concern with loss of topsoil horizons. 

MLRA 67 and MLRA 72 have compaction prone soils that would be within the disturbance corridor. Localized 

areas of hydric and droughty soils would be crossed. Less than 9 percent of the proposed pipeline route in 

Colorado would cross stony/rocky soils or shallow bedrock. 

Kansas 

The proposed pipeline route in Kansas would cross three MLRAs: the Central High Tableland (MLRA 72), the 

Rolling Plains and Breaks (MLRA 73), and the Central Loess Plains (MLRA 75). MLRA 72 (Central High 

Tableland) is described in the Colorado soils section. 

Rolling Plains and Breaks (MLRA 73). Most of the Rolling Plains and Breaks MLRA is used for farming. 

Approximately 60 percent is used for dry-farming of winter wheat and grain sorghum. Narrow bands of bottom 

land and terraces along major rivers, and their tributaries, are irrigated for agricultural production; small grains, 

corn, hay, and alfalfa are the principal crops in these areas. In the north, irrigation water is obtained from deep 

wells which capture abundant supplies of groundwater. Groundwater is less available in the south where shale 

and limestone are near the surface. The remaining areas are covered in native grasses and primarily used for 

livestock grazing. The physiography of the area is characterized as heavily dissected plains with broad 

undulating to rolling ridge tops. Valleys are hilly to steep and are generally narrow, but the Republican River 

and its larger tributaries exhibit broad floodplains and terraces. Elevations range from 1,600 to 3,000 feet amsl, 

increasing from east to west. Soils in this MLRA are Ustolls (USDA 1978). They are deep, well drained, and 

medium to moderately fine textured. These soils have a mesic temperature regime, and ustic moisture regime, 

and mixed and montmorillonitic mineralogy. The nearly level to moderately sloping Argiustolls (Harney and 

Holdrege series) are on loess-mantled uplands. Haplustolls (Uly series) and Ustorthents (Coly series) are on 

adjacent steeper slopes. Gently sloping and moderately sloping Haplustolls (Wakeen series) and Pellusterts 

3.4-8
(Bogue series) are moderately deep over shale on the more strongly dissected uplands. Haplustolls (Hord, 

McCook, and Roxbury series) and Ustifluvents (Hobbs and Munjor series) are on floodplains and terraces. 

Central Loess Plains (MLRA 75). The majority of the Central Loess Plains MLRA is used for farming. 

Seventy-five percent of the area is dedicated to agricultural production of winter wheat, grain sorghum, hay, 

corn, and other small grains. The remaining 25 percent of the area is rangeland and pastureland used for beef 

cattle grazing. In most areas, groundwater is readily available, but the quality varies based on the nature of the 

underlying soils. In areas where clay and shale are near the surface, groundwater is scarce. The physiography 

of the area is characterized as nearly level to gently rolling plains dissected by narrow gently sloped stream 

valleys. Elevation ranges from 1,600 to 2,000 feet amsl, increasing from east to west. Most of the soils in this 

MLRA are deep silty Ustolls (USDA 1978) that formed in loess. They have a mesic temperature regime, an 

ustic moisture regime, and mixed mineralogy. Argiustolls (Hastings, Geary, Holder, Holdrege, and Crete series 

in the north and Irwin, Ladysmith, and Geary series in the south) are dominant soils on uplands. Agiustolls 

(Hall series) are on stream terraces of major streams or rivers. Argiaquolls (Butler series), Argialbolls (Fillmore 

series), and Pellusterts (Goessel series) are associated soils in level areas and in depressions. Strongly 

sloping to steep Ustorthents (Coly series) formed in loess. Ustifluvents (Hobbs series) are on floodplains, and 

Haplustolls (Hord series) are on stream terraces. Shallow, strongly sloping to steep Haplustolls (Kipson series) 

formed in material weathered from shale. 

Sensitive Soils. Approximately 18 percent of the soils crossed in Kansas are susceptible to water and/or wind 

erosion. Hydric soils, droughty soils, stony/rocky soils, and shallow bedrock occur in small localized areas 

along the proposed pipeline route. Approximately 1.5 miles of hydric soils would be crossed in Kansas. Areas 

of compaction prone soils would be crossed on land that is not federally managed. Approximately 4.2 miles of 

stony/rocky soils, 12.7 miles of shallow bedrock, and 1.1 miles of droughty soils would be crossed in Kansas. 

A high proportion of soils crossed in Kansas, approximately 81 percent, are classified a prime farmland. 

3.4.2 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative 

Characteristics of the soils associated with the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative 

route and the corresponding segment of the proposed pipeline route have been provided in Tables 3.4-3 and 

3.4-4. The alternative route would cross fewer miles of prime farmland relative to the corresponding segment 

of the proposed pipeline route. However, the alternative route would cross more miles of soils susceptible to 

erosion caused by wind and water, hydric soils, stony-rocky soils, shallow depth to bedrock, and droughty 

soils. Soils with topsoil depths of 0 to 6 inches and greater than 6 inches to 12 inches would be comparable 

between the alternative and corresponding segment of the proposed pipeline route. However, the alternative 

route would traverse approximately 6.5 miles of soils with topsoil depths greater than 12 inches compared with 

the corresponding segment of the proposed pipeline route, which would not cross soils with topsoil depths of 

greater than 12 inches. In addition, the alternative route would traverse more miles of steeper slopes than the 

corresponding segment of the proposed pipeline route. 

Sensitive Soils. The majority of soils crossed by the alternative route are on moderately to steeply sloping 

ground and would be susceptible to water and wind erosion. Localized areas along the alternative route 

contain hydric soils. Shallow bedrock, stony/rocky, and droughty soils commonly occur along the alternative 

route. 

3.4-9
Table 3.4-3 Mileage Summary of Soil Characteristics for the Alternative and Corresponding Segment 

of the Proposed Pipeline Route 

Highly 

Erodible 

Water

1 

Highly 

Erodible 

Wind2 Prime 

Farmland3 Hydric4 Compaction Prone5 StonyRocky6 Shallow-toBedrock7 Droughty8 

Proposed Action 

Segment 24.9 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.7 20.1 24.7 

Southern Energy 

Corridor – Copper 

Ridge Bypass 

Alternative 

30.8 1.5 0.0 0.2 0.0 3.1 24.6 30.6 

1

Includes land in capability subclasses 4E through 8E and soils with slopes greater than or equal to 9 percent. 

2

Includes soils in wind erodibility groups 1 and 2. 

3

Includes land listed by the NRCS as potential prime farmland if adequate protection from flooding and adequate drainage are provided. 

4

As designated by the NRCS. 

5

Includes soils that have clay loam or finer textures in somewhat poor, poor, and very poor drainage classes. 

6

Includes soils that have either: 1) a cobbley, stony, bouldery, gravelly, or shaly modifier to the textural class or 2) have >5 percent (weight 

basis) of stones larger than 3 inches in the surface layer. 

7

Includes soils that have bedrock within 60 inches of the soil surface. 

8

Includes coarse-textured soils (sandy loams and coarser) that are moderately well to excessively drained. 

Table 3.4-4 Mileage Summary of Topsoil Depth and Average Slope Class for the Alternative and 

Corresponding Segment of the Proposed Pipeline Route 

 Topsoil1 (inches) Slope2 (percent) 

 0-6 >6-12 >12-18 >18-24 >24 0-5 >5-8 >8-15 >15-30 >30 

Proposed Action 

Segment 17.8 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.7 0.0 2.0 0.00 0.0 

Southern Energy 

Corridor – Copper 

Ridge Bypass 

Alternative 

22.7 1.6 4.9 1.7 0.0 8.9 3.1 14.1 2.5 2.2 

1

Topsoil includes A horizons (layers 1, 11, and 12) listed in the STATSGO database layer. 

2

Slopes are grouped by the averages of the high and low slope ranges provided in the STATSGO database for each MUID component soil 

series. 

3.4-10
3.5 Water Resources 

3.5.1 Proposed Action 

3.5.1.1 Surface Water 

Surface water resources along the proposed pipeline route are partitioned into three watershed regions and 

28 sub-basins (Seaber et al. 1994), as presented in Table 3.5-1 and depicted in Figure 3.5-1. 

Surface Water Quality 

The CWA, Section 303(d), requires each state to review, establish, and revise water quality standards for all 

surface waters within the state. To comply with this requirement, each state crossed by the proposed pipeline 

route has developed its own beneficial use classification system to describe state-designated use(s). 

Regulatory programs for water quality standards include default narrative standards, non-degradation 

provisions, and associated minimum water quality requirements for the designated uses of listed surface 

waterbodies within the state. 

The proposed pipeline route would have 94 perennial waterbody crossings, 791 intermittent waterbody 

crossings, and 11 dry/seasonally dry lake bed crossings. Based on consultation with each state’s USACE 

office, no waterbodies crossed by the proposed pipeline are designated as Section 10 navigable waters under 

the Rivers and Harbor Act, as defined by Title 33 CFR, Section 328. The Flaming Gorge Reservoir (Green 

River) is navigable from the headwaters of the reservoir (just south of the confluence of Bitter Creek and the 

Green River) to the Wyoming-Utah state line (NRG 2006). 

A complete list of waterbody crossings, their state use classifications, and Section 303(d) impairment status 

where applicable is provided in Appendix H, Table H-1. Waterbody crossings of note have been summarized 

into sub-lists below for clarification. Table 3.5-2 lists all major and sensitive waterbody crossings along the 

proposed pipeline route. Major or sensitive waterbodies are defined as those with widths greater than 100 feet 

or streams classified by the state as high quality aquatic resources. Table 3.5-3 provides a list of all impaired 

waterbody crossings. This includes streams identified on the national Section 303(d) list as impaired waters for 

one or more chemical parameter. The complete list of waterbody crossings provided in Appendix H, also 

includes a number of lakes and small ponds, which may be greater than 100 feet wide. The majority of these 

crossings appear to be lake beds, which are dry for lengthy periods in most years. 

Wyoming. The State of Wyoming classifies surface waters into six uses and four classes. Surface water uses 

include agriculture, protection and propagation of fish and wildlife, industry, human consumption, recreation, 

and scenic value. Appendix H, Table H-1 indicates surface water classifications in more detail. The four state 

surface water classes include: 

Class 1: Outstanding Waters 

Class 2: Fisheries or Drinking Water 

Class 3: Aquatic Life Other Than Fish 

Class 4: Agriculture, Industry, Recreation, and Wildlife 

As indicated in Table 3.5-2, there are a total of seven major or sensitive crossings in Wyoming. Overland Pass 

proposes to cross all of these using the open-cut method. The Hams Fork River, Blacks Fork River, Green 

River, and Bitter Creek are noted because they are considered sensitive fisheries. For further discussion on 

these sensitive fisheries, refer to Aquatic Resources in Section 3.7. The proposed Bitter Creek and Green 

River crossings are on federally managed lands. 

3.5-1
Table 3.5-1 Watersheds Crossed by the Proposed Project 

State / Regional Watershed / Sub-basin Cataloging Unit 

Overall 

Area 

(Sq. Mi.) General Characteristics 

Stream Gage Loca

High Flow / Low Flow

feet per second (c

Wyoming 

Upper Colorado River Basin Watershed 

Blacks Fork 2,700 Mountain uplifts and mesas, valleys with rolling alluvial fans, 

floodplains, and terraces. Mountain watercourses have moderate gradient with cobble or gravel substrates. Streams originating in the center of the basin are more incised, with lower gradients and finer gravel substrates derived from shales. Small streams are ephemeral or weakly intermittent with sand or platy shale substrates. 

Blacks Fork near Little 

America: 995 (June) / 71 (Decem

Upper Green River – Slate Creek 

1,480 See Green River below 

Upper Green – Flaming Gorge Reservoir 

2,460 Green River near Gree

River: 4,590 (June) / 744 (December) 

Bitter Creek 2,200 Bitter Creek near Bitter 

15 (April) / 0.87 (Janua

Great Divide Closed Basin 3,870 Unglaciated basin (little or no external drainage); dispersed 

seasonally dry lake beds and sand dunes, floodplains and terraces, and rolling alluvial fans. Streams are ephemeral or weakly intermittent. Many streams are incised and flow onto dry lake beds. Substrate commonly is fine textured material or platy shale gravels. Dry lake beds are seasonal and have high level of soluble salts. 

Separation Creek near 9.7 (May) / 0.0 (Septem

Missouri River Basin Watershed 

Upper North Platte River 2,880 Unglaciated plains with hills, rolling alluvial fans, floodplains and 

terraces. On the northern edge of partially glaciated, low mountain slopes and outwash fans. Streams and rivers originating in the mountains have moderate gradient with cobble or gravel substrates. 

North Platte River abov

Seminoe Reservoir neSinclair: 4,280 (June) / 317 (Jan

Medicine Bow River 1,430 Rock Creek at Arlingto

424 (June) / 11 (Decem

Upper Laramie River 2,180 Unglaciated wide intermontane valley with floodplains, low 

terraces. Streams and rivers are moderate gradient, riffle/run. Substrate is generally cobble, glacial outwash material consisting of granite, limestone, and quartzite. 

Laramie River at Laram524 (June) / 35 (Janua

3.5-2
Table 3.5-1 Watersheds Crossed by the Proposed Project 

State / Regional Watershed / Sub-basin Cataloging Unit 

Overall 

Area 

(Sq. Mi.) General Characteristics 

Stream Gage Loca

High Flow / Low Flow

feet per second (c

Cache La Poudre River 1,910 Partially glaciated low mountain slopes, hills, ridges, 

footslopes and outwash fans. Low to high gradient perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams. Bedrock and boulder substrates transitioning to coarse to fine gravel and cobble substrates. 

No data in Wyoming neproposed ROW 

Lone Tree Creek – Owl Creek 573 Irregular unglaciated plains of moderate relief. Intermittent 

streams, and a few large perennial streams that mostly originate in higher relief areas. Silty and sandy substrates. Small, open, depressional wetlands scattered throughout. 

Lone Tree Creek near Canyon: 7.1 (May) / 0.62 (Dece

Colorado Lone Tree Creek – Owl Creek 573 Irregular unglaciated plains of moderate relief. Intermittent 

streams, and a few large perennial streams which mostly originate in higher relief areas. Silty and sandy substrates. Small, open, depressional wetlands scattered throughout. 

Lone Tree Creek at Ca

0.99 (June) / 0.25 (Aug

Crow Creek 1,410 Crow Creek near Barn

0.0 (all months) 

Pawnee Creek 728 Flat to rolling plains. Intermittent streams, with a few large 

perennial streams. Silty and sandy substrates. Small, open, depressional wetlands scattered throughout. 

No data 

Middle South Platte River – Sterling 

2,900 Northwest of the South Platte River are flat to rolling plains, 

intermittent streams, with a few large perennial streams. Silty and sandy substrates. Small, open, depressional wetlands scattered throughout. Southeast of the South Platte River, the sandhill drainage network is not well established due to a lack of runoff and sand-choked drainages with disappearing subterranean streams. 

South Platte River at B1,460 (June) / 143 (November) 

North Fork Republican River 3,290 West: flat to rolling plains, intermittent streams, with a few 

large perennial streams. Silty and sandy substrates. Small, open, depressional wetlands scattered throughout. East: sandhill drainages that are not well established due to a lack of runoff and sand-choked drainages with disappearing subterranean streams. 

North Fork Republican near Wray: 24 (April) / 19 (Septem

Arikaree River 1,710 Irregular moderately sloping plains and flat or rolling plains, 

with intermittent streams, and a few large perennial streams. Silty and sandy substrates. Small, open, depressional wetlands scattered throughout. 

Arikaree River above SCanyon near Idalia: 4.3 (April) / 0.0 (Augus

3.5-3
Table 3.5-1 Watersheds Crossed by the Proposed Project 

Overall Stream Gage Loca

State / Regional Watershed / Sub-basin Cataloging Unit 

Area 

(Sq. Mi.) General Characteristics 

High Flow / Low Flow

feet per second (c

Kansas Arikaree River 1,710 Irregular moderately sloping plains and flat or rolling plains, Arikaree River above S

with intermittent streams, and a few large perennial streams. Canyon near Idalia: Silty and sandy substrates. Small, open, depressional wetlands scattered throughout. 

4.3 (April) / 0.0 (Augus

South Fork Republican River 2,720 South Fork Republican 

near Colorado – Kansaline: 10 (June) / 1.1 (August

Little Beaver Creek 604 Southwest: Flat to rolling plains. Few streams, mostly 

intermittent. Loess-mantled uplands with alluvial deposits. Sandstone and siltstone with thin loess mantle. Northeast: Sandy undulating plains with small scattered areas of active sand dunes. Few perennial streams. 

No data 

South Fork Beaver Creek 771 No data Upper Sappa Creek 1,020 South Fork Sappa Cre

Achilles: 11 (June) / 0.18 (Nove

Prairie Dog Creek 1,060 Rolling plains and dissected breaks with broad undulating to 

rolling ridge tops and hilly to steep valley sides. Tertiary 

No data near proposed 

Upper North Fork Solomon 1,350 No data near proposed River sandstone and loess on uplands with alluvium on floodplains Upper South Fork Solomon and stream terraces. River 

1,150 No data near proposed 

Upper Saline River 1,910 Saline River near WaK

45 (July) / 4.2 (Decemb

Big Creek 852 Big Creek near Ogallah

80 (June) / 3.1 (Decem

Middle Smoky Hill River 1,590 West: Dissected plains with broad undulating ridge tops and 

steep valley slopes. East: Undulating to hilly dissected plains. Broad belt of low hills formed by mature dissection of sedimentary rock layers, locally mantled with thin loess. 

Smoky Hill River at Pfe188 (June) / 18 (Janua

Little Arkansas 1,320 Plains and ridgetops locally mantled with loess. Dissected 

sedimentary rocks form valley slopes. Areas of sandy plains 

Little Arkansas River nLittle River: 

and dunes. 25 (June) / 1.5 (Decem

Lower Smoky Hill 1,980 Undulating to hilly dissected plain locally mantled with thin 

loess. Broad belt of low hills formed by mature dissection of sedimentary rock layers. 

No representative data proposed ROW on watdivide. 

3.5-4
Table 3.5-1 Watersheds Crossed by the Proposed Project 

State / Regional Watershed / Sub-basin Cataloging Unit 

Overall 

Area 

(Sq. Mi.) General Characteristics 

Stream Gage Loca

High Flow / Low Flow

feet per second (c

Arkansas Red-White River Basin Watershed 

Cow 938 Plains and ridgetops locally mantled with loess. Dissected 

sedimentary rocks form valley slopes. Areas of sandy plains and dunes. 

Cow Creek near Claflin

18 (May) / 1.7 (Decem

Little Arkansas 1,320 Little Arkansas River n

Little River: 25 (June) / 1.5 (Decem

Sources: USEPA 2006a; USGS 1998; USGS National Water Information System 2007. 1Flow values are monthly averages in cubic feet per second for the highest average flow month and lowest average flow month.

3.5-5
Table 3.5-2 Summary of Major or Sensitive Waterbody Crossings Along the Proposed Project 

State / County RP Waterbody Name 

Proposed Crossing 

Method Comment 1 

Wyoming 

Lincoln 0.9 Hams Fork River Flume Sensitive Fishery 

Lincoln 18.9 Blacks Fork River Flume Major Waterbody, 

Sensitive Fishery 

Sweetwater 41.3 Blacks Fork River Flume Major Waterbody, 

Sensitive Fishery 

Sweetwater 59.3 Green River 2 Flume Major Waterbody, 

Sensitive Fishery 

Sweetwater 107.2 Bitter Creek 2 Dam and Pump Sensitive Fishery 

Carbon 195.5 North Platte River Flume Major Waterbody 

Carbon 228.1 Medicine Bow River Flume Major Waterbody 

Colorado 

Logan 413.2 South Platte River HDD Major Waterbody 

Yuma 491.7 Arikaree River Flume Major Waterbody 

Kansas 

Cheyenne 510.4 South Fork Republican River Open-cut Major Waterbody 

1 Waterbody crossings greater than 100 feet are considered major. Seasonally dry lakes were not included in this list. However, if water 

greater than 100 feet wide were present during construction then these would be classified as major waterbodies and treated 

accordingly. 

2 Crossing on federally managed land. 

Table 3.5-3 Summary of Impaired Waterbody Crossings Along the Proposed Project 

State / 

County RP Waterbody Name 

Intermittent 

or Perennial 303(d) Impairment 

Wyoming 

Lincoln 18.9 Blacks Fork River P Fecal Coliform 

Carbon 195.5 North Platte River P Selenium 

Colorado 

Logan 413.2 South Platte River P Nitrates, E. coli 

Kansas 

Rawlins 531.5 Little Beaver Creek I Dissolved Oxygen, Fluoride 

Rawlins 538.6 Beaver Creek P Dissolved Oxygen, Fluoride 

Trego 637.4 Big Creek P Dissolved Oxygen 

Barton 684.3 Landon Creek I Selenium 

Barton 691.7 Deception Creek I Turbidity, Chloride, Sulfate 

Barton 699.5 Cow Creek I Chloride 

Ellsworth 715.3 Plum Creek P Chloride 

Rice 720.4 Lost Creek I Chloride 

Rice 730.0 Owl Creek 

(2 crossings) 

I Chloride, Zinc 

Rice 730.1 Owl Creek I Chloride, Zinc 

Rice 740.6 Little Arkansas River P Atrazine, Copper, Chloride 

McPherson 745.7 Lone Tree Creek I Atrazine, Chloride, Copper 

3.5-6

As indicated in Table 3.5-3, two proposed waterbody crossings in Wyoming have been identified on the 

Section 303(d) list of impaired waters; the Blacks Fork River is listed for fecal coliform and the North Platte 

River for selenium. 

As noted in Appendix H, there also are five seasonally dry lake crossings in Wyoming. Frewen Lake and the 

seasonally dry lake at RP 190.6 in Carbon County are on federally managed land and are greater than 

1,000 feet wide. The three remaining proposed seasonally dry lake crossings are approximately 250 feet wide. 

All five proposed seasonally dry lake crossings in Wyoming are classified as 3B by the state, which in 

Wyoming includes tributary waters and adjacent wetlands not known to support fish populations or drinking 

water supplies. 

Colorado. When setting water quality standards, the State of Colorado first designates waterbodies by use 

(aquatic life, water supply, recreation, or agriculture), and then also adopts numeric or narrative quality 

standards to protect those classified uses. These beneficial uses are identified in Appendix H, Table H-1. The 

state classified uses for surface water are: 

• Aquatic Life Coldwater, Class 1 or 2; 

• Aquatic Life Warmwater, Class 1 or 2; 

• Recreation, Primary or Secondary Contact; 

• Domestic Water Supply; 

• Agriculture; and 

• Wetland. 

The two major stream crossings proposed in Colorado are on the South Platte River and the Arikaree River 

(Table 3.5-2). There are no sensitive waterbody crossings proposed. Overland Pass proposes to cross the 

South Platte River using the HDD method, while the Arikaree River would be crossed using the open-cut 

method. 

Only one 303(d) listed impaired waterbody crossing is to be crossed by the proposed pipeline route 

(Table 3.5-3). The South Platte River is Section 303(d) listed as impaired for nitrates and E. coli. 

The project proposes to cross six unnamed seasonally dry lakes in Colorado (Appendix H, Table H-1). Four 

of the crossings are less than 250 feet wide, and one is less than 100 feet wide. The dry lake at RP 376.4 is on 

federally managed land. 

Kansas. The State of Kansas classifies surface waters into four classes and six designated uses within each 

of these four classes. The four surface water classifications are defined structurally as stream segments, 

lakes, wetlands, and ponds. The six designated uses within each of these classifications include agriculture, 

aquatic life, domestic water supply, groundwater recharge, industrial, and recreation, as identified for the 

proposed waterbody crossings in Appendix H, Table H-1. 

The South Fork Republican River is the only major stream crossing proposed in Kansas (Table 3.5-2). 

Overland Pass proposes to cross this river using the open-cut method. 

Thirteen proposed crossings on 11 streams (Owl Creek is to be crossed 3 times) have been identified as 

Section 303(d) impaired waterbodies for various chemical parameters as specified in Table 3.5-3. All stream 

crossings in Kansas are proposed to be crossed using the open-cut method. 

Only one small dry lake at RP 527.7 is proposed to be crossed in Kansas. The proposed crossing is less than 

100 feet wide (Appendix H, Table H-1). 

3.5-8
Public Water Supplies 

Waterbodies that serve as public water supply intakes are located within several miles downstream of 

proposed pipeline crossings and are identified in Table 3.5-4. Three downstream water supply intakes are 

located in Carbon County, Wyoming. There are no surface water intakes within 10 miles of the project in 

Colorado. In Kansas, two surface water intakes, one in Ellis County and one in Russell County, are both 

owned by the City of Russell, Kansas. 

Table 3.5-4 Surface Water Intakes Within 10 Miles Downstream of Proposed Crossings 

State / 

County RP 

Distance (miles) / 

Direction from 

Construction 

Hydrologic 

Connections Downstream Feature 

Wyoming 

Carbon 190.9 4.8 / North North Platte River 

crossing 

Intake for City of Rawlins 

Carbon 195.5 0.9 / North North Platte River 

crossing 

Intake for WY DOT Ft. 

Steele Rest Area 

Carbon 240.2 0.9 / Northeast Rock Creek crossing Water Intake for City of 

Rock River 

Colorado 

There are no surface water intakes within 10 miles of proposed stream crossings in Colorado. 

Kansas 

Ellis 670.4 2.4 / Southwest Tributary crossing to 

Smoky Hill River Intakes for City of Russell 

Russell 679.2 7.8 / Northeast Smoky Hill River 

crossing to Big Creek 

Source: NRG 2006. 

Sediment Quality 

The USEPA has established a database of National Sediment Quality Survey sampling points to monitor 

sediment quality and identify areas that contain contaminated sediments. A Tier 1 site is one where sediment 

quality is such that associated adverse effects on aquatic life or human health are probable. A Tier 2 site is 

one where sediment quality is such that associated adverse effects on aquatic life or human health are 

possible (USEPA 2004). Given that sediment is transported as a natural result of surface flow dynamics, the 

possibility exists that sediment quality upstream or downstream of Tier 1 or Tier 2 sampling points may have 

adverse effects on aquatic life or human health. No Tier 1 or Tier 2 sampling points were found to be located 

within 10 stream- or river-miles of the proposed ROW (USEPA 2004a). Although the USEPA sediment survey 

is of limited coverage, it appears unlikely that contaminated sediments would be encountered along the 

proposed ROW. 

3.5.1.2 Groundwater 

Regional Aquifers 

Groundwater resources in the analysis area occur in three major regional aquifer systems. From west to east, 

these include (Miller and Appel 1997; Robson and Banta 1995; Whitehead 1996): 

1. The Colorado Plateaus aquifer system; 

2. The High Plains aquifer system; and 

3. The Great Plains aquifer system (mapped as Lower Cretaceous aquifers and other rocks). 

3.5-9
The primary regional aquifer systems along the pipeline route are described in Table 3.5-5 and depicted in 

Figure 3.5-2. Within the project area, the Colorado Plateaus aquifer system is mainly composed of Tertiaryand Cretaceous-aged consolidated sedimentary rocks within the Wyoming Basins physiographic province 

(Thornbury 1965; Whitehead 1996). The depth to water and the quality of water in this region vary 

considerably. The Colorado Plateaus aquifer system is generally separated from the High Plains system by 

the Southern Rocky Mountains uplift, smaller basins and valleys, and exposures of Sherman Granite. Primary 

aquifer zones in the basins and valleys of the Southern Rocky Mountains consist of consolidated sedimentary 

rocks of Lower Tertiary and Upper Cretaceous age. The Sherman Granite extends from approximately project 

RP 291.5 to RP 307.5 and provides relatively little water to wells. 

To the east, the High Plains aquifer system is composed of Tertiary-aged consolidated sedimentary rocks, of 

which the Ogallala Formation is a major waterbearing unit. Groundwater of good quality is extensively pumped 

from this system, primarily for irrigation use. The High Plains aquifer system is separated from the Great Plains 

aquifer system by thick confining units of shale, chalk, and limestones of Upper Cretaceous age that are 

exposed in north-central Kansas. These formations, labeled as “Other rocks” on Figure 3.5-2, generally 

provide little or no water to wells. The Great Plains aquifer system has limited extent along the proposed 

pipeline route. It largely occurs within the Plains Border physiographic section, which is a broadly defined area 

of dissected tablelands in central Kansas (Thornbury 1965). This system is also composed of consolidated 

sedimentary rocks, generally of Lower Cretaceous age. It occurs in scattered areas along the easternmost 

portion of the proposed ROW. 

In addition to these regional systems of sedimentary bedrock aquifers, unconsolidated surficial deposits of 

Quaternary streamlain alluvium and eolian sands and silts also provide water to wells in the project area. 

Alluvial aquifers occur in relatively thin, narrow bands of gravels, sands, and silts along major rivers and 

streams. Eolian deposits occur in isolated irregular areas, and primarily occur near the South Platte River in 

northeastern Colorado. 

Further details on groundwater resources within each state along the proposed ROW are provided below and 

in Table 3.5-5. The descriptions focus on major near-surface aquifers that would have the primary potential to 

be affected by the proposed project. In almost all of these water-bearing units, groundwater is primarily held in 

small fractures (secondary porosity), as opposed to pore spaces between sediment grains that result from 

deposition (primary porosity). Deeper aquifer zones occur throughout the regions, but are isolated from 

potential project impacts by thick or relatively impermeable overlying rocks. 

Wyoming. Shallow alluvial aquifers are primarily associated with the larger streams and rivers across 

Wyoming. Examples of waterbodies associated with comparatively extensive alluvial aquifers include the 

Hams Fork River, Blacks Fork River, Green River, North Platte River, Medicine Bow River, Rock Creek, and 

the Laramie River. In most other locations along streams, the alluvial deposits are too narrow or are too 

elevated above the water table to act as significant sources of groundwater. 

By far, mining is the overall primary use of groundwater in the counties along the Wyoming portion of the 

proposed ROW, particularly in Sweetwater County (USGS 2000). Additional uses include domestic and 

municipal supplies, other industrial supplies, and agricultural uses. Dominant uses vary between specific 

counties and locales. For example, public water supply in Albany County is the primary use of groundwater 

(USGS 2000). 

Two aquifer protection areas exist in Wyoming along the proposed ROW; the Elk Mountain Sole Source 

Aquifer (near RP 224 to RP 234), and the Casper Aquifer protection zone (near RP 281). The dominant 

geologic formation along the proposed ROW through the Elk Mountain area is the Hanna Formation (Lowry et 

al. 1973). This consists of alternating beds of sandstone, conglomerate, shale, and coal of Paleocene/Eocene 

age (Bartos et al. 2006). 

3.5-10
Table 3.5-5 Aquifer Zones near the Land Surface 

Range in 

Approximate Dissolved Solids 

State / Regional Depth to Water, Concentration 

Aquifer System / 

Aquifer 

Approximate 

RP Locations 

feet below 

ground surface 

milligrams per 

liter (mg/l)1 Rock Types Other Characteristics 

Wyoming  Colorado Plateaus Laney Member, Green River Formation 

0 to 50 Varies widely; in 

places less than 200 

1,000 to 3,500 Marlstone, fine-grained 

sandstone, siltstone; varying amounts of oil shale and limestone 

Underlain by Wilkins PeakTipton Shale members, which outcrop from approximately RP 50 to 60 

Bridger Formation 10 to 40 Generally less 

than 200 

500 to 1,500 Mudstone Confining unit; overlies the 

Laney Member in most of the area west of the Green River 

Wilkins Peak / Tipton 50 to 60 Varies; likely 500 500 to 2,000 Shale and organic Member parts of Green Shale members or more marlstone River Formation. Typically 

confining unit providing little water to wells 

Wasatch Formation 60 to 155 Locally less than 

200 along edges of Rock Springs uplift 

200 to 3,700 Sandstone and shale Outcrops around dome-like 

Rock Springs uplift, and in Great Divide Basin; stratigraphically overlies FoUnion aquifers 

Fort Union Formation Primarily 155 Locally less than 800 to 3,320 Sandstone, shale, and Also outcrops around Rock 

to 165 200, generally 200 coal Springs uplift 

to 500 

Mesa Verde Aquifer 60 to 125, 165 Locally less than 1,000 to 10,000 Sandstone and shale Outcrops around dome-like (Lance Formation, Fox to 200 200 along edges Rock Springs uplift; confineHills Sandstone, Lewis of Rock Springs in middle of uplift; Shale, and Mesa uplift, locally less stratigraphically underlies Verde Group) than 100 near Fort Union formation. Also 

Rawlins outcrops at Rawlins uplift to 

east 

3.5-11
Table 3.5-5 Aquifer Zones near the Land Surface 

Range in 

Approximate Dissolved Solids 

State / Regional Depth to Water, Concentration 

Aquifer System / 

Aquifer 

Approximate 

RP Locations 

feet below 

ground surface 

milligrams per 

liter (mg/l)1 Rock Types Other Characteristics 

 Upper Tertiary Browns Park/North 200 to 215 200 or more 100 to 750 Dominantly Complex stratigraphy and Park/Arikaree sandstones, with different naming conventioformations siltstones and between references 

conglomerates 

 Lower Tertiary / Upper Cretaceous Hanna and Ferris 215 to 250 Locally less than 200 to 4,000 Sandstones Lower Tertiary intermingled formations 50 with Upper Cretaceous Medicine Bow, Lewis 215 to 250 Locally less than 200 to 4,000 Sandstones and shales Upper Cretaceous Shale and Mesa 50 intermingled with Lower Verde Aquifers Tertiary Wind River Formation 250 to 260 50 to 100 1,000 to 2,000 Sandstones Tertiary  Other Rocks Quaternary Valley Fills and Alluvium 

260 to 275 10 to 20 Less than 1,000 Mixed gravels, sands, 

and silts 

Recent unconsolidated deposits, Laramie Basin 

Casper Formation 275 to 290 300 or more 500 or less Sandstones and 

limestones 

Water depth and quality vaaccording to lithology and location on uplift. Important water source 

Sherman Granite 290 to 307 Precambrian age; forms 

uplift. Supplies little groundwater to wells or springs 

 High Plains White River and 307 to 325 100 to 300 Less than 500 Conglomerate, Miocene-aged formations, Ogallala formations sandstone, claystone Ogallala underlain by the 

White River, including Bruland Chadron members 

Colorado White River and 325 to 380 200 or more 200 to 400 Sandstone, claystone Miocene-aged formations, Laramie formations White River includes Brule 

and Chadron members 

3.5-12
Table 3.5-5 Aquifer Zones near the Land Surface 

Range in 

Approximate Dissolved Solids 

State / Regional Depth to Water, Concentration 

Aquifer System / 

Aquifer 

Approximate 

RP Locations 

feet below 

ground surface 

milligrams per 

liter (mg/l)1 Rock Types Other Characteristics 

 Other Rocks Eolian sands and Quaternary Alluvium 

380 to 430 0 to 200 or more Less than 500 Unconsolidated sands, 

silts, and gravels 

Platte River alluvium and nearby sandhills 

 High Plains Ogallala Formation 430 to 490 Mostly 100 to 300, Less than 500 Conglomerate, Irrigation pumping has 

but 0 to 50 near sandstone, claystone modified the depth to wateCO/KS line in many areas. Extensive 

aquifer 

Kansas High Plains Ogallala Formation 490 to 650 100 to 300 Less than 500 Conglomerate, Irrigation pumping has 

sandstone, claystone modified the depth to wate

in many areas. Extensive aquifer 

 Other Rocks Pierre Shale, Niobrara 650 to 700 500 or more 1,000 or more Shales, marlstones Generally of Cretaceous Formation age, these rocks supply litt

water to wells or springs 

Ogallala Formation 700 to 749 100 to 300 Less than 500 Conglomerate, 

sandstone, claystone 

Irrigation pumping has modified the depth to watein many areas. Extensive aquifer 

Dakota Formation 740 to 749 300 or more 100 to 800 Sandstones of 

Cretaceous age 

Typically confined by overlying Carlile and Graneros shales, and/or Greenhorn limestone 

1As reported for shallower portions of aquifers. Produced water from deeper zones may have much higher concentrations. 2References are reported in the respective EIS section. 

3.5-13 

The Casper Aquifer near Laramie consists of sandstone-limestone bedrock that is recharged from the crest of 

the Laramie Range (east of town) to the eastern border of the City of Laramie itself. The groundwater flow 

direction generally follows down the mountain slope from east to west. The Casper Aquifer supplies 

approximately 50 percent of the water to the City of Laramie and 100 percent to many rural homeowners (City 

of Laramie 2006; Environmental Advisory Committee [EAC] 2006). The formation is exposed at the ground 

surface on the west flank of the Laramie Range, and locations of drinking water withdrawal are generally close 

to the recharge area. 

The latter is protected through ordinances approved at both the municipal (City of Laramie, Wyoming) and 

county levels (Albany County, Wyoming). In addition, areas of shallow groundwater occur primarily in alluvial 

deposits along streams and rivers as identified previously. Aquifers that are rated highly sensitive to potential 

contamination generally occur in these areas (Hamerlinck and Arneson 1998; Hall 1998; Nixon et al. 1998). 

However, the proposed pipeline route would avoid these areas. 

The proposed pipeline route would cross the Casper Formation outcrop from approximately RP 287 to 

RP 291. A short distance westward, the formation is overlain by Quaternary alluvial and colluvial deposits, and 

the Forelle Limestone or Satanka Shale. East of RP 291, the ROW crosses the underlying Sherman Granite of 

the Laramie Range (Love and Christiansen 1985). 

Colorado. In the counties crossed by the proposed pipeline route, irrigated agriculture use makes up over 

90 percent of all groundwater withdrawn along the proposed pipeline route in Colorado (USGS 2000). 

Domestic and industrial supplies represent other important, but much smaller, uses. The Platte River alluvium 

is a widely used source of groundwater, most of which interacts with returning irrigation surface flows. Water 

levels vary from the land surface to approximately 10 feet along the river. Similar shallow alluvial groundwater 

conditions exist along the Arikaree River and the North Fork of the Republican River. 

Kansas. By far, the primary use of groundwater in Kansas along the proposed ROW is for irrigated agriculture. 

In the counties crossed by the proposed pipeline route, this use makes up over 90 percent of all groundwater 

withdrawn (USGS 2000). Domestic and industrial supplies represent other important, but much smaller, uses. 

Springs 

Based on map reviews, field surveys, and follow-up discussions with USACE, no springs were identified within 

100 feet of the proposed pipeline route (NRG 2006). Springs and/or seep features are scattered in the general 

locale of the ROW from RP 205 to RP 209 (east of Walcott, Wyoming), and from RP 282 to RP 286 (southeast 

of Laramie, Wyoming). The proposed alignment would be located several hundred feet away from mapped 

springs in these areas. As indicated by Overland Pass, a seep occurs at approximately RP 299.6; excavation 

and side casting would be restricted in that area and protective matting also would be used to minimize 

impacts during construction. 

Water Supply Wells 

Overland Pass conducted searches for public water supply wells and wellhead protection areas within 750 feet 

of the proposed project. Based on consultations with WDEQ, CDPHE, and KDHE, there are no public water 

wells within 750 feet of the proposed pipeline route in Wyoming, Colorado, and Kansas (Parker 2005; Karst 

and Colbert 2005; Ervin 2005). 

Private water wells within 500 feet of the proposed ROW include 47 private wells in Wyoming, 51 private wells 

in Colorado, and 108 private wells in Kansas. Five of these are located on federally managed land. The 

distribution of these wells by county is provided in Table 3.5-6. 

3.5-15
Table 3.5-6 Private Water Supply Wells Occurring Along the Proposed Pipeline Route 

State County 

Number of Private Water Wells 

Within 500 feet of the 

Construction ROW 

Wyoming Lincoln 1 

Sweetwater 5 

Carbon 16 

 Albany 24 

Laramie 1 

 Wyoming Subtotal 47 

Colorado Weld 19 

Logan 9 

Washington 6 

Yuma 20 

 Colorado Subtotal 51 

Kansas Cheyenne 4 

Rawlins 4 

Thomas 6 

Sheridan 9 

Graham 1 

Trego 3 

 Ellis 4 

Barton 3 

Ellsworth 48 

Rice 4 

McPherson 22 

 Kansas Subtotal 108 

Project Total 206 

Source: Wyoming State Engineer’s Office (2005); USGS well information; Colorado Division of Water Resources (no date); KGS 

(2006b). 

Existing Groundwater Contamination 

Based on reviews of the National Priorities List (NPL, or federal “Superfund”) and the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, Liability Information System (CERCLIS), the proposed pipeline route 

does not cross any areas of known groundwater contamination. While it is possible that the proposed project 

may cross existing sites where groundwater quality has been compromised by other non-project related 

activities, these have not been identified in regulatory reviews and are not otherwise known (NRG 2006). 

Potentially Sensitive Resources 

No state groundwater supply management areas occur along the proposed pipeline route in Wyoming. In 

Colorado, managed groundwater resource areas consist of designated basins. Designated groundwater 

basins along the proposed route in Colorado include the Upper Crow Creek Basin in northern Weld County, 

and the Northern High Plains Basin in Washington and Yuma counties. Groundwater supply and resource 

allocation are managed through the State Engineer and local administrators in these basins. 

In Kansas, managed groundwater resource areas are controlled through management districts. The proposed 

ROW would intersect the Northwest Kansas Groundwater Management District in Cheyenne, Rawlins, 

Thomas, and Sheridan counties. Similar to the basin management program in Colorado, groundwater supplies 

3.5-16
and allocations in this district are managed at the state and district levels. In both states, groundwater quality 

monitoring is conducted by these regional organizations as allowed by time and funding. 

In Wyoming, the USEPA has designated the Elk Mountain aquifer as a sole source aquifer. The Elk Mountain 

aquifer, part of the Cloverly Aquifer, is located in the Pass Creek Basin of south central Wyoming. Typically 

Pass Creek Basin strata are folded and faulted inward into a series of north plunging, asymmetrical anticlines 

less than 1 mile in width. The aquifer is confined and averages approximately 90 feet thick. Since the 

sediments have been extensively folded and faulted, the water-producing zones vary from 2,380 to 2,780 feet 

below the ground surface (USEPA 1998). Overland Pass contacted Region VII of the USEPA to determine if 

the proposed pipeline route would cross the Elk Mountain aquifer (USEPA 2005). Based on the designated 

boundary map of the Elk Mountain aquifer, the sole source aquifer is located approximately 2,500 feet south of 

the proposed pipeline route at its nearest location at approximately RP 224 (Figure 3.5-3). 

In addition to the Elk Mountain aquifer, the City of Laramie and the County of Albany have designated an 

aquifer protection overlay zone, known as the Casper Aquifer Protection Area, to safeguard wells and springs 

located west of Laramie, Wyoming (Figure 3.5-4). The Casper Aquifer is the saturated and permeable part of 

the Casper Formation. The Casper Formation is overlain by the Satanka Formation. The Satanka Formation 

consists of shale and gypsum and the bottom 50 feet are fractured and are probably in hydraulic 

communication with the Casper Formation. The aquifer protection overlay zone is effective within city limits 

and at all locations where the upper boundary of the Casper Formation is not covered by at least 75 feet of the 

overlying Satanka Formation. Generally, the Satanka Formation serves as a confining layer above the Casper 

Aquifer. The Casper Aquifer is a sandstone-limestone rock formation that is over 700 feet thick. Carbonate 

formations are susceptible to dissolution and can thus develop extremely large, interconnected pore spaces. It 

is this enhanced porosity and permeability that makes these types of aquifers extremely vulnerable to 

contamination. The recharge area for the City of Laramie is from the Laramie Range crest to the eastern 

border. The Casper Aquifer is at a 4.5 percent down gradient to the west. Groundwater flow direction is from 

east to west (City of Laramie 2004; Litle 2006). Some of the prohibited activities within the Casper Aquifer 

Protection Area include the operation of dry cleaners, hazardous waste facilities, and gasoline stations (City of 

Laramie 2004). The proposed pipeline route would be approximately 1 mile from the southwest edge of the 

Casper Aquifer Protection Area near RP 280, downgradient of the aquifer protection area. 

There are currently no designated sole source aquifers in Colorado or Kansas (USEPA 2004b). 

3.5.1.3 Floodplains, Wetlands, and Riparian Areas 

From a geomorphic perspective, floodplains are relatively low, flat areas of land that surround rivers or streams 

and hold overflows during flood events. Floodplains are often associated with rivers and streams, where they 

consist of stream deposited sediments forming levels (or “terraces”) deposited at different times along the 

watercourse. Protection of floodplains and related resource values was established by EO 11988 (FR 1977a) 

and 11990 (FR 1977b). 

From a policy perspective, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) defines a floodplain as being 

any land area susceptible to being inundated by waters from any source (FEMA 2006). Local, state, and 

federal agencies have additional roles and responsibilities under EOs 11988 and 11990 and the FEMA 

floodplain program, particularly with respect to potential impacts on flooding from proposed projects. Major 

floodplains crossed by the proposed pipeline route are identified in Table 3.5-7. 

Riparian areas occur along floodplains associated with perennial and intermittent rivers and creeks, and 

typically support a combination of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation. They are a form of wetland 

transition between permanently saturated wetlands and upland areas. Riparian areas exhibit vegetation or 

physical characteristics reflective of permanent surface or subsurface water influence, and exhibit vegetation 

dependent upon free water in the soil. 

3.5-17


Table 3.5-7 Major Floodplains Crossed by the Project 

State/RP Waterbody Name 

Proposed Waterbody 

Crossing Method 

Wyoming 

18.9 and 41.3 Blacks Fork River floodplain Open-cut 

59.3 Green River floodplain1 Flume 

195.5 North Platte River floodplain Open-cut 

228.1 Medicine Bow River floodplain Open-cut 

Colorado 

413.2 South Platte River HDD 

491.7 Arikaree River Open-cut 

Kansas 

510.4 South Fork Republican River Open-cut 

1

Waterbody crossing occurs within federally managed lands. 

There are several locations where the proposed ROW crosses known riparian areas on federal lands, based 

on GIS analysis of Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) survey data in which areas were observed and 

categorized as riparian areas by a BLM interdisciplinary team. These areas are listed in Table 3.5-8. There are 

other perennial water bodies crossed by the project not managed nor rated by the BLM that are known to have 

sufficient water to create riparian areas. 

Table 3.5-8 Riparian Areas on Federally Managed Lands Along the Proposed Pipeline Route 

Water Body Township Range Section Comment 

Green River 17N 106W 8 & 9 USFS Managed 

Bitter Creek 18N 99W SW 10 BLM Managed; 

Rated Proper Functioning Condition 

PFC Scale 2 on 5/21/1999 

Little Bitter 

Creek 

18 N 

17N 

105 W 33 & 32 (18N) 

4 (17N) 

BLM Managed; 

Rated Functional At Risk 

FAR Scale 4 on 6/1/2000 

Wetlands are commonly associated with riparian areas and landscape depressions that have adequate soil 

moisture throughout the growing season to support a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation species. Wetlands 

are defined areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration 

sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically 

adapted for life in saturated soil conditions (USACE 1987). 

The Regulatory Program of the USACE plays a critical role in the protection of the aquatic ecosystems and 

navigation under the authority of Section 404 of the CWA and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 

1899. Regulatory responsibilities include conducting jurisdictional determinations for wetlands and other 

waters of the U.S. and navigable waters of the United States; authorizing activities in these jurisdictional areas 

through individual and general permits; and ensuring compliance with issued permits. The USACE works 

closely with other federal and state natural resource agencies and the public in exercising these 

responsibilities. 

While wetlands and riparian zones make up a small percentage of land cover along the proposed route, 

covering less than 1 percent of the landscape, they are critical to many species and serve as filters for runoff. 

3.5-20
Based on field survey data, a total of 176 wetlands would be crossed by the proposed pipeline route. Of this 

total, eight are located all or partially on federally managed lands. The combined linear crossing distance of the 

176 wetlands is approximately 6.5 miles, accounting for approximately 0.9 percent of the total proposed 

pipeline route. Table 3.5-9 summarizes wetlands crossed by the proposed pipeline route. Refer to 

Appendix H, Table H-3 for a detailed list of all wetlands crossed by the proposed project. 

Table 3.5-9 Summary of Wetland Types Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline Route 

State 

National Wetlands Inventory 

(NWI) Wetland Classification1 

Length of Wetland Crossed 

(miles) 

Wyoming 

PEM 5.7 

PSS 0.3 

PFO 0.1 

 Wyoming Subtotal2 6.1 

Colorado 

PEM 0.2 

PSS 0.0 

PFO 0.0 

 Colorado Subtotal 0.2 

Kansas 

PEM 0.2 

PSS <0.1 

PFO 0.0 

Kansas Subtotal 0.2 

Total 6.5 

1

Cowardin Wetland Types: 

PEM – Palustrine Emergent 

PSS – Palustrine Scrub-Shrub 

PFO – Palustrine Forested 

2

Includes <0.1 mile of wetlands (PEM and PSS) on federally owned land. 

Slight discrepancies in total mileage are due to rounding. 

Source: Overland Pass Pipeline Project – 2006 Wetland Survey (WEST 2006d). 

Palustrine systems include all nontidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent 

mosses or lichens, and all such wetlands that occur in tidal areas where salinity due to ocean-derived salts is 

below 0.5 percent (Cowardin 1979). Common species that occur in PSS and PEM habitats include narrowleaf 

cottonwood, plains cottonwood, aspen, green ash, various species of willow, thinleaf alder, water birch, wild 

rose, red-osier dogwood, beaked sedge, Nebraska sedge, Baltic rush, inland saltgrass, alkali sacaton, and 

creeping bentgrass. 

Riverine and lacustrine systems typically are considered open water habitats. Riverine systems include all 

wetlands and deepwater habitats contained within a channel, with the exception of wetlands dominated by 

trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses, or lichens. In the case of braided stream channels, 

riverine systems are bound by the banks forming the outer limits of the depression within which the braiding 

occurs. As such, riverine habitat may include non-persistent emergent wetlands that are subject to periodic 

scouring. Lacustrine systems include wetlands and deepwater habitats situated in a topographic depression or 

a dammed river channel, lack trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses or lichens with greater 

than 30 percent aerial coverage, and total an area greater than 20 acres. 

3.5-21
In addition to wetlands traversed by the proposed pipeline route, the PNG has identified multiple seasonally 

dry lakes along the proposed pipeline route in Colorado. These dry lakes are shallow, circular-shaped, 

depressional seasonal wetlands that are primarily filled by rainfall, although some seasonally dry lakes found 

in cropland settings may also receive water from irrigation runoff. Compared to other wetlands, seasonally dry 

lakes undergo frequent, unpredictable wet and dry cycles. The resulting wet-dry cycle of seasonally dry lakes 

produces a highly diverse plant community. These plants produce a tremendous crop of nutritious seeds that 

are favored by waterfowl and other seed eating birds that migrate and winter in the region (Playa Lakes Joint 

Venture 2006). 

3.5.2 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative 

3.5.2.1 Surface Water 

Between RP 62.3 and RP 87.1 in Sweetwater County, Wyoming, the Proposed Action would cross a total of 

48 streams (46 intermittent, 2 perennial), while the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass 

Alternative would cross a total of 51 surface streams (47 intermittent, 4 perennial). No seasonally dry lakes are 

crossed by either the Proposed Action through this section nor by the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper 

Ridge Bypass Alternative. 

No major and sensitive waterbody crossings or Section 303(d) listed impaired waterbody crossings would be 

avoided or added by routing the pipeline along the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass 

Alternative. A complete list of waterbody crossings for the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass 

Alternative is provided in Appendix H, Table H-2. 

There would be no difference in the public water supplies crossed by the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper 

Ridge Bypass Alternative. 

3.5.2.2 Groundwater 

Groundwater resources along this alternative would be the same as described for the Proposed Acton. 

3.5.2.3 Floodplains, Wetlands, and Riparian Areas 

No additional floodplains would be crossed by the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass 

Alternative, thus floodplain resource concerns would be the same as those described for the Proposed Action. 

Between RP 62.3 and RP 87.1, the Proposed Action would cross 4 wetlands (2 PEM, 2 PSS), while the 

Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative would cross one wetland (PEM) near State 

Highway 430. 

3.5-22
3.6 Vegetation 

3.6.1 Proposed Action 

3.6.1.1 Vegetation Communities 

The proposed pipeline route would cross five general vegetation types: grassland, agricultural land, shrubland, 

forest land, and wetlands. Vegetation types (Figure 3.6-1) were determined by Overland Pass through review 

of aerial photography, aerial flyover ground-truthing surveys, and review of high-resolution aerial photography 

(WEST 2006a). Table 3.6-1 summarizes the miles of vegetation types crossed by the proposed pipeline route. 

Table 3.6-1 Miles of Vegetation Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline Route 

Vegetation Type Miles of Vegetation Crossed1 

Grassland 436.8 

Agricultural Land 231.7 

Shrubland 72.2 

Forest Land 5.9 

Wetlands 6.5 

Total 753.1 

1

Does not include developed, commercial land, open water, or barren areas that do not display vegetation characteristics. Therefore,

total miles are less than total length of the project. 

The most common vegetation types crossed by the proposed pipeline route are grassland and agricultural land. 

Open water and waterbodies (including dry washes), commercial land, and areas with bare rock account for 

less than 1 percent of the disturbance along the proposed pipeline route and do not display vegetation 

characteristics; consequently, they are not discussed in this section of the EIS. Table 3.6-2 provides a 

description of the vegetation types, sub-communities, and species commonly associated with these vegetation 

types along the proposed project route. 

Grassland 

Grassland occurs along approximately 436.8 miles (57 percent) of the proposed pipeline route, with sagebrush 

steppe being the dominant sub-community. Sagebrush steppe is a semi-closed steppe characterized by an 

overstory of sagebrush and understory of grasses, forbs, and smaller shrubs. Grass species comprise more 

than 50 percent of the species composition in this community; big sagebrush is the dominant shrub component 

throughout. The mixed-grass prairie sub-community occurs throughout most of eastern Wyoming and typically 

supports a high diversity of grasses, including short-, mid-, and tall-grass species. It is distinguished from the 

short-grass prairie sub-community by having a much higher floristic diversity and an absence of buffalo grass. 

The short-grass prairie is dominated by bunch grasses less than 20 inches tall. Buffalo grass is considered the 

indicator species of short-grass prairie. 

Agricultural Land 

Agricultural land occurs along approximately 231.7 miles (30 percent) of the proposed pipeline route. This 

community is primarily comprised of irrigated hay, small grain, corn, and alfalfa fields as well as pasture for 

livestock grazing. 

Pasture and hayfields would typically regenerate quickly after cleanup and reseeding of the construction ROW, 

typically within 2 years. Overland Pass would reseed pasture and hayfields with seed mixes as requested by 

the landowner to restore the area to preconstruction conditions. Overland Pass would not reseed cultivated 

agricultural areas unless requested by the landowner. 

3.6-1

Table 3.6-2 Vegetation Types and Sub-Communities that Occur Along the Proposed Pipeline 

Route 

Vegetation Type Sub-Community Common Species 

Grassland Sagebrush steppe 

Mixed-grass prairie 

Short-grass prairie 

Planted grassland 

Indian ricegrass, needle and thread grass, western 

wheatgrass, bluebunch wheatgrass, Sandberg bluegrass, 

bottlebrush squirreltail, basin big sagebrush, Wyoming big 

sagebrush, blue grama, fringed sagewort, buffalograss, 

western wheatgrass, pricklypear cactus, yucca, prairie 

coneflower, scarlet globemallow, broom snakeweed, little 

bluestem, sideoats grama, big bluestem, switchgrass, and 

smooth brome. 

Agricultural Land Agriculture (hay/pasture land) 

Disturbed 

Alfalfa, meadow barley, smooth brome, timothy, 

orchardgrass, Kentucky bluegrass, blue mustard, clasping 

pepperweed, perennial pepperweed, field pennycress, 

shepherd’s-purse, common cocklebur, sowthistle, horseweed, 

Canada thistle, showy milkweed, common teasel, Russian 

thistle, and kochia. 

Shrubland Desert scrub 

Salt desert scrub 

Desert shrubland 

Greasewood 

Mountain Mahogany 

Fourwing saltbush 

Sand sagebrush 

Gardner’s saltbush (2 varieties), shadscale, rubber 

rabbitbrush, greasewood, basin big sagebrush, Wyoming big 

sagebrush, winterfat, Indian ricegrass, needle and thread 

grass, saltgrass, alkali sacaton, mountain mahogany, 

bluebunch wheatgrass, prairie junegrass, blue grama, 

fourwing saltbush, sand sagebrush, yucca, skunkbrush, sand 

bluestem, sand dropseed, prairie reedgrass, and sideoats 

grama. 

Forest Land Juniper woodland 

Aspen woodland 

Pine woodland 

Planted trees 

Utah juniper, Rocky Mountain juniper, big sagebrush, 

mountain mahogany, rabbitbrush, broom snakeweed, 

Sandberg bluegrass, needlegrasses, Indian ricegrass, 

western wheatgrass, aspen, wild rose, gooseberry, 

ponderosa pine, limber pine, other native and non-native 

deciduous and coniferous trees. 

Wetlands PEM 

PSS 

PFO 

Baltic rush, inland saltgrass, alkali sacaton, beaked sedge, 

Nebraska sedge, creeping bentgrass, willow species, thinleaf 

alder, water birch, wild rose, red-osier dogwood, narrowleaf 

cottonwood, plains cottonwood, aspen, and green ash. 

Shrubland 

Shrubland accounts for approximately 72.2 miles (10 percent) of vegetation cover that would be crossed by 

the proposed pipeline route. This community designation includes sagebrush, salt desert shrub/greasewood, 

and foothills scrub-shrub sub-communities. Sagebrush is the most widespread shrubland sub-community. This 

vegetation type is characterized by an overstory of big sagebrush and an understory of grasses, forbs, and 

smaller shrubs. Salt desert shrub/greasewood occurs as a mosaic within sagebrush communities, frequently 

on the fringes of desert lakes, ponds, rivers, and streams. Foothills scrub-shrub communities consist of both 

mountain mahogany and scrub oak sub-communities. Mountain mahogany primarily occurs within northern 

mixed prairie and short-grass prairie habitats. This deciduous shrub forms dense thickets with sparse 

understory vegetation. It typically occurs on rocky or shallow soils and is often associated with a limestone, 

sandstone, or shale substrate. In oak scrub, Gambel oak is the dominant shrub, comprising more than a 

quarter of the total vegetation cover. This subcommunity does not occur on the eastern slope of the Rocky 

Mountains, but extends from Colorado into Wyoming on the western slope of the Rocky Mountains. 

3.6-3
Forest Land 

Forest lands occur along approximately 5.9 miles (less than 1 percent) of the proposed pipeline route. Forest 

land sub-communities include pinyon-juniper woodland, ponderosa pine woodland, and riparian woodland. 

Along the proposed pipeline route, the dominant community is pinyon-juniper woodland. Colorado pinyon pine 

and Utah juniper dominate the pinyon-juniper woodland plant community. Ponderosa pine woodland is 

commonly found on lower mountain foothills and slopes. Riparian woodlands occur along many perennial 

waterbodies and are characterized by cottonwood trees and a variety of riparian shrubs. 

Wetlands 

Wetlands occur along 6.5 miles (less than 1 percent) of the proposed pipeline route. Wetlands crossed by the 

proposed pipeline route are discussed in Section 3.5.1.3. 

3.6.1.2 Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plant Species 

The prevention of the spread or introduction of noxious weeds and invasive plant species is a high priority to 

federal, state, and county agencies. Ground disturbance from construction may make vegetation communities 

more susceptible to infestations of noxious weeds or invasive plants. These species are most prevalent in 

areas of surface disturbance, such as agricultural areas, roadsides, existing utility ROWs, and wildlife 

concentration areas. 

Legally, a noxious weed is any plant officially designated by a federal, state, or county government as injurious 

to public health, agriculture, recreation, wildlife, or property (Sheley et al. 1999). Under the Federal Plant 

Protection Act of 2000 (formerly the Noxious Weed Act of 1974 [7 USC SS 2801-2814]), a noxious weed is 

defined as “any plant or plant product that can directly or indirectly injure or cause damage to crops, livestock, 

poultry, or other interests of agriculture, irrigation, navigation, the natural resources of the U.S., the public 

health, or the environment.” Noxious weeds are opportunistic plant species that readily flourish in disturbed 

areas, thereby preventing native plant species from establishing successive communities. Wyoming, Colorado, 

and Kansas each maintain official state lists of weed species that are designated noxious species (Wyoming 

Weed and Pest Council 2006; State of Colorado 2006; Kansas Department of Agriculture [KDA] 2006). 

Table 3.6-3 provides a summary of the noxious weed species regulated in Wyoming, Colorado, and Kansas. 

Table 3.6-3 Noxious Weeds1

 that Potentially Occur Along the Proposed Pipeline Route 

Common Name Scientific Name Wyoming Colorado Kansas 

Absinth wormwood Artemisia absinthium X 

African rue Peganum harmala X 

Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare X 

Bur ragweed Ambrosia grayii X 

Camelthorn Alhagi pseudalhagi X 

Canada thistle Cirsium arvense X X X 

Chinese clematis Clematis orientalis X 

Common burdock Arctium minus X 

Common crupina Crupina vulgaris X 

Common tansy Tanacetum vulgare X 

Cypress spurge Euphorbia cyparissias X 

Dalmation toadflax Linaria dalmatica X X 

Diffuse knapweed Centaurea maculosa X X 

Dyer’s woad Isatis tinctoria X X 

Field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis X X 

Giant salvinia Salvinia molesta X 

Hoary cress (whitetop) Cardaria draba X X 

Houndstongue Cynoglossum officinale X 

3.6-4
Table 3.6-3 Noxious Weeds1

 that Potentially Occur Along the Proposed Pipeline Route 

Common Name Scientific Name Wyoming Colorado Kansas 

Hydrilla Hydrilla verticillata X 

Johnsongrass Sorghum halapense X 

Kudzu Peuraria lobata X 

Leafy spurge Euphorbia esula L. X X X 

Meadow knapweed Centaurea pratensis X 

Mediterranean sage Salvia aethiopos X 

Medusa head Taeniatherum caput-medusae X 

Musk thistle Carduus nutans X X X 

Myrtle spurge Euphorbia myrsinites X 

Oxeye daisy Chrysanthemum leucanthemum X 

Perennial pepperweed Lepidium latifolium X X 

Perennial sowthistle Sonchus arvensis X 

Pignut Hoffmannseggia densiflora X 

Plumeless thistle Carduus acanthoides X X 

Purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria X X 

Quackgrass Agropyron repens X X 

Rush skeletonweed Chondrilla juncea X 

Russian knapweed Centaurea repens L. X X X 

Salt cedar Tamarix spp. X X 

Scotch thistle Onopordum acanthium X X 

Sericia lespedeza Lespedeza cuneata X 

Skeletonleaf bursage Franseria discolor X 

Spotted knapweed Centaurea maculosa X X 

Squarerose knapweed Centaurea virgata X 

St. Johnswort Hypericum perforatum X 

Tansy ragwort Senecio jacobaea X 

Yellow star thistle Centaurea solstitialis L. X 

Yellow toadflax Linaria vulgaris X X 

1

Noxious weeds obtained from Wyoming’s noxious weed list (Wyoming Weed and Pest Council 2006); Colorado’s State A list, State B list 

(as identified through consultations with county weed coordinators) (State of Colorado 2006); and Kansas’ noxious weed list (KDA 2006). 

The more general term “invasive species” refers to a species that is non-native to the ecosystem under 

consideration and whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to 

human health. Invasive plants not only include noxious weeds, but also other plants that are not native to this 

country. The BLM considers plants invasive if they have been introduced into an environment where they did 

not evolve. As a result, they usually have no natural enemies to limit their reproduction and spread 

(Westbrooks 1998). 

Under EO 13112 (FR 1999) federal agencies shall not authorize, fund, or carry out actions likely to cause or 

promote the introduction or spread of invasive species in the U.S. or elsewhere unless it has been determined 

that the benefits of such actions outweigh the potential harm caused by invasive species and that all feasible 

and prudent measures to minimize the risk of harm would be taken in conjunction with the actions. 

3.6.2 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass 

There are no substantive differences between the affected vegetation communities that occur within the 

Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative in comparison to the Proposed Action. 

3.6-5
3.7 Wildlife, Aquatic Resources, and Special Status Species 

3.7.1 Proposed Action 

3.7.1.1 Wildlife 

Wildlife habitats along the proposed pipeline route consists primarily of five major vegetative communities: 

grassland, shrubland, agricultural land, forest land, and wetlands. Each of these communities provides nesting, 

cover, and foraging habitat for a variety of wildlife. This section focuses on species of high economic and/or 

economic recreational importance and those that are considered sensitive to human disturbance. Baseline 

descriptions of both resident and migratory wildlife include species that have either been documented in the 

project area or those that may occur in the project region based on habitat associations. Common species 

associated with each of the vegetation communities that would be affected by the proposed project are listed 

in Table 3.7-1. 

Table 3.7-1 Common Wildlife Species in the Project Area 

Vegetative 

Community/ 

Habitat Type Common Species 

Grassland Pronghorn antelope, coyote, swift fox, badger, white-tailed jackrabbit, thirteen-lined ground 

squirrel, spotted ground squirrel, black-tailed prairie dog, plains pocket gopher, plains pocket 

mouse, silky pocket mouse, plains harvest mouse, mourning dove, northern harrier, prairie falcon, 

ferruginous hawk, Swainson’s hawk, common nighthawk, horned lark, rock wren, vesper sparrow, 

lark bunting, western meadowlark, loggerhead shrike, short-horned lizard, western skink, 

wandering garter snake, prairie rattlesnake, striped whipsnake, racer 

Shrubland Mule deer, elk, pronghorn antelope, coyote, Nuttall’s cottontail, deer mouse, Wyoming ground 

squirrel, white-tailed prairie dog, sagebrush vole, northern harrier, American kestrel, Swainson’s 

hawk, sage grouse, Say’s phoebe, horned lark, black-billed magpie, sage thrasher, green-tailed 

towhee, vesper sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, sage sparrow, Great Basin spadefoot toad, 

sagebrush lizard, northern plateau lizard, short-horned lizard, western skink, striped whipsnake, 

racer 

Agricultural Land Mule deer, white-tailed deer, swift fox, black-tailed jackrabbit, raccoon, thirteen-lined ground 

squirrel, spotted ground squirrel, plains pocket gopher, plains harvest mouse, deer mouse, shorteared owl, ring-necked pheasant, common crow, horned lark, plains garter snake, common garter 

snake, prairie lizard, Great Plains rat snake, box turtle, horned lizard 

Forest Land Elk, mule deer, bobcat, porcupine, desert cottontail, desert woodrat, desert shrew, least 

chipmunk, pinion mouse, little brown bat, red-tailed hawk, American kestrel, great-horned owl, 

long-eared owl, mourning dove, common poorwill, black-chinned hummingbird, northern flicker, 

ash-throated flycatcher, gray flycatcher, Say’s phoebe, pinyon jay, gray vireo, house finch, pine 

siskin, chipping sparrow, black-throated gray warbler, juniper titmouse, sagebrush lizard, northern 

plateau lizard, short-horned lizard, western skink, Great Basin gopher snake, striped whipsnake, 

racer, kingsnake, wandering garter snake 

Wetlands Beaver, muskrat, mink, red fox, desert cottontail, pocket gopher, Great Basin pocket mouse, 

western harvest mouse, meadow vole, western jumping mouse, rusty red fox squirrel, eastern 

woodrat, northern harrier, black-chinned hummingbird, violet-green swallow, black-billed magpie, 

robin, western tanager, yellow warbler, common yellowthroat, Brewer’s blackbird, house finch, 

Savannah sparrow, chipping sparrow, Canada goose, wood duck, canvasback, gadwall, common 

goldeneye, Woodhouse’s toad, boreal chorus frog, northern leopard frog, sagebrush lizard, 

western skink, striped whipsnake, racer, smooth green snake, wandering garter snake 

Source: NRG 2006. 

3.7-1
Approximately 130 miles of new greenfield ROW of which 72 miles are forest and shrubland habitat would 

occur along the proposed pipeline route. These two habitat types require more than 5 years for restoration, 

and often decades. New greenfield ROW construction occurs in areas not co-located with existing pipeline, 

utility, or road ROW. 

Game Species 

The primary big game species that occur within the project area are elk, mule deer, and pronghorn antelope 

(pronghorn). Elk inhabit semi-open forests or forest edges adjacent to parks, meadows, and alpine tundra, as 

well as sagebrush steppe areas. Mule deer occur in the greatest densities in shrublands on rough, broken 

terrain, which provide abundant browse and cover. Pronghorn inhabit grasslands and semidesert shrublands 

on rolling topography that afford good visibility. 

Other less prominent big game species that occur in the project area are white-tailed deer, black bear, and 

mountain lion. Occurrence of white-tailed deer would be limited to Kansas and Colorado and concentrated 

along riparian corridors. Black bear and mountain lion may travel infrequently through the project area, 

primarily in the forest vegetative community. This community represents a small component of the proposed 

project. Small game species that occur along the proposed pipeline route include upland game birds, 

waterfowl, furbearers, and small mammals. 

Wyoming. Big game species, including mule deer, elk, and pronghorn are scattered in the vicinity of the 

proposed pipeline route in Wyoming. The proposed pipeline route would cross habitat ranges designated as 

crucial for maintenance of game populations. In Wyoming, designated big game ranges, including summer, 

yearlong, winter, and crucial winter ranges would be crossed (WDGF 2005a). Approximately 14.4 miles of 

crucial winter range for two game species that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline route. 

Approximately 8.5 miles of pronghorn, 4.2 miles of mule deer, and 1.4 miles of elk crucial winter habitat would 

be crossed by new greenfield ROW. Crucial winter habitat timing restrictions in Wyoming occur between 

November 15 and April 30. Crucial winter habitat with timing restrictions for mule deer, pronghorn, and elk are 

identified in Table 3.7-2. 

Table 3.7-2 Big Game Crucial Winter Habitat with Timing Restrictions Affected by the Project1 

State / Range Type Locations (RP) 

Approximate Total Length Crossed (miles) 

Federal Lands Non-Federal Lands 

Wyoming 

Mule Deer Crucial 

Winter Habitat 

88.8 to 91.1 6.9 23.8 

182.1 to 188.6 

 193.8 to 194.0 

 194.2 to 195.1 

 195.6 to 199.8 

 204.6 to 210.3 

 224.3 to 234.0 

 254.6 to 255.4 

Pronghorn Crucial Winter 

Habitat 

14.6 to 21.2 16.3 46.2

23.9 to 27.7 

 31.1 to 47.0 

 96.4 to 102.7 

 195.5 to 204.3 

 223.2 to 226.2 

 243.6 to 261.7 

Elk Crucial Winter Habitat 243.6 to 252.1 0.0 8.5 

Colorado 

Pronghorn Crucial 

Winter Habitat 

321.1 to 339.0 2.1 17.5 

358.5 to 360.2 

1

Crucial big game ranges identified by WGFD and CDOW. Habitats identified in this table have timing restrictions; crucial winter 

habitat without timing restrictions are not included in this table. 

3.7-2 
In Wyoming, sage grouse are considered the most sensitive small game species along the proposed pipeline 

route and are discussed further in Section 3.7.1.3 and in the Biological Report (BR)/Biological Evaluation (BE) 

associated with this project. 

Colorado. In Colorado, big game species, including mule deer, white-tailed deer, elk, and pronghorn are 

scattered in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline route. The proposed pipeline route would cross habitat ranges 

designated as crucial for maintenance of big game populations. Crucial winter habitat timing restrictions for 

Colorado occur between December 1 and April 30. Approximately 20 miles of pronghorn crucial winter habitat, 

including approximately 1 mile of new greenfield ROW construction, would be crossed in Colorado 

(CDOW 2005) (Table 3.7-2). 

Kansas. Big game species, including mule deer, white-tailed deer, and pronghorn are scattered across 

Kansas; however, there are no designated big game ranges in the state (KDWP 2005) and no crucial winter 

habitat would be crossed. In Kansas, the lesser prairie chicken is considered the most sensitive small game 

species along the proposed pipeline route. This species has limited potential for occurrence in the vicinity of 

the proposed pipeline route which is discussed further in the BA associated with this project. 

Nongame Species 

A diversity of nongame species (e.g., small mammals, raptors, passerines, amphibians, and reptiles) occupy a 

variety of trophic levels and habitat types along the proposed pipeline route. Nongame mammal species 

include a variety of small mammals such as shrews, bats, squirrels, prairie dogs, rabbits, woodrats, and mice. 

These small mammals provide a substantial prey base for predators including mammals (e.g., coyote, badger, 

skunk), raptors (e.g., eagles, buteos, accipiters, owls), and reptile species in the project area. Common reptiles 

along the proposed pipeline route include northern sagebrush lizard, eastern short-horned lizard, garter snake, 

and prairie rattlesnake. Common amphibians included plains spadefoot, boreal chorus frog, leopard frog, and 

tiger salamander (Baxter and Stone 1980; Hammerson 1999). 

Migratory Birds 

A neotropical migratory bird is a bird that breeds in Canada and the United States during summer and over 

winters in Mexico, Central America, South America or the Caribbean islands. According to a more strict 

definition used by some scientists, neotropical migratory birds are Western Hemisphere species in which the 

majority of individuals breeds north of the Tropic of Cancer and winters south of that same latitude 

(Smithsonian National Zoological Park 2007). Representative migratory bird species with potential to occur 

along the proposed pipeline route, as provided by the USFWS, are listed by habitat association in Table 3.7-1 

and in the raptor section below. 

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among the USFS, BLM, and USFWS was drafted pursuant to EO 

13186 in order to promote conservation of migrating birds and minimize the potential adverse effects of take to 

these birds. Specific measures to protect migratory bird species and their habitats have not been identified 

within the draft MOU document; but instead, provide guidance to agencies to promote best management 

practices for the conservation of migratory birds. 

Raptors 

Raptor species that could potentially occur as residents or migrants within the project region include eagles 

(bald eagle and golden eagle), buteos (e.g., red-tailed hawk, Swainson’s hawk, ferruginous hawk), falcons 

(e.g., peregrine falcon, prairie falcon, American kestrel), accipiters (e.g., Cooper’s hawk and sharp-shinned 

hawk), owls (e.g., great-horned owl, burrowing owl, long-eared owl, short-eared owl), northern harrier, and 

turkey vulture. Refer to Table 3.7-1 for common raptor species along the proposed project route. 

3.7-3
Wyoming. Raptor breeding habitat was identified in Wyoming for golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, peregrine

falcon, red-tailed hawk, prairie falcon, northern harrier, Swainson’s hawk, burrowing owl, and great horned owl 

in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline route (WGFD 2005a). 

Colorado. In Colorado, raptor breeding habitat was identified for golden eagle, bald eagle, ferruginous hawk, 

red-tailed hawk, prairie falcon, northern harrier, Swainson’s hawk, burrowing owl, and great horned owl in the

vicinity of the proposed pipeline route (CDOW 2006; CNHP 2006). 

Kansas. In Kansas, raptor breeding habitat was identified for golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, red-tailed hawk, 

Swainson’s hawk, short-eared owl, and great horned owl in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline route

(KDWP 2006; WEST 2006c). 

Management Indicator Species 

Management Indicator Species (MIS) are defined as a wildlife species whose population will indicate the 

health of the ecosystem in which it lives and, consequently, the effects of forest management activities to that 

ecosystem. MIS species are selected for this project by the USFS for areas in the vicinity of the proposed 

pipeline route in the PNG and FGNRA. The FGNRA is part of the ANF and the list for the ANF covers the 

entire forest. Some of the species identified for the entire forest are not analyzed in this document because 

their habitats do not occur within the vicinity of the proposed pipeline route. These species include white-tailed 

ptarmigan, northern goshawk, Lincoln sparrow, song sparrow, warbling vireo, and red napped sapsucker. MIS 

species that would occur along the proposed pipeline route are listed in Table 3.7-3. MIS species are 

discussed in detail in the BR associated with this project. 

Table 3.7-3 Management Indicator Species for the Project1 

Habitat Type MIS Species 

Sagebrush Sage grouse 

Cliffs and rock outcrops Golden eagle 

Shortgrass prairie Mountain plover 

 Ferruginous hawk 

Midgrass prairie Ferruginous hawk 

 Lark bunting 

Prairie dog towns Black-tailed prairie dog 

Western burrowing owl 

Prairie woodlands Mule deer 

Various economic habitats Mule deer 

Elk 

1

Species identified in this table may be impacted by the project. MIS species excluded from analysis are discussed in the BR. 

3.7.1.2 Aquatic Resources 

Aquatic resources are amphibian, fish, and invertebrate communities and their habitat, which includes 

wetlands, perennial streams, and pond/lake environments. The description of aquatic communities focuses on 

important fisheries, which include species with recreational value or threatened, endangered, or special status. 

No commercial fisheries occur in any waterbodies crossed by the proposed pipeline route. Special status 

aquatic species are discussed in Section 3.7.1.3. The study area for aquatic resources includes aquatic habitat 

(perennial streams, rivers, wetlands, and lakes/ponds) crossed by the proposed pipeline route. Other 

waterbodies are included if they are located within approximately 0.25 mile downstream of the proposed 

pipeline crossings and support recreationally important game fish or special status fish species. 

3.7-4
Invertebrate communities that occur in waterbodies crossed by the proposed pipeline route include a mixture 

of worms, immature and adult insect groups, snails, and numerous other groups. The composition and 

abundance of the invertebrate community can vary depending on the physical characteristics of the 

waterbody, flow, substrate, presence of submersed vegetation, and other factors. Invertebrates serve 

important roles in the aquatic environment through their food web dynamics. They also represent important 

food sources for fish and are used as indicators of water quality conditions (Barbour et al. 1997). It is assumed 

that invertebrates are present in all perennial streams and seasonally dry lakes located within the proposed 

pipeline corridors. 

Waterbodies crossed by the proposed pipeline route also provide habitat for amphibians (salamanders, toads, 

and frogs) and aquatic reptiles (turtles). Many of the toad species such as plains spadefoot toad, Great Basin 

spadefoot toad, and salamanders occur in terrestrial habitats throughout most of the year, but move to aquatic 

habitats for breeding in the spring or early summer. The types of habitats that are used for breeding include 

perennial streams, reservoirs, ponds, wetlands, or seasonal flooded areas. Salamander and toad species 

overwinter in burrows and other moist areas in terrestrial habitat. Other toad species (e.g., boreal toad and 

Woodhouse’s toad) and most frog species are associated with permanent wet areas including streams, ponds, 

and wetlands (Cerovski et al. 2004; Livo et al. 2000). Breeding typically occurs in the spring or early summer 

for frogs and aquatic reptile species. Most frog species overwinter in the bottom substrate of their occupied 

aquatic habitats. The following discussion for each state identifies amphibian and aquatic reptile species that 

could occur within the proposed pipeline route. The potential occurrence of special status amphibian species is 

discussed in Section 3.7.1.3. 

Two MIS (Colorado River cutthroat trout and macroinvertebrates) were considered for analysis within the 

FGNRA. Colorado River cutthroat trout was eliminated from detailed analysis because this species does not 

occur in the Green River. Macroinvertebrates were included in the analysis for all waterbodies. 

The following information describes fish species occurrence, fishery classifications, habitat quality, and 

characteristics of fishery management in each of the states traversed by the proposed pipeline route. 

Wyoming 

Fish. In total, there would be 67 perennial stream crossings in Wyoming, some of which cross the same 

stream multiple times. Of the perennial streams crossed, 20 are classified as supporting recreationally 

important fisheries (i.e., game fish) by WDEQ (2001) (Table 3.7-4). For clarification, the game fish species 

listed in Table 3.7-4 are based on results of agency surveys conducted at the closest locations to the 

proposed stream crossings. Except for the Blacks Fork River, which only contains warmwater game fish 

species, these streams support coldwater game fish species. The game fish species include trout (brook, 

brown, rainbow, and cutthroat), kokanee salmon, walleye, smallmouth bass, and channel catfish. These 

streams support one to six game fish species, with the highest number occurring in the Green River. The North 

Platte River is considered a premium trout fishery by the WGFD. Other high quality trout waters (defined as 

representing statewide or regional importance) crossed by the proposed pipeline route include the Green 

River, Medicine Bow River, Little Laramie River, and the Laramie River. Game fish are stocked in the Green 

River, North Platte River, Medicine Bow River, Wagonhound Creek, Foote Creek tributaries, Rock Creek, and 

the Laramie River. Other perennial streams crossed by the proposed pipeline route with nongame fisheries 

include Little Bitter Creek, Bitter Creek, Lone Tree Creek, and Sand Creek. In addition, five seasonally dry 

lakes would be crossed by the proposed pipeline route. None are known to contain game fish species. 

General spawning periods for game fish species that occur in waters crossed by the proposed pipeline route 

are shown in Table 3.7-5. 

Numerous streams have tested positive for whirling disease in Wyoming. Major rivers on the proposed pipeline 

route which have tested positive include the Green, North Platte, Medicine Bow, Little Laramie, and Laramie 

rivers (Money 2006). Whirling disease also has been detected in numerous small streams in eastern 

Wyoming. 

3.7-5
Table 3.7-4 Game Fish Occurrence and Fishery Classifications for Waterbodies Crossed by the Project 

Waterbody County 

Number of Crossings

Fishery Classification1 

Brook Trout 

Brown Trout 

Cutthroat Trout 

(Snake River) 

Kokanee Salmon 

Walleye

Rainbow Trout 

Smallmouth bass

Largemouth Bass

White Crappie

Black Crappie 

Bluegill

Sunfish Species

Channel Catfish 

Wyoming 

Hams Fork River Lincoln 1 2AB X 

X 

Blacks Fork River Lincoln 2 2AB 

X 

Green River Sweetwater 1 2AB 

X 

X XS2 XS X X 

North Platte River Carbon 1 2AB X X XS XS Medicine Bow River Carbon 1 2AB XS X XS Bear Creek Carbon 1 2AB X X Wagonhound Creek Carbon 1 2AB XS X Tributary to Upper Carbon 4 2AB XS Foote Creek Foote Creek Carbon 3 2AB XS X Rock Creek Carbon 4 2AB X XS Threemile Creek Carbon 2 2AB X X Dutton Creek Carbon 3 2AB X Cooper Creek Albany 3 2AB X Fourmile Creek Albany 1 2AB X Sevenmile Creek Albany 1 2AB X Little Laramie River Albany 1 2AB X Browns Creek Albany 1 2AB X X Laramie River Albany 1 2AB X XS Dale Creek Albany 1 2AB X Lone Tree Creek Albany 1 2AB X 

Colorado 

South Platte River Logan 1 WW2 X X Chief Creek Yuma 1 CW1 X X X X X X 

North Fork Republican Yuma 4 CW1 X X X 

3.7-6
Table 3.7-4 Game Fish Occurrence and Fishery Classifications for Waterbodies Crossed by the Project 

Waterbody County 

Number of Crossings

Fishery Classification1 

Brook Trout 

Brown Trout 

Cutthroat Trout 

(Snake River) 

Kokanee Salmon 

Walleye

Rainbow Trout 

Smallmouth bass

Largemouth Bass

White Crappie

Black Crappie 

Bluegill

Sunfish Species

Channel Catfish 

River Arikaree River Yuma 1 WW1 X 

Kansas 

South Fork Republican River 

Cheyenne 1 S 

X 

X X X 

Beaver Creek Rawlins 1 E X X Saline River Graham 3 E X X X Plum Creek Trego 1 E X X X Big Creek Trego 1 E X X X X X Smokey Hill River Ellis 1 E X X X X X X Plum Creek Ellsworth 6 E X X X X Little Cow Creek Tributary 

Rice 1 E X X X X X 

Little Arkansas River Rice 1 E X X X X 

1Fishery classifications: 

Wyoming - Class 2 (Fisheries and Drinking Waters); AB = support game fish. 

Colorado - CW (Coldwater) and WW (Warmwater) Class 1 or 2. Class 1 defined as waters currently capable of sustaining a wide variety of coldwater 

including special status species, or could support species if water quality conditions were corrected. Class 2 defined as waters that are not capable ocoldwater or warmwater biota including special status species due to physical, habitat, water flows or levels, or uncorrectable water quality conditions

Kansas – S = special aquatic life use; E = expected aquatic life use. 

2”S” denotes stocked species by WGFD. 

Sources of fish occurrence: WGFD 2005b, 2006; Keith 2006; Snigg 2006; CDOW 2006; Swigle 2006a,b; Scoyoc 2006; KDWP 2006. 

3.7-7
Table 3.7-5 Game Fish Spawning Periods and Habitat 

Months1 

Species or Group J F M A M JJA S O N D Spawning Habitat

2 

Brook trout Stream spawners that use gravel substrates and 

spring upwelling areas. 

Brown trout Stream spawners that use tributary streams with 

gravel substrates in riffle-run areas. 

Cutthroat trout Stream spawners that use tributary streams with 

gravel substrates in riffle areas. 

Rainbow trout Stream spawners that use gravel substrates at 

head of riffle or downstream portion of pool. 

Kokanee salmon Generally select gravel beds in tributary streams 

or shorelines in lakes/reservoirs. 

Walleye Spawn in lakes and streams in shallow water 

over rock substrates. 

Bullheads (Black and 

Yellow) 

Usually spawn in weedy or muddy shallow areas 

by building nests. 

Channel catfish Prefers areas with structure such as rock ledges, 

undercut banks, logs, or other structure where it 

builds nests. 

Flathead Catfish Nest builders with habitat similar to channel 

catfish. 

Freshwater drum Buoyant eggs drift in river currents during 

development. 

Largemouth bass Shallow areas over clean gravel and sand 

bottoms. 

Smallmouth bass Builds nests in shallow areas over boulder, 

cobble, or gravel substrates. 

Crappies Eggs deposited in depressions on bottom in 

cove or embayments. 

Sunfishes Nest builders in diverse substrates and shallow 

depths. 

White bass Egg masses deposited over sand bars, 

submerged vegetation, or other instream debris. 

1

Spawning periods are approximate and could occur in only a portion of a particular month. 

2

Sources: Baxter and Simon 1970; Eddy and Underhill 1974; Hickman and Raleigh 1982; Raleigh et al. 1984; Raleigh et al. 1986; and 

Raleigh 1982. 

Amphibians and Turtles. Species that potentially occur in the proposed pipeline route include tiger 

salamander, plains spadefoot toad, Great Basin spadefoot toad, boreal toad, Woodhouse’s toad, bullfrog, 

northern leopard frog, western spiny softshell, ornate box turtle, western painted turtle, and snapping turtle 

(Cerovski et al. 2004). All of these species potentially use flooded areas, wetlands, streams, and seasonally 

dry lakes in the spring and early summer for breeding. Most of the frog and turtle species are associated with 

aquatic habitats throughout the year. Aquatic habitats in the portion of the state crossed by the proposed 

pipeline route usually support four or five amphibian species (Merrill et al. 1996). The highest number of 

species usually occurs in aquatic habitats near Laramie (up to seven species) (Cerovski et al. 2004). 

Colorado 

Fish. There would be 10 perennial stream crossings along the proposed pipeline route. Four of the perennial 

streams crossed support game fish populations (South Platte River, Chief Creek, North Fork Republican River, 

and the Arikaree River). The North Fork Republican River and Chief Creek are classified as coldwater fisheries 

3.7-8
as indicated by the presence of one or two trout species (Table 3.7-4). One or two warmwater species also 

occur in these two streams. The other perennial streams are considered warmwater fisheries with just one or 

two game species (green sunfish, black bullhead, or yellow bullhead). Five additional streams (Lone Tree 

Creek, North Sterling Creek, South Platte Ditch, and Sand Hill Creek) also are classified as warmwater 

nongame fisheries. Four of these streams (Chief Creek, North Sterling Creek, North Fork Republican River, 

and Arikaree River) are considered Class 1 waters, which in Colorado are defined as waters currently capable 

of sustaining a wide variety of coldwater or warmwater biota including special status species, or waters 

capable of supporting species if water quality conditions were corrected. Six relatively small unnamed dry 

lakes also would be crossed by the proposed pipeline route. Game fish species are not known to occur in 

these sites. 

Whirling disease is widespread throughout Colorado drainages. Of the streams that would be crossed by the 

proposed pipeline route in Colorado, Chief Creek and the North Fork of the Republican River are the only 

waterbodies with no detection of whirling disease (Walker 2006). 

Amphibians and Turtles. Aquatic habitats in the Colorado portion of the project study area could support tiger 

salamander, Great Plains toad, plains spadefoot, Woodhouse’s toad, western chorus frog, bullfrog, plains 

leopard frog, northern leopard frog, and northern cricket frog (Livo et al. 2000). Turtle species could include the 

same species listed for Wyoming plus yellow mud turtle. The types of habitats and breeding periods are 

described in the Wyoming section. 

Kansas 

Fish. There are 17 perennial stream crossings along the proposed pipeline route in Kansas. Nine of the 

steams crossed contain game fish species (Table 3.7-4), all of which are considered warmwater fisheries, with 

the number of game fish species ranging from 2 to 10 species. The most diverse game fish communities 

occurs in the Smokey Hill River and the Saline River, with 10 and 7 species, respectively. The major fish 

groups represented in these streams include sunfishes (bluegill, green sunfish, largemouth bass, and white 

crappie), catfishes (black bullhead, channel catfish, and flathead catfish), and drums (freshwater drum). One 

waterbody (South Fork Republican River) has been classified as a “special aquatic life use water” by the 

KDHE, which is known to contain habitat or indigenous biota not commonly found in Kansas or representative 

populations of threatened and endangered species. Species associated with this stream are discussed in 

Section 3.7.1.3. The other streams are classified as “expected aquatic life use.” One unnamed seasonally dry 

lake also would be crossed by the pipeline route, but it is not known to contain game fish species. 

Disease or nuisance organism concerns in Kansas are limited to the presence of zebra mussels. Whirling 

disease is not known to occur in the state (Johnson 2006). 

Amphibians and Turtles. In Kansas, wetlands, ditches, streams, and seasonally dry lake crossed by the 

proposed pipeline route also could contain amphibians and turtles. Potential amphibian species include Great 

Plains toad, Woodhouse’s toad, northern cricket frog, spotted chorus frog, boreal chorus frog, Great Plains 

narrowmouth toad, plains leopard frog, bullfrog, and plains spadefoot (Taggert 2006). The same turtle species 

listed for Colorado, plus northern painted turtle, eastern box turtle, slider, and smooth softshell, potentially 

occur in Kansas. 

3.7.1.3 Special Status Species 

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

protection by law, regulation, or policy. Included in this category are federally listed and federally proposed 

species that are protected under the ESA or are considered as candidates for such listing by the USFWS, and 

those species that are state-listed as threatened or endangered. 

Also included in this category are species with designated categories that the BLM, USFS, Wyoming, 

Colorado, and Kansas have determined to be rare or vulnerable. The BLM and USFS designate these species 

3.7-9
as “sensitive.” Colorado designates these species as “species of concern,” Kansas as “species in need of 

conservation,” and Wyoming as “critically imperiled” (NSS1) or “imperiled” (NSS2). 

In accordance with Section 7 of the ESA, the BLM as the lead federal agency in consultation with the USFWS, 

would ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the applicant does not jeopardize the 

existence of a federally listed threatened or endangered species, or result in the adverse modification of the 

designated Critical Habitat of a federally listed species. In addition, as stated in Special Status Species 

Management Policy 6840 (Policy 6840) (Rel. 6-121), it is BLM policy “to conserve listed species and the 

ecosystems on which they depend, and to ensure that actions requiring authorization or approval by the BLM 

are consistent with the conservation needs of special status species and do not contribute to the need to list 

any special status species, either under the provisions of the ESA, or other provisions” identified in 

Policy 6840. 

A total of 150 special status species were identified as potentially occurring within the project area (USFWS 

2005; BLM 2002a, 2006a,b; WDGF 2005c,d; WYNDD 2005; KDWP 2005; CDOW 2006). These species, their 

associated habitats, and their potential for occurrence along the proposed pipeline route are summarized in 

Appendix I, Table I-1. Occurrence potential along the proposed pipeline route was evaluated for each species 

based on its habitat requirements and/or known distribution. Under this analysis 96 special status species 

were identified as occurring within the immediate vicinity of the proposed pipeline route. These species and 

their potential for occurrence along the proposed pipeline route are summarized in Appendix I, Table I-2. A 

detailed description of these species is located in the BA and in the BR/BE. 

Wildlife 

Wyoming. Within the Wyoming portion of the proposed pipeline route, three federally listed endangered, 

threatened, or candidate bird species and two mammal species have been retained for detailed analysis. 

These species include black-footed ferret, Preble’s meadow jumping mouse, yellow-billed cuckoo, whooping 

crane, and piping plover. An additional 25 special status birds, 12 mammals, and 5 reptiles have been retained 

for detailed analysis. These species are discussed in detail in the BA and in the BR/BE. Approximately 

189 miles of sage grouse habitat would be crossed in Wyoming, 48.9 miles of which would be new greenfield 

ROW construction. Downstream portions of the Platte River drainage also contain habitat for the federally 

listed whooping crane, piping plover, and western prairie fringed orchid. 

Colorado. Within Colorado, three federally listed endangered, threatened, or candidate bird species and two 

mammal species have been retained for detailed analysis. These species include black-footed ferret, Preble’s 

meadow jumping mouse, whooping crane, piping plover, and interior least tern. One additional bird species 

listed as threatened by the state of Colorado has been retained. Eighteen special status birds, 10 mammals, 

and 6 reptiles have been retained for detailed analysis. These species are discussed in detail in the BA and in 

the BR/BE. 

Kansas. Within Kansas, three federally listed endangered, threatened, or candidate bird species and one 

mammal species have been retained for detailed analysis. These species include black-footed ferret, 

whooping crane, piping plover, and lesser prairie chicken. Two bird and one mammal species listed as 

threatened or endangered by the state of Kansas have been retained. An additional 13 special status birds, 

4 mammals, and 4 reptiles have been retained for detailed analysis. These species are discussed in detail in 

the BA and in the BR/BE. 

Aquatic Resources 

Wyoming. No federal-listed fish species occur at or within several miles downstream of waterbodies crossed 

by the proposed pipeline route in Wyoming. However, downstream portions of the Green River contain 

occupied and critical habitat for four federally listed fish species: Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, 

humpback chub, and bonytail. The upper end of the critical habitat reach for all four species is the confluence 

between the Green and Yampa rivers. The distance from the proposed Green River pipeline crossing to the 

confluence with the Yampa River is approximately 75 miles. The Green River downstream of the Yampa River 

3.7-10
is known to support larvae, juvenile, and adult Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker. The occurrence of 

humpback chub and bonytail is limited to a few individuals in canyon areas (Desolation and Gray Canyons), 

which are located further downstream of the Yampa River confluence. 

The Wyoming portion of the proposed pipeline route also crosses waterbodies that contain habitat for four fish 

species with Wyoming or BLM sensitive species status. Known or potential occurrence is listed below for each 

special status fish species. No USFS sensitive or MIS occur in the Green River portion of the ANF. 

• Flannelmouth sucker – Hams Fork River, Blacks Fork River, Green River, Bitter Creek; 

• Bluehead sucker – Hams Fork River, Blacks Fork River, Green River; 

• Leatherside chub – Green River; and 

• Roundtail chub – Hams Fork Creek, Blacks Fork River, Green River, Bitter Creek. 

Colorado. No federal-listed fish species occur at or within several miles downstream of waterbodies crossed 

by the proposed pipeline route in Colorado. However, downstream portions of the Platte River contain 

occupied and critical habitat for one federally listed fish species, the pallid sturgeon. This species has been 

collected in the Lower Platte River, defined as downstream of the mouth of the Elkhorn River. The upper end 

of occupied habitat for the pallid sturgeon is more than 350 miles downstream of the South Platte River 

crossing. 

Three state-listed and two species of special concern fish species potentially occur in waterbodies crossed by 

the proposed pipeline route in Colorado, as listed below. 

Colorado Listed Species 

• Brassy minnow – South Platte, North Fork Republican, and Arikaree rivers; 

• Suckermouth minnow – South Platte River, Arikaree River; and 

• Plains minnow – South Platte and Republican rivers. 

Colorado Species of Special Concern 

• Orangethroat darter – Known occurrence in Chief Creek and North Fork Republican River; and 

• Stonecat – Potential occurrence in North Fork Republican River. 

Kansas. No federal or state-listed fish species occur at or within several miles downstream of waterbodies 

crossed by the proposed pipeline route in Kansas. One special status fish species, brassy minnow, potentially 

occurs in the headwaters of the Republican River, including the South Fork Republican River. 

Amphibians and Turtles. Seven amphibians and one turtle species were identified as potentially occurring 

within the project study area. The amphibians included three toad species (Wyoming toad, Great Basin 

spadefoot toad, and Western boreal toad) and four frog species (spotted frog, northern leopard frog, northern 

cricket frog, and plains leopard frog). The special status turtle species is the yellow mud turtle. The special 

status of species retained for detailed analysis and potential occurrence by state are provided in Table 3.7-7. 

Toad species, such as Great Basin spadefoot, utilize aquatic habitats only during the breeding period and 

early life development in the spring and early summer and during development of young. Other toad species 

are more closely associated with aquatic habitats throughout their life cycle, although adults also utilize 

terrestrial habitats. Toad species migrate to aquatic areas during breeding. The frog and turtle species utilize 

aquatic habitats throughout the year. The following discussion describes amphibian and turtle occurrence by 

state. 

3.7-11
Wyoming. Within the Wyoming portion of the proposed pipeline route, five special status amphibians could 

utilize or occur in aquatic habitats. The relative occurrence potential and locations are listed below, based on 

information from Cerovski et al. (2004): 

• Wyoming toad – Low potential occurrence in the Laramie River drainage; 

• Great Basin spadefoot toad – High potential occurrence in sagebrush communities and aquatic 

habitats during breeding below 6,000 feet in the western and central portion of the proposed pipeline 

route; 

• Spotted frog – Low occurrence in ponds or small streams in the western portion of the proposed 

pipeline route; 

• Boreal toad – Moderate potential occurrence in wet areas at 11 segments (totaling approximately 

5.3 miles) between RP 223.8 and RP 308.2 (elevations above approximately 7,500 feet); and 

• Northern leopard frog – High potential occurrence in wetlands, ponds, and streams up to elevations of 

9,000 feet. 

Colorado. Four special status amphibians and one turtle species potentially occur within the Colorado portion 

of the proposed pipeline route. The relative occurrence potential and locations are listed below, based on 

information from Livo et al. (2000): 

• Northern leopard frog – Low potential occurrence in wetlands, ponds, and streams in Weld, Yuma, 

Washington, and Morgan counties; 

• Plains leopard frog – Low potential occurrence in wetlands, ponds, or streams in Yuma County; 

• Northern cricket frog – Low potential occurrence in streams and impoundments in Yuma and Morgan 

counties; and 

• Yellow mud turtle – Moderate potential occurrence wetlands and ponds in Yuma County. 

Kansas. No special status amphibians or turtle species occur along the Kansas portion of the proposed 

pipeline route. 

Plants 

No unique, sensitive or protected vegetation communities were identified within the project area in any of the 

states crossed, although unique or sensitive plant communities may be identified during pre-construction 

surveys. A complete description of special status plant species, including habitat associations and potential for 

occurrence along the proposed pipeline route may be found in Appendix I, Tables I-1 and I-2 and in the BA 

and in the BR/BE associated with this project. 

3.7.2 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative 

3.7.2.1 Wildlife 

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

habitat along the Proposed Action route. Big game, small game, and non-game species occurrence along the 

alternative route would be similar to the Proposed Action. This alternative does cross habitat with more 

significant vertical relief, therefore, cliff associated species may have greater potential to occur along this 

alternative. Species documented in the vicinity of the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass 

Alternative include white-tailed prairie dog, brewer’s sparrow, sage sparrow, and sage thrasher. The proposed 

Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative would not occur within lands administered by 

the USFS, therefore, MIS species are not considered under this alternative. 

3.7-12
3.7.2.2 Aquatic Resources 

Three perennial streams are crossed by the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative: 

Little Bitter Creek; unnamed tributary to Little Bitter Creek; and Cedar Creek (two crossings). No game fish 

species occur in any of these streams. 

Perennial streams and wetlands crossed by the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative 

provide potential habitat for amphibians and turtles. Species that could be present include tiger salamander, 

plains spadefoot toad, Great Basin spadefoot toad, Woodhouse’s toad, bullfrog, spiny softshell, ornate box 

turtle, western painted turtle, and snapping turtle (Cerovski et al. 2004). 

3.7.2.3 Special Status Species 

Perennial streams crossed by the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative do not contain 

special status fish species. Wildlife special status species occurrence is similar to the Proposed Action, 

including sage sparrow, sage thrasher, Brewer’s sparrow, and northern leopard frog. White-tailed prairie dog 

may occur in the vicinity of this alternative. Two special status amphibians species, Great Basin spadefoot 

toad and spotted frog, could potentially occur in wetlands or stream segments crossed by the Southern Energy 

Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative. Examples of special status species with sagebrush steppe and 

desert scrub association may include greater sage grouse, burrowing owl, mountain plover, ferruginous hawk, 

sage sparrow, sage thrasher, Brewer’s sparrow, loggerhead shrike, Idaho pocket gopher, swift fox, pygmy 

rabbit, Great Basin spadefoot toad, and midget faded rattlesnake along this alternative. Special status plant 

species would be similar to those along the Proposed Action route. 

3.7-13
3.8 Land Use, Recreation, and Aesthetics 

3.8.1 Proposed Action 

3.8.1.1 Land Ownership and Use 

Land Ownership 

Approximately 21 percent (160 miles) of the land crossed by the proposed pipeline route and aboveground 

facilities is managed or owned by public entities. Of the public land total, the majority is federally managed, 

while a smaller portion is managed or owned by the states or local municipalities. The federal lands are 

entirely managed by the BLM or the USFS. The remaining 79 percent (597 miles) of the proposed pipeline 

route would cross privately owned land. Table 3.8-1 summarizes public land ownerships that would be 

crossed by the proposed pipeline route. 

Table 3.8-1 Summary of Federal, State, and Locally Owned Land Crossed by the Proposed 

Pipeline Route 

State/Ownership 

Approximate Crossing 

Length (miles) Percent of Total Length 

Wyoming 

Federal 100.8 13 

 State/Local 25.3 3 

Wyoming Subtotal 126.1 17 

Colorado 

Federal 22.4 3 

 State/Local 11.7 2 

Colorado Subtotal 34.1 4 

Project Total 160.2 21 

Wyoming. Federal lands crossed in Wyoming are managed by the BLM and USFS. State lands that would be 

crossed in Wyoming are owned or managed by the State of Wyoming (including the Wyoming Highway 

Commission and the Wyoming Department of Corrections), the WGFD or the Wyoming Office of State Lands. 

Local government owners/managers consist of municipalities. Public land in Wyoming that would be crossed 

by the proposed pipeline route generally is managed for wildlife habitat, recreational uses, or leased to private 

tenants for livestock grazing. One federally managed recreation area would be crossed, the FGNRA, which is 

under the direction of the USFS. 

Colorado. Federal lands crossed in Colorado are managed by the USFS. State lands in Colorado crossed by 

the proposed pipeline route are owned or managed by the Colorado State Land Board. A total of 34.1 publicly 

managed miles would be crossed in Colorado. Land owned by the State of Colorado that would be crossed by 

the proposed pipeline route is primarily managed for grazing cattle. A portion of the lands are special interest 

areas and are discussed in Section 3.7.3. 

Kansas. No publicly owned lands are crossed by the proposed pipeline in Kansas. 

Existing Land Use 

Land types potentially affected by the project were assigned a land use classification based on the principal 

land characteristic in a given area. Aerial photography, USGS topographic maps, and field reconnaissance 

were used to identify six general land uses for the project area. These land uses are: 

3.8-1
• Rangeland consisting of grasslands, pasture, livestock (e.g., sheep, cattle) grazing areas, and 

shrublands. Within the proposed pipeline route area, rangeland is typically used for livestock grazing. 

Grazing is permitted in specific allotments that are managed by the BLM, USFS, State of Wyoming, 

the State of Colorado, or private landowners. This is the predominant land use type that would be 

crossed by the proposed pipeline route (514.4 miles; 68 percent). 

• Agricultural land consisting of irrigated hay meadows and farmlands where native vegetation is no 

longer evident, and crop production is apparent. Primary crops are grains and alfalfa, with some crop 

land dry-farmed and other areas under irrigation, including pivot irrigation (13.5 miles total). 

Agricultural land may have existing subsurface drainage systems (drain tiles) where hydric soils exist. 

The proposed pipeline route will affect approximately 72 acres (approximately 1 percent of total area) 

of hydric soils. Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands and disturbed areas containing 

non-desirable forb species adjacent to agricultural areas also are included in this land use 

classification. The proposed pipeline route would cross a total of 235.1 miles of agricultural land, or 

31 percent of the total proposed pipeline route. 

• Open land consists of bare rock, sand, clay, dry wash areas, and non-forested wetlands (2.9 miles; 

less than 1 percent). 

• Forest land consists of mainly non-agricultural wooded uplands such as aspen woodlands, juniper 

woodlands, pine woodlands, and planted trees. Additionally, palustrine forested wetlands are grouped 

under this land use classification. The total forest land crossed by the proposed pipeline route is 

9.2 miles, or approximately 1 percent of the total proposed pipeline route. None of the forest land is 

managed for timber production. 

• Developed land includes both residential and commercial land. Residential land consists of existing 

developed residential areas that include single and multiple family dwellings in subdivisions as well as 

in rural areas. This category includes homes and landscaped areas associated with a residence. 

Commercial land consists of community features (cemeteries, schools, churches, hospitals) and 

industrial developments (utility stations, rock quarries, railroad crossings, road crossings). The total 

developed land crossed by the proposed pipeline route would be 2.8 miles (less than 1 percent). 

• Table 3.8-2 identifies the number of structures located within 50 feet of the construction work area for 

the proposed pipeline route by county and state. Approximately 83 percent of the pipeline would be 

co-located with existing pipeline, utility or road ROWs. 

• Open water consists of waterbody crossings 100 feet or greater in width. The proposed pipeline route 

would cross 0.3 mile of open water. 

Table 3.8-2 Summary of Structures Within 50 feet of the Construction Work Area for 

the Proposed Action 

State 

Number of Structures Within 50 feet of the 

Construction Work Area 

Wyoming 

Lincoln 2 

Sweetwater 2 

Carbon 3 

Albany 2 

Wyoming Subtotal 9 

Colorado 

Weld 2 

Logan 3 

Washington 3 

Yuma 4 

Colorado Subtotal 12 

3.8-2
Table 3.8-2 Summary of Structures Within 50 feet of the Construction Work Area for 

the Proposed Action 

State 

Number of Structures Within 50 feet of the 

Construction Work Area 

Kansas 

Cheyenne 2 

Rawlins 1 

Sheridan 4 

Gove 1 

Trego 2 

Ellis 2 

Barton 4 

Rice 3 

Kansas Subtotal 19 

Project Total 40 

Wyoming. Each specific land use type located in the project area in Wyoming is identified and discussed in 

detail below and shown on Table 3.8-3. 

• Rangeland – In Wyoming, 96.9 miles of federally owned rangeland and 212.9 miles of privately held 

rangeland is crossed by the proposed pipeline route. More than 50 percent of this land is in 

Sweetwater County in the southcentral portion of Wyoming. Rangeland consists of grasslands, 

pasture, shrublands, and livestock grazing areas. The proposed pipeline route crosses several tracts 

of land that are owned and administered by the Board of Land Commissioners and BLM for grazing. 

• Agricultural land – Wyoming agricultural land is characterized by irrigated hay meadows and 

farmlands where native vegetation is no longer evident and crop production is apparent. Major 

agricultural crops include spring wheat, barley, oats, dry beans, sugar beets, alfalfa hay, and corn 

(Wyoming Agricultural Statistics 2006). No pivot irrigated crop land is crossed by the proposed 

pipeline route in Wyoming. The majority of hydric soils crossed by the proposed pipeline route are in 

Wyoming (5.4 miles), with 3.3 miles in Albany County. Few, if any drain tiles are anticipated on the 

proposed pipeline route. 

• Open land – Approximately 2.8 miles of open land crossed in Wyoming comprises all of the open land 

crossed by the proposed pipeline route. A little over 54 percent of the open land crossed by the 

proposed pipeline route is in Sweetwater County (1.5 miles). The remainder of open lands crossed 

occur in Lincoln County (0.8 mile), with small sections scattered throughout Carbon, Albany, and 

Laramie counties (less than 1 mile combined). 

• Forest land – In Wyoming, forest land makes up a relatively small percentage of the state. This cover 

type primarily occurs at high elevations in the southeastern part of the state area and includes aspen, 

juniper, limber pine, lodgepole pine, and spruce-fir. Some scattered patches of ponderosa pine exist 

between Laramie and Cheyenne, and cottonwood riparian communities occur at the major river 

crossings. A total of 5.7 miles of forest land in Albany, Carbon, Sweetwater, and Laramie counties 

would be crossed by the proposed pipeline route. 

• Developed land – In Wyoming, the proposed pipeline route crosses approximately 1 mile of developed 

land. No occupied residences within 50 feet of the ROW were identified along the proposed pipeline 

route. The developed land includes major road crossings, county road crossings, and railroad 

crossings. The majority of railroad lines crossed are owned by Union Pacific, though several other 

trains have rights to use these proposed pipeline routes. Generally, the pipeline corridor through 

Wyoming would run parallel to I-80. 

3.8-3
Table 3.8-3 Summary of Land Use Types Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline Route (miles) 

State/County 

Rangeland1 Agricultural2 Open3 Forest4 Developed5 Water6 

Federal Other Federal Other Federal Other Federal Other Federal Other Federal O

Wyoming 

Lincoln 10.1 10.7 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 <Sweetwater 55.5 78.3 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.4 2.1 2.4 0.2 0.1 <0.1 <Carbon 29.1 59.3 0.0 1.9 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.6 <0.1 0.3 0.0 Albany 2.1 45.3 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.0 <Laramie 0.0 19.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 <0.1 0.0 

Subtotal7 96.9 212.9 0.0 7.6 1.6 1.2 2.1 3.6 0.2 0.8 <0.1 

Colorado 

Larimer 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Weld 22.3 50.5 <0.1 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 0.0 Morgan 0.0 6.8 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Logan 0.0 6.5 0.0 2.8 0.0 <0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 Washington 0.0 13.4 0.0 15.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 Yuma 0.0 26.1 0.0 17.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 <

Subtotal7 22.3 103.2 <0.1 44.7 0.0 <0.1 0.0 0.6 <0.1 0.7 0.0 

Kansas 

Cheyenne 0.0 16.4 0.0 22.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 <0.1 0.0 Rawlins 0.0 5.6 0.0 13.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.0 <0.1 0.0 Thomas 0.0 3.5 0.0 21.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.0 <0.1 0.0 Sheridan 0.0 10.2 0.0 24.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 Gove 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Trego 0.0 14.6 0.0 20.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 Ellis 0.0 13.1 0.0 19.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 <Russell 0.0 2.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Barton 0.0 5.6 0.0 22.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 <0.1 0.0 Ellsworth 0.0 1.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 <0.1 0.0 

3.8-4
Table 3.8-3 Summary of Land Use Types Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline Route (miles) 

State/County 

Rangeland1 Agricultural2 Open3 Forest4 Developed5 Water6 

Federal Other Federal Other Federal Other Federal Other Federal Other Federal O

Rice 0.0 1.0 0.0 25.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 McPherson 0.0 0.1 0.0 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 

Subtotal7 0.0 74.1 0.0 182.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 1.1 0.0 

Project Totalg 119.2 390.3 <0.1 235.1 1.6 1.3 2.1 7.1 0.3 2.6 <0.1 1Rangeland consists of grasslands, pasture, livestock grazing areas, and shrublands. 2Agricultural land consists of irrigated farmlands where crop production is apparent and disturbed areas containing non-desirable forb species adjacent to ag3Open land consists of bare rock, sand, clay, dry wash areas, and non-forested wetlands.4Forest land consists mainly of non-agricultural wooded uplands. 5Developed land consists of existing residential developments and existing commercial development such as utility stations, rock quarries, railroad crossings6Open water consists of waterbody crossings 100 feet or greater in width. 7The numbers in this table have been rounded for presentation purposes. As a result, the totals may not reflect the exact sum of the addends in all cases. Note: Vegetation characteristics were taken from a large-scale USGS land use/land cover GIS-based map (http://www.mrlc.gov). 

3.8-5
• Two commercial structures in Lincoln County would be located within 25 feet of the proposed pipeline 

centerline and another structure would be located within 50 feet of the centerline. In Sweetwater 

County, the proposed pipeline route would pass within 50 feet of two commercial structures, and 

Albany and Carbon counties would have two and three commercial structures, respectively, within 

50 feet of the proposed pipeline route (Table 3.8-2). The proposed pipeline route would be co-located 

with existing ROW for approximately 260 miles (78 percent of the total) through Wyoming. 

Colorado. Each specific land use type located in the project area in Colorado is identified and discussed in 

detail below and shown on Table 3.8-3. 

• Rangeland – In Colorado, the proposed pipeline route would cross approximately 125.5 miles of 

rangeland. The majority of this rangeland (72.8 miles) is located in Weld County, and of this, 

22.4 miles are federally owned land. 

• Agricultural land – In Colorado, agricultural land is characterized by irrigated hay meadows and 

farmlands where native vegetation is no longer evident and crop production is apparent. Major crops 

include grains and alfalfa. Approximately 44.8 miles of agricultural land would be crossed in Colorado 

by the proposed pipeline route. The greatest number of miles would occur in Yuma County 

(17.9 miles) and Washington County (15.6 miles). Of the total agricultural land crossed by the 

proposed pipeline route in Colorado, approximately 5.3 miles would cross pivot-irrigated crop land, all 

located in Yuma County. A total of 1.1 miles with hydric soils (with possible drain tiles) would be 

crossed in Colorado. 

• Open land – No open land would be crossed by the proposed pipeline route through Colorado. 

• Forest land – Of the approximately 172 miles of land crossed in Colorado, only 0.6 mile would be 

through forest land. These lands are not federally owned or managed. 

• Developed land – In Colorado, the proposed pipeline route would cross less than 1 mile of developed 

land. No occupied residences have been located along the proposed pipeline route within 50 feet of 

the ROW in Colorado. Two commercial structures within 50 feet of the centerline were identified in 

Weld County, three structures were identified in both Logan and Washington counties, with another 

four structures identified within 50 feet in Yuma County (Table 3.8-2). Within Colorado, major 

roadways, county roads, and railroad lines would be crossed. Approximately 88 percent (152 miles) of 

the miles across Colorado would be co-located with other ROWs. Of these, 146 miles are co-located 

with Southern Star. Remaining miles are co-located with other utilities and CR 84. 

Kansas. Each specific land use type located in the project area in Kansas is identified and discussed in detail 

below and shown on Table 3.8-3. 

• Rangeland – No public grazing leases would be crossed in Kansas, however, 74.1 miles of privately 

held rangeland would be crossed by the proposed pipeline route. More than half of this land area is 

split between Cheyenne, Trego, Ellis, and Sheridan counties. 

• Agricultural land – In Kansas, agricultural land is characterized by irrigated hay meadows and 

farmlands where native vegetation is no longer evident and crop production is apparent. Major crops 

include grains and alfalfa. A total of 182.8 miles of the 260.9 miles (70 percent) of pipeline in Kansas 

would cross agricultural land, including approximately 12 miles of pivot-irrigated crop land. In 

Cheyenne County, 2.9 miles of pivot-irrigated crop land would be crossed, while 1.8 miles would be 

crossed in Rawlins County, 4.7 miles would be crossed in Thomas County, and 2.6 miles would be 

crossed in Sheridan County. One and one-half miles with hydric soil (with possible drain tiles) would 

be located along the proposed pipeline route in Kansas. 

• Open land – No open land would be crossed by the proposed pipeline route through Kansas. 

• Forest land – The proposed pipeline route would cross through 2.9 miles of forested land in Kansas, 

spread across nearly all counties, with the highest number of miles (1.0 mile) occurring in Rice 

County. 

3.8-6
• Developed land – The proposed pipeline route would cross a total of 1.1 miles of developed land in 

Kansas. No occupied residences would be within 50 feet of the proposed construction area. A total of 

19 structures (ranging from farm buildings to sheds, to utility yards) were identified within 50 feet of the 

construction area in Cheyenne, Rawlins, Sheridan, Gove, Trego, Ellis, Barto, and Rice counties. 

Within Kansas, major roadways, county roads, and railroad lines would be crossed. A total of 212 of 

261.4 miles (83 percent) of Overland Pass pipeline would be co-located with existing ROWs. 

3.8.1.2 Congressional Designations and Special Management Areas 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Land 

Established in 1985 by the Congress, the Farm Service Agency’s (FSA) CRP is a voluntary program for 

agricultural landowners. Through CRP, participants can receive annual rental payments for 10 to 15 years and 

cost-share assistance to establish long-term, resource conserving covers on eligible farmland. Participating 

lands exhibit reduced soil erosion, improved water quality, and enhanced wildlife habitats. Nationally, CRP has 

735,494 contracts and has restored grasses and trees on over 36 million acres (FSA 2006). Lands must meet 

the following criteria in order for lands to be eligible for the CRP: 

• Cropland that has been planted or considered planted to an agricultural commodity 4 of the 6 years 

1996 though 2001; 

• Physically and legally capable of being planted in a normal manner to an agricultural commodity; 

• Marginal pasture land; 

• Have a weighted average Erosion Index of 8 or greater; 

• Be expiring CRP; or 

• Be located in a national or state CRP conservation priority area. 

In consultation with local offices of the NRCS and FSA in Wyoming, Colorado, and Kansas, Overland Pass 

identified lands classified as CRP within a 1-mile radius of the proposed pipeline route (NRG 2006). No CRP 

land was identified in Wyoming. The NRCS and FSA identified approximately 3.5 miles and 8.3 miles of CRP 

lands crossed in Colorado and Kansas, respectively. Table 3.8.4 identifies CRP lands crossed by the 

proposed pipeline route. 

Table 3.8-4 Conservation Reserve Program Land Crossed by the Proposed

Pipeline Route 

State/ County Miles 

Colorado 

Morgan 1.4 

Logan 0.7 

Washington 0.2 

Yuma 1.2 

Colorado Subtotal 3.5 

Kansas 

Cheyenne 2.4 

Thomas 0.3 

Sheridan 0.4 

Trego 0.4 

Sheridan 1.0 

Ellis 1.2 

Russell 1.0 

Barton 0.5 

Ellsworth 0.2 

3.8-7
Table 3.8-4 Conservation Reserve Program Land Crossed by the Proposed 

Pipeline Route 

State/ County Miles 

Rice 0.8 

McPherson 0.1 

Kansas Subtotal 8.3 

Project Total 11.8 

Recreational and Public Interest Areas 

Generally, recreation and special interest areas include federal, state, or county parks and forests; 

conservation lands; wildlife habitat management areas; hunter management areas; natural landmarks; scenic 

byways; designated trails; recreational rivers; and campgrounds. Recreation and special interest areas were 

identified by reviewing USGS topographic maps; DeLorme Gazetteers for Wyoming, Colorado, and Kansas 

(DeLorme 2001, 2002, 2003); WGFD and CDOW interactive maps; BLM RMP maps of the proposed project 

area; landowner records; PNG management area maps; and field reconnaissance. Other historic or culturally 

significant areas crossed by the proposed pipeline route (e.g., Cherokee Trail, Lincoln Highway, Union Pacific 

Railroad) are discussed in Section 3.9. 

No Wild and Scenic Rivers, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs), Designated Wilderness, or 

Wilderness Study Areas would be crossed by the proposed action. 

In addition to the federally managed lands, the proposed pipeline route traverses a total of four recreation and 

special interest areas. The Pawnee Pioneer Trails Scenic Byway is traversed in three locations. Table 3.8-5 

lists the location and land management agency responsible for each of these areas. 

Table 3.8-5 Recreation and Special Interest Areas Affected by the Proposed Pipeline Route 

State/County RP Name Ownership 

Wyoming 

Sweetwater 57.9-59.7 FGNRA USFS 

Carbon 178.5 Continental Divide National Scenic Trail USFS, BLM, National Park Service (NPS) 

Albany 271.7 Snowy Range Scenic Drive State of Wyoming 

Colorado 

Weld 357.6 Pawnee Pioneer Trails Scenic Byway State of Colorado 

Weld 387.2 Pawnee Pioneer Trails Scenic Byway State of Colorado 

Weld 387.8 Pawnee Pioneer Trails Scenic Byway State of Colorado 

Kansas 

Trego 625.8 Smokey Valley Scenic Byway State of Kansas 

Wyoming. Approximately 1.8 miles of the FGNRA, a federally managed recreation area, is crossed by the 

proposed pipeline route. The proposed pipeline route is proposed to cross the FGNRA at Cordwood and Davis 

Bottoms, near Green River, Wyoming. The FGNRA was established by Public Law 90-540 on October 1, 

1968. Construction and maintenance activities would comply with this law. 

The FGNRA is managed under the ANF LRMP. The ANF LRMP is intended to provide management direction 

for the many multiple uses of the national forest. Some of those multiple uses and resources include: outdoor 

recreation (i.e., four wheeling, kayaking/canoeing, and small game hunting), range, timber, watershed, fish and 

wildlife, minerals, wilderness, roadless areas, and cultural resources. During the winter, the area is mainly 

used for duck hunting and trapping. According to the ANF LRMP, the area crossed by the proposed pipeline 

route is allocated to the Northern Desert Management Area, Management Unit 5. The management unit 

3.8-8
encompasses land on both sides of the Green River. This area is managed to provide and encourage 

dispersed and river floating recreation activities. 

The proposed pipeline route crosses the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (CDT) at RP 178.5 in Carbon 

County, Wyoming. In November 1978, the Congressional Oversight Committee of the National Trails System 

designated the CDT as a National Scenic Trail. The CDT is a 3,100-mile-long trail, traveling from Canada to 

Mexico, through five western states, including approximately 1,900 miles of existing trails and primitive, 

seldom-used roads. A Comprehensive Plan for the CDT was completed in 1985 to serve as a coordinating 

document providing broad-based policy, guidelines, and standards for establishing and managing the CDT 

over time and in such a manner as to ensure its continued utility as a high quality national recreation facility. 

The plan also provides a continuous record of issues, concerns, and public attitudes identified as a result of 

public involvement regarding the development and management of the CDT in the early 1980s. In 1995, the 

Continental Divide Trail Alliance (CDTA), a non-profit organization, was developed to be devoted to the 

completion, maintenance, and protection of the CDT. In 1998, the CDTA set a goal to complete the CDT over 

the next 10 years. Allowable uses of the CDTA include hiking, mountain biking, horseback riding, and limited 

motor vehicle use. The BLM portion of the trail is 95 percent primitive two-track roads, 4 percent is improved 

roads, and 1 percent requires cross-country travel. Cross-country segments are closed to motorized vehicles. 

The proposed pipeline route also crosses the Snowy Range Scenic Drive at RP 271.7 in Albany County, 

Wyoming. The Snowy Range Scenic Drive, which travels through the Medicine Bow National Forest, is closed 

during the winter, and is used primarily by tourists during the summer. This road snakes through southeastern 

Wyoming and was designated as the second National Forest Scenic Byway in the U.S. The Snowy Range 

Scenic Byway is a 41-mile-long paved highway from Centennial over the rugged crest of the Medicine Bow 

Mountains to the North Platte River Valley. The Snowy Range Scenic Byway crosses the Snowy Range, a 

rugged segment of the Rocky Mountains chain that reaches well above timberline into a glacier-carved 

landscape, over the second highest highway pass in Wyoming. 

The proposed pipeline route crosses the Salt Wells Wild Horse Herd Management Area within the Rock 

Springs BLM District between approximate RP 64.1 and RP 110.5. 

Colorado. The proposed pipeline route crosses approximately 22.4 miles of lands in the PNG in Weld County, 

Colorado that are under the jurisdiction of the USFS. These lands are managed under the 1997 Revision of 

the LRMP for the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and PNG. 

Recreation uses within the PNG include scenic driving (on open roads only), cross-country hiking, horseback 

riding, mountain biking, off-highway vehicle (OHV) use (OHVs are restricted to the Main OHV area; their use is 

prohibited on the rest of the PNG), as well as camping, picnicking, bird watching, and hunting at established 

recreational sites. No designated trails are crossed by the proposed pipeline route within the PNG. 

One specific area of interest is the Pawnee Pioneer Trails Scenic Byway, which the proposed pipeline route 

crosses at RP 357.6, RP 387.2, and RP 387.8 in Weld County. The Pawnee Pioneer Trails Scenic Byway 

travels through the PNG and is used mostly by traffic along Colorado State Routes 40 and 52 and tourists. 

Bird-watching is one of the most popular attractions on the Pawnee Pioneer Trails Scenic Byway. 

Kansas. No federally managed or recreational areas are crossed in Kansas. The proposed pipeline route 

crosses the Smokey Valley Scenic Byway at RP 625.8 in Trego County, Kansas. The Smokey Valley Scenic 

Byway travels around the Cedar Bluff State Park (which the project will not affect), and is used primarily by 

traffic on State Route 283 and by tourists. The byway offers tourists viewing of native wildflowers and grasses 

through the seasons. 

3.8-9
3.8.1.3 Aesthetics 

Existing Visual Environment 

Private lands crossed by the proposed pipeline route are not subject to federal or state visual management 

standards. Visual resources on private lands are a function of geology, climate, and historical processes and 

are influenced by topographic relief, vegetation, water, wildlife, land use, human uses, and development. The 

primary land use on private lands crossed by the proposed pipeline route is rangeland. The topography varies 

along the proposed pipeline route from rolling hills in Wyoming and eastern Colorado to flat agricultural fields in 

Kansas. The proposed pipeline route also crosses drainages and washes associated with intermittent streams 

throughout the proposed project area. 

Public lands affected by the proposed pipeline route consist primarily of BLM-administered land. The BLM has 

an RMP for each resource area crossed by the proposed pipeline route and each RMP includes a visual 

resource management (VRM) standard. BLM land is managed to maintain the quality of scenic and visual 

resources. VRM classes are assigned to the various landscapes in each of the BLM’s resource areas. The 

BLM VRM Classes Range from Class I to Class V, with Class I being the most restrictive and Class V being 

the least restrictive. 

The USFS uses a Scenery Management System (SMS) to inventory, classify, and manage lands for visual 

resource values. Based on an inventory and evaluation of visual resources associated with national forest 

lands, SMS criteria are established to provide a measurable standard or objective form for management of 

visual resources. SMS criteria indicate the acceptable degree of landscape alteration and classify land in one 

of five categories: preservation, retention, partial retention, modification, or maximum modification. 

BLM VRM and USFS SMS classifications for federally managed land crossed by the proposed pipeline route 

are provided in Table 3.8-6. 

Table 3.8-6 BLM VRM and USFS SMS Classifications for Areas Crossed by the Proposed

Pipeline Route 

Agency/Field Office 

Reference Point 

Begin End VRM/SMS Class 

BLM1 

Kemmerer Field Office 0.0 1.6 Class II 

 1.6 23.6 Class IV 

23.6 42.8 Class III 

Rock Springs Field Office 42.8 48.2 Class III 

48.2 50.3 Class IV 

50.3 55.4 Class III 

55.4 58.5 Class IV 

58.5 59.2 Class III 

59.2 60.4 Class II 

60.4 65.6 Class III 

 65.6 105.2 Class IV 

 105.2 110.4 Class V 

Rawlins Field Office 110.4 110.8 Class IV 

 110.8 155.5 Class IV 

 155.5 161.0 Class III 

 161.0 172.9 Class IV 

 172.9 256.6 Class III 

 256.6 256.8 Class IV 

 256.8 317.9 Class III 

3.8-10
Table 3.8-6 BLM VRM and USFS SMS Classifications for Areas Crossed by the Proposed 

Pipeline Route 

Agency/Field Office 

Reference Point 

Begin End VRM/SMS Class 

USFS2 

FGNRA and ANF 57.0 59.6 Retention 

PNG 336.7 338.9 Partial Retention 

 339.1 340.1 Partial Retention 

 341.0 342.6 Partial Retention 

 343.4 344.2 Partial Retention 

 344.2 344.4 Partial Retention 

 344.4 344.6 Partial Retention 

 344.6 346.9 Partial Retention 

 346.9 348.9 Partial Retention 

 351.3 351.8 Partial Retention 

 352.4 352.6 Partial Retention 

 353.0 353.8 Partial Retention 

 355.0 356.0 Partial Retention 

 371.5 374.5 Partial Retention 

 375.5 376.0 Partial Retention 

 376.0 376.5 Partial Retention 

 380.0 381.4 Partial Retention 

 381.4 383.9 Partial Retention 

 385.4 386.9 Partial Retention 

 386.9 387.1 Modification 

1

All reference points were identified utilizing digital VRM data provided by respective BLM field offices. VRM classifications are 

applicable only to BLM lands within the listed range of RPs. 

2

The USFS uses SMS classification and management areas (USFS 1997). 

The BLM-managed lands that will be crossed by the proposed pipeline route range between Class II and 

Class IV, with Class IV being the predominant VRM class affected. The objectives of these BLM VRM classes 

are: 

Class II To retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic 

landscape should be low. Management activities may be seen, but should not attract the 

attention of the casual observer. Any changes must repeat the basic elements of form, line, 

color, and texture found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape. 

Class III To partially retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the 

characteristic landscape should be moderate. Management activities may attract attention but 

should not dominate the view of the casual observer. Changes should repeat the basic 

elements found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape. 

Class IV To provide for management activities which require major modification of the existing 

character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape can be high. 

These management activities may dominate the view and be the major focus of viewer 

attention. However, every attempt should be made to minimize the impact of these activities 

through careful location, minimal disturbance, and repeating the basic elements. 

The proposed pipeline route crosses one area classified as a retention area in the ANF and FGNRA. All but 

one of the USFS-managed lands crossed by the proposed pipeline route on the PNG are classified as partial 

retention areas. There is one area that has a SMS class of modification. The objectives of the SMS visual 

classifications are: 

3.8-11
Retention Human activities are visible but not evident. 

Partial Retention Alterations to the natural landscape may be apparent, but they are visually 

subordinate to natural features. Management activities such as timber harvest and 

roading may occur, but must be designed so they blend into the natural landscape. 

Includes areas where changes in the basic elements (form, line, color, or texture) 

caused by a management activity may be evident in the characteristic landscape. 

However, the changes should remain subordinate to the visual strength of the 

existing character. 

Modification Management activities may be visually dominant. They must be harmonious with 

features of the natural landscape, in their size, form, and linear characteristics. 

Recreation developments, timber harvest units, and roads are examples of elements 

that may be found in a landscape that meets this SMS. Alterations to the landscape 

may not be in glaring contrast to natural forms. Applies to areas where changes may 

subordinate the original composition and character; however, they should reflect what 

could be a natural occurrence within the characteristic landscape. 

Existing Noise Environment 

In 1974, the USEPA published a requisite evaluating the effects of environmental noise with respect to health 

and safety (USEPA 1974). The USEPA has determined that noise levels should not exceed a day-night 

(average sound) level (Ldn) of 55 decibels on the A-weighted scale (dBA), which is the level that protects the 

public from indoor and outdoor activity interference. This noise level has been useful for state and federal 

agencies to establish noise limitations for various noise sources. A 55 dBA Ldn noise level equates to a 

equivalent sound level (Leq) of 48.6 dBA (i.e., a facility that does not exceed a continuous noise impact of 

48.6 dBA will not exceed a 55 dBA Ldn). 

Wyoming. The State of Wyoming and the counties of Carbon and Albany do not have any quantitative noise 

regulations. Two pump stations would be located in rural areas with few noise sources in the immediate 

vicinity. No Noise-Sensitive Areas (NSAs) are located within 1 mile of the proposed Echo Springs (RP 146.5) 

Pump Station in Carbon County and Laramie (RP 271.7) Pump Station in Albany County. Three meter stations 

also would be located in Wyoming. 

Colorado. The State of Colorado has noise regulations (Title 25, Article 12) applicable to operations 

associated with the oil and gas industry. No pump stations would operate in Colorado, therefore, the State of 

Colorado noise regulations do not apply. Construction noise is not covered under Title 25, Article 12. 

Kansas. No pump stations are currently proposed for Kansas, although a pump station at WaKeeney 

(RP 606.0) is likely in the foreseeable future. The WaKeeney Meter Station (RP 606.0) proposed for Sheridan 

County would be a new station. The State of Kansas and the county of Sheridan do not have any quantitative 

noise regulations. The location of the nearest NSA to the WaKeeney Meter Station is approximately 2,550 feet 

south/southwest (Figure 3.8-1). 

3.8.2 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative 

The Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative would not differ substantially from the 

overall land use and aesthetics as described for the Proposed Action. Overall, the Southern Energy Corridor – 

Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative would add 4.8 miles to the total length of the pipeline. As a result, the 

amount of federal land crossed would increase from 10.9 miles to 18.5 miles. The alternative would cross the 

same number of paved roads, and one less dirt road. There are more buildings along the Southern Energy 

Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative route within 500 feet of the ROW. 

3.8-12

3.9 Cultural Resources 

3.9.1 Proposed Action 

3.9.1.1 Regulatory Framework 

Federal historic preservation legislation provides a legal environment for documentation, evaluation, and 

protection of archaeological and historic sites that may be affected by federal undertakings, or by private 

undertakings operating under federal license or on federally managed lands. The NEPA of 1969 states that 

federal undertakings shall take into consideration impacts to the natural environment with respect to an array 

of disciplines, and that alternatives must be considered. The courts have made it clear that archaeological and 

historic sites (i.e., cultural resources) are regarded as part of the natural environment. The NHPA of 1966, as 

amended, established the ACHP and the NRHP (in its modern form). The NHPA mandates that federal 

agencies consider projects’ effects on cultural resources that are enrolled on or eligible for the NRHP and 

Section 106 of the NHPA establishes a four-step review process by which cultural resources are given 

consideration during the conduct of federal undertakings. 

Regulations in 36 CFR 800 (revised 2004) outline the process through which historic preservation legislation 

under the NHPA is administered. The National Programmatic Agreement (NPA) among the BLM, ACHP, and 

National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers regarding the manner in which the BLM would 

meet its responsibilities under the NHPA is the National BLM authority for meeting requirements of the NHPA. 

Day-to-day operations are based on the protocols developed by the local BLM offices in each state. In 

Wyoming, the State Protocol (signed in March 2006) between the BLM and the Wyoming SHPO defines how 

the SHPO and BLM would interact and cooperate under the NHPA, and provides direction for implementing 

the NHPA. Additionally, BLM Manual 8140 provides direction for protecting cultural resources from natural or 

human-caused deterioration and for recovering significant cultural resource data to mitigate adverse effects of 

proposed undertakings in accordance with the state protocol. 

Additional information on BLM procedures for protecting cultural resource sites is provided in Appendix J. 

3.9.1.2 Qualifications for Listing Cultural Resources on the NRHP 

The NRHP, maintained by the NPS on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior, is the nation’s inventory of 

important cultural resources. The NPS has established three main standards that a resource must meet to 

qualify for listing on the NRHP: age, integrity, and significance. To meet the age criteria, a resource generally 

must be at least 50 years (NPS 1995). To meet the integrity criteria, a resource must “possess integrity of 

location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association” (36 CFR 60.4). Finally, a resource 

must be significant according to one or more of the following criteria: 

• Be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of U.S. 

history (Criterion A); or 

• Be associated with the lives of persons significant in U.S. history (Criterion B); or 

• Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represent the 

work of a master, or possess high artistic values, or represent a significant and distinguishable entity 

whose components may lack individual distinction (Criterion C); or 

• Have yielded, or may likely yield, information important in prehistory or history (Criterion D). 

3.9.1.3 Cultural Resources Investigations 

Numerous cultural resources investigations have been conducted along or within the vicinity of the proposed 

pipeline corridor. These include numerous Class I, Class II, and Class III investigations, as well as research 

designs and prehistoric, historic, and ethnographic contexts. Class I investigations are a review of reports 

containing the results of previously conducted inventories in the project area, as well as library and archival 

3.9-1
sources for regional prehistory and history. Class II investigations are surveys of sample portions of an area to 

provide estimates of site distribution, density, and significance. Class III investigations are intensive field 

surveys of areas in which impacts are planned or are likely to occur. Cultural resources along the entire 

proposed pipeline corridor have been investigated at the Class I and Class III levels of intensity. The results of 

the cultural resources investigations are summarized below. 

The proposed pipeline route crosses a variety of archaeology as it travels from western Wyoming to western 

Kansas. Habitation patterns, adaptive strategies, technical development, and cultural lifeways of prehistoric 

people to present-day populations vary greatly across the landscape. Archaeological investigations in the 

proposed project area indicate that people have inhabited the project area for at least 12,000 years, from 

Paleoindian occupation to the present. Prehistoric sites in the project area include lithic scatters, open camps, 

lithic procurement areas, and quarries; historic sites include, but are not limited to, expansion era trails, 

railroads, freight roads, homesteads, and staging stations. In addition, traditional cultural properties and other 

areas of tribal significance have been located within the proposed project area. Due to the size of the project 

area and expansive topography traversed by the proposed pipeline route, a cultural overview of prehistoric and 

historic development in the project area is not included in this EIS. However, the reader is referred to 

Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 13, Plains, (DeMallie 2001), for a comprehensive overview of 

prehistoric and historic development in the project area. 

Wyoming 

Between November 2005 and February 2006, a Class I files search of the proposed project area was 

conducted online at the Wyoming Cultural Records Office (WYCRO) and BLM field offices. The files search 

also included review of General Land Office (GLO) plats in order to identify potential historic site locations. The 

Class I files search examined a corridor extending 1 mile on each side of the proposed pipeline centerline. As 

a result of the files search, a total of 1,661 previously recorded sites and 140 features on the GLO plats of the 

project area were identified within the 2-mile-wide study corridor; 215 of the sites and 57 of the GLO features 

are located within 150 feet of the proposed pipeline centerline (Retter et al. 2006). 

Of the 215 sites located within 150 feet of the proposed pipeline centerline, 50 are historic, 150 are prehistoric, 

14 contain both historic and prehistoric components, and 1 is of unknown cultural affiliation. The prehistoric 

sites include lithic scatters, open camps, stone circles, and hearths; historic sites include several transportation 

routes (e.g., the Overland Trail, Union Pacific Railroad, Oregon Short Line Railroad, and Lincoln Highway), 

townsites, a bridge and homestead, and historic debris. The majority of multi-component sites include 

prehistoric artifact scatters and historic debris. 

Review of the GLO maps revealed 57 features within 150 feet of the proposed pipeline centerline. These 

57 features include roads, railroads, utility corridors, ditches, and structures. 

Results of Field Investigations 

From spring through fall 2006, cultural resources inventories were conducted along the Wyoming portion of the 

proposed project corridor (SWCA 2006a-f). The inventory included examination of the proposed pipeline 

corridor, alternate pipeline routes, additional TWAs, and access roads. Land crossed by the proposed pipeline 

mainly is privately owned; however, 2.2 miles of land administered by the USFS, 98.2 miles administered by 

the BLM, and 21.2 miles of state land also are crossed. As a result of the cultural resources inventory, 

311 cultural resource sites and 143 isolated finds were identified. Of the 311 sites, 103 are historic, 184 are 

prehistoric, and 24 sites contain both prehistoric and historic components (Appendix K, Table K-1). 

The majority of historic sites or site components are linear sites. These include multiple railroads (e.g., Union 

Pacific Railroad, Saratoga & Encampment Railroad, Oregon Short Line Railroad); ditches or canals 

(e.g., Robertson Ditch, Canon Ditch, Pioneer Canal); roads (e.g., Vernal-Green River Road, Rawlins to Baggs 

Stage Road, Bryan to Browns Park Wagon Road); trails (e.g., Blacks Fork Cutoff Trail, Overland Trail, Oregon 

Trail); and the Lincoln Highway. 

3.9-2
Segments of the Union Pacific Railroad, Canon Ditch, Lincoln Highway, Overland Trail, and Rawlins to Baggs 

Stage Road are crossed multiple times by the proposed project corridor. 

Union Pacific Railroad. The Union Pacific Railroad is the original Transcontinental Railroad connecting the 

eastern U.S. with the West during the late 19th and 20th centuries. The early development of coal mining, 

ranching, the trona industry, and the urban centers of southern Wyoming resulted from the presence of the 

Union Pacific railroad, which provided an efficient and relatively inexpensive mode of transportation. 

Canon Ditch. The Canon Ditch, which is now a canal, was originally built in 1896 as a ditch for localized 

farm/ranch irrigation. The length of the canal was expanded in the early 1920s, and the width and depth were 

increased in 1944. The canal grew from an agricultural ditch to a large canal used to feed ranch rangelands. 

Lincoln Highway. Originally proposed in 1913 by a group formed as the “Lincoln Highway Association,” the 

Lincoln Highway was to be the first transcontinental highway in the U.S., connecting New York City to San 

Francisco. When choosing a route across southern Wyoming, the Association selected the Union Pacific 

Railroad corridor, a route that basically followed the Overland Trail corridor. Sections of various Lincoln 

Highway routes and reroutes dating from between 1913 and the 1940s parallel the current U.S. 

Highway 30/287 through much of Albany and Carbon counties. In 1926, the Wyoming portion of the Lincoln 

Highway was designated by the Federal Government as U.S. Highway 30, thus incorporating the road into the 

new transcontinental highway system. U.S. Highway 30, which includes most of the Lincoln Highway, 

remained the major east-west route across Wyoming until the completion of I-80 in the 1960s. 

Overland Trail. Established and owned by the “Stagecoach King,” Ben Holladay, the Overland Trail was a 

variation of the Oregon Trail. In 1862, Holladay and his Overland Stage Company were directed by the U.S. 

Post Office to move from the established route through Wyoming that followed the North Platte River to a 

different route following the South Platte. The new route had the advantage of being shorter, but it also was 

chosen in an effort to avoid Indian attacks that had been occurring on the Oregon Trail. 

The route of the Overland Trail followed the southern bank of the South Platte River to Latham, near today's 

Greeley, Colorado, then went up along the Cache La Poudre River, crossed the Laramie Plains, traveled 

through Bridger's Pass, and rejoined the Oregon Trail at Fort Bridger. The western route out of Latham also 

was known as the Cherokee Trail. 

While the Oregon Trail may have been more popular, the Overland Trail was not simply a detour. From 1862 

to 1868, it was the only route upon which the federal government would permit travel and it served as the main 

highway to the west in those years. Holladay owned the Overland Stage Company until 1866 when, realizing 

the Transcontinental Railroad would end the need for stagecoach travel, he sold it to Wells Fargo. 

Rawlins to Baggs Stage Road. Rawlins to Baggs Stage Road served as a major stage and travel route 

between Rawlins and Baggs during the latter half of the 19th century and early 20th century. The origins of the 

road are associated with two historical events: 1) the building of the first transcontinental railroad through 

southern Wyoming Territory in 1867-1868 and the founding of the Town of Rawlins, and 2) the creation of the 

White River Agency for the Ute Indians in northwestern Colorado in 1868. The road was originally used for 

freight, but passenger and mail service was added as more people settled in the region. Stage service ended 

on the Rawlins to Baggs Stage Road in 1909. 

The majority of the 208 prehistoric sites or site components consist of open camps and lithic scatters. Based 

on the frequency of recorded campsites, it is assumed that prehistoric people came to the project area for food 

resource procurement. Non-human bone was observed in association with cultural remains at several sites, 

and ground stone at a few sites. None of the campsites located in the area had preserved habitation structures 

on the surface. In general, project area sites are associated with all prehistoric periods from the Late 

Paleoindian to the Protohistoric. However, sites with diagnostic projectile points or radiocarbon assays dated 

to the Late Prehistoric or Archaic periods. 

3.9-3
Of the 143 isolated finds located during the inventory, 102 are prehistoric, 32 are historic, and 9 are 

multi-component. Most of the prehistoric isolated finds were one or a few flakes. Historic isolated finds were 

mainly cans, glass vessel fragments, or pieces of crockery. 

Of the 311 sites located during the field survey, 121 are recommended or officially determined eligible for 

listing on the NRHP and 190 are recommended or officially determined not eligible for the NRHP. Sixty-two of 

the 121 recommended or officially determined NRHP-eligible sites are historic, 50 are prehistoric, and 

9 contain both prehistoric and historic components. NRHP-eligible historic sites include, but are not limited to, 

trails, roads, railroads, and the Lincoln Highway. NRHP-eligible prehistoric are predominately lithic scatters 

and open camps. Management recommendations for the recommended or officially determined NRHP-eligible 

sites in Wyoming are provided in Appendix K, Table K-1. 

Colorado 

In November 2005, a Class I files search of the proposed project area was conducted through the Office of 

Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP). On December 27, 2005, the files at the Pawnee National 

Grasslands/Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest also were examined. Historic GLO plats were obtained from 

the BLM Colorado State Office in order to identify potential historic site locations. The Class I files search 

examined a corridor extending 0.5 mile on each side of the proposed pipeline centerline. As a result of the files 

search, 93 previously recorded cultural resource sites were identified within the 1-mile-wide study corridor; 

37 of the sites are located within 150 feet of the proposed pipeline centerline (Horn and Wall 2006). 

Of the 37 sites located within 150 feet of the proposed pipeline centerline, 18 are historic, 16 are prehistoric, 

2 are multi-component sites containing both historic and prehistoric components, and 1 is of unknown cultural 

affiliation. The prehistoric sites include lithic scatters and camps; historic sites include a canal, highway, 

homestead, and trash scatter, farms, railroad grades, and transmission lines. The two multi-component sites 

include a prehistoric camp/historic homestead and prehistoric camp/historic trash scatter. The one site of 

unknown cultural affiliation consists of rock piles. 

The GLO plats revealed 65 historic features, of which 8 had been previously recorded, resulting in a total of 

57 potential historic sites in the 1-mile-wide study corridor. Of the 65 previously recorded and potential historic 

sites, 14 unnamed historic roads, the Eckley to Wray Road, two railroads (the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy 

Railroad and Colorado Central Railroad), three telegraph lines, and two ditches cross the proposed pipeline 

route. Four additional unnamed roads, four houses, and two homesteads are shown within 700 feet of the 

proposed pipeline centerline. Review of USGS 7.5-minute topographical maps revealed an additional 

132 potential historic sites with no overlap in potential sites between the two data sources. Of the 132 potential 

historic sites identified from USGS 7.5-minute topographical maps, 17 appear to cross or be in close proximity 

to the proposed pipeline centerline. These include six windmills, five structure complexes, five canals or 

ditches, and the Union Pacific Railroad grade. 

Results of the Field Investigations 

From April 2006 through March 2007, cultural resources inventories were conducted along the Colorado 

portion of the proposed project corridor (Horn et al. 2006; Horn 2006, 2007). The inventory included 

examination of the proposed pipeline corridor, alternate pipeline routes, additional TWAs, access roads, and 

above-ground facilities, including pipe yards and staging areas. Land crossed by the proposed pipeline mainly 

is privately owned; however, 22.4 miles of land administered by the USFS, PNG, and 10.6 miles of state land 

also are crossed. As a result of the cultural resources inventory, 69 cultural resource sites and 51 isolated finds 

were identified (Appendix K, Table K-2). Of the 69 sites, 44 are historic, 21 are prehistoric, and 4 sites contain 

both prehistoric and historic components. With the exception of one site, all of the sites recorded during the 

inventory were found along the proposed pipeline corridor. 

Twenty-one of the 48 historic sites or site components are linear sites, including 8 segments of railroad grades; 

8 segments of ditches or canals (e.g., South Platte Ditch, North Sterling Canal, Davis Brothers Ditch); 3 roads 

(Eckley to Wray Road and 2 unnamed roads); 1 highway (U.S. Highway 6); and 1 transmission line (Beaver 

3.9-4
Creek to Sterling Transmission Line). The remaining 27 historic sites or site components include 1 camp circa 

1931; 6 artifact scatters dating mainly from the 1910s to 1930s, with 1 dating from the 1930s to 1950s; and 

20 homesteads or residential sites dating mainly from the 1910s to 1930s. Standing structures were present at 

three of the sites. One was a residence with collapsed outbuildings from the 1910s to 1970s, one was an 

active farm complex, and one was a relocated chicken coop from the 1920s. 

Twenty of the 25 prehistoric sites or site components were of unknown age or cultural affiliation. The five sites 

for which a temporal period could be ascertained extend from Early Archaic to Late Prehistoric. All of the 

prehistoric sites were lithic scatters, two of which were complex enough to be considered camps and five of 

which appeared to be the locus of lithic procurement and initial reduction activities. 

Of the 51 isolated finds located during the inventory, 40 were prehistoric and 11 were historic. Most of the 

prehistoric isolated finds were one or a few flakes. Historic isolated finds were mainly cans, glass vessel 

fragments, or automobile parts. 

Of the 69 sites located during the field survey, 28 sites and the prehistoric component of one multi-component 

site (SWL403) are recommended or officially determined eligible for listing on the NRHP and 40 sites and the 

historic component of a multi-component site (SWL403) are recommended or officially determined not eligible 

for the NRHP. The majority of recommended or officially determined NRHP-eligible sites are historic and 

include ditches, railroads, roads, and homesteads. All of the NRHP-eligible prehistoric sites are lithic scatters. 

Recommended management of the sites recommended and officially determined eligible for the NRHP in 

Colorado are provided in Appendix K, Table K-2. 

An analysis of soils data and a geomorphological field reconnaissance of the entire proposed project area 

were conducted to assess the potential for soils in the project area to contain buried sites. Eolian, alluvial, 

colluvial, and lacustrine soil deposits of Late Pleistocene to Holocene age were identified and assessed. The 

analysis and reconnaissance resulted in recommendations for monitoring at 44 locations within the proposed 

project area that have the potential to contain archaeological sites in buried contexts. These areas are 

primarily in the vicinity of drainages where alluvial sedimentation has occurred and where aeolian deposition of 

late Pleistocene or more recent age has taken place. 

Kansas 

In January and February 2006, a Phase I files search of the proposed project area was conducted through the 

Kansas State Historical Society (KSHS). The files search also included review of GLO plats in order to identify 

potential historic site locations. The Phase I inventory examined a corridor extending 0.5 mile on each side of 

the proposed pipeline centerline. As a result of the files search, 45 previously recorded cultural resource sites 

were identified within or adjacent to the proposed pipeline ROW (Maymon and Bevitt 2006). 

Of the 45 sites located within or adjacent to the proposed pipeline ROW, 3 are historic, 41 are prehistoric, and 

1 is a multi-component site containing both historic and prehistoric components. The prehistoric sites include 

lithic scatters, quarries, and camps; historic sites include trash scatters, habitation sites, and graffiti. The 

multi-component site includes a prehistoric camp and historic dugout depression. 

The GLO plats indicate the potential presence of additional historic resources in the vicinity of the proposed 

pipeline corridor including a number of wagon roads or trails. County plat maps yielded additional information 

on Euro-American use of the region, generally in the form of individual homesteads and farms. A total of 

340 homes were identified from early 20th Century documents within 0.5 mile of the proposed pipeline 

centerline, in addition to 5 townsites, 17 rural schools, 2 churches, and 4 cemeteries. 

Results of the Field Investigations 

From spring through fall 2006, cultural resources inventories were conducted along the Kansas portion of the 

project corridor (McLean et al. 2006). The inventory included examination of the proposed pipeline corridor, 

alternate pipeline routes, additional TWAs, access roads, and aboveground facilities, including proposed pump 

3.9-5
stations, pipe yards, and staging areas. All of the land crossed by the proposed pipeline is privately owned. As 

a result of the cultural resources inventory, 47 cultural resources and 26 isolated finds were identified 

(Appendix K, Table K-3). Of the 47 cultural resources, 10 are historic sites, 35 are prehistoric sites, and 2 are 

sites containing both prehistoric and historic components. 

The 12 historic sites or site components include one machinery dump dating from 1900 to 1950, 1 trash dump 

dating from the 1930s to 1970s, one artifact scatter dating from the early to mid-20th Century, and 

nine homesteads or residential sites dating mainly from the mid 19th century to mid-20th Century. The six 

architectural properties date from 1900 to 1950 and include four farms, one sod house, and a two-story 

wood-frame house. 

Twenty-five of the 37 prehistoric sites or site components are of unknown age or cultural affiliation. The 

13 sites for which a temporal period could be ascertained extend from Paleoindian to Protohistoric. Most of the 

prehistoric sites or site components are lithic scatters; however, five camps, one village, two camps/lithic 

scatters, one lithic procurement area, two quarries/lithic procurement areas, three camps/lithic procurement 

areas, and one possible bison kill site also are included in the identified prehistoric sites or site components. 

Of the 26 isolated finds located during the inventory, 12 were prehistoric and 14 were historic. Most of the 

prehistoric isolated finds were stone flakes or fragments. Historic isolated finds were mainly cans, glass vessel 

fragments, farm implements, automobiles, automobile parts, and metal, wood, or ceramic debris. 

In fall 2006, archaeological evaluation of 18 of the sites located during the cultural resources inventory was 

conducted within the project corridor in Kansas (Goodwin & Associates 2006). The sites evaluated included: 

14RW102, 14SD00107, 14SD00108/109, 14SD00102, 14SD00103, 14SD00104, 14SD00110, 14SD00428, 

14SD00452, 14SD00101, 14GO00102, 14GO00301, 14TO00101, 14TO00306, 14TO00317, 14TO00314, 

14TO00103, and 14TO00109 (Appendix K, Table K-3). The objective of the archaeological evaluation was to 

determine the significance of these 18 sites applying the NRHP Criteria for Evaluation (36 CFR 60.4 [a-d]). 

The evaluation also defined potential impacts to the resources and provided management recommendations 

for those sites evaluated as eligible for the NRHP. In addition to the evaluation of these sites, non-invasive 

geophysical survey was completed at site 14RC00313, which is already listed on the NRHP, in preparation for 

anticipated data recovery. 

As a result of the site evaluations, five sites (14SD00108/109, 14SD00102, 14SD00103, 14SD00104, and 

14TO00306) were determined to possess the qualities of significance as defined by the NRHP criteria for 

evaluation (Appendix K, Table K-3). Three of the sites are prehistoric lithic scatters, one is a prehistoric 

camp/workshop, and one is a prehistoric chipped stone quarry/workshop. 

As a result of the field surveys and site evaluations, 6 sites are recommended or officially determined eligible 

for listing on the NRHP, 34 are recommended or officially determined not eligible for the NRHP, and 7 are 

unevaluated. Of the recommended or officially determined NRHP-eligible sites, five are prehistoric and one is 

a multi-component site consisting of a historic residence and prehistoric camp/lithic procurement area. The 

NRHP-eligible prehistoric sites include lithic scatters and lithic procurement areas. Management 

recommendations for the recommended or officially determined NRHP-eligible sites in Kansas are provided in 

Appendix K, Table K-3. 

An analysis of soils data, a review of USGS 7.5-minute topographic maps, and a geomorphological field 

reconnaissance of the entire proposed project area were conducted to assess the potential for soils in the 

project area to contain buried sites. The reconnaissance involved assessing geomorphic settings, with 

emphasis on identifying Holocene and late Pleistocene landform sediment assemblages, such as alluvial 

terraces and fans, colluvial aprons and lake basins. Seven localities in the proposed project area were 

identified as areas with potential for buried cultural deposits. Five of the seven localities were identified as 

areas that would require deep testing (i.e., backhoe trenching) if they cannot be avoided by a reroute. 

3.9-6
3.9.2 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative 

Since the proposed Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative is considered an alternate 

corridor at this time, only a Class I files search was conducted. If the proposed Southern Energy Corridor – 

Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative was selected for construction, a Class III pedestrian survey would be 

conducted along the entire length of the proposed bypass corridor. 

The Class I files search of the proposed Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative was 

conducted online through the WYCRO. The files search also included review of GLO plats. The Class I files 

search examined a corridor extending 0.5 mile on either side of the proposed bypass centerline. As a result of 

the files search, a total of 53 previously recorded sites were identified within the 1-mile-wide study corridor 

(Wesson 2006). Thirty-seven of these are prehistoric sites, 11 are historic sites, 5 are multi-component sites 

containing both prehistoric and historic components, and 1 is a rock cairn of unknown cultural affiliation. The 

prehistoric sites consist of lithic scatters, open camps, habitation sites, and a food processing site. The 

11 historic sites consist of roads/trails, debris scatters, a bridge, corral, telephone line, and cairn. In general, 

the multi-component sites contain prehistoric lithic scatters and historic debris scatters. 

Of the 53 previously recorded sites within the 1-mile-wide study corridor, nine are located within approximately 

100 feet of the proposed Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative centerline. Three of the 

nine sites are prehistoric, five are historic, and one is a multi-component site. All of the prehistoric sites are 

lithic scatters. The five historic resources include two freight roads, a telephone line, bridge, and corral. The 

one multi-component site is described as a prehistoric/historic open camp. The NRHP eligibility of five of the 

sites is unknown, two are recommended as not eligible, one is eligible with SHPO concurrence, and one is an 

NRHP-eligible historic freight road; however, the segment that is within 100 feet of the proposed alternate 

centerline is unevaluated. 

Compared to the proposed Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative, a total of 

16 previously recorded sites were identified within 0.5 mile of the segment of the proposed pipeline corridor 

that would be eliminated if the proposed bypass were chosen. Of the 16 sites, 13 are prehistoric sites, 2 are 

historic sites, and 1 is a multi-component site. The 13 prehistoric sites consist of 6 lithic scatters, 2 open 

campsites, 1 lithic scatter/open camp/quarry, 3 habitation sites, and a rock art site. The two historic sites are 

both freight roads and the one multi-component site consists of a prehistoric open camp and historic cabin. 

During the Class III pedestrian survey, 5 sites were located within 100 feet of the proposed pipeline centerline 

that would be eliminated if the proposed bypass were chosen. Two of the sites were previously recorded. Of 

the five sites, one is a prehistoric lithic scatter/open camp/quarry, three are prehistoric lithic scatters, and one 

is a historic freight road. The historic freight road is not eligible for the NRHP with SHPO concurrence; the four 

prehistoric sites are recommended as not eligible for the NRHP. 

In summary, 9 sites were identified within 100 feet of the proposed Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge 

Bypass Alternative centerline as a result of the Class I files search and 5 sites were located within 100 feet of 

the segment of the proposed pipeline centerline that would be eliminated if the bypass were chosen as a result 

of the Class III pedestrian survey. All of the five sites located along the proposed pipeline route are 

recommended as not eligible for the NRHP. Of the nine previously recorded sites identified along the proposed 

Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative corridor, two are recommended as not eligible 

for the NRHP, five are unevaluated, one is eligible for the NRHP with SHPO concurrence, and one is an 

NRHP-eligible linear feature; however, the segment of the linear feature identified within 100 feet of the 

proposed alternative centerline is unevaluated. 

3.9-7
3.10 Native American Concerns 

3.10.1 Proposed Action 

3.10.1.1 Regulatory Framework 

Various federal statutes require consultation with Native American tribes concerning the identification of 

cultural values, religious beliefs, and traditional practices of Native American people that may be affected by 

federally approved actions. These federal statutes are interrelated regarding Native American consultation and 

include, but are not limited to, Section 106 NHPA of 1966, as amended; EO 13007 (FR 1996); AIRFA of 1978; 

and NAGPRA of 1990. 

Section 106 of NHPA requires all federal agencies to take into account the effects of their actions on historic 

properties and provide the ACHP with an opportunity to comment on those actions and the manner in which 

federal agencies are taking historic properties into account in their decisions. 

EO 13007 (FR 1996) requires federal agencies to accommodate access to and ceremonial use of Native 

American sacred sites by Indian religious practitioners and to avoid adversely affecting the physical integrity of 

such sacred sites. It also requires agencies to develop procedures for reasonable notification of proposed 

actions or land management policies that may restrict access to or ceremonial use of, or adversely affect, 

sacred sites. 

AIRFA established federal policy of protecting and preserving the inherent right of individual Native Americans 

to believe, express, and exercise their traditional religions including, but not limited to, access to sites, use and 

possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rites. 

NAGPRA established a means for Native Americans, including Indian tribes, to request the return of human 

remains and other sensitive cultural items held by federal agencies or federally assisted museums or 

institutions. NAGPRA also contains provisions regarding the intentional excavation and removal of, inadvertent 

discovery of, and illegal trafficking in Native American human remains and sensitive cultural items on federal or 

Tribal lands. 

Consultation includes the identification of places (i.e., physical locations) of traditional cultural importance to 

Native American tribes. Places that may be of traditional cultural importance to Native American people 

include, but are not limited to, locations associated with the traditional beliefs concerning tribal origins, cultural 

history, or the nature of the world; locations where religious practitioners go, either in the past or the present, to 

perform ceremonial activities based on traditional cultural rules or practice; ancestral habitation sites; trails; 

burial sites; and places from which plants, animals, minerals, and waters possessing healing powers or used 

for other subsistence purposes, may be taken. Additionally, some of these locations may be considered 

sacred to particular Native American individuals or tribes. The BLM must take into account the effects of the 

proposed project on these types of locations. 

If a resource has been identified as having importance in traditional cultural practices and the continuing 

cultural identity of a community, it may be considered a traditional cultural property (TCP). The term “traditional 

cultural property” first came into use within the federal legal framework for historic preservation and cultural 

resource management in an attempt to categorize historic properties containing traditional cultural significance. 

National Register Bulletin 38: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties 

(Parker and King 1989) defines a TCP as “one that is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP because of its 

association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that (a) are rooted in that community’s 

history, and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identify of the community.” To qualify for 

nomination to the NRHP, a TCP must be more than 50 years old, must be a place with definable boundaries, 

must retain integrity, and meet certain criteria as outlined in National Register Bulletin 15 (NPS 1995). 

3.10-1
3.10.1.2 Native American Consultation 

In compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, the BLM initiated government-to-government consultation by 

sending letters to 22 Native American tribes on March 1, 2006 (Table 3.10-1). The letters were sent to inform 

the various tribes of the proposed undertaking and solicit their concerns/comments regarding the possible 

presence of TCPs or places of cultural, traditional, or religious importance to the tribes in the proposed project 

area. In addition, on March 31, 2006, the BLM sent out offers for Cooperating Agency status to the tribes. 

Subsequently, the BLM conducted follow-up telephone calls and field visits to selected sites along the 

proposed pipeline route that were identified during the Class I overviews as places of cultural, traditional, or 

religious importance. 

The BLM Rawlins Field Office invited tribal officials from the 22 Native American tribes to participate in an 

informational meeting on June 6, 2006, and field visits on June 6 and 7, 2006. Five of the 22 Native American 

tribes attended the meeting in Rawlins: Shoshone Business Council of the Eastern Shoshone Tribe, Fort Peck 

Tribes, Arapaho Business Council of the Northern Arapaho Tribe, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, and Northern Ute 

Indian Tribe. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss how tribal consultation for the proposed project 

should proceed with the BLM Rawlins Field Office. The meeting was followed by visits to selected 

archaeological sites that had been identified as sites of concern by the tribes during review of the Class I 

cultural resources inventory reports. During the site visits, several tribal representatives requested information 

on the plant communities along the proposed pipeline route and revegetation procedures following pipeline 

construction. 

A second field visit to selected segments of the proposed pipeline corridor was conducted by the BLM Rawlins 

Field Office on July 25 through 28, 2006, and was attended by the Arapaho Business Council and Northern 

Cheyenne. The Fort Peck Assiniboine were scheduled to attend the July meeting; however, last minute 

conflicts prevented them from attending. During the field visit, Arapaho Business Council representatives 

requested tribal monitors during pipeline construction and requested to be notified of inadvertent discovery 

situations, including burials and funerary items. Northern Cheyenne representatives were concerned about 

sites with religious significance, recommended tribal monitors during all pipeline construction activities, and 

requested to be kept informed of any inadvertent discoveries located in the project area. The Northern 

Cheyenne also attended a third field visit near WaKeeney, Kansas, on August 24, 2006, to monitor several 

sites undergoing deep trench testing. 

On September 27, 2006, the BLM Rawlins Field Office conducted a second tribal informational meeting. Five 

tribes (Crow Tribe, Fort Peck and Assiniboine Sioux Tribes, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Shoshone Business 

Council [Eastern Shoshone Tribe], and Uintah Ouray Ute Tribe [Northern Ute Tribe]) attended the meeting. 

The Northern Arapaho Tribe had expressed interest in coming to the meeting, but was unable to attend due to 

last minute conflicts. The following issues were discussed during the meeting: 

• NAGPRA responsibilities and state burial laws; 

• The tribal consultation process; 

• Cultural sites that were visited by the tribes; 

• Suggested mitigation measures; 

• Cultural resources data gathering and information sharing between the BLM and tribes; 

• Drafting an agreement document on how data would be shared; 

• Review of the Class III survey reports; 

• Use of tribal monitors during project construction; 

• Results from the deep trench testing in Kansas; 

• Inadvertent discovery situations; 

• Data recovery on private lands in Wyoming, Colorado, and Kansas; 

3.10-2
• Additional survey of selected sites by tribal members; and 

• Gathering comments from tribes not able to attend the meeting. 

At the end of the meeting, the tribes expressed interest in a follow-up meeting to discuss in greater detail a 

data sharing agreement and review of the Class III survey reports. At this time, no date has been set for a 

follow-up meeting. 

Table 3.10-1 lists the Native American tribes that have been contacted and summarizes the concerns they 

have raised to date and the status of consultation. 

3.10.2 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative 

If the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative was selected for construction, the BLM 

would send a letter to the tribal groups to inform them of the revised pipeline route and solicit their concerns 

about places of cultural, traditional, or religious importance to the tribes that may be located along the 

proposed alternative. Consultation between the BLM and the identified tribal groups would follow the same 

protocol as the Proposed Action. 

3.10-3
Table 3.10-1 Status of Native American Consultation 

Name of Tribe 

Date of Initial 

Contact Follow up Contact Summary of Issues Raised during Cons

Apache Tribe of Oklahoma 

March 30, 2006 April 6, 7, 11, 2006 

May 9, 2006 

Tribe stated they did not have any concerns with the propose

Arapaho Business Council (Northern Arapaho Tribe) 

March 30, 2006 April 3, 5, 2006 

May 4, 24, 2006 June 19, 29, 30, 2006 July 5, 25-28, 2006 August 9, 14, 15, 2006 September 5, 6, 22, 2006 January 19, 2007 February 9, 11, 2007 

Have indicated concerns with the project and consultation is continues. Tribal representatives requested tribal monitors drequested to be notified of inadvertent discoveries. Have askthe project area and a copy of the reclamation plan with seed ensure that vegetation is restored to pre-construction standsadditional surveys of project area to determine if additional asites. 

Cherokee Nation March 30, 2006 April 4,6,2006 Tribe stated they did not have any concerns with the proposeCheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma 

March 30, 2006 April 5, 2006 

May 22, 2006 

Tribe stated they had no concerns with the proposed projectinformed with project updates and project reports. 

Cheyenne River Lakota Tribe 

March 31, 2006 April 4, 2006 Have continued to send updates for meetings and projects b

response. 

Comanche Tribe of Oklahoma 

March 31, 2006 April 5, 2006 

June 26, 2006 

The tribe did not have any concerns with the proposed projekept informed with project updates and project reports. 

Crow Tribe April 2, 2006 May 4, 8, 16, 2006 

June 27, 2006 July 5, 2006 August 8, 2006 September 18, 27, 2006 January 19, 23, 2007 February 1, 9, 12, 2007 March 26, 28, 30, 2007 April 4, 10, 17, 19, 2007 

Have indicated concerns with the project as known TCPs are project area. Consultation with the tribe is ongoing through th

Crow Creek Lakota Tribe 

April 2, 2006 April 7, 2006 

May 3, 9, 16, 2006 

Tribe indicated they did not have any concerns with the projereview project information before making a decision. Have cofor meetings and projects but have not received any respons

Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes 

April 2, 2006 May 4, 22, 2006 

June 6, 20, 2006 July 18, 19, 31, 2006 August 4, 21, 2006 September 8, 26, 27 2006 January 19, 24, 2007 February 1, 9, 2007 

Tribe requested additional surveys of project area to determiincluded sacred sites. Consultation is on-going as the projec

Jicarilla Apache Tribe 

March 31, 2006 April 7, 11, 12, 2006 The tribe stated they did not have any concerns with the proj

further involvement. 

3.10-4 
Table 3.10-1 Status of Native American Consultation 

Name of Tribe 

Date of Initial 

Contact Follow up Contact Summary of Issues Raised during Cons

Kaw Tribe of Oklahoma 

March 30, 2006 March 31, 2006 

April 5, 11, 12, 2006 May 4, 16, 26, 2006 June 30, 2006 August 2, 14, 17, 28, 2006 January 19, 23, 29, 2007 February 1, 9, 12, 2007 

Have indicated concerns with the project and consultation is continues. 

Kiowa Tribe March 30,2006 April 4, 11, 2006 The Kiowa stated they did not have concerns with the projecNorthern Cheyenne Tribe 

April 2, 2006 April 3, 12, 14, 2006 

May 2, 16, 26, 2006 June 6, 26, 2006 July 5, 11, 25-28, 2006 August 8, 14, 15, 18, 30, 2006 September 5, 7, 27 2006 January 19, 24, 2007 February 1, 9, 12, 2007 

Tribal representatives were concerned with sites that had relrecommended tribal monitors during construction, and to be inadvertent discoveries. Tribe requested additional surveys odetermine if additional areas included sacred sites. 

Oglala Lakota Tribe April 3, 2006 April 11, 18, 2006 

May 17, 2006 

The tribe requested to be kept informed of scheduled meetinproject area, and project updates. Have continued to send uprojects but have not received any response. 

Osage Nation of Oklahoma 

March 30, 2006 April 10, 13, 2006 

August 2, 10, 2006 January 19, 23, 31, 2007 February 9, 12, 2007 March 5, 26, 30, 2007 April 4, 9, 10, 16, 19, 20, 2007 

Tribe stated they have no concerns with the project. Would linadvertent discoveries and informed of the project through u

Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma 

March 30, 2006 March 31, 2006 

April 7, 2006 

Tribe stated that they did not have any concerns with the pro

Rosebud Lakota Tribe 

April 2, 2006 April 4, 2006 Have continued to send updates for meetings and projects b

response. 

Shoshone Business Council (Eastern Shoshone Tribe) 

March 31, 2006 April 12, 18, 2006 

May 4, 2006 June 6, 7-8, 26, 29, 2006 July 17, 19-20, 2006 September 5, 8, 27 2006 January 19, 23, 31, 2007 February 1, 9, 12, 2007 March 5, 26, 30, 2007 

Tribe requested reroutes around specific areas of the project Tribal representatives requested tribal monitors during constbe notified of inadvertent discoveries. Have asked for a plant area and a copy of the reclamation plan with seed mixes incvegetation is restored to pre-construction stands. 

3.10-5 
Table 3.10-1 Status of Native American Consultation 

Name of Tribe 

Date of Initial 

Contact Follow up Contact Summary of Issues Raised during Cons

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes 

March 30, 2006 April 18, 2006 Have continued to send updates for meetings and projects b

response. 

Southern Ute Indian Tribe 

April 2, 2006 June 7, 11, 14, 18, 2006 Tribe indicated that they had no concerns with the project, bu

informed of any inadvertent discoveries. 

Uintah Ouray Ute Tribe (Northern Ute Tribe) 

March 29, 2006 April 4, 18, 2006 

May 24, 2006 June 6, 7-8, 2006 July 26, 2006 September 18, 27, 2006 January 19, 23, 24, 2007 February 1, 9, 12, 2007 March 5, 30, 2007 

Tribe requested reroutes around specific areas of the project Tribal representatives requested tribal monitors during constbe notified of inadvertent discoveries. Have asked for a plant area and a copy of the reclamation plan with seed mixes incvegetation is restored to pre-construction stands. 

Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita Executive Committee) 

March 30, 2006 March 31, 2006 

April 6, 12, 2006 May 2, 23, 2006 

Have indicated concerns with the project and consultation is continues. 

Source: Seletstewa 2006, 2007. 

3.10-6 
3.11 Social and Economic Conditions 

3.11.1 Proposed Action 

The Proposed Action crosses 23 counties in Wyoming, Colorado, and Kansas. Counties crossed are listed by 

state in Table 3.11-1. 

Table 3.11-1 States and Counties Crossed by the Proposed Pipeline Project 

State 

Number of 

Counties Counties 

Wyoming 5 Lincoln, Sweetwater, Carbon, Albany, and Laramie 

Colorado 6 Larimer, Weld, Morgan, Logan, Washington, and Yuma 

Kansas 12 Cheyenne, Rawlins, Thomas, Sheridan, Gove, Trego, Ellis, Russell, 

Barton, Ellsworth, Rice, and McPherson 

A list of communities that may be affected by the proposed pipeline route and their respective year 2000 

population statistics are shown in Table 3.11-2. This list identifies all communities within 0.5 and 2 miles of the 

project. 

The proposed pipeline route crosses approximately 123.2 miles of federally owned land: 98.8 miles managed 

by the BLM and 24.4 miles managed by the USFS. BLM land affected by the project are in Lincoln, 

Sweetwater, Carbon, and Albany counties in Wyoming, and USFS managed lands are in Sweetwater County, 

Wyoming, and Weld County, Colorado. Federally owned lands represent approximately 16 percent of the total 

project. 

3.11.1.1 Population, Employment, and Income 

Table 3.11-3 summarizes the population, income trends, and unemployment rates in the counties crossed by 

the proposed pipeline route. The proposed pipeline route lies in predominantly rural and sparsely populated 

areas, with population densities generally ranging from approximately 3 to 35 people per square mile for the 

majority of the proposed pipeline route. The average population growth rate from 1990 to 2000 for all counties 

crossed by the project is 4.9 percent. This is substantially less than the growth rates observed in any of the 

three states affected by the project and well below the U.S. population growth rate for that timeframe of 

13.1 percent. The 2004/2005 civilian unemployment rates for each affected county as provided by the 

applicable state’s Department of Labor (NRG 2006) were relatively constant throughout the proposed project 

area, averaging approximately 3.6 percent and ranging from approximately 2.5 to 4.7 percent. 

Wyoming 

The greatest population densities in affected counties in Wyoming occur in Laramie County, Wyoming, with 

30.4 people per square mile. These population densities are primarily attributed to the city of Cheyenne, 

Wyoming, which is approximately 10 miles from the proposed project area. The portion of Wyoming affected 

by the proposed project experienced an average population growth of 4.4 percent, with the greatest decline of 

6.1 percent in Carbon County and the greatest increases of 15.4 and 11.6 percent in Lincoln and Laramie 

counties, respectively. The lowest 2000 median household income levels along the proposed pipeline route 

are found in Albany County, Wyoming. 

Colorado 

Where the proposed pipeline route crosses Larimer and Weld counties in northern Colorado, the population 

densities per square mile are 96.7 and 45.0, respectively. The majority of the population in Larimer County, 

Colorado, lives in and around the cities of Fort Collins and Loveland, which are 30 miles or more from the 

proposed project area. The majority of the population in Weld County, Colorado, is in and around the City of 

3.11-1
Greeley or in the northern suburbs of Denver. These more densely populated areas in Weld County also are 

more than 30 miles from the proposed project. Of the three states crossed by the proposed project, Colorado 

experienced the greatest population growth. Populations in affected counties in Colorado all experienced 

growth, ranging from a low of 2.4 percent in Washington County to highs of 37.3 and 35.1 percent in Weld and 

Larimer counties, respectively. However, the largest cities likely to be making the largest contribution to these 

growth rates in each of these counties are more than 30 miles from the proposed project area. 

Table 3.11-2 Affected Communities1 Along the Proposed Project 

State / Community2 County Class3 

Relative Proximity to 

Project (miles) 

Population 

(2000) 

Wyoming 

 Green River Sweetwater city 0.5 11,808

 Opal Lincoln town 0.5 102 

 Rawlins Carbon city 0.5 8,538 

 Sweeney Ranch Sweetwater CDP 0.5 17

 Table Rock Sweetwater CDP 0.5 82

 The Buttes Albany CDP 0.5 31

 Wamsutter Sweetwater town 0.5 261 

 Arrowhead Springs Sweetwater CDP 2 68

 Elk Mountain Carbon town 2 192

 Granger Sweetwater town 2 146

 James Town Sweetwater CDP 2 552

 Laramie Albany city 2 27,204

 Little America Sweetwater CDP 2 56

 Sinclair Carbon town 2 423 

Colorado 

 Raymer Weld town 0.5 91

 Eckley Yuma town 2 278 

 Wray Yuma city 2 2,187 

Kansas

 Bird City Cheyenne city 0.5 482

 Susank Barton city 0.5 57 

 WaKeeney Trego city 0.5 1,924 

 Windom McPherson city 0.5 137

 Frederick Rice city 2 11 

 Little River Rice city 2 536

 Menlo Thomas city 2 57 

1

Affected communities include those communities where new pipeline facilities or surface disturbing activities associated with pipeline 

refurbishment are proposed. 

2

Communities are listed in order by state as the proposed project crosses from west to east, proximity to proposed project centerline, 

and descending size based on year 2000 population. 

3

CDP classification represents census-designated place identified by the U.S. Census Bureau for statistical reporting. 

Sources: Census 2000a; NRG 2006. 

The lowest 2000 per capita income levels occur in Morgan and Yuma counties in Colorado. Larimer County, 

Colorado, which has the greatest population, population density, and one of the highest population growth 

rates for all affected counties in the proposed project area, also has the highest income level of both per capita 

income and median household income. The 2005 civilian labor force available in each affected county of 

Colorado varies proportionately with the size of the general populations for 2000. The greatest civilian 

workforce occurred in Larimer and Weld counties in Colorado. The unemployment rate in the affected counties 

ranged from a low of 3.3 (Yuma County) to 4.7 percent for Weld County. 

3.11-2
Table 3.11-3 Socioeconomic Conditions in Affected Counties1 Along the Proposed Project 

State / 

County2 

Population 

in 1990 

Population 

in 2000 

% Change in 

Population 

1990-2000 

Population 

Density (per 

square mile) 

2000 

Per Capita 

Personal 

Income 

($ U.S.) 

1999 

Median 

Household 

Income 

($ U.S.) 

1999 

Civili

Labo

Forc

(perso

200

Wyoming 453,427 493,782 8.9 5.1 19,134 37,892 254,5

Lincoln 12,328 14,573 15.4 3.6 17,533 40,794 8,4Sweetwater 38,816 37,613 -3.1 3.6 19,575 46,537 22,6Carbon 16,655 15,639 -6.1 2.0 18,375 36,060 8,Albany 30,783 32,014 4.0 7.5 16,706 28,790 18,8Laramie 73,125 81,607 11.6 30.4 19,634 39,607 42,6

Colorado 3,293,462 4,301,261 30.6 41.5 24,049 47,203 2,304,4

Larimer 186,154 251,494 35.1 96.7 23,689 48,655 166,9Weld 131,782 180,936 37.3 45.0 18,957 42,321 111,4Morgan 21,947 27,171 23.8 21.0 15,492 34,568 14,0Logan 17,570 20,504 16.7 11.1 16,721 32,724 10,2Washington 4,811 4,926 2.4 2.0 17,788 32,431 2,7Yuma 8,955 9,841 9.9 4.2 16,005 33,169 6,0

Kansas 2,477,805 2,688,418 8.5 32.9 20,506 40,624 1,374,6

Cheyenne 3,243 3,165 -2.4 3.1 17,862 30,599 1,6Rawlins 3,405 2,966 -12.9 2.8 17,161 32,105 1,4Thomas 8,254 8,180 -0.9 7.6 19,028 37,034 4,2Sheridan 3,044 2,813 -7.6 3.1 16,299 33,547 1,5Gove 3,229 3,068 -5.0 2.9 17,852 33,510 1,5Trego 3,696 3,319 -10.2 3.7 16,239 29,677 2,0Ellis 25,999 27,507 5.8 30.5 18,259 32,339 17,3Russell 7,832 7,370 -5.9 8.2 17,073 29,284 3,5Barton 29,380 28,205 -4.0 31.3 16,695 32,176 15,2Ellsworth 6,584 6,525 -0.9 9.0 16,569 35,772 3,2Rice 10,612 10,761 1.4 14.8 16,064 35,671 5,4McPherson 27,264 29,554 8.4 32.8 18,921 41,138 17,6

1Affected counties include those counties where new pipeline facilities or surface disturbing activities associated with pipeline refurbishment are proposed.2States and counties are listed geographically from west to east as proposed project crosses the area. 

Sources: Census 2000a; NRG 2006. 

3.11-3 
Kansas 

The greatest population densities along the proposed pipeline route within Kansas are in McPherson County, 

Kansas, with 32.8 people per square mile. In general, populations in the 12 affected counties in Kansas have 

declined from 1990 to 2000, with an average decline of 2.8 percent. The greatest declines in population 

occurred in Rawlins and Trego counties, with growth rates dropping 12.9 and 10.9 percent in each, 

respectively. McPherson County saw the greatest increase in population for affected counties in Kansas with a 

growth rate of 8.4 percent. Trego and Russell counties in Kansas have the lowest 2000 median household 

income levels of the counties crossed by the proposed pipeline route. The 2005 civilian labor force available in 

each affected county varies proportionately with the size of the general populations for 2000. The smallest 

civilian workforce occurred in Rawlins, Gove, and Sheridan counties in Kansas. Trego and Sheridan counties 

in Kansas experienced the lowest unemployment rate of all counties crossed by the proposed pipeline route, 

while Rice County, Kansas, had the highest rate at 4.7 percent. 

3.11.1.2 Infrastructure 

Housing 

Housing availability across the proposed pipeline route is a function of the housing stock, recent economic and 

population growth, the inventory of short-term lodging accommodations, such as RV parks and hotel and motel 

rooms, and demand for housing from other sources. Table 3.11-4 summarizes the base housing stock in 

counties crossed by the project for 2000 and planned development for 2004. Table 3.11-5 summarizes the 

available housing stock in counties crossed by the proposed project for 2000. The most pertinent component 

of local housing markets for purposes of the proposed project is the inventory of available short-term 

accommodations. Such accommodations include the number of available rental units, RV spaces, motel and 

hotel rooms, and mobile home spaces. In some instances, recreational cabins and seasonal housing for 

migratory workers also may be included. 

Table 3.11-4 Total Housing for Counties along the Proposed Project 

State / County1 

Total Housing 

Units 

Total Vacant 

Housing Units2 

Total Rental 

Units 

Building Permits 

(2004) 

Wyoming 

Lincoln 6,831 1,565 1,261 212 

Sweetwater 15,921 1,816 4,199 216 

Carbon 8,307 2,178 2,136 60 

Albany 15,215 1,946 6,793 410 

Laramie 34,213 2,286 10,697 876 

Wyoming Subtotal 80,487 9,791 25,086 1,774 

Colorado 

Larimer 105,392 8,228 32,739 3,252 

Weld 66,194 2,947 20,660 4,414 

Morgan 10,410 871 3,189 143 

Logan 8,424 873 2,584 46 

Washington 2,307 318 582 4 

Yuma 4,295 495 1,197 2 

Colorado Subtotal 197,022 13,732 60,952 7,861 

Kansas 

Cheyenne 1,636 276 335 0 

Rawlins 1,565 296 336 2 

Thomas 3,562 336 1,082 3 

Sheridan 1,263 139 221 0 

Gove 1,423 178 281 0 

Trego 1,723 311 308 25 

3.11-4
Table 3.11-4 Total Housing for Counties along the Proposed Project 

State / County1 

Total Housing 

Units 

Total Vacant 

Housing Units2 

Total Rental 

Units 

Building Permits 

(2004) 

Ellis 12,078 885 4,408 45 

Russell 3,871 664 945 4 

Barton 12,888 1,495 3,635 41 

Ellsworth 3,228 747 586 19 

Rice 4,609 559 1,046 8 

McPherson 11,830 625 3,118 128 

Kansas Subtotal 59,676 6,511 16,302 275 

Project Total 337,185 30,034 102,340 9,910 1

States and counties are listed geographically from west to east as proposed project crosses area. 

2

Includes units for rent, for sale, rented or sold but not occupied, available for seasonal, recreational, or migratory use, or other vacant 

status. 

Sources: Census 2000b,c; NRG 2006. 

Wyoming. Counties throughout Wyoming tend to have a high total housing supply. Within Wyoming, Laramie 

County had the highest number of total housing units (34,213) as well as the highest new development in 

2004. High numbers of permanent and temporary housing units were available in Sweetwater and Laramie 

counties in 2000. 

Colorado. Counties in more rural areas of eastern Colorado tended to have a low total housing supply and a 

low level of new development, while counties in northern Colorado tended to have the highest. Larimer and 

Weld counties in Colorado had the highest number of total housing units as well as the highest new 

development in 2004. Both permanent and temporary housing units were readily available in 2000 in the more 

urban communities, such as Larimer and Weld counties. 

Kansas. Throughout Kansas, the counties crossed by the proposed pipeline route tended to have the lowest 

total housing supply and lowest level of new development of the three affected states. The lowest housing 

supply and growth occur in Sheridan, Gove, Rawlins, and Cheyenne counties in Kansas, and the highest 

supply and growth occur in Thomas County. Among the rural counties in the eastern portion of the proposed 

pipeline route the number of available housing stock units recorded in the 2000 Census was lowest in 

Sheridan, Cheyenne, Rawlins, Gove, and Trego counties in Kansas, all with less than 400 total available rental 

units. Ellis County had the largest number of available units in 2000. 

Public Services and Facilities 

Table 3.11-6 outlines selected public services and facilities serving the proposed project area. In general, the 

public services available are functions of the size and population of the county and the number of larger 

communities in the county. There are multiple law enforcement providers including the respective state patrols, 

county sheriffs, local police departments, and special law enforcement services, such as university police. In 

many instances, mutual aid/cooperative agreements among agencies allow members of one agency to 

provide support or backup to other agencies in emergency situations. 

A network of fire departments and districts provides fire protection and suppression services across the region. 

Many of the fire districts across the region are staffed by volunteers and are housed in stations located in the 

larger communities. 

For each county along the proposed pipeline route there is at least one acute care facility either within the 

county crossed or within approximately 50 miles of the proposed pipeline route in a neighboring county. These 

facilities provide emergency medical care and in several cases, also serve as the base for local emergency 

medical response and transport services. 

3.11-5
Table 3.11-5 Available Housing Summary in Counties along the Proposed Project 

State / County1 

Housing Units 

for Sale 

Rental Property Special Use Vacancies 

Vacant Rental 

Units 

Rental 

Vacancy Rate 

(%) 

Median 

Monthly Rent 

($) 

Vacant for 

Seasonal, 

Recreational, or 

Occasional Use 

Vacant for 

Migrant 

Workers 

M

Wyoming 

Lincoln 122 275 21.8 464 912 9 Sweetwater 282 681 16.2 428 243 12 Carbon 217 360 16.9 377 1,050 13 Albany 140 356 5.2 464 1,097 1 Laramie 328 820 7.7 473 238 1 

Wyoming Subtotal 1,089 2,492 13.6% (avg) $441 (avg) 3,540 36 

Colorado 

Larimer 795 1,334 4.1 678 4,870 11 Weld 744 837 4.0 564 191 50 Morgan 103 174 5.5 482 333 1 Logan 127 309 12.0 451 74 0 Washington 58 57 9.8 341 49 0 Yuma 75 88 7.4 375 60 6 

Colorado Subtotal 1,902 2,799 7.1% (avg) $482 (avg) 5,577 71 

Kansas 

Cheyenne 68 25 7.5 314 15 0 Rawlins 63 42 12.5 328 38 0 Thomas 52 83 7.7 373 18 1 Sheridan 28 22 10.0 286 25 0 Gove 38 30 10.7 330 22 2 Trego 32 41 13.3 326 106 0 Ellis 113 302 6.9 431 43 0 Russell 100 150 15.9 325 60 1 Barton 261 456 12.5 390 64 1 Ellsworth 66 81 13.8 336 302 1 Rice 80 98 9.4 340 84 1 McPherson 127 206 6.6 416 35 0 

Kansas Subtotal 1,028 1,536 10.6% (avg) $350 (avg) 812 7 

Project Total 4,019 6,827 10.1% (avg) $404 (avg) 9,929 114 1States and counties are listed geographically from west to east.NA = Data not available. Sources: Census 2000b,c; NRG 2006. 

3.11-6 
Table 3.11-6 Existing Public Services and Facilities Along the Proposed Pipeline Route 

State / 

County1 

Police/Sheriff 

Departments2 Fire Departments3 Medical Facilities4 

Number 

of Depts. 

Approximate 

Distance to 

Nearest 

(miles) 

Number 

of Depts. 

Approximate 

Distance to 

Nearest 

(miles) 

Number 

of 

Hospitals Name/Location 

Wyoming 

Lincoln 5 10 7 10 2 South Lincoln Medical Center (Kemm

Star Valley Medical Center (Afton) 

Sweetwater 4 1 10 1 1 Memorial Hospital of Sweetwater Co

(Rock Springs) 

Carbon 7 2 8 2 1 Memorial Hospital of Carbon County 

(Rawlins) 

Albany 3 4 5 4 1 Ivinson Memorial Hospital (Laramie) Laramie 4 4 10 11 2 United Medical Center West (Cheyen

Cheyenne VA Medical Center (Cheye

Colorado 

Larimer 6 28 16 18 3 Poudre Valley Hospital (Fort Collins); 

McKee Medical Center (Loveland); Estes Park Medical Center (Estes Pa

Weld 16 24 19 8 1 North Colorado Medical Center (GreeMorgan 3 17 4 11 2 East Morgan County Hospital (Brush

Colorado Plains Medical Center (Fort Morgan) 

Logan 2 14 6 14 1 Sterling Regional Medical Center (SteWashington 1 15 3 10 0 N/A (see Morgan, Logan, or Yuma CYuma 3 2 4 2 2 Wray Community District Hospital (W

Yuma District Hospital (Yuma) 

Kansas 

Cheyenne 2 5 2 1 1 Cheyenne County Hospital (Saint FraRawlins 2 16 4 5 1 Rawlins County Health Center (AtwoThomas 2 9 4 2 1 Citizens Medical Center (Colby) Sheridan 2 6 2 6 1 Sheridan County Health Complex (HGove 2 22 3 15 1 Gove County Medical Center (QuinteGraham5 2 6 4 9 1 Graham County Hospital (Hill City) 

3.11-7
Table 3.11-6 Existing Public Services and Facilities Along the Proposed Pipeline Route 

State / 

County1 

Police/Sheriff 

Departments2 Fire Departments3 Medical Facilities4 

Number 

of Depts. 

Approximate 

Distance to 

Nearest 

(miles) 

Number 

of Depts. 

Approximate 

Distance to 

Nearest 

(miles) 

Number 

of 

Hospitals Name/Location 

Trego 2 5 3 5 1 Trego County Lemke Memorial Hosp

(WaKeeney) 

Ellis 5 6 4 6 2 Hays Medical Center (Hays); 

NW Kansas Surgery Center (Hays) 

Rush5 2 12 6 9 1 Rush County Memorial Hospital (La CRussell 3 14 11 11 1 Russell Regional Hospital (Russell) Barton 4 8 8 3 4 Clara Barton Hospital (Hoisington); 

Ellinwood District Hospital (EllinwoodCentral Kansas Medical Center (GreaBend); Surgical and Diagnostic Center of GrBend (Great Bend) 

Ellsworth 4 2 5 3 1 Ellsworth County Medical Center (EllRice 5 3 8 2 1 Rice County Hospital District No. 1 (LMcPherson 8 11 11 9 3 Memorial Hospital Inc. (McPherson); 

Mercy Hospital Inc. (Moundridge); Lindsborg Community Hospital (Linds

1States and counties are listed geographically from west to east as proposed project crosses the area. 2Includes special law enforcement units for universities. 3Includes volunteer, district, city, and town fire departments, but does not include departments and services offered by the BLM or Department of Defense.4Does not include mental health centers, drug/alcohol rehab, or eye surgery/laser facilities. 5Rush and Graham counties, Kansas, are not crossed by the proposed pipeline route, but have public services and facilities within close proximity and have there

Source: NRG 2006.

3.11-8
3.11.1.3 Fiscal Relationships 

Tax revenues constitute the primary source of income to the economies of the states, counties, and 

communities affected by pipeline construction. Taxes levied by various state, county, or local taxing 

jurisdictions may include property taxes paid on the purchase of land, payroll taxes on wages paid to 

temporary project employees, sales taxes on gross receipts from the sales of goods and services, and 

corporate income taxes. Sales tax revenues typically are generated by the temporary influx of workers who 

purchase local goods and services, the local purchase of construction materials, and leases/rentals on various 

office and/or storage spaces and construction equipment. Federal agencies also assess fees for use of public 

lands for activities such as pipeline and transmission line ROWs. These taxes and fees vary by region. 

Employing a cost approach, states generally assess the value of pipelines to facilitate consistent valuation 

over all the counties crossed within the state. The resultant value is assigned to affected counties and taxing 

jurisdictions and property taxes are assessed accordingly. The effective property tax rates are then calculated 

using state property tax levies for pipelines, county property tax levies on pipelines, or a combination of the 

two. The impact a pipeline may have on the value of a tract of land depends on many factors including the size 

of the tract, values of adjacent properties, presence of other utilities, the current value of the land, and the 

current land use. Based on miles of pipeline through each state, Overland Pass anticipates that they would 

pay a total of approximately $8.4 million distributed proportionately to each state: approximately 26 percent to 

Wyoming, 31 percent to Colorado, and 43 percent to Kansas. Each state would then distribute these tax 

revenues to their respective counties accordingly. 

3.11.1.4 Environmental Justice 

EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations, requires that impacts on minority or low-income populations be taken into account when 

preparing environmental and socioeconomic analyses of projects or programs that are proposed, funded, or 

licensed by federal agencies (FR 1994). The Environmental Justice Guidance under NEPA prepared by the 

CEQ (1997) is commonly used in implementing EO 12898 in preparing NEPA documents. 

The purpose of the order is to avoid the disproportionate placement of any adverse environmental, economic, 

social, or health impacts from federal actions and policies on minority populations, low-income populations, 

and Indian tribes and to allow all portions of the population an opportunity to participate in the development of, 

compliance with, and enforcement of federal laws, regulations, and policies affecting human health of the 

environment regardless of race, color, national origin, or income. The provisions of the order apply to programs 

involving Native Americans and Hispanic communities. These requirements would be addressed by 

a) ensuring broad distribution of public information on the project through public scoping meetings and 

b) conducting government-to-government consultation with Native American groups either residing in or with 

historical ties to the project area. Details regarding public scoping meeting dates and locations can be found in 

Section 1.7. For an expanded discussion of Native American consultation, see Section 3.10. 

Minority Populations 

The CEQ defines the term “minority population” to include people who identify themselves during the Census 

as Black or African American, Asian or Pacific Islander, Native American or Alaskan Native, or Hispanic. 

Hispanic origin refers to ethnicity and language, not race, and may include people whose heritage is Puerto 

Rican, Cuban, Mexican, and Central or South American. 

In accordance with the CEQ, minority populations should be identified where either a) the minority population 

in an affected area (e.g., a community) exceeds 50 percent; or b) the minority population percentage of the 

affected area is meaningfully greater (1.5 times) than the minority population percentage in the general 

population of the surrounding area (e.g., the county or other appropriate unit of geographical analysis). This is 

determined by multiplying the percentage of minorities in the surrounding area by 1.5. If the resulting figure 

exceeds the percentage of the minority population in the community, the community is not a minority 

population. 

3.11-9
Tables 3.11-7 and 3.11-8 provide 2000 Bureau of the Census statistics on race, ethnicity, and income status 

in affected counties and communities. Affected counties are those counties crossed by the proposed project 

and affected communities are those in the proximity of the proposed pipeline route. Communities in the 

proximity of the proposed pipeline routes include those communities crossed by the proposed pipeline route 

(within 0.5 mile) as well as communities located within 2 miles of the proposed pipeline route. Based upon 

review of the available Census data for minority populations in all of the counties crossed and communities in 

the proximity of the proposed pipeline route, the various minority populations do not exceed 50 percent, 

however, there are minority populations occurring in portions of the counties crossed by the proposed pipeline 

route that are “meaningfully greater” than their corresponding minority populations in the general population. 

Therefore, for the purposes of identifying environmental justice concerns, minority populations, as defined in 

the CEQ, exist within the study area. For this EIS, general minority populations used for comparison were state 

populations. 

Wyoming. In Wyoming, 3 counties and 7 of the affected communities have minority populations greater than 

1.5 times the relevant minority population in their associated general populations. These include Carbon, 

Albany, and Laramie counties and the communities of Green River, Rawlins, Table Rock, and Wamsutter 

within 0.5 mile, and Arrowhead Springs, Laramie, and Little America within 2 miles of the proposed project. 

Colorado. Two affected counties and 1 affected community in Colorado have minority populations greater 

than 1.5 times their respective relevant minority populations. These include Weld and Morgan Counties and 

the community of Eckley, which is within 2 miles of the proposed project. 

Kansas. There are no counties or communities in Kansas with minority populations greater than 1.5 times the 

relevant minority population in the associated general populations. 

Low-Income Populations 

According to the CEQ, low-income populations in an affected area should be identified using the annual 

statistical poverty thresholds from the Bureau of the Census’ Current Population Reports, Series P-60 on 

Income and Poverty. In identifying low-income populations, federal agencies may consider as a community 

either a group of individuals living in geographic proximity to one another or a set of individuals (such as 

migrant workers or Native Americans) where either type of group experiences common conditions of 

environmental exposure or effect. The poverty thresholds are revised annually to allow for changes in the cost 

of living as reflected in the Consumer Price Index. They are the same for all parts of the country (i.e., they are 

not adjusted for regional, state, or local variations in the cost of living). The poverty threshold for a family of 

three used for analysis was $13,290 in 2000. The median family income in the nation was $50,046 for a family 

of three and the percent of families below the poverty level was 9.2 percent. 

Low income populations were identified along the proposed pipeline route by comparing the percent of the 

population below the poverty level in the affected counties and communities to the percent of the population 

below the poverty level in each respective state. If the percent in the affected county or community was greater 

than the percent in the state, the affected county or community was determined to be a low-income population. 

Low-income counties and communities are identified on Tables 3.11-7 and 3.11-8. The percent of the 

population below the poverty level in all three states is lower than the percent of the population below that of 

the national population. 

Wyoming. In Wyoming, there are two counties (Carbon and Albany) and four communities (Rawlins, 

Wamsutter, Granger, and Laramie) that are identified as low-income populations. Roughly 10 percent of 

families in Carbon and Albany counties have incomes below the poverty level. 

Colorado. In the more heavily populated state of Colorado, five of six affected counties and all three affected 

communities, Raymer, Eckley and Wray, are considered low-income populations. However, the national 

percentage of the population below the poverty level is greater than that of any of the affected counties in 

Colorado. 

3.11-10
Table 3.11-7 Environmental Justice Statistics in Affected Counties1 

State / 

County2 

Total 

Population 

2000 

Racial/Ethnic Categories (% of total population, 2000)3 

Med

Fam

Inco

(19

White Black 

Native 

American or 

Alaskan 

Native 

Asian or 

Pacific 

Islander Hispanic4 Other 

Two or 

More 

Races 

Wyoming 493,782 92.1 0.8 2.3 0.7 6.4 2.5 1.8 45,

Lincoln 14,573 97.1 0.1 0.6 0.3 2.2 0.7 1.2 44,Sweetwater 37,613 91.6 0.7 1.0 0.6 9.4 3.6 2.4 54,Carbon 15,639 90.1 0.7 1.3 0.8 13.8* 5.2 2.1 41,Albany 32,014 91.3 1.1 1.0 1.8* 7.5 2.6 2.2 44,Laramie 81,607 88.9 2.6* 0.8 1.1 10.9* 4.0 2.6 46,

Colorado 4,301,261 82.8 3.8 1.0 2.3 17.1 7.2 2.8 55,

Larimer 251,494 91.4 0.7 0.7 1.7 6.3 3.4 2.2 58,Weld 180,936 81.7 0.6 0.9 0.9 27.0* 13.3 2.7 49,Morgan 27,171 79.7 0.3 0.8 0.4 31.2* 16.4 2.5 39,Logan 20,504 91.7 2.0 0.6 0.5 11.9 3.8 1.4 42,Washington 4,926 96.4 0.0 0.6 0.1 6.3 2.0 0.9 37,Yuma 9,841 94.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 12.9 4.1 1.2 39,

Kansas 2,688,418 86.1 5.7 0.9 1.7 7.0 3.4 2.1 49,

Cheyenne 3,165 97.9 0.1 0.1 0.3 2.6 1.0 0.5 34,Rawlins 2,966 98.5 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.7 40,Thomas 8,180 97.1 0.4 0.3 0.3 1.8 1.0 0.9 45,Sheridan 2,813 98.6 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.9 0.4 0.6 38,Gove 3,068 97.9 0.1 0.2 0.1 1.2 0.7 1.0 40,Trego 3,319 97.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.1 0.2 1.0 40,Ellis 27,507 96.1 0.7 0.2 0.8 2.4 1.3 0.9 44,Russell 7,370 97.6 0.5 0.6 0.3 1.0 0.3 0.7 40,Barton 28,205 93.0 1.1 0.5 0.2 8.3 3.5 1.6 39,Ellsworth 6,525 93.7 3.6 0.5 0.2 3.6 0.9 1.2 44,Rice 10,761 94.7 1.2 0.6 0.3 5.6 1.8 1.4 40,McPherson 29,554 96.5 0.8 0.3 0.4 1.9 0.8 1.2 48,

1 Affected areas are those counties where existing facilities exist, or counties where new pipeline facilities or surface disturbing activities associated with pipeline refurbishment are propos2States and counties are listed geographically from west to east as proposed project crosses the area. 3Minority populations defined as black, Native American or Alaskan Native, Asian Pacific Islander, or Hispanic with percentages meaningfully greater than 1.5 times that of the minority po

population of the surrounding area (i.e., the corresponding state) are identified with an asterisk (*). 

4Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race, and for census-gathering purposes, Hispanic is a self-identified category. In this table individuals may have reported themselves as only H

or more of the other races listed. This may result in the sum of percentages for all ethnic categories to be greater than 100 percent for any one county.

5The median family income is defined here for a family of three. The poverty threshold is defined as the average threshold for a family of three and is not adjusted for regional, state, or loc6The percent of families with income below the poverty threshold in 2000, as defined by the Census Bureau for federal statistical purposes, based on a family of three. Counties with a hig

below the poverty level than that occurring in the respective state are identified with an asterisk (*). 

Source: Census 2000b; NRG 2006. 

3.11-11
Table 3.11-8 Environmental Justice Statistics in Affected Communities1 

State / Community2 

Relative 

Proximity to 

Route 

(within x miles) 

Racial/Ethnic Categories (% of total population)3 

White Black 

Native American 

or Alaskan Native 

Asian or 

Pacific 

Islander Hispanic4 Other 

Two or 

More 

Races 

Wyoming 92.1 0.8 2.3 0.7 6.4 2.5 1.8 

Green River 0.5 92.1 0.3 1.4 0.4 10.2* 4.2 1.6 Opal 0.5 99.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 1.0 Rawlins 0.5 85.9 0.8 1.5 0.9 21.0* 8.3 2.6 Sweeney Ranch 0.5 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Table Rock 0.5 86.6 0.0 1.2 1.2* 11.0* 3.7 7.3 The Buttes 0.5 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Wamsutter 0.5 93.9 0.0 0.8 0.0 13.0* 3.1 2.3 Arrowhead Springs 2 92.6 0.0 0.0 5.9* 0.0 0.0 1.5 Elk Mountain 2 95.8 0.0 1.0 0.0 5.2 2.1 1.0 Granger 2 82.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 8.2 9.6 James Town 2 95.3 0.4 0.4 0.0 6.5 1.1 2.9 Laramie 2 90.8 1.2 0.9 2.0* 7.9 2.9 2.2 Little America 2 71.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.6* 28.6 0.0 Sinclair 2 96.2 0.5 1.4 0.0 2.6 0.9 0.9 

Colorado 82.8 3.8 1.0 2.3 17.1 7.2 2.8 

Raymer 0.5 98.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 1.1 0.0 Eckley 2 85.3 0.4 1.8* 0.0 19.4 10.8 1.8 Wray 2 94.4 0.1 0.3 0.1 10.0 3.5 1.6 

Kansas 86.1 5.7 0.9 1.7 7.0 3.4 2.1 

Bird City 0.5 99.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.9 0.2 0.4 Susank 0.5 98.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 WaKeeney 0.5 97.1 0.1 0.5 0.9 0.6 0.0 1.5 Windom 0.5 95.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 2.9 Frederick 2 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Little River 2 97.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.4 2.2 Menlo 2 98.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 

1Affected areas are those communities where existing facilities exist, or communities where new pipeline facilities or surface disturbing activities associated with pipeline refurbishment ar2Communities are listed in order by state as the proposed project crosses from west to east, proximity to proposed project centerline, and descending size based on year 2000 population3Minority populations defined as black, Native American or Alaskan Native, Asian Pacific Islander, or Hispanic with percentages meaningfully greater than 1.5 times that of the minority po

population of the surrounding area (i.e., the corresponding state) are identified with an asterisk (*). 

4Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race, and for census-gathering purposes, Hispanic is a self-identified category. In this table individuals may have reported themselves as only 

of the other races listed. This may result in the sum of percentages for all ethnic categories to be greater than 100 percent for any one community. 

5The median family income is defined here for a family of three. The poverty threshold is defined as the average threshold for a family of three and is not adjusted for regional, state, or lo6The percent of families with income below the poverty threshold in 2000, as defined by the Census Bureau for federal statistical purposes, based on a family of three. Communities with 

poverty level than that occurring in the respective state are identified with an asterisk (*). 

Source: Census 2000b. 

3.11-12
Kansas. Nine of the 12 counties crossed by the proposed pipeline route and 5 of 7 communities along the proposed 

pipeline route in Kansas are identified as low income populations. The highest percentage poverty level across all three 

states was 33.3 percent in the community of Susank, Kansas. 

3.11.2 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative 

The socioeconomic analysis using the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative is no different from 

that of the Proposed Action except that the pipeline would be approximately 5.6 miles from the community of Arrowhead 

Springs, Wyoming. All counties and all other communities affected by the Proposed Action also would be affected by 

the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative. 

3.11-13
3.12 Public Health and Safety 

3.12.1 Proposed Action 

3.12.1.1 Hazardous Materials and Wastes 

Pre-existing soil contamination along the proposed pipeline route may exist. Review of the USEPA's CERCLIS 

Database (USEPA 2006b) and state Superfund Site Status Summaries indicates that the proposed pipeline 

route does not intercept any known areas of contamination. 

Wyoming. One site listed in the CERCLIS Database, the Pole Mountain Former Target and Maneuver Area, is 

currently managed by the USFS as a recreational area in Wyoming. The area is located roughly 350 feet from 

the proposed centerline at approximate RP 294.6. This site is not listed on the NPL but could potentially 

contain unexploded munitions. No other Wyoming sites with previous contamination are crossed by the 

proposed pipeline route and the proposed project does not cross any municipal solid waste or hazardous 

waste landfills in Wyoming. 

Colorado. No Superfund sites are intersected or within 5 miles of the proposed pipeline (USEPA 2006b). 

Kansas. No Superfund sites are intersected or within 5 miles of the proposed pipeline route (USEPA 2006b). 

3.12.1.2 Emergency Response 

The existing public services and facilities in the project are shown on Table 3.11-6. In general, the public 

services available in the proposed project area are directly related to the numbers of cities and towns in each 

county and the population figures of the county. 

The number of police and/or sheriff departments within each county that would be affected by the proposed 

project ranges from one department in Washington County, Colorado, to 16 departments in Weld County, 

Colorado. Weld County also has the highest number of fire departments with 19, whereas the counties in 

northwestern Kansas have only 2 to 4 fire departments each. Barton County, Kansas, has the most medical 

facilities available (4) within the project area, while Washington County, Colorado, has no acute care hospital 

capable of providing emergency medical assistance. 

3.12.2 Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative 

Public health and safety resources for this alternative are the same as the Proposed Action. No hazardous 

waste sites are located along the Southern Energy Corridor – Copper Ridge Bypass Alternative. 

3.12-1